golder associates europe · pdf fileapril, 2008 es - 1 07504160421 (gae) baku-tbilisi-ceyhan...

207
Golder Associates Europe Limited 1 Alie Street London E1 8DE United Kingdom Tel: [44] (0)20 7423 0940 Fax: [44] (0)20 7423 0941 http://www.golder.com _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ OFFICES IN UK, IRELAND, FINLAND, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, FRANCE, SPAIN, SWEDEN, CANADA, USA, PERU, CHILE, BRAZIL, AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AFRICA, NEW ZEALAND, INDONESIA, HONG KONG, THAILAND Company Registered in England No 3902701. At 1 Alie Street, London, E1 8DE, UK REPORT ON Submitted to: Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company 38 Saburtalo Str., 0194 Tbilisi Georgia DISTRIBUTION: 1 electronic copy - BTC 2 copies - Golder Associates (Europe) Ltd April, 2008 07504160421 (GAE)/ 07514690150 (GAUK) ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A NON-HAZARDOUS LANDFILL NEAR RUSTAVI, GEORGIA (RUSTAVI MUNICIPALITY LANDFILL SITE)

Upload: dinhdung

Post on 10-Feb-2018

222 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Golder Associates Europe Limited 1 Alie Street London E1 8DE United Kingdom

Tel: [44] (0)20 7423 0940 Fax: [44] (0)20 7423 0941 http://www.golder.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ OFFICES IN UK, IRELAND, FINLAND, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, FRANCE, SPAIN, SWEDEN, CANADA, USA, PERU, CHILE, BRAZIL, AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AFRICA,

NEW ZEALAND, INDONESIA, HONG KONG, THAILAND Company Registered in England No 3902701. At 1 Alie Street, London, E1 8DE, UK

REPORT ON

Submitted to:

Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company 38 Saburtalo Str., 0194

Tbilisi Georgia

DISTRIBUTION: 1 electronic copy - BTC 2 copies - Golder Associates (Europe) Ltd April, 2008 07504160421 (GAE)/ 07514690150 (GAUK)

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FOR A NON-HAZARDOUS LANDFILL NEAR RUSTAVI, GEORGIA

(RUSTAVI MUNICIPALITY LANDFILL SITE)

April, 2008 ES - 1 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company (BTC) commissioned Golder Associates Europe Ltd (Golder) to undertake an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and design services for a proposed non-hazardous solid waste landfill development near Rustavi, approximately 0.5 km north of the BTC pipeline, in eastern Georgia (the “Project”).

The Project will comprise the construction and operation of a new landfill to European Union (EU) standards, for the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste collected from the BTC facilities in Georgia. In addition, BTC has committed to the Government of Georgia (GoG) to complete front end studies (design and ESIA) for a future landfill for the municipalities of Rustavi and Gardabani towns in Georgia. This new municipal landfill (“Rustavi Municipal Landfill”) is to be located adjacent to the BTC landfill, located approximately 5 km north east of Rustavi town, and approximately 1 km north west of Akhali Samgori village

This report represents the ESIA for the Rustavi Municipality Landfill Site.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The ESIA objectives include a review and analysis of existing environmental and social baseline information and other technical documentation in undertaking the design and ESIA for the proposed landfill site, to ensure that it complies with EU and national legislation and best practice.

The ESIA will identify potential environmental and social impacts, including residual and cumulative impacts, from baseline data for the entire life-cycle of the project. The ESIA will be conducted based upon the conceptual design for the landfill. The outcomes of the ESIA will then influence the detailed design of the landfill to ensure that identified negative impacts are appropriately mitigated. Included in the detailed design will be an operating Environmental Management System (EMS) for the landfill, which will be developed incorporating the ESIA mitigations and operational commitments.

BP carried out social, botanical / zoological and archaeological baseline surveys of the Site the results of which were provided to Golder. These were reviewed by Golder with relevant information incorporated into the ESIA, as well as further information being obtained where considered necessary.

Regulatory and Policy Framework

The ESIA is being carried out in accordance with relevant Environmental and Social legislation, standards and policies that are applicable to this Project at the national and EU

April, 2008 ES - 2 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

levels. The BP and Rustavi Municipality landfills will be designed, built and operated such that they conform with national legislative and regulatory requirements.

Project Description

The Site is located approximately 3.5 km northeast of Rustavi and 1.1 km northwest of the village of Akhali Samgori. The Site is approximately 10 hectares (ha) of land, sufficient for the construction of the BP landfill (Parcel 1 – 2.6 ha) and the future Rustavi Municipality landfill (Parcels 2 and 3 – 7.4 ha). This Site was selected as a result of a Site selection process that took place during 2006 (URS, April 2008, Caspian Region – Georgia Waste Management Site Selection Report). The Site is located approximately 0.5 km north of the BTC/SCP pipeline. The Rustavi Municipality landfill site is surrounded by agricultural land with an access track immediately to the south.

The landfill will be EU Directive compliant. The overall requirements for engineering containment to EU standards requires two basic rules to apply:

• There must be no likelihood of unacceptable discharge/emission over the entire lifecycle of the landfill; and

• There must be structural/physical stability over the entire lifecycle of the landfill. These basic rules can only be assessed by detailed risk screening and assessments using the site specific data determined by site investigations. A conceptual design has been developed as the basis for the design to be utilised in the ESIA and initial risk assessments. The Conceptual Design would potentially need revision in an iterative process to form an acceptable design.

With regards to the engineering design and operation of the landfill site, The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 and subsequent amendments 2004 and 2005 (Landfill Regulations) have been used. These Regulations implement the European Union’s Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (Landfill Directive) in the UK.

The Landfill Regulations require specific engineered layers to be included that provide a minimum level of environmental protection as listed below:

• Geological barrier; • Artificial sealing liner; • Leachate management – drainage layer and abstraction system; and • Capping- sealing layer, a surface water drainage system and cover soils as minimum. The landfill design will also comply with the Guidelines for Design and Operation of Solid Domestic Waste Landfill standard adopted by the Government of Georgia.

April, 2008 ES - 3 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Project Schedule

Site investigations have been undertaken at the proposed landfill site, comprising a desk study, a ground investigation and baseline surveys.

The detailed design is being developed to allow the commencement of the construction of the landfill site as soon as practicable following the provision of the construction permit.

The duration of landfill activities is dependent on the waste input. No waste statistics are available for the region of Rustavi and Gardabani. However, it has been that 30,000 tonnes per year of non-hazardous municipal solid waste is produced from the towns of Rustavi, Gardabani and adjacent villages the design life is in the region of 13 years.

Following the final capping of the landfill area the site will be closed and enter the closure and aftercare stage until the completion criteria is achieved. This period may be expected to last up to 50 years.

ESIA Methodology

Environmental and social impacts have been defined and assessed against set criteria. The criteria adopted in this ESIA are similar to those used in the main ESIA for the BTC pipeline (BTC Project ESIA, URS, 2002), as instructed by BP. Each of the potential impacts has been ranked by applying a set of formal criteria which are linked to specific measurable and transparent conditions.

The assessment process consisted of the following main tasks:

• Scoping

• Gathering of baseline data

• Impact Assessment, assessment of cumulative impacts and risk assessment

• Development of mitigation measures and residual impacts

• Environmental and social monitoring plan

Baseline

Environmental and social baseline conditions are established by collecting information on which receptors and biophysical / social resources occupy both the site and surrounding area and so may be affected by the development proposals. Once the baseline conditions have

April, 2008 ES - 4 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

been established, the impacts of the scheme can be identified and measured and their acceptability assessed in terms of environmental and social effects.

The baseline conditions were established between January and March 2008, through a combination of desk studies, field surveys and consultation with key stakeholders.

Meteorological and Climate

A desk based study and assessment has been undertaken using data available from three metrological station in the vicinity of the proposed Site. From these data it was established that mean air temperature ranges between 0.8°C in January and 25°C in July. Relative humidity in the region surrounding the Site varies between 54% in Augusta and 77% in November/December. As with relative humidity, there is a general increase in the amount of annual precipitation from the east to the west of the country. In the region surrounding the Site, the annual average rainfall is between 382 mm and 448 mm. Lying snow is generally possible between September and December and generally snow melts in March and April. North westerly winds dominate the area with winds blowing from this direction nearly 50% of the time.

Air Quality

A series of air quality studies were undertaken as part of the BTC pipeline ESIA in order to determine baseline air quality in the region. For the pipeline assessment, monitoring was undertaken at five locations besides each pump station along the pipeline route. Data for the two closest stations, known as PSG1 and PSG2, to the BP landfill have been used in this ESIA. These stations were located approximately 18 km SSE and 50 km west of the landfill respectively.

Previously measured gaseous and particulate concentrations were found to comply with EU ambient air quality standards at the sampling locations. In addition, all parameters were found to be less than 75% of the EU standards, therefore not warranting further monitoring for the landfill development.

Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology

The geology and soils of the proposed development were evaluated following a desk study review of existing data. The local ground conditions were investigated during 2007 and between January and March 2008.

The region near Rustavi comprises drift deposits underlain by clays, conglomerates, marls, sandstones, lavas, extrusions and volcanic tuffs of basalts. The soils encountered in the 2007 and 2008 intrusive investigations typically comprised of topsoil, overlying clay, overlying loamy clay, overlying shingle (gravel) beds in places, overlying mudstone.

April, 2008 ES - 5 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

The proposed Site is located in the Eastern Immersion Zone (basin) of the Adzharia-Trialeti fold system and on the edge of the southern slope of the Caucasas Mountains. Any earthquakes and tremors experienced are expected to be at a low intensity at the Site both during and after the operational life of the site.

Hydrology

There are two catchments that potentially impact the Site; a central and western gully. Bed and bank levels of the gullies were used to estimate the flows in these gullies. There is a northern Gully which flows east to west located approximately 430m north of the Site. It is considered that the only significant channel capable of generating a fluvial flood risk to the Site is the Irrigation Channel to the north of the Site. However due to the difference in elevation of the Irrigation channel and the Site (greater than 6 m), and the extensive area at an elevation below the Site, there is not considered to be an existing risk of fluvial flooding at the Site. Groundwater levels which have been measured in the vicinity of the Site, indicate that there is not significant risk of groundwater flooding at the Site.

Traffic and Infrastructure

The sensitive receptors which may be affected by potential increase of the traffic flow include the residential areas (Akhali Samgori and Rustavi located 1.1km to the south and 3.5km to the west of the Site respectively).

Airports at Vaziani (military) and Tbilisi (civilian) are located 3.5 km to the northwest of the site and 10km to the northwest of the site respectively.

A survey was undertaken to provide baseline data on traffic volumes in the project area and was carried out between February and March, 2008.

Noise

Baseline monitoring was undertaken of ambient noise levels at the nearest residential receptors on a week day and a weekend day. Baseline data showed large variations such that an alternative, conservative approach to assumed baseline noise levels has been adopted using the International Finance Corporation1 guidelines to overcome this problem.

Landscape and Visual

The nearest receptors are villages at Akhali Samgori, 1.2km to the southeast of the proposed Site. Given the profile of the landscape between the village and the proposed Site (see below for details), the proposed landfill development cannot be viewed from any of the properties in

1 International Finance Corporation, April 2007, EHS Guidelines: Noise Management.

April, 2008 ES - 6 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

the village. Other potential receptors in the area are travellers utilising the road to Akhali Samgori, approximately 250m to the west of the proposed site and herdsmen travelling across local pasture. A field survey has undertaken to evaluate the landscape and visual amenity of the area at and surrounding the proposed landfill development. The landscape was classified as being not sensitive.

Cultural Heritage

The cultural heritage baseline data collection was undertaken by the client BP. The site data collection phase comprised a literature review, consultation and interpretation of available aerial photographs, a walkover field reconnaissance survey, and monitoring during the geotechnical site investigation works. Three features of interest were identified in the vicinity of the Site; an earthen mound located 80m west of the Site boundary, a classic/medieval road remain located 4km to the southwest of the Site and a medieval settlement remains located 4.5km to the southwest of the Site boundary.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

An ecological assessment was carried out by BPs contractors to identify any sites of national of international importance to nature conservation. This included a desk study and Site survey of the Site and a 500m buffer zone.

The habitats and species identified during the initial field survey (agricultural land, three common bird species and a single common small mammal species) are considered to be of low nature conservation value. The vegetation is represented by various weeds and segetal plants, which do not have any significant value for nature conservation. This agricultural habitat type could easily be re-created in a short time. The birds species recorded (wood pigeon, Blyth’s reed warbler and skylark) are relatively common in Georgia, as is the only mammal species recorded during the initial field survey (social vole). No important habitats or species were identified during the initial field survey (covering the development footprint and surrounding 500 metre buffer zone). The desk study did not identify any known designated areas, either within the development footprint or within 5km of the development footprint, protected for their nature conservation value.

Socio-Economics

The socio-economic baseline survey was conducted by BP. The baseline survey includes information on the general demographic and administrative units that will be affected by the proposed project. The baseline also includes an assessment of infrastructure near the proposed site, including its existing conditions. Akhali Samgori, the closest village to the site, was considered an affected community in the construction and operation of the BTC pipeline based on the proximity of the village to the pipeline during the pipeline ESIA process

April, 2008 ES - 7 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

(URS, 2002). Therefore, the socio-economic baseline also includes details on BTC’s previous interaction with the residents of Akhali Samgori.

Impacts and Mitigations

The impacts of the proposed development were identified and measured and their acceptability assessed in terms of the environmental and social effects. The cumulative impacts of the BP and Rustavi municipality landfill site located immediately adjacent to the Site were additionally assessed.

For the proposed landfill development it is also necessary to include in the assessment how both the baseline conditions and the potential impacts will change with time as the various stages of the landfill development progress, i.e., during the construction, operation, decommissioning and restoration phases.

A summary of impacts requiring mitigation identified during this project for air quality and odour (A), soil, geology and hydrogeology (GEO), hydrology and flood risk (H), terrestrial and aquatic ecology (EC), traffic and infrastructure (T), noise and vibration (NV), waste and wastewater management (W), landscape and visual (LV), archaeology and cultural heritage (ARC) and socio-economics (SE) for the construction, operation and closure/aftercare phases are shown below, along with proposed mitigation and an assessment of residual impacts:

April, 2008 ES - 1 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table ES.1 – Summary of Significant Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No.

Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen Events

Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Residual Impact

Significance of Residual Impact

Air, Odour and Emissions (A) A5 Surface emissions – landfill gas. Scenario

2 no flaring No Yes No N/A Medium Good management practices at the site should

also be undertaken to reduce and mitigate the impacts when the flare is non operational. Management could consider the use of a backup flare such that duration of time the site is without any active gas management is minimised. in the main flare and or the extension of the site boundary to limit the approach of people to areas where concentrations may be elevated. Good capping and limiting the operational area will also help to minimise surface emissions

No N/A

Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology (GEO) GEO4 Soil Instability – Landslide (deep seated

failure) Yes Yes No N/A – if

appropriate factors of safety are used in deciding slope angles

Medium All slopes to be designed and constructed using appropriate factors of safety

No N/A

GEO6 Soil Erosion Yes Yes No N/A Medium Stockpiles seeded and re-vegetated before the winter rain and snow; design of slope of the landfill; staged reclamation

No N/A

GEO7 Reduced Soil Productivity Yes Yes Yes N/A Medium As GEO6 above; plus analysis of soil samples to determine fertiliser requirements and seed type for reclamation.

No N/A

GEO9 Sediment Transport to Water Courses Yes Yes Yes N/A Medium As GEO6 above No N/A

April, 2008 ES - 2 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table ES.1 – Summary of Significant Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No.

Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen Events

Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Residual Impact

Significance of Residual Impact

GEO10 Soil contamination resulting from contaminants in stockpiled soil, hydrocarbon spills from vehicles or Site facilities equipment, or other potentially contaminating liquids such as on-Site septic tank wastes, etc.

Yes Yes Yes Yes accidental hydrocarbon or other liquid spills

Medium Clay landfill liner; re-fuelling in designated areas on hardstanding with available spill kits.

No N/A

GEO11 Groundwater contamination from contaminants in stockpiled soil, hydrocarbon spills from vehicles or Site facilities equipment, or other potentially contaminating liquids such as on –Site septic tank wastes, etc.

Yes Yes Yes Yes accidental hydrocarbon or other liquid spills

Medium • Re-fuelling in designated areas on hardstanding with available spill kits • Stockpiles of soil to be located away from irrigation channel or other sensitive areas;

No N/A

Traffic and Infrastructure (T) T2 HGVs impacting on the access track

during construction, operation and during decommissioning and closure activities.

Yes Yes Yes N/A Medium • Improve/upgrade the access track from the Akhali Samgori road to the proposed landfill site to reduce the deterioration of the road and reduce wear and tear to vehicles using the track and likelihood of accidents • Improve/upgrade the junction where the track meets the road to the west of the Site

Yes Low

Noise and Vibration (NV) NV1 Increased noise levels at residential

receptors in Akhali Samgori due to construction operational and decommissioning activities.

Yes Yes Yes N/A Medium • Appropriate mitigation measures include: • fitting of effective exhaust silencers • plant will be maintained in efficient working order; • plant will be shut down or throttled to a

Yes Medium (noise levels will be reduced but remain in this ranking)

April, 2008 ES - 3 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table ES.1 – Summary of Significant Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No.

Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen Events

Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Residual Impact

Significance of Residual Impact

minimum when not in use. Waste and Wastewater Management (W)

W6 Excess landfill leachate No Yes Yes N/A Medium Leachate control procedures and emergency clean up equipment to be maintained on site.

No N/A

W9 Used oils and greases from plant during construction, operation and decommissioning of Site

Yes Yes Yes N/A Medium Provide equipment servicing off site when possible. Adequate secondary containment, spillage protection and emergency clean up equipment to be maintained on site.

No N/A

W10 Wind blown litter No Yes No N/A Medium Cover all deposited waste with soil following placement. No deposition during high winds.

Yes Low – Some wind blown litter off-site likely to occur, but not to any significant degree.

Landscape and Visual (LV) LV1 Impact on landscape and visual amenity Yes Yes Yes N/A Medium Appropriate mitigation measures include:

• preservation of existing vegetation and keeping to the boundaries of the project area and access road should be undertaken;

• painting auxiliary facilities – offices, pressure washing unit, etc. with colour merging with environment. (recommended colours - light green and straw-colour);

Yes Low

April, 2008 ES - 4 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company E0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table ES.1 – Summary of Significant Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No.

Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen Events

Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Residual Impact

Significance of Residual Impact

• planting of greenery along the perimeter of the unit after completion of construction works. Species to be recommended by an ecologist with local knowledge.

adequate fire safety measures as fire can cause significant damage resulting in negative impact on visual amenity of the landscape.

April, 2008 ES - 1 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table ES.2 – General Mitigation Measures for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Mitigation Measure

Air, Odour and Emissions (A) A1 Dust emission – on site

nuisance Good management practice at the Site would aim to minimise dust impacts by, for example:

• Adequate sheeting of vehicle loads up until tipping point when moving around the Site;

• During very dry weather the use of wet methods or mechanical road sweeper on all Site access roads;

• Securely cover skips and minimise drop heights, regularly dampen down surfaces with water;

• Provision of upturned exhausts for vehicles/mobile plant on-Site;

• Use of dust filters on fixed plant and machinery. A2 Dust emissions – off-site

nuisance Good management practice at the Site would aim to minimise dust impacts by, for example:

• Prevention of mud or waste deposition on public highways by use of wheel washes;

• Adequate sheeting of vehicle loads when moving off-Site or on the public highway;

• During very dry weather the use of wet methods or mechanical road sweeper on all roads;

• Securely cover skips and minimise drop heights, regularly dampen down surfaces with water;

• Provision of upturned exhausts for vehicles/mobile plant on-Site;

• Use of dust filters on fixed plant and machinery. A3 Surface emissions – landfill

gas during operation and closure / aftercare.

Surface emission impacts will be minimised by maintaining a minimal operational area, the application of daily cover to operational areas, capping of waste following deposition, gas management and extraction if appropriate.

A4 Odour impacts from landfilled wastes during operation

Odour impacts should be minimised as per surface emission mitigation (A2 above). Waste delivery vehicles should be covered to avoid unnecessary nuisance during transport and delivery.

A6 Odour impacts from landfilled wastes during operation

• Odour impacts should be minimised as per surface emission mitigation

• Waste delivery vehicles should be covered to avoid unnecessary nuisance during transport and delivery

Hydrology and Flood Risk (H) H1 Change in surface water

runoff regime from the catchment upgradient of the Site during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

Maintaining and increasing gully storage and conveyance in accordance with the specification provided in Section 6.3, and locations provided in Appendix H5 Figure H2.

H2 Increased leachate due to surface water runoff from upgradient of the Site during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

Bunds will be constructed around the Site which will prevent the inflow of surface water runoff. In addition, mitigation can be provided by maintaining and increasing gully storage and conveyance in accordance with the specification provided in Section 6.6, and locations provided in Figure H2.

H3 Increased leachate due to rain falling directly on active waste deposition areas

Leachate management (minimise operational area, maximise temporarily and permanently capped areas)

April, 2008 ES - 2 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table ES.2 – General Mitigation Measures for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Mitigation Measure

within the landfill excavation during operation

H4 Surface water contamination - Change in physical, chemical, and biological quality during operation, construction and closure / aftercare

Drainage design, use clean site soils as capping soils; stabilisation of stockpiled soil by re-seeding and re-vegetation.

Traffic and Infrastructure (T) T3 Increase in risk to air traffic

safety as a result of increased bird activity being attracted to the proposed landfill site during operation and closure / aftercare

Development and implementation of a landfill bird hazard management plan to include: Design of the landfill site, including good stormwater management preventing surface water ponding, limiting source of water for birds. Accepted bird control technique generally includes visual detergents (models, either still or animated, of birds predators), sounds, physical barriers (fine wire nets), etc. Since birds generally adapt to environments in which they can find food bird control methods have limited long-term effect thus the use of varying control methods is advisable. It must be taken into account that closed landfill cells may also attract bird species providing roosting habitats due to elevated ground temperature and freedom from disturbance. Nestling patterns of bird species anticipated on the Site need to be examined and appropriate controls introduced.

Waste and Wastewater Management (W) W1 Broken tools and equipment

resulting from wear and tear in undertaking construction and operational activities

Remove all tools & equipment not used for construction/operation in working procedures.

W2 Waste items which no not meet acceptance for disposal criteria, such as hazardous waste during operation

Maintain an identified storage area with appropriately protected from weather, accidental collisions from Site vehicles, etc for any hazardous or other non-acceptable wastes.

W4 General mess/welfare/office facility solid waste during construction and operation

Maintain adequate waste bins for disposal to landfill.

W5 General mess/welfare/office facility waste water during construction and operation

Provide a toilet / shower facilities for Site workers connected to a septic tank to be regularly emptied and emergency clean up equipment to be maintained on site.

W7 Vegetation waste from site clearance during construction

Dispose on site or remove waste vegetation off site to a suitable waste management facility, if applicable.

W8 Mud from roads and aprons during construction and operation

Maintain road quality and pressure wash equipment regulalry on site.

W11 Infrastructure decommissioning during closure / aftercare

Remove all plant and equipment from site on completion

Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology (EC) EC4 Increased risk of bird strike Install bird scaring devices to minimise risk - Gas cannons

commonly used, effectiveness dependant on factors such as species involved and availability of alternative nesting habitat

April, 2008 ES - 3 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table ES.2 – General Mitigation Measures for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Mitigation Measure

nearby (Bishop et al 2003). Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (ARC)

ARC1 Accidental disturbance by traffic to Feature 11 (located outside the boundary) during construction, operation and closure activities

Demarcation of traffic routes away from Feature 1 will assist in avoiding accidental damage.

ARC2 Discovery of, and possible damage to, unforeseen buried cultural heritage resources revealed during construction.

Provide a monitoring archaeologist undertaking a watching brief during construction activities to record any discovered heritage resources.

Socio-Economics (SE) SE4 Community health and

safety during construction and operation

Utilise BTC’s existing grievance mechanism for any health, safety or other issues raised by the community surrounding the proposed project

Management and Monitoring

BP’s approcath to Environmental and Social management is to apply the key principles of environmental and social protection to activities which it is the Operator. These principles include:

• Prior assessment of environmental and social impacts

• Minisiation of potential impact through design and other mitigation controls

• Monitoring of effectivenees of controls

• Auditing of performance

It is recommended that in managing the Rustavi Municipality landfill site, that the operator of this site follows the same principles for environmental and social protection. An environmental and social monitoring plan for the construction, operation and closure/after care phases of the project is shown in Table ES.3 below:

1 Feature 1 refers to an artificial earth mound of unknown date located to the northeast of the proposed BTC landfill site. Refer to section 6.9 for further details.

April, 2008 ES - 4 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table ES.3 – Summary of Potential Monitoring Measures for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site

Item No.

Impact Monitoring Measure

Air, Odour and Emissions (A) A2 Surface emissions – landfill gas. • Landfill gas monitoring will be undertaken at the

site to a planned programme, as a general indicative measure of landfill condition.

A6 Odour impacts from landfilled wastes

• Routine qualitative odour monitoring will be undertaken by staff during the walk-round boundary inspections, and incidents of abnormal or excessive landfill odour will be noted and investigated.

Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology (GEO) GEO2 Deterioration of groundwater

quality • Install four groundwater monitoring wells

around the landfill periphery • Monitor groundwater levels and quality on a

quarterly basis during operation and closure / aftercare (for as period of X years

• Compare results with risk based trigger and control levels that are based on EQS and EU DWS

GEO6 Soil Erosion • Note any visual impacts to surrounding areas relating to rill or gully formation.

• Monitor sediment (total dissolved solids) within irrigation channel on a quarterly basis

• If total dissolve solids are above baseline conditions identify source and if from BTC landfill implement appropriate mitigation, which might include re-seeding or providing other protection to stockpiles of earth, reseeding closed section of the landfill, etc.

GEO9 Sediment Transport to Water Courses

• Monitor sediment (total dissolved solids) within irrigation channel. – on a quarterly basis

• If total dissolve solids are above baseline conditions identify source and if from BTC landfill implement appropriate mitigation, which might include re-seeding or providing other protection to stockpiles of earth, reseeding closed section of the landfill, etc

Hydrology and Flood Risk (H) H4 Surface water contamination -

Change in physical, chemical, • Surface water monitoring of drainage channels

and irrigation channel to the north of the Site.

April, 2008 ES - 5 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

and biological quality • Compare results with risk based trigger and control levels that are based on EQS and EU DWS.

Waste and Wastewater Management (W) W10 Wind blown litter • Routine observations of wind blown litter on the

boundary and site periphery during regular boundary inspections (need frequency).

• Wind blown litter will be collected on a regular basis and disposed of properly within the active portion of the landfill.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology (EC) EC4 / T2

Increased risk of bird strike for aircraft / Increase in risk to air traffic safety as a result of increased bird activity being attracted to the proposed landfill site

• Carry out annual bird survey and compare to base-line data to determine success of mitigation.

• Maintain log of reports of bird strike in the area.

Conclusions

Providing mitigation is undertaken in line with that indicated in Table ES1 and ES2, no significant impacts on the local environment from the construction, operation and closure/aftercare of the landfill site is expected. There will be no significant benefits or dis-benefits to the surrounding communities.

There are anticipated to be residual impacts from air traffic safety and wind blow litter however, these are considered to be low. There is however, anticipated to be a medium residual impact resulting noise during the construction and operation of the landfill site. However, in practice the construction and operation noise levels may be expected to be lower than those predicted which are for a worst case scenario and are unlikely to occur in practice.

April, 2008 - i - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 1

Regulatory and Policy Framework................................................................................... 1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2 Project Schedule ............................................................................................................... 3 ESIA Methodology........................................................................................................... 3 Baseline ............................................................................................................................ 3 Impacts and Mitigations ................................................................................................... 7 Management and Monitoring ........................................................................................... 3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ....................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Overview & Background Information ................................................................ 2 1.2 Project Ownership ............................................................................................... 3 1.3 ESIA Objectives .................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1 Site Selection.......................................................................................... 3 1.4 Previous Pipeline ESIAs ..................................................................................... 4 1.5 Structure of the ESIA Report .............................................................................. 4

2.0 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK.................................................... 5 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 National Legislation ............................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Georgian Laws ....................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Environmental Standards and Statutory Acts....................................... 11 2.2.4 Permit Issuance Procedure ................................................................... 13

2.3 International Agreements and Conventions signed by Georgia ........................ 14 2.4 International Finance Institution (IFI) Policies and Guidelines ........................ 15 2.5 EU Environmental Legislation.......................................................................... 17

2.5.1 Waste Management .............................................................................. 17 2.5.2 Pollution Prevention............................................................................. 17 2.5.3 Ecological Management ....................................................................... 18 2.5.4 General ................................................................................................. 18

2.6 EU and International Environmental Quality Standards ................................... 18 2.6.1 Surface Water....................................................................................... 18 2.6.2 Soil ....................................................................................................... 19 2.6.3 Air ........................................................................................................ 20 2.6.4 Noise .................................................................................................... 22 2.6.5 Vibration .............................................................................................. 22

2.7 BP Policies ........................................................................................................ 23 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION – RUSTAVI MUNICIPALITY LANDFILL ........... 25

3.1 Site Location ..................................................................................................... 25

April, 2008 - ii - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

3.2 Rustavi Municipality Waste Management Strategy and Policies...................... 25 3.3 Project Design Basis.......................................................................................... 28 3.4 Project Development ......................................................................................... 29 3.5 Project Schedule ................................................................................................ 29 3.6 Conceptual Design ............................................................................................ 30

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 33

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Scoping.............................................................................................................. 33 4.3 ESIA Methodology ........................................................................................... 34 4.4 Receptors and their Sensitivity.......................................................................... 35

4.4.1 Overview .............................................................................................. 35 4.4.2 Human Receptors ................................................................................. 36 4.4.3 Biophysical Resources ......................................................................... 36 4.4.4 Sensitivity of Receptors ....................................................................... 37

4.5 Impact Characteristics ....................................................................................... 37 4.5.1 Air, Odour and Emissions .................................................................... 38 4.5.2 Soil, Geological, Hydrogeology........................................................... 39 4.5.3 Hydrological and Flood Risk ............................................................... 41 4.5.4 Traffic and Infrastructure ..................................................................... 41 4.5.5 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................. 43 4.5.6 Waste and Wastewater Management ................................................... 45 4.5.7 Landscape and Visual........................................................................... 45 4.5.8 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology........................................................... 46 4.5.9 Cultural Heritage .................................................................................. 47 4.5.10 Socio-Economics.................................................................................. 48

4.6 Cumulative Impact Criteria ............................................................................... 49 4.7 Likelihood of Impact ......................................................................................... 49 4.8 Significance....................................................................................................... 49 4.9 Mitigation Need................................................................................................. 50

4.9.1 Significance of Residual Impacts ......................................................... 51 4.9.2 Ongoing Monitoring / Management Need ........................................... 51

4.10 Assumptions and Limitations............................................................................ 52 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL BASELINE ............................................... 53

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 53 5.2 Meteorological and Climate .............................................................................. 53

5.2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 53 5.2.2 Temperature ......................................................................................... 53 5.2.3 Air Humidity ........................................................................................ 54 5.2.4 Precipitation ......................................................................................... 54 5.2.5 Winds ................................................................................................... 55

5.3 Air Quality......................................................................................................... 56 5.3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 56

April, 2008 - iii - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

5.3.2 Baseline Monitoring............................................................................. 56 5.3.3 Baseline Conditions.............................................................................. 57

5.4 Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology...................................................................... 58 5.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 58 5.4.2 Regional Geology................................................................................. 58 5.4.3 Local Geology ...................................................................................... 59 5.4.4 Seismic Hazards ................................................................................... 60 5.4.5 Soils and Soil Erosion Potential ........................................................... 61 5.4.6 Hydrogeology....................................................................................... 61

5.5 Physical and Chemical Quality ......................................................................... 63 5.5.1 Sampling methodology and analytical programme.............................. 63 5.5.2 Site Assessment, Criteria and Standards .............................................. 65 5.5.3 Analytical Results ................................................................................ 66 5.5.4 Wastes .................................................................................................. 74

5.6 Hydrology.......................................................................................................... 74 5.6.1 Data Availability .................................................................................. 74 5.6.2 Geology ................................................................................................ 76 5.6.3 Topography .......................................................................................... 76 5.6.4 Hydrology and Site Drainage ............................................................... 77 5.6.5 Surface Water Runoff........................................................................... 77 5.6.6 Other surface water flood risks ............................................................ 78

5.7 Traffic and Infrastructure .................................................................................. 78 5.7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 78 5.7.2 Methodology for baseline data collection ............................................ 79 5.7.3 Traffic................................................................................................... 85 5.7.4 Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 86

5.8 Noise.................................................................................................................. 87 5.8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 87 5.8.2 Study Area............................................................................................ 88

5.9 Landscape and Visual........................................................................................ 88 5.9.1 Receptors.............................................................................................. 88 5.9.2 Baseline data collection........................................................................ 88

5.10 Cultural Heritage ............................................................................................... 95 5.10.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 95 5.10.2 Methodology ........................................................................................ 96 5.10.3 Identified Cultural Heritage Resources ................................................ 97

5.11 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology...................................................................... 100 5.11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 100 5.11.2 Detailed Surveys ................................................................................ 101 5.11.3 Baseline study results ......................................................................... 101 5.11.4 Flora ................................................................................................... 101 5.11.5 Fauna .................................................................................................. 103 5.11.6 Habitats .............................................................................................. 105

April, 2008 - iv - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

5.11.7 Ecologically Protected Areas ............................................................. 106 5.12 Socio-Economics............................................................................................. 107

6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND RISK ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................. 108

6.1 Air, Odour and Emissions ............................................................................... 108 6.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 108 6.1.2 Assessment Methods .......................................................................... 108 Quantitative Assessment ................................................................................. 108 6.1.3 Assessment Receptors ........................................................................ 110 6.1.4 Construction Impacts.......................................................................... 111 6.1.5 Operational Impacts ........................................................................... 112 6.1.6 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................ 115

6.2 Soil, Geological and Hydrogeology ................................................................ 117 6.2.1 Soil ..................................................................................................... 117 6.2.2 Seismicity ........................................................................................... 119 6.2.3 Groundwater Flow.............................................................................. 119 6.2.4 Soils and Groundwater Contamination .............................................. 120

6.3 Hydrology and Flood Risk .............................................................................. 121 6.3.1 Methodology ...................................................................................... 122 6.3.2 Surface water runoff........................................................................... 122 6.3.3 Direct Rainfall .................................................................................... 123 6.3.4 Fluvial Flood Risk.............................................................................. 123 6.3.5 Surface Water Quality ........................................................................ 123

6.4 Traffic and Infrastructure ................................................................................ 124 6.5 Noise and Vibration......................................................................................... 126

6.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 126 6.5.2 Assessment Methodology .................................................................. 127 6.5.3 Impact Analysis.................................................................................. 128

6.6 Waste and Wastewater Management............................................................... 129 6.6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 129 6.6.2 Waste Types ....................................................................................... 129 6.6.3 Impacts and Management of Wastes and Wastewater ....................... 131

6.7 Landscape and Visual...................................................................................... 134 6.7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 134 6.7.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 134 6.7.3 Local land use and visual data............................................................ 136

6.8 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology...................................................................... 141 6.8.1 Construction ....................................................................................... 141 6.8.2 Operation............................................................................................ 141 6.8.3 Restoration ......................................................................................... 142

6.9 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage................................................................. 142 6.9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 142 6.9.2 Identified Cultural Heritage Resources .............................................. 143

April, 2008 - v - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

6.9.3 Impact analysis................................................................................... 143 6.10 Socio-Economics............................................................................................. 143

6.10.1 Economic Contribution ...................................................................... 144 6.10.2 Land Ownership and Use ................................................................... 144 6.10.3 Infrastructure Improvements .............................................................. 144 6.10.4 Community Health and Safety ........................................................... 145

7.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ........................ 146 8.0 MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS..................................................... 155 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL MONITORING PLAN................................. 162 10.0 LIMITATION AND CONSTRAINTS IN THE DATA...................................... 164 11.0 GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................... 165 12.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 167

April, 2008 - 1 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) has been undertaken by Golder Associates Europe Ltd on behalf of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company. The ESIA is an independent process of assessing the environmental and social impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of a proposed non-hazardous waste landfill for BTC near Rustavi, Georgia. The ESIA consists of a number of studies culminating in an ESIA report.

Golder would like to take the opportunity to thank the BTC Project Team for their assistance, support and cooperation in undertaking this ESIA, in particular Alex Baldwin, [Project Director] , Zurab Topuridze, [Environmental Team Leader], Iuri Maisashvili, [Waste Management Advisor], Badri Gurgenidze [Engineering Advisor] and their team at BTC.

April, 2008 - 2 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview & Background Information

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company (BTC) commissioned Golder Associates Europe Ltd (Golder) to undertake an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and design services for a proposed non-hazardous solid waste landfill development near Rustavi, approximately 0.5 km north of the BTC pipeline, in eastern Georgia (the “Project”).

The Project will comprise the construction and operation of a new landfill to European Union (EU) standards, for the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste collected from the municipalities of Rustavi and Gardabani, near Tbilisi, Georgia. This new municipal landfill “Rustavi Municipal Landfill” will be located adjacent to a smaller landfill operated by BP for the disposal of their non-hazardous municipal waste, located approximately 5 km north east of Rustavi town, and approximately 1 km north west of Akhali Samgori village

Waste collection and transportation in Rustavi and Gardabani are currently provided by traditional local waste companies. Non-hazardous commercial waste and domestic waste is disposed of at an existing municipal landfill site to the southeast of Rustavi at Iagluja. This existing landfill will be replaced by the new Rustavi Municipal landfill

No waste statistics are available for the region of Rustavi and Gardabani. However, it has been estimated (BP in communication with the Municipality of Rustavi) that 38,700 tonnes per year of non-hazardous municipal solid waste is produced from the towns of Rustavi, Gardabani and adjacent villages (total 150,000 population).

BP has authorised Golder to carry out the ESIA, and the conceptual and detailed design for the Rustavi Municipality and BP landfills. There are thus three elements to Golders input:

• An ESIA for the Rustavi Municipality and BP proposed landfills; • The conceptual design of the proposed Rustavi Municipality and BP landfills to EU

standards; and • The detailed design of the proposed Rustavi Municipality and BP landfills to EU

standards. This report presents the ESIA for the Rustavi Municipality Landfill Site (The “Site”).

The ESIA for the Rustavi Municipality landfill, and the design services for both the Rustavi Municipality and BP landfills are subject to separate reports (References: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the BP Landfill, Georgia dated April 2008; Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company BP Landfill Site Environmental Setting and Installation Design Report dated April 2008; Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company BTC & Rustavi Landfill Sites Report on Conceptual Design and Operation dated February 2008).

April, 2008 - 3 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

There will be two separate application packages submitted by BP to the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MoE) and Natural Resources: one for the Rustavi Municipality landfill and the other for the BP landfill.

1.2 Project Ownership

The owners of the landfill are Rustavi and Gardabany district municipalities. The landfill will be used for disposal of non-hazardous municipal solid waste collected at these towns and adjacent villages

1.3 ESIA Objectives

The ESIA objectives include a review and analysis of existing environmental and social baseline information and other technical documentation in undertaking the design and ESIA for the proposed landfill site, to ensure that it complies with EU and national legislation and best practice.

The ESIA will identify potential environmental and social impacts, including residual and cumulative impacts, from baseline data for the entire life-cycle of the project. The ESIA will be conducted based upon the conceptual design for the landfill. The outcomes of the ESIA will then influence the detailed design of the landfill to ensure that identified negative impacts are appropriately mitigated. Included in the detailed design will be an operating Environmental Management System (EMS) for the landfill, which will be developed incorporating the ESIA mitigations and operational commitments.

BP carried out social, botanical / zoological and archaeological baseline surveys of the Site the results of which were provided to Golder. These were reviewed by Golder with relevant information incorporated into the ESIA, as well as further information being obtained where considered necessary.

The final ESIA will be included into the Construction Permit submitted to the MoE and Ministry of Economic Development after public consultation and ESIA / design adjustments have been completed.

Golder engaged the local consultants GAMMA Scientific Research and IDC Ltd, both based in Tbilisi, to assist in collating baseline data and undertaking selected aspects of the ESIA.

1.3.1 Site Selection

BP identified with representatives of the Rustavi and Gardabani Municipalities and reviewed a number of potential sites within Georgia for the non-hazardous solid waste landfill during 2006 (URS, April 2008, Caspian Region – Georgia Waste Management Site Selection Report)... A site was selected in agreement with the Municipality of Rustavi before it was

April, 2008 - 4 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

acquired by BP. This site was selected prior to Golder being engaged to perform ESIA works.

1.4 Previous Pipeline ESIAs

In November 2002, an ESIA was undertaken by URS (BTC Project Georgia Final ESIA, dated November 2002) for the BTC pipeline onshore section in Georgia. This previous report has been used by Golder as a source of selected background information.

1.5 Structure of the ESIA Report

Further to this introductory section, the ESIA report is structured as follows:

Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Legislative and Policy Framework Section 3: Project Description Section 4: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Methodology Section 5: Environmental and Social Baseline Section 6: Potential Impacts, Cumulative Impacts And Risk Assessment Section 7: Summary of Environment and Social Impacts Section 8: Mitigation and Residual Impacts Section 10: Environmental and Social Monitoring Plan Section 11: Limitations and Constraints in the Data Section 12: Glossary Section 13: References

Appendix G – Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology Appendix Appendix H – Hydrology and Flood Risk Appendix Appendix T – Traffic and Infrastructure Appendix

April, 2008 - 5 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

2.0 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction

This section provides an outline of the Environmental and Social legislation, standards and policies that are applicable to this Project at the local, national and international levels. The BP and Rustavi Municipality landfills will be designed, built and operated such that they conform with national legislative and regulatory requirements. It is a requirement of BP that the BP landfill should additionally be designed, built and operated in compliance with EU standards to comply with BP policy.

2.2 National Legislation

2.2.1 Overview

The national Georgian legislation comprises the Constitution and laws of Georgia, international agreements, subordinate legislation, normative acts, presidential orders and government decrees, ministerial orders, instructions and regulations. Georgia is signatory of a number of International Conventions, including those related to environmental protection issues (please refer to Section 2.3).

The Constitution of Georgia (1995) lays down the legal framework that guarantees public access to information and forms a vital component of the overall public consultation process with regards to environmental conditions.

Article 37 of the Constitution states that “any person has the right to live in a healthy environment, use natural and cultural resources. Any person is obliged to care for natural and cultural environment”. According to Part 5 of the same article, “an individual has the right to obtain full, unbiased and timely information regarding his working and living environment”. According to the Constitution, the Georgian Government must secure the rational use of natural resources and protection of the environment.

Article 41, part 1 of the Constitution states that “a citizen of Georgia is entitled to access information on such citizen as well as official documents available in State Institutions provided it does not contain confidential information of state, professional or commercial importance, in accordance with the applicable legal rules”

The list of environmental laws and regulations in Georgia, as of February 2008 is provided in Table 2.2.1 below:

April, 2008 - 6 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 2.2.1: Environmental Laws and Regulations in Georgia

Year Law / Regulation 1994 on Soil Protection (amend.1997, 2002) 1994 on Protection of Plants from Harmful Organisms 1996 on System of Protected Areas (amend.2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) 1996 on Natural Resources 1996 on Protection of Environment (amend 2000, 2003, 2007) 1997 on Wildlife (amend.2001, 2003, 2004) 1997 on Tourism and Recreation 1997 on Water (amend.2003, 2004, 2005, 2006) 1998 on Sanitary Protection Zones and Resort Areas 1998 on Hazardous Chemicals (amend. 2006,2007) 1998 on Pesticides and Agrochemicals 1999 on State Complex Expertise and Approval of Construction Projects 1999 on Protection of Ambient Air (amend. 2000, 2007) 1999 Forestry Code 1999 on Protection of Cultural Heritage 1999 on Compensation of Damage from Hazardous Substances (amend 2002, 2003) 1999 on Licensing Design-Construction Activities 2000 on Regulating and Engineering Protection of Coastline and River Banks 2000 on Special Protection of Vegetation in the Boundaries of Tbilisi and the Forest Fund

(amend.2005, 2007) 2003 on Red List and Red Book of Georgia (amend.2006) 2005 on Licences and Permits 2006 on Oil and Gas 2007 on Tbilisi National Park 2007 on Status of Protected Areas 2007 on Ecological Examination 2007 on Service of Environmental Protection 2007 on Environmental Impact Permit 2.2.2 Georgian Laws

A brief summary of the Georgian national laws of relevance to this ESIA are described below:

Law of Georgia on Protection of Environment (enacted 1996, amended 2000, 2003, 2007) This law regulates the legal relationship between the bodies of the state authority and the physical persons or legal entities (without distinction-legal form) in the scope of environmental protection and in the use of nature on all Georgia’s territory including its territorial waters, airspace, continental shelf and special economic zone. The law deals with education and scientific research in the scope of environment, environmental management aspects, economic mechanisms, licensing, standards, EIA and related issues. The law considers different aspects on protection of ecosystems, protected areas, issues of global and regional management, protection of ozone layer, biodiversity, protection of the Black Sea and international cooperation aspects.

The above law also covers elements of waste management. Waste management issues such as importation, export, re-export and transit is regulated according to the rules stated in

April, 2008 - 7 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Georgian legislation. The law defines ecological requirements regarding the waste (clause 34). According to these provisions, producer is obliged to minimise generation of industrial, domestic and other types of waste, to ensure adequate neutralisation, utilisation, disposal or burying of the waste with consideration of environment protection, sanitary-hygiene and epidemiological norms and rules. Disposal and dumping of industrial and domestic waste is allowed in specially permitted locations keeping to environmental protection and sanitary requirements. The law outlines requirements for toxic, radioactive and other hazardous waste and bans dumping of waste into the surface water bodies.

Law of Georgia on Environmental Impact Permit (adopted October 15, 1996, replaced by the law adopted in 2007). The law gives a complete list of activities subject to obligatory ecological examination. According to the sub-clause (e), Clause 1, Article 4, Chapter II (Permit issuance Procedures), processing of solid waste and / or arrangement of landfills is subject to ecological examination of issuance of impact permit. The law on Environmental Impact Permit sets the legal basis for issuance of environmental permit, implementation of ecological examination, as well as public awareness and public participation in these processes. In this law, an Environmental Impact Permit is defined as perpetual authorisation for implementation of the planned development. A permit is issued by the Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources after consideration / examination of the documents and application presented by developer.

Law on Public Health (enacted 27 June, 2007; supersedes the Sanitary Code of 8 May, 2007; and order of the Minister of Labour, Health and Social Affairs on approval of zones of sanitary protection of industrial objects and constructions and sanitary classification). The objective of the law is to favour healthy life style, to ensure an environment safe for human health, to prevent/avoid the spreading of contagious and non-contagious diseases. The law defines the rights and responsibilities of community and juridical persons in the sphere of public health. For guaranteeing safe environment the Ministry sets the qualitative standards for air, water, soil, noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields, which include permissible concentrations and norms of potential hazardous impacts. The norms are obligatory and every person is obliged to refrain from any activity capable of resulting in the spreading of contagious/non-contagious diseases or causing risk to human health, to maintain sanitary and epidemiological norms; to inform public health authorities of any emergency situation of standard violation, etc. Keeping to the norms is controlled by relevant government bodies. Responsibility for internal control and external audit of water, air and/or soil rests with certified independent laboratory.

Law of Georgia on Licenses and Permits (adopted June 24, 2005) in conjunction with Resolution of the Government of Georgia #154 dated September 1, 2005 “On Approval of Regulations Regarding Rules and Conditions for the Issuance of Environmental Impact Permits”. This law stipulates an exhaustive list of licenses and permits, including a so-called “Environmental Impact Permit”, while the Resolution of the Government of Georgia #154 describes procedures for its issuance as well procedures for approval of respective EIAs. This

April, 2008 - 8 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

law regulates entrepreneurial activities, any organised and some non-organised activities directly related to the fields of human health, state and public interest and is related to the use of the state-owned natural resources. The law regulates the issuance of licenses or permits, gives an exhaustive list of licences and permits, sets the rules for issuing, amending and cessation thereof. According to the law of Georgia on Licences and Permits, the activity is regulated by licences or permits only when these activities are directly related to the risk to human health, or state and public interest. The state regulation is involved in the license or permit only when the activity has a higher risk to human health considering the state or the public interest.

Objective and the main principles of regulation by licence or permit are as follows:

• Security and protection of human health; • Security and protection of life conditions and cultural environment of humans; and • Protection of state and public interests. The law defines new principles for issuance of the license:

• “One-window” principle (one shop stop) – which is a new concept in this law and means that the administrative body issuing the license shall ensure the approval of additional licensing conditions by the other administrative body on its own;

• “Silence gives consent” – the administrative body issuing the license is obliged to make a decision in due term after the submission of the application. The license shall be deemed issued if a decision is not made in the determined time period; and

• An “umbrella principle” – the holder of the general license is not obliged to apply for a specialised license too.

In compliance with the law, the licence or permit issued by a foreign country under the international agreement or law shall be recognised by Georgia and shall have a status similar to that granted to the documents issued in Georgia.

Law of Georgia on Environmental Impact Permit (adopted October 15, 1996, replaced by the law adopted in 2007). The law gives a complete list of activities subject to obligatory ecological examination. According to the sub-clause (e), Clause 1, Article 4, Chapter II (Permit issuance Procedures), processing of solid waste and / or arrangement of landfills is subject to ecological examination of issuance of impact permit. The law on Environmental Impact Permit sets the legal basis for issuance of environmental permit, implementation of ecological examination, as well as public awareness and public participation in these processes. In this law, an Environmental Impact Permit is defined as perpetual authorisation for implementation of the planned development. A permit is issued by the Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources after consideration / examination of the documents and application presented by developer.

Law of Georgia on Ecological Assessment (adopted on October 18, 1996, replaced by the law adopted in 2007). In this law, ecological assessment is obligatory step in impact permit

April, 2008 - 9 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

or construction permit issuance process. The objective of an ecological assessment is to preserve an ecological balance with consideration of environmental requirements, sound use of natural resources and sustainable development principles. A positive conclusion of the ecological assessment is mandatory to obtain an environmental and/or a construction permit. Ecological assessments are regulated by the Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources.

Law of Georgia on Natural Resources (adopted on May 17, 1996) defines the status of natural resources, describes their use, sets out the types of licences and rights and obligations of the users. The law allocated responsibilities for protection of the lands from contamination and ensures conformity of agricultural lands with relevant legal requirements. The law describes licensing procedures and determines the amount of tax and economical principles of the use of natural resources. According to Article 2 of this law, upstream oil and gas operations are excluded.

Law of Georgia on Water (adopted on October 16, 1997 with amendments of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). The Law regulates the legal aspects of:

• Relationships of governmental bodies, physical and legal persons in the filed of water protection;

• Water protection, restoration and use on the land, in the continental shelf, territorial waters and in the special economic zone;

• Commercial production and international trade in water; • Competence of the autonomous republics, as well as the local self-government and

administration bodies in the sphere of relations associated with water; • Relationships in underground water protection, study and use with consideration of the

law of Georgia on Natural Resources; • Relationships in protection, study, reproduction and use of fauna with consideration of

requirements of the law of Georgia on Wild Life; and • Regulates legal aspects related to flora, fauna, and natural resources in the course of

water use. The law regulates water use, defines rights and obligations of the users, the types and rules of licensing, conditions of the licence, licence invalidation and refusal aspects, cessation and termination of the licence, regulated quotas of water use.

According to this law, water is the state property and can be provided for use only. Prohibited is any activity, which, directly or indirectly, violates the state ownership rights.

Law on Soil Protection (1994, amend.1997, 2002)

The objective of this law is to ensure preservation of integrity and improve fertility of soil; define obligation and responsibility of the land users and the state in provision of conditions for protection of soil and production of ecologically safe products. The law sets the maximum allowable limits of hazardous matter in soil.

April, 2008 - 10 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

The law prevents the use of fertile soil for non-agricultural development; prohibits implementation of any activity without removal and preservation of productive top layer, bans open quarry processing without subsequent re-cultivation of the site; forbids terracing without preliminary survey of the area and relevant approved design; outlaws overgrazing; prohibits wood cutting and damaging of soil protection facilities, prohibits any activity deteriorating the quality of soil (such as use of unauthorised chemicals/fertilizers, any pollution and littering of the soil).

Law on Protection of Atmospheric Air (valid from June 22, 1999, amend. 2000, 2007) . This law regulates the protection of atmospheric air from hazardous man-caused impact (Table 2.2.2: Part I, Chapter I, Article 1.1). As defined under the law pollution of the atmospheric air with harmful matter means emission of any kind capable to cause negative impact on human healthy and environment (Part II, Chapter IV, Article I2.I) whereas the harmful man-caused impact is any impact on atmospheric air resulting or potentially originating from any activity capable to have negative impact on human health or environment (Part II, Chapter IV, Article II.I).

Table 2.2.2: Types of negative man-caused impact (Part II, Chapter IV, Article II.2)

Pollution of environment with hazardous matter Radiation pollution of atmospheric air Pollution with micro organisms and biologically active matter of microbial origin Noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields and other physical impact Law of Georgia on the System of Protected Areas (adopted on March 7, 1996, amend.2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). This law sets categories of the protected area (e.g. National Park, State Reserve, etc) and defines the limits of activities allowed in their boundaries. Permitted activity is determined with consideration of the purpose of the area, requirements set out in legislation, statements and regulations, protected areas management plans, international agreements and conventions to which Georgia is a part of. The law provides restrictions for the exploration/use of natural resources in national parks and other protected areas.

In general within the protected territory, it is prohibited to:

• Negatively impact or modify natural ecosystems; • Destroy (exterminate), extract (seize), ruin, damage (injure) or scare any natural

resource for the purpose of exploitation or for any other reason; • Damage natural ecosystems or species as a result of pollution; • Introduce and multiply alien and exotic species of living organisms; • Import into the territory explosive or poisonous materials; and • Carry out any other activity prevented by the regulations or the management plan of the

protected territory. Forest Code on Georgia (adopted in 1999, new version is under consideration). This code attempts to provide a broad framework covering the multiple functions and uses of

April, 2008 - 11 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

forests, including protection, watershed management, and timber production. It allows private ownership of forests and commercial harvesting of private forests. Under the document, Georgia’s State Department of Forestry (SDF) does not directly undertake commercial harvesting as it seeks to separate control and management functions, delegating the latter to private enterprises. However, the SDF is still responsible for carrying out “sanitary” cutting and similar forest management activities. The responsibility for the issuance of logging licenses is transferred from the Ministry of Environment to the SDF under the Code. The Forest Code defines additional categories of protected forests, including those with special soil and watershed regulation functions, floodplain and sub alpine strip forests, and those containing Red List plant species. As for many environmental laws in Georgia, the Forest Code is a framework law that requires detailed implementing regulations.

2.2.3 Environmental Standards and Statutory Acts

Environmental standards set out requirements of the quantitative status of environment and define maximum permitted concentrations in water, air and soil of the substances hazardous to human health and environment. Georgian soil values are given in Table 2.2.3-1 below.

Table 2.2.3-1: Soil Screening Values - Georgia

Determinand Units Georgian Metals and Miscellaneous Boron mg/kg - Arsenic mg/kg 2-10* Cadmium mg/kg 2* Copper mg/kg 3-132* Mercury mg/kg 2.1 Nickel mg/kg 4-80* Lead mg/kg 32-130* Selenium mg/kg - Zinc mg/kg 23-220* Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg 0.1 Phenols (total) mg/kg - Cyanide mg/kg - Sulphate mg/kg - Chloride mg/kg - Ammoniacal nitrogen mg/kg - Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene mg/kg 0.3 Toluene mg/kg 0.3 Ethylbenzene mg/kg - Total xylenes mg/kg 0.3 Semi Volatile Compounds Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.02-0.2 Isopropylbenzene mg/kg 0.5 Pesticides Atrazine mg/kg 0.01-0.5 Lindane mg/kg 0.1 DDT (and its metabolite) mg/kg 0.1 Reference: Method for assessment of the level of chemical pollution of soil” (MI 2.1.7.004-02), approved by the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs, 2003

April, 2008 - 12 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

* Sodium and neutral (clay and clayey) pH >5.5 - No screening value available Standards for groundwater quality are not set under Georgian law. Drinking water quality standards are commonly used instead as an assessment criteria for groundwater, as given in Table 2.2.3-2 below.

Table 2.2.3-2: Georgia Drinking Water Standards

Determinand Units Georgian Metals and Miscellaneous Boron mg/l 0.5 Arsenic mg/l 0.01 Cadmium mg/l 0.003 Chromium mg/l - Copper mg/l 2 Mercury mg/l 0.006 Nickel mg/l 0.07 Lead mg/l 0.01 Selenium mg/l 0.01 Zinc mg/l 3 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/l 0.1 Phenols (total) mg/l - Cyanide mg/l 0.07 Sulphate mg/l 250 Chloride mg/l 250 Ammoniacal nitrogen mg/l - pH pH value 6-9 BOD mg/l - COD mg/l - TOC mg/l - Sodium mg/l 200 EC S/cm - Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene mg/l - Toluene mg/l - Ethylbenzene mg/l - Total xylenes mg/l - Semi Volatile Compounds Benzo(a)pyrene mg/l Isopropylbenzene mg/l Pesticides Atrazine mg/l Lindane mg/l DDT (and its metabolite) mg/l Triazines TBC Reference: Order of the Minister of Labour, health and Social Affairs, #349/n on Approval of the Technical Regulations for Drinking Water, (17.12.2007) Georgian air quality standards are given in Table 2.2.3.3 below.

April, 2008 - 13 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 2.2.3-3: Air Quality Limits - Georgia

Substance Maximum Permitted Concentration (MPC), mg/m3 Max single Average daily Asbestos containing dust 0 0.06 Inorganic dust: Silicon dioxide >70% 0.15 0.05 Silicon dioxide 70%-20% 0.3 0.1 Silicon dioxide <20% 0.5 0.15 Carbon Monoxide - 0.0004 Nitrogen Oxides 0.4 0.06 Nitrogen Dioxide 0.085 0.04 Sulphur Dioxide 0.5 0.05 Note: the “maximum single” limit refers to the instantaneous concentration that must not be exceeded. Quotas for emission/discharge (into water, air, soil environment) of hazardous substances define the values of maximum permitted emission/discharge for each source of pollution. The list of the substances is given in the provisions on approval of relative hazard coefficients for hazardous matter emitted from stationary source of pollution, approved by the order (Number 139, 25.11.1997) of the MoE.

The quotas for maximum permitted concentration (MPC) of hazardous substances discharged into the water bodies are defined under the law of Georgia on Water. MPCs are set on a Site specific basis. Water quality standards in Georgia are in accordance with the ISO recommendations.

2.2.4 Permit Issuance Procedure

The Law on Licences and Permits define the rules for issuing an environmental permit, its amendment and withdrawal. According to the law on Environmental Impact Permit (Article 4) for activities which do not require a construction permit, the permit is issued by the MoE, based on the conclusion of the ecological assessment. When a Construction Permit is required, the authority responsible for the construction permit ensures the involvement of the MoE in the process. In accordance to the Law on Licences and Permits, the MoE provides the conclusion of ecological assessment based on the documents presented by the authority responsible for issuance of the construction permit. The conclusion of ecological assessment is a part of the Construction Permit and its recommendations are obligatory for the developer.

The activities subject to an environmental impact assessment are defined under the law of Environmental Impact Permit (Sub-Clauses 1 and 2 of the Article 4 of the law).

According to Article 6 of the law, prior to submission of the EIA to the permit granting authorities, the developer must arrange for a public discussion of the report. The planned development must be announced in the central and regional/local newspaper. The announcement must include:

April, 2008 - 14 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

• The name, objectives and location of the planned activity; • The address where the documents (including EIA report) are available for community; • The deadline for any feed-back; and • The time, date and venue of meeting (public discussion). The EIA report is to be submitted to the permit granting authority in one week from this publication (hard copies and CD).

The public discussion must be carried out after 50 days but no more than 60 days of the announcement. The minutes of the meeting must be prepared in 5 days from the meeting.

All acceptable comments received are to be reviewed and considered in the final version of the EIA report. When the comments are not acceptable, the developer must explain why forwarding writing to the author(s) of the comment. These letters together with the minutes of the meeting and the final EIA report (in 5 copies and CD) are then submitted to the MoE (or in case of a Construction Permit being required – the relevant authority) for consideration. Along with the above mentioned, the submitted documents must include: 1) a location map; 2) the volume and types of the expected emissions (stationary sources of emission and emission inventory report, maximum allowable emission/discharge limits - 4 copies); 3) an executive summary with the description of the planned development; and 4) a statement on the confidentiality of the project(if relevant).

When the planned activity requires a Construction Permit, the above documents are to be submitted to the administrative authority responsible for its issuance. The sequence of the submission is as follows:

• The first stage – location map, a brief summary (executive summary) of the planned development;

• The second stage - EIA report, reports on emissions and allowable limits (see above) and confidentiality statement.

The permit is issued 20 days from the receipt of the application. The procedure defined in the general Administrative Code (Chapter VI) and the law of Georgia on Licences and Permits is followed.

The law on Environmental Impact Permit describes the rules and procedures of permitting process, referring to the law on Licences and Permits and Administrative Code (Chapter VI). The permit is issued within 20 days from the registration of the application.

2.3 International Agreements and Conventions signed by Georgia

Georgia is signatory of the following international agreements and conventions, which are of relevance to this project include:

April, 2008 - 15 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (signatory by the Resolution Number 302 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Georgia) ratified on 1994 and entered into force in October, 1994;

• Kyoto Protocol to UNFCCC (acceded by the Parliamentary Resolution Number 1995), ratified, 1999;

• Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (with London, Copenhagen, Montreal amendments) (acceded by Resolution Number 711 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Georgia, acceded to London, Copenhagen and Montreal amendments by Parliamentary Resolution umber 376, 377, 37), 1996, became a party of amendments in 2000;

• Vienna Convention on the Protection of Ozone Layer (acceded by the Resolution Number 711 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Georgia), 1996;

• Geneva Convention on Long-term Transboundary Air Pollution (acceded by the Presidential Decree Number 8), 1996;

• Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Wildlife Habitat (acceded by the Parliamentary Resolution Number 201 as amended by the Parliamentary Resolution Number 1039), 1996;

• UN (Rio) Convention on Biological Diversity (ratified by Parliamentary Resolution), ratified 1994;

• Convention on International Trade of Endangers Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (acceded By Presidential Decree Number 524), 1996;

• Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 2000; • Paris Convention on Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (acceded by

Parliamentary Resolution), succession 1992; • European Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage, 2000; • International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (and

Amendments) (acceded by the Resolution Number 85), 2000; • International Convention on Oil Spill Preparedness, Response and Cooperation

(acceded by Resolution Number 711 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Georgia), 1996; • International Convention on Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation

for Oil Pollution Damage, Protocol and Amendments (acceded by Parliamentary Resolution Number 207), 1993;

• International Convention to Combat Deforestation (acceded by Resolution Number 711 of Cabinet of Ministers of Georgia) signed in 1994, ratified in 1999;

• Party to the UNCDD after the Parliament of Georgia ratified the Convention. Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (acceded by Presidential Decree Number 232), 1999;

• Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Decision 0making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters - signed June 1998 and ratified it in April 2000; and

• Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, ratified in 1998.

2.4 International Finance Institution (IFI) Policies and Guidelines

Although the IFI policies and guidelines are not applicable to this Project because its financing is directly from BTC, they represent examples of international best practice in environmental and social standards. Policies and guidelines of IFIs such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the commercial part of the World Bank Group and the European

April, 2008 - 16 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), all provide specific environmental and social policies which apply and should be considered in the course of the ESIA

Policies and Guidelines of relevance to this project include:

• IFC OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment; • IFC OP 4.04 Natural Habitats; • IFC OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples; • IFC OP 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources; • IFC OP 4.20 Gender and Development; and • EBRD Environmental Procedures. A brief description of each of these Policies / Guidelines is provided below:

OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment – defines main requirements concerning impact on environment for different projects and assessment formats. The document lists activities categorised according to their possible impact on environment; designed the volume and the format of EIA study for different categories. The document defined interrelations between the bank and the project implementation units, public participation issues and other aspects. The format given in the document is often harmonized with legislation of the state where the project is implemented.

OP 4.04 Natural Habitats – the document deals with biodiversity preservation issues and defines requirements to the project, which may have significant impact on biological environment. Preservation of biodiversity is significant factor for guaranteeing long-term sustainable development of the country. The World Bank does not fund any projects, which may have significant negative impact on biodiversity or species significant for the area. According to the manual, the World Bank funded projects are implemented in already developed area. In case the project may have negative impact the bank estimates possibility of mitigation of potential negative impact/damage.

OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples – is aimed on protection of indigenous population, to ensure that the project implemented with support of the bank will not have negative impact on population’s life and development. The projects are to be aimed on preservation of the local originality. To achieve this, survey of social background is to be performed. To ensure originality, in case the survey reveals potential impact of the project on indigenous population, Indigenous Peoples Plan or Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework must be developed. The mentioned plans are to allow for dependence of population to the land resources and resettlement issues.

OP 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources – objective of the document is to protect cultural heritage from possible impact from the project activities. Cultural resources are defined as mobile and stationary objects, buildings, structures, natural landscapes, archaeological, paleonthological, historic, architectural, religious and other valuables. The document suggests

April, 2008 - 17 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

the ways of considering the heritage in assessment of impact on environment, describes how consultations with community shall be performed, suggests impact elimination measures.

2.5 EU Environmental Legislation

Although Georgia is not part of the European Union, this ESIA has been undertaken to EU standards. As such, the following EU Directives are relevant to this project:

2.5.1 Waste Management

• Directive 75 442/EEC on waste as amended by the framework Directive on waste (91 156 EEC) as further amended by Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 and further amended by Commission Decisions 2001/1 18/EC, 2001/1 19/EC and 2001/573/EC amending list of wastes;

• Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste as amended by Decision 2000 532 EC of 3 May 2000 and further amended by Commission Decisions 2001/1 18/EC, 200 1/1 19/EC and 2001/573/EC amending list of wastes;

• Amendment 85 467 to Council Directive 76/769 polychiorinated biphenyls and Pollychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT);

• Directive 75/439/EEC on waste oils as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC; • Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident

hazards involving dangerous substances; • Directive 76 769 EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain

dangerous substances and preparations; • Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste; • Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December

2000 on the incineration of waste; • Directive 1 994 67/EC, Hazardous waste incineration; • Directive 89/369/EEC on Municipal incinerators; • Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and

control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community; • Council and Parliament Directive 2000/59/EC : Post reception facilities for ship-

generated wastes and cargo residues; • Directive 93 98 EEC Control of Transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and

their disposal; • Directives 94/55/EC associated Directives (for roads), and 96/49/EC associated

Directives (for rail): covering transport of dangerous goods; • Council Directive 9 1/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water

treatment Disposal of treated sewage on agricultural land: 1986/278/EEC; and • Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January

2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment. 2.5.2 Pollution Prevention

• Directive 96 61 EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC); • Council Directive 200 1/80/EC on the limitation of certain pollutants into the air for

large combustion plants; • 96 62 EC Framework Directive on Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management

(and daughter Directives 99/30/EC [relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide,

April, 2008 - 18 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air] and 00/69/EC [relating to benzene and carbon monoxide]);

• EC Regulation 203 7/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer; • Directive 1999/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 Dec 1999

on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against emissions of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression ignition engines for use in [heavy] vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquid petroleum gas for use in vehicles and amending Directives 88/ 77/EEC;

• Directives 98/69/EC and 93/59 relating to passenger cars and light commercial vehicles and amending Council Directives 94/12 and 70/220/EEC, and Directive 96/96 and Amendments relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers;

• Directive 2000/14 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors;

• Directive 86/188/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work;

• Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States;

• Council Directive 98 83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, to replace Council Directive 80/778/EEC of the same name on 25.12.2003;

• Directive 2000/60 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by an updated list of dangerous substances in Decision No 2455/2001/EC; and

• Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances.

2.5.3 Ecological Management

• Council Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life;

• Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds; and • Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats

and of wild fauna and flora, together with Commission Decision 97/266 Concerning a site information for proposed Natural 2000 sites, and Council Directive 97/62 amending Annexes 1 and 11 of 92/43.

2.5.4 General

• Directive 97/11/EC f 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

2.6 EU and International Environmental Quality Standards

2.6.1 Surface Water

EU Drinking Water Standards, and EU EQS for selected parameters are given in Table 2.6.1 below.

April, 2008 - 19 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 2.6.1: EU Water Quality Standards

Determinand Units Determinand EU DWS EQS Metals and Miscellaneous Metals and Miscellaneous Boron mg/l Boron 1 2 Arsenic mg/l Arsenic 0.01 0.05 Cadmium mg/l Cadmium 0.005 0.005 Chromium mg/l Chromium 0.05 0.25 Copper mg/l Copper 2 0.112 Mercury mg/l Mercury 0.001 0.001 Nickel mg/l Nickel 0.02 0.2 Lead mg/l Lead 0.01 0.25 Selenium mg/l Selenium 0.01 - Zinc mg/l Zinc - 2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/l Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - - Phenols (total) mg/l Phenols (total) - - Cyanide mg/l Cyanide 0.05 - Sulphate mg/l Sulphate 250 - Chloride mg/l Chloride 250 - Ammoniacal nitrogen mg/l Ammoniacal nitrogen 0.5 - pH pH value pH 6.5-9.5 6-9 BOD mg/l BOD - - COD mg/l COD - - TOC mg/l TOC - - Sodium mg/l Sodium 200 - EC S/cm EC 0.0025 - Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene mg/l Benzene 0.001 0.03 Toluene mg/l Toluene - 0.05 Ethylbenzene mg/l Ethylbenzene - - Total xylenes mg/l Total xylenes - 0.03 Semi Volatile Compounds Semi Volatile Compounds Benzo(a)pyrene mg/l Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00001 - Isopropylbenzene mg/l Isopropylbenzene - - Pesticides Pesticides Atrazine mg/l Atrazine - 0.002* Lindane mg/l Lindane - - DDT (and its metabolite) mg/l DDT (and its metabolite) - - Triazines Triazines

2.6.2 Soil

There are no published EU soil quality guidelines. UK Soil Guideline Values (SGV) for industrial sites have instead been used as a comparison in this report. SGVs for determinands of relevance are given in Table 2.6.2 below.

April, 2008 - 20 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 2.6.2: UK Soil Guideline Values

Determinand Units UK SGV

(Industrial) Metals and Miscellaneous Boron mg/kg 900 Arsenic mg/kg 500 Cadmium mg/kg 1400 Copper mg/kg 55000 Mercury mg/kg 480 Nickel mg/kg 5000 Lead mg/kg 750 Selenium mg/kg 8000 Zinc mg/kg - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg - Phenols (total) mg/kg 21900*2 Cyanide mg/kg - Sulphate mg/kg - Chloride mg/kg - Ammoniacal nitrogen mg/kg - Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene mg/kg - Toluene mg/kg 150 Ethylbenzene mg/kg 48000 Total xylenes mg/kg - Semi Volatile Compounds Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 30 Isopropylbenzene mg/kg - Pesticides Atrazine mg/kg - Lindane mg/kg - DDT (and its metabolite) mg/kg - Triazines 2.6.3 Air

EU National Air Quality Objectives are given in Table 2.6.3 below. These are limit values that are legally binding and that must not be exceeded. Limit values are set for individual pollutants and are made up of a concentration value, an averaging time over which it is to be measured, the number of exceedences allowed per year, if any, and a date by which each value must be achieved.

April, 2008 - 21 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 2.6.3: EU Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant Applies Objective Measured as To

achieved by

National Air Quality Objectives for the protection of Human Health

Benzene EU 5 µg/m3 Running annual mean

1 January 2010

Carbon Monoxide EU 10 mg/m3 Maximum Daily Running 8 hour mean

1 January 2005

Lead EU 0.5 µg/m3 Annual mean 1 January 2005

EU 200 µg/m3

not to be exceeded more than 18 times per year

1 hour mean 1 January 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide

EU 40 µg/m3 Annual mean 1 January 2010

Ozone EU 120 µg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 25 times a year over a 3 year average

8 Hour Mean 31

December 2010

EU 50 µg/m3

Not to be exceeded more than 35 times per year

24 hour mean 1 January 2005 Particles (PM10)**

EU 40 µg/m3 Annual mean 1 January

2005

EU 350 µg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than 24 times per year

1 Hour Mean

1 January 2005 Sulphur Dioxide

EU 125 µg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 3 times a year

24 Hour Mean

1 January 2005

National Air Quality Objectives for the protection of Vegetation and Ecosystems

Nitrogen Oxides EU 30 µg/m3 Annual Mean 1 January 2010

EU 20 µg/m3 Winter Average 19 July 2001*

Sulphur Dioxide EU

Target value of 18,000 µg/m3 based on AOT40 to be calculated from 1 hour values from May to July, and to be achieved, so far as possible by 2010

Average over 5 years

19 July 2001*

Ozone: Protection of Vegetation and Ecosystems

EU

Target value of 18,000 µg/m3 based on AOT40 to be calculated from 1 hour values from May to July, and to be achieved, so far as possible by 2010

Average over 5 years

1 January 2010

Notes: µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic metre mg/m3 - milligrams per cubic metre * in accordance with the 1st Daughter Directive ** PM2.5 exposure reduction target value of 25 µg/m3 by 2010 is still under negotiation within the EU.

April, 2008 - 22 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

2.6.4 Noise

Georgia does not currently have any National ambient noise standards in force. Relevant international standards are as follows.

The IFC have published guidance on noise impacts, as set out in IFC EHS Guidelines: Noise Management, April 2007. Guideline values are reproduced in Table 2.6.4-1 below. The IFC require that project noise impacts do not exceed these levels, or result in a increase of more than 3 dB in backgound levels at the nearest receptor location off-site.

Table 2.6.4-1: IFC EHS Guidance Noise Values

Noise Level Guidelines One Hour Leq (dBA) Receptor Daytime

07:00 – 22:00 Night time

22:00 – 07:00 Residential; institutional; educational 55 45 Industrial; commercial 70 70 The World Health Organisation, 1999, Guidelines for Community Noise are set with the intention of preventing serious annoyance during the daytime period and sleep disturbance during the night time period. These guidelines are given in Table 2.6.4-2 below.

Table 2.6.4-2: WHO Guidelines for Community Noise

Specific environment

Critical health effect(s) LAeq [dB]

Time base

[hours]

LAmax, fast [dB]

Outdoor living area Serious annoyance, daytime and evening Moderate annoyance, daytime and evening

55 50

16 16

- -

Dwelling, indoors Inside bedrooms

Speech intelligibility and moderate annoyance, daytime and evening Sleep disturbance, night-time

35

30

16

8

-

45 Industrial, commercial, shopping and traffic areas, indoors and outdoors

Hearing impairment 70 24 110

Outdoors in parkland and conservation areas

Disruption of tranquility #1

#1 existing quiet outdoor areas should be preserved and the ratio of intruding noise to natural background sound should be kept low; 2.6.5 Vibration

There are no international standards or guidance relating to the control of ground borne vibration. Standards and guidelines published by individual countries are provided in Table 2.6.5 below. The standards generally apply limits whereby damage is classified as cosmetic

April, 2008 - 23 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

(formation of hairline cracks), minor (formation of large cracks) or major (damage to structural elements). In order for a conservative approach, the data summarized below relates only to cosmetic damage and not to minor or major structural damage.

Table 2.6.5: Standards and Guidelines for different Countries

Standard Country Building classification Vibration limits mms-1 (ppv)

British Standard 7385: Part 2: 1993 ‘Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2. Guide to damage levels from ground-borne vibration’

United Kingdom

Un-reinforced or light framed structures Residential or light commercial type buildings

15 mms-1 at 4 Hz increasing to

20 mms-1 at 15 Hz. 20 mms-1 at 15 Hz

increasing to 50 mms-1 at 40 Hz

and above Residential in generally good repair

10mms-1 British Standard 5228: Part 4: 1992 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control applicable to piling operations’

United Kingdom

Residential where preliminary survey reveals significant defects

5mms-1

Australian Standards Explosives Code AS 2187.2 – 1993 - Explosives – storage, transport and use

Australia Housing and low rise residential buildings including commercial building not of reinforced concrete or steel construction

10mms-1

DIN 4150, 1986, Vibration in buildings Part 3 Effects on structures

German Dwellings and building of similar design and/or use

5mms-1 below 10 Hz, 5-15mms-1 between

10 to 50 Hz, 15-20mms-1 between 50

to 100 Hz 2.7 BP Policies

Where BP is the shareholder in a JV, BP encourages adoption of, or works towards standards and policies comparable with BP’s own. In addition BP have committed to the Project meeting all applicable EU standards. BP have the following policies and procedures relevant to this Project:

Environmental Requirements for New Projects (ERNP). ENRP are applied to all new Projects (since the end of 2007). The ERNP has two key elements:

• A set of nine environmental impact management processes that are undertaken at different times in the life of a project; and

• A series of 12 environmental performance requirements that cover the different aspects of environmental performance, ranging from energy efficiency to local community impacts

Screening and Categorization. The scale of Project risk is assessed through the first of the nine ENRP processes, screening and categorization. Screening and categorization is carried

April, 2008 - 24 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

out by a multi-disciplinary panel which evaluates the sensitivity of a site to the potential impacts of a project concept at an early stage, normally before any physical activity has taken place.

Category A status is given to any project that has the potential to have significant or irreversible environmental impacts. Indicators of sensitivity used during this screen process include protected area designation, high environmental value indicators using globally recognized scales such as the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) ‘red list’ of threatened species and any locally defined indicators of sensitivity. Projects in areas defined as particularly sensitive by the World Conservation Union (IUCN category I-IV) will automatically be designated as Category A under ERNP.

April, 2008 - 25 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION – RUSTAVI MUNICIPALITY LANDFILL

3.1 Site Location

The Site is located approximately 3.5 km northeast of Rustavi and 1.1 km northwest of the village of Akhali Samgori. The site is approximately 10 hectares (ha) of land, sufficient for the construction of the Rustavi Municipality landfill (Parcel 2 and 3 – 7.4 ha) and the future BP landfill (Parcels 1 – 2.6 ha). This Site was selected as a result of a Site selection process that took place during 2006 (URS, April 2008, Caspian Region – Georgia Waste Management Site Selection Report). The Site is located approximately 0.5 km north of the BTC SCP pipeline. Its location and red line boundary is shown on the map in Figure 3.1 and on the aerial photograph in Figure 3.2.

The Rustavi Municipality Site is surrounded by agricultural land with an access track immediately to the south. The land generally falls from a weathered escarpment feature approximately 50 m to the south of the site boundary at approximately 428 m Above Datum (AD), to the northern boundaries (408 mAD Rustavi Landfill Site and 413 mAD BP landfill Site) and then continuing to fall to the irrigation channel and water course to the north with associated marshy ground at approximately 407 mAD.

3.2 Rustavi Municipality Waste Management Strategy and Policies

There is an aspiration that the Rustavi Municipality Landfill Site will be EU Directive compliant. Current landfill infrastructure in Georgia does not meet EU standards.

The Rustavi Municipality Landfill will be located, designed and operated in accordance with EC Directive 1999/3 I/EC . Appropriate measures will be taken in order to:

• Control water from precipitations entering into the landfill body;

• Prevent surface water and/or groundwater from entering into the landfilled waste;

• Collect contaminated water and leachate;

• Treat contaminated water and leachate collected from the landfill to the appropriate standard required for their discharge; and

• Control the accumulation and migration of landfill gas.

The design will take account of the local geological setting and specifically the subsurface permeability criteria described in EU Directive 1999/3 I/EC.

April, 2008 - 26 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Figure 3.1: Map showing red line boundary of the proposed Site

April, 2008 - 27 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Figure 3.2: Aerial photograph of proposed Site

April, 2008 - 28 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

The landfill site will be operated so as to meet the necessary conditions for preventing pollution of the soil, groundwater or surface water and ensuring efficient collection of leachate. Specific measures will be taken to minimise nuisances and hazards arising at the landfill site through:

• Emissions of odours and dust;

• Wind-blown materials;

• Noise and traffic;

• Birds, vermin and insects;

• Formation and aerosols; and

• Fires.

3.3 Project Design Basis

For the landfill site to be EU Directive compliant the overall requirements for engineering containment require two basic rules to apply:

• There must be no likelihood of unacceptable discharge/emission over the entire lifecycle of the landfill; and

• There must be structural/physical stability over the entire lifecycle of the landfill.

These basic rules can only be assessed by detailed risk screening and assessments using the site specific data determined by site investigations. A conceptual design has been developed as the basis for the design to be utilised in the ESIA and initial risk assessments. The Conceptual Design would potentially need revision in an iterative process to form an acceptable design.

With regards to the engineering design and operation of the landfill site, The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 and subsequent amendments 2004 and 2005 (Landfill Regulations) have been used. These Regulations implement the European Union’s Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (Landfill Directive) in the UK.

The Landfill Regulations require specific engineered layers to be included that provide a minimum level of environmental protection, as listed below:

• Geological barrier;

April, 2008 - 29 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

• Artificial sealing liner;

• Leachate management – drainage layer and abstraction system; and

• Capping - sealing layer, a surface water drainage system and cover soils as minimum.

The landfill design will also comply with the Guidelines for Design and Operation of Solid Domestic Waste Landfill standard adopted by the Government of Georgia. 3.4 Project Development

The Project sequence is as follows: • Site Investigation – desk study, ground investigation, baseline surveys.

• Environmental and Social Impact Assessment – conceptual design & model, risk assessments.

• Detailed Design – construction tender.

• Construction and Operation – cell phasing (construction and restoration), waste management, environmental management.

• Closure and Aftercare – environmental management.

3.5 Project Schedule

Site investigations have been undertaken at the proposed landfill site, comprising a desk study, a ground investigation and baseline surveys. The detailed design is being developed to allow the commencement of the construction of the landfill site as soon as practicable following the provision of the construction permit. The duration of landfill activities is dependent on the waste input. Based on 30,000 tonnes per year, the design life is in the region of 13 years. Following the final capping of the landfill area the site will be closed and enter the closure and aftercare stage until the completion criteria is achieved. This period may be expected to last up to 50 years.

April, 2008 - 30 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

3.6 Conceptual Design

A Conceptual Design has been developed from the preliminary design following the provision of more detailed information provided by BP, and information from the desk study and the initial ground investigation. Following agreement with BP, the conceptual design has been used as the basis for this ESIA and initial risk assessments. The design would potentially require revision in an iterative process to form an acceptable detailed design.

An outline description of the Conceptual Design for the Rustavi Municipality landfill site is provided below.

Site Security The site would be secured with a perimeter fence to a standard to be agreed. It is anticipated that the site would require full time security.

White/coloured lining can be used to mark parking areas, direct traffic and delineate safe walking routes. Signage would also be used to direct traffic and identify facilities. Reception The reception compound would be constructed during the construction of the first cell. It is anticipated that site plant would be located on site.

Anticipated plant for the operation of the site would include the following:

• Tracked dozer (and towed roller if obtained for site construction) or soil compactor; • Wheeled loading shovel; and • Water bowser.

The tracked dozer or soil compactor would be used to manipulate and compact waste and placed cover. The loading shovel would be used to collect soils and manage stockpiles. It would also be available to tow the water bowser for dust suppression.

A site welfare facility will be required. This could take the form of a containerised site building with office, mess, cleaning and toilet facilities that could be secured following use. The office would also have a reception window for the weighbridge attendant to process the drivers details.

Potable water and electrical supply (from the local grid and/or standby generator) would be required for the site. A septic tank would be proposed for waste water.

Another secure containerised storage facility would also be proposed for maintenance and emergency spill kits. Secure vehicle storage/maintenance facilities could also be constructed but are not necessarily required.

April, 2008 - 31 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

It is anticipated that a weighbridge and wheelwash would be required for the facility. A raised walkway could be included to allow easier egress from vehicles. Cell Construction and Phasing It is proposed to phase the construction of the cells using intercell bunds that would be removed on completion of the subsequent cell. Cell construction would be phased from north to south towards the proposed reception areas.

Waste Exposure, Placement, Compaction and Cover The initial waste would be deposited by the waste truck reversing down the access ramp and depositing the waste. The plant would then manipulate and compact the waste as necessary and fully cover the deposited waste with a minimum of 300 mm soil from stockpiled excavation arising. Preparation for subsequent waste deposits would include the removal of cover soil where waste is to be deposited. The adopted plant should therefore have a shovel to enable it to manipulate and compact waste and to collect and place daily cover.

A full initial lift of waste should be placed before raising the waste as this would allow for some water evaporation to take place which would reduce leachate production. However, a standoff distance from the intercell bund is proposed to allow for its removal.

A stockpile of hardcore should also be sourced to allow for the creation of access roads on the waste as required.

Cell Capping and Phasing On completion of a significant area of waste placement to ‘Top of Waste’ levels the area should be capped in order to minimise the potential for leachate production.

Conceptual Design Drawings provides an example for the phasing of operations for the Rustavi landfill site.

Potential phasing and construction plan examples are provided in the Conceptual Design Report (Golder Associates, 2008).

Emissions Monitoring

Detailed risk assessment will be undertaken to recommend the number, location and frequency of monitoring with respect to potential emissions. This may include additional below ground installations and airborne monitoring installations.

Meteorological data would be recorded on site or at a nearby location..

April, 2008 - 32 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Leachate and groundwater samples would be taken at regular intervals for identified marker determinants and on an annual basis for a full characterisation. This would enable comparison with trigger levels identified in an environmental management plan.

Gas monitoring would be undertaken using a hand held gas analyser connected to the gas taps located on the monitoring installations on the site perimeter and from gas extraction infrastructure. Regular sampling frequencies would be proposed, with increasing frequency if trigger levels determined from the Gas Risk Assessment (GRA) were exceeded. Sampling for gas characterisation would be undertaken as necessary.

Emergency procedures would be identified and implemented if monitoring data indicated that trigger levels identified by risk assessment were exceeded.

April, 2008 - 33 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

4.1 Introduction

This section provides the definitions and criteria used to assess the potential impacts resulting from the construction, commissioning, operation, decommissioning and restoration of the proposed non-hazardous solid waste landfill near Rustavi. The definitions for impact assessment criteria are provided and the criteria definition specific to each environmental aspect (air quality, ecology, noise, ground water and surface water, waste management, social impact, etc.) are presented in Section 5.

Environmental and social impacts have been defined and assessed against set criteria. The criteria adopted in this ESIA are similar to those used in the main ESIA for the BTC pipeline (BTC Project ESIA, URS, 2002), as instructed by BP. Each of the potential impacts has been ranked by applying a set of formal criteria which are linked to specific measurable and transparent conditions.

4.2 Scoping

Not all potential effects require detailed assessment in an ESIA, given that the overarching approach to the ESIA process should focus primarily on what are reasonably considered to be ‘significant environmental effects’. Guidance on the scope and content of an ESIA is contained in EC Directive 97/11 which states inter alia that the following should be addressed:

"the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors."

For this specific project, these aspects were considered in the light of both the type and scale of the proposed development and the site-specific environmental setting in order to derive a potential list of environmental aspects which could be covered in the ESIA, as follows:

• Air, Odour and Emissions; • Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology; • Hydrology and Flood Risk; • Traffic and Infrastructure; • Noise and Vibration; • Waste and Wastewater Management; • Landscape and Visual; • Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology; • Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; and • Socio-Economics.

April, 2008 - 34 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

These environmental aspects are consistent with those identified in Georgian Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (2002), Article 7 – Environmental Impact Assessment Rule, Item 3, which states:

"3. Environment impact assessment includes to reveal, describe and examine results of direct and indirect impact in the context of the planned activity:

a) impact on human dwelling environment and health;

b) impact on plants and animal kingdom;

c) impact on natural and modified ecosystems;

d) impact on landscape;

e) impact on air, water, soil, climate;

f) impact on historical monuments and cultural values;

g) impact on socio-economic factors."

4.3 ESIA Methodology

The overall methodology which has been used for the ESIA is illustrated in the diagram below:

STEP 1 Establish Receptors which could be Affected by the Development and their Sensitivity

Determined through baseline studies on the local environment.

STEP 2 Impact Characterisation

Description of the potential changes brought about by the development proposals on the sensitive receptors.

STEP 3 Cumulative Impact Characterisation

Identification of incremental/additional impacts due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

STEP 4

Impact Significance Assessment

Consideration of the nature and scale of impact characteristics, combined with the importance/sensitivity of

receptors to produce a judgement of overall significance.

STEP 5

April, 2008 - 35 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Consider Need for Mitigation

If significant, environmental impacts are deemed unacceptable, opportunities for reducing their nature, scale,

duration or geographical extent may be available through re-design or alternative methods of development. These

should be considered by the developer and committed to as appropriate to reduce the significance of

environmental effects.

STEP 6

Assess Significance of Residual Impacts

Where the developer has firmly committed to undertaking mitigation to reduce the predicted significance of

environmental effects, the overall significance can be re-assessed to show the predicted change from baseline

conditions with successful mitigation in place.

STEP 7

Monitoring and Management Strategies

The success of mitigation measures may need to be monitored in order to ensure impacts are no worse than those

predicted.

4.4 Receptors and their Sensitivity

4.4.1 Overview

Environmental and social baseline conditions (i.e., the conditions that would prevail in the event that the Scheme did not go ahead) are established by collecting information on which receptors and biophysical / social resources occupy both the site and surrounding area and so may be affected by the development proposals Once the baseline conditions have been established, the impacts of the scheme can be identified and measured and their acceptability assessed in terms of environmental and social effects.

The spatial extent of possible impacts (and thereby the spatial coverage of necessary baseline studies) is dependent on the geographical area which could be affected either directly or indirectly by the project. Hence consideration needs to be given to spatial factors including , the means by which impacts can occur outside the direct boundary of the development the extent of the road network affected and the jurisdictions of the relevant authorities.

For the proposed landfill development it is also necessary to include in the assessment how both the baseline conditions and the potential impacts will change with time as the various stages of the landfill development progress, i.e., during the construction, operation, decommissioning and restoration phases.

A summary of the current baseline conditions at the time of the assessment between January and March 2008, has been established through a combination of desk studies, field surveys and consultation with key stakeholders.

April, 2008 - 36 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

4.4.2 Human Receptors

Human receptors include people living, working or taking part in other activities (e.g. leisure and recreation) in the vicinity of a proposed development. These can either be individuals (e.g., residents, employees) or wider communities (areas of population). Future site workers have been considered as potentially sensitive human receptors for the purposes of this ESIA.

The Site is in a rural location with no residential development in close proximity, as shown in Figure 3.1 above. The nearest main area of population is the village of Akhali Samgori, and the closest residential receptor in Akhali Samgori is 1.2km to the southeast from the Site boundary.

Other non-residents also use and therefore temporarily occupy the local environment and are considered sensitive to the potential effects of the proposed development. These include farmers and livestock herdsmen working in the surrounding fields, those utilising the local network of roads and tracks.

4.4.3 Biophysical Resources

The area occupied or surrounding a proposed development often contains important biophysical resources which merit environmental protection or particularly sensitive to disturbance. These include:

• Air quality; • The quality of land (including land contamination); • Local surface water and groundwater; • The transport network; • The ambient noise; • Landscape; • Particular habitats and species of ecological interest; and • In situ archaeology. Many of these resources have complex inter-relationships with human receptors and which have also been considered in the technical assessments contained in subsequent chapters of this ESIA.

The biophysical resources which may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development are described within Chapter 5.

In relation to biophysical resources, the area comprising the Site and the immediate environs has been considered in greatest detail i.e., at a 1 km radius from the site centre point. However, for aspects such as visual and ecological impacts, a wider geographical area has been considered which is consistent with international best practice. For each of the environmental aspects covered by the ESIA, the geographical area which has been included in the baseline study and the impact assessment is presented below as part of the technical criteria for the assessment..

April, 2008 - 37 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

4.4.4 Sensitivity of Receptors

In order to assess the significance of environmental impacts predicted throughout this ESIA, the sensitivity and/or value of receptors has been evaluated based on the relative importance of the receptor. The sensitivity of a receptor is described using a scale of one to five where one represents a very low consequence or severity to a receptor and five represents a very high consequence or severity to a receptor. The level of the sensitivity of the receptor relates to the scale of the impact and the ability of that receptor to resist a change or recover from a change.

4.5 Impact Characteristics

An assessment of potential environmental effects has been carried out through consideration of baseline environmental conditions and the elements of the proposed development that could potentially result in environmental impacts. Such impacts may be:

• Positive or negative; • Short, medium or long term; • Direct or indirect; and • Reversible or irreversible. Key impacts have been identified and the likely scale of each potential impact has been determined as the predicted change from the baseline conditions during the various phases of development. In the case of the proposed landfill development, these phases have been set out as follows:

• Impacts during construction (construction effects); • Impacts arising during operation of the facility (operational effects); and • Impacts arising during decommissioning and long term aftercare???. It should be noted the construction effects in general will tend to be temporary in nature.Operational effects of the new landfill may be either permanent (visual impacts), or temporary (e.g., transient odorous loads, consequences of accidental spillages, etc,).

For this ESIA, the impact scale is specific for each environmental aspect as detailed in Section 4.5.1 – 4.5.11. Where accepted published methodologies are available, these have been used in the impact assessment process, e.g., Ecology1 and Traffic and Noise. However, in the absence of such methodologies, in-house methodologies have been developed based on international best practice for determining the scale of impact in order to provide a transparent assessment.

1 The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment, IEEM, Amended Pilot November 2002 and subsequent draft February 2006.

April, 2008 - 38 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Predictions are necessary when forecasting future impacts, particularly regarding noise, air quality and traffic levels. Established good practice methodologies have been used throughout this ESIA to ensure that the predictions are as realistic as possible.

Where possible, estimates of impacts have been recorded in measurable quantities with ranges and/or confidence limits as appropriate, and where only qualitative descriptions can be provided, these have been defined as fully as possible. Key impacts are, therefore, described both quantitatively and qualitatively, as appropriate.

4.5.1 Air, Odour and Emissions

Table 4.5.1: Ranking of Air Quality Consequence/Severity

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Short-term (less than annual)

PC <10% of EU standard and PEC < 75% EU standard

PEC <75 % of the EU standards)

PEC >75% of the EU standards

PEC 100 - 150% of the EU standards

PEC > 150% of the EU standards

long-term (annual)

PC < 1% of EU standard and PEC <10% of EU standard

PEC 10-20% of EU standard

PEC 20-50% of EU standard

PEC 50-100% of EU standard

PEC >100% of EU standard

Nuisance Dust Qualitative (based on risk assessment)

No noticeable increase likely

Noticeable increase likely

Potential nuisance likely but no adverse health effects on crops/property

Significant nuisance likely

Very significant nuisance likely

Nuisance Odour

PEC <10% of adopted OUE/m3 standard

PEC 10-20% of adopted OUE/m3 standard

PEC 20-50% of adopted OUE/m3 standard

PEC 50-100% of adopted OUE/m3 standard

PEC >100% of adopted OUE/m3 standard

Notes: PC = Process Contribution. PEC = Predicted Environmental Concentration (the maximum PC + the background concentration). OUe = European odour Unit. These standards are for the protection human health. The details of various standards are included Section 2 Legislative and Policy Framework.

Nuisance takes account of duration by the inherent assumption that in order to cause a nuisance the impact must last for a reasonable duration (e.g. greater than one week or repeated impacts).

Dust criteria are qualitative in nature and require professional judgement in order to assign appropriate ranking. Nuisance takes account of duration by the inherent assumption that in order to cause a nuisance the impact must last for a reasonable duration (e.g. greater than one week or repeated impacts).

April, 2008 - 39 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

4.5.2 Soil, Geological, Hydrogeology

The extent and magnitude of the impacts on soils (i.e. the superficial geology) have been based on the ranking system used for the BTC Pipeline ESIA, and are illustrated in Table 4.5.2-1 and 4.5.2-2 below. The ability of the soils to recover from the possible impacts has also been included in the assessment.

The screening values for groundwater quality have been changed from those used previously for the BTC Pipeline ESIA to what are considered to be more appropriate and conservative values based on the EU Drinking Water Standards for human health. Screening values for surface waters have been based on the EU Environmental Quality Standards as defined by the EU Dangerous Substances Directive.

Table 4.5.2-1: Extent and Magnitude of Physical Impacts on Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Soil instability

Soil instability generally not discernable

Slight loss of productivity

Loss of productivity; slight structural and integrity issues

Major loss of productivity; structural and integrity issues; health and safety issues

Site closure; major structural and integrity issues; major health and safety issues

Seismic activity

Seismic activity generally not discernable

Seismic activity discernable; however, no structural or integrity issues

Slight structural and integrity issues

Structural and integrity issues; health and safety issues

Site closure; major structural and integrity issues; major health and safety issues

Soil erosion Soil erosion generally not discernable

Soil erosion predicted to occur at approximately the same rate as soil formation

Soil erosion predicted to be visibly active but no rill and gully formation evident

Gully formation predicted to be evident

Gully formation predicted to be extensive

Reduced soil productivity

Productivity losses generally not discernable

Productivity losses discernible and predicted to last less than 3 months after closure

Limited productivity losses predicted to last more than 3 months but less than 1 year after closure

Moderate areal extent of productivity losses predicted to last between 1-5 years after closure

Extensive productivity losses predicted to last more than 5 years after closure

Waterlogged soils

Water logging generally not discernable

Water predicted to remain in surface depressions less than 3 months after

Water predicted to remain in surface depressions more than three months

Water predicted to remain in surface depressions between 1-5 years after

Water predicted to remain in surface depressions permanently (this altered

April, 2008 - 40 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5

construction but less than 1 year after construction

construction state could be beneficial, e.g. to wildlife)

Sediment transport to water courses

Visible sediments generally not discernable

Visible sediments predicted in watercourses for less than 3 weeks after construction and no obscuration of the bed

Visible sediments predicted in watercourses for longer than 3 weeks after construction and no obscuration of the bed

Visible sediments predicted in watercourses for longer than 3 weeks after construction and obscuration of the bed

Permanent features in watercourses

Groundwater quantity/ flow rate

No discernable change in groundwater flow

Discernable decrease in groundwater levels, but no effect on abstraction boreholes

Discernable decrease in groundwater levels, groundwater abstraction rate is compromised in abstraction boreholes

Abstraction boreholes temporarily out of use, temporary decrease in baseflow to surface water course leading to seasonal drought and ecological stress

Abstraction boreholes become dry, no baseflow to surface water course

Table 4.5.2-2: Impacts of Contamination of Soil and Groundwater

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Soil contamination

No discernible change in soil baseline conditions, no discernible change in soil resource quantity and no effect on use

Change of <25%, but below screening criteria1, in concentration of any parameter or depletion of resource that does not recover within 6 months post construction and having a temporary effect on use

Change of 25-100%, but below screening criteria1, in concentration of any parameter or depletion of resource that does not recover within 6-12 months post construction and having a short term but reversible effect on use

Change of >100% in concentration, or exceedance of screening criteria1, in any parameter or depletion of resource that does not recover within 1-2 years post construction and having a long term effect on use

Exceedance of screening criteria1 and change of >200% in concentration of any parameter or depletion of resource that does not recover within 2 years post construction and having an irreversible effect on use

Groundwater: naturally non-potable water not used as a potable water supply

No discernable change in groundwater baseline conditions with respect to List I and List II substances

Detection of List II substances below potable concentrations

Change of List II substances to concentrations above non-potable levels; no detection of List I

Detection of List I substances

Change of List I substances to concentration in excess of potable levels

April, 2008 - 41 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5

substances Groundwater: contribution to surface water

No discernible change in surface water baseline conditions. No discernible change in surface water resource quantity and no effect on use

Change of <25%, but below EQS3, in concentration of any parameter or depletion of resource that does not recover within 6 months post construction and having a temporary effect on use

Change of 25-100%, but below EQS3, in concentration of any parameter or depletion of resource that does not recover within 6-12 months post construction and having a short term but reversible effect on use

Change of >100% in concentration, or exceedance of EQS3, in any parameter or depletion of resource that does not recover within 1-2 years post construction and having a long term effect on use

Exceedance of EQS3 and change of >200% in concentration of any parameter or depletion of resource that does not recover within 2 years post construction and having an irreversible effect on use

1 Screening values refer to criteria discussed in Section 6.9.3.1 on site assessment, criteria and standards. 2 DWS refers to Drinking Water Standard as discussed in Section 6.9.3.2. 3 EQS refers to Environmental Quality Standard as discussed in Section 6.9.3.2. 4.5.3 Hydrological and Flood Risk

The significance of the hydrological impacts has been assessed using the ranking system presented in Table 4.5.3.

Table 4.5.3: Hydrological Impact Ranking???

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Change in surface water runoff regime and used or may be used as a resource being of sufficient quantity

No discernible change in channel flow or surface water runoff

<15% change in channel flow or surface water runoff for no more than 1 day and having a temporary effect on use

15-40% change in channel flow or surface water runoff for 1-2 day and having a short term but reversible effect on use

>40% change in channel flow or surface water runoff for 2-3 day and having a long term effect on use

>40% change in channel flow or surface water runoff for >3 day and having a irreversible effect on use

4.5.4 Traffic and Infrastructure

The impacts of additional traffic at different stages of project implementation has been ranked according to criterial listed in the Table 4.5.4-1 below.

April, 2008 - 42 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 4.5.4-1: Traffic Impact Ranking

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic and road safety

Not measurable increase in traffic flow

<5% increase in traffic flow

6-10% increase in traffic flow

11-20% increase in traffic flow

>20% increase in traffic flow

Notes: • Determining traffic impacts relate to change in traffic flow and the presence of receptors, as

well as duration of the impact. Impacts upon the road system itself will be limited by upgrading of the roads required to the standards required to enable project activities, such as heavy vehicles movement; and

• The duration of the impact is considered with any increase in traffic flow predicted to occur for more than two weeks duration, the next consequence / severity level up will be used.

In addition to road traffic impacts the potential impacts associated with possible bird strikes on the nearby Vaziani military airport and the more distant Tblisi International Airport have also been considered in the ESIA. The bird hazard ranking used has been based on the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) database bird strike data2 (Table 4.5.4-2).

Table 4.5.4-2: Bird Hazard Ranking System

Severity of risk Species classification Level 1 very large (>1.8kg), flocking Level 2 very large (>1.8kg), individual or large (1-1.8kg), flocking Level 3 large (1-1.8kg), individual or medium (300-1000g), flocking Level 4 medium (300-1000g) individual or small (50-300g) flocking Level 5 small (50-300g), individual or very small (<50g), flocking Level 6 very small (<50g), individual Based on international statistics of bird strike incidents each of levels 1 to 4 can present significant safety hazards. Birds in hazard levels 5 and 6 do not cause significant accidents although some damage, mostly minor, may occur. The strikes with the level 5 and 6 hazard birds happen close to the ground in the airport, most go unnoticed by the crew, however, it must not be assumed that all strikes with level 5 species is harmless.

The impacts associated with possible bird strikes of aircraft at different stages of project implementation has been ranked according to criterial listed in the Table 4.5.4.3 below.

Table 4.5.4-3: Aviation Bird Strike Impact Ranking

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Risk to aviation safety as a result of bird hazards associated with the landfill

Level 5 or 6 severity risk from Bird hazard ranking system

Level 4 severity risk from Bird hazard ranking system

Level 3 severity risk from Bird hazard ranking system

Level 2 severity risk from Bird hazard ranking system

Level 1 severity risk from Bird hazard ranking system or the airport is sited within 3km of a turbojet airport

2 Dolbeer et al (2000)

April, 2008 - 43 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Notes: The siting of a landfill should take into account the potential impact of the threat to air safety due to attraction and presence of birds. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities state that a landfill site should be sited at least 3km from a turbojet airport or as permitted by the aviation authority. 4.5.5 Noise and Vibration

The guidance noise levels from the IFC, April 2007, EHS Guidelines: Noise Management are reproduced in Table 2.6.4-1 of Section 2.6.4 of this report. The guidance sets out that the noise levels should not exceed the levels presented in Table 2.6.4-1, or result in a maximum increase in background level of 3 dB at the nearest receptor location off-site. Table 2.6.4-2 also includes the absolute criteria derived from the (WHO) World Health Organisation, 1999, Guidelines for Community Noise to prevent serious annoyance during the daytime period and sleep disturbance during the night time period.

Vibration

The IFC guidelines do not specify acceptable levels of ground borne vibration. There are no international standards that consider acceptable levels of ground borne vibration and many countries have adopted their own guidance.

The effects of ground borne vibration may have two key effects. These are considered to be the potential for superficial structural damage, for example cracks appearing in dry line structures, or annoyance resulting from the perception of vibration levels from residents.

The frequency of vibration is important for the assessment of both human response to vibration and the risk of damage. Generally, the lower the frequency of vibration, the greater the risk of potential damage or perception occurring. British Standard 52283 advises that humans are considered to be sensitive to vibration, and the threshold of perception is considered to be in the typical range of 0.15 to 0.3 mms-1 peak particle velocity (ppv) within the frequency range of 8 Hz – 80 Hz. Tabulated standards and guidelines published by a selection of individual countries is provided in the Table 2.6.5, Section 2.6.5 The standards generally apply limits whereby damage is classified as cosmetic (formation of hairline cracks), minor (formation of large cracks) or major (damage to structural elements).

A review of the standards shown in Table 2.6.5 indicates that a limit of 10 mms-1 (ppv) would be appropriate to prevent cosmetic damage within residential structures. However, owing to the lack of information on the housing construction within local villages it is suggested that a conservative limit of 5 mms-1 (peak particle velocity (ppv)) would be appropriate should any of the structure contain significant structural weaknesses, to ensure that no superficial cosmetic damage would occur from blasting.

3 British Standard 52283 1992, Noise control on construction and open sites - Part 4: Code of practice for noise

and vibration control applicable to piling operations.

April, 2008 - 44 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

It is suggested that a conservative vibration limit of 5mms-1 (ppv) is appropriate at residential properties to ensure that superficial cosmetic damage does not occur. However, as described in Section 5.8 below, taking account of the shortest separation distance of approximately 1.2 km between the site and the nearest receptor, it is unlikely that vibration levels arising from on-site activities would ever approach the adopted limits of 5 mm/s (ppv) at the nearest receptors. Therefore, no further assessment of possible impacts associated with vibration has been undertaken for this impact assessment.

Table 4.5.5: Impacts Associated with Noise

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Construction Ambient noise

level raised by <3dBA and less than 50dB LAeq,16- hr 4 outside dwellings during daytime working hours to avoid moderate annoyance, and limit of 45dB LAeq,8-hr 1,5 at night to avoid sleep disturbance.

Ambient noise level raised by <3dBA and less than 55dB LAeq,16- hr

1 outside dwellings during daytime working hours to avoid serious annoyance, and limit of 45dB LAeq,8-hr 1,2 at night to avoid sleep disturbance

Ambient noise level raised by <3dBA and less than 55dB LAeq,16- hr

1 outside dwellings during daytime working hours to avoid serious annoyance, and limit of 45dB LAeq,8-hr 1,2 at night to avoid sleep disturbance

Ambient noise level raised by <3dBA and less than 70 dB LAeq,24 hr

1 outside dwellings during daytime working hours to avoid hearing impairment, and limit of 45 dB Leq,8-hour

1 at night to avoid sleep disturbance.

As Level 4 and either tonal or impulsive noise present

Continuous operational noise in residential areas

Ambient noise level raised by <3dBA and less than 50dB LAeq,16- hr

1 outside dwellings during daytime working hours to avoid moderate annoyance, and limit of 45dB LAeq,8-hr 1,2 at night to avoid sleep disturbance.

Ambient noise level raised by <3dBA and less than 55dB LAeq,16- hr

1 outside dwellings during daytime working hours to avoid serious annoyance, and limit of 45dB LAeq,8-hr 1,2 at night to avoid sleep disturbance

Ambient noise level raised by <3dBA and less than 55dB LAeq,16- hr

1 outside dwellings during daytime working hours to avoid serious annoyance, and limit of 45dB LAeq,8-hr 1,2 at night to avoid sleep disturbance

Ambient noise level raised by <3dBA and less than 70 dB LAeq,24 hr

1 outside dwellings during daytime working hours to avoid hearing impairment, and limit of 45 dB Leq,8-hour

1 at night to avoid sleep disturbance.

As Level 4 and either tonal or impulsive noise present

4 WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) 5 International Finance Corporation Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines GENERAL EHS

GUIDELINES: ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MANAGEMENT (2007)

April, 2008 - 45 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

4.5.6 Waste and Wastewater Management

Table 4.5.6: Waste and Wastewater Consequence

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Solid wastes requiring disposal

Minimal additional waste movements/ disposal and problematic housekeeping

Low additional waste movements/ disposal and problematic housekeeping

Medium additional waste movements/ disposal and problematic housekeeping

High additional waste movements/ disposal and problematic housekeeping

Very high additional waste movements/ disposal and problematic housekeeping

Liquid wastes requiring off-site transport and disposal

Minimal risk of soil and groundwater impacts and readily available off-site treatment capability

Low risk of soil and groundwater impacts and available off-site treatment capability

Medium risk of soil and groundwater impacts and some off-site treatment capability

High risk of soil and groundwater impacts and limited off-site treatment capability

Very high risk of soil and groundwater impacts and no off-site treatment capability

Off-site movement of materials (e.g. mud, wind blown litter).

Minimal pollution risk and nuisance potential

Low pollution risk and nuisance potential

Medium pollution risk and nuisance potential

High pollution risk and nuisance potential

Very high pollution risk and nuisance potential

Notes • For the purposes of this section of the ESIA, wastes will be defined as any substance generated

as a by-product during the projects lifetime. This will not include an assessment of the impact of wastes being brought to the facility for treatment and final disposal.

• Spoil in the form of uncontaminated soil, rock or granular materials derived from the excavation of the site to provide landfill engineering containment materials, drainage material, restoration material or visual screening bunds, is not considered as waste.

• Nuisance issues associated with wastes arising from the operation of the landfill are included in this section.

4.5.7 Landscape and Visual

The ranking of possible landscape and visual impacts is shown in Table 4.5.7 below:

Table 4.5.7: Impacts Associated with Landscape and Visual

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Impact on visual receptors (resident and transitory)

Change in viewpoint not discernible

Few viewpoints affected / minor change in view

Many viewpoints affected / moderate changes in view

Majority of viewpoints affected / moderate changes in view

All viewpoints affected

Duration and extent of change in landscape / quality and value of landscape

No noticeable change in landscape / or landscape is low quality

Virtually imperceptible change in the landscape, or reinstatement within 1-2 years

Changes in the natural landscape in a localised areas, or reinstatement within 2-5 years

Change in natural or high value landscape over extensive area or reinstatement within 5-10 years

Change in natural or high value landscape over extensive area or reinstatement not possible

Notes:

April, 2008 - 46 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Assessing the consequences / severity of landscape and visual impact is a qualitative process which relies upon subjectivity and reasoned judgement, supported where possible by evidence 4.5.8 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

The impacts upon terrestrial and aquatic ecology were considered for the following four categories: 1) habitat integrity, 2) species behaviour and interactions, 3) habitat/ species recovery and 4) protected habitats. The impacts on each of these is categorised as being either very low, low, medium, high or very high, according to the criteria described in Table 4.5.8 below.

Table 4.5.8: For Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Habitat integrity

Impact on the habitat integrity1 largely not discernible

Impact on the habitat integrity not measurable using standard techniques

Reduction in integrity of regionally (in the country context) important habitat using standard techniques

Reduction in integrity of nationally important habitat using standard techniques

Reduction in integrity of internationally important habitat using standard techniques

Species behaviour and interactions

No discernible effect owing to disruption2 on behaviour or species interactions

Disruption of behaviour or species interactions discernible using standard techniques

Disruption of behaviour or species interactions of regionally (in country context) important species discernible using standard techniques

Disruption of behaviour or interactions of nationally important species discernible using standard techniques

Disruption of behaviour or interactions of species discernible using standard techniques

Habitat / species recovery

Immediate return to baseline conditions3 on completion of reinstatement activities

Return to baseline conditions within 2 years on completion of reinstatement activities

Return to baseline conditions within 2-5 years on completion of reinstatement activities

Return to baseline conditions within 5-10 years on completion of reinstatement activities

Return to baseline conditions after >10 years on completion of reinstatement activities

Protected habitats

Not impacting an areas affected by national laws, international conventions, company policies

Activities may temporarily disturb protected areas but not lead to any long-term effects on the ecological integrity of the protected area

Potential to contravene the very high(5) category; assuming reinstatement likely within 3 years

Potential to contravene the provisions or intent of national laws, international conventions, company policies after mitigation, assuming full reinstatement to pre-disturbance condition within 5 years

Contravenes the provisions or intent of national laws, international conventions, company policies

April, 2008 - 47 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Notes: 1 Ecological integrity includes issues such as loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, disruption and loss of wildlife corridors, ecological carrying capacity 2 Disruption to behaviour owing to physical changes, noise, visual intrusion and air emissions, for egg breeding, nesting, mating, spawning, diurnal and seasonal migration, hibernation, territorial activities, predator-prey relationships and ultimately mortality 3 Applies only to areas that are temporarily disturbed i.e. not permanent facilities Additional notes:

• The consequence / severity of ecological impact has been evaluated taking account of the following: - The magnitude of the impact, as determined by its intensity, its extent in space and time

and the likelihood of it occurring - The vulnerability of the habitat or species to the change caused by the impact - The ability of that species or habitat to recover - The value, in nature conservation and ecological terms of affected receptors including

species, populations, communities, habitats, landscapes and ecosystems A contravention of legislation relating to conservation is considered to be High (4)

4.5.9 Cultural Heritage

The cultural heritage resources are defined as a change resulting from the project activities that affects cultural heritage. Impacts can be either adverse (e.g. direct removal of a resource) or beneficial (e.g. improvement in setting). Most of the potential impacts on cultural heritage resources will be physical as a direct consequence of construction activities and will mainly be confined to the areas of land take during all phases.

Impacts may also be indirect, such as those caused by changes in drainage and from long term effects, such as compaction of remains beneath embankments.

Table 4.5.9: Consequence/Severity of Impact and Typical Descriptors

Category Very Low Low Medium High Very High Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Potential for destruction

Deposits will not be affected, because of distance from the landfill site, or method of construction

A small (1-10%) proportion of the surviving deposits damaged or destroyed

A moderate (10-25%) proportion of the surviving deposits damaged or destroyed

A large (25-50%) proportion of the surviving deposits damaged or destroyed

Most (50-100%) of the surviving deposits damaged or destroyed

Protected status

Resources whose importance is unknown, sites of uncertain date or character

Resources which have little or no archaeological or historical value, or where remains may have been previously destroyed

Locally important resources of low or minor importance

Regionally important resources of a reasonably defined extent, nature and date and significant examples in a regional context

Internationally and nationally important resources, legally protected remains of national importance

April, 2008 - 48 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Notes: • Information on archaeological features normally only becomes available during the

construction phase of the project owing to the intrusive nature of the process. An assignment of accurate consequence / severity prior to the construction phase is often not possible. A number of factors can be taken into account in assigning the consequence / severity of potential impact on archaeology

4.5.10 Socio-Economics

As with environmental impacts, residual social impacts are the potential impacts predicted to occur after mitigation. The evaluation of social impacts requires consideration of quantitative and qualitative data and the use of professional judgment. Impacts may be direct (e.g., increased employment opportunities); indirect via biophysical changes (e.g., through a change to water quality); or result indirectly from human responses to real or perceived changes as a result of the Project. Potential impacts related to human responses to the Project may require mitigation related to communication.

Residual impacts are assessed according to their significance as explained in the Table 4.5.10 below (these differ in the manner of scoring from the environmental impact categories to take account of the subjective nature of this socio-economic assessment and to remain in line with the ESIA requirements undertaken for the previous BTC pipeline project):

Table 4.5.10: Socio-Economic Impact Categories

Impact Category

Social

Beneficial Improvement in line with Government policy and in the eyes of the community. Improvement in the ability of household or settlement to maintain or improve its livelihood/store of assets. Enhancement in quality or availability of resource leading to improvement in quality of life.

Low Neutral short or long-term effect in terms of Government policy or in the eyes of the community and individuals within it. Possible short-term decrease in availability of resource or access to infrastructure not affecting livelihood. Possible short-term decrease in quality of life of household or settlement not affecting long-term outcomes. No effect on human health. No discernable long-term effect on the local economy. Impacts that are long-lasting, but to which the community is able to adapt.

Medium Temporarily contrary to Government policy, but compensated by Social Investment opportunities. Potential effect or perceived effect on ability of household to maintain livelihood/store of assets in short-term. Potential reduction in quality of life in short-term. Potential disruption to lifestyle in short-term. Perception of missed opportunity to improve. Possible decrease or perceived decrease in access to infrastructure to which community is unable to adapt in the short-term. Negative effect on human health which can be contained and is therefore short-term with no increased mortality. Impacts that may result in high numbers of complaints in the short-term.

High Key corporate/partner goals/targets on specific activities beyond statutory targets. Contrary to Government policy and counterproductive in the eyes of communities or individuals within them. Negative effect on safety of humans or animals.

April, 2008 - 49 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Negative effect on human health which cannot be contained or results in increased mortality. Effect or perceived effect on ability of household to maintain livelihood/store of assets to an extent not acceptable to affected people. Permanent or perceived permanent reduction in quality of life. Permanent cultural change to which the communities are unable to adapt. Widespread perception of missed opportunity to improve quality of life, resulting in frustration and disappointment. Result in tensions with communities which lead to sabotage to landfill construction or operation by local communities or outbreaks of violence between workers and communities.

4.6 Cumulative Impact Criteria

Throughout the various development phases, (construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed landfill waste management facility), the potential for cumulative impacts on the most sensitive receptors exists and such impacts are highlighted where appropriate. Additionally, the cumulative impact of the combination of the proposed BTC landfill site and the proposed Rustavi Municipality site, which are to be located next to one another, has been taken into account, where applicable.

4.7 Likelihood of Impact

In describing a potential impact, the likelihood of it occurring can be defined and ranked into five criteria. This five tiered likelihood ranking of criteria is in line with international practices (e.g. Australia / New Zealand Risk Management Standard AS/NZS:4360). The criteria for likelihood are shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Likelihood Categories and RankingsNatural and Socio-Economic Impacts

Ranking Definition 5 The impact will occur under normal operating conditions 4 The impact is very likely to occur under normal operating conditions 3 The impact is likely to occur at some time under normal operating conditions 2 The impact is unlikely to, but may occur at some time under normal operating conditions 1 The impact is very unlikely to occur under normal operating conditions but may occur in

exceptional circumstances 4.8 Significance

The ESIA process identifies ‘significant environmental and socio-economic effects’. Thus an assessment of significance is necessary in order to provide the means by which a Project is judged as acceptable or unacceptable in environmental terms. Although there are published, transparent methodologies for assessing significance available for certain environmental topics (noise, ecology, etc.), there is no definitive guidance available for the majority of topics. Generally, a significant effect may be broadly defined as one that should be brought to the attention of those affected and those involved in the decision-making process.

It is important that a transparent methodology is used to ensure consistency and ease of interpretation of the judgment of impact significance. Thus, the significance of a potential

April, 2008 - 50 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

impact is defined as a result of the likelihood of an impact occurring combined with the potential consequence or severity of the impact. Significant impacts will require mitigation and monitoring, whereas insignificant impacts will be managed through standard management procedures. The significance level of impacts are determined using the matrix below (Table 4.8), where L denotes a low-level of impact, M a medium-level impact and H a high-level impact.

Table 4.8: Significance Level of Residual Environmental Impacts

5 L M M H H

4 L L M M H

3 L L M M M

2 L L L L M

1 L L L L M

1 2 3 4 5

LIK

EL

IHO

OD

CONSEQUENCE / SEVERITY Note: A residual impact of Medium is ascribed to a level 5 impact for a likelihood of 1, even though it is very unlikely to occur. The value judgements placed on the significance of environmental effects are done so in order to provide a clear and unambiguous comparison of environmental effects across all environmental topics within the ESIA. However, it is noted that assessment of significance depends on the opinions and perspectives of particular stakeholders and/or receptors. Consequently, the methodology can appear flawed to certain readers who disagree with the significance of impacts to receptors important to them.

For example, where a receptor is deemed to be of local importance (e.g. residential receptors in Akhali Samgori) and a slight change in air quality or noise is predicted to occur due to the proposal, impacts would be assessed as of minor significance according to the above matrix, however, the impact may be perceived by the residents as very important (perhaps in terms of a long standing history of noise complaints associated with activities undertaken in the vicinity of the site). It is therefore important to qualify impact significance judgements and this has been undertaken throughout this document, where appropriate.

4.9 Mitigation Need

Mitigation measures are measures envisaged to prevent, solve and offset any significant adverse effects resulting from the activities associated with the proposed development. Mitigation measures can be incorporated at four stages in any development:

• During the design stage of the entire project life cycle to avoid or minimise the magnitude of negative impacts at source, and promote positive effects where possible;

• After opening (compensation and environmental enhancement measures); and • During operation of the development through good operational practice.

April, 2008 - 51 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

At each stage, the mitigation measures must be of an appropriate level and be maintained over the relevant timescale of potential impacts to be effective.

It is best practice to consider mitigation measures for effects that are of medium impact significance, i.e. an effect, which, on its own, is likely to have little influence on decision-making, but when combined with other effects, could have a more material influence. Mitigation measures could also be considered for higher significance and this has been undertaken throughout this ESIA. All mitigation measures described or proposed need the support of the operator of the proposed landfill waste management facility in order that the significance of residual effects can be predicted and necessary monitoring/management strategies identified. It is however recognised that final details on the precise form and extent of each mitigation measure would need to take into account the safety, operational and maintenance practicalities on or about the proposed development and may in some cases, require detailed consultation and agreement with relevant authorities.

There is a hierarchy for mitigation, which relies on the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to prevent, and where this is not possible, minimise significant adverse effects in the case of medium and high operational impacts. This hierarchy can be summarised as follows:

• First, prevent adverse impacts as far as possible by adopting BAT; • Second, minimise adverse impacts to ‘as low as practicable’ levels using BAT

principles; and • Third, remedy or compensate for adverse residual impacts, which are unavoidable and

cannot be reduced further. 4.9.1 Significance of Residual Impacts

It is important to assess the significance of residual impacts remaining after implementation of mitigation measures in order to provide the decision maker with a realistic assessment of what is likely to happen as a result of the proposed development. This is undertaken in Section 8 where mitigation is proposed. In each case, the residual impact assessment takes into consideration the ability of the mitigation measures to reduce the effects and their likely success.

4.9.2 Ongoing Monitoring / Management Need

For certain criteria, where significant environmental impacts are either certain or else likely without mitigation, it is important to ensure that the success of mitigation measures is monitored. A commitment to undertaking environmental monitoring is therefore required by landfill operators (Rustavi Municipality) where this is considered to be necessary to achieve a successful, longer term mitigation without which the environmental effect of the proposed development would be unacceptable.

April, 2008 - 52 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

4.10 Assumptions and Limitations

An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the above information be presented in the ESIA. This has been undertaken throughout the ESIA as appropriate. In addition, where assumptions have been made in technical assessments because of the lack of available information, the grounds on which they have been made including uncertainty in resultant predictions have been stated.

April, 2008 - 53 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL BASELINE

5.1 Introduction

In undertaking the various baseline data collection for the different environmental and social issues various sources of information were used. These include existing reports, publications, websites and other sources of information. Additionally, a number of site surveys were undertaken. All literature used for this ESIA are summarised in section 12.0 of this report and described in the environmental and social baseline sections below. Where site surveys are undertaken these are also described in the relevant environmental and social baseline sections below.

5.2 Meteorological and Climate

5.2.1 Introduction

Georgia’s climate is characterised by dry hot summers and moderately cold winters. The Greater Caucasus Mountain range on Georgia’s northern border with Russia serves as a barrier to cold air from the north and limits the occurrence of climatic extremes. Moving in an east to west direction across the country, precipitation increases with increasing proximity to the Black Sea.

Data from three metrological monitoring stations have been reviewed in this ESIA. The stations, and their locations are:

• Tbilisi Airport, located approximately 10 km to the north west of the Site; • Rustavi, located approximately 3.5 km to the west of the Site; and • Gardabani, located approximately 15 km to the south of the Site. 5.2.2 Temperature

The eastern region of Georgia experiences high levels of solar radiation. On average the eastern region of the country averages approximately 2,350 hours annually, or 6.4 hours daily of sunlight.

The annual air temperature usually ranges between approximately 0 to 3 C in January/February and 24 C to 25 C in July/August (Table 5.2.2). However, the extreme range in the region can be between -25 C in January to 41 C in August. The annual monthly mean temperature is approximately 13 C.

The first frosts of the year tend to arrive in early November and winter extends until the beginning of April. The number of frost free days exceeds 220.

April, 2008 - 54 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Table 5.2.2: Average Monthly, Annual and Extreme Air Temperature (C)

Met Station

Temp (C)

Jan Feb March Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Year

Average 0.4 1.9 5.7 11.2 16.6 20.5 24.0 24.1 19.4 13.7 7.3 2.5 12.3 Max 18.0 21.0 28.0 31.0 33.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 37.0 33.0 26.0 21.0 40.0

Tbilisi Airport

Min -23.0

-14.0

-14.0 -4.0 0.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 1.0 -5.0 -7.0 -20.0

-23.0

Average 0.8 2.6 6.6 11.9 17.5 21.6 25.0 25.0 20.3 14.4 7.7 2.6 13.0 Max 19.0 22.0 29.0 32.0 35.0 37.0 40.0 41.0 38.0 34.0 28.0 23.0 41.0

Rustavi

Min -24.0

-14.0

-13.0 0.4 1.0 8.0 10.0 9.0 1.0 -5.0 -10.0

-20.0

-24.0

Average 0.3 2.4 6.7 12.1 17.8 21.9 25.3 25.0 20.1 14.0 7.4 2.3 12.9 Max 21.0 25.0 30.0 32.0 36.0 38.0 41.0 41.0 38.0 34.0 28.0 23.0 41.0

Gardabani

Min -25.0

-18.0

-14.0 -5.0 0.0 4.0 9.0 8.0 -2.0 -7.0 -10.0

-21.0

-25.0

5.2.3 Air Humidity

Atmospheric moisture content generally increases in a westward direction with increasing proximity to the Black Sea. Relative humidity in the region surrounding the Site is approximately 67% as an annual average. The maximum humidity occurs in November/January (76 to 80%) and the minimum occurs in July/August (54 to 58%) (Table 5.2.3).

Table 5.2.3: Average Monthly and Annual Air Humidity (%)

Met Station

Jan Feb March Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Year

Tbilisi Airport

73 70 68 65 65 61 58 56 63 70 76 75 67

Rustavi 74 70 68 63 63 58 55 54 62 69 77 77 66 Gardabani 77 72 69 65 65 61 55 56 63 72 79 80 68 5.2.4 Precipitation

As with relative humidity, there is a general increase in the amount of annual precipitation from the east to the west of the country. In the region surrounding the Site, the annual average rainfall is between 382 mm and 448 mm. The average monthly rainfall is 35 mm. The greatest rainfall occurs between April and June (40 mm to 76 mm average monthly rainfall). The driest months are December and January (13 mm to 20 mm average monthly rainfall) (Table 5.2.4).

Data related to snow cover in the area are poor although there is, as would be expected, a strong correlation between snow cover and altitude. Lying snow is generally possible between September and December and generally snow melts in March and April. On average the snow cover is 8 cm deep but can be up to 40 cm deep.

April, 2008 - 55 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Table 5.2.4: Average Monthly and Annual Total Precipitation (mm)

Met Station

Jan Feb March Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Year

Tbilisi Airport

14.0 20.0 27.0 46.0 76.0 64.0 43.0 33.0 37.0 37.0 31.0 20.0 448.0

Rustavi

13.0 17.0 28.0 39.0 64.0 55.0 28.0 28.0 32.0 33.0 28.0 17.0 382.0

Gardabani

14.0 18.0 30.0 41.0 66.0 58.0 30.0 29.0 34.0 35.0 29.0 18.0 402.0

5.2.5 Winds

North westerly winds dominate the area with winds blowing from this direction nearly 50% of the time (Table 5.2.5-1). Gardabani experiences significantly lower wind speeds than the other two stations, which are closer to the landfill development, and as such discussion focuses on Tbilisi and Rustavi.

Average wind speeds in the region surrounding the Site are approximately 4.8 m/s to 5.8 m/s annual average (Table 5.2.5-2). The highest wind speeds occur in June/July (5.4 m/s to 7.2 m/s monthly average) and lowest in November/December (3.1 m/s to 4.4 m/s monthly average). The extreme wind speeds recorded for these months are 58 m/s and 20 m/s respectively.

Table 5.2.5-1: Wind Direction Occurrence and Number of Calm Days (% annual)

Met Station N NE E SE S SW W NW Calm Days Tbilisi Airport 1 4 6 12 6 2 3 66 37 Rustavi 8 4 7 12 10 3 7 49 18 Gardabani 19 2 5 12 7 3 7 45 58

Table 5.2.5-2: Wind Speed Average Monthly and Annual (m/s)

Met Station

Jan Feb March Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Year

Tbilisi Airport

5.4 6.8 6.4 6.4 5.9 6.3 7.2 5.8 5.6 5.1 4.1 4.4 5.8

Rustavi 4.4 6.0 5.3 4.9 5.2 5.4 6.0 4.9 4.5 4.2 3.1 3.4 4.8 Gardabani 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.6 3.1 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.0 1.0 2.1 The wind data for Tbilisi airport for 2007 have been sourced from The State Department of Hydrometeorology of Georgia. Data are recorded every three hours for wind speed (m/s) and wind direction (main compass angles). These data are summarized in the wind rose below (Figure 5.2.5). The Tbilisi airport data have been used in the gas risk assessment, and were the only available data set suitable for this purpose.

April, 2008 - 56 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Figure 5.2.5: Wind Rose for Tiblisi Airport 2007

5.3 Air Quality

5.3.1 Introduction

Continuous air quality monitoring was previously undertaken in the eastern Georgian cities of Rustain and Akhaltsikhe between 1988 and 1994 by the Georgian authorities. These data are however not available, and, in any case, are too old to be of value within this ESIA. In general, urban areas of Georgia have historically experienced poor air quality due to emissions from heavy industry. From 1991 air quality has improved significantly due to the decline of industry, and less traffic due to fuel shortages. Rural areas however, unless downwind of an industrial area, have generally had good air quality.

5.3.2 Baseline Monitoring

A series of air quality studies were undertaken as part of the BTC pipeline ESIA in order to determine baseline air quality in the region. For the pipeline assessment, monitoring was undertaken at five locations besides each pump station along the pipeline route. Data for the two closest stations, known as PSG1 and PSG2, to the Rustavi landfill have been used in this ESIA. These stations were located approximately 18 km SSE and 50 km west of the landfill respectively.

April, 2008 - 57 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Sampling was undertaken over August and September 2005, spanning approximately one month. Diffusion tubes were used to monitor for NOx, SOx, and benzene. PM10 was not continuously monitored, however periodic monitoring of general particulates was conducted. Additional monitoring was also undertaken in 2007.

The rural nature of the area of the proposed landfill, and the limited development of the region other than the pipeline, enables this previous monitoring data to be considered as indicative of typical rural conditions in the region, and thus applicable to the Rustavi Municipality landfill site. No additional baseline monitoring was undertaken for the proposed landfill development.

5.3.3 Baseline Conditions

Previously measured gaseous (Table 5.3.3-1) and particulate (Table 5.3.3-2) concentrations were found to comply with EU ambient air quality standards at the sampling locations. In addition, all parameters were found to be less than 75% of the EU standards, therefore not warranting further monitoring for the landfill development.

Table 5.3.3-1: Diffusion Tube Results

Concentration (µg/m3) Pump Station

Location Ref

Start date End date Approx sampling duration

(hrs)

NO2 SO2 Benzene

PSG1-1 23 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 864 11 12 3.8 PSG1-2 23 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 864 11 10 4.3 PSG1-3 23 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 864 9 5 4.3 PSG1-4 23 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 864 10 12 N/A*

PSG1

PSG1-5 23 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 864 N/A* N/A* N/A* PSG2-1 24 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 887 5 4 1.5 PSG2-2 24 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 887 5 6 2.1 PSG2-3 24 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 887 4 5 2.2 PSG2-4 24 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 887 7 4 2.2

PSG2

PSG2-5 24 Aug 05 29 Sep 05 887 4 5 3.0 Lost/damaged tubes

Table 5.3.3-2: Particulate Matter Results

Pump Station Location Ref Sampling date PM10 concentration (µg/m3) PSG1-1 24 Aug 05 10-20 PSG1-2 24 Aug 05 <10 PSG1-3 24 Aug 05 <10 PSG1-4 24 Aug 05 <10

PSG1

PSG1-5 24 Aug 05 <10 PSG2-1 25 Aug 05 10-20 PSG2-2 25 Aug 05 20-30 PSG2-3 25 Aug 05 10-20 PSG2-4 25 Aug 05 <10

PSG2

PSG2-5 25 Aug 05 10-20

April, 2008 - 58 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Further monitoring undertaken at the Site (reference IDC Landfill Survey Report 2007) in 2007 has highlighted that: the maximum NO2 concentration recorded was 19 μg/m3 (higher than the previous data) but with an average of 6.1 μg/m3 (slightly lower than the previous average of 7.3 μg/m3); the maximum SO2 concentration was 15.3 μg/m3 (slightly higher than the previous data) but with an average of 5.4 μg/m3 (slightly lower than the previous average of 7 μg/m3); and the maximum benzene concentration recorded was 0.9 μg/m3 which is much lower than previous data. All results remain below the EU standards.

The gas risk assessment has used the maximum recorded concentrations. These are summarised in Table 5.3.3-3 below. For parameters where no background data have been available, including odour, the background has been assumed to be zero.

Table 5.3.3-3: Background Air Quality Concentrations; Maximum Recorded Concentrations

Pollutant Background Concentration (µg/m3)

2007 NO2 19 PM10 10

Benzene 4.3 SO2 15.3

5.4 Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology

5.4.1 Introduction

The geology and soils of the proposed development were evaluated following a desk study review of existing data which are listed in the reference section towards the end of this report including the regional geology information sources.

The results of the desk study are summarised in the following sections.

5.4.2 Regional Geology

Geologically, the area of interest is situated in the Artvin-Bolnisi zone. The zone includes Quaternary drift deposits of alluvium between 20 and 80 m thick, which overlie the solid geology.

The geological map of Georgia shows that the region near Rustavi comprises drift deposits underlain by clays, conglomerates, marls, sandstones, lavas, extrusions and volcanic tuffs of basalts. The geological succession for this region of Georgia is summarised in Table 5.4.2 below.

April, 2008 - 59 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Table 5.4.2: Summary of Regional Geology

Geological Period

Epoch Formation Lithology

Quaternary Holocene/Pleistocene Alluvium, delluvium, and prolluvium

Boulder to coarse gravel, loams, clays and sands.

Oligocene and Lower Miocene

Marine molasse Carbonaceous clays, gypsiferous clays, intercalations and lenses of conglomerates. Occasional thick beds of coarse sandstone.

Upper Eocene Carbonaceous bituminous and gypsiferous clays with thin intercalations of marls and sandstones, and conglomerates in upper part of section in places.

Tertiary

Lower Eocene Shallow marine deposits

Carbonaceous clays, sandstones, conglomerates, dacitic lava breccias.

Mesozoic Senonian Lavas, extrusives and volcanic tuffs of basalts, and also including sandstones, limestones and marls.

5.4.3 Local Geology

The local ground conditions were initially investigated during October 2007 by BTC’s contractor IDC Ltd by excavating four trial pits up to 5.2 m deep within the footprint of the proposed Rustavi municipal landfill site to the immediate east of the proposed site. A second investigation in by GoeEngineering Ltd on behalf of BTC was undertaken between January and March 2008 and comprised a further 16 trial pits and eight boreholes within and to the east of the proposed Site. The location of these trial pits and boreholes is shown in Appendix G1 (Figure G101 Rev C). The ground investigation logs from the 2007 and 2008 investigation are presented in detail in the Environmental Setting and Installation Design Report (Golder Associates, April, 2008). The general geology encountered during the investigations to date is summarised in Table 5.4.3 below along with an indication of the inferred geological period (based upon the regional geological map).

April, 2008 - 60 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Table 5.4.3: Summary of Local Geology

Geological Period

Material Group

Horizon Lithology Thickness (m)

Depth to base of strata

(mbgl) 1 Topsoil Brown, soft, loamy clay with

plant roots. 0.2 – 0.5 0.2 – 0.5

2 Clay Dark to light brown, stiff to very stiff clay with gypsum and carbonate salts and gravel and cobbles in places.

0.0 – 3.0 0.4 – 5.0

3 Loamy Clay

Light to dark brown stiff to very stiff clay with gypsum and carbonate salts and increasing gravel and cobbles with depth.

0.2 – 5.0 2.1 – 9.1

5a Gravel bed

Gravel and cobbles in loamy clay matrix.

0.4-3.4 2.0-8.0

4 Clay Dark to light brown, stiff to very stiff clay with gypsum and carbonate salts and gravel and cobbles in places.

2.4 - 4.6 (proved)

6.1 - 19.2

Quaternary: Alluvium

5b Gravel bed

Gravel and cobbles in loamy sand and loamy clay matrices.

1.0 – 10.2 5.6 – 26.1

Tertiary 6 Mudstone Light brown to dark grey thinnly layered mudstone, with thin sandstones beds in places

> 15.3 > 30 (maximum

depth drilled) It should be noted that RLS-GW03 was not constructed. In general, the local geology inferred from the trial pits and borehole logs corresponds well with the indicated regional shallow geology.

5.4.4 Seismic Hazards

The proposed site is located in the Eastern Immersion Zone (basin) of the Adzharia-Trialeti fold system and on the edge of the southern slope of the Caucasas Mountains. The Caucasas Mountains comprise intensely folded Palaeogenic-Neogenic deposits, and the Mtkvari valley to the west of the site is gradually immersed under superficial deposits.

The proposed site lies within a seismically active region of the Caucasus. According to Order No. 42 of the Ministry of Architecture and Construction of Georgia, dated June 7 1991, the proposed site lies within an eight point seismicity zone. This corresponds to the seismic zone indicated on seismic zone maps presented in the International Handbook of Earthquake Engineering. The seismic zone maps are based upon the seismic-resistant design code currently used in the former USSR republics (SNIP II-7-81, 1982). The point-scale zoning used in the zone maps represents the design earthquake intensity and are a combination of the magnitude and expected recurrence of an earthquake.

Based upon the available information, a reverse fault and an intra-zonal fault are reported to lie at approximately 3.5 and 40 km from the proposed site. Since 1940, a seismic event of intensity MSK=5 has reported to occur within 35 km of the proposed site; a seismic event of

April, 2008 - 61 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

intensity MSK=6-7, magnitude Ms=4.5 (with maximum acceleration of 0.11 g) has been reported within 40 km of the proposed site; and a seismic event of magnitude Ms=7 has reported to occur within 200 km from the proposed site. Although the site lies within an eight point seismicity zone, it is considered that there is a very low risk of an earthquake causing disruption or damage to the site. However, it is expected that earthquakes and tremors will be experienced at a low intensity at the site both during and after the operational life of the site.

5.4.5 Soils and Soil Erosion Potential

The soils encountered in the 2007 and 2008 intrusive investigations summarized in Table 2 are indicated to typically comprise topsoil, overlying clay, overlying loamy clay, overlying shingle (gravel) beds in places, overlying mudstone. The 2007 IDC investigation described the topsoil encountered as dark grey with a thickness between 0.2 and 0.5 m, and the alluvial clay soils as represented by plastic and loosely cohesive salinated soil. The Georgian Geophysical Society (GGS) website indicates that the region surrounding Rustavi has a slight risk of ‘debris flow’ or mudflows, a low risk of landslides, and a minimal risk of avalanches.

To the south of the site is a weathered escarpment trending east to west with eroded gully features and minor benching along tertiary bedding plains. This would suggest that erosion during storm events may be anticipated to the south of the site that may transport material in the direction of the proposed landfill site. In addition, a marshy area lies to the north beyond the proposed landfill site boundary. This is believed to have resulted from fractures in an irrigation channel running in a east-west direction to the north of the proposed landfill site.

5.4.6 Hydrogeology

The proposed site lies within the Marneuli-Gardabani basin of the Georgian belt artesian zone which exhibits porous and fissure type groundwater flow. Local hydrogeological conditions indicate the groundwater at depth is confined. The Gamma report (unknown date) notes that groundwater contains sulphate and magnesium with concentrations of greater than 1 g/l (the sulphate concentration exceeds the EU drinking water standard).

Previous investigations (URS, 2002) indicate that water-bearing strata have been encountered in the early Quaternary sediments of the Marneuli Lowlands. The sediment thickness is reported to vary from between 4m to 50m and comprises shingles and pebbles with a sand and loam matrix. The yield of boreholes in the region is reported to vary from 0.1 to 2 litres per second with a permeability in the region of 0.5 to 5 m per day. The horizon is reported to be recharged by the river; irrigation water; and precipitation; and a hydraulic connection has been identified between the recent alluvial horizon groundwater and the underlying Mio-Pliocene pressurised water (i.e. groundwater flows between the two strata). However, under natural (unpumped) conditions the aquifer would be expected to recharge the river and only under conditions of groundwater abstraction via boreholes, for example, (which is not the case at the proposed site) would the river be expected to recharge the aquifer.

April, 2008 - 62 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

The EISA report for the BTC pipeline (URS, 2002) states that groundwater from early Quaternary sediments is used in the Marneuli lowlands for supply of water to agricultural land.

Information provided by Gamma (unknown date) shows that the nearest deep boreholes to the proposed site comprise one 5 km to the southeast at a depth of 300 m; three 6 km to the south at depths of between 301 and 305 m; and one 750 m to the southeast at Akhali Samgori at 500 m depth. The depth of these boreholes suggests they draw water from below the Quaternary and upper Tertiary deposits.

During the ground investigation undertaken in 2007 no shallow or perched groundwater was noted in the trial pits. In boreholes drilled in 2008, groundwater strikes were noted only within the deeper gravel beds in those boreholes located to the north of the proposed Rustavi Municipality Landfill site (RLS-GW02 at 17 m bgl and RLS-GW05 at 10.3 m bgl). The underlying mudstone was noted to be dry. A groundwater strike was also noted during the drilling of RLS-GW04 (southeast corner of the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill site) within the shallower gravel bed at 7.3 m bgl, and at 19.2 m bgl within the deeper gravel bed the arisings were noted to be slightly water saturated. All other boreholes were noted to be dry.

Groundwater records available to 29 March 2008 indicated standing groundwater at approximately 9 m bgl in RLS-GW05 and at approximately 10 m bgl in RLS-GW02 within the lower gravel stratum. These groundwater levels are higher than the top of the gravel bed indicating the groundwater is confined.

Based on the information currently available, it is considered that rain events may recharge the lower gravel stratum that appears to be laterally extensive such that it may outcrop. This lower gravel may also be recharged by smaller gravel lenses that have some connectivity. There are further isolated gravel lenses that may be recharged if outcropping or dry if not. The age of the groundwater is unknown and the chemistry is saline such that it is not definite that recharge is occurring.

A component of horizontal flow within the upper gravel stratum may occur, which may be controlled by the topography of the underlying clay and lateral its extent. The topography of the lower gravel bed floor (i.e. the top of the relatively impermeable mudstone) indicates that groundwater flow would follow this topography and is therefore flowing laterally from the south to the north of the proposed Site. However, without at least three groundwater levels recorded within the same horizon, the true groundwater gradient and direction cannot be confirmed.

An area of marshy ground has been identified to the north of the Site, and is considered to probably be associated with leakage from a damaged irrigation channel immediately to the south of the marshy ground. No groundwater has been identified on the proposed BTC landfill Site, and the depth of the groundwater (between 9 to 10 m bgl) measured on the proposed Rustavi municipal landfill site to the immediate east of the proposed Site is

April, 2008 - 63 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

indicative of the fact that any groundwater beneath the site is deep and does not discharge to the marshy area (the only surface water within the vicinity of the proposed site).

Gulleying was noted to occur in the vicinity of Akhali Samgori (750 m to the southeast of the proposed site) where the depths of the gullies reached 3to 5m in some places.

5.5 Physical and Chemical Quality

Baseline geotechnical information and soil and groundwater quality are based on the results from the trial pitting and drilling investigations undertaken at the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008. At the time of writing limited groundwater and surface water quality data were available. The results of laboratory analysis of two groundwater samples taken from monitoring wells at the north edge of the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill site (RLS-GW02 and RLS-GW05) and one sample of surface water (‘irrigation’) taken from the irrigation channel running along the north of the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill site are included in this section. Analytical results from four soil samples taken from locations on the border between the proposed Rustavi municipal and BP landfill site (RLS-GW02 and RLS-GW06) are also taken.

5.5.1 Sampling methodology and analytical programme

Soil

Soil laboratory analysis data can be found in the Environmental Setting and Installation Design Report (Golder April, 2008). Soil samples taken from trial pits and boreholes were scheduled to provide characterisation of the baseline conditions and earthworks testing for potential use of soils within the construction of the landfill site. Soil testing was carried out by the Government of Georgia laboratories to BS1377 Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, British Standards Institute, 1990.

Soil samples were analysed for the following determinands:

• Classification; • Chemical and electrochemical; • Compaction; • Compressibility; • Consolidation and permeability in hydraulic cells; and • Shear strength. Selected soil samples were also analysed for the following determinands:

• TPH (speciated TPHCWG method); • Ammoniacal nitrogen (as N); • Pesticides; • PAHs (speciated); and • Heavy metals (CLEA suite).

April, 2008 - 64 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

At the time of writing, limited results of soil analysis for the last five determinands were available.

Groundwater and surface water

Groundwater laboratory analysis data can be found in the Environmental Setting and Installation Design Report (Golder April, 2008). The analytical suite for groundwater was based on a known past land use and potentially contaminating uses. Groundwater samples were taken and analysed by the Government of Georgia laboratories.

At the time of writing three groundwater monitoring wells contained standing water (RLS-GW02, RLS-GW05 and RLS-GW04), and samples of groundwater from both (RLS-GW02 and RLS-GW05) have been taken. One surface water sample (‘irrigation’) was taken from the irrigation channel to the north of the proposed development, in addition to one further sample taken from it down gradient of the proposed development.

Water samples have been scheduled for analysis for a selection of the following determinands:

• Total cyanide; • Total phenols; • Water soluble sulphate; • pH; • Chloride: • Ammoniacal nitrogen; • Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD); • Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD); • Total Organic Carbon (TOC); • Electrical conductivity; • Dissolved metal suite (B, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn); • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); • Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs); • Combined pesticide suite; • Triazine herbicide suite; and • Major ion chemistry and ionic balance. At the time of writing, the results of analysis of two groundwater samples (RLS-GW02 and RLS-GW05) and one surface water sample (‘irrigation’) result were available.

Gas

Gas monitoring using a portable gas detection meter and undertaken at monitoring well locations. In addition, gas samples were taken from RLS-GW02, and RLS-GW05 to RLS-GW07 on the borders of the proposed BTC site and the proposed Rustavi Municipal landfill site and tested in the laboratory for the following:

April, 2008 - 65 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

• Carbon dioxide; • Hydrogen; • Hydrogen sulphide; • Methane; • Nitrogen; • Oxygen; • Ethane; and • Carbon monoxide. 5.5.2 Site Assessment, Criteria and Standards

Soil

Soil quality standards within Georgia give the maximum permissible concentrations of a suite of parameters, including ranges for different soil types for selected metals and can be found in ‘Method for Assessment of the Level of Chemical Pollution of Soil (MI 2.1.7.004-02), approved by the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs, 2003..

Comprehensive legislation and guidance are also available in a number of EU countries, including for example the Netherlands, UK. For the protection of human health, specific quality standards for a range of contaminants in soil have been published, based on risk assessment of applicable exposure scenarios for realistic site uses, such as residential, commercial and industrial use.

The Rustavi Municipality landfill site is location on agricultural soils which will be excavated and locally stockpiled prior to re-use for landfill daily cover and landscaping. The exposure to the excavation surface will be limited and so possible risks to human health or the environment prior to re-covering with the landfill liner and base will also be limited and predominantly limited to construction activities. As a highly conservative approach, the soil quality data at the excavation depth may be compared with UK Soil Guideline Values (SGV) for a commercial / industrial end use as well as compared to a range of values taken from Georgian standards,.

Groundwater and Surface water

Groundwater samples were taken from groundwater monitoring wells where groundwater was encountered and surface water samples were taken from the irrigation channel. Chemical laboratory testing was scheduled to the minimum reporting standards within the UK Landfill Technical Guidance Note 01 (LTGN01) Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Landfills and the Derivation of Groundwater and Trigger Levels, UK Environment Agency, March 2003. Groundwater concentrations have also been compared to Georgian Drinking Water and Surface Water Standards (as no groundwater standards are available). Furthermore, groundwater data have also been considered in terms of the presence of List I substances and List II substances, and groundwater concentrations will be compared to UK Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs), and EU Drinking Water Standards (EU DWS).

April, 2008 - 66 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Surface water data have also been considered in terms of the presence of List I substances and List II substances and surface water concentrations will be compared to UK EQSs. Where no other criteria exist for specific parameters, surface water concentrations have been compared to EU DWS.

5.5.3 Analytical Results

Soil: Chemical Quality

Baseline soil concentrations from samples taken from locations RLS-GW02 and RLS-GW06 on the border of the proposed Rustavi Municipal landfill site, and the border of the proposed site respectively, are presented in the Table 5.5.3-1 below.

April, 2008 - 67 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Table 5.5.3-1: Soil Chemical Quality Results

Determinand Units Standards Results Lab result below or within acceptable

range (Y/N)

Georgian UK SGV

(Industrial) RLS-GW02 RLS-GW02 RLS-GW02

RLS-GW06 Georgian

UK SGV (Industrial)

Depth (m bgl) 2.1-2.3 4.1-4.7 10.15-10.45 4.0-4.5

Metals and Miscellaneous Boron mg/kg - 900 Arsenic mg/kg 2-10* 500 6.7 8.3 6.5 Y Y Cadmium mg/kg 2* 1400 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Y Y Copper mg/kg 3-132* 55000 50 40 85 Y Y Mercury mg/kg 2.1 480 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 Y Y Nickel mg/kg 4-80* 5000 65 55 55 Y Y Lead mg/kg 32-130* 750 <20 <20 <20 Y Y Selenium mg/kg - 8000 Zinc mg/kg 23-220* - 60 50 75 Y Y pH value - - 8.15 8.10 8.40 8.00 N/A N/A FOC none - - 0.004 0.0033 0.0033 N/A N/A Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHCWG) mg/kg 0.1 - <2.5 <2.5 ?? ?? Phenols (total) mg/kg - 21900*2 Cyanide mg/kg - - Sulphate mg/kg - - Chloride mg/kg - - Ammoniacal nitrogen mg/kg - - 4.65 4.67 3.89 N/A N/A Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene mg/kg 0.3 - Toluene mg/kg 0.3 150 Ethylbenzene mg/kg - 48000 Total xylenes mg/kg 0.3 - Semi Volatile Compounds

April, 2008 - 68 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.02-0.2 30 Isopropylbenzene mg/kg 0.5 - Total PAHs mg/kg - - <2.0 <2.0 N/A N/A Pesticides mg/kg - - <10 <10 N/A N/A DDT (and its metabolite) mg/kg 0.1 - Triazines mg/kg Note: Where a laboratory result is recorded as < this indicates that the determinand is below detectable levels of Xmg/kg. Additionally, blank cells represent data yet to be received * Sodium and neutral (clay and clayey) soil with a pH >5.5 *2 Most conservative value - No screening value available

April, 2008 - 69 - Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0

Golder Associates

All soil chemical quality concentrations were found to be below permissible maximum levels or within acceptable levels when compared against Georgian standards and the UK SGVs. The only possible exceptions were total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations which although reported to be below the method detection limits. In this instance, as the analytical detection limits are higher than the maximum permissible Georgian standard it is possible, although not certain, that the Georgian standard could have been exceeded for this parameter. However, even if petroleum hydrocarbons were present in soils at the method detection limit of 2.5 mg/kg, this would not represent any significant risk to either human health or the environment and is not indicative of significant of hydrocarbon contamination in the soils.

The soils samples exhibit an alkaline pH which indicates the possibility of high exchangeable sodium or sodium salts.

The total PAH and pesticide concentrations in the soil samples are both reported below method detection limits.

In conclusion, with the possible exception of petroleum hydrocarbons as discussed above, no concentrations of the determinands analysed have exceeded their respective criteria within any of the soil samples within the footprint of the proposed landfill site to the immediate east. All of the soils chemical data, including the petroleum hydrocarbon results, demonstrates that the chemical quality of the soils should not present a significant risk either to human health or to the environment during the construction of the proposed landfill.

Soil: Physical Quality

Each of the material groups listed in Section 5.4.3, Table 5.4.3 – Summary of Local Geology, have been further divided, with the exception of topsoil and mudstone, to account for characteristic variations, such as strength and colour. Physical properties for the various soil types have been obtained from laboratory testing of the samples collected during the 2008 ground investigation. Where results have not been available, appropriate values have been chosen from literature and standards which are referenced in Table 5.5.3-2:Soil Parameters.

The results indicate that the soils have low total organic carbon, with high levels reported for Loss on Ignition, which indicates high concentrations of carbonates within the soils. At the time of writing, no further chemical quality results were available.

April, 2008 - 70 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Table 5.5.3-2: Soil Parameters Unit Weight Moisture Content Plasticity SPT Shear Strength Permeability

Undrained Drained Soil Dry Bulk % PL LL PI N values Cu Øu C' Ø' kv

Material Grouping Units kN/m3 kN/m3 % % % kN/m2 Deg kN/m2 Deg m/s

1 Topsoil 173 (17) 173 (17) 12.244 <205 (0) Dark brown stiff CLAY 193 (19) 193 (19) 23.001 61.401 27.001 34.401 26.01 >755 (0) 244 (24) 2 Light brown stiff CLAY 193 (19) 193 (19) 23.501 55.601 24.201 31.401 20.21 >755 (0) 254 (25) 1.40E-121

Light brown stiff LOAMY CLAY 193 (19) 193 (19) 19.481 53.401 22.651 30.251 20.01 >755 (0) 25.54 (25.5) 3 Brown stiff LOAMY CLAY 193 (19) 193 (19) 21.201 48.331 24.001 24.331 25.51 >755 (0) 26.54 (26.5) 1.70E-121

Dark brown stiff CLAY with gypsum 193 (19) 193 (19) 23.221 51.251 22.001 29.251 34.01 >755 (0) 274 (27) Dark brown soft CLAY with gypsum 173 (17) 173 (17) 30.201 55.001 24.001 31.001 >205 (0) 24.54 (24.5) 4 Brown slightly sandy CLAY 183 (18) 183 (18) 18.401 56.001 32.001 24.001 >405 (0) 26.754 (26.8)

1.60E-131

GRAVEL in loamy clay matrix 16-183 (17) 20-21 3 (20) 12.531 18->501 (0) 414 (35) GRAVEL in loamy sand matrix 16-183 (17) 20-213 (20) 14.331 >501 (0) 414 (35) 5 Coarse GRAVEL/COBBLES 16-183 (17) 20-213 (20) 8.101 >502 (0) 414 (35)

6 MUDSTONE 213 (21) 213 (21) >501 Not Received 1. Site Specific Laboratory result (values are the mean value for the test based on data received to 3 April 2008) 2 Engineering Judgement 3 BS8002:1994 Code of Practice for earth retaining structures 4 Correlation of Soil Properties by M Carter and S P Bentley 5 BS5930:1990 Code of practice for site investigations Note that figures shown in brackets (x) are Proposed Values.

April, 2008 - 71 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Groundwater and Surface Water Quality

The baseline groundwater and surface water concentrations from samples taken from groundwater monitoring wells RLS-GW02 and RLS-GW05 located on the border of the proposed Rustavi Municipal and BP landfill sites, and the irrigation channel to the north of the proposed site are presented in the Table 5.5.3-3 below:

Table 5.5.3-3: Groundwater and Surface Water Quality Results

Determinant Standards Results Metals and Miscellaneous

Georgian DWS

Georgian Surface

EU DWS EQS RLS

GW02 RLS- GW05

Irrigation 1

Meet all Standards

Y/N

Boron 0.5 0.5 1 2 3.75 2.94 2.1

N – does not meet

any standards

Arsenic 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Y Cadmium 0.003 - 0.005 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Y Chromium - 0.5* 0.05 0.25 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Y Copper 2 1 2 0.112 0.023 0.03 0.02 Y Mercury 0.006 0.0005 0.001 0.001 <0.0002 0.00024 0.00020 Y Nickel 0.07 0.1 0.02 0.2 <0.01 0.02 <0.02 Y Lead 0.01 0.3 0.01 0.25 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Y

Selenium

0.01 0.1 0.01 - 0.014 0.028 <0.015

N – does not meet

any standards

Zinc 3 1 - 2 0.048 0.034 0.060 Y Calcium - - - - 480.0 480.0 472.0 N/A Magnesium 1500 - - - 420.0 432.6 261.6 Y

Sodium

200 200 200 - 3201 2387 1628.0

N – does not meet

any standards

Potassium - - - - 28.6 16.5 5.06 N/A Bicarbonate - - - - 173.2 111.02 295.25 N/A Carbonate - - - - <0.1 <0.1 4.8 N/A Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 0.1 - - -

Phenols (total) - 0.0001 - - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Y Cyanide (total) 0.07 - 0.05 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Y

Sulphate

250 - 250 - 7800 4988 3680

N – does not meet

any standards

Chloride

250 - 250 - 2251 1857.6 1127.0

N – does not meet

any standards

Ammoniacal nitrogen - - 0.5 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Y

pH (pH value) 6-9 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.5 6-9 7.2 7.3 8.1 Y BOD - 6.0 - - 2.4 3.96 4.72 Y COD - 30 - - 235.6 16.32 2.72 N – the

April, 2008 - 72 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Determinant Standards Results Metals and Miscellaneous

Georgian DWS

Georgian Surface

EU DWS EQS RLS

GW02 RLS- GW05

Irrigation 1

Meet all Standards

Y/N sample

from RLS GW02

does not meet any standard

TOC - - - - 88.5 5.44 0.9 N/A

EC (S/cm)

- - 0.0025 - 0.02093 0.01456 0.008333

N – does not meet

any standards

Volatile Organic Compounds - <1 <1 <1 N/A

Benzene - 0.5 0.001 0.03 Toluene - 0.5 - 0.05 Ethylbenzene - 0.01 - - Total xylenes - - - 0.03 Semi Volatile Compounds <1 <1 <1 N/A

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.000005 0.00001 - Isopropylbenzene 0.1 - - Pesticides - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A Triazines - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 N/A Notes: * Chromium III *2 Atrazine and simazine - No screening value available It should be noted that blank cells represent data yet to be received. All concentrations in mg/l unless otherwise stated. All concentrations of determinants were found to be below or within expectable ranges of Georgian and EU standards with the exception of those detailed below:

The concentrations of boron within the groundwater (3.75/2.94 mg/l) and surface water (2.1 mg/l) were slightly above the Georgian Standards, and the List II EQS criteria for boron in the EU Dangerous Substances Directive (DSD). In addition, the concentrations of boron in groundwater and surface water at the proposed site were above the EU DWS (1 mg/l).

The selenium concentration within the groundwater (0.014 and 0.028 mg/l) was above the Georgian Standards and the EU DWS. The selenium concentration within the surface water (<0.015 mg/l) was potentially above the EU DWS; however, it was not above the Georgian Surface Water Standards.

Sodium concentrations within the groundwater (3201/2387 mg/l) and surface water (1628 mg/l) were approximately one order of magnitude greater than the Georgian Standards and the EU DWS for sodium.

April, 2008 - 73 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Sulphate concentrations within the groundwater (7800/4988 mg/l) and surface water (3680 mg/l) were an order of magnitude greater than the Georgian Drinking Water Standards and the EU DWS for sulphate.

Chloride concentrations within the groundwater (2251/1858 mg/l) and surface water (1127.0 mg/l) were greater than the Georgian Drinking Water Standards and the EU DWS for chloride.

The electrical conductivity of groundwater (0.02093/0.01456 S/cm) and surface water (0.008333 S/cm) exceeded the EU DWS of 0.0025 S/cm.

The following conclusions can be made from the above set of baseline analytical results:

• The groundwater is non potable due to the exceedences of the EU DWS by boron and electrical conductivity, and exceedences of the Georgian Standards and the EU DWS by chloride, sodium, selenium, and sulphate;

• The baseline groundwater quality has detectable List I substances cyanide and mercury; • The baseline groundwater quality exceeds the EQS in respect of boron; and • The baseline surface water quality meets the EQSs for those substances that have been

analysed but is non-potable because of concentrations of boron, chloride, sodium, selenium, sulphate and electrical conductivity; and

• On-going groundwater and surface baseline sampling and laboratory analysis of dissolved metals (filtered on site groundwater and surface water samples) should be continued to firmly establish the existing baseline conditions. At least two more sets of samples from all boreholes containing groundwater and surface water samples should be undertaken, with a 4 week interval between sampling periods.

Gas

Results of the gas monitoring taken from monitoring wells RLS-GW02, and RLS-GW05-RLS-GW07 on the borders of the proposed Rustavi Municipal and BTC landfill sites are presented in the Table 5.5.3-4 below:

Table 5.5.3-4: Gas Monitoring Results

Gas Units RLS-GW02 RLS-GW05 RLS-GW06 RLS-GW07 Nitrogen % 81.75 81.59 79.92 80.11 Oxygen % 17.45 17.6 19.2 19.01 Argon % 0.77 0.78 0.85 0.85 Hydrogen ppm <1 <1 <1 <1 Methane ppm <3 <3 <3 <3 Ethane ppm <3 <3 <3 <3 Carbon Dioxide ppm <400 <400 <400 <400 Carbon Monoxide ppm <1 <1 <1 <1 Hydrogen Sulphide ppm <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

April, 2008 - 74 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Baseline concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, and carbon monoxide recorded within monitoring wells RLS-GW02, RLS-GW05, RLS-GW06 and RLS-GW07 were all below detection limits.

Based on the results presented, and the fact that methane, ethane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide hydrogen sulphide and hydrogen are all below detection levels and all other gas levels are as expected for background air constituents, it is considered that natural ground gas from within the proposed site should present no impact to the proposed site. However, during operations landfill gas will be generated from within the waste deposited. Therefore ground gas should be monitored as part of the environmental monitoring plan.

5.5.4 Wastes

The Rustavi Municipality landfill site is undeveloped land that is not in any formalised agricultural usage. As such, there has been no known nor evident waste deposits on the site.

5.6 Hydrology

5.6.1 Data Availability

Data used in the completion of the hydrological assessment have been taken from the following sources:

• Climate data from January to December 2007, provided by State Department of Hydrometeorology of Georgia for Tbilisi Airport;

• IDC Akhali Samgori Landfill Survey Report, 2007 (IDC Report); and • IDC Topographical Survey carried out by IDC on behalf of BTC October 2007. Measured rainfall data for the entire year of 2007 have been provided by the State Department of Hydrometeorology of Georgia for Tbilisi Airport. These data have been summarised and presented in Table 5.6.1-1 below.

Table 5.6.1-1: Rainfall Data from Tbilisi Airport for Period January to December 2007

Month Total Rainfall (mm) Peak 12 hour rainfall (mm) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

7.2 8.2

56.3 125.9 11.3 95.1 40.9 19.5 0.8

21.3 90.6 5.4

7 3.7 16 25 6

44.2 12 6

0.2 15 38 3

Annual Rainfall (2007) 482.5

April, 2008 - 75 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Due to limited measured rainfall data (12 months from January to December 2007), return period data in the IDC Report have also been used to complement the State Department data and to generate rainfall and surface water data in this assessment. Nevertheless, these measured data have been used to provide some quality assurance for flow calculations presented later in this report.

The IDC report provides estimated catchment delineations for each of the gullies that flow through the Site. Catchment outlines are presented in Figure 5.6.1 below. Additional data provided in the IDC report that have been used in the hydrological assessment are presented in Table 5.6.1-2 below. These data comprise return period rainfall data, catchment areas for catchments upgradient of the gullies which flow through the Site and rainfall event durations.

Figure 5.6.1: Catchment Areas as Defined in the IDC Report of October 2007

Flow data were also provided in the IDC report using the rainfall data presented in Table 5.5.2. However, these flow data have not been used in this hydrological assessment. Golder has generated flows using methodologies which are described in Section 6.3 of this report. The flow generated by Golder has however been compared with the IDC flows in Appendix H1 as a quality assurance measure.

Surface water catchments have been divided into two areas based upon the catchments delineated in Figure 5.6.1. It is assumed that flow from both Catchment 1 (flowing towards

April, 2008 - 76 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

the Western Gully) and Catchment 2 (flowing towards the Central Gully) has the potential to impact the Site. The Western and Central Gully locations are presented in Appendix H2 (Figure H1).

Table 5.6.1-2: Catchment Data Obtained from IDC Report

Catchment Catchment Description

Catchment Area (m2) Return Period Rainfall

(mm) Rainfall event duration

(minutes) 100 47.5 25.7 50 40.9 29 20 33.6 34.5

1 Western Gully 120,000

10 28.6 37.4 100 38.6 15.2 50 34.3 17.6 20 28.7 20.8

2 Central Gully 90,000

10 25 24.2 All data provided in the IDC report have been empirically generated from parameters which are not commonly used in the EU. However, in the absence of extensive rainfall records, it is assumed that rainfall return period data generated by IDC are appropriate for this assessment.

IDC Topographical Site Survey carried out by IDC in October 2007 on behalf of BTC. The survey includes bed and bank level cross sections of the gullies located in and around the Site. These data have been used to estimate flows in the existing gullies on Site. Appendix H2 (Figure H1) presents the location of gully cross sections which have been used.

5.6.2 Geology

A description of the geology underlying the application site is presented in Section 5.4 above. The surface geology on the Site has been considered when generating runoff coefficients. It was assumed that the majority of the Site and surrounding area comprises loamy clay, as indicated by trial pit descriptions produced in January 2008 by Geoengineering Ltd for the Golder Conceptual Design Report (March 2008).

5.6.3 Topography

Topographical data relating to the Site and the up-gradient catchments which are used in this assessment, was derived from a site survey carried out by IDC in October 2007 on behalf of BTC and are presented in Appendix H3.

The application site is bounded to the south by an east to west trending escarpment which has a peak of approximately 460.4m Above Datum (AD).

The existing topography of the Site and surrounding area slopes from south to north, which promotes drainage of surface water runoff from the hills above the Site towards the concrete

April, 2008 - 77 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

lined irrigation channel (Irrigation Channel) north of the Site Boundary. The northern extent of the landfill is at an approximate elevation of 413m AOD and the Irrigation Channel adjacent to the Site is at an elevation of between 405 m AOD and 406 m AOD.

5.6.4 Hydrology and Site Drainage

The local hydrological network consists of small unnamed gullies, which are linked to one another, flowing from the south. These gullies are shown in Appendix H2 (Figure H1). According to the IDC report (2007), the gullies experience relatively high water levels in spring, attributed to intensive rain and snow melt. During other periods they are dry.

Appendix H2 (Figure H1) indicates that one gully is currently located through the propoed Site (Eastern Gully). Appendix H2 (figure H1) indicates that the Eastern Gully flows towards both a small gully (Northern Gully) and the Irrigation Channel. The Northern Gully and the Irrigation Channel flow from east to west and are located parallel to a dirt road for approximately 430m before the irrigation channel diverges northwards. The Northern Gully is south of the dirt road and the irrigation channel is north of the dirt road.

Appendix H2 (Figure H1) shows another gully is located approximately 30m west of the landfill (Central Gully). Central Gully is located parallel to the Site boundary and stops adjacent to the Site. It is assumed that any flow from this gully will form overland flow at this outfall.

Appendix H2 (Figure H1) shows another gully (Western Gully), which flows westwards and stops approximately 35m west of the Site. It is assumed to have no impact upon the Site.

5.6.5 Surface Water Runoff

The Rational Method (Shaw, 2004) was used to estimate the flow in the gullies, which can be generated by runoff during storm events. Details of the Rational Method can be found in presented in Appendix H4, was applied to return period rainfall data. This method estimates that flow generated in Catchment 2 which should be conveyed by the Central Gully would be 2.5 m3/s and 1.3 m3/s for the 100 and 20 year return period rainfall events respectively.

This method estimates that flow generated in catchment 3 which should be conveyed by the Central Gully would be 2.1 m3/s and 1.1 m3/s for the 100 and 20 year return period rainfall events respectively.

It must be noted that these flows are considered comparable to the flows generated in the IDC report (2007), which are also presented in Appendix H1. This provides added confidence in both the IDC data and Golder calculations.

April, 2008 - 78 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

The Rational Method applied to the largest measured rainfall event (44mm in 12 hours, June 2007) is presented in Appendix H1. This method estimates that flow generated in Catchment 2 which should be conveyed by the Central Gully would be 0.06m3/s during this event.

According to the Manning’s Calculation carried out in Appendix H4, the Central Gully that runs parallel to the Site is currently capable of conveying a maximum flow of 0.27m3/s. Although this should currently convey all the flow generated during the June 2007 event, it would currently not convey high return period flows.

5.6.6 Other surface water flood risks

It is considered that the only significant channel capable of generating a fluvial flood risk to the Site is the Irrigation Channel to the north of the Site. However due to the difference in elevation of the Irrigation channel and the Site (greater than 6 m), and the extensive area at an elevation below the Site, there is not considered to be an existing risk of fluvial flooding at the Site.

Groundwater levels which have been measured in the vicinity of the Site, See Section 5.6, Hydorgeology, indicate that there is not significant risk of groundwater flooding at the Site.

5.7 Traffic and Infrastructure

5.7.1 Introduction

The Site is located 3.5km east of Rustavi, in 3km from the 5th kilometre of Gamarjveba-Rustavi road, 1.1km north to Akhali Samgori, Gardabani region. The “footprint” of the BTC landfill site is planned to be 2.6 ha. . The project area is accessed along an existing track to the south of the Site which will be upgraded as required for the purposes of the landfill. The track meets the public highway to the west of the Site.

The area immediately to the east of the Site is planned to be used as the Rustavi municipal landfill site. Other commercial developments near to the Site include a poultry farm and a sheetrock production plant, located in approximately 1.5km to the west-northwest of the Site. No other developments are anticipated in the foreseeable future in the area surrounding the Site which would have an effect on the traffic flows.

The sensitive receptors which may be affected by potential increase of the traffic flow include the residential areas (Akhali Samgori and Rustavi located 1.1km to the south and 3.5km to the west of the Site respectively).

Airports at Vaziani (military) and Tbilisi (civilian) are located 3.5 km to the northwest of the site and 10km to the northwest of the site respectively.

April, 2008 - 79 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

As the road through the residential area will not be used by traffic associated with the construction or operation of the BTC landfill site, any direct traffic related impacts on these settlements can be discounted at thisstage..

5.7.2 Methodology for baseline data collection

A survey was undertaken to provide baseline data on traffic volumes in the project area to enable an assessment of potential impacts of the planned development on the traffic and infrastructure. The survey was carried out between February and March, 2008. The objectives of the survey were to:

• Estimate total vehicle count split by directions and vehicle types; • Assess (based on the historic data, as duration of observation was limited in time)

seasonal variations of traffic flows; • Identify the number of vehicles along the key routes; • Identify sensitive receptors; and • Enable an estimate of the impacts of project related traffic on existing flows at different

times of the day with consideration of proposed landfill construction and operation schedules.

The methodology of the survey included:

• Communication with the transport authorities to obtain historic data on traffic and schedules of public transport (if any);

• Review of the status of existing infrastructure/roads; • Current land use and a review of information available relating to planned development

in the area with regard to their potential impacts on infrastructure/traffic flow; • Review of historic traffic flow and trends data; • Review of traffic safety data (where available) and identification of potentially

sensitive receptors; • Traffic data evaluation; and • Assessment of the traffic volume trends. Monday morning and Friday evening rush hours, weekends and holidays have not been included in the survey as including these in the count may have resulted in volumes different from the normal flow. Taking into account the proposed operation schedule for the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill, baseline data collection was undertaken to include typical proposed operating days (i.e. Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Monday). The proposed operating schedule was also taken into account when selecting of the length of the baseline sampling period and duration of the traffic count sessions.

With consideration of the direction from which the waste will be transported, five locations were selected for observation ( see Figure 5.7.2-1 below for locations):

April, 2008 - 80 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Figure 5.7.2-1: Map of the Area with Indication of Observation Points

I D 1

I D 2

I D 3

I D4

Akhali Samgori

SAGORI MEPRINVELEOBA

PLASTERBOARD PLANT

Tbilisi - Rustavi road turning to Samgori Meprinveleoba and

plasterboard plant

Tbilisi - Rustavi turning to cemetery

Rustavi – Akhali Samgori road

Project area

width7 m

width 8.4 m

width7.6 m

width 8.4 m

width 8.4 m

width 6 m

width 9 m

width 8 m

- Observation point

April, 2008 - 81 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

• Crossroad to Samgori Meprinveleoba (ID1); • Turning to the site and the plasterboard plant (ID2); • Crossroad south west to the project area, crossroad to cemetery (ID3); and • Road connecting Akhali Samgori to Rustavi (ID4).

The manual traffic volume count method was used.

Traffic counts were carried out on Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Monday. Typical count periods were 15 minutes. Observation was carried out from 08:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs.

Information regarding vehicle classification, movement directions, hourly patterns, and daily variations was collected. As observation time was limited in terms of seasonality – seasonal variations and growth trends with consideration of the load related to construction and operation of the landfill and other activities planned in the area were assessed based on historic information, which was limited to a number of key stakeholder interviews.

In the course of the survey the following classification of vehicles has been used as shown in Table 5.7.2 below:

Table 5.7.2: Vehicle Categories

Vehicle type Category Bicycles Slow Animal drawn carts Slow Motorcycles Light vehicle Agricultural vehicles Light vehicle Cars Light vehicle Minibuses Light vehicle Buses Heavy vehicle Trucks Heavy vehicle Calculations of the traffic flows for different types of intersections were carried out using the State of Florida Department of Transport methodology1 given below.

1 Project Traffic Handbook, Department of Transportation, State of Florida, USA

April, 2008 - 82 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Calculation of turns at Y type intersection

Figure 5.7.2-2: Y type intersection

A&B=(A+B-C)/2; B&C=(B+C-A)/2; A&C=(A+C-B)/2

Calculation of turns at X type intersection (values used in calculation given below are given as example to facilitate description of methodology)

Figure 5.7.2-3: X type intersection

A = B =

C =

A&B

B&C A&C

A =700

B=2800

D =4900

C =4200

April, 2008 - 83 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

1. From larger A or C substract the smaller A or C 4200-700=3500; 2. From larger B or D substract the smaller B or D 4900-2800=2100; 3. From the larger difference substract the smaller difference, divide remainder by 2 to

obtain diagonal-turn-volume-difference 3500-2100=1400; 1400/2=700; 4. From the larger difference substract the last calculated value 3500-700=2800; 5. This remainder is the second-turn-volume-difference; 6. Position the last two calculated diagonal-turn-volume-difference so that the original end

volume is satisfied if the two other turning movements are zero; and 7. Approximate the turns which were taken as zero by prorating the smaller end volume to

the other three legs

Figure 5.7.2-4: X type intersection

A is smallest =700, so base=B+C+D=2800+4200+4900=11900

Proportional constant for A

Ka=A/(B+C+D) = 700/11900=0.0588

Turns between A&B=KaxB=0.0588x2800=164 (20 rounds)____ 160

Turns between A&D=KaxD=0.0588x4900=288 (20 rounds) ____ 280

8. To the approximated minor turns add the opposite diagonal-turn-volume difference to obtain the remaining turn volumes

280+700=980

A =700

B=2800

D =4900

C =4200

2800 700

00

April, 2008 - 84 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

160+2800=2960

Figure 5.7.2-5: X type intersection

9. From the end volumes subtract the turn volumes to obtain the through volumes

700-380-160=260

2800-160-980=1660

Figure 5.7.2-6: X type intersection

A =700

B=2850

D =4900

C =4200

2800 (160+2800)

160 280

980 (280+700)

A =700

B=2850

D =4900

C =4200

2800 (160+2800)

160 280

2800 (160+2800)

1660

260

April, 2008 - 85 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

5.7.3 Traffic

No numeric historic data on traffic flows were found to be available. Historically, Rustavi used to be one of the main industrial centres of Georgia, and as such two way flows along the road connecting Tbilisi to Rustavi (ID1, ID4, ID5) were traditionally high. Flows used to include a bus connection between Rustavi and Tbilisi, which no longer operates. Today, the main public transport connection between the two cities is a minibus service which operates on average at intervals of four minutes.

Part of the road system under consideration (section from Tbilisi to the bypass road) serves traffic to and from the Kakheti region. This section experiences seasonality in traffic flow to and from Kakheti during the autumn (September to November) the grape harvesting period. However the survey undertaken for this impact assessment was limited to February and March and, as a result, no such seasonal variations were recorded. As for other changes in traffic flow, its intensity generally depends on meteorological conditions, in particular in winter, the flow of light vehicles is less. Clearly, given the sampling period for baseline data collection, no exact observation data can be provided to demonstrate this.

Precise historical statistics on accidents and incident data along the roads under consideration are not available. However, it can be assumed that the risk of collisions/accidents along Tbilisi-Rustavi and Rustavi-Akhali Samgory roads/intersections is higher than at other roads where the traffic volume and traffic speed is generally limited. Road signs along the main roads are available, other security measures (such as observation cameras) are installed only within the limits of the city.

Calculation of turns and prevailing traffic directions together with the percentage of light and heavy vehicles by observation points based on the traffic count survey are given in Figures in Appendix T1 (Figure T1 – T5). Observations carried out in different periods of the day have not revealed any distinct peak hours. Therefore the values given in Figures T1 – T5 (in Appendix T1) are average daily flow rates.

No vehicles generally ascribed to the slow category (bicycles, animal drawn carts) were reported to be observed in the studied intersections. Figure 5.7.3 show the dominance of the light vehicles in almost all of the studied locations.

April, 2008 - 86 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Figure 5.7.3: Proportion of Light and Heavy Vehicles at the Different Observation Points over the Sampling Period

Light and heavy vehicles traffic, ID1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Tue, 11 March , Fri, 15 March Sat, 16 March Mon, 18 March

Date, month

Qty

veh

icle

s, a

vera

ge d

aily

Light vehicles

Heavy vehicles

Light and heavy vehicles traffic, ID2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Tue, 11 March , Fri, 15 March Sat, 16 March Mon, 18 March

Date, month

Qty

of v

ehic

les,

dai

ly a

vera

ge

Light vehicles

Heavy vehicles

Light and heavy vehicles traffic, ID3

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Tue, 11 March , Fri, 15 March Sat, 16 March Mon, 18 March

Date, month

Qty

of v

ehic

les,

ave

rage

dai

ly

Light vehicles

Heavy vehicles

Light and heavy vehicles, ID4

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Tue, 11 March , Fri, 15 March Sat, 16 March Mon, 18 March

Date, month

Qty

of v

ehic

les,

ave

rage

dai

ly

Light vehicles

Heavy vehicles

5.7.4 Infrastructure

General observation of the road network status in relation to the capacity and safety of the roads leads to the following conclusions:

• Road surfaces are poorly managed; • Road markings are often missing; • Signage is poor; • Safety infrastructure is not always adequate; and • Crash barriers and safety infrastructure is poor. The actual carriageway and shoulder widths of the roads under consideration were identified and shown in Table 5.7.4 below:

April, 2008 - 87 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Table 5.7.4: Carriageway Characteristics at Observation Points

ID Location Carriageway width (m)

Shoulder (m)

Note

1 Tbilisi-Rustavi road - Turning to the poultry farm

8.4 m (Tbilisi-Rustavi dir) 7.6 m (turning to the site)

1 Y type intersection

2 Turning to the plasterboard plant – west to the site

7 m 1 Y type intersection, one branch currently not used for traffic

3 Crossroad south west to the site

8.4 m (Tbilisi-Rustavi dir) 9 m (road, dir. opposite to cemetery) 6 m (turning to cemetery)

1-1.5 X type intersection

4 Rustavi toAkhali Samgori 8 m 1-1.5 X type intersection The width and capacity of the assess roads allows unhindered traffic. No traffic jams were observed.

5.8 Noise

5.8.1 Introduction

Baseline monitoring of ambient noise levels at the nearest residential receptor was undertaken on a week day and a weekend day. The results did not indicate whether the reported data referred to ambient (Leq) or background (L90) levels. However, is was subsequently established that the data is intended to represent background (L90) levels. The data suggest that:

• A typical weekday daytime background noise level, measured as L901hour, vary between 32-74 dB(A); and

• Typical weekend daytime background noise levels, measured as L901hour, vary between 38-75 dB(A).

The measured 1-hourly values are irregular in level and vary over ranges of 37-42dB. Such large variations are unusual and a more consistent pattern of level would normally be expected. Furthermore, certain absolute levels are unusually high, for example a background noise level of 74 dBLA90 1hour at a residential property. Such a level may be experienced as an instantaneous or short-term level, however it is believed that it is unlikely to occur as a 1 hour level. For these two reasons, individually and in combination, it is believed that there is sufficient uncertainty over the measured data for it to be regarded as unreliable. Consequently, it has been decided not to reply on the measured data for a description of the existing baseline noise conditions in this ESIA.

April, 2008 - 88 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

As an alternative, a conservative approach to assumed baseline noise levels has been adopted using the International Finance Corporation2 guidelines. It should be noted that there are no criteria or baseline standards tabulated within the guidance for sources of vibration.

5.8.2 Study Area

The noise and vibration assessments have considered the closest sensitive receptors to the landfill site. The human receptors considered within the assessment are off-site and beyond the boundary of the proposed landfill site.

The closest human receptors to the site are in the village of Akhali Samgori, approximately 1.2 km south-east of the site. There are no other residential receptors within 2 km of the site.

The sources of noise that may impact the nearest receptors include:

• Operation of plant and machinery within the proposed landfill site; and • The use of off-site plant to transport waste materials to the landfill site. Taking account of the shortest separation distance of approximately 1.2 km between the site and the nearest receptor, it is unlikely that vibration levels arising from on-site activities would ever approach the adopted limits of 5 mm/s (peak particle velocity (ppv)) at the nearest receptors. Therefore, no further assessment of possible impacts associated with vibration has been undertaken for this impact assessment.

5.9 Landscape and Visual

5.9.1 Receptors

The nearest receptors are villages at Akhali Samgori, 1.2km to the southeast of the proposed Site. Given the profile of the landscape between the village and the proposed Site (see below for details), the proposed landfill development cannot be viewed from any of the properties in the village.

Other potential receptors in the area are travellers utilising the road to Akhali Samgori, approximately 250m to the west of the proposed site and herdsmen travelling across local pasture.

5.9.2 Baseline data collection

A field survey has undertaken to evaluate the landscape and visual amenity of the area at and surrounding the proposed landfill development.

2 International Finance Corporation, April 2007, EHS Guidelines: Noise Management.

April, 2008 - 89 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

The land generally falls from a weathered escarpment feature approximately 50m to the south of the Site boundaries at approximately 428m Above Datum (AD) to the northern boundaries of the proposed Site (413mAD) continuing to the irrigation channel and water course to the north of the Site with associated marshy ground at approximately 407mAD.

The area forms part of the Kvemo Kartli lowland, Samgori-Miraani region of Mtkvari River depression, and is located in, the southernmost part of Samgory valley.

Landform.

The proposed landfill site is located on the western end of north-west slope of Arkhasheni, approximately 1.2km north-west Akhali Samgori village. The terrain in the area of the Site is basically flat with a slight slope falling towards the north-west. A hilly area borders the Site to the south / south-east and the slight slope to the north-west gradually transitions with distance into a flat plain.. An irrigation channel runs through the lowest lying marshy areas to the north of the proposed landfill site. The proposed landfill site is crossed by two dry gullies which only carry surface water during heavy rains.

To the south-east the Site borders an area of smooth hillocks intresected by sheetrock quarry trenches, pits and mounds (Figure 5.9.2-1). The slope is on average between 10 to 12% sloping in a downward towards the northwest.

Figure 5.9.2-1: General View from the Proposed Site to a South-East Direction towards the Village of Akhali Samgori

The northern boundary of the proposed landfill site is bordered by an area of marshy wetland separated from the proposed landfill site by an irrigation channel. Vegetation of the wetland is

April, 2008 - 90 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

typical for such type of terrain and is dominated by sedges and reeds. The Samgori poultry factory is located 2 km to the north-west of the Site. (Figure 5.9.2-2).

Figure 5.9.2-2: View from the Proposed Site to the North and the Marshy Area and Irrigation Channel

The south the proposed landfill site borders agricultural land, with the road to the village of Akhali Samgori further to the west, southwest and south of the site. The Akhali Samgori plasterboard plants (operating and under construction) are located to the south of the proposed site (Figure 5.9.2-3).

Figure 5.9.2-3: View from the Proposed Site to the South and Towards the Akhali Samgori Road

April, 2008 - 91 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

To the east the Site borders on agricultural land, which gradually transforms to hillocks. The area is not populated and is mainly used as a pasture. (Figure 5.9.2-4.).

Figure 5.9.2-4:View from the Proposed Site to the East

According to the ranking given above, the landscape can be classified as being of ordinary quality and not sensitive.

Vegetation

The Samgori valley, in particular the Site area supports a poor variety of vegetation. Historically the area was covered with light forest. However the area has been completely deforested as a result of overgrazing and wood felling. The observed vegetation present in the Site are is secondary and the majority of the recorded herbaceous species are classified as weeds.

Land use and availability of built forms

The study area surrounding the proposed Site is used for cereal cultivation and partly as agricultural pasture. No buildings or other structures are present on or in the close vicinity of the Site.

Other developments within or next to the study area

The only other known development planned within the Site area is the Rustavi Municipality landfill. This landfill will be located immediately to the east of the proposed BTC landfill site. No information on other planned developments in the area is available.

April, 2008 - 92 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Visual Receptors

The proposed landfill site is in an area remote from both residential and industrial visual receptors. Hence people who will potentially be affected by the change in the landscape/view related to the development of the proposed landfill will be limited mainly to the travellers/commuters using the road to Akhali Samgori running south/southwest of the proposed landfill site. Other people who may be affected in terms of visual impact are farmers and herdsmen as the area is mainly used for agricultural purposes.

The nearest residents to the proposed landfill site in Akhali Samgori village will only be able to view the proposed site when involved travelling. The village is approximately 1.2km from the proposed landfill site and the local residents cannot view the site from ground level or any elevated viewpoints within the village. However, it is assumed, that all local residents are familiar with the local landscape and may be sensitive to changes in particular views that are important to them. Impact on commuters is generally limited and will have relatively narrow field of view of the proposed Site. Any change in the landscape form or view is unlikely to be of great importance to drivers. Passengers, however, have more time to enjoy views and many therefore have a greater perception of changes in the visual environment.

Proposed Landfill Site Visibility

An analysis of project visibility was undertaken to identify those locations within the study area from where there is potential for the proposed landfill to be seen. The area is flat and almost devoid of vegetation, in particular trees. Taking this into account and the topography and landform, the main viewpoints from where the change can be visible have been identified. The proposed landfill site will be visible from 5.0-5.5 km distance from viewpoints to the east and north. From other directions the landfill site will only be visible from closer distances.

Two viewpoints were identified which were deemed to represent points where the greatest change in view would be encountered. VP1 (Figure 5.9.2-5.) takes into account the hilly topography to the south-east which would provide an elevated view of the proposed landfill site. VP2 (Figure 5.9.2-6.) takes account of the view likely to be encountered at the road to Akhali Samgori to the south/southwest of the proposed landfill site. A location plan of the view points is shown in Figure 5.9.2-7.

April, 2008 - 93 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Figure 5.9.2-5: View of the Proposed Landfill Site and VP1 from the Hill South-East to the Site

Figure 5.9.2-6: View of the Proposed Landfill Site and VP2 From Akhali Samgori Road South to the Site

VP1

VP1

Project site

Project site

VP2

April, 2008 - 94 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Figure 5.9.2-7: Map Showing Location of the Proposed Landfill Site and View Points VP1 and VP2

VP1

VP2

Nearest settlement, Akhali Samgori is in about 1.2-1.5km from the site

Project area

April, 2008 - 95 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

5.10 Cultural Heritage

5.10.1 Introduction

This section details the cultural heritage baseline for the Rustavi Municipality landfill project. Prior to the commencement of site data collection, there were no known records of any receptors of cultural heritage value located within or about the project Site. This was not evidence of absence, but a result of the region as a whole receiving little previous attention from archaeologists and cultural resource specialists, apart from the archaeological survey work undertaken during the Georgian BTC Pipeline Project, which lies c. 0.5 km to the south of the Site. The Phase I (literature search) and Phase II (reconnaissance survey) elements of this earlier work encompassed the area of the proposed project and did not identify any cultural heritage receptors within project site boundary. However, it was considered appropriate and necessary to conduct a further field survey to investigate whether such receptors were present and which, if any, would be affected by the project.

The cultural heritage baseline data collection was focussed on the principal area and was undertaken by Irina Demetradze and Zurab Tskvitinidze, the Cultural Heritage Field Monitors employed by the client (BTC), who also carried out the Culutral and Heritage Field Monitoring on the earlier BTC Pipeline Project.

This work was undertaken in accordance with the ‘Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage’ 2007 (Ministry of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sports of Georgia) and in accordance with the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC 2007) Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability (Guidance Note 8: Cultural Heritage), prepared by and with the Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update No. 8, ‘Cultural Heritage in Environmental Assessment’ (The World Bank 1994).

Guidance Note 8 states:

‘….cultural heritage refers to tangible forms of cultural heritage, such as tangible property and sites having archaeological (prehistoric), paleontological, historical, cultural, artistic, and religious values, as well as unique natural environmental features that embody cultural values, such as sacred groves….intangible forms of culture, such as cultural knowledge, innovations and practices of communities embodying traditional lifestyles, are also included’.

Guidance Note 8 (IFC 2007) explains that tangible cultural heritage resources can include:

• Archaeological sites (including natural sites of cultural importance); • Historic structures; • Historic districts; • Historic or cultural landscapes; and • Archaeological artefacts.

April, 2008 - 96 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

The work was also undertaken in accordance with the Georgian ‘Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment’ 2002 9Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources. Article 7, paragraph 3 states:

‘Environmental impact assessment includes to reveal, describe and examine results of direct or indirect impact in the context of the planned activity:…

…f) impact on historical monuments and cultural values’.

The objectives and methodologies for the site data collection work are set out below.

5.10.2 Methodology

The site data collection phase comprised a literature review, consultation and interpretation of available aerial photographs, a walkover field reconnaissance survey, and monitoring during the geotechnical site investigation works.

The objectives of the literature search, aerial photographic interpretation, field reconnaissance survey and site monitoring can be summarised as follows:

• To describe and map any identified archaeological, historical, cultural, religious and natural unique sites within the vicinity of the Site;

• To obtain Global Positioning System (GPS) readings to delineate the site boundaries so that accurate polygons can be created for Geographical Information Systems (GIS) applications;

• To record by means of written, photographic, annotated map and GPS entries, the details of each identified site to allow the location, scale, form, function, date and relative importance of each to be ascertained; and

• To provide a technical report that details the discoveries made and which characterises the significance of the cultural heritage resources identified by the survey.

It was considered appropriate that the spatial scope of this assessment should comprise all the land required for development of the Rustavi Municipality landfill project (i.e. land situated within the development boundary), together with land located with a 1 km ‘buffer zone’ surrounding the development site.

The site data collection works provided an appropriate level of investigation to establish the identification of potential sites within the project area. These surveys, however, had their limitations due to the potential constraints of:

• The prevailing vegetation cover – inhibiting finds detection and recovery; • Whether buried sites actually manifested themselves as surface finds; and • The geotechnical trial pit locations.

April, 2008 - 97 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Consequently, it cannot be discounted that some remains may survive undetected in below-ground deposits, or in areas that were not investigated during the geotechnical investigations.

5.10.3 Identified Cultural Heritage Resources

Literature Review

The Cultural Heritage Field Monitors (CHFMs), Irina Demetradze and Zurab Tskvitinidze, conducted a literature search, which included an assessment of the results of archaeological expedition surveys (Gardabani and Kukheti) conducted between 1982 and 1988, excavations undertaken in Rustavi between 1946 and 1965 and the results of the archaeological surveys conducted as part of the BTC Pipeline Project. The details of the sources consulted are provided in the References section.

In addition, the CHFMs undertook verbal consultation with the District Archaeologist, Tsiana Chikoidze, who conducted and reported on the results of the earlier Kukheti expedition surveys. Tsiana Chikoidze’s opinion was that the BTC Landfill Project area has a low archaeological potential.

Aerial Photographic Consultation

The aerial mapping prepared by the GIS team at BP Georgia was consulted to identify any visible remains that may be archaeological in origin. One heritage resource was identified within 1 km of the development boundary (Feature 1), further details of which were obtained during the subsequent walkover survey (see below).

Walkover Field Reconnaissance Survey

An initial site inspection by Irina Demetradze was undertaken on October 3 2007, followed by a detailed walkover field reconnaissance survey of the BTC landfill project area, undertaken on November 16 2007. The BTC landfill project area is currently used for agricultural purposes, with occasional trees lying along relic field boundaries. The weather conditions at the time of the reconnaissance survey were dry and sunny, with good visibility. The ground surface conditions were dry and accessible, and the grass cover was dispersed enough to allow the archaeologist the opportunity to identify surface finds, if present.

The Rustavi Municipality landfill project area was sub-divided and traversed in 100 m by 100 m blocks, encompassing the whole Site, with up to 20-30 m buffer on all sides. No cultural heritage resources were identified within this surveyed area.

A feature identified during the aerial photographic consultation, located outside of the development boundary, was visited and the perimeter extent recorded via hand-held GPS:

April, 2008 - 98 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

• Feature 1 – Earthen mound. A probable artificial (i.e. man-made) earthen mound, with irregular stone concentrations and depressions at 10-15 metre intervals about the feature. The possibility exists that the mound may have functioned as a settlement or funerary structure(s). It is located c. 250 m west of the Site boundary.

Other heritage resources that lie within proximity to the Rustavi Municipality Landfill Project area, which were identified during the literature review by the CHFM Zurab Tskvitinidze is depicted on Figure 5.10.3. The map on the picture comprise:

• Feature 2 – Classic/Medieval road remains. Observed during the BCT Pipeline Project (Phase II) reconnaissance survey – identified as Site IV-219, representing a small portion of preserved paved road, located approximately 4 km to the southwest of the Site boundary;

• Feature 3 – Medieval settlement remains. Excavated in 1982 by the Gardabani Archaeological Expedition, which included the discovery of cultural layers and storage pits. It is situated on the right bank of the Kura River, approximately 4.5 km to the southwest of the Site boundary.

April, 2008 - 99 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Figure 5.10.3: Location of Archaeological Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site

April, 2008 - 100 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Geotechnical Monitoring

During part of the geotechnical excavations, Irina Demetradze visited the Site on 19 and 23 January 2008, and monitored five trial pits being excavated on the Rustavi Municipality landfill project area. No evidence of cultural heritage resources was identified during these works.

5.11 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

5.11.1 Introduction

An ecological desk study was carried out by BTC’s contractors Dzelkva Ltd to identify any sites of national or international importance for nature conservation. A search for sites of national importance (statutory or non-statutory) was completed for all land within a 1km radius of the development footprint, whilst a search for sites of international importance was carried out for land within a 5km radius of the development footprint. With respect to internationally importance nature conservation interests the desk study includes details of any Natura 20001 sites.

In addition to site information, all records of protected and Red Data Book (RDB)2 species within 5km of the development footprint were compiled. The following sources were used to gather this information:

• Animal Kingdom of Georgia, Vol. 2, 1964

• Egorov, Bazilevitch, Soil Types in Caucasus, 1976

• Janashvili A., Animal Kingdom of Georgia, Vol. 4, 1982

• Ketskhoveli N., Vegetation of Georgia, 1960

• Khurashvili B., Wildlife Protection in Georgia, 1985

• Mkheidze T., Spiders of Georgia, 1993

• Muskhelishvili T., Atlas of Georgian Amphibians and Reptiles, 1994

1 Natura 2000 - A European Union network of sites designated by Member States under the birds directive and under the EU habitats directive. 2 Red Data Book - species whose continued existence is threatened. These are classified into different categories

of perceived risk. Each Red Data Book usually deals with a specific group of animals or plants (for instance,

reptiles, insects or mosses).

April, 2008 - 101 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

• Muskhelishvili T., Reptiles of Eastern Georgia, 1974

• Nakhutsrishvili G., The Vegetation of Georgia, 1999

• Prilipko L., Semi-arid Vegetation of Eastern Transcaucasus, 1980

• Sakhokia M., Botanical Excursions over Georgia, 1958

• Sokhadze M., Phenological Study of Beardgrass Communities, 1977

The presence of any significant habitats or species as included in the Georgia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2005) is included, where records of these fall within the development footprint.

5.11.2 Detailed Surveys

Dzelkva Ltd undertook an initial ecological survey of the development footprint and surrounding area. This included a basic vegetation survey to identify vegetation communities within the development footprint and a 500 meter buffer zone around the development footprint. The entire area was covered by the walk-over survey. The initial survey also included an assessment of the potential for presence of any protected species or priority habitats, as recognised in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive and the Georgia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

The field survey of the BTC land parcel proposed for development was conducted on 15 and 16 March 2008 by Dr. Giorgi Arabuli (botanist) and Dr. Eristo Kvavadze (zoologist) of Dzelkva Ltd. It should be noted that this short Ecology survey did not constitute either an overwintering or breeding bird survey which would involve several staged visits to the Site at the correct time of the year to build up a picture of bird, numbers and movements. An additional survey is proposed for the summer of 2008 to provide additional field survey information, however, there will not be any data available for overwintering birds and other winter flora and fauna.

5.11.3 Baseline study results

The results of the desk study are divided into three sections: flora, fauna and habitats. At the end of each section the results of the initial field survey of the development footprint and surrounding 500 meter buffer zone are described (‘The Site’).

5.11.4 Flora

Overview

April, 2008 - 102 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

The desk study area consists of steppe and semi-desert habitats dominated by wormwood Artemisia fragrans formations (Sakhokia, 1958; Prilipko, 1980). Various syntaxonomical units are also formed by plants adapted to the saline soils such as Salsola ericoides, S. dendroides, Halothamnus glaucus, Gamanthus pilosus, Suaeda microphylla, Petrosimonia brachiata, etc. An important component of this type of semi-desert vegetation structure is the synusium of ephemers and ephemeroides (Sakhokia, 1958; Sokhadze, 1977; Nakhutsrishvili, 2000) comprising Poa bulbosa, Catabrosella humilis, Bromus japonicus, Eremopyrum orientale, E. triticeum, Alyssum desertorum, Adonis aestivalis, Astragalus hamosus, Koelpinia linearis, Queria hispanica and numerous representatives of the families of Boraginaceae, Leguminosae, Liliaceae. The fragments of Steppe vegetation (occurring where soils are less saline and dry) are represented by various communities of yellow bluestem Bothriochloa ischaemum, needlegrass Stipa pulcherrima, S. tirsa, S. capillata, grasses Festuca valesiaca, Koeleria luerssenii, Elytrigia repens and forbs Glycyrrhiza glabra, Medicago caerulea, Dianthus subulosus, Pyrethrum corymbosum. The following species are frequently found in the steppe vegetation: Alyssum parviflorum, Callipeltis cucullaria, mountain ironwort Sideritis montana, Trigonella spicata, Iris caucasica, Allium atroviolaceum, Seseli grandivittatum, Teucrium nuchense, T. polium, Thymus tiflisiensis, Scorzonera eriosperma, Carex schkuhrii, Veronica multifida, Helianthemum salicifolium, Achillea micrantha and prickly black medick Medicago minima. Christ’s thorn Paliurus spina-christi dominated formation is relatively widespread among the hemixerophilous Shibliak shrubbery. This plant is characterised by a wide ecological range and occurs both in semi-desert and steppe vegetation landscape, e.g. wormwood-Christ’s thorn shrubbery Paliureta bothriochloeta, which has a wide spatial distribution and is mostly of secondary origin (developed in forest clearings). Spirea Spiraea hypericifolia dominated formations are also widespread among the shibliak; they are largely developed on the mezo- and microslopes inclined northwards. Shibliak formed by mixing of hemixerophilious shrubbery Mixtofruticetatypus shibliak is noteworthy. This type of shibliak is formed by Christ’s thorn Paliurus spina-christi, spirea Spiraea hypericifolia, honeysuckle Lonicera iberica, cotoneaster Cotoneaster suavis and buckthorn Rhamnus pallasii. The species characteristic to the secondary meadows on the banks of River Mtkvari developed as a result of the “Tugay” forest felling and are as follows: Aeluropus littoralis, couch grass Elytrigia repens, durva grass Cynodon dactylon, Puccinellia bulbosa (Sakhokia, 1958).

April, 2008 - 103 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

The wetland and aquatic species frequently forming mono-dominant communities are found along the irrigation channel banks and associated wetland habitats to the north of the Site. These plants are as follows: common reed Phragmites australis, giant reed Arundo donax, common reedmace Typha latifolia, T. laxmannii, tormentil Potentilla erecta, species of rush Juncus spp. and sedge Carex spp.(Ketskhoveli, 1960). The desks study did not identify any records of flora specifically for land within the development footprint. The Site The field survey of the development footprint and surrounding area identified the following plants: milk thistle Silibus marianus, Salsola dendroides, Limonium meyeri, red stem stork’s-bill Erodium cicutarium, spiny cocklebur Xanthium spinosum, black medick Medicago lupulina, horseweed Erigeron canadensis, green bristlegrass Setaria viridis, durva grass and couch grass. It is important to note that approximately 40-50% of the total land area does not have vegetation cover. It is likely that vegetation growth is slow due to the adverse weather conditions and more species may appear later in the year. 5.11.5 Fauna

Overview

The desk study area is characterised by diverse ornithofauna such as quail Coturnix coturnix, rock partridge Alectoris graeca, black francolin Francolinus francolinus, common pheasant Phasianus colchicus and partridge Perdix perdix. In addition, the following species are characteristic to the study area: coot Fulica atra, purple gallinule Porphyrio porphirio, spotted crake Porzana porzana, grey crane Grus grus, demoiselle crane Anthropoides virgo, collared pratincole Glareola pratincola, lapwing Vanellus vanellus, common snipe Gallinago gallinago, greylag goose Anser anser, pintail Anas acuta, Dalmatian pelican Pelicanus crispus (only migratory), white stork Ciconia ciconia, grey heron Ardea cinerea, lesser kestrel Falco naumanni, northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis, hen harrier Circus cyaneus, western marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus, white-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla and common buzzard Buteo buteo. It should be noted that many bird species winter in the study area.

Nine bird species from migratory and wintering fowl are included on the Georgian Red List: spoonbill Platalea leucorodia, garganey Anas querquedula, shikra Accipiter badius, white-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, imperial eagle Aquila heliaca, black francolin Francolinus francolinus, purple gallinule Porphyrio porphyrio, short-toed snake eagle Circaetus gallicus, and partridge Perdix perdix.

The desk study area supports a number of small mammal species such as fat dormouse Glis glis, jerboa Allactaga wiliamsi, house mouse Mus musculus, common hamster Cricetus

April, 2008 - 104 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

migratorius, Tristram’s jird Meriones tristrami, social vole Microtus socialis and European hare Lepus europaeus.

In addition the following mammals also occur: Eurasian badger Meles meles, common weasel Mustela nivalis, golden jackal Canis aureus, fox Vulpes vulpes, wild cat Chaus chaus, and Euroasian lynx Lynx Lynx, The study area is poor in ungulates (i.e. mammals with hooves) (Janishvili, 1982; Kurashvili, 1985).

Among the amphibians Eurpoean green toad Bufo viridis, European tree frog Hyla arborea and marsh frog Rana ridibunda have a wide distribution.

The desk study area is also rich in reptiles. The following lizards should be noted: geckos Tenuidatylus kotschyi and T. caspium, Caucasian rock agama Laudakia caucasica, sand lizard Lacerta agilis, wall lizards Darevskia caucasica and D. portschinskii and snake-eyed lizard Ophisops elengans. Snakes are also abundant - the following species are found: Aesculapian snake Elaphe longissima, ringed snake Natrix natrix, dice snake Natrix tessellate and Malpolon monspesulanus, blunt nosed viper Vipera lebetina, Dinnik’s viper V. dinniki and steppe viper V. ursini (Muskhelishvili, 1970).

The invertebrates are also diverse. River Mtkvari and the adjacent wetlands support numerous dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) and mollusks (Mollusca). Terrestrial ecosystems provide habitats for numerous beetles (Coleoptera), flies (Hemiptera) and butterflies (Lepidoptera) (Fauna of Georgia, Vol. 2, 1964; Mkheidze, 1993).

It should be noted that the desk study area, in particular the River Mtkvari, which is located 4km to the west of the Site, is rich in fish species. The following fish occur in River Mtkvari: Asipenser nudiventris, A. guldenstadti, Salmo trutta caspicus, Chondrostoma cyri, Gobio persa, Varicorhinus capoeta, Barbus lacerta cyri, Barbus capito, Cyprinus carpio, Nemachilus brandti, Cobitis aurata and Silerus glans.

The desks study did not identify any records of fauna specifically for land within the development footprint.

The Site

During the field survey, three bird species were recorded: wood pigeon Columba palumbus (two flocks numbering 80-100 individuals), Blyth's reed warbler Acrocephalus dumetorum and groups of skylarks Alauda arvensis (10-20 individuals).

As regards mammals, social vole Microtus socialis was numerous. This was recorded feeding on spiny cocklebur seeds.

April, 2008 - 105 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

5.11.6 Habitats

Overview

The desk study area is located in Kvemo (lower) Kartli, Gardabani and Gare (outer) Kakheti steppe and semi-desert zone according to the floristic division of Georgia (“Flora of Georgia”, 1971-2003). To the south-east this zone adjoins Azerbaijan and Armenia territories with similar natural conditions. In biogeocenological terms the study area is situated within the extrazonal development zone of Mtkvari-Araksi lowland semi-deserts, which extends to the north-west as far as Tbilisi.

In general, the wormwood semi-desert flora can include up to 120 plant species; the number of species decreases however, with an increase in soil salinity. It is noteworthy that approximately 70% of the species are therophytes in the semi-desert floristic spectrum.

The semi-desert vegetation is mostly found in the foothill trains and lowlands within the study area; it occurs on grey-brown and brown-chestnut saline soils (Egorov, Bazilevich, 1976). Steppe vegetation fragments of various cenofloristic composition occur on hilly relief where soils are less saline and dry.

Shibliak (deciduous thorny shrubbery) type shrubbery has a fragmentary distribution in association with semi-desert and steppe vegetation of the study area.

Stands of the floodplain forest used to survive in the River Mtkvari bed and floodplain in the recent past (first half of the 20th Century) within the semi-desert and steppe vegetation of the study area (areas in the vicinity of Gardabani and Rustavi). These forest fragments were represented by the following (Ketskhoveli, 1960):

• Willow (Salix australis) floodplain forest • Aspen-Poplar (Populus canescens, P. nigra) floodplain forest • Poplar-willow floodplain forest • Oak-elm floodplain forest.

These forest fragments were destroyed due to long-term anthropogenic pressure (cattle grazing, timber logging); only solitary specimens of mature poplars survive in some places at the River Mtkvari river bed. Fairly frequently the semi-desert and steppe biome directly borders onto the floodplain forest remnants or the forest fragments are entirely destroyed with steppe vegetation being developed in their place (Ketskhoveli, 1960).

At present these forest fragments do not have any conservation value and cannot survive unless restoration and/or conservation activities are implemented.

April, 2008 - 106 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

The meadow vegetation is sparsely distributed in the study area. It has developed in small fragments on the banks of the River Mtkvari due to degradation of the floodplain forests.

The larger part of the desk study area used to be occupied by natural vegetation (mostly semi-desert and steppe biomes) in the 1920s (before the Soviet period). After that, the plains and lowlands of Gare Kakheti, Kvemo Kartli and Gardabani have been subject to intensive economic activities. These areas were assigned a status of dry subtropical horticulture, viticulture and vegetable growing. Approximately 80% of these areas were turned into agricultural land, which has resulted in total transformation of the natural vegetation. The structure of the natural semi-desert and steppe vegetation has been severely disrupted; thus, primary vegetation communities typical to these biomes are almost nowhere to be found within the study area.

The Site

The field survey identified the entire development and surrounding area as consisting of agricultural land supporting various weeds and segetal plants.

In summary, the desk study highlighted a number of important habitats and species in the area, within 5km of the development footprint. Habitats of interest include Mixtofruticetatypus shibliak and the River Mtkvari. There were many records in the literature of fauna in the desk study area, including a diverse range of reptiles, birds, mammals and invertebrates. In addition the River Mtkvari is rich in fish species.

None of these important habitats or species, however, were identified during the initial field survey (covering the development footprint and surrounding 500 metre buffer zone).

The habitats and species identified during the initial field survey (agricultural land, three common bird species and a single common small mammal species) are considered to be of low nature conservation value. The vegetation is represented by various weeds and segetal plants, which do not have any significant value for nature conservation. This agricultural habitat type can easily be re-created in a short time. The birds species recorded (wood pigeon, Blyth’s reed warbler and skylark) are relatively common in Georgia, as is the only mammal species recorded during the initial field survey (social vole).

5.11.7 Ecologically Protected Areas

The desk study did not identify any known designated areas, either within the development footprint or within 5km of the development footprint, protected for their nature conservation value.

April, 2008 - 107 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

5.12 Socio-Economics

The socio-economic baseline survey was conducted by BTC and is included in Appendix SE1. The baseline includes figures showing land ownership; and the proximity of the landfill to the BTC right of way, which is between the closest village of Akhali Samgori and the proposed landfill site.

The socio-economic baseline includes information considered relevant to the size and scope of the project. General demographic information and an explanation of the administrative units that will be affected are included. The baseline also includes an assessment of infrastructure near the proposed site, including its existing conditions. Akhali Samgori, the closest village to the site, was considered an affected community in the construction and operation of the BTC pipeline based on the proximity of the village to the pipeline during the pipeline ESIA process (URS, 2002). Therefore, the socio-economic baseline also includes details on BTC’s previous interaction with the residents of Akhali Samgori.

April, 2008 - 108 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1 Air, Odour and Emissions

6.1.1 Introduction

The potential key impacts have been characterised for the following phases of development:

Construction Phase

• Dust nuisance impacts arising during construction and preparation of the new area. During the construction phase, no landfill gas will be generated, and hence no assessment of surface emissions or global emissions is required. Earthworks and plant movement are not activities considered likely to produce significant odour emissions, and no further assessment of odours is required.

Operational Phase

• Impacts on air quality arising from the potential combustion of landfill gas; • Impacts on air quality arising from surface emissions of landfill gas; • Nuisance impacts arising from fugitive emissions of odour and dust (note, dust impacts

will be similar to those during construction conditions and so are not specifically reassessed); and

• Global Atmospheric Emissions. The assessment methods used are a quantitative gas risk assessment (using a modelling package “GasSim2”), and qualitative assessments of nuisance issues. The quantitative gas risk assessment is presented in a separate technical report as required by Article 8, number 2c, of the Environmental Impact Permit Law of the Government of Georgia.

The EU standards applicable to the ESIA are detailed earlier in Table 2.6.3.

6.1.2 Assessment Methods

Quantitative Assessment

GasSim V2.0 (GasSim2) (Environment Agency 2006), a computer software tool developed by Golder for the UK Environment Agency, has been used to model the potential landfill gas generation from the Site.

Full technical details relating to GasSim2, and a detailed methodology are given in the Gas Risk Assessment Report.

April, 2008 - 109 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

GasSim2 was also used to carry out a screening assessment to identify insignificant emissions from the landfill and to identify which fugitive and combustion emissions required further detailed assessment. Following the screening, the potential impacts of emissions identified as being significant were assessed using the atmospheric dispersion model within GasSim2. This screening approach has been performed according to the methodology produced by the UK Environment Agency; which in turn implements the requirements of the EU Framework Directive on Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management (and associated Daughter Directives).

The assessment procedure involved calculating the emissions from the process at the site boundary and other critical receptors after dispersion into the atmosphere. This calculated emission value is called the Process Contribution (PC).

The modelling took into account the existing background environmental air quality and the Process Contribution (PC) to calculate a Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC). The PEC was then assessed against environmental benchmarks, which are indicators of the degree of environmental impact that can be considered acceptable for a particular substance to a receptor. Environmental benchmarks used in this ESIA are primarily the EU Air Quality Objectives. Statutory benchmarks such as these are known as Environmental Quality Objectives (EQS). Benchmarks for substances which do not have EQS are instead derived from WHO or other guidelines, and are referred to as Environmental Assessment Levels (EAL). The PECs of pollutants have been assessed against the relevant EQS or EAL at the appropriate averaging period in order to determine consequence.

The long-term process contribution (PC) is considered insignificant if:

• PC long-term ≤ 1% EQS long-term (or EAL long-term). The short-term process contribution is considered insignificant if:

• PC short-term ≤ 10% EQS short-term (or EAL short-term). The model input data have been based on Site-specific data where possible. Appropriate assumptions have been made and published data, including GasSim2 (www.gassim.co.uk) default data have been used where Site-specific data were not available. Appropriate meteorological data from Tbilisi Airport have been acquired.

Qualitative Assessment

Qualitative assessment has been undertaken for the consideration of dust. The qualitative assessment has focussed on the identification of sources, the nearby receptors and the atmospheric pathways.

April, 2008 - 110 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

There is no statutory or official air quality criterion for dust annoyance set at either a European or WHO level. In the UK a commonly accepted limit is 200 mg/m2/day, and this value has been adopted for this ESIA. It is generally acknowledged that dusts travel on average less than 200 m from the source.

The fugitive emissions of landfill gas from the surface include odour. The level of detection and response to odour is a subjective measurement, there being large variations between individuals both in the detection of odour, and in the nature, intensity, duration and frequency of an odour required to constitute a nuisance. In addition, the potential for odour to cause annoyance varies depending on the nature of the process considered. Odour concentrations are presented in terms of European Odour Units, OUE.

There is no official air quality criterion for odour nuisance. Exposure to odour nuisance is usually quantified in terms of a frequency of occurrence over a year of hourly average concentrations above a certain odour concentration. For odour the 98%ile of hourly average odour concentrations over the period of a year is used. Case law in the UK has suggested that 5.0 OUE/m3 (odour units) is a reasonable limit value and this will be adopted for the ESIA.

Global Atmospheric Emissions – The impact to global atmosphere from landfill gas emissions has been determined by estimating the generated quantities of:

• Greenhouse Gases (GHG) – mainly methane (CH4), chloroflurocarbons (CFCs), carbon dioxide (CO2) and halocarbons; and

• Ozone Depleting Compounds (ODC) – mainly CFCs and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).

The detrimental effect of greenhouse gases is determined using the Global Warming Potential (GWP), which compares the effect of each 1 kg compound to 1 kg of CO2, for a specified time frame, i.e. CH4 has 25 times the effect of CO2 over a 100 year period. The Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) compares the effect of 1 kg of each compound to 1 kg of trichlorofluromethane (CFC-11).

6.1.3 Assessment Receptors

For the purposes of this assessment, receptors are classified as follows:

• Local – in the proximity of the site in the Rustavi area - Receptors around the site (within 5 km);

• Regional – Eastern Georgia; and • Global - effect beyond national boundary.

April, 2008 - 111 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Human Receptors

The main settlement in the study area is Akhali Samgori, located approximately 1 km to the south east of the Site.

There are no identified residential receptors within a 200 m radius of the proposed site, or along the main access road. At greater distances to the north and south west are Rustavi and Tbilisi respectively, but these are at sufficient distances not to be affected by the proposed development.

Within the gas risk assessment, modelling receptors have been included around the boundary of the waste mass to represent the worst case impacts (note that the actual site boundary is likely to be at a distance from the waste mass and so this is a conservative approach). Discrete receptors have also been modelled at a nominal 200 m radius from the Site. A grid of 1.5 x 1.5 km, at 50 m resolution, has been used in the model which covers the proposed development area and extends out to the main settlement area.

Biophysical Receptors

In addition to human receptors, the impacts of poor air quality may also be seen on flora and fauna. It is therefore important to consider the impact on sensitive sites. No sensitive habitats have been identified within the vicinity of the Site.

6.1.4 Construction Impacts

Dust Emissions

During the construction phase, activities associated with Site preparation and construction are a likely source of dust generation.

No previous monitoring for dust has been undertaken. As a result no base level for dust exists and so it is not necessarily appropriate to adopt a specific European nuisance standard. Instead, a qualitative dust risk assessment has been undertaken.

The level of dust emissions and the impact to local air quality or local sensitive receptors by nuisance will depend on both working activities undertaken and prevailing local environmental factors, such as:

• Method of works employed during construction; • Climate/local meteorology and topography (affecting dispersal of airborne substances); • The proximity and sensitivity of receptors [i.e. potential complaints]); and • Control measures employed on site during site development.

April, 2008 - 112 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Details of the key works activities that have the potential to cause impacts to air quality by generating dust are presented in Table 6.1.4 below.

Table 6.1.4: Key Emissions to Air from On-Site Activities during Construction Phase

Activity Nature Potential for Emissions to Air Preparation Works

Preparatory earthworks and mobilisation of plan and equipment Import of materials onto site

The potential for dust emissions during the movement of plan on site. Dust emission from preparatory works are likely to be isolated and intermittent

Infrastructure Works

Earthworks for cell construction, etc. Construction of internal roadways

Temporary elevation in local dust levels during this activity

The key factors which will influence the potential for dusts to arise during the above on-site works will be on site management practices and prevailing atmospheric conditions. BTC will employ good housekeeping and are committed to employing best practice with respect to construction activities in order to prevent (where possible), fugitive dusts from arising, and to control (where airborne matter cannot be prevented) the dispersal of substances off site which could have a potential impact on local receptors. These management practices are detailed further in Section 8.

Local environmental conditions are generally conducive to dust generation and dispersal. As previously highlighted in Section 5.2 the area experiences relatively low rainfall levels and relatively high prevailing wind speeds from a north westerly direction. Moisture acts to suppress the spread of dust, so low rainfall results in a low degree of natural reduction of dust dispersal in generally open and agricultural land. However, dust rarely travels more than 200 m and there are no receptors within this distance. High wind speeds do occur in the region, but even given the prevailing north westerly wind direction the closest receptors are in the village of Akhali Samgori, over 1 km away and dusts are unlikely to travel such a distance.

The potential magnitude of impacts of emissions of fugitive dusts to air generated during the Site construction phase are considered to be low. No adverse impacts are considered likely at receptors, as there are none within 200 m of the activity. Where receptors are located beyond 200 m of such activities it is considered that this potential impact will be negligible.

6.1.5 Operational Impacts

Combustion Emissions

As part of the development proposal, landfill gas collection infrastructure will be installed in the new landfill and this will direct landfill gas to the Site’s gas utilisation plant comprising a

April, 2008 - 113 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

gas flare. During combustion of collected landfill gas at the gas plant a number of combustion pollutants will be emitted.

Statutory EU Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs), set for the protection of human health, exist for these pollutants. These EQSs are the EU Air Quality Objectives and the year by which each objective is to be achieved, as previously stated in Table 2.6.3 above. Combustion emissions released from the flare as a result of the proposed development must not lead to an exceedance of these objectives in the local environment. Combustion emissions have been assessed in the Gas Risk Assessment. An assessment was been undertaken in order to determine which flare combustion emissions require detailed modelling. .

Results indicated that no combustion emissions required further detailed modelling. Further detail relating to the screening process and the model output results are provided in the Gas Risk Assessment report.

Surface Emissions

Landfill gas is a by-product generated from the decomposition of biodegradable materials such as the non-hazardous landfill wastes to be deposited. The major constituents of landfill gas are methane and carbon dioxide although other gases are also found as minor constituents. These gases will be released as fugitive emissions of landfill gas from the surface.

The surface emissions have been assessed in the Gas Risk Assessment for two scenarios; with (Scenario 1) and without (Scenario 2) the flare operational. The screening criteria described above were applied. Results indicated that no surface emissions required further detailed modelling when the gas plant was operational (Scenario 1). When the gas plant was not operational (Scenario 2) short-term surface emission modelling for hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and carbon disulphide (CS2) were required.

The highest short-term H2S concentration anywhere in the model domain is 155 µg/m3 which occurs on the Site boundary and is just above the EAL of 150 µg/m3. However, the exact position of the site boundary is unknown and for conservatism the boundary has been taken as adjacent to the waste mass. All other predicted concentrations off Site are below the EAL. It is considered therefore that there are no exceedances anywhere off-Site within the model domain.

The highest short-term CS2 concentration anywhere in the model domain is 89 µg/m3, which also occurs on the Site boundary, and is just below the EAL of 100 µg/m3. There are no exceedances anywhere off-Site within the model domain.

The impacts of Scenario 2 are for an abnormal operating scenario when the flare is not functioning. The Environmental Assessment Levels, which are derived from the World

April, 2008 - 114 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Health Organisation, still apply everywhere off-site and should aim to be achieved. Although there are no breaches in the Environmental Assessment Levels for surface emissions off site, and the location of the boundary used is very conservative, the impacts when the flare is not operational are quite a significant proportion of the limit value. As the limit value is not breached off-site there are no risks to human health and there are no nearby residential receptors.

Dust Emissions

Dusts have been qualitatively assessed as a construction impact above, and as the operational dust impacts will be similar to those during construction conditions these are not specifically reassessed. No nuisance is anticipated due to the lack of nearby receptors. Good management practices should again be employed to reduce any potential impacts.

Odour Emissions

Potential sources of odours from landfilling operations are numerous and generally consist of exposed waste at the working face during deposition; the release of landfill gas to the atmosphere, and exposure of leachate liquors during collection and treatment. The exposure of waste and leachate are generally transient odours. The potential impact of the more general release of odorous landfill gases to the atmosphere has been considered in the gas risk assessment.

Detailed modelling was undertaken for the impact of odours at receptors off site. Under both Scenarios the results indicated that there were no odour exceedances predicted at any of the discrete receptors, which are over 1 km away, with all values being less than 1 OUE. It should also be noted that the model assumes the whole area of the working cell is not capped. In reality only small areas of each working cell will be open. The assessment of odour impact is therefore conservative. Odour from the Rustavi Municipal landfill is not considered to present a risk of nuisance. The impacts of odour with the flare operational are less than those without the flare operational, although all impacts are low.

Global Atmospheric Emissions

An assessment of the global impact of the Site in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) has been made using GasSim2. The results for the peak gas production year (2019) and for the total of all years of gas production at the Site are presented in Table 6.1.5. All simulated trace gas emissions have also been included within the modelling for conservatism.

April, 2008 - 115 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 6.1.5: Global Impact Assessment

Year Global Warming Potential1

Ozone Depletion Potential2

Peak Year (2019) 8,840 0.00837 With Gas Plant Sum of all years 249,000 0.218

Peak Year (2019) 30,000 0.0704 Without Gas Plant Sum of all years 617,000 1.01

Reduction with Gas Plant (%)

Sum of all years 59 78

Notes: 1. Global Warming Potential measured as CO2 Equivalent (tonnes); and 2. Ozone Depletion Potential measured as Trichlorofluoromethane (CFCl3) Equivalent (tonnes). 6.1.6 Cumulative Impacts

A Gas Risk Assessment has also been undertaken for proposed BTC landfill site, and the cumulative impacts of both landfills are summarised in this section.

A tiered approach was again followed according to UK Environment Agency guidance. GasSim2 was used to carry out a screening assessment to identify insignificant emissions from the landfill and gas plant and to identify which emissions required detailed assessment. Following the screening, any substances that required further consideration were assessed in relation to their relevant environmental standards using the atmospheric dispersion model within GasSim2.

Construction Phase – Cumulative Impacts

Dust Emissions

Should the construction of both landfill sites occur at the same time the impact from dusts would increase. However, there are no receptors within 200 m of the landfill boundaries and hence the potential for nuisance impacts is limited. Overall the cumulative dust impact is considered to be very low.

Odour Emissions

Earthworks and plant movement are not activities considered likely to produce significant odour emissions. It is considered unlikely that activities associated with the construction phase would result in the generation of odours. It is therefore considered that the cumulative odour impact would be negligible, and that no further assessment is required.

April, 2008 - 116 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Operational Phase – Cumulative Impacts

Combustion Emissions

The screening identified no short-term or long-term combustion emissions from the gas plant at the Rustavi Municipal landfill that required further detailed dispersion modelling under Scenario 1. The BP landfill is not predicted to generate enough gas to operate a flare. The cumulative impact due to combustion emissions is therefore considered to be low.

Surface Emissions

The screening undertaken for the Rustavi Municipal landfill identified no surface emissions that required further detailed dispersion modelling under Scenario 1. Under Scenario 2 the screening identified that short term surface emissions of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and carbon disulphide (CS2) from the Rustavi Municipal landfill required further assessment. No surface emissions required further assessment from the BP landfill.

The atmospheric dispersion modelling showed that for short-term emissions of H2S and CS2, there were no exceedances of the relevant air quality standards off-site. It should be noted that for both pollutants, high concentrations are predicted to occur at the site boundary under this scenario, but the exact location of the boundary is unknown and has therefore conservatively been assumed to be adjacent to the waste mass.

The cumulative surface emissions impacts when the Rustavi flare is operational (Scenario 1) are of a low magnitude. If the flare is not installed, or is not operational (Scenario 2) the cumulative impacts off-site are also low, although the cumulative surface emissions impacts at the Site boundary are relatively high.

Dust Emissions

Both landfill sites may operate at the same time and dusts are an inevitable consequence of such landfill activities. However, there are no receptors within 200 m of the landfill boundaries and hence the potential for nuisance impact is limited. Overall the cumulative dust impact is considered to be low.

Odour Emissions

For the BTC landfill, detailed modelling for both Scenarios 1 and 2 indicated that there were no odour exceedances predicted at any of the discrete receptors, which are over 1 km away, with all values being less than 1 Odour Unit.

Both landfill sites may operate at the same time and odours are an inevitable consequence of such landfill activities. However, for both sites the impacts at 200 m were less than 1 OUE

April, 2008 - 117 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

and so the cumulative impacts at 1 km, the location of the nearest receptors remain insignificant.

Global Atmospheric Emissions

An assessment of the global impact of the BTC landfill in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) was made using GasSim2. Results illustrated that global impacts from this site are low.

It can be seen that in relation to the small BTC landfill site, the emissions impacts from the Rustavi MSW landfill are greater, although cumulative impacts remain low. Further information is available in the corresponding gas risk assessments for the proposed landfill sites.

6.2 Soil, Geological and Hydrogeology

6.2.1 Soil

Soil Stability

Given the existing ground surface profile and ground conditions there is considered to be a low risk of shallow slope failure (surface landslip), and a very low risk of a deeper-seated failure (landslide) within the slope above and within the site footprint. Excavation down to a depth of 5 m is expected to take place during the construction of the landfill cell, which will increase the probability of slope instability above and within the excavation zone. However, the stability of the slope to be cut will be considered at the design stage of the landfill in order that an appropriate factor of safety would be provided to the final cut slope.

Therefore, based on the design of the landfill, the impact from soil instability is considered to be insignificant.

It is considered that the insignificant impact to soil stability should not be further impacted upon by the excavation of the proposed BTC landfill site immediately west of the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill site where the excavation is (2m) deeper to the base of the excavation.

Soil erosion

During construction, the surface soils (topsoil to approximately 600mm and clay beneath) down to a depth of 5 m within the footprint of the BTC landfill site will be removed and stockpiled. The topsoil will be used as either restoration material or will be placed on the

April, 2008 - 118 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

perimeter bunds. No further topsoil will be stripped, including the area between the excavation and the site compound if possible.

The clay layer immediately beneath the topsoil over a large area of the Site, has been identified as a potential basal engineered clay liner (ECL) source. It is proposed to use the clay as the perimeter bund, and it will be removed, stockpiled and compacted to 95% of its maximum dry density following the topsoil strip.

Given the area of soil to be removed, it is possible that soil erosion may occur by soils mobilising in run-off and impacting the surface water leading to medium environmental impacts. In addition, the removal and stockpiling of the topsoil will result in some losses in the quantity of topsoil, reduced fertility of the topsoil, impoverishment of the seed bank, and changes to the pH and topsoil chemistry and structure.

To mitigate these impacts, the stockpile of topsoil to be used for restoration should be located away from irrigation channels or other sensitive areas, seeded and re-vegetated as soon as practicably possible and in particular before the winter rain and snow to reduce soil losses by surface run-off. Furthermore, the slope of the landfill is to be designed to minimise soil erosion.

To mitigate further the impacts, reclamation and re-vegetation will take place in stages to minimise the area of disturbance at any one point in time. On completion of a significant area of waste placement to ‘Top of Waste Levels’ the landfill will be capped in order to minimise the potential for leachate production or increased surface run-off. The engineered clay barrier (ECB), overlain by a drainage geocomposite, should be overlain by 1 m of the stockpiled topsoil selected for reinstatement in a single layer with minimal trafficking and compaction. The topsoil should then be seeded with an agreed seed mix to mitigate reduced soil productivity. Therefore, with the above mitigation factors implemented, impacts to soil erosion should be insignificant, and the long term loss in productivity should be very low to low following re-instatement of the site to a standard of a self sustaining grass-land community suitable for rough pasture.

It is considered that as similar mitigation factors are proposed to be implemented as part of the proposed BTC landfill site, soil erosion and soil productivity at the proposed site should not be impacted further by the excavation of the BTC landfill to the immediate east of the site.

It should be noted that the topsoil separated for restoration purposes should not be mixed with the underlying clay layer, as the assumed increased salt content of the clay will reduce the quality of the topsoil. Should any soil require to be disposed, the allocated disposal area should be identified to be within a short haul distance, and avoiding surface water, areas of boggy or unstable ground, or good quality agricultural land. All vehicles should only track over suitable roads to further minimise soil erosion.

April, 2008 - 119 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

As part of the environmental monitoring plan it is recommended that during excavation, further soil samples are taken from the topsoil and clay layers to identify the suitability for the ECL, the Engineering Clay Barrier (ECB), and the soil quality to identify any requirement for fertiliser during reinstatement to achieve suitable grass cover.

It is also recommended to monitor soil erosion by regularly assessing the amount of sediment within the irrigation channel to the north of the proposed site, in addition to noting any visual rill or gully formation as part of the environmental monitoring plan.

Waterlogging

During construction it is considered that there is likely to be a low impact to the soil from waterlogging. Once the landfill area is lined, a leachate abstraction sump will be in operation to mitigate any impacts and remove any leachate which is generated. Following closure, a soil cap will be installed with a rounded profile to mitigate waterlogging. Therefore there will be a very low impact to the soil from waterlogging both during the operation and following closure of the Site.

It is considered that, as similar mitigation factors are proposed to be implemented as part of the proposed BTC landfill site, and it is likely that construction will be staggered, waterlogging at the proposed site should not be impacted further by the excavation of the BTC landfill to the immediate east of the site.

6.2.2 Seismicity

It is considered that there is a very low risk of the proposed site being affected by an earthquake of sufficient intensity to cause disruption or damage to the Site, although it is expected that the earthquakes and tremors will be experienced at a low intensity at the Site during and after the operational life of the Site. Measures to take account of the potential seismic activity will be incorporated into the design of the landfill, where the landfill cell(s) will be designed according to the maximum credible earthquake that may be experienced at the site. Other structures to be constructed within the Site area should also include design factors for the potential of earthquake impact.

6.2.3 Groundwater Flow

The depth to standing groundwater observed to date in two groundwater monitoring wells to the north and east of the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill site is between 9 and 10 m bgl whilst all other boreholes thus far have been reported to be dry up to 30 m. Given that the maximum depth of excavation of the proposed site is in the region of 5 m bgl, and no groundwater has been noted within the boundaries of the proposed site, groundwater is likely to be at least 25 m below the proposed site.

April, 2008 - 120 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

The basal liner, and on completion the surface capping of the proposed site will restrict local recharge of groundwater by rainfall. However, given that the proposed site comprises a small proportion of the groundwater catchment the reduction in flow and quantity of groundwater beneath the proposed site is not likely to be discernible. Given that the groundwater does not appear to discharge to nearby surface water the impact of the development on groundwater flow is considered to be ‘very low’.

Groundwater level and flow direction beneath the proposed site should be monitored as part as the environmental management plan.

It is considered that the very low impact to groundwater flow will not be further impacted upon by the excavation of the proposed BTC landfill site immediately to the west of the Rustavi Municipality landfill site that only is 2m deeper to the base of the excavation.

6.2.4 Soils and Groundwater Contamination

Soil Quality

Soils could be impacted during construction and operational phase from the landfilled waste or from accidental spillages of fuels or lubricants from the site vehicles during construction, operation and decommissioning. However, the ECB proposed for the Rustavi Municipality landfill site should prevent the release of any potential contaminants present within the waste or from spills during site operations which take place within the landfill footprint. In addition, any re-fuelling should only take place on areas of hard paving in designated areas with spill kits available.

It is considered that within both the area protected by the presence of the ECB and any designated hard paved areas, the impact to soils from contamination should be insignificant. In such areas, there should be no discernable change in soil baseline conditions, soil resource, or effect on use of soils during the commissioning, operation or decommissioning of the proposed Site.

Spill kits should be available to deal with all accidental spills including any which occur outside of the designated hard paved area and the ECB. Where significant spills do occur, appropriate removal and appropriate disposal of any contaminated soil should be undertaken. Implementing these measures will result in a low potential impact to the soils at the Site.

No exceedances (Georgian or UK) of the adopted quality standards have been reported thus far within the soil samples analysed as part of the baseline assessment. However, it is best practice to use personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, overalls and boots in addition to adequate working methods to limit direct contact with soils by applicable construction workers and to mitigate against any risks from exposure to soils contamination prior to construction of the landfill liner.

April, 2008 - 121 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Leachate generated from the infiltration of rainwater into the landfill should not impact underlying soils due to the presence of the ECB.

Groundwater Quality

The trial pit and borehole logs for the Site indicate the presence of gypsum and salt deposits that are consistent with the concentrations of salts reported within the groundwater sample results to date are which show the groundwater to be naturally saline and non-potable. No groundwater abstraction wells have been identified within a 5 km radius of the proposed Site. The data collected to date suggest that groundwater does not discharge to the irrigation channel.

Due to the inclusion of the ECB and the proposed leachate collection and recirculation system which will be incorporated into the landfill design the potential impact to groundwater below the site and surface water in the irrigation channel to the north of the site should be low to very low.

The groundwater and surface water quality should be monitored at regular intervals during commissioning, operation, and decommissioning as part of the environmental management plan and compared to the EQS and EU DWS criteria.

It is considered that as a similar landfill design is proposed for the BP landfill site, the groundwater beneath the proposed Rustavi Municipality site should not be further impacted upon by the waste or accidental spillages of fuels or lubricants from the construction vehicles from the BTC municipal landfill site.

6.3 Hydrology and Flood Risk

The following issues have been addressed regarding hydrological risk:

• The impact of possible flooding at the Site from surface water runoff; • The impacts of the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill site on surface water regimes

outside the curtilage of the Site boundary, and the associated significance of those impacts;

• The mitigation which will be required in order to reduce the potential scale of any negative impacts and promote positive impacts; and

• The residual environmental impacts that result following the implementation of the proposed mitigation.

As a conservative approach this assessment has been prepared in line with UK best practice, which has regard for but is not limited to Planning Policy Statement 25 on Development and Flood Risk.

April, 2008 - 122 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

6.3.1 Methodology

A semi quantitative assessment has been carried out to understand the anticipated impact of the proposed landfill on surface water runoff regimes and the receiving environment.

Surface water catchments have been broken up into 2 areas based upon the catchments delineated in Appendix H2. It is assumed that flow from catchment 1 (flowing towards the Western Gully) and catchment 2 (flowing towards the Central Gully) may impact upon the Site. The Western and Central Gully locations are presented in Figure H1

The assessment comprises of the following phases:

• IDC return period rainfall data have been used with the Rational Method to generate likely return period flows in the gullies which may impact upon the Site. These flows have been compared with the flows generated by IDC for quality assurance. These calculations are presented in Appendix H1;

• Peak channel flow in the existing gullies has been estimated according to the topographical survey data. Results are presented in Appendix H4; and

• New gully locations have been proposed and are presented in Appendix H5 (Figure H2). Peak channel flow in the proposed new gullies has been estimated according to the proposed dimensions. Results are presented in Appendix H4

Flows have been generated for each of the return period storm events presented in Table 5.5.1 in Section 5.5.1 above.

6.3.2 Surface water runoff

The landfill is likely to impact upon the surface water runoff regime on Site. Surface water runoff is generated by rainfall falling on the catchment upgradient of the Site and on the landfill site itself.

A rainfall runoff assessment has been carried out to characterise the runoff, which may be generated in catchments upgradient of the Site. The runoff generated upgradient of the Site is currently conveyed by gullies across the Site, as described in the Baseline Section 5.6.

Flow in the existing gullies has been characterised in Appendix H4. This assessment shows that the existing gullies located on Site would not convey the calculated high return period flows.

Following the development of the Site, the existing gullies will be relocated in accordance with the conceptual design presented in Appendix H5 (Figure H2). New Gullies 1, 2, 3 and 4, presented in Appendix H5 (Figure H2) will be sized to convey at least the 20 year return period flows in accordance with the calculations provided in Appendix H4. Therefore, all proposed gullies and ditches on the Site will follow the existing topography but will be

April, 2008 - 123 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

trapezoidal in profile with a bank to bank width of 1.5 m, a bed width of 0.5 and a depth of 0.6 m as presented in Appendix H4.

New Gully 2 (presented in Appendix H5 (Figure H2)) will be constructed to allow flows coming from the Site conveyed via Site gullies, to be stored, attenuated and released as surface water runoff by surcharging New Gully 2 when it is full, thereby mimicking the existing surface water runoff regime.

6.3.3 Direct Rainfall

Rain falling directly on active waste deposition areas within the landfill excavation may lead to an increase in leachate generation. This will be mitigated through leachate management and using temporary capping throughout operations. Areas of completed landfill will be progressively permanently capped as sufficient areas are completed.

Rain falling directly on non active areas within the landfill excavation will not be considered as leachate and will be pumped, stored and tested for surface water quality before discharge to the environment, via gullies or the northern ditch.

Rain falling directly on non excavated areas of the Site will not be considered as leachate and flow under gravity to Site gullies and ditches before discharge to the environment, via gullies or the northern ditch.

6.3.4 Fluvial Flood Risk

It is considered that, the only significant channel capable of generating a fluvial flood risk to the Site is the Irrigation Channel. However, due to the difference in elevation of the Irrigation Channel and the Site which is greater than 1 m there is not considered to be any potential risk of fluvial flooding at the Site.

6.3.5 Surface Water Quality

It should be noted that baseline biological quality data were not available at the time of writing.

The design of the proposed landfill includes the design of a drainage system, the re-use of ‘clean’ site soils as capping soils which will minimise surface water run-off from the waste, and the stabilisation of stockpiled soil by re-seeding and re-vegetation. Furthermore, regular brushing/scraping of site access points should be undertaken to keep them free from dust and mud. Therefore, it is considered that with the incorporation of these aspects into the landfill design, there will be a very low likely of physical, chemical or biological impact to the surface water in the irrigation channel from contamination resulting from project activities.

April, 2008 - 124 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

It should also be noted that the trial pit and borehole logs indicate the presence of gypsum and salt deposits that are likely to produce surface water run-off with a naturally high salt content that flows into the irrigation channel and marshy area towards the north of the proposed site. However as water in the irrigation channel has been shown to already be saline with a measured chloride concentration >1000 mg/l the possible discharge of saline run-off into the irrigation channel is considered unlikely to have a significant impact.

It is considered that as similar design criteria are proposed for the BTC landfill site, and it is likely that construction of the two landfill sites might be staggered, the physical, chemical and biological quality of the surface water within the irrigation ditch to the north of the proposed landfill sites should not be impacted further by the activities of the combined landfill sites.

The surface water quality should be monitored at regular intervals during commissioning, operation, and decommissioning as part of the environmental management plan.

6.4 Traffic and Infrastructure

Impact of the project generated traffic was considered for both construction and operation of the BTC landfill site. Commencement of construction works is scheduled for August 2008. Construction is estimated to take up to about four months. According to the plan the landfill will accommodate 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of waste per year. Period of service in conditions of 6 days operation per week (10:00 – 18:00 Mon – Fri and 10:00 – 15:00 Sat - Sun) for the unit will be 15 years.

2008 was used as the assessment year. No future year assessment was done as lack of information on historic flows, trends and other planned development in the area makes forecast of the traffic growth not possible.

Assessment of the project related impact on the traffic was done with consideration of the following:

• Light vehicles are quicker compared to slow and heavy vehicle category vehicles as described in Table 5.7.2 above. Light vehicles are the predominant road users and may be affected by slower moving loaded heavy vehicles;

• Heavy vehicle traffic generates more noise and vibration than light vehicles. Noise and vibration generated by traffic are considered as two of the potentially serious impacts when experienced in residential areas. In the case of traffic generated for construction and operation of the BTC landfill site this will not be routed through residential areas.

Construction traffic will be mainly limited to movement within the limits of the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill site. The main flows outside the construction area will be related to importing of construction materials, equipment and movement of people involved in construction works. It is currently anticipated that the number of heavy good vehicles (HGV) during construction of the site will average less than 10 trucks a day maximum, resulting in approximately 20 vehicle movements.

April, 2008 - 125 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Machinery used during construction of Rustavi landfill site will include:

• Excavators (one for excavating and loading, the other managing bunds and stockpiles); • Dump truck (<15t, to haul soil materials); • Tracked bulldozer (blade) (to form layers); • Towed sheepsfoot roller (to compact soil) or soil compactor; and • Water bowser/vacuum tanker (to condition moisture content of soil and dust

suppression). After commissioning of the facility, the traffic movements to and from the site will be as a result of transportation of waste to the landfill, as well as the movements of people employed at the Site. The number of vehicle movements are expected to be about two to three trips per week.

Machinery used during operation and decommissioning of Rustavi Municipality facility will comprise:

• Truck/refuse tipper; • Backhoe excavator; or • Wheeled loading shovel; • Tracked bulldozer (to manage waste placement) or a waste compactor; and • Water bowser/vacuum tank (to condition moisture content of soil and dust

suppression). • Impact of traffic generated from the proposed landfill site activities on existing traffic

flows has been evaluated against the baseline traffic data collated through the baseline survey. The waste will be transported by the route ID3, ID1, ID2.

ID3-ID1-ID2 route. The baseline traffic count showed that the traffic flow through ID3 intersection was low, while the road characteristics, the status of pavement and the width of the carriageway was shown to be acceptable in terms of accommodating traffic flows and ensuring unhindered traffic movement. Traffic via intersections ID1-ID2 is resulted from flows to and from a plasterboard plant and poultry farm located approximately 2km west and northwest respectively of the proposed BP landfill site. Traffic counts showed moderate traffic flow through the ID1-ID2 section of the road. Additional traffic along the route will be generated by the proposed Rustavi municipality landfill to be constructed immediately to the east of the BTC landfill. Taking into account moderate background traffic and the accumulation of the expected 15-20 trips to Rustavi landfill with the 0.3 to 0.5 trips per day resulting from the BTC landfill site, the anticipated increased traffic flow associated with the operation of the combined BTC and Rustavi sites should be a maximum of 11% and is not anticipated to be significant to current traffic flows in terms of safety, or to result in the congestion or hindrance of traffic.

April, 2008 - 126 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Other impacts related to traffic such as noise, vibration and air emissions resulting from the traffic associated with the Rustavi Municipality landfill site is considered negligible. As the operation hours are restricted to the daytime and the traffic trough residential areas is not planned impact of noise/vibration generated by additional traffic on residents is not considered to be a nuisance

Infrastructure impacts generated as a result of the construction and operation of the Rustavi Municipality landfill site should be negligible, as a result of the very low increase in traffic flow.

Aviation

Vaziani military airport is located 3.5km to the northwest and Tbilisi International airport 10 km to the northwest of the proposed BTC landfill site. IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities state that consideration should be given to the potential threats to air safety due to the attraction and presence of birds when landfill sites are sited 3km from a turboject airport or as permitted by the aviation authority. The Vaziani military airport is located closest to the proposed BP landfill site. The Ministry of Defence has been consulted by BP and there is no impeding circumstance identified by the Ministry of Defence to the construction of the BP landfill site. However, given the proximity of the landfill site to both these airports care should be taken, such as the development and implementation of a landfill bird hazard management plan, to ensure against the potential impacts of birds which will be attracted to the landfill site on air traffic safety.

The potential impacts resulting from scavenging birds attracted to the Rustavi Municipality landfill site on air traffic safety is difficult to clearly assess at the time of writing, as the baseline Ecology did not constitute either overwintering or breeding bird surveys. Further Ecology surveys and the completion of a breeding bird survey in the summer of 2008 will provide some further information which may provide additional evidence to assess scavenging bird and potential for bird strikes by nearby aircraft. At this stage the likelihood of bird strikes by air traffic has been assessed to be small, however the result of above mentioned further ecology surveys may show that an increased likelihood of scavenging birds being attracted to the Rustavi landfill site which would result in a need to be reassess the potential impact of bird strikes associated with the Site. Any additional impact resulting from the BP landfill site is likely to be very small.

6.5 Noise and Vibration

6.5.1 Introduction

The noise and vibration section considers the potential impacts associated with the proposed landfill site. The noise assessment has considered the potential impact of noise from the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed landfill project. The

April, 2008 - 127 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

assessment considers noise and vibration from on-site sources. Off-site road traffic noise is assessed in the Traffic and Infrastructure section of this report (section 6.4). It is understood that blasting will not be required during the construction phase of the project, therefore is not considered further in this assessment.

As mentioned earlier, impacts from vibration are not considered in this section due to the unlikelihood of vibration level arising from site activities impacting upon the nearest receptors. The assessment therefore only covers noise impacts. The assessment also considers cumulative noise arising from simultaneous construction and operation of the adjacent Rustavi landfill site.

6.5.2 Assessment Methodology

Noise propagation calculations have been undertaken using the method described in BS5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites (1997). As the construction and operation of the proposed landfill site will be undertaken during normal working hours, this assessment has considered only daytime noise levels in comparison with the most stringent daytime noise level criteria.

It has been assumed that all plant associated with the operations will be located at existing ground level and not working below surface where noise levels would be considerably attenuated. All plant is assumed to have a 100% ‘on-time’. All plant has been modelled assuming that sources are an equivalent point source due to the large separation distances between mobile sources and receptors. The location of all items of plant has been assumed to be at the Site boundary closest to the nearest receptor. The sound power level of each item of major plant and machinery associated with the landfill site is given below in Tables 6.5.2-1 and 6.5.2-2.

Table 6.5.2-1: Construction Plant Source Noise Terms

Plant Description Number Sound Power Level LW dB(A) Hydraulic Excavator 2 114 Dump truck (<15 tonnes) 2 110 Tracked Bulldozer 1 109 Roller 1 105 Water bowser 2 104

Table 6.5.2-2: Operational Plant Source Noise Terms

Plant Description Number Sound Power Level LW dB(A) Truck/refuse tipper 1 114 Backhoe excavator 1 109 Wheeled loading shovel 1 105 Tracked bulldozer 1 102 Soil compactor 1 104 Water bowser 1 104

April, 2008 - 128 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Attenuation due to ground conditions varies between hard and soft ground cover. Site investigation and aerial photographs of the Site and its surrounding area indicate little or no vegetation or other ground cover. In this assessment, zero cover over hard ground has been assumed.

The noise level has been predicted at the north-western boundary of Akhali Samgori which is understood to be the location of the nearest residential receptor to the site. A separation distance of 1.2 km between the nearest site boundary and this receptor has been used.

It is considered that the use of the absolute noise level criteria will result in a conservative approach to the assessment of potential noise impacts.

6.5.3 Impact Analysis

Noise

The predicted construction noise level at the nearest properties in Akhali Samgori is 50 dBLAeq,12hr. Assuming the proposed BTC and Rustavi landfill sites are constructed simultaneously, the predicted cumulative construction noise level at the nearest properties in Akhali Samgori is 53 dBLAeq, 12hr. These predicted levels are below the adopted criterion of 55 dBLAeq, 16hr for serious annoyance, hence significant adverse noise effects are not expected to occur during construction activities.

The predicted operational noise level at the nearest properties in Akhali Samgori is 47 dBLAeq,

12hr. Assuming the proposed BTC and Rustavi landfill sites are operated simultaneously, the predicted cumulative operational noise level at the nearest properties in Akhali Samgori is 50 dBLAeq,12hr. These predicted levels are below the adopted criterion of 55 dBLAeq, 16hr, hence significant adverse noise effects are expected not to occur during operational activities.

It is emphasised that the predicted noise levels are considered to be worst case due to:

• All items of plant operating simultaneously at existing ground level; • All items of plant operating for 100% of the relevant period; • All items of plant assumed to be at the on-site location closest to the nearest receptors;

and • No attenuation due to screening effects. In practice, construction and operational noise levels may be expected to be lower than those predicted as worst case.

April, 2008 - 129 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

6.6 Waste and Wastewater Management

6.6.1 Introduction

The potential environmental impacts that could result directly from waste and waste water sources relate to the releases of waste substances, the hazards presented by such releases and the effect that the releases may have on other processes. The principal releases associated with waste management are emissions to air, liquid and solid discharges.

The releases may be controlled or uncontrolled; the latter being split into unavoidable releases (such as small losses during storage or handling) or accidental releases (such as burst pipes and drum spills). The types of releases that occur will depend upon the phase of life cycle of the landfill and the location of the waste.

Waste management activities may also contribute to other environmental impacts, albeit indirectly. On-site storage may impede site operations and thereby increase the risk of other incidents. The transportation of wastes off-site will result in a small volume of additional traffic.

The receptors surrounding the site include:

• Groundwater; • Soils and ground outside of the site; • Animals and humans; • Surface water; and • Offsite disposal facilities such as water treatment works. There are several main pathways for waste or waste waters to be emitted from the site. These include:

• Wind blown movement of waste - include light deposited wastes such as paper and light plastics and dust;

• Seepage of liquids or leachate through shallow permeable soils; • Seepage of liquids through drainage networks; • Movement through groundwater flow; • Materials moved by truck such as mud and trapped litter attached to the wheels or

bodies; • Uptake by people or animals scavenging in the landfill; and • Contained and planned removal from site by truck. 6.6.2 Waste Types

The life-cycle of the landfill project can be categorised into three distinct phases that can overlap for certain areas of the site at any one time. These phases are:

April, 2008 - 130 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

• Construction; • Operation; and • Decommissioning and post-closure. For each phase, a review of the types and estimated quantities of wastes and wastewaters likely to be generated by the facility has been established from information provided by BTC or derived during the design of the landfill facility. These are presented in Table 6.6.2 below.

The Rustavi Municipality site is expected to be operated by approximately three staff, for five to seven days per week. Temporary cabins will provide mess facilities and waste waters generated from these will be collected within a septic tank for subsequent collection and disposal off-site.

To establish waste water generation rates per year, a general figure is estimated as 40 litres per person per day, or 10,000 l/year (4 m3/year) per person.

Construction Phase

Waste and waste water materials anticipated during construction are as follows:

• Broken tools and equipment from contractors; • Off-specification raw or surplus materials from the construction including plastic pipes

and concrete; • Packaging and pallet waste from the transportation of products to the site; • General mess and welfare facility wastes associated with contractors such as waste

waters from toilets and washing facilities plus solid wastes including food wastes, paper and plastic wrappings;

• Used oils and greases from plant usage; • Vegetation waste from ground clearance associated with the development area; and • Mud deposited on the roads and concrete aprons associated with traffic movements. Operational Phase

Waste materials and waste water anticipated during operation of the landfill and infrastructure are as follows:

• Broken tools and equipment from site operators; • Packaging and pallet waste from the transportation of products to the site; • General mess and welfare facility wastes associated with the operations such as waste

waters from toilets and washing plus solid wastes including food wastes, paper and plastic wrappings;

• Used oils and greases from plant usage; • Wind blown litter; • Excess landfill leachate generated by the combination of deposited wastes and rainfall,

surface water or groundwater; and • Mud deposited on the roads and concrete aprons associated with traffic movements. Post-closure Phase

April, 2008 - 131 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Waste materials and waste water anticipated during post-closure of the landfill are as follows:

• Wastes from the decommissioning of infrastructure such as office/mess and storage facilities, storage tanks for fuel oil, fences.

The post-closure phase is included within the operational stage for the purposes of this impact assessment.

Table 6.6.2: Estimated Annual Waste Quantities Generated during BTC Landfill Phases

Estimated annual weight (tonnage) or volume (m3) Waste Type Construction Operation Post-closure

Broken tools and equipment <0.5 tonne <0.5 tonne 0 tonne Off-specification or surplus materials <1 tonne <1 tonne 0 tonne Packaging and pallet waste from product usage at the site

<1 tonne <1 tonne 0 tonne

General mess/welfare/office facility solid waste

3 tonne 3 tonne 0 tonne

General mess/welfare/office facility waste water

30 m3 30 m3 0 m3

Excess landfill leachate unknown unknown unknown Vegetation waste from site clearance 3 tonne 0 tonne 0 tonne Mud from roads and aprons 1 tonne 3 tonne 0 tonne Used oils and greases from plant <1 m3 2 m3 0 m3 Wind blown litter 0 tonne 1 tonne 0 tonne Infrastructure decommissioning 0 tonne 0 tonne <20 tonne 6.6.3 Impacts and Management of Wastes and Wastewater

Used Oils and Greases

Used oils and greases from the use of mobile plant present the largest potential impact at the site. These are only prevalent through the construction and operational phases of the landfill lifecycle and are more evident during the operational phase when plant will be on-site throughout the year rather than for 2-3 months during construction.

Potential receptors for waste oils and greases in the event of spillage or leakage include soils, surface waters and groundwater.

The requirement for plant oil changes will be dependent upon the hours run and the age and service details of the plant used. It is assumed that all plant servicing will follow the manufacturer’s service requirements and used oils will be contained by the use of drip trays and suitable storage with secondary containment prior to subsequent disposal off-site at a recycling facility. If containment, spillage protection measures and timely collection for removal off-site is adhered to, then any residual risk associated with spillage should be minimised.

April, 2008 - 132 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Excess Landfill Leachate

During the operational life of the site, there is a potential for leachate to be generated that is in excess of the volume for which the absorptive capacity of the waste can deal with. Leachate will then need to be collected, removed from the landfill and stored within suitable contained storage tanks for subsequent transfer by tanker to an off-site waste water treatment works capable of dealing with the leachate.

Further descriptions and mitigations for the leachate management at the Site are discussed in Section 6.2 (Soil. Geology and Hydrogeology) and Section 6.3 (Hydrology and Flood Risk).

Wind Blown Litter

Light waste materials deposited in the landfill can be mobilised by wind and carried away from deposited areas and potentially outside of the site boundaries. Materials such as paper and plastic bags are particularly prone to wind blow.

Potential receptors include ground and vegetation outside of the site boundary, animals and surface water.

Good operational practice dictates that waste should be prevented from becoming mobile by not operating during windy periods. Furthermore, waste will have cover materials placed over the material to further prevent wind pick-up and mobilisation at the end of the working day or sooner.

As a further precaution, litter fences will be erected around the tipping area in order to capture waste that may become mobile.

Any waste that escapes from the deposited area and collects on the litter fences or breaches them will be recovered and deposited as soon as possible following the breach.

Scavenging birds and animals can also create airborne litter and could remove wastes from the deposited areas. All measures will be taken to dissuade such animals from gaining entry by the use of fencing and birdscarers as required.

Surplus Construction Materials

Material required for construction would generally be considered inert. It is unlikely that surplus construction materials will be accumulated, in the event that there is these will be stockpile for use during operation. No significant impact from such materials is expected.

Off-specification Landfill Waste

April, 2008 - 133 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

During the operational phase, waste materials brought into the Site could potentially contain items outside the waste acceptance criteria. This material would be isolated and contained for removal. However, the source of the waste stream is strictly controlled by BTC such that the likelihood of this occurrence should be low.

Mud on Roads and Aprons

Mud can be carried by plant and delivery lorries/HGVs outside of the landfill on wheels and bodies of the vehicles, especially in wet weather.

The direct receptors are likely to be roads and drainage ditches collecting surface water runoff. Indirect receptors can be surface water, animals and humans in the form of accidents.

Good operational practice would aim to minimise mud-carry by vehicles through the provision of good quality internal roads free of mud and regularly maintained and the use of wheel washes.

General Mess/Welfare/Office Facility Waste Water

Waste waters generated by the welfare facilities have the potential, should leaks or spillages occur, to have a low impact on receptors including groundwater, surface water and soils.

All water waters will be collected by a septic tank or similar which will provide collection and contained storage until removal by tanker to suitable external waste water treatment works capable of dealing appropriately with such wastes.

Broken Tools and Equipment, Packing etc.

Small quantities of mixed general waste will be produced from the Site office facilities. This waste will be deposited within the Rustavi Municipality landfill.

Vegetation Waste

Vegetation waste from Site clearance will be shredded on Site if required and used for local soil improvement.

Infrastructure Decommissioning Waste

Wastes from infrastructure decommissioning will be managed in accordance with EU legislation in force at the time.

April, 2008 - 134 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

6.7 Landscape and Visual

Landscape and visual assessment is largely based on professional judgement and qualitative assessment.

6.7.1 Introduction

Landscape and visual impacts are two separate but closely related elements. Landscape refers to the appearance of the land, including its shape, texture and colours as well as reflecting the way these components combine creating specific patterns and pictures distinctive to a certain area. It is not just a visual phenomenon and relies on a number of other features/influences (such as topography, geology, ecology, land management and architecture) that shape its character. In this context, impact on the landscape can be defined as changes in the fabric, character, and quality of the landscape as a result of the proposed development, while visual impact relates solely to changes in available views of the landscape, and the effect of those changes on viewers/receptors.

6.7.2 Methodology

Landscape

The landscape impact was considered as a product of the following factors:

• Landscape character and its quality; • Potential impacts; • Degree of change to existing landscape; • Tolerance of the landscape to absorb the change; • Significance of this change (with consideration of local developments); and • Cumulative effects on the landscape of this and neighbouring developments. The following ranking of the quality of the landscape was used.

April, 2008 - 135 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 6.7.2-1 – Ranking of quality of landscape

Highest Quality Landscape

Includes the most aesthetically attractive landscape.

Very Attractive Landscape

Areas include historic and designated landscape. Diverse, semi-natural or farmed landscape with natural features.

Good Quality Landscape

Countryside with some variety in farmland cover. Settlements and villages with open space and public recreation areas. Area with reasonable distribution of semi-natural vegetation, availability of landscape designations of cultural and historic value.

Ordinary Quality Landscape

Typical open agricultural land where attractive features are offset by detractors. Not particularly aesthetically attractive, but with more value than a poor quality landscape.

Poor Quality Landscape

Includes detractors such as power lines, industrial derelict or inappropriate built forms with no aesthetic value, lack of mature vegetation cover. Intensively farmed landscape, which has lost most of its features.

Landscape Sensitivity

Criteria for assessment of receptors sensitivity of the landscape with the view of its vulnerability to change were set in Table as follows:

Table 6.7.2-2: Landscape Sensitivity

Sensitivity (vulnerability of receptor to change) Landscape of particularly distinctive character (highest quality, very attractive landscape, see ranking in the table above) , susceptible to relatively small changes.

Highly sensitive receptor

Landscape of moderately valued characteristics (good quality, ordinary quality landscape, see ranking in the table above), reasonably tolerant of changes.

Medium sensitivity receptor

A relatively unimportant landscape (ordinary quality landscape, see ranking in the table above), the nature of which is potentially tolerant of substantial change.

Low sensitivity receptor

A landscape (poor quality landscape, see ranking in the Table above) capable of substantial change

Receptor not Sensitive

Visual

In the course of the survey the visual zone within which the proposed development may be contained either wholly or partially within views (other activities of the site taken into account); and visually sensitive receivers (VSR's) such as residents, travellers, etc. who’s views will be affected by the project were identified.

For assessment of potential visual impact the sources of visual impacts generated during construction and operation of the planned facility and the magnitude of the impacts were evaluated. Principal visual impacts primarily considered the degree of change relative to the baseline conditions.

April, 2008 - 136 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

The following have been considered:

• Characteristics of the existing view for each receptor; • Visual receiver group sensitivity; • Location of the visually sensitive receiver; • Number of receivers at the visual receiver group; • Condition of landscape within the existing view, viewed by each receptor; • Degree of change to existing views; • The cumulative effects on views of this and other neighbouring developments; and • The viewing distance between the visually sensitive receiver and the visible part of the

proposed scheme. Magnitude of Impact

Assessment of the potential landscape impact of the proposed landfill development has been base on:

• Identification of the sources of impact generated during construction and operation of the proposed landfill; and

• Identification of the degree of expected change of existing conditions. 6.7.3 Local land use and visual data

Impacts to Landscape and Visual Resources – Construction Period

During the construction phase, works will be confined to the proposed landfill site. The construction area will include fencing of the site with twisted barbed wire, arrangement of offices and auxiliary facilities, arrangement of the access to the Site and preparation of the first cell for waste reception (Figures 6.8.3-1 and Figure 6.8.3-2).

Visual impact during the construction period will result from the traffic and on-Site operation of machinery. Traffic flow to and from the Site through the unmade road will be limited to about 10 trips per day.

Taking into account current background traffic the visual impact generated by the project related traffic flow will be negligible. The wire fence will not be visible from any substantial distance. The visual impact of the office and auxiliary facilities can be reduced by painting the buildings in a colour that merges with the surrounding natural background.

Earth excavated in the process of cell arrangement will form 2-3 m high temporary earth bunds along the perimeter of the cell. The surrounding landscape, particularly to the south is hilly and for the most part of the year the natural landscape colour is yellow-brown, the mounds will have only a marginal impact on the general view in terms of shape and colour.

April, 2008 - 137 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

The Rustavi municipal landfill site and BTC landfill site will be located in very close proximity to one another. Thus the figures below show the two sites together as this will present the worst possible landscape and visual impact scenario.

VP1 on the hillock to the south of the proposed Site represents the point where the visual impact will be greatest. The visual impact from this view point is shown in Figure 6.7.3-1 below. Visual impacts during construction from VP2 at the Akhali Samgori road will be less visible.

Figure 6.7.3-1: View of the Proposed BTC and Rustavi Municipality Landfills Sites during Construction from VP1

The degree of change to the existing landscape during the construction stage will be low. Impact on visual receptors, as well as the duration and extent of the change in the landscape quality and value, taking into account that the landscape is currently of low sensitivity and can tolerate the change, will also be low.

Impacts to Landscape and Visual Resources – Operational Period

Waste received at the proposed landfill will be placed in cells, covered with a daily soil cover and compacted by tracking plant over the placed waste.

The Rustavi Municipality landfill site will be constructed immediately to the east of the BTC landfill site and will receive 30,000-40,000t of waste annually. This site will be larger than the BTC landfill site located immediately to the west of the Site but the principle of operation

VP1

April, 2008 - 138 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

will be the same – cells will be excavated, waste applied, covered with soil, compacted, next batch delivered, applied, covered with soil, etc.

The size of the waste mounds at both landfill sites will increase gradually. The maximum visual impact to will be observed close to the end of the operational life of the two landfill sites. Figures 6.7.3-2 and Figure 6.7.3-3 below show the anticipated cumulative visual impact of the two landfill sites expected during the course of operation of facility.

The changes in landscape are expected to be visible from the hillock to the south of the proposed landfill site (VP1), while from the road only a slight alternation will be observed (VP2).

As mentioned above, the surrounding area is generally undeveloped and it is anticipated that the area surrounding the landfill site will not be used for recreation or purposes other than agricultural. The only industrial developments in the local area are plasterboard plants and quarries providing raw material to the former, all of which are located at some distance from the Site (over a km) and are unlikely to be affected by any “deterioration” of the landscape and visual amenity.

The Akhali Samgori road is the only road within close vicinity of the proposed landfill site and carries relatively low levels of traffic (refer to traffic impact assessment above). The proposed landfill will be visible from the road only during the latter stages of its operational life. Thus, it is concluded that the significance of landscape and visual impacts during the operation of the proposed landfill will be the low.

April, 2008 - 139 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Figure 6.7.3-2: View of the Proposed Landfill Site during Operation from VP1 to the South/South East Hillocks

Figure 6.7.3-3: View of the Proposed Landfill Site during Operation from VP2 at the Akhali Samgori Road, (shown towards the end of operational period)

Decommissioning stage - Residual Impacts

After completion of the operational life of the landfill, all remaining earth mounds will be graded to merge with the surrounding landscape. Therefore a low residual visual impact is

VP1

The project site

VP2

April, 2008 - 140 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

likely as the mounds will gently merge into the surrounding environment and the office and other facilities will have been removed. Landscaping of the Site following closure will replicate as closely as practically possible, the natural features of the surrounding landscape as shown in Figures 6.7.3-4 and Figure 6.7.3-5.

Figure 6.7.3-4: View of the Proposed Landfill Site after Completion of Operation Period from VP1 to the South/South – East Hillocks

Figure 6.7.3-5: View of Residual Impact of the Proposed Landfill Site Following the Removal of Temporary Office and Other Facilities, View from VP1 to the South/South –

East Hillocks

VP1

April, 2008 - 141 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

6.8 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

6.8.1 Construction

Impacts on habitats and species may arise during the construction phase due to the following activities:

• excavation of the landfill cells and any other earth moving activities; • creation of access and egress roads; • erection of security fencing and reception compound; • increased activity (people and vehicles) within the vicinity; and • increased noise and generation of dusts, etc.

Excavation of the landfill cells will destroy the agricultural habitat currently present. Excavation, coupled with the increased disturbance, is likely to render the development footprint and immediate surroundings unsuitable for the wood pigeons, skylarks and Blyth’s reed warbler (recorded during the field assessment). The excavation has the potential to cause direct mortality of the social vole and make the area unsuitable for this species.

Due to the lack of survey information relating to birds (see Section 5.11), it is currently not known whether the excavation of the landfill would destroy breeding habitat for species such as lapwing and skylark. It is also possible that flocks of over-wintering birds (e.g. geese) use the area for grazing.

6.8.2 Operation

During the active phase of the landfill site there would be disturbance due to on site machinery (tracked dozer with towed roller and wheeled loading shovel). Additionally, there would be disturbance arising from vehicular movements to and from the site. Waste delivery is proposed approximately 50 times per day.

The active landfill cell is likely to attract scavenging birds such as feral pigeon Columba livia and black-headed gull Larus ridibundus. An increase in the presence of birds could result in increased risk of bird strike (refer to section 6.4 Traffic and Infrastructure).

Whilst the impact assessment is identified as low for birdstrike, the reasons for this should be noted. The literature review indicates the presence of flocking bird species that have the potential to pose a significant risk in terms of birdstrike if present, however, the survey carried out in March 2008 did not confirm the presence of any of these flocking species with the exception of two flocks of 80-100 wood pigeons each. The survey undertaken, however, did not constitute either an overwintering or breeding bird survey which would involve several staged visits at the correct time of year to build up a picture of bird species, numbers and movements across the site. This March 2008 survey was an ecological baseline survey

April, 2008 - 142 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

from which to determine the need for further surveys. It is therefore difficult to quantify the level and extent of the potential impacts any further at this stage.

The potential for flocking birds to use the proposed landfill site and the subsequent birdstrike risk should be clearer with respect to breeding birds following the completion of a breeding bird survey this summer. The results of this survey should be used to re-assess the potential impacts upon birds due to the risk of aircraft birdstrike and to inform and update the ecology chapter accordingly. It should be noted, however, that there will not be any data available for overwintering birds, as it is beyond the timetable for the scheme submission and determination

The bare earth used to cover the waste in the active landfill cell could potentially attract ground nesting birds such as lapwing and skylark. Disturbance by machinery upon delivery of waste twice per week may provide enough disturbance to deter birds from nesting in the active cell.

Once waste has been deposited to the active cell, there is the potential for emissions of airborne gases or substances leaching into the groundwater. Potentially these could have negative impacts on habitats and/ or species some distance from the active landfill site.

6.8.3 Restoration

Upon completion of landfill operations the active cell will be capped and topped with soil. The topsoil will then be seeded with an appropriate seed mix. This presents an opportunity to create a habitat that is more valuable than that currently present, and therefore would result in a positive impact on habitats and species.

6.9 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

6.9.1 Introduction

This section describes the cultural heritage impact assessment for the project.

This assessment has utilised the collated information from published and unpublished sources, any relevant archaeological databases, and the results of the baseline data collection. Using the baseline data gathered, an assessment of the value of importance of each cultural heritage site identified within the local study area has been made.

For cultural heritage resources, this assessment has been largely based on professional judgement and has utilised the knowledge of local archaeologists, drawing on distinctions between designated important remains and those of a lesser significance.

April, 2008 - 143 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

The objective of this assessment is to identify:

• The nature, location and status of any receptors of cultural heritage importance, which are present within the vicinity of the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill project area, and which may be affected by associated development;

• To assess the impacts on cultural heritage resources; and • To identify the scope of any mitigation in advance of, or during, the construction phase. 6.9.2 Identified Cultural Heritage Resources

A total of three cultural heritage sites have been identified within the local study areas. These can be sub-divided into ten broad site types as set out in Table 6.9.1 below. The locations of these sites are shown on Figure 6.9.2 and details are provided in the baseline Section 5.10 above.

Table 6.9.2: Identified Cultural Heritage Resources within the Local Study Area

Site No. Description 1 Artificial earthen mound of unknown date 2 Classic/Medieval period road remains 3 Medieval settlement remains

6.9.3 Impact analysis

This section lists the cultural heritage assets that have been identified as potentially being impacted by the Rustavi Municipality landfill project and assesses the consequences of the proposed development on those assets.

Based on the information available to date, the project has the potential to impact only one cultural heritage resource which is Feature 1 the artificial earthen mound of unknown date (see Table 6.9.1 above). However, it is also entirely possible that other sites of archaeological interest exist in the local study area which are not currently identifiable. Potential impacts can be minimized as follows:

• Accidental disturbance by traffic to Archaeological Feature 1 (located 250m outside the boundary) can be reduced by the demarcation of traffic routes away from Archaeological Feature 1 which will assist in avoiding accidental damage; and

• A monitoring archaeologist should undertake a watching brief during construction activities to record any discovered heritage resources and avoid any possible damage to unforeseen buried cultural heritage resources revealed during construction.

6.10 Socio-Economics

This section provides an assessment of potential effects of the project on the socio-economic and human environment. The assessment draws upon the information collected in the socio-

April, 2008 - 144 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

economic baseline study undertaken by BTC and previous initiatives related to the construction and operation of the BTC pipeline.

The following elements are considered to be relevant to the socio-economic issues and impacts of the Project:

• Economic contribution through local procurement and employment; • Land ownership and use; • Infrastructure improvements; and • Community health and safety. 6.10.1 Economic Contribution

Local procurement and employment will have a beneficial element of the Project. However, due to the nature of the construction, operating and decommissioning procedures, impacts will be negligible on the economies of the closest village, Akhali Samgoi, or the town of Rustavi, approximately 3km to the west of the Rustavi Municipality landfill site.

Construction phases for the Rustavi Municipality landfill will be approximately eight to twelve weeks and employ no more than 20 people at a time. Operational employment will be less and is estimated to be part-time employment for less than five people at the BTC site, which will receive an estimated 30 trucks per day.

6.10.2 Land Ownership and Use

Land use impact will be negative, but negligible. The land intended for the landfill has been purchased through a willing buyer/willing seller process. No additional land acquisition will be required and as the Site is located on former agricultural land there are no issues of relocation.

Land around the proposed Rustavi Municipality landfill site is arable and used for agricultural purposes. As all land is owned by the BTC, complaints related to improper land registration and other land ownership disputes that were frequent during the pipeline construction are not anticipated. No impact is predicted upon the neighbouring owners.

6.10.3 Infrastructure Improvements

Infrastructure improvements will have a beneficial effect. Akhali Samgori has no organised waste collection and households dispose of their waste individually. The proximity of the Rustavi landfill provides the local community with access to an appropriately managed landfill facility.

April, 2008 - 145 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

6.10.4 Community Health and Safety

Impact on community health and safety is expected to be negligible. The Rustavi Municipality landfill site will be surrounded by a security fence that could be regularly checked during existing rounds conducted by security guards protecting the BTC pipeline. No environmental impacts are expected to have impacts on community health and safety.

Nuisance impacts are expected to be low as set out in sections 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 traffic, noise and vibration and wastes assessments.. BTC will maintain its current Community Liaison Team that has received and responded to 52 formal complaints during the construction and operation of the pipeline. This team will be responsible for resolving any issues or complaints that arise through the implementation of the BTC landfill.

April, 2008 - 146 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

7.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACTS

Table 7.1 presents an overall summary of the impacts identified in Section 6 during this project for air quality and odour (A), soil, geology and hydrogeology (GEO), hydrology and flood risk (H), terrestrial and aquatic ecology (EC), traffic and infrastructure (T), noise and vibration (NV), waste and wastewater management (W), landscape and visual (LV), archaeology and cultural heritage (ARC) and socio-economics (SE) for the construction, operation and closure/aftercare phases. Where mitigation measures have been identified as required, further detail of these requirements can be found in Table 8.1 in Section 8, using the same Item Numbers for ease of reference.

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact C

onst

ruc.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

Air Quality and Odour (A) A1 Dust emission – on site

nuisance Yes Yes No N/A 4 1 Low No, however mitigation measures are

recommended (see Table 8.1) A2 Dust emissions – off-site

nuisance. Yes Yes No N/A 4 1 Low No, however mitigation measures are

recommended (see Table 8.1) A3 Combustion gas (landfill

flaring) No Yes Yes N/A 4 1 Low No, however mitigation measures are

recommended (see Table 8.1) A4 Surface emissions –

landfill gas. Scenario 1 with gas flaring

No Yes Yes N/A 5 1 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

A5 Surface emissions – landfill gas. Scenario 2 no flaring

No Yes Yes Yes, Flare out

1 4 Medium Yes

A6 Odour impacts from landfilled wastes

No Yes No N/A 3 1 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

A7 Global Impacts No Yes Yes N/A 5 1 Low No

April, 2008 - 147 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

(GHG/ODS emissions) Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology (GEO)

GEO1 Perched aquifer – possible groundwater flow volume / rate

Yes Yes Yes N/A 1 1 Low No

GEO2 Groundwater (perched aquifer) quality deterioration due to waste deposition in the landfill

Yes Yes Yes If the liner is breached

1 2 Low No

GEO3 Soil Instability – Surface landslip (shallow slope failure)

Yes Yes No N/A – if appropriate factors of safety are used in deciding slope angles

3 2 Low No

GEO4 Soil Instability – Landslide (deep seated failure)

Yes Yes No N/A – if appropriate factors of safety are used in deciding slope angles

3 4 Medium Yes

GEO5 Seismic activity – Soil instability

Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 5 Low No

GEO6 Soil Erosion Yes Yes No N/A 3 3 Medium Yes

April, 2008 - 148 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

GEO7 Reduced Soil Productivity

Yes Yes Yes N/A 5 3 Medium Yes

GEO8 Waterlogged Soils Yes Yes Yes N/A 1 2 Low No, as leachate abstraction sump part of landfill design; landfill capped with rounded profile

GEO9 Sediment Transport to Water Courses

Yes Yes Yes N/A 3 3 Medium Yes.

GEO10 Soil contamination resulting from contaminants in stockpiled soil, hydrocarbon spills from vehicles or Site facilities equipment, or other potentially contaminating liquids such as on-Site septic tank wastes, etc.

Yes Yes Yes Yes accidental hydrocarbon or other liquid spills

2 4 Medium Yes

GEO11 Groundwater contamination from contaminants in stockpiled soil, hydrocarbon spills from vehicles or Site facilities equipment, or other potentially contaminating liquids

Yes Yes Yes Yes accidental hydrocarbon or other liquid spills

2 4 Medium Yes.

April, 2008 - 149 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

such as on –Site septic tank wastes, etc.

Hydrology and Flood Risk (H) H1 Change in surface water

runoff regime from the catchment upgradient of the Site

Yes Yes Yes N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

H2 Increased leachate due to surface water runoff from upgradient of the Site

Yes Yes Yes N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

H3 Increased leachate due to rain falling directly on active waste deposition areas within the landfill excavation

No Yes No N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

H4 Surface water contamination - Change in physical, chemical, and biological quality of surface water

Yes Yes Yes N/A 1 4 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

Traffic and Infrastructure (T) T1 Increase in traffic

intensity and noise levels and reduction in road safety during operational days

Yes Yes No NA 1 1 Low No

April, 2008 - 150 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

T2 HGVs impacting on the access track during construction, operation and during decommissioning and closure activities

Yes Yes Yes N/A 5 3 Medium Yes

T3 Increase in risk to air traffic safety as a result of increased bird activity being attracted to the proposed landfill site

No Yes Yes N/A 4 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

Noise and Vibration (NV) NV1 Increased noise levels at

residential receptors in Akhali Samgori due to construction operational and decommissioning activities.

Yes Yes Yes N/A 5 2 Medium Yes

Waste and Wastewater Management (W) W1 Broken tools and

equipment resulting from wear and tear in undertaking construction and operational activities

Yes Yes No N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

W2 Waste items which no not meet acceptance for disposal criteria, such as

No Yes No N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

April, 2008 - 151 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

hazardous waste W3 Packaging and pallet

waste from product usage at the site

Yes Yes No N/A 2 2 Low No

W4 General mess/welfare/office facility solid waste

Yes Yes No N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

W5 General mess/welfare/office facility wastewater

Yes Yes No N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

W6 Excess landfill leachate No Yes Yes N/A 3 3 Medium Yes W7 Vegetation waste from

site clearance Yes No No N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are

recommended (see Table 8.1) W8 Mud from roads and

aprons during construction and operation

Yes Yes No N/A 3 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

W9 Used oils and greases from plant during construction, operation and decommissioning of Site

Yes Yes Yes N/A 3 3 Medium Yes

W10 Wind blown litter No Yes No N/A 3 3 Medium Yes W11 Infrastructure

decommissioning No No Yes N/A 2 2 Low No, however mitigation measures are

recommended (see Table 8.1) Landscape and Visual (LV)

April, 2008 - 152 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

LV1 Impact on landscape and visual amenity

Yes Yes Yes N/A 5 2 Medium Yes

Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology (EC)1 EC1 Destruction of habitat -

excavation & earth-moving activities

Yes Yes No N/A 5 1 Low No – no habitats of nature conservation value will be affected and habitat can be easily and quickly re-created. Further survey information required to assess potential impacts on birds and mammals.

EC2 Destruction of habitat - creation of access roads

Yes No No N/A 5 1 Low No – no habitats of nature conservation value will be affected. Further survey information required to assess potential impacts on birds and mammals.

EC3 Destruction of habitat - erection of security fencing & reception compound

Yes No No N/A 5 1 Low No – no habitats of nature conservation value will be affected. Further survey information required to assess potential impacts on birds and mammals.

EC4 Mortality - deposition of waste, attracting scavenging birds leading to risk of bird strike from

No Yes No N/A 4 2 Low Yes

1 It is important to note that the assessment in Table 7.1 is provisional and may require revision upon completion of further survey work (see Section 6.11). The impacts of the proposals cannot be fully assessed until the further surveys are complete

April, 2008 - 153 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

aircraft EC5 Mortality - excavation of

areas supporting social vole

Yes Yes No N/A 4 2 Low No – social vole is not protected or rare.

EC6 Disturbance - increased noise, dust, etc

Yes Yes No N/A 5 1 Low No – noise and any dust created is likely to be at low levels.

EC7 Disturbance/ pollution - deposition of waste into active cell

No Yes Yes N/A 5 1 Low No – waste is non-hazardous and will be covered with soils outside of deposition times.

EC8 Disturbance – earth-moving activities associated with restoration

No No Yes N/A 5 1 Low No – unlikely to affect species of conservation value.

EC9 Potential impacts upon habitats remote from the landfill site (release of gases and leachates)

No Yes Yes N/A 2 1 Low No

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (ARC) ARC1 Accidental disturbance

by traffic to Feature 12 (located outside the boundary).

Yes Yes No N/A 1 1 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

ARC2 Discovery of, and possible damage to,

Yes No No N/A 2 1 Low No, however mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 8.1)

2 Feature 1 refers to an artificial earth mound of unknown date located to the northeast of the proposed BTC landfill site. Refer to section 6.9 for further details.

April, 2008 - 154 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 7.1 – Summary of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Phase Item No. Impact

Con

stru

c.

Ope

ratio

n

Clo

sure

&

afte

rcar

e

Unforeseen events

Likelihood (1-5)

Consequence / Severity (1-5)

Potential Significance

Mitigation Required (Y/N)

unforeseen buried cultural heritage resources revealed during construction.

Socio-Economics (SE)3 SE1 Economic contribution

through local procurement and employment.

Yes Yes No N/A NA NA Beneficial No

SE2 Land ownership, land acquisition and use

Yes No No N/A NA NA Negligible No

SE3 Infrastructure improvements in terms of provision of waste disposal faciliites

No Yes No NA NA NA Beneficial No

SE4 Community health and safety

Yes Yes No N/A N/A N/A Negligible Yes

3 Note the measurement of significance of socio-economic impacts differs from those of the environmental impacts to take account of the subjective nature of socio-economic issues and in line with the ESIA requirements undertaken previously for the BTC pipeline project.

April, 2008 - 155 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

8.0 MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS

Where a mitigation was identified to be required in Table 7.1, details of the required mitigation measures are presented in Table 8.1 below together with a summary of any residual impact anticipated to remain following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure. The significance of any remaining residual impact following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure is also shown in Table 8.1. This has been presented for air quality and odour (A), soil, geology and hydrogeology (GEO), hydrology and flood risk (H), terrestrial and aquatic ecology (EC), traffic and infrastructure (T), noise and vibration (NV), waste and wastewater management (W), landscape and visual (LV), archaeology and cultural heritage (ARC) and socio-economics (SE) for the construction, operation and closure/aftercare phases.

Table 8.1 – Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Any residual Impacts after mitigation measure (Y/N)

Significance of residual impacts

Air, Odour and Emissions (A) A1 Dust emission – on site

nuisance Low however, mitigations measure recommended

Good management practice at the Site would aim to minimise dust impacts by, for example:

• Adequate sheeting of vehicle loads up until tipping point when moving around the Site;

• During very dry weather the use of wet methods or mechanical road sweeper on all Site access roads;

• Securely cover skips and minimise drop heights, regularly dampen down surfaces with water;

• Provision of upturned exhausts for vehicles/mobile plant on-Site;

• Use of dust filters on fixed plant and machinery.

A2 Dust emissions – off-site nuisance

Low however, mitigations measure

Good management practice at the Site would aim to minimise dust impacts by, for example:

• Prevention of mud or waste deposition on public highways

No N/A

April, 2008 - 156 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 8.1 – Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Any residual Impacts after mitigation measure (Y/N)

Significance of residual impacts

recommended by use of wheel washes; • Adequate sheeting of vehicle loads when moving off-Site

or on the public highway; • During very dry weather the use of wet methods or

mechanical road sweeper on all roads; • Securely cover skips and minimise drop heights, regularly

dampen down surfaces with water; • Provision of upturned exhausts for vehicles/mobile plant

on-Site; • Use of dust filters on fixed plant and machinery.

A3 Combustion gas (landfill flaring) during operation and closure / aftercare

Low The impacts due to combustion will be minimised through regular maintenance of gas plant to ensure maximum operational efficiency is maintained and emissions testing as required

No N/A

A4 Surface emissions – landfill gas during operation and closure / aftercare. Scenario 1 with gas flaring

Low Surface emission impacts will be minimised by maintaining a minimal operational area, the application of daily cover to operational areas, capping of waste following deposition, gas collection and flaring.

No N/A

A5 Surface emissions – landfill gas during operation and closure / aftercare. Scenario 2 no flaring

Medium Good management practices at the site should also be undertaken to reduce and mitigate the impacts when the flare is non operational. Management could consider the use of a backup flare such that duration of time the site is without any active gas management is minimised. in the main flare and or the extension of the site boundary to limit the approach of people to areas where concentrations may be elevated. Good capping and limiting the operational area will also help to minimise surface emissions

No Low

A6 Odour impacts from landfilled wastes during operation

Low • Odour impacts should be minimised as per surface emission mitigation

• Waste delivery vehicles should be covered to avoid

No N/A

April, 2008 - 157 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 8.1 – Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Any residual Impacts after mitigation measure (Y/N)

Significance of residual impacts

unnecessary nuisance during transport and delivery. Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology (GEO)

GEO4 Soil Instability – Landslide (deep seated failure) during construction and operation

Medium All slopes to be designed and constructed using appropriate factors of safety

No N/A

GEO6 Soil Erosion during construction and operation

Medium Stockpiles seeded and re-vegetated before the winter rain and snow; design of slope of the landfill; staged reclamation

No N/A

GEO7 Reduced Soil Productivity during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

Medium As GEO6 above; plus analysis of soil samples to determine fertiliser requirements and seed type for reclamation.

No N/A

GEO9 Sediment Transport to Water Courses during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

Medium As GEO6 above No N/A

GEO10 Soil contamination during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

Medium Clay landfill liner; re-fuelling in designated areas on hardstanding with available spill kits.

No N/A

GEO11 Groundwater contamination during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

Medium • Re-fuelling in designated areas on hardstanding with available spill kits

• Stockpiles of soil to be located away from irrigation channel or other sensitive areas;

No N/A

Hydrology and Flood Risk (H) H1 Change in surface water runoff

regime from the catchment upgradient of the Site during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

Low Maintaining and increasing gully storage and conveyance in accordance with the specification provided in Section 6.3, and locations provided in Appendix H5 Figure H2.

No N/A

H2 Increased leachate due to surface water runoff from

Low Bunds will be constructed around the Site which will prevent the inflow of surface water runoff. In addition, mitigation can be

No N/A

April, 2008 - 158 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 8.1 – Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Any residual Impacts after mitigation measure (Y/N)

Significance of residual impacts

upgradient of the Site during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

provided by maintaining and increasing gully storage and conveyance in accordance with the specification provided in Section 6.6, and locations provided in Figure H2.

H3 Increased leachate due to rain falling directly on active waste deposition areas within the landfill excavation during operation

Low Leachate management (minimise operational area, maximise temporarily and permanently capped areas)

No N/A

H4 Surface water contamination - Change in physical, chemical, and biological quality during operation, construction and closure / aftercare

Low Drainage design, use clean site soils as capping soils; stabilisation of stockpiled soil by re-seeding and re-vegetation.

No N/A

Traffic and Infrastructure (T) T2 HGVs impacting on the access

track during construction, operation and during decommissioning and closure activities

Medium • Improve/upgrade the access track from the Akhali Samgori road to the proposed landfill site to reduce the deterioration of the road and reduce wear and tear to vehicles using the track and likelihood of accidents

• Improve/upgrade the junction where the track meets the road to the west of the Site.

No Low

T3 Increase in risk to air traffic safety as a result of increased bird activity being attracted to the proposed landfill site during operation and closure / aftercare

Low Development and implementation of a landfill bird hazard management plan to include: Design of the landfill site, including good stormwater management preventing surface water ponding, limiting source of water for birds. Accepted bird control technique generally includes visual detergents (models, either still or animated, of birds predators), sounds, physical barriers (fine wire nets), etc. Since birds generally

Yes Low

April, 2008 - 159 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 8.1 – Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Any residual Impacts after mitigation measure (Y/N)

Significance of residual impacts

adapt to environments in which they can find food bird control methods have limited long-term effect thus the use of varying control methods is advisable. It must be taken into account that closed landfill cells may also attract bird species providing roosting habitats due to elevated ground temperature and freedom from disturbance. Nestling patterns of bird species anticipated on the Site need to be examined and appropriate controls introduced.

Noise and Vibration (NV) NV1 Increased noise levels at

residential receptors in Akhali Samgori due to construction , operation and closure/aftercare activities.

Medium Appropriate mitigation measures include: fitting of effective exhaust silencers plant will be maintained in efficient working order; plant will be shut down or throttled to a minimum when not in use.

Yes Medium (noise levels will be reduced but remain in this ranking)

Waste and Wastewater Management (W) W1 Broken tools and equipment

resulting from wear and tear in undertaking construction and operational activities

Low Remove all tools & equipment not used for construction/operation in working procedures.

No N/A

W2 Waste items which no not meet acceptance for disposal criteria, such as hazardous waste during operation

Low Maintain an identified storage area with appropriately protected from weather, accidental collisions from Site vehicles, etc for any hazardous or other non-acceptable wastes.

No N/A

W4 General mess/welfare/office facility solid waste during construction and operation

Low Maintain adequate waste bins for disposal to landfill. No N/A

W5 General mess/welfare/office facility waste water during

Low Provide a toilet / shower facilities for Site workers connected to a septic tank to be regularly emptied and emergency clean up

No N/A

April, 2008 - 160 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 8.1 – Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Any residual Impacts after mitigation measure (Y/N)

Significance of residual impacts

construction and operation equipment to be maintained on site. W6 Excess landfill leachate during

operation and closure / aftercare Medium Leachate control procedures and emergency clean up equipment to

be maintained on site. No N/A

W7 Vegetation waste from site clearance during construction

Low Dispose on site or remove waste vegetation off site to a suitable waste management facility, if applicable.

No N/A

W8 Mud from roads and aprons during construction and operation

Low Maintain road quality and pressure wash equipment regulalry on site.

No N/A

W9 Used oils and greases from plant during construction and operation

Medium Provide equipment servicing off site when possible. Adequate secondary containment, spillage protection and emergency clean up equipment to be maintained on site.

No N/A

W10 Wind blown litter during construction and opertaion

Medium Cover all deposited waste with soil following placement. No deposition during high winds.

Yes Low - Some wind blown litter off-site likely to occur, but not to any significant degree.

W11 Infrastructure decommissioning during closure / aftercare

Low Remove all plant and equipment from site on completion No N/A

Landscape and Visual (LV) LV1 Impact on landscape and visual

amenity during construction, operation and closure / aftercare

Medium Appropriate mitigation measures include: • preservation of existing vegetation and keeping to the

boundaries of the project area and access road should be undertaken;

• painting auxiliary facilities – offices, pressure washing unit, etc. with colour merging with environment. (recommended colours - light green and straw-colour);

• planting of greenery along the perimeter of the unit after completion of construction works. Species to be

Yes Low

April, 2008 - 161 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Table 8.1 – Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for BTC Non-Hazardous Landfill Site, Georgia

Item No.

Impact Potential Significance

Mitigation Measure Any residual Impacts after mitigation measure (Y/N)

Significance of residual impacts

recommended by an ecologist with local knowledge. • adequate fire safety measures as fire can cause significant

damage resulting in negative impact on visual amenity of the landscape.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology (EC) EC4 Increased risk of bird strike Low Install bird scaring devices to minimise risk - Gas cannons

commonly used, effectiveness dependant on factors such as species involved and availability of alternative nesting habitat nearby (Bishop et al 2003).

No N/A

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (ARC) ARC1 Accidental disturbance by

traffic to Feature 11 (located outside the boundary) during construction, operation and closure activities

Low Demarcation of traffic routes away from Feature 1 will assist in avoiding accidental damage.

No N/A

ARC2 Discovery of, and possible damage to, unforeseen buried cultural heritage resources revealed during construction.

Low Provide a monitoring archaeologist undertaking a watching brief during construction activities to record any discovered heritage resources.

No N/A

Socio-Economics (SE)2 SE4 Community health and safety

during construction and operation

Negligible Utilise BTC’s existing grievance mechanism for any health, safety or other issues raised by the community surrounding the proposed project

No N/A

1 Feature 1 refers to an artificial earth mound of unknown date located to the northeast of the proposed BTC landfill site. Refer to section 6.9 for further details. 2 Note the measurement of significance of socio-economic impacts differs from those of the environmental impacts to take account of the subjective nature of socio-economic issues and in line with the ESIA requirements undertaken previously for the BTC pipeline project.

April, 2008 - 162 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL MONITORING PLAN

Table 9-X provides the environmental and social monitoring plan relevant to the proposed BTC non-hazardous solid waste landfill site for air quality and odour (A), soil, geology and hydrogeology (GEO), hydrology and flood risk (H), terrestrial and aquatic ecology (EC), traffic and infrastructure (T), noise and vibration (NV), waste and wastewater management (W), landscape and visual (LV), archaeology and cultural heritage (ARC) and socio-economics (SE) for the construction, operation and closure/aftercare phases of this project. The Item Numbers are the same as those in Tables 7-1 sand 8-1, for ease of reference.

Table 9.1 – Summary of Potential Monitoring Measures for BTC/Rustavi Municipality Non-Hazardous Landfill Site

Item No.

Impact Monitoring Measure

Air, Odour and Emissions (A) A2 Surface emissions – landfill gas. Landfill gas monitoring will be undertaken at the site to a planned programme, as a general indicative

measure of landfill condition. A6 Odour impacts from landfilled wastes Routine qualitative odour monitoring will be undertaken by staff during the walk-round boundary

inspections, and incidents of abnormal or excessive landfill odour will be noted and investigated. Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology (GEO)

GEO2 Deterioration of groundwater quality • Install four groundwater monitoring wells around the landfill periphery • Monitor groundwater levels and quality on a quarterly basis during operation and closure /

aftercare (for as period of X years • Compare results with risk based trigger and control levels that are based on EQS and EU DWS

GEO6 Soil Erosion • Note any visual impacts to surrounding areas relating to rill or gully formation. • Monitor sediment (total dissolved solids) within irrigation channel on a quarterly basis • If total dissolve solids are above baseline conditions identify source and if from BTC landfill

implement appropriate mitigation, which might include re-seeding or providing other protection to stockpiles of earth, reseeding closed section of the landfill, etc.

GEO9 Sediment Transport to Water Courses • Monitor sediment (total dissolved solids) within irrigation channel. – on a quarterly basis • If total dissolve solids are above baseline conditions identify source and if from BTC landfill

April, 2008 - 163 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

implement appropriate mitigation, which might include re-seeding or providing other protection to stockpiles of earth, reseeding closed section of the landfill, etc

Hydrology and Flood Risk (H) H4 Surface water contamination - Change in physical, chemical,

and biological quality • Surface water monitoring of drainage channels and irrigation channel to the north of the Site. • Compare results with risk based trigger and control levels that are based on EQS and EU DWS.

Traffic and Infrastructure (T)

EC4 / T2

Increased risk of bird strike for aircraft / Increase in risk to air traffic safety as a result of increased bird activity being attracted to the proposed landfill site

• Carry out annual bird survey and compare to base-line data to determine success of mitigation. • Maintain log of reports of bird strike in the area.

Waste and Wastewater Management (W) W10 Wind blown litter • Routine observations of wind blown litter on the boundary and site periphery during regular

boundary inspections . • Wind blown litter will be collected on a regular basis and disposed of properly within the

active portion of the landfill.

April, 2008 - 164 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

10.0 LIMITATION AND CONSTRAINTS IN THE DATA

Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology

Seven boreholes have been completed with samples of soil, gas and water being taken for laboratory analyses. Monitoring installations have been constructed in the boreholes and monitored for groundwater levels and selected gas concentrations.

The findings of this assessment are based on the available data at the time of the assessment and are subject to those limitations, and that of point source sampling.

Hydrology

All data provided in the IDC report has been empirically generated from parameters which are not commonly used in the EU.

In the absence of extensive rainfall records, it is assumed that rainfall return period data generated by IDC are appropriate for this assessment.

The assessment does not take into account snow melt associated with the months in spring

Ecology

Due to the timing of the initial ecological field survey (March 2008) and the adverse weather conditions, it is possible that some species were missed. March was unusually cold and the vegetation had just appeared by the time of the survey. The results and subsequent site assessment must therefore be regarded as provisional until completion of further ecological survey work (to be completed in late spring/ summer 2008). These surveys must specifically address mammals and birds. They should apply to the development footprint and all land within 500 metres. The surveys should aim to determine what species are present, estimate population size(s) and territory boundaries (if applicable) and record the species use of the area (e.g. breeding, over-wintering). Surveys must be completed at the correct time of year, in suitable weather conditions, following standard recognised survey methodology and procedures.

April, 2008 - 165 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

11.0 GLOSSARY

Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology

EQS Envrionmental Quality Standards

EU DWS European Union Drinking Water Standards

SGV Soil Guideline Values

m bgl Metres below ground level

TPH CWG Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Criteria Working Group

PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

CLEA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment

CEC Cation Exchange Capacity

EC Electrical Conductivity

SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TON Total Organic Nitrogen

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

SVOCs Semi-volatile Organic Compounds MSK International Macro-seismic Intensity Scale

Traffic and Infrastructure

Average daily traffic (ADT) - The total volume passing a point or segment of a road facility, in both directions, during a 24-hour period - is commonly obtained during a given time period, in whole days greater than one day and less than one year, divided by the number of days in that time period.

Peak hour – refers to the time of the day during which the greatest number of motor vehicles are carried on a given roadway segment/intersection.

Capacity - is the maximum number of vehicles (rate of flow) that should be allowed under ideal conditions with consideration of characteristics of the roadway. The main factor affecting capacity include type and frequency of traffic controls, traffic signs, carriageway width, amount of traffic, etc.

April, 2008 - 166 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Level of service – is a qualitatively defined measure of prevailing traffic, design and operational conditions. For road segments and intersections the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio is indicative of the LOS. The rating from “A” to “F”, best to worst. “A” is the most desirable operational state (A – corresponds to V/C ratio ≤0.60 and possible traffic delay ≤10 sec i.e. uncongested operation).

April, 2008 - 167 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

12.0 REFERENCES

General

URS, April 2008. Caspian Region – Georgia Waste Management Site Selection Report

URS, 2002. BTC Project Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

Golder Associates, February 2008. BTC and Rustavi Landfill Sites Report on Conceptual Design and Operation

Air Quality

Environment Agency (2006). GasSim2 Software and Manual. GasSim website. http:// www.gassim.co.uk

Environment Agency (2004a) Guidance on the Management of Landfill Gas, September 2004.

Environment Agency (2004b). Screening method for emissions to air from landfill sites (typical gas engines, flare stacks and area sources). The Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit, The Environment Agency, 28 June 2004, subsequently updated.

Environment Agency (2003). Horizontal Guidance Notes IPPC H1. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT. Version 6, July 2003.

Environment Agency (2002). Draft Horizontal Guidance Notes IPPC H4: Horizontal Guidance for Odour, Parts 1 and 2, October 2002.

Golder Associates (2008). BTC & RUSTAVI LANDFILL SITES, REPORT ON CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND OPERATION, February 2008 GAE-BTC-R-001, (07504160421/07514690150)

Golder Associates (2008) Gas Risk Assessment for Rustavi Landfill Site xxxxxx

Golder Associates (2008) Gas Risk Assessment for BTC Landfill Site xxxxxx

Met data from the State Department of Hydrometeorology of Georgia

Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline, Georgia, Ambient Air Monitoring, 26 October 2005

April, 2008 - 168 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Final, Issue No 1, 44406834 / 5989

Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology

Regional Geological map of Georgia (scale 1:500,000)

IDC, 19 October 2007, ‘Akhali Samgori Landfill Survey Report’

SRF Gamma, date unknown, ‘Conclusion on geological-hydrogeological conditions within the boundaries of Rustavi landfill’

The Georgian Geophysical Society (GGS) website (http://www.ggs.org.ge) (Reference 5)

Chapman and Hall, 1994, ‘International Handbook of Earthquake Engineering: Codes, Programs, and Examples’

Georgian Seismic Monitoring Centre (www.seismo.ge)

Golder Associates Europe Ltd, 7 January 2008, ‘BTC Pipeline Company, Akhali Samgori Landfill – Georgia, Geotechnical Workplan’

Hydrology and Flood Risk

DEFRA, 2006. Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk. TSO: London.

Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007. Development and Flood Risk: A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25 ‘Living Draft’. Department for Communities and Local Government: London.

GAE-BTC-R-001 (2008) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company, BTC & Rustavi Landfill Sites, Report on Conceptual Design and Operation. 07504160421/07514690150.

IDC-BTC, Akhali Samgori Landfill Survey Report, 2007.

National Coal Board – Mining Department, 1982. Technical Management of Water in the Coal Mining Industry.

Shaw, Elizabeth (2004). Hydrology in Practice, Third Edition

State Department of Hydrometeorology of Georgia, Rainfall Data for Tbilisi Airport 2007.

April, 2008 - 169 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Noise

BS5228 (1997) Noise and Vibration on Construction and Open Sites

WHO (1999) Guidelines for Community Noise

International Finance Corporation (2007) Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines GENERAL EHS GUIDELINES ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MANAGEMENT

Ecology

Anon (2005) Georgia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

Anon (1964) Animal Kingdom of Georgia, Vol. 2.

Bishop, J. McKay, H. Parrott, D. and Allan, J. (2003) Review of international research literature regarding the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives. DEFRA, London.

Egorov and Bazilevitch (1976) Soil Types in Caucasus.

Janashvili A. (1982) Animal Kingdom of Georgia, Vol. 4.

Ketskhoveli N. (1960) Vegetation of Georgia.

Khurashvili B. (1985) Wildlife Protection in Georgia.

Mkheidze T. (1993) Spiders of Georgia.

Muskhelishvili T. (1994) Atlas of Georgian Amphibians and Reptiles.

Muskhelishvili T. (1974) Reptiles of Eastern Georgia.

Nakhutsrishvili G., (1999) The Vegetation of Georgia.

Prilipko L. (1980) Semi-arid Vegetation of Eastern Transcaucasus.

Sakhokia M. (1958) Botanical Excursions over Georgia.

Sokhadze M. (1977) Phenological Study of Beardgrass Communities.

April, 2008 - 170 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

APPENDICES

April, 2008 - 171 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company B0 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

APPENDIX G – Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology Appendix

April, 2008 - 172 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Appendix G1 – Figure GI01 Rev C Location of Ground Investigation

April, 2008 - 173 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

APPENDIX H – Hydrology and Flood Risk Appendix

April, 2008 - 174 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

April, 2008 - 175 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Appendix H2 – Figure H1 BTC Landfill Hydrological Assessment Site Setting and Cross Section Locations

April, 2008 - 176 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Appendix H3 – IDC Topographical Survey

April, 2008 - 177 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

April, 2008 - 178 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

April, 2008 - 179 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

April, 2008 - 180 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

Appendix H5 – Figure H2 BTC Landfill Hydrological Assessment Proposed Catchment Water Management

April, 2008 - 181 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK

Golder Associates

APPENDIX T – Traffic and Infrastructure Appendix

April, 2008 - 182 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

Appendix T1 – Baseline Traffic Flows

1

April, 2008 - 183 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

2

April, 2008 - 184 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

April, 2008 - 185 - 07504160421 (GAE) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company D.1 07514690150 (GAUK)

Golder Associates

4