Draft Environmental Impact Assessment

– Volume 1

Project Number: 46953

February 2014

UZB: Oltin Yo’l Gas To Liquid (GTL) Project

Prepared by Uzbekistan GTL LLC and Golder Associates for the Asian Development Bank

The draft environmental impact assessment is a document of the borrower. The views
expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management,
or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “Terms of Use”
section of this website.

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any
designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the
Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status
of any territory or area.
 January 2014

OLTIN YO'LGAS TO LIQUIDS PROJECT

SECTION 1.0

Environmental, Social, Health

and Safety Impact Assessment
(ESHSIA)
Performed on behalf of:
OLTIN YO'L
41/4 Mirabadskaya Street,
Mirabad District 100015 Tashkent,
Republic of Uzbekistan
REPORT

Report Number. 12614848-12330-10

Distribution:
1 x copy: OLTIN YO'L GTL
2 x copies: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

An Environmental, Safety, Health and Social Impact Assessment (ESHSIA) has been conducted for the
proposed new Gas To Liquids (GTL) Plant (the Project) located in the Gouzar District of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, which is approximately 70 km south west of Karshi City. Uzbekistan GTL LLC (hereafter
referred to as UZGTL), a Joint Venture between Sasol Synfuels International (SSI), PETRONAS and
Uzbekneftegaz (UNG) is the Project developer. UZGTL appointed Golder Associates (Golder), an
independent environmental consultancy, to conduct the ESHSIA. UZGTL adopted a Uzbek name for
this project which is OLTIN YO’L GTL, and this is used throughout this document.

The purpose of the ESHSIA is to assess the potential environmental, social, health and safety impacts
of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project. The ESHSIA was undertaken according to the International
Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Performance Standards and EHS Guidelines and World Bank Group
Equator principles.

The objective of this ESHSIA is to enable OLTIN YO’L GTL to approach financing bodies for external
financing for the proposed Project. OLTIN YO’L GTL is required to demonstrate that the proposed
Projects’ potential environmental and social impacts have been adequately considered, mitigated and
managed. Although the ESHSIA will be undertaken with due regard to Uzbekistan local legislation and
standards, a separate local regulatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study was prepared by
Uzlitineftgaz (Uzliti) to address local regulatory EIA requirements.

The first phase of the ESHSIA, the Scoping Phase, involved identifying issues associated with the GTL
Project as well as public issues and concerns. These were then evaluated by Golders technical
specialists during the Impact Assessment Phase of the ESHSIA. This ESHSIA consolidates the findings
of the impact assessment studies to provide stakeholders the opportunity to review the findings of the
ESHSIA. Stakeholders were also afforded the opportunity to attend public hearings as required by
Uzbek environmental management legislation.

The full set of reports for this ESHSIA consists of:

§ Volume 1 –Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Impact Assessment (ESHSIA) Report
(Main Report) and Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Management Plan (ESHMP)

§ Volume 2 – Specialist Studies

§ Volume 3 – Supplementary Reports

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Assessment Practitioner ...................................................... 2

1.3 The Need for an Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Impact Assessment (ESHSIA) ......................... 3

1.4 ESHSIA Process ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Links of this ESHSIA with other Project Activities and Legal Requirements ................................................. 4

1.6 Scope of this ESHSIA study ......................................................................................................................... 5

1.7 Structure of this report .................................................................................................................................. 5

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Typical Phases of an Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Impact Assessment .............................................. 4

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Document Limitations

APPENDIX B
Stakeholder Engagement Plan

APPENDIX C
Stakeholder Consultation Info- Background Information

APPENDIX D
Stakeholder Consultation Info - Posters

APPENDIX E
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Newspaper Adverts

APPENDIX F
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Adverts 1

APPENDIX G
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Adverts 2

APPENDIX H
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Minutes of Meeting

APPENDIX I
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Final Presentation

APPENDIX J
Specialist Study: Air Quality

APPENDIX K
Specialist Study: Avifauna

APPENDIX L
Specialist Study: Cultural Heritage

APPENDIX M
Specialist Study: Ecosystem G Services

APPENDIX N
Specialist Study: Greenhouse & Gas

APPENDIX O
Specialist Study: Groundwater

APPENDIX P
Specialist Study: Health Risk & Assessment

APPENDIX Q
Specialist Study: Landscape and Visual

APPENDIX R
Specialist Study: Noise

APPENDIX S
Specialist Study: Radiation

APPENDIX T
Specialist Study: Risk Assessment

APPENDIX U
Specialist Study: Social

APPENDIX V
Specialist Study: Soil

APPENDIX W

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Specialist Study: Surface Water

APPENDIX X
Specialist Study: Terrestrial

APPENDIX Y
Waste

APPENDIX Z
Water Supply

APPENDIX AA
Section 4 Legal: List of Environmentally related legal documents of the Republic of Uzbekistan

APPENDIX BB
Land Allotment Agreement

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym or
Explanation
Word
3
µg/m Micrograms per cubic metre
µm Micrometers
ADB Asian Development Bank
ADM Air Dispersion Model
AERMOD A Dispersion Model for Industrial Source Applications
ALARA
As Low As Reasonable Achievable
principle
ALARP As low as reasonably possible
AQS Air Quality Standard
ASU Air Separation Unit
ATR Autothermal Reformer
Symbol for bar gauge, a common unit of pressure in engineering. The term "gauge" means
barg that the pressure has been read from a gauge that actually measures the difference
between the pressure of the fluid or gas and the pressure of the atmosphere.
9
BCM Billion cubic metres (1 x 10 metres)
BDL Below Detection Limit
BFW Boiler Feed Water
BPSD barrels per stream day
BSS Basic Safety Standards
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CFPP Cold Filter Plug Point
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COMAH Control of Major Accident Hazards in the UK
COPCs Chemicals of Potential Concern
DREIA Draft Regulatory Environmental Impact Assessment
EBL External Battery Limit
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EC Electrical Conductivity
EC Engineering Contractor
EDR Equivalent Dose Rate
EEVA Equivalent Equilibrium Volumetric Activity
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPs Equator Principles
EPC Engineering and Procurement Contractor
ESHSIA Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Impact Assessment
FT Fischer Tropsch
FID Final Investment Decision
GIS Geographic Information System

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Acronym or
Explanation
Word
GPS Global Positioning System
GSR General Safety Requirement
GTL Gas to Liquids
ha hectares
HCl Hydrochloric Acid
I&APs Interested and Affected Parties
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ID Identification
IFC International Finance Corporation
INP Institute of Nuclear Physics of Uzbek Academy of Science
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan
LLC Limited Liability Company
LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas
LSA Local Study Area
m meters
2
m square meters
3
m cubic meters
masl meters above sea level
mbgl meters below ground level
MDA Minimum Detectable Activity
MLC Maximum Limit Concentrations
MRG Methane rich gas
MMSCFD Millioin Standard Cubic Feet
NGO Non-governmental organization
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
O3 Ozone
OBL Outside battery limit
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OLTIN YO’L
Uzbekistan Gas to Liquids LLC, trading as OLTIN YO’L GTL.
GTL
PC Process Contribution
PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PFR Pre-feasibility Report
PHA Process Hazard Assessment
PM10 Particulate Matter <10.0 µm
PM2.5 Particulate Matter <2.5 µm
PSD barrels per stream day
RMP Radiation Management Plan

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iv
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Acronym or
Explanation
Word
TM TM
Sasol SPD Sasol Slurry Phase Distallate
SCNP State Committee for Nature Protection (Goskompriroda)
SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan
SGCC Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
SPL Single Point Licensor
SSI Sasol Synfuels International
12
TCM Trillion cubic metres (1 x 10 metres)
TLDs Thermoluminescent Dosimeters
ToR Terms of Reference
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
UGCC Ustyurt Gas Chemical Complex
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNG Uzbekneftegaz
UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UZGTL Uzbekistan Gas to Liquid
VAC Visual absorption capacity
VAR Volumetric Activity of Radon
VIA Visual Impact Assessment
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WHO World Health Organization
ZTV Zone of theoretical visibility

TERMINOLOGY
Word Explanation
Autothermal reforming (ATR) technology applies oxygen and carbon dioxide
Autothermal reforming
or steam in a reaction with methane to form syngas. The reaction takes place
technology
in a single chamber where the methane is partially oxidized.
The evaluation of the risk in comparison to certain known levels of risk in
Acceptability
other areas.
Aqueous solution A solution in which water is the dissolving medium or solvent.
A saturated, but poorly permeable formation that impedes ground-water
movement and does not yield water freely to wells, but which may transmit
Aquitard
appreciable water to or from adjacent aquifers and, where sufficiently thick,
may constitute an important ground-water storage unit.
The process of collecting, organising, analysing, interpreting and
Assessment
communicating data that is relevant to some decision.
A tool for boring the soil and withdrawing small increments for field
Auger
observation and sampling.
One barrel, conventionally used as a measure of crude oil and fuel products.
barrel
A barrel of oil is 158.987 litres at standard temperature and pressure.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 v
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

+ 2+ 3+
A positively charged ion, for example Na , Ca , Al . The term
Cation exchangeable base cations ordinarily refers to calcium, magnesium,
potassium and sodium.
Calcisols A soil with a substantial secondary accumulation of lime.
Calcic horizon A horizon in which secondary calcium carbonate has accumulated.
Occurrences that give rise to a hazardous incident, e.g. failure of a
Causative events
temperature indicator or pressure relief, etc.
Methods and procedures undertaken in the conception, development,
construction, operation and closure, with the aim of decommissioning the
Closure Programme activity and the rehabilitation and monitoring of the environmental and of
adjoining areas affected by the activity, including social, economic and
cultural aspects.
The physical effects of hazardous incidents and the damage caused by
Consequences
these effects.
The degree of cohesion or adhesion within the soil mass or its resistance to
Consistence
deformation rupture.
Electrical Conductivity A measure of the ability of a material to conduct current and is a measure of
(EC) the concentration of salts in solution.
A tool for systematic, documented and objective management and
Environmental audit evaluation, of the functioning and organization of the management system
and the environmental control and protection processes.
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) refers to the process of
identifying, predicting and assessing the potential positive and negative
social, economic and biophysical impacts of any proposed project, plan,
programme or policy which requires authorisation of permission by law and
Environment Impact
which may significantly affect the environment. The EIA includes an
Assessment
evaluation of alternatives, as well as recommendations for appropriate
mitigation measures for minimizing or avoiding negative impacts, measures
for enhancing the positive aspects of the proposal, and environmental
management and monitoring measures.
Short-lived vegetation completing its life cycle within a short period of
Ephemeral
favourable conditions.
The process in soil in which certain chemical elements essential for plant
Fixation
growth are converted from an available to an unavailable form.
Waste that, because of its composition and characteristics, does not pose a
General waste
significant threat to public health or the environment if properly managed.
Gypsisols Contain a gypsic horizon at the soil surface or at some depth.
Gypsic horizon A horizon with distinct calcium sulphate enrichment.
Gypsum A mineral consisting of hydrous calcium sulphate.
Halophyte Vegetation that grows naturally in soils having a high content of various salts
A situation that has the potential to harm people, the environment or physical
Hazard property, through a fire, explosion or toxic release, e.g. the use, storage or
manufacture of a flammable or toxic material.
Waste that may, by circumstances of use, quantity, concentration or inherent
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, cause ill-health or increase
Hazardous waste
mortality in humans, fauna and flora, or adversely affect the environment
when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of.
Herbivore Plant-eating animal.
An occurrence due to use of plant or machinery or from activities in the
Incident workplace, that leads to an exposure of persons to hazards, e.g. the rupture
of a vessel and loss of containment of flammable or toxic material (also

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 vi
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

referred to as a hazardous event).

The frequency at which an individual may be expected to sustain a given
level of harm from realisation of specified hazards. It is usually described in
Individual risk numerical terms such as “a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of being killed by
lightning”. It does not take account of the total number of people at risk from
a particular event.
The solid, liquid, gaseous waste or any combination thereof generated by
Industrial waste
industrial processes and manufacturing.
A qualitative term for soils/horizon with approximately 10-35% clay; soils that
Loam
are not sandy or clayey.
Mixed solid waste Solid waste that is not sorted into categories of materials.
A surface horizon without stratification, which is either light coloured, or thin,
Ochric horizon
or has low organic carbon content, or is massive and hard when dry.
The organic fraction of soil generated from decomposition of plant or animal
Organic matter
material.
Particle (Fraction) The percentage of each size fraction into which a dispersed sample of a soil
distribution/size has been separated.
pH The degree of acidity of a soil expressed in terms of the pH scale (1-14).
Ruderal Vegetation that are first to colonise disturbed lands.
A qualitative term for soils with approximately 10% clay or less; soils that are
Sandy
coarser textured than loamy.
A vertical section of the soil through all its horizons and extending to the
Soil profile
underlying material.
Soil texture The relative proportions or the various separates (san, clay silt) in the soil.
The upper part of a soil profile, above the parent material, in which the
Solum
process of soil formation is active.
The arrangement of primary soil particles into secondary units or peds,
Structure
usually giving a distinctive characteristic pattern.
A layer of soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguishes it
Stratum
from contiguous layers.
Trace elements (micro
A chemical element necessary in small amounts for the growth of plants.
nutrients)
An undesirable or superfluous by-product, emission, or residue of any
process or activity which has been discarded, accumulated or stored for the
purpose of discarding or processing. It may be gaseous, liquid or solid or any
Waste combination thereof and may originate from a residential, commercial or
industrial area. This definition includes industrial waste water, sewage,
radioactive substances, gas and petroleum, metallurgical and power
generation waste.
Types of raw materials unsuitable for the production of a certain item, its
unusable remains or substances (solid, liquid, and gaseous) arising in the
Waste products course of a technological process) and energy which cannot be utilized in the
area under consideration (including, in agriculture and buildings). The waste
product of one production may be a raw material for another.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 vii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

THE ESHSIA PROJECT TEAM

ESHSIA Name of team Years of
Firm Qualification
Component member experience
MSc (Environmental
Geochemistry);
BSc (Hons) (Environmental
Project Director Rob Hounsome Golder Associates 20 years
Geology);
BSc (Geology & Applied
Geology)
MSc (Environmental
management);
Project
Nelius Scheepers Golder Associates BSc Hons (Wildlife 13 years
Manager
Management)
BSc Ecology
SPECIALIST STUDIES
Specialist Study - Noise
Acoustic
Simon Waddell Golder Associates (BSc Hons) AMIOA 10 years
consultant
Specialist Study – Surface Water and Downstream Water Users study
Task leader
Trevor Coleman Golder Associates MSc (Eng) 33 years
surface water
Surface water Angelina
Golder Associates PhD (Eng) 33 years
specialist Jordanova
Water resource
Oliver Malete Golder Associates BSc (Hons) Biochem 5 years
scientist
Specialist Study – Ground Water
Senior
Graham Hubert Golder Associates MSc Hydrogeology 40 years
geohydrologist
Senior
Gabriel Canahai Golder Associates MSc Geology/Geophysics 24 years
geohydrologist
Specialist Study – Air Quality Study
Air quality
Rachel Saville Golder Associates MSc 7 years
specialist
Senior
MSc Integrated Environmental
environmental Craig Woodburn Golder Associates 17 years
Control
scientist
Air quality
Amanda Gair Golder Associates BSc, PhD, MIEnvSc, MIAQM 22 years
specialist
MSc Environmental
Air quality Daniel
Golder Associates Management and Pollution 9 years
specialist Birkenshaw
Control, CSci IAQM MIEnvSc
Specialist Study - Soil
Senior Soil
National Diploma: Resource
science Louw Potgieter Golder Associates 19 years
Utilisation
technician
Specialist Study – Waste
Waste &
MA Environmental
environmental Andre Venter Golder Associates 21 years
Management
consultant

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 viii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Senior waste MSc, Civ Env Eng and MSc

Jarrod Ball Golder Associates 35 years
consultant Waste Mgt
Waste
management Natalie Kohler Golder Associates AIEMA, BSc(Hons), MCIWM 14 years
consultant
Specialist Study – Social and Economic Impact Assessment; Social Development Study; Stakeholder
consultation; Site Security Assessment; Landuse Planning, Human Resource Study
Socio-
economist and Lawrence Webb
Paul Lawrence MA 13 years
consultation Consulting Ltd.
specialist
Specialist Study – Health Risk Assessment
Health
specialist and Rosana Moraes Golder Associates PhD Environmental Sciences 15 years
biologist
Specialist Study – Cultural Heritage
Senior
Paul Wheelhouse Golder Associates BA MIFA AIEMA 19 years
archaeologist
Specialist Study – Risk Assessment
Risk assessor,
Daniel
process safety ISHECON BSc Chemical Engineering 19 years
Rademeyer
practitioner
Specialist Study – Biodiversity Study and Ecosystem Goods and Services study
Specialist
Lorenzo Fornasari Private consultant PhD Biological Sciences 26 years
ornithologist
Terrestrial
Koos De Wet Private consultant MSc 27 years
ecologist
Ecology BSc (Botany and Zoology)
Peter Kimberg Golder Associates 10 years
divisional leader BSc Hons in Aquatic Health
Specialist Study – Landscape and Visual Assessment
Environmental
design Johan Bothma Golder Associates MLA 14 years
specialist
Specialist Study – Green House Gas emissions
Energy and
Carbon Dave Mercer Golder Associates BEng (Hon), MEI CEM CMVP 20
engineer

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ix
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report represents the Environmental Impact Report for the Environmental, Social, Health and Safety
Impact Assessment (ESHSIA) for Uzbekistan GTL’s proposed Gas to Liquids Project (the Project), which is
located approximately 70 km south west of the city of Karshi, Uzbekistan. An environmental impact
assessment (EIA) is an assessment of the potential positive benefits and negative impacts of a proposed
Project on the receiving environment (including ecological, social and economic aspects).

The report was prepared following public and authority consultation during the Scoping Phase of the ESHSIA
between early June 2010 and 21 December 2011 and again in April (focus group meetings) and September
2013 (public hearings). Eighteen Specialist Studies and several supplementary investigations were
performed to inform the ESHSIA report.

1.1 Project Overview

The Republic of Uzbekistan has large natural gas reserves and in 2006, Uzbekistan's natural gas reserves
were estimated at 1.798 trillion cubic meters (TCM). During the Soviet era Uzbekistan was the USSR’s third-
largest producer of natural gas, accounting for more than 10% of the Soviet Union’s production. Uzbekistan
currently produces approximately 60 billion cubic meters (BCM) of natural gas annually.

Most of these reserves are located in the southwest of the country in the areas of Amu Dar’ya Basin and
Mubarek. Within this region, approximately 70 km southwest of the city of Karshi in the Gouzar District,
Uzbekneftegaz (UNG) owns and operates the Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex (SGCC). This existing SGCC
facility processes natural gas from the Shurtan field and produces approximately 125 million kg of
polyethylene per annum.

In 2009, UNG, Sasol Synfuels International (SSI) and PETRONAS began negotiations for the development
of a Gas to Liquids (GTL) plant adjacent to the existing SGCC facility. On 2 December 2010, the three
1
companies signed an agreement, officially creating the Uzbekistan GTL LLC Joint Venture (hereafter
referred to as OLTIN YO’L GTL). The Project (to be called the OLTIN YO’L Gas to Liquids Project) will
produce various liquid hydrocarbon products including GTL Naphtha, GTL Kerosene, GTL Diesel and Liquid
Petroleum Gas (LPG).

The term “gas-to-liquids” (GTL) is given to a number of chemical / industrial technologies designed to convert
natural gas / methane rich gas (MRG), to liquid fuels (hydrocarbons). These technologies act as efficient
alternatives to traditional crude oil refining processes. The OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will utilise the Sasol Slurry
Phase Distillate™ (Sasol SPD™) technology which is based on the Fischer-Tropsch process started to be
developed early in the 20th Century. This process involves a set of chemical reactions that result in the
conversion of carbon monoxide and hydrogen into oils or fuels that can substituted for petroleum products.

The Front End Engineering Design 2 (FEED 2) of the proposed GTL facility has been completed and the
ESHSIA study completed at the end of FEED 1 has been updated by this version of the ESHSIA document.
The Bankable ESHSIA study will be submitted to the Project financiers in 2014. The Regulatory EIA has also
been completed and submitted to the regulating authorities in Uzbekistan. Approval for site preparation
activities has been obtained from The State Committee for Nature Protection (Uzbekistan) on 21 December
2012 (authorisation reference number - 18/1143z). Assuming that all other Project approvals and financing is
in place, commissioning and operation is planned for late 2017.

1
Refer to Box 1-1 on the following page for background to the companies involved in the Joint Venture

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 1
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

1.2 The Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Assessment

Practitioner
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. was appointed to be the independent environmental assessment
practitioner for this ESHSIA. The following provides more information about Golder:

“Established in 1960, Golder is a global, employee-owned organisation driven by our purpose to

engineer earth’s development while preserving earth’s integrity. From over 180 offices worldwide,
our more than 8,000 employees help our clients find sustainable solutions to the challenges society
faces today including extraction of finite resources, energy and water supply and management,
waste management, urbanisation, and climate change. We do this by providing a wide range of
independent consulting, design and construction services to our clients in our specialist areas of
earth, environment and energy.

With Golder, clients gain the advantage of working with highly skilled engineers, scientists, project
managers, and other technical specialists who are committed to helping them succeed by
embedding sustainable development principles and practices into their projects. By building strong
relationships and meeting the needs of clients, our people have created one of the most trusted
professional services organisations in the world.

We serve our clients as a globally connected community that shares our knowledge to find the
answers to technical issues requiring innovative approaches. Golder’s superior skills at developing
client relationships and understanding their business needs enables us to help clients achieve their

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 2
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

short- and long-term financial, social, and environmental goals. We are recognised by our clients for
our technical expertise and service excellence.

We are known as an industry leader in Health & Safety and as a responsible global citizen. Our
people take pride in contributing to the well-being of the communities in which they live and work
through volunteering and other support activities.

The success of Golder’s culture can be seen through our steady growth. We now operate from
offices located throughout Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America, and South America. Our
knowledge of local cultures, languages and regulatory requirements, combined with our global
resources, makes it possible for us to help our clients achieve their business objectives around the
world and at home.

For more information, visit golder.com”.

1.3 The Need for an Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Impact
Assessment (ESHSIA)
As part of an application process for external financing for the Project, OLTIN YO’L GTL is required to
demonstrate that the Project’s potential environmental and social impacts have been adequately considered,
mitigated and managed. The sources of funding for this Project could include: multinational financial
institutions such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC) or European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) or Equator Principal Financial Institutions as well as the Asian Development Bank
(ADB) (or a combination of the above). Equator Principal Financial Institutions are committed to following the
IFC Performance Standards and Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for project investment
over $10 million in non-OECD countries.

OLTIN YO’L GTL appointed Golder to undertake the required bankable ESHSIA process. The ESHSIA was
conducted in accordance with the applicable International Finance Corporation (IFC) Social and
Environmental Performance Standards (2012) and applicable EHS Guidelines” and Bank Group Equator
principles (3).

The IFC defines projects according to the likely environmental and social impacts associated with the
development. The projects are assigned a category of A, B, or C, in descending order of environmental and
social sensitivity. Box 1-2 provides a description of each category.

Box 1-2: IFC categorisation of projects

¡ Category A: Projects expected to have significant adverse social and/or environmental impacts
that are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented;

¡ Category B: Projects in this category differ from Category A mainly in the scale of impacts. In
general they are activities which are expected to have limited adverse social and/or environmental
impacts that can be readily addressed through mitigation measures.

¡ Category C: Projects in this category are expected to have minimal or no adverse impacts. The
positive impacts clearly outweigh the negative impacts. However Category C projects require
compliance with guidelines for sound environmental management.

The OLTIN YO’L GTL Project is being considered as a Category A project as it is a relatively large scale
petrochemical plant and located on a green fields site. An ESHSIA process was undertaken to determine the
potential environmental, social, health and safety impacts, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures
that can be implemented to reduce the significance of those impacts.

The IFC suggests that Category A projects provide the following:

a) A public consultation plan (also referred to as a Stakeholder Engagement Plan);

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 3
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

b) A scoping report, including the results of consultation during scoping;

c) An ESHSIA, including an assessment of cumulative effects;

d) A risk / major hazard assessment; and

e) Environmental and social action plans.

The IFC Social and Environmental Sustainability Performance Standards also require the ESHSIA to
consider and observe the relevant legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The ESHSIA process involved
the identification and evaluation of potential environmental and social, health and safety impacts associated
with the Project, and in the context of the area of influence of the Project. Risks and impacts were analyzed
for all stages of the Project including construction, operation and decommissioning. Stakeholder
consultation was undertaken with interested and affected parties, and their issues and concerns were taken
into account during the ESHSIA process.

1.4 ESHSIA Process

Golder conducted the ESHSIA process, including scoping, for the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL Project. Figure
1.1 provides an overview of the ESHSIA process.

An ESHSIA functions as a planning tool which helps to determine the social, economical and environmental
as well as health and safety impacts of a project through public participation and independent specialist
assessment. The purpose of this ESHSIA is to provide the financiers with sufficient information on which to
base a decision about whether a project should receive project funding from a financing body. Through the
ESHSIA, potential negative and positive impacts are identified and recommendations are made for reducing
or avoiding negative impacts, and enhancing positive impacts.

The findings of an ESHSIA are transferred into clear and measurable objectives that must be achieved
during construction, commissioning, operation and closure of a project. These objectives, and plans for
achieving them, are captured in an Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Management Plan (ESHMP).

The ESHMP is a public document and becomes a legally binding condition should the Project go ahead. The
requirements laid out in an ESHMP, often form part of the financiers conditions of an agreement to provide
funding to a project. An ESHMP, is included as part of this ESHSIA Report.

Scoping Phase Impact ESHSIA Report Decision Making

Assessment and EMP OLTIN YO’L GTL’s
Identify issues to funding partners
focus the ESHSIA Detailed studies of Consolidate determine whether
potential positive findings of impact the Project will be
and negative assessment funded based upon
impacts studies and the ESHSIA
propose mitigation conclusions and
measures other information
Figure 1.1: Typical Phases of an Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Impact Assessment

1.5 Links of this ESHSIA with other Project Activities and Legal
Requirements
Although this bankable ESHSIA will be undertaken with due regard to Uzbekistan local legislation and
standards, a separate local regulatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study (Phase 1, 2 and 3) was
prepared by Uzlitineftgaz (Uzliti) to address local regulatory EIA requirements.

Should the Government of Uzbekistan issue the go ahead for the Project, based on the findings of the
Regulatory EIA, the Regulatory EIA as well as this ESHSIA document will be used to inform the Final

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 4
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Investment Decision (FID). Currently, the FID will take place at the end of FEED2 (Gate 4), and is planned
for end 2013. The FID will be followed by the Execution phase of this Project.

1.6 Scope of this ESHSIA study

The contract for the ESHSIA was awarded within the same month of the commencement of FEED1. FEED1
was followed by FEED2 during the ESHSIA process. FEED2 continued until 2013. The implication of this
schedule is that certain background / design / plant layout / social / economical / other data was not available
to inform certain aspects of the ESHSIA and specialist studies at the end of FEED1 but the specialist studies
were subsequently updated following the availability of FEED2 design information. Originally, IFC Social and
Environmental Performance Standards (2007) were utilised however, during the update of the report the
latest IFC Performance Standards (2012) were used. The scope of this ESHSIA is described in more detail
in Section 2.0 of this ESHSIA document.

1.7 Structure of this report

This ESHSIA Report is structured as follows:

VOLUME 1

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Section 1.0 is the introduction and gives an overview of the ESHSIA process and the ESHSIA team.
Section 2.0 describes the Project and motivation for the Project, as well as the alternatives considered.

BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

Section 3.0 describes the study area based on results collected during baseline establishment activities. It
presents a summary of knowledge about the existing physical, biological, social and cultural environment
upon which the Project may impact.

LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL

Section 4.0 outlines the legislative context in Uzbekistan that will govern the ESHSIA. Other project
financing standard requirements are also discussed as well as relevant OLTIN YO’L GTL policies.
Section 5.0 outlines the ESHSIA and public participation processes, indicating how stakeholders were
notified of the opportunity to contribute to the ESHSIA, how affected landowners were consulted, and
opportunities for stakeholders to contribute issues and comments on the various reports produced during
the ESHSIA.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Section 6.0 summarise the potential impacts of the Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Section 7.0 details the ESHMP. This stipulates the mitigation requirements as applicable to the OLTIN
YO’L GTL Project, and the monitoring plan requirements.

Section 8.0 contains the summary and conclusion as well as list of references.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 5
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX A
Document Limitations

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

DOCUMENT LIMITATIONS
This Document has been provided by Golder Associates Africa Pty Ltd (“Golder”) subject to the following
limitations:

i) This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golder’s proposal and no
responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any
other purpose.

ii) The scope and the period of Golder’s Services are as described in Golder’s proposal, and are subject to
restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or
circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly
indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any
determination has been made by Golder in regards to it.

iii) Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder was
retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory
locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by
the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly,
additional studies and actions may be required.

iv) In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in
this Document. Golder’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production
of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an
opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess
the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or
regulations.

v) Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources
and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual
conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.

vi) Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data,
have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No
responsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.

vii) The Client acknowledges that Golder may have retained sub-consultants affiliated with Golder to
provide Services for the benefit of Golder. Golder will be fully responsible to the Client for the Services
and work done by all of its sub-consultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will only assert
claims against and seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from Golder and not Golder’s
affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will
not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss, claim, demand, or cause of action, against
Golder’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.

viii) This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional
advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person
other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or
decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this Document.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD

k:\projects\12614848_uzbekistan_eshsia_2013\4_reports\eshsia update\final\final_report_to_client\final changes accepted\12614848-12330-10_oltin

yo'l_gtl_eshsia_section_1_changes accepted_17jan2014.docx

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX B
Stakeholder Engagement Plan

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX C
Stakeholder Consultation Info- Background Information

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX D
Stakeholder Consultation Info - Posters

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX E
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Newspaper Adverts

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX F
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Adverts 1

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX G
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Adverts 2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX H
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Minutes of Meeting

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX I
Stakeholder Consultation Info – Final Presentation

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX J
Specialist Study: Air Quality

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX K
Specialist Study: Avifauna

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX L
Specialist Study: Cultural Heritage

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX M
Specialist Study: Ecosystem G Services

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX N
Specialist Study: Greenhouse & Gas

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX O
Specialist Study: Groundwater

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX P
Specialist Study: Health Risk & Assessment

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX Q
Specialist Study: Landscape and Visual

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX R
Specialist Study: Noise

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX S
Specialist Study: Radiation

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX T
Specialist Study: Risk Assessment

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX U
Specialist Study: Social

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX V
Specialist Study: Soil

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX W
Specialist Study: Surface Water

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX X
Specialist Study: Terrestrial

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX Y
Waste

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX Z
Water Supply

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX AA
Section 4 Legal: List of Environmentally related legal
documents of the Republic of Uzbekistan

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

APPENDIX BB
Land Allotment Agreement

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Block C, Bellevue Campus
5 Bellevue Road
Kloof
KwaZulu Natal
South Africa
T: [+27] (31) 717 2790
 January 2014

OLTIN YO'L GAS TO LIQUIDS PROJECT

SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Environmental, Social, Health

and Safety Impact Assessment
(ESHSIA)
Performed on behalf of:
OLTIN YO'L GTL
41/4 Mirabadskaya Street,
Mirabad District 100015 Tashkent,
Republic of Uzbekistan.
REPORT

Report Number. 12614848-12330-10

Distribution:
1 x copy: OLTIN YO'L GTL
2 x copies: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
LC
To be reproduced and used only in accordance with
written permission of Uzbekistan GTL LLC
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table of Contents

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Location and Context .................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Project Site Layout ................................................................................................................................ 10

2.3 Project Motivation ....................................................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Process Description .................................................................................................................................... 12

TM
2.4.1 Three core Steps of the Sasol SPD : .................................................................................................. 12

2.4.2 GTL Project Components ...................................................................................................................... 13

2.4.3 Processing Unit Details ......................................................................................................................... 17

2.4.3.1 Air Separation (Unit 10) ..................................................................................................................... 17

2.4.3.2 Methane Rich Gas Supply ................................................................................................................. 17

2.4.3.3 Synthesis Gas Production (Unit 20) ................................................................................................... 17

2.4.3.4 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis (Unit 30) .................................................................................................. 17

2.4.3.5 Heavy Ends Recovery (Unit 35)......................................................................................................... 18

2.4.3.6 Water Treatment (Unit 40) ................................................................................................................. 19

2.4.3.7 Product Work-up (Unit 50) ................................................................................................................. 20

2.4.3.9 LPG Treatment (Unit 55).................................................................................................................... 22

2.4.3.10 Hydrogen Production (Unit 60) .......................................................................................................... 22

2.4.4 Inputs and Outputs ................................................................................................................................ 23

2.4.4.1 Inputs ................................................................................................................................................. 23

2.4.4.2 Outputs .............................................................................................................................................. 24

2.4.5 Hydrological Features ........................................................................................................................... 24

2.4.5.1 Storm Water Modelling Pond Size Estimation ................................................................................... 24

2.4.5.2 Discharge management ..................................................................................................................... 26

2.4.5.3 Conceptual water system................................................................................................................... 28

2.4.6 Waste .................................................................................................................................................... 30

2.4.6.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 30

2.4.6.2 Waste Sources .................................................................................................................................. 31

2.4.6.3 Waste Classification........................................................................................................................... 31

2.4.6.4 Waste disposal .................................................................................................................................. 32

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.4.6.5 Construction Phase ........................................................................................................................... 32

2.4.6.6 Operational Phase ............................................................................................................................. 32

2.4.6.6.1 Air Separation Unit (ASU) (Unit 10) ................................................................................................ 32

2.4.6.6.2 Synthesis Gas Unit (SGU) (Unit 20) ............................................................................................... 33

2.4.6.6.3. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis unit (FTS) (Unit 30) .............................................................................. 34

2.4.6.6.4 Heavy Ends Recovery Unit (HER) (Unit 35) ................................................................................... 34

2.4.6.6.5 Reaction water treatment unit (WT) (Unit 40) ................................................................................. 35

2.4.6.6.6 Product work-up unit (PWU) (Unit 50) ............................................................................................ 36

2.4.6.6.8 Hydrogen production unit (HPU) (Unit 60) ...................................................................................... 36

2.4.6.6.9 Raw water treatment (RWT) (Unit 71) ............................................................................................ 37

2.4.6.6.10 Steam and condensate systems (Unit 72) ...................................................................................... 37

2.4.6.6.11 Air and nitrogen system (Unit 75) ................................................................................................... 38

2.4.6.6.12 Effluent bio-treatment unit (ETU) (Unit 76) ..................................................................................... 38

2.4.6.6.13 Process Effluent Bio-Treatment Unit (Unit 77)................................................................................ 39

2.4.6.6.14 Other process wastes ..................................................................................................................... 39

2.4.6.7 Decommissioning Phase ................................................................................................................... 42

2.4.6.7.1 Waste Management during the Decommissioning Phase .............................................................. 42

2.4.6.7.2 The Development of an on-site landfill ........................................................................................... 42

2.4.7 Hazardous Materials in the OLTIN YO’L GTL Process ......................................................................... 45

2.4.7.1 Physical and Flammable Properties................................................................................................... 45

2.4.7.2 Product Specifications ....................................................................................................................... 46

2.4.7.3 Toxicity............................................................................................................................................... 49

2.4.7.4 Material Toxic Data ............................................................................................................................ 50

2.4.7.5 Material Incompatibility and Interactions ............................................................................................ 51

2.4.8 Anticipated air emissions from the OLTIN YO’L GTL Process .............................................................. 51

2.4.8.1 Modelled Emissions from the Proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant ....................................................... 51

2.4.8.2 Modelled single release events .......................................................................................................... 52

2.4.8.3 Modelled traffic related air quality emissions ..................................................................................... 53

2.4.9 Green House Gas Footprint .................................................................................................................. 54

2.4.10 Energy Efficiency .................................................................................................................................. 57

2.5 Construction Activities................................................................................................................................. 57

2.5.1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 58

2.5.1.1 Spoil facility .................................................................................................................................................. 59

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.5.2 Water Supply during construction ......................................................................................................... 60

2.5.3 Waste during the construction phase .................................................................................................... 60

2.5.4 Environmental control measures during construction ............................................................................ 60

2.5.5 Engineering during Construction ........................................................................................................... 60

2.5.6 Commissioning and Start-up ................................................................................................................. 62

2.5.7 Risks during Commissioning and Start-up ............................................................................................ 62

2.6 Ancillary infrastructure/ Associated Facilities .............................................................................................. 62

2.6.1 Dependent infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 62

2.6.2 Independent infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 64

2.7 Project Schedule ......................................................................................................................................... 65

2.7 Project Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 65

2.7.1 Project Location Alternatives Prior to the ESHSIA ................................................................................ 66

2.7.2 Site Location Alternatives Prior to the ESHSIA ..................................................................................... 67

2.7.3 Technological / Production Alternatives ................................................................................................ 70

2.7.4 Transportation and Route Alternatives .................................................................................................. 70

2.7.4.1 Road/ Rail Transportation .................................................................................................................. 70

2.7.4.2 Rail & Road from Aktau, Kazakhstan ................................................................................................. 72

2.7.4.3 Roads from Turkmenbashi through Turkmenistan ............................................................................. 72

2.7.4.4 Bridge infrastructure and alternatives ................................................................................................ 73

2.7.4.5 Road improvement ............................................................................................................................ 74

2.7.4.6 Route options to Shurtan ................................................................................................................... 74

2.7.4.7 Routes through Kazakhstan (Route A & B)........................................................................................ 76

2.7.4.8 Routes through Turkmenistan (Routes C, D and E) .......................................................................... 76

2.7.4.9 Rail Route alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 77

2.7.4.10 Rail Infrastructure Requirements ....................................................................................................... 77

2.7.4.11 Road Route Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 78

2.7.5 The “No-Project” Alternative (Baseline scenario), Investigated during the ESHSIA .............................. 78

2.7.5.1 The Role of Energy in the Economy .................................................................................................. 78

2.7.5.2 Costs of not having Sufficient Fuel .................................................................................................... 79

2.7.5.3 Job Creation ...................................................................................................................................... 79

2.7.6 Site Location Alternatives Investigated during the ESHSIA................................................................... 79

2.8 Carbon Capture Readiness of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project ..................................................................... 80

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iv
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

TABLES
Table 2.1: Estimated uncontaminated and contaminated areas ............................................................................................... 25

Table 2.2: IFC effluent guidelines for Natural Gas Processing Facilities, the WHO guidelines for drinking water
and local Domestic water use guidelines................................................................................................................. 26

Table 2.3: Pearlite composition ................................................................................................................................................ 33

Table 2.4: Physical and flammable properties ......................................................................................................................... 45

Table 2.5: GTL Diesel Specification ......................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 2.6: Specification requirements for GTL Kerosene based on ASTM D7566 ................................................................... 47

Table 2.7: GTL Naphtha Specification...................................................................................................................................... 48

Table 2.8: LPG GOST 27578 Specifications ............................................................................................................................ 49

Table 2.9: Acute Health effects ................................................................................................................................................ 50

Table 2.10: Acute Health effects .............................................................................................................................................. 50

Table 2.11: Acute Health effects .............................................................................................................................................. 50

Table 2.12: Toxicity data .......................................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 2.13: Stack Parameters used in the Modelling Assessment ........................................................................................... 52

Table 2.14: Emissions Concentrations used in the Modelling Assessment .............................................................................. 52

Table 2.15: Standards used for “one time” Single Release Assessment.................................................................................. 53

Table 2.16: Maximum Predicted Single Release at Site Boundary .......................................................................................... 53

Table 2.17: Average Daily Site traffic ....................................................................................................................................... 54

Table 2.18: Calculation of Carbon output by product line ......................................................................................................... 54

Table 2.19: Process Carbon Balance ....................................................................................................................................... 54

Table 2.20: Scope 1 GHG Footprint Calculation ...................................................................................................................... 55

Table 2.21: Scope 2 emissions summary ................................................................................................................................. 55

Table 2.22: Scope 3 GHG accountable to construction materials ............................................................................................ 55

Table 2.23: Pre-operational Scope 3 Summary........................................................................................................................ 56

Table 2.24: Pre-operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Source .............................................................................. 56

Table 2.25: Pre-operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Scope ............................................................................... 56

Table 2.26: Operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Source/Scope ......................................................................... 56

Table 2.27: Timeline GHG Emissions: Pre-operational and Operational to Year 5 .................................................................. 57

Table 2.28: GHG/Energy Reduction Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... 57

Table 2.29: List of Associated Infrastructure To Be Constructed by Government Entities Under Investment
Agreement ............................................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 2.30: Alternatives investigated by OLTIN YO’L GTL prior to the ESHSIA, and investigated by the ESHSIA.................. 65

Table 2.31: Project location alternatives – Southern Alternative (Shurtan GCC) versus North-Western Alternative
(Ustyurt GCC) .......................................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 2.32: Technological / production alternatives (production for both alternatives assumes production capacity
3
of 380,000 m / hr) ................................................................................................................................................... 70

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 2.33: Comparative analysis of the four site location alternatives around the existing SGCC site considered
during the ESHSIA .................................................................................................................................................. 79

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Regional location of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project (I) ............................................................................... 7

Figure 2.2: Regional (provincial) location of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project ................................................................. 8

Figure 2.3: OLTIN YO’L GTL proposed project infrastructure layout in relation to the existing SGCC plant site ........................ 9

Figure 2.4: OLTIN YO’L GTL proposed project footprint .......................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2.5: Sasol Slurry Phase Distillate™ process (Sasol, 2006) ........................................................................................... 13

Figure 2.6: Illustrative photos of the Oryx GTL plant in Qatar. ................................................................................................. 15

Figure 2.7: OLTIN YO’L GTL: Gas to Liquids process flow diagram ........................................................................................ 16

Figure 2.8: Fischer Tropsch slurry phase reactors ................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2.9: Illustrates the process flow of the Reaction Water treatment. ................................................................................ 20

Figure 2.10: Product Work-up .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 2.11: LPG treatment process ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 2.12: Hydrogen production ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Figure 2.13: Composition of the projected municipal solid waste stream, OLTIN YO’L GTL .................................................... 40

Figure 2.14: Domestic waste containers .................................................................................................................................. 40

Figure 2.15: Position of the on-site landfill ................................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 2.16: Position of the Landfarm ...................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 2.17: Proposed spoil dump layout ................................................................................................................................. 59

Figure 2.18: Cross sections of the proposed spoil dump (sections as indicated in Figure 2.17 above).................................... 59

Figure 2.19: The OLTIN YO’L GTL regional site alternatives in Uzbekistan two ...................................................................... 68

Figure 2.20: The site alternative assessment of the proposed project footprint for the OLTIN YO’L GTL project site .............. 69

Figure 2.21: A cross section of the largest road vessel size and weight design recommended in the 2010 report. ................. 71

Figure 2.22: The proposed diameter of the road transport vessel and the dimensions required for the turning circle.............. 71

Figure 2.23: The new road/ rail bridge between Gazojak (Turkmenistan) and Pitnak (Uzbekistan). ........................................ 73

Figure 2.24: The cable stayed steel bridge .............................................................................................................................. 73

Figure 2.25: Deteriorated road conditions ................................................................................................................................ 74

Figure 2.26: Potential Road Routes from the GTL Plant to Ports. ............................................................................................ 75

Figure 2.27: Rail Route Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................... 78

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Overview
The term “gas-to-liquids” (GTL) is given to a number of chemical / industrial technologies designed to convert
natural gas / methane rich gas (MRG), to liquid fuels (hydrocarbons). These technologies act as efficient
alternatives to traditional crude oil refining processes. The OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will utilise the Sasol Slurry
Phase Distillate™ (Sasol SPD™) technology which is based on the Fischer-Tropsch process which started
to be development early in the 20th Century. This process involves a set of chemical reactions that result in
the conversion of carbon monoxide and hydrogen into oils or fuels that can substituted for petroleum
products.

The OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will be located adjacent to the existing Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex (SGCC)
in the Kashkadarya region in the southwest of Uzbekistan. The proposed plant is designed to produce
approximately 37 600 barrels of high-quality liquid fuels per day (“bpsd”). SGCC will supply the MRG
(feedstock), at a rate of 340 million standard cubic feet per day. The feed gas SGCC is supplied by
Shurtanneftegaz from the nearby Shurtan gas fields. MRG is produced as a by-product, during the
manufacturing of polyethylene related products, SGCC. In addition, the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will also
consume up to 30 million standard cubic feet of natural gas from the national pipeline grid system in
Uzbekistan. This will be the feedstock for the proposed site utilities and Hydrogen Production Unit.

The OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will convert MRG to liquid products consisting of GTL diesel, GTL kerosene,
liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) and GTL naphtha. All products are shipped by rail via the adjacent existing
link to the national rail network. GTL Diesel is a high value blendstock for diesel transport fuels. GTL
Kerosene is a high value synthetic kerosene blendstock for aviation fuel. GTL Diesel, GTL Kerosene and
LPG will be sold for domestic consumption under a long term product off take agreement. GTL Naphtha is a
high value refinery/cracker feedstock and will be exported.

2.2 Location and Context

The OLTIN YO’L GTL Project is located in the Republic of Uzbekistan, in the territory of the Nishan District in
the Kashkadarya Region. The site lies approximately 70km south west of the City of Karshi at 38º27’53” N;
65º47’ 00” E. Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 show the location of the site within Uzbekistan.

The Project site borders directly onto the north eastern boundary of the existing Shurtan Gas Chemical
Complex (SGCC), but falls outside of the sanitary protection zone around the SGCC footprint (Figure 2.3).
The Project area is a steppe sloped gradient which stretches from the southeast (elevation) to the north-west
(the area of lower altitudes). The Project area crosses two parallel gorges, running from south-east to north-
west.

The “Shurtan” specialized forestry of Nishan district stretches a distance of 1250m from the south-east,
south-west and north-west through the valley. The Project site is undeveloped and non- agricultural at
present. The closest formal agricultural activity (primary cotton crops) is at Navbahor Village located
approximately 7km from the proposed site.

Existing services and infrastructure available to the proposed Project include a serviced railway and the
national power grid. Water will be supplied from an existing Himki reservoir less than 4 km away from the
site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 6
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.1: Regional location of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project (I)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 7
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.2: Regional (provincial) location of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 8
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.3: OLTIN YO’L GTL proposed project infrastructure layout in relation to the existing SGCC plant site

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 9
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.2.1 Project Site Layout

The proposed site layout is presented in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4. Figure 2.3 presents the location of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL site in relation to the existing SGCC plant and other existing infrastructure.

Figure 2.4 presents a conceptual GTL site layout provided by OLTIN YO’L GTL. It is expected that the
proposed site will be laid out in a similar manner, however it must be noted that the detailed design could
differ from this conceptual design layout.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 10
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.4: OLTIN YO’L GTL proposed project footprint

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 11
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.3 Project Motivation

In the Uzbek context, the availability of the Sasol
SPD™ has numerous benefits to the people of
Uzbekistan. This technology will enable additional
beneficial uses in Uzbekistan for the natural resources
(natural gas) of this country, and improved availability
of fuel products on a national level. The proposed GTL
plant would facilitate additional stimulation of the
Uzbek economy resulting in direct economic benefits
to the people of Uzbekistan. The involvement of a
multinational joint venture group will also be beneficial
to the Uzbekistan; economy, skills development,
diplomatic relations, etc. On a local level, the
establishment of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL plant
will have regional economic benefits in terms of
employment, secondary business opportunities that
will be required over time, as well as infrastructure
improvements in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed plant.

There are a number of general benefits associated

with GTL projects, namely:

1) An increase in the supply of global GTL diesel

product to meet increasing demand;

2) Lower emissions from GTL compared with

standard refinery produced fuels due to cleaner burning;

3) Better biodegradability when compared to conventionally-refined fuels; and

4) GTL products generally result in lower engine noise, due to reduced cylinder pressure, which
can lead to maintenance benefits.

Should the Project not go ahead the benefits listed above will not be realised in Uzbekistan. There are
limited alternatives to the Project within Uzbekistan.

2.4 Process Description

TM
The proposed GTL plant will consist of stand-alone two-train Sasol Slurry Phase Distillate (Sasol
TM TM
SPD ) GTL technology. The Sasol SPD process dates back to the 1980s when Sasol developed a
low-temperature Slurry Phase Fischer-Tropsch reactor in Sasolburg which involves a number of steps
to convert natural gas into high grade diesel. This technology makes use of a proprietary iron or
cobalt-based catalyst to allow the synthesis of liquid fuels.

2.4.1 Three core Steps of the Sasol SPDTM:

TM
There are three main steps in the Sasol SPD process:

1) Convert methane rich hydrocarbon gases by reacting it with oxygen and steam over a catalyst to
produce synthesis gas, which is a mixture of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Hydrogen (H2).This
will be achieved using autothermal reforming technology;

2) Convert synthesis gas into longer chain (waxy) liquid hydrocarbons by means of the Fischer-
Tropsch (FT) process. Synthesis gas is fed into the reactor where it is then distributed into a
slurry made up of liquid wax and particles of Sasols’ proprietary advanced catalyst. As the gas
bubbles up through the slurry, it diffuses into the catalyst and thereafter it is converted to waxy
synthetic crude (syn-crude). The long chain wax product is then separated from the slurry. The
lighter volatile fractions exit in a gas stream from the top of the reactor. The gas stream is cooled
to recover the hydrocarbons that have a lower molecular weight;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 12
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3) Upgrade the liquid FT products (hydrocarbon streams) into high quality final products (mainly
®
LPG, GTL Kerosene, GTL Naphtha and GTL Diesel) using Chevron’s Isocracking technology.
Figure 2.5 provides an overview of the Sasol Slurry Phase Distillate™ process.

Figure 2.5: Sasol Slurry Phase Distillate™ process (Sasol, 2006)

The technology described in Figure 2.5 is proven, with a commercial plant operating in Ras Laffan,
Qatar, while a second GTL plant is being commissioned in Nigeria.

2.4.2 GTL Project Components

The GTL facility will comprise a number of chemical processes each of which is briefly described
below:
1) Air Separation Unit: generates the oxygen required for the synthesis gas unit;

2) Synthesis Gas Unit: Auto-thermal Reforming technology produces synthesis gas (or Syn-gas)
by reforming methane rich gas with oxygen in the presence of steam. Syn-gas is mostly a
mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide;

3) Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis Unit: Syn-gas is converted into primary liquid products (wax and
condensate);
4) Heavy Ends Recovery Unit: Fischer-Tropsch tail gas and Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbon
condensate is routed to the Heavy Ends Recovery Unit, where heavy hydrocarbon material is
separated from the tail gas and CO2 is removed from the hydrocarbon condensate. The by-
products can then be recycled into the Synthesis Gas Unit;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 13
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

5) Water Treatment Unit: Wastewater generated during the Sasol Slurry Phase Distillate™
process is routed to this unit which is fitted with oil separation equipment and distillation columns
for the treatment and recycling of wastewater;
6) Wax Treatment Unit: Wax produced in the Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis Unit is cleaned of
contaminants;

7) LPG Treatment Unit: The mixed LPG stream is stripped and treated to meet final product
specification;
8) Hydrogen Production Unit: Methane rich gas is converted into hydrogen; and

9) Utilities and Offsite: Various utility units, which will provide reliable utility services to support the
OLTIN YO’L GTL facility. For more information, see section 2.6.

Figure 2.6 illustrates some of the typical sections of the Oryx GTL plant currently in operation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 14
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.6: Illustrative photos of the Oryx GTL plant in Qatar.

A block flow diagram for the Sasol SPD™ process is presented Figure 2.7

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 15
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.7: OLTIN YO’L GTL: Gas to Liquids process flow diagram

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 16
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.4.3 Processing Unit Details

2.4.3.1 Air Separation (Unit 10)
The oxygen fed to the autothermal reformers is produced in a cryogenic air separation unit. Atmospheric air is compressed with centrifugal compressors
to high pressure and liquefied. In cryogenic distillation columns the liquid air is separated into pure oxygen and nitrogen. The nitrogen is stored in
cryogenic tanks, while the oxygen is supplied directly as a gas to the Synthesis Gas Unit; when convenient the liquid oxygen is transferred to cryogenic
tanks for storage.

2.4.3.2 Methane Rich Gas Supply

Methane rich gas is supplied from the Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex (SGCC) via an overland pipeline at high pressure directly to the Synthesis Gas
unit. A side stream is also taken off for hydrogen production.

2.4.3.3 Synthesis Gas Production (Unit 20)

Synthesis gas is produced in a conventional synthesis gas production unit comprising desulphurisation, pre-reformers, authothermal reformers and heat
recovery system. Methane rich feed gas (CH4 >98%mol) is first mixed with hydrogen, then preheated in the convection section of the process heater
and hydro-desulphurised to remove the mercaptans and hydrogen sulphide. The resultant stream is mixed with steam. Oxygen at high pressure is
introduced and the methane is reformed to synthesis gas, which mainly consists of a mixture of hydrogen (ca 60 %v), carbon monoxide (ca 30 %v) and
carbon dioxide (ca 6 %v) with small amounts of water and nitrogen after cooling to 70°C with the water condensate removed. The dry synthesis gas is
fed to the Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis unit 30.

2.4.3.4 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis (Unit 30)

Dry synthesis gas from the syngas generation section is mixed with recycled gas to form the feed to the Fischer-Tropsch slurry phase reactors. Here,
the hydrogen and carbon monoxide form heavy paraffinic wax and hydrocarbon condensate via exothermic reactions in the presence of cobalt based
catalyst. The heat is removed by generating medium pressure steam. Reactor overhead vapour is separated into tail gas, hydrocarbon condensate and
reaction water in a high-pressure separator. The former two components are then fed to the Heavy Ends Recovery unit 35, while all the reaction water
is routed to the Reaction Water Treatment unit. Wax at 120°C is sent to a flash drum for residual CO2 removal and then purified before transfer into an
intermediate storage tank. Figure 2.8 illustrates the process flow diagram of the Fischer-Tropsch slurry phase reactors.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 17
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.8: Fischer Tropsch slurry phase reactors

2.4.3.5 Heavy Ends Recovery (Unit 35)

Tail gas from the Fischer Tropsch Synthesis is cooled to allow water and hydrocarbon liquids (heavy ends) to condense and then enters a wash column
where organic acids are removed. The tail gas is then dried and chilled to condense out the heavy ends, while some of the lean tail gas is recycled to
the Synthesis Gas unit 20 and the remainder is used in the Fuel System as tail gas fuel.

Hydrocarbon liquid is fed to a cryogenic stripper column where the CO2 is removed, and then pumped to the Product Work-up unit 50. If the latter unit is
unavailable, the heavy ends condensate is flashed at low pressure, cooled down and stored in a tank in the Intermediate Storage area.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 18
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.4.3.6 Water Treatment (Unit 40)

Reaction water is first fed to a de-gassing vessel where the gas is routed to flare, followed by an oil separator before entering a distillation column. The
overhead and side streams consisting of oxygenate – water is routed to the Fuel System as fuel, while the bottoms is cooled and routed to Process
Effluent Bio-treatment. The oily hydrocarbon from the separator is transferred to Intermediate Storage.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 19
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.9: Illustrates the process flow of the Reaction Water treatment.

2.4.3.7 Product Work-up (Unit 50)

FT wax and condensate, and liquid hydrocarbon from Heavy Ends Recovery are converted to final products in this unit. These are combined with
hydrogen and fed into the hydrocracker reactor where the hydrocarbons are cracked and isomerised. This unit operates at petroleum refinery typical
conditions. The reactor products are cooled, separated and unconverted hydrogen recycled to the reactor, while the liquids are fed to fractionation
columns to produce diesel, kerosene, naphtha and LPG. The unconverted heavy material is returned to the hydrocracker. Diesel and kerosene are
further purified to meet product specifications. Naphtha is stabilized in a distillation column and the overhead vapour condensed as mixed Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG) stream is routed to the LPG Treatment unit. Figure 2.10 illustrates the process flow of Product Work-up.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 20
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.10: Product Work-up

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 21
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.4.3.9 LPG Treatment (Unit 55)

Wet LPG is fed into a column where light components, hydrogen sulphide, water and excess butane is stripped to produce a product specification LPG
which is transferred to horizontal cylindrical vessels in the LPG Storage and Export tank farm. Light components are then separated in a deethaniser
column and butane in a downstream debutaniser column. Figure 2.11 illustrates the process flow of LPG treatment.

Figure 2.11: LPG treatment process

2.4.3.10 Hydrogen Production (Unit 60)

Hydrogen is produced from the methane rich gas by reforming methane to hydrogen with steam in a reactor and the hydrogen is purified with a
pressure swing adsorption system. Figure 2.12 illustrates the process flow of Hydrogen production.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 22
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.12: Hydrogen production

2.4.4 Inputs and Outputs

The inputs to the GTL Project are as follows:

2.4.4.1 Inputs
1) Methane rich natural gas will be supplied from the SGCC at a rate of 340 million standard cubic feet per day;

2) Methane rich gas will also be used as the key source of fuel for each of the process units;

3) Raw water supply during the summer season will be 171 t/h and 162.7 t/h in winter. A limited supply of raw water is available for import from a
local reservoir located approximately 4 km north-east of the facility location. A second raw water supply header will be provided, importing raw
water from the pump station located to the south of the plant. Information on construction water supply is presented in section 2.5.2;

4) Twenty five (25) MW of power will be supplied from the Shurtan 220 substation. This should be sufficient for project start up and on demand in the
event of a process upset. During normal operation, the production process will generate sufficient power to supply the OLTIN YO’L GTL plants’
needs using steam turbine generator (STGs); however the electrical connection will remain to provide for varying electrical power requirements;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 23
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

5) Nitrogen will be required during the construction phase and project start up;

6) Hydrogen; and

7) Oxygen from the atmosphere at a rate of approximately 341 kg/h.

2.4.4.2 Outputs
1) Wastewater (surface wastewater and process water) will be treated at the Process Effluent Bio-Treatment Unit. The effluent will be treated and the
water upgraded to be reused within the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility (this item is discussed in more detail below in Section 2.4.5 (Hydrological
Features). High quality treated process water not used will be discharged to the existing canal used by SGCC;

2) Tail gas (emission modelling is discussed in more detail in the baseline description section (Section 3.0) of this report);

3) GTL Naphtha will be produced and used as high value cracker/refinery feedstock;

4) GTL Diesel will be produced and used as high value blend stock for diesel transport fuels;

5) GTL Kerosene will be produced used as high value synthetic kerosene blend stock for aviation fuel;

6) LPG product will be produced and treated to meet local road transport fuel specifications and pumped to the adjacent SGCC;

7) Steam;

8) Flaring of gas from degassing units during various steps of the GTL process; and

9) Waste materials (see Section 2.4.6 below).

2.4.5 Hydrological Features

2.4.5.1 Storm Water Modelling Pond Size Estimation
There are no significant drainage channels located adjacent to the site. However a stormwater cut-off berm and trenches will be constructed around the
site to prevent clean water runoff from the catchment areas around the site from entering the plant area. The berm and trench will also serve to prevent
the contaminated runoff from leaving the site. The berm system will be sized to convey the 50 year recurrence interval flood peak.

The total footprint of the plant process and utility areas is approximately 69 ha (Sasol 2013a). Stormwater may become contaminated as a result of
spills of process liquids. Natural gas processing facilities should provide secondary containment where liquids are handled, segregate contaminated and
uncontaminated. Drainage systems have to be separated for drainage water from process areas that could be contaminated with oil (closed drainage)
and drainage stormwater from non-process areas (open drainage) that includes any surface runoff and flows resulting from precipitation, drainage or
other sources.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 24
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The principles adopted are summarized as follows:

1. The runoff from uncontaminated and contaminated needs to be kept separate. The uncontaminated runoff will be returned to the surface water
environment via a stormwater pond if the water quality is suitable for discharge;

2. In order to reduce the volume for treatment, stormwater is separated from process contaminated runoff and clean stormwater runoff;

3. A water management system of diversion bunds, trenches, pollution control dams and operating rules need to be implemented in order to meet
the design requirements of the system; and

4. Stormwater ponds should be design with sufficient capacity for foreseeable operating conditions.

Available site related drawing provided from the client (Design Drawing No. 2381-00-DW-0051-01 (Revision 07)) was used to estimate the clean and
potentially contaminated (oily) areas. The estimated clean and oily areas are presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Estimated uncontaminated and contaminated areas
Area definition Area (ha)

Potentially contaminated 5.1

Clean 25.5

The water management philosophy as described in Sasol (2013a) and Sasol (2013b) is to collect the runoff from the oily (potentially contaminated
areas) to the Peak Flow Chamber (PFC). The PFC has been sized to capture the first 20 minutes (time of concentration) of the runoff from the oily
areas. The runoff volume after the first 20 minutes is assumed to be clean and is sent to the Fire Water Runoff Basin (FWB). Sasol (2013a) gives the
3
rainfall intensity as 10.8 mm/hr which translates to a volume of 100 m for the PFC. The runoff from the clean area is conveyed in a clean water
drainage system to the clean stormwater pond (CSP). Pumps are installed in the CSP to pump the water to be discharged into the Discharge Channel
located at the current SGCC plant.

The runoff water captured in the PFC will be tested and if found to be polluted the water is sent to Process Effluent Bio-treatment (Unit 77) for treatment
in the bio reactors for use as cooling water. If the water meets the discharge water quality standards then there is the option to pump the water to the
3
CSP for discharge. The FWB is sized as the larger of the volume required to supply 8 hours of maximum firewater storage (19680 m ) or the runoff
3 3
volume from the 50 year 24 hour storm event from the oily areas (2856 m ). The capacity of the FWB will be 19680 m based on the fire water
requirements.
3
The CSP will be sized to store runoff volume from the 50 year 24 hour storm event of 56 mm/d. The runoff volume is calculated to be 14280 m . The
CSP is to have two compartments which will allow for the separation of runoff volumes based on water quality. If the water quality is not suitable for
discharge then the water can be stored in one of the compartments for recycling through Process Effluent Bio-treatment (Unit 77) for treatment.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 25
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3
Provision has been made for a 1000 m Oily Water Hold-Up Tank as a measure of containing run-off from two (2) lifting stations (one consisting of the
PFC mentioned above; and other from the effluent treatment area) along the oily sewer network. This tank will also serve as a contingency measure
during the start-up and shut-down operation where intermittent discharges may occur and when the Corrugated Plate Interceptor (CPI) and/or Dissolved
Air Flotation packages are out of service.

2.4.5.2 Discharge management

The discharge philosophy at OLTIN YO’L GTL dictates that the fate of all water from clean paved areas is essentially destined for the discharge channel
situated outside the plant or for re-use within the plant. However, prior to discharge this water is routed to a CSP and assessed for discharge water
quality standards as mentioned above. It is recommended that discharges are minimised by a systematic and continuous reduction of harmful
discharges and therefore a reduction in the risk of environmental impact. The harmfulness of the discharges depends on chemical properties of the
water in the CSP, the amount of chemicals discharged (load) as well as time of the discharge.
3
The conceptual water balance provided indicates a likely winter design base treated volume of 252 m /h to the discharge channel, according to
document UZGTL-F2-PRO-HM-00052 and UZGTL-PIT-PMC-PD-00-0-0002-01.

The discharge must meet the lesser of the following industry specific IFC effluent discharge guidelines (IFC, 2007), WHO drinking water quality
guidelines (WHO, 2011) and local Uzbek Wastewater Discharge Specifications for domestic use. (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2: IFC effluent guidelines for Natural Gas Processing Facilities, the WHO guidelines for drinking water and local Domestic water use
guidelines.
WHO 2011
IFC Guideline Domestic
Pollutant Units 1 Guideline 2
Value Water Use
Value
pH - 6 to 9 6.5 to 8.5 6.5 to 8.5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand b c
mg/l 50 - 3 to 6
(BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/l 150 - 40
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/l 50 - 30
Total Residual Chlorine mg/l 0.2 0.2 -
Oil and Grease mg/l 10 - -

1
95th percentile value
2
Maximum permissible concentration value

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 26
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

WHO 2011
IFC Guideline Domestic
Pollutant Units 1 Guideline 2
Value Water Use
Value
a
Aluminium (Al) mg/l - 0.1 -
Ammonia mg/l - 1.5 2
Arsenic (As) mg/l 0.05
Boron mg/l - 2.4 -
Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.1 0.003 0.01
a
Chloride (Cl) mg/l - 250 350
Chromium (Total Cr) mg/l 0.5 0.05 -
Chromium (VI) mg/l 0.05
Cobalt (Co) mg/l 1
Copper (Cu) mg/l 0.5 2 1
Dissolved ether mg/l 0.8
Fluoride (F) mg/l - 1.5 1.5
Free Cyanide (CN) mg/l 0.1 - 0.1
a
Iron (Fe) mg/l 3 0.3 0.3
Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.1 0.01 0.1
a
Manganese (Mn) mg/l - 0.1 -
Mercury (Hg) mg/l 0.0005
Molybdenum (Mo) mg/l 0.5
Nickel (Ni) mg/l 1.5 0.07 0.1
Nitrate (NO3- as N) mg/l 10.2
Nitrite (NO2- as N) mg/l 0.5

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 27
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

WHO 2011
IFC Guideline Domestic
Pollutant Units 1 Guideline 2
Value Water Use
Value
Nitrogen (N) mg/l 40* - 12.7
Petrochemicals mg/l 0.3
Phenol mg/l 0.5 - 0.001
Phosphorus (P) mg/l 3* - -
Selenium (Se) mg/l - 0.04 -
a
Sodium (Na) mg/l - 200 -
Strontium (Sr) mg/l - - 2
a
Sulphate (SO4) mg/l - 250 500
Total Cyanide (Total CN) mg/l 1 - -
Total Heavy Metals mg/l 5 - -
Zinc (Zn) mg/l 1 4 1
a
Value is based on aesthetic requirement, thus what is an acceptability aspect. These are Chemicals for which guideline values have not been established.
b
Value reported as a 5-day BOD
c
Value reported as a 20-day BOD
* Value assumed total element species

2.4.5.3 Conceptual water system

The conceptual water system for the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant is presented below.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 28
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 29
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.4.6 Waste
A specialist Waste Study was undertaken for this Project and is available in Volume 2 of this ESHSIA
document. The overall objective of the study is to identify all the waste streams that are associated with the
Project and determine their impacts and appropriate management measures. The results of the waste
classification are included in this section, as it describes solid and liquid wastes as “Outputs” of the Project.

2.4.6.1 Data Collection

Data for this assessment was collected from available project and other relevant source material. The
following documents were reviewed in order to obtain further data on the waste management situation, and
also to gain an understanding of the scope and context of the Project:

¡ OLTIN YO’L GTL Project basic engineering design information UZGTL-PIT-PMC-PD-00-0-0002-01,

supplied in 2013;

¡ IFC Performance Standards (2012) and other relevant documentation;

¡ Uzbekistan legislation;

§ The Constitution of Uzbekistan 1992Law on Nature Protection (No. 754-XII, December 9, 1992)
§ Law of RUz on Wastes (No. 362-II; April 5, 2002)

¡ International Best Practice Documents, for example:

§ International Finance Corporation; Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines; NATURAL GAS
PROCESSING (2007);

§ International Finance Corporation; Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines; LNG
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES (2007);

§ International Finance Corporation; Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines: GENERAL
EHS GUIDELINES: ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT (2007);
3
¡ Uzliti Regulatory EIA Document .

More detail is provided in the specialist Waste Study attached in Volume 2 of this ESHSIA.

Once a firm understanding had been obtained from the regulatory requirements, the International Finance
Corporation’s (IFC’s) Social and Environmental Sustainability Performance Standards (2006 and all latest
amendments), best practice standards and guidelines, relevant General EH&S Guidelines and the applicable
Industry Sector Guidelines, an inventory was developed of the class and quantities of wastes to be
generated at the new plant. A list of expected waste types is presented in the Pre-feasibility Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which was part of the Regulatory EIA, which was then reviewed,
expanded and refined.

Each waste type was evaluated in terms of:

¡ An estimate of quantity;

¡ Toxicity of each waste type in terms of ecological and mammalian toxicity. The characteristics
considered for each waste type were whether they are teratogenic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, their
mobility and mammalian toxicity, etc., where such information is available; and

¡ International best practice.

3
1) O’Zlitineftgaz, 2009. Draft EIS on Shurtan ICMW Treated Methane-based Production of Synthetic Liquid Fuel.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 30
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The wastes were grouped into construction and operational wastes. Post-operational and plant
decommissioning waste generation and management were not considered, except for the closure of waste
disposal sites.

2.4.6.2 Waste Sources

Solid and liquid wastes will be generated at all the main production units. The generation of solid wastes is
mainly as a result of the use of various adsorbents, catalysts and filters, which will need to be replaced as
they are depleted.

In the auxiliary processes wastes are generated when:

¡ Filter material in the wastewater treatment and demineralised water units are replaced;

¡ Adsorbent in the hydrogen generation unit is replaced; and

¡ Effluents are treated in treatment facilities.

The maintenance shop was regarded as part of the auxiliary process wastes consisting of ferrous, non-
ferrous and scraps metals which will be generated due to the production and maintenance of metal items
and equipment, wood pieces and chips from the carpentry section.

Solid domestic waste will be generated at the main office block, site canteen, ablution facilities and staff
residential area. Mercury containing wastes are generated due to use of luminous tube lamps and mercury-
containing instruments.

2.4.6.3 Waste Classification

Waste in Uzbekistan is classified into five 5 classes according to the severity of the exposure to humans and
the most toxic component of the waste. Hazard class is allocated based on the provisions of the Temporary
4
Classifier of Toxic Industrial Wastes and recommendations contained in this document inform the
determination of industrial waste toxicity class. The normative regulation contains a list of pre-classified toxic
components which are used to allocate a temporary hazard class to a waste stream (until such time a
sample has been analysed by an accredited laboratory and the toxicity class has been confirmed). Where
uncertainty arises or the toxic components of a waste stream do not appear on the temporary pre-
classification list, the waste is treated as Highly Hazardous (Class 1) based on the universally accepted
precautionary principle.

The majority of industrial wastes to be generated in the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant are not listed (pre-classified)
in the current Temporary Classifier of Toxic Industrial Wastes regulations (Guidelines on the recording of the
5
generation, re-use and storage of toxic wastes as per Form 3 – toxic wastes) . The precautionary principle
for the pre-classification of toxic waste was followed in cases where the expected waste streams or toxic
components were not listed. The class allocation should be confirmed once the waste stream is generated
and a sample of the waste has been analysed by an accredited laboratory. After the laboratory analyses and
registration of the waste stream in the national Wastes Cadastre and Classifier register, the hazard class
may be revised by the generator if it is found to be different from the pre-classification hazard class allocated.

Waste streams to be generated at the OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant are closely related to the different process
units of the plant. The main waste streams and point of generation during construction and operation are
discussed below.

4
SanPiN RUz № 0127-02, Sanitation rules of inventory, classification and neutralization of industrial wastes.

5 International Association of Oil & Gas Producers; September 2008 (updated March 2009); Guidelines for waste management with special focus on areas with limited infrastructure;
Report No: 413, rev 1.11

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 31
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.4.6.4 Waste disposal

6
Alternative sites for waste disposal have been explored, with the development of an H:H landfill site on the
OLTIN YO’L GTL footprint as first choice. However the final approval of where the site should be developed
lies with the State Committee for Nature Protection (Goskompriroda), and the responsibility rests on OLTIN
YO’L GTL to decide on the management of the facility.

2.4.6.5 Construction Phase

Waste that will be generated during the construction phase can be summarized as follows:

¡ Waste concrete, building sand, various grades of gravel;

¡ Waste steel and other metals;

¡ E-waste such as used small electronic equipment;

¡ Waste electrical cables and associated materials;

¡ Wood used for machine packaging, concrete boxing and related purposes;

¡ General waste from construction and exploration camps such as office paper, plastics, food and other
related waste; and

¡ Oily rags, paint and other used containers, used tyres, vehicle parts and other hazardous waste
associated with the construction activities such as chemicals, degreasers, paint and coatings, bitumen,
herbicides, resins and curing agents.

2.4.6.6 Operational Phase

The classification allocated for waste streams is temporary and based on the most toxic constituent present
in the particular waste stream for the purposes of this ESHSIA. Samples of the particular waste streams
should be analysed in a laboratory to determine the final classification during the operational phase. Waste
will be generated during the operational phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility at the following production
units and where applicable the pre-classification of the waste stream will be referred to:

2.4.6.6.1 Air Separation Unit (ASU) (Unit 10)

The following main waste streams are generated at this unit:
Spent molecular sieves:

The molecular sieves consist of a variety of zeolites (aluminium silicates) which serve as an adsorbent
material. The zeolites have a loose crystal structure formed by tetrahedrons and have water or liquid
adsorbent properties. Molecular sieves are used as dehumidifiers to remove any moisture from the
generated air before it is distributed to the rest of the plant. Their effectiveness decreases over time and they
need to be replaced at specified intervals.

Used zeolites contained in the sieves are solid small granules of grey to brownish color, not hazardous and
allocated a Class 4 hazard rating. The volumes that will be generated at the GTL facility are 59.6m³ of
adsorbent for molsieve adsorbers waste per year.
Pearlite:

Pearlite is used as an insulating material to the ASU. It is a mineral rock of volcanic origin extracted by a
mining method. While being converted from ore into real precious material pearlite is subjected to thermal
treatment in high-temperature furnaces where it is simultaneously ground to a uniform mass. Thermal
treatment causes numerous pores to open in the mineral and it turns from grey to snow-white.

6
H:h = ‘hazardous waste site’

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 32
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 2.3: Pearlite composition

Component Percentage
Silicon dioxide 76.2
Aluminium oxide 12.1
Potassium oxide 4.8
Sodium oxide 3.4
Ferric oxide 0.4
Calcium oxide 0.6
Magnesium oxide 0.1
Titanium dioxide 0.1
Manganese dioxide 0.1
Loss due to burning 1.9
Source: Uzlitineftgaz 2009

Pearlite is non-hazardous, Class 4 waste stream which can be re-used for various other purposes. The exact
volumes that will be generated are uncertain at this stage, but expected to be a limited volume.

2.4.6.6.2 Synthesis Gas Unit (SGU) (Unit 20)

The purpose of the SGU is to convert Methane Rich Gas (MRG) received from the neighboring SGCC
(Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex) plant for use by the downstream Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis Unit (FTS)
(Unit 30). Auto Thermal Reforming (ATR) technology will be used to achieve a synthesis gas mixture
consisting mostly of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide through partial combustion of MRG with
oxygen in the presence of steam. Stripped process condensate will be routed to the process condensate
polishing package in the Steam and Condensate System. Flashed blow down liquid will be routed to the
Process Effluent Bio-Treatment plant while the flashed steam will be returned to the Steam and condensate
System.

The SGU consists of desulphurization and reforming sections and a high temperature regeneration system.
Natural gas mixed with hydrogen is fed to the adsorber which contains two layers of a sorbent Zinc Oxide
(ZnO) absorbing the Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) present in the gas. The following waste streams will be
generated at the SGU:

Hydrogenator Catalyst :

The catalyst has a limited operational life span and the waste is generated during the replacement thereof.
The catalyst is solid green colored tablets, not flammable, but a carcinogen containing some Molybdenum
Trioxide (MoO3) and Nickel Oxide (NiO).

MoO3 may cause upper and lower airways diseases, it may result in irritation of skin, eyes, if inhaled it may
cause cancer. NiO is sensitive to skin, and is a carcinogen. The waste has a hazard rating of Class 2 or 3.
Every second year the catalyst will be replaced. The spent catalyst will be disposed at the on-site landfill.
Sulphur Absorber:

This waste is formed when the sorbent material within the absorbers is replaced. The absorbent material is
dark-brown granules, odorless and not flammable. The absorbent material consists of chlorine absorption
and sulphur absorbtion. The waste has a Class 2 or 3 hazard rating. Inhalation of high concentrations of the
adsorbent dust affects the respiratory system and may cause allergy. Every second year the sulphur
adsorbers will be replaced. The spent adsorbent will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

Second - Third Catalyst:

The catalyst is hard granules are grey to black in color, odorless and non-flammable. The catalyst is a
carcinogen classified as a Class 2 or 3 waste. The catalysts which has a limited operational life span needs
to be replacement at certain intervals. The used catalyst will be disposed at the on-site landfill. The catalyst

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 33
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

contains some Nickel on an Al/Mg Oxide base (Ni), Balance MgAl2O4 . It is anticipated that 37.4m³ of
catalyst will be produced per year The catalyst will be disposed at the on-site landfill.
Fourth Catalyst:

The catalyst is small solid ball-shaped grayish granules. It is odorous, non-flammable and carcinogenic. The
replaced catalysts, with a Class 2 or 3 hazard rating will be returned to the supplier. The catalyst contains
some Nickel on an Al/Mg Oxide base. The catalyst will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

The total quantity of Class 2-3 catalyst material that will be replaced every 2 year during the plant turnaround
3
is anticipated to be 1400 m .
Inert Filling Material:

Inert Ceramic and Alumina balls and Alumina Lumps that have a Class 2 or 3 hazardous rating will be
3
generated. It is calculated that approximately 160m of waste will be generated every 2 years during plant
turnaround.

2.4.6.6.3. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis unit (FTS) (Unit 30)

The FTS which will consist of two independent process trains is designed to convert the Syngas rich in CO
and H2 into wax and hydrocarbon condensate for downstream for production of liquid distillates. Synthesis
reaction occurs in the exothermic reactors according to the designed slurry hydrocarbon synthesis process
using Sasol’s cobalt based catalyst is applied in the process.

The FTS unit includes a catalyst charging and discharging system. Catalyst charging-discharging devices
perform catalyst charging and discharging operations as well as the storage of spent catalyst prior to its
shipment.

Miscellaneous Bags

Empty bags from Unit 30 of a class 4 hazard rating will be generated from Unit 30. It is anticipated that
3
approximately 70 bags will be generated daily (255 m per year). The waste will be disposed at the on-site
landfill.
Empty Maelic Acid Bags

Empty maelic acid bags from Unit 30 of a class 4 hazard rating will be generated from Unit 30. It is
3
anticipated that approximately 13 bags will be generated daily (455 m per year). The waste will be disposed
at the on-site landfill.

Filter Bags from the Wax Cleanup System

3
Filters are replaced on a daily basis, creating approximately 77 bags per month, 92 m per annum. It is a
о о 3
solid waste dark grey-yellowish color (at 20 С). The softening temperature is 80 С and density is 450 kg/m .
The composition of the waste component is filters bags saturated with wax, i.e. 40% paraffin, 38-48% filter
aid, 4-145 organometallic complex (mainly Al, less than 1% Со), and traces of other materials (Fe, K). The
waste is a Class 2 hazard rating and will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

Solidified Wax from Spillage, Draining etc.

Solid wax from spillages and draining etc. of a class 2 hazard rating will be generated from Unit 30.
3
Approximately 5.9 tons of solid wax will be generated per month (88.75 m per year). The solid wax will
possibly be contaminated with dirt oil and hydraulic fluid etc. The waste will have a class 2 hazard rating and
will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

2.4.6.6.4 Heavy Ends Recovery Unit (HER) (Unit 35)

The HER unit receives residual FT gases and FT hydrocarbon condensate to produce external recycle gas,
tail gas fuel, HER condensate and waste water. The unit is designed to recover a significant portion of the
heavy ends and LPG (C3+ material) from the FT tail gas and the removal of CO2 from the hydrocarbon
condensates.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 34
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Cooled residual gas enters the separating tank where water and raw condensate are separated. The
residual gas then passes through a washing column before entering the de-humidification adsorbers. This is
done to prevent the formation of hydrates in the cryogenic chamber where temperatures below dew point are
reached.

Solid scavenger-adsorbers, based on selective moisture extraction are used for the de-humidification
process. The molecular sieves used as adsorbents in the unit, belong to the aluminum silicates group. The
steam molecules with an effective diameter commensurable with those of the adsorbent pores penetrate the
pores and are trapped due to intermolecular interaction forces. To prevent the possible carryover of liquid a
protective layer of silica gel is used.
Spent Molecular Sieve Adsorbent from Drier Package

Molecular sieves are used as dehumidifiers therefore the composition of the used sieves is characterized by
high water content. Molecular sieves are brown or white color odorless granules, insoluble in water with a
Class 4 hazardous rating. The used molecular sieves will consist mainly of 80% zeolites and approximately
15% mineral binding agents. The waste may also contain traces of regeneration end gas, such as
3
hydrocarbons and traces of water. Volume density is 600-900 kg/m . The molecular sieves in the de-
humidifiers needs periodical replacement as their sorption qualities are depleted. This is expected to be once
every 2 years.
3
The quantity of the generated waste is estimated to reach 45 m per year. The spent molecular sieves
should temporarily be stored in a waste storage area with the aim to be recycled. One of the options for
recycling is to be used as a component in construction material. To achieve this UZGTL will need to conduct
laboratory studies and obtain a quality certificate for its use. Potential downstream environmental impacts of
the spent molecular sieves used in construction materials will also have to be addressed. If recycling is not
possible, the spent molecular sieves will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

The silica gel that will be used in the HER unit is an amorphous silica-alumina based gel. It is odorless solid
granules with a light-brown color. Silica gels are obtained on the basis of silicon dioxide, but by their
3
chemical nature they are hydrated amorphous silica. Their packed density is 400-900 kg/m . When the unit
operates the generated waste is estimated to be 2.29 tonnes per annum. The used silica gel can be
recycled.

Pearlite

Pearlie is also generated at the ASU Pearlite and is a mineral rock of volcanic origin extracted by a mining
technique. During conversion from ore into real precious material, pearlite is subjected to thermal treatment
in high-temperature furnaces where it is simultaneously ground to a uniform mass. Thermal treatment
causes numerous pores to open in the mineral, turning it from grey to snow-white.

The quantity of the waste generated is uncertain at this stage, but it is regarded as having a Class 4
hazardous rating and will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

2.4.6.6.5 Reaction water treatment unit (WT) (Unit 40)

The WT is designed to remove entrained oil and dissolved oxygenated hydrocarbons from recovered
streams. Feeds of reaction water from the Fischer-Tropsch unit, separated water from the HER and acid
water from the Product Work-up Unit (PWU) are received for treatment by the unit. The reaction WT removes
non-acid oxidizers and hydrocarbons from these effluents so that the treated water could be directed to the
effluent treatment plant. The following waste streams are generated at the WT:
Spent Cartridges from Coalescer Prefilters and Vessels:

Cartridge filter waste is generated as a result of the periodically replacement of the coalescer prefilters and
vessels used in the treatment process. Cartridge filters are operated using pressure and when the pressure
inside the filter is no longer maintained it needs to be replaced. The filter consists of a coagulant porous
cylindrical cartridge made of polymer materials with a diameter of 15 cm and a length of 150 cm. The filter is
3
made up of 36 cartridges with an operating life of approximately 2 years. Approximately 2 m of spent

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 35
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

cartridges from coalescer prefilters and vessels will be generated per year. The spent filter has a hazard
rating class 3 and will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

2.4.6.6.6 Product work-up unit (PWU) (Unit 50)

The PWU converts F-T hydrocarbon condensate and wax to premium quality GTL diesel, GTL naphtha, GTL
kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The unit will typically include the following process steps:

Wax from the SGU together with recycled off-gas and condensate flow from the HER are directed to the
section PWU where the mixture passes through the catalyst beds where hydrogenation, isomerization and
hydrocracking takes place. These processes amongst others also remove the olefins and oxygenates. The
following waste streams are generated at this plant:

Various catalyst waste streams area generated when the operating life of the catalyst expires and it is
3
replaced. The quantity of the catalyst required during the start-up phase is approximately 122m / year . The
catalysts contain NiNi and due to its carcinogenic properties has a Class 2 or 3 hazard rating. The spent
catalyst will be disposed at the on-site landfill:

2.4.6.6.8 Hydrogen production unit (HPU) (Unit 60)

The HPU is designed to generate high-purity hydrogen which is fed to the PWU (Unit 60) and other uses on
the plant. Methane rich gas (MRG) received from SGCC is pre-heated and routed to a sulphur absorber
where the H2S and Organic Sulphur compounds are removed. The gas is further mixed with HP, pre-heated
and routed through catalyst tubes during the reforming process. The gas is then converted and purified in the
Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) unit where impurities are removed by a cyclic adsorption process.

First Catalyst:

Various Waste streams area generated.

3
The catalyst needs to be replaced periodically. The catalyst waste (1.05m of waste generated per year) is
considered a class 3 hazard rating. The catalyst waste will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

Second Catalyst:

The adsorbent material consists of cobalt, molybdenum and zinc. The adsorbent needs to be replaced
3
periodically. The catalyst waste (2.8m of waste generated per year) is considered a class 3 hazard rating.
The spent adsorbents will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

Third Catalyst (Alikalised):

The catalyst contains Ni and is a carcinogenic, and is alkalised, with a hazard rating Class 3 waste. If the
3
hydrogen production unit operates continuously, up to 1.7m of catalyst waste will be generated per year.
The spent catalysts will be disposed at the on-site landfill.
Fourth Catalyst (Non-Alikalised):

The catalyst contains Ni and is a carcinogenic, and is non-alkalised, with a hazard rating Class 3 waste. If
3
the hydrogen production unit operates continuously, up to 1.7m of catalyst waste will be generated per year.
The spent catalysts will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

Fifth Catalyst:
3
The catalyst needs to be replaced periodically. The catalyst waste (4.3m of waste generated per year) is
considered a class 3 hazard rating. The catalyst waste will be disposed at the on-site landfill.

Adsorbent:
3
The adsorbent needs to be replaced every after long periods of operation. The absorbent waste (22.1m of
waste generated per year) is considered a class 3 hazard rating. The catalyst waste will be disposed at the
on-site landfill.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 36
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.4.6.6.9 Raw water treatment (RWT) (Unit 71)

The RWT unit is designed to provide the plant with the required technical and production quality water to
function properly. Water is also needed for the fire protection system and potable drinking water for offices
and household purposes.

The filtered and demineralized water is further purified passing through an activated carbon filter to remove
traces of residues, chlorine and hydrocarbons. Ion-exchange resin is employed in the mix-bed filter to
produce the required water standard for the production plant.
Inorganic Salt:

Inorganic salts are formed in the evaporator/crystallizer when waste water is treated. The waste has a Class
4 hazard rating and will be disposed at the on-site landfill. It is anticipated that inorganic salts will be
3 3
generated continuously at a rate of 0.7 m per hour (4160m of waste generated per year).
Spent Ion-exchange Resin:

Spent ion-exchange resin is generated when the resin in the mixed bed filters is replaced due to loss of their
regeneration capabilities and consumer properties. Replacement is needed approximately every 3 years.
The waste material consists mainly of resin (82%), water and impurities and has a Class 4 hazard rating. It is
3
anticipated that 2m of the spent ion-exchange resin will be generated per year, which will be disposed at the
on-site landfill.

Spent Activated Carbon - Granulated:

The activated carbon which is contained in the filters needs replacement once it starts losing its adsorption
capabilities. Activated carbon consists of solid black-grayish granules which has a branched porous structure
that enhances its absorption qualities to remove contaminants from the water. The spent activated carbon is
3
has a Class 4 hazard rating, approximately 4.5m of waste will be generated per year, and will be disposed
at the on-site landfill

2.4.6.6.10 Steam and condensate systems (Unit 72)

The Steam and Condensate Systems are highly integrated with the processing units and include the
following:

¡ De-aeration and chemical dosing of polished/sweet condensate to produce both High Pressure (HP)
and Medium Pressure (MP) Boiler Feed Water (BFW) for all steam generators within the facility;

¡ Steam generation at HP, MP and LP (Low Pressure) levels;

¡ HP and MP superheating in a fired steam super-heater;

¡ HP, MP and LP steam distribution via a 5-header system, saturated and superheated HP, MP and LP;
and

¡ Condensate recovery and treatment to minimize make -up water requirements.

Exhausted Cations and Anions Resin:

During the ion-exchange process exhausted cations and anions resins are generated which needs to be
replaced due to a loss of their ion exchange capabilities. Replacement is usually required once every 3
3
years. When the unit operates continuously up to 5.5 m of waste may be generated over the 3 years period
3
(approximately 2m of waste generated per year). The waste has a Class 4 hazard rating and waste will be
disposed at the on-site landfill.
Spent Carbon From Carbon Beds:

Spent activated carbon waste is generated when the activated carbon bed filters become exhausted and are
replaced. This occurs approximately once a year. The activated carbon contained in the filters is solid

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 37
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

granules with a black-grayish color and a porous branched structure which enhances its absorption
capabilities. Activated carbon’s well- developed porous structure and its resulting large surface area ensures
efficiency of its use for the removal of any impurities in the water. The waste has a Class 4 hazard rating.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from gases that are being refined.
3
Approximately 4.5 m carbon waste will be generated annually at the plant. The waste will be disposed at the
on-site landfill.
Spent Filter Cartridges:

Spent cartridge filters need regular replacement. The spend filters has a class 4 hazard rating and will be
3
disposed at the on-site landfill. Approximately 20 m of filter waste will be generated annually.

2.4.6.6.11 Air and nitrogen system (Unit 75)

The Air and Nitrogen System (Unit 75) is designed to supply the GTL facility from a single ASU train with the
maximum HP and LP nitrogen flows to meet demands of the whole plant during the start-up phase.

Atmospheric air is first filtered and then compressed in the main air compressor then cooled to remove
moisture. A portion of this air is distributed as plant air. The compressed air passes through molecular sieve
beds where CO2 and water are removed to prevent it from freezing in the downstream cryogenic separation
unit.

Air Driers Adsorbent Material, Activated Alumina:

Spent molecular sieves are generated when they are replaced in air de-humidifiers. The spent sieves consist
mainly of zeolites (aluminium silicates). Zeolites have a loose crystal structure formed by tetrahedrons SiО4
and AlО4 which share common oxygen atoms. Used zeolites are solid granules with a grey to brownish color
and are non-hazardous.

The molecular sieves used in drying of the atmospheric air in adsorbers, adsorbs a lot of water and when
their adsorption properties become depleted they need to be replaced. This is normally required every
3
second year. If the unit operates continuously up to 1000 m of waste will be generated annually.

2.4.6.6.12 Effluent bio-treatment unit (ETU) (Unit 76)

The process Effluent Bio-Treatment Unit collects and purifies the aqueous process effluents generated at the
GTL facility. The unit also receives and treats non-process effluents from the site drainage and offices,
canteen, ablution block and accommodation area. Collection and pre-treatment of these non-process effluent
streams occurs within the Effluent Treatment Unit (Unit 76).

The following waste streams are generated at these facilities:

Dehydrated Sludges from WWT

Return Activated Sludge (RAS) and Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) containing mainly organic and
suspended matter is generated as a result of the treatment of process effluents in a biological effluent
treatment plant or waste water treatment (WWT) works. A biological method is used for treatment of the
process wastes. Solid particles are trapped in sand filters. When excess quantities of sludge are generated
in the aerated tanks, itt is dewater (dehydrated) on a belt filter press and disposed of on the Land Farm by
trenching. The on-site land farm will be lined and conform to the requirements of a Class 2 landfill site.

If required it may be returned back to the process or used as fertilizer for agricultural purposes. An estimated
3
6000m of sludge deposit will be generated annually. The bio-sludge has a Class 4 hazard rating and will be
disposed of on the new onsite landfarming facility.
Sludges from Sewage Treatment:
3 3
Sludges from sewage treatment will be generated intermittently at a rate of 10m per month (120m of waste
generated per year). The sludges contain approximately 3.6 % solids and 96.4% water (by weight). The
sewage sludges have a class 4 hazard rating and will be placed on the landfarm for bioremediation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 38
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Oily Sludges:

Oily water effluents and potentially oily contaminated surface and storm water will be treated in the ET (Unit
76) where used oil and oily sludge will be separated. The recovered used oil will be sent to the Intermediate
3
Tankage Unit (Unit 83) temporarily and then off site for reprocessing. Approximately 30 m per year
dewatered oily sludge will be generated (class 3 hazard rating), which will be disposed of at the on-site
landfill site until the off-site hazardous landfill is developed.

2.4.6.6.13 Process Effluent Bio-Treatment Unit (Unit 77)

The Process Effluent Bio-treatment Unit will process all effluents from the plant by biological treatment to
meet the treated waste specifications required. Any effluent generated within Unit 77 during operation or
maintenance will be discharged via a drainage system to Unit 76 where de-oiling and sludge dewatering
takes place. Unit 76 will send 2 product streams (i.e. de-oiled water and sludge dewatering water) to Unity 77
for biological treatment. In addition to the drainage of effluent to Unit 76 during operation or maintenance,
excess sludge will be discharged as a waste activiated sludge (WAS) blowdown to Unit 76.
MBR Membrane Elements:

The membrane elements or cassettes of the MBR need replacement once every 3 years. Approximately
3 3
7 m of waste material will be generated every 3 years (7m of waste generated per year). The cassettes
have a class 4 hazard rating and will be disposed of at the on-site landfill site.

2.4.6.6.14 Other process wastes

In addition to the abovementioned wastes, the following main waste streams are generated at the plant:
Laboratory Waste Chemicals:

Laboratory waste such as empty chemical containers, spent chemicals, expired hazardous chemicals,
contaminated disposable clothing, gloves, head caps and masks will be generated at the laboratory. Suitable
separate waste containers for these wastes, clearly marked should be provided where required. It is
3 3
anticipated that approximately 15m of laboratory waste will be generated per month (180m of waste
generated per year). These wastes have a class 2 or 3 hazard rating and will be disposed at the on-site
landfill until the off-site hazardous landfill is developed.

Non-Hazardous Plants Wastes (Packaging etc.)

Various areas of the plant will generate packaging wastes in the form of light plastics, paper and composite
3
non-hazardous materials. Approximately 1000m of general packing wastes will be generated per year and
will be disposed of at the on-site landfill site.
Municipal solid wastes

Municipal/domestic or household wastes are generated at various units at the plant, offices, canteen,
ablution block and accommodation area. Approximately 50 kg of waste per capita is generated annually
according to the sanitary norms and regulations of the RUz for solid domestic waste. The breakdown of the
main waste streams in Uzbekistan is displayed in Figure 2.13 below.
.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 39
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Composition of Waste Stream in Uzbekistan 2010

5% 12% 10%
6% Food waste
Paper/wood
7%
Rags
Glass
60%
Metals
Plastics

Figure 2.13: Composition of the projected municipal solid waste stream, OLTIN YO’L GTL

OLTIN YO’L GTL will employ approximately 550 employees of which 200 is expected to stay in the close-by
accommodation facility. The estimated quantity of waste to be generated at the plant will be approximately
3
1642 m per annum and at the accommodation facility 10 tonnes per annum. Domestic wastes will be stored
in containers similar to those displayed in Figure 2.14 below and will be removed on at least a weekly basis
for disposal at the UZGTL on-site landfill site. Dry waste, such as cans, paper, plastic, cartons and glass will
be recycled as far as possible and wet food waste will be used for composting purposes. The waste has a
Class 4 hazard rating.

7
Figure 2.14: Domestic waste containers

All classes 2, 3, 4 and municipal solid waste will be disposed in the on-site landfill.

7
SanPiN RUz № 0128-02, Hygienic classified index of toxic industrial wastes in conditions of the Republic of Uzbekistan

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 40
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Sandblasting

At interim period throughout the plant area sandblasting will be undertaken. The sandblasting will general
3
dust. The sandblasting waste will be considered a Class 5 hazard rating and approximately 2m will be
generated at intermediate periods and disposed at the on-site landfill site.
Maintenance Workshop Waste:

Maintenance workshop waste will be generated throughout the plant and in particular in the workshop areas.
The waste will consist mainly of used paints, paint brushes and other related equipment and cleaning
3
solvents that will have a Class 4 hazard rating. Approximately 1m of maintenance workshop waste will be
generated at intermediate periods disposed at the on-site landfill site.
Scrap Ferrous and Non-ferrous Metals:

Scrap ferrous and non-ferrous metals are generated as part of the on-going plant maintenance of
engineering infrastructure and equipment. Scrap ferrous and non-ferrous metal will be separated at source
and a recycling program will be developed for the operational phase of the Project. The scrap metal has a
3
Class 4 hazard rating and can be recycled and sold to metal recycling companies. Approximately 1m of
maintenance workshop waste will be generated at intermediate periods.

Health Care Waste:

Health care facilities for employees will be provided on the site. The facility will attend to pre-employment
medicals and attend to minor cuts, bruises and other small injuries. Mainly blood-stained bandages, used
syringes and needles and other associated health care waste will be generated. Suitably separated marked
containers for sharps and needles and blood stained bandages and waste should be provided at strategic
3
points. The waste has a Class 1 hazard rating. Approximately 1m of health care waste will be generated per
annum, and will be removed by a waste contractor for treatment and disposal off site.
Mercury Containing Lighting:

Mercury containing lamps will be used for lighting purposes at the plant and various other buildings. Although
these lamps normally have an extended life time, they are seldom switched off due to safety and security
reasons. Replacements will be required on a daily basis. Mercury and related products are highly hazardous
and has a Class 1 hazard rating. Considering the potential impact of mercury waste on the environment and
human health, collection and disposal must be carried out by registered hazardous waste contractors
approved for the service. RUz has specific regulations for the storage, handling, treatment and disposal of
3
mercury wastes. Volumes of up to about 3m will be generated per year.

These wastes should be kept in special sealable containers until collection for decontamination and disposal.
Sweepings:

Sweepings are grains of sand, dry glass and they are generated when the territory is cleaned. As per
sanitary norms and regulations of the RUz, “Sanitary regulations for collection, storage, transportation,
decontamination and utilization of solid domestic wastes (SDW) in cities and towns of the Republic of
2
Uzbekistan”, the norm for sweepings from 1 m of hard surfaces equals approximately 5.5 kg a year.

Sweepings if not contaminated with spilled chemicals or other hazardous materials are non-hazardous and
have a Class 4 hazard rating. The sweepings are collected in special dedicated containers and will be
disposed in the on-site landfill.
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE):

Waste from electrical and electronic components, termed WEEE, will be generated from all over the plant.
WEEE may be in the form of used cabling, redundant computers, monitors and machine components. It is
3
estimated that about 20m of WEEE will be generated per year and have a Class 4 hazard rating. WEEE in
the form of redundant fridges/freezers or air conditioners may also be generated and will have to be handled
separately due to the presence of ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the units. WEEE will be generated at

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 41
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

intermediate periods and sent to suitably licensed off-site contractors for security destruction in the form of
computers/laptops or appropriate reuse or recycling for the EEE components.

2.4.6.7 Decommissioning Phase

2.4.6.7.1 Waste Management during the Decommissioning Phase
The expected lifetime of the OLTIN YO’L GTL activities are approximately 25 years. At the end of this
operational period, based on experience in the industry, the following options will exist for the equipment and
plant facilities:

¡ Plant lifespan maybe extended through technology upgrades;

¡ Alternative uses for the buildings and facilities by other or neighbouring industries;

¡ Decommissioning of the plant, removing of all structures and other infrastructure and rehabilitation of
the OLTIN YO’L GTL site to its pre-mining state;

¡ Rehabilitation will entail backfilling of the excavated areas with the stored over burden, intra burden
materials and stones and finally applying the stored topsoil in such a manner that natural vegetation
may develop to re-establish the natural equilibrium of the area; and

¡ The OLTIN YO’L GTL waste disposal facility will be closed and rehabilitated in compliance with the RUz
legislative requirements and international best practices, e.g. IFC guidelines.

If the site infrastructure cannot be utilized for any alternative purposes, buildings, materials and all other
infrastructure related equipment would most probably be dismantled and recycled as far as possible.
Buildings would be demolished and the building rubble either recycled if possible or disposed of in an
environmentally friendly manner, possibly as part of the landfill rehabilitation capping layer.

2.4.6.7.2 The Development of an on-site landfill

A wide site selection process to identify suitable candidate sites for an on-site landfill disposal facility. A new
on-site landfill will be developed at the location shown in Figure 2.15. The on-site landfill site will be
developed for the disposal of class 2, 3, 4 and municipal solid wastes by upgrading the currently proposed
class 4 landfill to a class 2 landfill. The approach to upgrade the on-site landfill site to a class 2 site provides
a workable schedule and optimised solution for waste handling during the first few years of the project life.
The landfill will be equipped with a conservative class 2 liner, meaning that it will be able to accept semi-
hazardous waste streams, as well as municipal or domestic wastes from the plant. The on-site disposal
facility will be used for an interim 5 year period after which a new long-term hazardous landfill will be
developed (as detailed in 7.5.2.2.8 ) for the disposal of hazardous wastes.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 42
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.15: Position of the on-site landfill

The development of an off-site hazardous landfill site

The only hazardous waste disposal facility close to the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility plant is the nearby SGCC
hazardous facility, which is not sizable enough for the disposal of general and hazardous waste generated at
the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility plant as well. OLTIN YO’L GTL therefore needs to develop a hazardous waste
disposal facility to accommodate all the general and hazardous waste streams generated at the new plant
that cannot be recycled. The RUz has certain requirements and authorisation processes in place that must
be complied with before approval and development for such a facility can be obtained.

A wide site selection process to identify suitable candidate sites for such a facility was been followed. After a
thorough comparison and evaluation process was followed to eliminate unsuitable sites the three best
candidate sites within a close proximity to the new OLTIN YO’L GTL facility plant had been recommended
and should be presented to the Karshi SCNP for finalisation. The next phase of the hazardous waste
disposal facility development will be the detailed design and construction of the infrastructure.

Temporary waste storage at OLTIN YO’L GTL

The migration of leachate or spillage into the ground and groundwater regime around all temporary storage
areas, specifically the middlings must be prevented. A temporary storage site therefore requires a firm
waterproof base that is protected from the ingress of storm water from the surrounding areas. The storage
area must also be provided with an effective drainage system and a waterproof spillage collection area,
where any spillage can be recovered and suitably treated.

It is envisaged that a salvage yard will be established on the site. This area must be clearly demarcated, well
designed and provided with suitable containers and smaller storage areas for the different waste streams.
Wastes must be stored separately and not be mixed. The salvage yard, middlings storage area and other
waste storage areas, especially hazardous waste storage areas should not be accessible to unauthorized

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 43
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

persons. If non-compatible wastes are to be stored in the same area, care should be taken to adequately
keep them separated, and to prevent possible interactions between different wastes in the event of fire or
spillages. Flammable or combustible wastes must in any event be stored separately from other waste
materials. Used oil must be stored in clearly marked containers in a well bunded area to contain accidental
spillages.

Suitable waste collection containers should be placed at strategic points, as close as possible to the point of
generation and these areas and containers should be properly marked to indicate the type of waste it is
meant for. Colour coding of receptacles can assist in the separation of waste at source and the further
handling thereof. Areas where hazardous wastes are kept must be clearly marked with the correct warning
and safety signage in place. Precautionary measures to prevent spillages and the speedily cleaning up in
such events should be developed and implemented. Sawdust is a good absorbent for liquid spillages and
should be provided as emergency clean-up kits in strategic areas. Storage areas and containers should be
kept clean to prevent any nuisances such as odours from occurring.

Development of landfarm
A new on-site landfarm facility will be developed as shown in Figure 2.16 for the disposal of bio-sludges. The
location for the landfarm was selected adjacent to the new on-site landfill site. Bio-sludge of a class 4 rating
will be placed in the landfarm and undergo a bioremediation treatment process in the upper soil zone or in
biotreatment cells. Contaminated soils, sediments, or sludges in the soil surface will be turned over
periodically or tilled to aerate the mixture. Land farming is successful in treating petroleum hydrocarbons and
other less volatile, biodegradable contaminants. The landfarm treatment area will be properly managed to
prevent both on-site and off-site migration/cross contamination problems with ground, ground water, surface
water contamination.

Figure 2.16: Position of the Landfarm

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 44
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.4.7 Hazardous Materials in the OLTIN YO’L GTL Process

The key materials that may present significant hazards when handled in substantial quantities on site are:

¡ Methane rich gas;

¡ Syngas;

¡ Tail gas;

¡ Hydrocarbon condensate;

¡ Wax;

¡ Hydrotreat product;

¡ GTL Kerosene;

¡ GTL Diesel;

¡ GTL Naphtha;

¡ LPG;

¡ Hydrogen;

¡ Oxygen; and

¡ Nitrogen.

Tables in the following sections summarise the properties, safety, health and environmental information of
the key chemicals extracted from Material Safety Data sheets and available literature (Weiss 1986 & Genium
1998).

2.4.7.1 Physical and Flammable Properties

Physical properties and flammable properties of methane rich gas, syngas and tail gas, hydrocarbon
condensate and wax are shown in Table 2.4, which provides an indication of the capability of the material to
cause a hazard. Table 2.5, Table 2.6, Table 2.7 and Table 2.8 present the required product quality
specifications for the main products produced by the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant.
Table 2.4: Physical and flammable properties
Methane rich Syngas & tail Hydrocarbon
Material Wax
gas gas condensate
Physical properties
Boiling point at 1 atm. [°C.] - 160 -247 to -251 77 140
Gas at room
Vapour pressure at 20 °C. [kPa] 311 bar 16 1,7
temperature
Melting point °C < -160 -114 to -236 14 67
Liquid density g/ cc Gas Gas 0,9 0,96
Gas density air = 1 0,9 0,5 6,4 7,9
Flammable and reactive properties
Flash point (°C) Gas - 241 - 40 199
Auto ignition temperature (°C) 537 ND ND 245
Explosive limits in air % v 5 - 15 5 - 80 0,5 – 5,7 0,5 – 5,2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 45
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Stable. Fairly
Stable. Fairly Stable. Fairly Stable, reacts
inert, except
Reactivity inert, except for inert, except for with strong
for
combustion combustion oxidiser
combustion

2.4.7.2 Product Specifications

GTL Diesel
Table 2.5: GTL Diesel Specification

Parameter Units GTL Diesel specification

Appearance at 17 - 23 ºC Clear & Bright

Colour 1 max
Density @ 15 ºC 760 min
Distillation corrected to 101.3 kPa
Initial Boiling Point °C Report
(2),(3)
95% evap (v/v) °C 360 max
Final Boiling Point °C Report
(4)
Flash point (closed PM) at 101.3 kPa °C 62 min
Kinematic viscosity at 40°C cSt 1.5 min
Cetane number rating 70 min
Cetane index Calc 70 min
-5 (main) max
Cold Filter Plugging Point °C (3)
-30 (winter) max
Cloud point (PPM monitor Pour Point for diesel, pour point
°C Report
spec to be confirm)

Difference between CFPP and Cloud Point °C 10 max calc

Ash wt% 0.01 max

Sediment by extraction wt% Report
Water content ppm 200 max
Total sulphur ppm 5 max
Copper Corrosion (3 hr @ 100°C) rating 1B max
Total Acid No. mg KOH/g 0.1 max
(5)
Conductivity pS/m 100 min
Aromatics wt% 0.5 max
Polynuclear Aromatics wt% 0.5 max
Oxidation Stability mg/100mℓ 2 max
Lubricity (HFRR) WSD μm Report
Particulate contamination mg/kg 12 max

Notes:

1) The diesel specification for local and export market will be the same.

2) The diesel specification is still subject to change due to project requirements.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 46
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3) Plant should be capable of producing GTL diesel with a T95 of 360 °C maximum while producing main
grade diesel.

4) The T95 associated with a CFPP of -10 °C maximum will be the function of processing employed to
meet the CFPP point. Depends on outcome of marketing study.
5) Plant should be designed for a flash point of 62 °C.

6) Considering the depletion of static dissipater additive and the low dosage 100 pS/m is considered
appropriate. The required conductivity level is to be achieved by means of the addition of a pipeline
approved Static Dissipating Additive.

GTL Kerosene Specification

Table 2.6: Specification requirements for GTL Kerosene based on ASTM D7566
(1)
A1.1 - Detail Batch Requirements for GTL Kerosene for use in Jet Fuel Blending
Property HSPK
Composition
Acidity, total mg KOH/g 0.010 Max
Volatility
Distillation temperatures, °C
10 % recovered, temperature (T10) 205 Max
50 % recovered, temperature (T50) Report
90 % recovered, temperature (T90) Report
Final Boiling Point, temperature 300 Max
T90 - T10, °C 24 Min
(4)
Flash point, °C 40 Min
Density at 15 °C, kg/m³ 730 to 770
Freezing point, °C -47 Max
JFTOT (2.5hr at control temperature)
(6)
Temperature, °C 330 Min
(7)
Filter pressure drop, mmHg 25 Max
(8)
3 No peacock or abnormal colour
Tube deposit rating less than
deposits
Additives
(9) 17 Min
Antioxidants, mg/ℓ
24 Max
(1)
A1.2 - Process Validation Requirements for GTL Kerosene for use in Jet Fuel Blending

Property HSPK
Hydrocarbon Composition
(11)
Cycloparaffins, mass % 15 Max
Aromatics, mass % 0.5 Max
Paraffins, mass % Report
Carbon and Hydrogen, mass % 99.5 Min
Non-hydrocarbon Composition
Nitrogen, mg/kg 2 Max
Water, mg/kg 75 Max

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 47
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

(1)
A1.1 - Detail Batch Requirements for GTL Kerosene for use in Jet Fuel Blending
Sulphur, mg/kg 10 Max
Sulphur, mass % 0.0010 Max
Metals, mg/kg
(Al, Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Pd, Pt, 0.1 Max per metal
Sn, Sr, Ti, V, Zn)
Halogens, mg/kg 1 Max

Notes:

1) The specification has been taken out of ASTM D1655, Def Stan 91-91 and the new D756 specifications.
These specifications documents do contain additional information that needs to be considered in the
production and certification of jet fuel.

2) The specification has been written for GTL kerosene that does not contain aromatics that are
deliberately synthesized in the work-up section.

3) Synthetic Paraffin Kerosene (SPK) to be produced by the GTL facility should comply with all Jet A-1
specs with the exception of density and aromatics. SPK is to be used as blending component with the
final blending meeting all specifications.

GTL Naphtha Specifications

Table 2.7: GTL Naphtha Specification

Parameter Units Naphtha specification

Density @ 15°C kg/m³ 670 min

ASTM D86 Distillation
IBP °C Report
10% evap (v/v) °C 55 min
30 % evap (v/v) °C Report
50% evap (v/v) °C Report
70% evap (v/v) °C Report
90% evap (v/v) °C Report
FBP °C 205
Reid Vapour Pressure psi 10 max
Sulphur ppm 10 max
Oxygen Content ppm 50 max
Octane, F1/F2 Report
PONA
Paraffins vol % 95 min
n-paraffins vol % Report
i-paraffins vol % Report
Olefins vol % 1 max
Naphthenes vol % 3 max
Aromatics vol % 1 max
Mercury μg/l 1 max

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 48
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Arsenic ppb 5 max

Lead ppb 5 max
Chlorides ppm 1 max
(2)
Conductivity pS/m 100 min

Notes:

1) The required conductivity level is to be achieved by means of the addition of a pipeline approved Static
Dissipating Additive.

LPG Specification
The LPG product should comply with GOST 27578 below.
Table 2.8: LPG GOST 27578 Specifications
Parameter Units GOST 27578
Components, mass %
Methane Mass % Not Rated
Ethane Mass % Not Rated
Propane Mass % 50±10
C4 and higher hydrocarbons Mass % Not Rated
Unsaturated hydrocarbon summary (max) Mass % 6.0
Liquid Residue Volume Content @ 40 °C
% 0
(max)
Saturated vapour pressure:
@+45 °C (max) barg 16
@-20 °C (max) barg 0.07
Sulphur and sulphide mass content (max) Mass % 0.01
Including H2S content (max) Mass % 0.003
Free water and caustic content Mass % 0

Notes:

1) It is assumed that blending/loading of final propane/butane product will occur within LPG Storage and
Export (Unit 86).

2) Samples to be taken in accordance with suitable applicable, internationally recognised standards (e.g.
ASTM D1385 / D1265 / D3700 / GPA2140).

2.4.7.3 Toxicity
Acute (immediate) toxic hazards, which directly affect people and are applicable in terms of major hazards,
are listed in Table 2.9, Table 2.10 and Table 2.11. Chronic and ingestion effects are therefore not
considered.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 49
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 2.9: Acute Health effects

Methane rich Hydrocarbon
Material Syngas & tail gas Wax
gas condensate
Asphyxiant at Irritation of
Asphyxiant at high
high respiratory
concentrations
concentrations tract, cough,
No systemic effect No effect, normally a
Inhalation No systemic mild
even at molten liquid or solid
effect even at depression,
concentrations of
concentrations of cardiac
5%
5% arrhythmias
Mild irritation Mild irritation of the
Skin contact No effect No effect
of the skin skin

Table 2.10: Acute Health effects

Hydrotreat
Material GTL Kerosene GTL Diesel GTL Naphtha
product
Asphyxiant at Irritation of Irritation of
Irritation of
high respiratory tract, respiratory tract,
respiratory tract,
concentrations cough, mild cough, mild
cough, mild
Inhalation No systemic depression, depression,
depression, cardiac
effect even at cardiac cardiac
arrhythmias
concentrations arrhythmias arrhythmias
of 5 %
Mild irritation of Mild irritation of Mild irritation of the
Skin contact No effect
the skin the shin skin

Table 2.11: Acute Health effects

Material LPG Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen
Irritation of
Irritation of
respiratory
respiratory tract,
Simple tract, cough,
cough, mild Simple asphyxiant
asphyxiant mild
Inhalation depression, Liquid can cause
Liquid can cause depression,
cardiac frost bite burns
frost bite burns cardiac
arrhythmias
arrhythmias

Mild irritation of Mild irritation

Skin contact Frost bite burns Frost bite burns
the shin of the shin

2.4.7.4 Material Toxic Data

Exposure limit values for the materials on the installation are listed in the Table 2.12 below. These are
concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for odour, threshold limit values (TLV) for 8 hour exposure, short
term exposure limits (STEL) for 15 minutes exposure, and immediately dangerous life and health values
(IDLHV) for 0,5 hour exposure.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 50
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 2.12: Toxicity data

Material Odour TLV STEL IDLHV ERPG 1 ERPG 2 ERPG 3
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Methane rich Odourless NP NP NP NP NP NP
gas
Syngas Odourless 25 400 1500 200 350 500
(carbon
monoxide) /
Tail gas
Hydrocarbon Petroleum 1000 ND ND NP NP NP
condensate
fumes
3
Wax fumes ND 2 mg/ m ND ND NP NP NP
Hydrotreat Petroleum 1000 ND ND NP NP NP
product
fumes
Kerosene 0,08 - 1 200 mg/ ND ND NP NP NP
3
fumes m
Diesel fumes 0,08 - 1 100 mg/ ND NP NP NP NP
3
m
Naphtha Petroleum 400 300 ND NP NP NP
fumes
LPG 6 1000 ND ND NP NP NP
Hydrogen Odourless NP NP NP NP NP NP
8
Oxygen Odourless NP NP NP NP NP 400 000
9
Nitrogen Odourless NP NP ND ND ND 67 130
ND ≡ No data available, NP ≡ Not pertinent, i.e., not a factor and therefore not determined.

2.4.7.5 Material Incompatibility and Interactions

All the organic materials, GTL naphtha, GTL kerosene, syn-gas, hydrocarbon condensate and GTL diesel are
incompatible with strong oxidising agents, (e.g. sulphuric acid, nitric acid, nitrates, per chlorate, hypo chlorite,
oxygen, etc. (, none of which are present on the two sites, except pure oxygen).

2.4.8 Anticipated air emissions from the OLTIN YO’L GTL Process
2.4.8.1 Modelled Emissions from the Proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant
Details of the emissions points are included in Table 2.13 and the emission rates used in the assessment are
detailed in Table 2.14.

8
Estimated as in Appendix 8, Section 1. Risk Estimation, Toxic Risks
9
Estimated as in Appendix 8, Section 1. Risk Estimation, Toxic Risks

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 51
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 2.13: Stack Parameters used in the Modelling Assessment

Stack Exit Exit
1 Emission Velocity
Source Height Diameter Temperatur
(m/s)
(m) (m) e (C)
Unit 20- Reformer furnace x 2 73.5 3.0 195 7.6
Unit 50- Hydrocracker Reactor Feed Heater 63 3.3 7.6
Unit 50- Fractionator Feed Heater 63 3.3 525 7.6
Unit 50- DW Reactor Feed Heater 63 3.3 7.6
Unit 60- Hydrogen Production Furnace 42 2.7 195 7.6
Unit 72- HP Steam Boiler x 3 31.5 2.7 195 14
Unit 72- Fired Steam Super heater 73.5 4.3 240 7.6
Unit 81 - Flare 125 1.3 600 194.5
Note:
1. All data provided by client and not independently verified by Golder.

Table 2.14: Emissions Concentrations used in the Modelling Assessment

4 3
CO NOx SO2 Hydrocarbon PM10
Emission Emission Emission s Emission Emissio
1
Source Rate Rate Rate Rate n Rate
5
g/s
Unit 20- Reformer furnace x 2 0.49 4.71 0.12 0.3.0 0.31
Unit 50- Hydro-cracker Reactor Feed
0.08 0.82 0.02 0.00 0.06
Heater
Unit 50- Fractionator Feed Heater 0.18 1.91 0.05 0.10 0.13
Unit 50- DW Reactor Feed Heater 0.06 0.52 0.01 0.00 0.04
Unit 60- Hydrogen Production Furnace 0.40 3.77 0.10 0.20 0.26
Unit 72- Fired Steam Super heater 0.85 8.88 0.22 0.10 0.60
6
Unit 72- HP Steam Boiler x 3 0.73 6.95 0.18 0.93 0.47
2
Unit 81 – Flare 670 12.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Notes:
1. Data provided by client and not independently verified;
2. Unit 81 flare data stated is for an emergency release scenario which has been modelled for conservatism;
3. 100% of the supplied dust emission data is assumed to be PM10 emissions and PM2.5 emissions are 50%; and
4. Assuming 100% of NOx is converted to NO2.
5. Emissions rates supplied is g/s per furnace/boiler
6. The Unit 72 HP Steam boiler (x3) units are assumed to be operating at maximum emission rates

2.4.8.2 Modelled single release events

Uzbekistan Air Quality Regulations require that single releases of air emissions over a period of 20 minutes
are assessed for the proposed facility. This assessment considers concentrations at the boundary only,
which are likely to include most of the maximum concentrations in the model domain.These particular
requirements identified under Uzbekistan regulation, are not contained within other in IFC EHS or WHO
Guidelines.

The 20 minute averaging period is assessed using a 15 minute averaging period result from the maximum
pollutant averaging year. The AERMOD model has produced 1 hour averaging periods and a conversion
factor of 1.34 (based on UK guideline) was applied to assess the maximum predicted impact for a 15 minute
time period. The 15 minute time period is more conservative than 20 minute time period assessment.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 52
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Due to the location of the proposed facility, these “one time” 20 minute release standards are also subject to
regional pollutant quotas, due to the proposed development being located within the Kashkadarya Region as
stated within regulatory documents SanPiN RUz No: 0179-04 [26]. The pollutant quotas are linked to the
hazard class of the pollutant (1-4) and are detailed in Table 3. This assessment uses the quota revised
standard when undertaking the assessment.
Table 2.15: Standards used for “one time” Single Release Assessment
Project Standard Revised AQ Standard
Pollutant 3 Regional Quota 3
(µg/m ) (µg/m )
CO 5000 0.5 2500
NOx 600 0.33 198
NO2 85 0.25 21.25
SO2 500 0.33 165
Hydrocarbons saturated
1000 0.5 500
C12- C19
The results of the single release assessment for the facility boundary for a fifteen minute period, using the
worst-case meteorological year on the facility boundary are provided in Table 2.16 below.
Table 2.16: Maximum Predicted Single Release at Site Boundary

Year of Most Max PC Standard

Pollutant Emission 3
Relevant Dataset µg/m
3

CO 2004 228 2500

NOx 2004 140 198
NO2 2004 19.61 21.25
SO2 2004 3.62 165
Hydrocarbons
2004 21.91 500
saturated C12- C19
*NO2 concentrations are assumed to be 14% of NOx concentrations based on the ratio of the single release AQ
3
standards (85/600mg/m .

The reported PCs are below the relevant standards with the quotas applied and therefore no exceedences
are predicted to occur.

2.4.8.3 Modelled traffic related air quality emissions

Studies have shown that the concentrations of vehicle emissions impacts decrease rapidly from the kerbside
and beyond 200 m the contribution of vehicle emissions to local pollution levels is not significant (The UK
10
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB ).

The DMRB method presents ‘screening’ criteria which are used in identifying those road links affected by a
proposal where traffic could have a significant impact on local air quality at identified sensitive receptors (i.e.
those located within 200 m of the affected road network).

Table 2.17 summarises the existing and proposed one- way traffic movements associated with the proposed
facility.

10
Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality, May 2007, Highways Agency

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 53
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

11
Table 2.17: Average Daily Site traffic
Cars (LGV) Buses (HGV) Lorries (HGV) Rail traffic

Existing (base) 40 60 10 20
Future (base plus 12 12
80 120 18 25
operational)

Based on the supplied traffic data and the DMRB criteria presented above, it is unlikely that road traffic
generated by the proposed facility would have a significant impact on local air quality. Therefore a detailed
traffic air quality assessment is not required for the proposed facility.

2.4.9 Green House Gas Footprint

Scope 1
Due to the complexity of multiple variable feed streams to combustion processes, a “Black Box” approach is
followed. Two points where there is accurate measurement of all streams are on feedstock streams to the
facility and product streams to storage. The methodology measured total inputs and total outputs, the
difference being accounted for in combustion to CO2 plus a small amount of estimated fugitive emissions.
This gives the overall carbon balance and avoids omitting any sub-process.

Carbon balances are based upon detail chemistry as supplied by OLTIN YO’L GTL.

Table 2.18 details the annual anticipated mass of Carbon associated with product volumes, by each major
product line. Table 2.19 shows the overall process Carbon balance, based on input/output data and
operational hours (7 920 hours per annum). Table 2.20 summarises the annual operational GHG footprint
for the process, given the assumptions shown.
Table 2.18: Calculation of Carbon output by product line
Product kg/hour Mass C % C kg/hour C Tonne/hour
LPG 2 402 82.2% 1 974.44
GTL Naphtha 44 264 83.7% 37 048.97
GTL Kerosene 36 492 84.7% 30 908.72
GTL Diesel 100 517 84.7% 85 137.90
Totals 155 070.04 155.07

Table 2.19: Process Carbon Balance

Component Carbon, tonne/hour Carbon, tonne/year
SGCC Feed 203.07 1 608 287
Natural Gas Feed 14.46 114 504
Total Product -155.07 -1 228 142
Balance 62.46 494 650

11
Traffic data has not been supplied so a conservative estimate of 2 x existing (base) has been used
12
Client supplied data which has not been independently verified

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 54
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 2.20: Scope 1 GHG Footprint Calculation

Assumptions % Mass, t/a
Mass of Delta (Carbon) to CO2 99.9% 494 155
Mass of Delta (Carbon) to CH4 0.1% 495
Mass of CO2 1 810 805
Mass of CH4 661
CH4 100yr GWP 21
CO2e of CH4 component 13 873
Total CO2e 1 824 678

Scope 2
Scope 2 emissions are limited to those associated with electricity usage (import) during the construction and
commissioning phases. Detailed calculations are shown in GHG specialist study as part of this ESHSIA and
the outputs are summarised here:
13
Table 2.21: Scope 2 emissions summary
Year -2 Year -1 Year 0
Scope 2
(construction year 1) (construction year 2) (commissioning)
CO2e Tonnes per annum 26 923 26 923 11 218

Scope 3 (Pre-operational)
Pre-operational Scope 3 emissions are accountable to the embedded GHG impact of construction materials
(where quantifiable) and the transport to site of those materials. The latter has been calculated using the
GHG Protocol Transport Tool (Version 2.4) the output of which is included in the GHG specialist study.

Embedded Carbon has been calculated using the estimates of building materials provided by OLTIN YO’L
GTL. The calculations and notes are shown below.
Table 2.22: Scope 3 GHG accountable to construction materials
Material Mass, tonne kg CO2e/tonne tCO2e
Cement 30 000 842 25 260
Iron & Steel 70 000 1373 96 103
Sand n/a n/a -
Aggregate n/a n/a -
Concrete n/a n/a -
Total 121 363

Notes to Table 2.22:

1) Cement Carbon Intensity calculated from a mean of estimations for the sector. IPCC Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate
Change (7.4.5.1 Cement);
2) Iron & Steel Carbon Intensity calculated from worldwide annual production data and worldwide emissions estimations for the sector. IPCC Climate
Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change (7.4.1 Iron & Steel);
3) Embedded anthropogenic CO2 in sand and aggregate assumed to be negligible;
4) Embedded anthropogenic CO2 in concrete assumed to be included within cement data.

A summary of the Pre-operational Scope 3 emissions is shown in Table 9. Note that this summary assumes
that the emissions calculated are split equally between the two years of site construction.

13
Tonnes per annum

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 55
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

14
Table 2.23: Pre-operational Scope 3 Summary
Description Year -2 Year -1 Year 0 (10 months)
Percentage Activity 50% 50% 0%
Materials (embedded CO2) 60 681 60 681 -
Transport of Materials 17 441 17 441 -
Totals 78 123 78 123 -

Scope 3 (Operational)
Operational Scope 3 emissions are limited to the transport-related GHGs associated with the movement of
finished product by rail. The option of product transportation by road has been discounted and the following
distances have been used for each of the rail route options:

¡ Route 1 (Jayron to Fergana, Almaty and Bishkek) 1200km

¡ Route 2 (Karshi to Bukhara) 200km

¡ Route 3 (Karshi to Novorossiysk) 3000km

The annual product volumes and average transport distance (per route) have been used within the GHG
Protocol Transport Tool (Version 2.4). The output of the calculation sheet is included in the GHG specialist
study, which shows the annual GHG impact of rail transport of finished goods to be 31 780 tonnes CO2e.

Summary GHG footprint15

A summary of the GHG footprint data given above is provided in Table 2.24 to Table 2.27.

Pre-operational
Table 2.24: Pre-operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Source
Source Construction Construction Commissioning Total
Year -2 Year -1 Year 0
Materials (embedded CO2) 60 681 60 681 121 363
Transport of Materials 17 441 17 441 34 883
Scope 2 Emissions 26 923 26 923 11 218 65 064
Total 105 046 105 046 11 218 221 309

Table 2.25: Pre-operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Scope

Scope 2 65 064
Scope 3 156 245
Total 221 309

Operational
Table 2.26: Operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Source/Scope
Source Operational
Product Transport (Scope 3) 31 780
Process emissions and energy (Scope 1) 1 824 678
Total 1 856 458

14
Tonnes per annum
15
GHG emissions expressed as tonnes per annum unless specified otherwise.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 56
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Timeline
Table 2.27: Timeline GHG Emissions: Pre-operational and Operational to Year 5
Year -2 Year -1 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Scope 1 - - - 1 824 678 1 824 678 1 824 678 1 824 678 1 824 678
Scope 2 26 923 26 923 11 218 - - - - -
Scope 3 78 123 78 123 - 31 780 31 780 31 780 31 780 31 780
Total 105 046 105 046 11 218 1 856 458 1 856 458 1 856 458 1 856 458 1 856 458

2.4.10 Energy Efficiency

The following table captures the design initiatives which have been incorporated in order to minimise the
overall energy usage of the plant. The descriptions shown below are as reported by OLTIN YO’L GTL.
Table 2.28: GHG/Energy Reduction Initiatives
Description Energy Source Impact Status
Conceptual engineering Methane rich gas, Integrated process with Approved and used as
integration of facility pipeline gas and recycle of tail gasses and basis for Basic
electricity from national energy recovery from hot Engineering
grid, latter during start-up process streams and
only. electricity generation
from excess steam
generated in the process

Basic engineering for Methane rich gas, Optimised, integrated Approved Engineering
optimization of process pipeline gas and process as well as Design Package used as
by Engineering electricity from national electricity generation to base for Detail
contractor, Technip Italy grid, latter during start-up supply own electricity Engineering
and dedicated OLTIN only. needs.
YO’L GTL Process
Engineering team

The facility to enable self-generation of electricity from MRG and recovered energy sources is the single
most profound GHG mitigation feature of the process design. The anticipated electrical demand of the
process, under steady-state conditions, is reported to be 62.7MW, which would account for 496 600MWh per
annum of imported electricity if self-generation was necessary. This would result in an additional 304 000
tonnes CO2e per annum (an additional 16% of the Scope 1 GHG footprint to the proposed design).

2.5 Construction Activities16

The construction of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project will be undertaken by various local and international
construction contractors. Construction activities vary from civil and earth works (usually by a combination of
local civil contractors managed by international civil contracting companies / groups) to hi-tech plant
equipment logistics, installation and commissioning (usually conducted by international firms). OLTIN YO’L
GTL will manage these subcontractors and environmental and social controls will be part of their contractual
requirements.

16
The information presented in this section is generic construction information supplied by OLTIN YO’L GTL at the time of the compilation of the ESHSIA report. During detailed
engineering design phases, these will be planned / designed in detail. The final engineering design will take place after the completion of the ESHSIA process.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 57
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The initial phases of the Project would include site preparation, construction and then plant commissioning
and start-up. These three activities can be broken down as follows:

2.5.1 Site Preparation

An area of 89.5 ha will be prepared for grading works. The grading works may be carried out by one of two
options, Option 1 involves the following:

¡ The clearance of the main construction Site and stockpile area;

¡ The levelling of the Site by scraping of the soil layers (earthworks using a leveller);

¡ The excavation works including ground excavation, substitution and soil compaction using a vibrating
roller;

¡ The filling in homogeneous compacted layers and formation of permanent slopes;

¡ The temporary drainage system including the maintenance of drainage and monitoring ditches in
interception channel and pipe culverts; and

¡ The formation of temporary access roads and fences and improvements of construction area.
3 3
The earthworks and excavation works would comprise of 1220 7000 m and 3688 6000 m respectively.

Option 2 would involve the following:

¡ The clearance of construction Site and

stockpile area;

¡ The temporary drainage system including

the maintenance of weir and check dam
in interception channel and pipe culverts;

¡ Dynamic compaction;

¡ The placement of excavated material in

fill and the additional grading of surfaces;

¡ The control density test (before and after

the dynamic ground compaction);

¡ The formation of a temporary access

road 6 m in diameter and where
applicable, the rehabilitation of access roads; and

¡ Fences and area improvements.

3
The Scope of earthworks for Option 2 (site grading) would comprise of up to 1220 7000m . Dynamic
compaction will include three phases by rams weighing 20 tonnes with a drop height of 25m (Phases 1 and
2) and weighing 15 tonnes with a drop height of 20m. The number of drops within each square grating
would be 15.

The dynamic compaction at each stage would be accompanied by backfilling of formed depressions through
site surfacing by bulldozers and graders. The levelling of the entire treated area is planned to be carried out
using a 12 tons rammer with 5 m drop height.

The soil stock piling would be divided into two zones: a zone of temporary topsoil storage for subsequent
rehabilitation at the end of construction and a zone for storage of soil not suitable for backfilling (spoils) (see
2.5.1.1 below). After backfilling the top soil in layers between 0.5 m to 1.0 m depending on soil moisture, its
treatment type and density characteristics. Soil compaction would be carried out by 12 ton roller.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 58
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Excess rainwater disposal will be managed by drainage systems equipped with several dehydrating boxes
(for soil washout prevention) which will help prevent the removal of soil from within the fenced area.

2.5.1.1 Spoil facility

During site preparation, it will be necessary to excavate soil from the site. The excess soil not suitable for
backfilling will be placed on a spoil facility is as illustrated in Figure 2.3, Figure 2.17 and Figure 2.18. . The
spoil facility will be contoured to blend into the pre-development landscape, fenced and rehabilitated.

Figure 2.17: Proposed spoil dump layout

Figure 2.18: Cross sections of the proposed spoil dump (sections as indicated in Figure 2.17 above)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 59
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.5.2 Water Supply during construction

An existing raw water supply network passes 0.5 km from the proposed site has been considered as a
possible source of industrial water supply. Shurtan GCC water treatment unit is the source of potable
drinking water for the construction phase. Water will be used for production purposes during the construction
phase including use for area watering, solution preparation and builders’ household-drinking requirements.
3 3
The industrial demand for water is 213.2 thousand m (I option) and 92.3 thousand m (II option). The water
demand for excavation and soil replacement is 2.3 times higher than the water demand during soil dynamic
3
compaction. The annual water demand for builders’ household-drinking demand is 2.7 thousand m . Septic
tanks will be provided for the domestic waste and water discharge.

Waste water disposal is not envisaged by the construction site planning technology for the plant.

2.5.3 Waste during the construction phase

Wastes generation is forecasted in the form of the construction waste, waste wood and bitumen, ferrous
steel scrap, electrode residues and stubs, spent mercury lamps, vehicle wastes. The bulk of the waste mass
formed falls on the construction waste 51.7% (I option) and 84.9% (II option).

All solid waste (wood waste, ferrous steel scrap, used quicksilver-bearing lamps, spent tires, oil products and
worn out batteries) will be disposed of at facilities which specialize in the disposal and or processing of such
waste categories. .

2.5.4 Environmental control measures during construction

The following environmental control measures are proposed for the construction phase of the GTL Project:

¡ The storage vegetative ground cover;

¡ Site works management;

¡ Noise and vibration control from construction machinery;

¡ The reduction of dust emissions by a regular water suppression and limiting excessive traffic outside
designated temporary roads;

¡ Minimizing the height of soil dumping and topsoil stockpiling;

¡ Performing loading and unloading works at sites protected from the wind;

¡ Waste management from spills; and

¡ Using organic fertilizers to restore soil fertility to the consumption rate of 30 t/ ha and planting of
drought-resistant shrub species in the amount of 120 it/ha or 2472 items.

2.5.5 Engineering during Construction

The engineering works during the construction of the facility will likely include:

¡ Initially setting up construction facilities. The location is currently planned for these facilities to be on the
footprint of the existing old SGCC construction camp (see Figure 2.3). Existing utilities for the SGCC
construction camp (power, water, sanitation and wastewater discharge) will be utilised by the OLTIN
YO’L GTL Project;

¡ Additional land may be required in the southern quadrant of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility for additional
laydown areas and will be included in the ESMP as required. The current potential area to be used as
site lay-down area will be to the south and south-east of the site footprint, between the site perimeter
and the existing road (see Figure 2.3);

¡ Site preparation works, including the removal of a number of existing structures;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 60
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Buildings at the operational facility, including an administration building, guardhouses and guard towers
(around the facility perimeter), a substation and fire station, warehouses and workshops;

¡ Process units including power generation infrastructure (including fuel and flare systems), power supply
lines, water and effluent treatment facilities, and various storage tanks;

¡ Associated accommodation facilities the OLTIN YO’L GTL construction camp and the OLTIN YO’L GTL
accommodation camp. The OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp will contain residential housing,
public buildings and green areas. Other facilities will likely include sports facilities such as a gym and
tennis courts, polyclinic, schools, a nursery and a hotel facility;

¡ Construction of internal and access roads - the facility will have two access roads (one main route and
one reserve). Internal and access roads will be covered with modular Ferro concrete slab (PAG14)
which is more resistant to aggressive environments than asphalt concrete. There will also be
approximately 2 km of highway access connecting the facility with the existing highway. The surfaces
of these roads will be asphalt concrete. All OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation in-camp roads and
pavements will be constructed from asphalt concrete, and walkways with slabs;

¡ Railway station and railroad connection - a 3 km railway extension is proposed to connect the facility
with the existing railroad; and

¡ Underground pipelines - the pipeline for methane supply from the SGCC plant and a LPG pipeline from
the facility to the SGCC plant. Both will be approximately 1 km in length and constructed above ground.
Underground pipelines will include a water supply pipeline, a potable water pipeline from the facility to
the accommodation camp and an irrigation water pipeline.

Concrete works on the plant site will comprise the following:

3
1) Total concrete volume of 0.3 million m ;
3
2) Volume of sand to be used is estimated at 0.2 million m , supplied from borrow pit 15 km from the plant
site;
3
3) Volume of aggregate to be used is estimated at 0.3 million m ; supplied from borrow pit 15 km from the
plant site; and
3
4) Volume of cement to be used is estimated at 0.1 million m ; to be transported by road or rail from an
appropriate supplier.

Heavy equipment utilised during construction would typically include the following:

a) Excavators and front end loaders to handle soil;

b) Graders and heavy rollers for soil placement and compaction;

c) Concrete trucks from onsite concrete plant to site placement (2 km round trip); and
3
d) 10 m dump trucks (with an estimated 30 minute turn around on site and 1 hour turn around to borrow
pits for offloading of soil / sand and collection of aggregate).

Construction execution of a typical GTL facility of this size normally has a bulk of civil soil works duration of
approximately 18 months, followed by a 12 months concrete works phase.

A standard working day is normally from 07:00 to 18:00, Mondays through to Sundays.

On completion of the concrete works, the construction of Fischer-Tropsch reactor workshops will commence,
as well as other workshops e.g. general civil works. Structural and mechanical erection of facilities will be
prepared as well as piping fabrication and installation. Progressive electrical and instrumentation installations
will be done. Construction activities will be concluded with painting and insulation and this will be followed by
Pre-commissioning activities.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 61
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.5.6 Commissioning and Start-up

During the commissioning phase, all warehouses, workshops and laboratories will be completed.
Administration buildings, fire station and medical station will also be completed. Commissioning of utilities
and boilers;

1) Commissioning of Air separation Unit and power generation;

2) Commissioning of Hydrogen Production Unit, pressure swing absorption and Auto thermal reformers;
and
3) Commissioning of FT reactors and wax units.

2.5.7 Risks during Commissioning and Start-up

Normally when plant equipment is manufactured, it is quality assurance tested (with water or a gas following
special precautions) by the supplier, prior to delivery. When equipment is installed on site, there may be a
need to test it as a complete installed system. This will normally be done with nitrogen gas to check for leaks,
or a full pressure test following special precautions using nitrogen or during commissioning with process
fluids. If a hydro-test is insisted on, the vessels and tanks will be filled with clean water, and after testing the
water will be discharged. This water will however be uncontaminated, as there will not have been any
hazardous process fluids inside the equipment that could contaminate it. The same will apply to testing of
atmospheric tanks; the discharged water will also be uncontaminated. Even if a section of the plant need to
be emptied during commissioning, due to leaks or other problems, the hazardous liquid will be recovered
back to the feed tanks or held in containment until re-processing occurs. Therefore, there is minimal risk
when testing pressure vessels, tanks or equipment after construction before or during commissioning.

In addition, the plant will have been designed to cater for normal safe operation, so during commissioning
there would be more attention to various operation aspects, equipment will be new, therefore the risk can be
expected to be less during commissioning than during normal operation.

2.6 Ancillary infrastructure/ Associated Facilities17

OLTIN YO’L GTL has entered into investment agreements with various government entities for infrastructure
that is associated with the proposed Project. Where required, separate regulatory EIAs are or will be
conducted for these activities.

From an environmental and social management point of view, ancillary infrastructure can be discretely
divided into 2 groups: (a) infrastructure whose viability and existence is dependent on OLTIN YO’L GTL
exclusively which potentially might have impacts and which were addressed in the ESHSIA and ESHMP and
(b) infrastructure which OLTIN YO’L GTL has no influence over and which is neither dependent on OLTIN
YO’L GTL for its successful operation or vice versa.

2.6.1 Dependent infrastructure

Ancillary infrastructure is illustrated in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4. The table below presents the ancillary
infrastructure associated with the OLTIN YO’L GTL project and highlights those sections in the ESHSIA
where impacts are assessed and mitigation measures described.
18
Table 2.29: List of Associated Infrastructure To Be Constructed by Government Entities Under
Investment Agreement
Responsible
No. Item Description Status Cost19 Addressed in ESHSIA
Party

Construction of South Construction works See sections 6.4.1. and

1. Access roads ~US$ 10M
access roads up to “SREPSAMGZ”, on-going. 6.5.1(air), 6.4.3 and 6.5.3

17
ADB SPS 2009 defines associated facilities as those that are not funded as part of the project (funding may be provided separately by the borrower/client or by third parties), and
whose viability and existence depend exclusively on the project and whose goods or services are essential for successful operation of the project.
18
A environment compliance audit report will be prepared covering existing facilities and facilities under construction as of December 2013
19
As estimated by OLTIN YO’L GTL using an (exchange rate used as of 1st September 2013)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 62
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Responsible
No. Item Description Status Cost19 Addressed in ESHSIA
Party
the boundary fence Kashkadarya Approx.: 2 km (ecology), 6.4.8 and 6.5.8
of the GTL Plant avtoyul, (noise), 6.4.12 and 6.5.12
Kashkadarya (surface water), 6.4.4
design-survey (cultural heritage) 6.4.11
expedition (soil) for impacts.

For mitigation measures, see

sections 7.5.2.2 (quantitative
design criteria), 7.7
(grievance mechanism), 7.11
(contractor management), the
entire section, 7.14
(mitigation measures for
construction)
See sections 6.4.1. and
6.5.1(air), 6.4.3 and 6.5.3
Design works (ecology), 6.4.8 and 6.5.8
completed. (noise), 6.4.12 and 6.5.12
SJSRC Uzbekistan Railway (surface water), 6.4.4
“Uzbekiston temir Company has (cultural heritage) 6.4.11
Construction of prepared all (soil) for impacts.
yullari” (Uzbek
access rail from necessary
Railway
2. Access rail Kengsai station up to documents to start
Company), For mitigation measures, see
the boundary fence construction
“Toshtemirloyiha” sections 7.5.2.2 (quantitative
of the GTL Plant
OJSC (design Approx.: 300m of rail design criteria), 7.7
entity) track from Kengsai (grievance mechanism), 7.11
station (contractor management), the
entire section , 7.14
(mitigation measures for
construction)
See sections 6.4.1. and
6.5.1(air), 6.4.3 and 6.5.3
(ecology), 6.4.8 and 6.5.8
(noise), 6.4.12 and 6.5.12
(surface water), 6.4.4
(cultural heritage) 6.4.11
Design
“Bukharagazpro (soil) for impacts.
Laying of pipelines documentation
mstroy”OJSC
3. Pipelines (gas) for methane rich and currently being
“UzLITIneftegaz” prepared For mitigation measures, see
pipeline gas
OJSC sections 7.5.2.2 (quantitative
Approx.: 5 km
design criteria), 7.7
(grievance mechanism), 7.11
(contractor management), the
entire section , 7.14
(mitigation measures for
construction)
See sections 6.4.1. and
6.5.1(air), 6.4.3 and 6.5.3
Design works (ecology), 6.4.8 and 6.5.8
expected to be (noise), 6.4.12 and 6.5.12
finalized in Q1 2014 (surface water), 6.4.4
2 pipelines of 4.1 km (cultural heritage) 6.4.11
“Shurtan GCC”
and 2.5 km (soil) for impacts.
USE,
Pipelines (The preliminary
4. Laying of water pipe “UzLITIneftegaz”
(water) route from the two For mitigation measures, see
OJSC
water supply sections 7.5.2.2 (quantitative
sources agreed design criteria), 7.7
between SGCC, JV, (grievance mechanism), 7.11
Uztyajneftegashimpr (contractor management), the
oject) entire section, 7.14
(mitigation measures for
construction)
Relocation of “Elektrkishlokkuril See sections 6.4.1. and
Relocation of overhead power ish” OJSC, 6.5.1(air), 6.4.3 and 6.5.3
5. Works completed
existing utilities lines and water pipes “Selenergoprojec (ecology), 6.4.8 and 6.5.8
from the site of GTL t” OJSC, (noise), 6.4.12 and 6.5.12

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 63
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Responsible
No. Item Description Status Cost19 Addressed in ESHSIA
Party
plant “Surtan GCC” (surface water), 6.4.4
USE, (cultural heritage) 6.4.11
“UzLITIneftegaz” (soil) for impacts.
OJSC
For mitigation measures, see
sections 7.5.2.2 (quantitative
design criteria), 7.7
(grievance mechanism), 7.11
(contractor management), the
entire section , 7.14
(mitigation measures for
construction)
See sections 6.4.1. and
6.5.1(air), 6.4.3 and 6.5.3
(ecology), 6.4.8 and 6.5.8
Laying of two Cost estimate (noise), 6.4.12 and 6.5.12
overhead power documentation for (surface water), 6.4.4
lines 110kv from power supply lines (cultural heritage) 6.4.11
Shurtan substation “Elektrokishlokku has been prepared (soil) for impacts.
Power lines
up to the boundary rilish” OJSC, by
6. (during
fence of the GTL “Selenergoprojec “Selenergoproject” For mitigation measures, see
operation)
plant; and t” OJSC OJSC. Currently sections 7.5.2.2 (quantitative
expansion of under review of design criteria), 7.7
Shurtan substation Uzbekenergo (grievance mechanism), 7.11
capacities company (contractor management), the
entire section , 7.14
(mitigation measures for
construction)
See sections 6.4.1. and
6.5.1(air), 6.4.3 and 6.5.3
(ecology), 6.4.8 and 6.5.8
(noise), 6.4.12 and 6.5.12
95% complete, (surface water), 6.4.4
awaiting (cultural heritage) 6.4.11
Laying of fibre optic “Uztelekom” construction of main (soil) for impacts.
Tele- cable from Guzar JSC, access road in order
7. to lay remaining
communication district Public Switch “Alokainvest” For mitigation measures, see
Telephone Network JSE cable (1.5km) sections 7.5.2.2 (quantitative
Approx.: 62 km design criteria), 7.7
(grievance mechanism), 7.11
(contractor management), the
entire section, 7.14
(mitigation measures for
construction)
See sections 6.4.1. and
6.5.1(air), 6.4.3 and 6.5.3
(ecology), 6.4.8 and 6.5.8
(noise), 6.4.12 and 6.5.12
(surface water), 6.4.4
(cultural heritage) 6.4.11
MoU signed (soil) for impacts.
Construction of “Shurtan GCC”
Accommodatio between UNG and
housing for USE,
8. n for Project’s UzGTL; currently USD34M
operators of the GTL “Kishlokkurilishlo For mitigation measures, see
shift operators gathering data for
plant (shift camp) yiha” OJSC sections 7.5.2.2 (quantitative
design works
design criteria), 7.7
(grievance mechanism), 7.11
(contractor management), the
entire section , 7.13 (socio-
economic), 7.14 (mitigation
measures for construction)

2.6.2 Independent infrastructure

The IFC provides a clear description of ‘associated facilities’ and project area of influence and how it relates
to related facilities. Outside of this IFC definition, there are pre-existing independent facilities independent of

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 64
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

the OLTIN YO’L GTL project. These impacts would be the subject of other ESIA’s. They have not been
included in this ESHSIA scope for the reasons given below.

¡ OLTIN YO’L GTL will require Rail Tankers for the transport of diesel within Uzbekistan and for the
transportation of naphtha from the project site to Novorossisk Port in Russia. These tankers will be
purchased from existing facilities located either in Uzbekistan or elsewhere in the region. The supply of
the tankers from these facilities is considered to be part of their existing day-to-day operations and
would continue independently of OLTIN YO’L GTL. As a result of this independence, the facilities
required for the construction of the rail tankers was not considered further in the ESHSIA.

¡ As indicated previously, the naptha produced at OLTIN YO’L GTL is likely to be exported from the
Novorossisk Port in Russia. This is an existing operation that operates independently from OLTIN YO’L
GTL and, as such, was not considered in the ESHSIA.

¡ As indicated, OLTIN YO’L GTL will receive MRG (feedstock) from the existing SGCC operation. The
feedstock will be received at fenceline with SGCC continuing to operate independently. Despite this
independence, SGCC was factored into the ESHSIA on the basis of its proximity to the proposed
OLTIN YO’L GTL site and potentially resulting in cumulative impacts.

2.7 Project Schedule

The (then) Uzbekistan GTL Project was initiated in 2009 and early 2010. Following the completion of legal
and administrative tasks, the Regulatory EIA and the Bankable ESHSIA studies commenced in February
2010. The Front End Engineering Design 1 (FEED 1) of the proposed GTL facility took place concurrently
with the Bankable ESHSIA study and was completed in 2010. FEED2 was completed at end of 2012 after
which the ESHSIA was updated in 2013. The trading name of OLTIN YO’L GTL was adopted in 2012 and
the bankable ESHSIA was updated to reflect this change. The Bankable ESHSIA study will be submitted to
the project financiers in 2013. The Regulatory EIA was completed in 2013. A summarised version of the
project schedule is provided below.

Timeline
The timeline of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project is as follows:

Development activity Planned date

Commence site preparation (e.g. civil works) 4Q 2013
Commence construction 3Q 2014
Complete construction 1Q 2018
Complete commissioning (plant start-up) 2Q 2018
Operation of plant 3Q 2018

2.7 Project Alternatives

This section outlines the alternatives investigated either by OLTIN YO’L GTL prior to the ESHSIA, or
investigated by Golder during the ESHSIA.

Factors that guided the choices between alternatives included practicality, existing industrial infrastructure,
logistical considerations, geographical features, environmental and social considerations, and financial
viability.
Table 2.30: Alternatives investigated by OLTIN YO’L GTL prior to the ESHSIA, and investigated by the
ESHSIA

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 65
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Alternatives investigated by OLTIN YO’L GTL Alternatives investigated by Golder during the
prior to the ESHSIA ESHSIA

¡ Project location alternatives

¡ The No-Project alternative (Baseline scenario)
¡ Site location alternatives
¡ Site location alternatives
¡ Technological / production alternatives

2.7.1 Project Location Alternatives Prior to the ESHSIA

During the preparation of the OLTIN YO’L GTL pre-feasibility and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
20
study by Uzliti , two project location alternatives were considered. The first alternative location was near the
existing Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex (SGCC) in the Kashkadarya region in Uzbekistan, while the second
alternative location was the planned Ustyurt Gas Chemical Complex (UGCC) in the Republic of
Karakalpakstan, in the north western region of Uzbekistan near the Aral Sea.

The alternatives discussed in the Uzliti study can be summarised as follows:

Table 2.31: Project location alternatives – Southern Alternative (Shurtan GCC) versus North-Western
Alternative (Ustyurt GCC)
North-Western Alternative
Item Southern Alternative (SGCC)
(UGCC)
1. Logistical considerations
Roads, railways, utilities and
(Availability of developed Roads, railways, utilities (including
engineering services are readily
infrastructure – roads, water) and engineering services
available. Insufficient water
railways, utilities, engineering are readily available.
supply.
services etc.)
21 Sufficient qualified labour Insufficient qualified labour
2. Labour availability
resources resources
Unsuitable geographical location,
Suitable geographical location, i.e.
3. Proximity to consumers i.e. located in a remote area far
closer to local consumers
away from local consumers
22 22
4. Local demand for fuel 227,000 000 kg / annum 113,300 000 kg/ annum
To the South (Afghanistan and
Tajikistan) and East (Kazakhstan, To the North (Kazakhstan and
5. Ease of exporting product
Kyrgyzstan and China) and to the Russia)
West (Turkmenistan)

20
Uzlitineftgaz Pre-Feasibility Study. Book 3. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Shourtan ICMW Treated Methane-based Production of Synthetic Liquid Fuel.
21
During the Pre-Feasibility stages of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project, labour supply was a considering factor. During the ESHSIA however, OLTIN YO’L GTL indicated that
their current plan is to make use of contractor labour during construction and operation. Although it can be expected that the appointed contractors will utilize some local labour
sources, contractors would employ their own staff members and might not be influenced by OLTIN YO’L GTL,
22
Pre-Feasibility study by Uzliti refers only to 227,000 000 kg and 113,300 000 kg, respectively. Golder has assumed this is the annual amount cited in the study.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 66
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Based on the considerations listed above, OLTIN YO’L GTL decided to pursue the more lucrative and
practical option of the Southern Alternative near the existing SGCC.

2.7.2 Site Location Alternatives Prior to the ESHSIA

During the preparation of the OLTIN YO’L GTL pre-feasibility and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
20
study by Uzliti , three site layout alternatives were considered and discussed. The three options that were
st nd
considered were located to the northeast of SGCC (1 option); located to the southeast of SGCC (2
rd
option); and to the west of the SGCC site (3 option).These alternatives are visually illustrated in Figure 2.20
st nd
(Note: 1 option corresponds with “Alternative 4” discussed in Section 2.7.6 Table 2.33, 2 option with
rd
“Alternative 3” and 3 option with “Alternative 1”).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 67
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.19: The OLTIN YO’L GTL regional site alternatives in Uzbekistan two

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 68
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.20: The site alternative assessment of the proposed project footprint for the OLTIN YO’L GTL project site

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 69
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

As recorded in the pre-feasibility study and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, OLTIN YO’L GTL decided
rd
that the 3 option (“Alternative 1” in Figure 2.20) would be the most appropriate location for the proposed
OLTIN YO’L GTL site due to consideration given to the following factors:

¡ Predominant wind direction;

¡ Distance from the planned construction camp; and

¡ Proximity to infrastructure.

2.7.3 Technological / Production Alternatives

The pre-feasibility study and Draft Environmental Impact Statement also discussed two possible
technological alternatives that would result in different production scenarios. The two technological
alternatives considered were the “Kerosene model” and the “Diesel model”. Table 2.32 was adapted from the
pre-feasibility study and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Table 2.32: Technological / production alternatives (production for both alternatives assumes
3 23
production capacity of 380,000 m / hr)
Products “Kerosene model” (t/a) “Diesel model” (t/a)
GTL Diesel 672 000 922 000
GTL Naphtha 361 000 388 000
GTL Kerosene 278 000 -
Liquefied hydrocarbon gas (LHG) 63 000 63 000
Total 1,374 000 1,373 000

During the later phase of FEED2, OLTIN YO’L GTL will determine which model is most feasible and will then
focus their final design activities to follow the most appropriate model.

2.7.4 Transportation and Route Alternatives

There are two ways of transporting the liquid gas off site, by rail and by road. The rail transportation is limited
to existing rail track routes and railway station infrastructure. Transportation by road is more flexible as far as
routes are concerned but also limiting as far as bridge crossing and road quality and terrain is concerned.

The OLTIN YO’L GTL Project proposes to utilise both rail and road transportation options. The following
section explains which routes may be used for each option.

2.7.4.1 Road/ Rail Transportation

A transportation study was conducted in 2010 to propose suitable routes for ODC and Heavy Lift cargo to the
Shurtan project site in Uzbekistan. The report proposed that 10m diameter reactors could not be transported
in either single piece forms or in sections. The report made recommendations on suitable routes, cargo
envelope dimensions and weight to suit the available infrastructure.

The largest recommended vessel size for the project was:

¡ 40.0m overall length;

¡ 6.0m diameter / width;

¡ 6.5m height including saddles; and

¡ 200Te net weight

23
A million kilograms per annum figure is based on 100% production and 8000 working hours per year.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 70
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.21: A cross section of the largest road vessel size and weight design
recommended in the 2010 report.

Figure 2.22: The proposed diameter of the road transport vessel and the dimensions required for the turning circle

The major transportation issue is the crossing of the Amu Darya River which forms the border between
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Historically the river crossings have been by means of weight-restricted
pontoon bridges but in recent years a programme of new conventional bridge building has been commenced
to replace the pontoon bridges.

For access to Uzbekistan by sea, the ports of Aktau in Kazakhstan and Turkmenbashi in Turkmenistan were
the only Caspian Sea ports considered. Uzbekistan is a land-locked country, so, whichever mode of
entry/route is utilised, at least one other country must be transited from the nearest navigable sea port.

For in-gauge cargo, the following all-year round transport modes are practical options:

¡ International full trailer loads from Black Sea;

¡ Persian Gulf;

¡ North Sea; or

¡ Baltic Ports.

For rail transport, the following are practical options, from:

¡ The Black Sea Port;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 71
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ The Azov Sea Port; The Baltic Port;

¡ The Sea of Japan Port; or

¡ Mainland Europe.

For out of gauge cargo with a limited envelope that conforms to the former CIS maximum rail gauge, all year
transportation can be considered from the Azov Sea port of Mariupol and to a lesser extent, the Baltic Port of
St Petersburg.

The movement of Super Out Of Gauge and/or Heavy Lift cargo is limited to transportation by means of
Russian-flagged barges or Sea/River vessels via the Russian inland waterway river and canal systems to the
Caspian Sea. The two routes are open seasonally as follows:

¡ Volga-Balt canal system ex St. Petersburg: 1st May – 15th November; and

¡ Volga-Don canal system ex Rostov-on Don: 25th April – 25th November

2.7.4.2 Rail & Road from Aktau, Kazakhstan

Movements through Aktau are still considered to be a last resort option. The road conditions between Aktau
and Beyneu over some 475km of poor terrain, weak bridges, loose shale roads and dangerous gradients
have not markedly improved. The Kazakh authorities also actively discourage the movement of heavy cargo
by road over any appreciable distance.

The use of rail will bring with it large capital costs in building a trans-shipment point to transfer cargo from rail
to road trailers in the vicinity of Beyneu.

There are concerns around port and rail congestion as well as rolling-stock shortages caused by other
projects in Kazakhstan over the same time period as the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project.

It was advised by UTY that the width of the first railway frame bridge prior to the Amu Darya was 5.16m
which confirms that rail over any distance in Uzbekistan would be impractical. Frame bridges local to Qarshi
have been found to have the more traditional 3.3m max envelope width arrangement.

In view of these findings concerning transportation in Turkmenistan, the combined rail & road option via
Kazakhstan will not be pursued further at this time.

2.7.4.3 Roads from Turkmenbashi through Turkmenistan

The 2010 surveys found that Turkmenistan is embarking on a major bridge replacement programme
between Turkmenbashi, Asgabat and Byramaly. Many of the older and poor condition bridges have been
replaced since the previous route survey. During this time other major developments have started such as a
major petrochemical plant at Yoloten, south of Mary in the south east of the Turkmenistan. This project
involved the delivery of large infrastructure like 4 x 560Te Absorbers in 2011, the movement of which was
over the same route as is being considered for the GTL Project.

Although the successful movement of such heavy equipment would suggest the route be more than suitable
for the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project, many of the new bridges had to have bypasses constructed through the
river beds around them and these bypasses had to be removed and replaced for each convoy.

Crossing the Amu Darya river remains the critical path with regard to route planning. There is an established
working alliance with a Turkish transport company that has recently delivered a generator stator to a power
plant in Navoy, Uzbekistan. Further investigations revealed that the recently constructed combined railway
and road frame bridge between Gazojak in Turkmenistan and Pitnak in Uzbekistan was used for the river
crossing.

The combined railway and road bridge is shown in Figure 2.23 below.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 72
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.23: The new road/ rail bridge between Gazojak (Turkmenistan) and Pitnak (Uzbekistan).

The abutment arches and crossbeams in the bridge structure are the limiting factor. A generator weighing
220Te was approved to cross this bridge. The bridge is said to have a max cargo capacity of 320Te. To
safely cross the bridge using the proposed 24 axle modular trailer, a max net cargo height of 5.78m would be
the limit for cylindrical items.

Other means of transporting shorter length cargo can be considered such as low-beds rigged between
modular trailers and girder bridge trailers but these methods would have to be studied on a case-by-case
basis.

2.7.4.4 Bridge infrastructure and alternatives

A new bridge over the Amu Darya River is being constructed some 100km north west of the Turkmenistan-
Uzbekistan border. This bridge is replacing the downstream pontoon bridge carrying the road from Urgench
to Beruni. The bridge comprises 24 x spans of 23m each with no overhead restrictions on the approach or
egress to/from this bridge.

The bridges, located between Mary and Bayramaly, have both been replaced with new cable stayed steel
bridges that the Turkmenistan authorities are “protecting” by restricting the gross weight of loads passing
over them. The heavy lifts for the Yoloten project for example, did not use this part of the route.

Figure 2.24: The cable stayed steel bridge

Approval to cross these bridges will need to be granted before they can be utilised for the GTL Project. At the
time of the 2012 route survey the bridge restrictions were as follows:

¡ From Turkmenistan - Maximum axle load on an 8 wheeled 3.0m wide modular trailer = 13Te; and

¡ From Uzbekistan - Maximum axle load on an 8 wheeled 3.0m wide modular trailer = 12Te

The proposed 24 axle single modular trailer configuration will be acceptable for a net cargo weight of 200Te
without the requirement for any bridge bypass construction. Further bridge construction is scheduled in both

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 73
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, to replace older bridges in poor condition. There are particular concerns
regarding two bridges in the Bukhara region of Uzbekistan that currently accept 12Te per axle loads but the
bridges are in poor condition with spalling of the concrete underneath exposing the reinforcing bars. It is
understood these bridges are scheduled for replacement but if not completed in time for the movement of the
Shurtan cargo and if they have been down-graded in the interim, bypasses will need to be constructed
around them.

2.7.4.5 Road improvement

The other improvement works that have to be done are on the desert road between Bayramaly and Gazojak.
This road is in poor condition with areas of loose shale in place of bitumen as well as damage caused by
sand-storms and the methods of clearing sand afterwards.

Figure 2.25: Deteriorated road conditions

There will need to be repairs to the road surface for the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project cargo as well as regular
road route maintenance during the course of the Project.

2.7.4.6 Route options to Shurtan

A number of different routes were assessed during the Shurtan Gas Transportation Route study (2010). This
study was revised in 2012 based on new information. As Uzbekistan is a land-locked country it is necessary
for the proposed transport routes for the Project to cross through other countries. It would therefore require at
least one other country to be transited from the nearest navigable sea port. Figure 2.26 provides an overview
of the routes assessed during the surveys.

Six routes were identified and labelled Route A, B, C, D (1&2) E, and F for reference.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 74
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.26: Potential Road Routes from the GTL Plant to Ports.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 75
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.7.4.7 Routes through Kazakhstan (Route A & B)

There are two alternative transport routes through Kazakhstan from Uzbekistan. Route A runs from
Uzbekistan’s’ north western boarder to Beyneu, to Atyrau (northern point of the Caspian Sea and Rout B
runs from Uzbekistan’s north western boarder to Aktau (an eastern port of the Caspian Sea).

Route A from Shurtan to Atyrau is approximately 1 642km long and route B from Shurtan to Aktau is
approximately 1980 km long.

Movements through Aktau are still considered to be a last resort. The road conditions between Aktau and
Beyneu over some 475km of poor terrain, weak bridges, loose shale roads and dangerous gradients have
not markedly improved. The Kazakh authorities are also actively discouraging the movement of heavy cargo
by road over any appreciable distance. These routes are depicted in Figure 2.26.

2.7.4.8 Routes through Turkmenistan (Routes C, D and E)

Three possible transport routes have been identified from Uzbekistan through Turkmenistan, Route C, D and
E.

Route C runs from Shurtan (the project site) north west to the Turkmenistan border crossing at Nukus, south
to Asgabat and then north west to the port at Turkmenbashi. This route is approximately 1868km long

Route D (1&2) runs from Shurtan (the project site) North West to the Turkmenistan border crossing Berunij,
south to Baramaly in Turkmenistan and then North West to the port at Turkmenbashi. These routes are
approximately 2 200 km and 2 300 long respectively.

Route D (Figure 2.26) has the following restrictions:

In Terkmenistan
¡ Axle weights cant exceed 12 Te per 8 wheeled trailor axle; and

¡ Overhead Obstructions which include 8 overhead sign gantries in Asgabat, 6-6.5m above the road and
6 overhead traffic control gantries with cameras in Asgabat. These obstructions will require either
permanently raising or removing for each convoy;

In Uzbekistan
Roads

¡ A380 south of Tortkol: rail over road bridge (6.9m high) requires a bypass ramp construction over the
railway for vehicle heights of 6.8m or greater;

¡ A380 south of Tortkol: rail over road bridge (7.8m high) requires a bypass ramp construction over the
railway for vehicle heights of 7.7m or greater;

¡ A380 between Tortkol and Bukhara: highway checkpoint arch (6.7m high). By-pass would need to be
constructed around the rear of the police station;

¡ A380 on the south side of Qarshi:

§ District gas pipe 7.5m high;

§ Traffic light gantry 6.2m high; and
§ A road sign gantry 5.6m high.

¡ All of these restrictions would require permanently raising or removing for each convoy.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 76
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Overhead Cables

¡ It appears that up to 6.00m total vehicle height cargo can pass along the route aided by occasional
pole-lifting of cables and “kicker” rails along the top of the cargo. 6.00m total vehicle height equates to a
net cargo height of 4.88m on a flat-top multi-axle trailer;

¡ Vehicle heights above 6.00m will require official cable escort gangs to accompany the convoys.

Route E runs from Shurtan (the project site) north west to the Turkmenistan border crossing at Farab, south
west to Bayramaly in Turkmenistan and then north west to the port at Turkmenbashi. This route is
approximately 1 470 km long.

In Iran (Route F)
Route F is the only route to and from a port in the Persian Gulf. Route F runs from Shurtan through Asgabat
to Incheh Borun on the border of Turkmenistan and Iran. From Inchem Borun it leads south to the port at
Bandar-Abbas on the Persian Gulf. This route is approximately 2 970 km long (Figure 2.26).

2.7.4.9 Rail Route alternatives

There are a number of potential rail routes that could be utilised for the proposed Project. Three main line
routes have been identified and displayed in Figure 2.27 (routes 1,2 and 3). The routes identified are for
block trains from Jaron and Qarshi.

Route 1 runs North East from Jayron to Fergana, Almaty and Bishkek. Route 2 runs South West from Qarshi
to Tehran and route 3 runs North West from Qarshi to Novorossiysk.

2.7.4.10 Rail Infrastructure Requirements

Kengsoy Station
At least three additional marshalling tracks accommodating trains of up to 64 railcars should be constructed
at Kengsoy station.

Jayron Station
No additional infrastructure will be required at the Jayron Station. This station provides enough marshalling
capacity to form block trains from the GTL project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 77
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 2.27: Rail Route Alternatives

2.7.4.11 Road Route Conclusions

The route evaluation originally proposed a maximum vessel envelope of 40.0m long x 6.0m dia x 6.5m high
weighing 200Te has been found to be a possible option to move by road from Turkmenbashi to the jobsite in
Shurtan.

The net height of cargo has been found to have a profound effect on transit times and costs. From available
information, it appears that a reduced cargo net height of 4.88m / total vehicle height of 6.00m will be easier
and more cost-effective to move.

2.7.5 The “No-Project” Alternative (Baseline scenario), Investigated during the

ESHSIA
As discussed in section 2.3, there are a number of benefits associated with the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project.
The following negative economical impacts can be expected should the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project not
proceed.

2.7.5.1 The Role of Energy in the Economy

Energy is the foundation of modern economies on a global scale. The human population has developed to
be completely dependent on energy on a daily basis. Energy is also fundamental to the economy of any
country. It is normally a significant input cost into an economy and without energy “the wheels of an
economy” cannot turn literally. For any functioning economy, the employment of labour and capital requires
some form of energy. The amount of and type of energy varies between countries and is mostly dependent
on availability and a country’s economic structures. Energy remains an enabler for economic growth and
stability.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 78
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

2.7.5.2 Costs of not having Sufficient Fuel

Despite the complexity and level of development of a country’s economy, lack of energy could lead to
stagnation or an economic slow-down. With Uzbekistan being a developing country, any shortages of fuel
have potential long term impacts as delays in development have fare reaching effects. During site visits of
the ESHSIA team to Uzbekistan, numerous occasions were recorded where regional fuel shortages resulted
in long queues at fuel stations. The OLTIN YO’L GTL Project plans to export a portion of the GTL fuels to
neighbouring countries. It could therefore be expected the No-Go option would also have an impact on the
neighbouring developing countries.

2.7.5.3 Job Creation

Although there is uncertainty as to which contracting parties will be appointed by OLTIN YO’L GTL to
construct and operate the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL plant, this Project would have a beneficial impact on
the regional economy.

The Project will enable additional beneficial uses in Uzbekistan for the natural resources (natural gas) of this
country, and improved availability of fuel products on a national level. Currently, the produced gas at the
SGCC facility is pumped to Russia and sold with limited profit margins. The proposed GTL plant would
facilitate additional stimulation of the Uzbek economy resulting in direct economic benefits to the people of
Uzbekistan. Energy security therefore would play an important role in a country like Uzbekistan.

The World Bank defines energy security as follows: “energy security means that a country can steadily
produce and consume energy at reasonable prices in order to promote economic growth and, by doing so, to
reduce poverty and directly improve the population's living standards by expanding access to modern
services in the energy sphere”.

Both primary and secondary employment opportunities would be created through the proposed OLTIN YO’L
GTL site. In a developing country, following a no-go option would have potential adverse impacts on a local
and regional employment scale.

2.7.6 Site Location Alternatives Investigated during the ESHSIA

During the ESHSIA, all three possible sites investigated by the pre-feasibility study and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement were reviewed and a fourth site alternative (Alternative 2 in Table 2.33 was also
considered. These sites are illustrated in Figure 2.20.

Satellite imagery was available at the time of the ESHSIA, and therefore contours / slopes were also
considered. The results of the review of the four possible site location alternatives are summarised in
Table 2.33: Comparative analysis of the four site location alternatives around the existing SGCC site
considered during the ESHSIA
SITE NAME
FEATURES Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Positioning
Located outside of Located within the Located within the Located within the
relating to the
the sanitary sanitary protection sanitary protection sanitary protection
SGCC sanitary
protection zone zone zone zone
zone
Intersects
biological ponds,
Close proximity to Greater than 1 km
Logistics (road Intersects existing wastewater
railway and main from the railway
and rail) road treatment facility
road to Karshi track
and discharge
channel
Predominantly flat
Predominantly flat Steep slopes in the Predominantly flat
Geographical land (0 – 5 degree
land (0 – 5 degree west (8 – 10 land (0 – 5 degree
features slopes) except for
slopes) degrees) slopes)
the western

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 79
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

boundary where
there is a valley
with steep slopes
North – south North – south East – west East – west
Slope gradient
gradient gradient gradient gradient

From Table 2.33 above, Alternative 1 (Option 3 of the Uzliti study) appears to be more favourable site.
Alternative 2, 3 and 4 were situated within the sanitary protection zone around the SGCC site, which is
problematic from an Uzbek legislative point of view. In addition, the predominant wind direction described in
the baseline description section of this report (3.0), in summer is predominantly from the north (north, north -
northwest, northwest and north - northeast), while the predominant wind direction in winter was from the east
(east, and east- northeast). This would therefore make Alternative 1 (Option 3) a more desirable option, as it
would on average direct possible emissions away from the existing SGCC site.

2.8 Carbon Capture Readiness of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project

Carbon capture requirements are well documented in the latest sets of “principles” on climate change
developed a number of banks. An example of this is The Climate Change Principles by the Climate Group.
Current banking sector signatories to these principles include:

¡ Credit Agricole;

¡ HSBC;

¡ Standard Chartered;

¡ Swiss Re;

¡ F&C Asset Management; and

¡ BNP Paribas.

Involvement of other banks within this group is likely to increase.

Sasol Technology Ltd (the engineering manager for the OLTIN YO’L GTL joint venture) commissioned
Foster Wheeler to perform a Carbon Capture Readiness study for non-dilute streams within the process.The
main conclusions of the study were:

1) A maximum saving of 16.7% CO2 of the overall GTL facility through a base case of 90% CO2 capture
level can be achieved;
2) This saving will be at a CAPEX expenditure of USD 157 million;

3) The cost penalty of capture readiness is at minimum USD 2 million, although forward escalation
would increase this amount;

4) Increased CO2 capture levels can be achieved through minor increases in CAPEX over the 90%
capture level base case, while the 99% capture level results in a CO2 saving of 18.3% at a cost of
USD 165.5 million;
5) The maximum CO2 recovery per unit CAPEX cost is achieved through 99% capture levels;

6) Imported power for the CO2 compressor was recommended by this study (for both Capture-Ready
and Capture-In-Place options). This would achieve the requirements of the project to minimize
Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) for the Carbon Capture Unit as well as minimizing the impact on the
existing utilities and the facility. The Foster Wheeler Study recommended that this be re-evaluated
during the next design stage of the project, when cost and availability of information for offsite supply
of electricity and MR gas are available.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 80
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Golder' reviewed of the Foster Wheeler Carbon Capture Readiness Report, and was informed that OLTIN
YO’L GTL decided for economic reasons not to pursue carbon capture or carbon readiness options as part of
the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 81
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Block C, Bellevue Campus
5 Bellevue Road
Kloof
KwaZulu Natal
South Africa
T: [+27] (31) 717 2790
 January 2014

OLTIN YO'L GAS TO LIQUIDS PROJECT

SECTION 3.0 – BASELINE

Environmental, Social, Health

and Safety Impact Assessment
(ESHSIA)

Submitted to:
OLTIN YO'L GTL
41/4 Mirabadskaya Street,
Mirabad District 100015 Tashkent,
Republic of Uzbekistan
REPORT

Report Number: 12614848-12330-10

Distribution:
1 x copy: OLTIN YO'L GTL
2 x copies: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table of Contents

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ..................................................................................... 77

3.1 Regional Climate......................................................................................................................................... 77

3.2 Meteorological Conditions........................................................................................................................... 80

3.2.1 Local Meteorological Conditions ........................................................................................................... 80

3.2.2 Rainfall Patterns .................................................................................................................................... 80

3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 84

3.3.1 Receptors in the Vicinity of the Site ....................................................................................................... 84

3.3.2 Background Air Quality Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 84

3.4 Geology ...................................................................................................................................................... 89

3.4.1 Regional Geology.................................................................................................................................. 89

3.4.2 Geomorphology..................................................................................................................................... 92

3.4.3 Geological Baseline Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 92

3.5 Hydrogeology (Groundwater)...................................................................................................................... 98

3.5.1 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 98

3.5.2 Regional Hydrogeological Context ........................................................................................................ 99

3.5.3 Hydrogeological Baseline .................................................................................................................... 100

3.5.3.1 Groundwater Recharge.................................................................................................................... 102

3.5.3.2 Groundwater Use ............................................................................................................................. 102

3.5.4 Project Area Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................. 102

3.5.4.1 Groundwater Levels ......................................................................................................................... 102

3.5.4.2 Hydraulic Conductivity ..................................................................................................................... 106

3.5.4.3 Aquifer Type .................................................................................................................................... 107

3.5.4.4 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................................................ 107

3.5.5 Hydrogeology Baseline Summary ....................................................................................................... 114

3.6.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 115

3.6.2 Data Collection on the Proposed Plant Site ........................................................................................ 115

3.6.3 Data Collected on the Proposed Sites for the Accommodation Facilities ............................................ 117

3.6.4 Sampling Program .............................................................................................................................. 117

3.6.5 Samplings Method and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 118

3.6.6 Soil Baseline ....................................................................................................................................... 118

3.6.6.1 Lithology .......................................................................................................................................... 118

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.6.6.2 Topography and Geological Features of Relevance to the Soil Baseline Study .............................. 119

3.6.6.3 Soil Physical, Chemical and Potential status ................................................................................... 119

3.6.6.3.1 Physical Status ............................................................................................................................. 119

3.6.6.3.2 Baseline Chemical Status............................................................................................................. 120

3.6.6.3.3 Potential of the Soil for Agricultural Use ....................................................................................... 123

3.7 Hydrology (Surface water) ........................................................................................................................ 123

3.7.1 Desktop Review of Relevant Documentation ...................................................................................... 123

3.7.2 Delineation of Study Area for the Assessment .................................................................................... 124

3.7.3 Baseline Description ........................................................................................................................... 126

3.7.3.1 Water System Characterisation: Amu Darya Basin ......................................................................... 126

3.7.4 Description of Karshi main canal water supply system ....................................................................... 134

3.7.5 KMC water supply status..................................................................................................................... 134

3.7.6 Water Supply to SGCC ....................................................................................................................... 138

3.8 Landscape and Visual Aesthetics ............................................................................................................. 139

3.8.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 139

3.8.2 Baseline Visual Environment............................................................................................................... 143

3.8.3 Visual Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 149

3.8.4 Receptor Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................ 152

3.9 Biological Environment / Biodiversity ........................................................................................................ 152

3.9.1 Avifauna .............................................................................................................................................. 152

3.9.1.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................ 153

3.9.1.2 Regional Description ........................................................................................................................ 153

3.9.1.2.1 Migration Routes .......................................................................................................................... 153

3.9.1.2.2 Species Diversity .......................................................................................................................... 154

3.9.1.2.3 Red Data Avifauna Species .......................................................................................................... 155

3.9.1.3 Site Description ................................................................................................................................ 155

3.9.1.3.1 Migration Routes .......................................................................................................................... 155

3.9.1.3.2 Species Diversity .......................................................................................................................... 155

3.9.1.3.3 Cranes .......................................................................................................................................... 155

3.9.1.3.4 Raptors ......................................................................................................................................... 156

3.9.1.3.5 Vultures ........................................................................................................................................ 156

3.9.1.3.6 Marsh Harrier................................................................................................................................ 156

3.9.1.3.7 Other Breeding Raptor Species .................................................................................................... 156

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.9.1.3.8 Raptor Migrants ............................................................................................................................ 156

3.9.1.4 Conservation Concerns ................................................................................................................... 157

3.9.1.4.1 Red Data Raptor Species ............................................................................................................. 157

3.9.1.4.2 Little Egret .................................................................................................................................... 158

3.9.1.4.3 White Stork ................................................................................................................................... 158

3.9.1.4.4 Houbara Bustard .......................................................................................................................... 158

3.9.1.4.5 Sociable Plover............................................................................................................................. 158

3.9.1.4.6 Lesser White-fronted Goose ......................................................................................................... 158

3.9.1.4.7 Pygmy Cormorant......................................................................................................................... 158

3.9.1.4.8 Passerines .................................................................................................................................... 159

3.9.2 Flora .................................................................................................................................................... 159

3.9.2.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................ 159

3.9.2.2 Regional Description ........................................................................................................................ 160

3.9.2.3 Site Description ................................................................................................................................ 160

3.9.2.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 162

3.9.2.5 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 163

3.9.3 Fauna .................................................................................................................................................. 164

3.9.3.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................ 164

3.9.3.2 Regional Description ........................................................................................................................ 164

3.9.3.3 Site Description ................................................................................................................................ 164

3.9.3.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 167

3.9.3.5 Protected Areas ............................................................................................................................... 168

3.10 Noise......................................................................................................................................................... 168

3.10.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 168

3.10.2 Field Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 168

3.11 Socio-economic Environment ................................................................................................................... 172

3.11.1 Data collection..................................................................................................................................... 172

3.11.2 Data management, analysis and quality control .................................................................................. 173

3.11.3 Delineation of the social area of influence for the assessment............................................................ 173

3.11.4 National Socio-economic overview ..................................................................................................... 175

3.11.4.1 History and General Overview ......................................................................................................... 175

3.11.4.2 Economy and Socio-economic Development .................................................................................. 175

3.11.4.3 Demographics and Health ............................................................................................................... 177

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.11.4.4 Employment ..................................................................................................................................... 179

3.11.4.5 Human Rights and International Relations....................................................................................... 180

3.11.5 Regional and Local Socio-economic Baseline .................................................................................... 181

3.11.5.1 Politics and governance ................................................................................................................... 181

3.11.5.2 Economics ....................................................................................................................................... 181

3.11.5.3 Demographics and people ............................................................................................................... 183

3.11.5.4 Health .............................................................................................................................................. 183

3.11.5.5 Social Maladies ................................................................................................................................ 184

3.11.5.6 Education ......................................................................................................................................... 185

3.11.5.7 Agriculture........................................................................................................................................ 185

3.11.5.8 Social capital.................................................................................................................................... 185

3.11.5.9 Land tenure and use ........................................................................................................................ 186

3.11.5.10 Infrastructure.................................................................................................................................... 187

3.11.6 Public services .................................................................................................................................... 187

3.12 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources ........................................................................................ 189

3.12.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 189

3.12.2 Description .......................................................................................................................................... 189

3.12.2.1 Regional resources .......................................................................................................................... 189

3.12.2.2 Local study area resources .............................................................................................................. 190

3.13 Ecosystems Goods and Services Baseline............................................................................................... 190

3.13.1 Ecosystems Goods and Services Context .......................................................................................... 190

3.13.2 Delineation of the study area for assessment (Project Area of Influence) ........................................... 191

3.13.3 Drivers of ecosystem change .............................................................................................................. 193

3.13.4 Beneficiaries........................................................................................................................................ 193

3.13.5 Biodiversity and water resources ........................................................................................................ 193

3.13.6 Economics........................................................................................................................................... 193

3.13.7 Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................... 194

3.13.8 Land tenure and use ........................................................................................................................... 194

3.13.9 Human health risk ............................................................................................................................... 194

3.13.10 Cultural Heritage ................................................................................................................................. 194

3.14 Human Health Risk ................................................................................................................................... 194

3.14.1 Receptor Screening ............................................................................................................................ 194

3.14.2 Chemical Screening (baseline conditions) .......................................................................................... 195

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iv
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.14.2.1 Water (background) ......................................................................................................................... 195

3.14.2.2 Soil baseline .................................................................................................................................... 195

3.14.2.3 Air baseline ...................................................................................................................................... 195

3.15 Radiation................................................................................................................................................... 196

3.15.1 Naturally Occurring Radionuclides ...................................................................................................... 196

3.15.2 NORM in the Oil and Gas Recovery Industry ...................................................................................... 198

3.15.3 Definition of Radiation Exposure Conditions ....................................................................................... 199

3.15.4 Summary of the Baseline Survey Results ........................................................................................... 200

3.16 Green House Gas Emissions .................................................................................................................... 201

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 v
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

TABLES
Table 3.1: Evaporation results for the region of Guzar region for a 28 year period .................................................................. 77

Table 3.2: Rainfall data for the Guzar region for a 50 year record............................................................................................ 77

Table 3.3: Monthly and Annual Rainfall Data for Karshi Meteorological Station 2000-2009 ..................................................... 80

Table 3.4: Number of Days with Precipitation >0.2 mm/day ..................................................................................................... 81

Table 3.5: Average Annual Wind Speed .................................................................................................................................. 83

Table 3.6: Discrete Receptors included in this Assessment ..................................................................................................... 84

Table 3.7: Summary of baseline air quality monitoring data ..................................................................................................... 85

Table 3.8: Background concentrations applied in the assessment (µg/m3) ............................................................................. 86

Table 3.9: Top 20 Petroleum Related Hydrocarbon Monitoring Data (July- Sept) .................................................................... 87

Table 3.10: Groundwater levels and elevations...................................................................................................................... 103

Table 3.11: Water level readings during aquifer tests ............................................................................................................ 106

Table 3.12: Inorganic chemistry results for the monitoring sites – Shallow wells ................................................................... 110

Table 3.13: Inorganic chemistry results for the monitoring sites – Deep wells ....................................................................... 112

Table 3.14: Organic chemistry results for new boreholes ....................................................................................................... 114

Table 3.15: Soil lithology ........................................................................................................................................................ 121

Table 3.16: Comparison of TPH values for the accommodation site ...................................................................................... 122

Table 3.17: Comparison of TPH values from the unidentified pile .......................................................................................... 123

Table 3.18: Baseline surface water monitoring points for the OLTIN YO’L GTL site .............................................................. 126

Table 3.19: Water allocations between basin states for average year (taken from UNEP (2011)) ......................................... 127

Table 3.20: Once-off surface water quality results against various MPC specifications ......................................................... 129

Table 3.21: General information of the Talimardjan Reservoir ............................................................................................... 134

Table 3.22: General information of the KMC .......................................................................................................................... 134

3
Table 3.23: KMC monthly average inflow from Talimardjan Reservoir in m /s ....................................................................... 135
3
Table 3.24: KMC monthly average inflow (m /s) from Pump Station 6 ................................................................................... 135
3
Table 3.25: KMC monthly average flows in thousand m /hr ................................................................................................... 136
3
Table 3.26: Annual water requirements for irrigation in M m ................................................................................................. 138

Table 3.27: Salient details of pump stations supplying the Himki reservoir ............................................................................ 138

Table 3.28: Details of Pump Station V.................................................................................................................................... 138

Table 3.29: SGCC water users............................................................................................................................................... 139

Table 3.30: Annual water supplied to the SGCC .................................................................................................................... 139

Table 3-31: Outcome of the critical habitat assessment. ........................................................................................................ 163

Table 3.32: Instrumentation Used for Noise Survey ............................................................................................................... 168

Table 3.33: Baseline Data for Construction Assessment – Otkuduk Village .......................................................................... 170

Table 3.34: Baseline Data for Operational Assessment – Otkuduk Village ............................................................................ 170

Table 3.35: Baseline Data for Construction Assessment – SGCC Staff Accommodation Complex ....................................... 171

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 vi
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.36: Baseline Data for Operational Assessment – SGCC Staff Accommodation Complex ......................................... 171

Table 3.37: Baseline Data for Construction Assessment – SGCC/OLTIN YO’L GTL Construction Camp ............................. 171

Table 3.38: Baseline Data for Operational Assessment – SGCC / OLTIN YO’L GTL Construction Camp ............................. 171

Table 3.39: Baseline Data for Construction Assessment – Navbahor Village ........................................................................ 172

Table 3.40: Baseline Data for Operational Assessment – Navbahor Village .......................................................................... 172

Table 3.41: UN Human Development Rankings 2013 (Source: UNDP, 2010) ....................................................................... 176

Table 3.42: National Demographic and Health Indicators 2000 – 2007 (Source: UNECE database, August 2008
(UNECE, 2010)) .................................................................................................................................................... 177

Table 3.43: Employment Trends 2001 - 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 179

Table 3.44: Administrative Divisions in the Kashkadarya Oblast ............................................................................................ 181

Table 3.45: Poverty Statistics by Region, 2006 ...................................................................................................................... 182

Table 3.46: GHG emissions for Uzbekistan (adapted from the Uzbek Hydrometeorological Services).................................. 201

Table 3.47: GHG Emissions/removals per Sectors (million tons in CO2 equivalent) (adapted from the Uzbek
Hydrometeorological Services).............................................................................................................................. 201

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 vii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Frequency of the number of days between rainfall events in the region of Guzar .................................................. 79

Figure 3.2: Frequency of the number of consecutive rainfall days in the region of Guzar ........................................................ 79

Figure 3.3: Average number of rainfall days per month based on the 50 year record .............................................................. 80

Figure 3.4: Location of Karshi Weather Station in relation to the project site ........................................................................... 82

Figure 3.5: 10 Year Average Windrose for Karshi Meteorological Station................................................................................ 83

Figure 3.6: Seasonal Wind Direction Pattern 2009................................................................................................................... 84

Figure 3.7: Topography of the Republic of Uzbekistan, indicating the location of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project ...................... 90

Figure 3.8: Schematic geological structure of Uzbekistanskaya SSR and adjacent areas (pre-Mezozoic
formations) taken from “Geology of the USSR, v. XXIII-1, 1972). [Project area – within red circle. 1 –
Folded system of Northern Tian Shan; 2 -3 Folded system of Middle Tia] .............................................................. 91

Figure 3.9: “Geology of the USSR, v. XXIII-1, 1972). Russian legend numbered 1 - 9 [1 – conglomerates and
gritstone; 2 - sandstone; 3 - sand; 4 - siltstone; 5 – clay-siltstone; 6 – clay; 7 - limy clay; 8 – loamy clay;
9 - gypsum.]............................................................................................................................................................. 92

Figure 3.10: Geomorphology in the vicinity of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project site ...................................................... 93

Figure 3.11: Groundwater monitoring boreholes being drilled by the OLTIN YO’L GTL appointed contractor,
O'shgaskliti Drilling .................................................................................................................................................. 95

Figure 3.12: Location of the boreholes ..................................................................................................................................... 96

Figure 3.13: Hydrogeology monitoring boreholes - GW01/GW01S to GW04/GW04S [Note: GW04 and GW04S
have subsequently been replaced by GW05] .......................................................................................................... 97

Figure 3.14: Irrigated areas of Central Asia. (Summary Report – Aral Sea Basin Initiative, 2006, Russian version) ............... 99

Figure 3.15: shows the position of the boreholes drilled in relation to the footprint of the proposed site ................................ 101

Figure 3.16: Water elevations for 30m boreholes(shallow) .................................................................................................... 104

Figure 3.17: Water level elevations for 50m boreholes (deep) ............................................................................................... 105

Figure 3.18: Salinity (measured as EC in mS/m) and pH values for shallow monitoring boreholes ....................................... 108

Figure 3.19: Salinity (measured as EC in mS/m) and pH values for deep monitoring boreholes. .......................................... 108

Figure 3.20: Piper diagram for monitoring boreholes ............................................................................................................. 109

Figure 3.21: Location of soil observation and soil sampling points in the vicinity of and on the footprint of the
proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project site ................................................................................................................. 116

Figure 3.23: Photo A illustrates waste found at UzAc1 and Photo B illustrates waste found at UzAc2/3 ............................... 118

Figure 3.24: Photo A illustrates the soil profile on the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site. Photo B illustrates the soil
sampled during the augering process at a single soil sampling locality ................................................................. 120

Figure 3.25: Local map of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project in relation to the local surface water environment ........................... 125

Figure 3.26: Extent of Amu Darya River Basin (taken from UNEP (2011)) ............................................................................ 127

Figure 3.27: Surface water features and sampling localities in the vicinity of the proposed OLTIN YO'L GTL site ................ 133

Figure 3.28: KMC fed from Talimardjan Reservoir ................................................................................................................. 136

Figure 3.29: Colour change in KMC caused by discharge of Pump Station 6 water directly into the KMC ............................ 137

Figure 3.30: Buffer Storage Reservoir at the SGCC............................................................................................................... 137

Figure 3.31: Annual water distribution at SGCC complex ...................................................................................................... 139

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 viii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.32: Regional setting of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project ............................................................................................... 141

Figure 3.33: Positions from which photographs were taken. Note that reference is made to these points in the text
below ..................................................................................................................................................................... 142

Figure 3.34: Layout plan of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant indicating unit positions for which heights were provided ................ 144

Figure 3.35: The study area is generally gently rolling to flat, with very few visually significant topographical
features present (panorama taken from Position 89 looking northeast, as indicated on Figure 3.33) ................... 147

Figure 3.36: The only mentionable topographical feature within the study area is a series of low hills that extend to
the north and east of the site (panorama taken from Position 89 looking north, as indicated on Figure
3.33) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 147

Figure 3.37: The large manmade dams situated northeast of the site (above) and further southwest of the study
area (not shown) are the only significant water bodies that occurs in the area (panorama taken from
Position 95 looking southwest, as indicated on Figure 3.33) ................................................................................. 147

Figure 3.38: Vegetation cover within the study area and surroundings .................................................................................. 148

Figure 3.39: With the exception of the existing SGCC plant, the built-up elements within the study area is largely
limited to linear infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 149

Figure 3.40: The study area is characterised by long range views (photo taken from Position 89 looking southeast,
as indicated on Figure 3.33) .................................................................................................................................. 150

Figure 3.41: Short range views generally only occur where topography or local built-up features obscure views
and are not prevalent in the study area (photo taken from Position 85 looking north, as indicated on
Figure 3.33) ........................................................................................................................................................... 150

Figure 3.42: The study area and region as a whole is generally characterised by a very low level of visual
absorption capacity due to flat topography, sparse vegetation cover and lack of human transformation
(panorama taken from Position 91 looking northeast, as indicated on Figure 3.33) .............................................. 151

Figure 3.43: Demoiselle Crane (Grus virgo) ........................................................................................................................... 153

Figure 3.44: Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus) ........................................................................................................ 156

Figure 3.45: Location of floral diversity plots. ......................................................................................................................... 161

Figure 3.46: Vegetation types within the study area ............................................................................................................... 162

Figure 3.47: Black Saxaul, Haloxylon aphyllum...................................................................................................................... 162

Figure 3.48: Location of the small mammal trap sites within the study area .......................................................................... 165

Figure 3.49: Dead goat found in study area. .......................................................................................................................... 166

Figure 3.50: Spermophilus fulvus. .......................................................................................................................................... 166

Figure 3.51: Agrionemys (Testudo) horsfeldi (left) and Varanus griseus (right). .................................................................... 167

Figure 3.52: Dociostaurus maroccanus (left), and Solpugida (right)....................................................................................... 167

Figure 3.53: Locations from which the noise assessment was conducted ............................................................................. 170

Figure 3 54: Regional Location............................................................................................................................................... 174

Figure 3.55: Social Study Area ............................................................................................................................................... 174

Figure 3.56: Trends in GDP Contribution by Sector (Source: World Bank 2010) ................................................................... 175

Figure 3.57: Uzbekistan Health Indicators (Source: USAID, 2010) ........................................................................................ 178

Figure 3.58: Medical care facility at Enshonkuduk ................................................................................................................. 184

Figure 3.59: The residence in the village of Abduhamid belonging to the former employees previously occupying
the building on the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site. ............................................................................................. 187

Figure 3.60: The flow of ecosystem services to beneficiaries ................................................................................................ 191

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ix
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.61: Project Area of Influence .................................................................................................................................... 192

Figure 3.62: OLTIN YO’L GTL project infrastructure layout in relation to the existing SGCC Plant site ................................. 196

Figure 3.63: Distribution of the background radiation contribution as a percentage of the annual dose, average
over the population of the world [Reproduced from IAEA (2004a). ....................................................................... 197

Figure 3.64: The origins of NORM, indicating where NORM may accumulate in the recovery process of the oil and
gas production industries (OGP, 2008). ................................................................................................................ 198

Figure 3.65: Penetrating power of ionising radiation emitted from NORM radionuclides........................................................ 199

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 x
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym or
Explanation
Word
BDL Below Detection Limit
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO Carbon Monoxide
COPCs Chemicals of Potential Concern
EC Electrical Conductivity
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESHSIA Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Impact Assessment
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
GTL Gas to Liquids
HCl Hydrochloric Acid
IFC International Finance Corporation
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
LLC Limited Liability Company
LSA Local Study Area
m meters
2
m square meters
masl meters above sea level
mbgl meters below ground level
NGO Non-governmental organization
O3 Ozone
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
RSA Regional Study Area
SGCC Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UZGTL Uzbekistan Gas to Liquid
VAC Visual absorption capacity
VIA Visual Impact Assessment
WHO World Health Organization
3
µg/m Micrograms per cubic metre
µm Micrometers

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 xi
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE

3.1 Regional Climate
The climate of Uzbekistan is classified as continental, with hot summers and cool winters, and is typical for
semi-arid territories of Central Asia. A large portion of Uzbekistan is desert-like areas caused by the
significant distance from open sea basins and the close vicinity of the Kizilkum Desert.

The project area has a distinct climate, with relatively hot and dry summers, a recorded maximum
temperature reading well over 40 °C, and cold and dry winters, with a minimum below -25 °C (Ministry of
Agriculture and Water Resources, 2001).

Rainfall data indicates that the rainfall occurs predominantly in winter and spring. The average annual rainfall
based on the available 50 year record (covering the period 1963 to 2012) measured at Guzar is 341 mm.
Guzar is situated approximately 42 km north east of the site. .

The average evaporation data indicates an average annual value of 5475 mm for a 28 year period, ending in
2012. Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 below show average climatic data for the meteorological station at Guzar.
Table 3.1: Evaporation results for the region of Guzar region for a 28 year period
Annual
Monthly Evaporation (mm) Evaporation
Evaporation
(mm)
Statistics

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total

5th 304 144 70 34 74 134 223 350 581 764 679 507 3862

10th 324 150 77 50 80 154 230 350 642 797 736 520 4110

25th 368 160 88 60 98 170 250 433 775 870 790 610 4670

50th 390 205 105 80 125 195 290 540 850 1010 880 700 5370

75th 443 270 133 120 155 230 380 690 1015 1100 980 763 6278

90th 500 303 176 186 193 296 440 739 1060 1133 1094 810 6930

95th 513 317 216 214 226 330 461 786 1067 1160 1144 830 7262

99th 520 371 281 228 306 355 566 866 1107 1214 1165 877 7854

Average 400 219 118 98 134 206 321 557 861 978 898 683 5475

Max 520 390 300 230 330 360 600 890 1120 1230 1170 890 8030

Min 300 130 50 20 40 90 160 320 510 670 630 490 3410

Table 3.2: Rainfall data for the Guzar region for a 50 year record
Monthly Rainfall (mm) Annual
Rainfall
Rainfall
Statistic
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep (mm)

5th 0 2 8 15 19 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 76

10th 0 4 14 19 22 35 5 1 0 0 0 0 99

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 77
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Monthly Rainfall (mm) Annual

Rainfall
Rainfall
Statistic
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep (mm)

25th 0 7 19 23 29 37 21 1 0 0 0 0 137

50th 6 20 44 42 46 73 47 20 0 0 0 0 298

75th 15 35 55 58 64 90 77 31 1 0 0 2 428

90th 38 64 88 74 83 113 99 68 8 3 0 4 643

95th 53 80 96 92 87 145 112 73 12 8 2 6 765

99th 59 97 102 120 137 152 124 99 29 11 7 6 943

Average 13 29 46 46 52 74 51 26 2 1 0 1 341

Max 62 106 104 140 167 153 133 122 30 12 7 7 1043

Min 0 0 1 4 14 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 38

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 78
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.1: Frequency of the number of days between rainfall events in the region of Guzar

Figure 3.2: Frequency of the number of consecutive rainfall days in the region of Guzar

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 79
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.3: Average number of rainfall days per month based on the 50 year record

3.2 Meteorological Conditions

3.2.1 Local Meteorological Conditions
The climate in the area of the facility is arid continental and typical for the semi-desert Central Asian
territories with dry hot summers and relatively cold winters; again potentially favourable conditions for dust
entrainment and transportation. The atmospheric conditions in the vicinity of the facility are described in
more detail in the sections below.

Ten years of meteorological data for the Karshi meteorological station have been obtained (2000 to 2009)
and wind roses for the ten years are presented in Annex C of the AQ report. The prevailing wind direction
frequencies show a bi-model distribution pattern; the bi-modal pattern is seasonal with winds from the north
to northwest prevailing in summer and winds from the east prevailing in winter.

3.2.2 Rainfall Patterns

Precipitation will suppress dust entrainment i.e. prevent it from becoming airborne, and increase wet
deposition. Table 3.3 shows the average monthly and annual precipitation data for Karshi Meteorological
Station between 2000 and 2009. The average annual rainfall over 10 years was 225 mm, with precipitation
mainly occurring between November and May. The period from June to October is a dry month period with
minimal precipitation and thus a higher likelihood of dust releases.

This data is taken from the meteorological data file and 2002 is a period of missing rainfall data, which is not
unusual. Generally as long as there in no more than 10% missing data, it is considered acceptable. The
rainfall data is only used in the qualitative dust assessment not the Air Dispersion Assessment.
Table 3.3: Monthly and Annual Rainfall Data for Karshi Meteorological Station 2000-2009
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Year
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

2000 46.3 23.9 23.8 12.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 7.0 30.4 33.0 178.7
2001 16.3 27.1 32.2 1.6 2.9 0.0 0.7 2.8 0.7 8.9 42.1 21.9 157.2
2002 18.2
2003 12.6 41.6 30.4 12.4 31.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 41.5 22.2 193.2
2004 48.1 11.8 53.8 49.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 32.8 71.6 268.8
2005 44.4 32.0 58.1 28.9 14.2 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 5.0 222.7
2006 14.8 36.0 16.7 30.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 31.4 31.8 169.0
2007 36.2 17.6 39.6 31.7 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 84.4 224.3
2008 43.6 23.3 25.2 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 10.2 14.5 258.2
2009 23.2 35.9 34.0 56.2 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 34.4 231.5
Aver. 32.2 29.5 37.6 36.6 20.1 1.8 0.1 0.3 0.2 3.2 25.6 37.8 225

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 80
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Precipitation levels of >0.2 mm/day are considered sufficient to effectively suppress wind-blown dust
1,2
emissions . Table 3.4 details the number of days showing >0.2 mm/day rainfall. On average each year,
less than 10 such days occur between June and October. Over the entire 10 year period considered,
potentially dust suppressing precipitation levels occurred on 16% of all days.
Table 3.4: Number of Days with Precipitation >0.2 mm/day
Annual
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Total

2000 10 6 6 5 0 2 0 0 2 7 7 10 55
2001 10 11 8 4 4 0 1 3 2 8 9 10 70
2002 9 20 15 17 6 1 1 0 0 1 3 11 84
2003 7 10 11 6 5 0 0 0 0 1 8 10 58
2004 16 4 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 2 8 11 57
2005 12 7 14 3 6 4 0 0 0 0 3 4 53
2006 11 4 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 5 47
2007 6 6 10 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 51
2008 11 7 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 5 4 6 44
2009 5 14 12 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 70
Aver. 9.7 8.9 9.8 7.5 3.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.7 6.1 9.3 58.9
% 31 23 32 25 11 2 1 1 1 9 20 30 16

Prevailing Winds
Wind direction and wind speed data for 2000 to 2009 has been obtained from Karshi Meteorological station
Figure 3.4

1
IFC (2007). Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines. General EHS Guidelines: Environmental. Air Emissions and Ambient Air. April 2007.

2
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005). Planning Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England. Annex1:
Dust.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 81
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.4: Location of Karshi Weather Station in relation to the project site

The 10-year average windrose summarising the occurrence of wind strength, direction and frequency is
shown in Figure 3.5 below. The prevailing wind direction frequencies show a bimodal distribution pattern;
the bi-modal pattern is seasonal with winds from the north to northwest prevailing in summer and winds from
the east prevailing in winter as shown for 2009 in Figure 3.6 below.

Estimates of annual mean wind speed from 2000 to 2009, taken from Karshi are presented in Table 3.5.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 82
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.5: Average Annual Wind Speed

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2.8 m/s 3.5 m/s 2.7 m/s 2.5 m/s 2.3 m/s 2.2 m/s 2.5 m/s 2.3 m/s 2.3 m/s 2.5 m/s

3
Figure 3.5: 10 Year Average Windrose for Karshi Meteorological Station

3
The wind speed adds up to 99% and there is 1% missing data for where the station is not operational.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 83
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.6: Seasonal Wind Direction Pattern 2009

3.3 Air Quality

3.3.1 Receptors in the Vicinity of the Site
Human Receptors
A small number of discrete receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed facility during the
ESHSIA Air Quality specialist study. These are detailed in Table 3.6. These localities represent the closest
sensitive receptors surrounding the proposed facility.
Table 3.6: Discrete Receptors included in this Assessment
Approximate distance (km)
Number Receptor Name Type Direction from the boundary of the
facility
1 Otkuduk Residential west 3.7
SGCC
2 Accommodation Residential east 3.9
complex
OLTIN YO’L GTL
3 Residential north-east 3.2
Construction camp
4 Navbahor Residential west 7.3

Receptors are included in the model in three ways. There are boundary receptors along the site boundary,
discrete receptors which are individual receptors representing houses, schools etc. and finally grid
receptors. Grid receptors are placed everywhere in the model that the X and Y axis of a grid cross. In total,
18,106 receptors have been included in the modelling assessment. Therefore all directions of the proposed
facility have been assessed, as shown in the results contour plots which are based on the model results.

3.3.2 Background Air Quality Monitoring

This section provides a brief overview of the Air Quality baseline environment and context in which the
proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL facility will take place in Uzbekistan.

The background data collected during the monitoring programme has been analysed and any potentially
questionable data looked into, as far as possible. On one occasion at Otkuduk village and one occasion at
Navbahor Village SO2 concentrations were reported which were much higher than other months at those
locations. These high concentrations were not matched by peaks in other pollutants and therefore the

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 84
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

decision has been taken to remove these anomalous data points as they do not appear to be a true
representation of the local concentrations.

The monitoring locations and monitored averages (with outliers removed, see below) have been converted
into the relevant averaging periods using the following assumptions and methodology.

¡ The monthly monitored data is assumed to be the annual average value;

¡ The assumed annual average x 2 = hourly average;

¡ Hourly average x 0.59 = 24 hour average; and

¡ Hourly average x 1.34 = 15 minute average.

This methodology and conversion factors are taken from the UK Environment Agency, H1 Annex F (2010) in
the absence of any appropriate International method/guidance.

The data is summarised in Table 3.7 below. For one month of the monitoring period monitoring was
undertaken for the Top 20 petroleum related hydrocarbons. CO monitoring was not undertaken as the AQS
is high, meaning that the background is usually only a small proportion of this.
Table 3.7: Summary of baseline air quality monitoring data
OLTIN
SGCC
YO’L GTL
Location Units Otkuduk Accommoda Rail Yard Navbahor
Constructi
tion complex
on camp
3
µg/m Min 3.9 5.8 5.8 7.0 6.3
3
SO2 µg/m Max 14.3 10.3 9.6 9.6 24.4
3
µg/m Average 5.1 8.1 7.6 8.4 13.3
3
µg/m Min 67.6 66.1 69.3 59.8 69.9
3
O3 µg/m Max 178.8 153 138.1 144.9 147.8
3
µg/m Average 107.7 94.8 95.3 91.3 107.4
3
µg/m Min 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
3
NOx µg/m Max 0.6 0.5 1.9 0.9 0.6
3
µg/m Average 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3
3
µg/m Min 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
3
NO2 µg/m Max 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
3
µg/m Average 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
3
µg/m Min 0.5 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.6
3
Benzene µg/m Max 3.1 6.2 4.2 12.5 3.2
3
µg/m Average 1.4 2.3 2.0 4.3 1.3
3
µg/m Min 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.2 0.7
3
Toluene µg/m Max 2.5 7.5 2.9 5.1 2.2
3
µg/m Average 1.7 3.9 2.4 3.9 1.3
3
µg/m Min 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
3
Ethylbenzene µg/m Max 0.4 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.4
3
µg/m Average 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3
3
µg/m Min 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.4
3
Mp- Xylene µg/m Max 1.2 3.0 3.8 2.6 1.0
3
µg/m Average 0.9 2.1 1.8 1.9 0.8

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 85
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

OLTIN
SGCC
YO’L GTL
Location Units Otkuduk Accommoda Rail Yard Navbahor
Constructi
tion complex
on camp
3
µg/m Min 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2
3
O- Xylene µg/m Max 0.4 1.5 1.9 1.0 0.4
3
µg/m Average 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.3

This baseline monitoring data will be used in the Air Quality assessment, where it is combined with the
predicted modelled concentrations (Process contribution (PC)) to give a Predicted Environmental
Concentration (PEC). It is this PEC which is compared against the AQS. The monitoring data for the Rail
Yard will be applied to all model outputs (except when explicitly looking at the sensitive receptors). It is the
closest location to the proposed facility and therefore most likely to be representative of the localised
background.

The average concentration will be used as the annual average background value and this will be doubled to
produce an hourly background concentration. Conversion factors from UK Guidance (Environment Agency,
April 2010) will then be applied to the hourly data to produce backgrounds for different averaging period’s
e.g. 24 hour and 15 minute, as required for the air quality standards.

The background data for the relevant averaging periods used in the assessment is presented in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8: Background concentrations applied in the assessment (µg/m3)
OLTIN YO’L Relevant AQS
SGCC
GTL
Location Otkuduk Accommodation Rail Yard Navbahor
Construction
complex
camp
NOx 60
0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3
Annual
NOx 24 250
0.4 0.5 0 .7 0.5 0.4
hour
NO2 40
0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
Annual

NO2 24 60
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
hour
SO2 24 20
9.9 9.6 8.9 9.9 16
hour
SO2 10/ 500
15 22 22 20 11 36
minute
Notes:
1) No conversion factor is available for 10 minute SO2, therefore 15 minute has been reported.

The majority of the monitored baseline data is considered low in comparison to the project AQS and relevant
averaging periods, with exception of the 24 hour SO2 standard which is monitoring suggests is already
approximately 50% of this standard.

On one occasion at Otkuduk and Navbahor Village SO2 concentrations were monitored which were much
higher than other results at those locations. These high concentrations were not matched by peaks in other

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 86
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

pollutants and therefore the decision has been taken to remove these outliers as they do not appear to be a
true representation of the local concentrations.

In the AQIA, the background air monitoring data from each individual receptor will be combined with the
model output data for those specific locations. The background monitoring data for the Rail Yard will be
applied to all other model outputs as it is the closest monitored point to the proposed facility and therefore
most likely to be representative of the localised facility background.

Some concerns have been raised by local inhabitants about air quality and issues affecting breathing and
odours. The location of highest average concentration for SO2 is Navbahor which is the location where these
existing concerns have been raised.

Hydrocarbons
Passive air quality monitoring equipment was analysed for hydrocarbons during the monitoring period July
2010 – September 2010. The monitoring results are presented in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9: Top 20 Petroleum Related Hydrocarbon Monitoring Data (July- Sept)
SGCC GTL
Otkuduk Rail Navbahor
Units Accommodation Construction
Village Yard Village
Complex Camp
UZ1 UZ2 UZ3 UZ4 UZ5
C5-C6 Aliphatic
Hydrocarbons
3
Pentane µg/m 0.31 0.37 - 6.36 -
3
Butane, 2-methyl- µg/m 0.16 0.70 - 5.58 0.14
3
Hexane µg/m - 0.99 - 4.30 -
3
Pentane, 2-methyl- µg/m - 0.87 0.76 3.89 -
3
Pentane, 3-methyl- µg/m - 0.49 - 1.45 -
3
Cyclopentane, methyl- µg/m - - - 0.84 -
3
Butane, 2,2-dimethyl- µg/m - - - 0.59 -

C7-C8 Aliphatic
Hydrocarbons
3
Heptane µg/m 0.43 1.32 2.17 2.85 0.55
3
Octane µg/m 0.33 1.33 4.75 1.63 0.36
3
Cyclohexane, methyl- µg/m 0.27 1.17 1.06 2.37 0.27
3
Hexane, 3-methyl- µg/m 0.13 0.56 - 1.45 0.11
3
Heptane, 2-methyl- µg/m 0.14 0.65 1.28 0.95 -
3
Heptane, 3-methyl- µg/m - 0.42 0.63 -
3
Cyclohexane, ethyl- µg/m - 0.36 1.04 -
3
1,3- µg/m
- 0.31 - 0.44 -
Dimethylcyclohexane,c&t
3
Pentane, 2,3-dimethyl- µg/m - 0.14 - 0.34 -
3
Pentane, 2,4-dimethyl- µg/m - - - 0.37 -
3
Butane, 2,2,3-trimethyl- µg/m - - - 0.25 -
-
C9-C10 Aliphatic
Hydrocarbons
3
Decane µg/m 0.60 0.37 24.14 0.35 -

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 87
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

SGCC GTL
Otkuduk Rail Navbahor
Units Accommodation Construction
Village Yard Village
Complex Camp
UZ1 UZ2 UZ3 UZ4 UZ5
3
Octane, 2-methyl- µg/m - 0.34 5.69 - -
3
Nonane µg/m - - 20.10 - 0.29
3
Nonane, 3-methyl- µg/m - - 6.21 - -
3
Nonane, 4-methyl- µg/m - - 5.19 - -
3
Octane, 2,6-dimethyl- µg/m - - 3.59 - -
3
Octane, 3-methyl- µg/m - - 2.85 - -
3
Nonane, 2-methyl- µg/m - - 2.82 - -
3
Cyclohexane, butyl- µg/m - - 2.05 - -
3
Cyclohexane, propyl- µg/m - - 1.49 - -
3
Heptane, 2,4,6-trimethyl- µg/m - - 1.34 - -

C11-C12 Aliphatic
Hydrocarbons
3
Undecane µg/m 0.30 0.34 5.17 0.38 1.02

C13-C14 Aliphatic
Hydrocarbons
3
Tridecane µg/m 0.30 0.40 - - 0.10

C8-C10 Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
3
Naphthalene µg/m 0.42 0.23 - 0.59 -
3
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene µg/m 0.18 - - - -
3
Benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl- µg/m - 0.28 - - -
3
Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl- µg/m - - 7.96 - -
3
Benzene, 1,2,3-trimethyl- µg/m - - 2.92 - 0.18

The concentration figures obtained from the tubes can be considered to represent either Uzbekistan monthly
or annual MACs and UK long term concentrations as they are average concentrations derived over the
period of exposure of the tubes (for this set it was approximately 54 days exposure) whilst in Uzbekistan.

From a comparison of the standards with the concentrations measured in the samples, there do not appear
to be any long term exceedences. Furthermore there do not appear to be any measured concentrations that
appear to be approaching long term concentration limits.

There may be short term fluctuations in concentrations in the area. The monitoring regime and subsequent
averaging of concentrations from the sample tubes do not allow an identification of any particular peak
concentrations. Given that the overall average measured concentrations are low in comparison to the
respective long term EALs, it is anticipated that peak short term air concentrations are unlikely to exceed
short term standards/EALs.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 88
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.4 Geology
3.4.1 Regional Geology
Uzbekistan is located in the watershed area of the Syrfaria River in the mountain structure of the Tian Shan
and Turan plate (see Figure 3.7). Geosyncline development of the territory was completed at the end of the
Paleozoic (200 million years ago), which was followed by a relatively quiescent stage of platform conditions.
Neogene – Anthropogene intense tectonic movements, which still persist, formed modern alpine relief of the
east of the country.

Tian Shan Mountains are composed of Devonian and Carboniferous red and carbonate rocks crumpled into
linear folds of north-eastern strike and magmatic formations (for the major part granites). The structure of
folded complexes of median massifs comprises Carboniferous and Permian volcanogenic rocks, Devonian
limestone, and numerous intrusions of granodiorite.

Mesozoic and Cenozoic platform formations (sandy clayey and locally coal-bearing) compose the structure
of Fergana inter mountain basin. Many areas of the mountain area of Uzbekistan are noted for their
increased seismic activity.

Turan plate comprises several plateaus bounded by deep faults. Turan plate basement is composed of
Precambrian crystalline schist formed more than 500 million years ago. The sedimentary cover is, for the
major part, composed of terrigenic, carbonaceous and salt-bearing deposits (the Carboniferous –
Anthropogene). In overlying troughs formed on Southern Tian Shan deep fault, Carboniferous volcanogenic
sedimentary and flyschoid molassa deposits with granitoid intrusions occur.

Figure 3.7 shows location of the project area on the geo-structural classification map. Figure 3.8 presents a
schematic of the geological structure of Uzbekistan.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 89
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.7: Topography of the Republic of Uzbekistan, indicating the location of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 90
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.8: Schematic geological structure of Uzbekistanskaya SSR and adjacent areas (pre-Mezozoic formations) taken
from “Geology of the USSR, v. XXIII-1, 1972). [Project area – within red circle. 1 – Folded system of Northern Tian Shan;
2 -3 Folded system of Middle Tia]

The Project area falls within Alay-Kokshalsky folded system (Southern –Gissarsky zone). This folded system,
being a member of the Southern Tian Shan has a complex blocked structure. The general orogenic events,
which formed the Tian Shan are of Caledonian and Hercinic age.

The folded zones are composed of wide spectrum of rocks ranging from metasedimentary metamorphic
rocks (e.g. crystalline schists, quartzites, marbles), volcanic and paravolcanic metamorphic rocks, which
were intruded with magmatic rocks ranging from syenites to gabbro.

During Mesozoic period the Hercinic Mountains were eroded and massive sedimentation took place in
several depression zones and synclines.

Amudarya basin was probably the biggest (up to 30 km wide and ~ 800 km long) and most long-living
sedimentation zone. The project area is located close to the northern flank of this basin.

Carboniferous sediments comprising sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones, clays, limestones, marl and
gypsum, are unconformably overlaid by Palaeogene and Neogene sediments.

Below (Figure 3.9) shows cross-sections of the younger sediments for different parts of Western Uzbekistan.
The column XI represents a point, which is the closest to the Project area.

Notably, each sedimentation cycle/age followed by erosion and younger sediments are non-conformable
with underlying strata.

Location and comparison of stratigraphy of Neogene sediments of SW Kyzylkum, Karshinsky steppe and
Southern Aral zone

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 91
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.9: “Geology of the USSR, v. XXIII-1, 1972). Russian legend numbered 1 - 9 [1 – conglomerates and gritstone; 2
- sandstone; 3 - sand; 4 - siltstone; 5 – clay-siltstone; 6 – clay; 7 - limy clay; 8 – loamy clay; 9 - gypsum.]

It is important to note that the Neogen sediments in the study area are very thick and exceed 150m in some
instances. These sediments are characterised mainly by the presence of thick deposits of clay, limy clay and
loamy clay.

3.4.2 Geomorphology
Geomorphologicaly the study area is located in a peripheral part of proluvial wavy foothill plain of southwest
spurs of Ghissar Mountains. The wavy character of the plain is caused by combination of original
depressions like flat valley extended in a northwest direction, and their relative subsidence of up to 10-15 m
between these depressions and the watersheds. Site surface elevations show relatively limited variation with
the low lying areas in the west (elevations around 400 meters above mean sea level (mamsl)) and the high
lying areas in the south and south east with elevations of 435 mamsl. General slope of surfaces is from SSE
to NNW as illustrated in Figure 3.10.

3.4.3 Geological Baseline Data Collection

The geological data was collected during the Geohydrological Specialist Study. Various data sources were
used to gather details on the hydrogeological aspects at regional and local level. Direct information was
recorded during an initial site visit and from discussions held with various local organisations and role
players. Accordingly, the data collection involved both desktop level work and field work.

Relevant documentation was reviewed in order to build up the hydrogeological understanding and
knowledge specific to the project area, to gain an understanding of the scope and context of the project and
to ensure that groundwater specific regulatory requirements are address during the study. A list of resources
consulted is provided in more detail in the specialist study.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 92
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.10: Geomorphology in the vicinity of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project site

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 93
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

An initial site inspection was undertaken to understand the extent required for the study in order to address
the hydrogeological issues. The site visit was also used to gather direct information regarding groundwater
monitoring practices in the area as well as to identify potential groundwater users. Based on this
understanding the study area for the assessment was limited to 500m around the footprint of the proposed
plant.

During the initial site visit a number of meetings with various local organisations were held to gain an
understanding of local practices, expertise and groundwater data availability (details provided in the
specialist study). Once an understanding of the local and regional hydrogeology was developed an optimised
investigation plan was developed. It was decided to drill and construct four pairs of groundwater boreholes.
For this purpose, OLTIN YO’L GTL appointed O'zgashkliti Drilling contractors to carry out the
geohydrological drilling. Each pair of boreholes comprised one “deep” borehole 50 to 70 mbgl) (termed, for
example GW01) and one “shallow” borehole 30mbgl (termed, for example GW01S). Generally a distance of
5 to 10m was envisaged between the deep and shallow hole. These boreholes provided direct information
concerning the following aspects:

¡ The prevailing lithological succession;

¡ The nature of the aquifers present;

¡ The Static Water Level in both shallow and deep boreholes;

¡ The groundwater flow direction in the area;

¡ Characterisation of hydrogeological conditions in the area; and

¡ The facilitation of collection of groundwater samples.

The position of the borehole pairs was selected based on the site topography, natural drainage lines and
considering the existing facilities around the site. It was decided to position all the boreholes outside the
proposed plant footprint to ensure that the boreholes can be preserved during the construction and operation
of the plant and be used as groundwater monitoring points for the proposed facility. The locations of the
boreholes drilled are shown in Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12, while a photo of each completed borehole is
illustrated in Figure 3.13. During the drilling one sample was collected every meter from the drilling return.
The samples were packed in individual bags with the depth in meter marched on the bag. These samples
were analysed and used to describe the formations intersected by each borehole drilled. The mud rotary
technique does not allow to directly record water strikes accordingly water strikes depths are assumed by
association with lithological changes in the formation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 94
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.11: Groundwater monitoring boreholes being drilled by the OLTIN YO’L GTL appointed contractor, O'shgaskliti
Drilling

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 95
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.12: Location of the boreholes

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 96
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

GW01
GW01S

GW02 & GW02S

GW03 GW03S

GW04 GW04S

Figure 3.13: Hydrogeology monitoring boreholes - GW01/GW01S to GW04/GW04S [Note: GW04 and GW04S have
subsequently been replaced by GW05]

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 97
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.5 Hydrogeology (Groundwater)

3.5.1 Data Collection
In addition to the data collection methods described in the Geology Baseline section of this report the
following is relevant to the collection of hydrogeological data:

¡ As the aquifers cannot be tested using pumping equipment due to extremely low yields an alternative
method was used to estimate the hydraulic parameters of the formations intersected. The Raising Head
Test method was used to record the recovery of the water level after a volume of water is suddenly
removed from the borehole. The equipment used to carry out the tests was not adequate. However, the
results are considered representative for the formations intersected. The extremely low rate at which
the groundwater level recovered provides leeway and accommodates the inadequacy of the equipment;

¡ The boreholes drilled were finished by installing a steel casing over the plastic borehole liner. The steel
casing is cast in concrete and is fitted with a lockable steel cap. This construction was adopted to
ensure that the boreholes are preserved and can be used as groundwater monitoring points in the
future;

¡ Groundwater samples were collected from six of the eight boreholes drilled and dispatched to Eurofins
Analytico in Netherlands for inorganic chemistry, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene,
4
hydrocarbons (BTEX) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) analyses ;

¡ The six newly drilled boreholes were sampled to obtain a baseline of groundwater quality for the project
site. The samples were bailed with a Stainless steel bailer and care was taken to decontaminate the
bailer between samples. Field measurements, including water levels, pH, temperature and electrical
conductivity (EC) were taken on site;

¡ Prescribed guidelines from Analytico were followed for sampling materials and containers, and chain of
o
custody documentation completed. All samples were kept away from sunlight and at temp below 5 C in
cooler boxes. Disposable bailers were used for sampling to prevent cross-contamination; and

¡ The data gathered during the field investigation provides direct measurements of the prevailing
groundwater conditions in and around the proposed development site. The hydrogeological baseline
conditions were determined and documented. Establishing this understanding plays an important role in
the risk based impact assessment.

Sampling was conducted according to established protocols and IFC Requirements for modelling, as
outlined below:

“A wastewater and water quality monitoring program with adequate resources and management oversight
should be developed and implemented to meet the objective(s) of the monitoring program.

The wastewater and water quality monitoring program considered the following elements:

¡ Monitoring parameters: The parameters selected for monitoring should be indicative of the pollutants of
concern from the process, and should include parameters that are regulated under compliance
requirements;

¡ Monitoring locations: The monitoring location should be selected with the objective of providing
representative monitoring data.

¡ Data quality: Monitoring programs should apply internationally approved methods for sample collection,
preservation and analysis. Sampling should be conducted by or under the supervision of trained
individuals. Analysis should be conducted by entities permitted or certified for this purpose. Sampling

4
Inorganic analyses were selected in order to provide a baseline on salinity and potential inorganic contamination. The analyses are also used to classify water types in order to
establish if there are multiple layered aquifer systems or influences from other groundwater recharge sources. For example, irrigation channels. The organic analyses are based on
the type of contaminants expected to be found related to the proposed activities (TPH, PAH and aromatic VOC’s). This will allow for a baseline prior to development.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 98
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

and Analysis Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plans should be prepared and, implemented.
QA/QC documentation should be included in monitoring reports.”

During June 2013 a follow up sample run was completed of 7 monitoring boreholes (GW01, GW01S, GW02,
GW02S, GW03, GW05 and GW05S), excluding GW4 and including the newly drilled GW5. These samples
were collected and dispatched to a local laboratory for chemical analyses. The samples were collected with
bailers from just below the groundwater level measured in the boreholes.

3.5.2 Regional Hydrogeological Context

The project is located in an arid area, where water shortage is a historical problem. A significant portion of
the area is covered by cultivated land, consisting mainly of cotton crops. Water is supplied by a network of
irrigation channels. Salinisation of soils is a serious problem in the arid sections of Central Asia, and has
attracted attention both nationally, and by international bodies related to agriculture and water problems. The
project area falls within the Amudarya Sub Basin of the Aral Sea Basin Figure 3.14.

Figure 3.14: Irrigated areas of Central Asia. (Summary Report – Aral Sea Basin Initiative, 2006, Russian version)

The Aral Sea Basin Initiative Report (2006) indicated that groundwater levels increased over the years due
to the use of the irrigation network. In 2004, elevation of the groundwater levels up to several tens of metres
had been recorded in some areas. The effect of this rise in the groundwater levels has a direct impact on
soils, resulting in secondary salinization of the soils. The report also highlights the fact that insufficient
attention is paid to the groundwater situation in this area, also due to the scarcity of information from an area
where the near surface aquifers are not traditionally used for water supply.

Information on groundwater quality is limited for the area of the proposed development. According to the
United Nations first Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan (Environmental Performance Reviews
Series No. 14) in 2001, despite its rich and varied natural environment, decades of environmental neglect,
combined with environmentally unfriendly economic policies, have made Uzbekistan the centre of several
serious environmental crises. The most serious of these concerns relate to the water resources of the
region. The extraction of huge amounts of water for irrigation purposes from the two rivers in the region, the
widespread use of agrochemicals, and the insufficient treatment of waste water are causing health and
environmental problems on a significant scale.

The large-scale use of chemicals for cotton cultivation, inefficient irrigation and poor drainage systems have
led to a high filtration of contaminated and salinized water back into the soil. As a result, the freshwater
supply has received further contaminants. Almost 50 per cent of all irrigated land is classified as saline, and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 99
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

about 5 per cent (213,000 hectares) of irrigated land is severely saline. Water pollution from industrial waste
and soil contamination is widespread, and their use causes many human health disorders.

3.5.3 Hydrogeological Baseline

The drilling of the boreholes in the project area provides direct data to characterise the hydrogeological
conditions in the project area. Groundwater information over a large distance around the footprint of the
proposed development is not available. Accordingly the description of the hydrogeological base line
conditions is limited to an area 500m around the proposed plant site. The figure below shows the position of
the boreholes drilled in relation to the footprint of the proposed site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 100
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.15: shows the position of the boreholes drilled in relation to the footprint of the proposed site

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 101
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.5.3.1 Groundwater Recharge

The rain fall averages coupled with the high evaporation averages recorded in the area limit the recharge in
the study area to around 1% of the rainfall. This is a very low figure and it is expected that the main recharge
takes place in the Ghissar mountainous area. The Ghissar mountainous represent the main good quality
groundwater resource for the area.

Minor drainages cut across the site with the main drainage running SSE – NNW and a secondary drainage
on the western boundary of the site running S – N. These drainages are seasonal and are expected to
becoming active during high rainfall events. The most important waterway in the area is the main Karshi
irrigation channel.

Recharge rate is likely to be influenced by the irrigation channels.

The presence of the irrigation channels provide a source of localized secondary recharge to the groundwater
as documented by the Aral Sea Basin Initiative, 2006 report and other publications. This type of recharge
cannot be estimated at this stage.

3.5.3.2 Groundwater Use

As part of the field investigations an assessment of the groundwater use in the area was carried out.
Typically for a similar development where groundwater is not used as source for the water supply the specific
area for which groundwater use is of interest is 2km radius around the development coupled with notable
abstractions further afield.
In the case of OLTIN YO’L GTL, within 2km radius potential users are Surtan and the community located
2km NW from OLTIN YO’L GTL. No other users are located within the 2km radius. Shurtan does not use
groundwater and have no wells. The only well is the community well described in the report. The closest
potential other groundwater users are located more than 10km away (second closest community). In general
for the study area groundwater is not used as a source for water supply due to two main factors:

¡ Very low yielding aquifers present; and

¡ Very poor groundwater quality. This observation was confirmed during our meeting with the
representatives of the State Environmental Committee in Karshi.

Groundwater is not used as a water source for the communities in the area or for other purposes (i.e.,
irrigation, stock watering, etc.) One known well was identified in the area. The well is located in the Otkuduk
village located some 2 km to the west from the site. The Otkuduk community is the closest community to the
OLTIN YO’L GTL proposed site. The water level in the well is reported to be at around 60 mbgl. It is not clear
if this is the natural groundwater level or it is a dynamic level as a result of removing the water faster than the
level can recover. During the groundwater study site visit, it could not be determined what volume of
groundwater is being extracted from the well. The ground elevation at the well is reported to be 399 mamsl.
The water quality is not documented in detail but it is reported to be generally saline / brackish.

3.5.4 Project Area Hydrogeology

The hydrogeological investigation carried out has established the groundwater conditions characterising the
proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site. The main aspects are described in the following subsection.

3.5.4.1 Groundwater Levels

The strata intersected during the drilling showed little variation in hydraulic properties over the investigated
depth up to 70 mbgl). The saturated conditions have been confirmed by the presence of groundwater levels
in all boreholes drilled with the exception of borehole GW03S, where water levels were collected shortly after
the completion of the drilling and at the time no water level was recorded.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 102
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The boreholes position and elevation was surveyed some 10 days after the completion of the drilling by
O'zgashkliti Drilling contractors as instructed by OLTIN YO’L GTL. The survey data were reported by
5
O'zgashkliti in their report to OLTIN YO’L GTL.

The elevation data was used to convert the water level readings recorded at the top of the casing to
groundwater elevations for each of the boreholes. The groundwater elevation values are presented in
Table 3.10
Table 3.10: Groundwater levels and elevations
Groundwater Groundwater
Coordinates Elevation (mamsl)
Hole ID Level elevation
Х Y Ground Casing mbgl mamsl
GW01 50638.15 6168.35 414.57 415.38 5.5 409.88
GW01S 50637.26 6155.80 414.33 415.12 5.4 409.72
GW02 50727.11 5384.21 406.44 407.19 6.5 400.69
GW02S 50734.31 5374.18 407.12 407.98 7.1 400.88
GW03 49512.98 5969.41 433.46 434.40 24.3 410.1
GW03S 49506.75 5965.95 433.61 434.46 n/a n/a
GW04 49880.94 6412.93 425.62 426.50 11.8 414.7
GW04S 49887.48 6421.20 425.42 426.32 14.2 412.12

The groundwater elevation values were used to contour the groundwater levels in the study area. Contours
6
were generated from the shallow boreholes groundwater elevations data (Figure 3.16) and from the deep
boreholes groundwater elevation data (Figure 3.17).

5
O’zgashkliti (2010) TECHNICAL REPORT: Engineering – geological survey at object: Construction of factory for production of liquid synthetic fuel (GTL) in Republic of Uzbekistan.

6 Contours were derived from groundwater levels and where no data (elevation or water level) was available such as for GW03 and GW05 as indicated Table 4 of the Groundwater
Specialist Study and therefore cannot be extended without data

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 103
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.16: Water elevations for 30m boreholes(shallow)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 104
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.17: Water level elevations for 50m boreholes (deep)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 105
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

It is evident from the contours generated that water levels in the shallow and in the deep boreholes behave
similarly and represent the same hydraulic head. Minor differences observed in the data collected between
the shallow and deep level are associated with the levels not being fully stabilised at the time of
measurement.

The groundwater flow direction, as shown in Figure 3.16 and Figure 3.17 is from east to west. This is an
important characteristic of the groundwater behaviour in the area as the general perception from the site
morphology will be that groundwater movement takes place from SW to NE. The groundwater flow direction
will be taken into account in impact assessment discussion. The flow gradient is calculated at 1/200 (or
0.5%) indicating a very slow movement under the natural conditions.

The lithological condition present coupled with the short time elapsed since the drilling completion and water
level measurements could mean that the water level stabilisation was not achieved in all the boreholes. It is
therefore recommended that a new water level data set is used to confirm the water level contours and flow
directions as presented in this section.

3.5.4.2 Hydraulic Conductivity

The hydraulic conductivity of the saturated formation can be estimated from the Raising Head Test carried
out in all the boreholes (with the exception of borehole GW03S which did not have water level at the time of
the study. The summary of the data recorded during the Raising Head Test is presented in Table 3.11.
Testing was undertaken in September 2010.

The recovery (rebound) of the water levels after the water column was removed from the boreholes is very
slow indicating that the formation is characterised by extremely low permeability. The groundwater
movement in this type of formation (transmissivity) is also very slow. This type of formation restricts the
groundwater influx and as a result the saturated formation will not develop a pumpable yield.

The accepted values for hydraulic conductivity typical for formation present in the study area are:
-5 -9
¡ Fine sands, silt, loess from 10 to 10
-9 -13
¡ Clay from 10 to 10

Based on the occurrence of the lithological types within the study area the hydraulic conductivity is estimated
-8 -10
to vary from 10 to 10 .
Table 3.11: Water level readings during aquifer tests
Water Level
Water Level Test
Coordinates after 6
Hole ID (mbgl) Duration
hours
Х Y Start End mbgl hours
GW01 50638.15 6168.35 28.60 8.00 21.70 80
GW01S 50637.26 6155.80 14.30 7.90 9.95 72
GW02 50727.11 5384.21 30 14.20 24.75 30
GW02S 50734.31 5374.18 18.00 7.10 16.45 30
GW03 49512.98 5969.41 47.40 31.80 40.30 45
GW04 49880.94 6412.93 27.20 18.00 19.70 10
GW04S 49887.48 6421.20 27.20 16.00 19.30 24

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 106
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.5.4.3 Aquifer Type

The investigation results indicate that the saturated formation present in the study area does not have the
characteristics of an aquifer and can only be classified as an aquitard.

An aquitard is a saturated, but poorly permeable formation that impedes ground-water movement and does
not yield water freely to wells, but which may transmit appreciable water to or from adjacent aquifers and,
where sufficiently thick, may constitute an important ground-water storage unit. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Terms of Environment Dictionary describes an aquitard as a: “geological formation
that may contain groundwater but is not capable of transmitting significant quantities of it under normal
hydraulic gradients.”

3.5.4.4 Groundwater Quality

Overall the inorganic groundwater quality (Table 3.12 and Table 3.13) is poor to very poor, based on the
salinity measured as electrical conductivity (EC). Boreholes GW1S, GW3, and GW4 had EC values between
26000 and 28000 mS/m. Boreholes GW1, GW2, and GW2S EC values were less and measured between
738 to 4300 mS/m. The pH values are neural in all boreholes except in GW2 which is very alkaline at 11.7
(Figure 3.18 and Figure 3.19).

The deeper boreholes GW1, GW2, GW3, GW4, and GW5 had EC values between 360 to 28000 mS/m.
Boreholes GW1S, GW2S, and GW5S had EC values that measured between 600 to 27000 mS/m.

The pH values are neutral in all boreholes except in GW2 which is very alkaline at approximately 11. The
2013 samples showed a decrease of salinity (measured s EC), specifically in GW3 and GW1S, to less than
3000mS/m. Based on the results received from the last two sample runs, it is assumed that the results
obtained during the baseline investigation were not representative of the aquifer water quality but influenced
by the drilling processes.

For most of the samples (except GW2, GW2S and GW5) the guideline values for the cations Na, Ca, and Mg
are exceeded. Similarly the anions SO4, NO3 and Cl also exceed the guidelines. Ammonia is elevated (7.86
to 9.45 mg/l) in GW2S which correspond with the alkaline pH of 11.7.

The data was plotted on diagnostic plots (Piper) to classify the type of water (Figure 3.20 ). All the samples
can be characterised as Na-SO4Cl type. The increase in salinity is coupled with increase in Cl or SO4.

Only GW5 have a slightly different character by showing relative enrichment in Ca as opposed to Na.

Trace metals Al, Mn and Fe were elevated above guideline values during the first sampling, however the
June 2013 sampling results show that all samples fall within acceptable guidelines for the trace metals.

It can be concluded that based on the inorganic water quality the groundwater is not fit for human
consumption, and the elevated salinity result in the water to be unlikely fit for any other uses such as stock
watering and or irrigation of crops.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 107
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

12.00
pH
11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00
GW 1 S
6.00 GW 2 S
GW 5 S
Electrical conductivity [m S/m ]
25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
7/2010 1/2011 7/2011 1/2012 7/2012 1/2013 7/2013

Time

Figure 3.18: Salinity (measured as EC in mS/m) and pH values for shallow monitoring boreholes

8.50
pH

8.00

7.50

GW 1
GW 2
7.00 GW 3
GW 4
Electrical conductivity [m S/m ]
GW 5
25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
7/2010 1/2011 7/2011 1/2012 7/2012 1/2013 7/2013

Time

Figure 3.19: Salinity (measured as EC in mS/m) and pH values for deep monitoring boreholes.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 108
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Piper Diagram

80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%
GW 5 S
GW 5
GW 4
GW 3
GW 2 S
Cations Anions GW 2
GW 1 S
80% 20% 20% 80%
So

GW 1
d iu

ity
iu m

a lin
m

Su
60% 40% 40% 60%
&P
es

lp h
A lk
gn

ate
ota

tal
Ma

ss

To

40% 60% 60% 40%

iu m

20% 80% 80% 20%

80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Calcium Chloride

Figure 3.20: Piper diagram for monitoring boreholes

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 109
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.12: Inorganic chemistry results for the monitoring sites – Shallow wells
MPC and
Sanitary
WHO
regulations
Drinking
and
Site Name water GW 1 S GW 1 S GW 1 S GW 2 S GW 2 S GW 2 S GW 5 S GW 5 S
standards
guidelines
of
2011
Uzbekistan,
950:2011
Date 30/09/2010 27/06/2013 30/07/2013 30/09/2010 27/06/2013 30/07/2013 27/06/2013 30/07/2013
pH 6-9 7.40 7 7.19 11.70 12 11.45 7 7.38
EC mS/m 27000 1752 1446 430 2913 2421 1223 599.9
Suspended 74 382 288 370 358 637.5 97 97.5
solids mg/l
Hardness 7 -1 3.55 91.7 -1 2.96 116 37.7 61
mEq/l
Ca mg/l 30-140 770 802 1162.1 1500 1176 1222 525 721
Mg mg/l 20-85 890 375 409.8 7 6 668.3 140 303.8
Na mg/l 5700 1802 2050 4100 4416 4483 991 483
K mg/l 19 15 16 65 78 72 10 10
PALK mg/l -1 -1 -1 1301.2 339 174 -1
MALK mg/l 180.2 256 237.9 1401.3 549 457.5 128 195.2
Cl mg/l 350 9000 3639 3683.6 6400 6303 6950 1088 1181.5
SO4 mg/l 500 62000 1923 2389.1 2900 2070 2523 2237 1219
NO3 mg/l 45 50 680 98 86.3 17000 140 147 1 0.72
NO2 mg/l 3 3 0.10 -1.000 -1 10.00 1.500 1.65 -1.000 -1
F mg/l 1.5 1.5 -1.00 0.400 -1 -1.00 0.050 -1 0.110 -1
Al mg/l 0.5 0.9 0.43 0.008 0.001 0.11 0.008 0.018 0.011 0.018
Fe mg/l 0.3 1.30 0.100 0.15 0.44 0.200 0.17 0.120 0.21

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 110
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

MPC and
Sanitary
WHO
regulations
Drinking
and
Site Name water GW 1 S GW 1 S GW 1 S GW 2 S GW 2 S GW 2 S GW 5 S GW 5 S
standards
guidelines
of
2011
Uzbekistan,
950:2011
Mn mg/l 0.1 0.13 0.030 0.0046 -1.00 0.027 0.057 0.080 0.001
Ammonia mg/l 0.5 -1.00 0.300 0.3 0.43 9.450 7.86 0.200 0.18
PO4-P mg/l -1.00 -1.000 0.0043 -1.00 -1.000 0.0039 -1.000 0.005

Negative values indicate below laboratory detection or no measurement.

Red values indicate exceedence of standards/guidelines.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 111
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.13: Inorganic chemistry results for the monitoring sites – Deep wells
MPC and
Sanitary
regulatio
ns and WHO
Drinking
Site Name standard water
GW 1 GW 1 GW 1 GW 2 GW 2 GW 2 GW 3 GW 3 GW 3 GW 4 GW 5 GW 5
s of 2011
Uzbekist
an,
950:2011
Date 30/09/10 27/06/13 30/07/13 30/09/10 27/06/13 30/07/13 30/09/10 27/06/13 30/07/13 30/09/10 27/06/13 30/07/13
pH 6-9 7.42 7 7.38 7.71 7 7.34 7.90 7 7.03 8.40 7 7.19
EC mS/m 1406 2095 1618.5 738 810 696.3 2600 1475 1352.5 2800 7560 329.5
Suspended
120 596 301 62 276 117 150 210 46
solids mg/l 200 980 64.6
Hardness
7 -1 2.98 122 -1 2.23 42.2 -1 2.23 45 -1 2.35 23.4
mEq/l
Ca mg/l 30-140 750 752 1382.4 180 658 683.7 750 696 664.1 780 440 435.9
Mg mg/l 20-85 280 268 643.5 65 143 98.2 150 148 144.8 450 52 19.4
Na mg/l 2400 2378 2288.4 680 703 757 2200 2253 2387 4300 3408 352
K mg/l 15 18 17 23 21 19 16 18 16 12 21 20
PALK mg/l -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
MALK mg/l 160.1 134 183 160.1 146 146.4 0 140 152.5 270.2 122 152.5
Cl mg/l 350 3600 3651 4256.9 610 1477 1720.2 1500 2281 2649.7 6000 513 573.4
SO4 mg/l 500 2600 2557 2471.9 1200 1389 1321 63000 3541 3347 3800 1269 698
NO3 mg/l 45 50 210 47 43 13000 103 107 100 70 65 2800 38 33
NO2 mg/l 3 3 2.50 -1.000 -1 2.10 -1.000 -1 0.25 0.300 0.2 2.30 0.100 0.15
F mg/l 1.5 1.5 0.55 -1.000 -1 -1.00 -1.000 -1 -1.00 0.100 -1 -1.00 0.110 -1
Al mg/l 0.5 0.9 -1.00 0.009 0.016 -1.00 0.012 0.0083 1.20 0.017 0.017 4.00 0.025 0.014

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 112
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

MPC and
Sanitary
regulatio
ns and WHO
Drinking
Site Name standard water
GW 1 GW 1 GW 1 GW 2 GW 2 GW 2 GW 3 GW 3 GW 3 GW 4 GW 5 GW 5
s of 2011
Uzbekist
an,
950:2011
Fe mg/l 0.3 -1.00 0.150 0.091 0.22 0.200 0.16 2.80 0.130 0.23 6.20 0.100 0.15
Mn mg/l 0.1 0.11 0.040 0.016 0.02 0.010 0.017 0.24 0.020 0.025 0.16 0.090 0.001
Ammonia 0.5
0.30 0.300 0.25 -1.00 0.200 0.21 1.20 0.200
mg/l 0.22 -1.00 0.300 0.31
PO4-P mg/l -1.00 -1.000 -1 1.10 -1.000 -1 -1.00 -1.000 0.004 0.09 -1.000 0.0035
Negative values indicate below laboratory detection or no measurement.

Red values indicate exceedence of standards/guidelines.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 113
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The summary of organic chemistry results are given in Table 3.14. Almost all of the organic parameters
tested for were below detection level (BDL). Low levels of TPH (42 to 100 µg/L) were detected in boreholes
GW1, GW2, GW3, GW4, and GW5. The results were found to be similar between the three sample events
September 2010, June 2013, and July 2013.The cause of these TPH is currently unknown but may be
remnants of drill fluids leftover from the drill process.
Table 3.14: Organic chemistry results for new boreholes
TPH volatile (Sum TPH Sum (C10-
Site Name Date BTEX (sum) μg/L
C6 - C10) μg/L C40) μg/L
GW 1 30/09/2010 BDL BDL 75
GW 1 13/06/2013 BDL BDL 73
GW 1 27/06/2013 BDL BDL 62
GW 1 S 30/09/2010 BDL BDL BDL
GW 1 S 13/06/2013 BDL BDL BDL
GW 1 S 27/06/2013 BDL BDL BDL
GW 2 30/09/2010 BDL BDL 100
GW 2 13/06/2013 BDL BDL 85
GW 2 27/06/2013 BDL BDL 71
GW 2 S 30/09/2010 BDL BDL BDL
GW 2 S 13/06/2013 BDL BDL BDL
GW 2 S 27/06/2013 BDL BDL BDL
GW 3 30/09/2010 BDL BDL 53
GW 3 13/06/2013 BDL BDL 42
GW 3 27/06/2013 BDL BDL 35
GW 4 30/09/2010 BDL BDL 62
GW 5 13/06/2013 BDL BDL 51
GW 5 27/06/2013 BDL BDL 43
GW 5 S 13/06/2013 BDL BDL BDL
GW 5 S 27/06/2013 BDL BDL BDL

It was recommended that the boreholes be purged prior to the next sampling event. It is not clear from the
results provided if the boreholes were purged. However, it can be seen that the water quality tested in June
2013 is similar to that analysed in 2010 and it can therefore be assumed that the water quality as described
constitutes the baseline groundwater quality for the project site.

3.5.5 Hydrogeology Baseline Summary

The hydrogeology baseline investigation for the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL development has identified
important aspects concerning groundwater occurrence, behaviour and quality which provide the required
understanding to undertake the qualitative impact assessment. The findings also provide sufficient
information to allow for a meaningful groundwater management plant to be formulated.

The following aspects must be considered and will influence the rating for the qualitative impact assessment:

¡ The proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL area is underlined by an aquitard up to the depth investigated
(50mbgl)

¡ Groundwater levels recorded vary from 5 to 24m below ground level;

¡ The unsaturated zone above the groundwater static level comprise mainly clays and silt with very low
porosities;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 114
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Groundwater in the area cannot be considered a water source;

¡ The presence of a thick aquitard however, provides a sizable storage for the groundwater in the area;

¡ Boreholes drilled in the aquitard zone do not produce pumpable yields;

¡ Groundwater flow direction in the area is E – W;

¡ Groundwater movement is very slow and is controlled by the characteristics of the aquitard and the
gradient (1/200);

¡ Any potential contaminant from the surface will advance at very slow rate both in the unsaturated and
the saturated zone;

¡ The groundwater quality is poor to very poor and has no (known) specific use; and

The impact of the irrigation on both groundwater quality and groundwater levels cannot be quantified as part
of this study.

The methodology employed during the soil assessment is outlined in the following sub-sections.

3.6.1 Data Collection

A desktop study was undertaken where various documents were reviewed prior to the specialist site visit.
Soil baseline data was collected during a site visit taking place from 10 to 15 October 2010. Baseline
information provides a description of the current soil environment against which the impacts can be
assessed and future changes monitored. Work was undertaken according to the scope and approach
documented in the Baseline Monitoring Plan (Golder 2011).

A site layout plan at the time of the study is presented in Figure 3.21. An initial grid system with 150 m
intervals was generated for each of the proposed three sites with the aid of GIS software. The points were
transferred to a Global Positioning System (GPS) which simplified in-field orientation and the selection of
monitoring points.

3.6.2 Data Collection on the Proposed Plant Site

A selection of grid generated points was established based on topography and during the site visit while
information on the soil cover was obtained. At each selected point, a soil observation was made with the use
of a bucket type hand auger to a maximum depth of 150 cm. This procedure comprises the collection of the
soil cover from surface in 100 mm increments. Each increment is brought up to the surface for examination
and description. A total of 25 auger-holes were drilled via this method, while a drainage line and excavated
trench on both ends of the site presented cross sections of the soil profile. Positions of the observation points
2
are displayed in Figure 3.21. A total area of approximately 1 200 000 m or 120 ha was covered for the plant
site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 115
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.21: Location of soil observation and soil sampling points in the vicinity of and on the footprint of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project site

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 116
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.6.3 Data Collected on the Proposed Sites for the Accommodation Facilities
A visit to proposed construction camp site and OLTIN YO’L GTL staff accommodation confirmed that the soil
was similar to that of the proposed plant site. At the construction camp site, soil was investigated at three
locations around the existing construction camp (Figure 3.22) as entrance to the facility was denied.

A walkover at the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL staff accommodation site enabled investigation of the soil
profile inside a ditch and a number of auger holes around the edges of the site.

3.6.4 Sampling Program

Selected sites, as illustrated in Figure 3.22, were sampled in the proposed plant site area and from potentially
polluted spots observed on the site designated for OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation facilities. Objectives for
the sampling were as follow:

¡ To obtain representation of the soils encountered;

¡ To compare with field findings;

¡ To obtain a baseline for the current chemical status; and

¡ To establish a baseline contamination status.

Figure 3.22: Location of observation and sampling points

At the proposed plant site, top and subsoil samples were collected at four locations. At the planned OLTIN
YO’L GTL staff accommodation site, three samples were collected at three locations. The samples were
submitted to Analytico Eurofins in the Netherlands, which is an accredited laboratory with ISO certification.
Laboratory results are available in the specialist study Volume 2 of this ESHSIA Report.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 117
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Photo A Photo B

Figure 3.23: Photo A illustrates waste found at UzAc1 and Photo B illustrates waste found at UzAc2/3

3.6.5 Samplings Method and Analysis

The sampling method comprised the following procedures:

¡ Holes were drilled with a 75 mm diameter steel auger;

¡ The ground surface at the position of the auger hole was carefully cleared of loose material;

¡ The sampling interval was to the lower boundary of a pre-determined horizon (depth intervals are
indicated in the attached specialist report);

¡ The auger was advanced to the required depth and carefully removed from the hole. The hole was
covered to prevent foreign material from entering;

¡ Approximately 1 kg of soil was taken from the hole raisings and placed into clean pvc bags;

¡ Prior to the taking of each sample the auger was wiped clean of soil, rinsed in a phosphate free
detergent and finally sprayed with deionised water to prevent cross contamination between sampling
intervals; and

¡ The bags were sealed and labelled with a unique sample number.

Analysis requested for determination of baseline chemical status, included organic matter content, fraction
size distribution, total metals, soil acidity (pH) and electrical conductivity (EC). A Terratest analysis was
requested to enable assessment for contamination status of selected samples. Details of the Terratest
analysis package are available in the Groundwater specialist report in Volume 2 of this ESHSIA report.

3.6.6 Soil Baseline

3.6.6.1 Lithology
The lithology intersected during augering (soil sampling) is consistent as described in the borehole logs
described in the hydrogeological specialist study. Minor lateral variations are associated with localized
changes in the sedimentation conditions. The strata intersected below the recent soil cover are proluvial
deposits of middle Quaternary and early Neogen age.
The soil cover is generally less than 2 m thick and comprises mainly aeolian material.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 118
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The Quaternary deposits comprise mainly of clay, limy clay and loamy clay. Localized sandy loams and
loess are present. Lateral variations are generated by the presence minor paleochannels in which sand,
gravel and pebbles have been deposited.

The early Neogen deposits are characterized by succession of clayey silt and subordinate sandy clay
deposits. The sample returned from the mud rotary drilling is generally contaminated from the upper layers
and it is difficult to define the contact between two deposition periods.

3.6.6.2 Topography and Geological Features of Relevance to the Soil Baseline

Study
Topography can be described as a wavy character of plain (hilly land) caused by a combination of original
flat valley-like depressions, which extended in a northwest direction. Watersheds have been elevated from
10 to 15 m. The site is situated between altitudes of 402 m in the northwest to 417 m in the northeast.

The site was not used for any agricultural crop production at the time of the study, although a piece of land
previously cultivated, was observed in the central north of the proposed plant site.

The geological relation is presented by sedimentary deposits of Middle Quaternary proluvial rocks, which
advanced from the surface in all directions and gave rise to the ‘loess-like’ silty loam soils encountered over
the entirety of the three sites investigated.

3.6.6.3 Soil Physical, Chemical and Potential status

3.6.6.3.1 Physical Status
The physical properties of the entire soil cover to depths of 1.5 m on all of the three sites can be described
as very fine-graded, silty loams of light brown to a whitish brown colour, with the inclusion of calcium
carbonates and gypsum closer to the bottom of the soil profile. It is primarily massively structured, but tends
to assume a platy structure at the top. Consistency is firm and the soil is prone to hard setting in the dry
state, with crusting at the surface, but displays a dispersive nature when submerged in water. According to
the geotechnical investigation (RIES, 2010) the soil is underlain by a gravel-pebbly sand at depths varying
between 1.0 and 7.5 m.

On closer examination (Figure 3.24 : Photo A), the soil cover could be further divided into two layers
between 0 and 1.5 m, although more pronounced chemically as physically. A topsoil layer was identified
between 0 and 20 cm which has light brown colour in the dry state, but turns darker on moistening. It is very
fine graded and displays signs of the development of a platy structure and the presence of a thin surface
crust in the dry state. In moist conditions, it tends to display soft consistency and the platy structure give way
to a rather weak, massive aggregation of particles. In WRB soil classification terms (WRB, 2006), this
horizon will most likely qualify as an ochric horizon.

A subsoil layer exhibited pale or dull brown to whitish-brown colour, a hard massive structure and calcium
carbonates dispersed in diffuse form throughout the matrix. The presence of calcium carbonates was
detected with the application of a 10% HCl solution directly to the soil horizon, which causes an effervescent
reaction. The degree of effervescence (audible only, visible as individual bubbles, or foam-like) is an
indication of the amount of lime present, which in most cases were found to be more pronounced in the sub-
horizon. The geotechnical investigation (RIES, 2010) reported the presence of calcium carbonates further
down in the profile to have formed hard nodules.

In a few cases a cross section of the soil profile was exposed in a trench excavation or carved drainage line
and here another form of calcium (gypsum or calcium sulphate) was observed towards the bottom. This
however, was not observable from the augering procedure as it mixes and grinds the contents to a fine
powdery mass (Figure 3.24 : Photo B).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 119
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Photo A Photo B

Figure 3.24: Photo A illustrates the soil profile on the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site. Photo B illustrates the soil sampled
during the augering process at a single soil sampling locality

The presence of both calcium and gypsum in the soil layers, one overlying the other in the same profile,
warrants the presence of two soil types covering all of the entire study areas. Both are typical of semi-arid
regions and qualify for inclusion as Calcic and Gypsic horizons (WRB, 2006), depending on the proportional
volume of these minerals present. Given the intermingled presence of both of these horizons, and the
required detailed sampling to enable differentiation into mapping units, it was regarded too cost intensive for
the purpose of this study, and thus no delineation was attempted.

3.6.6.3.2 Baseline Chemical Status

Determination of the baseline chemical status provides an indication of the suitability for the soil towards
agricultural utilisation. The baseline chemical status was measured in terms of organic matter content,
fraction size distribution, soil acidity (pH), conductivity and the presence of macro elements and micro
elements.

The following points summarize the results of the soil sample laboratory analyses:

¡ There is no significant variation in the particle size composition between the sampled soil profiles;

¡ The particle grade distribution confirms silt to be the dominant particle volume of the soil;

¡ Organic matter is typical of the arid conditions and texture of the soil;

¡ pH varies from basic in the topsoil to highly basic in the subsoil;

¡ Calcium content is relatively high in relation to the rest of the metals;

¡ Very low EC values indicated a low presence of soluble salts; and

¡ Soil lithology is presented in Table 3.15.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 120
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.15: Soil lithology

Profile Depth (cm) Lithology
Light brown, very fine silt loam, massively structured, no mottling, no coarse/lime
0-10
fragments, effervescent
Light/whitish brown, very fine silt loam, massively structured, no mottling, no
Uz53A 10-50
coarse/lime fragments, strongly effervescent, clay content 15%
Light yellow brown, very fine silt loam, massively structured, no mottling, no
50-100
coarse/lime fragments, strongly effervescent, clay content 15%
Light brown, very fine silt loam, weak platy structured, no mottling, no coarse/lime
0-10
fragments, effervescent
Light/whitish brown, very fine silt loam, massively structured, no mottling, no
Uz92 10-80
coarse/lime fragments, strongly effervescent
Light yellow brown, very fine silt loam, massively structured, no mottling, no
80-120
coarse/lime fragments, strongly effervescent

Discussion of Results
The relation between the various particle sizes display that silt dominates the composition of the soil.
Subsequently a silty loam texture can be ascribed to the soils of the study area and is a main contributor to
the hard setting property observed in the field. Average organic matter levels in soils of semi-arid regions
7
generally ranges between 2 and 4% (Dregne, 1976 ). Among the factors controlling organic matter levels,
soil texture is of major importance. The fine-textured soils of the study areas will contain more organic matter
compared to coarse textured soils in the region. The basic pH is typical of arid climatic conditions, especially
in the presence of the high amounts of calcium (Ca). Basic pH values can cause a fixation of trace elements
necessary to sustain plant growth.

Electrical conductivity (EC) is a measurement of the transportation of electrically charged mineral ions
through the soil matrix by aqueous solution and usually increases with pH. The indication of high amounts of
the macro nutrients or base cations (Ca, Mg, K and Na) raises the expectancy of possible salt accumulation,
especially deeper within the soil profile. Conversely the low EC values contradict that, indicating that low
volumes of soluble salts are present, indicating that the cations are in insoluble compounds with carbonates
and sulphates. The high concentrations of sodium (Na) and to a lesser extent magnesium may render the
soil to low infiltration rates, be responsible for the surface crusting and setting hard on drying.

The results for total metal concentrations serves only as an indication, as the availability of macro and micro
8
nutrients to plants is largely controlled by chemical reactions within the soil and pH (Brady, 1987 ).
9
Additional to the results obtained, were analytical results made available from the local geotechnical study .
Even though different laboratories and extraction methods were used, high amounts of calcium carbonates,
gypsum, magnesium, sodium and potassium (K) in the soil solution as well as basic pH were confirmed. In
addition, concentrations determined for calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and sulphates (SO4) confirmed the
presence of calcic and gypsic horizons.

Analysis for Contamination

Analysis for contamination was conducted with the following objectives:

¡ To verify the expected integrity of the Greenfield area at the proposed plant site; and

¡ To determine the contamination status, if any, at the site targeted for accommodation facilities, where at
two locations, waste material on surface was noted.

7
Dregne, H.E. 1976. Soils of Arid Regions. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam the Netherlands
8
Brady, N.C. 1984. The Nature and Properties of Soils, Macmillan Publishing Company
9
O’ZGASHKLITI. 2010. TECHNICAL REPORT on engineering survey works Engineering - geological survey. Agreement No. 701

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 121
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Analysis requested to obtain contamination status comprised a standard test for over 200 chemical
compounds collectively known as Terratest. The test and methods are ISO/IEC 17025 accredited by the
Dutch Accreditation Council (RVA) and ISO 9001:2000 certified by Lloyds RQA. Certificates of the test
results and methods are supplied in the Soil specialist report.

In the absence of adequate criteria for comparison from Uzbekistan legislation, the New Ducthlist, compiled
by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherlands (2001) was used as
reference criteria to evaluate the levels of contamination. In the Netherlands, it is an enforceable standard
and internationally has widespread recognition and applicability

Plant Site
Two locations at the plant site (Figure 3.22) were identified for sampling to obtain a contamination status of
the soil. Sampling at location Uz88 included a top and subsoil sample. Sample identification, depth intervals
and coordinates of location, are listed in the specialist report. The relevant samples were Uz88A; Uz88B;
and Uz106SB.

Discussion of Results
The results were subjected to the optimum and action values of the New Dutchlist standards (Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, 2001) which included a range of over 200 elements and
compounds. None of any of the elements and compounds was found to exceed any of the optimum or action
values.

Accommodation Site
A walkover of the site designated for erecting accommodation facilities, located two areas of significance
relating to potential causes for pollution namely Uz Ac1 and Uz Ac2/3 (Figure 3.22).

Domestic waste including empty paint containers and discarded cement was found at location Uz Ac1
(Figure 22 Photo A). On the northern outskirt (Uz Ac2/3), a pile of blackish, partly solidified, unrecognised
material was noted (Figure 22 Photo B). A topsoil sample was collected at each location following the
method as described in the section above.
A soil sample point at location Uz Ac2/3 was located downstream and directly adjacent to the unidentified
pile (sample no. Uz Ac3). The unidentified material was also sampled (Uz Ac2) and conserved in a sealed
glass bottle until dispatching to the laboratory.

Discussion of Results
Results for the soil samples were compared to Dutch standards (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
Environment, 2001) except for TPH concentrations. None of the analytical results were found to exceed the
values of comparison. Due to the absence of allowable limits for TPH concentrations in the Dutchlist, USEPA
standards (Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality, 2010) were used for comparison (Appendix F of the
attached Soil specialist report). The USEPA is based on a risk based approach and further divided into three
tiers to provide flexibility and economy to submitters. A conservative generic Tier I level based on total
numbers for TPH clean-up levels was used for this assessment and is presented in Table 3.16.

In addition it must be noted that results of other elements associated with potential TPH contamination,
including Benzene, Ethylbenzene and Toluene were far below the action limits as presented in the New
Dutchlist.
Table 3.16: Comparison of TPH values for the accommodation site
UzAc3 Tier 1 Residential Tier 1 Industrial
mg/kg
TPH (sum C6-C40) 49 50 50

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 122
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Sample Uz Ac2 represents the suspected pile of unidentified blackish material and analysis was requested in
an attempt to identify the risk potential of this material. In comparison with the Dutchlist there was no
exceedance of the given values excluding TPH values. Comparison for TPH was conducted following similar
procedure as for the soil samples (Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality, 2010). The comparison is
illustrated in Table 3.17.
Table 3.17: Comparison of TPH values from the unidentified pile
UzAc3 Tier 1 Residential Tier 1 Industrial
mg/kg
TPH (sum C6-C40) 3300 50 500

Table 3.17 illustrates that when compared to values used for soil sample evaluation, limits are exceeded.
The fact that elevated levels were seen in the topsoil sample collected next to the unidentified material
indicates that potential exists for contaminating the adjacent (and potentially the underlying) soil solum. At
this stage it is recommended that the situation be further investigated if this area remains a target for
establishing the accommodation facility.

3.6.6.3.3 Potential of the Soil for Agricultural Use

The calcareous soils developed in this low rainfall regions requires irrigation for successful crop
production. A main production constraint in this region is the availability and quality of water for irrigation.
Irrigation schemes have proven to cause the accumulation of salts within the soil profile. It eventually
reaches concentrations where the soil structure is modified and permeability decreased, which in turn, will
seriously affect plant growth. The low rainfall of this semi-arid region will further hamper the leaching of
accumulated salts caused by irrigation, where it serves as a remedy to remove salts in higher rainfall areas
where irrigation is applied.

The crusting of the surface due to the high silt content, may affect not only infiltration and soil aeration, but
also the emergence of seedlings. It will further lead to compaction when tillage is applied, especially when in
a moist condition, while when dry, will break up into clods which will require a secondary tillage operation.

Chemically, the high pH levels will negatively affect the availability of phosphate (formation of unavailable
calcium phosphates) and will reduce the availability of certain micronutrients, e.g. zinc and iron.

In this region the potential of the soil will be better suited for extensive grazing, depending on prevalent
vegetation parameters.

3.7 Hydrology (Surface water)

3.7.1 Desktop Review of Relevant Documentation
Rainfall (precipitation) and evaporation data were obtained from Karshi station (Station 38812). This data
spans a period of seven (1992 - 1998) and ten (2000 - 2009) years respectively.

The following documents were reviewed in order to obtain secondary data on the surface water environment,
and also to gain an understanding of the scope and context of the project:
10
¡ The Pre-feasibility study – Draft Environmental Impact Statement for OLTIN YO’L GTL project;
11
¡ Uzbekistan Gas To Liquids Project Design Premise Feed Phase I - Water and Effluent options study
report;

10
O’Zlitineftgaz, 2009. Draft EIS on Shurtan ICMW Treated Methane-based Production of Synthetic Liquid Fuel.

11
Sasol. (2010). Design Premise, Feed Phase 1. Uzbekistan Gas To Liquids Project. Sasol Technology (Pty) Limited.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 123
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Google Earth ® imagery – Image © 2011 GeoEye;

¡ Karshi Pumping Cascade Rehabilitation Project (Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2001);

¡ Republic of Uzbekistan - Talimarjan Clean Power Project Environmental Impact Assessment (Asian
Development Bank, 2009);

¡ Unit 71 – Raw Water System Design Basis (Revision 04);

¡ Unit 76 – Effluent Treatment System Design Basis (Revision 04); and

¡ Design Drawing No. 2381-00-DW-0051-01 (Revision 07).

In addition, the following International Finance Corporation (IFC), (2007) documents were reviewed to
ensure compliance of the project with international standards

¡ IFC (2007) - General Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines;

¡ IFC (2007) - Natural Gas Processing EHS Guidelines; and

¡ IFC (2007) - Onshore Oil and Gas Development.

3.7.2 Delineation of Study Area for the Assessment

In order to evaluate the surface water environment on site it was necessary to consider the following aspects
regarding the OLTIN YO’L GTL project prior to delineating the area:

¡ All surface water resources and their underlying input sources. These include all reservoirs, canals and
raw water pipelines;

¡ The drainage area surrounding the site and the fate of all surface water runoff. These include drainage
ditches/trenches and site topography. A GeoStereo Precision Digital Elevation model (DEM) was used
to resolve drainage areas;
11
¡ Proposed wastewater effluent discharge locations, volumes and flows; and

¡ Rainfall and evaporation.

Considering the aspects above, the extent of the regional and local surface water environment has been
delineated as indicated in Figure 3.25.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 124
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.25: Local map of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project in relation to the local surface water environment

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 125
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.7.3 Baseline Description

For primary data collection, two surface water grab samples were taken at two locations near the site (Table
3.18) in mid June 2010 and sent to Eurofins Analytico for chemical analysis. The description of the sampling
sites and coordinates are given in the Hydrology specialist study. The samples were taken in order to gain
some baseline knowledge of the environment around the site and to further determine the regulatory
implications of the underlying water quality. No further water quality samples have been collected since
2010.
Table 3.18: Baseline surface water monitoring points for the OLTIN YO’L GTL site
Coordinates
Sample Point Description
North East
Raw water supply pond with water pumped from
SW01 38°28'48.10"N 65°48'55.45"E
an off-stream reservoir
Drainage line at road bridge draining the eastern
area of SGCC and intersecting the proposed
SW02 38°28'12.45"N 65°49'06.39"E
underground stormwater drainage line from the
OLTIN YO’L GTL plant

Water quality analyses results are presented in Table 3.20. From the table is can be seen that water
abstracted from the above mentioned off-stream reservoir contains slightly elevated levels of salts, hence the
need for preliminary treatment.

3.7.3.1 Water System Characterisation: Amu Darya Basin

A study was undertaken by Envsec (2011) on the Environment and Security of the Amu Darya Basin. This
study provides a very good overview of the Amu Darya River Basin and the information presented in this
section is largely drawn from this report.
2
The upper Amu Dayra River Basin has a catchment area of 309 000 km and is shared by Tajikistan
(72.8%), Afghanistan (14.6%), Uzbekistan (8.5%), Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan. The extent of the river
basin and the locations of the basin states countries are shown in Figure 3.26.

The river is fed by melting snow and glaciers from the Alai Valley in Kyrgyzstan and the Wakhan River in
Afghanistan. The highland area of the catchment generates about 90% of the flow in the river. Once the river
leaves the highlands it flows across the Turan Plain where it forms the boundary between the Karakum and
Kyzylkum Deserts. The lower reaches of the river form the boundary between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
The Amu Darya discharges into the Aral Sea.
3
The available surface water resource in the Amu Darya River is estimated at an average of 78 billion m /year
3 3
and varies between 58 and 108 billion m /year. The river is well regulated with 20 billion m of man-made live
storage constructed on the river. A number of the storages are hydro power schemes. The operation of the
hydropower dams presents a problem as the electricity demand is highest in winter but the irrigation water
demand is in the summer. To date the fossil fuel rich downstream countries supply energy to the highland
countries to offset the winter energy shortage. The operation of the dams however remains a problem in the
basin.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 126
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.26: Extent of Amu Darya River Basin (taken from UNEP (2011))

The major water allocations are for irrigation to the downstream states of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The
water allocations to the upper states are relatively small. The current water allocations (UNEP 2011) are
listed in Table 3.19.
Table 3.19: Water allocations between basin states for average year (taken from UNEP (2011))
3
Country/territory Annual water allocation (billion m )
Kyrgyzstan 0.45
Tajikistan 9.50
*
Surkhandarya Province (UZB) 1.20
Total Upper Amu Darya 11.15
Uzbekistan 22.0 (from mainstream)
Turkmenistan 22.0 (from mainstream)
Aral Sea 4.20
Khorezm Province (UZB) 0.15
*
Dashkhowuz (TKM) 0.15
Republic of Karakalpakstan (UZB) 0.50
Total middle and lower Amu Darya 49.00
Total for average year 60.15
*UZB- Uzbekistan TKM-Turkmenistan

The Karshi pump stations lifting water from the Amu Darya River to the Talimandjan Reservoir were built
3
between 1973 and 1988. There are 7 pump stations in the cascade that lift about 5 billion m annually up a

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 127
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

height of 130 m to the Talimandjan Reservoir. The Talimandjan Reservoir feeds the Karshi Main Canal
(KMC) which supplies water to irrigators, towns and the SGCC. The total irrigation area in Uzbekistan
supplied with water from the Amu Darya River is about 335000 ha. Six of the pump stations and the
abstraction point are located in Turkmenistan. Water is drawn from the pump cascade by Turkmenistan to
supply irrigation water.

The major issues that were highlighted in the UNEP Study are summarised as follows:-

¡ The Interstate Commission of Water Co-ordination (ICWC) of Central Asia is the regional institutional
body which is the communication body for the management of the Amu Dayra water resource. However
Afghanistan is not a member of the ICWC.

¡ The large irrigation schemes divert significant volumes of water from the Amu Darya River. These
diversions have significantly reduced the volumes of water in the river. This has resulted in the Aral Sea
drying up. The current extent of the agriculture is considered to be environmentally unsustainable.

¡ Saline flushing water from the agricultural areas is discharged to a system of collector drains. The
collector drains convey much of the water back for discharge to the Amu Darya River. The Total
Dissolved Solid (TDS) concentration in the collector drains ranges from 5000 mg/L and 8000 mg/L (Per
comms KMCl Authority). This together with the removal of water from the Amu Dayra River has resulted
in a deterioration of water quality in the river.

¡ Post Soviet Union the basin states have had to co-operate without the external influence of the Soviet
Union. To date the original quotas agreed under the Soviet Union have been kept although the water
quality of the water to be supplied was never specified.

¡ The system is operated from an irrigation perspective i.e. large quantities of irrigation water are
provided during the summer growing season. The upstream countries on the other hand want to
develop energy security and provide energy to the wider region by developing further hydro power
schemes such as the Rogun Dam Project. This would mean the release of water during the winter
period when the electricity demands are high. The growing importance of energy generation is exerting
pressure on the region’s capacity to manage a system largely created and operated to deliver water for
irrigation. Business as usual is no longer an option. Countries will need to agree on a new balance.

¡ Shared infrastructure such as the Quarshi pump station system puts strain on relations as regards
maintenance and refurbishment costs.

¡ As reported in the UNEP study, climate change in the form of rainfall variability and higher temperatures
will exacerbate existing stress factors and probably lead to a reduction water availability which will affect
agriculture and energy security. This together with the increased soil salinity and land degradation
related to outdated irrigation techniques will further strain interstate relationships.

¡ The upgrading of the irrigation systems to the more efficient drip irrigation has started in Uzbekistan
with pilot schemes. Drip irrigation could reduce the volumes of water used threefold. The aim in
Uzbekistan is to initially convert some 15000 ha to drip irrigation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 128
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.20: Once-off surface water quality results against various MPC specifications
SW01 SW02

exceedance

exceedance

exceedance

exceedance
Parameter Units Raw
Fish Pond Domestic Irrigation
Water Value 13 14 15 Value
12 Specific. Specific. Specific.
Specific.

Metals

Chromium (VI) mg/L 0.0025 0.001 0.1 0.1 0.0025

Strontium (Sr) mg/L 1-1.5* 0.002 2 0.003

Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.0025 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.0025

Calcium (Ca) mg/L 0.087 0.18

Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.0002 0.005 0.01 0.0002

Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.0015 0.1 1 0.0015

Chromium (Cr) mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.0018

Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.0025 0.001 1 1 0.0025

Iron (Fe) mg/L 0.000025 0.05 0.5 5 0.000055

Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0.000025 0.000025

Potassium (K) mg/L 0.0061 50 0.023

12
Raw water specification in the country of Uzbekistan (Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources)
13
Uzbekistan Local Requirements for Waste Water Discharge to fish ponds (MPC contaminants in water)
14
Uzbekistan Local Requirements for Waste Water Discharge for domestic use (MPC contaminants in water)
15
Uzbekistan Local Requirements for Waste Water Discharge for irrigation (MPC contaminants in water)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 129
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

SW01 SW02

exceedance

exceedance

exceedance

exceedance
Parameter Units Raw
Fish Pond Domestic Irrigation
Water Value 13 14 15 Value
12 Specific. Specific. Specific.
Specific.

Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 0.03 0.066

Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L 0.0025 0.0012 0.5 0.0077

Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.0025 0.01 0.1 0.0025

Phosphor total (P) mg/L 0.000025 0.0015

Phosphor total (PO4) mg PO4/L 0.075 0.3 1 1 4.5

mg
Phosphor total (P2O5) 0.06 3.4
P2O5/L

Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.0025 0.03 0.1 0.2 0.0025

Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.0024 0.001 0.0021

Zinc (Zn) mg/L 0.005 0.01 1 5 0.005

Mono Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Benzene mg/L 0.0001 0.5 0.0001

Toluene mg/L 0.0001 0.5 0.0001

Ethylbenzene mg/L 0.0001 0.0001

o-Xylene mg/L 0.0001 0.0001

m,p-Xylene mg/L 0.0001 0.0001

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 130
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

SW01 SW02

exceedance

exceedance

exceedance

exceedance
Parameter Units Raw
Fish Pond Domestic Irrigation
Water Value 13 14 15 Value
12 Specific. Specific. Specific.
Specific.

Xylenes (sum) mg/L 0.0002 0.05 0.0002

BTEX (sum) mg/L 0.0005 0.0005

TPH

Oils and fats IR (TCE) mg/L 0.00025 0.05 0.3 0.3 0.00025

Inorganic Compounds

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) mg/L 0.0031 0.01

Total suspended solids mg/L < 10 0.0056 15 30 50 0.026

Dry residue % (w/v) 0.09 0.3

Dry residue mg/L 0.86 3

Inorganic Compounds

Ammonia as NH4-N mg N/L 0.025 0.5 2 1.5 0.055

Ammonia (NH4) mg/L 0.0000375 0.000071

Chemical oxygen demand

mg/L 0.017 15 40 40 0.026
(COD)

110-150
Chloride mg/L (max 0.18 300 350 0.55
200)*

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 131
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

SW01 SW02

exceedance

exceedance

exceedance

exceedance
Parameter Units Raw
Fish Pond Domestic Irrigation
Water Value 13 14 15 Value
12 Specific. Specific. Specific.
Specific.

Nitrate equivalent NO3-N mg N/L 0.1 9.1 25 25 2.7

Nitrate (NO3) mg/L 0.1-2.5 0.00045 40 45 0.012

Nitrite as NO2-N mg N/L 0.016 0.02 0.5 0.5 0.065

Nitrite (NO2) mg/L 0.000053 0.08 3.3 0.00021

190 - 250
Sulphate dissolved (SO4) mg SO4/L 280 100 500 1200
(max 460)

Sulphate expr. as (SO4-S) mg S/L 92 390

Cyanides

Thiocyanide (calculated) mg/L 0.0025 0.0025

Cyanide total mg/L 0.0005 0.05 0.1 0.0005

Cyanides EPA (335.3) mg/L 0.0025 0.0025

Sum volatile phenols

Phenol index mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.016

Biologic and or toxicological research

BOD-5 mg O2/L 0.5 0.5

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 132
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.27: Surface water features and sampling localities in the vicinity of the proposed OLTIN YO'L GTL site

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 133
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.7.4 Description of Karshi main canal water supply system

There are two canals in Uzbekistan which draw water from the pump station cascade from the Amu Darya
River. The Mirishkop Canal is fed by water drawn from pump station 5. The water in Mirishkop Canal
supplies some 109 430 ha of irrigation area. However in terms of the project, the KMC supplies water to
irrigate 226 000 ha of agriculture area and water for industrial use in Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex and
feed to Himki reservoir. The total irrigation area in Uzbekistan supplied from the cascade is 335 430 ha.

The sources of water supplied to the KMC in Uzbekistan are water drawn directly from the Talimardjan
3
Reservoir (Capacity 1.5 billion m ) and a discharge directly to the canal from Pump Station 6. General
information of the Talimardjan Reservoir and the KMC were obtained from Department of Water Balance of
Minselhoz, and are given in Table 3.21 and Table 3.22 respectively.
Table 3.21: General information of the Talimardjan Reservoir
Location Nishan Region, 75km South-West from Karshi
Source Amu Darya River
Years of construction 1974-1983
Year of commissioning 1985
3
Total volume 1525 mln.m
3
Net volume 1400 mln.m
3
Average annual inflow 1280 mln.m
3
Average annual outflow 1108 mln.m
3
The max volume for the last 20 years 1501 mln.m
3
The min volume for the last 20 years 74 mln.m

Table 3.22: General information of the KMC

Nishan, Karshi, Касбинский, Kasan rigions,
Location
Kashkadarya provinces
Source Amu Darya River
Years of construction 1967-1976
Year of commissioning 1986
Total length 203.1 km
Concrete lined length 98.8 km
3
Max head inflow from Amu Darya 346 m /s
3
Normal head inflow from Amu Darya 331 m /s
3
Min head inflow from Amu Darya 124 m /s
3
Average annual head inflow 4204 mln m

3.7.5 KMC water supply status

The KMC feeds an extensive network of feeder canals and irrigation ditches that cover the Karshi plain. The
flow in the canal varies seasonally depending on demand for irrigation water. Demand is high during the
spring and summer growing periods and low during autumn and winter. Monthly inflows to KMC from the
Talimardjan Reservoir for a period of January 1988 to December 2012 and from Pump Station 6 for a period
of January 1994 to December 2012 were obtained from Department of Water Management of Karskadarya
3
Region and are presented in Table 3.23 and Table 3.24. The KMC average monthly flows (thousand m /hr)
for a period of January 1994 to December 2012 are given in Table 3.25.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 134
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3
Table 3.23: KMC monthly average inflow from Talimardjan Reservoir in m /s
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1988 0.0 0.0 36.6 17.3 0.6 143.4 201.6 116.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1989 0.0 0.0 148.1 58.3 21.8 63.8 158.8 98.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0
1990 1.9 2.0 100.3 151.3 2.0 84.9 174.7 64.5 0.0 1.2 2.2 8.7
1991 1.5 1.5 21.9 155.9 2.1 87.5 197.4 105.8 1.4 1.7 1.2 0.2
1992 0.0 0.0 0.7 58.8 1.4 85.6 200.0 126.6 1.1 2.0 1.4 1.0
1993 1.4 2.0 2.0 98.7 2.1 70.1 211.6 156.6 3.2 2.0 2.0 1.9
1994 2.0 2.0 1.2 65.3 13.8 80.1 186.4 119.7 2.3 3.0 2.9 2.0
1995 2.0 1.9 17.7 94.5 15.5 54.4 138.7 98.1 2.4 2.3 2.5 1.9
1996 1.6 0.0 22.3 137.0 0.0 21.8 142.2 106.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4
1997 1.8 1.8 34.2 43.6 11.6 56.9 151.9 78.8 3.0 2.7 13.3 4.1
1998 1.5 1.2 2.4 89.5 5.7 26.4 137.2 97.5 3.4 13.7 54.8 4.1
1999 2.3 1.6 38.6 58.3 9.9 44.7 136.6 111.0 4.0 5.7 18.0 4.0
2000 3.4 2.3 90.7 190.0 4.6 30.8 75.4 10.8 5.2 15.6 19.2 3.3
2001 1.5 1.5 59.7 106.4 25.2 55.3 63.8 3.5 1.5 5.0 21.0 1.5
2002 1.5 1.6 117.6 12.4 50.2 34.3 128.7 45.5 3.1 1.5 6.4 2.0
2003 2.0 2.0 4.3 35.0 101.8 28.3 155.8 76.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
2004 2.0 1.5 18.9 41.7 98.7 39.6 117.2 95.4 3.2 4.0 8.4 4.4
2005 4.9 2.5 3.0 71.1 41.9 47.8 158.8 61.5 2.5 3.2 8.6 2.6
2006 3.5 3.0 35.0 93.9 6.5 43.3 129.5 8.8 2.0 10.7 19.8 2.6
2007 2.5 2.4 58.8 66.0 13.5 41.1 124.2 13.0 2.0 21.3 37.2 2.0
2008 2.0 2.0 65.2 95.3 27.7 26.0 96.9 9.5 2.9 27.0 22.1 1.3
2009 2.0 2.0 55.2 55.1 24.4 19.6 98.9 86.5 4.9 25.6 39.2 4.6
2010 3.9 3.5 26.8 53.2 10.7 60.7 125.9 33.9 5.1 17.3 25.3 3.0
2011 3.0 3.0 68.9 91.0 5.0 47.1 101.1 6.9 8.0 38.0 5.2 3.0
2012 3.1 2.3 13.7 105.0 23.0 54.2 112.0 63.2 5.0 17.1 25.5 3.1

3
Table 3.24: KMC monthly average inflow (m /s) from Pump Station 6
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1994 0.0 0.0 15.1 23.9 90.6 84.0 47.2 71.3 0.0 14.3 40.2 0.0
1995 0.0 0.0 42.3 88.6 48.2 97.4 88.3 73.3 0.0 23.7 79.9 0.0
1996 0.0 0.0 92.3 46.6 64.4 93.1 85.1 77.8 0.0 31.0 87.7 0.0
1997 0.0 0.0 22.9 36.6 49.7 17.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 29.8 80.3 0.0
1998 0.0 0.0 13.1 48.4 69.6 74.5 60.7 73.9 0.0 15.6 43.6 0.0
1999 0.0 0.0 9.2 47.0 77.9 96.0 78.4 83.3 0.0 17.5 59.8 0.0
2000 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 67.8 66.5 82.0 80.9 0.0 15.5 50.3 0.0
2001 0.0 0.0 60.3 10.3 21.0 111.6 118.5 96.2 0.0 20.1 61.0 0.0
2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 55.4 86.8 56.9 145.9 0.0 20.8 62.3 0.0
2003 0.0 0.0 19.9 32.2 49.1 77.2 50.6 83.0 0.0 9.3 27.0 0.0
2004 0.0 16.8 36.1 32.4 52.5 103.5 85.1 82.0 18.2 43.6 52.1 8.0
2005 0.0 2.5 23.2 33.6 72.9 65.2 63.3 71.5 24.7 48.1 46.8 20.0
2006 3.4 20.7 44.9 31.4 82.1 59.8 64.2 81.7 16.7 45.1 40.3 8.2
2007 7.5 20.3 28.9 42.2 54.4 75.3 55.8 74.1 26.2 42.7 42.5 16.9
2008 4.0 4.2 30.2 25.6 46.9 82.7 67.7 83.2 22.2 29.9 49.9 35.7
2009 8.0 8.0 25.3 24.0 63.7 82.1 71.1 71.3 28.7 37.6 41.2 9.5

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 135
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 10.8 5.6 36.3 63.1 49.7 76.7 50.9 47.1 11.5 24.4 34.0 13.3
2011 4.4 6.9 25.0 20.9 55.6 51.0 74.1 107.2 10.2 38.9 37.4 18.2
2012 6.9 7.7 66.8 0.0 65.1 47.5 58.0 94.7 28.6 54.4 48.4 12.6

3
Table 3.25: KMC monthly average flows in thousand m /hr
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
17.3 24.8 251.6 402.3 308.2 428.3 689.5 497.7 47.6 147.8 249.7 37.2

3
The capacity of the concrete lined KMC is 250 m /s. The KMC length immediately below the Talimardjan
Reservoir is shown in Figure 3.28. The water is clear and free of sediment as the sediment settles out in the
reservoir. The discharge from Pump Station 6 into the KMC carries a sediment load. The colour change in
the canal due to the Pump Station 6 discharge is shown in Figure 3.29.

The SGCC complex is supplied with water from Pump Station A and Pump Station B which abstract water
from the KMC. Pump Station A is located along the canal length behind a discharge outlet of the Talimardjan
Reservoir at a distance of approximately 1.5 km. Pump Station B is located further downstream on the canal.
3
The 11.5 million m capacity Himki reservoir has been constructed at SGCC as buffer storage for the supply
to the complex. The SGCC reservoir wall is shown in Figure 3.30.

Figure 3.28: KMC fed from Talimardjan Reservoir

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 136
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.29: Colour change in KMC caused by discharge of Pump Station 6 water directly into the KMC

Figure 3.30: Buffer Storage Reservoir at the SGCC

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 137
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The KMC supplies water to irrigators. The total irrigation area that supplied with water from the KMC is about
226 000 ha. Annual water requirements for the irrigation areas together with the annual average flow in the
KMC are given in Table 3.26.
3
Table 3.26: Annual water requirements for irrigation in M m
Irrigation area Water used for irrigation Water losses KMC annual average flow
Canal name 3 3 3
(ha) (Mm ) (Mm ) (Mm )
KMC 226 000 1582 554 2279

3.7.6 Water Supply to SGCC

The SGCC complex has been completed in 2001. The SGCC complex is supplied with canal water via a
system of pipes, reservoirs and pump stations. The water requirements supplied are the present SGCC plant
in the complex, local irrigation on the complex, construction camps and villages.

Pump Station A pumps water into the supply system of pumps and pipelines for the SGCC while Pump
Station B pumps directly to the SGCC reservoir. The capacities of the pump stations are given in Table 3.27.

The government authority requires that the developments in the SGCC complex be supplied from two
sources. One source will be the primary water source and the second is a backup. The primary source for
the project will be an abstraction from the Himki Reservoir via the Pump Station at the reservoir which is
supported by pumping from Pump Station B. The backup source will be a supply from Pump Station V within
the pump station complex which is supported by Pump Station A. The Pump Station V is to be expanded to
include pumps for the project. The pump station and water supply infrastructure is more than adequate to
supply the current SGCC and project water requirements. There is redundancy in the supply system which
will allow for future expansion in the complex. Information regarding Pump Station V is presented in Table
3.28.
Table 3.27: Salient details of pump stations supplying the Himki reservoir
3 3
Pump Station Pumps installed Pump capacity (m /hr) Capacity Pump Station (m /hr)
Pump Station A 4* 2000 4000
Pump Station B 4* 2000 4000
*2 of 4 are standby pumps
Table 3.28: Details of Pump Station V
3 3
Pumps assignment Pumps installed Pump capacity (m /hr) Total capacity (m /hr)
Supplying SGCC 4* 450 900
Irrigation (SGCC) 3** 160 320
Fire safety 4 600 2400
Watering 2*** 90 180
Raw water for SGCC 2 750 1500
Watering 2 100 200
Drinking water 2 100 200
*2 of 4 are standby pumps; **1 of 3 is standby pump; ***1 of 2 is standby pump

Analysis of the water users and environmental monitoring operations at the SGCC complex were carried out
for a period of 2007 to 2009 years to estimate the water distribution between the SGCC users (UZLITI,
2010). Table 3.29 presents the percentile distribution of water delivered to the SGCC complex.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 138
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.29: SGCC water users

User % of total amount
SGCC production 5
SGCC reservoir 56
Irrigation 36
Domestic 3

Annual water supplied to the SGCC complex from the KMC on 2007, 2008 and 2009 are listed in Table 3.30.
Annual water distribution at the SGCC complex for 2007, 2008 and 2009 are plotted in Figure 3.31.
Table 3.30: Annual water supplied to the SGCC
3
Year Volume of water in thousand m
2007 10707.7
2008 15520.9
2009 15565.5
Average 13931.4

Figure 3.31: Annual water distribution at SGCC complex

From Figure 3.31 and Table 3.29 it can be seen that volume of water that used at the SGCC plan is a small
amount of the supplied to the complex .The biggest volume of water from the KMC is delivered to the SGCC
reservoir.

3.8 Landscape and Visual Aesthetics

3.8.1 Data Collection
The baseline assessment commenced with a photographic assessment of the site, which was conducted on
23 June 2010. Photographs were taken from specific vantage points (indicated in Figure 3.33), to document
the visual character of the study area and any potential features of interest; and to determine the presence of
significant vantage points and receptor groups in the vicinity of the site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 139
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

In certain instances panoramic views were created, by taking a series of overlapping photographs, which
were then digitally integrated to create a single view. This process was done using PTGUI Pro (V8.3.10)
which is an advanced photo stitching and photo editing software package. These photographs are referred to
in the text and are used as figures to illustrate certain arguments.

Desktop Review of Relevant Documentation and Information

Due to the nature of visual assessments, the photographical site assessment provides the primary source of
information on which most of the arguments are based. However the following sources of information were
reviewed in order to obtain secondary data on the visual environment, and also to gain an understanding of
the scope and context of the project:

¡ Google Earth aerial imagery;

¡ Current high resolution satellite imagery and contour data of the study area from GeoEye;

¡ Information provided by the client regarding the heights of certain infrastructure elements; and

¡ Layout maps of the proposed development.

Delineation of Study Area for the Assessment

The overall study area for the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) is based on the spatial extent of the
infrastructure footprint and an associated buffer that includes potential indirect effects on the receiving
environment. The direct study area is defined as the footprint of all infrastructural components that will be
erected as part of the project, as well as all areas where the physical appearance of the landscape will be
altered by earthworks and construction activities. In these areas, the existing land cover will be replaced and
the environment will be physically altered; and will therefore be visually directly impacted upon.

Areas that will be indirectly affected by the project are defined as the indirect study area. For the purposes of
the VIA, only a local study area was defined and consists of a 7 km radius around the project infrastructure.
The distance of 7 km was selected based on the assumption that the human eye cannot distinguish much
detail beyond this range. Even though the flat to gently rolling topography of the study area may make it
possible to see over greater distances, structures that are this far away are no longer clearly discernible or
are at most inconspicuous; and therefore the visual impact beyond this range is considered negligible.

For the purposes of this VIA, the term “site” refers to the entirety of the site that will physically be affected by
the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant infrastructure; and therefore corresponds with the direct study area. The term
“study area” refers to the entire area potentially visually affected by the project and indicates the 7 km radius
indirect study area.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 140
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.32: Regional setting of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 141
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.33: Positions from which photographs were taken. Note that reference is made to these points in the text below

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 142
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Temporal scope
The VIA assessed the potential visual impacts for the following phases of the project lifecycle as each of
these phases has the following project-specific relevance:

¡ Construction Phase - In the case of mines and industrial projects, the construction period is deemed as
a secondary impact period that is comparatively short in relation to the Operational Phase. However
during this phase the degree of visual impact caused is expected to steadily increase as construction
progresses.

¡ Operational Phase - This phase is deemed to cause the primary visual impact, as the climax of the
project activities will take place during it. Also, the Operational Phase will continue for the longest period
of time. For the purposes of this VIA, the Operational Phase includes the entire period during which the
plant is operational, but is assessed in terms of its “worst-case” scenario, i.e. at the height of production
and resultant landscape transformation.

¡ Decommissioning Phase - is deemed as part of mitigation for this project, as these activities will
progressively assist in lessening the visual impact. Activities normally associated with closure of an
industrial complex such as the removal of all redundant infrastructures, re-shaping of engineered slopes
and embankments to more closely represent natural slopes, and re-vegetation of disturbed areas will all
assist in returning the site to a condition that more closely resembles the pre-development visual
baseline.

¡ Post-closure Phase – the VIA considers any residual visual impacts that may still be present when all
rehabilitation measures have been implemented.

3.8.2 Baseline Visual Environment

This section provides a brief overview of the visual baseline environment and context in which the OLTIN
YO’L GTL project will take place in Uzbekistan.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 143
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.34: Layout plan of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant indicating unit positions for which heights were provided

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 144
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Context of Visual Impact Assessment

Natural beauty has an instinctive appeal to humankind. Consciously or unconsciously, we all distinguish
between scenes that are aesthetically pleasing to behold and ones that are not, or that have been negatively
impacted upon, usually by human activity. Our perception of these landscapes is also partially determined by
the nature of the view that we have of it and the distance from which it is viewed. Many aspects, such as our
cultural background, our education, our experiences, the complexity of the scene, ecological health of the
area, and the uniqueness of the scene, also consciously or unconsciously influence our opinions about the
views that we see. In the context of the visual changes brought about by a particular project, an analysis of
these factors forms the basis of VIA methodology.

The baseline investigation commenced with an on-site investigation of the study area in June 2010, to inform
the baseline investigation, l impact assessment and subsequent decision making process for visual
mitigation.

Landscape Character
Landscape character is a description of the physical occurrence of natural (physical and biological) and
human-made (land-use) attributes within the study area as a whole. It is important to note that this
description of the landscape is done from a mostly objective, visually-orientated perspective and does not
attempt to describe the underlying ecological or geophysical processes within the landscape. Furthermore
this section does not address how the landscape attributes are perceived by viewers, and is discussed in
more detail in Volume 2 of this ESHSIA report.

Natural Character
The following assessment describes the most significant attributes of the study area from a visual
perspective only and does not address other aspects such as ecological significance, etc., which are the
subject of other specialist assessments. The descriptions are based on the photographic site assessment
carried out of the study area, as well as a desktop study of available topographical maps and aerial
photographs, and information available from the various relevant specialist studies.

Topography
The topography of the area can mostly be described as gently rolling to flat, with very few visually significant
features occurring within or in close vicinity of the study area (Figure 3.35). The only exception is a series of
low undulating hills approximately 1.8 kilometres north of the northern extent of the site (Figure 3.36), which
extent further to the north and east. Other small rises occur throughout the landscape but are not prominent
within the larger visual landscape. Although more mountainous country is located south and southeast of the
site, these features are too far away to be considered for the purposes of this assessment.

Surface water
The region is characterised by extremely arid conditions and only two visually significant water bodies occur
within or close to the study area. Two large manmade dams – the first is approximately 2.2 by 1.2 km in
extent is situated approximately 2.5 km northeast of the site (Figure 3.37); the second of some 10 by 5 km is
situated more than 16 km southwest of the site. A much smaller water body is located approximately 7.5 km
south of the site but is only a few hundred meters in extent. Drainage lines in the area are generally very
shallow and non-distinct and are not expected to have water, other than immediately after downpours, which
are occur infrequently.

Vegetation
The arid nature of the region is reflected in the vegetation cover, which is mostly sparse and consists of
grasses and stunted shrubs. However a number of exceptions occur within the study area. Dense stands of
reeds and taller grasses occur around the edges of the large manmade dam northeast of the site; and an
area of orchards and irrigated agricultural croplands occur to the north of the site. Extensive agriculture also
occurs further to the north and west of the study area. Limited landscaping in the form of trees planted along
some of the asphalt roads also occur, as well as more profuse landscaping at the developed industrial and
residential nodes; however these features are localised in distribution and not largely significant in terms of
the larger study area. Figure 3.38 illustrates the typical types of vegetation cover found within the study area.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 145
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Habitation and human made character

The existing SGCC complex situated close by to the southeast of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site,
constitutes the most extensive human transformation within the study area. Other significant anthropogenic
features situated in the area include (refer to Figure 3.39):

¡ The previously described manmade dams situated southwest and northeast of the site;

¡ A number of asphalt roads situated several kilometres to the north, east and south of the study area; as
well as smaller access roads that connect the site and other features with the aforementioned;

¡ A railway line situated directly north of the SGCC and OLTIN YO’L GTL sites, leading to the northwest.

¡ The City of Karshi is situated to the north, although a substantial distance outside of the study area.
However a number of small villages / settlements are also situated along or nearer to the boundary of
the 7 km study area, mostly to the north and west. A very small settlement is also situated less than 3
km west of the site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 146
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.35: The study area is generally gently rolling to flat, with very few visually significant topographical features present (panorama taken from Position 89 looking northeast, as
indicated on Figure 3.33)

Low undulating hills situated to the

north of the site

Figure 3.36: The only mentionable topographical feature within the study area is a series of low hills that extend to the north and east of the site (panorama taken from Position 89
looking north, as indicated on Figure 3.33)

Figure 3.37: The large manmade dams situated northeast of the site (above) and further southwest of the study area (not shown) are the only significant water bodies that occurs in
the area (panorama taken from Position 95 looking southwest, as indicated on Figure 3.33)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 147
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Significant sections of the study area and surroundings Much of the vegetation cover consists of sparse, stunted
are covered with short, drought-resistant grasses shrubs with no trees in evidence

Denser, more lush vegetation cover is found around the Extensive orchards and fruit tree plantations are found to
edges of the dam northeast of the site the north and west of the study area

Although some trees have been planted along sections of More extensive landscaping with larger and more dense
road, these are still immature and visually not particularly tree cover is found in the residential and some of the
significant industrial precincts, but is highly localised
Figure 3.38: Vegetation cover within the study area and surroundings

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 148
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The existing SGCC plant situated southeast of the OLTIN YO’L GTL site constitutes the most significant manmade
visual element in the study area

A railway line situated directly north of the SGCC and

A number of asphalt roads cross through the study area and OLTIN YO’L GTL sites constitutes the other significant
adjacent landscape infrastructural element within the study area
Figure 3.39: With the exception of the existing SGCC plant, the built-up elements within the study area is largely limited
to linear infrastructure

3.8.3 Visual Quality

This aspect of the study is primarily subjective, based on the professional opinion of the consultant and
industry-accepted standards in visual assessment, including the photographic assessment. The criteria used
in this assessment are discussed in the attached specialist report.

Critical Views
Regional / Long-Range Views (greater than 2 km)
Regionally, the visual character can be described as arid and rural; and alternated by the orchards and
agricultural activities to the north and west, interspersed with human settlement areas; with localised
industrial development present. The topography of the region is generally gently rolling to flat with very few
prominent landforms, which results in largely unobstructed views. Long-range views, i.e. views that are over
distances greater than 2 km and up to 7 km or more in some instances, are possible from various vantage
points Figure 3.40, although the rolling topography creates visual barriers in some locations. Typically,
features in the foreground of long-range views become strong focal features, but where no such elements
exist any prominent vertical element becomes a focal point.

Short and Medium-Range Views

Due to the very sparse vegetation and the lack of topographical features, short and medium-range views are
limited in the study area and greater surroundings. As a result, short-range views typically only occur where
embankments or small rises in the landscape, obscure views (Figure 3.41); or where localised development
occurs.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 149
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Prominent vertical elements

become focal points due to the flat
topography

Unobstructed views of up to 7km or

more are possible from some
vantage points

Figure 3.40: The study area is characterised by long range views (photo taken from Position 89 looking southeast, as
indicated on Figure 3.33)

Low rises in local topography

restrict depth of field to short-range
views

Figure 3.41: Short range views generally only occur where topography or local built-up features obscure views and are
not prevalent in the study area (photo taken from Position 85 looking north, as indicated on Figure 3.33)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 150
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Sense of place / Genus Loci

Due to its location within a semi-desert area, the study area and its surroundings have a specific character.
Owing to the availability of very long-range views, lack of extensive development and presence of “large
skies”, the locality can cause an observer to feel isolated or removed from society and can be considered to
have a defined genus loci or sense of place. The existing industrial development (the SGCC complex) is
considered intrusive in terms of this sense of place; however has a strongly defined sense of its own,
especially if experienced from up close.

The sense of place of the study area itself is considered to be distinct from that of its surroundings, due to
the presence of the large artificial dam. The presence of such a large body of water in an arid landscape is
considered to be visually significant and it is therefore argued that study area possesses a degree of sense
of place.

Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC)

The VAC of the study area is almost exclusively low, due to the largely visually uniform landscape character
(Figure 3.42). The general lack of topographical features, sparse vegetation cover and few human-made
elements all result in the landscape not being able to absorb or “camouflage” visual changes, especially not
the addition of extensive infrastructure. The only exceptions are where extensive transformation of the visual
landscape has already occurred, such as the SGCC complex.

Figure 3.42: The study area and region as a whole is generally characterised by a very low level of visual absorption
capacity due to flat topography, sparse vegetation cover and lack of human transformation (panorama taken from
Position 91 looking northeast, as indicated on Figure 3.33)

Aesthetic Appeal
Based on the above attributes, the following statements can be made about the visual appeal of the study
area:

Topographic Ruggedness and Landforms

The general topography of the study area is gently rolling to flat and therefore not characterised by visually
prominent landforms. As such the topography of the site is not considered to be a significant visual resource.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 151
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Presence of Water Bodies

Two large artificial water bodies occur within the region, one of which is situated in the immediate vicinity of
the site. Due to its size and proximity to the site and the flat topography, this element is visually prominent
from within the study area. Due to its visually pleasing nature it is therefore considered to be a visual
resource to the study area.

Prevalence of Natural Landscapes and Human-Made Elements

The site is largely arid and rural in nature with extensive agricultural activity to the north; and from a visual
perspective has a certain appeal and charm. However the localised occurrence of human-made elements,
some of which are visually prominent, do impact on the visual quality of the landscape.

Land Use Compatibility

A number of extensive industrial complexes occur within the greater region, one of which is situated within
the study area; and is not an unfamiliar occurrence in the area. Therefore visually the OLTIN YO’L GTL
project is compatible with existing land uses to a degree, although still considered visually intrusive.

Visual Quality Assessment Summary

In summary it can be stated that the study area has a rural character and is still mostly devoid of human
elements. However with the exception of the dam, the study area is not visually distinct from its surroundings
and although visually appealing, is not considered a significant visual resource. On the basis of the criteria
and the above assessment, the visual quality of the study area is considered to be of moderate value.

3.8.4 Receptor Sensitivity

Due to the lack of significant human settlement within direct viewing distance of the site itself, the key
receptor group that will be affected by the project is largely limited to travellers passing through the area.
Two roads pass through the area to the east and west of the site, although neither traverses the 7 km study
area. Due to extensive urbanisation further to the north and west, it is expected that a significant amount of
vehicular traffic could pass along these roads. A number of small villages or settlements also occur within or
close to the study area, but only constitute small populations. These are presented in Figure 3.33 and are for
example, Otkuduk, Nishon and Guzor more distant.

Given these factors and based on the criteria, the following deductions can be made:

¡ The exposure factor to the project will be low, due to the limited amount of receptors that will actually
see the infrastructure.

¡ The perceived landscape value factor will be moderate, due to the existence of similar infrastructure
and activity in the greater area.

¡ The overall receptor sensitivity in terms of the project is therefore estimated to be low.
3.9 Biological Environment / Biodiversity
The project site is located on the ‘Karshi Steppe’, where the natural environment consists of semi-desert
scrublands largely the result of the low rainfall in the region. The biodiversity composition for the proposed
16
OLTIN YO’L GTL site is described in terms of Avifauna, Flora and Fauna .

3.9.1 Avifauna
Due to its size and its central location between Europe and Asia, Uzbekistan is host to a diverse avifauna
(birds) with an estimated total of about 500 species, which is the same number of species that occur in
17
Europe .

16
No aquatic ecosystems occur on site and therefore, aquatic ecosystem assessment did not form part of Golder’s scope of work for this ESHSIA.
17
Kh.S. Salikhbaev, M.M Ostapenko. Birds // Ecology, measures on protection and rational use of vertebrates of the Karshi steppe. Tashkent, 1967.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 152
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

18
The pre-feasibility study for this project stated that the natural landscape of the adyr zone within which the
proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL plant is located:

¡ Contains unique avifauna populations;

¡ Is important habitat for many raptors species; and

¡ Plays a crucial role for the migration of the Demoiselle Crane

(Figure 3.43), separate gatherings of cranes can number in the
thousands. Crane migration takes place here from the end of
March until the end of April. Low numbers of other Crane species,
including the Red Book critically endangered Siberian Crane, may
be observed in this region of Uzbekistan.
For this reason an Avifauna Specialist Study was undertaken for this
project. A description of the baseline receiving avifauna environment is
taken from the specialist study and summarised in the sections below.

3.9.1.1 Data Collection

The avifauna study consisted of a detailed literature review and
fieldwork, which was conducted from April 2010 to February 2011. A Figure 3.43: Demoiselle Crane (Grus
detailed list of resources consulted is available in the ESHSIA virgo)
Specialist Study. The fieldwork methodology consisted of the following:

¡ Application of systematic line transects during spring and winter migratory periods, with a daily
evaluation of habitat used for stop over by migrant birds;

¡ A combination of methods, including (line transects, point counts, and simplified mapping methods, to
determine presence, density and habitat use of breeding birds in late spring; and

¡ Application of line transects and site counts for evaluating the presence and abundance of wintering
terrestrial birds and waterfowl in midwinter.

For rare species or low-density species different techniques are normally used, depending on the ecology of
the target species. These species abundance are determined by means by colony counts for colonial or
gregarious species, or counts in suitable habitats for rare and localized species. Counting individuals at
roosts or in vocational areas with mapping is also a valid method, but for these species it is preferable to find
nesting areas and obtain the true number of individuals or nests. The census methods for rare species are
obtained from the Guidelines for the Monitoring of Italian Birds (Fornasari & Brambilla, 2004).

Small-scale fieldwork methods were applied in the avifauna study for the proposed footprint sites of the
development and within a 20 km radius of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site. Wide-scale methods were
applied for the collection of background data and the comparison with the regional avifauna described in
literature.

The Avifauna Specialist Study is provided in Volume 2 of this ESHSIA report and provides more detailed
information on the literature review and fieldwork methodology.

3.9.1.2 Regional Description

3.9.1.2.1 Migration Routes
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are areas of several migration routes, including the Black Sea-
Mediterranean, West Asian-East African, and Central Asian-South Asian flyways. Thus, large numbers of

18
An adyr zone is when a thick bed of deposits travels down slope from mountains over thousands of years. At the foot of the mountains, the deposits are separated from the
mountains in some areas by depressions. These depressions are made up out of a belt of low, barren hills, called “adyr”. (www.britannica.com)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 153
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

birds, particularly wildfowl, raptors and cranes, visit this area as part of their stop-over during their annual
migrations.

The migration patterns of birds have recently brought international attention to bird protection in Uzbekistan
and the rest of Central Asia. BirdLife Global Partnership commenced a project in 2005 to identify Important
Bird Areas (IBAS) in Uzbekistan and in the neighbouring countries. By involving several ornithological
organizations and implementing local capabilities, the project led to the collection of a large amount of
ornithological data and to the identification of 47 IBAs. Among those, “Talimarjan reservoir” and “South West
Guzor Foothills” are in close proximity of the study area.

Literature indicates that the arid belt of western Central Asia is an ecological barrier for Palaearctic–Indian
passerine migrants in autumn, but less so in spring. Palaearctic–African migrants that detour around this
barrier to the northwest and migrate north of the Caspian Sea do not need large fuel stores like in
comparison to a trip where the Sahara is crossed. In spring, arid areas of western Central Asia offer
significantly better stopover and feeding possibilities to migrating passerines than in autumn due to the
growth of ephemeral vegetation supporting an abundance of arthropods.

3.9.1.2.2 Species Diversity

According to the literature review there are 268 species among 18 orders that are expected to occur in the
Karshi Steppe:

¡ Podicepidiformes (4 species);

¡ Pelecaniformes (4 species);

¡ Ciconiiformes (11 species);

¡ Phoenicopteriformes (1 species);

¡ Anseriformes (25 species);

¡ Falconiformes (29 species);

¡ Galliformes (2 species);

¡ Gruiformes (12 species);

¡ Charadriiformes (50 species);

¡ Columbiformes (10 species);

¡ Cuculiformes (1 species);

¡ Strigiformes (6 species);

¡ Caprimulgiformes (2 species);

¡ Apodiformes (2 species);

¡ Coraciiformes (4 species);

¡ Upupiformes (1 species);

¡ Piciformes (2 species); and

¡ Passeriformes (102 species).

The list above represents 60.8% of the 441 species recorded in Uzbekistan (Kreuzberg-Mukhina et al.,
2005).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 154
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.9.1.2.3 Red Data Avifauna Species

Conservation importance was also determined at a National level based on the National Red Data Book of
Republic of Uzbekistan (National Red Book, 2006l); and an International level based on the IUCN’s Red
Data List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010). Of the 268 bird species expected to occur on the Karshi
Steppe:

¡ 3 are listed nationally as Critically Endangered (CR);

¡ 3 are listed nationally as Endangered (EN);

¡ 10 are listed nationally as Vulnerable (VU) and Declining (D);

¡ 10 are listed nationally as VU and Rare (VU: R);

¡ 11 are listed nationally as Near Threatened (NT).

These species are documented in more detail in the Avifauna specialist study attached in Volume 2 of this
ESHSIA report. Relevant examples of species that are of conservation concern are the Critically Endangered
Sociable Lapwings Vanellus gregarius, the Endangered Saker Falcons Falco cherrug, the Vulnerable Lesser
Kestrels Falco naumanni, and the Vulnerable Asian subspecies of Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata
macqueenii.

3.9.1.3 Site Description

3.9.1.3.1 Migration Routes
Of the 47 IBA’s the Talimarjan Reservoir and southwest Gouzar Foothills are located in the surroundings of
the study area. Fieldwork undertaken in the vicinity of these two areas in the last few years have confirmed
that the areas is important for migratory bird species in both spring and winter migration periods, with
approximately 240 bird species utilising the area during either spring / winter migration periods (or both).
The area is important for spring migration when the high mountains to the east are still covered with snow.

3.9.1.3.2 Species Diversity

Observations carried out in the vicinity of the Talimarjan Reservoir (steppe sites) in the last few years have
indicated that the breeding bird community of the Reservoir being poor in species diversity, which is likely
due to the instability of the hydrological regime.

Apart from Passeriformes, the only recorded breeding species in the area are a few raptors (Falco
naumanni, Circaetus gallicus, Aquila chrysaetos, and Buteo rufinus). Griffon Vultures are resident while
Cinereous Vultures are present in the area during winter months.

The following observations were recorded during the study:

¡ 23 species of waterfowl were recorded wintering on the Talimarjan Reservoir (steppe site) over a two
year period.

¡ The list of migrant birds in the Gouzar area is 240 - 250 species, including high numbers of Demoiselle
Crane (Grus virgo); increasing to more than 20,000 birds in some years (this reportedly represents
about 10% of the entire global population).

Based on the findings of the literature review, Demoiselle Crane (Grus virgo) and other Red data book
species were identified as target species during field surveys, whilst Raptors and Passerines were selected
as target groups.

3.9.1.3.3 Cranes
Cranes were present in the study area in spring and winter migration periods. Flocks numbering in the
dozens were observed in the Talimarjan area in April 2010. Demoiselle Cranes (Grus virgo) were observed
feeding close to the Reservoir shore while during October 2010, Eurasian Cranes (Grus grus) were

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 155
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

observed, moving toward feeding grounds outside of the steppe area). The Eurasian Cranes were more
abundant than expected.

Spring migration takes place south of Uzbekistan, moving west to east near the latitude of the southern
Uzbekistan border. Only occasional observations of a few flying migrants were observed over the project site
during the field surveys.
Autumn migration is in a north to south direction, as observed close to the Nishon settlement. Grus sp. were
observed flying to the north-west of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site, but both the Demoiselle Crane and
the Eurasian Crane appear to be absent from the Project area during the breeding season and in winter.

3.9.1.3.4 Raptors
The data collected confirm that the adyrs of the Kashkadarya region is an important area for the biodiversity
of raptors.

3.9.1.3.5 Vultures
During the April 2010 survey the Egyptian Vulture
Neophron percnopterus was common along the
southern foot of the Gouzar Hills area, where it
probably breeds, which is east of the project site. A
single Aegypius monachus (Uzbek Red-listed species)
was also seen in the same area.

During observations conducted in June 2010 single

pairs of adult and juvenile vultures were regularly seen
close to Shurtan village, North of the SGCC plant; and
within the potential landfill site.

Winter field surveys in the vicinity of the proposed

OLTIN YO’L GTL site, indicated that vultures appear to
be absent in autumn and winter periods. Figure 3.44: Egyptian Vulture (Neophron
percnopterus)
3.9.1.3.6 Marsh Harrier
Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus is fairly abundant in
spring and partly in winter, and occupies the reed-beds
of the Himki Reservoir as a “sleeper”. Daily pendular movements occur between the Himki Reservoir and the
grassland steppe habitats east and north of the lake; the project site is located to the southwest of the lake.

Numbers of this species decrease in summer. The Himki Reservoir hosts three breeding pairs, accounting to
a total population of 12 birds after fledging of the juveniles. The number of birds doubles during the autumn
migration period.

It is clear that the Himki Reservoir plays an important role for the life cycle of this species at least at a
regional scale.

3.9.1.3.7 Other Breeding Raptor Species

The regular observations of Golden Eagles in two of the hilly areas suggests the presence of scattered
breeding territories of this Red-listed species, which was observed north and east of the project site. Long-
legged Buzzards were observed during the breeding bird survey in this same area.
A single territory of Kestrel and a single territory of Little Owl were observed at the proposed landfill site.

3.9.1.3.8 Raptor Migrants

Raptor migration occurs both in spring and autumn. It appears that raptor migrants mainly pass through the
SGCC and surrounding area rarely stopping over. Eagles and buzzards were observed on the ground in the
Talimarjan area.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 156
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Typical Asian species taking part in the migration include the following:

¡ Oriental Honey Buzzard,

¡ Long-legged Buzzard,

¡ Shikra Sparrowhawk,

¡ Booted Eagle,

¡ Steppe Eagle,

¡ Pallid Harrier,

¡ Merlin (pallidus form),

¡ Eurasian Sparrowhawk,

¡ Golden Eagle,

¡ Short-toed Eagle,

¡ Peregrine,

¡ Kestrel, and

¡ Lesser Kestrel.

3.9.1.4 Conservation Concerns19

A few other species of conservation concern were observed during the field surveys. Among these, the
Sociable Plover, absent from the regional bird list, was observed.

3.9.1.4.1 Red Data Raptor Species

During the winter census count the following IUCN and Uzbek National Red data species were identified:

¡ Globally endangered Aythya nyroca;

¡ National red data book species Haliaeetus albicilla and Larus ichthyaetus;

¡ Houbara Bustard (Chlamidotis undulata);

¡ Aegypius monachus; and

¡ Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos).

19
National categories of threat described in this section are from the Red Data Book of Republic of Uzbekistan (National Red Book,
2006):

0 –"Regionally Extinct"(EX) or "Regionally Extinct in the Wild" (REW),

1 –"Critically Endangered" (CR) or "Endangered" (EN),

2 –Vulnerable (VU:R: VU:D; R=naturally rare, D=decreasing),

3 –Near Threatened (NT).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 157
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.9.1.4.2 Little Egret

The Little Egret Egretta garzetta is listed as Vulnerable, Declining 2 (VU:D) migratory species. It is distributed
in the southern Aral region and the Amudarya River area. It was observed in the surveyed area during spring
and winter migratory periods as follows:

¡ two birds feeding in a small pond to the side of the road going to Talimarjan passing through Yangi
Noshon in April 2010;

¡ two birds in a flock of 18 Great Egrets observed migrating over the potential landfill site in October
2010.

This species was not observed at the Himki Reservoir where appropriate habitat exists. Grey Heron and
Night Heron observed at the Himki Reservoir.

3.9.1.4.3 White Stork

The White Stork Ciconia ciconia (Turkestanian subspecies) is considered as Near Threatened 3(NT) in the
national Red-date Book. It is reported from the area of the mid-stream of the River Syrdarya, in the Ferhgana
valley and in the foothills of Turkestan Range, south of Uzbekistan (breeding, wintering). It inhabits oases,
irrigated fields, marshes and banks of rivers. Between 1960 and 1980 this species was common in central
and south-western Uzbekistan. Presently only eastern populations exist. There are about 1500 breeding
pairs, (95% occurring in the Ferghana valley, and several hundred wintering individuals. Two birds were
recorded in October 2010 along the R-89 road to Talimarjan.

3.9.1.4.4 Houbara Bustard

The Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata is a Vulnerable, declining 2 (VU:D), migratory Eastern
subspecies. It is distributed in the Kyzylkum desert inhabiting undulated loose sandy and clayey saline parts
of the desert with rare shrubs (breeding); during migration in all plains, except oases. Breeding population
ranges from 1 500 to 3 000 individuals; during migration up to 20 000 individuals are normally recorded in
other studies.

3.9.1.4.5 Sociable Plover

The Sociable Plover is one of Eurasia's most threatened bird species, listed as Critically Endangered by the
IUCN Red Data List (2010). Considered by the Uzbekistan Red Data Book as a Vulnerable, naturally rare 2
(VU:R), migratory species. It is historically reported from the southern Aral region, Kattakurgan, Chardara
water reservoir, Lake Aydar, and mid-stream of the River Syrdarya (migration). It can be found on the banks
of reservoirs and marshes in the wetland areas. Numbers were always low: in the 1970 - 80s, flocks of
10 - 20 individuals were recorded on migration; more recently only single birds or small groups of 3 - 5
individuals.

The Sociable Plover were unexpectedly observed during the autumn migratory survey, in low depressions of
the steppe north of the SGCC (a flock of about 200) and south of it (a few), adding a very high conservation
interest to the steppe habitats. The areas directly affected by the potential project activities appear too dry to
be useful for the species.

3.9.1.4.6 Lesser White-fronted Goose

This Vulnerable, naturally rare 2 (VU:R), migratory species is reported from plainland water-reservoirs of the
Amudarya and Syrdarya River basins with well-developed submerged and littoral vegetation. At present,
from 200 to 2 000 individuals during migration and wintering are recorded. This species was observed both
at Himki and Talimarjan Reservoirs during the winter survey, together with Greylag Geese and Greater
White-fronted Geese. Huge, mixed Geese flocks spend the day in steppe depressions for feeding, and stop
around Himki Reservoir during their daily movements.

3.9.1.4.7 Pygmy Cormorant

The Pygmy Cormorant is a Near Threatened 3 (NT) migratory species. It is reported from the basins of the
Amudarya, Zaravshan and Kashkadarya rivers, the mid-course of the Syrdarya River and in the south of

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 158
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Uzbekistan (breeding, wintering and migration). It inhabits large plainland lakes and reservoirs. In the past, it
was breeding on the islands of the Aral Sea; at present it has vanished there. It occupies new habitats in the
Amudarya and Syrdarya basins. From 10 000 to 12 000 breeding pairs are recorded and about 10 000
wintering individuals. This species is found in the first part of winter in both Talimarjan and Himki reservoirs.

3.9.1.4.8 Passerines
Migrant and breeding bird communities of the Steppe landscape are dominated by Larks and Pipits, but no
rare, endemic steppe species pertaining to these groups were observed.

Spring migration is characterised by stopping over of several small birds, taking advantage of natural
ephemeral vegetation, scattered trees/bushes, or both natural and cultivated lands. Common species were
Siberian Stonechat and Red-headed Bunting. The open shrubland or artificial plantations in the surrounding
of the Himki Reservoir are of particular importance. In this season the reed bed bordering the Himki
Reservoir hosts a strictly specialized bird community mostly composed of Acrocephalus Warblers. A
relevant number of Turkestan Shrike Lanius phoenicuroides also occurs at this location. As Passerine
migration is very wide scale both in number of birds involved and in distance covered, the spring
concentration of birds for stopping over is important.

Passerine communities during autumn migration period appear different due to the very dry summer and
autumn weather. Shrub dwelling species are almost absent. Common features among transects was the
high number of granivorous, gregarious birds, including flocks of Calandra Lark and Forest Bunting and large
numbers of Skylarks. Sparrows coming from the reed beds can be classified, at least partly, as regional
endemic Passer indicus. As in spring, the area around Himki Reservoir hosts a more diverse bird
community, but the birds related to bush and tree vegetation are very limited in number of species and
abundance. The species of the Oenanthe group appear quiet widespread, especially the Asian specialties
O.isabellina and O.deserti, found in autumn in all open habitats. In this season the Desert Finch is also found
throughout the entire survey area.

Sites that will be directly impacted by potential project activities (project site, accommodation site, and
potential landfill site) do not appear to be used by passerine migrants in spring and autumn. The primary
passerine species present in the project site is a resident population (5 pairs) of Crested Lark, in Uzbekistan
the more trivial species of the Alaudidae family. During the June survey small breeding populations of
migrants were found: the most relevant were 3 pairs of Pied Buschat bordering the project site, 4 pairs of
Turkestan Shrike aside of the area for the new accommodation site.

The potential landfill site includes the presence of ground walls that have resulted from human excavation
activities. This is the likely reason for the presence of several colonies of House Sparrow (207 nests all
together) interspersed with 9 nests of Roller, However, this is not a key area for conservation purposes, but it
has some interest under didactic and landscape viewpoints. A population of eight breeding pairs of Crested
Lark has also been observed. This area is not primarily used by passerine migrants.

A large roost of Roseate Starling was recorded in April 2010 in the reed bed at the Himki Reservoir, with an
estimated number of 200,000 - 400,000 birds. These birds are not present during June, and start to re-
occupy the area in spring. Himki reservoir is a key point in the life cycle of the Roseate Starling in Southern
Uzbekistan, and perhaps in Central Asia.

3.9.2 Flora
3.9.2.1 Data Collection
A flora biodiversity survey was conducted within the different definable vegetation types in the study area.
This survey also determined the ecological sensitivity and importance of the area and identified disturbances
in each vegetation type. For the grass layer a representative number of sites were selected and fifteen
randomly selected one square meter plots surveyed at each site. Abundance of all species within each
square metre was recorded in three abundance classes.

The survey data was analysed with EstimateS software using the Shannon Index of Diversity, to assess the
flora species diversity or species richness of the vegetation community. Shannon's index accounts for both

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 159
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

abundance and evenness of the species present. The proportion of species relative to the total number of
species is calculated, and then multiplied by the natural logarithm of this proportion. The value of the
Shannon Index is usually found to fall between 1.5 and 3.5 and only rarely it is greater than 4.5 (Khan,
2001). Shannon Index lower than two is regarded as a poor diversity; if it is between two and three it is
reasonable and higher than three is regarded as a good diversity.

Data collection was done by means of the following actions:

¡ Conduct a desktop study to obtain a list of expected species for the study area;

¡ Determine the Vegetation Type/Types and compile a brief description of the vegetation in terms of
physiognomy and species composition including dominant, common and characteristic species. These
descriptions will be based on estimates of cover/abundance and density of constituent species.
Sensitive plant communities will be geo-referenced;

¡ Compile a preliminary species list to provide an accurate indication of the floristic diversity including
endemic and medicinally important species;

¡ Determine the occurrence, or possible occurrence, of threatened and/or sensitive plant species as listed
in the latest available literature, with updated IUCN threatened status. All recorded populations of
threatened or near-threatened plant species will be geo-referenced and mapped;

¡ Map sensitive areas according to Google Earth imagery and field survey; and

¡ Identify alien and invasive species.

3.9.2.2 Regional Description

Uzbekistan has high flora diversity that is represented by at least 4 800 species of vascular plants, belonging
to 115 families and 650 genera and 6 200 species of all other plant groups (UNDP-UNEP, 2000; NBSPSG,
1998). Endemism is rather low at about 8% and relict endemic species constitute 10-12% of all endemics
(Chemonics International, 2001).
Approximately 320 species of flowering plants can be found in the Uzbekistan sandy deserts (NBSPSG,
1998). The vegetation cover of the plains and adyrs is formed by ephemers and various grasses
(Makhmudovich, 2006). The southern desert area of Uzbekistan displays an increase in the diversity of
ephemeroids and ephemers in comparison to northern deserts due to mild winter and early spring (WWF,
2001).
Species that can be expected to occur on the project site and surrounding areas, include the following
species Haloxylon aphyllum, H. persicum, Ammodendron connollyi, Salsola spp, Calligonum, Astragalus,
Eremosparton flaccidum, Ephedra strobilacea. Ephemeral species such as Carex physodes, Poa bulbosa
and Ferula foetida as well as perennial grasses such Stipagrostis spp. which is pioneer species on fixed
sands (Chemonics International, 2001). Other literature also mention species such as Salsola richteri,
Salsola arbuscula, Astragalus unifoliolatus, Stipagrostis pennata, S. karelinii, and S. minor (NBSPSG, 1998).
The green vegetation, consisting of ephemers such as Bromus spp., Malcolmia spp., Koelpinia spp.,
Amberboa spp. and ephemeroids such as Eremurus spp., Rheum spp., Tulipa spp., Gagea spp. dominate in
March and April. By the end of May these plants finish their annual growth because the summer is a time of
long drought (WWF, 2001).

3.9.2.3 Site Description

According to a lay-out map of the area surrounding the Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex Plant, the study
area and close vicinity are planted with a variety of species, to partially conceal the infrastructure, stabilize
the soil, moderate the climate and decorate roadsides and the environment within perimeter areas of the gas
plant and accommodation site. Fruit trees include apple, peach, pear, vine, pomegranate, almonds and
pistachio. Other species of flora are listed in the specialist report.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 160
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

During the eight day field assessment (27 April to 4 May 2010) 11 diversity plots were selected where
suitable vegetation could be found for assessing the vegetation . Large areas of the study area were covered
which contained very short and low dry grassy vegetation which were not suitable for assessment and
identification.

Figure 3.45: Location of floral diversity plots.

At each vegetation diversity plot 15 one square metre blocks were investigated and all species recorded
within the block. Each species found was given an abundance rating in one of three classes: 2; 5 and 8. This
was used to calculate the Shannon Index. Only two plots had a reasonable diversity while the rest all rated
as low diversity.
Twenty-five species were recorded within the vegetation diversity plots and the most common species were
Hordeum leporinum, Poa bulbosa, Vulpia persica aff, and Poa sp. The records are available in the ESHSIA
specialist report. Species were ranked by adding the allocated score each species received in all 15 blocks
of each diversity site and the totals for each site then added together to obtain a relative abundance score. In
order to obtain a ranking for commonness in the study area the number of sites where each species were
found were also recorded.

Fifty-four species listed in the specialist report in were recorded within the study area, including the
vegetation diversity plots. These results are discussed below.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 161
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.46: Vegetation types within the study area

Figure 3.47: Black Saxaul, Haloxylon aphyllum.

3.9.2.4 Discussion
The vegetation in the Project footprint area generally display low diversity, which is expected in this area,
even with the presence of several ruderal (pioneer) species present due to anthropogenic disturbance. The
two diversity plots in the proposed accommodation area recorded reasonable diversity, directly as result of
anthropogenic disturbance as can be seen by the presence of the remains of demolished buildings, ditches
and other mechanical disturbance. Ruderal plants constitute 41.8 %; ephemera 16.4%; halophytes 12. 7%;
fodder plants 1% and others 27.9% of the species composition. The presence of the halophytes indicates
slight salination of the soil.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 162
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Within the footprint area of the plant site (125 ha) three distinctions can be made in the vegetation types,
namely: disturbance in some areas where old agricultural lands were made (11.2 ha/8.96%); areas planted
with Black Saxaul (Haloxylon aphyllum) or ripped to be planted (20.9 ha/16.72%) with Black Saxaul and
natural vegetation resulting in 92.7 ha/74.32% of the area still being in a natural condition.

Old agricultural fields are dominated by the Hordeum leporinum (Poaceae) and other ruderals and in the
natural vegetation the dominant species are Carex pachystylis (Cyperaceae) and Poa bulbosa
(Poaceae).The area ripped for trees contain rows of Haloxylon aphyllum (Chenopodaceae) which covers
vast areas and the herbaceous layer are also dominated by Carex pachystylis and Poa bulbosa, both
ephemera.

Plant species with traditional medicinal value are expected to constitute less than 10%of species present and
there is probably no local utilisation of these plants due to the convenience of the markets in Karshi and
Guzor where these plants can be bought (Tojibaev SH. Komiljon, 2010).

No plant species of any conservation importance were found within the project area and the predominant
vegetation type is found over vast areas in the southern Uzbekistan steppe.

3.9.2.5 Critical Habitat

No critical habitat as defined by IFC PS6 (2012) was found present within the Study Area.

The table below lists the outcome of the critical habitat assessment.
Table 3-31: Outcome of the critical habitat assessment.
Criterion Definition Assessment

Habitat of significant
No flora or fauna species listed as Critically Endangered
importance to Critically
1 and/or Endangered were recorded in the baseline report
Endangered (CR) and/or
for the Study Area.
Endangered (EN) species.
Habitat of significant
importance to endemic No endemic and/or restricted-range flora or fauna
2
and/or restricted-range species were recorded in the Study Area.
species
Habitat supporting globally
significant concentrations of No potential migratory or congregatory species were
3
migratory species and/or observed in the baseline Study Area.
congregatory species
Natural vegetation within the Study Area consists of an
ephemeral desert steppe, dominated by Carex
pachystylis (Cyperaceae) and Poa bulbosa (Poaceae),
which are adapted to xerothermic climatic conditions. The
Highly threatened and/or
4 presence of several halophilous species of the family
unique ecosystems
Chenopodiaceae indicates slight soil salinification in the
area (Komiljon, 2010). This vegetation type is common
over large areas of the southern Uzbekistan steppe
(Komiljon, 2010).
The fairly uniform undulating landscape within the study
area provides little habitat diversity for vertebrate
animals; physical features of a landscape typically
associated with particular evolutionary process such as
Areas associated with key
5 isolated areas (e.g. islands, mountaintops, lakes) do not
evolutionary processes
feature within the study area. No floral or faunal species
with unique evolutionary histories such as endemic and
restricted range species were observed within the study
area (Refer to Criteria 2 assessment).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 163
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.9.3 Fauna
3.9.3.1 Data Collection
For the Fauna Diversity Assessment the study area was surveyed by means of various techniques suitable
to each group. For small mammals Sherman traps were set in two trap lines, each consisting of 25 traps
each, at selected sites. Spoor, faeces and other markings were also used to identify species present.
Species of mammals, reptiles and amphibians that were found within the study area was recorded. Any
macro invertebrates that were found and identified were also recorded. Birds were recorded in a separate
study.
Data collection was done by means of the following actions:

¡ Conduct a desktop study to obtain a list of expected species for the study area;

¡ Identify and provide a description of the vertebrate fauna, i.e. mammals, reptiles, and amphibians as
well any macro invertebrates that can be identified with special reference to threatened species
occurring inside and in close proximity to the study area;

¡ Compile a preliminary species list of the different vertebrate groups including IUCN Red Data Status
according to the latest Red Data Books;

¡ Describe the different habitats at the proposed sites and to evaluate their conservation importance and
significance with reference to the possible presence of threatened vertebrate species at and adjacent to
the site;

¡ Identify threats to species of conservation concern; and

¡ Review existing literature on species recorded at or near the site.

3.9.3.2 Regional Description

More than 15 000 known species occur in Uzbekistan, with the invertebrate group known as Arthropods
representing the largest group at 11 300 species (NBSPSC, 1998). According to Chemonics International
(2001), the vertebrate animals presently include 682 species comprising of 108 mammals, 431 birds, 58
reptiles, 2 amphibians (3 according to NBSPSC, 1998) and 83 fishes whilst the Invertebrate animals are
estimated at 15 000 species.

Species of fauna found in Uzbekistan include groups which in the historical past have migrated here from
other regions, including Central Asian deserts and mountains, Indo-China, grasslands of Kazakhstan,
Siberia, South Europe and North Africa (Kreuzberg, A.V.-A, et al, 2004). In recent times many species
suffered decrease in ranges and population numbers and extinctions in some cases due to human pressure,
including commercial pressure on larger mammals and birds as game species. A steady decline in numbers
of these species is noticeable (Kreuzberg, A.V.-A, et al, 2004). Irrigated agriculture, as the main land-use in
Uzbekistan has also dramatically changed the ecological situation in the different regions which made the
survival of many desert species impossible due to the changed ecological conditions (Kreuzberg, A.V.-A, et
al, 2004).

Mammal species (40 spp.) whose distribution includes Uzbekistan and particularly the Karshi steppe were
selected from literature (Wilson & Reeder, 2005) and correlated with distribution maps developed by the
IUCN (IUCN 2009). This list was reviewed and amended by the Zoological Expert from the Uzbekistan
Institute for Zoology (Filatov, 2011) resulting in a final list of 23 mammal species. There are 12 reptile
species and one amphibian, the Green toad (Bufonidae, Bufo viridis) that can potentially be found within the
study area and vicinity (Filatov, 2011) and are listed in the ESHSIA specialist report

3.9.3.3 Site Description

The faunal field survey was conducted over eight days from 27 April to 4 May 2010. Fifty Sherman traps for
small mammals were set at two sites, selected for possible suitable habitat and signs of presence of target
animals (Figure 3.48). Results of trapping were poor, with no animals caught.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 164
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.48: Location of the small mammal trap sites within the study area

Trap site 001 was situated in an old agricultural land, close to the SGCC site. One trap was removed during
night one at Trap site 001, probably by a domestic dog or another carnivore. The position of the missing trap
contained some scratch marks and blood. The trap was probably bitten by a carnivore in an effort to remove
a trapped small mammal inside and then carried it off. After the fourth trapping night, five traps at Trap site
001 were found missing in a row, probably removed by humans. All traps in both trap sites were then
removed and trapping terminated, to reduce risk of further loss of traps. The faunal survey then continued
through surveying for tracks, faeces, carcasses or parts of carcasses.

Trap site 002 was situated close to the western boundary of the plant site within an area planted with Black
Saxaul. Each morning the traps were checked and found with many insects such as ants, grasshoppers and
tenebrionid beetles. No small mammals were caught.

A dead goat (Figure 3.49) found within the study area, close to a nomad settlement attracted a carnivore
only after the third night. Since the domestic dogs living close by, at the nomadic settlement, did not show
any interest in the carcass it is assumed that a wild carnivore fed on the carcass. Due to the femur being
bitten through, it is assumed to be a large carnivore.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 165
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.49: Dead goat found in study area.

Other mammals seen at the study area and in the vicinity include Yellow Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus
fulvus, (Figure 3.50)) Kangaroo Rat, Tolai Hare (Lepus tolai) and Corsac Fox (Vulpes corsac). Remnants of
skin of a hedgehog, probably Long-eared Hedgehog (Hemiechinus auritus) was also found.

Figure 3.50: Spermophilus fulvus.

Herpetofauna seen at or near the study area include the following: Agrionamys (Testudo) horsfeldi (Desert
Tortoise), which were found throughout the study area and can be regarded as abundant in the area. The
IUCN classified this species in terms of the Uzbekistan Red Data Book is Least Concern (Filatov, 2011) and
it is listed in CITES Appendix II due to commercial pressure. Varanus griseus (Figure 3.51) was recorded
directly next to the railway line on its northern side at a small bridge. This species is classified as Vulnerable:
Declining in terms of the Uzbekistan Red Data Book (Filatov, 2011) and is listed in CITES Appendix I. Other
lizards recorded include Eremias velox (Rapid Fringe-toed Lizard), Toad-head Agama (Phrynocephalus sp.),
and a Turkestan Rock Gecko (Cyrtopodion fedtchenskoi). The Tartary Sand Boa (Eryx tataricus) was also
recorded within the study area and appears on CITES Appendix II (CITES, 2010).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 166
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.51: Agrionemys (Testudo) horsfeldi (left) and Varanus griseus (right).

Invertebrate animals seen include Ispoda; spiders of the families Eresidae and Araneidae, Solpugida
(sunspider), beetles (Coleoptera) of the families Buprestidae (Jewel Beetle) and Tenebrionidae, a Velvet Ant
(Hymenoptera, family Mutilidae), a robber fly (Diptera, family Asilidae), a moth and numerous Moroccan
Migratory Locusts (Dociostaurus maroccanus).

Figure 3.52: Dociostaurus maroccanus (left), and Solpugida (right)

3.9.3.4 Discussion
The fairly uniform undulating landscape provides very little diversity in habitat for vertebrate animals. The
most abundant species observed during the April/May 2010 field study was Spermophilus fulvus (Yellow
Ground Squirrel) which were found abundantly in the eastern side of the project plant footprint where they
live in numerous burrows. In the same area many Desert Tortoises, Agrionemys (Testudo) horsfeldi were
also found. This species is regarded as Least Concern (Filatov, 2011) and also appears on CITES Appendix
II (CITES, 2010). These animals likewise have a burrowing habit and shelters in shallow burrows, mostly in
the walls of ditches within the plant footprint area. None of these were seen during the October/November
field study. Two other reptiles were also found, namely Varanus griseus regarded as IUCN Vulnerable:
Declining (Filatov, 2011) and Eryx tataricus, IUCN Least Concern and (Filatov, 2011) listed in CITES
Appendix II (CITES, 2010).

The small mammal trapping over a total of 221 trap nights did not achieve any success. This can however
not be regarded as proof of absence of small mammals as some species are not inclined to easily enter
traps.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 167
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.9.3.5 Protected Areas

Under the Uzbekistan Constitution (1992), Article 55 states that the land and its minerals, fauna and flora as
well as other natural resources shall be rationally used and protected by the state. Article 100 states that, as
one of their duties, local authorities shall protect the environment. The Law on Nature Protection (1992)
outlines the legal and institutional requirements for the conservation of the environment and the rational use
of natural resources. The law empowers the State Committee for Nature Protection, known as
Goskompriroda, as the agency responsible for implementing the law. The Republic of Uzbekistan has
enacted 13 supporting laws and 55 statutes for environmental management, and is party to 13 international
and regional environmental agreements and conventions, including: air pollution, biodiversity, climate
change, desertification, hazardous wastes, ozone layer protection, trans-boundary water courses, and
wetlands (Ramsar Convention).

Goskompriroda, which was formed in 1988, is headed by a chairman appointed by the Oliy Majlis
(parliament). As a coordinating institution on environmental issues, Goskompriroda has a wide range of
responsibilities including assessing and monitoring the environmental resources of the nation, establishing
environmental quality standards, and monitoring pollution levels of agricultural and industrial production
systems, the establishment of protected areas and the protection of natural ecological resources.
Environmental assessment is the responsibility of the Main Directorate for State Ecological Expertise
(Glavgosecoexpertiza) a directorate of Goskompriroda.

There are no protected or declared conservation areas or nature reserves within the project site or the
surrounding areas.

3.10 Noise
The methodology employed to determine the noise baseline conditions is outlined in the following sub-
sections.

3.10.1 Data Collection

A survey of baseline noise levels was performed near to the proposed facility between the 25 and
29 June 2010. Measurements were taken at four locations to characterise the existing noise environment in
the area surrounding the GTL facility. Data was obtained over 24 hour periods at each location and logged
at hourly intervals to allow the day, evening and night-time noise levels to be analysed. The baseline survey
details are documented in the following sections.

3.10.2 Field Survey

Survey Conditions
The weather conditions observed during the ambient noise monitoring were sunny (0% cloud cover), and dry
°
with ambient temperature at approximately 40 C. There was occasionally a light breeze with wind speeds
-1
assessed as being below 5 ms . Road surfaces were dry throughout the monitoring period and no
precipitation occurred.

Survey Equipment
The following equipment was used to undertake the noise survey:
Table 3.32: Instrumentation Used for Noise Survey
Calibration Due Date
Instrument Serial Number
at Time of Survey
Norsonic 140 Type 1 Sound Level Meter 1402742 17 April 2011
Norsonic 140 Type 1 Sound Level Meter 1403352 17 April 2011
Norsonic Acoustic Calibrator 31525 17 April 2011

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 168
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Survey Locations
A description of the monitoring locations is provided below. All measurements were undertaken in free field
conditions with no vertical reflecting surfaces within 3.5 m of the microphone. The measurements represent
existing background conditions surrounding the site. All noise monitoring locations are presented on the
aerial photograph seen in Figure 3.53.

Location UZN 1 - Otkuduk Village

This is the nearest private residential village, located west of the existing Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex
(SGCC) and proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL Site boundary at the coordinates N 38º28’15.8” E 65º44’29.7”. This
village comprises of approximately 100 dwellings, mainly constructed out of cob mud/straw materials. The
noise meter was situated in an elevated position on a building roof approximately 2 metres high.
Predominant noise sources at this location include residential noise from several properties and the main
access road is situated about 40 metres away from the monitoring location.

Location UZN 2 - Shurtan Gas Complex Staff Accommodation Complex

This complex is solely provided for the employees of the SGCC Facility, located north of the existing Shurtan
SGCC Site and northeast of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL Site boundary at the co-ordinates N 38º28’18.7”
E 65º49’37.7”. This complex comprises of approximately 10 multi storey building constructed out of concrete
materials. The noise meter was situated in an elevated position on a single storey building roof
approximately 2 metres high close to the sports facilities belonging to the complex.

Location UZN 3 – UZ GTL Construction Camp

The construction camp is situated approximately 1.5 km north of the main Shurtan Gas Complex at the
coordinates N 38º29’17.2” E 65º48’15.1”. The construction camp was a former employee residential
compound for the construction of the SGCC. Little exists on the site other than a small number of empty
buildings and a number ISO steel shipping containers. The site has a perimeter wall defining the boundary
and is expected to house the construction employees of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL facility. The noise
meter was installed on top of one of the shipping containers to ensure free field conditions were monitored.

Location UZN 4 – Navbahor Village

Navbahor Village is situated 4 km north of Otkuduk Village at the coordinates N 38º29’30.4” E 65º42’26.6”.
This was considered the next most sensitive residential area and consists of about 500 dwellings. The meter
was positioned in an elevated location on top of a single story dwelling made from cob mud/straw materials.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 169
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.53: Locations from which the noise assessment was conducted

The table below summarises the ambient noise data in appropriate day, evening and night periods.
Table 3.33: Baseline Data for Construction Assessment – Otkuduk Village
Period dB LAeq
Day (07:00-19:00) 41.4
Evening (19:00-23:00) 33.8
Night (23:00-07:00) 34.5

The table below summarises the ambient noise data in appropriate day and night periods.
Table 3.34: Baseline Data for Operational Assessment – Otkuduk Village
Period dB LAeq
Day (07:00-23:00) 40.4
Night (23:00-07:00) 34.5

SGCC Staff Accommodation Complex

This complex is solely provided for the employees of the SGCC Facility, located north of the SGCC and
north-east of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site boundary. There are approximately 10 multi-storey
buildings in this area. The monitoring was undertaken in free-field conditions close to one of the residential
buildings
(N: 38°28’18.7 E: 65°49’37.7”), approximately 2.9 km from the proposed site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 170
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The table below summarises the ambient noise data in appropriate day, evening and night periods.
Table 3.35: Baseline Data for Construction Assessment – SGCC Staff Accommodation Complex
Period dB LAeq
Day (07:00 - 19:00) 42.0
Evening (19:00 - 23:00) 46.0
Night (23:00 - 07:00) 41.7

The table below summarises the ambient noise data in appropriate day and night periods.
Table 3.36: Baseline Data for Operational Assessment – SGCC Staff Accommodation Complex
Period dB LAeq
Day (07:00 - 23:00) 45.4
Night (23:00 - 07:00) 41.7

SGCC/OLTIN YO’L GTL Construction Camp

The construction camp was formerly a temporary residential compound for workers associated with the
construction of the SGCC. It is understood that this area is proposed to be used in a similar vein for the
construction of the OLTIN YO’L GTL. The monitoring was undertaken in free-field conditions close to one of
the derelict buildings (N: 38°29’17.2 E: 65°48’15.1”), approximately 2.2 km from the proposed site.

The table below summarises the ambient noise data in appropriate day, evening and night periods.
Table 3.37: Baseline Data for Construction Assessment – SGCC/OLTIN YO’L GTL Construction Camp
Period dB LAeq
Day (07:00 - 19:00) 44.0
Evening (19:00 - 23:00) 46.8
Night (23:00 - 07:00) 47.1

Table 3.38 below summarises the ambient noise data in appropriate day and night periods.
Table 3.38: Baseline Data for Operational Assessment – SGCC / OLTIN YO’L GTL Construction Camp
Period dB LAeq
Day (07:00 - 23:00) 44.9
Night (23:00 - 07:00) 47.1

Navbahor Village
This village is situated to the northwest of Otkuduk and is considered to be next most sensitive residential
area comprising of approximately 500 dwellings. This location is approximately 6.8 km northwest of the GTL
site. The monitoring was undertaken within a private residential area (N: 38°29’30.4 E: 65°42’26.6”). Table
3.39 below summarises the ambient noise data in appropriate day, evening and night periods.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 171
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.39: Baseline Data for Construction Assessment – Navbahor Village

Period dB LAeq
Day (07:00 - 19:00) 50.6
Evening (19:00 - 23:00) 35.8
Night (23:00 - 07:00) 34.3

Table 3.40 below summarises the ambient noise data in appropriate day and night periods.
Table 3.40: Baseline Data for Operational Assessment – Navbahor Village
Period dB LAeq
Day (07:00 - 23:00) 49.5
Night (23:00 - 07:00) 34.3

3.11 Socio-economic Environment

3.11.1 Data collection
A specialist socio-economic specialist study was undertaken. The study consisted of primary (fieldwork
surveys and interviews) and secondary (literature review and desktop studies) data collection, which formed
the basis for both the baseline study and impact assessment.

Literature review and secondary data collection was started during the scoping phase and was used to guide
site visit activities. The following list highlights sources of secondary data resources that were reviewed:

¡ National and regional statistical agencies, as available;

¡ World Bank Group reports;

¡ United Nations Human Development Index rankings;

¡ United Nations reports, Development Frameworks and the Welfare Improvement Strategy of the
Republic of Uzbekistan;

¡ National, regional or local development plans, as available;

¡ Governance papers, conflict risk, corruption risk; and

¡ NGO reports and information.

The scope of work for primary data collection took into consideration the amount of secondary data sources
available and the level of risk assessed during the scoping phase. Primary data collection aimed to better
understand the qualitative socio-economic baseline situation, such as trends and reported causes and
perceived effects of socio-economic trends. Methods of primary data collection included:

¡ Interviews: expert/key informant, structured and semi-structured; and

¡ Case studies and personal histories collected through interviews.

In total, Golder conducted interviews with 70 stakeholders, including permitting officials, international and
Uzbek NGOs, regional and local government authorities and residents in the settlements closest to the
Project site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 172
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

20
With the exception of the single household, of whom two members were using the buildings on the OLTIN
YO’L GTL project area as part of their employment duties with the Forestry Department, individual household
surveys in nearby settlements were not considered necessary. Secondary data and qualitative information
collected during interviews was considered sufficient for understanding existing conditions and trends.

3.11.2 Data management, analysis and quality control

There are many ways to present socio-economic data. Golder has tried to present data that is relevant to
the Project and supports the rationale for the impact assessment and associated mitigation measures. In
some cases, data can be contradictory. Where possible, efforts have been made to use stakeholder
engagement to collect qualitative information on trends to help interpret secondary and primary data.

3.11.3 Delineation of the social area of influence for the assessment

The Project is located in the Kashkadarya Province, one of 12 Province (or Oblasts in Russian) in
Uzbekistan. The executive branch of the Province is the Hakimat, which is headed by a governor or Hakim.
Each region is further divided into Regional Hakimats, which also have regional Hakims.

Kashkadarya is divided into 14 administrative regions and the project is physically located in two regions –
Nishon and Guzor. Each Region is further divided into areas that are overseen by Village Councils of
Mahallah. There are four settlements organized in two different Mahallhs. Otkuduk, located in Nishon and
the closest settlement approximately three kilometres from the Project site, is a Mahallah itself. The Mahallah
of Eshonkuduk, located in Guzor, includes the settlements of Kengsoy and Abduhamit.

For the purpose of the socio-economic baseline data collection and impact assessment, the Local Study
Area (LSA) or local “area of influence” is defined as the two regions, Nishon and Guzor, where the Project
footprint is located. The Regional Study Area (RSA) or regional area of influence is the Kashkadarya
Province or Oblast. These terms are used throughout the Specialist Assessment, but may differ from the
delineation of study areas in other biological and physical disciplines of the overall ESHSIA.

Figure 3 54 and Figure 3.55 show the socio-economic study regional location and study area to give spatial
context to the socio economic impact assessment. The study area shows the existing operations in relation
to the proposed GTL operations.

20 These two members have since left the site ,the one resigned and the other retired.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 173
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3 54: Regional Location

Figure 3.55: Social Study Area

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 174
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.11.4 National Socio-economic overview

3.11.4.1 History and General Overview
Uzbekistan is a landlocked country with a population of 28 million people in the former Soviet sphere of
Central Asia. The Uzbek language is in the family of Turkish languages shares cultural ties and history with
the peoples of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and other areas historically referred to as
“Turkistan”. From 1924 until independence in 1991, Uzbekistan was a part of the U.S.S.R. and has many
similarities with other former Soviet Socialist Republics.

During the Soviet times, Uzbekistan was often associated with its large cotton production, a fact that is
closely linked with the country’s other common association – that being the significant shrinking of the Aral
Sea from intensive irrigation for the key cash crop. Recent years have seen a shift away from cotton, but are
still the sixth largest producer in the world (National Cotton Council of America, 2010) and the second largest
exporter behind the United States (UNECE, 2010). Even though there has been a drop in cultivation area,
production and the importance of cotton as an export, state intervention in the production of the cash crop
has remained high and pricing incentives have not help to rationalise the use of key resources, particularly
water (UNECE, 2010).

3.11.4.2 Economy and Socio-economic Development

Figure 3.56 illustrates the gradual trend away from agriculture toward the industry and services sectors of the
economy.

Figure 3.56: Trends in GDP Contribution by Sector (Source: World Bank 2010)

In the United Nations Human Development Report, Uzbekistan is a country in the medium human
development, as are four other neighbouring countries in Central Asia, summarised in Table 3.41. The
Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite value that can range between 0 and 1 with 1 being the
21
highest possible development. Only Kazakhstan is within the high human development quartile , the second
quartile of the index that ranks 186 countries in 2013.

21
The UN Human Development Report is a set of classifications by quartiles. This is a recent change in ranking as previous assessments of human development used absolute
values based on key indicators related to life expectancy, education and income. Countries fall into one of four quartiles: “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” and “Low” Human
Development.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 175
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 3.41: UN Human Development Rankings 2013 (Source: UNDP, 2010)

Mean Years Gross
Human
Life of Schooling / National
Development
Ranking Country Expectancy at Expected Income (GNI)
Index (HDI)
Birth (Years) Years per capita
Ranking 22
Schooling PPP 2005
69 Kazakhstan 0.754 67.4 10.4 / 15.3 10,451
102 Turkmenistan 0.698 65.2 9.9 / 12.6 7,782
114 Uzbekistan 0.654 68.6 10.0 / 11.6 3,201
125 Kyrgyzstan 0.622 68.0 9.3 / 12.6 2,009
125 Tajikistan 0.622 67.8 9.8 / 11.5 2,119

Since 2010, when the preliminary draft of the ESHSIA was completed, Uzbekistan’s overall HDI score has
increased, but all five countries in former Soviet Central Asian countries have dropped in their relative
ranking with other countries in the UNDP index.

Economic growth in the country has been strong in recent years. Since 2004, the economy has had growth
rates of between 7 and 9.5 per cent on average annually. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) real growth in
2007 was 9.5 per cent (UNECE, 2010). In 2009 Uzbekistan GDP grew by 8.1 percent making it one of Asia-
Pacific’s fastest growing economies that year. Much of this growth was the result of increased industrial
output and construction during the year. Other sectors which experienced economic growth was the
23
agriculture (5.7%) and the retail trade (16.6%) (ESCAP , 2010). Most recent data put GDP at $45.4 billion
USD with GDP growth for 2011 at 8.3 percent being driven by favorable trade terms for key exports,
including copper, gold, natural gas and cotton. (World Bank, 2013A).

22
Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is a method of economic analysis that equates the price of a basket of identically traded goods and services in two countries and allowing for a
comparison between countries with different currencies.

23
ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific). 2010. Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific: Uzbekistan.
http://www.unescap.org/survey2010. Accessed 23 June 2010.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 176
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.11.4.3 Demographics and Health

Table 3.42 shows Uzbekistan’s overall improvement in key demographic indicators from 2000 to 2007.
Uzbekistan is one of the few countries in Eurasia that has seen a population increase in recent years and life
expectancy is higher than neighbouring Central Asian countries (UNECE, 2010).
Table 3.42: National Demographic and Health Indicators 2000 – 2007 (Source: UNECE database,
August 2008 (UNECE, 2010))
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Demographic Indicator
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Population (millions) 24.8 25.1 25.4 25.7 26.0 26.3 26.6 26.9
Total Fertility Rate 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 …
Male Life Expectancy 68.4 68.9 68.9 69.4 68.9 69.6 70.2 …
Female Life Expectancy 73.2 73.6 73.5 73.8 73.6 74.1 74.9 …
Infant Mortality per 1,000 19.1 18.4 16.6 16.5 15.3 15.0 14.5 …

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 177
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.57: Uzbekistan Health Indicators (Source: USAID, 2010)

HIV estimates by UNAIDS estimate that there is approximately 1 of the population living with HIV in
Uzbekistan (UNAIDS, 2009). The disease is relatively new for Central Asian countries and is often
concentrated in high risk populations, such as commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users, which
are relevant given the close proximity to Afghanistan and the associated heroin and opium drug trafficking
routes.

Government officials reported at the end of 2012 that the previous year saw an 11 percent decline in the
number of new infections compared with the previous year and that the country expects another drop when
analysis of 2012 statistics is completed.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 178
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.11.4.4 Employment
Table 3.43 highlights the general increase in population, working age people as a percent of the population
and decreasing levels of employment.
Table 3.43: Employment Trends 2001 - 2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Working Age Pop., Millions 13.1 13.6 14 14.4 14.9 15.3

Working Age as % of Pop. 51.7 52.5 53.5 54.5 55.5 56.1

% Growth of Working Age
2.8 3.8 2.9 2.9 3.5 2.7
Pop.
No. of Workers, Millions 9.0 9.1 9.3 9.6 9.9 10.2
% Working Age Employed 69.5 68.4 68.6 68.8 68.5 67.5
(Republic of Uzbekistan 2007)

Migration plays a large role in the country’s economy. Prior to the financial crisis in 2007, there were 1.5
million Uzbek citizens working in the Russian Federation. Remittances grew six fold from 2002 to 2006
when they were estimated to be 10 percent of the country’s GDP (UNECE, 2010). Migration also plays a
role internally, but is somewhat limited due to a system of residence permits (propiska) that limit where a
resident can find work.
Uzbekistan has ratified seven of eight core Conventions of the International Labor Association, which
correspond to the key requirements of the IFC Performance Standards. The Convention yet to be ratified is
No. 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (ILO, 2013).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 179
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.11.4.5 Human Rights and International Relations

Golder and the Project proponent do not consider Human Rights to be a major part of the Project
development, but both acknowledge the context and recognise that there are differing opinions on the
country’s Human Rights record.

The views are referenced to acknowledge commonly discussed public issues.

In its February 2013, periodic review report in accordance with the general guidelines of the Human Rights
Council to the United Nations, Uzbekistan highlighted its efforts with regard to Human Rights achieved in the
period from the initial report (2008) to present, including inter alia:

¡ Fulfilling its obligations under the international human rights treaties and has submitted 32 reports to the
treaty bodies including submissions to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and
the Human Rights Committee. Uzbekistan further confirmed that its reports to the Committee on the
Rights of the Child and the Committee against Torture would be examined in 2013;

¡ Adopting seven laws in 2012 aimed at ensuring the rule of law, the protection of human rights and
freedoms, strengthening judicial control of pre-trial proceedings and liberalizing the Criminal Code, the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the Administrative Code. Draft laws are in preparation in the following
areas: social partnership, social control, parliamentary control and transparency of State power and
governance;

¡ Consistently meeting International Labour Organization (ILO) standards on the prevention and
elimination of child labour. The protection of children in labour legislation was strengthened through
appropriate legislation. ILO experts conducted a country visit, a seminar was organized and the
Government adopted a resolution and a National Plan of Action to implement ILO conventions. To this
end, collective agreements between employers and trade unions contain a specific clause regulating
the wages and social protection of persons younger than 18. Uzbekistan has ratified ILO Convention
No. 138 on the minimum age for admission to employment and work and ILO Convention No. 182 on
the worst forms of child labour, for which an institutional framework has been put in place; and

¡ Managing a public fund to support NGOs and other civil society actors through a parliamentary
commission with NGO participation, which has led to supporting over 1,000 NGOs in the past four
years. The number of NGOs is constantly growing in the country, with over 6,400 organizations. Thirty
international NGOs are present engaged in projects related to different fields.

Regardless of details of the disputes, mitigation measures are designed to ensure Project activities are
transparent and conducted in a way that respects the rights of all potentially affected people.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 180
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.11.5 Regional and Local Socio-economic Baseline

3.11.5.1 Politics and governance
The Project is located in the Kashkadarya Province, one of 12 Province (or Oblasts in Russian) in
Uzbekistan. The executive branch of the Province is the Hakimat, which is headed by a governor or Hakim.
Each region is further divided into Regional Hakimats, which also have regional Hakims.

Kashkadarya is divided into 14 administrative regions and the project is physically located in two regions –
Nishon and Guzor. The other regions are listed in . Each Region is further divided into areas that are
overseen by Village Councils or Mahallah. The four settlements closest to the Project are organized in two
different Mahallhs. Otkuduk, located in Nishon and the closest settlement approximately three kilometres
from the project site, is a Mahallah itself. The Mahallah of Eshonkuduk, located in Guzor, includes the
settlements of Kengsoy and Abduhamit.
Table 3.44: Administrative Divisions in the Kashkadarya Oblast
District in Kashkadarya District Capital
Chiroqchi District Chiroqchi (Chirakchi)
Dehkanabad District Karashina
Guzar District Guzar (G‘uzor)
Kamashi District Kamashi
Karshi District Beshkent
Kasby District Muglan
Kitob District Kitab
Koson District Koson
Myrishkor District Yangi Mirishkor
Muborak District Muborak
Nishon District Yangi-Nishon
Shakhrisabz District Shakhrisabz
Yakkabog District Yakkabog

3.11.5.2 Economics
Kashkadarya as a region is widely known for its natural resources with the largest fields of hydrocarbons in
the country with two of the largest enterprises in the Uzbekistan, the Shurtan Gas and Chemical Complex
(SGCC), adjacent to the project site, and the Mubarak Gas Processing Plant. The region also has
substantial agricultural resources.

The gas and chemical industries account for 85 percent of the overall economic activity and estimated
20,000 people work in companies or businesses associated with this industry (Golder Associates Interview,
2010).

Representatives of the regional government state that it is common for people to work outside their given
field of training and a frequently citied problem is a shortage of people with qualifications to work in industrial
facilities. Official statistics at the Province level put current unemployment rates at 4.9 percent, which is
considered better than other Provinces (Golder Interview, 2010). Interviews with residents in rural villages
indicated there are few employment opportunities that cause people to migrate to larger towns and cities
(Golder Interview, 2010).

The 2007 Welfare Improvement Strategy characterises a set of restructuring initiatives that are relevant to
consider at the regional level where there is an increased level of industrial development. Specific goals
over the past three years have been to:

¡ increase the share of the industrial sector of the GDP,

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 181
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ increasing growth rates,

¡ increasing investment as a proportion of GDP,

¡ increasing the share of the private sector, and

¡ Increasing the roles of small business in their contribution to GDP.

The Strategy states that the government will make additional efforts to increase the number of working-age
population with university degrees, primarily in engineering and technical education (Republic of Uzbekistan,
2007). The shift into more technical training and employment coincides with national strategies and the
expectations of government representatives in the RSA (Golder Associates Interview, 2010).
A new Welfare Improvement Strategy for 2013 – 2015 is reportedly complete and was disclosed in October
2012 (ADB, 2013), but has not been obtained at the time of this study.
Despite the presence of some of the largest industrial facilities, Kashkadarya does not compare well with
other regions when assessing poverty.
Table 3.45: Poverty Statistics by Region, 2006

Total Population Proportion of

Territory / Oblast Poverty Rate Disadvantaged
% Population
Total 25.8 100 100
Urban 18.3 35.6 25.3
Rural 30.0 64.4 74.7
Karakalpakstan 44.0 5.1 8.7
Andijan 23.1 9.5 8.5
Bukhara 20.8 6.4 5.1
Jizzakh 29.6 3.7 4.3
Kashkadarya 41.0 8.5 13.5
Navoi 26.3 2.9 3.0
Namangan 33.4 7.9 10.2
Samarkand 23.9 11.2 10.4
Surkhandarya 34.6 7.3 9.8
Syrdarya 32.6 2.4 3.0
Tashkent oblast 20.4 10.1 8.0
Ferghana 15.8 11.6 7.1
Khorezm 31.0 5.1 6.1
Tashkent city 6.7 8.2 2.1
Source: State Statistics Committee printed in (Republic of Uzbekistan 2007)

Newer statistics were not available for review, but the general reason for this discrepancy is associated with
a higher percentage of people being rural and having large families.

The economy of the closest settlements, Otkuduk in the Nishon region, and Enshonkuduk, Kangsoy and
Abduhamit in the Guzor region are very similar and largely based on raising animals. Due to the climate,
most farmers raise sheep and goats, which are less expensive to feed. Most animals are taken to markets in
Guzor or Karshi. For personal consumption, many families also raise chicken and turkey (Golder Interview,
2010).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 182
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.11.5.3 Demographics and people

The total population of Kashkadarya, the regional area of influence, is 2.5 million people, the majority in the
capital city of Karshi.

The Nishon and Guzor Regions have populations of 106,400 and 157,900 respectively.

The population of the closest village, Otkuduk, which is approximately 2 km from the site and located in the
region of Nishon, has a population of 400 people. Eshonkduk, approximately 20 km from the site, also
includes settlements of Kengsoy and Adbuhamit. In total the village council or Mahallah of Enshonkduk has
a population of 2,836 people.

According to representatives of the Hakimat, the entire region has only 30 percent women (Golder Interview,
2010) and the region is relatively young in its social development. Prior to 1974, when a power plant was
constructed in Nishon, the region had no existing large settlements (Golder Interview, 2010).

Aside from statistics included in Section 3.11.5.2 that highlight a disproportionate of low income in the region,
no official analysis of vulnerable groups was identified. However, engagement with local leaders indicates
that trends follow national indicators that the most vulnerable are rural residents with lower education
completion levels, particularly women.

The local area of influence is largely Uzbek. Key informants and focus group discussions do not indicate any
cases of ethnic or tension between minorities, though, according to the Hakim of the Nishon region, there are
many ethnic minorities in the area (Golder Interview, 2010).

Though no official statistics were available, migration was discussed with many stakeholders. The current
trends show young people leaving villages for larger towns and cities, which were confirmed in the interviews
of 2010 and 2013 (Golder Interview, 2010 and 2013). However, as explained, on an official level, this is
limited with the system of residence permits.

3.11.5.4 Health
Health information at the local level was primarily gathered through interviews with key stakeholders in
December 2010. As with many transitioning countries, comparative data is difficult to obtain and existing
data can often show seemingly contradictory information that indicates higher incidence of disease in areas
least expected. Such trends are often attributed to discrepancies in data collection, which usually are more
accurate in urban and wealthier areas.

According to health officials in Tashkent, regional villages have health points, which have been established
through a joint programme with the World Bank. By design, these points are meant to provide a doctor for
every 1,500 people (Golder Interview, 2010). There is one such health point in the LSA, a six-bed facility
located in Eshonkuduk, serves residents in the closest villages. In the other villages there are first aid points
that are staffed only with people capable of performing first aid. Such first aid point was closed during a site
visit in December 2010.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 183
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.58: Medical care facility at Enshonkuduk

Tuberculosis statistics reflect the statistics of concern at the national level. In Guzor the most recent
statistics indicate and increase from 43.6 to 46.5 per 100,000 people; in Nishon, the figures have also
increased from 54.9 to 57.4 per 100,000 people. Incidents of cancer have risen, but this was attributed to
the introduction of improved diagnostic equipment (Golder Interview, 2010). Such statistics are indicative of
potential health challenges, but are not sufficient for comparative analysis with other regions or Provinces in
Uzbekistan.

HIV in the regional and local area of influence is not considered to be a serious problem with only three
reported cases of the disease in the local area (Golder Interview, 2010).

Qualitatively, other problems mentioned during interviews included an overall lack of qualities doctors for the
existing facilities and access to clear water, which is largely unavailable for the settlements closest to the
Project. Drinking water is either trucked into the settlements of collected from rainfall (Golder Interview,
2010). In an interview with representatives of the Hakimat, anaemia was cited as a common problem for
women in the regional and local area of influence.

3.11.5.5 Social Maladies

Social maladies are common in areas of industrial development and were discussed with a range of
stakeholders during baseline data collection.

Alcohol and drug use were discussed, but there were no reported trend showing increased use. In general,
interviews indicate that in smaller settlements, most residents know each other, which keeps alcoholism from
becoming a serious problem (Golder Interview, 2010).

Commercial sex work reportedly does exist, but is on a very small scale. Punishment for prostitution is a
warning, followed by fines for second offenses and imprisonment (Golder Interview, 2010).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 184
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

In 2012 a decree by Government was issued that prohibits child labour during cotton harvest. As a result, a
UN report stated that no children were employed for the cotton harvest in 2012 (UN, 2013). While cotton is
an important industry in the local area of influence, no information indicated that child or forced labour might
be a problem in the industrial sector.

3.11.5.6 Education
Educational facilities in the RSA include 73 professional colleges and three universities (Republic of
Uzbekistan, 2010) and there are colleges in the LSA regional capitals as well. Both Guzor and Nishon host
colleges, the equivalent of technical or vocational study. Children in local villages often travel to study in
larger towns. In Otkuduk, which has only 25 children in its single primary school classroom that serves until
th
the 4 class, children will often go to the boarding school in Nishon and return on weekends. Villages of
th
Kensoy and Adbduhamit also have primary schools through the 4 grade. In Eshonkuduk students can study
th
until the 9 class.

Despite high literacy rates throughout the country, a sign of high educational achievement, interviews
indicate that residents in the rural villages see little chance for their children to receive higher education.
Village leaders report that some families avoid sending kids to school so they can stay at home and support
in household tasks (Golder Interview, 2010).

3.11.5.7 Agriculture
At the national level, farming has seen a gradual shift toward private farming in the last 10 years. The overall
move has been from replacing the unproductive agricultural cooperatives (shikats) with private enterprises
through a government programme that ran through 2007. This transition caused the active number of farms
to grow from 87,500 in 2003 to 189,200 in 2006 with the average size being 26.2 hectares (Republic of
Uzbekistan, 2007).

At the local level, land belongs to the government and is rented for periods of 30 to 50 years. A typical
household plot is 0.35 hectares, which can also include 0.5 hectares of non-irrigated land and an additional 1
hectares of desert. Land given for larger farms is provided through a tender process with a minimum
allotment of 30 hectares for wheat or cotton and 5 hectares for fruit or vegetable gardening. Land
allotments are also available for people engaged in farming. Farmers with over 30 head of cattle may
receive 0.3 hectares per animal (Golder Interview, 2010).

In local villages, the primary economic and agricultural activity is livestock farming, primarily goats and
sheep, but a typical household will also own up to 20 sheep or goats, which is considered to be a small
number for a household engaged in animal husbandry.

Because of the dry climate and difficulty of having enough water for irrigation in the closest settlements,
there is no commercial farming and limited gardening for personal consumption, but most fruits and
vegetables must be transported from larger markets.

3.11.5.8 Social capital

Social capital, or the perceived trust, cooperation and political participation are linked to the local political
structure, especially at the local level. Each Mahallah has its own women’s committee and youth groups.
Many stakeholders describe these as the key means for discussing specific challenges in socio-economic
development and health.

There are officially 317 NGOs registered in the entire Kashkadaya Province (Republic of Uzbekistan, 2010),
but interviews with local leaders and NGO representatives indicate that a small number of the registered
NGOs are active in civic affairs. This trend reflects similar trends at the national level: whereas 200 NGOs
declared themselves to be active in environmental protection, in reality only around 45 are considered active
throughout the country (UNECE, 2010).

Some efforts to generate more activity in the environmental area, such as the State Committee for Nature
Protection website www.uznature.uz, have created a common information portal for Internet users.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 185
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

In the regional area of influence, there are a total of 20 newspapers printed. There are two Province-wide
television channels, but people in Guzor and Nishon regions cannot watch it due to the low quality of the
signal. They can receive the national channels broadcast from Bishkek. People in smaller villages cannot
receive the national channel, but some households have satellite antennas.

3.11.5.9 Land tenure and use

As explained in Section 3.11.5.7, land is owed by the government and leased to private citizens for periods
of 30 to 50 years. The land to be used by the Project is the property of the government with no private leases
within the Project footprint.

Only two employees used the Project site as a base of grazing animals, most of which belong to the
government forestry department. Several interviews with the members of the household and government
authorities highlighted the specific conditions of the land use.

The head of the household and eldest son were employed directly by the government Forestry Department
since 2008 and they received an income of $30 USD per month for herding approximately 250 cattle and
working to support a re-forestation programme. As part of their employment, the employees were given
access to temporary dwellings belonging to the Forestry Department, which are the only structures located
on the Project footprint. In 2010, the son resigned from his position and therefore no longer has access to
the land. The head of household continued utilising the land as part of his conditions of employment until
June 2012, when he retired to collect his full pension. According to interviews with the household, continued
employment with the Forestry Department would result in him only collecting 50 percent of his pension,
estimated at approximately $200 USD per month (Golder Interview, 2013). The former temporary dwellings
have now been demolished by the Forestry Department and an alternative structure for cattle herding was
constructed on another part of the Forestry land.

No resettlement will take place. Members of the household have a full time residence in the village of
Abduhamid (Figure 3.59).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 186
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

There are no other economic activities related to the land of the Project site.

Figure 3.59: The residence in the village of Abduhamid belonging to the former employees previously occupying the
building on the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site.

3.11.5.10 Infrastructure
Infrastructure outside of the Province and regional towns is generally insufficient and cited by several
stakeholders as a problem for residents, especially in rural areas. While regional centres like Nishon have
no reported shortages of water, gas or electricity, this is not the case in the smaller settlements. In
Enshonkuduk, electricity can be on for as little as 20 minutes a day and at night during the winter. The
smallest village of Kengsoy has no gas at all (Golder Interview, 2010). Roads in the area of influence are are
not well developed. There are some tarmac roads, as the road past Otkuduk, but other villages, such as
Kensoy is only accessible by dirt track.

Markets exist in regional capitals, to which residents of smaller settlements close to the Project site will travel
if they wish to purchase or sell goods.

Sanitation and waste facilities throughout the country are not sufficient. In rural areas, only 3 to 5 percent of
the population has access to municipal sewers (Republic of Uzbekistan, 2010).

3.11.6 Public services

In Kashkadarya, there are some government programmes aimed to support agriculture and farming,
including some programmes to support women. The OSCE is the only international organization conducting
similar work, which includes a micro-financing and technical training program for farmers. This is managed
through a farmers’ association.

Government officials in Karshi described programmes to provide credit to farmers for between 3 to 7 percent
interest, which is complemented by a Provincial level project to provide up to 20 million UZS ($12,000 USD)
per household for the development of rural housing in which people are granted 15-year loans at 7 percent
interest (Golder Interview, 2010).

Specific programmes for women are available in areas of micro-credit, including some that give low or no
interests for small handcrafts. Other programmes aim to help young families by giving the head of a
household under 30 years of age access to credit at 5 percent (Golder Interview, 2010).

Information on specific success rates and results of these state programmes were not reviewed.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 187
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Transport is available for residents in the regional centres, with a typical cost from Nishon to Karshi costing
about 5,000 UZS ($2 USD), but buses do not travel to the more remote villages. In small villages like
Kengsoy, there is no public transportation and residents have the options of calling a taxi or asking for a ride
on a motorbike (Golder Interview, 2010).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 188
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.12 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources

3.12.1 Data Collection
The data collection phase comprised a literature review and a site walkover (field reconnaissance) survey. A
list of literature reviewed is given in the specialist study. The site walkover survey was undertaken on 22
June 2010.
The objectives of the literature search and site walkover survey 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 identified heritage receptor
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 heritage receptor to allow the location, scale, form, function, date and relative importance of
each to be ascertained; and

¡ To provide a written account that details the discoveries made and which characterises the significance
of the cultural heritage resources identified by the survey.

The spatial scope of this assessment comprises all the land required for development of the Project (i.e. land
situated within the development boundary), together with land located within a 1 km ‘buffer zone’ surrounding
the development site, defined in this discussion as the local study area (LSA).

The desktop review of relevant documentation (literature review) pertinent to the LSA did not identify any
cultural heritage receptors within project site boundary or its immediate vicinity. However, it was considered
appropriate and necessary to conduct a field walkover survey to investigate whether such receptors were
present and which, if any, would be affected by the project.

The on-site Cultural Heritage baseline data collection phase for the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project was
undertaken in June 2010 and focussed on the LSA. The fieldwork, comprising a site walkover survey, was
conducted by Professor Suleymanov, an Uzbekistan archaeologist and cultural heritage expert, based at
Institute of History, Academy of Sciences and Department of Archaeology, National University of the
Republic of Uzbekistan in Tashkent.

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; and

¡ Whether buried sites actually manifested themselves as surface finds and visible earthwork remains.

Consequently, it cannot be discounted that some remains may survive undetected in below-ground deposits.

3.12.2 Description
3.12.2.1 Regional resources
The rich cultural history of certain areas of Uzbekistan is well documented. However, Gouzar District,
Kashkadarya Region is not rich in cultural heritage when compared with other areas of Uzbekistan. There is
however a monument in the Guzar district which is of significance, namely the Gulshan Mosque (1730). This
falls outside of the zone of influence of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site, on cultural resources.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 189
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.12.2.2 Local study area resources

A review of literature identified no sites of cultural heritage interest within the LSA and that the Project area
was considered to have a low archaeological potential.

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 ground cover was dispersed enough to
allow the archaeologist the opportunity to identify surface finds, if present.

The site walkover survey involved careful examination of the entire surface area and revealed no traces of
past human activity. Exposed sections, such as those along the routes of irrigation channels, areas of
previous excavation and disturbances in the natural topography were investigated. These inspections
confirmed the absence of in situ cultural layers, building materials or other indicators of settled human
activity.

A few fragments or “sherds” of pottery were identified lying on the surface in a small number of areas around
the proposed development site, and according to their texture and colour are likely to comprise parts of jugs
dating to the late Middle Ages. These were mostly considered to be fragments of water-bearing vessels
used by transitory shepherds who would utilise this area during the spring for their cattle to graze on the
pastures to the west of the middle reaches of the Guzardarya River channel.

No other cultural heritage resources were identified within the surveyed area.

3.13 Ecosystems Goods and Services Baseline

3.13.1 Ecosystems Goods and Services Context
Ecosystems Services (ES) consist of all the natural products and processes that contribute to human well-
being, as well as the personal and social enjoyment derived from nature (WRI, 2011). For example,
grasslands provide grazing for livestock in summer, as well as opportunities for saving hay or silage for
feeding livestock in winter when grass has died back, and they can also act as a venue for recreation.
Grasslands may also help to mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon, and help reduce floods by
storing rainwater (WWF SA, 2013).

Since different ecosystems provide different ES, there are trade-offs and synergies amongst ecosystem
services - for example, conversion of forest to agriculture lowers the wood supply and potentially the water
flow regulation but it increases food production from crops. On the other hand, restoring a wetland may
remove more pollutants from drinking water supplies and increase recreation benefits for bird watching (WRI
2011).

Broadly, ecosystem services are grouped into four major types (after Millenium Assessment, 2005):

¡ Provisioning services – the products people obtain from ecosystems, such as fresh water, food, raw
materials, medicinal plants;

¡ Regulating services – the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, such as
surface water purification, local climate and air quality regulation, prevention of soil erosion;

¡ Cultural services – the non-material benefits people obtain from contact with ecosystems, such as
natural areas that are used for recreation, areas of natural beauty used for tourism, areas considered
sacred; and

¡ Supporting services – the natural processes that maintain the services listed above, such as soil
formation, nutrient cycling, and primary production.

ES are the benefits that people receive from a particular ecosystem. Importantly, without the beneficiaries,
that is, the people and/or the project, there are no ES. A conceptual ecosystem services flow path, using
photosynthesis and the functions, services and benefits that flow from it as an example, is shown in Figure
3.60.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 190
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Ecosystem Ecosystem
Function Ecosystem
Ecosystem Benefit Value
Ecosystem
Conversion of Service
Process CO2 and H20 to
Meat and dairy Sufficient
Fodder for products for nutritious food
Photosynthesis carbohydrate
livestock consumption by
structures (i.e.
people
plants)

Figure 3.60: The flow of ecosystem services to beneficiaries

The benefits of ecosystems are passed on at many levels, and to many different beneficiaries. Examples of
the benefits provided at different scales include:

¡ Local scale: ES may be the basis for rural livelihoods and subsistence; particularly for the low-income
earners e.g., artisanal fishing of coastal waters and inland lakes and rivers provides both cash income
and food for low-income families.

¡ Regional scale: the provision of water to communities and businesses from a forested watershed; and

¡ Global scale: ecosystems regulate climate and act as a reservoir of biodiversity that underpins
biological production of all types, including agriculture.

3.13.2 Delineation of the study area for assessment (Project Area of Influence)
The area of influence is typically that area within which direct (and sometimes indirect) beneficiaries are
located. The Project’s ES area of influence was set by identifying the land cover types in the locality,
defining the ES that are provided by each land cover type, and then defining the extent of the area where the
relevant ES beneficiaries are located.

The majority of land cover surrounding the site within the project footprint is used for grazing for livestock
production. Although only one household uses the Project site as a base of grazing animals, the economy of
the closest settlements, Otkuduk (3 km west of the Project) and Navbahor (7 km west) in the Nishon region,
and Enshonkuduk, Kangsoy and Abduhamit in the Guzor region are largely based on raising animals. In
local villages, a typical household will own up to 20 sheep or goats additional to the livestock herded on
behalf of the Government. The loss of grazing for livestock is more likely to affect the residents of the local
settlement Otkuduk than those in the further away Guzor region.

The remaining land cover within the project footprint consists of black saxaul Haloxylon ammodendron
plantation. Black saxaul is planted as an anti-desertification measure, as it promotes soil stability thereby
reducing soil erosion, and may also aid in desalination of the soil. It is also used as a food source by
browsing livestock, particularly sheep (Makhmudovich, 2001). The impacts of the loss of this vegetation and
associated ES to the Project footprint will likely extend to the direct loss of the footprint in terms of loss of
food source for grazing livestock, and to the local area in terms of reduced soil stability and soil heath.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 191
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 3.61: Project Area of Influence

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 192
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.13.3 Drivers of ecosystem change

Ecosystems are directly affected in two ways; by natural processes (e.g., desertification) that cause continual
change in species composition and habitat structure across regions; and by human activities. Five direct
drivers of ecosystem change, directly attributable to human activity, that have the greatest effects on
ecosystem health and condition, and therefore the supply of ecosystem services, have been identified (WRI,
2011). These are:

¡ Changes in local land use and land cover.

¡ Harvest and resource consumption.

¡ Pollution.

¡ Introduction of invasive species.

¡ Climate change.

The impacts of most of these direct drivers of ecosystem change are evident within the Project area of
influence. The natural vegetation of the region is desert steppe; however, large areas of this have been lost
to large-scale, irrigated agricultural schemes. Over-grazing and uncontrolled harvesting of shrubs for fuel
has been noted in the terrestrial ecology baseline for the Project. Invasive species that are harmful to
grazing livestock have encroached into over-grazed areas, and there is little doubt that regional climate
change, as a result of the drying of the Aral Sea through long-term over-abstraction from the Amu Darya river
for crop irrigation, has resulted in significant ecosystem change in the Amu Darya basin (UNEP et al., 2011),
adjacent to which the Project is located.

In summary, the existing region within the Project area of influence is highly modified by the five main drivers
of ecosystem change, which are directly attributable to human activity and behaviour.

3.13.4 Beneficiaries
Relevant information from the Socio-Economic baseline and interviews conducted by Golder’s Social team in
April 2013 is summarised.

During the survey, a new issue that arose during the 2013 interviews is in relation to the breeding of
silkworms. Anecdotal evidence provided by the local mayor (Navbahor) suggests that the silkworms are
dying and attributes this to air pollution (Golder interviews, 2013). Issues of existing air quality, although
unrelated to the Project; are likely to impact the perception of the Project by the local communities, and may
affect the acquisition of a ‘social license to operate’ from the community.

No evidence of silkworm farming or mulberry leaf production within the Project Area of Influence has been
recorded.

3.13.5 Biodiversity and water resources

Biodiversity resources as well as water resources are important in the context of ecosystem goods and
services. These are discussed in more detail in section 3.7 and 3.9 of this report.

3.13.6 Economics
Kashkadarya as a region is widely known for its natural resources, with the largest fields of hydrocarbons
known in the country that support two of the largest enterprises in Uzbekistan: the Shurtan Gas and
Chemical Complex (SGCC), adjacent to the Project site; and the Nubarekii Gas Processing Plant. The
region also has substantial agricultural resources.

The gas and chemical industries account for 85% of the country’s overall economic activity, and an
estimated 20,000 people work in companies or businesses associated with this industry.

The economy of the closest settlements to the Project in the region, are largely based on raising animals.
The only salaried positions with businesses in the villages are with the SGCC.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 193
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.13.7 Agriculture
The region where the Project will be located is one of the largest agricultural areas in the country, with the
main crops being cotton and wheat. The economy of the closest settlements, Otkuduk and Navbahor in the
Nishon region (3 to 7 km west of the Project respectively), Enshonkuduk, Abduhamit (approximately 45 km
northeast of the Project) and Kengsoy (approximately 20 km southeast of the Project) and in the Guzor
region are largely based on raising animals. In local villages, the primary economic and agricultural activity
24
is heading , primarily goats and sheep. A typical household will also own up to 20 sheep or goats, which is
considered to be a small number for a household engaged in animal husbandry. Many families also raise
chickens and turkeys for personal consumption. Because of the dry climate and difficulty of having enough
water for irrigation in the closest settlements, there is no commercial farming and limited gardening for
personal consumption; most fruits and vegetables must be transported from larger markets.

3.13.8 Land tenure and use

The land to be used by the project is the property of the government.

Two employees were initially predicted to have their livelihood impacted as a result of losing their current
employment for the regional forestry department, and grazing base for livestock. However, the site visit
conducted by Golder’s Social team in 2013 revealed that since the last interviews were conducted in 2010,
the son resigned from his position and the head of household continued on until June 2012, when he retired
to collect his full pension. According to interviews with the household, continued employment with the
forestry department would allow him to only collect 50 per cent of his pension, estimated at approximately
US$200 per month (Golder, 2013b). The temporary dwellings that were located within the Project footprint
have now been demolished and removed by the Forestry Department.

3.13.9 Human health risk

Clean water is largely unavailable for the settlements closest to the Project, and drinking water is either
trucked into the settlements or collected from rainfall.

3.13.10 Cultural Heritage

Site inspections conducted for the baseline study in 2010 confirmed the absence of in situ cultural layers,
building materials or other indicators of settled human activity. A few fragments of pottery found lying on the
surface in a small number of areas around the proposed development site were thought likely to comprise
parts of jugs dating to the late Middle Ages. No other cultural heritage resources were identified within the
surveyed area.

3.14 Human Health Risk

3.14.1 Receptor Screening
The region where the OLTIN YO’L GTL will be located is one of the largest agricultural areas and much of
the farming is "rain fed". The main crops are cotton and wheat. The economy of the closest settlements,
Otkuduk in the Nishon region (three kilometers from the site), and Enshonkuduk, Kangsoy and Abduhamit in
the Guzor region are very similar and largely based on raising animals. Due to the climate, most farmers
raise sheep and goats, which are less expensive to feed. Most animals are taken to markets in Guzor or
Karshi. For personal consumption, many families also raise chicken and turkey.

The province of Kashkadarya has limited surface water resources. These local water resources are
insufficient to support the development of the irrigation potential of the province. Therefore the Karshi Main
Canal (KMC) was developed to transfer water from the Amu Darya River to the Talimardjan Reservoir where
it can be distributed to agricultural land and industries.

Groundwater is not used as a water source in the area due to pumpable yield limitation and poor quality
(unfit for human consumption).

24
Heading refers to Herding or Husbandry of livestock on behalf of another owner – in this case the Uzbekistan Government

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 194
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

According to the Socio-economic Specialist Study, clean water is largely unavailable for the settlements
closest to the Project and drinking water is either trucked into the settlements of collected from rainfall.

3.14.2 Chemical Screening (baseline conditions)

As explained in the Human health risk assessment specialist study, the chemical screening for the baseline
conditions (background concentrations prior to project construction) consisted of conducting a comparison
between measured concentrations of chemicals in water, soil and air, and the appropriate environmental
quality guidelines. Environmental guideline values used for chemical screening purposes (for Chemicals of
Potential Concern “COPC”) are described in the following subsections.

3.14.2.1 Water (background)

The hydrology study determined baseline surface water conditions as explained in more detail in section 3.7
of this ESHSIA document.

As surface water and groundwater resources are not used as drinking water by the local population, no
comparison of baseline concentrations with drinking water guidelines was made during the human health risk
assessment study. It should also be noted that no groundwater will be abstracted for any type of use by the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
25
In the absence of Human Health national (Uzbekistan) guidelines , Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for
the protection of agricultural water uses (irrigation and livestock watering) were used for chemical screening
(CCME, accessed July 2013).

Only one chemical (sulphate) was identified as a COPC in water used for livestock watering (See Appendix
A of the Human health risk assessment study). Nevertheless, it should be noted that sulphates guideline
value for livestock watering is based on livestock health and not health of people consuming livestock
products. Therefore the use of surface water for livestock watering is not considered to pose a human health
concern for all aforementioned receptors.

3.14.2.2 Soil baseline

Guidelines for four elements (As, Pb, Mn and Hg) are available in the Uzbekistan guidelines (indicated for
gross substance, assumed to be total) were used in order to identify COPCs in soil (baseline conditions). For
the remaining substances Dutch guidelines for soil (optimum) were used for chemical screening (see
Appendix E of Soil Specialist Report).

No COPCs were identified for the direct contact pathways to soil and as such, the soil direct contact pathway
is not considered to pose a health concern for all aforementioned.

3.14.2.3 Air baseline

Based on IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (Air Emissions and Ambient Air, April 2007), the
following environmental standards values were applied to baseline air quality monitoring in order to identify
COPCs in air:

¡ National legislated standards:

§ Maximum-permissible concentration (MPC) of pollutants in atmospheric air in settlements in the

territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan is stated in regulatory documents applicable in the Republic
of Uzbekistan

¡ International guidelines or standards:

§ WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe – 2nd edition (WHO 2000)

25
Uzbekistan water quality guidelines taken into account in the Surface Water Assessment specialist study refer to requirements for
Waste Water Discharge and thus are not directly applicable for screening of chemicals of concern to human health.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 195
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Two chemicals (benzene and SO2) were identified in background air as COPC for inhalation of air by
residents in the various settlements. That is due to monthly monitored data (assumed to be the annual
3
average value) of SO2 at Otkuduk (64,9 µg/m ) and of benzene at SGCC Accommodation complex (2.3
3 3
µg/m ) and at OLTIN YO’L GTL Construction camp (2 µg/m ) were slightly above guidelines values (see
Table 1 in Air Quality Specialist study Assessment) for an averaging period of 1 year. Additionally 24 hour
3
average air concentration of SO2 at Otkuduk (76.5 µg/m ) was above Uzbekistan Guideline for an averaging
3
period of 24 hour (20 µg/m ). It is important to note this presence of benzene as the OLTIN YO’L GTL project
will not use, produce or emit benzene.

3.15 Radiation
The baseline radiation survey was performed by the Institute of Nuclear Physics of Uzbek Academy of
Science. In terms of their agreement (UZGTL-CON-0065 dated September 4 2012) (INP, 2012), the baseline
radiation study included the construction sites for the OLTIN YO’L GTL’s Plant, the Operation Camp, and the
Construction Camp. The Operation Camp is labelled as GTL accommodation in Figure 3.62.The area
earmarked for the construction of the plant is 130 ha, while the Operation Camp and the Construction Camp
are in the order of 10 ha each, located about 3 km from the plant site (see Figure 3.62)

Figure 3.62: OLTIN YO’L GTL project infrastructure layout in relation to the existing SGCC Plant site

3.15.1 Naturally Occurring Radionuclides

Many radioactive isotopes (or radionuclides) occur naturally throughout the Earth's crust and are present in
rocks, soils, river water, as well as in seawater. Most of these naturally occurring radionuclides are members
of four radioactive series identified as the uranium (U-238), actinium (U-235), thorium (Th-232), and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 196
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

26
neptunium (Np-237) series, named according to the radionuclides that serve as progenitor (or parent) to
the series products.

Naturally occurring radionuclides that are of particular interest to radiation protection, which are not members
of any of the four decay series, include isotopes of potassium (K-40) and rubidium (Rb-87). (Martin, 2006).

In undisturbed environmental conditions, these naturally occurring radionuclides form part of the natural
background radiation to which all humans are exposed on a daily basis through the air they breathe, water
they drink, soil they live and work on, as well as the food they eat (Kathren, 1998). The annual dose, average
over the population of the world, is about 2.8 mSv in total. As indicated in Figure 3.63 over 85% of this total
is from natural sources, with about half coming from radon decay products in the home (2.4 mSv). Medical
exposure of patients accounts for 14% of the total (0.4 mSv), whereas all other artificial sources — fallout,
consumer products, occupational exposure, and discharges from the nuclear industry — account for less
than 1% of the total value. Other natural background radiation sources include cosmic radiation, gamma
radiation, and internal radiation in our bodies (IAEA, 2004a).

Figure 3.63: Distribution of the background radiation contribution as a percentage of the annual dose, average over the
population of the world [Reproduced from IAEA (2004a).

In addition to the natural background radiation, practices that exploit the earth’s resources may enhance the
potential for human exposure to naturally occurring radionuclides in their products, by-products, residues and
wastes. Industries such as mining and mineral processing operations have the potential to alter the natural
background radiation by:

¡ Moving naturally occurring radionuclides from inaccessible locations to locations where humans can be
exposed;

¡ Concentration of radionuclides in the accessible environment; or

¡ Changing the chemical or physical environment, so that immobile radionuclides become more mobile
(e.g. more soluble or transportable by wind).

Materials and residues produced during these anthropogenic practices and that contain naturally occurring
radionuclides are generally referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials or NORM (IAEA, 2007).

26 Primordial sources of Np-237 no longer exist because its half-life is only 2.1 million years (Martin, 2006), which means that natural sources of Np-237 decayed to insignificant
levels since their creation some 4.5 billion years ago.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 197
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.15.2 NORM in the Oil and Gas Recovery Industry

The radionuclides identified in natural gas streams belong to the U-238 and Th-232 decay chains of the
naturally occurring primordial radionuclides. These parent radionuclides have very long half-lives and are
ubiquitous in the earth’s crust with activity concentrations that depend on the type of rock. However,
analyses of NORM from many different gas (and oil) fields show that the solids found in the down hole and
surface structures of production facilities do not include these parent radionuclides (IAEA, 2003a). These
elements are not mobilized from the reservoir rock that contains the oil, gas and formation water. Instead,
formation water contains the radium isotopes Ra-226 from the U-238 series and Ra-228 and Ra-224 from
the Th-232 series. These elements precipitates as sulphate and carbonate scales on the inner walls of
production tubulars, wellheads, valves, pumps, separators, water treatment vessels, and gas treatment and
storage tanks. The mixed stream of gas and water also carries the noble gas Rn-222 that is generated in the
reservoir rock through decay of Ra-226. This radioactive gas from the production zone travels with the gas–
water stream and then follows, preferentially, the dry export gases. Consequently, equipment from gas
treatment and transport facilities may accumulate a very thin film of Pb-210 formed by the decay of short-
lived progeny of Rn-222 adhering to the inner surfaces of gas lines. These Pb-210 deposits are also
encountered in liquefied natural gas processing plants (IAEA, 2003a).

A quite different mechanism results in the mobilization, from the reservoir rock, of stable lead that contains
relatively high concentrations of Pb-210. This mechanism, although not well understood, has been observed
in a number of gas production fields and results in the deposition of thin, active lead films on the internal
surfaces of production equipment and the appearance of stable lead and Pb-210 in sludge. Condensates,
extracted as liquids from natural gas, may contain relatively high levels of Rn-222 and unsupported Pb-210.
In addition, Po-210 is observed at levels in excess of its grandparent Pb-210, indicating direct emanation
from the reservoir (IAEA, 2003a).

The origins of NORM and where NORM may accumulate in the recovery process of oil and gas production
facilities, is schematically illustrated in Figure 3.64. A summary of the main forms of appearance of NORM in
the gas production industry are presented in IAEA (2003a), as well as a summary of the radionuclide
concentration in NORM that can be expected. Additional information on NORM in the gas producing industry
can be found in IAEA (2003b).

Figure 3.64: The origins of NORM, indicating where NORM may accumulate in the recovery process of the oil and gas
production industries (OGP, 2008).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 198
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3.15.3 Definition of Radiation Exposure Conditions

A potential radiological impact to human beings can be induced by external and internal exposure, the
significance of which is determined by the three types of ionizing radiation emitted by naturally occurring
radionuclides. These are (OGP, 2008):

¡ Alpha (α) particles are helium nuclei that are heavy and doubly (positively) charged which causes them
to lose their energy very quickly in matter. They can be stopped by a sheet of paper or the surface layer
of your skin. Alpha particles are considered hazardous to a person’s health only if a radioactive source
of alpha emitting particles is inhaled or ingested.

¡ Beta (β) particles are much smaller and only have one (negative) charge, which causes them to interact
more slowly with material. They are effectively stopped by thin layers of metal or plastic and are again
considered hazardous only if a beta emitter source is ingested or inhaled.

¡ Gamma (γ) emitters are associated with alpha, beta decay and are a form of high-energy
electromagnetic radiation that interacts lightly with matter. Gamma rays are best shielded by thick
layers of lead or other dense materials and are considered as an external hazard to living tissues (i.e.
the human body).

Figure 3.65 details the penetrating power of ionising radiation emitted from NORM radionuclides. The extent
to which types of radiation exposure is harmful depends on the type of radiation (alpha, beta or gamma), the
amount received, the rate at which it is received, the body part exposed to radiation, and whether the
exposure is chronic (regular, low doses) or acute (short time, high dose).

Alpha radiation
Emission of alpha
particles
(Helium nuclei)

Beta radiation
Emission of beta
particles
(Electrons) Sheet of Several mm of Several dm A few m of
Paper aluminium of lead concrete

Gamma radiation
Emission of
electromagnetic
waves
(Helium nuclei)

Figure 3.65: Penetrating power of ionising radiation emitted from NORM radionuclides

Exposure Routes
An exposure route refers to the route of entry into the human body to pose a radiation risk. Distinction can be
made between external exposure and internal exposure. External exposure (or irradiation) is caused by
gamma rays emitted from a source, while internal exposure refers to ingestion and inhalation of
radionuclides. The significance of a source of radiation exposure is determined by its ability to contribute to
external gamma radiation and internal exposure.

Inhalation includes the inhalation of airborne dust (long-lived alpha emitters), as well as the inhalation of
radon and thoron progeny. Ingestion of radionuclides may follow the deposition on surfaces (e.g. on hands)
and if precautions are not taken prior to eating, drinking, and smoking. Depending on the human behavioural

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 199
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

conditions at and near the proposed operations, internal exposure through the ingestion of contaminated
water, soil, crops, and animal products are also possible.

Exposure Conditions
From the description of the different types of ionizing radiation and the exposure routes, it is clear that the
extent of radiation exposure (i.e., the radiological impact) depends on the conditions of radiation exposure.
This is largely unknown for the three sites at present.

Normally one would make distinction between worker (occupational) radiation exposure conditions, and
those that would result to public radiation exposure conditions, induced by releases from the proposed
operation. The worker exposure conditions are a function of the activities performed in an area, the duration
(time) spent in the area, and the radiological conditions in the area. This result in an area classification (e.g.,
controlled, uncontrolled, or supervised), with appropriate radiation protection and control measures to ensure
workers are protection. Depending on the contributing exposure routes, exposure to ionizing radiation (and
thus the potential radiological impact) can therefore be limited though appropriate Physical Protection
Equipment (PPE) (e.g. dust masks, gloves, overalls, etc.) and by limiting the exposure period.

To define public exposure conditions, require knowledge of the release and distribution of radioactivity from a
source into the accessible environment, followed by an analysis how these members of the public would
interact with the measured or observed radioactivity. For this purpose, limits are set, and if the calculated
doses for the defined exposure condition is above the compliance criteria, then mitigation measures must be
implemented to reduce the potential radiological impact.

Note that such an analysis falls outside the scope of the radiation assessment. As a result, a more
qualitative approach will be followed, with a general interpretation of the results in terms of a potential
radiological impact

3.15.4 Summary of the Baseline Survey Results

Where necessary and justified, the results are presented in terms of the “New Plant”, “Construction Camp”,
and “Operation Camp”. This section summarises the radiation survey results as presented in INP (2012) and
the scope of the baseline survey. The following is a summary of the main conclusions:

¡ Anomaly zones with high radiation have not been found during the gamma survey;

¡ Gamma radiation Equivalent Dose Rate (EDR) does not exceed the Acceptable Level for EDR (0.3
-1
µSv.h );

¡ Concentration of man-made radionuclides in soil samples as well as in bottom sediments from the
sewage collector does not exceed Acceptable Levels;

¡ In analysed soil samples and sediments, the Effective Specific Activity (Aeff) of natural radionuclides
-1
(determined by specific activity of Ra-226, Th-232, and K-40) does not exceed 160 Bq.kg (if Aeff < 370
-1
Bq.kg , material can be used as raw material, backfilling, improvement, etc.);
-1
¡ Radon concentration in all studied water samples is lower than 2 Bq.kg , which is much lower than
-1 -1
maximal allowable limit of radon in water (60 Bq.kg or 100 Bq.L );
-1
¡ Total specific alpha-activity in water samples does not exceed 0.002 Bq.kg , which is much lower than
-1 -1
maximal allowable level 0.1 Bq.kg or 0.5 Bq.L ;
-1
¡ Total specific beta-activity of water samples does not exceed 0.04 Bq.kg which is much lower than
-1
maximal allowable level 1 Bq.kg ;

¡ Indoor Radon concentration (VAR) and Equivalent Equilibrium Volumetric Activity of Radon Progenies
(EEVARn) in studied rooms do not exceed specified norms; and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 200
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Radon Flux Density (RFD) at the “New Plant” site does not exceed norms. Points where RFD exceeds
norms have been found at the “Construction Camp” and “Operation Camp” sites. However, these points are
due to presence of pebble and crushed stone as the Point was located at crushed-stone road. Therefore, the
RFD value for the given point should not be interpreted as an indicator typical to soil of given site.

3.16 Green House Gas Emissions

Relevant data to Green House Gas emissions in the context of Uzbekistan is available in a publication of the
27
Centre of Hydrometeorological Services in Uzbekistan . The study reports the GHG footprint in Uzbekistan
as presented in Table 3.46 and Table 3.47.
Table 3.46: GHG emissions for Uzbekistan (adapted from the Uzbek Hydrometeorological Services)
Gas 1990 1994 2000 2005
CO2 113.3 101.4 108.6 100.4
CH4 56.7 73.6 81.7 89.3
N2O 12.9 12.0 10.8 10.0
Total diffuse source
emissions
(excluding Land 182.9 187.0 201.2 199.8
Use Change and
Forestry sector)
Total diffuse source
emissions
(including Land 181.3 185.6 200.2 200.3
Use Change and
Forestry sector)

Table 3.47: GHG Emissions/removals per Sectors (million tons in CO2 equivalent) (adapted from the
Uzbek Hydrometeorological Services)
Sector 1990 1994 2000 2005
Energy sector 153.7 159.3 175.5 172.3
Industrial process 8.1 5.9 5.0 6.4
Agriculture 17.1 17.5 16.1 16.4
Waste 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7
Emissions/removals
in Land use change -1.6 -1.4 -1.0 +0.4
and Forestry sector

27
Second National Communication of the Republic of Uzbekistan under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2006). Centre of Hydrometeorological
Service under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent 100052, Uzbekistan.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 201
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.
PO Box 29391
Maytime, 3624
Block C, Bellevue Campus
5 Bellevue Road
Kloof, 3610
KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa
T: [+27] (31) 717 2790
 January 2014

OLTIN YO'L GAS TO LIQUIDS PROJECT

SECTION 4.0 - LEGAL

Environmental, Social, Health

and Safety Impact Assessment
(ESHSIA)
Performed on behalf of:
OLTIN YO'L GTL
41/4 Mirabadskaya Street,
Mirabad District 100015 Tashkent,
Republic of Uzbekistan.
REPORT

Report Number. 12614848-12330-10

Distribution:
1 x Copy: OLTIN YO'L GTL
2 x Copies: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table of Contents

4.0 LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................... 202

4.1 Uzbekistan Administrative and Legislative Organisations ......................................................................... 202

4.1.1 Hierarchy of Principal Sources of Law ................................................................................................ 202

4.2 Uzbekistan Legal Framework for Sustainable Development and Environmental Performance and
Protection.................................................................................................................................................. 203

4.2.1 Protection of Nature ............................................................................................................................ 203

4.2.2 Sectoral Legislation ............................................................................................................................. 204

4.2.3 Other Applicable Legislation................................................................................................................ 204

4.2.4 Regulations ......................................................................................................................................... 205

4.2.5 State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP) .................................................................................. 205

4.3 Relevant Legal Abbreviations and Translations Applicable to the Republic of Uzbekistan ....................... 205

4.4 Confirmed Laws ........................................................................................................................................ 206

4.4.1 List of Environmental Laws ................................................................................................................. 206

4.4.1.1 Regulatory Acts Subordinate to Environmental Laws ...................................................................... 207

4.4.2 List of Health and Safety Laws ............................................................................................................ 208

4.4.2.1 Normative Acts Subordinate to Health and Safety Laws.................................................................. 208

4.4.3 Social (gender, labour, governance, security, cultural heritage, indigenous people,
macroeconomics) ................................................................................................................................ 209

4.5 Laws Confirmed by “UzStandart Agency” (state) ...................................................................................... 211

Environmental and Social Regulators .................................................................................................................... 213

Environmental Regulators ...................................................................................................................................... 213

Social Regulators ................................................................................................................................................... 214

4.5.1 Environmental Protection through Economic Instruments ................................................................... 214

4.5.2 Climate Change .................................................................................................................................. 215

4.6 International Agreements and Conventions .............................................................................................. 215

4.6.1 Legal and Political Framework ............................................................................................................ 215

4.6.2 International Agreements and Conventions Signed by Uzbekistan ..................................................... 216

4.7 International Policies, Standards and Requirements ................................................................................ 217

4.7.1 The Equator Principles ........................................................................................................................ 217

4.7.2 Environmental and Social Screening Process..................................................................................... 218

4.7.3 Illustrative List of Issues to be Included in an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ............ 219

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.7.4 IFC Performance Standards................................................................................................................ 220

4.7.5 Industry Specific EHS Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 220

4.7.6 IFC Standards in the Context of the Uzbekistan GTL Project ............................................................. 221

4.7.7 Asian Development Bank Safeguard and Social Policies.................................................................... 228

4.7.8 OECD Recommendation on Common Approaches ............................................................................ 230

4.8 Project HSE Policies and Procedures ....................................................................................................... 230

4.9 Specific Environmental Standards Used During the Air Quality ................................................................ 230

4.9.1 Specialist Study ........................................................................................................................................ 230

4.9.2 IFC and Project Emission Limit Values ............................................................................................... 231

4.9.3 Standards / Guidelines Related to Dust Emissions ............................................................................. 232

4.10 Specific Environmental Standards Used During the Noise Specialist Study ............................................. 233

4.10.1 Construction Noise .............................................................................................................................. 233

4.10.2 Operating Noise .................................................................................................................................. 234

4.10.2.1 SanPiN No. 0267-09 ........................................................................................................................ 234

4.10.3 IFC/World Bank Group - Noise Level Guidelines ................................................................................ 234

4.10.4 World Health Organisation (WHO) – Guidelines for Community Noise ............................................... 234

4.10.5 SanPiN No. 0120-01 ........................................................................................................................... 235

4.11 Specific Standards Applicable During Stakeholder Consultation .............................................................. 236

4.11.1 Uzbek National Requirements............................................................................................................. 236

4.11.2 International Consultation Requirements ............................................................................................ 236

4.12 Specific Standards Applicable During the Avifauna Specialist Study ........................................................ 237

4.12.1 International Requirements ................................................................................................................. 237

4.12.1.1 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and Wildfowl ............................................................................... 237

4.12.1.2 Bonn Convention on Migratory Species ........................................................................................... 238

4.12.1.3 Rio Convention on Biological Diversity ............................................................................................ 238

4.12.2 Implementation of International Conventions in Uzbekistan ................................................................ 239

4.12.2.1 Ramsar Convention in Uzbekistan ................................................................................................... 239

4.12.2.2 Bonn Convention in Uzbekistan ....................................................................................................... 239

4.12.2.3 Rio Convention in Uzbekistan .......................................................................................................... 239

4.13 Specific Standards Applicable During the Cultural Heritage Specialist Study ........................................... 239

4.14 Specific Standards Applicable During the Hydrogeological (Groundwater) Specialist Study .................... 240

4.14.1 International Finance Corporation (IFC) Requirements Relating to Groundwater ............................... 240

4.14.2 Uzbek Legislation Relating to Groundwater ........................................................................................ 241

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.14.2.1 Resources and operating reserves of groundwater of the Republic of Uzbekistan .......................... 241

4.14.2.2 Use of Fresh and Brackish Groundwater ......................................................................................... 242

4.15 Specific Standards Applicable During the Visual Specialist Study ............................................................ 244

4.16 Specific Standards Applicable During the Major Accident Hazard Risk Specialist Study.......................... 244

4.17 Specific Standards Applicable During the Soil Specialist Study ................................................................ 244

4.17.1 IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines.................................................................... 244

4.18 Specific Standards Applicable During the Hydrology (Surfacewater) Specialist Study ............................. 245

4.18.1 Uzbekistan Discharge Standards ........................................................................................................ 245

4.18.2 Wastewater Effluent and Stormwater (IFC, 2007) ............................................................................... 247

4.18.3 Water Supply and Resources (IFC, 2007)........................................................................................... 247

4.18.4 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines: Natural Gas Processing (IFC, 2007) ......................... 248

4.18.5 Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines: Petroleum Refining (IFC, 2007).................................. 248

4.19 Specific Standards Applicable During the Waste Management Specialist Study...................................... 248
1
4.19.1 The Constitution of Uzbekistan 1992 ................................................................................................. 248
2
4.19.2 Law on Nature Protection (No. 754-XII, December 9, 1992) .............................................................. 249
3
4.19.3 Law of RUz on Wastes (No. 362-II; April 5, 2002) ............................................................................. 249

4.19.4 Other Waste Legislation................................................................................................................... 252

4.19.5 International Finance Corporation (IFC) Standards ............................................................................. 253

4.19.5.1 General EHS Guidelines: Environmental Waste Management ........................................................ 253

4.19.6 Other Best Practice Standards ............................................................................................................ 254

4.19.6.1 UNEP Exploration and Production (E&P) Waste Management Guidelines...................................... 254

4.19.7 International Association of Oil & Gas Producers................................................................................ 254

4.20 Standards for Radiation Management ...................................................................................................... 255

4.21 Logistics .................................................................................................................................................... 256

4.22 OLTIN YO’L GTL company policies and standards .................................................................................. 256

4.22.1 Commercial ......................................................................................................................................... 257

4.22.2 Human Resources .............................................................................................................................. 258

4.23 Safety, Health, Environmental, Risk and Quality Policy (SHERQ) ...................................................... 258

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

TABLES
Table 4.1: Relevant legal abbreviations and translations ....................................................................................................... 205

Table 4.2: Laws confirmed by state standard agency ............................................................................................................ 211

Table 4.3: International agreements and conventions signed by Uzbekistan ......................................................................... 216

Table 4.4: IFC Performance Standards relevant to the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project .................................................................. 222

Table 4.5: ADB Safeguards relevant to the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project.................................................................................... 228

Table 4.6: Ambient Air Quality Standards during the baseline assessment ........................................................................... 230

Table 4.7: Relevant Air Emission Limits Values for Petroleum Refining Facilities (Units 50 and 55) ..................................... 231

Table 4.8: Relevant Air Emission Limits for Natural Gas Processing Facilities (Unit 20 and 60) ............................................ 232

Table 4.9: Relevant IFC Air Emission Limits Values for Thermal Power Plants (>50MWth) (Units 72) .................................. 232

Table 4.10: Construction Noise Assessment Periods and Lower Thresholds ........................................................................ 233

Table 4.11: Noise Limits from SanPiN No. 0267-09 ............................................................................................................... 234

Table 4.12: IFC Noise Limits .................................................................................................................................................. 234

Table 4.13: WHO Guidelines .................................................................................................................................................. 235

Table 4.14: Noise limits from SanPiN No. 0120-01 ................................................................................................................ 235

Table 4.15: Adopted Assessment Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 235

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iv
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

FIGURES
Figure 4.1: SH&E Legal Framework (source: OLTIN YO’L GTL SH&E Design Basis report) ................................................ 203

Figure 4.2: The Central Asian Flyway .................................................................................................................................... 238

Figure 4.3: Groundwater Use in Uzbekistan (Source: State Committee for Nature Protection, 2009).................................... 241

Figure 4.4: Total selection percentage of Uzbekistan groundwater by the area of its use...................................................... 242

Figure 4.5: OLTIN YO'L GTL SHERQ policy .......................................................................................................................... 259

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.0 LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

This chapter provides an overview of the relevant legal and policy requirements as applicable to Uzbekistan.
Local and international environmental and social standards and requirements, of relevance to the OLTIN
YO’L GTL Project, are also discussed.

The law firm Grata Law, based in Tashkent, was appointed by Golder Associates to undertake the national
legislative review for the purposes of this ESHSIA study. In order to ensure that the list of applicable laws is
up to date at the time of undertaking this project, Grata had to formally contact several state agencies to
obtain confirmation that the standards Grata has on their database are the most recent amendments.

4.1 Uzbekistan Administrative and Legislative Organisations

The contemporary law of the Republic of Uzbekistan is grouped into the Romano-Germanic legal family. The
Constitution of the Republic Uzbekistan is the paramount element of the legal system, and is administrated
through the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial groups / bodies.

The legal history of Uzbekistan is based on legal traditions from the ancient Turan legal civilization Period
(from the beginning of the 1-st millennium B.C. up to the seventh century A.D.); the Islamic Law Period (VIII
century - second half of nineteenth century); the Colonial and Soviet Period of the development of the Uzbek
Law (second half of nineteenth century until 1991, when Uzbekistan became part of the Russian Empire
from the 1860s); and the Contemporary Period. It was during this Contemporary period (August 1991) that
the Law of State independence was adopted in Uzbekistan.

4.1.1 Hierarchy of Principal Sources of Law

The hierarchy of the principal sources of law in Uzbekistan is based on The Constitution of the Republic of
Uzbekistan as the most important element of the law system. The following legal documents are applied in
the execution of the Uzbek legal system (ranked in order of importance):

¡ Constitutional laws;

¡ Ordinary laws;

¡ Decrees of the President;

¡ Decrees of the Cabinet of Ministers; and

¡ Regulatory acts.

Figure 4.1 illustrates the SH&E legal framework for this project. There are international and national law
requirements, BU specific requirements and corporate requirements with which this project must comply.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 202
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 4.1: SH&E Legal Framework (source: OLTIN YO’L GTL SH&E Design Basis report)

4.2 Uzbekistan Legal Framework for Sustainable Development and

Environmental Performance and Protection
Since the onset of the new millennium, Uzbekistan passed a number of new laws and revised others relating
to environmental management and sustainable development. The aims of the new or revised laws were to
align them with relevant international laws and standards and also to provide implementation measures for
basic normative laws. A basic overview of the latest developments relating to legal requirements of
relevance to the OLTIN YO’L GTL ESHSIA is given below.

4.2.1 Protection of Nature

The Law on Nature Protection is the basic environmental law, and was first enacted in 1992. Twelve
successive amendments of which the last was in 2011. The amendments focussed mostly on adapting the
law to bring the law in line with other new laws and programmes or changes to government structures. This
law is largely normative and does not provide mechanisms for implementation. The subsequent compilation
of regulations relevant to this Act is aimed at addressing this constraint. Examples of these are:

¡ “Cabinet of Ministers Resolution (2003) on the Improvement of the System of Payments for
Environmental Pollution and Waste Disposal” legislated the amounts payable for environmental
pollution and waste;

¡ “Cabinet of Ministers Resolution (2005) on the Procedure of Application of the Compensation Payments
for Environmental Pollution and Waste Disposal” is applicable to the handling of mining wastes; and

¡ “Cabinet of Ministers Resolution (2006) on the Improvement of the System of Payments for Special
Nature Use” is an amendment on an earlier regulation on the responsibilities of the State Committee for

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 203
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Nature Protection (SCNP) relating to the collecting and distribution of compensation payments for
environmental pollution.

¡ Cabinet of Ministers Resolution (2010) on Measures to Adjust Payments to Non-Budget Funds of the
Ministries and Other Government Agencies” creates the legal platform for adjustments to the rates of
compensation payments set forth by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution (2003) above.

In 2004, the Law on Protected Natural Areas replaced the earlier 1993 Law on Specially Protected Natural
Territories. This new law was aimed at facilitating alignment with the Convention on Biological Diversity, the
1 2
Ramsar Convention and the Bonn Convention .

4.2.2 Sectoral Legislation

In 2002, the Law on Subsoil (Law No. 444-II of 13.12.2002) was enacted. Provisions of this law have an
implication on environmental management in general. In the context of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, it
requires activities that require licensing to undergo ecological studies, waste management and waste
disposal procedures provided for as proponents have full liability in terms of ownership of the waste
produced by such proponent.

The Law on the Rational Use of Energy (1997 as amended in September 2007) is aimed at reducing energy
use through a number of measures. This includes for example the formulation of energy use standards and
indicators, performing energy efficiency inspections, promoting the development of energy efficient products
and projects.

The 2002 Law on Waste as most recently amended in 2011 addresses waste management in the general
context (air and water contamination / pollution not included in this Act). Through this Act, the SCNP is
tasked with relevant administrative functions (coordination, inspection, ecological expertise and the
determining of regional monitoring parameters for waste processing). It also refers to basic human rights
where citizens of Uzbekistan have the right to a safe and healthy environment, to participate in the
discussion of projects, and to compensation as a result of damages suffered as a result of a development /
project. Waste transport requirements are also provided in this Act as well as the prohibition of storage or
burial of radioactive waste. Waste recycling incentives are discussed in this Act.

4.2.3 Other Applicable Legislation

The Land Code (1998) provides the requirements for most categories of land, and specifies the procedures
for land acquisition and termination of use, as a result of the fact that land is state owned and cannot be
owned in a person’s private capacity.

The 2001 Law on the Protection and Use of Objects of Cultural Heritage is primarily directed at the
preservation and management of important elements of the built environment, but it also addresses the
protection of territories representing historical archaeological, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological
value, as well as natural landscapes connected with historical events and persons.

The Town Planning Code of 2002 contains various provisions for stakeholder consultation, environmental
management and access to information. The public have the right to comprehensive and timely information
on environmental conditions as well as future plans that could have a potential adverse impact on the
environment. Citizens also have the right to take part in discussions on town planning processes.

The Law on the State Programme for Forecasting and Preventing Emergency Situations (2007) make
provision for the preparation for, and the monitoring of, conditions underlying potential technological and
natural emergency situations.

The Law on the Principles and Guarantees of Freedom of Information (2002) only limits the access to
information where it protects the rights and freedom of individuals, their moral values, and spiritual, cultural
and scientific potential and national security. Other information for example demographic, sanitary,

1
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat.
2
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 204
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

ecological, meteorological and epidemiological emergencies (including other information required for the
safety of people, settlements, industrial facilities and communication) is not considered as confidential.

The Law on the Appeals of Citizens (2002) provides citizens with the rights of administrative appeals and
outlines the procedures available for this process.

A number of draft laws are also in process to address items not currently covered in existing legislation. Draft
laws are potentially aimed at the consolidation of environmental laws and regulations and to streamline
interrelationships between the various sets of legislation. The date of promulgation was unknown at the time
of completion of the ESHSIA.

4.2.4 Regulations
In order to efficiently implement the laws in Uzbekistan, the majority of them require additional administrative
and / or legal for full execution. During recent years a significant amount of legal administrative work was
done in Uzbekistan to establish a regulatory framework, with special focus on the following:

¡ Reducing emissions and managing air quality;

¡ The conservation of nature;

¡ Reducing contamination of land and water;

¡ Improved waste management practises; and

¡ Forest conservation.

4.2.5 State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP)

The State Committee for Nature Protection that reports directly to the Uzbekistan Senate. SCNP’s are
generally charged with the following responsibilities:

¡ Integrated environmental management and conservation activities in various sectors in Uzbekistan;

¡ Overseeing and coordination of various industrial / developmental / mining activities to promote

favourable environmental conditions and appropriate rehabilitation of the environment;

¡ Enforcing and promoting state policy on environmental security, conservation, natural resources use
etc.; and

¡ Conservation inspections and environmental audits.

4.3 Relevant Legal Abbreviations and Translations Applicable to the
Republic of Uzbekistan
The Russian and Uzbek language are both used when referring to legal documentation and regulating
authorities. Table 4.1 provides clarity where in some cases, Uzbek and Russian documents are used. It also
highlights who the appropriate regulating authority is with relation to legal documentation.

Table 4.1: Relevant legal abbreviations and translations

In Uzbek In Russian In English Organization

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 205
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

In Uzbek In Russian In English Organization

GOST ГОСТ State Standard UzStandart Agency

Sanitary Regulations and

SanPiN СанПиН Ministry of Health
Norms

Committee for Nature

O’zRH - Operational Document
Protection

O’zDSt - State Standard UzStandart Agency

Committee for Nature

GD РД Operational Document Protection;
Uzbekneftegaz

Building Norms and Committee for Architecture

KMK СНИП
Regulations and Construction

The following lists and tables summarise the legislative and regulatory standards that are applicable to the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project at the local, national and international level.

4.4 Confirmed Laws

During the ESHSIA study, Golder appointed Grata Law to undertake the national legislative review. In order
to ensure that the list of applicable laws is up to date at the time of undertaking this project, Grata formally
contacted several state agencies to obtain confirmation that the standards that Grata have on their database
were the most recent amendments. The confirmed laws and regulations are listed below accompanied by
the appropriate response from regulating authorities during the ESHSIA study.

4.4.1 List of Environmental Laws

1) “Law on water and water usage” dated 6/5/1993 No 837-XII – effective, last amendment was made on
09/09/2011 (No ZRU-294);

2) “Law on protection of nature ” dated 9/12/1992 No 754-XII – effective, last amendment was made on
09/09/2011 (No ZRU-294);

3) “Law on protection of the atmosphere” dated 27/12/1996 No 353-I – effective, last amendment was
made on 10/10/2006 (No ZRU-59);

4) “Law on subsoil” dated 23/9/1994 No 2018-XII (New edition, approved on 13/12/2002 No 444-II) –
effective, last amendment was made on 21/12/2011 (No ZRU-310);

5) “Law on land” dated 20/6/1990 No 97-XII – expired law. It was replaced with the “Land Code” dated
30/4/1998 No 598-I;

6) “Law on specially protected natural territories” dated 7/5/1993 No 871-XII – expired. It was replaced
with the law on “Protected natural territories” dated 3/12/2004 No 710-II;

7) “Law on state sanitary supervision” dated 3/7/1992 No 657-XII – effective, last amendment was made
on 03/09/2010 (No ZRU-253);

8) Article 24 of the “Law on protection of nature № 754-XII dated 9/12/92 – effective. Last amendment
was made on 09/09/2011 (No ZRU-294); and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 206
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

9) Article 15 of Environmental review Act № 73-II dated 25.05.00 – effective. . Last amendment was
made on 04/01/2011 (No.ZRU-278).

4.4.1.1 Regulatory Acts Subordinate to Environmental Laws

1) Unified Rules for the protection of subsoil during development of mineral deposits (Annex No 42 Decree
of the Cabinet of Ministers No 20 dated 13/1/1997) – effective, last amendment was made on
01/11/2012 (Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No 313). Note: Annex number is 42, however it should
be “4” instead of “42”;

2) Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 9/12/1996 No 435 “On adoption of the Regulation on the State
Committee for Geology and Mineral Resources” – expired. It was replaced with the Decree of the
Cabinet of Ministers dated 5/2/2007 No 26 “On adoption of the Regulation on the State Committee for
Geology and Mineral Resources”; – expired. It was further replaced by the Decree of the Cabinet of
Ministers dated 08/06/2011 No.165 “On approval of the Regulation on the State Committee of the
Republic of Uzbekistan for Geology and Mineral Resources” as amended by the Decree of the Cabinet
of Ministers dated 02/11/2011 No.294;

3) Regulation “On the Ministry for Agriculture and Water” (Annex No 12 to the Decree of the Cabinet of
Ministers No 419 dated 26/11/1996) – expired. It was replaced with the Decree of the Cabinet of
Ministers dated 28/6/2003 No 290 “On improving the organization of activity of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Water”; and the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 21/07/2003 No.320 “On
Improving Water Resources Management”;

4) Regulation “On the State Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan for the Nature Protection” (adopted
by a Decree of the Oliy Majlis No 232-I dated 26/4/96) – effective. Last amendment was made on
12/10/2011 (No ZRU-304);

5) Regulation “On state supervision over the use and protection of subsoil, over the geological study of
subsoil and the rational use of mineral resources” (Annex No 2 to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers
No 19 dated 13/1/97) – expired. ); It was replaced by Regulation “On state supervision over geological
study, the use and protection of subsoil” (Annex 1 to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated
28/07/2011 No.220);

6) Regulation “On the State Committee for Industrial Safety and Mining” (Annex No 1 to the Decree of the
Cabinet of Ministers No 17 dated 10/1/96) – expired. It was replaced with the Decree of the Cabinet of
Ministers dated 10/7/2004 No 323 “On organization of activity of the State Inspection for supervising
safe conduct of works in industrial, mining and municipal-domestic sectors”; expired. It was further
replaced by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 11/05/2011 No.131 “On Measures for Further
Improvement of the Structure of the State Inspection Service for Supervising Geological Study of
Subsoil, Safety Operation in Industry, Mining and Municipal-Domestic Sectors under the Cabinet of
Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan”. Last amendment was made on 01/11/2012 (Decree of the
Cabinet of Ministers No.313);

7) Paragraph 11 of the Regulation on the State environmental review in the Republic of Uzbekistan
(Annex No 1 to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers “On approval of the Regulation on the State
environmental review in the Republic of Uzbekistan” № 491 dated 31/12/2001) – effective. Last
amendment was made on 01/11/2012 (Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No 313);

8) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 22/12/2004 № 0179-04 – “Hygienic regulations. List of
maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of contaminants in the atmospheric air of inhabitant areas
in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan” –expired It was replaced by SanPiN 0293-11 dated
16/05/2011 “Hygienic regulations. List of maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of contaminants
in the atmospheric air of inhabitant areas in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan”;

9) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 12/7/2004 № 0157-04 “Sanitary requirements to the
storage and neutralization of solid domestic waste on special grounds in Uzbekistan” – effective. No
amendments were made;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 207
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

10) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 29/7/2002 No 0127-02 – “Sanitary rules for inventory
making, classification, storing and rendering harmless of industrial wastes” – effective. No
amendments were made;

11) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 29/7/2002 No 0128-02 – “Hygienic classifier of toxic
industrial wastes in the Republic of Uzbekistan” – effective. No amendments were made.

12) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 16/11/2011 No 0300-11 “Sanitary Rules and Standards for
managing collection, inventory, classification, treatment, storage and disposal of industrial waste in the
context of Uzbekistan;

13) Regulation “On the Procedure for the Disposal, Collection, Pay Settlement, Storage and Removal of
Waste Industrial Oils” annexed to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 04/09/2012 No.258; and

14) Regulation “On the Uzbek State Inspection for control after petroleum products and gas utilization
under thee Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan” annexed to the Decree of the Cabinet of
Ministers dated 23/09/2002 No.328.

4.4.2 List of Health and Safety Laws

1) “Law on water and water use” dated 6/5/1993 No 837-XII – effective, last amendment was made on
09/09/2011 (No ZRU-294);

2) “Law on nature protection dated 9/12/1992 No 754-XII – effective, last amendment was made on
09/09/2011 (No ZRU-294);

3) “Law on protection of the atmosphere” dated 27/12/1996 No 353-I – effective, last amendment was
made on 10/10/2006 (No ZRU-59);

4) “Law on subsoil” dated 23/9/1994 (New edition, approved on 13/12/2002 No 444-II) – effective, last
amendment was made on 2118/12/2011 (No ZRU-310);

5) “Law on land” dated 20/6/1990 No 97-XII – expired. It was replaced with the “Land Code” dated
30/4/1998 No 598-I; and

6) “Law on state sanitary supervision” dated 3/7/1992 No 657-XII – effective, last amendment was made
on 03/09/2010 (No ZRU-253).

7) “Law on the Health of the Citizens” dated 29/08/1996 No.265-I as most recently amended on
19/05/2010 (ZRU-246)

4.4.2.1 Normative Acts Subordinate to Health and Safety Laws

1) Unified Rules for the protection of subsoil during development of mineral deposits (Annex No 42 Decree
of the Cabinet of Ministers No 20 dated 13/1/1997) – effective, last amendment was made on
01/11/2012 (Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No 313). Note: Annex number is 4, not 42;

2) Regulation “On the State Committee for Industrial Safety and Mining” (Annex No 1 to the Decree of the
Cabinet of Ministers No 17 dated 10/1/96) – expired. It was replaced with the Decree of the Cabinet of
Ministers dated 10/7/2004 No 323 “On organization of activity of the State Inspection for supervising
safe conduct of works in industrial, mining and municipal-domestic sectors”-effective, last amendment
was made on 01/11/2012 No 313.;

3) It was further replaced by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 11/05/2011 No.131 “On
Measures for Further Improvement of the Structure of the State Inspection Service for Supervising
Geological Study of Subsoil, Safety Operation in Industry, Mining and Municipal-Domestic Sectors
under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan”. Last amendment was made on
01/11/2012 (Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No.313);

4) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 22/12/2004 № 0179-04 – “Hygienic regulations. List of
maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of contaminants in the atmospheric air of inhabitant areas

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 208
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan” expired. It was replaced by SanPiN No. 0293-11 dated
16/05/2011. “Hygienic regulations. List of maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of contaminants
in the atmospheric air of inhabitant areas in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan”–

5) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 12/7/2004 № 0157-04 “Sanitary requirements to the
storage and neutralization of solid domestic waste on special grounds in Uzbekistan” – effective. No
amendments were made;

6) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 29/7/2002 No 0127-02 – “Sanitary rules for inventory
making, classification, storing and rendering harmless of industrial wastes” – effective. No
amendments were made;

7) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 29/7/2002 No 0128-02 – “Hygienic classifier of toxic
industrial wastes in the Republic of Uzbekistan” – effective. No amendments were made and

8) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 16/11/2011 No 0300-11 “Sanitary Rules and Standards for
managing collection, inventory, classification, treatment, storage and disposal of industrial waste in the
context of Uzbekistan.

4.4.3 Social (gender, labour, governance, security, cultural heritage, indigenous

people, macroeconomics)
Uzbekistan pursues a policy of protecting human rights that conforms to international standards. As a
member of the United Nations Organization, RUz assumes an obligation to comply with international human
rights acts and apply them to the national policy and practice of law.

The Republic of Uzbekistan has ratified over 40 international acts on human rights, including:

¡ Universal Declaration of Human Right (1948), ratified by RUz in 1991;

¡ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), ratified by RUz in 1995;

¡ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), ratified by RUz in
1995; and

¡ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or
Belief (1981), ratified by RUz in 1997.

All key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) were fully introduced in the 1992
Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The social policy in Uzbekistan is defined at the national
government level and is reflected in laws, regulations and national social programmes. Some examples of
national social programmes implemented in Uzbekistan are listed below:

¡ National Disabled People Rehabilitation Programme (1996-2000);

¡ National programme ’Year of Protecting the Older Generation Interests’ (2002);

¡ National programme ‘Year of Health’ (2005)

¡ National programme ‘Year of Social Welfare’ (2007);

¡ National programme ‘Year of Young Adults’ (2008); and

¡ National programme ‘Year of Harmoniously Developed Generation’ (2010).

In 2007 Uzbekistan developed the Welfare Improvement Strategy (WIS) focused on the economic growth to
reduce poverty in the country. The WIS strategy replaced two interim documents: the Living Standards
Strategy for the Population of Uzbekistan (2004-2006) and the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
(2005-2010). Through the WIS strategy the government is committed to implementing measures for

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 209
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

improving living standards, social services and quality of education and health care, as well as addressing
rural development issues.

In order to meet these objectives, the Government has launched reforms in agriculture, privatization, trade
and tax reform, and support to public administration and decentralisation. At the regional level, the
government provides loans against subsidized interest rates to vulnerable households for home-based
income-generating activities, family businesses and livestock development. The loans are financed from the
Employment Fund (run by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare), while the eligible households are
identified and selected through the Citizens’ (Mahalla) Committees.

In March 2009, the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan adopted the Nutrition Improvement Strategy for 2009-
2011, which is part of the WIS Strategy and aimed primarily at helping women and children.
Laws relating to land are as follows:

1) “Law on subsoil” dated 23/9/1994 (New edition, approved on 13/12/2002 No 444-II) – effective, last
amendment was made on 21/12/2011 (No ZRU-310); and

2) “Law on land” dated 20/6/1990 No 97-XII – expired. It was replaced with the “Land Code” dated
30/4/1998 No 598-I.
Key social laws and regulations are summarized below.

Category National Laws

Law No.657-II of the Republic of Uzbekistan on State Sanitary Supervision of
03.07.1992 (as amended on 03.09.2010)
Labour Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 01.04.1996 (as amended on 22.12.2010)
Law No.839-XII of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Occupational Health and Safety of
06.05.1993 (as amended on 07.12.2001)
Employment
Law No.265-I of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Protecting Health of Citizens
and
29.08.1996 (as amended on 19.05.2010)
Occupational
H&S Law No.ZRU-57 of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Occupational Safety at Hazardous
Industrial Facilities of 25.08.2006
Law No.ZRU-174 of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Mandatory State Social Insurance
against Occupational Accidents and Diseases of 10.09.2008
Law No.ZRU-210 of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance
of the Employer of 16.04.2009
Law No.1064-XII of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the Appeal of Citizens of 06.05.1994
(as amended on 13.12.2002)
Law No.816-I of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the Prevention of the Disease Caused
by Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) of 19.08.1999
Law No.123-II of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Psychiatric Services of 31.08.2000
Community H&S Law No.215-II of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Protecting the Population against
Tuberculosis of 11.05.2001
Law No.402-II of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Donation of Blood and its Components
of 30.08.2002
Law No.ZRU-97 of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Preventing Iodine Deficiency
Disorders of 30.08.2007
Women’s rights Family Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 01.09.1998
Social Law No.422-XII of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Social Protection of Disabled Persons
Protection and in the Republic of Uzbekistan of 18.11.1991 (as amended on 11.07.2008)
Welfare Law No.938-XII of the Republic of Uzbekistan of the Republic of Uzbekistan on State

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 210
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Pensions of 03.09.1993 (as amended on 22.12.2010)

Law No.616-I of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Employment of 01.05.1998 (as
amended on 22.12.2009)
1992 Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan (as amended on 18.04.2011)
Resolution of Oliy Majlis of Uzbekistan on Approval of the Declaration on the
Indigenous Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or
peoples Belief No.505-I of 30.08.1997
Resolution of Oliy Majlis of Uzbekistan on ratification of the Convention Concerning
Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation No.499-I of 30.08.1997
Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 01.03.1997 (as amended 22.09.2010)
Land Code, approved on 30.04.1998 (as amended on 04.01.2011)
Law No.600-I of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Shirkat (Cooperative) Farm of
30.04.1998 (as amended on 25.12.2009);
Law No.602-I of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Private Farm of 30.04.1998 (as
amended on 25.12.2009);
Land allocation
and use Law No.604-I of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Dehkan (Individual) Farm of
30.04.1998 (as amended on 09.09.2010);
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on State Land Cadastre No.666-I of 28.08.1998 (as
amended on 03.12.2004)
Housing Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 24.12.1998 (as amended on
22.12.2009)
Urban Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 04.04.2002 (as amended on 04.01.2011)

4.5 Laws Confirmed by “UzStandart Agency” (state)

Grata formally contacted the state standard agency (“UzStandart Agency”) to obtain confirmation that the
standards that Grata have on their database were the most recent amendments. The confirmed laws /
regulations / decrees are listed below in Table 4.2. (For explanations of abbreviations and translations of
relevant legal terms and acronyms below, refer to Table 4.1 above.)
Table 4.2: Laws confirmed by state standard agency
Responsible
No Document name Status Comments
state bodies
a) Oz’s 950: 2011. Drinking water. Hygienic
valid until 1802..2021
requirements and quality control.
for an indefinite
b) ГОСТ 17.4.1.02-83 valid
term
for an indefinite
1. UzStandart c) ГОСТ 17.2.3.01-86 valid
term
Agency
for an indefinite
d) ГОСТ 12.1.005-88 valid
term
e) O’zDSt 951:2011 valid Until 18.02.2021
for an indefinite
f) O’zDSt 11:2-2005 valid
term
a) KMK 2.01.01-94 Climate and physio-
Committee for valid -
geological data for projecting.
Architecture
2. b) КМК 2.04.01-98. Internal water supply
and valid -
system and sewage system of buildings.
Construction
c) КМК 2.04.02-97. Water supply. Water- valid -

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 211
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Responsible
No Document name Status Comments
state bodies
supply networks and constructions.
d) КМК 2.04.03-97. Sewage system. Water-
valid -
supply networks and constructions.
a) O’zRH 84.3.15:2005 “Handling of product
and consumption wastes. Procedure of
valid -
organization and carrying out of waste
inventory”.
b) O’zRH 84.3.16:2005 “Handling of product
and consumption wastes. Procedural
guidelines for detection of distribution limit
valid -
of waste products”. The State committee
for nature protection of the Republic of
Uzbekistan.
c) O’zRH 84.3.17:2005 “Handling of product
and consumption wastes. Organization and
valid -
order of project development on distribution
limit of product and consumption wastes”.
d) O’zRH 84.3.18:2005 “Handling of product
and consumption wastes. Waste
Committee for valid -
descriptor. The State committee for nature
3. Nature protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Protection
e) O’zRH 84.3.19:2005 “Handling of product
and consumption wastes. Terms and valid -
definitions”.
f) O’zRH 84.3.21:2005 “Handling of product
and consumption wastes. Procedural
valid -
guidelines for detection of wastes
generation standards”.
g) O’zRH 84.3.22:2005 “Handling of product
and consumption wastes. Procedure of
approval and validation of projects on valid -
waste inventorization and limits of their
distribution”.
Currently a
h) GD 118.0027714.19-92. “Nature
substituting
conservation. Procedure of approval and invalid
document is being
grant of permission for special water use”
developed
i) Reference book of a specialist in ecology.
valid -
2009.
Currently valid:
Report on
a) Instruction on the order of recording of formation, use and
formation, use and storage of toxic waste storage of toxic
Statistics as to the form 3 – toxic waste (semi- waste as to form 3
4. invalid
Committee annual, annual). The State Department of of Annex 113 to
Statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan. the Resolution of
1997 the Statistics
Committee No.4
dated 16.11.2009.
Ministry of a) SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan №
valid -
5. Public Health 0068-96 “Sanitary requirements for

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 212
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Responsible
No Document name Status Comments
state bodies
collecting, storage, transportation,
neutralization and utilization of solid
domestic waste”
Currently valid:
SanPiN № 0172-
b) SanPiN № 0056-96. Sanitary rules and 04. Sanitary rules
standards of surface water protection from invalid and standards of
pollution. NIISG and PZ. Tashkent. surface water
protection from
pollution.
Replaced by:
Instruction on
carrying out the
inventory of
contaminant
sources and
a) РД 118.0027714.39-94 invalid
normalization of
pollutant emissions
into atmosphere for
6. Uzbekneftegaz the enterprises of
the Republic of
Uzbekistan
Withdrawn, has no
b) РД 118.0027714.32-94 invalid
longer legal force
c) РД118.0027719.5-91 valid -
d) GD 39.2-140-95. Method for calculation of
pollutant emissions into atmosphere for
valid -
gas-and-oil producing and gas-and-oil
processing enterprises
a) “Instruction on carrying out the inventory of
contaminant sources and normalization of
valid -
pollutant emissions into atmosphere for the
7. Other enterprises of the Republic of Uzbekistan”
b) Waste products Act, approved by the Order
of Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan, valid -
dated 05.04.2002

Environmental and Social Regulators

Environmental Regulators
The State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP) of the Republic of Uzbekistan (‘Goskompriroda’) is the
primary environmental regulator. The Goskompriroda reports directly to the Parliament and is responsible at
national, regional (oblast) and local (district) levels for the development and enforcement of the national
environmental and conservation policy, overseeing environmental compliance, the integrated environmental
management across various sectors, and securing healthy environment conditions across the country. The
Goskompriroda mandate is set forth in the Regulation on the State Committee for Nature Protection of the
Republic of Uzbekistan enacted by the Parliament in 1996.

There are some other ministries and agencies in Uzbekistan that have responsibilities related to environment
protection and control. Such responsibilities include facilitation in setting up and maintaining a robust system

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 213
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

of state environmental control, development and implementation of environmental programmes, strategies,

and action plans to address conservation and sustainability issues.

Other state bodies of the Republic of Uzbekistan dealing with environment related issues are:

¡ Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR);

¡ State Committee for Land Resources, Surveys, Cartography and the State Cadastre (or
Goskomgeodezkadastr);

¡ State Committee for Geology and Mineral Resources (or Goskomgeologia)

¡ Centre of Hydro-meteorological Service (or Uzhydromet)

¡ Ministry of Health (or MHRUz);

¡ State Inspectorate for Exploration Supervision, Operations Safety Supervision of Industry, Mining and
Utilities Sector (or Sanoatgeokontekhnazorat) and

¡ Ministry of Internal Affairs (or MVD).

All national ministries, state committees, inspectorates and other national institutions have their respective
branches or offices operating in the Kaskadarya that report to the central body of the respective ministry,
state committee, inspectorate, etc.

Social Regulators
Social laws are developed, adopted, revised or amended by Oliy Majlis. Other national regulations are
developed by the Cabinet of Ministers as advised by respective ministries and agencies responsible for
social issues. These include:

¡ Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (or MLSW);

¡ Regional (Oblast), municipal and local governments;

¡ State Inspectorate for Exploration Supervision, Operations Safety Supervision of Industry, Mining and
Utilities (or Sanoatgeokontekhnazorat);

¡ Ministry of Health (or MHRUz);

¡ State Committee for Nature Protection (or Goskompriroda);

¡ State Committee on Land Resources, Surveys, Cartography and State Cadastre

(Goskomgeodezcadastre); and

¡ Trade Union Federation Council.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare of the Republic of Uzbekistan (MLSW) is the key regulator in the
social sector responsible for labour-related issues, employment, pension benefits, social welfare and
migration issues. The MLSW monitors compliance with the law and reports to the Cabinet of Ministers of the
Republic of Uzbekistan. The MLSW mandate is set forth in the Regulations on the Ministry of Labour and
Social Welfare enacted by the Cabinet of Ministers in 2007.

The MLSW operates through its central body in Tashkent, the network of its regional branches, local
employment centres, social welfare departments and the MLSW all report to the central MLSW body.

4.5.1 Environmental Protection through Economic Instruments

In the Uzbekistan legal context, the legal foundation for applying economic instruments (e.g. payments, tax
benefits, credit subsidies etc.) for environmental performance was established in the Law on Nature
Protection (1992). Article 33 of this Law lists the appropriate economic instruments for environmental

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 214
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

management. The State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP) is the lead agency charged with devising
state policy and also with the coordination of other government departments for environmental issues. In
addition, the SCNP administers environmental funds however it is alleged that the effectiveness of SCNP
actions is limited at times by staff and funding constraints.

All new construction projects are evaluated by the SCNP to assess environmental impacts. For this reason,
enterprises should retain emissions, effluent and waste monitoring data. Taxes and pollution charges may be
raised against proponents. Other vehicles to improve environmental performance can include for example
Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) and the World Bank Carbon Partnership Facility (opportunities for
carbon finance projects).

4.5.2 Climate Change

In 1993, Uzbekistan became a partner in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), as a non-Annex I party. In 1999, Uzbekistan ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The first Uzbek legal
document addressing greenhouse gases (GHGs) was the 1992 Law on Nature Protection. This law is aimed
at addressing ozone-depleting substances rather than climate change per se. In 1996, The Law on Ambient
Air Protection became the legal vehicle for the implementation of management measures relating to climate
change. In Article 6, the SCNP is mandated for setting atmospheric air protection standards. Article 24 lists
the responsibilities of companies / entities to mitigate adverse effects of GHGs. Article 26 makes provision
for government registration of the types and volumes of GHGs as well as self-reporting activities.

The Uzbekistan National Strategy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction was approved in 2000 by the
Uzbek Cabinet of Ministers. This placed the responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of the
Strategy upon the Centre of Hydrometeorological Service (Uzhydromet) and the Ministry of Macroeconomics
and Statistics (subsequently became the Ministry of Economy). In 2004, the “Cabinet of Ministers Resolution
on the Improvement of the Hydrometeorological Service of the Republic of Uzbekistan” identified
Uzhydromet as the institution responsible for UNFCCC obligations and activities. It also included the
responsibilities in terms of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries
Experiencing Serious Drought and/ or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (UNCCD). In 2006, a Presidential
Decree on “Measures on the Realization of Investment Projects in the Framework of the Interdepartmental
Council on the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol” provides an institutional and legal
framework for the implementation of Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) in Uzbekistan.

In 2007, Cabinet of Ministers Resolution on the “Approval of the Regulations for the Development and
Implementation of the Investment Projects in the Framework of the Clean Development Mechanism of the
Kyoto Protocol” combined preparation and realization of investment projects within the CDM. This Resolution
gave rise to the Interdepartmental Council. This council is charged with management / monitoring of the
overall mechanism.

4.6 International Agreements and Conventions

4.6.1 Legal and Political Framework
Uzbekistan’s foreign policy is compiled in accordance with the principles of compliance with the requirements
of international law. This policy and supporting documents, is aimed at facilitating Uzbekistan to comply with
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and to enable Uzbekistan to take part in international
conservation programs and projects. The Programme of Actions on Nature Protection for 2008 – 2012,
provides the most recent framework for international environmental cooperation.

Uzbekistan is signatory to some international agreements and conventions of environmental significance.

These therefore render them relevant to the OLTIN YO’L GTL project. In addition, international financing
groups (e.g. World Bank, IFC, Bank of Asia, etc.) published certain standards with which projects like the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project would have to comply with in order for the proponents to apply for project funding
from the financing groups. The international agreements / conventions and financing standards, and how
they relate to the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, are discussed in more detail below.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 215
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.6.2 International Agreements and Conventions Signed by Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan is signatory of the following international agreements and conventions, which are of relevance to
the OLTIN YO’L GTL project: the convention; however it has not yet been adopted.
Table 4.3: International agreements and conventions signed by Uzbekistan
Date of coming
Date of Date of
No. International Conventions and Treaties into force for
signing ratification
Uzbekistan
UN Framework Convention on Climate 20 June 1993
1. 21 March 1994
Change (acceptance)
20 November 20 October 16 February
2. Kyoto Protocol to UNFCCC
1998 1999 2005
18 May 1994 18 May 1993
(succession)
London – London –
Montreal Protocol on Substances that
01.05.1998; 08.09.1998;
3. Deplete the Ozone Layer (with London,
Copenhagen – Copenhagen –
Copenhagen, Montreal amendments)
01.05.1998; 08.09.1998l;
Montreal – Montreal –
07.09.2006. 29.01.2007.
Vienna Convention on the Protection of 18 May 1993
4. 18 May 1993
Ozone Layer (succession)
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
30 August 2001
5. International Importance Especially as 8 February 2002
(accession)
Wildlife Habitat
6 May 1995 17 October
6. UN (Rio) Convention on Biological Diversity
(accession) 1995
Convention on International Trade of 25 April 1997
7. 8 October 1997
Endangers Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (accession)
Convention on Migratory Species of Wild 1 May 1998 1 September
8.
Animals (accession) 1998
Basel Convention on the Control of 22 December
9. Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 1995 7 May 1996
Wastes and their Disposal (accession)
United Nations Convention to Combat 29 January
10. 31 August 1995
Desertification 1996
UNECE Convention on the Protection and
Use of Transboundary Watercourses and 9 August 2007 3 December
11.
International Lakes (UNECE Water (accession) 2007
Convention)
Convention on the Law of the Non-
9 August 2007 Has not entered
12. Navigational Uses of International
(accession) into force yet
Watercourses
Paris Convention on Protection of the World 22 December
13. 15 June 1996
Cultural and Natural Heritage 1995
European Convention on the Protection of
14.
Archaeological Heritage
International Convention on Civil Liability for
15.
Oil Pollution Damage (and Amendments)
International Convention on Oil Spill
16.
Preparedness, Response and Cooperation

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 216
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Date of coming
Date of Date of
No. International Conventions and Treaties into force for
signing ratification
Uzbekistan
International Convention on Establishment of
17. an International Fund for Compensation for
Oil Pollution Damage
International Convention to Combat
18.
Deforestation
Aarhus Convention on Access to Information,
19. Public Participation and Decision making and
Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
Geneva Convention on Long-term
20.
Transboundary Air Pollution 1979
21. Environmental Modification Convention

Notes:

Accession/ratification date applies

Uzbekistan is not a contracting
party

4.7 International Policies, Standards and Requirements

4.7.1 The Equator Principles
The Equator Principles are used by lenders as a means of ensuring that the projects they finance are
socially and environmentally responsible and sound. As such, they serve to establish a common baseline
and framework for the implementation of environmental and social procedures and standards for financing
activities across all industry sectors globally in which finance is sought. The Principles apply to all new
project financings globally with total project capital costs of US$10 million or more, and across all industry
sectors. In addition, while the Principles are not intended to be applied retroactively, we will apply them to all
project financings covering expansion or upgrade of an existing facility where changes in scale or scope may
create significant environmental and/or social impacts, or significantly change the nature or degree of an
existing impact.

Equator Principle Finance Institutions (EPFI) will provide loans to projects that conform to Principles 1-9. In
addition, the Equator Principles are expanded on by the following:

¡ Environmental and social screening;

¡ Illustrative list of issues to be included in an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment;

¡ IFC Performance Standards; and

¡ Industry Specific EHS Guidelines.

The Equator Principles are outlined in more detail below:

§ Principle 1: Review and Categorisation

§ Principle 2: Social and Environmental Assessment
§ Principle 3: Applicable Social and Environmental Standards

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 217
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

§ Principle 4: Action Plan and Management System

§ Principle 5: Consultation and Disclosure
§ Principle 6: Grievance Mechanism
§ Principle 7: Independent Review
§ Principle 8: Covenants
§ Principle 9: Independent Monitoring and Reporting
4.7.2 Environmental and Social Screening Process
The environmental and social review procedure outlines the process by which financing / lending agencies
determine the adequacy of an environmental assessment for the project and ensure that the project
complies with applicable environmental and social policies in order to meet the applicable guidelines as
developed by the IFC. Projects are categorised as either A, B or C. A detailed description of each category
is provided in the Box 2-1 below.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 218
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Box 2-1: Description of Project Categories

Category A: A proposed project is classified as Category A if it is likely to have significant adverse

environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented. A potential impact is
considered "sensitive" if it may be irreversible (e.g., lead to loss of a major natural habitat) or affect
vulnerable groups or ethnic minorities, involve involuntary displacement or resettlement, or affect
significant cultural heritage sites. These impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or
facilities subject to physical works. EA for a Category A project examines the project's potential
negative and positive environmental impacts, compares them with those of feasible alternatives
(including, the "without project" situation), and recommends any measures needed to prevent,
minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance. A
full environmental assessment is required which is normally an Environmental Impact Assessment
(ESIA).
Category B: A proposed project is classified as Category B if its potential adverse environmental
impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas-including wetlands, forests,
grasslands, and other natural habitats-are less adverse than those of Category A projects. These
impacts are site-specific; few if any of them are irreversible; and in most cases mitigatory measures
can be designed more readily than for Category A projects. The scope of EA for a Category B project
may vary from project to project, but it is narrower than that of Category A EA. Like Category A EA, it
examines the project's potential negative and positive environmental impacts and recommends any
measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve
environmental performance.

Category C: A proposed project is classified as Category C if it is likely to have minimal or no

adverse environmental impacts. Beyond screening, no further EA action is required for a Category C
project.

4.7.3 Illustrative List of Issues to be Included in an Environmental and Social

Impact Assessment
A significant number if social and environmental issues need to be addressed in an EIA conducted according
to the requirements of the Equator Principles (Box 2-2). The list is for illustrative purposes only and needs to
be carefully considered within the context of each project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 219
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Box 2-2: Illustrative list of issues to be included in an Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment
(a) Assessment of the baseline social and environmental conditions;
(b) Consideration of feasible environmentally and socially preferable alternatives;
(c) Requirements under host country laws and regulations, applicable international treaties and
agreements;
(d) Protection of human rights and community health, safety and security (including risks,
impacts and management of project’s use of security personnel) ;
(e) Protection of cultural property and heritage;
(f) Protection and conservation of biodiversity, including endangered species and sensitive
ecosystems in modified, natural and critical habitats, and identification of legally protected
areas;
(g) Sustainable management and use of renewable natural resources (including sustainable
resource management through appropriate independent certification systems);
(h) Use and management of dangerous substances;
(i) Major hazards assessment and management;
(j) Labour issues (including the four core labour standards), and occupational health and safety;
(k) Fire prevention and life safety;
(l) Socio-economic impacts;
(m) Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement;
(n) Impacts on affected communities, and disadvantaged or vulnerable groups;
(o) Impacts on indigenous peoples, and their unique cultural systems and values;
(p) Cumulative impacts of existing projects, the proposed project, and anticipated future projects;
(q) Consultation and participation of affected parties in the design, review and implementation of
the project;
(r) Efficient production, delivery and use of energy; and
(s) Pollution prevention and waste minimisation, pollution controls (liquid effluents and air
emissions) and solid and chemical waste management.

4.7.4 IFC Performance Standards

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the World Bank published environmental and social
guidelines and standards. These guidelines / standards are applicable to both Environmental Impact Studies
related to the project and the operational phase of a project. Uzbekistan is considered to be a low income
country by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). As such, The Equator
Principles, for the purposes of project financing in Uzbekistan, Project proponents are required to
demonstrate not only compliance with host country laws but also compliance with the all the applicable IFC
Performance Standards and supporting the associated EHS Guidelines.

This ESHSIA and Environmental, Safety & Health Management Plan (ESHMP) for the Uzbekistan GTL
project, was conducted in accordance with IFC Social and Environmental Sustainability Performance
Standards (2012), relevant IFC General EHS Guidelines, as well as the applicable sector specific EHS
guidelines.

4.7.5 Industry Specific EHS Guidelines

The World Bank’s Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook, 1998 (PPAH) (now updated and called
The World Bank’s IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS), 2007 Guidelines) and the industry specific
EHS guidelines apply to all projects to be funded by the World Bank. The handbook covers over 41
production processes for various industrial applications and projects. The applicable industry sector
guidelines for typical Oil and Gas projects:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 220
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ General HSE guideline;

¡ Onshore Oil and Gas Development;

¡ Petroleum Refining;

¡ Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities;

¡ EHS Thermal Power Plants;

¡ Natural Gas Processing;

¡ Waste water management; and

¡ Guidelines for Toll Roads.

Currently, Gas to Liquids projects per se do not have their own specific set of guidelines, however the above
documents are structured in way that provides guidance for the issues anticipated for the Uzbekistan GTL
Project.

4.7.6 IFC Standards in the Context of the Uzbekistan GTL Project

For the purposes of the Uzbekistan GTL project, the Performance Standards (discussed in the sections
above) are listed in Table 4.4 below. This includes a brief summary of the important aspects of each policy
as well as the implications and applicability to the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 221
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 4.4: IFC Performance Standards relevant to the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project
Relevant
to the
Standard Scope OLTIN Comment
YO’L GTL
project
OLTIN YO’L GTL committed to undertake an ESHSIA for
Applies to projects with potential social or environmental
the Project (this report). Of value to the client is to
risks and impacts that should be managed. The
undertake effective community engagement and manage
objectives of the standard are: social and environmental performance throughout the
entire life of the Project. Although an ESHSIA is a tool for
¡ To identify and assess social and environment managing the social and environmental risks of the
impacts, both adverse and beneficial, in the Project, the principles should be applied by OLTIN YO’L
project’s area of influence; GTL so that efficient social and environmental
¡ To avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, management processes are implemented in line with the
minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse requirements of IFC Performance Standard 1.
impacts on workers, affected communities , and the The Management System incorporates the following
environment; elements:
(i) Social and Environmental Assessment;
¡ To ensure that affected communities are
PS 1 - Social and appropriately engaged on issues that could (ii) Management program;
Environmental potentially affect them; and (iii) Organizational capacity;
Yes
Assessment and ¡ To promote improved social and environment (iv) Training;
Management performance of companies through the effective (v) Community engagement;
Systems use of management systems. (vi) Monitoring; and
(vii) Reporting.
This standard establishes the importance of: OLTIN YO’L GTL should be the owner of such a program
(i) integrated assessment to identify the and build upon material developed during the ESHSIA and
social and environmental impacts, risks, and prescribed in the ESHMP.
opportunities of projects;
(ii) effective community Based on Golders understanding of the OLTIN YO’L GTL
engagement through disclosure of project-related Project, we are of the opinion that the Project is likely to be
information and consultation with local classified as “Category A” by lenders. This is based upon
communities on matters that directly affect them ; and the fact that (a) it is a petrochemical plant and (b) the
(iii) The client’s management of social and current international focus on projects with the potential of
environmental performance throughout the life of the contributing to climate change. Our ESHSIA
project. documentation was compiled in such a manner as to
reflect this Category A classification as a worst case

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 222
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Relevant
to the
Standard Scope OLTIN Comment
YO’L GTL
project
scenario.
Projects which employ workers must ensure fair
treatment and health and safety of all workers including Although OLTIN YO’L GTL intends to make use of
those employed through contractors in the supply chain outsourced contractors for the construction phase and
to the project. The objectives of this standard are: operational phase, it is highly likely that there will be a local
¡ To establish, maintain and improve the worker- workforce and a supply chain to the Project during
construction and operation. OLTIN YO’L GTL should note
management relationship;
PS 2 - Labour and Yes that there are number of organisation and management
Working Conditions
¡ To promote the fair treatment, non-discrimination requirements in this standard which OLTIN YO’L GTL
and equal opportunity of workers, and compliance
with national labour and employment laws; and needs to implement and adhere to.

¡ To protect the workforce by addressing child labour Requirements above are addressed in this ESHSIA and
and forced labour.
ESHMP.
¡ To promote safe and healthy working conditions,
and to protect and promote the health of workers.

A range of emissions and waste streams will be produced

Projects which could produce any form of pollution must during the life of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project. These will
minimize as far as is practicable. This Performance need to be proactively minimized through the design
Standard outlines a project approach to pollution process where possible.
prevention and abatement in line with these
internationally disseminated technologies and practices. OLTIN YO’L GTL should acknowledge that during the
The objectives of the standard is: “design, construction, operation and decommissioning of
PS 3 - Pollution the Project (the Project lifecycle), they should consider
Prevention and ¡ To avoid or minimize adverse impacts on human Yes ambient conditions and apply pollution prevention and
health and the environment by avoiding or
Abatement minimizing pollution from project activities; and control technologies and practices (techniques) that are
best suited to avoid or, where avoidance is not feasible,
¡ To promote the reduction of emissions that minimize or reduce adverse impacts on human health and
contributes to climate change.
the environment while remaining technically and financially
feasible and cost-effective”.
OLTIN YO’L GTL should also note that this standard
requires the client to “promote the reduction of project-
related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a manner

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 223
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Relevant
to the
Standard Scope OLTIN Comment
YO’L GTL
project
appropriate to the nature and scale of project operations
and impacts”.
OLTIN YO’L GTLs design engineers should consider the
specific requirements of the IFC Performance Standards
with special reference but not limited to the following:
Natural Gas processing and Onshore Oil and Gas
Development.
The guidelines provided by the documents referred to
above, have been included in this ESHSIA and ESHMP.
The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) will apply to this project.
3
System payments as set out by the Cabinet of Ministers
for discharge of contaminants into atmospheric air in the
Republic of Uzbekistan will apply to this project.

Although there are few settlements around the Project site

Projects which increase the potential for community there is the potential for exposure of humans to increased
exposure to risks and impacts must take measures to risk. This standard requires that the client will evaluate the
avoid or minimize. The objectives of this standard are: risks and impacts to the health and safety of the affected
community during the design, construction, operation, and
¡ To avoid or minimize risks to and impacts on the decommissioning of the Project and will establish
PS - 4 Community health and safety of the local community during the
project life cycle from both routine and non-routine preventive measures to address them in a manner
Health, Safety and Yes
circumstances. commensurate with the identified risks and impacts. These
Security measures will favour the prevention or avoidance of risks
¡ To ensure that the safeguarding of personnel and and impacts over minimization and reduction.
property is carried out in a legitimate manner that
avoids or minimizes risks to the community’s safety
and security During the ESHSIA, the risk to neighbouring communities
was reviewed. Mitigation measures proposed in the
specialist studies are included in the ESHMP applicable to

3
Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. 199, May 1, 2003 – On Improvement of System of Payment for Environment Pollution and Waste Disposal Within the Territory of the Republi c of Uzbekistan and Resolution of the Cabinet of
Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, February 6, 2006 N15 – On Improvement of the System of Payments for Special Natural Resources Usage

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 224
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Relevant
to the
Standard Scope OLTIN Comment
YO’L GTL
project
this project.

Projects which reduce communities’ access to natural

resources and land should minimize and negative
implications in this respect. The objectives of this
standard are: Structures on the planned site do not constitute
¡ To avoid or at least minimize involuntary permanent residences; therefore, people are not being
resettlement wherever feasible by exploring "resettled" since they are not "living in the project area"
alternative project designs (meaning that this isn't a case of "physical displacement"
as per PS5 16). None of the structures belong to the
¡ To mitigate adverse social and economic impacts
people using the site, but rather belong to the local
from land acquisition or restrictions on affected
PS – 5 Land persons’ use of land by: (i) providing compensation authorities - assessing value for such assets and paying
Acquisition and for loss of assets at replacement cost; and (ii) the family would not be appropriate. Further, the two
No
Involuntary ensuring that resettlement activities are people historically using the site have a permanent
Resettlement residence in the nearby settlement of Abduhamid; and
¡ implemented with appropriate disclosure of
information, consultation, and the informed One of the two individuals previously using the site has
participation of those affected retired while the other resigned. No other sources of
¡ To improve or at least restore the livelihoods and economic income (i.e., crops, etc.) other than salaried
standards of living of displaced persons employment were identified from the site.

To improve living conditions among displaced persons

through provision of adequate housing with security of
tenure at resettlement sites
This standard requires projects impacting natural
PS – 6 environments must avoid or mitigate threats to
Biodiversity biodiversity and sustainably manage natural resource
Conservation and use. The objectives of this standard are: Yes Addressed in this ESHSIA and ESHMP.
Sustainable
Natural Resource ¡ To protect and conserve biodiversity
Management ¡ To promote the sustainable management and use
of natural resources through the adoption of

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 225
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Relevant
to the
Standard Scope OLTIN Comment
YO’L GTL
project
practices that integrate conservation needs and
development priorities

Where indigenous people are potentially affected by

project activities, the client must avoid, minimize,
mitigate these impacts or compensate the people if this
is not possible. The objectives of this standard are:
Indigenous Peoples will not be affected by this project.
¡ To ensure that the development process fosters full The ADB defines Indigenous Peoples as:
respect for the dignity, human rights, aspirations, (i) self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous
cultures and natural resource-based livelihoods of
cultural group and recognition of this identity by others;
Indigenous Peoples
¡ To avoid adverse impacts of projects on (ii) collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats
communities of Indigenous Peoples, or or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural
PS – 7 Indigenous ¡ avoidance is not feasible, to minimize, mitigate, or resources in these habitats and territories;
compensate for such impacts , and to provide No
Peoples (iii) customary, cultural, economic, social, or political
opportunities for development benefits, in a
culturally appropriate manner institutions that are separate from those of the dominant
society and culture; and
¡ To establish and maintain an on-going relationship
with the Indigenous Peoples affected by a project (iv) a distinct language, often different from the official
throughout the life of the project language of the country or region.
¡ To foster good faith negotiation with and informed
Also in terms of the ADB standard, there is also no
participation of Indigenous Peoples when projects
are to be located on traditional or customary lands indigenous people present or of relevance to this project.
underuse by the Indigenous Peoples
¡ To respect and preserve the culture, knowledge
and practices of Indigenous Peoples

PS – 8 Cultural Where project activities have adverse effects on cultural Project is located in an area with potential cultural heritage
Yes
Heritage heritage, measures must be taken for its protection. The significance. This was assessed during the cultural

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 226
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Relevant
to the
Standard Scope OLTIN Comment
YO’L GTL
project
objectives of this standard are: heritage impact assessment for this ESHSIA study.
¡ To protect cultural heritage from the adverse
impacts of project activities and support its
preservation
¡ To promote the equitable sharing of benefits from
the use of cultural heritage in business activities

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 227
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.7.7 Asian Development Bank Safeguard and Social Policies

Safeguard Policy Statement (2009)
The ADB Safeguards Policy Statement (2009) outlines the requirements that project developers are required
to meet in relation to environmental and social impacts and risks. The Policy provides for three operational
safeguard requirements (SR) that seek to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse environmental and social
impacts of projects.

Table 4.5 identifies the relevant ADB safeguard requirements and summarises how these have been
incorporated into this environmental and social assessment.
Table 4.5: ADB Safeguards relevant to the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project
Safeguard Scope Comment
As with the IFC project
classification, it is likely that the
project will be classified as
“Category A” by the ADB. Our
ESHSIA documentation was
Environmental safeguards are triggered if a
compiled in such a manner as to
project is likely to result in significant
reflect this Category A
environmental risks and impacts. SR1
classification as a worst case
describes the environmental assessment
scenario and has been prepared
Environmental process, and provides practical advice on each
so as to meet the requirements of
safeguard step of the process. These steps include project
the ADB both in terms of process
requirement screening, scoping, analysis of alternatives,
and content. As such, the report
(SR1) assessing impacts and recommending mitigation
sets out to describe the significant
measures, engaging communities through
environmental risks and impacts,
information disclosure and meaningful
outlines the consultation activities
consultation, and preparing an environmental
undertaken in preparing
management plan.
information (including the
grievance mechanism) and
highlights the environmental
management measures
proposed.
The involuntary resettlement safeguards covers
physical displacement (relocation, loss of
residential land, or loss of shelter) and economic
displacement (loss of land, assets, access to
assets, income sources, or means of livelihoods)
as a result of (i) involuntary acquisition of land,
Involuntary or (ii) involuntary restrictions on land use or on There will be no physical and/or
resettlement access to legally designated parks and economic displacement as a
safeguard protected areas. Discusses policy objectives, result of the project (please see
requirement policy scope and triggers as well as policy Section 6.4.10.2.3).
(SR2) principles for addressing involuntary SR2 is not triggered.
resettlement in ADB’s operations. Examines
step by step the technical aspects of involuntary
resettlement planning and implementation,
including requirements, tasks, processes, and
good practices that need to be considered or
addressed.
The Indigenous Peoples safeguards are It is unlikely that the project will
Indigenous
triggered if a project directly or indirectly affects significantly affect the well-being,
peoples
the dignity, human rights, livelihood systems, or culture or land of Indigenous
safeguard
culture of Indigenous Peoples or affects the Peoples. The issue has,
requirement
territories or natural or cultural resources that however, been studied in the
(SR3)
Indigenous Peoples own, use, occupy, or claim Social Impact Assessment

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 228
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Safeguard Scope Comment

as an ancestral domain or asset. Discusses (Specialist Study 9), described in
policy objectives, triggers, and scope as well as the ESHSIA (Section 6.4.10) and
policy principles for addressing Indigenous addressed in the Management
Peoples safeguards in ADB operations. Plan (Section 7).
Examines step by step the technical aspects of
Indigenous Peoples planning and
implementation, including clarification of
concepts, requirements, tasks, processes, and
good practices that need to be considered or
addressed.

Other ADB Policies and Strategies covering Social Dimensions

ADB has a Social Protection Strategy (2001) which requires developers, contractors, subcontractors and
suppliers to comply with the internationally recognized core labour standards (CLS) in its operations. CLS
include four basic rights and principles at work as per the relevant conventions of the International Labor
Organization:

¡ Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining;

¡ Elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation;

¡ Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour; and

¡ Effective abolition of child labour.

Forced labour means all work or services not voluntarily performed, that is, extracted from individuals under
threat of force or penalty; and child labour means the employment of children whose age is below the
statutory minimum age of employment in the relevant country, or employment of children in contravention of
International Labour Organization Convention No. 138 ‘Minimum Age Convention” (www.ioo.org).

ADB would require that OLTIN YO’L GTL shall comply with applicable labour laws in relation to the Project,
and shall take the following measures to comply with the core labour standards for the ADB financed portion
of the Project;

a) Carry out its activities consistent with the intent of ensuring legally permissible equal opportunity, fair
treatment and non discrimination in relation to recruitment and hiring, compensation, working conditions
and terms of employment for its workers (including prohibiting any form of discrimination against women
during hiring and providing equal work for equal pay for men and women engaged by the Borrower);

b) Not restrict its workers from developing a legally permissible means of expressing their grievances and
protecting their rights regarding working conditions and terms of employment;

a. Engage contractors and other providers of goods and services:

b. Who do not employ child labor or forced labour;

c. Who have appropriate management systems that will allow them to operate in a manner
which is consistent with the intent of (A) ensuring legally permissible equal opportunity and
fair treatment and non discrimination for their workers, and (B) not restricting their workers
from developing a legally permissible means of expressing their grievances and protecting
their rights regarding working conditions and terms of employment; and

d. Whose subcontracts contain provisions which are consistent with paragraphs (i) and (ii)
above.

ADB’s further identifies additional labour standards that reinforce CLS, such as those related to workers with
family responsibilities, protection of migrant workers, working hours for young workers, and industrial

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 229
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

relations. Other labour standards that complement the CLS that contribute to inclusive social development
cover such subjects as occupational health and safety, employment promotion, minimum wages and
payment of wages, social security, and labour administration and labour inspections.

ADB’s Policy on Gender and Development (GAD) (1998) adopts mainstreaming as a key strategy in
promoting gender equity. The GAD Policy aims to ensure that special design features and strategies are
built into projects to facilitate and encourage women’s involvement and ensure tangible benefits to women.
ADB requires it borrower/clients to conduct gender analysis and incorporate gender measures in the project
design. Specific gender measures required during in project design and typically incorporated in the
environmental and social management plan are as follows:

i) Conduct meaningful consultations with affected people and facilitate their informed participation –
ensuring women’s active participation in consultation activities;

ii) Include gender issues in the conduct of social analysis as part of the environmental impact
assessment process;

iii) Conduct gender analysis specifically related to project impacts and risks on women and prepare a
social impact assessment report that will include (inter alia) gender disaggregated information
pertaining to the economic and socio-cultural conditions of women;

iv) Incorporate measures that protect women include adoption of workers’ code of conduct,
enforcement of workers’ camp habitation rules, conduct of HIV/AIDS awareness programs, and
improvement of health infrastructure to address potential negative effects of large influx of male
construction workers.

v) Consult with ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in a gender sensitive manner; and
undertake a culturally appropriate and gender-sensitive social impact assessment or use similar
methods to assess potential project impacts, both positive and adverse, on ethnic minorities
indigenous peoples; and

vi) Training programs, and community development programs that benefit women workers and
women in the community.

4.7.8 OECD Recommendation on Common Approaches

The OECD sets out to encourage sound environmental and social practice for export credit. The
requirements are detailed in the ‘Revised Council Recommendation on Common Approaches on the
Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits’ (2007) guideline document. The key requirements of
the OECD Recommendation are broadly in line with the requirements of the Equator Principles and
supporting IFC PSs and compliance is, as such, outlined in the preceding sections.

4.8 Project HSE Policies and Procedures

During the compilation of the ESHSIA document, project specific HSE Policies and procedures were not
finalised yet. OLTIN YO’L GTL will however compile these during the next phases of the Project. OLTIN
YO’L GTL indicated that the policies and procedures will be compiled using the following:

c) Existing policies and procedures of the 3 joint venture partners Uzbekneftegaz, Sasol and Petronas;
and
d) International best practise guidelines.

4.9 Specific Environmental Standards Used During the Air Quality

4.9.1 Specialist Study
The ambient AQS used in this assessment are a combination of IFC World Bank Guidelines and Uzbekistan
Regulation. The AQS used in this assessment are detailed in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Ambient Air Quality Standards during the baseline assessment

Ambient Air Quality Units Project Standard (strictest of IFC or Uzbekistan)

Parameter
January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 230
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Averaging Regional Regional

Concentration Source of standard
Period quota concentration
1 year 50 - Uzbekistan
1 month 2 100 - Uzbekistan
Sulphur Dioxide
µg/m3 24 hour 20 (Uz 0.33) - IFC
(SO2)
10 minute 500 - IFC
One time 500 165 Uzbekistan
1 year 40 - IFC/Uzbekistan
1 month 50 - Uzbekistan
Nitrogen Dioxide
µg/m3 24 hour 60 (Uz 0.25) - Uzbekistan
(NO2)
1 hour 200 - Uzbekistan
One time 85 21 Uzbekistan
1 year 60 - Uzbekistan
3 1 month 120 - Uzbekistan
Nitrous Oxide NOx µg/m (Uz 0.33)
24 hour 250 - Uzbekistan
One time 600 198 Uzbekistan
1 year 3000 - Uzbekistan
Carbon Monoxide 3 1 month 3500 - Uzbekistan
µg/m (Uz 0.5)
(CO) 24 hour 4000 - Uzbekistan
One time 5000 2500 Uzbekistan
Hydrocarbons
µg/m3 1 time 1000 (Uz 0.5) 500 Uzbekistan
saturated C12- C19
1 year 20 - IFC
Particulate matter 3 1 month 80 - Uzbekistan
µg/m (Uz 0.33)
PM10 1 24 hour 50 - IFC – 99th percentile

Particulate Matter 1 year 10 - IFC

µg/m3 -
PM2.5 24 hour 25 - IFC
Notes:
1. PM10 standard is based on an allowance of 4 breaches for the AQS in one single year and therefore is assessed as
th
the 99 percentile concentration; and
2. One month averaging period has not been assessed.

4.9.2 IFC and Project Emission Limit Values

The proposed facility has a number of discreet processes operating within the GTL facility and each process
must comply with their respective IFC guideline Emission Limit Values (ELV). The following processes along
with its guideline standards are identified as applicable to this GTL facility:

¡ IFC Petroleum Refining;

¡ IFC EHS Natural Gas Processing; and

¡ IFC EHS Thermal Power Plants.

The project is committed to reducing environmental effects from the proposed GTL facility. Therefore, the
project has also specified its own project ELV’s for NOx and PM10 pollutants, which are either equal to or
more stringent than the applicable process IFC standards. The project guideline ELV’s used for this
assessment are detailed below in comparison with the process specific IFC guideline ELV’s.

The IFC publish ELV’s for the Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas Processing and Thermal Power Plants
>50MWth operations, which must be met by facilities during normal operating conditions. The IFC and
project specified ELV’s for relevant key pollutants are detailed in Tables Table 4.7 to Table 4.9.

IFC Guidance for Petroleum Refining Facilities contains Emission Limit values (ELVs). These ELV’s are
detailed in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Relevant Air Emission Limits Values for Petroleum Refining Facilities (Units 50 and 55)
OLTIN YO’L GTL
Pollutant Units Guideline IFC Value
Project ELV

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 231
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

NOx 450 150

3
SO2 mg/Nm 500 500
PM10 50 10

IFC Guidance for Natural Gas Processing contains Emission Limit values (ELVs). These ELVs are detailed
in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Relevant Air Emission Limits for Natural Gas Processing Facilities (Unit 20 and 60)
OLTIN YO’L GTL
Pollutant Units Guideline IFC Value
Project ELV
1
NOx 150 150
SO2 75 75
3
PM10 mg/Nm 10 10
HC 150 150
CO 100 100
Note:
1. All gas processing facilities are <300 MWth, therefore the higher 150mg/m3 ELV standard applies
IFC Guidance for Thermal Power Plants contains Emission Limit values (ELVs). These ELVs are detailed in
Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Relevant IFC Air Emission Limits Values for Thermal Power Plants (>50MWth) (Units 72)
OLTIN YO’L GTL
Pollutant Units Guideline IFC Value
Project ELV
NOx 3
240 150
mg/Nm
SO2 400 400
1
PM10 50 10
Note:
1. Guideline value for a non-degraded air shed.

Process emissions data supplied by OLTIN YO’L GTL are less or equal to the applicable IFC environmental
limit values.

4.9.3 Standards / Guidelines Related to Dust Emissions

Particulate Matter (PM) is derived from a wide variety of sources, both natural and anthropogenic. ‘Dust’ is
the generic term which the ISO Standard 4226:1993 (Air quality - General aspects - Units of measurement)
uses to describe particulate matter in the size range 1–75 μm in diameter. With regard to ambient air
monitoring, particles are usually described in terms of their aerodynamic diameter which determines their
aerodynamic behaviour and their separation during ambient sampling.

Loss of amenity is predominantly caused by large dust particulates >10 μm. Amenity impacts from dust may
arise from both, increases in airborne dust concentrations, and dust deposition levels. Dust depositions on
cars, windows and the outside of houses are among the most frequently reported impacts. The perception
of such surface soiling is determined by a number of factors including (ODPM 2005):

¡ Deposition on a surface which is usually expected to remain free from dust;

¡ The colour contrast between the deposited dust and the surface upon which it settles;

¡ The nature of the illumination of the surface (‘dinginess’);

¡ The presence of nearby clean ‘reference’ surfaces against which comparisons may be made;

¡ The identity of the area and the composition of the local community;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 232
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Social factors, such as lifestyle and patterns of working;

¡ The personal experiences and expectations of the observer; and

¡ Adverse publicity influencing the expectations of the observer.

In relation to perceived loss of amenity caused by dust, international guidelines advise that dust deposition
2
levels should not exceed 130-350 mg/m /day to prevent amenity impacts due to dust soiling (e.g. TA Luft).
However, the perception of dust will be influenced by the rate of deposition and the time it takes for dust
depositions to become visible. Deposition rates may vary widely depending on meteorological factors such
as wind speed and direction and variations in the background dust concentrations. The coarser particles
causing dust amenity loss are likely to settle close to the source. The dust assessment therefore focuses on
receptors located within 200 m of the facility and any associated infrastructure.

4.10 Specific Environmental Standards Used During the Noise

Specialist Study
4.10.1 Construction Noise
Due to the apparent absence of any specific local guidance regarding construction noise the assessment will
4
consider the British Standard document BS 5228:2009 detailed below.

4.10.1.1 BS 5228:2009 – Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on

Construction and Open Sites – Part 1: Noise
The Standard refers to the need for the protection against noise and vibration of persons living and working
in the vicinity of, and those working on, construction and open sites. It recommends procedures for noise
and vibration control in respect of construction operations and aims to assist architects, contractors and site
operatives, designers, developers, engineers, local authority environmental health officers and planners.

Annex E of BS 5228:2009 provides an example of significance criteria, ‘The ABC Method’, which requires
that the ambient noise level at a receptor location is determined and rounded to the nearest 5 dB. This is
then compared with the total noise level, including construction noise. If the total noise level exceeds the
5
appropriate category value, then a significant effect is deemed to occur. The assessment categories and
periods and are reproduced below in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Construction Noise Assessment Periods and Lower Thresholds

Assessment Category and Threshold Category A

Category B Category C
Value Period (LAeq) Threshold
Threshold Value Threshold Value
Value
dB(A) dB(A)
dB(A)
Night-time
45 50 55
2300-0700

Evenings and Weekends

1900-2300 Weekdays
55 60 65
1300-2300 Saturdays
0700-2300 Sundays

Daytime
0700-1900 Weekdays 65 70 75
0700-1300 Saturdays

4
BSI (2009); British Standard 5228-1:2009 – Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1:Noise
5
The guidance states that Category A threshold values are to be used when ambient noise levels (rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are less than these values. Category B threshold
values are to be used when ambient noise levels (rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are the same as Category A values. Category C threshold values are to be used when ambient noise
levels (rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are higher than Category A values. Where ambient noise levels exceed the threshold values listed in the table above then a significant effect is
deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to construction activity.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 233
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.10.2 Operating Noise

4.10.2.1 SanPiN No. 0267-09
In order to provide rules on acceptable noise levels for habitable areas Uzbekistan utilises the law (SanPiN)
6
number 0267-09 . This law presents a table of noise levels for a variety of internal and external applications,
the most relevant of which is replicated below in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Noise Limits from SanPiN No. 0267-09
Sound Pressure Level, dB(A),
Allocation of Premises and Territories Time
of Inconstant Noise
Areas adjacent to homes, clinics, dispensaries, From 7 am to 11 pm 55
rest homes, boarding houses, boarding homes
for the elderly, childcare facilities, schools and
other educational institutions, libraries From 11pm to 7 am 45
*Note – If the noise generated by both internal and external sources is impulsive or tonal, then the parameters should be lowered for 5
dB(A) below than in the table

The noise levels presented in (SanPiN) number 0267-09 are aligned with the guidance produced in
Section 1.7 of the “Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines” published in 2007 by the
International Finance Corporation (IFC/World Bank Group).

4.10.3 IFC/World Bank Group - Noise Level Guidelines

7
Section 1.7 of the “Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines” published in 2007 by the
International Finance Corporation (IFC)/World Bank Group addresses the “impacts of noise beyond the
property boundary of the facilities”. It advises that noise prevention and mitigation measures should be
applied where predicted or measured noise impacts from a project facility or operations exceed the
applicable noise level guideline at the most sensitive point of reception. Noise impacts should not exceed
the levels presented in the table below or result in a “maximum increase in background levels of 3 dB at the
nearest receptor location off-site”.
Table 4.12: IFC Noise Limits
One Hour LAeq (dBA)
Receptor Daytime Night-time
07:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 07:00
Residential; institutional; educational 55 45

8
The noise level guidelines specifically reference “Guidelines for Community Noise” by the World Health
Organisation (1999) when determining the noise limits presented in the Table 4.12 above.

4.10.4 World Health Organisation (WHO) – Guidelines for Community Noise

The World Health Organisation ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ have been derived from scientific
knowledge on the impact of community noise. The guidance aims to provide regulators and professionals
with suitable standards whereby people may be protected from the harmful effects of noise in non-industrial
environments.

The guidelines for annoyance responses in external amenity areas are covered within section 4.2.7 of the
WHO guidelines and are reproduced below.

“During the daytime, few people are seriously annoyed by activities with LAeq levels below 55 dB; or
moderately annoyed with LAeq levels below 50 dB. Sound pressure levels during the evening and night

6
SanPIN No. 0267-09; Sanitary norms and rules in housing premises, public buildings and in residential areas
7
International Finance Corporation (IFC) / World Bank Group (2007); Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines; Section 1.7 - Noise
8
World Health Organization (1999); Guidelines for Community Noise 2000

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 234
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

should be 5-10 dB lower than during the day. Noise with low frequency components requires even lower
levels.”

Consequently, the guidelines recommend environmental daytime and evening limits of 55 dB LAeq or less
over the 16-hour daytime period (07.00-23.00) to avoid minimal serious annoyance, and 50 dB LAeq to avoid
minimal moderate annoyance.
Table 4.13: WHO Guidelines
Specific environment Critical Health Effect(s) LAeq [dB(A)] Time Base [hours]
Serious annoyance, daytime 55 16
and evening
Outdoor living area
Moderate annoyance, daytime
and evening 50 16
Sleep disturbance, window
Outside bedrooms open 45 8
(outdoor values)

4.10.5 SanPiN No. 0120-01

In order to protect the health of staff in the workplace Uzbekistan utilises the law (SanPiN) number 0120-01 –
“Sanitary norms and rules to ensure acceptable noise levels in the workplace”. This law presents a table of
noise levels for a variety of internal and external applications, the most relevant of which is replicated below
in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14: Noise limits from SanPiN No. 0120-01

Sound Pressure Level, dB(A), of Inconstant
Type of work, workplace
Noise
Performing all types of work on the permanent
workplaces in industrial premises and in the 80
enterprises operated from March 12, 1985

Adopted Operational Evaluation Criteria

Following a review of the above legislation Golder has adopted the criteria presented in in order to assess
noise from the proposed development;
Table 4.15: Adopted Assessment Criteria
Limit,
Assessment Criteria Reference
Period
Level at noise sensitive receptors arising from operation of facility,
55 dB LAeq,1hour
daytime
Level at noise sensitive receptors arising from operation of facility,
45 dB LAeq,1hour
night-time
Level at noise sensitive receptors arising from road traffic, daytime 55 dB LAeq,16hour
Level at noise sensitive receptors arising from road traffic, night-time 45 dB LAeq,8hour
Level at noise sensitive receptors arising from rail traffic, daytime 55 dB LAeq,16hour
Level at noise sensitive receptors arising from rail traffic, night-time 45 dB LAeq,8hour

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 235
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.11 Specific Standards Applicable During Stakeholder Consultation

4.11.1 Uzbek National Requirements
At the national level, the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan outlines rights related to freedom of
information. Article 29 states that all have the right to seek, obtain and disseminate information unless such
information is directed against the constitutional system. Similarly, Article 30 obliges all state bodies, public
associations and officials to allow any citizen access to documents, resolutions and other materials that
related to their rights and interests.

The provision for consultation in Uzbekistan is included the Regulation “On State Environmental Expertise in
the Republic of Uzbekistan”, which states that the impact assessment should include a statement of
environmental impact that, when necessary, includes the results of public hearings. It should also include
and Environmental Impact Statement that explains adjustments of the design decisions that result from the
governmental review, as well as the suggestions about the Project made during public hearings (Republic of
Uzbekistan, 2001).

Article 23 in the Law “On State Environmental Expertise” in the Republic of Uzbekistan includes a provision
to allow non-governmental and non-commercial organisations and other citizens to conduct a “Public
Environmental Expertise”. The conclusions of such a review are considered as recommendations by the
government’s review process (Republic of Uzbekistan, 2000).

In the Programme of Action on Nature Protection (PANP) for the period of 2008 to 2012, there is information
to suggest that Uzbekistan is moving toward accession of the Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)
(UNECE, 2010). Ratifying the Aarhus Convention will further expand the commitments of the Government of
Uzbekistan to provide information to the public in projects that have environmental impacts on citizens.

The Aarhus Convention differs from international standards explained below in that the responsibility for
disclosure resides with the government and not the project sponsor. However, government representatives
can only fulfil the requirements of the Aarhus Convention if a project sponsor has fully disclosed all
information relating to environmental and social impacts.

Compliance with the national requirements will be fulfilled through the implementation of the international
requirements outlined below.

4.11.2 International Consultation Requirements

The Project considered international requirements, specifically those of the IFC of the World Bank Group.
The IFC Performance Standards, the basis for the Equator Principles, stress that public consultation should
be started early in project development and that involvement of stakeholders at every stage should be:

¡ “free” (free of intimidation or coercion);

¡ “prior” (timely disclosure of information); and

¡ “informed” (relevant, understandable and accessible information).

Stakeholder engagement should be integrated from the ESHSIA process throughout the Project lifecycle.
The Equator Principles and IFC Performance Standards require consultation to be documented by the
project sponsor and often to be formalized in a Stakeholder Engagement Plan. This plan should
complement ESHSIA documentation and is intended to demonstrate how and when consultation has taken
place, what concerns and suggestions were made by stakeholder groups and how the project sponsor
adapted or improved project plans to reflect stakeholder feedback. As part of the impact assessment, which
aims to measure and predict actual impacts, stakeholder engagement attempts to capture the perceived
impacts of the project. This information can assist project development in the following ways:

¡ Misperceptions or incorrect information about either positive or negative impacts can be appropriately
addressed if perceived impacts are accurately recorded; and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 236
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Stakeholder preferences can be incorporated into project design and social investment programs,
increasing the chances that resources target the perceived needs.

ADB requirements
The ADB’s 2009 SPS and 2011 Public Communications Policy remains relevant.
Also see section 7.6, 7.10 4.11.3 International standards in the context of the
OLTIN YO’L project
Uzbekistan, as with other countries in the former Soviet Union, does not have legislation that provides
specific guidance on the scope and detail for the “social” elements of impact assessment. The “social
environment” is usually assumed to be included, but specific topics are not mandated for any study.

The primary guidance for the social elements of this Specialist Assessment is the socio-economic elements
of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Social & Environmental
Sustainability. The format of this study, as well as many of the policy-focused mitigation measures, is
directly related to the social aspects of the Performance Standards.
The relevant Performance Standards related to the Socio-economic specialist study of the ESHSIA include:

¡ Performance Standard 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and
Impacts

¡ Performance Standard 2: Labour and Working Conditions

¡ Performance Standard 4: Community Health, Safety and Security

¡ Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement

¡ Performance Standard 8: Cultural Heritage

Performance Standard 7 on Indigenous Peoples is not considered a relevant policy for Uzbekistan since
none of the potentially affected areas have residents that would substantially meet the criteria outline in the
Performance Standard.

4.12 Specific Standards Applicable During the Avifauna Specialist

Study
4.12.1 International Requirements
Key conventions on the conservation of avifauna and their legal status in Uzbekistan are listed in the UNECE
9
report released in 2010 .

These are as follows:

4.12.1.1 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and Wildfowl

The Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty that embodies the commitments of its member
countries to maintain the ecological character of their wetlands of international importance and to plan for the
"wise use", or sustainable use, of all of the wetlands in their territories.

The Convention’s mission is “the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national
actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development
throughout the world”. The Convention uses a broad definition of the types of wetlands covered in its
mission, including lakes and rivers, swamps and marshes, wet grasslands and peatlands, oases, estuaries,
deltas and tidal flats, near-shore marine areas, mangroves and coral reefs, and human-made sites such as
fish ponds, rice paddies, reservoirs, and salt pans.

9
Second Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan – Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 29

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 237
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The key action within this convention is the designation of sites, on the base of the bird presence (amount of
individuals and species). A wetland is identified as being of international importance if it meets at least one of
the criteria of this Convention.

4.12.1.2 Bonn Convention on Migratory Species

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) aims to conserve
terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an intergovernmental treaty,
concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, concerned with the conservation
of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. Since the Convention's entry into force, its membership has grown
steadily to include over 100 Parties from Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. The
Convention was signed in 1979 in Bonn and entered into force in 1983.

The CMS Secretariat launched an Action Plan in 2008 for one of the world’s most vital routes for migratory
birds, the Central Asian Flyway (CAF) as illustrated in Figure 4.2.The new Plan, finalised after consultations
with the 30 range states, is a detailed document covering 175 species of divers, grebes, pelicans,
cormorants, herons, storks, ibises, flamingos, geese, cranes, rails, sun grebes jacanas, crab plovers,
oystercatchers, stilts and avocets, pratincoles, plovers, scolopacids, gulls and terns. Thirteen of the species
are already listed on Appendix I of the Convention.

CAF migratory routes include the steppes and cold deserts of Central Eurasia, and much of the Himalayan
chain, where unique, high-altitude migrations such as those of the Bar-headed Goose, Anser indicus, take
place. Other Central Asian species for which the new CAF Action Plan should have the greatest significance
are: Asiatic Dowitcher (Limnodromus semipalmatus), Black-necked Crane (Grus nigricollis), Indian Skimmer
(Rynchops albicollis), Ibisbill (Ibidorhyncha struthersii), Brown-headed Gull (Larus brunnicephalus), Siberian
Crane (Grus leucogeranus), Sociable lapwing (Vanellus gregarius), Spot-billed Pelican (Pelecanus
philippensis), Relict Gull (Larus relictus), Black-winged Pratincole (Glareola nordmannii), Caspian Plover
(Charadrius asiaticus).

Figure 4.2: The Central Asian Flyway

4.12.1.3 Rio Convention on Biological Diversity

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1993) is aimed at promoting sustainable development. It has 3
main objectives:

1. The conservation of biological diversity;

2. The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity; and

3. The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 238
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.12.2 Implementation of International Conventions in Uzbekistan

4.12.2.1 Ramsar Convention in Uzbekistan
Two wetland sites of international importance (totalling 558,400 ha) were listed under this Convention: Lake
Dengizkul (31,300 ha) in 2001 and the Aydar Arnasay Lakes System (about 350,000 ha) in 2008. Other sites
are currently being considered as additions to this list. In its first national report prepared for the Conference
of the Parties in 2008, Uzbekistan indicated that a number of issues still required attention and improvement.
This was especially the case for data collection, assessment and management (including, for example, site
management effectiveness). Also, the relationship with the protected area governance structure and species
protection needed to be developed, as well as the establishment of a national wetland policy.

4.12.2.2 Bonn Convention in Uzbekistan

Migratory species receive significant focus in Uzbekistan, as the migratory fly paths cross its borders. Four
ornithological protected natural areas (zakaznik) were established. Uzbekistan also participates in the
protection of the Siberian Crane and is considering joining the Agreement and Action Plans for the Protection
of the Houbara Bustard. Uzbekistan signed the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian
Migratory Waterbirds in 2004.

4.12.2.3 Rio Convention in Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan has taken some actions on the protection of biological diversity and species protection. The third
national report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Convention was submitted in 2006, with the
fourth report in progress. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan dates from 1998 and has yet to
be updated.

According to the 2008 Red List of Threatened Species of the IUCN, there are 52 critically endangered /
endangered / vulnerable species in Uzbekistan. A further 415 species have a lower risk, and the data for 5
species are insufficient. Uzbekistan produced their national Red Book in 2006, which has a partial overlap
with the 2008 International Red List, being more stringent in some instances. This list is aimed at functioning
as the basis for conservation action plans, bilateral and regional agreements, as well as protected area
legislation and a variety of laws and acts.

According to the 2010 UNECE report “Species protection is regulated in a fragmented way, with a great
variety of actors involved in a sometimes uncoordinated manner. The concern is that, if action is not
undertaken soon, more species will become extinct in Uzbekistan, which in some instances provides the
critical habitat of a particular species on the global scale”.

4.13 Specific Standards Applicable During the Cultural Heritage

Specialist Study
The following laws / policies / standards were applied during the cultural heritage study:

1) Uzbekistan’s Law on the Protection and Use of Objects of Cultural Heritage (2001) - primarily directed
at the preservation and management of important elements of the built environment, but also addresses
the protection of territories representing historical, archaeological, aesthetic, ethnological or
anthropological value, as well as natural landscapes connected with historical events and persons;

2) The International Finance Corporation’s (IFC 2007) Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Social
and Environmental Sustainability (Guidance Note 8: Cultural heritage); and

3) The Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update No. 8, ‘Cultural heritage in Environmental

Assessment’ (The World Bank 1994).

IFC 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’.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 239
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Guidance Note 8 also explains that tangible cultural heritage resources can include:
1) Archaeological sites (including natural sites of cultural importance);

2) Historic structures;

3) Historic districts;
4) Historic or cultural landscapes; and

5) Archaeological artefacts.

4.14 Specific Standards Applicable During the Hydrogeological

(Groundwater) Specialist Study
A brief discussion is given below on the international and local standards and reference documents observed
during the study.

4.14.1 International Finance Corporation (IFC) Requirements Relating to

Groundwater
In terms of managing the groundwater environment of the site, the IFC EHS considers, but is not limited to,
the wastewater discharge, water conservation, water quality and the overall environment following
construction and decommissioning.

These aspects are used in conjunction with the various industry-specific guidelines. The industry guidelines
of relevance for the purposes of this specialist study is the Natural Gas Processing (NGP) industry

In general, the OLTIN YO’L GTL is a project which is likely to generate significant amounts of process
wastewater, sanitary (domestic) sewage, or stormwater and prevention measures are in place to avoid ,
minimise and control discharge in to the groundwater system.

In the context of the groundwater environment and groundwater protection a number of best practice
principles will apply in order to avoid or minimise impacts on groundwater:

¡ Wastewater Effluent and Stormwater Management

§ understand the quality, quantity, frequency and sources of liquid effluents in its installations;
§ plan and implement the segregation of liquid effluents principally along industrial, utility, sanitary,
and stormwater categories, in order to limit the volume of water requiring specialized treatment;

§ Identify opportunities to prevent or reduce wastewater pollution through such measures as

recycle/reuse within their facility, input substitution, or process modification (e.g. change of
technology or operating conditions/modes);

§ Assess compliance of their wastewater discharges with the applicable:

vii) discharge standard (if the wastewater is discharged to a surface water or sewer); and

viii) water quality standard for a specific reuse, such as irrigation, domestic or raw water use;

¡ Water Supply and Resources

§ implement water conservation programs bearing considering the economic implications thereof;
§ harvest and utilize storm/rainwater;
§ implement a zero discharge design and/or the use of treated wastewater to be included in project
design processes; and

§ It is recommended a water management program include

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 240
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

i) The identification, regular measurement, and recording of principal flows (inputs and outputs)
within a facility;

ii) defining and regularly reviewing performance targets, adjusted to account for changes in major
factors affecting water use (e.g. industrial production rate);
iii) a regularly comparison of water flows with performance targets to identify where action should be
taken to reduce water use
It is a requirement by the IFC EHS guidelines relating to the Natural Gas Processing and petroleum refining
industry aspects that the OLTIN YO’L GTL project considers:

¡ The environmental management, specifically

i) Wastewater and
ii) Waste;

¡ The environmental performance indicators and monitoring, specifically

i) Emissions (reference to air quality study) and effluents and
ii) Comprehensive environmental monitoring
Details of the various foreseen groundwater impacts are discussed in Section 7.0, making reference to the
NGP ESH guidelines where relevant.

4.14.2 Uzbek Legislation Relating to Groundwater

4.14.2.1 Resources and operating reserves of groundwater of the Republic of
Uzbekistan
Groundwater and surface water constitute a single national water resource of Republic of Uzbekistan.
Groundwater is an important resource in Uzbekistan providing 80% of the drinking water supply to the
3
population. The groundwater supplies are mainly used for domestic and drinking water supplies (173.5 m /s),
3
irrigation and stock water development needs (70.5 m /s) and industrial and process water supplies (29.6
3
m /s), as shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Groundwater Use in Uzbekistan (Source: State Committee for Nature Protection, 2009)

Government accounting of groundwater was carried out according to adopted taxonomic units of hydro-
geological zoning, including hydro areas, fields and areas of groundwater deposits. Natural resources of the

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 241
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3
Republic of Uzbekistan on fresh and brackish groundwater are estimated in the amount of 75,580.56 K m /d
3
(874.8 m /s) and their formation occurs as follows:
3 3
¡ 86.2% - 65,167.5 K m /d (754.3 m /s) in the sediments of Quaternary age;
3 3
¡ 12.1% - 9,143.1 K m /d (105.8 m /s) in the sediments of the Pliocene-Quaternary; and
3 3
¡ 1.7% - 1,270.0 K m /d (14.7 m /s) in the sediments of Upper Cretaceous age.

The regional expected operating reserves of fresh and brackish groundwater over the Republic of
3 3
Uzbekistan amount to 63,986.53 K m /d (740.6 m /s). Regional expected operating reserves with feed
source are formed in sediments:
3 3
¡ Quaternary - 54,959.13 m /d (636.1 m /s);
3 3
¡ Pliocene-Quaternary – 8,033.7 m / d (93.0 m /s); and
3 3
¡ Cretaceous-Paleocene - 993.7 k m /d (11.5 m /s).

The largest reserves of fresh water are concentrated in Tashkent – 21%, Samarkand, Surkhandarya,
Namangan and Andijan regions - 10% each, and underground fresh water is now fully depleted in the
Republic of Karakalpakstan and Khorezm region.

4.14.2.2 Use of Fresh and Brackish Groundwater

Fresh and brackish groundwater is used mainly for household water use, technical industrial water supply
and for irrigation of lands. Accounting of groundwater use is systematized and presented for the fields and
administrative and territorial units (viloyats) of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

The general selection of groundwater is displayed on the chart by the areas of its use, where HWU –
household water use, TIWS– technical industrial water supply, IL – irrigation of lands, VD - vertical drainage,
FP – flooding of pasture, MD – mine drainage.

Figure 4.4: Total selection percentage of Uzbekistan groundwater by the area of its use
3
The total water intake of groundwater has decreased by 838.43K m /d in comparison with 2008 by reducing
the selection of approved reserves, mostly due to reduced use of irrigation of lands, drain from the vertical
drainage. The selection in Kashkadarya and Andijan regions was declined most of all.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 242
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3
The largest selection (K m /d) of groundwater is registered in Fergana (4,633.87), which is 29.4% of total
selection in the country, Tashkent (3,553.39) – 22.5%, Namangan (1,635.07) – 10.4%, Kashkadarya
(1,401.78) – 8.9%, Andijan (1,069.7) and Samarkand (1,061.50) regions - 6.7% each.

In general the available fresh groundwater resources meet the drinking water demands of the population.
However, it should be mentioned that, during the last few years, groundwater quality has been deteriorating,
resulting in a reduction in groundwater reserves that can be used as drinking water sources.

The main aim of the Uzbekistan Government’s water sector policy is to promote the rational use of water and
to protect water resources and ultimately improve the efficiency and reliability of the country’s water sector
management to ensure guaranteed water delivery.

The most important legal document is the Law on Water and Water Use adopted in 1993 and amended in
September 2011. The law includes significant provisions on:

¡ Regulating the water sector’s rational use of water for the needs of the population and the national
economy;

¡ The protection of water from pollution and depletion;

¡ The prevention and elimination of negative impacts on water;

¡ Improving the condition of water bodies; and

¡ The protection of the rights of enterprises, institutions, organizations, and citizens in relation to water.

Ensuring that rural households have access to centralized water supply is regarded a priority for the
Government of Uzbekistan. The target is to provide centralized water supply to 85%-90% of rural population
and 100% in all urban areas by 2020 in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers Decree No.337 dated
30/11/2012 “On Measures for Further Integrated Development and Upgrading of Water Supply and Sewage
Systems in the Republic of Uzbekistan for the Period of 2013-2015”.

In 2003 the transition from the territorial management principle with its strict centralized approach, to the
more flexible systems approach based on basin principles, took place. Internationally, basin-based
integrated water resources management (IWRM) is the prevailing paradigm in managing water resources.
The creation of the two-level system of national water resources management through the establishment of
the basin administrations of irrigation systems (BAISs) and water user associations (WUAs) has opened the
way to integrated management.

Uzbekistan participates in the European Union Water Initiative, whose political support is strengthened by
European Union commitment to achieve the key tasks associated with water, such as reducing the number
of people without access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015, or the development of IWRM and
efficient water use planning by 2015.

State water resources management at the national level is carried out by the Cabinet of Ministers through
the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management, the State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP), the
State Committee on Geology and Mineral Resources and state local authorities. The responsibility for
national water use and protection is shared by corresponding local authorities at the regional and district
levels.

The SCNP is the main executive agency in the area of the environment and the protection of natural
resources. It is responsible for the control and improvement of surface water and groundwater use and
compliance with legislation on nature protection. SCNP acts through inspectorates, including the State
Specialized Inspectorate for Analytical Control. It has the responsibility to develop and implement
environmental protection measures.

The State Committee on Geology and Mineral Resources is responsible for monitoring and managing
groundwater.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 243
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.15 Specific Standards Applicable During the Visual Specialist Study

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 14011 dictates the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) process and includes key steps for carrying out the assessment. This standard has been
compiled as a response to the European Union Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by Directive 97/11/EC),
which defines the EIA process requirements. VIA is a sub-category of EIA and must therefore adhere to the
requirements of the above. Furthermore, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard
1 describes the requirements for Social and Environmental Assessment and Management Systems, which
also apply to visual and landscape assessment.

A significant body of industry-accepted procedures and guidelines accept for VIA and landscape character
assessment, however due to the (at least partially) subjective nature of such assessments; limited legislative
requirements exist for these. An accepted international guideline for VIA is the Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Assessment, Second Edition (Sue Wilson) 2002, Spon Press, London. This guideline is however not
exhaustive, and other references were also used as reference material for methods, concepts and
terminology commonly accepted in the field of VIA.

4.16 Specific Standards Applicable During the Major Accident Hazard

Risk Specialist Study
Key legislation and international standards applicable to the major accident assessment are as follows:

1) International Finance Corporation (IFC) Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines NATURAL GAS
PROCESSING: Process Safety;

2) IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines ONSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT: Spills,
Occupational health and safety, and Fires and explosion;

3) IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines LNG LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES:
Spills, Fire and explosion, roll over;

4) IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines PETROLEUM REFINING

5) The acceptability of the risks was assessed based on the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive
criteria of acceptability;

6) Rules and standards of international law (API 521, API 2510, NFPA 30, NFPA 325);

7) Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On the industrial safety of hazardous industrial facilities” Article 5;
and

8) The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers № 271, Attachment 1 “Regulation on the order of hazardous
industrial facilities identification”.

4.17 Specific Standards Applicable During the Soil Specialist Study

The following standards and guidelines are relevant to soil management:

4.17.1 IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines

The Project is designed to meet regulatory requirements and commonly accepted international
environmental, and social, and consultation standards. The standards are primarily guidelines and standards
of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a unit of the World Bank, which form the de facto standards
applied to many major operations seeking investments and guarantees from multilateral, bilateral and
commercial financial institutions.

The guidelines and standards relevant to the soil study include the following:

¡ IFC’s Performance Standards (PS) on IFC’s General Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines
(April 2007): Environmental Contaminated Land; and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 244
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Performance Standard 3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement.

Contaminated lands may involve surface soils or subsurface soils that, through leaching and transport, may
affect groundwater, surface water, and adjacent sites. Where subsurface contaminant sources include
volatile substances, soil vapour may also become a transport and exposure medium, and create potential for
contaminant infiltration of indoor air spaces of buildings.

The General Guidelines (April 2007) in the IFC EHS, contains specific provisions with respect to soil erosion
and essence specify the need to reduce or prevent erosion and off-site sediment transport through
appropriate reinstatement.

4.18 Specific Standards Applicable During the Hydrology

(Surfacewater) Specialist Study
In terms of managing the surface water environment of the site, the IFC EHS considers, but is not limited to,
the wastewater discharge, water conservation, water quality and the overall environment following
construction and decommissioning.
10
These aspects are used in conjunction with the various industry-specific guidelines . The industry guidelines
of most relevance for purposes of the hydrology (surface water) specialist study is the Natural Gas
Processing (NGP) industry.

In general, the OLTIN YO’L GTL project has the potential to generate significant amounts of process
wastewater, sanitary (domestic) sewage, or stormwater and OLTIN YO’L GTL should incorporate the
necessary precautions to avoid, minimize, and control adverse impacts to human health, safety, or the
environment.

4.18.1 Uzbekistan Discharge Standards

Standards

Parameter Units Fish Pond Domestic Irrigation Drinking

11 12 13 14
Specific . Specific . Specific . Water

Metals
Chromium (VI) mg/L 0.001 0.1 0.1
Strontium (Sr) mg/L 2
Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.1
Calcium (Ca) mg/L
Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.005 0.01
Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.1 1
Chromium (Cr) mg/L 0.001
Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.001 1 1

10
www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/EnvironmentalGuidelines
11
Uzbekistan Local Requirements for Waste Water Discharge to fish ponds (MPC contaminants in water)
12
Uzbekistan Local Requirements for Waste Water Discharge for domestic use (MPC contaminants in water)
13
Uzbekistan Local Requirements for Waste Water Discharge for irrigation (MPC contaminants in water)
14
Uzbekistan Local Requirements for drinking water

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 245
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Standards

Parameter Units Fish Pond Domestic Irrigation Drinking

11 12 13 14
Specific . Specific . Specific . Water

Iron (Fe) mg/L 0.05 0.5 5 0.3

Mercury (Hg) mg/L
Potassium (K) mg/L 50
Magnesium (Mg) mg/L
Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L 0.0012 0.5
Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.01 0.1
Phosphor total (P) mg/L
Phosphor total (PO4) mg PO4/L 0.3 1 1
Phosphor total (P2O5) mg P2O5/L
Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.03 0.1 0.2
Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.001
Zinc (Zn) mg/L 0.01 1 5
Mono Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzene mg/L 0.5
Toluene mg/L 0.5
Ethylbenzene mg/L
o-Xylene mg/L
m,p-Xylene mg/L
Xylenes (sum) mg/L 0.05
BTEX (sum) mg/L
TPH
Oils and fats IR (TCE) mg/L 0.05 0.3 0.3
Organic Compounds
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Not
Total suspended solids 15 30 50
limited
Dry residue
Dry residue
Inorganic Compounds
Not
Ammonia as NH4-N mg N/L 0.5 2 1.5
limited
Ammonia (NH4) mg/L
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) mg/L 15 40 40

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 246
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Standards

Parameter Units Fish Pond Domestic Irrigation Drinking

11 12 13 14
Specific . Specific . Specific . Water

Chloride mg/L 300 350 250

Nitrate equivalent NO3-N mg N/L 9.1 25 25
Nitrate (NO3) mg/L 40 45 45
Nitrite as NO2-N mg N/L 0.02 0.5 0.5
Nitrite (NO2) mg/L 0.08 3.3 3

Sulphate dissolved (SO4) mg SO4/L 100 500 400

Sulphate expr. as (SO4-S) mg S/L

Cyanides
Thiocyanide (calculated) mg/L
Cyanide total mg/L 0.05 0.1
Cyanides EPA (335.3) mg/L
Sum volatile phenols
Phenol index mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001
Biologic and or toxicologic research
BOD5 mg O2/L

4.18.2 Wastewater Effluent and Stormwater (IFC, 2007)

The IFC (2007) guidelines that are relevant to wastewater effluent and stormwater for this project infer the
following:

¡ Understand the quality, quantity, frequency and sources of liquid effluents in its installations;

¡ Plan and implement the segregation of liquid effluents principally along industrial, utility, sanitary, and
stormwater categories, in order to limit the volume of water requiring specialized treatment;

¡ Identify opportunities to prevent or reduce wastewater pollution through such measures as

recycle/reuse within their facility, input substitution, or process modification (e.g. change of technology
or operating conditions/modes);

¡ Assess compliance of their wastewater discharges with the applicable:

i) discharge standard (if the wastewater is discharged to a surface water or sewer); and
ii) water quality standard for a specific reuse, such as irrigation, domestic or raw water use.

4.18.3 Water Supply and Resources (IFC, 2007)

The IFC (2007) guidelines that are relevant to water supply and resources for this project infer the following:

¡ Implement water conservation programs bearing considering the economic implications thereof;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 247
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Harvest and utilize storm/rainwater;

¡ Implement a zero discharge design and/or the use of treated wastewater to be included in project
design processes; and

¡ It is recommended a water management program include:

i) The identification, regular measurement, and recording of principal flows (inputs and outputs)
within a facility;

ii) Defining and regularly reviewing performance targets, adjusted to account for changes in major
factors affecting water use (e.g. industrial production rate); and

iii) A regularly comparison of water flows with performance targets to identify where action should be
taken to reduce water use

4.18.4 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines: Natural Gas Processing

(IFC, 2007)
It is a requirement by the IFC EHS guidelines relating to the NGP industry surface water aspects that the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project considers:

¡ The environmental management, specifically:

i) Wastewater; and

ii) Waste;

¡ The environmental performance indicators and monitoring, specifically:

i) Effluents; and

ii) Comprehensive environmental monitoring

4.18.5 Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines: Petroleum Refining (IFC,

2007)
It is a requirement by the IFC EHS guidelines relating to the PR industry surface water aspects that the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project considers:

¡ Potential environmental issues associated with petroleum refining include the following:

i) Wastewater; and

ii) Waste;

¡ The environmental performance indicators and monitoring, specifically:

i) Emissions and effluents; and

ii) Environmental monitoring.

Details of the various foreseen surface water impacts are discussed in the surface water specialist study,
making reference to the NGP and petroleum refining ESH guidelines (IFC, 2007) where relevant.

4.19 Specific Standards Applicable During the Waste Management

Specialist Study
4.19.1 The Constitution of Uzbekistan 19921
Section 55 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan (RUz) states that “... land, its resources, flora and fauna and
also other nature resources are the national wealth and should be rationally used and is protected by the

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 248
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

state”. Section 94 states that all laws, orders, statements and decrees passed under the Constitution are
applicable to the whole territory of Uzbekistan.

4.19.2 Law on Nature Protection (No. 754-XII, December 9, 1992)2

The Law on Nature Protection (1992) is the most important environmental law in Uzbekistan. The treatment
of wastes must be carried out in terms of the Law of RUz on Wastes. The generator of waste is responsibility
for safe treatment and disposal of wastes. Regulatory decisions on the construction of waste treatment
facilities and landfills are the responsibility of the public authorities.

In 2003 the Cabinet of Ministers passed an amendment on the Improvement of the System of Payments for
Environmental Pollution and Waste Disposal and approved the amount of compensation paid for
environmental pollution and waste. In 2005 the Procedure of Application of the Compensation Payments for
Environmental Pollution and Waste Disposal was amended to also address mining waste. The amendments
in 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers related to the Improvement of the System of Payments for Special Nature
Use, amending an earlier regulation regarding the responsibilities of the State Committee for Nature
Protection (SCNP) in terms of the collection and distributing of compensation payments for environmental
pollution. These amendments provide an indexation of 1.3 for compensation payments for pollution and
waste disposal transgressors.

The law further provides specific sections related to waste management. It is forbidden to keep and dispose
wastes on the land of settlements, on nature protection, health-improving, re-creational and historical-cultural
areas, within the borders of water protective zones and zones of sanitary protection of water resources and
in other places where there is a risk to life and health of citizens and also for natural areas and objects which
are specially protected.

Disposal of wastes in sub soils is permitted in exceptional cases, based on special investigations, on
adherence to requirements for provision of safety of life and health of citizens, environment and of nature
resources. Treatment of wastes, disposal or storage of wastes on landfills can only be performed with the
authorisation of SCNP. It is forbidden to use raw materials, implement technological processes and provides
or sells ready products (including food products) without ecological or hygienic certificates and/or if deviating
from prescribed parameters. Ecological certification is also administered in cases provided for by Law. The
order of ecological certification is approved by cabinet of RUz.

Sufficient infrastructure currently exists to accommodate the hazardous wastes that will be generated by the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project. It is the intention to use hazardous waste management contractors to manage
hazardous waste in line with the IFC requirements, and to ensure that hazardous waste is disposed of in a
suitable destination. During construction, hazardous waste will be produced and this will be managed as
stated above. No hazardous process waste will be produced. During operations, a smaller volume will be
produced but will be hazardous process waste. Alternative disposal options will be investigated should
additional information become available.

4.19.3 Law of RUz on Wastes (No. 362-II; April 5, 2002)3

The purpose of this Law is to regulate all waste management activities in RUz. The main objectives of this
Law are to prevent the potential harmful effects of waste materials on the lives and health of the public,
environment and to encourage the minimization of waste generation and re-use. The following are a
summary of some of the sections contained in the Law:

Section 2: Basic concepts:

This section list a number of waste related definitions.

Section 3: Legislation on the treatment of waste:

Legal requirements on the treatment of waste are stipulated in this Law but also appear in other Acts. The
Law is not applicable to emissions and air quality and also excludes waste water and water pollution. This
section states that where an international agreement with the RUz establishes rules other than those
provided for by the legislation of the RUz on the treatment of waste, the regulations contained in the
international agreement will take precedence.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 249
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Section 4: Ownership of the wastes:

Waste belongs to the owner/generator of the raw materials, of the semi-finished products, of other products
or of the goods from which the waste emerged. Ownership of the waste may be transferred to another
person under a sale contract, exchange, donation or a lawful transaction for the disposal of the waste. The
owners of waste are obliged to dispose of waste within the requirements of the established laws.

The transfer of ownership and responsibility for the potential harmful effects of the waste when changing
ownership shall be done in accordance with the relevant laws.

Section 5: Powers of the Cabinet of Ministers of the RUz in the field of waste management:
This section describes the responsibilities and duties of the Cabinet of Ministers in terms of trans-boundary
movement of waste, record keeping of waste generation and enforcement, monitoring and supervising of the
state and other authorities.

Section 6: Specially authorized State bodies in the field of waste management:

¡ The following authorities are important in the management of waste in RUz:

¡ State Committee for nature protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan ((Goskompriroda)(SCNP);

¡ Ministry of health of the Republic of Uzbekistan;

¡ Uzbek Agency ("uzkommunkhizmat"); and

¡ State Inspection Service for Supervising Geological Study of Subsoil, Safety Operation in Industry,
Mining and Municipal-Domestic Sectors under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan ("
nspection Service "Sanoatkontehnazorat ").

Section 7: Powers of the State Committee of the Republic Uzbekistan on nature protection
in the field of waste management:
The State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP) of the RUz has the following powers:

¡ Exercise State supervision over compliance with the requirements of the legislation on the treatment of
waste;

¡ Coordinates the activities of specially authorized State bodies regulating waste management;

¡ Maintains the State Cadastre for graves and recycling;

¡ Conducts public ecological examination of research and technological development and design and
determine documentation required in waste management industry;

¡ Approves applications related to waste generation and waste disposal facilities;

¡ Approves waste disposal limits; and

¡ Exercise other powers allocated in accordance with the law.

Section 8, 9 and 10 refers to powers of waste related agencies:

These authorities encompass powers to the Ministry of Health, sections dealing with waste management in
general.

Powers are also allocated to The Uzbek Agency “uzkommunkhizmat”, the agency responsible for the
development of state waste projects for approval by the Cabinet of Ministers, monitoring the status of
collection, transportation, processing and recycling of household waste.

Another agency ”Sanoatkontehnazorat" carries out state control and supervision over accounting, storage
and disposal of waste, geological study the mining and processing industries. It also includes state

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 250
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

supervision over radiation safety during storage, transport, recovery and disposal of radioactive waste other
powers in accordance with the law.

Section 11: Powers of local authorities in the field of waste management:

Local authorities have the following powers and responsibilities:

¡ Participate in the implementation of national strategies and programmes for the management of waste;

¡ Approve the local waste management programs;

¡ Create conditions for development of entrepreneurship in the field of waste management;

¡ Providing of waste handling facilities in the territory concerned;

¡ Monitor compliance of management of waste activities in terms of applicable legislation;

¡ Facilitate the creation of an enterprise for collection and recycling; and

¡ Exercise other powers allocated in accordance with the law.

The law further provides for powers of citizens’ self-governance bodies in waste management, rights and
duties of citizens in the treatment waste management, rights and responsibilities of legal persons (waste
generators/companies/businesses etc.) in waste management. The law further provides for rights of citizens,
entrepreneurs, for health and safety, transportation of hazardous waste and certification of waste materials,
storage and disposal requirements, compensation and incentive schemes, import of waste materials, funding
for waste management and education, State Cadastre of waste disposal sites and recycling facilities and
dispute resolution measures.

Of particular relevance is Section 15 relating to the responsibilities of waste generators and Section 22
relating to the requirements for storage and disposal of waste:

Section 15: Obligations of legal entities in the field of waste management entail the
following:
¡ To comply with the sanitary norms and regulations relevant to waste management;

¡ To keep proper records of waste in the manner prescribed by the legislation;

¡ Determine the degree of risk posed to the health and safety of the public and environment;

¡ Develop rates of waste generation and waste disposal limits;

¡ Implement proper collection, storage and disposal measures and prevent the spoilage (pollution) of
recyclable wastes;

¡ Take measures as owners of waste to develop and implement technologies for waste management;

¡ Prevent the mixing of waste streams (separate wastes streams) with the exception in cases where
technologies or processes do not require this;

¡ Avoid storage, processing, recycling or disposal of waste in unauthorized facilities or areas;

¡ Monitor the compliance and environmental status of their own waste disposal facilities;

¡ To rehabilitate and restore disturbed land (environments) used for the treatment of waste;

¡ Implement measures to maximize waste recycling, disposal or transfer these legal obligations to other
legal and natural persons (waste companies) engaged in the collection, storage and disposal of waste.
Ensure that environmentally sound disposal of waste is only considered as a last option;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 251
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Report to the local authorities and specially authorized State bodies responsible for waste
management, incidences of unauthorized diversion to and the use of or disposal of wastes in the
environment;

¡ Contribute within the framework of the established order compensatory payments for the placement of
waste;

¡ Compensate for damages caused to life, health or public property or the environment that resulted from
the handling of wastes; and

¡ Comply with other obligations ascribed by the Law.

Section 22: The storage and disposal of waste:

¡ Storage of waste must be carried out in compliance with the sanitary norms and regulations
promulgated under the Law for Ecological Safety and Managing of Waste and Recycling;

¡ Provision/development of waste disposal areas (landfills, except hazardous waste sites which are
approved by the SCNP) is determined by the local authorities in compliance with the law;

¡ Recycling of waste in the RUz without relevant technologies available to manage it shall not be
permitted (free interpretation);

¡ The storage and disposal of waste is prohibited on land under settlements and allocated for nature
protection, health improvement, recreational and historic-cultural purposes . This prohibition also
applies to other locations where there may be a risk to life and health of the public and also specifically
to protected natural territories and objects; and

¡ The disposal of waste is only permitted in exceptional cases subsequent to proper specialist
investigations and in compliance with the health and safety requirements to protect the health of
citizens, the environment and to conserve natural resources (free interpretation).

4.19.4 Other Waste Legislation

Apart from the Law on Nature Protection and the Law on Waste various regulations applicable to waste
management during general waste management activities, design, construction and operation of waste
facilities are promulgated under these the mentioned laws. The relevant regulations are listed below:

¡ O’zRH 84.3.15:2005 “Handling of Product and Consumption Wastes. Procedure of organization and
carrying out of waste inventorization”; the State committee for nature protection of the Republic of
Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2005;

¡ O’zRH 84.3.16:2005 “Handling of Product and Consumption Wastes. Procedural guidelines for
detection of distribution limit of waste products”.- the State committee for nature protection of the
Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2005;

¡ O’zRH 84.3.17:2005 “Handling of Product and Consumption Wastes. Organization and order of project
development on distribution limit of product and consumption wastes”. -the State committee for nature
protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2005;

¡ O’zRH 84.3.18:2005 “Handling of Product and Consumption Wastes. Waste descriptor”-the State
committee for nature protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2005;

¡ O’zRH 84.3.19:2005 “Handling of Product and Consumption Wastes. Terms and definitions”.-the State
committee for nature protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2005;

¡ O’zRH 84.3.21:2005 “Handling of Product and Consumption Wastes. Procedural guidelines for
detection of wastes generation standards”; the State committee for nature protection of the Republic of
Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2005;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 252
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ O’zRH 84.3.22:2005 “Handling of Product and Consumption Wastes. Procedure of approval and
validation of projects on waste inventorization and limits of their distribution”. -the State committee for
nature protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2005;

¡ SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan № 0068-96 “Sanitary requirements for collecting, storage,
transportation, neutralization and utilization of solid domestic waste”; and

¡ Instruction on the order of recording of formation, use and storage of toxic waste as to the form 3 – toxic
waste (biannual annual). The State Department of Statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan. 1997.

The common purpose of the above legislation is to prevent any harmful effects caused by waste materials to
the health and life of the public, the environment and to encourage the minimization of waste and to ensure it
is re-used efficiently in production processes.

4.19.5 International Finance Corporation (IFC) Standards

The following standards and guidelines are relevant to waste management:

4.19.5.1 General EHS Guidelines: Environmental Waste Management15

These guidelines apply to projects that generate, store, or handle any quantity of waste across a range of
industry sectors. It provides guidance in terms of general non-hazardous waste, hazardous waste and waste
monitoring options. It is not relevant to projects or facilities where the primary intent is the collection,
transportation, treatment, or disposal of wastes.

A waste is defined as any solid, liquid, or gaseous containing material that is being discarded by disposal,
recycling, burning or incineration. It can be a byproduct of a manufacturing process or an obsolete
commercial product that can no longer be used for its intended purpose and requires disposal.

Solid (non-hazardous) wastes generally include any garbage or refuse. Examples of such waste include
domestic trash and garbage, inert construction/demolition materials, refuse such as metal scrap and empty
containers (except those previously used to contain hazardous materials which should, in principle, be
managed as a hazardous waste) and residual waste from industrial operations, such as boiler slag, clinker,
and fly ash.

Hazardous waste shares the properties of a hazardous material (e.g. ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity), or other physical, chemical, biological or toxic characteristics that may pose a potential risk to
human health or the environment if improperly managed. Wastes may also be defined as “hazardous” by
local regulations or international conventions, based on the origin of the waste and its inclusion on
hazardous waste lists, or based on its characteristics.

Sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other
discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or gaseous material resulting from industrial operations
needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to establish whether it constitutes a hazardous or a non-
hazardous waste. Facilities that generate and store wastes should practice the following:

¡ Establishing waste management priorities at the outset of activities based on an understanding of

potential Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) risks and impacts and considering waste generation
and its consequences;

¡ Establishing a waste management hierarchy that considers first prevention then reduction
(minimization), reuse, recovery, recycling, removal and finally disposal of wastes:

§ Avoiding or minimizing the generation of waste materials, as far as practicable;

§ Where waste generation cannot be avoided, minimize, recover and reuse waste; and

15
International Finance Corporation; Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines: GENERAL EHS GUIDELINES: ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 253
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

§ Where waste cannot be recovered or reused, treating, destroying, and disposing of it in an

environmentally sound manner;

¡ Develop procedures and operational controls for onsite storage; and

¡ Define options/procedures/operational controls for treatment and final disposal.

Other industry specific guidelines already discussed in this Chapter include the EHS Guidelines for Natural
Gas Processing, Petroleum Refinery, Waste Management Facilities and Water and Sanitation industry
guidelines.

4.19.6 Other Best Practice Standards

4.19.6.1 UNEP Exploration and Production (E&P) Waste Management
Guidelines16
The Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum (E&P) is an international association
representing the oil and petroleum industry. The E&P Forum represents their member’s interests at the
International Maritime Organisation, specialist agencies of the United Nations, and other bodies concerned
with regulating the exploration and production of oil and gas.

The Forum is also concerned with the health and safety of personnel and the protection of the environment,
disseminating information on good practices through the development of guidelines, codes and checklists.

The E&P Waste Management Guidelines provides information to oil and gas exploration and production
companies on waste management options available for waste streams generated by their activities. The
guidelines provide for the following:

¡ General description of waste management principles;

¡ Identification of main waste streams associated with certain activities; and

¡ Options for waste reduction, recycling, treatment and disposal.

The guidelines should be used by operators to develop specific waste management plans for their activities
relevant to the ecological sensitivity of the operating location. Not all the guidelines will always be
appropriate for implementation in all geographic areas or under all conditions. The guidelines are
nevertheless very valuable to the energy and associated industry.

4.19.7 International Association of Oil & Gas Producers17

This document provides fundamental guidance on waste management in exploration and production (E&P)
operations. It is based on an earlier (1993) OGP publication on waste management (OGP report number
196, now withdrawn, but a publication which is still relevant on many issues).

This OGP document particularly departs from the previously withdrawn publication by focusing on managing
waste in areas where there is little or no supporting infrastructure or where regulatory frameworks are
developing. Operators in countries with limited infrastructure can be confronted with costly waste
management options, especially if not taken into account until the later stages of the project such as
establishing a facility or commencing production.

This OGP document emphasizes and provides guidance on principles and practices of effective waste
management, as well as information on waste streams and technologies typically applicable in E&P
operations. The document emphasizes the following:

¡ Taking a ‘life cycle approach’ to waste management in oil and gas projects and incorporating a
systematic waste management planning framework;

16
UNEP 1997; Environmental Management in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production: An Overview of Issues and Management Approaches; UNEP IE/PAC Technical Report 37;
ISBN 92-087-1639-5
17
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers; September 2008 (updated March 2009); Guidelines for waste management with special focus on areas with limited infrastructure;
Report No: 413, rev 1.11

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 254
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Applying a hierarchy of pollution prevention elements to attempt to reduce waste production;

¡ Applying a risk-based approach to waste management;

¡ Evaluating existing waste management capacity early enough;

¡ Collecting, segregating, storing and transferring waste in a way that it reduces the risk of escape to the
environment;

¡ Taking into account critical site-specific environmental characteristics, the regulatory environment,
logistical challenges and community outreach; and

¡ Considering waste measurements and performance reporting as valuable tools to evaluate

environmental performance and to help others understand the OGP industry.

4.20 Standards for Radiation Management

Generally, the regulatory context in a country is defined by local legislation and associated regulations,
requirements and guidance document. Collectively, the legislation and associated documents define the
national regulatory framework within which human health and the environment are protected from adverse
effect of exposure to ionizing radiation.

In most cases, these documents will be based on international acceptable principles, requirements and
guidance documents. The international framework for radiation protection in the nuclear, medical, and mining
industries is well established and recognised. Organisations that play a key role in this regard include (IAEA,
2004a) the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA).

The baseline radiation survey study (INP, 2012) followed the regulation for radiation safety developed for
Uzbekistan in 2006 (SanPiN No.0193-06). These regulations were developed taking into consideration the
IAEA Basic Safety Standards (BSS) developed in 1996 (IAEA, 1996). The IAEA recently published and
interim publication in the General Safety Requirement (GSR) series “Radiation Protection and Safety of
Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards” (IAEA, 2011), which now supersedes the BSS. The
overall objective of IAEA (2011) is to establish requirements for the protection of people and the environment
from harmful effects of ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. The radiation protection
criteria published in IAEA (2011) is still consistent with those published in the BSS 1996 (IAEA, 1996).

The baseline radiation survey report (INP, 2012) provides a comparison between the IAEA and SanPiN
No.0193-06 radiation protection criteria for worker (occupational) and public exposure to ionizing radiation.
The criteria is consistent for members of the public (general population), with an annual dose limit of 1 mSv.
For workers (occupational) exposure, the IAEA criteria is 20 mSv per annum (IAEA, 1996; 2011), while
SanPiN No.0193-06 (INP, 2012) makes a distinction between Category A worker (those directly working with
ionizing radiation sources), and Category B worker (those not working directly with ionizing radiation
sources). The criteria for these two categories are 20 mSv per annum and 5 mSv per annum.

Referencing the IAEA, the ICRP, the World Health Organization (WHO) and SanPiN No.0193-06, INP (2012)
also provides list of acceptable levels for most of the parameter values considered in the baseline radiation
survey. These levels are mostly related to the use of material in the construction and building industry, as
well as the use of water for drinking purposes. The intension is to use these criteria to establish the potential
radiological impact or suitability of the proposed project areas for construction, offices, and living quarter
purposes. In most cases the criteria defined in SanPiN No.0193-06 is consistent or within the same order of
magnitude as those provided in IAEA, ICRP, or WHO documents.

Note that the areas considered in the baseline radiation survey does not form part of anthropogenic activities
related to the mining and processing of mineral, or the production of gas and oil resources at present.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 255
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.21 Logistics
The EHS guidelines for Toll Roads (IFC, 2007) provides information related to the construction, operation
and maintenance of large, sealed road projects including associated bridges and overpasses.

According to these guidelines the potential environmental and health and safety issues associated with the
construction and operation of roads include the following:

¡ Habitat alteration and fragmentation:

§ Disruption of terrestrial and aquatic habitats;

¡ Storm water:

§ Increased impermeable surface area increases the rate of surface water runoff;
§ Higher incidence of erosion and flooding from high storm water flow rates;
§ Contaminated storm water enters the water system;

¡ Solid waste:

§ Rock and soil solid waste generated during earth moving activities;

¡ Noise:

§ Traffic noise from vehicle engines;

¡ Air emissions:

§ Dust generation during construction;

§ Vehicle exhaust fumes;

¡ Wastewater:

§ Discharges from maintenance facilities;

¡ Health and safety:

§ Physical hazards including moving equipment, traffic safety, elevated and overheard work, fall
protection;

§ Chemical hazards including exhaust fumes and hazardous dust generation from paint removal etc.;
§ Noise levels exceed recommended levels;

¡ Community health and safety:

§ Pedestrian safety;
§ Traffic safety; and
§ Emergency preparedness in the event of accidents, including the release of oil or hazardous
materials.

The IFC EHS guidelines also detail basic measures and standards that should be implemented to minimise
impacts associated with road construction and operation (see Chapter 7 of the ESHSIA).

4.22 OLTIN YO’L GTL company policies and standards

OLTIN YO’L GTL has established a number of company policies and standards aimed to facilitate alignment
with relevant local and international standards.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 256
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

A non-exhaustive list and short discussion of these documents are provided below.

4.22.1 Commercial
Gifts policy (Project Procedure 11 – section 3)
This document is aimed at providing guidance to staff on the receipt of gifts to mitigate potential risks of
receiving and giving/hosting gifts and/or entertainment. It addresses:

¡ doubts regarding the quality of the business decisions taken;

¡ allegations of misconduct;

¡ acts being, or appearing to be, unfair to other stakeholders; and

¡ the undermining of the confidence and trust of, and in, management.

Procurement policy (document reference - UZGTL–QMS–07)

This policy discusses the following items in the numbered sections below:

1. – 7. ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS OF THE POLICY

8. HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

9. GIFTS AND ENTERTAINMENT

10. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

11. EVALUATION OF BIDS

12. NON-COMPLIANCE TO PROCUREMENT POLICY

13. CODE OF ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

14. PROCUREMENT PROCESS

15. COMMUNICATION

16. EXCLUSION OF BIDDERS FROM BUSINESS

17. SUPPLIER REQUIREMENTS

18. CONTROLS

19. FINAL PROVISIONS

20. ACCOUNTABILITY

Procurement procedure for contracts equal or greater than USD 100 000 (document
reference - UZGTL–QMS–03)
The main purpose of this procedure is to ensure transparency and efficiency in managing the procurement
process of Goods and/or Services and ensuring that the appropriate commercial and governance processes
are followed. Provisions of the procedure are obligatory. It describes actions required from the Purchase
Requisition process up to Contract award where after the Contract Administration Guidelines are applicable.
It also defines the roles and responsibilities of staff and committees involved in carrying out this procedure.

Another procedure with the same reference number and similar name – except that it refers to actions
required for amounts less than USD 100 000 is also in force.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 257
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

4.22.2 Human Resources

Recruitment
The recruitment policy of Uzbekistan GTL (and therefore OLTIN YO’L GTL) is formulated in HR-GHR-100.
This document is well aligned with local Uzbek legislation.

Employee performance management system policy

Performance management for Uzbekistan GTL (and therefore OLTIN YO’L GTL) is formulated in the
“Employee performance management system policy Rev 0”. The policy comprises the following items:

¡ Administrative arrangements;

¡ The performance management process and stages of the cycle;

¡ The development of an employee performance management plan and performance reviews (interim
and final);

¡ Decisions and recommendations following performance review, and also performance rating;

¡ Training and development of staff;

¡ Work design for employees; Conflict resolution and grievance mechanism;

¡ Poor performance management; and

¡ Confidentiality.

4.23 Safety, Health, Environmental, Risk and Quality Policy (SHERQ)

OLTIN YO'L GTL has a SHERQ policy in place where the company's commitments to safety, health,
environment and risk of employees and external stakeholders are presented. This SHERQ policy has been
signed by the current General Director of the Company (Figure 4.5).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 258
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 4.5: OLTIN YO'L GTL SHERQ policy

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 259
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Block C, Bellevue Campus
5 Bellevue Road
Kloof
KwaZulu Natal
South Africa
T: [+27] (31) 717 2790
 January 2014

OLTIN YO'L GAS TO LIQUIDS PROJECT

SECTION 5.0 – ESHSIA PROCESS

Environmental, Social, Health

and Safety Impact Assessment
(ESHSIA)
Performed on behalf of:
OLTIN YO'L GTL
41/4 Mirabadskaya Street,
Mirabad District 100015 Tashkent,
Republic of Uzbekistan.
REPORT

Report Number. 12614848-12330-10

Distribution:
1 x copy: OLTIN YO'L GTL
2 x copies: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.0 THE ESHSIA PROCESS ....................................................................................................................................... 254

5.1 ESHSIA: Technical process description.................................................................................................... 254

5.2 Scoping Phase .......................................................................................................................................... 254

5.3 ESHSIA and specialist studies .................................................................................................................. 254

5.4 Stakeholder Engagement ......................................................................................................................... 258

5.4.1 General objectives of stakeholder engagement .................................................................................. 258

5.4.2 Issue Identification Methodology ......................................................................................................... 258

5.4.3 Consultation during the ESHSIA ......................................................................................................... 258

5.4.4 Stakeholder Comment on the Draft ESHSIA ....................................................................................... 259

5.4.5 Public hearings.................................................................................................................................... 259

5.4.6 Public Hearing Results ........................................................................................................................ 260

5.5 Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement during Construction and Operations.................................................. 262

5.5.1 Grievance Mechanism......................................................................................................................... 262

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

TABLES
Table 5.1: Specialists studies performed during the OLTIN YO’L GTL ESHSIA process ....................................................... 255

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

5.0 THE ESHSIA PROCESS

In order to approach external banks and other financing bodies, OLTIN YO’L GTL is required to demonstrate
that the projects’ potential environmental and social impacts have been adequately considered, mitigated
and managed. OLTIN YO’L GTL Golder to undertake the required bankable ESHSIA process. The ESHSIA
was conducted in accordance with the applicable International Finance Corporation (IFC) Social and
Environmental Performance Standards and Guidelines.

An ESHSIA is a planning tool which helps to determine the social, economic and environmental as well as
health and safety impact of a project through public participation and independent specialist assessment.
Through the ESHSIA, potential negative and positive impacts are identified and recommendations are made
for avoiding, mitigate and reducing or negative impacts, and enhancing positive impacts.

Golder followed a full ESHSIA process, with Scoping, for the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.

The findings of an ESHSIA are transferred into clear and measurable objectives that must be achieved
during construction, commissioning, operation and closure of a project. These objectives, and plans for
achieving them, are captured in an Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Management Plan (ESHMP).
The ESHMP is a public document and becomes a legally binding condition should the project go ahead.

This chapter outlines the ESHSIA technical assessment and public participation process.

5.1 ESHSIA: Technical process description

The ESHSIA and associated technical studies have been undertaken in line with the requirements of the IFC
Social and Environmental Performance Standards (2012) and Industry Guidelines and relevant Uzbekistan
legislation. A full EIA process with Scoping procedures was followed.

5.2 Scoping Phase

The ESHSIA Project commenced in April 2010. Following literature review and mobilization of baseline
monitoring activities, the Scoping Phase of the ESHSIA was concluded in August 2010.

During the Scoping Phase relevant project information was gathered from OLTIN YO’L GTL including,
engineering information and available baseline information about the biophysical and social environment.
This was supplemented with baseline studies as described in the specialist reports to the ESHSIA. Based on
a review of this information as well as issues identified during the initial stakeholder consultation stages
(authorities and other stakeholders), the relevant issues requiring specialist technical assessment were
prioritised and translated into terms of reference for the individual specialists. Specialists visited the OLTIN
YO’L GTL project site and gathered the relevant site information required for their studies.

5.3 ESHSIA and specialist studies

The ESHSIA technical phase officially commenced in August 2010 after the completion of the Scoping
Phase. During this phase, the Golders’ specialists conducted individual specialist assessments to identify,
characterize and critically evaluate the potential impacts of the project and evaluate the significance of those
identified impacts. This was done using recognized evaluation methodology.

Baseline data gathering for the ESHSIA Specialist Studies that required seasonal data, commenced during
the Scoping Phase. This approach allowed for seasonal variations in baseline data to be understood. Table
5.1 lists the Specialist Studies undertaken for this ESHSIA. An overview of the team of specialists is given
including relevant qualifications of the specialists. The terms of reference for each study are contained in the
Scoping Report.

The findings of the individual specialists have been integrated into the Environmental, Social, Health and
Safety Impact Assessment (ESHSIA) Report which comprised the main impact assessment findings and
recommendations.

An Environmental, Social, Health and Safety Management Plan (ESHMP) has been compiled based on the
recommendations for impact mitigation as presented in the specialist studies.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 254
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 5.1: Specialists studies performed during the OLTIN YO’L GTL ESHSIA process
Specialist
Years of
study ESHSIA Specialist study Name of Specialist Organisation Area of expertise Qualifications
experience
number

Rachel Saville Golder Associates Air quality specialist M. Sc. 7 years

Senior
M.Sc. Integrated
Craig Woodburn Golder Associates Environmental 17 years
Environmental Control
Scientist

1 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT BSc, PhD, MIEnvSc,

Amanda Gair Golder Associates Air quality specialist 22 years
MIAQM

MSc Environmental
Management and
Daniel Birkenshaw Golder Associates Air quality specialist 9 years
Pollution Control, CSci
IAQM MIEnvSc

Specialist PhD. Biological

Lorenzo Fornasari Private consultant 26 years
Ornithologist Sciences

Koos De Wet Private consultant Terrestrial Ecologist M.Sc. 27 years

BIODIVERSITY
2
ASSESSMENT B.Sc. (Botany and
Ecology divisional Zoology)
Peter Kimberg Golder Associates 10 years
leader B.Sc. Hons in Aquatic
Health

CULTURAL HERITAGE Senior

3 Paul Wheelhouse Golder Associates BA MIFA AIEMA 19 years
ASSESSMENT Archaeologist

Senior
GROUND WATER Graham Hubert Golder Associates M.Sc. Hydrogeology 40 years
4 geohydrologist
ASSESSMENT
Gabriel Canahai Golder Associates Senior M.Sc. 24 years

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 255
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

geohydrologist Geology/Geophysics

Health specialist PhD Environmental

5 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Rosana Moraes Golder Associates 15 years
and biologist Sciences

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Environmental

6 Johan Bothma Golder Associates MLA 14 years
ASSESSMENT Design specialist

7 NOISE ASSESSMENT Simon Waddell Golder Associates Acoustic Consultant (BSc Hons) AMIOA 10 years

Risk Assessor,
B.Sc. Chemical
8 RISK ASSESSMENT Daniel Rademeyer ISHECON Process Safety 19 years
Engineering
Practitioner

Aquism Consulting Radiation Protection

9 RADIATION ASSESSMENT JJ van Blerk PhD. Geohydrology
(Pty) Ltd Specialist

Senior Soil Science National Diploma:

10 SOIL ASSESSMENT Louw Potgieter Golder Associates 19 years
Technician Resource Utilisation

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

IMPACT ASSESSMENT;
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Socio-Economist
STUDY; STAKEHOLDER Lawrence Webb
11 Paul Lawrence and Consultation M.A. 13 years
CONSULTATION; SITE Consulting Ltd.
specialist
SECURITY ASSESSMENT;
LANDUSE PLANNING;
HUMAN RESOURCE STUDY

Task leader surface

SURFACE WATER Trevor Coleman Golder Associates M.Sc. (Eng) 33 years
water
ASSESSMENT AND Surface water
12 Angelina Jordanova Golder Associates PhD (Eng) 33 years
DOWNSTREAM WATER specialist
USERS STUDY
Water resource
Oliver Malete Golder Associates BSc (Hons) Biochem 5 years
scientist
13 WASTE MANAGEMENT Andre Venter Golder Associates Waste & MA Environmental 23 years

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 256
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

ASSESSMENT Environmental Management

Consultant
Senior waste MSc.Civ.Env.Eng and
Jarrod Ball Golder Associates 37 years
consultant MSc Waste Mgt.
Waste management AIEMA, BSc(Hons),
Natalie Kohler Golder Associates 14 years
consultant MCIWM
14 GREEN HOUSE GAS Energy & Carbon B.Eng (Hons) CEM
David Mercer Golder Associates 23 years
FOOTPRINT ASSESSMENT Services CMVP)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 257
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

5.4 Stakeholder Engagement

5.4.1 General objectives of stakeholder engagement
Public participation has been a critical part of an ESHSIA process. Throughout the process, stakeholder
engagement activities have sought to provide stakeholders, technical specialists and authorities with the
opportunity to collaborate and work together to create an atmosphere for improved decision making.

Baseline data collection and impact analysis have been conducted in conjunction with the implementation of
the Project SEP. The SEP was initially prepared and disclosed to stakeholders in December 2010. The SEP
has now been updated to reflect the on-going stakeholder engagement that will continue beyond the overall
ESHSIA process. Since 2010, stakeholder engagement has been integrated into the overall environmental
and social appraisal and requires consideration of other terms related to the ESHSIA (or OVOS, the Russian
acronym for Environmental Impact Assessment), environmental and social management and social
investment as it relates to external relations.

One of the key outcomes of the SEP is the Issues and Response Report, which is a record of stakeholder
comments collected during site reconnaissance trips to Uzbekistan and, as relevant, through regular
consultation conducted by the OLTIN YO’L GTL Community Liaison Officer (CLO). Following the formal
public hearings conducted in September 2013, the Issue and Response Report will be updated to reflect the
issue raised during the hearings.

Supporting materials related to the public hearings are included in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP)
report (Appendix B of Volume 2).

5.4.2 Issue Identification Methodology

Issue identification is meant to be an ongoing process to record stakeholder comments as they have been
collected in baseline data collection and the overall consultation process. Methods for collecting issue have
included:

¡ Expert/key informant interviews;

¡ Structured and semi-structured interviews;

¡ Focus group discussions; and

¡ Open community discussions.

Most stakeholder comments during the ESHSIA have informed by the Background Information Document
(BID), which was provided to all stakeholders consulted during the site reconnaissance visit conducted by
Roubina Ter-Martirosyan from Golder Associates from December 2010, as well as the follow on site visit in
April 2013. See Appendix A of the SEP for a copy of the BIDs.

At the completion of the draft ESHSIA, a non-technical study was prepared in English, Russian and Uzbek to
provide all stakeholders with an overview of the ESHSIA results.

5.4.3 Consultation during the ESHSIA

Stakeholder engagement has been managed by the OLTIN YO’L GTL staff in Tashkent, who have
maintained contacts with government representatives, Project-affected communities and other stakeholders
during the scoping and baseline data collection process.

Consultation with affected communities during ESHISIA process may be summarised by the following points:

¡ No opposition to the Project was noted and there is general support from stakeholders in the regional
and local study areas;

¡ Increased observances of air quality concerns, especially when comparing consultation in 2010 with
that done in 2013; and

High expectations, especially for jobs and material assistance for utilities such as water and gas.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 258
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

5.4.4 Stakeholder Comment on the Draft ESHSIA

Upon completion of the draft ESHSIA, Golder Associates and OLTIN YO’L GTL developed a non-technical
summary to provide an overview of the entire ESHSIA. The purpose of that non-technical summary is to:

¡ Summarise the Project;

¡ Summarise key national legislation and international standards;

¡ Explain the ESHSIA process;

¡ Describe the methodologies used to assess impacty;

¡ Summarize baseline conditions;

¡ Describe the impacts identified;

¡ Link the impacts with key mitigation measures and commitments; and

¡ Outline the monitoring and reporting.

All invitations and advertisements invited stakeholders to directly request the non-technical summary. The
documents were also posted on http://oltinyolgtl.com/. One person contacted OLTIN YO’L GTL to obtain the
non-technical summary. Many other people who viewed advertisements for the public hearing also contacted
OLTIN YO’L GTL, but only to inquire about employment procedures.

Copies of the non-technical summary were provided to participants of all public hearings.

The non-technical summary, which was disclosed in English, Russian and Uzbek, is included in Appendix A
of the SEP.

5.4.5 Public hearings

A public hearing is a requirement of Uzbekistan legislation. In consultation with government authorities,
Golder and OLTIN YO’L GTL considered four public hearings to be sufficient to provide all stakeholders with
an opportunity to discuss the ESHSIA findings. Stakeholders were invited to suggest additional public
hearings, but no stakeholder suggested any additional meetings.

It was assumed that interested stakeholders from smaller settlements would be able to attend hearings in
Guzor or Nishon. To facilitate this participation, OLTIN YO’L GTL provided buses from smaller settlements.
For the public hearing in Guzor, buses were arranged from the villages of Eshonkuduk, Abduhamit and
Kengsoy. For the public hearing in Nishon, buses were arranged from the villages of Otkuduk and
Navbakhor.

Public hearings were conducted on the following dates:

¡ 23 September 2013 – Karshi;

¡ 24 September 2013 – Guzar;

¡ 25 September 2013 – Nishon; and

¡ 27 September 2013 – Tashkent.

All public hearings were advertised in media and through the distribution of posters (included in Appendix B
of the SEP), summarised in the table below.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 259
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Date Posted Location

11 September 2013 Kashkadarya Hakimiat
11 September 2013 Gissarnefigaz Hotel
11 September 2013 Guzar Hakimiat
11 September 2013 Stadium “Shurtan” (Guzar)
11 September 2013 Autobase “Guzar 2532”
11 September 2013 Karshi Hakimiat
12 September 2013 Nuristan Hakimiat
12 September 2013 Village of Navbakhor
12 September 2013 Village of Otkuduk
12 September 2013 Nishon Hakimiat
12 September 2013 Collective Industrial Union - Nuriston
17 September 2013 Village of Kengsoy
17 September 2013 Village of Otkuduk
17 September 2013 Village of Navbakhor
17 September 2013 Village of Abdukhamit
17 September 2013 Village of Enshonkuduk

Hard copies of the non-technical summary were also distributed widely in the regional and local area of
influence, including regional government buildings, all local villages in the area of influence and some
commercial enterprises.

In addition to posters, print and radio media were used to broadly invite stakeholders and inform them of how
to request additional information. The table below summarises media advertisements.

Newspaper Date(s) Published Region

Qashqadaryo September 6 and 13 Karshi/Kashkadarya
Novosti Kashkadaryi September 4 and 14 Karshi/Kashkadarya
Voha September 5 and 12 Karshi/Kashkadarya
Guzor Hayoti September 5 Guzor
Nishon Tongi September 6 and 13 Nishon
Halq So’zi September 21 Tashkent
Narodnoe slovo September 21 Tashkent
Pravda Vostoka September 24 Tashkent

Radio advertisements were purchased on Oltin Voha, a station reaching the Kashkadarya region. The
advertisement was broadcast 23 times between September 17 to 22.
Copies of all printed advertisements are included in Appendix C, D and E of the SEP.

5.4.6 Public Hearing Results

Full minutes of all public hearings, as well as participants lists (in Russian), are included in Appendix F of the
SEP

As possible, all attendees were registered during the events, including names, organisational affiliation, if
relevant, and place of residence. The participant numbers below reflect all registered attendees:

¡ Karshi – 77 attendees

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 260
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Guzar – 202 attendees;

¡ Nishon – 146 attendees; and

¡ Tashkent – 20 attendees.

The format for each public hearing included a brief PowerPoint presentation of the non-technical summary
(included in Appendix G of the SEP). The presentation was presented in Uzbek and Russian. The remaining
time was open to comments and questions from the participants. Participants were invited to ask questions
in Uzbek, Russian or English.

In summary, comments and questions received during public hearings are summarised below by topic. The
topics are listed in order of frequency, with the largest number of comments and questions being related to
employment, environmental impacts and general or technical questions about the Project and technology to
be used.

¡ Employment

§ Employment procedures
§ Type of specialists needed
§ Qualification required
§ Procedures related to local recruitment
§ Options for female employment
1
¡ Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

§ Air quality
§ Water quality
§ Linkages between environmental conditions and human health
§ Radius of the perimeter around the facility
§ Role of environmental consultant (Golder) in further environmental monitoring
§ Impacts of similar facilities in other countries
§ Linkages between national EIA study and international ESHSIA

¡ General/Technical Questions

§ Project schedule and budget

§ Inputs and outputs of the technical process
§ Equipment to be used

¡ Social Investment

§ Benefits to be provide through philanthropic activities

¡ ESIA Process

¡ Waste Management

1
No comments / concerns relating to cultural heritage resources were raised by stakeholders.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 261
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Worker Accommodation

¡ Cumulative Impacts

§ Impacts related to additional impacts in an area that is already industrialised

¡ Transboundary Impacts

§ Potential impacts on Turkmenistan

¡ Taxes

¡ Emergency Management

¡ Possibility of Resettlement

Stakeholder comments from consultation activities are documented and issues related to the ESHSIA is
included in an updated and final Issues and Response Report. The final deliverable aims to show
stakeholders that their comments were taken into consideration by the Project sponsor.

5.5 Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement during Construction and

Operations
Whereas stakeholder engagement for the ESHSIA will come to an end, OLTIN YO’L GTLs engagement with
its neighbours and stakeholders will continue for the life of the project, including during construction,
operation and eventually planning for closure.

The overall objective of an ongoing programme is to maintain constructive and transparent relationships
between local communities and the Project team, and thereby create a collaborative framework through
which OLTIN YO’L GTL can maximise its contribution to the well-being and prosperity of local communities,
and can minimise impacts. Consultation seeks to:

a) Provide ongoing information and feedback to people affected by the project and other stakeholders;

b) Consult with affected communities and other relevant stakeholders on impacts that arise during
construction and operation;

c) Maintain broad community support for the project; and

d) Maintain the Grievance Mechanism.

The Community Liaison Officer (CLO) will play a pivotal role in ongoing stakeholder consultation activities.

5.5.1 Grievance Mechanism

The purpose of a grievance mechanism is to demonstrate responsiveness to stakeholder needs. A clear
and widely publicised grievance mechanism improves stakeholder management by ensuring the grievances
are documented in writing and clearly understood.

While all stakeholders have been encouraged to submit written grievances to the CLO since the disclosure
of the SEP in December 2010, no formal grievances have been submitted. Stakeholders are reassured that
written submissions will not be used in any way to intimidate those submitting the complaints.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 262
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Block C, Bellevue Campus
5 Bellevue Road
Kloof
KwaZulu Natal
South Africa
T: [+27] (31) 717 2790
 January 2014

OLTIN YO'L GAS TO LIQUIDS PROJECT

SECTION 6.0 - IMPACTS

Environmental, Social, Health

and Safety Impact Assessment
(ESHSIA)

Submitted to:
OLTIN YO'L GTL
41/4 Mirabadskaya Street,
Mirabad District 100015 Tashkent,
Republic of Uzbekistan.
REPORT

Report Number: 12614848-12330-10

Distribution:
1 x copy: OLTIN YO'L GTL
2 x copies: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table of Contents

6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE OLTIN YO’L GTL PROJECT ............................................................................. 263

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 263

6.2 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 263

6.2.1 Scoped issues ..................................................................................................................................... 263

6.2.2 ESHSIA area of influence.................................................................................................................... 264

6.3 ESHSIA Significance evaluation methodology.......................................................................................... 264

6.3.1 Technical (physical and biological) significance rating ........................................................................ 264

6.3.2 Social significance rating ..................................................................................................................... 265

6.3.2.1 Defining the significance of social impacts....................................................................................... 266

6.4 Scoped Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 267

6.5 Potential construction phase impacts........................................................................................................ 268

6.5.1 Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 268

6.5.1.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 268

6.5.1.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 269

6.5.2 Ecology: Avifauna biodiversity............................................................................................................. 270

6.5.2.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 271

6.5.2.2 Mitigation and Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 274

6.5.3 Ecology: Terrestrial (Fauna and Flora) biodiversity ............................................................................. 275

6.5.3.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 276

6.5.3.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 277

6.5.4 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources .................................................................................. 278

6.5.4.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 278

6.5.4.1.1 Disturbance of hitherto unknown cultural heritage resources ....................................................... 278

6.5.4.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 279

6.5.5 Hydrogeology (Groundwater) .............................................................................................................. 279

6.5.5.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 282

6.5.5.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 283

6.5.6 Human health risk assessment ........................................................................................................... 283

6.5.6.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 284

6.5.6.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 285

6.5.7 Landscape and visual aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 285

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.7.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 289

6.5.7.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 290

6.5.8 Noise assessment ............................................................................................................................... 291

6.5.8.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 293

6.5.8.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 296

6.5.9 Major accident hazards risk assessment............................................................................................. 296

6.5.9.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 297

6.5.9.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 297

6.5.10 Socio-economic environment impacts ................................................................................................. 298

6.5.10.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 298

6.5.10.1.1 Economy and employment ........................................................................................................... 300

6.5.10.1.2 Health, education and community safety ...................................................................................... 302

6.5.10.1.3 Land ownership and use .............................................................................................................. 303

6.5.10.1.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 305

6.5.10.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 305

6.5.10.2.1 Economy and employment ........................................................................................................... 305

6.5.10.2.2 Health, Education and Community Safety .................................................................................... 308

6.5.10.2.3 Land ownership and use .............................................................................................................. 309

6.5.10.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 309

6.5.11 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 309

6.5.11.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 312

6.5.11.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 313

6.5.12 Hydrology (Surface water)................................................................................................................... 313

6.5.12.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 314

6.5.12.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 317

6.5.13 Waste management during construction ............................................................................................. 317

6.5.13.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 318

6.5.13.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 319

6.5.14 Radiation ............................................................................................................................................. 320

6.5.14.1 Assessment of Impacts .................................................................................................................... 320

6.5.15 Greenhouse gas emission................................................................................................................... 323

6.5.16 Ecosystems goods and services ......................................................................................................... 325

6.5.17 Route Logistics.................................................................................................................................... 325

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.17.1 Impacts of various route options ...................................................................................................... 327

6.5.17.1.1 Kazakhstan Route Topography .................................................................................................... 327

6.5.17.1.2 Uzbekistan Route Topography ..................................................................................................... 327

6.5.17.1.3 Turkmenistan Route Topography ................................................................................................. 327

6.5.17.2 Social Aspects of Various Route Options ........................................................................................ 329

6.5.17.2.1 All potential routes ........................................................................................................................ 330

6.5.17.2.2 Kazakhstan ................................................................................................................................... 330

6.5.17.2.3 Turkmenistan ................................................................................................................................ 331

6.5.17.2.4 Iran Route..................................................................................................................................... 333

6.5.17.2.5 Uzbekistan .................................................................................................................................... 333

6.6 Operational phase impacts ....................................................................................................................... 333

6.6.1 Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 333

6.6.1.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 334

6.6.1.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 350

6.6.2 Ecology: Avifauna biodiversity............................................................................................................. 350

6.6.2.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 350

6.6.2.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 353

6.6.3 Ecology: Terrestrial biodiversity (Fauna and Flora) ............................................................................. 353

6.6.3.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 353

6.6.3.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 354

6.6.4 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources .................................................................................. 354

6.6.4.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 354

6.6.4.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 355

6.6.5 Hydrogeology (Groundwater) .............................................................................................................. 355

6.6.5.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 355

6.6.5.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 356

6.6.6 Human health risk assessment ........................................................................................................... 357

6.6.6.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 358

6.6.6.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 359

6.6.7 Landscape and visual aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 359

6.6.7.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 359

6.6.7.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 363

6.6.8 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 363

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.8.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 364

6.6.8.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 369

6.6.9 Major Accident Hazards Risk assessment .......................................................................................... 369

6.6.9.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 370

6.6.9.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 373

6.6.10 Potential Socio-economic Impacts ...................................................................................................... 374

6.6.10.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 374

6.6.10.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 375

6.6.11 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 375

6.6.11.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 376

6.6.11.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 377

6.6.12 Hydrology (Surface water)................................................................................................................... 377

6.6.12.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 377

6.6.12.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 378

6.6.13 Waste management (Operational) ...................................................................................................... 378

6.6.13.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 379

6.6.13.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 381

6.6.13.2.1 Waste hierarchy............................................................................................................................ 381

6.6.13.2.2 Development of an on-site landfill ................................................................................................ 382

6.6.13.2.3 Development of an off-site hazardous landfill site ........................................................................ 384

6.6.13.2.4 Temporary waste storage at OLTIN YO’L GTL ............................................................................ 384

6.6.13.2.5 Development of landfarm ............................................................................................................. 385

6.6.13.2.6 Transportation of waste ................................................................................................................ 385

6.6.13.3 Waste management strategy ........................................................................................................... 385

6.6.13.3.1 Incineration ................................................................................................................................... 387

6.6.13.3.2 Monitoring and auditing ................................................................................................................ 387

6.6.14 Downstream Water user survey .......................................................................................................... 387

6.6.14.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 387

6.6.15 Ecosystems Goods and Services ........................................................................................................ 389

6.6.15.1 Ecosystems Study Results .............................................................................................................. 392

6.6.15.2 Impact Assessment Significance ..................................................................................................... 395

6.6.16 Greenhouse gas emissions (Climate change potential) ...................................................................... 398

6.7 Decommissioning phase impacts ............................................................................................................. 399

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iv
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.7.1 Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 399

6.7.1.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 399

6.7.1.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 400

6.7.2 Ecology: Avifauna biodiversity............................................................................................................. 400

6.7.2.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 401

6.7.3 Ecology: Terrestrial (Fauna and Flora) biodiversity ............................................................................. 402

6.7.3.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 402

6.7.3.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 403

6.7.4 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources .................................................................................. 403

6.7.4.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 404

6.7.4.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 404

6.7.5 Hydrogeology (Groundwater) .............................................................................................................. 404

6.7.5.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 404

6.7.5.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 406

6.7.6 Human health impact assessment ...................................................................................................... 406

6.7.6.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 407

6.7.6.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 407

6.7.7 Landscape and visual aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 408

6.7.7.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 408

6.7.7.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 409

6.7.8 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 409

6.7.8.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 409

6.7.8.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 409

6.7.9 Major Accident Hazards Risk assessment .......................................................................................... 410

6.7.9.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 410

6.7.9.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 410

6.7.10 Potential Socio-economic Environment Impacts ................................................................................. 410

6.7.11 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 410

6.7.11.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 411

6.7.11.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring ........................................................................................ 411

6.7.12 Hydrology (Surface water)................................................................................................................... 412

6.7.12.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 412

6.7.12.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 412

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 v
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.7.13 Waste management (Decommissioning)............................................................................................. 413

6.7.13.1 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................................... 413

6.7.13.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 414

6.7.14 Greenhouse gas emission................................................................................................................... 415

6.8 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................................. 415

6.8.1 Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 415

6.8.2 Ecology ............................................................................................................................................... 416

6.8.2.1 Avifauna biodiversity ........................................................................................................................ 416

6.8.2.2 Terrestrial ecology (Fauna and Flora) .............................................................................................. 416

6.8.3 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources .................................................................................. 416

6.8.4 Hydrogeology (Groundwater) .............................................................................................................. 416

6.8.5 Human health risks ............................................................................................................................. 417

6.8.6 Landscape and visual aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 417

6.8.7 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 417

6.8.8 Risk assessment (Major Accident Hazards) ........................................................................................ 418

6.8.9 Socio-economic Environment.............................................................................................................. 419

6.8.10 Topography, geology and soils ........................................................................................................... 419

6.8.11 Surface water (Hydrology)................................................................................................................... 419

6.8.12 Waste management ............................................................................................................................ 419

6.9 Residual Imapcts ...................................................................................................................................... 420

6.9.1 Air Quality............................................................................................................................................ 420

6.9.2 Ecology ............................................................................................................................................... 420

6.9.2.1 Avifauna ........................................................................................................................................... 420

6.9.2.2 Terrestrial (Fauna and Flora) ........................................................................................................... 420

6.9.2.3 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources ............................................................................... 420

6.9.2.4 Hydrogeology................................................................................................................................... 420

6.9.3 Human health risks ............................................................................................................................. 420

6.9.3.1 Landscape and visual aesthetics ..................................................................................................... 421

6.9.3.2 Noise................................................................................................................................................ 421

6.9.3.3 Major accident hazards risk ............................................................................................................. 421

6.9.4 Socio-economic Environment.............................................................................................................. 421

6.9.5 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 422

6.9.5.1.1 The Residual Impact of Soil Loss ................................................................................................. 422

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 vi
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.9.5.1.2 The Residual Impacts of Contamination ....................................................................................... 422

6.9.5.1.3 The Residual Impacts of Erosion .................................................................................................. 422

6.9.5.1.4 The Residual Impacts of Compaction ........................................................................................... 422

6.9.6 Hydrology (Surface water)................................................................................................................... 423

6.9.7 Waste management ............................................................................................................................ 423

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 vii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

TABLES
Table 6.1: Classification of Significant of Social Impacts........................................................................................................ 267

Table 6.2: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase .......................................... 269

Table 6.3: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Construction Phase ........................................ 271

Table 6.4: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL - Construction Phase ......................................... 276

Table 6.5: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase .......................................... 278

Table 6.6: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Construction Phase ........................................ 282

Table 6.7: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase .......................................... 284

Table 6.8: Assumed OLTIN YO’L GTL structure heights used for the purposes of the viewshed analysis ............................ 286

Table 6.9: Rating of visual impacts – Construction Phase ..................................................................................................... 289

Table 6.10: Construction Noise Impact Magnitude -– Daytime, Construction Stage 2 ........................................................... 295

Table 6.11: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Construction Phase Daytime, Stage
2 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 295

Table 6.12: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase ........................................ 297

Table 6.13: Classification of Significant of Social Impacts ...................................................................................................... 300

Table 6.14: Economy and Employment Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase .................... 301

Table 6.15: Health, Education and Community Safety Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL-
Construction Phase ............................................................................................................................................... 302

Table 6.16: Land Ownership and Use Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase ...................... 304

Table 6.17: Economy and Employment Impact Assessment Matrix for UZGTL- Post Mitigation ........................................... 307

Table 6.18: Health, Education and Community Safety Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Post
Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................................... 308

Table 6.19: Sample information list ........................................................................................................................................ 311

Table 6.20: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Construction Phase ...................................... 312

Table 6.21: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase ........................................ 314

Table 6.22: Estimated uncontaminated and contaminated areas ........................................................................................... 314

Table 6.23: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase ........................................ 318

Table 6.24: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- All phases ...................................................... 321

Table 6.25: Pre-operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Source (tonnes) .............................................................. 324

Table 6.26: Pre-operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Scope (tonnes per annum) ............................................. 324

Table 6.27: GHG/Energy Reduction Initiatives ....................................................................................................................... 324

Table 6.28: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase ......................................... 334

Table 6.29: Maximum Predicted Single Release at Site Boundary ........................................................................................ 350

Table 6.30: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operation Phase .......................................... 351

Table 6.31: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL - Operational Phase ........................................ 353

Table 6.32: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase ......................................... 355

Table 6.33: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operation Phase .......................................... 355

Table 6.34: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase ......................................... 358

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 viii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.35: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operation Phase .......................................... 360

Table 6.36: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for GTL facility – Operations Phase with Flare
(Emergencies) ....................................................................................................................................................... 364

Table 6.37: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for GTL Facility – Road Traffic .......................................................... 366

Table 6.38: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for GTL Facility – Rail Traffic ............................................................ 367

Table 6.39: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase ......................................... 370

Table 6.40: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operation Phase .......................................... 376

Table 6.41: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase ......................................... 377

Table 6.42: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase ......................................... 379

Table 6.43: Annual water supplied to the SGCC .................................................................................................................... 388

Table 6.44: OLTIN YO'L GTL project water requirements ...................................................................................................... 389

Table 6.45: Environmental Impact Assessment rating matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL ............................................................... 389

Table 6.46: Priority Ecosystem Services according to the Significance of Project Impact (after WRI, 2011). ........................ 392

Table 6.47: Priority Ecosystem Services according to the Extent of Project Dependence (after WRI, 2011). ........................ 394

Table 6.48: Impact Assessment for ES Fodder for Livestock ................................................................................................. 395

Table 6.49: Impact assessment for ES Fresh Water .............................................................................................................. 397

Table 6.50: Operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Source/Scope (tonnes)......................................................... 399

Table 6.51: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase................................ 399

Table 6.52: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase................................ 401

Table 6.53: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL - Decommissioning Phase............................... 402

Table 6.54: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase................................ 404

Table 6.55: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Decommissioning Phase .............................. 404

Table 6.56: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase................................ 407

Table 6.57: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Decommissioning Phase .............................. 408

Table 6.58: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Decommissioning Phase ............................. 409

Table 6.59: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase................................ 410

Table 6.60: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Decommissioning Phase .............................. 411

Table 6.61: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase................................ 412

Table 6.62: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase................................ 413

Table 6.63: Operational Noise Impact - Daytime .................................................................................................................... 418

Table 6.64: Operational Noise Impact - Night......................................................................................................................... 418

Table 6.65: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operational Phase........................................ 418

Table 6.66: Residual impacts of compaction .......................................................................................................................... 422

Table 6.67: Residual impacts of erosion ................................................................................................................................ 422

Table 6.68: Residual impacts of compaction .......................................................................................................................... 422

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ix
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

FIGURES
Figure 6.1: Scoring system for assessment of significance during the ESHSIA study ......................................................... 265

Figure 6.2: Egyptian Vulture flying in front of the ground wall colony at the borrow pit site (June 2010) ................................ 272

Figure 6.3: Territories of Turkestan Shrike in the vicinities of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Shift camp (accommodation)
site during the breeding season 2010.................................................................................................................... 275

Figure 6.4: Location of the boreholes ..................................................................................................................................... 281

Figure 6.5 O'zgashkliti Drilling activities during the construction of boreholes GW01 and GW03, respectively...................... 282

Figure 6.6: Points from which photographs were taken during the visual impact assessment ............................................... 287

Figure 6.7: Visual impacts within 7 km of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site were assessed ..................................... 288

Figure 6.8 Examples of the panoramic views created for use within the visual impact assessment. Photographs
were taken from Position 89. ................................................................................................................................. 289

Figure 6.9: The study area and region as a whole is generally characterised by a flat topography, sparse
vegetation cover and lack of human transformation (panorama taken from Position 91 looking
northeast, as indicated on Figure 6.6 .................................................................................................................... 290

Figure 6.10: Location of noise assessment survey points ...................................................................................................... 292

Figure 6.11: Results from the noise assessment model for the construction phase stage 1 .................................................. 293

Figure 6.12: Results from the noise assessment model for the construction phase, stage 2 ................................................. 294

Figure 6.13 Example of an auger hole drilled for soil observation .......................................................................................... 310

Figure 6.14: Location of the observed and sampled points .................................................................................................... 311

Figure 6.15: Proposed uncontaminated and contaminated areas for the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant .......................................... 316

Figure 6.16: Potential Routes from the GTL Plant to Ports. ................................................................................................... 326

Figure 6.17: The route topography ......................................................................................................................................... 328

Figure 6.18: Population density .............................................................................................................................................. 329

Figure 6.19: Pipe-rack transporting goods to the local refinery .............................................................................................. 331

Figure 6.20: The combined road and railway bridge .............................................................................................................. 332

Figure 6.21: The new bridge that will replace the current pontoon bridge between Urgench and Beruni ............................... 332

Figure 6.22: Long-term Annual PEC for CO ........................................................................................................................... 335

Figure 6.23: Long term annual PEC for Hydrocarbons........................................................................................................... 336

Figure 6.24: Long term annual PEC for NOx .......................................................................................................................... 337

Figure 6.25: Long term PEC for NO2 ..................................................................................................................................... 338

Figure 6.26: : Long term annual PEC for SO2 ....................................................................................................................... 339

Figure 6.27: Long term annual PEC for PM10 ......................................................................................................................... 340

Figure 6.28: Long term annual PEC for PM2.5 ........................................................................................................................ 341

Figure 6.29: Short-term hourly PEC CO ................................................................................................................................. 342

Figure 6.30: Short term PEC for NOx ..................................................................................................................................... 343

Figure 6.31: Short-term 24 hours PEC for NO2...................................................................................................................... 344

Figure 6.32: Short term 1-hour PEC for NO2 .......................................................................................................................... 345

Figure 6.33: Short term 24-hr PEC for SO2 ............................................................................................................................ 346

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 x
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.34: Short term 1 hour PEC for SO2 .......................................................................................................................... 347
th
Figure 6.35: Short term 24 hour PEC for PM10 at 99 percentile ............................................................................................ 348

Figure 6.36: Short term PEC for PM2.5 ................................................................................................................................... 349

Figure 6.37: Road traffic casualties between Alanga settlement and GTL plant site: on top, Eurasian Bee-eaters
(May 1st, 2010); bottom left: Hedgehog (June 13th, 2010); bottom right: Jerboa (June 19th, 2010)..................... 352

Figure 6.38: Proposed location of the landfarming and the adjacent non-hazardous landfill sites, located within the
OLTIN YO’L GTL plant footprint ............................................................................................................................ 357

Figure 6.39: Proposed infrastructure layout associated with the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant ....................................................... 361

Figure 6.40: Viewshed analysis results showing the visibility of the stacks ............................................................................ 362

Figure 6.41: The existing SGCC plant situated southeast of the OLTIN YO’L GTL site constitutes the most
significant manmade visual element in the study area .......................................................................................... 363

Figure 6.42: design case noise isopleth ................................................................................................................................. 365

Figure 6.43: Design case noise isopleth plus flare ................................................................................................................. 366

Figure 6.44: Operational Road noise...................................................................................................................................... 368

Figure 6.45: Operational Rail Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 369

Figure 6.46: Individual Risk Contours as fatalities/person/year, for the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant ............................................. 371

Figure 6.47: Individual Risk Contours as fatalities/person/year, for the OLTIN YO’L GTL complex ....................................... 372

Figure 6.48: Proposed "no development" / sanitary zone around the OLTIN YO'L GTL plant............................................... 374

Figure 6.49: Waste Hierarchy ................................................................................................................................................. 382

Figure 6.50: Position of the on-site landfill .............................................................................................................................. 383

Figure 6.51: Position of the Landfarm .................................................................................................................................... 386

Figure 6.52: Annual water distribution at SGCC complex ...................................................................................................... 388

Figure 6.53: Project Area of Influence .................................................................................................................................... 391

Figure 6.54: Photo showing the lack of vegetation on the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site. .................................................. 405

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 xi
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE OLTIN YO’L GTL PROJECT

6.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the potential positive benefits and negative impacts and mitigation measures
associated with the OLTIN YO’L GTL project and responds to the issues identified during the specialist
studies, the Scoping Phase and the Impact Assessment phase of the ESHSIA.

Impacts are presented for project phases: Construction (section 6.5), Operational (section 6.6) and
Decommissioning section 6.7), Cumulative impacts are discussed in section 6.8 while residual impacts are
discussed in section 6.9.

6.2 Background
As discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of this ESHSIA report, the purpose of this Bankable ESHSIA was to
demonstrate that OLTIN YO’L GTL completed a process where the proposed potential environmental and
social impacts of the project have been adequately considered, mitigated and managed.

The methodology followed during this ESHSIA, was described comprehensively in Section 5.0. Potential
impacts are described below in terms of construction phase impacts, operational phase impacts and
decommissioning phase impacts.

6.2.1 Scoped issues

During the Scoping Phase of the ESHSIA important issues were highlighted, critically evaluated and
prioritized. Extraneous issues, which would not result in significant impacts, were also identified, but not
further investigated during the specialist studies. Specialists appointed to further assess the significance of
potential impacts. The scoped issues informed the specialist Terms of Reference (ToR).

Scoped issues identified throughout the ESHSIA process are presented below:

Scoped issues
1 Need and Desirability of the Efficiency Project.
2 Project Details.
3 Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure.
4 Risk of the major hazardous installation.
5 Air Emissions impacts on ambient air quality.
6 Potential for surface contamination due to project activities.
Groundwater baseline determination. No groundwater abstraction to form part of this
7
project. Proposed developments potential contamination of groundwater.
8 Noise impacts on various project phases on the public.
9 Waste management and waste management options.
1
10 Socio-Economic Issues on a local and regional scale during all project phases.
11 OLTIN YO’L GTL Policies and Approaches
12 Ecological impacts – specifically avifauna and terrestrial ecosystems
13 Ecosystems goods and services impacts
14 Presence of background radiation prior to development
15 Impacts on downstream water users due to abstraction and discharge
16 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the various project phases
17 Impacts on cultural heritage resources
18 Visual and aesthetic impacts
19 Potential impacts on human health during all project phases

1
Indigenous peoples was scoped out of the ESHSIA as stated in section 4.7.6 in table 4.4. Also see section 4.7.7 table 4.5 and 4.11.3.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 263
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Scoped issues
20 Determination of soil baseline conditions and land capability pre-development

6.2.2 ESHSIA area of influence

Broadly speaking, the local area of influence is defined as the two regions, Nishon and Guzor, where the
OLTIN YO’L GTL Project footprint is located, while the regional area of influence is the Kashkadarya
Province.

The area of influence remains variable depending on the specific context of a specialist discipline/study. By
means of illustration, the area of influence for specific disciplines such as terrestrial biodiversity, soils,
groundwater, cultural heritage resources etc. might be confined to the project footprint and the immediate
vicinity. Other disciplines might have a much wider geographic area of influence, for example air quality
(where emissions might have a local and regional impact), noise (where noise emissions might influence the
site plus surrounding sensitive receptors), downstream water users (which might affect downstream water
users on a regional and even trans boundary basis), socio-economic impacts (which might influence social
behavioural patterns as well as economic trends), and so forth.

6.3 ESHSIA Significance evaluation methodology

6.3.1 Technical (physical and biological) significance rating
The impact assessment was done according to the following methodology:

a) Impact classification may be positive, neutral or negative with respect to the particular impact (e.g., a
habitat gain for a key species would be classed as positive, whereas a habitat loss would be considered
negative);

b) Magnitude is a measure of the degree of change in a measurement or analysis (e.g., the area of
pasture, or the concentration of a metal in water compared to the water quality guideline value for the
metal), and is classified as none/negligible, low, moderate or high. The categorization of the impact
magnitude may be based on a set of criteria (e.g. health risk levels, ecological concepts and/or
professional judgment) pertinent to each of the discipline areas and key questions analysed. The
specialist study must attempt to quantify the magnitude and outline the rationale used. Appropriate,
widely-recognised standards are to be used as a measure of the level of impact.

c) Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact may occur: i.e. transient
(less than 1 year), short-term (0 to 5 years), medium term (5 to 15 years), long-term (greater than
15 years with impact ceasing after closure of the project) or permanent;

d) Scale/Geographic extent refers to the area that could be affected by the impact and is classified as
site, local, regional, national, or international;

e) Probability of occurrence is a description of the probability of the impact actually occurring as either
improbable (less than 5% chance), low probability (5% to 40% chance), medium probability (40% to
60% chance), highly probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance) or definite (impact will definitely occur);

f) Impact significance will be rated by the specialist using the scoring system shown in the box below
(Refer to Figure 6.1 below).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 264
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.1: Scoring system for assessment of significance during the ESHSIA study

6.3.2 Social significance rating

Unlike environmental impacts, social impacts are not assessed on probability. Socio-economic impacts are
part of an on-going process of interdependent economic and social change. Although there are isolated
exceptions, most socio-economic impacts are experienced continuously by people; thus, probability is not
often a useful attribute for significance assessment. As a result of removing this aspect, socio-economic
impacts do not include a qualitative calculation that leads to a score for “significance points”.
The key steps in developing the socio-economic elements impact assessment are described below:

¡ Socio-economic baseline: The basis of social analysis is the socio-economic baseline, which is
complemented by consultation and discussion with those who may be affected by the Project.
Information collected during the baseline study and consultation is used to identify factors that may be
influencing the human environment prior to Project implementation.

¡ Review of Project activities: Project activities that may affect the social or economic characteristics of
local communities are identified. Project activities include activities that may occur in any phase of the
project life cycle (planning and design, construction, operations, decommissioning and post-closure).

¡ Key Issue Identification: Key social and economic issues identified during the scoping phase of the
ESHSIA are revised and considered with the final project activity details. The purpose is to identify the
essential issues for the Project within the overall social, political and cultural context described in the
baseline.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 265
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Impact Categories: The key issues are used to develop a set of impact categories that form the basis
of the impact assessment. Each impact category may have a set of sub-category topics that address
elements of the IFC Performance Standards and other international guidelines or issues raised during
consultation. The purpose of referencing such guidelines allows reviewers to see that common themes
were considered, even if the project context allowed some themes to be scoped out of detailed
analysis.

¡ Mitigation: Actions are developed to avoid or minimise negative impacts and maximise benefits. The
interventions to minimise negative impacts and maximise positive impacts make up the social elements
of the Environmental and Social Management Plan. The ESMP may require working with a client to
develop specific policies, budgets and resourcing strategies. The overall objective is to ensure that net
benefits are realised for all affected communities, including groups that are considered most vulnerable.

¡ Residual Impacts: Residual impacts, also referred to as social significance, are the impacts predicted
to occur after mitigation. The impact assessment is performed on residual impacts.

The evaluation of social impacts requires consideration of quantitative and qualitative data and the use of
professional judgement. Social impacts may be:

¡ Direct (e.g., increased wage labour opportunities); or

¡ Indirect, such as social changes that occur as a result of changes in the biophysical environment;
indirect impacts may result from human responses to perceived changes as a result of the Project (e.g.,
rumours relating to expectation of employment).

Direct impacts are relatively predictable, whereas indirect impacts are more difficult to assess. The analysis
also takes into consideration the perceptions of affected communities that were collected during
consultations.

6.3.2.1 Defining the significance of social impacts

Determination of socio-economic impact follows a different methodology than the one used for physical and
biological impacts, which are more quantitative. There are, however, some similarities in the definition of
attributes. The four attributes applied to the determination of socio-economic impact significance are listed
and defined below:

¡ Direction: indicates whether the impact is positive, negative or neutral. Some impacts may have both
positive and negative dimensions.

¡ Magnitude: indicates the degree of change in a socio-economic parameter and is generally a

qualitative assessment.

¡ Geographic extent: indicates the geographic and administrative units that will be impacted. Some
impacts may affect only individual households, whereas others may affect the Local Study Area (LSA),
Regional Study Area (RSA), the entire country, or have a trans-boundary impact.

¡ Duration: indicates the length of time over which an impact may occur. Duration is usually related to
the Project description.

Unlike environmental impacts, social impacts are not assessed on probability. Socio-economic impacts are
part of an on-going process of interdependent economic and social change. Although there are isolated
exceptions, most socio-economic impacts are experienced continuously by people; thus, probability is not
often a useful attribute for significance assessment. As a result of removing this aspect, socio-economic
impacts do not include a qualitative calculation that leads to a score for “significance points”.

Table 6.1 provides further details on the significance of socio-economic impacts.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 266
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.1: Classification of Significant of Social Impacts

Criteria Definition
Positive – Impact provides a net benefit to the affected person(s).
Negative – Impact results in a net loss to the affected persons(s).
Direction Mixed – Impact may be positive or negative, but requires an intervention to
demonstrate net benefit. In impact evaluation, the benefit will be considered less
because of the potential for mixed results.
Neutral – No net benefit or loss to the affect person(s).
Negligible – No noticeable change anticipated.
Low – Result predicted to be different from baseline conditions, but not to impair or
change quality of life of the affected person(s).
Magnitude Moderate – Result predicted to impair or benefit quality of life of the affected
persons(s).
High – Result predicted to seriously impair quality of life and mitigation measures are
unlikely to help; or result to substantially benefit with a high degree of confidence that
benefits will be sustainable beyond the life of the Project.
Individual – Confined to individuals or individual households.
Local – Confined to the LSA.
Geographic Extent Regional – Confined to the RSA.
National – Extends to national level.
Trans-boundary – Results impact neighbouring countries in the region.
Short-term – Through construction; until 2015.
Duration Medium-term – Through operations.
Long-term – Beyond the life of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant; post-closure.

6.4 Scoped Issues

During the Scoping Phase of the ESHSIA important issues were highlighted, critically evaluated and
prioritized. Extraneous issues, which would not result in significant impacts, were also identified, but not
further investigated during the specialist studies. Specialists appointed to further assess the significance of
potential impacts. The scoped issues informed the specialist Terms of Reference (ToR).

Scoped issues identified throughout the ESHSIA process are presented below:

Scoped issues
1 Need and Desirability of the Proposed Efficiency Project.
2 Project Details.
3 Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure.
4 Risk of the major hazardous installation.
5 Air Emissions impacts on ambient air quality.
6 Potential for surface contamination due to project activities.
Groundwater baseline determination. No groundwater abstraction to
7 form part of this project. Proposed developments potential contamination
of groundwater.
8 Noise impacts on various project phases on the public.
9 Waste management and waste management options.
Socio-Economic Issues on a local and regional scale during all project
10
phases.
11 OLTIN YO’L GTL Policies and Approaches
12 Ecological impacts – specifically avifauna and terrestrial ecosystems
13 Ecosystems goods and services impacts

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 267
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Scoped issues
14 Presence of background radiation prior to development
15 Impacts on downstream water users due to abstraction and discharge
16 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the various project phases
17 Impacts on cultural heritage resources
18 Visual and aesthetic impacts
19 Potential impacts on human health during all project phases
Determination of soil baseline conditions and land capability pre-
20
development

6.5 Potential construction phase impacts

6.5.1 Air quality
Reference
Specialist study J

Key specialists
Craig Woodburn, Amanda Gair, Rachel Saville, Dan Birkenshaw.

Study objectives
The study objectives of the air quality specialist study were as follows:

1) To review relevant documentation;

2) To consider the relevant Air Quality Standards (AQS) - IFC and Uzbekistan;

3) To establish the baseline air quality for the area;

2
4) To undertake a qualitative potential dust impact assessment for construction and operation;

5) To undertake a quantitative assessment of emission to air from the proposed facility;

6) To identify the environmental significance of any potential impacts; and

7) To identify appropriate management and mitigation techniques.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the air quality specialist study:

1) Data collection, in the form of baseline monitoring using diffusion tubes in various locations over a 6
month period;

2) A desktop review of relevant baseline air quality;

3) The undertaking of a qualitative Dust Impact Assessment (DIA); and

4) The undertaking of a quantitative Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA).

6.5.1.1 Assessment of impacts

From an air quality perspective, Table 6.2 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.

2
The effects of construction are assessed qualitatively in the dust impact assessment but not included in the air dispersion modelling assessment. These source types are not easily
quantify and therefore representing it in a dispersion model accurately, is unlikely. In addition, construction dust generated is temporary by nature and mitigation measures proposed
are normally adequate.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 268
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.2: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase

Potential Air Quality Impacts ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

(Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L Before mitigation After mitigation
GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Potential impacts of dust releases from
preparatory earthworks including soil 6 2 1 4 36 M 4 2 1 3 21 L
stripping and earth excavations
Potential Impacts of dust releases
4 2 1 3 21 L 2 2 1 2 10 L
during construction/ building activities
Potential impacts of dust releases from
any stockpiled materials (including soil, 6 2 1 3 27 L 4 2 1 2 14 L
overburden and storage materials)
Potential impacts of dust releases from
erosion following area clearing 4 2 1 3 21 L 2 2 1 2 10 L
(stripping of vegetation)
Potential impacts of dust releases from
6 2 1 4 36 M 4 2 1 3 21 L
haul road traffic

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Soil stripping and excavations, and haul road traffic

Potential dust impacts may occur from a number of activities associated with the construction of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL accommodation camp and pipelines in the vicinity of the SGCC accommodation camp. The
largest potential impact would be expected from dust releases during soil stripping and earth excavations
and from haul road traffic. The underlying geology at the site location contains clay material of less-like
sandy loams. Any fine particles could be easily disturbed and dispersed, especially during dry and windy
conditions. Haul road traffic is often a major dust source during construction through the re-suspension of
any dust on the haul roads and dispersion of materials from vehicle tyres.

Construction/building activities and stockpiled materials

Dust releases may also occur from construction/ building activities directly such as material handling, cutting,
grinding, sawing, scrabbling (grinding concrete), filling of skips and using chutes. Stockpiled materials in
particular are often subject to wind erosion if not managed appropriately which may have the potential to
cause dust releases. Before the start of any earthworks, affected areas would be stripped of vegetation and
thus cleared. This can lead to erosion and associated dust release, especially under dry conditions.

The impact of the above activities will vary depending on their location. Dust impacts from the OLTIN YO’L
GTL accommodation camp construction will be most significant during easterly winds, which tend to occur
during the winter months. However, during these months precipitation is likely to dampen dust and naturally
suppress it. Impacts from the pipeline construction are likely to be most significant when northerly winds
prevail i.e. in the summer. At this time, no precipitation is likely to occur that may dampen dusty activities
therefore it may be beneficial to undertake these tasks outside of the summer months.

6.5.1.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Soil stripping and earth excavations are associated with the movement of large amounts of materials and
there is the potential for dust releases to accompany these activities. To prevent dust releases and potential
dust impacts during earthworks, mitigation measures include dampening down of all dusty activities,
especially during dry weather, temporary covering of earthworks where possible, minimising drop heights,
and loading and unloading of materials in areas protected from wind, where practicable.

To prevent potential dust release and potential dust impacts during construction works, fuel and chemical
storage and dust generating activities should be located away from site boundaries and sensitive receptors
where possible. Pre-fabricated materials should be utilised to reduce cutting, grinding and sawing, water

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 269
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

suppressant systems should be used or dampening down whenever possible, dust extraction techniques
should be used if available, work surfaces should be pre-washed when scrabbling, work areas should be
screened off, all skips should be securely covered, drop heights should be minimised to control the fall of
materials, and working areas should be regularly swept and dampened down to prevent the build-up of fine
waste dust material.

To prevent potential dust release and potential dust impacts from stockpiled and stored materials, it should
be ensured that stockpiles exist for the shortest possible time, surface areas of stockpiled material should be
minimised to reduce the surface area exposed to wind erosion, stock piles should not have steep sides or
sharp changes in shape, and stockpiles should be kept away from the site boundaries, sensitive receptors
and surface drains. If possible stockpiles should be kept securely sheeted, and stored materials should be
covered and protected from wind and stored materials should be dampened where appropriate.

In order to prevent erosion from barren areas, thereby preventing potential dust releases especially under
dry and windy weather conditions, areas that may be prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident
will be stabilised and/or re-vegetated, and the total footprint area to be disturbed / developed will be kept to a
minimum by demarcating the construction areas and restricting construction to these areas only.

Table 6.2 identifies potential dust release from traffic on haul roads as an important potential air quality
impact. The use of hard surfaced roads where practicable, regular inspection of haul roads for integrity and
repair if required, a wheel and vehicle wash at the exit of the OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp
construction site, on-site speed limits, regularly cleaning and dampening down of haul roads, limiting vehicles
idling motors, and covering of loads transported to and from site will assist in preventing potential dust
release and potential dust impacts from haul road traffic.

6.5.2 Ecology: Avifauna biodiversity

Reference
Specialist study K

Key specialists
Lorenzo Fornasari, Peter Kimberg

Study objectives
The study objectives of the Avifauna specialist study were as follows:

1) To give a general description of the avifauna of southern Uzbekistan / Karshi Steppe (former
Kashkadarya Steppe);

5) To describe the baseline avifauna characteristics of the study area, based on the results of field surveys
and available literature;

6) Conduct preliminary identification of the potential project related impacts on avifauna communities;

7) Assess potential project related impacts on the avifauna; and

8) Recommend mitigation/management measures.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the Avifauna specialist study:

1) Literature review of existing English and Russian literature;

2) Based on the literature study, potential bird lists were compiled;

3) Field surveys:

a) Systematic line transects during migratory periods were used, with a daily evaluation of habitat
use by migrant birds;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 270
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

b) A combination of methods (line transects, point counts, simplified mapping method) were
applied to assess presence, density and habitat use of breeding birds in late spring;

c) Application of line transects and site counts for evaluating the presence and abundance of
wintering terrestrial birds and waterfowl in midwinter;

d) A combination of methods (line transects, point counts, mapping methods, rare species counts
etc.) were applied during all four seasons to allow for seasonal variation;

4) A local Uzbekistan Avifauna specialist was contracted to assist with field work, to assist with
identification and to review the results of all the fieldwork and interpretation; and
5) Conservation importance of species was determined.

6.5.2.1 Assessment of impacts

Table 6.3 summarises the potential avifauna impacts that are related to the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.3: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Construction Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
1. HABITAT LOSS: Effect of habitat occupation and
destruction in the project site on the population 1 3 1 5 20 L 1 1 1 5 15 L
dynamic of resident/breeding bird populations.
2. HABITAT LOSS: Effect of habitat occupation and
destruction in the potential borrow pit site (bird 2 5 2 4 36 M 1 5 2 4 32 M
community of the ground walls).
3. POLLUTION (dust deposition in the surrounding
bird habitats): Effect on food palatability for ground, 2 1 2 4 20 L 2 1 2 4 20 L
vegetarian birds (e.g. Geese).
4. NOISE: Effect on bird presence in migratory
(Passerines) and wintering (Geese, Harriers, Pygmy 8 2 2 1 12 L 8 2 2 1 12 L
Cormorants) habitats.
5. NOISE: Effect on territory occupation by breeding
populations of migrant species (Long-tailed Shrike 6 2 2 4 40 M 6 2 2 1 10 L
population close to accommodation site).
6. HABITAT GAIN: Effect of habitat remediation in
the borrow pit site (proposed bird sanctuary for 8 5 4 5 85 H+ 8 5 4 5 85 H+
Passerine migrants)
7. POWER LINES: Effect bird mortalities as a result
2 5 2 3 27 L 1 5 1 2 18 L
of collisions with power lines as well as electrocution.

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL project, as summarised in the table above.

Habitat loss
Sensitive bird species (e.g., cranes and other species of conservation concern) tend to avoid human
settlement areas and changes in land use, for their primary habitats.

A few raptors species displayed flight paths over the project site, the construction camp and the
accommodation facilities. However, during most parts of the year these only represent a minor fraction of the
movement pattern of individual Marsh Harriers of the Himki Reservoir population. A locally important flight
pattern for raptor migrants (e.g. Pallid Harrier on autumn migration) was observed immediately west of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project site. The raptor migration occurs in a slow, regular manner, with birds coming flying

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 271
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

alone or in small groups. Generally, birds do not stop on ground level in the project areas, and cross the
project site at low to mid-level. Some observations were made in spring, where birds stopped over within the
sanitary zone of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project site.

The most significant breeding bird population directly impacted by habitat loss would be of few pairs of
Crested Lark breeding within the main project site. This species is the dominant species in passerine
breeding communities in steppe and pasture habitats. Therefore the effect of habitat loss is low as this
species could re-colonise adjacent areas. The population dynamic of Passerine species present on the
proposed site would likely be affected locally; however this impact is expected to be low. It is not expected
that adverse impacts would occur due to fragmentation or continuity disruption of habitats within the vicinity
of the project area.

The proposed borrow pit site currently includes a low diversity of breeding bird communities. A few pairs of
Crested Lark, single pairs of common raptors (Common Kestrel, Little Owl), and colonies of Roller and
House Sparrow were recorded breeding in this area. Egyptian Vulture regularly visits this site. However,
although migrant birds fly over this area at great heights, none of them were recorded to visit this area.

Project related impacts would therefore potentially impact on habitat loss, however, with appropriate
mitigation measures, these impacts would be low.

Figure 6.2: Egyptian Vulture flying in front of the ground wall colony at the borrow pit site (June 2010)

Proposed borrow pit site

Soil excavated from the project site could be used to remediate bird habitat at the proposed borrow pit site
resulting in a positive benefit. This could potentially serve as a bird sanctuary, in the same way as it was
done along other migratory flyways (e.g. the Eilat Bird and Research Centre along the Eastern European and
Western Asian Migratory Flyways to Africa). The presence of “staging areas” along migration routes is of the
utmost importance for the populations of migrants, even if they may only be used by birds for short periods
3
each year . This is especially true for Arctic breeding species or long-distance migrant species that have a
4
very short potential breeding period and nesting is critically timed . Failure to arrive on the nesting grounds in
suitable conditions, or at the right time, may result in breeding not being possible as well as possible
mortalities. Therefore, timing of migration by these migrant species reflects their need to arrive with adequate
reserves at a precisely determined time during spring.

Proposing to create this type of habitat in a key flyway area, such as southernmost steppe above a desert
belt, could provide migrants on spring migration a key feeding habitat to recover after desert crossing and

3
Stroud, D. A., G. P. Mudge and M. W. Pienkowski. 1990. Protecting internationally important bird sites. Nature Conservancy Concil, Peterborough, UK. 230pp
4
Green, G. H., J. J. D. Greenwood and C. S. Lloyd. 1977. The influence of snow conditions on the date of breeding of wading birds in north-east Greenland. J. Zool. (London)
183:311-328

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 272
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

then complete pre-breeding migration. As observed during the field surveys, such birds may reach very high
concentrations in suitable habitats in Southern Uzbekistan. Creating a potential bird sanctuary at the borrow
pit site might function as a “feeding oasis”. This could positively benefit to the general conservation of a
migratory flyway. Relatively small projects (e.g. the way in which the borrow pit site is utilized and managed)
focused on migrant species might prove significantly more effective in terms of bird conservation, in
5
comparison to bigger conservation projects in the breeding areas / winter areas .

Developing a bird sanctuary from a degraded area couldbe the habitat improvement for migratory Passerines
and other small birds using trees and shrubs to find food during migratory stop-over. It may also facilitate
educational programs focused on public awareness, and a research program to study in detail bird migration
6
along the Central Asian Flyway . By involving national or international NGOs, and/or professional
ornithologists, it would be possible to implement a research/educational project and to train local
professionals, through a capacity building plan. Field research would contribute to knowledge on the
biological system of bird migration in the wide Central Asian region.

Air and ground pollution

Due to the type and scale of the project activities during the construction phase, no pollution is expected at a
scale relevant for bird presence and abundance.

Deposition of dust generated during the construction phase (e.g. civil works during site establishment) could
affect palatability of seeds and vegetables for some bird species (e.g. Geese) at the Project site and
surrounding area. However, the occurrence and frequency of wind and dust storms would not likely result in
large dust deposition on vegetation.

Water needs
It is not expected that the construction phase would have any impact on avifauna related to the Himki
reservoir, primarily used by Marsh Harrier for the breeding and the wintering populations; Geese population
resting in winter; and migratory passerines using of reed beds).

Waste storage and disposal

No relevant impacts on birds are foreseen during the construction phase.

Noise
Civil works machinery will result in increased noise levels that could potentially impact on bird populations in
close proximity to the construction activities. This potential impact could be greater on migrant bird
populations, as they would be more numerous than local, breeding populations. In addition, migrant species
would not spend sufficient time in the project area to adapt to noise disturbance, as in the case of resident
species.

Shrubland and reed beds around the Himki Reservoir represent habitats for high numbers of Passerine birds
during the spring migration. High numbers of Geese, Marsh Harriers and Pygmy Cormorants were recorded
resting at the reservoir during winter. These may be affected by increased noise levels from construction
activities and could abandon the area. The probability of this impact is reduced by the distance of the source
points (project area, accommodation site etc.) to this potentially affected area.

Breeding birds may be sensitive to noise or direct disturbance mainly during the early phase of territory
occupation, but once territories are established the birds might become resilient to noise disturbances. The
established population of Turkestan Shrike breeding next to the SGCC Shift camp (Figure 6.3) might be
impacted on by the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL shift camp. Such an impact could be avoided by limiting
noisy operations (higher than 85 dB at the source) at the OLTIN YO’L GTL Shift camp in the early phase of
the species’ breeding cycle, from May to June. Monitoring would also indicate if these species become
resilient over time to construction / operational noise.

Noisy civil works at the borrow pit site, where large colonies of Sparrows and Rollers are present, should be
avoided during the month of April.

5
Fornasari L. 2003 (ed.). La migrazione degli uccelli nella Valle del Ticino e l’impatto di Malpensa. Consorzio Parco Lombardo della Valle del Ticino, Magenta, Italy, 157 pp
6
UNEP (2005). Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. CMS/CAF/Report

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 273
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Traffic
Construction activities will result in an increase of heavy traffic. In case the borrow pit close to Nishon will be
used, this traffic will concentrate along a road with few sensitive areas around, all of them exceeding 500 m
distance. In this case there will be no sensitive receptors for traffic disturbs impact in the vicinities of the
road.”

6.5.2.2 Mitigation and Monitoring

It is expected that the overall impact on birds would be low and limited mitigation measures are required.
Critical points on the power lines should be adequately protected to avoid bird fatalities.

Where practical, a speed limit of 70 km/h should be enforced on the roads in the vicinity of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL plant site, to minimise bird mortalities.

Noise mitigation measures at the proposed site and sensitive breeding bird populations close to the OLTIN
YO’L GTL Shift camp (accommodation site) and borrow pit site, should reduce adverse impacts on birds.
Opportunities exist to establish a “Bird Sanctuary” at the borrow pit site.

OLTIN YO’L GTL will rehabilitate the areas of the borrow-pit that were disturbed by their operations. The
rehabilitation programme will seek the most suitable environmental end-use as practical. OLTIN YO’L GTL
should seek to avoid environmentally sensitive areas in the borrow-pit.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 274
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.3: Territories of Turkestan Shrike in the vicinities of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Shift camp (accommodation) site
during the breeding season 2010

6.5.3 Ecology: Terrestrial (Fauna and Flora) biodiversity

Reference
Specialist Study X

Key specialists
Koos de Wet

Study objectives
The study objectives of the terrestrial ecology specialist study were as follows:

Flora study
1) Conduct a desktop study to obtain a list of expected species for the study area;

2) Determine the Vegetation Type/Types and compile a brief description of the vegetation in terms of
physiognomy and species composition including dominant, common and characteristic species. These
descriptions will be based on estimates of cover/abundance and density of constituent species.
Sensitive plant communities will be geo-referenced;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 275
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3) Compile a preliminary species list to provide an accurate indication of the floristic diversity including
endemic and medicinally important species;

4) Determine the occurrence, or possible occurrence, of threatened and/or sensitive plant species as listed
in the latest available literature, with updated IUCN threatened status. All recorded populations of
threatened or near-threatened plant species will be geo-referenced and mapped;

5) Map sensitive areas according to Google Earth imagery and field survey; and

6) Identify alien and invasive species.

Fauna study
1) Conduct a desktop study to obtain a list of expected species for the study area;

2) Identify and provide a description of the vertebrate fauna, i.e. mammals, reptiles, and amphibians as
well any macro invertebrates that can be identified with special reference to threatened species
occurring inside and in close proximity to the study area;

3) Compile a preliminary species list of the different vertebrate groups including IUCN Red Data Status
according to the latest Red Data Books;

4) Describe the different habitats at the proposed sites and to evaluate their conservation importance and
significance with reference to the possible presence of threatened vertebrate species at and adjacent to
the site;

5) Identify threats to species of conservation concern; and

6) Review existing literature on species recorded at or near the site.

6.5.3.1 Assessment of impacts

Table 6.4 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.

Table 6.4: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL - Construction Phase

Potential Terrestrial Ecology ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

Impact (Construction Phase: Before mitigation After mitigation
OLTIN YO’L GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Destruction of vegetation
2 2 2 5 30 M 2 2 1 3 15 L
communities
Loss of red data plant species 2 2 2 2 12 L 2 2 1 1 5 L
Reduction of floral species diversity 2 2 1 1 5 L 1 2 1 1 5 L
Loss of fauna communities 6 2 2 4 40 M 2 2 0 0 0 L
Loss of fauna red data species 8 4 1 5 48 M 4 2 2 2 16 L
Reduction of fauna diversity 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 2 1 1 5 L
Dust 4 2 2 4 32 M 2 2 1 1 5 L
Increase in invasive species 6 2 2 4 40 M 2 2 2 2 12 L
Loss of grazing land 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 2 0 0 0 L
Loss of crop fields 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 2 0 0 0 L
Increased human activity 6 2 3 3 33 M 4 2 2 2 16 L
Change in drainage patterns 4 2 2 2 16 L 2 2 1 1 5 L

Contaminant spills 10 4 2 3 48 M 2 2 1 1 5 L

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 276
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Loss of diversity and species

¡ Destruction of vegetation communities: Existing vegetation communities will be lost due to clearing
of land for access roads and within the plant and accommodation footprint areas.

¡ Loss of red data plant species: Red data plant species may be lost due to clearing of land for access
roads and within the plant and accommodation footprint areas.

¡ Reduction of floral species diversity: Floral species diversity may be reduced due to clearing of land
for access roads and within the plant and accommodation footprint areas.

¡ Loss of fauna communities: Fauna communities will be lost due to clearing of land for access roads
and within the plant and accommodation footprint areas.

¡ Loss of fauna red data species: Fauna red data species may be lost due to clearing of land for
access roads and within the plant and accommodation footprint areas.

¡ Reduction of fauna diversity: Fauna diversity will be reduced due to clearing of land for access roads
and within the plant and accommodation footprint areas.

¡ Loss of critical habitat: Not applicable, no critical habitat present as per the IFC PS6 (2012) present
on site (also see section 3.9.2.5 as well as the specialist study – Appendix X).

Contamination and invasion

¡ Contamination by oil: Oil leaking or spilled from motorised equipment could contaminate soil and
water.

¡ Dust: Dust created by construction activity and building of access roads will settle on the surrounding
environment that could reduce growth vitality of the vegetation and contaminate the food source of
herbivores.

¡ Increase in invasive species: Invasive species tend to increase due to disturbance of the natural
environment, including human disturbance such as construction activity.

Loss of habitat
¡ Loss of grazing land: Due to the removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities
the footprint area will no longer contain grazing pastures to be utilised by the livestock belonging to the
local population.

¡ Loss of crop fields: Due to the removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities the
footprint area will no longer be available to the local population to plant crops.

¡ Increased human activity: The presence of a large number of people in the project area may cause
trampling of the surrounding area thereby destroying vegetation and cause disturbance to the fauna
community which will disrupt their life patterns and possibly drive them away.

¡ Change in drainage patterns: Change in drainage patterns may result in erosion the will reduce
vegetation or promote invasive species.

6.5.3.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Should species of significance occur on site at the time of construction, these should be removed and
relocated to a suitable area, by an appropriately trained person. Dust from construction activities should be
reduced to limit impacts on surrounding vegetation communities. Invasive species should be monitored and
controlled as required and the implementation of surface water management measures (e.g. drains and
culverts) should focus on preventing soil erosion.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 277
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.4 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources

Reference
Specialist Study L

Key specialists
Paul Wheelhouse

Study objectives
The key study aims of the cultural heritage specialist study were:

1) To describe and map the archaeological, historical, cultural, religious and natural unique sites within the
Local Study Area;

2) To identify the nature, location and status of any receptors of cultural heritage importance, which are
present within the vicinity of the Project areas, and which may be affected by the Project; and
3) To assess the impacts on cultural heritage resources; and

4) To formulate appropriate mitigation to plan for the avoidance, recovery or preservation of sites as
necessary.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the cultural heritage specialist study:

7) Data collection, comprising of a literature review and site walkover (field reconnaissance);

8) A desktop review of relevant documentation;

9) Delineation of study area for the assessment; and

10) A site walkover survey.

6.5.4.1 Assessment of impacts

Table 6.5 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.

Table 6.5: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Cultural Heritage Impacts
(Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Destruction of hitherto unidentified buried
remains of cultural heritage resources that
8 5 1 2 28 L 6 2 1 2 18 L
exist within the footprint of the development
site.

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

6.5.4.1.1 Disturbance of hitherto unknown cultural heritage resources

Using the data gathered during the baseline data collection phase, an assessment of the value of importance
of each cultural heritage site identified within the local study areas has been made. The impact assessment
has been carried out after employing GIS analysis.
For cultural heritage sites, this assessment is largely based on professional judgement and has utilised the
knowledge of the appointed local archaeologist, drawing on distinctions between any designated important
remains and those of a lesser significance.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 278
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

For cultural heritage, the baseline value or sensitivity is derived from a consideration of each feature or site in
terms of their form, survival, condition, complexity, context and period. It also takes into account the scale at
which they matter and their rarity.
The impact is defined as a change resulting from the Project activities that affects cultural heritage
resources. Impacts can be either adverse (e.g. direct removal and loss of a resource, which would be
irreversible and permanent) or beneficial (e.g. improvement in the setting). The most significant impacts on
cultural heritage resources will be physical as a direct consequence of construction activities and will mainly
be confined to the areas of new land take required during the Project.
However, 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.
On this basis it is judged that the Project has no potential to have a direct impact upon any identified cultural
heritage sites.
There is the potential that hitherto undiscovered buried archaeological remains could remain in the areas as
part of the Project, although the importance and significance of such sites will only be realized at the time of
their discovery. On the basis that sites were identified and as a result of the circumstances of their discovery
(e.g. through mechanical stripping) then impacts would be negative and irreversible.

6.5.4.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

In order to prevent accidental disturbance to buried archaeological remains during construction/operational
activities, a professional archaeologist will be employed to inspect exposed sections following their
excavation. Should archaeological remains be identified the archaeologist is to be afforded the opportunity to
record and document any findings made and to prepare a report on all discoveries made, and should
archaeological remains be discovered during the construction phase then the Environmental Manager will be
informed and an archaeologist brought to site to undertake any salvage recording as necessary and
practicable. Awareness training should be given to the construction employees to notify the environmental
manager or supervisor of any potential chance findings.

6.5.5 Hydrogeology (Groundwater)

Reference
Specialist study O

Key specialists
Graham Hubert, Gabriel Canahai

Study objectives
The study objectives of the Groundwater specialist study were as follows:

1) Provide the groundwater baseline conditions to characterise the groundwater situation in the study
area;
2) Develop a groundwater monitoring programme,

3) Provide a qualitative groundwater impact assessment for the project; and

4) Recommend mitigation measures as required.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the Groundwater specialist study:

11) Collection of hydrogeological data at regional and local level involved both desktop level work and field
work;

12) Direct information was recorded during an initial site visit and from discussions held with various local
organisations and role players. Monitoring data was also supplied for water sames collected in 2013.
These were added to the study;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 279
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

13) An optimised investigation plan which satisfied the specific IFC and in country legislative requirements
was subsequently developed. The plan required the construction of four pairs of groundwater
boreholes. Each pair comprised one “deep” borehole (50 to 70mbgl) and one “shallow” borehole
(30mbgl);

14) The boreholes were constructed outside the proposed plant footprint to ensure that the preservation of
the boreholes during the construction and operation of the plant (Figure 6.4);

Field investigation:
1) General technical specifications were prepared to provide guidelines for the boreholes construction;

2) OLTIN YO’L GTL appointed O'zgashkliti Drilling contractors to carry out the hydrogeological drilling;

3) The boreholes were drilled using the mud rotary technique. Once the drilling depth was achieved the
boreholes were lined with plastic tubing and each borehole completed with concrete block and a marker
pole. The concrete was fitted with a lockable steel cap to ensure the boreholes are protected and can
be used as groundwater monitoring points in the future;
4) The aquifers were tested using the Raising Head Test which records the recovery of the water level
after a volume of water is suddenly removed from the borehole;

5) Groundwater samples were collected from six of the eight boreholes drilled and dispatched to Eurofins
Analytico in Netherlands for inorganic chemistry, BTEX and TPH analyses;

6) The data was then interpreted and baseline conditions established.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 280
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.4: Location of the boreholes

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 281
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.5 O'zgashkliti Drilling activities during the construction of boreholes GW01 and GW03, respectively.

6.5.5.1 Assessment of impacts

From a hydrogeological perspective, Table 6.6 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 6.6: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Construction Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Groundwater Impact
(Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Waste generated during
maintenance/refuelling of equipment or
machinery i.e. oily rags, used oil filters, and 6 2 2 4 40 M 4 2 1 3 21 L
used oil, as well as spill clean-up materials
from oil and fuel spills, diesel engines, etc.
Generation of sanitary wastewater
4 2 1 4 28 L 4 2 1 2 14 L
discharges
Accidental spill of materials stored on site,
6 1 2 4 36 M 4 1 2 2 14 L
fuel, oil products

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Accidental spills from waste generated during the maintenance of equipment and
machinery
Hazardous waste materials will be generated during the construction phase ranging from used solvents,
used oil and grease, etc. The magnitude of the impact of the generation of hazardous waste before
mitigation is moderate; due to the hazardousness of some of the materials that will be used during the
construction phase. After the implementation of mitigation measures, such as a waste management plan, the
magnitude is reduced to low and the potential impact will be short term and localised. The probability of an

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 282
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

impact occurring before mitigation is rated as high and after mitigation measures have been implemented as
medium.

Generation of sanitary waste water discharge

Approximately 10,000 construction employees will be based on site during the construction and therefore the
likely generation of sanitary waste is considered an impact. The OLTIN YO’L GTL Project will utilise existing
utility infrastructure at construction camps and also provide temporary sanitary facilities on the construction
site. The magnitude of the impact before mitigation is rated as low. Management of this type of waste can be
easily achieved. After the implementation of mitigation measures, such as permanent and adequate sanitary
facilities the magnitude of impact will further be reduced. The impact will be for a short term, localised and
the probability generally low after mitigation.

Accidental spill of materials stored

Large volume of potential contaminant materials will be stored and handled on site. The risk for a spill has to
be considered as a potential impact. The magnitude of the impact is moderate before mitigation measures
are adopted. Once mitigation measures are implemented the magnitude becomes low. The probability of a
spill is considered high before mitigation such as designated storage and handling procedure are in place.
The probability of the spill to occur will reduce to low after mitigation

6.5.5.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

It is expected that the overall impact on groundwater would be medium and mitigation measures are
therefore required. The main objective of the mitigation measures is to prevent the contamination of the
groundwater. These measures therefore largely relate to the potential impacts associated with surface water
and spills management as well as waste management. The mitigation measures described for hydrology
(surface water) and waste management will also have a beneficial result in minimising groundwater impacts.
General recommended mitigation measures include:
¡ Use impervious surfaces;
¡ Construction of adequate drainage structures;
¡ Construction of bunded perimeters for all storage areas; and
¡ Removal and treat any contaminated soil

These and other mitigation measures are further discussed in the ESHMP chapter.

6.5.6 Human health risk assessment

Reference
Specialist study P

Key specialists
Rosanna Moraes, Helene Imbert, Lara Ruscio

Study objectives
The study objectives of the major accident hazard risk assessment specialist study were as follows:
1) To understand health risks associated to baseline conditions, and the potential incremental risks that
may be realized due to the Project construction, operations, decommissioning leading to changes in
water, air, soil and food quality from chemical emissions that could affect community health; and
2) If needed, to recommend mitigation and management measures to reduce health risks.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the health risk assessment specialist study:
1. Data collection, including a desktop review of relevant documentation;
2. Delineation of study area for the assessment;
3. Problem formulation;
4. Receptor screening;
5. Chemical screening;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 283
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6. Exposure pathway screening;

7. Exposure assessment;
8. Toxicity assessment; and
9. Risk characterisation.

6.5.6.1 Assessment of impacts

From a health risk perspective, Table 6.21 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation. The identified human health risks are directly related to impacts in soil, water and air already
described in other Specialist Studies.
Table 6.7: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Health Impacts (Construction
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Soil impacts which are likely to result in
3 4 1 4 32 M 2 1 1 2 8 L
potential health impacts
Surface water impacts which are likely to
8 1 1 4 40 M 4 1 1 2 12 L
result in potential health impacts
Air impacts which are likely to result in
6 2 1 4 36 M 4 2 1 3 21 L
potential health impacts
Radiation Exposure 2 2 1 1 5 L 1 1 1 1 1 L

Soil impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts

Soil impacts that may pose potential health risks include contamination of soil during stripping and related
activities via spills & leakages emanating from activities such as machinery use, irresponsible dumping, etc.
Spills & leakages may also contain substances hazardous for human health (e.g. hydrocarbons). The risks
are directly related to the amount of chemicals in soil, their toxicity properties and the duration of exposure to
workers. Risks can be controlled by mitigation measures (e.g. excessive soil contamination will be collected
to be treated; vehicle maintenance will not be carried out on site. These can be found in the proposed
mitigation measures in the Soil Specialist Study. Given the distance between the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant and
various settlements, their residents are unlikely to be exposed.

Surface water impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts
Potential surface water contamination due to oils and grease from construction vehicles and machinery may
pose potential health risks. Oil and greases will most likely contain substances hazardous for human health
(e.g. hydrocarbons). Risks are directly related to the amount of chemicals in water, their toxicity properties
and the duration of exposure to humans. Risks can be controlled by mitigation measures.

Air impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts

Potential impacts are typically as a result of dust release during construction activities. Dust may have an
impact on human health. The risks are directly related to the amount of particles in air and the duration of
exposure to humans. Receptors of main concern will be on site-workers. Risks can be controlled by
mitigation measures (e.g., use of PPE).

Radiation exposure
Potential doses will be low to insignificant. The only mitigation measure is the clean-up of points where the
Radon Flux Density was higher than the acceptable levels. The rest of the three sites do not pose a
radiological risk during the construction period.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 284
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.6.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Mitigation measures that OLTIN YO’L GTL is required to implement, aimed at reducing potential negative
environmental and social impacts and enhancing potential positive environmental and social impacts that are
applicable to human health were discussed previously in the Water, Soil and Air Specialist Studies.
Vector borne diseases (such as visceral Leishmaniasis) have been identified as a potential concern in the
regional area. However no cases of this disease were recorded by Golder’s socio-economic team to date. As
recommended by IFC (2007) general HSE industry guideline, reducing the impact of vector-borne disease on
the long-term health of workers and community is best accomplished through implementation of diverse
interventions aimed at eliminating the factors that lead to disease. Project sponsors, in close collaboration
with community health authorities, can implement an integrated control strategy for vector-borne diseases
that might involve for instance elimination of breeding habitats of vectors close to human settlements;
implementation of integrated vector control programs; educating project personnel and area residents on
risks, prevention, and available treatment; and monitoring communities during high-risk seasons to detect
and treat cases.

6.5.7 Landscape and visual aesthetics

Reference
Specialist study Q

Key specialists
Johan Bothma

Study objectives
The study objectives of the Landscape and Visual specialist study were as follows:
15) Describing the visual landscape by way of a baseline investigation;
16) Characterising the nature and quality of the visual landscape and determining the sensitivity of the
resource;
17) Determining the change in the visual resource that would be brought about by the project, and how
visible this change will be from a defined study area;
18) Describing and assessing the resultant visual impacts caused by key components of the project;
19) Recommending mitigation measures to reduce the potential visual impacts of the project; and
20) Assessing the significance of visual impacts subsequent to the implementation of mitigation.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the Landscape and Visual specialist study:
1) The baseline assessment commenced with a photographic assessment of the site;
2) Photographs were taken from specific vantage points (indicated in Figure 6), to document the visual
character of the study area and any potential features of interest; panoramic views were created.
Examples of these can be seen in Figure 8;
3) The overall study area for the VIA is based on the spatial extent of the infrastructure footprint and an
associated buffer that includes potential indirect effects on the receiving environment;
4) A distance of 7 km was selected based on the assumption that the human eye cannot distinguish much
detail beyond this range;
5) A digital elevation model (DEM) was developed for the 7 km radius. The GeoEye’s GeoStereo Precision
DEM product was then used to generate 2m contours for the entire study area;
6) Viewsheds were developed using the 2m contours and the position and height of key proposed
infrastructure;
7) The following assumed structure heights were provided by the client and were used for the purposes of
the viewshed analysis:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 285
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.8: Assumed OLTIN YO’L GTL structure heights used for the purposes of the viewshed
analysis
Unit Unit 20 Unit 30 Unit 35 Unit 50 Unit 60 Unit 72 Unit 81
Highest
Assumed Assumed
accessible 25m 60m 35m 25m 20m
15m 15m
point
Stack height
73.5m n/a n/a 63m 42m 73.5m 125m
(highest)
Using this information, the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) was established (Figure 6.7)

¡ The VIA combined visual quality attributes (views, sense of place, visual absorption capacity and
aesthetic appeal) with landscape character, giving the landscape a high, moderate or low visual quality
value;

¡ The visual impacts were then assessed and rated in terms of; visibility, visual quality, visual intrusion,
visual exposure, and receptor sensitivity; and
The significance of the landscape and visual impact was subsequently assessed based on measures of
occurrence and severity.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 286
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.6: Points from which photographs were taken during the visual impact assessment

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 287
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.7: Visual impacts within 7 km of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site were assessed

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 288
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

North-east

North

Figure 6.8 Examples of the panoramic views created for use within the visual impact assessment. Photographs were
taken from Position 89.

6.5.7.1 Assessment of impacts

From a landscape and visual perspective, Table 6.9 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 6.9: Rating of visual impacts – Construction Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Visual Impact (Construction
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Existing landscape transformation due to
removal of the vegetation and land cover and 2 2 2 2 12 L 2 2 2 2 12 L
alteration of the site topography

Construction activity and increased traffic 4 2 2 3 24 L 2 2 2 3 18 L

Dust pollution during construction 4 2 2 4 32 M 2 2 2 3 18 L
M=Magnitude; D=Duration; S=Significance; P=Probability

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Existing landscape transformation due to removal of the vegetation and land cover and
alteration of the site topography
The construction of the project plant and infrastructure will necessitate the transformation of the existing
landscape character; by removing all existing land cover including vegetation, possible existing infrastructure
and land uses, and re-contouring the land surface to accommodate the project plant and infrastructure.
However due to the relatively flat landscape, as seen in Figure 6.8, it is anticipated that only limited
topographical changes will be required. This will have a visual impact on the landscape that will be most
visible at the early stages of construction before the erection of any plant has occurred, but will last for the
duration of the project lifespan and possibly beyond. Due to the fact that these changes will happen on
ground level, the level of visibility thereof is expected to be far less than that of the plant itself and the
probability of visual impact is therefore limited. This impact is considered to be a secondary impact
associated with the project and will not be of great significance once construction of the plant has been
completed, which will then dominate the landscape.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 289
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.9: The study area and region as a whole is generally characterised by a flat topography, sparse vegetation
cover and lack of human transformation (panorama taken from Position 91 looking northeast, as indicated on Figure 6.6

Construction activity and increased traffic

The construction process and associated activities is expected to in itself be a source of visual impact, for a
number of reasons. The storage and handling of construction materials, batching of concrete, storage of
rubble and waste and transport of the above materials to, from and on site will introduce visually intrusive
elements into the landscape and locally result in increased traffic. Although considered a secondary impact,
its significance will steadily increase as construction activities increase, due to increasing levels of visibility.
However this impact will be relatively short-lived when considered within the overall context of the project, as
the operational phase impacts are expected to last significantly longer.

Dust pollution during construction

Due to the very arid and dusty conditions that prevail throughout the region, it is highly likely that the
construction process will result in the generation of a significant amount of dust, especially during windy
conditions. Airborne dust is often visible over great distances and can be particularly bothersome, as it
reduces visibility and may further impact on the visual quality of the landscape if it settles on plants, crops
and built structures in significant quantities. However as with other construction phase impacts, the duration
of this impact is relatively short-lived when compared to that of operational impacts. Nevertheless, due to the
expected high levels of visibility this impact is considered the most significant construction phase impact.

6.5.7.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

The removal of the vegetation and land cover, and alteration of the site topography during the construction
phase were found to have a low impact and limited mitigation potential. Dust pollution was therefore found to
have the most significant visual impact. Recommendations made in order to limit the dust pollution included:

¡ An air quality specialist investigation should be conducted prior to construction;

¡ Watering of bare areas on a daily basis during construction;

¡ Covering stockpiles of loose materials; and

¡ Spraying of exposed areas with soil adhesive chemicals where feasible.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 290
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.8 Noise assessment

Reference
Specialist Study R

Key specialists
Simon Waddell

Study objectives
The objectives of noise assessment included:
21) Performing a baseline noise monitoring exercise to characterise the existing ambient noise climate;
22) Performing an assessment of noise associated with the construction of the GTL project;
23) Quantifying the anticipated noise emission from the on-site processes for day and night-time periods
during operation of the GTL facility;
24) Quantifying the anticipated noise emission from additional rail and road traffic associated with the
operation of the GTL project; and
25) Performing a cumulative noise assessment of all noise sources associated with the operation of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL facility plus the existing baseline noise environment and compare with
local/international noise guidance.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the noise assessment:
26) A survey of baseline noise levels was performed near to the proposed facility between the 25 and
29 June 2010; Measurements were taken at four locations to characterise the existing noise
environment in the area surrounding the GTL facility
27) Data was obtained over 24 hour periods at each location and logged at hourly intervals to allow the day,
evening and night-time noise levels to be analysed;
28) No source noise data has been made available regarding the proposed construction processes. Golder
has submitted a list of assumed construction processes, based on previous experience on similar
developments, which has been checked and verified by the client;
29) No source noise data was made available regarding the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant. Golder reviewed the
list of anticipated processes detailed in the “Regulatory EIA” document titled OAO “O’ZLITINEFTGAZ”
and created a list of assumed plant operations/machinery:
30) Golder submitted this list, along with typical sound power level data associated with such operations
(taken from tables of historic noise data acquired from the “HARMONOISE” project) which was checked
and verified by the client;
31) The estimated numbers for road and rail traffic movements were supplied by the client;
32) The noise assessment was carried out using the proprietary noise modelling software CadnaA. The
data used to create the model included:

§ Base Landline Map;

§ Site Plan;
§ Topography (Site & Surrounding);
§ Receptor Locations;
§ Ground Absorption;
§ Calculation Methodology (ISO 9613-2);
§ Wind Direction;
§ °
Temperature ( C);
§ Relative Humidity (%);
§ Order of Reflection; and
§ Receptor Height

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 291
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.10: Location of noise assessment survey points

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 292
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.8.1 Assessment of impacts

The results of the noise assessment models of the construction phases 1, 2 and 3 can be seen in Figure 6.10, Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12 respectively.

Figure 6.11: Results from the noise assessment model for the construction phase stage 1

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 293
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.12: Results from the noise assessment model for the construction phase, stage 2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 294
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Daytime construction noise has been assessed based on the stage of construction during which the highest
noise levels are predicted to occur; Stage 2, foundation works. Night-time construction noise has been
assessed based on predicted levels occurring during Stage 1 of construction works; ground preparation and
bulk earthworks. This is the only stage for which night-time working is proposed.
Table 6.10: Construction Noise Impact Magnitude -– Daytime, Construction Stage 2
Highest Predicted
Ambient Predicted Resultant
Predicted Noise Noise Level
Noise Level Impact
Receptor Noise Relative to
Level dB Relative to Magnitude
Level dB BS 5228
LAeq(07:00-19:00)) Baseline Score
LAeq(07:00-19:00) Criteria

R1 Otkuduk - +
56.5 41.4 8 – Very High
Village 5.8 15.1
R2 SGCC Staff - +
57.4 42.0 8 – Very High
Complex 1.5 15.4
R3 Construction + +
59.6 44.0 8 – Very High
Camp 3.6 15.6
R4 Navbahor - +
51.0 50.6 2 – Minor
Village 10.0 0.4

Construction Noise Impact Magnitude – Night time, Construction Stage 2

Highest Predicted
Ambient Predicted Resultant
Predicted Noise Level
Noise Level Noise Level Impact
Receptor Noise Level Relative to
dB LAeq (23:00- Relative to Magnitude
dB LAeq (23:00 BS 5228
07:00) Baseline Score
– 07:00) Criteria
- 2 – Minor
R1 Otkuduk Village 37.4 34.5 8.4 +2.9
R2 SGCC Staff - - 2 – Minor
Complex 38.9 41.7 7.5 2.8
R3 Construction - - 2 – Minor
Camp 43.2 47.1 5.3 3.9
R4 Navbahor - - 2 – Minor
Village 26.8 34.3 11.2 7.5

It can be seen that the daytime threshold value of 65 dB (A) for construction activities is predicted to not be
exceeded during any of the three identified stages of the construction phase at any of the receptors. During
Stage 1, however, it is evident that the predicted noise levels exceed the baseline by more than 10 dB (A) at
R1, R2 and R3. The magnitude of the noise impact is therefore assessed to be Very High, adverse at
receptors R1, R2 and R3. At R4 the predicted level exceeds the baseline by less than 3 dB; the resultant
impact magnitude is therefore minor, adverse.

Table 6.11 summarises the potential noise impacts that are related to the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.11: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Construction Phase
Daytime, Stage 2

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Noise Impact (Construction Phase)
M D S P Total SP
Daytime construction noise at Otkuduk Village 8 2 2 5 60 M

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 295
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Daytime construction noise at SGCC Staff Complex 8 2 2 5 60 M

Daytime construction noise at Construction Camp 8 2 2 5 60 M
Daytime construction noise at Navbahor Village 2 2 2 5 30 M

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Noise Impact (Construction Phase)
M D S P Total SP
Night-time construction noise at Otkuduk Village 2 2 2 5 30 M
Night-time construction noise at SGCC Staff Complex 2 2 2 5 30 M
Night-time construction noise at Construction Camp 2 2 2 5 30 M
Night-time construction noise at Navbahor Village 2 2 2 5 30 M

It should be noted that during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of construction the impact magnitude of daytime working
will be significantly lower, however, daytime construction impacts have been assessed on a worst-case
basis. During the night-time period of construction Stage 1, when activities will be continuing 24 / 7, the
predicted noise levels meet the assessment criteria and do not exceed the baseline level by more than 3
dB(A) at all receptors. The impact magnitude is therefore minor, adverse at all receptors. The construction
phase duration will be Short-term. Noise effects from the construction phase are anticipated to be Local in
scale. It is assumed that the project will go ahead; the probability of the impact is therefore definite.

6.5.8.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Temporary elevation of ambient noise levels is expected during the construction of the OLTIN YO’L GTL site.
In order to minimise the noise impact upon neighbouring receptors as far as is reasonably practicable,
several best practice mitigation measures have been recommended. Key mitigation measures include:

¡ Avoiding unnecessary revving of engines and switching off equipment when not required;

¡ Starting up plant and vehicles sequentially rather than all together;

¡ Vehicles will be maintained regularly and kept in a good working order;

¡ Increasing the distance between plant and noise sensitive receptors is the most effective method of
controlling noise;

¡ On sites where it is not possible to reduce noise by increasing the distance between source and
receiver, screening may have to be considered;

¡ The quietest equipment that can economically undertake the work should be selected wherever
possible;

¡ Mufflers and other noise suppression devices should be used and maintained;

¡ Construction work should take place within the daytime period wherever possible, avoiding evening and
night time (18:30 to 06:30); and

¡ Community complaint management to be managed by the Grievance mechanism – see section 7.0 of
this ESHSIA for the ESHMP mitigation measures.

6.5.9 Major accident hazards risk assessment

Reference
Specialist Study T

Key specialists
Daniël Rademeyer

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 296
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Study objectives
The study objectives of the major accident hazard risk assessment specialist study were as follows:

1) To determine the major accident hazards in terms of the material or agents involved and the mechanism
which will cause the hazardous effects to be revealed;

2) To calculate the severity of the hazards and to determine the impacts on the site and the surrounding
environment;

3) To evaluate the probability of occurrence of the hazardous events;

4) To combine the severity and the probability in estimating the risks;

5) To assess the acceptability of the risks; and

6) To propose preventative, mitigation or protective measures to reduce the impact of the risk.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the major accident hazard risk assessment
specialist study:

33) Data collection, in the form of documentation from the design team;

34) Desktop review of relevant documentation;

35) Delineation of study area for the assessment; and

36) Assessment of the major accident hazard risks.

6.5.9.1 Assessment of impacts

Although major accident hazards are not an issue during construction, for completeness Table 6.12
summarises the potential impacts that are related to the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and
provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.12: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase

Potential Major Accident Hazard ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

Impacts (Construction Phase: OLTIN Before mitigation After mitigation
YO’L GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Loss of life of persons on the site 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
Loss of life of surrounding communities 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
Injuries to persons on the site 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
Injuries to people in surrounding
2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
communities
Contamination through pollution and
leakages (e.g. of oil), for example, from 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
construction vehicles

Thus there are no significant impacts from major accident hazards during construction of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL, as summarised in the table above.

6.5.9.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

No mitigation measures for major hazard accidents during construction have been identified. Major accident
hazards are not possible or relevant during construction.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 297
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.10 Socio-economic environment impacts

Reference
Specialist Study U

Key specialists
Paul Lawrence

Study objectives
The study objectives of the socio-economic specialist study were as follows:

1) To conduct a scoping visit;

2) To develop a stakeholder engagement approach;

3) To collect socio-economic baseline information;

4) To conduct an impact analysis based on the socio-economic baseline; and

5) To produce the social elements of the Environmental, Social and Health Management Plan (ESHMP).

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the socio-economic specialist study:

37) Data collection, including literature review and secondary data collection;

38) Primary data collection in the form of structured and semi-structured interviews, as well as the collection
of case studies and personal histories;

39) Data management, analysis and quality control; and

40) Delineation of study area for the assessment.

6.5.10.1 Assessment of impacts

Socio-economic impacts have not been assessed according to the impact assessment methodology used by
7
other specialists . There are, however, some similarities in the definition of attributes. The four attributes
applied to the determination of socio-economic impact significance are listed and defined below:

¡ Direction: indicates whether the impact is positive, negative or neutral. Some impacts may have both
positive and negative dimensions.

¡ Magnitude: indicates the degree of change in a socio-economic parameter and is generally a

qualitative assessment.

¡ Geographic extent: indicates the geographic and administrative units that will be impacted. Some
impacts may affect only individual households, whereas others may affect the local areas of influence,
regional area of influence, the entire country, or have a trans-boundary impact.

7
The key steps in developing the socio-economic elements impact assessment are listed below:

¡ Determination of socio-economic baseline;

¡ Review of project activities;
¡ Key issue identification;
¡ Development of impact categories;
¡ Development of mitigation measures; and
¡ Residual impact assessment.
Defining the significance of impacts and benefits

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 298
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Duration: indicates the length of time over which an impact may occur. Duration is usually related to
the Project description.

Unlike environmental impacts, social impacts are not assessed on probability. Socio-economic impacts are
part of an on-going process of interdependent economic and social change. Although there are isolated
exceptions, most socio-economic impacts are experienced continuously by people; thus, probability is not
often a useful attribute for significance assessment. As a result of removing this aspect, socio-economic
impacts do not include a qualitative calculation that leads to a score for “significance points”.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 299
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.13 provides further details on the significance of socio-economic impacts.

Table 6.13: Classification of Significant of Social Impacts
Criteria Definition
Positive – Impact provides a net benefit to the affected person(s).
Negative – Impact results in a net loss to the affected persons(s).
Mixed – Impact may be positive or negative, but requires an intervention to
Direction
demonstrate net benefit. In impact evaluation, the benefit will be considered less
because of the potential for mixed results.
Neutral – No net benefit or loss to the affect person(s).
Negligible – No noticeable change anticipated.
Low – Result predicted to be different from baseline conditions, but not to impair or
change quality of life of the affected person(s).
Moderate – Result predicted to impair or benefit quality of life of the affected
Magnitude
persons(s).
High – Result predicted to seriously impair quality of life and mitigation measures are
unlikely to help; or result to substantially benefit with a high degree of confidence that
benefits will be sustainable beyond the life of the Project.
Individual – Confined to individuals or individual households.
Local – Confined to the local area of influence.
Geographic Extent Regional – Confined to the regional area of influence.
National – Extends to national level.
Trans-boundary – Results impact neighbouring countries in the region.
Short-term – Through construction; until 2015.
Duration Medium-term – Through operations.
Long-term – Beyond the life of the GTL plant; post-closure.

Construction phase and operational phase impacts have been assessed in a combined manner. Thus it is
not possible to separate them into the various sections of the report.

The information collected during baseline studies and the through stakeholder engagement is summarised
as a set of impact categories that form the basis of the impact assessment. Summarising the key issues into
impact categories allows cross-cutting issues to be addressed. The impact categories are:

¡ Economy and employment;

¡ Health, education and community safety;

¡ Land ownership and use; and

¡ Infrastructure.

Within each impact category a number of indicators have been assessed.

6.5.10.1.1 Economy and employment

Table 6.14 summarises the potential economic and employment impacts that are related to the construction
phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after
mitigation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 300
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.14: Economy and Employment Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction
Phase
Economy and Employment – Prior to Mitigation

Sub-topic Direction Magnitude Extent Duration Impact (prior)

Moderate to Moderate
Royalties and taxes Positive National Medium-term
High (positive)

Employment
Mixed Moderate Regional Long-term Low (positive)
opportunities

Procurement of local
Mixed Moderate Regional Medium-term Low (positive)
goods and services

Moderate
Inflation Negative Moderate Local Medium-term
(negative)

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Royalties and taxes

The impacts of royalties, taxes and profit sharing are predicted to be positive to net economic contribution,
which should extend throughout the operations phase of the work.

Exact estimates of the technical and economic costs and payments are not available at this time, but will be
included in further reporting.

While tax contributions are generally considered to be positive, their impact can have mixed results. Non-
transparent payment of taxes, particularly in the extractive industries, has led to corruption and lost benefits
when revenues are not paid transparently and monitored. For this reason, since 2007, the IFC has required
all of its extractive industry projects to publically disclose their material payments to host governments (IFC
2006). Uzbekistan is not a candidate country like Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan; other major companies have
agreed to support the initiative.

OLTIN YO’L GTL have sought to further address risks related to corruption through the implementation of a
Gift Policy, which provides rules on the limits of acceptable gift giving. Any gift over the value of $60 USD
must be declared. Individuals may either donate the gift to OLTIN YO’L GTL or keep the item and purchase
it, with the value over $60 USD being collected in a charity fund that will be distributed to charity on an
annual basis. The value of the gift will be determined by the Commercial Department.

The Gift Policy also stipulates when gifts, irrespective of value, are not acceptable and include:

¡ Those that are illegal or immoral;

¡ Cash or cash equivalent;

¡ A quid pro quo or part of an agreement requiring anything in return for the gift;

¡ Those that violate OLTIN YO’L GTL values in any way; and

¡ Those (over $60 USD) that are not recorded correctly in the gifts register.
While international investment and the expected ability to export petrochemical products abroad, the positive
contribution should take into account an over reliance on extractive industries, especially in light of the shift
from agricultural to industry and services. Indirect effects related to large changes in the extractive sector

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 301
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

can have negative impacts on other sectors such as manufacturing or, more relevant to Uzbekistan,
8
agriculture.

Employment opportunities
There will be new employment, which will be particularly beneficial during the construction phase when there
is the need for a higher percentage of less skilled workers, and this will generate new income sources for a
region in great need of new employment. During construction around 10,000 temporary jobs will be created
of which the majority will be skilled labour, with about 550 permanent jobs during the operational phase of
the project of which almost all will be positions for skilled persons.

Employment and new jobs are generally considered a positive social impact. However, the overall direction
of new employment opportunities is mixed. A large influx of temporary workers can put additional strain on
local communities, thus, the impact of the presence of workers with different lifestyles or cultural
backgrounds on the host community needs to be assessed and managed. Religious or other cultural
prescriptions, local traditions and community structure and the relationship between men and women should
9
be observed and respected to avoid conflict/issues. Training/orientation can be provided to the workers in
relation to this. Contractors should comply with national labour laws and international core labour
standards.In addition, there are inherent risks common with the development of large industrial projects.
Without well-administered human resources policies, job creation can exacerbate existing social divisions
and in some cases generate local conflict if job seekers do not trust that recruitment and human resource
policies are not transparent.

Procurement of local goods and services

Similar to employment, the need for local goods and services are generally considered to be a positive social
impact with the additional purchasing power adding stimulus to the economy. Also in a similar way, this can
have less impact and even negative impact if the procedures are not transparent. This is particularly
relevant when considering some of the barriers to small and medium enterprise development.

Inflation
Inflation is a negative impact that often can accompany the influx of new workers, even if contained to a
workers’ camp. The additional economic purchasing power and drive up the cost of goods and services,
making it even more expensive for local residents to meet their needs.

While it is difficult to demonstrate that inflation is caused by Project activities, the potential impact can be
most difficult for those with the least ability to give feedback. No stakeholders mentioned inflation as a
negative impact of the SGCC, adjacent to the project. However, the impact is noted in the impact analysis,
as it will be important for OLTIN YO’L GTL to be aware of changes in local markets that make impact the
most vulnerable groups in the local communities.

6.5.10.1.2 Health, education and community safety

Table 6.15 summarises the potential health, education, and community safety impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before
and after mitigation.
Table 6.15: Health, Education and Community Safety Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL-
Construction Phase
Health, Education and Community Safety – Prior to Mitigation
Sub-topic Direction Magnitude Extent Duration Impact (prior)
Health and
Positive Low Local Medium-term Low (positive)
education
STDs and Negative Moderate Regional Long-term Moderate

8
This effect, known as the “resource curse” is widely debated (see Eggert 2001 for detailed review of arguments; this reference is centred on mining, the principles are the same for
the oil and gas sector), but there is general consensus that large increases in extractive industries can have negative impacts on economic and social performance. This is most
common when extractive industries reduce the productivity from other sectors by attracting limited human capital and other productive resources.
9
(http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/9839db00488557d1bdfcff6a6515bb18/workers_accomodation.pdf?MOD=AJPERES)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 302
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Health, Education and Community Safety – Prior to Mitigation

commercial sex (negative)
work
Moderate
Migration Negative Moderate Local Medium-term
(negative)
Community safety Low
Negative Moderate Local Medium-tem
and security (negative)

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Health and education

The general nature of building the GTL plant in a sparsely populated location will mean that there is limited
impact on health and education. The development of such projects is usually associated with an
improvement in health and education as there is an increase in tax contributions and overall economic
activity in the local and regional area, but such impact are considered to be low.
Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and commercial sex work
Baseline information indicates that sexually transmitted diseases and commercial sex work are not frequently
cited problems. However, the issues are commonly a risk in industrial project, especially with large work
forces consisting predominantly of men who are away from their homes for extended periods of time. Even
though prevalence rates are relatively low throughout the country, the issue is considered a potentially
negative impact, especially as a lack of awareness about diseases and risks associated with commercial sex
work are often linked with other social maladies.

Immigration
Immigration and associated indirect impacts is complex, especially during construction.

Planned well, as migration was reportedly managed for migrant workers for the SGCC plant, the arrival of
new workers has relatively small or un/noticeable impacts. In the case of SGCC, some stakeholders see the
construction of new homes and infrastructure as a positive impact. But without such mitigation steps as
building new housing for in-coming workers, the arrival of new workers can create increased completion for
resources and strain existing social, health and educational facilities. Without commitments to address these
potential issues, migration is expected to have a negative impact in the local areas around the project site.

Community safety and security

The interaction between security employees, including government managed security, and local residents
can often be the most frequent interaction between the Project and local communities. Failure to link
security services with the wider community liaison work can lead to misunderstandings, provision of
misinformation and strained relations with local residents. This dynamic, without commitments to address the
potential risks related to the enjoyment of rights among local residents, is considered to be negative.

The interaction between security employees, including government managed security, and local residents
can often be the most frequent interaction between the Project and local communities. Failure to link
security services with the wider community liaison work can lead to misunderstandings, provision of
misinformation and strained relations with local residents. This dynamic, without commitments to address the
potential risks related to the enjoyment of rights among local residents, is considered to be negative.

Road safety during the construction and operation phase is considered as a potential impact on community
safety and is considered in the assessment.

6.5.10.1.3 Land ownership and use

The land allotment agreement has been attached as Appendix BB.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 303
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.16 summarises the potential land ownership and land use impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before
and after mitigation.

Table 6.16: Land Ownership and Use Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction
Phase
Land Ownership and Use – Prior to Mitigation
Sub-topic Direction Magnitude Extent Duration Impact (prior)
Physical
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
displacement
Economic
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
displacement

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Physical displacement10
There will be no physical displacement as a result of the Project. The government owns all land and there
are no permanent residences on the Project footprint.

Economic displacement
The situation of economic displacement and the use of natural resources of livelihoods were explored in
detail during interviews with people using the structures on the Project site.

Access to land presently allocated to OLTIN YO’L GTL was based on employment agreement. Part of the
forestry land (4-5 hectares) allocated for the proposed project is used for animal grazing by the Forestry
Department. It is the same site wherein a temporary shed was built by the Forestry Department as temporary
shelter during the shepherds’ grazing activities (The employees used the structures as temporary
residences, but always had a permanent residence in Abduhamid). The site was used by its two employees
(shepherds) until the head shepherd retired and a new grazing site was identified. The other employee
voluntarily resigned prior to his father’s retirement and is gainfully employed earning twice the salary that he
used to receive from the Forestry Department. The shed was demolished and replaced in the new grazing
area. Both employees, members of the same family, have ended their employment. One resigned from the
work in 2010 and the last employee retired in 2012. Therefore, there is no anticipated economic
displacement for the former workers.

There are no other known informal users of land from the nearby community (i.e. those who are grazing
animals in the area without any agreement with the Forestry Department). Impacts on ecosystems goods
and services are also minor/negligible – see sections 6.5.16 and 6.6.15.

10
Although this item was scoped out, additional information is as follows:
Pre-construction
The process of land allocation for OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant started in 2009 and was completed in April 2010. Certificate of Registration of Owning Rights of Land was issued after all
the documentation has been completed for 136 hectares of land that will be used for the Project. No individuals or households were displaced economically or physically as there are
no know existing private leases and informal users within the allocated land.
For the associated facilities (access road, railway expansion and pipelines), land allocation will be done by the government as part of their responsibilities to design, build and
construct these facilities. There are no known private leases where these facilities will be located.
Future Land Allocation Activities
Additional Land Fill Facility/Waste Facility will be constructed 5-6 years upon operationalization of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant. As the site has yet to be identified and although
displacement will be unlikely, an assessment will be conducted to screen against potential involuntary resettlement impact as a result of land allocation. The Government of
Uzbekistan will be in charge of allocating the land for the facility.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 304
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.10.1.4 Infrastructure
Impacts on infrastructure were not investigated in detail due to a lack of specific project plans. Most
infrastructure related impacts would be generally considered positive, but will require more study prior to
construction.

6.5.10.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

6.5.10.2.1 Economy and employment
Royalties and taxes
OLTIN YO’L GTL will fulfil the IFC requirement of reporting on all taxes and government payments, as
stipulated by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and required for new extractive industry
projects.

Employment opportunities
Employment and new job opportunities are generally considered a positive impact. However, to ensure that
the benefits are maximized and positive, the owner will adhere to the international guidelines set out by the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) and IFC Performance Standard 2.Such mitigation step will include:
11
¡ Implementation of the In-house Rules and Regulations , which represents the main internal policy
regulating conclusion, modification and termination of employment agreements, work, rest time, work
discipline and other issues of legal relationships arising between the OLTIN YO’L GTL and employees.
The policy includes information on the following key elements: Development of a Human Resources
Policy that includes information on the following key elements:

§ Recruitment and hiring procedure

§ Changes of terms of employment, workplace and transfer of an employee to a different job
§ Termination of the employment agreement
§ Labour discipline and responsibilities
§ List of breaches that may involve fines
§ List of breaches that may involve termination of the employment agreement
§ Working hours, rest time and overtime
§ Remuneration
§ Health and Safety
§ Smoking, alcohol, drugs and intoxication
§ Confidentiality
§ Material aid
§ Security
§ Organisation of work process
§ Entitlement to leave for holidays, vacation, illness, and maternity and other reasons
§ The employer’s obligation to comply with the rights of employee’s representative body and to
12
facilitate its activities

¡ Ensuring all employees have clear documentation of their working relationship to the owner;

¡ Adherence to the clear policy statements on non-discrimination and equal opportunity in the
Recruitment Policy;

11
The In-house Rules and Regulations serves approximately the same function as the Human Resources Policy required by the IFC as part of Performance Standard 2.
12
The In-house Rules and Regulations do no explicty state employees have the rigth to form and join workers’ organisations, it does commit for comply with the rights of employee’s
representative body. The policy also references a Collective Agreement in the context of providing material aid.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 305
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Developing clear policy statements that forbid any form of child or forced labour, which may mean
developing specific references to national legislation;

¡ Developing an internal worker’s grievance mechanism, which complements the grievance mechanism
for external actors;

¡ Documenting efforts to explain to all contractors and non-employee workers that the key elements of
ILO and IFC Performance Standard 2 are relevant for non-employee workers; and

¡ Documenting efforts to explain to suppliers that they must conform to international guidelines related to
child and forced labour.
In addition to these elements, the Human Resource Department has developed a People Performance
Management Procedure, which is a system that aims to ensure a culture of performance and personal
growth in human resources.
The existing Recruitment Policy, aside from making clear statements on non-discrimination, provides clear
procedures on advertising and filling vacancies. The policy also requires that all new employees undergo an
orientation to cover:

¡ Company mission, values and culture;

¡ Health and safety;

¡ Training and development programmes;

¡ Overview of administrative and policy issues;

¡ Overview of disciplinary, grievance and performance management systems;

¡ Provision of initial training; and

¡ Remuneration and related issues linked to employee benefits.

OLTIN YO’L GTL will face the common challenge of meeting high expectations for employment with local
residents that have little technical training. OLTIN YO’L GTL will develop a Recruitment Policy that seeks to
maximise employment in the LSA. The recruitment policy has the following hierarchy of preference:
Kashkadarya, Uzbekistan, CIS countries, International.
A key means for addressing the high expectations will be through a proactive stakeholder engagement
programme, which will be managed by the Community Liaison Officer (CLO). The CLO will work with the
human resources department, local leaders in Nishon and Guzor and residents of the two regions to create a
realistic strategy for attracting and retaining “local” workers. This iterative communication process includes
explaining to local residents the types of jobs available and why more skilled positions require higher levels
of education and technical training.

Procurement of local goods and services

There is an existing Procurement Policy that provides a broad framework to procure goods and services in
accordance with the applicable regulatory and environmental requirements and leading practice that is fair,
equitable, transparent, cost-effective, efficient, effective, and competitive and promotes sound governance
practices.
The Procurement Policy directly relies upon the corporate Gift Policy and states that all procurement
decisions and business transactions should be made with uncompromised integrity, honesty and objectivity
of judgement.
The Procurement Policy is linked to separate Procurement Procedures for contracts equal to or greater than
$100,000 USD and contract for less than this amount.
OLTIN YO’L GTL’s Procurement Policy states that, where practical, it will seek to purchase from local
supplies before considering international suppliers and will make efforts to maximise procurement from local,

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 306
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

regional and national businesses. However, the underdevelopment of the business environment is a
challenge for setting procurement targets and meeting minimum requirements of quality control. OLTIN YO’L
GTL will work to set up an initial meeting with government representatives and development organisations
seeking to support business development to discuss the procurement needs of the Project. The purpose of
the meeting will be to identify groups or organisations that could meet procurement needs or identify training
and business support services that could allow Uzbekistan businesses and suppliers to meet procurement
needs in the future.
A system will be developed to monitor expenditures within the country and OLTIN YO’L GTL will seek to
increase the percentage of procurement in Uzbekistan. Results of these efforts will be included in regular
reporting.

Inflation
The negative impacts of inflation are difficult to predict. OLTIN YO’L GTL will assess inflationary impacts
through is regular consultation to be managed by the CLO. If feedback includes comments about a rise in
prices, a more formal monitoring system will be set up to monitor prices for staple goods in local markets on
a monthly basis. This will be done in the LSA, as well as in other areas of the RSA to determine if inflation is
a localised impact related to the Project or may have other causes.
Table 6.17 outlines the likely post-mitigation outcomes of the project relating to economy and employment.

Table 6.17: Economy and Employment Impact Assessment Matrix for UZGTL- Post Mitigation
Economy and Employment – Post Mitigation
Impact Impact
Sub-topic Direction Magnitude Extent Duration
(prior) (post)
Royalties and Moderate to Moderate High
Positive National Medium-term
taxes High (positive) (positive)
Employment Low Moderate
Mixed Moderate Regional Long-term
opportunities (positive) (positive)
Procurement of
Low Moderate
local goods and Mixed Moderate Regional Medium-term
(positive) (positive)
services
Moderate Low
Inflation Negative Moderate Local Medium-term
(negative) (negative)

Monitoring requirements related to economic impacts include:

¡ Monitoring and disclosure of all royalties, taxes and profit sharing paid to national, regional and local
government;

¡ Monitoring and disclosure of total sum collected from Gifts Policy, including total donated to charity;

¡ Disclosure of Human Resources Policy;

¡ Disclosure of policy of non-discrimination (if not included in Human Resources Policy);

¡ Disclosure of Recruitment Policy;

¡ Documentation and reporting of training provided to all workers;

¡ Documentation and disclosure of employment statistics, including proportion of expatriate workers,

workers from the local and regional areas, and other demographic information (gender, ethnic group,
etc.) that demonstrates OLTIN YO’L GTL’s commitment to non-discrimination and equal opportunity;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 307
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Documentation and reporting on all worker grievances;

¡ Monitoring in-country procurement; and

¡ Monitoring inflationary impacts through regular engagement with stakeholders.

6.5.10.2.2 Health, Education and Community Safety

Health and education
Impacts are small and expected to be positive through the indirect links with improving economic
opportunities. No further mitigation required.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) and commercial sex work

OLTIN YO’L GTL will create an HIV/AIDS Policy that will provide accurate information on HIV/AIDS, other
sexually transmitted diseases, as well as the risks related to commercial sex work. HIV screening will not be
used as mitigation measure since such measures contradict the principles of non-discrimination and can
provide incentives for avoiding tests, hiding results and generating complacency around HIV/AIDS.
The OLTIN YO’L GTL CLO will engage periodically with HIV/AIDS and health NGOs to stay informed about
the national efforts to raise awareness.
On site, OLTIN YO’L GTL health professionals will use the HIV/AIDS Policy to raise awareness with all
employees and ensure condoms are available in worker camps.

Migration
The primary mitigation measure to limit the impact of migration is to develop an isolated workers camp. The
camp is planned to be self-sufficient and would be located on an adjacent piece of land in close proximity to
the planned Project site. The contract scope of work for construction phase contractors includes the
responsibility to develop a complete Construction Health Safety and Environment Management Plan for
approval by OLTIN YO’L GTL. This includes the construction camp, employee selection, management and
final repatriation of foreign workers, management of sub-contractors, government and public stakeholder
relations.
If additional facilities are needed for long-term workers after the construction phase, OLTIN YO’L GTL will
conduct an assessment of where to locate these workers. The CLO will support efforts to mitigate migration
impacts through the administration of a formal Grievance Mechanism, describe in the SEP developed during
the scoping phase of the Project. Through the stakeholder engagement process, all stakeholders in the area
of influence will be informed about the procedures to inform OLTIN YO’L GTL of problems or specific
grievances that arise as a result of migration.

Community safety and security

OLTIN YO’L GTL will coordinate safety and security procedures with external communication. All security
employees, including contractors or government-managed security will receive an induction on the overall
objectives related to stakeholder engagement. The induction will include an overview of their responsibilities
for passing information to the CLO or appropriate managers, especially when a situation may affect
community safety. The induction will include instructions on the grievance mechanism and how to accurately
record any grievances for the CLO. All security employees will be provided with the employee Code of
Conduct, as well as periodic updates of information that may be relevant to changes in the stakeholder
engagement procedures. Travellers on the main roads will experience greater volumes of traffic and may
notice an increase. To mitigate this impact, OLTIN YO’L GTL will train all drivers in road safety. Accidents will
be logged and results will be included in regular environmental and social reporting.
Table 6.18 outlines the likely post-mitigation outcomes of the project relating to health, education and
community safety.
Table 6.18: Health, Education and Community Safety Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL-
Post Mitigation
Health, Education and Community Safety – Post Mitigation
Sub-topic Direction Magnitude Extent Duration Impact (prior) Impact

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 308
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Health, Education and Community Safety – Post Mitigation

(post)
Health and Low
Positive Low Local Medium-term Low (positive)
education (positive)
STDs and
Moderate Low
commercial sex Negative Moderate Regional Long-term
(negative) (negative)
work
Moderate Low
Migration Negative Moderate Local Medium-term
(negative) (negative)
Community safety
Negative Moderate Local Medium-term Low (negative) Negligible
and security
Monitoring requirements related to economic impacts include:

¡ Disclosure of HIV/AIDS Policy;

¡ Documentation and reporting on all grievances;

¡ Monitoring of all royalties, taxes and profit sharing paid to national, regional and local government; and

¡ Documentation and reporting of inductions provided to all security employees and contractors, including
government-managed security personnel;

¡ Documentation of driver training and records on driving safety for contractors verified; and

¡ Records of road accidents maintained and reported regularly.

6.5.10.2.3 Land ownership and use

Physical displacement
There will be no physical displacement as a result of the Project. Mitigation is not applicable.

Economic displacement
There will be no economic displacement as a result of the Project. Mitigation is not applicable; however, if
any such displacement is needed in the future, OLTIN YO’L GTL will use IFC Performance Standard 5 to
mitigate all impacts.
6.5.10.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation
No monitoring requirements are applicable.
6.5.11 Soils
Reference
Specialist study V

Key specialists
Louw Potgieter

Study objectives
The key aims and objectives of the soil assessment study
included:
41) Characterization of the soil resource by description of the
physical and chemical properties and establishment of soil
potential for agricultural utilization;

42) Identification and assessment of the potential impact on the

soil resource; and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 309
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

43) The proposal of mitigation measures for the impacts identified.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the soil assessment specialist study:

44) Soil baseline data was collected during a site visit from 10 to 15 October 2010;

45) An initial grid system with 150 m intervals was generated for each of the proposed three sites with the
aid of GIS software. The points were transferred to a Global Positioning System (GPS) for in-field
orientation and the selection of monitoring points;

46) The assessment focussed on the GTL plant location as the Figure 6.13 Example of an auger hole drilled
largest of the three proposed sites; for soil observation

47) At each selected point, a soil observation was made with the
use of a bucket type hand auger to a maximum depth of 150 cm while soil cover was collected from
surface in 100 mm increments, an example of which can be seen in Figure 6.13;

48) A total of 25 auger holes were drilled via this method, while a drainage line and excavated trench on
both ends of the site presented cross sections of the soil profile, the locations of the observation points
are shown in Figure 6.14;

49) Selected sites were sampled in the proposed plant site area and from potentially polluted spots
observed on the site designated for GTL accommodation facilities;

50) Holes were drilled with a 75mm diameter steel auger;

51) The ground surface at the position of the auger hole was carefully cleared of loose material;

52) The sampling interval was to the lower boundary of a pre-determined horizon (depth intervals are
indicated in);

53) The auger was advanced to the required depth and carefully removed from the hole. The hole was
covered to prevent foreign material from entering;

54) Approximately 1 kg of soil was taken from the hole raisings and placed into clean pvc bags;

55) Prior to the taking of each sample the auger was wiped clean of soil, rinsed in a phosphate free
detergent and finally sprayed with de-ionised water to prevent cross contamination between sampling
intervals;

56) The bags were sealed and labelled with a unique sample number;

57) The samples were submitted to Analytico Eurofins in the Netherlands for assessment of baseline
chemical status, included organic matter content, fraction size distribution, total metals, soil acidity (pH)
and electrical conductivity (EC);

58) In addition, selected samples were subject to a Terratest analysis to assess contamination status; and

59) The subsequent results were then interpreted and baseline conditions established.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 310
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.14: Location of the observed and sampled points

Table 6.19: Sample information list

Sample point Sample ID Sample depth intervals (cm)
Uz53 Uz53A 0 – 10
Uz53B 10 – 50
Uz53C 50 – 100
Uz92 Uz92A 0 – 10
Uz92B 10 – 80
Uz92C 80 – 120
Uz88 Uz88A 0 - 15
Uz88B 15 - 140
Uz106 Uz106SB 0 -20
Uz Ac1 Uz Ac1 0-30
Uz Ac2 Uz Ac2 solid
Uz Ac3 Uz Ac3 0-30

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 311
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.11.1 Assessment of impacts

From a soil perspective, Table 6.20 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the construction
phase of the OLTIN YO’L

GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.20: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Construction Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Impacts on soil (Construction
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Loss of the soil resource during this
2 4 2 5 40 M 2 4 2 5 40 M
phase
Contamination of soil during stripping and
related activities via spills & leakages
3 4 1 4 32 M 2 1 1 2 8 L
emanating from machinery use,
irresponsible dumping, etc.
Potential of erosion on stockpiled material
and surrounding surface due to incorrect 8 4 2 3 42 M 1 1 1 2 6 L
stockpiling methods
Compacting of soil during stripping &
stockpiling especially when in a moist 8 5 1 4 56 M 4 2 1 2 14 L
state

Loss of the soil resource

The impact of the construction phase was found to have medium ratings in terms of magnitude and scale.
This was largely due to the low agricultural potential of the soil lacking high quality irrigation water. In
addition, the land is currently allocated for industrial development. While the overall ratings are low, it must
be noted that the establishment of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility will result in a loss of soils resources,
effectively rendering the soil ‘useless’ for agricultural purposes.

Soil contamination
The use of machinery during the construction phase is expected to result in spills and leakages of fuel, oil
and hydraulic fluids. In addition, improper or irresponsible disposal of waste materials resulting from
construction operations may lead to the contamination of soil resources with potentially long term
consequences if not mitigated. In addition, dumping of hazardous domestic waste at the accommodation
facility may cause pollution of the soil. Contamination of the soil has a negative impact and mitigation
measures are required to minimize or avoid this potential impact.

Soil erosion
Potential exists for erosion during the construction phase where excavated top soil is not appropriately
stockpiled, i.e. stockpile walls are too steep and/or high. Further, soil is instability is increased when wet,
which will intensify the process of erosion if mitigation measures are not implemented. Soil erosion is
expected to have a negative effect with a moderate significance rating. Rainfall for this region is, however,
low and contributes to the low ranking of probability of occurrence and scale.

Soil compaction
Soil compaction occurs when the soil particles and porous network within are rearranged as a result of
pressure applied on surface. Pressure will be applied by the movement of heavy vehicles and machinery
during excavating operations. The soil is expected to be more prone to compaction if the stripping process
takes place when the soil is in a moist state. This is as a result of the high silt content of the soil in this area.
The impact of the construction phase will therefore have a negative direction with a moderate significance
due to duration and high probability. The application of mitigation measures, however, will reduce the impact
to a near insignificant score.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 312
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.11.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Loss of the soil resource is an inevitable event and will last for the duration of the project. The soil resource
cannot be replaced and the impact therefore cannot be mitigated. The impacted areas are however relatively
small in comparison to the available land surrounding the proposed site.

Recommended mitigation measures include:

¡ Vehicles and machinery on the construction site must be subjected to daily inspections for possible
leakages and damages that could cause leakage;

¡ Vehicles and machinery must be maintained regularly and kept in good working order;

¡ Spill kits should be on-hand to deal with immediate oil/fuel spills;

¡ Adequate waste facilities must be provided and maintained

¡ Where possible, remove and place soils when in a dry state and not when moist or wet; and

¡ Topsoil stockpiles should be extensive and low, rather than high

These and other mitigation measures are further discussed in the ESHMP chapter.

6.5.12 Hydrology (Surface water)

Reference
Specialist Study W

Key specialists
Trevor Coleman, Angelina Jordanova, Oliver Malete

Study objectives
The study objectives of the hydrology specialist study were as follows:

1) To review the relevant documentation regarding the current and future sources of water for the
proposed plant and prepare the necessary specialist input to the ESHSIA report if applicable;

2) To inform the current and possible future stormwater management on site and the water reclamation
aspect of the project. The specific objectives of the stormwater modelling being to:

§ Determine stormwater make on the site; and

§ Management of stormwater runoff and the adequacy of stormwater control; and
3) To analyse the impact of the proposed effluent discharge on the downstream users and the cumulative
water quality implications of these. These aspects were compared to the relevant legislative standards,
requirements and guidelines.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the hydrology specialist study:

60) Data collection, in the form of two surface water grab samples at two locations near the site, as well as
the acquisition of rainfall and evaporation data ;

61) Desktop review of relevant documentation;

62) Delineation of study area for the assessment, including:

§ All surface water resources and their underlying input sources. These include all reservoirs, canals
and raw water pipelines;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 313
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

§ The drainage area surrounding the site and the fate of all surface water runoff. These include
drainage ditches/trenches and site topography. A GeoStereo Precision Digital Elevation model
(DEM) was used to resolve drainage areas;

§ Proposed wastewater effluent discharge locations, volumes and flows; and

§ Rainfall and evaporation.
63) Stormwater modelling; and

64) Determination of proposed wastewater effluent.

6.5.12.1 Assessment of impacts

From a surface water perspective, Table 6.21 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 6.21: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Hydrology Impacts (Construction Phase:
OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
OLTIN YO’L GTL sediment mobilization due to
4 2 1 5 35 M 2 2 1 5 25 L
clearance of vegetation and top soils

Potential surface water contamination due to oils and

8 1 1 4 40 M 4 1 1 2 12 L
grease from construction vehicles and machinery

Access road construction (main construction road)

4 2 2 5 40 M 2 2 1 5 25 L
mobilising dust and sediments

Construction related rubble and waste material runoff 6 2 1 5 45 M 2 2 1 3 15 L

Increase in sanitary wastewater discharges

8 2 1 5 55 M 2 2 1 4 20 L
depending on number of workers

Construction camp soil erosion due to clearing 4 2 1 5 35 M 2 2 1 3 15 L

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Potential surface water contamination

The main areas of concern during construction are contamination of surface water from spills and leaks. The
increase of surface structures and potential erosion during construction activities around the project area will
increase surface disturbances largely due to an increase in site mobility associated with transportation. This
will also lead to an increase in suspended solids. These impacts are ranked as low (after mitigation) based
on the low rainfall in the area.

The available site related drawing provided was used to estimate uncontaminated and contaminated areas
to be constructed during this phase. Estimated uncontaminated and contaminated areas are presented in
Table 6.22 and shown in Figure 6.15.
Table 6.22: Estimated uncontaminated and contaminated areas
Area definition Area (ha)
Contaminated 5.1
Uncontaminated 25.5

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 314
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The water management philosophy as described in OLTIN YO’L GTL (2013a) and OLTIN YO’L GTL (2013b)
is to collect the runoff from the oily (potentially contaminated areas) to the Peak Flow Chamber (PFC). The
PFC has been sized to capture the first 20 minutes (time of concentration) of the runoff from the oily areas.
The runoff volume after the first 20 minutes is assumed to be clean and is sent to the Fire Water Runoff
Basin (FWB). OLTIN YO’L GTL (2013a) gives the rainfall intensity as 10.8 mm/hr which translates to a
3
volume of 100 m for the PFC. The runoff from the clean area is conveyed in a clean water drainage system
to the clean stormwater pond (CSP). Pumps are installed in the CSP to pump the water to be discharged into
the Discharge Channel located at the current SGCC plant.

The runoff water captured in the PFC will be tested and if found to be polluted the water is sent to Unit 77 for
treatment in the bio reactors for use as cooling water. If the water meets the discharge water quality
standards then there is the option to pump the water to the CSP for discharge. The FWB is sized as the
3
larger of the volume required to supply 8 hours of maximum firewater storage (19680 m ) or the runoff
3
volume from the 50 year 24 hour storm event from the oily areas (2856 m ). The capacity of the FWB will be
3
19680 m based on the fire water requirements.
13
The project site is located within a semi-arid region and overall climatic conditions needs to be taken into
account for the sizing of the stormwater control structures. No IFC guideline specific to the onshore oil and
gas industry currently exists for the sizing of stormwater ponds. The IFC guidelines specific to the mining
industry suggests the sizing of the ponds with an annual spilling frequency of 1 in 100 years annual
recurrence interval for permanent structures. This specification is considered high for dry areas and is not
directly applicable to the oil and gas facilities. However, runoff from the site is likely to be polluted to some
extent and stormwater still need to be controlled. Given the low frequency of storms in arid regions, pollutant
concentrations are likely to exceed those in humid areas during the first flush of storm. Due to the lower
frequency of storm in these regions, the accumulation of pollutants can also increase over time, which can
result in the high concentrations of pollutants in this initial flush. As a result, the CSP will be sized to store
runoff volume for the 1 in 20 year 24 hour storm event of 49 mm/d. A size deemed sufficient for possible
flood control and the management of water quality (US EPA, 2004).
3
The runoff volume is thus calculated to be 12495 m . The CSP is to have two compartments which will allow
for the separation of runoff volumes based on water quality. If the water quality is not suitable for discharge
then the water can be stored in one of the compartments for recycling through Unit 77 for treatment.
3
Provision has been made for a 1000 m Oily Water Hold-Up Tank as a measure of containing run-off from
two (2) lifting stations (one consisting of the PFC mentioned above; and other from the effluent treatment
area) along the oily sewer network. This tank will also serve as a contingency measure during the start-up
and shut-down operation where intermittent discharges may occur and when the Corrugated Plate
Interceptor (CPI) and/or Dissolved Air Flotation packages are out of service.

13
Semi-arid region is defined as an area with an average annual rainfall of 250-500 mm (Maresh, Kumud, & Mark, 2010).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 315
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.15: Proposed uncontaminated and contaminated areas for the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 316
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Increase in sanitary wastewater discharges

Sanitary wastewater will be discharged to existing utilities for the SGCC complex. However, sanitary
wastewater treatment and discharges will increase due to the eminent large number of workers on site,
leading to a high contaminant load on existing sewage treatment facilities. This impact has been ranked as
moderate due to the potential of high wastewater volumes to be discharged to drainages, thereby having
potential regional impacts. This impact is however more transient in nature.

The potential for pipeline bursts (mainly existing pipelines) due to mechanical damage is considered low
during the construction phase. The damage will most likely arise from negligence on the part of workers. The
impact will lead to transient spillages, thereby compromising downstream processes.

6.5.12.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

The stripping of vegetation is likely to lead to erosion, which will increase the quantity of suspended solids in
downstream watercourses. In order to prevent erosion from barren areas, it was proposed that areas that
may be prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident should be stabilised. Methods of stabilisation
include brush-cut packing, mulch or chip cover, straw stabilising, sodding, hydro-seeding, the application of
soil binders and physical stabilisation methods such as gabions, reno-mattresses, armour flex or retaining
walls.

Traffic and movement over stabilised areas will be restricted and controlled, and damage to stabilised areas
shall be repaired and maintained to the satisfaction of the Environmental Manager. Furthermore, the total
footprint area to be disturbed / developed will be kept to a minimum by demarcating the construction areas
and restricting construction to these areas only.

A key concern identified in Table 6.21 was hydrocarbon contamination of surface water from construction
equipment and/or vehicle spillages. Mitigation measures that will be implemented include the collection and
treatment of excessive soil contamination by fuel or oil spills at a pre-determined and dedicated location, or
their treatment in situ using bioremediation, in accordance existing procedures. Vehicles will be maintained
regularly and kept in a good working order, and vehicle maintenance will not be carried out on - site, but in
existing contractor workshops.

6.5.13 Waste management during construction

Reference
Specialist Study Y

Key specialists
Andre Venter, Jarrod Ball, Natalie Kohler

Study objectives
The study objectives of the waste management specialist study were as follows:

1) To identify all potential waste streams associated with the project and compilation of a waste inventory;
2) To identify waste related legislation or frameworks from Uzbekistan applicable to the project;

3) To obtain, as far as possible, the chemical characteristics of each waste stream;

4) Based on the above, to evaluate the identified impacts associated with the different waste streams in
terms of their probability of occurring, duration, scale and magnitude of impact in order to determine the
overall significance;

5) To recommend mitigation measures for each impact, where possible, or recommend additional
investigations for those impacts where mitigation cannot be identified currently;

6) To conduct a Site Selection study for the development of a new Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility for
the new OLTIN YO’L GTL plant; and

7) To incorporate the waste management mitigation measures into the overall Environmental, Safety and
Health Management Plan (ESHMP) for the project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 317
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the waste management specialist study:

65) A desktop review of relevant documentation;

66) Interfacing with Uzbekistan authorities and consultants conducting the regulatory studies;

67) Development of a framework for managing waste using standards and best practice guidelines;

68) Waste inventory and classification; and

69) Waste disposal facility site selection.

6.5.13.1 Assessment of impacts

From a waste management perspective, Table 6.23 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 6.23: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Construction Phase

Potential Waste Management ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

Impacts (Construction Phase: Before mitigation After mitigation
OLTIN YO’L GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Excavations and removal of topsoil,
overburden, vegetation and other 8 2 2 5 60 M 8 2 2 4 48 M
waste
Generation and management of non-
hazardous industrial waste materials 4 2 2 2 16 L 4 2 2 1 8 L
during construction
Generation and management of
hazardous waste materials during 8 2 2 4 48 M 4 2 2 2 16 L
construction
Generation of general municipal food
waste from the kitchen, canteen,
8 2 2 2 24 L 4 2 2 2 16 L
offices and temporary staff
residential camp during construction

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Excavations and removal of topsoil, overburden, vegetation and other waste

The site will be cleared from any vegetation, excavated and levelled before any infrastructure can be
constructed. Some of the soil and overburden will be used for backfilling during construction and the rest
strategically stored as berms for future rehabilitation purposes. The magnitude of this activity before and after
mitigation is rated as high in terms of changing the existing baseline environment of the site. The duration of
the construction phase is short-term and localised. The probability of the impact before mitigation is rated as
definite and highly probable after mitigation due to the permanent disturbance of a previously undisturbed
(Greenfield) environment. It could also be argued that the surrounding environment has already been
disturbed by the construction of the neighbouring SGCC.

Generation and management of non-hazardous industrial waste materials

Non-hazardous waste will be generated during the construction phase. These are not only industrial waste
materials but also packaging materials, scrap steel, cables, lighting bulbs, paper, containers, plastic etc.
Volumes will be high during the construction phase. The magnitude of the potential impact the generation of
non-hazardous waste may have on the environment before and after mitigation is rated as low. The duration
of the construction phase is relatively short and localised. Most of the waste streams will be sorted at source

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 318
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

where possible or at a close by temporary salvage yard and recycled, minimizing the need for landfilling. The
temporary storage areas will be in compliance with the sanitary norms and regulations promulgated under
the Law for Ecological Safety and Managing of Waste and Recycling. The probability of an impact occurring
before mitigation is low due to the non-hazardous nature of the waste and improbable after mitigatory
measures, such as a waste management plan, have been implemented.

Generation and management of hazardous waste materials

Various hazardous waste materials will be generated during the construction phase. This ranges from used
solvents, chemical containers, fluorescent tubes, used oil and grease, medical waste from the clinic etc. The
magnitude of the impact of the generation of hazardous waste before mitigation is high; due to the
hazardousness of some of the materials that will be used during the construction phase. After the
implementation of mitigatory measures, such as a waste management plan, the magnitude is reduced to low
and the potential impact will be short term and localised. The probability of an impact occurring before
mitigation is rated as medium and after mitigation measures have been implemented as low.

Sufficient infrastructure currently exists to accommodate the hazardous wastes that will be generated by the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project. Hazardous waste management contractors will be contracted to manage
hazardous waste in line with the IFC requirements, and to ensure that hazardous waste is disposed of in a
suitable destination. During construction, hazardous waste will be produced and this will be managed as
stated above. However, during operations, a smaller volume will be produced but will be hazardous process
waste. Alternative disposal options will be investigated should additional information become available.

Generation of general municipal food waste

The magnitude of the impact of municipal/ domestic food waste before mitigation is rated as low. Food waste
generated at the kitchen and canteen will be temporarily kept in sealable containers and removed on a daily
basis for composting purposes. Alternatively and as a last option food waste will be landfilled. After the
implementation of mitigatory measures, such as re-use for animal food (if relevant) or composting, the
magnitude of impact will further be reduced. The impact of food waste will be for a short term, localised and
the probability generally low after mitigation. A waste management plan will further be implemented to
mitigate this impact during construction and operational phase of the project.

6.5.13.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Excavations and removal of topsoil, overburden, vegetation and other waste
To prevent erosion and loss of stored soil material until it will be used to restore and rehabilitate the site
during decommissioning, excavations and removal of overburden and topsoil will be minimized as far as
possible. Some of the topsoil and overburden material removed during the pre-construction phase will be
used for backfilling and building of roads while the rest will be stored as berms at strategic areas around the
OLTIN YO’L GTL site and the new waste disposal area. These stockpiles will be sloped and capped to
prevent erosion and loss of material. The integrity and aesthetics of the capping layer will further be
enhanced by vegetating it with suitable natural plants and grasses indigenous to the area, while storm and
run-off water management systems will be implemented to divert storm and run-off water away from these
stockpiles.

Generation and management of non-hazardous industrial waste materials

The generation of industrial waste should be minimised where possible, and if not possible, waste should be
separated and recycled to limit quantities requiring disposal at the landfill site, a number of mitigation
measures were outlined. These include the development and implementation of an Integrated Waste
Management Plan for the project. Furthermore, industrial waste generation will be prevented and minimised
as far as possible, suitable containers and temporary storage areas will be provided as close to the point of
generation as practical possible, waste during construction will be re-used where possible, waste will be
separated at source and recycled wherever possible, waste will be sold to recycling contractors, and it will be
ensured that unusable waste is disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner at licensed disposal
facilities only (“Cradle to grave” responsibility).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 319
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Generation and management of hazardous waste materials

The generation of hazardous waste materials during the construction phase will require the implementation
of an Integrated Waste Management Plan. Minimization of hazardous waste at source will occur wherever
possible, as well as the separation of hazardous waste streams for re-use or to recycle. These recyclable
wastes will be sold to recycling contractors, or waste will be returned to the supplier where possible. As a last
option, hazardous waste will be pre-treated and disposed at the new OLTIN YO’L GTL hazardous landfill
site.

Generation of general household food waste

To minimize the generation of food waste and to recycle wherever possible, sufficient food waste containers
will be provided as close to the generation source as possible, food waste will be used for composting
purposes, food waste will be collected daily to prevent any nuisances at these facilities, and landfilling of
food waste will only be employed as a last option.

6.5.14 Radiation
Reference
Specialist study S

Key Specialists
JJ van Blerk

Study Objectives
This study assesses the potential radiological impact at the “New Plant”, “Construction Camp” and
“Operation Camp” based on the outcome of the baseline radiation survey results, and then to define
mitigation measures if required and justified.

In all likelihood, the origin of radioactively observed at the three sites are due to naturally occurring
radionuclides. It is unclear at this stage what the potential contribution of the SGCC operation could be to
these baseline (background) conditions. This would depend on the radiological characteristics of the ore
body processed at the plant, as well the plant processes, operating conditions, and their potential to release
radioactivity to the air. An evaluation of this nature falls outside the scope of this report.

Radiological baseline studies at gas production facilities in most cases will be limited to naturally occurring
radionuclides, in some cases it might be related to artificial radionuclides induced by anthropogenic activities.
Near the proposed OYGTL operation, the radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident in 1986
might be of relevance and consequently some artificial radionuclides such as Cs-137 were included in the
scope of the baseline radiation survey.

It is unclear at present what the activity concentrations of natural occurring radionuclides associated with the
natural gas would be in particular the feed material that will be processed at the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL
Plant. If natural occurring radionuclides associated with the natural gas, then the facility and operations in all
likelihood will be amenable to regulatory controls. However, the radiological impact assessment in terms of
worker and public safety assessments that would be required for this purpose is outside the scope of this
report.

6.5.14.1 Assessment of Impacts

The definition of worker and public radiation exposure conditions at the three sites that were included in the
baseline radiation survey is not possible at present, since construction at the plant has not started yet. The
radiation and activity concentrations observed in the area are therefore due to background radiation
conditions and not due to anthropogenic activities.

To define a potential radiological impact, the measured radioactivity is compared to a dose criterion. Where
this is not possible, activity concentrations in environmental media is compared to acceptable levels
published in national regulations and the international literature.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 320
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.24: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- All phases
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Radiation Impacts (All Phases:
Before mitigation After mitigation
OLTIN YO’L GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP

External gamma radiation 2 2 1 3 15 L 2 2 1 1 5 L

Internal and external radiation exposure to

4 2 2 2 16 L 2 2 1 2 10 L
radioactivity in soils and bottom sediments

Radioactivity in water 2 2 2 2 16 L 2 2 1 2 10 L

Radon flux density - inhalation of the radon 2 2 1 1

4 2 2 2 16 L 5 L
gas

Airborne radon concentration 2 2 1 3 15 L 2 2 1 2 10 L

Radiation Exposure 2 2 1 1 5 L 1 1 1 1 1 L

External Gamma Radiation

The gamma radiation survey did not reveal any anomalous conditions. These results accounts for external
exposure radiation due to the presence of a person in the specific area (i.e., exposure period).

The potential radiological impact from external gamma radiation is therefore limited to the sites itself (local),
and insignificant for the timescales of concern.

Soil and Sediment Analysis

Soil samples were collected at each of the control points for radionuclide analysis, and include Ra-226, Th-
232, K-40 and the Effective Specific Activity (Aeff). These points correspond to the point used for the gamma
radiation measurements.

In addition to inducing external gamma radiation, generally the radioactivity in soil may contribute to an
ingestion dose through inadvertent ingestion of soil or ingestion of contaminated crop or animal products.
The latter would require the transfer of radioactivity in the soil to crops and subsequently to animal products.
However, it is unlikely that such exposure condition is of concern at the three sites on an annual basis.
-1 -1
The IAEA exclusion criteria for radionuclides of natural origin are 10000 Bq.kg for K-40 and 1000 Bq.kg for
all other radionuclides. It is usually unnecessary to regulate radioactive material in activity concentrations
below the values (IAEA, 2004b). The maximum concentrations observed for Ra-226 and Th-232 is below 45
-1 -1
Bq.kg , while the K-40 concentration is below 640 Bq.kg . The exemption level for Cs-137 (artificial
-1
radionuclides) is 100 Bq.kg (IAEA, 2004b), while the Cs-137 concentrations observed in the soil are less
-1
than 17 Bq.kg .

There are some situations (such as the use of some building materials containing natural radionuclides) for
which exposures from materials due to radionuclides with activity concentrations below these values would
necessitate consideration by the regulatory body for some types of regulatory control. Aeff, of natural
radionuclides, which is determined by the specific activity of Ra-226, Th-232 and K-40, does not exceed 160
-1
Bq.kg . SanPiN No.0193-06 specified that in terms of using material containing naturally occurring
-1
radionuclides, if Aeff < 370 Bq.kg then the material can be used for construction of living and public buildings
-1
(INP, 2012). The maximum Cs-137 activity concentration is less than 20 Bq.kg . It is thus clear that the
activity concentration in the soils is very low and does not pose a significant radiological risk.

The maximum activity concentrations measured in the bottom sediments is even lower than in the soils, and
-1 -1
less than 31 Bq.kg for Ra-226 and Th-232, and less than 432 for K-40. Aeff is less than 110 Bq.kg , while
-1
the Cs-137 concentration is less than 2.4 Bq.kg . Radioactivity in bottom sediments is normally transferred
from the water (i.e., radionuclides in solution is absorbed onto the sediment particles). Apart from external
gamma radiation, potential transfer to human being is through ingestion of sediments my animals drinking

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 321
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

the water and subsequent ingestion of the animal products. This is an unlikely exposure route for the three
areas under consideration.
The potential radiological impact from internal and external radiation exposure to radioactivity in soils and
bottom sediments is therefore limited to the sites itself (local), and insignificant for the timescales of concern.
This conclusion is based on exemption criteria and, criteria for the use of solids in the building industry.

Water Analysis
Radiological exposure to water is normally through direct ingestion, or if the water is used for agricultural
activity (e.g., irrigation). Small doses are also possible through external exposure during swimming or
bathing. One can expect the biggest contribution to come from direct ingestion as drinking water.

Water samples were collected to establish the radon concentration in the water, as well as the total alpha
and beta activity. Radon concentration in all studied water samples is below the minimum detectable activity
-1 -1
(MDA), which is 2 Bq.kg . This is much lower than maximal allowable limit of radon in water of 60 Bq.kg (or
-1
100 Bq.L ).

Water analyses were also done on the residues that remain after concentrating and evaporation. The alpha
and beta radiation of the residue was measured. However, this only provides a direct indication of the
residue material. If the initial volume was 1 Litre, then it provides the activity concentration per volume as
well. This is not clear from the report. However, indications are that the activity concentration in the water
samples is very low, and much less than the WHO criteria for drinking water. The measured total alpha
-1
activity in the water samples were less than 0.002 Bq.kg , while the total beta activity was less than 0.04
-1 -1
Bq.kg . The limits specified in SanPiN No.0193-06 (INP, 2012) is 0.1 and 1 Bq.kg , respectively.

From the results available for radioactivity in water, it can be concluded that the potential radiological impact
from exposure to water resources is limited to the sites itself (local), and insignificant for the timescales of
concern.

Radon Flux Density

The radon flux density is an indication of the radon concentration that is exhaled from a square surface per
unit time (e.g. seconds). This is a direct indication of the Ra-226 concentration in the top layer of the surface.
Depending on the ambient atmospheric conditions (e.g. Temp., Pressure, Humidity, and Wind Speed), this
-3
will result in an ambient radon air concentration (in units of Bq.m ).

The acceptable criteria according to SanPiN No.0193-06 for an area that will be used for construction of
-2 -1 -2 -1
buildings for industrial purposes are 250 Bq.m .s , while the criteria for living areas are 80 Bq.m .s . The
-2 -1
maximum measured radon exhalation rate at the Plant Site is 167 Bq.m .s , and thus well within the
acceptable criteria. The maximum measured value at the Construction Camp and Operation Camp is in the
-2 -1
order of 102 and 92 Bq.m .s , respectively. Some of the sampling points (6 out of 91, and 8 out of 49 for the
two camping sites, respectively) were thus above the acceptable level. However, these measurements are
associated with material used in road construction (e.g. pebbles and crushed-stone road) and not the natural
soil conditions. These values should therefore not be interpreted as an indicator of the soil conditions at the
two sites.
The radon flux density does not represent radiation exposure per se, but is a parameter value that quantifies
the release of radon gas from a surface. The radiological impact would be induced from the inhalation of the
radon gas. The flux density alone is subject to acceptable levels to ensure the radon inhalation dose is within
limits for household and industrial purposes.

Airborne Radon Concentration (Indoors)

The airborne radon concentration was determined in existing building on the SGCC site, both at the
Construction Camp and Operation Camp. Both the Volumetric Activity (VAR) of Radon and the Equivalent
Equilibrium Volumetric Activity (EEVA) of the Radon progeny were determined.
-3 -3
The measured values of VAR did not exceed 92 Bq.m (EEVA of 46 Bq.m ) on the first and second floors.
-3 -3
In the basement, the VAR did not exceed 160 Bq.m (EEVA of 80 Bq.m ). This is significantly less than the
-3
criteria of 100 to 600 Bq.m (dwellings) and 500 to 1500 (workplaces) specified for the VAR. The acceptable
-3 -3
criteria for EEVA are 100 to 200 Bq.m (dwellings) and 310 Bq.m for workplaces.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 322
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

From the measured values it can be concluded that the airborne radon concentration observed at the three
sites does not pose a radiological risk in terms of the inhalation of radon that might accumulate inside the
buildings, whether a dwelling or workplace. The potential radiological impact is thus local and insignificant.

Conclusion
The Baseline Survey Report provides a good baseline in terms of background radiation conditions at the
“New Plant”, “Construction Camp”, and “Operation Camp” sites.

The measured parameter values are generally low, with only the Radon Flux Density at some points above
acceptable levels. However, these measurements are associated with material used in road construction and
not the natural soil conditions. As such, there are no indications of anomalies that were caused by
anthropogenic activities. It can thus be concluded that generally the radiation conditions observed at the
three sites are due to natural background radiation condition. It can thus be concluded that the potential
radiological impact to workers and members of the public at and in the vicinity of the three sites is low to
insignificant.

Implications for Mitigation

The measured and observed levels of radioactivity in the soil, sediment, water and air (in terms of airborne
radon inside buildings) were all low and well below what can be considered as local and international
compliance and acceptable levels. Viewed from this perspective it is not necessary or justify proposing or
implementing any mitigation measured to reduce the potential radiological impact.

The only measure that can be considered is to clean the sites that revealed higher than acceptable radon
exhalation rates (or Radon Flux Densities). The coordinates of these sites are listed in the Baseline Survey
Report and is limited to 14 locations out of a possible 600 positions. As indicated, these locations are
associated with material brought in for construction work and not naturally occurring soils.

6.5.15 Greenhouse gas emission14

Reference
Specialist study N

Key Specialists
Dave Mercer

Study Objectives
Determine greenhouse gas footprint

Assessment of impacts
Throughout the project lifecycle (construction, operation, and decommissioning), emissions are associated
with:

¡ electricity usage (import);

¡ embedded GHG of construction materials and the transport to site of those materials; and

¡ Transport-related GHGs associated with the movement of finished product by rail.

Construction phase (Pre-operational)

The greenhouse gas emissions study calculated the following GHG footprints for the construction phase as
presented in Table 6.10, while the construction phase GHG footprint per scope is presented in Table 6.26.

14
GHG units expressed in tonnes per annum unless specified otherwise.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 323
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.25: Pre-operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Source (tonnes)

Source Construction Construction Commissioning Total
Year -2 Year -1 Year 0
Materials (embedded CO2) 60 681 60 681 121 363
Transport of Materials 17 441 17 441 34 883
Scope 2 Emissions 26 923 26 923 11 218 65 064
Total 105 046 105 046 11 218 221 309

Table 6.26: Pre-operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Scope (tonnes per annum)
Scope 2 65 064
Scope 3 156 245
Total 221 309
Timeline GHG Emissions: Pre-operational and Operational to Year 5 (tonnes)
Year -2 Year -1 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Scope 1 - - - 1 824 678 1 824 678 1 824 678 1 824 678 1 824 678
Scope 2 26 923 26 923 11 218 - - - - -
Scope 3 78 123 78 123 - 31 780 31 780 31 780 31 780 31 780
Total 105 046 105 046 11 218 1 856 458 1 856 458 1 856 458 1 856 458 1 856 458

As described in Section 3.0 of this ESHSIA, there was a negligible change in the total emissions between
2000 and 2005 in Uzbekistan, and therefore Golders projections in this ESHSIA are compared against the
2005 data for comparative purposes. The total OLTIN YO’L GTL emissions (industrial + transport) under the
operational phase are: 1 856 458 tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum. This indicates an overall increase of
0.92% of the country’s ‘Total’ GHG footprint. The Projects ‘industrial’ emissions under the operational phase
are: 1 824 678 tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum. This indicates an overall increase of 28.43% of the
country’s “Industrial Process” GHG footprint.

Implications for mitigation and monitoring

The following table captures the design initiatives which have been incorporated in order to minimise the
overall energy usage of the plant. The descriptions shown below are as reported by OLTIN YO’L GTL.
Table 6.27: GHG/Energy Reduction Initiatives
Description Energy Source Impact Status
Conceptual engineering Methane rich gas, Integrated process with Approved and used as
integration of facility pipeline gas and recycle of tail gasses and basis for Basic
electricity from national energy recovery from hot Engineering
grid, latter during start-up process streams and
only. electricity generation
from excess steam
generated in the process

Basic engineering for Methane rich gas, Optimised, integrated Approved Engineering
optimization of process pipeline gas and process as well as Design Package used as
by Engineering electricity from national electricity generation to base for Detail
contractor and dedicated grid, latter during start-up supply own electricity Engineering
UZGTL Process only. needs.
Engineering team

The facility to enable self-generation of electricity from MRG and recovered energy sources is the single
most profound GHG mitigation feature of the process design. The anticipated electrical demand of the
process, under steady-state conditions, is reported to be 62.7MW, which would account for 496 600MWh per

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 324
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

annum of imported electricity if self-generation was necessary. This would result in an additional 304 000
tonnes CO2e per annum (an additional 16% to the proposed design).

6.5.16 Ecosystems goods and services

See section 6.6.15. (This was grouped under the Operational impacts section due to the fact that duration of
the construction phase is relatively short in comparison with the operational phase.)

6.5.17 Route Logistics

OLTIN YO’L GTL requested Golder to review the transportation survey to identify any key high level
environmental and social issues associated with the routes identified for the transport of bulk plant
equipment to be used during the construction of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL plant. The documents
provided for review were:

¡ Bertling Global Project Logistics (2010) ‘Shurtan Gas to liquid project: Oversized and overweight
equipment transportation route survey for Uzbekistan.’ Report number: HL-123-Shurtan Report 2nd
Final (Report number: HL-C-183-Rep001);

¡ Uzbekistan GTL Project, Route Logistics Study Presentation May 2010;

¡ Bertling Global Project Logistics (2012) ‘Uzbekistan Gas to Liquids Project: Delivery of Oversized &
Overweight Equipment to Shurtan. (Report no. HL-C-183-Report003): and

¡ Sasol Uzbekistan GTL Project, Outbound Supply Chain Update, 2012.

The aim of the review was to determine potentially significant high level ‘fatal flaw’ environmental and social
issues associated with the proposed routes identified in the transportation route study.

A study was completed to identify key environmental aspects for each country. The report was then
reviewed against the environmental information gathered to determine any significant aspects that may affect
development. A number of different routes were assessed by Bertling during the Shurtan Gas Transportation
Route study (2010). This study was revised in 2012 based on new information. As Uzbekistan is a land-
locked country it is necessary for the proposed transport routes for the project to cross through other
countries. It would therefore require at least one other country to be transited from the nearest navigable sea
port. Figure 6.16 provides an overview of the routes assessed during the surveys.

Six transport routes have been identified and considered.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 325
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.16: Potential Routes from the GTL Plant to Ports.

The recommended/ preferred route for the transportation of oversized and overweight equipment is by
road/rail from Shurtan (Uzbekistan) to the Turkmenbashi port in Turkmenistan via the river crossing at either
Seydi or Berunij (Route E or D).

Six routes were identified and labelled Route A, B, C, D (1&2) E, and F for reference.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 326
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.17.1 Impacts of various route15 options

6.5.17.1.1 Kazakhstan Route Topography
As shown in Figure 6.17, Kazakhstan’s altitude ranges from areas that are below sea level (in the west) to
mountain ranges approximately 2 000m above sea level (in the east). The proposed transportation routes
pass through a relatively flat region where elevation ranges from below sea level to 200m. The route does
not pass through any major rivers.

6.5.17.1.2 Uzbekistan Route Topography

Uzbekistan is a predominantly flat country with high mountain ranges located in the east (Figure 6.17). The
proposed transport routes start in areas between 0 – 200m above sea level and continue to areas
approximately 500m above sea level. One can thus assume that there will be no significant mountain
passes that will need to be navigated on the route. There is one major river, Amudar’ya which will need to
be crossed at Seydi (southern crossing), Berunij (northern crossing) or Nukus (most northern point).

6.5.17.1.3 Turkmenistan Route Topography

The majority of Turkmenistan lies at an altitude between 0 – 200m above sea level (Figure 6.17). The west
of the country rises steeply from below sea level to areas 1500m above sea level. The proposed routes do
not traverse areas at a high altitude, but rather navigate through the centre of the country in a northerly
direction. Despite having to cross the major river Amudar’ya at the border of Uzbekistan, there are no other
major rivers to be crossed in Turkmenistan.

15
The topographical maps included in this document were sourced from the website http://www.grida.no/ and provide an overview of the topographical environment in each country.
(GRID-Arendal is a collaborating centre of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) providing environmental information). Main rivers and lakes are also indicated on
the maps.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 327
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.17: The route topography

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 328
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.17.2 Social Aspects of Various Route Options

It is evident from Figure 6.18 that the majority of the routes identified in the source documents1 do not travel
through areas which have high population density. However, the proposed routes doe pass through a few
major towns in Turkmenistan, Iran and Uzbekistan where the population densities here will be higher.

Figure 6.18: Population density

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 329
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.5.17.2.1 All potential routes

There are a number of generic environmental and social aspects which need to be considered during the
construction and operation of roads. Other specific impacts that require further consideration include:

¡ Disturbance and changes to the physical characteristics of subsoil structures ;

¡ Upgrade to bridges throughout the study area and the possible implications this would have on surface
water quality, biodiversity on the banks of the river and potential for accelerated erosion;

¡ Potential positive economic impacts, but also potential negative impacts from degraded environmental
conditions;

¡ Health and safety concerns and risks associated with the transport operations;

¡ Economic impacts associated with the disruption of power as high and low voltage lines are removed
during the project; and

¡ Power disruptions may also impact local communities who rely on power for cooking and lighting.

6.5.17.2.2 Kazakhstan
There are two alternative transport routes through Kazakhstan from Uzbekistan. Route A runs from
Uzbekistan’s north western boarder to Beyneu, to Atyrau (northern point of the Caspian Sea and Rout B runs
from Uzbekistan’s north western boarder to Aktau (an eastern port of the Caspian Sea).

The route proposed through Kazakhstan does not appear to move through any significant environmental
features. Most nature reserves and wetlands of ecological importance are located in the north and west of
the country. For this reason no environmental fatal flaws have been identified for the proposed route at this
stage. However, there are a number of issues which will require some further consideration by the logistics
contractor and any transport contractors during the development of the detailed plans for this route. They
include:

¡ Potential impacts on the riverine ecosystem of the method of transport of oversized and overweight
equipment by river will need to be considered;

¡ The risks associated with moving the pipe bridges during the project;

¡ Health and safety issues of abnormal load trucks travelling through the communities residing near the
port;

¡ Environmental damage associated with building bypass routes around bridges;

¡ Potential effects to soil and water quality of rivers where bridges need to be upgraded to deal with the
heavy loads; and

¡ The potential for social and economic impacts of removing and replacing powerlines.

Bertling Global Project Logistics should consider these aspects as part of the further development of their
logistics plan.

Route A: Atyrau – Beyneu

No fatal flaw environmental and social impacts are anticipated on this section of the route.

This route is approximately 1 642km long.

Askai Jetty – Beyneu

No fatal flaw environmental and social impacts are anticipated on this section of the route.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 330
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Route B: Aktau/Kuryk – Beyneu

Movements through Aktau are still considered to be a last resort. The road conditions between Aktau and
Beyneu over some 475km of poor terrain, weak bridges, loose shale roads and dangerous gradients have
not markedly improved. The Kazakh authorities are also actively discouraging the movement of heavy cargo
by road over any appreciable distance.

As detailed in HL-C-183-Rep001 there are a number of pipebridges located on this route. In some cases the
pipebridges transport gas. If this route is selected, the environmental and social risks associated with these
pipebridges will need to be considered as part of future planning.

This route from Shurtan to Aktau is approximately 1980 km long.

Kuryk – Aktau City Limits Route Option

This route has more pipebridges transporting gas which will need to be moved, as described above, this will
require further investigation. There are an extensive number of power cables which are too low to travel
underneath. It has been suggested in HL-C-183-Rep001 that these cables be removed and replaced during
the transport of the equipment as it has the potential to impact on communities and businesses reliant on the
power. This will be the responsibility of the transport contractor used during the project. The contractor will
need to consider the social and economic impact associated with a disruption to the electricity supply as part
of their implementation of this option.

Beyneu Station
As this railway line has been used to move previous oversized and overweight equipment, it is anticipated
that no severe environmental and social impacts will occur. Due to much industrial activity in the region
impacts are likely to be of low significance.

Road between Beyneu and the Uzbekistan Border

No fatal flaw environmental and social impacts are anticipated on this section of the route.

6.5.17.2.3 Turkmenistan
Three possible transport routes have been identified from Uzbekistan through Turkmenistan, Route C, D and
E. This section describes each route and then elaborates on the various environmental impacts that may be
expected along different sections of the proposed transport routes.

Route C runs from Shurtan (the project site) north west to the Turkmenistan border crossing at Nukus, south
to Asgabat and then north west to the port at Turkmenbashi. This route is approximately 1868km long

Route D (1&2) runs from Shurtan (the project site) north west to the Turkmenistan border crossing Berunij,
south to Baramaly in Turkmenistan and then north west to the port at Turkmenbashi. These routes are
approximately 2 200 km and 2 300 long respectively.

Route E runs from Shurtan (the project site) north west to

the Turkmenistan border crossing at Farab, south west to
Bayramaly in Turkmenistan and then north west to the
port at Turkmenbashi. This route is approximately 1 470
km long.

A brief overview of Turkmenistan has revealed that the

country is predominantly covered by the Kara Kum
desert.

Route C:Turkmenbashi – Asgabat – Koneurgenc

(Near Nukus) Figure 6.19: Pipe-rack transporting goods to the local
refinery
The port is equipped to deal with the movement of heavy
cargo. As specified in HL-C-183-Rep001, it will be important for the trucks to avoid the town centre and
nearby village to limit social impacts and disruptions during the transport of the equipment.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 331
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

After departure from the port, there is a steel panel bridge at a river crossing. Should any spill occur near this
bridge, there would a probability for spilled substances to enter this watercourse.

The pipe racks for the local refinery may contain hazardous substances, and caution must be taken when
identifying methods to move the pipe-racks. It is recommended that a risk and health and safety
investigation is undertaken before anything is done to move the pipe-racks.

The remainder of the route covers an extensive area crossing a number of bridges and areas which are
already experiencing significant erosion from both existing road network and general erosions issues. It is
recommended that all construction and operation of the road takes into consideration the IFC EHS (2007)
guidelines to reduce environmental impacts associated with the project.

Turmenbashi – Kiyanli Link Road

No fatal flaw environmental and social impacts are anticipated on this section of the route.

Route D(1): Turkmenbashi – Asgabat – Gazojak (railway and roadbride)

The newly constructed railway/ road bridge at Gazojak is an alternative river crossing to that just north at
Berunij Figure 6.20. The abutment arches and crossbeams in the bridge structure could be a limiting factor.
The bridge is said to have a max cargo capacity of 320Te.

Figure 6.20: The combined road and railway bridge

Route D(2): Turkmenbashi – Asgabat – Berunij Bridge (a new bridge)

During detailed route investigations it was also found that a new bridge over the Amu Darya was being
constructed. This bridge will replace the downstream pontoon bridge carrying the road from Urgench to
Beruni. The above image shows the bridge under construction although one carriageway is now open across
the first bridge at the time of writing.

The bridge comprises 24 x spans of 23m each. There are no overhead restrictions on the approach or
egress to/from this bridge.

Figure 6.21: The new bridge that will replace the current pontoon bridge between Urgench and Beruni

This route may be considered as a backup OOG route and general cargo route subject to other bridge
capacities in the surrounding area being declared suitable by the authorities.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 332
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Route E: Turkmenbashi -Asgabat – Farap

As highlighted in HL-C-183-Rep001, the pontoon bridge highway over the Amu Darya River at Farap is not
suitable for transporting heavy loads. If it is possible to transport the reactor via a barge, it will be necessary
for a surface water impact assessment to be undertaken by the logistics company to determine the impact
this could have on the river.

There are a significant number of river crossings on this route. It will be necessary for Uzbekistan GTL to
undertake the requirements as specified in HL-C-183-Rep001 to ensure the reactor is transported safely
without any incident. This should also ensure there is limited impact on the surrounding environment.

Turkmenbad (Charjew) – Seydi

Similar issues include the number of bridges and hence river crossings as well as the removal of powerlines.

Incheh Borun/Gudurolem Border Crossing – Gumdag

This region experiences high winds throughout most of the year. The potential air quality impacts associated
with impacts from moving over weight and oversized equipment will need to be considered during the
project. Section 5.0 provides recommendations and mitigation measures which can be implemented by the
transport contractors to reduce the impacts associated with air quality impacts.

6.5.17.2.4 Iran Route

Route F: Bandar Abbas – Incheh Borun
Route F is the only route to a port in the Persian Gulf. Route F runs from Shurtan through Asgabat to Incheh
Borun on the border of Turkmenistan and Iran. From Inchem Borun it leads south to the port at Bandar-
Abbas on the Persian Gulf. This route is approximately 2 970 km long.

The key issues which need to be investigated further are listed below, however the issues outlined in
Chapter 4 of this ESHSIA will also need to be considered closely.

¡ Significant erosion that is evident on the majority of roads, particularly important as it is caused by flood
water (as detailed in HL-C-183-Rep001); and

¡ Social implications from the route passing in close proximity and in some cases through a number of
towns and villages.

6.5.17.2.5 Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan Border – Nukus – Tortkol
There appear to be no significant environmental and social issues on this route, however there are significant
numbers of river crossings, movement through developed areas, and overhead bridges which need to be
taken into consideration during the planning of this route.

No fatal flaws were identified along this route at this stage.

6.6 Operational phase impacts

6.6.1 Air quality
Reference
Specialist study J

Key specialists
Craig Woodburn, Amanda Gair, Rachel Saville, Dan Birkenshaw.

Study objectives
See section 6.5.1.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.5.1.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 333
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.1.1 Assessment of impacts

From an air quality perspective, Table 6.28 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before
and after mitigation.
Table 6.28: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Air Quality Impacts (Operational
Phase: Oltin Yo'l GTLOLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation*
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Potential point source emissions from the
2 4 2 4 32 M
proposed facility
*NOTE: No specific mitigation is required to reduce stack emissions as all applicable IFC and local
Uzbekistan ELV’s and air quality standards are achieved.

Long term (1 year) emission modelling results

For the long term scenario, worst case historic montiroing data was compared with the modelled annual
average emission concentrations. The maximum Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) were
predicted to be significantly below the relevant long-term project Air Quality Standards (AQS) at all nearby
sensitive receptor locations and across the entire model domain. The modelled results for long term CO, HC,
NOx, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 PEC’s are shown below. (The centre of the plot represents the highest emission
concentrations (Red) and the lighter colours (Yellow) represent lower concentrations.)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 334
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.22: Long-term Annual PEC for CO

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 335
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.23: Long term annual PEC for Hydrocarbons

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 336
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.24: Long term annual PEC for NOx

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 337
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.25: Long term PEC for NO2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 338
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.26: : Long term annual PEC for SO2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 339
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.27: Long term annual PEC for PM10

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 340
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.28: Long term annual PEC for PM2.5

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 341
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Short term emission modelling results

Figure 6.29: Short-term hourly PEC CO

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 342
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.30: Short term PEC for NOx

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 343
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.31: Short-term 24 hours PEC for NO2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 344
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.32: Short term 1-hour PEC for NO2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 345
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.33: Short term 24-hr PEC for SO2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 346
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.34: Short term 1 hour PEC for SO2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 347
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

th
Figure 6.35: Short term 24 hour PEC for PM10 at 99 percentile

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 348
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.36: Short term PEC for PM2.5

One Time single releases

Uzbekistan Air Quality Regulations require that single releases of air emissions over a period of 20 minutes
are assessed for the proposed facility. For the purposes of this assessment only concentrations at the
boundary of the site are considered. One time single releases normally account for the most of the maximum
concentrations in the model domain.These particular requirements identified under Uzbekistan
regulationregulation, are not contained within other in IFC EHS or WHO Guidelines.

The 20 minute averaging period was assessed using a 15 minute averaging period result from the maximum
pollutant averaging year. The AERMOD model has produced 1 hour averaging periods and a conversion
factor of 1.34 (based on UK guidelines) was applied to assess the maximum predicted impact for a 15
minute time period. The 15 minute time period is more conservative than 20 minute time period assessment.

Due to the location of the proposed facility, these “one time” 20 minute release standards are also subject to
further regional pollutant specific quotas, due to the proposed development being located within the
Kashkadarya Region and areas stated within in regulatory documents SanPiN RUz No: 0179-04 [26]. The
modelled events, were assessed in the contex of worse-case scenario meteorological conditions.

The modelled process contributions (PC) are below the relevant standards with the quotas applied and
therefore no exceedences are predicted to occur (Table 6.29).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 349
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.29: Maximum Predicted Single Release at Site Boundary

Year of Most Max PC Standard

Pollutant Emission 3
Relevant Dataset µg/m
3

CO 2004 228 2500

NOx 2004 140 198
NO2 2004 19.61 21.25
SO2 2004 3.62 165
Hydrocarbons
2004 21.91 500
saturated C12- C19
*NO2 concentrations are assumed to be 14% of NOx concentrations based on the ratio of the single release AQ standards (85/600mg/m3

Traffic Air Quality emissions

The AQ study also assessed road and rail traffic emissions associated with the proposed facility.The method
applied presented ‘screening’ criteria which were used to identifying the road links affected by the project
where traffic could have a significant impact on local air quality at identified sensitive receptors (i.e. those
located within 200 m of the affected road network). Based on the supplied traffic data it was assessed that
road traffic generated by the proposed facility is unlikely to have a significant impact to human health or local
air quality. Therefore a detailed traffic assessment is not required for the proposed facility.

6.6.1.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

The modelled PEC’s for the short term and long term are well below the air quality standards applicable to
this project. The Air Quality specialist study concluded that air emissions from the proposed facility would not
cause an exceedences of the short-term AQS for the assessed pollutants within the model domain. No
specific mitigation is required to reduce stack emissions as all applicable IFC and local Uzbekistan ELV’s
and air quality standards are achieved.

6.6.2 Ecology: Avifauna biodiversity

Reference
Specialist study K

Key specialists
Lorenzo Fornasari, Peter Kimberg

Study objectives
As described in section 6.4.2.

Study approach and methods

As described in section 6.4.2.

6.6.2.1 Assessment of impacts

From an avifauna perspective, Table 6.30 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the operation
phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after
mitigation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 350
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.30: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operation Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Avifauna Impacts (Operational
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
1. HABITAT CONTINUITY DISRUPTION
due to the implementation and operation of 1 4 1 1 6 L 1 4 1 1 6 L
high tension power line (110kV)
2. ELECTROCUTION: death of Raptors for
casual contact with electric wires of the high 2 4 2 3 24 L 2 4 2 1 8 L
tension line.
3. NOISE from the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant 4 4 2 3 30 M 4 4 1 3 27 L
4. UNEXPECTED BIRD KILLING BY
4 4 2 5 50 M 2 4 2 2 16 L
TRAFFIC
5. LIGHTING from the OLTIN YO’L GTL
4 4 5 2 26 L 2 4 5 1 11 L
plant

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the Operation phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Habitat loss
Operational phase actions will not add any habitat loss in terms of area occupancy by avifauna. However,
the project includes the construction/replacement of several power lines, including a high tension 110 kV line
between the existing SGCC and the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant.

Potentially, high tension power lines may be very dangerous for Raptors and other big birds, both for simple
collision or for electrocution. Their long wingspan makes Raptors, Storks and Cranes susceptible to touching
two energized conductors at once.

Mitigation measures can be implemented during the design phase of high voltage lines, to reduce bird
collisions and electrocution.

Air and ground pollution

The cumulative effect of SGCC and OLTIN YO’L GTL might have some adverse impacts on resident bird
populations, if sufficient mitigation measures are not implemented.

Water needs
Raw water for use at the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will be supplied by the Himki Reservoir, without affecting its
present biological function. The Reservoir itself is being continuously supplied of water by the Talimarjan
Reservoir and the Amu Darya River.

Water use and water discharge could potentially impact on avifauna related to the Himki reservoir (Marsh
Harrier, mainly the breeding and the wintering populations; Geese population resting at the reservoir in
winter; Migratory Passerines making use of the reed-beds etc.), but currently this impact is not seen as being
of great significance.

Noise
The noise specialist study of this ESHSIA, made certain noise emission assumptions, but generally individual
plant units could emit between 107.8-147.1 dB (A). Noise management measures will be put in place to
reduce noise levels from a occupational health point of view. These measures would also have a beneficial
impact on resident birds as well as birds passing through the area. It is currently not expected that birds at
the Himki Reservoir would be adversely affected.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 351
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Traffic
At present, the current average road traffic volume is estimated to comprise of 120 busses (60 there and
back), 10 trucks and 40 sedan-type vehicles per day. Once the OLTIN YO’L GTL project phases commence,
these amounts are expected to double. Roads with traffic below 1000 vehicles/day are believed to be
tolerable to most wildlife species, and therefore it is expected that movements of birds (and mammals) in the
wider study area would not be adversely affected.

Train traffic should not have an adverse impact on avifauna.

Unexpected bird killing (by traffic)

During the specialist site visits, numerous incidents were recorded where vehicles exceeding 70km/h would
cause bird and animal mortalities.

Frequent bird mortalities were observed on the main road from the Alanga settlement to the SGCC complex
and OLTIN YO’L GTL project site (+/- 23km). Numerous dead birds and mammals were recorded on this
stretch of road as indicated in Figure 6.37.

Figure 6.37: Road traffic casualties between Alanga settlement and GTL plant site: on top, Eurasian Bee-eaters (May
1st, 2010); bottom left: Hedgehog (June 13th, 2010); bottom right: Jerboa (June 19th, 2010).

Lighting
Bird collisions with night lit buildings and skycrapers is problem in North America: Thousands of birds may
die every migratory season in a single location. Light pollution and flaring at night from the OLTIN YO’L GTL
site might have a low impact on Nocturnal Passerine Bird Migration species. Should a Bird Sanctuary be
established, it is expected that the impact will reduce further.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 352
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.2.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

To reduce bird mortalities through vehicles associated with the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, mitigation
measures should include education of drivers to be more aware of wildlife (e.g. birds) in and around the
footprint of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site as well as the roads from the site to nearby settlements.
Appropriate speed limit should be implemented and enforced. Detailed design of infrastructure (e.g. power
lines), should take the avifauna biodiversity into account in order to design in such a manner so that bird
mortalities are limited.

6.6.3 Ecology: Terrestrial biodiversity (Fauna and Flora)

Reference
Specialist Study X

Key specialists
Koos de Wet

Study objectives
See section 6.4.3.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.4.3.

6.6.3.1 Assessment of impacts

Table 6.31 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the operational phase of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation
Table 6.31: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL - Operational Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Terrestrial Ecology Impact (Operational
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Destruction of vegetation communities 2 2 2 5 30 M 2 4 0 0 0 L
Loss of red data plant species 2 2 2 2 12 M 2 4 0 0 0 L
Reduction of floral species diversity 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 4 0 0 0 L
Loss of fauna communities 6 2 2 4 40 M 2 4 0 0 0 L
Loss of fauna red data species 8 2 2 4 48 M 2 4 0 0 0 L
Reduction of fauna diversity 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 4 0 0 0 L
Dust 4 2 2 4 32 M 2 4 1 1 7 L
Increase in invasive species 6 2 2 4 40 M 2 4 2 2 16 L
Loss of grazing land 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 4 0 0 0 L
Loss of crop fields 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 4 0 0 0 L
Increased human activity 6 2 3 3 33 M 2 5 2 1 9 L
Change in drainage patterns 4 2 2 2 16 L 2 4 0 0 0 L
Contamination through oil leaking from motorised
2 2 1 3 15 L 2 4 1 2 14 L
equipment

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the Operational phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 353
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Loss of diversity and species

¡ Destruction of vegetation communities: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is
expected;

¡ Loss of red data plant species: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;

¡ Reduction of floral species diversity: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is
expected;

¡ Loss of fauna communities: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;

¡ Loss of fauna red data species: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;
and

¡ Reduction of fauna diversity: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
Contamination and invasion
¡ Contamination by oil: Oil leaking or spilled from motorised equipment will contaminate the soil;

¡ Dust: Dust may be created by vehicles travelling on unpaved roads and operational activities; and

¡ Increase in invasive species: Invasive species tend to increase due to disturbance of the natural
environment, including human disturbance such as operational activities.
Loss of habitat
¡ Loss of grazing land: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;

¡ Loss of crop fields: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;

¡ Increased human activity: The presence of a large number of people in the project area may cause
trampling of the surrounding area thereby destroying vegetation and cause disturbance to the fauna
community which will disrupt their life patterns and possibly drive them away; and

¡ Change in drainage patterns: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.

6.6.3.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Limited impacts are anticipated during the operational phase on fauna and flora on the project footprint. As
during construction, dust suppression measures should be implemented during the operational phase. A
suitably qualified environmental manager should be appointed to monitor alien plant presence in and around
the proposed site footprint and these plants should be adequately controlled. A suitable maintenance
schedule on all heavy plant equipment should be implemented to reduce hydrocarbon spills.

6.6.4 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources

Reference
Specialist Study L

Key specialists
Paul Wheelhouse

Study objectives
See section 6.4.4.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.4.4.

6.6.4.1 Assessment of impacts

From a cultural heritage perspective, Table 6.32 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
operation phase of the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact
before and after mitigation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 354
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.32: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase

Potential Cultural Heritage Impacts ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

(Operational Phase: OLTIN YO’L Before mitigation After mitigation
GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
None envisaged. - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any impacts upon heritage resources are expected to occur during the construction phase. It is therefore
considered likely that there will be no potential cultural heritage impacts associated with the operational
phase of the project, as summarised in the table above.

6.6.4.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Not applicable.

6.6.5 Hydrogeology (Groundwater)

Reference
Specialist study O

Key specialists
Graham Hubert, Gabriel Canahai

Study objectives
As described in section 6.4.5.

Study approach and methods

As described in section 6.4.5.

6.6.5.1 Assessment of impacts

From a hydrogeological perspective, Table 6.33 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before
and after mitigation.
Table 6.33: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operation Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Groundwater Impact (Operation
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Accidents/spillage during storage and transport
8 3 3 4 56 M 6 2 2 3 30 M
of potential contaminants
Inadequate drainage management system and
8 3 3 3 42 M 4 3 2 2 18 L
failure to maintain traps and separators
Unforeseen releases of hazardous materials or
accidents (including explosion and fire) during 8 2 3 4 52 M 4 2 2 3 24 L
their production, handling, storage and use
Leachate, seepage infiltration from waste dump 6 4 3 3 39 M 6 4 3 2 26 L

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the Operation phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.
Accidental spill during storage and transport
The requirement to store and transport potential contaminants is unavoidable for the entire operational life of
the proposed development. Regarding the storage of hydrocarbon products such diesel this is regulated by
various legislative acts and the design of the proposed plant will ensure that all requirements are observed

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 355
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

and applied. Similarly the transport of hazardous products is strictly regulated and these regulations will
apply. However, over the operational time of the development the probability of such accident to take place is
considered very high and magnitude could be high (for example: burst pipe with the contaminant discharged
in an irrigation canal contaminating surface and groundwater).
The scale can be regional and the duration could be over medium term. The mitigation measures can range
from design (ensure storage and transport is located away from potential receptors and easy intervention
assured) periodic maintenance and regular checks of the integrity of the structures. Adopting the correct
mitigation measures could reduce the probability to medium while the duration must be kept at short term
and the scale to local. Is these levels are achieved the magnitude will be reduced to moderate. Overall the
environmental risk associated with this impact is marginally moderate after mitigation.
Inadequate drainage management
The design and application of drainage management ensures that contamination of groundwater and other
receptors is avoided. The drainage management system requires permanent maintenance in order to ensure
it has the capacity to handle the required volumes. A potential impact is associated with the failure of the
drainage system to function to its capacity. The magnitude of the impact is high and it can affect receptors at
regional level. After mitigation (which could include upgrading the drainage system) the magnitude is
reduced to low. The probability is high before the mitigation measures are low after the mitigation measures
are in place.
Unforeseen release of hazardous materials and accidents
OLTIN YO’L GTL processes are complex and in many instances high pressures are present in the system.
Potential failures of materials and equipment could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials.
The magnitude of such event is expected to be high. Mitigation will involve hazardous materials management
plan including: equipment audits and inspections programs; as well as application of Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs). The magnitude can be reduced to low when the mitigation measures are applied. The
probability of such an event to take place over the life time of the plant is high before the mitigation and
medium after mitigation.
Leachate seepage infiltration from non-hazardous landfill site and landfarming areas
The locations of the non-hazardous landfill site and the adjacent land farming site, are planned to be
developed within the footprint of the OLTIN YO”L GTL footprint (Figure 6.38). The waste generated and
discarded in the landfill site and the sludge (at the landfarming) is currently classified as non-hazardous.
However, it is expected that leachate would be generated at the landfill site. The magnitude of the impact is
moderate before and after mitigation. The mitigation is relatively simple to achieve due to the impermeable
nature of the deposits underlining the site. The waste dump footprint can be lined with thick clay layer during
the site excavations for the construction ensuring the layer is continuous. A drainage system at the base of
the dump will ensure that any leachate produced can be captured and treated. The probability therefore
changes from medium to low once the mitigation measures have been implemented.
6.6.5.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring
The overall impact rating of during the operational phase is expected to be medium before mitigation
measures are implemented. However the impact rating decreases to low once mitigation measures are put in
place. Mitigation measures that have been identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL
highlight the need for containment, adequate drainage and the development of management plans
specifically relating to hazardous materials and waste.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 356
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.38: Proposed location of the landfarming and the adjacent non-hazardous landfill sites, located within the OLTIN
YO’L GTL plant footprint

6.6.6 Human health risk assessment

Reference
Specialist study P

Key specialists
Rosanna Moraes, Helene Imbert

Study objectives
The study objectives of the major accident hazard risk assessment specialist study were as follows:

1) To understand health risks associated to baseline conditions, and the potential incremental risks that
may be realized due to the Project construction, operations, decommissioning leading to changes in
water, air, soil and food quality from chemical emissions that could affect community health; and

2) If needed, to recommend mitigation and management measures to reduce health risks.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the health risk assessment specialist study:

¡ Data collection, including a desktop review of relevant documentation;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 357
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Delineation of study area for the assessment;

¡ Problem formulation;

¡ Receptor screening;

¡ Chemical screening;

¡ Exposure pathway screening;

¡ Exposure assessment;

¡ Toxicity assessment; and

¡ Risk characterisation.

6.6.6.1 Assessment of impacts

From a health risk perspective, Table 6.34 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
operational phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before
and after mitigation. The identified human health risks are directly related to impacts in soil, water and air
already described in other Specialist Studies.

Table 6.34: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase

Potential Health Impacts ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

(Operational Phase: OLTIN YO’L Before mitigation After mitigation
GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Soil impacts which are likely to
4 5 2 4 44 M 4 2 1 2 14 L
result in potential health impacts
Surface water impacts which are
likely to result in potential health 10 4 2 4 64 M 4 4 1 3 27 L
impacts
Operational failures of treatment
units and hence compromising
quality requirements of surface 10 4 2 4 64 M 4 4 1 4 36 M
water used for irrigation and
livestock watering
Air impacts which are likely to
2 4 2 4 32 M 2 4 2 4 32 M*
result in potential health impacts

*No specific mitigation is required to reduce stack emissions as all applicable IFC and local Uzbekistan ELV’s and air quality standards
are achieved.

Soil impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts

Potential for contamination of underlying or adjacent soil where substances may escape through breakages
or damages in infrastructure are likely to pose potential health impacts. Resulting spills & leakages may
contain substances hazardous for human health. The risks are directly related to the amount of chemicals in
soil, their toxicity properties and the duration of exposure to workers. Risks can be controlled by mitigation
measures (e.g. all containment structures must be maintained and regularly monitored; where hazardous
substances are required to be moved, it must be safely contained and transported in order to minimise the
risk of spilling etc , as is described in the proposed mitigation measures in the Soil Specialist Study. Given
the distance between the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant and various settlements, their residents are unlikely to be
exposed.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 358
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Surface water impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts
Potential health impacts may result from contamination of surface water due to spills and leakages (e.g. of oil
and other chemicals) within the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant. Since water is used for irrigation and livestock
watering, potential human exposure is expected. Spills may contain substances that can accumulate in
plants and animals and are hazardous for human health. Risks are directly related to the amount of
chemicals in water used for irrigation and livestock watering, their toxicity and bioaccumulation properties
and the frequency of exposure to humans. Risks can be controlled by mitigation measures described in the
Surface Water study.

Inadequately treated effluent

Operational failures of treatment units and hence compromising quality requirements of surface water used
for irrigation and livestock watering. Surface water can be contaminated with substances that may
accumulate in plants and animals and are hazardous for human health..

Air impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts

Potential air impacts during operation activities are likely to result in potential health impacts. The low to
moderate environmental significance is mainly due to the long duration of the impact. Predicted maximum air
levels and levels at the various settlements do not exceed recommended air quality guidelines. Therefore
changes in air quality are unlikely to pose human health risks to residents and OLTIN YO’L GTL plant
workers. Due to the conservative nature of air assessment, it is likely that the actual environmental
significance would actually be closer to low.

6.6.6.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Mitigation measures that OLTIN YO’L GTL is required to implement, aimed at reducing potential negative
environmental and social impacts and enhancing potential positive environmental and social impacts that are
applicable to human health were discussed previously in the Water, Soil and Air Specialist Studies.

Vector borne diseases (such as visceral Leishmaniasis) have been identified as a potential concern in the
regional area. As recommended by ICF (2007) reducing the impact of vector-borne disease on the long-term
health of workers and community is best accomplished through implementation of diverse interventions
aimed at eliminating the factors that lead to disease. Project sponsors, in close collaboration with community
health authorities, can implement an integrated control strategy for vector-borne diseases that might involve
for instance elimination of breeding habitats of vectors close to human settlements; implementation of
integrated vector control programs; educating project personnel and area residents on risks, prevention, and
available treatment; and monitoring communities during high-risk seasons to detect and treat cases.

6.6.7 Landscape and visual aesthetics

Reference
Specialist study Q
Key specialists
Johan Bothma
Study objectives
See section 6.5.7.
Study approach and methods
This is described in section 6.5.7.
6.6.7.1 Assessment of impacts
From a visual perspective, Table 6.35 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the operation
phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after
mitigation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 359
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.35: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operation Phase

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Visual Impact (Operation Phase:
OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Creation of primary plant and ancillary
4 4 2 4 40 M 2 4 2 4 32 M
infrastructure within the landscape
Dust pollution during operations 4 4 2 2 20 L 4 4 2 2 20 L
Light pollution and flaring at night 4 4 2 4 40 M 2 4 2 4 32 M
M=Magnitude; D=Duration; S=Significance; P=Probability

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the Operation phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Creation of primary plant and ancillary infrastructure within the landscape

The presence of the project plant and infrastructure within the landscape will result in the most extensive
alteration of the visual baseline and will also be the most visually intrusive, due to the size and geometric
shapes of the elements being introduced. The layout of the proposed infrastructure is shown in blue in Figure
6.39. Due to the height of the stacks, these elements will be visible over great distance from a significant
percentage of the study area, as seen in Figure 6.40. The plant will also be permanent for the operational
lifespan of the project, which will by far be the longest of the project phases. Nevertheless the presence of
the existing SGCC plant and infrastructure (indicated in green in Figure 6.39) means that the project
infrastructure will not be “unique” in the visual landscape once constructed, which lessens the expected
impact to be caused significantly. A photograph of the existing SGCC plant is shown in Figure 6.41.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 360
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.39: Proposed infrastructure layout associated with the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 361
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.40: Viewshed analysis results showing the visibility of the stacks

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 362
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.41: The existing SGCC plant situated southeast of the OLTIN YO’L GTL site constitutes the most significant
manmade visual element in the study area

Dust pollution during operations

The possibility exists that the project may result in the generation of limited dust pollution during operations,
mostly due to the alteration of the landscape topography and land cover. However it is considered unlikely
that this will occur frequently and will be limited in extent, and is therefore not considered significant.

Light pollution and flares

Extensive mining and industrial activity often result in the generation of a significant degree of light pollution
at night, especially where these activities are situated in remote, low development areas, as is the case with
the OLTIN YO’L GTL site. The flat topography, very limited levels of development within the study area and
surroundings (with the exception of the existing SGCC plant) and extent of the proposed development mean
that light pollution is expected to be the most significant visual impact to be caused by the project. Flaring of
gasses will further contribute to this impact and is expected to be very visible, as the flare stacks will be the
highest infrastructure elements of the project.

6.6.7.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Currently the existing SGCC plant is the only significant industrial / mining infrastructure that occurs within a
considerable distance from the site. It is therefore anticipated that the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will
be visible from a large section of the study area. The specific mitigation measures have been included in the
ESHMP section of the ESHSIA study (e.g. the recommended installation of “blinkers” to prevent light spills,
involvement of a landscape architect during detailed design, reduction of floodlight height etc.).

6.6.8 Noise
Reference
Specialist Study R

Key specialists
Simon Waddell

Study objectives
This is presented in section 6.4.8.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.4.8.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 363
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.8.1 Assessment of impacts

Noise from plant operation
The results of the noise assessment models of the operational phase can be seen in Figure 6.42 and Figure
6.43.

During flare operation, the assessment criteria will be met during the daytime operations. The predicted
level at the Otkuduk village will be more than 10 dB above baseline, giving an impact magnitude of very high,
adverse. During the night-time period the predicted levels exceed the assessment criteria at 3 of the nearby
receptors. The predicted levels also exceed the baseline by more than 5 dB at all receptors. Due to the
flare only to being used during emergencies; flare operation will therefore be transient and therefore low
probability.
Table 6.36: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for GTL facility – Operations Phase with Flare
(Emergencies)

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Noise Impact (Operational Phase with Flare)
M D S P Total SP
Daytime period operational noise with flare at Otkuduk
10 1 2 2 26 L
Village (07:00 – 23:00)
Night-time period operational noise with flare at Otkuduk
10 1 2 2 26 L
Village (23:00 - 07:00)
Daytime period operational noise with flare at SGCC Staff
4 1 2 2 14 L
Complex (07:00 – 23:00)
Night-time period operational noise with flare at SGCC Staff
8 1 2 2 22 L
Complex (23:00 – 07:00)
Daytime period operational noise with flare at Construction
8 1 2 2 22 L
Camp (07:00 – 23:00)
Night-time period operational noise with flare at Construction
8 1 2 2 22 L
Camp (23:00 – 07:00)
Daytime period operational noise with flare at Navbahor
2 1 2 2 10 L
Village (07:00 – 23:00)
Night-time period operational noise with flare at Navbahor
8 1 2 2 22 L
Village (23:00 – 07:00)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 364
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.42: design case noise isopleth

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 365
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.43: Design case noise isopleth plus flare

Noise from road traffic movement

Modelled noise arising from the projected increase in road traffic flow will meet the assessment criteria
during the daytime and night-timer periods. At nearby receptors the predicted level is more than 10 dB
below baseline, giving an impact significance of None / negligible. The operational phase and associated
traffic movements are projected to be Long-term as the noise impact will cease once the GTL facility is
decommissioned. Noise effects from the traffic are anticipated to be regional in scale. It is assumed that the
project will go ahead; the probability of the impact is therefore definite.
Table 6.37: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for GTL Facility – Road Traffic

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Noise Impact (Operational Phase)
M D S P Total SP
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to road
traffic during the daytime period at Otkuduk Village (07:00 – 2 4 3 5 45 M
23:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to road
traffic during the night-time period at Otkuduk Village (23:00 2 4 3 5 45 M
– 07:00)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 366
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to road

traffic during the daytime period at SGCC Complex (07:00 – 2 4 3 5 45 M
23:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to road
traffic during the night-time period at SGCC Complex (23:00 2 4 3 5 45 M
– 07:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to road
traffic during the daytime period at the Construction Camp 2 4 3 5 45 M
(07:00 – 23:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to road
traffic during the night-time period at Construction Camp 2 4 3 5 45 M
(23:00 – 07:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to road
traffic during the daytime period at Navbahor Village (07:00 – 1 4 3 5 40 M
23:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to road
traffic during the night-time period at Navbahor Village (23:00 1 4 3 5 40 M
– 07:00)

Noise from rail traffic movement

Noise arising from the rail traffic is predicted to meet the assessment criteria during the daytime. The
increase in ambient levels at all receptors, when compared with measured ambient levels, exceeds 3 dB at
some of the receptors in the vicinity of the proposed plant. During the night-time period the impact magnitude
at Otkuduk village and the SGCC staff village is minor, adverse. At the construction camp the impact
magnitude is negligible. At Navbahor village the increase above the measured ambient level is more than 10
dB, resulting in an impact magnitude of high, adverse. The ipact rating is presented in Table 6.38, while the
noise isopleths are presented in Figure 6.44 and Figure 6.45.
Table 6.38: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for GTL Facility – Rail Traffic
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Noise Impact (Operational Phase)
M D S P Total SP
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to rail traffic during 6 4 3 5 65 M
the daytime period at Otkuduk Village (07:00 – 23:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to rail traffic during 2 4 3 5 45 M
the night-time period at Otkuduk Village (23:00 – 07:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to rail traffic during 2 4 3 5 45 M
the daytime period at the SGCC Staff Complex (07:00 – 23:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to rail traffic during 2 4 3 5 45 M
the night-time period at the SGCC Staff Complex (23:00 – 07:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to rail traffic during 2 4 3 5 45 M
the daytime period at the Construction Camp (07:00 – 23:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to rail traffic during 1 4 3 5 40 M
the night-time period at Construction Camp (23:00 – 07:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to rail traffic during 6 4 3 5 65 M
the daytime period at Navbahor Village (07:00 – 23:00)
Increase in ambient noise levels at receptors due to rail traffic during 8 4 3 5 75 M
the night-time period at Navbahor Village (23:00 – 07:00)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 367
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.44: Operational Road noise

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 368
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.45: Operational Rail Noise

6.6.8.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

The noise impact assessment for the operational phase of the project was performed based on the
assumption that the facility will operate in accordance with the “Noise Control Philosophy” document OLTIN
YO’L GTL-04-4 Rev.01.

In order to achieve this objective, it will be the responsibility of the suppliers of the process equipment to
ensure that each piece of external plant will be mitigated in accordance with the site requirement detailed
above. Mitigation measures include the maintenance of mufflers and other noise suppression devices, as
well as the implementation of a community complaint management procedure. Rigorous preventative
maintenance for noise-generating equipment should be conducted to avoid upset.

6.6.9 Major Accident Hazards Risk assessment

Reference
Specialist Study T

Key specialists
Daniël Rademeyer

Study objectives
See section 6.4.9.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 369
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Study approach and methods

This is described in more detail in section 6.4.9.

6.6.9.1 Assessment of impacts

From a major accident hazard perspective, Table 6.39 summarises the potential impacts that are related to
the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact
before and after mitigation.

Table 6.39: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase

Potential Major Accident Hazard ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

Impacts (Operational Phase: OLTIN Before mitigation After mitigation
YO’L GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Fatalities of persons on the site i.e.
8 1 3 5 60 M 6 1 3 2 20 L
employees
Loss of life of surrounding communities
8 1 5 4 56 M 4 1 5 2 20 L
i.e. public
Injuries to persons on the site 10 1 2 4 52 M 4 1 2 4 28 L
Injuries to people in surrounding
8 3 4 3 45 M 4 3 3 2 20 L
communities
Environmental damage through pollution
and leakages (e.g. of harmful process 4 1 2 3 21 L 2 1 1 2 8 L
materials)

Employee fatalities
Flammable or toxic release incidents will immediately cause a high magnitude of employee fatalities as they
are close to the hazardous installations. There may be a national outcry and the likelihood probability) of
fatalities amongst employees will be very high. Implementation of preventive, protective and mitigation
measures, via risk management, will reduce the severity to moderate magnitude and the likelihood to a low
-5
probability, i.e.1.8 x 10 deaths per person per year.

Figure 6.46 and Figure 6.47shows individual risk contours as injuries (fatalities) per person per year. These
6,
contours may also be interpreted as a risk of 1 fatality / person per, e.g. 1000, 10 000, 100 000, 10 etc. years.

Public fatalities
Flammable or toxic release incidents affecting the public will be a lower magnitude than that for employees
as they are some distance away from the site. There may be an international outcry and the likelihood
(probability) of public fatalities will be less than that for employees as they are some distance away from the
site. Implementation of preventive, protective and mitigation measures, via risk management, will reduce the
-4
severity to low magnitude and the likelihood to a low probability, i.e.1 x 10 deaths per person per year.

Employee injuries
Flammable or toxic release incidents will immediately cause a very high magnitude of employee injuries as
they are close to the hazardous installations. There may be a local outcry and the likelihood (probability) of
injuries amongst employees will be very high. Implementation of preventive, protective and mitigation
measures, via risk management, will reduce the severity to low magnitude and the likelihood to a low
probability.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 370
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.46: Individual Risk Contours as fatalities/person/year, for the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 371
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.47: Individual Risk Contours as fatalities/person/year, for the OLTIN YO’L GTL complex

Public injuries
Flammable or toxic release incidents affecting the public will result in lower magnitude injuries than that for
employees, as they are some distance away from the site. There may be a national outcry and the likelihood
(probability) of public injuries will be less than that for employees as they are some distance away from the
site, but high, nevertheless. Implementation of preventive, protective and mitigation measures, via risk
-4
management, will reduce the severity to low magnitude and likelihood to a low probability, i.e.1 x 10 deaths
per person per year.

Environmental damage
Flammable incidents will cause a low magnitude of damage on the environment as the materials that can be
spilled are of a low toxicity and the effect will be transient. Scale will be a local and the probability of
environmental damage will be medium. Implementation of preventive, protective and mitigation measures,
via risk management, will reduce magnitude severity to minor and ensure a low probability (through bunding
and containment).

An evaluation was also carried out of the effect of smoke from a hydrocarbon tank fire and its potential for
high carbon monoxide levels, which could lead to gassing injuries at ground level. It was found that, due to

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 372
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

the thermal draught, smoke would tend to rise, and so no significant impact outside the site in terms of
smoke or carbon monoxide gassing would be likely.

6.6.9.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

The management objectives of the proposed mitigation measures were firstly, to prevent major accident
hazards, and if these did occur, either mitigate the severity or protect employees, the public and the
environment against the effects.

An important mitigation measure is the implementation of a major accident hazard management system. This
would comprise a number of elements, including definitions of the roles and responsibilities of personnel
involved in the management of major hazards at all levels in the OLTIN YO’L GTL organisation, identification
of the training needs of such personnel and provision of the training identified, and definition of the roles,
responsibilities, accountability, authority and interrelation of all personnel who manage, perform or verify
work, which affects safety. Employees and others, for example contractors, present on site, should be
involved in the arrangements for management of major hazards and their implementation. Particular
attention should be paid to contractors to ensure they receive the necessary information and training. They
need to be aware of the hazards involved and the roles and responsibilities of key personnel.

The major accident hazard management system would also involve the adoption and implementation of
procedures for systematically identifying major hazards arising from normal and abnormal operation and the
assessment of their likelihood and severity, a description of how hazard identification and evaluation
procedures are applied to all relevant stages from project conception through to decommissioning,
arrangements for considering lessons learned from previous incidents and accidents (both within and outside
the organisation concerned), from operating experience of the OLTIN YO’L GTL concerned or similar ones,
and from previous safety inspections and audits. Other included aspects would be the adoption and
implementation of procedures and instructions for safe operation, including maintenance of plant, processes,
equipment and temporary stoppages; management of change involving the adoption and implementation of
procedures for planned modifications, or the design of new installations, processes or storage facilities;
planning for emergencies by adoption and implementation of procedures to identify foreseeable emergencies
by systematic analysis; and the monitoring of performance by adoption and implementation of procedures for
the on-going assessment of compliance with the objectives set by the OLTIN YO’L GTL major accident
prevention policy and safety management system, and the mechanisms for investigation and taking
corrective action in the case of non-compliance. The procedures should cover the operator’s system for
reporting major accidents or near misses, particularly those involving failure of protective measures, and their
investigation and follow-up on the basis of lessons learnt.

Audit and review of the major accident prevention measures by adoption and implementation of procedures
for periodic systematic assessment and the effectiveness and suitability of the safety management system
will take place, and the documented review of performance of the safety management system and updating
will be conducted by senior management.

Specific preventative and protective measures will also be implemented, including those relating to the
overfilling of tanks, rail and road tanker overfilling, liquid spillages, hose bursts, emergency action, integrity
assurance, fire protection, operating information, and training and awareness.

OLTIN YO’L GTL should consider implementing a “no development” (based on the risk assessment outcome
illiustrated in Figure 6.46 and Figure 6.47) or sanitary zone around their facility (which could coincide the
existing sanitary sone of SGCC), as illustrated in Figure 6.48.

Monitoring measures for the items above will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 of this study.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 373
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.48: Proposed "no development" / sanitary zone around the OLTIN YO'L GTL plant.

6.6.10 Potential Socio-economic Impacts

Potential socio-economic impacts during the operation phase are similar to that of the Reference
Specialist Study U

Key specialists
Paul Lawrence

Study objectives
See section 6.4.10.

Study approach and methods

This is described in more detail in section 6.4.10.

6.6.10.1 Assessment of impacts

Construction phase and operational phase impacts have been assessed in a combined manner. Therefore,
in order not to duplicate the impacts and discussion thereof found in section 6.4.10 (under the Construction
phase), the reader is refered to section 6.4.10 for Operational impacts as well.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 374
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.10.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Construction phase and operational phase impacts and the resulting implications for mitigation and
monitoring, are identical due to the fact that impacts have been assessed in a combined manner. Therefore,
in order not to duplicate the implications for mitigation and monitoring, the reader is refered to section 6.4.10
for Operational mitigation and monitoring.

6.6.11 Soils
Reference
Specialist study V

Key specialists
Louw Potgieter

Study objectives
The key aims and objectives of the soil assessment study included:
70) Characterization of the soil resource by description of the physical and chemical properties and
establishment of soil potential for agricultural utilization;

71) Identification and assessment of the potential impacts on the soil resource; and

72) The proposal of mitigation measures for the impacts identified.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the soil assessment specialist study:

73) Soil baseline data was collected during a site visit from 10 to 15 October 2010;

74) An initial grid system with 150 m intervals was generated for each of the proposed three sites with the
aid of GIS software. The points were transferred to a Global Positioning System (GPS) for in-field
orientation and the selection of monitoring points;

75) The assessment focussed on the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant location as the largest of the three proposed
sites;

76) At each selected point, a soil observation was made with the use of a bucket type hand auger to a
maximum depth of 150 cm while soil cover was collected from surface in 100 mm increments;

77) A total of 25 auger holes were drilled via this method, while a drainage line and excavated trench on
both ends of the site presented cross sections of the soil profile;

78) Selected sites were sampled in the proposed plant site area and from potentially polluted spots
observed on the site designated for OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation facilities;

79) Holes were drilled with a 75mm diameter steel auger;

80) The ground surface at the position of the auger hole was carefully cleared of loose material;
81) The sampling interval was to the lower boundary of a pre-determined horizon;

82) The auger was advanced to the required depth and carefully removed from the hole. The hole was
covered to prevent foreign material from entering;

83) Approximately 1 kg of soil was taken from the hole raisings and placed into clean plastic bags;

84) Prior to the taking of each sample the auger was wiped clean of soil, rinsed in a phosphate free
detergent and finally sprayed with de-ionised water to prevent cross contamination between sampling
intervals;

85) The bags were sealed and labelled with a unique sample number;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 375
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

86) The samples were submitted to Analytico Eurofins in the Netherlands for assessment of baseline
chemical status, included organic matter content, fraction size distribution, total metals, soil acidity (pH)
and electrical conductivity (EC);

87) In addition, selected samples were subject to a Terratest analysis to assess contamination status; and
88) The subsequent results were then interpreted and baseline conditions established.

6.6.11.1 Assessment of impacts

From a soil perspective, Table 6.40 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the operation phase
of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after
mitigation.
Table 6.40: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operation Phase

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Soil Impact (Operation Phase:
OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Loss of the soil resource during this phase 2 4 2 5 40 M 2 4 2 5 40 M
Potential for contamination of underlying or
adjacent soil where substances may escape
4 5 2 4 44 M 4 2 1 2 14 L
through breakages or damages in
infrastructure
Potential of erosion on stockpiled material
and surrounding surface due to inadequate 4 4 2 4 40 M 1 1 1 2 6 L
maintenance

Loss of the soil resource

The impact of the operational phase was found to have low ratings in terms of magnitude and scale. This
was largely due to the low agricultural potential of the soil lacking high quality irrigation water. These old
agricultural lands is undergone a land use change and currently allocated for industrial development. While
the overall ratings are low, it must be noted that the establishment of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility will result
in a loss of soils resources, effectively rendering the soil ‘useless’ for agricultural purposes.

Soil contamination
Operations within any production unit will inevitably lead to contingencies such as breakages or overflows of
containment structures or damaged infrastructure. Cracks in bunding or culverts will release
effluents/substances through seepage that may reach underlying or adjacent soil/land, creating potential for
contamination. At the construction campsite and accommodation facility illegal/irresponsible dumping may
bring about contamination to the soil environment. The impact of which has negative direction and moderate
significance. The main contributors to this significance rating can be ascribed to the long term nature of the
impact and the high probability ranking. With mitigation measures in place, the significance is greatly
reduced to a near negligible significance.

Soil erosion
The potential exists for erosion on soil stockpiles if the stockpiles are not maintained through vegetative
cover. The erosive nature of the silty soil and the tendency to disperse after wetting will ultimately result in
the progressive growth of erosion gullies. The effect was found to be of moderate significance, which can be
reduced to a low significance where mitigation measures are instituted.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 376
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.11.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

It is anticipated that potential for erosion will be primarily associated with stockpiled soils. The main focus of
the mitigation measures is therefore set on vegetating and maintaining the stockpiles. Additional mitigation
measures recommended for the operational phase align with contamination impacts, these include:

¡ All containment structures must be maintained and regularly monitored;

¡ Where hazardous substances are required to be moved, it must be safely contained and transported in
order to minimise the risk of spilling;

¡ In the event of a spillage or leakage an emergency response plan and trained personnel must be ready
to deal with it;

¡ Where seepages and leakages are noted, it must be treated according to an applicable procedure as
determined by a plan of action for the specific type of disturbance;

¡ A leakage detection/monitoring system should be installed in identified high risk areas; and

¡ Adequate waste facilities must be provided and maintained at plant, accommodation and construction
facilities.

6.6.12 Hydrology (Surface water)

Reference
Specialist Study W

Key specialists
Trevor Coleman, Angelina Jordanova, Oliver Malete

Study objectives
See section 6.5.12.

Study approach and methods

This is discussed in more detail in section 6.5.12.

6.6.12.1 Assessment of impacts

From a surface water perspective, Table 6.41 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before
and after mitigation.
Table 6.41: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase

Potential Hydrology (Surface water) ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

Impacts (Operational Phase: OLTIN YO’L Before mitigation After mitigation
GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Contamination of surface and ground water
due to spills and leakages (e.g. of oil and
10 4 2 4 64 M 4 4 1 3 27 L
other chemicals) within the OLTIN YO’L GTL
plant
Excess process water generated from
wastewater treatment and related units 6 4 2 3 36 M 4 4 1 2 18 L
during low evaporation (winter) periods
Increase in sanitary wastewater discharges
6 4 1 5 55 M 4 4 1 4 36 M
depending on number of workers

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 377
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Water treatment works not able to efficiently

10 4 2 4 64 M 4 4 1 4 36 M
treat to required water quality standards
Increased storm runoff due to high
10 4 2 4 64 M 4 4 1 4 36 M
impervious areas
Clean and dirty water contamination on site 8 4 1 4 52 M 6 4 1 4 44 M

Stormwater pond liner failure 8 4 2 3 42 M 4 4 1 2 18 L

Stormwater pond failure to cope with runoff
8 4 2 4 56 M 4 4 1 2 18 L
on site
Contamination of surface water due to
discharge of effluent and stormwater to the 8 4 2 5 70 M 4 4 1 3 27 L
canal

Potential surface water contamination

The main impacts related to the operational phase of the project are the potential contamination of surface
water due to on-site spills and leakages, discharge of effluent to the canal and contaminated storm water
run-off. Proposed contaminated and uncontaminated areas for the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant are highlighted in
Figure 6.15.The impacts from spills and leaks and contaminated storm water run-off have been ranked as
low even before mitigation due to the low rainfall in the area. Proposed stormwater management is detailed
in the OLTIN YO’L GTL ESHSIA Surface Water Specialist Study Assessment.

PCD size and model storm event

Refer to Section 6.4.12 for more information on the modelled size of the pollution control dam based on a
1:20 year rain fall event.

Sanitary wastewater discharges

The discharge of effluent to the canal may have a moderate impact if not treated adequately prior to
discharge and considering that the existing plant is already discharging to the canal, may have a cumulative
impact. In addition to this, excess process water generated from wastewater treatment and related units
during winter months will have negative impacts such as insufficient storage capacities. The OLTIN YO’L
GTL ESHSIA Surface Water Specialist Study Assessment elaborates on wastewater effluent discharge and
the proposed wastewater treatment unit.

6.6.12.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

The offloading of chemicals, servicing and/or refuelling of equipment and vehicles is likely to result in
hydrocarbon contamination of surface water. During the operational phase the mitigation measures that will
be implemented to prevent hydrocarbon contamination of surface water from equipment and/or vehicle
spillages include the collection and treatment of excessive soil contamination by fuel or oil spills at a pre-
determined and dedicated location, or their treatment in situ using bioremediation, in accordance with
existing procedures. Vehicles will be maintained regularly and kept in a good working order, and vehicle
maintenance will not be carried out on-site, but in existing contractor workshops. Chemical storage areas will
be adequately bunded to prevent chemicals entering the storm water system, and dirty areas will be
adequately drained to the pollution control dam.

To prevent contamination of surface water from effluent discharged into the drainage canal, effluent will be
treated to acceptable standards prior to discharge.

6.6.13 Waste management (Operational)

Reference
Specialist Study Y

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 378
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Key specialists
Andre Venter, Jarrod Ball, Natalie Kohler

Study objectives
This is discussed in section 6.5.13.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.5.13.

6.6.13.1 Assessment of impacts

From a waste management perspective, Table 6.42 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before
and after mitigation.
Table 6.42: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Operational Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Waste Management Impacts
(Operational Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Generation of general and non-hazardous
6 4 2 3 36 M 4 4 2 2 20 L
waste during operations
Generation of hazardous waste during
8 4 1 4 52 M 6 4 1 3 33 M
operations

Temporary storage of non- hazardous waste 4 4 1 3 27 M 2 4 1 2 14 L

Temporary storage of hazardous waste 6 4 1 3 33 M 4 4 1 2 18 L

Permanent storage of non -hazardous
waste(on-site for an interim period of 5 years 4 5 2 3 33 M 4 5 2 2 22 L
until the off-site landfill is developed)
Spillage of hazardous waste during transport to
6 4 2 3 36 M 4 4 2 2 20 L
off-site hazardous landfill facility.
Permanent storage of hazardous waste 6 5 2 3 39 M 4 5 2 2 22 L

Permanent storage of bio-sludge 4 5 2 3 33 M 4 5 2 2 22 L

Spillage of hazardous waste during transport to
6 4 2 3 36 M 4 4 2 2 20 L
landfill site
Odours/surface emissions (Landfill gas)
emanating from the waste disposal facility 4 4 1 2 18 L 2 4 1 1 7 L
(landfill site)
Hazardous landfill leachate escaping to the
8 5 1 5 70 M 4 5 1 2 20 L
environment
Unauthorised disposal of waste to the
6 4 2 3 36 M 4 4 2 2 20 L
environment

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the operational phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.
Generation of general and non-hazardous waste during operations
Various non-hazardous domestic and industrial waste streams will be generated at the canteen and staff
residential area respectively during the operational phase of the project. The magnitude of these non-
hazardous waste streams, based on the national per capita volume for Uzbekistan (which is low), is rated as

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 379
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

moderate for the specific area before mitigation and reduced to low after the implementation of mitigatory
measures. The duration of the impact will be long-term and the scale limited to the local area. The probability
of an actual impact occurring before mitigation is rated as medium and low after the implementation of
mitigation measures. The over-all environmental significance is rated moderate, reduced to low after
mitigation.
Generation of hazardous waste during operations
Various classes of hazardous wastes will be generated mostly at the plant during the life of the plant. These
hazardous wastes could impact severely on the surrounding environment if not mitigated. The magnitude of
these hazardous waste streams will be high before, but reduced to moderate after the implementation of
mitigation measures. It will have a potential long-term impact (plant life) on a local area level with a medium
probability that an impact may occur without any mitigating measures being implemented. The probability will
be reduced to low with mitigatory measures implemented.
Temporary storage of non-hazardous waste
The volumes of non hazardous waste expected to be generated at the site will be low. Food and other
domestic waste will be removed on a daily basis. Recyclable materials such as metals, plastic, carton, glass,
wood etc. will be sorted and temporarily stored at a salvage yard until sold and removed by contractors. The
environmental significance of these waste streams are moderate without any mitigation measures, but
reduced to low with the implementation of mitigation measures such as proper recycling strategies, proper
storage containers and bays to mitigate potential impacts.
Temporary storage of hazardous waste
Temporary storage of hazardous materials presents various challenges. Different waste streams such as
hazardous solvents and chemicals should not be mixed in any way, but stored in separate containers and
bays until removal to prevent any chemical reactions. Some hazardous waste will be returned to the
suppliers while those that cannot be recycled will be disposed at the on-site landfill until the off-site
hazardous landfill site is developeda. The storage of hazardous waste is overall rated as having a moderate
potential of causing an impact, but this is reduced to low with the implementation of sound mitigation
measures.
Permanent storage of bio-sludge: It is expected that any bio-sludge waste generated during the life of the
plant will be treated by bioremediation at the landfarm. The process which is performed in the upper zone of
the soil or in biotreatment cells results in the successful treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons and other less
volatile, biodegradable contaminants leaving a relatively low quantity that will need, as a last option to be
landfilled. Bio-sludge will be landfarmed during the site activities and the landfarm will closed and
rehabilitated at the end of the decommissioning phase. Monitoring of the landfarm may be required for up to
30 years after closure and rehabilitation. The overall environmental significance before mitigation is rated as
moderate, reduced to low with the implementation of measures such as recycling.
Permanent storage of non-hazardous waste
It is expected that most of the non-hazardous waste generated during the life of the plant will be recycled
leaving a relatively low quantity that will need, as a last option to be landfilled. Waste will be landfilled during
the site activities and closed and rehabilitated at the end of the decommissioning phase. Monitoring of the
landfill is required for up to 30 years after closure and rehabilitation. The overall environmental significance
before mitigation is rated as moderate, reduced to low with the implementation of measures such as
recycling.
Permanent storage of hazardous waste
Hazardous waste streams generated at the site that can not be sent back to suppliers or recycled will be
landfilled. Hazardous waste can cause severe impacts on the surrounding environment without proper
mitigation measures. OLTIN YO’L GTL will dispose of all hazardous waste in an environmentally acceptable
manner, with prior treatment before disposal on a lined hazardous waste disposal site. Hazardous waste will
be disposed at the on-site landfill that will be upgraded to accept class 2 wastes until the off-site hazardous
landfill site is developed. The environmental significance before mitigation is rated as moderate and reduced
to low after the implementation of mitigation measures, such as a lined and proper engineered hazardous
landfill site. Waste disposed will be capped and rehabilitated after decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L GTL

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 380
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

facility. Further mitigation measures such as monitoring and treatment of leachate will continue as long as
required.
Landfill sites generate odours and gas emissions such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The
volumes depend on the environmental climatic conditions and type of waste disposed at the facility. The
efficiency of the operational practices in place at the site further plays a role. The quantities of food and
domestic waste that will be landfilled are expected to be low. With the area being very dry with a low annual
rainfall the potential for odours and production of landfill gas will be further reduced. The overall
environmental significance before mitigation is low for the reasons mentioned and will be further reduced
with the implementation of mitigation measures such as sanitary landfill practices (covering of waste on a
daily basis).
Hazardous landfill leachate escaping to the environment
The magnitude is rated as high before mitigation reduced to low after mitigation with the provision of
engineering designed lined landfill site with leachate (landfill permeated liquids) management system to
prevent leachate from impacting the surrounding natural environment. The area has a dry climate with very
low rainfall and therefore the potential for leachate generation is regarded as low. The duration of the
potential impact is permanent but limited to the site only if properly managed. Leachate has the potential to
impact the region as a whole once the underground water has been contaminated. The probability of
leachate being released into the surrounding environment before mitigation is definite, but with mitigation
measures implemented such as a landfill-liner and leachate management system installed, the probability is
reduced to low.
Unauthorised disposal of waste to the environment
Illegal disposal of waste materials and littering can occur around the site. The environmental significance of
illegal dumping occurring is rated as moderate without any mitigation measures in place. It is expected that
OLTIN YO’L GTL will implement a waste management plan to manage all waste activities of the operations
and this will serve to mitigate the illegal disposal of waste to the surrounding environment, reducing the
environmental significance to low.
6.6.13.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring
6.6.13.2.1 Waste hierarchy
The waste management hierarchy is an internationally accepted guide to prioritise waste management
options and aims to achieve optimal environmental results. The main priority of OLTIN YO’L GTL should be
to prevent the generation of waste. If not possible, waste should be minimised or re-used as far as possible.
Refer to Figure 6.49 below for an illustration of the waste hierarchy.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 381
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.49: Waste Hierarchy

OLTIN YO’L GTL should develop realistic targets and time frames to reduce the generation of waste and to
identify and implement measures for more environmentally friendly waste management practices.

To further promote the minimization of hazardous waste generation, OLTIN YO’L GTL should develop and
implement a “Green Procurement Policy” aiming to acquire and use only environmentally friendly products in
their operations where possible. The quality and type of the input materials and resources determines the
output and waste streams that can be expected.

6.6.13.2.2 Development of an on-site landfill

A wide site selection process (Appendix C of the Waste specialist study report) to identify suitable candidate
sites for an on-site landfill disposal facility was undertaken. After a thorough comparison and evaluation
process to eliminate unsuitable sites, the site on the location of the new OLTIN YO’L GTL facility was
selected. The next phase of the new on-site landfill facility development will be the detailed design and
construction of the infrastructure.

A new on-site landfill will be developed at the location shown in Figure 6.50. The on-site landfill site will be
developed for the disposal of class 2, 3, 4 and municipal solid wastes by upgrading the currently proposed
class 4 landfill to a class 2 landfill. The approach to upgrade the on-site landfill site to a class 2 site provides
a workable schedule and optimised solution for waste handling during the first few years of the project life.
The landfill will be equipped with a conservative class 2 liner, meaning that it will be able to accept semi-
hazardous waste streams, as well as municipal or domestic wastes from the plant. The on-site disposal
facility will be used for an interim 5 year period after which a new long-term hazardous landfill will be
developed for the disposal of hazardous wastes.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 382
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.50: Position of the on-site landfill

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 383
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.13.2.3 Development of an off-site hazardous landfill site

The only hazardous waste disposal facility close to the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility is the nearby SGCC
hazardous facility, which is not sizable enough for the disposal of general and hazardous waste generated at
the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility as well. OLTIN YO’L GTL therefore needs to develop a hazardous waste
disposal facility to accommodate all the general and hazardous waste streams generated at the new plant
that cannot be recycled. The Republic of Uzbekistan (RUz) has certain requirements and authorisation
processes in place that must be complied with before approval and development for such a facility can be
obtained.

A wide site selection process to identify suitable candidate sites for such a facility had been followed. After a
thorough comparison and evaluation process was followed to eliminate unsuitable sites the three best
candidate sites within a close proximity to the new OLTIN YO’L GTL facility had been recommended and
should be presented to the Karshi SCNP for finalisation. The next phase of the hazardous waste disposal
facility development will be the detailed design and construction of the infrastructure.

This new long-term hazardous landfill will be off the current site footprint towards the southwest. It represents
site 5 proposed during the site selection process study in Appendix C of the waste specialist study report.
This approach to develop an off-site landfill site for handling of waste after end-of-life of the on-site landfill
provides a workable solution for the project lifetime.

It is proposed that the disposal cells be designed in such a manner that hazardous waste streams are not
mixed together and are separated from general waste materials. The facility must also be suitably lined to
prevent leachate from polluting the sub-soils and groundwater and surrounding environment. The facility
should further be provided with suitable drainage systems to divert clean runoff away from the site and for
contaminated runoff and leachate to be contained and treated before release into the environment. The
facility should be operated in a professional manner to prevent any hazardous waste escaping or
endangering the natural environment.

6.6.13.2.4 Temporary waste storage at OLTIN YO’L GTL

The migration of leachate or spillage into the ground and groundwater regime around all temporary storage
areas, specifically the middlings must be prevented. A temporary storage site therefore requires a firm
waterproof base that is protected from the ingress of storm water from the surrounding areas. The storage
area must also be provided with an effective drainage system and a waterproof spillage collection area,
where any spillage can be recovered and suitably treated.

It is envisaged that a salvage yard will be established on the site. This area must be clearly demarcated, well
designed and provided with suitable containers and smaller storage areas for the different waste streams.
Wastes must be stored separately and not be mixed. The salvage yard, middlings storage area and other
waste storage areas, especially hazardous waste storage areas should not be accessible to unauthorized
persons. If non-compatible wastes are to be stored in the same area, care should be taken to adequately
keep them separated, and to prevent possible interactions between different wastes in the event of fire or
spillages. Flammable or combustible wastes must in any event be stored separately from other waste
materials. Used oil must be stored in clearly marked containers in a well bunded area to contain accidental
spillages.

Suitable waste collection containers should be placed at strategic points, as close as possible to the point of
generation and these areas and containers should be properly marked to indicate the type of waste it is
meant for. Colour coding of receptacles can assist in the separation of waste at source and the further
handling thereof. Areas where hazardous wastes are kept must be clearly marked with the correct warning
and safety signage in place. Precautionary measures to prevent spillages and the speedily cleaning up in
such events should be developed and implemented. Sawdust is a good absorbent for liquid spillages and
should be provided as emergency clean-up kits in strategic areas. Storage areas and containers should be
kept clean to prevent any nuisances such as odours from occurring.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 384
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.13.2.5 Development of landfarm

A new on-site landfarm facility will be developed as shown in Figure 6.51 for the disposal of bio-sludges. The
location for the landfarm was selected adjacent to the new on-site landfill site. Bio-sludge of a class 4 rating
will be placed in the landfarm and undergo a bioremediation treatment process in the upper soil zone or in
biotreatment cells. Contaminated soils, sediments, or sludges in the soil surface will be turned over
periodically or tilled to aerate the mixture. Land farming is successful in treating petroleum hydrocarbons and
other less volatile, biodegradable contaminants. The landfarm treatment area will be properly managed to
prevent both on-site and off-site migration/cross contamination problems with ground, ground water, surface
water contamination.

6.6.13.2.6 Transportation of waste

The Waste Management Act provides regulations for the transportation of hazardous waste. It is regulated
from collection to the point of disposal. The generator of waste is responsible (“cradle –to-grave”) for the safe
disposal thereof at an approved and licensed disposal facility even though the collection and transportation
might be undertaken on his behalf by a private service provider. This also includes hazardous waste
collected by private contractors for treatment or recovering purposes elsewhere away from the plant. The
waste must be accompanied by the waste manifest as prescribed in the waste management regulations.

6.6.13.3 Waste management strategy

It is recommended that OLTIN YO’L GTL develop and implement a detailed Waste Management Plan for the
life of the project. The Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) should be consistent with the waste
legislation of RUz and other national and international best practices. The IWMP is a holistic approach to
manage all waste components in accordance with the best health, environmental, economical and
engineering practices (and responsive to public attitudes). The components of such a plan will at least
include the following:

¡ Generation of waste;

¡ Minimization, recycling and separation (at source);

¡ Storage and collection;

¡ Transfer and transport; and

¡ Disposal/treatment/destruction.

The SHEQ manager (or equivalent)at the appropriate corporate level of OLTIN YO’L GTL should be tasked
with the responsibility for waste management as required by the waste regulations. The IWMP should be
reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 385
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.51: Position of the Landfarm

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 386
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.6.13.3.1 Incineration
Incineration uses combustion to convert wastes into less bulky materials. Commercial incinerators can
control the residence time, temperature and turbulence within the incineration chamber to optimise the
combustion. They are also equipped with air pollution control devices to remove most NOx emissions.
Incinerators are usually employed to destroy hazardous organic type wastes to reduce their potential risk to
health and the environment. Incinerators are expensive to use and are more suitable in environmentally
sensitive areas and industries where large volumes of hazardous organic waste are generated.

Based on the available waste information and volumes expected to be generated at OLTIN YO’L GTL, it
seems that the installation of an incinerator would not be a requirement. Nothing however prevents OLTIN
YO’L GTL from exploring this option further; keeping in mind that special authorisation will be required.

6.6.13.3.2 Monitoring and auditing

It is recommended that a monitoring plan be developed to monitor overall waste releases from the plant. The
monitoring plan should include all solid, liquid and gaseous wastes generated during the operation and as
required by the local environmental legislation. The quantities and key contaminants of waste streams
should be measured and monitored along with identifying the sources of generation and the details to be
captured on a central database. The classification of waste streams should be determined in accordance
with the waste classification regulations.

Environmental audits should be conducted at regular intervals as required by the RUz waste legislation.

6.6.14 Downstream Water user survey

Reference
Specialist Study Z

Key specialists
Trevor Coleman, Angelina Jordanova

Study objectives:
The particular aspects that have to be addressed in this study were identified as the following:-

¡ The trans-boundary nature of the nearby surface water resources that would be affected by the Project.

¡ Assessment of water sufficiency for affected communities of the region after the site starts water
abstraction.

The above aspects relate to the water reconciliation of the water requirements and water availability (yield) of
the water supply system of dams to be used for the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project as well as the capacity of the
water supply infrastructure system of pumps and canals to meet the current and future water user
requirements as well as the Project’s.

The scope of work for the water resource study was to assess the water availability of the water resource
system to be used to supply the project. The available water was then compared to the current and future
water requirements that are to be supplied from the water resource system to determine the impact that the
Project’s water consumption will have on the water users. An assessment of the hydraulic capacity of the
canal and pump water supply infrastructure to accommodate the increase in the water demand on the
system due to the Project was also undertaken.

6.6.14.1 Assessment of impacts

The SGCC complex is supplied with water from Pump Station A and Pump Station B which abstract water
from the KMC. Pump Station A is located along the canal length behind a discharge outlet of the Talimardjan
Reservoir at a distance of approximately 1.5 km. Pump Station B is located further downstream on the canal.
3
The 11.5 million m capacity Himki reservoir has been constructed at SGCC as buffer storage for the supply

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 387
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

16
to the complex. Raw water supply for the project is planned from the Himki reservoir, an artificial off-
channel reservoir of SGCC, by extension of the existing Pump Station V.

Annual water supplied to the SGCC complex from the KMC on 2007, 2008 and 2009 are listed in Table 6.43.
Annual water distribution at the SGCC complex for 2007, 2008 and 2009 are plotted in Figure 6.52.
Table 6.43: Annual water supplied to the SGCC
3
Year Volume of water in thousand m
2007 10707.7
2008 15520.9
2009 15565.5
Average 13931.4

From Figure 6.52 and Table 6.43 it can be seen that volume of water that used at the SGCC plan is a small
amount of the supplied to the complex .The biggest volume of water from the KMC is delivered to the SGCC
reservoir. The impact on downstream water users (local and trans boundary) from an abstraction point of
view is therefore negligibly small.

The water requirements for the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant and for the SGCC, together with the average flow in
KMC are listed in Table 6.44.

In terms of discharge, a network of drainage channels has been constructed to collect irrigation return flows.
Effluent from the current SGCC plant is discharged after treatment into the head of one of these drainage
channels. The channel drains through the irrigation areas collecting irrigation drainage water. There have
been complaints from the downstream water users about the water quality of the water in the drainage
channel. The channel will be used by OLTIN YO’L GTL for stormwater discharge in winter. The stormwater
will only be discharged if the Uzbekistan Local Requirements for Waste Water Discharge for domestic use
standards are met by the discharge water. The discharge water could, in fact improve the water quality in the
effluent channel draining channel. The impact on downstream water users (local and trans boundary) from a
discharge point of view is therefore potentially positive or negligibly small.

Figure 6.52: Annual water distribution at SGCC complex

16
The Himki reservoir receives water from the Talimarjaran reservoir via the Karshi Main Canal (KMC) at an average monthly rate of between 17.3 m3/hr and 689 m3/hr.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 388
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.44: OLTIN YO'L GTL project water requirements

3
Description Raw water (m /hr) % KMC flow
OLTIN YO’L GTL summer case 171.5 0.066
OLTIN YO’L GTL winter case 163.0 0.063
OLTIN YO’L GTL start up case 303.0 0.117
Average Himki reservoir 890.6 0.345
Average SGCC irrigation 572.5 0.221
Average SGCC production 79.5 0.031
Average SGCC domestic 47.7 0.018
Average KMC flow 258494.9 100.0

The impact ratings of the downstream water user survey are presented below.
Table 6.45: Environmental Impact Assessment rating matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL
ENVIRONMENTAL
Potential Impact on Downstream water users (Operational phase SIGNIFICANCE
OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation
M D S P Total SP
Impact on local and transboundary water users as a result of
2 1 4 1 8 L
abstraction
Impact on local and transboundary water users as a result of
4 4 3 4 44 H+
discharge

Implications for mitigation

The water requirements for the project will not impact the KMC downstream users as the water requirements
are included in the present water requirements of the SGCC - the water requirements of the project are
insignificant compared to the irrigation water requirements. Therefore, no mitigation required. Likewise, the
capacity of the KMC and pump station cascade water supply infrastructure far exceeds the proposed
abstraction for the project. The available data shows that the project will not impact significantly on the
irrigation water users in Uzbekistan or the water users downstream of the pump off take from the Amu Darya
River, therefore no mitigation required. The discharge of stormwater and treated waste water from the OLTIN
YO’L GTL site will meet Uzbekistan Local Requirements for Waste Water Discharge for domestic use
standards and could potentially improve the water quality of the water conveyed in the channel. A mitigation
measure for this is only to ensure that the discharged water remains compliant to the domestic standards.

6.6.15 Ecosystems Goods and Services

Reference
Specialist Study M

Key specialists
Peter Kimberg, Aishling Dower

Objectives
The key aims and objectives of this study were to:

1. Identify key ecosystem services and goods supplied;

2. Qualify the relationship between ecosystem services, goods and natural and anthropogenic assets;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 389
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

3. Rank the relative importance of ecosystem services;

4. Identify beneficiaries i.e. people who benefit from the goods and services supplied, and their level of
dependence on the ES, and

5. Identify any necessary additional areas of investigation, and future directions for ecosystem goods
and services assessment.

Methodology
The approach to the ecosystem services assessment was based on a desktop assessment, interviews with
local residents, other chapters of this ESHIA, and information supplied by the client.

This approach has been developed based on the methods, concepts, and ideas outlined in:

¡ The IFC’s 2012 Performance Standards and guidance notes (www.ifc.org/performancestandards);

¡ Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment – Introduction and Guide to Scoping (World
Resources Institute, 2011);

¡ The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – An Interim Report (2008) (www.teebweb.org);

¡ The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Business (2012) (www.teebweb.org); and

¡ The Natural Capital Project’s Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Trade-offs (InVEST)
toolkit (InVEST version 2.5.4, 2013).

The ES study was conducted by performing the following:

1. Defining the Beneficiaries;

2. Delineating the study area for assessment (Project Area of Influence);

3. Conducting a desk top review;

4. Conducting interviews with benificiaries;

5. Identifying potential ES; and

6. An impact assessment.

The ES Beneficiaries
Two categories of beneficiaries were identified for the Project;

¡ The local community ;and

¡ The Project itself.

Delineation of the study area

The area of influence is typically that area within which direct (and sometimes indirect) beneficiaries are
located. The Project’s ES area of influence was set by identifying the land cover types in the locality,
defining the ES that are provided by each land cover type, and then defining the extent of the area where the
relevant ES beneficiaries are located. Figure 6.53 illustrates the project area of influence and dominant land
uses.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 390
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 6.53: Project Area of Influence

Desktop Review
A desktop review of the information gathered for the Baseline Chapter 3 of the ESHSIA (Golder, 2011), was
conducted, and relevant information collated to aid in identifying any ES that may exist within the project
area of influence. The majority of the information was sourced from the following specialist study reports for
the baseline study; botany (Komiljon, 2010), fauna (Filatov, 2011), surface water (Golder Associates, 2011),
and downstream water users (Golder Associates (a), 2013).

Interviews with Beneficiaries

Surveys of the local residents (beneficiaries) within the area of influence was undertaken . The interviews
were carried out by the Golder social team in April 2013, and previously in 2010 for the 2011 ESHSIA.
The information gathered during the interviews was used to:

¡ Identify drivers of ecosystem change likely to be associated with the project;

¡ Identify potentially impacted ecosystems and ecosystem services, and beneficiaries thereof;

¡ Assess current supply of provisioning ecosystem services and their contribution to beneficiaries well-
being; and

¡ Estimate foreseeable supply of ecosystem services and their contribution to beneficiaries well-being in
the absence of the project.

In addition, a site visit to Tashkent and Karshi in Uzbekistan was undertaken by Golder Hydrologists in June
2013 to collect data and understand the Project’s potential water supply systems. The data was used to
assess the water sufficiency for affected communities of the region, once the Project commences water
abstraction.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 391
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Identifying potentially impacted ES

Collating the information gathered during the Desktop Assessment and Interviews, the potential ES were
identified.

Impact Assessment
The impact assessment involved the following steps:

1) Review and identification of the trends and external, non-project-related threats to current ES supply -
current pressures on ecosystems and the resilience inherent in those ecosystems were identified;

2) Assessment of the replaceability of ES, and/or spatial alternatives for confirmed vulnerable
beneficiaries;

3) Assessment of the project’s dependence on ES provisioning within the project’s impact area of
influence. (This will gather data on Type II priority ecosystem services as defined by the IFC (2012));

4) Undertake an impact assessment upon those provisionally-identified priority ES for each of the broad
ESHIA disciplines. That is, those that have high beneficiary dependence and low alternative availability.
Identify magnitude of impacts and mitigation possibilities;

5) Undertake a full Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) to produce a final priority ES list. This list will then
undergo an integrative ES impact assessment by combining the information gained in Step 3 with ES
impact magnitude and availability of spatial alternatives

6) Conduct an impact significance assessment on Type I and II priority ecosystem services before and
after mitigation;

7) Identification of social/operational/financial/regulatory/reputational risks associated with the residual

impacts; and

8) Identification of potential alternatives to supply of services

The impact significance assessment of the potential impacts of the Project on Type I and II priority
ecosystem services followed the impact assessment approach used in the other Chapters of this ESHIA.

6.6.15.1 Ecosystems Study Results

Priority ecosystem services related to the Project were identified following an ecosystem service review
(WRI, 2011). Priority Type I ES, ie those that result in adverse impacts to beneficiaries, are outlined in Table
6.46.
Table 6.46: Priority Ecosystem Services according to the Significance of Project Impact (after WRI,
2011).
Could the project Is the ES a major Significance
reduce the contributor to the of Project
benefits that any well-being of any of impact on this
Ecosystem Comments/ Supporting Comments/ Supporting ES
beneficiaries the potentially
Service derive from this information affected information 2 = High
ES? beneficiaries? 1 = Medium
(Y/N) (Y/N) 0 = Low
Provisioning
Food - This ES is a contributor
to the well-being of any
Fodder for The loss of grazing lands herders who rely on
Livestock as a result of the project (unformalised) grazing of
Y Y 1 – Medium
will result in the reduction livestock in the area.
of grazing area. The site constitutes a
small portion of the total
grazing area.
Food - N There will be no Y Obtaining meat and dairy 0 - Low

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 392
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Significance
Could the project Is the ES a major
of Project
reduce the contributor to the
benefits that any well-being of any of impact on this
Ecosystem beneficiaries Comments/ Supporting the potentially Comments/ Supporting ES
Service derive from this information affected information 2 = High
ES? beneficiaries?
1 = Medium
(Y/N) (Y/N)
0 = Low

Livestock significant increases in products from livestock is

demand for meat/dairy a major contributor to the
products as a result of the well-being of
loss of the current beneficiaries
livestock production on
the site
Fresh water The quantity of water Fresh water for affected
being abstracted, in the beneficiaries is not
context of the available sourced in the same way
water resource is not as fresh water for the
N N 0 - Low
considered likely to project - it is either
significantly reduce the trucked into the
availability of water for settlements or collected
downstream users from rainfall
Silk worm Increased silk worm
mortality is attributed to
farming The extent of silk worm
poor air quality by the
farming in the project
N local mayor. No - 0 - Low
area of influence is
significant impacts on air
unknown
quality as a result of the
Project are predicted
Medicinal Although no evidence of
collection of medicinal
plants <10% of plant species in
plants within the project
natural vegetation are
area of influence was
medicinal plants, and
recorded, the source of
locals are not engaged in
medicinal plants for sale
N collection of medicinal Y 0 - Low
at local markets is
plants in the study area –
unknown.
instead purchasing in
This ES is likely a
markets at Karshi and
significant contributor to
Guzar (Komiljon, 2010)
beneficiary well-being for
some beneficiaries.
Regulating
Soil stability The amount of plantation
Black saxaul plantation
that will be lost
aid erosion prevention –
Y Y represents 23% of land 2 – High
likely to benefit local
cover within project area
beneficiaries
of influence
Soil quality The amount of plantation
Black saxaul plantations
that will be lost
enhance soil quality –
Y Y represents 23% of land 2 – High
likely to benefit local
cover within project area
beneficiaries
of influence
Clean air Black saxaul plantation, The amount of plantation
and natural vegetation that will be lost
Y enhance air quality - likely Y represents 23% of land 2 – High
to benefit local cover within project area
beneficiaries of influence
Pollination Pollination is carried out
by wind and insects, and
Areas of mixed
in some cases birds and
cultivation are evident in
bats. No significant
N Y the north-western part of 0 - Low
impacts on faunal
the Project area of
populations as a result of
influence
the Project are
anticipated.
Sense of The Project will be located The natural vegetation in
adjacent to the existing the region is not known
place N N 0 - Low
SGCC facility. No known to hold any cultural
sites of cultural significance for the local

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 393
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Significance
Could the project Is the ES a major
of Project
reduce the contributor to the
benefits that any well-being of any of impact on this
Ecosystem beneficiaries Comments/ Supporting the potentially Comments/ Supporting ES
Service derive from this information affected information 2 = High
ES? beneficiaries?
1 = Medium
(Y/N) (Y/N)
0 = Low
significance occur within community.
the project area of
influence.

Type II ES are those services on which the project is directly dependent for its operations (Table 4). Priority
ES are those where the significance of the project impact on the ES is considered high. Table 6.47 provides
these ES.
Table 6.47: Priority Ecosystem Services according to the Extent of Project Dependence (after WRI,
2011).

Extent of project
dependence on
Which
Does the project Can the project this ES ecosystems
depend on this ES for substitute for this Comments/
Ecosystem 2 = High supply this ES to
successful ES in a cost- Supporting
Service dependence the project
performance? effective way? information
1 = Medium-Low (High extent of
(Y/N) (Y/N)
0 = No dependence only)

dependence

Provisioning
Food - Fodder N - - - -
for Livestock
Food - N - - - -
Livestock
The only viable
source of fresh water 2 – High
Fresh water Y N
for the project is dependence
Amu Darya river
abstraction
Silk worm N - - - -
farming
Medicinal N - - - -
plants
Regulating
Soil stability N - - - -
Soil quality N - - - -
Clean air N - - - -
Pollination N - - - -

Of the eleven ES identified within the Project area of influence, four are defined as Priority ES. The likely
value (high/medium/low) of the ES is discussed. These include:

¡ Food – Fodder for Livestock: The Project area is a government property managed by the Forestry
Department; two members of one household were previously employed to graze approximately 250
heads of cattle; the son voluntarily resigned for a better job while the father (the head shepherd) retired
from work at the age of 62. Only 4-5 hectares of the project site has been used by these former

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 394
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

employees for grazing. Since access is exclusive to these 2 individuals and as confirmed by villagers
from Otkoduk that they are not using the project area for grazing, the ES is not of relevant value to the
residents of Otkuduk.

The area of the Project footprint that potentially provides (seasonal) grazing opportunities is 94.5 ha.
During consultation with the Forestry Department and local residents of Otkuduk – only 4-5 hectares of
the 136 hectares of land allocated to OLTIN YO’L GTL was used for grazing by the 2 former Forestry
Department employees. Otkuduk residents (head of village and representatives) mentioned grazing as
main activity but not within the project footprint. The sustainable cattle stocking rate per hectare in this
region is likely to be low; therefore, given the poor condition of the existing land cover, and the
ephemeral nature of the vegetation presence, it is likely that the community graze their 250 cattle over a
much wider area than that which will be lost to the Project footprint. An alternative grazing area has
been identified by the Forestry Department for their purposes, 80 kms away from the OLTIN YO’L GTL
site and is used by the new employees hired for grazing activities. Thus the value of the ES provided
within the project area of influence is considered to be medium;

¡ Soil Stability: The black saxaul plantations stabilise soil in this desert region, reducing excessive erosion
and the spread of desertification. A total number of 13785 planted trees have been compensated for
(Uzbekistan Forestry Department as beneficiary), this is explained in detail in the regulatory ESIA by
17
Uzliti .The value of this ES in the project area of influence is likely to be high;

¡ Soil Quality: The presence of plant species indicative of soil salinification was noted during the
vegetation survey of the local area (Komiljon, 2010). Soil salinification may be caused by excessive
deforestation and irrigation of soils in Uzbekistan (Makhmudovich, 2001). Black saxaul plantation may
aid in the desalinification of such soils; which is a high value ES in the context of the project area of
influence;

¡ Clean air: The baseline air quality of the locality does not meet standard acceptable limits (ESHSIA
3.10.5; Golder Associates 2011), and existing deteriorating air quality is perceived as a contributory
factor in silk worm mortalities in the locality (Golder interviews, 2013). The value of clean air as a
Regulating ES is thus considered to be high (to be noted, air emissions modelled during the Air Quality
specialist study indicate that no international or local regulators standards will be exceeded by the
project due to the mitigation measures added during the engineering design); and

¡ Fresh Water :The value of the provision of Fresh Water to the Project is high, as the Project depends on
this ES for its operation

6.6.15.2 Impact Assessment Significance

The following sections summarise expected impacts and proposed mitigation measures on priority ES, as a
result of the Project

Food – Fodder for Livestock; Soil Stability and Soil Quality

Table 6.48: Impact Assessment for ES Fodder for Livestock
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Impacts relating to Fodder
provision for livestock Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Destruction of vegetation communities 2 2 2 5 30 M 2 2 1 3 15 L
Reduction of floral species diversity 2 2 1 1 5 M 2 2 0 0 0 L
Dust 4 2 2 4 32 M 2 2 1 1 5 L
Increase in invasive species 6 2 2 4 40 M 2 2 2 2 12 L
Loss of grazing land 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 2 0 0 0 L

17
PEIS for production of GTL on the base of purified methane gas from Shurtan GCC, JSC «O’ZLITINEFTGAZ», 2013.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 395
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The ES of Fodder for Livestock, Soil Stability and Soil Quality will be directly impacted as a result of the loss
of vegetation during site clearance works for the Project. This and associated impacts are summarised as
follows:

¡ Existing vegetation communities will be lost due to clearing of land for access roads, and within the
plant and accommodation footprint areas;

¡ Floral species diversity may be reduced due to clearing of land for access roads and within the plant
and accommodation footprint areas;

¡ Dust created by construction activity and building of access roads will settle on the surrounding
environment, which may reduce vegetation growth rates, and contaminate the food source of livestock;

¡ Invasive species tend to increase due to disturbance of the natural environment, including human
disturbance such as construction activity. Proliferation of invasive species may reduce the availability of
grasses or other plants that provide preferable foraging material;

¡ Due to the removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities, the footprint area will no
longer contain grazing pastures which are currently utilised by the livestock belonging to the local
population; and

¡ The removal of vegetation, particularly areas of black saxaul plantation, will destabilise the soil and
contribute to soil erosion in the locality, until rehabilitated.

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures proposed in the ESHSIA relevant to the ES include:

¡ During operation, making areas surrounding the plant available to the local population for grazing by
livestock; and

¡ During rehabilitation of the site post-closure, the implementation of a properly developed rehabilitation
plan to restore natural vegetation communities.

No specific mitigation measures are proposed for the loss of livestock fodder that will be lost by beneficiaries
that may use the Project area for grazing their cattle. However, an economic valuation of the fodder potential
of the Project footprint could be undertaken to assess the value of lost grazing opportunities to beneficiaries.

No specific mitigation measures are proposed for the loss of the black saxaul plantation in the ESHSIA;
therefore it is recommended that clearance of plantation be avoided where possible. If plantation areas must
be cleared, they should be replaced by re-planting areas in their vicinity with black saxaul to minimise the
impact.

Significance of impacts on Ecosystem Service

The provision of fodder via grazing opportunities on the site of the Project is the Type I priority ES of
relevance to Affected Beneficiaries. The land cover types that support this ES within the project area of
influence are degraded natural vegetation (42 ha), and abandoned agricultural land (51 ha). The loss of this
land area, although certain - in the context of the available area of land cover types that provide fodder via
grazing opportunities in the region (degraded natural vegetation – 17,311 ha), it is considered to be an
impact of low significance.

Fresh Water
No impacts in terms of quantity of abstraction were discussed, but these are dealt with in the Impact
Assessment of project water supply on local water users (Golder Associates, 2013). These studies
concluded that there are not expected impacts on both water quality and quantify of surface water resources

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 396
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

nor will the project affect downstream water users (See Appendix W, Appendix Z and sections 6.5.12,
6.6.12, 6.6.14 and 6.7.12)
Table 6.49: Impact assessment for ES Fresh Water
Environmental Significance

Before mitigation After mitigation

Potential Impacts

M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP

Contamination of surface and ground

water due to spills and leakages (e.g.
10 4 2 4 64 M 4 4 1 3 27 L
of oil and other chemicals) within the
plant
Excess process water generated from
water treatment and related units
6 4 2 3 36 M 4 4 1 2 18 L
during low evaporation (winter)
periods
Increase in sanitary wastewater
discharges depending on number of 6 4 1 5 55 M 4 4 1 4 36 M
workers
Water treatment works not able to
efficiently treat to required water 10 4 2 4 64 M 4 4 1 4 36 M
quality standards
Increased storm runoff due to high
10 4 2 4 64 M 4 4 1 4 36 M
impervious areas
Clean and dirty water contamination
8 4 1 4 52 M 6 4 1 4 44 M
on site
Stormwater pond liner failure 8 4 2 3 42 M 4 4 1 2 18 L
Stormwater pond failure to cope with
8 4 2 4 56 M 4 4 1 2 18 L
runoff on site
Contamination of surface water due
to discharge of effluent and 8 4 2 5 70 M 4 4 1 3 27 L
stormwater to the canal

Water quality
The main impacts related to the Project are the potential contamination of surface water due to on-site spills
and leakages, discharge of effluent to the canal and contaminated storm water run-off. The impacts from
spills and leaks and contaminated storm water run-off have been ranked as low even before mitigation due
to the low rainfall in the area.

The discharge of effluent to the canal may, however, have a moderate impact if not treated adequately prior
to discharge and considering that the existing plant is already discharging to the canal, may have a
cumulative impact. However, the canal is an artificial system into which water has been lifted from the Amu
Darya River, therefore reflux of potentially untreated effluent into the Amu Darya River ecosystem is unlikely.

Water quantity
As discussed previously, although the Project requires the abstraction of surface water from the Amu Darya
River via the Talimandjan Reservoir and the Karshi Main Canal, the volume of water being abstracted, at a
3 3
rate of 250 m /hr, or 2.19 million m /year, is considered to be well within sustainable limits. The available
3
surface water resource in the Amu Darya River is estimated at an average of 78 billion m /year.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 397
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Proposed mitigation measures relevant to reducing the significance of impacts on the ES are largely related
to the prevention of contamination of the surface water resource by spillages from machinery, and
discharges of waste water. They include:

¡ Excessive soil contamination by chemicals, fuel or oil spills, , will be collected for treatment at a pre-
determined and dedicated location, or will be treated in situ using bioremediation, in accordance with
existing procedures.

¡ Vehicles will be maintained regularly and kept in good working order.

¡ Chemical storage areas will be adequately bunded to prevent chemicals entering the storm water
system;

¡ Dirty areas will be adequately drained to the pollution control dam;

¡ Vehicle maintenance will not be carried out on the site, but in contractor workshops; and

¡ Effluent will be treated to acceptable standards prior to discharge.

No specific mitigation measures are proposed in terms of mitigation of the quantity of water being used by
the project. However, discharge effluent may be used for irrigation purposes, although other end-uses have
been proposed, such as further treating the water for raw water use, fish pond discharge for aquaculture or
domestic use. According to preliminary design data there is a possibility to direct a portion of the wastewater
to waste treatment facilities located in the vicinity of the SGCC.

Significance of impacts on the Ecosystem Service

Fresh water is an important provisioning service to all affected beneficiaries. The significance of the impacts
of surface water use by the Project are considered to be potentially moderate in terms of potential
contamination of surface water in the Karshi canal and subsequent pollution of the Amu Darya river;
however, the likelihood of this occurring as a result of the Project once mitigation measures as described in
are applied, and the significance of any residual impacts post-mitigation are considered to be low.

In the context of the available surface water resource in the Amu Darya River, any impacts of the proposed
abstraction on downstream users are considered unlikely, and of low significance, should they occur.

A limited number of ecosystem services are provided by the Project area of Influence, due to the degraded
condition of both existing natural habitat on the site, and former farm land.

Of the ES provided with the Project area of influence, four were considered to be priority ES – the
Provisioning service Fodder for Livestock provided by the (degraded) natural vegetation and disturbed land,
the Provisioning Services Soil Quality and Soil Stability provided by the black saxaul plantation, and the
Provisioning service Fresh Water upon which the Project is dependent. No significant impacts on these ES
as a result of the development of the Project are predicted

6.6.16 Greenhouse gas emissions (Climate change potential)

Reference
Specialist study N

Key Specialists
Dave Mercer

Study Objectives
See section 6.5.15.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 398
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operational phase
The green house gas emissions study calculated the following GHG footprints for the construction phase as
presented in Table 6.50.
Table 6.50: Operational GHG Footprint Summary (Annual) by Source/Scope (tonnes)
Source Operational
Product Transport (Scope 3) 31 780
Process emissions and energy (Scope 1) 1 824 678
Total 1 856 458
Implications for monitoring and mitigation
Please see section 6.4.15 for information pertaining to Greenhouse gas mitigation measures already
implemented during the engineering design of the facility.

6.7 Decommissioning phase impacts

6.7.1 Air quality
Reference
Specialist study J

Key specialists
Craig Woodburn, Amanda Gair, Rachel Saville, Dan Birkenshaw.

Study objectives
See section 6.5.1.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.5.1.

6.7.1.1 Assessment of impacts

Table 6.51 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.51: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Air Quality Impacts
(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Potential Impacts of dust releases during
4 2 1 3 21 L 2 2 1 2 10 L
decommissioning of buildings
Potential impacts of dust releases from any
stockpiled materials (including soil, overburden 6 2 1 3 27 L 4 2 1 2 14 L
and storage materials)
Potential impacts of dust releases from erosion
4 2 1 3 21 L 2 2 1 2 10 L
following area clearing (stripping of vegetation)
Potential impacts of dust releases from haul
6 2 1 4 36 M 4 2 1 3 21 L
road traffic

Dust release during building decommissioning and stockpiled materials

Dust releases may occur from decommissioning activities directly such as material handling, cutting,
grinding, sawing, filling of skips and using chutes. Stockpiled materials in particular are often subject to wind
erosion if not managed appropriately which may have the potential to cause dust releases. Before the start

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 399
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

of any earthworks, affected areas would be stripped of vegetation and thus cleared. This can lead to erosion
and associated dust release, especially under dry conditions.

Dust release from area clearing and haul road traffic

Potential dust impacts may occur from a number of activities associated with the decommissioing of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp and pipelines in the vicinity of the SGCC accommodation camp.
The largest potential impact would be expected from dust releases during soil stripping and earth
excavations and from haul road traffic. The underlying geology at the site location contains clay material of
less-like sandy loams. Any fine particles could be easily disturbed and dispersed, especially during dry and
windy conditions. Haul road traffic is often a major dust source during construction through the re-
suspension of any dust on the haul roads and dispersion of materials from vehicle tyres.

6.7.1.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Potential dust release is a key concern during the decommissioning period. To prevent potential dust release
and potential dust impacts during decommissioning works, machinery, fuel and chemical storage and dust
generating activities should be located away from site boundaries and sensitive receptors where possible.
Pre-fabricated materials should be utilised to reduce cutting, grinding and sawing, water suppressant
systems should be used or dampening down whenever possible, dust extraction techniques should be used
if available, work surfaces should be pre-washed when scrabbling, work areas should be screened off, all
skips should be securely covered, drop heights should be minimised to control the fall of materials, and
working areas should be regularly swept and dampened down to prevent the build up of fine waste dust
material.
Soil stripping and earth excavations are associated with the movement of large amounts of materials and
there is the potential for dust releases to accompany these activities. To prevent dust releases and potential
dust impacts during earthworks, mitigation measures include dampening down of all dusty activities,
especially during dry weather, temporary covering of earthworks where possible, minimising drop heights,
and loading and unloading of materials in areas protected from wind, where practicable.

To prevent potential dust release and potential dust impacts from stockpiled and stored materials, it should
be ensured that stockpiles exist for the shortest possible time, surface areas of stockpiled material should be
minimised to reduce the surface area exposed to wind erosion, stock piles should not have steep sides or
sharp changes in shape, and stockpiles should be kept away from the site boundaries, sensitive receptors
and surface drains. If possible stockpiles should be kept securely sheeted, and stored materials should be
covered and protected from wind and stored materials should be dampened where appropriate.

The use of hard surfaced roads where practicable, regular inspection of haul roads for integrity and repair if
required, a wheel and vehicle wash at the exit of the OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp construction
site, on-site speed limits, regularly cleaning and dampening down of haul roads, limiting vehicles idling
motors, and covering of loads transported to and from site will assist in preventing potential dust release and
potential dust impacts from haul road traffic.

6.7.2 Ecology: Avifauna biodiversity

Reference
Specialist study K

Key specialists
Lorenzo Fornasari, Peter Kimberg

Study objectives
As discussed in section 6.5.2.

Study approach and methods

As discussed in section 6.5.2.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 400
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.7.2.1 Assessment of impacts

From an avifauna perspective, summarises the potential impacts that are related to the decommissioning of
the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.

Table 6.52: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase

Potential Avifauna Impacts ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L Before mitigation After mitigation
GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
1. HABITAT CHANGES: Existing industrial
structures will be removed and the topography
will be returned to its former state, with 1 1 1 4 12 L+ 1 1 1 4 12 L+
possible increasing of open habitat trivial bird
species.
2. POLLUTION (DUST DEPOSITION in the
surrounding habitats): Effect on food
2 1 2 4 20 L 2 1 2 4 20 L
palatability for ground, vegetarian birds (e.g.
Geese).
3. WASTE STORAGE AND DISPERSAL:
Effects on habitat quality and pollution, with 2 1 2 2 10 L 2 1 2 2 10 L
secondary effect on bird population dynamics.
4. NOISE: Effect on bird presence in migratory
(Passerines) and wintering (Geese, Harriers, 8 2 5 1 15 L 8 2 5 1 15 L
Pygmy Cormorants) habitats.
5. NOISE: Effect on territory occupation by
breeding populations of migrant species
6 2 2 4 40 M 6 2 2 1 10 L
(Long-tailed Shrike population close to
accommodation site).

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the Decommissioning phase of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.
Habitat loss
Following decommissioning, the site would be rehabilitated to pre-developmental conditions.
Decommissioning activities might result in some impacts on bird species that usually inhabit human
settlements (e.g. Common Starling, Common Myna, Swallows etc.). These species are highly adaptable and
would find new structures to inhabit.

Air and ground pollution

During the decommissioning phase, no additional chemical pollution is expected at a scale relevant for
adverse impacts on bird presence and abundance, provided that risk of accidental contamination will be
prevented.

Waste storage and disposal

Waste storage and disposal is the key action of decommissioning phase. Substantial amounts of solid and
industrial waste will be generated during the decommissioning and dismantling of the industrial facilities. A
large amount of the solid material will be recycled, sold as scrap or used for other projects. The remaining
non-hazardous waste would be sent to permitted disposal facilities. Industrial wastes (oils, hydraulic fluids,
coolants, solvents, and cleaning agents) would be treated similarly to wastes during the operational phase.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 401
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Should environmental contamination have occurred during the operational phase, the decommissioning
activities could include removal of the in situ contamination for transportation to an off-site disposal facility. If
proper procedures are followed, no impacts are foreseen on bird populations.

Noise
As in the construction phase, heavy plant equipment would be a likely source of noise, representing a
potential agent of impact on bird populations in the immediate vicinity of the OLTIN YO’L GTL site. The
decommissioning phase would be relatively short in comparison with the operational phase and therefore it
could be expected that impacts on bird species / populations would be reversible should appropriate
mitigation measures be implemented.

Traffic
Short-term increases in the use of local roads would occur during decommissioning. Disturbance will be
mainly due to low speed vehicles, and noise disturbance limited to a corridor adjacent to the main roads.
Impact on bird communities will be low and of short duration.

6.7.3 Ecology: Terrestrial (Fauna and Flora) biodiversity

Reference
Specialist Study X

Key specialists
Koos de Wet

Study objectives
See section 6.5.3.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.5.3.

6.7.3.1 Assessment of impacts

From a terrestrial ecology perspective, Table 6.53 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 6.53: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL - Decommissioning Phase

Potential Terrestrial Ecology Impact ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L Before mitigation After mitigation
GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Destruction of vegetation communities 2 2 2 5 30 M 2 1 0 0 0 L
Loss of red data plant species 2 2 2 2 12 L 2 1 0 0 0 L
Reduction of floral species diversity 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 0 0 0 L
Loss of fauna communities 6 2 2 4 40 M 2 1 0 0 0 L
Loss of fauna red data species 8 2 2 4 48 M 2 1 0 0 0 L
Reduction of fauna diversity 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 1 0 0 0 L
Dust 4 2 2 4 32 M 2 1 0 0 0 L
Increase in invasive species 6 2 2 4 40 M 2 1 0 0 0 L
Loss of grazing land 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 1 0 0 0 L
Loss of crop fields 2 2 1 1 5 L 2 1 0 0 0 L
Increased human activity 6 2 3 3 33 M 2 1 0 0 0 L
Change in drainage patterns 4 2 2 2 16 L 2 1 0 0 0 L

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 402
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Contamination through oil leaking from

2 2 1 3 15 L 2 1 0 0 0 L
motorised equipment

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the decommissioning phase of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Loss of habitat
¡ Destruction of vegetation communities: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is
expected;

¡ Loss of red data plant species: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;

¡ Reduction of floral species diversity: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is
expected;

¡ Loss of fauna communities: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;

¡ Loss of fauna red data species: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;
and

¡ Reduction of fauna diversity: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.

Contamination and invasion

¡ Contamination by oil: Oil leaking or spilled from motorised equipment will contaminate the soil;

¡ Dust: Dust may be created by vehicles travelling on unpaved roads and during decommissioning
activities; and

¡ Increase in invasive species: Invasive species tend to increase due to disturbance of the natural
environment, including human disturbance such as decommissioning activities.

Loss of habitat
¡ Loss of grazing land: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;

¡ Loss of crop fields: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected;

¡ Increased human activity: The presence of a large number of people in the project area may cause
trampling of the surrounding area thereby destroying vegetation and cause disturbance to the fauna
community which will disrupt their life patterns and possibly drive them away; and

¡ Change in drainage patterns: After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.

6.7.3.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

During decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L GTL site, a suitable rehabilitation plan must be implemented.
Key objectives of this rehabilitation plan should be to stabilise loose soil, to prevent hydrocarbon spills from
heavy plant equipment utilised during decommissioning, to restore the original topography and vegetation
communities. During successful re-establishment of vegetation communities, fauna species will recolonise
the rehabilitated areas as ecological processes are promoted. Rehabilitation success should be monitored
and alien plant invasion should be controlled.

6.7.4 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources

Reference
Specialist Study L

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 403
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Key specialists
Paul Wheelhouse

Study objectives
See section 6.5.4.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.5.4.

6.7.4.1 Assessment of impacts

Table 6.54 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.54: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase

Potential Cultural Heritage Impacts ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L Before mitigation After mitigation
GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
None envisaged. - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any impacts upon heritage resources are expected to occur during the construction phase. It is therefore
considered likely that there will be no potential cultural heritage impacts associated with the
decommissioning phase of the project, as summarised in the table above.

6.7.4.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Not applicable.

6.7.5 Hydrogeology (Groundwater)

Reference
Specialist study O

Key specialists
Graham Hubert, Gabriel Canahai

Study objectives
See section 6.5.5.

Study approach and methods

This is described in section 6.5.5.

6.7.5.1 Assessment of impacts

From a hydrogeological perspective, Table 6.55 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 6.55: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Decommissioning Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Groundwater Impact
(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Erosion due to incomplete site rehabilitation after
4 3 2 3 27 L 4 1 2 2 14 +L
decommissioning

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 404
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Chemical spills as a result of decommissioning

4 1 2 4 28 L 4 1 2 2 14 L
storage infrastructure
Temporary storage of various dismantled
structures, equipment, contaminated soil and 8 2 1 3 33 M 6 2 1 2 18 L
other waste
Closure and rehabilitation of OLTIN YO’L GTL
6 2 2 3 30 M 4 2 2 2 16 L
landfill site

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the decommissioning phase of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Erosion due to incomplete site rehabilitation after decommissioning

The environmental significance of the
erosion occurring after
decommissioning is low before
mitigation taking in to account that
presently the area is exposed to
erosion as a result of limited
vegetation growth in the area. Figure
6.54 provides an example of the
sparse vegetation characteristic of
the area. The decommissioning will
therefore be required to implement a
controlled plan which will include
planting vegetation over the
decommissioned area. This will have
a positive impact in general and
could improve groundwater recharge
in particular.

Chemical spills from

decommissioned storage
Spills from decommissioned storage
facilities have a high probability to
occur unless mitigation measures are
included in the decommissioning
plan for the plant. The magnitude of
such an event is low, and is of
localised scale. The mitigation Figure 6.54: Photo showing the lack of vegetation on the proposed OLTIN
measures will involve the YO’L GTL site.
management of each storage facility
and establish the handling criteria and checks for each of the facilities in the decommissioning plan.

Temporary storage of structures, equipment, contaminated soil and other waste

Due to the large number of potential contaminants handled within a relatively short period of time the
environmental significance of temporary storage during decommissioning is rated as moderate before
mitigation. The significance will be reduced to low by including separate and specific handling measures for
each type of hazardous material in the decommissioning plan for the plant. The impact will be limited to the
OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site only and will be for a short-term period lessening the potential impact on the
surrounding area.

Closure and rehabilitation of the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site

Closure and rehabilitation will commence once no waste materials require disposal (i.e. after
decommissioning of the plant. This activity rating is moderate prior to mitigation. Closure and rehabilitation of

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 405
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

the landfill site can only take place based on an approved plan. Implementation of the Closure and
Rehabilitation Plan will reduce the environmental significance of this activity to low. The plan will follow the
environmental requirements including a specific monitoring plan to document the environmental responses
over an extended period after the rehabilitation has completed.

6.7.5.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

The mitigation measures recommended for the decommissioning phase emphasise rehabilitation and the
restoration of natural drainage lines and groundwater recharge. Additional mitigation measures are
described in the ESHMP chapter, these include:

¡ The inspection of tanks and storage facilities prior to removal;

¡ Removal of contaminated soil;

¡ The capping and sealing of the waste dump in compliance with international best practices; and

¡ The development of an environmental groundwater monitoring plan.

6.7.6 Human health impact assessment

Reference
Specialist study P

Key specialists
Rosanna Moraes, Helene Imbert

Study objectives
The study objectives of the major accident hazard risk assessment specialist study were as follows:

1) To understand health risks associated to baseline conditions, and the potential incremental risks that
may be realized due to the Project construction, operations, decommissioning leading to changes in
water, air, soil and food quality from chemical emissions that could affect community health; and

2) if needed, to recommend mitigation and management measures to reduce health risks.

Study approach and methods

The following approach has been used in the development of the health risk assessment specialist study:

¡ Data collection, including a desktop review of relevant documentation;

¡ Delineation of study area for the assessment;

¡ Problem formulation;

¡ Receptor screening;

¡ Chemical screening;

¡ Exposure pathway screening;

¡ Exposure assessment;

¡ Toxicity assessment; and

¡ Risk characterisation.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 406
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.7.6.1 Assessment of impacts

From a health risk perspective, Table 6.56 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation. The identified human health risks are directly related to impacts in soil, water and air already
described in other Specialist Studies.

Table 6.56: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase

Potential Health Impacts ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN Before mitigation After mitigation
YO’L GTL)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Soil impacts which are likely to result in
3 4 1 4 32 M 4 4 2 2 20 L
potential health impacts
Surface water impacts which are likely
8 4 2 3 42 M 4 2 1 1 7 L
to result in potential health impacts
Air impacts which are likely to result in
6 2 1 4 36 M 4 2 1 3 21 L
potential health impacts

Soil impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts

Possible contamination of soil during decommissioning and related activities via spills, leakages and
irresponsible dumping may impact human health. Resulting spills & leakages may contain substances
hazardous for human health. Risks are directly related to the amount of chemicals in soil, their toxicity
properties and the duration of exposure to workers. Risks can be controlled by mitigation measures (e.g.;
where hazardous substances are required to be moved, it must be safely contained and transported in order
to minimise the risk of spilling etc. These mitigation measures are described in the proposed mitigation
measures in the Soil Specialist Study.

Surface water impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts
Residual impact on surface waters due to mobilisation contaminants in soils during infrastructure demolition
may pose potential health risks. Since water is used for irrigation and livestock watering, potential human
exposure is expected. Impacted soils may contain substances that may migrate to water. Some of those
substances can accumulate in plants and animals and are hazardous for human health. Risks are directly
related to the amount of chemicals in water used for irrigation and livestock watering, their toxicity and
bioaccumulation properties and the frequency of exposure to humans. Risks can be controlled by mitigation
measures. Given the distance between the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant and various settlements, their residents
are unlikely to be exposed.

Air impacts which are likely to result in potential health impacts

Potential impacts of dust released during decommissioning activities may impact on human health. Risks are
directly related to the amount of particles in air and the duration of exposure to humans. Receptors of main
concern will be on site-workers. Risks can be controlled by mitigation measures described in the Air quality
report of this ESHSIA.

6.7.6.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Mitigation measures that OLTIN YO’L GTL is required to implement, aimed at reducing potential negative
environmental and social impacts and enhancing potential positive environmental and social impacts that are
applicable to human health were discussed previously in the Water, Soil and Air Specialist Studies.

Vector borne diseases (such as visceral Leishmaniasis) have been identified as a potential concern in the
regional area. As recommended by ICF (2007) reducing the impact of vector-borne disease on the long-term

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 407
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

health of workers and community is best accomplished through implementation of diverse interventions
aimed at eliminating the factors that lead to disease. Project sponsors, in close collaboration with community
health authorities, can implement an integrated control strategy for vector-borne diseases that might involve
for instance elimination of breeding habitats of vectors close to human settlements; implementation of
integrated vector control programs; educating project personnel and area residents on risks, prevention, and
available treatment; and monitoring communities during high-risk seasons to detect and treat cases.

6.7.7 Landscape and visual aesthetics

Reference
Specialist study Q

Key specialists
Johan Bothma

Study objectives
This is described in section 6.5.7.

Study approach and methods

This is described in section 6.5.7.

6.7.7.1 Assessment of impacts

From a visual perspective, Table 6.57 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 6.57: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Decommissioning Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Visual Impact (Decommissioning
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Dismantling and removal of all infrastructure
4 2 2 3 24 L 2 2 2 3 18 L
from site
Implementation of standard rehabilitation
measures including re-contouring of the
2+ 5 2 2 18 L+ 2+ 5 2 2 18 L+
landscape and re-installation of natural land
cover

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the decommissioning phase of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

Dismantling and removal of all infrastructure from site

The process of decommissioning the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility, which will include the dismantling and
deconstruction of all project-related infrastructure and removing the material from site, is expected to cause a
visual impact of a similar nature to that of the construction process, with two differences. Firstly, the process
is expected to be somewhat shorter in duration than the construction process, and secondly will result in an
increasingly improved visual condition, due to the progressive removal of the project infrastructure from the
landscape. Thus although the nature of the impact itself may be negative, the end result will be an
improvement in the visual character of the landscape from that of the operational phase condition.

Implementation of standard rehabilitation measures including re-contouring of the

landscape and re-installation of natural land cover
The implementation of post-closure rehabilitation measures, such as the re-contouring of the landscape to
more closely resembling the natural topography and the re-installation of natural land cover, is expected to
result in a significant additional improvement of the visual condition. Once implemented it is expected that

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 408
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

visual condition will be very similar to that of the pre-project baseline, and is therefore considered a positive
visual impact associated with this phase of the project.

6.7.7.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Mitigation measures for the decommissioning phase are limited, although it is recommended that the
landscape should be returned to a state approximating the pre-development condition in terms of the
topographical character and pre-existing vegetation.

6.7.8 Noise
Reference
Specialist Study R

Key specialists
Simon Waddell

Study objectives
See section 6.5.8.

Study approach and methods

This is presented in section 6.5.8.

6.7.8.1 Assessment of impacts

There is no detail currently available regarding plans for decommissioning. However, it is assumed that the
noise level and (thus impact) associated with this phase will be no higher than that of the construction phase.

Table 6.58 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.58: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Decommissioning
Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Noise Impact (Decommissioning
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Temporary increase in ambient noise levels
at receptors due to decommissioning of 4 2 2 5 40 M 4 2 2 5 40 M
facility

6.7.8.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Like the construction phase, temporary elevation of ambient noise levels is expected during the decommissioning
phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL site. In order to minimise the noise impact upon neighbouring receptors as far as is
reasonably practicable, several best practice mitigation measures have been recommended. Key mitigation
measures include:

¡ Avoiding unnecessary revving of engines and switching off equipment when not required;

¡ Starting up plant and vehicles sequentially rather than all together;

¡ Vehicles will be maintained regularly and kept in a good working order;

¡ Increasing the distance between plant and noise sensitive receptors is the most effective method of
controlling noise.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 409
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ On sites where it is not possible to reduce noise by increasing the distance between source and
receiver, screening may have to be considered.

6.7.9 Major Accident Hazards Risk assessment

Reference
Specialist Study T

Key specialists
Daniël Rademeyer

Study objectives
This is discussed in more detail in section 6.5.9.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.5.9.

6.7.9.1 Assessment of impacts

Although major accident hazards are not an issue during decommissioning, for completeness, Table 6.59
summarises the potential impacts that are related to the decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and
provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.59: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Major Accident Hazard Impacts
(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Loss of life of persons on the site 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
Loss of life of surrounding communities 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
Injuries to persons on the site 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
Injuries to people in surrounding communities 2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
Contamination through pollution and leakages (e.g.
2 1 1 1 4 L 2 1 1 1 4 L
of oil), for example, from construction vehicles

Thus there are no significant impacts from major accident hazards during decommissioning of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, as summarised in the table above.

6.7.9.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

No mitigation measures for major hazard accident hazards during decommissioning have been identified.

6.7.10 Potential Socio-economic Environment Impacts

Decommissioning phase impacts were not assessed in the specialist study, as the execution of the
mitigation measures suggested for Construction / Operation, will determine the outcomes of the socio-
economic impacts of the project. Socio-economic impacts during closure / decommissioning, must be
assessed during the Operational phase of the proposed project.

6.7.11 Soils
Reference
Specialist study V

Key specialists
Louw Potgieter

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 410
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Study objectives
See section 6.5.11.

Study approach and methods

See section 6.5.11.

6.7.11.1 Assessment of impacts

From a soil perspective, Table 6.60 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.

Table 6.60: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Decommissioning Phase

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Soil Impact (Decommissioning
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Loss of the soil resource during this phase 2 4 2 5 40 M 2 4 2 5 40 M
Possible contamination of soil during
decommissioning and related activities via spills, 3 4 1 4 32 M 4 4 2 2 20 L
leakages and irresponsible dumping
Compacting of soil during restoration especially
8 5 1 4 56 M 2 1 1 1 4 L
when in a moist state.

Loss of the soil resource

The impact of the decommissioning phase was found to have low ratings in terms of magnitude and scale.
This was largely due to the low agricultural potential of the soil lacking high quality irrigation water. In
addition, the land is currently allocated for industrial development. While the overall ratings are low, it must
be noted that the establishment of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility will result in a loss of soils resources,
effectively rendering the soil ‘useless’ for agricultural purposes.

Soil contamination
Possible contamination of soil during the decommissioning phase may emanate from sources including;
spillages and leakages from vehicle and machinery use, and other hazardous substances that may be used
in the demolishing process. Irresponsible dumping of waste material generated during decommissioning
activities may result in the pollution of soil resources. A moderate significance was scored and the impact
has negative implication due to the permanent nature of the infliction, as contamination can migrate through
the soil in to the groundwater.

Soil compaction
Soil compaction may occur when soil stockpiles are removed and placed for restoration. Activities similar to
those anticipated during the construction phase will apply to the decommissioning phase and may lead to
compaction of the soil resource. In addition, the movement over re-established areas will also lead to soil
compaction. The soil compaction impact has a negative direction and was found to be of moderate
significance.

6.7.11.2 Implications for mitigation and monitoring

Mitigation measures recommended for the decommissioning phase remain the same as those
recommended for the construction phase due to the similarity of the anticipated activities. Additional
mitigation measures include:

¡ Where possible, remove and place soils when dry, and not when moist or wet;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 411
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ After removal of infrastructure and prior to topsoil placing, the disturbed area must be ripped to loosen
the soil surface;

¡ After restoration of the topsoil, a proper seedbed must be prepared for vegetation re-establishment;

¡ At this stage amelioration is recommended to raise the fertility status of the soil to a suitable level prior
to seeding;

¡ Fertilizer requirements should be evaluated at the time of rehabilitation as levels will change during the
stockpiling period; and

¡ After restoration, traffic and movement over the restored area must be restricted to avoid damage to
these areas.

6.7.12 Hydrology (Surface water)

Reference
Specialist Study W

Key specialists
Trevor Coleman, Angelina Jordanova, Oliver Malete

Study objectives
See section 6.5.12.

Study approach and methods

This is discussed in section 6.5.12.

6.7.12.1 Assessment of impacts

Table 6.61 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.61: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Surface water Impacts
(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Runoff from existing industrial structures and
6 1 2 4 36 M 2 1 1 2 8 L
footprint of OLTIN YO’L GTL
Residual impact on surface waters due to
mobilisation contaminants in soils during 8 4 2 3 42 M 4 2 1 1 7 L
infrastructure demolition

Runoff and contamination

The main impacts from decommissioning associated with surface water would be the potential for dust
generation and deposition before re-vegetation is successfully completed and oil and chemical spillages
associated with the decommissioning of storage infrastructure. It is likely however that storage tanks will be
completely emptied prior to decommissioning so that only residual chemicals will remain, and the probability
of contamination will be limited.

6.7.12.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Decommissioning may leave large barren areas that may increase erosion, which might increase the amount
of suspended solids in downstream surface water. To prevent erosion from barren areas, areas that may be
prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident will be stabilised, and re-vegetation will commence as

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 412
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

soon as is practicable after areas are cleared. Traffic and movement over stabilised areas will be restricted
and controlled, and damage to stabilised areas shall be repaired and maintained to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Manager.
6.7.13 Waste management (Decommissioning)
Reference
Specialist Study Y

Key specialists
Andre Venter, Jarrod Ball, Natalie Kohler

Study objectives
See section 6.5.13.

Study approach and methods

This is discussed in section 6.5.13.

6.7.13.1 Assessment of impacts

Table 6.62 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the decommissioning of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and after mitigation.
Table 6.62: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL- Decommissioning Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Waste Management Impacts
(Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL) Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Existing industrial structures will be removed and the
topography will be returned (as far as possible) to its 8 2 1 3 33 M 4 2 1 2 22 L
pre-development state
Temporary storage of dismantled used infrastructure
materials, steel works, equipment, building rubble, 8 2 1 3 33 M 6 2 1 2 18 L
contaminated soil and other waste
Closure and rehabilitation of the landfarm 6 2 2 3 30 M 2 2 2 2 12 L
Closure and rehabilitation of the OLTIN YO’L GTL
6 2 2 3 30 M 2 2 2 2 12 L
landfill site

Removal of existing industrial structures

The environmental significance of the decommissioning activities in general are rated as moderate before
mitigation, but with the implementation of a decommissioning plan this is reduced to low. It is uncertain how
extensive this phase would be at this stage, but will at least involve the dismantling of some of the buildings,
equipment and other infrastructure. It is possible that some infrastructure might be used for other purposes
and this possibility will only be verified at a later stage. Many of the materials will be recycled as far as
possible. Contaminated materials will not be recyclable and those that cannot be removed by hazardous
waste contractors will need to be disposed of mostly at the landfill site before final closure and rehabilitation.
Stored topsoil and fill material will be used to return the site as close as possible to its pre-development
state.

Temporary storage of dismantled used infrastructure

The environmental significance of the temporary storage of dismantled structure materials, rubble, steel
structures, equipment etc. is rated as moderate before mitigation. The significance will be reduced to low
with the implementation of the decommissioning plan for the plant. The impact will be limited to the OLTIN
YO’L GTL plant site only and will be for a short-term period lessening the potential impact on the surrounding

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 413
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

area. The decommissioning plan will include the management of contaminated wastes such as lubricants,
some catalysts, sludges, contaminated soils etc.

Closure and rehabilitation of the landfarm

The landfarm will be closed and rehabilitated last once all bio-sludge waste requiring bioremediation has
been treated. The environmental significance of this activity before mitigation is rated as moderate, but with
an approved closure and rehabilitation plan in place this would be reduced to a low rating. The objectives of
landfill closure are to rehabilitate the site so as to ensure that it is environmentally and publicly acceptable
and suited to the implementation of the end-use, if applicable. All activities on the site will have ceased and a
monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure the facility does not pose any threats to the surrounding
environment. The monitoring period will be determined by the authorities.

Closure and rehabilitation of the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site

The landfill site will be closed and rehabilitated last once all waste materials requiring disposal had been
landfilled. The environmental significance of this activity before mitigation is rated as moderate, but with an
approved closure and rehabilitation plan in place this would be reduced to a low rating. The objectives of
landfill closure are to rehabilitate the site so as to ensure that it is environmentally and publicly acceptable
and suited to the implementation of the end-use, if applicable. All activities on the site will have ceased and a
monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure the facility does not pose any threats to the surrounding
environment. The monitoring period will be determined by the authorities, but could be as long as 30 years
after closure.

6.7.13.2 Implications for Mitigation and Monitoring

Removal, dismantling and demolishment of existing infrastructure
To limit the storage time and volumes of waste on the site after decommissioning, all re-usable materials and
equipment will be recycled as far as possible, topsoil stockpiles preserved since the construction phase will
be used to level and rehabilitate the area to its original condition, natural vegetation of the area will be re-
introduced on the site, and hazardous waste that cannot be recycled will be disposed of via the existing off-
site disposal system at the time or at the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site before the landfill is finally closed and
rehabilitated.

Temporary storage of dismantled used infrastructure

In order to ensure waste materials are sorted and recycled wherever possible, minimizing the need for
landfilling, the measures that will be implemented include the sorting of dismantled and used materials at
source, and the disposal of hazardous and contaminated waste at the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site or other
suitable facilities. Landfilling of any waste will be implemented only as a last resort, and any deviations from
set environmental requirements and standards during this phase will be addressed immediately.

Decommissioning and closure activities (if plant life cannot be extended due to technology
up-grades or other uses)
To minnimise the need for landfilling and to ensure that waste materials are sorted and recycled wherever
possible the following measures will be adhered to:

¡ Dismantled and used materials will be sorted at source;

¡ Hazardous and contaminated waste will be disposed of at the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site or other
suitable facilities;

¡ Landfilling of any waste will be implemented only as a last resort; and

¡ Any deviations from set environmental requirements and standards during this phase will be addressed
immediately.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 414
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Closure and rehabilitation of the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfarm.

The OLTIN YO’L GTL landfarm site will be closed in accordance with local legislation and internationally
acceptable best practices. In order to do so, the site will be rehabillitated, in compliance of a locally approved
closure plan and international industry best practices to limit the impact on ground, ground water, surface
water. An approved environmental monitoring plan (ground, ground water, surface water
contaminationboreholes, air, capping integrity, and vegetation etc.)) will be implemented to monitor the
facility after rehabilitation and closure on an on-going long-term basis for as long as required by the
authorities, and any deviations from set environmental requirements and standards during this period will be
addressed immediately.

Closure and Rehabilitation of the Landfill site

In order to rehabilitate the landfill site in accordance with local legislation and internationally acceptable best
practices the site will be finally shaped, capped and sealed in compliance of a locally approved closure plan
and international industry best practices to limit the generation of leachate at the facility. An approved
environmental monitoring plan (boreholes, air, capping integrity, vegetation etc.) will be implemented to
monitor the facility after closure on an on-going long-term basis for as long as required by the authorities.
Any deviations from set environmental requirements and standards during this period will be addressed
immediately.

6.7.14 Greenhouse gas emission

Please see section 6.5.15 for information pertaining to Greenhouse gas impacts and mitigation.

6.8 Cumulative Impacts

6.8.1 Air quality

The Golder AQ impact assessment considered the relevant AQS for the proposed GTL project drawing on a
combination of the IFC (2007)/WHO Global Air Quality guideline (2005) for SO2, NO2, fine particulate matter,
and O3, and local Uzbekistan requirements (which often required more stringent limit values to be considered
over different averaging periods, and additional pollutants such as CO and HC). The constituents monitored
at baseline (SO2, O3, NOx, NO2, VOCs) and modelled in the ADM (SO2, NO2, fine particulates, CO, HC) are
in line with industry and international good practice as applicable to the oil and gas industry.

Currently no international standard exist for odours. Odours are generally a mix of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) although individual pollutants (such as SO2) can also be odorous at threshold
concentrations. The impacts from odours are generally considered to be related to nuisance and loss of
amenity rather than human health. Odours require a consideration of offensiveness of the smell as well as
the absolute concentration. People’s perception of odour is also highly individual and variable.

Within the AQ impact assessment it is noted that some concerns have been raised by local inhabitants about
air quality and issues affecting breathing and odours. During baseline monitoring two locations, Navbahor
and Otkuduk villages, recorded single months where there were high peaks in the baseline concentration for
SO2. Both of these locations have raised existing concerns with respect to odours and any potential
increases in odour due to additional proposed developments. Existing industrial facilities are operational in
the area, and it is likely to be the variations in their emissions and the prevailing meteorological conditions,
which are captured by the baseline monitoring. The baseline monitoring of existing conditions permits a
cumulative impact to be considered in the AQ impact assessment.

From a consideration of publically available information the odour threshold for SO2 is generally considered
to be in the range of 0.3 - 8 ppm, approximately 800 to 8,000 µg/m . At these concentrations SO2, which is a
3

colorless gas at ambient temperature and pressure, has a pungent and irritating odour.

Consideration of both the maximum and average baseline SO2 monitoring data at the villages of Navbahor
and Otkuduk confirms that all measured monthly average concentrations are below the odour threshold. As
such SO2 alone is unlikely to be the cause of odours; indeed odours tend to be a mix of substances.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 415
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

However, shorter term average concentrations may be higher than this and hence result in the intermittent
occurrence of odours from the exiting activities in the area. In relation to this the development of a
continuous monitoring regime with a shorter term averaging period may be appropriate at the villages.

Similarly, a mix of VOCs from existing activities in the area may be producing the intermittently noted odours.
Fugitive emissions of VOCs (i.e. non combustion emissions) from any additional facilities to be introduced
into the area should be carefully considered and controlled through appropriate management plans so as not
to exacerbate any existing impacts in the area.

Predictions from the ADM undertaken for SO2 as part of the AQ impact assessment confirm that all human
health air quality standards are met off site, and as such, automatically all predicted concentrations are
below the odour threshold. This ADM assessment considers the short term average of 10-15 minutes and a
consideration of existing measured averaged baseline conditions. Again, variation in the instantaneous
existing baseline conditions (rather than the average conditions) may lead to cumulative concentrations
sufficiently high to cause an odour.

It should be noted that the odour issues raised to date in the area are part of the baseline conditions. An
improvement in the baseline condition is thus required for the odour issue to be resolved going forwards.
This can only be achieved through improvements to the existing activities in the area with respect to the
mitigation and management of emissions. Assessment of the proposed facility through the AQ impact
assessment has shown that any additional impacts due to emissions of SO2 are very small (less than 1 % of
the minimum odour threshold). An additional impact of less than 1% is generally considered undetectable.

Also see section 11.1.14, Table 16 which illustrates that toxicity data for materials of the OLTI NYO’L GTL
project are odourless.

6.8.2 Ecology
6.8.2.1 Avifauna biodiversity
Should the region continue to develop as a result of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project, environmental studies
associated with these studies would need to focus on groups / species / areas identified during this ESHSIA
study. Current indications are however that immediate region's economy would probably continue to focus
on irrigated agriculture in the foreseeable future and therefore additional cumulative effects in terms of
avifauna is not deemed relevant in this context.

6.8.2.2 Terrestrial ecology (Fauna and Flora)

The southern Uzbekistan steppe consists of vast areas of relatively uniform landscapes. The project site
yielded no vegetation of significance during the two field work periods, both which were conducted during
very dry conditions. It is however still possible to find species of conservation concern or commercial
importance as full understanding of the environmental dynamics of a natural area and the status of endemic,
rare or threatened species, vegetation and fauna can only be obtained through assessments repeated over
several seasons and through replication. Temporal changes in biodiversity are not taken into account during
this type of survey as variations in biodiversity due to temporal animal movements, such as migrations, are
not taken into account and unusual environmental conditions (such as unusually high or unusually low
rainfall) may cause unusual states of biodiversity during the period of study, which may not usually exist.

Even so, judged in view of the relative uniformity of habitat and vegetation and the relative degraded state of
the project site together with the small size of the project area negligible cumulative impact is expected.

6.8.3 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources

None envisaged as potential impacts are low and restricted to the project footprint and cumulative impacts
are therefore not deemed relevant..

6.8.4 Hydrogeology (Groundwater)

The cumulative impacts on the hydrogeological environment are controlled but not limited by:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 416
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ The region's economy will continue to focus on irrigated agriculture for the foreseeable future;

¡ The presence of Shurtan operation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development; and

¡ There are no additional downstream projects planned as a result of the OLTIN YO’L GTL.

The irrigated agriculture practices are potentially the most influential factor in impacting the hydrogeological
environment in the area. Shurtan operation does not monitor groundwater at this stage but is expected to
have minimal influence on the groundwater regime when compared to regional effect of irrigated agriculture.
The regulating authorities monitor groundwater regionally however the specific area in each the OLTIN YO’L
GTL development is proposed is lacking groundwater information.

Overall, and considering the responsible environmental approach OLTIN YO’L GTL takes for this project the
proposed development will have a minimal contribution to potentially negative impacts on the groundwater
regime.

6.8.5 Human health risks

The proposed facility would be located in close proximity to the existing SGCC Plant. Cumulative impacts on
the surface water and consequent risks for human health in the area from the existing plant may be
exacerbated by the discharge from the new plant to the canal; if the effluent is not treated adequately prior to
discharge. Minimal discharge is planned and therefore this risk is limited.

In terms of risks related to air inhalation, predicted air quality did not include air emissions from the existing
plant. The background monitoring data used in the assessment is assumed to include the emissions from the
SGCC existing facility and has therefore been considered. According to the Air Quality Specialist Study it is
likely that background air quality will worsen slightly but this will not exceed the air quality standards. There
has been some local concerns raised about existing air quality but the addition of this plant will only make a
small extra contribution for all parameters proposed.

6.8.6 Landscape and visual aesthetics

The cumulative impact assessment case considers this project within the context of other similar land uses,
in the local and greater regional context.

Currently the existing SGCC plant is the only significant industrial / mining infrastructure that occurs within
the study area or even a considerable distance from the site. As the viewshed analysis indicates, the OLTIN
YO’L GTL plant will be visible from a large section of the study area and similarly the existing SGCC plant is
also highly visible. As a result, the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will have a cumulative impact within the existing
visual context.

However, due to the very limited number of receptors and their distance from the site, the cumulative impact
is not considered to be significant. Furthermore there are no additional downstream projects planned as a
result of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project and it is unlikely that any further similar projects will occur in the region,
as development of this nature is bound to the availability of a specific resource. Thus the likelihood of further
cumulative visual impact, as a result of other projects of a similar nature to that of the OLTIN YO’L GTL
project, is very limited.

6.8.7 Noise
Construction Noise
Cumulative noise impacts during construction were detailed under the construction phase impacts in section
6.4.8 and therefore there is no need consider the same impacts in this section.

Operational Noise
The operational noise has been assessed according to the change in noise level and the sensitivity of the
receptor according to the impact magnitude scale detailed in Section 6.5.8. The operational noise impact
magnitude is summarised below in Table 6.63 and Table 6.64.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 417
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 6.63: Operational Noise Impact - Daytime

Total Operational Cumulative Change in Noise

Ambient Noise
Noise Level (dBA)
Receptor Noise Level Level dB
Level dB /Impact
dB LAeq(16hr) LAeq(16hr) Magnitude
LAeq(16hr)
Otkuduk Village 31.9 40.4 41.0 0.6
SGCC Staff Complex 34.3 45.4 45.7 0.3
Construction Camp 37.0 44.9 45.5 0.6
Navbahor 45.4 49.5 50.9 1.4

It can be seen that the total predicted noise level, associated with the operational phase of the proposals,
should be below the 55 dB(A) daytime criterion at all receptors assessed. It can also be seen that ambient
noise levels are expected to be raised by less than 3 dB(A). Therefore, the magnitude of the noise impact is
expected to be negligible adverse at all four of the receptors assessed.
Table 6.64: Operational Noise Impact - Night

Total Operational Change in Noise

Ambient Noise Cumulative Noise Level (dBA)
Receptor Noise Level
Level dB LAeq(8hr) Level dB LAeq(8hr) /Impact
dB LAeq(8hr) Magnitude
Otkuduk Village 30.3 34.5 35.9 1.4
SGCC Staff Complex 31.3 41.7 42.1 0.4
Construction Camp 33.2 47.1 47.3 0.2
Navbahor 43.9 34.3 44.4 10.1

It can be seen that the total predicted noise level, associated with the operational phase of the proposals,
should be below the 45 dB(A) night-time criterion at all receptors assessed. However, it can also be seen
that ambient noise levels are expected to be raised by more than 3 dB(A) at Navbahor. Therefore, the
magnitude of the noise impact is expected to be low adverse at Navbahor and negligible adverse at the other
three receptors assessed.

Table 6.65 summarises the potential noise impacts that are related to the operational phase of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL, and provides a significance rating for each impact.
Table 6.65: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for OLTIN YO’L GTL – Operational Phase

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Noise Impact (Operational Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL)
M D S P Total SP
Long-term increase in ambient noise levels at receptors primarily
due to additional rail movements on neighbouring rail link
associated with the facility but also, to a lesser extent, due to the 4 4 2 5 50 M
operational plant at the OLTIN YO’L GTL and additional vehicle
movements on local road network

6.8.8 Risk assessment (Major Accident Hazards)

The impact from risks from major accident hazards may increase should it be decided in future to increase
production or storage capacity, or if additional other hazardous materials were to be used in the gas to liquid
fuels processing. Thus, for example, if an alkalytion process were to be introduced for gasoline production,
then the handling of hydrogen fluoride, which is very toxic, would become a significant additional risk.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 418
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Should the region's economy change from the present focus on agriculture to more industrial and
development takes place around the OLTIN YO’L GTL site, surrounding population will increase and with
that the societal risk impact will increase, i.e. more people in the public domain could be affected by a major
accident hazard. Therefore, there is a need to specify a development restriction zone around the site as
shown in section 13.7 in the specialist report.
Establishment of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant in close proximity to the SGCC plant will add a major accident
hazard risk impact on the neighbouring plant operating personnel safety and health, e.g. from explosive and
toxic effects. A major accident could also impact on the SGCC environment due to pollution from spillages.
Explosion effects may also impact on the SGCC plant, equipment and assets due to damage caused by
explosions or a large fire.
6.8.9 Socio-economic Environment
There are no anticipated cumulative impacts that are considered negative. The appointment of a full time
CLO provides an opportunity for liaising with other government, business and international development
initiatives. This coordination will provide numerous opportunities for potential positive cumulative impacts.
Such opportunities will be further developed prior to construction.
6.8.10 Topography, geology and soils
It is anticipated that the region's economy will continue to focus on irrigated agriculture for the foreseeable
future. Furthermore the relative isolation of the OLTIN YO’L GTL and SGCC sites from other significant
development means that it is unlikely that extensive use of the land will occur post-closure. As a result, the
landscape could, and should, be returned to a state approximating the pre-development condition. The
landscape topographical character can largely be restored and any pre-existing vegetation re-instated.
Alternatively the area may be suitable for irrigated agriculture, which would be in keeping with the regional
context. Thus the likelihood of any mentionable residual impact occurring, once the site has been fully
rehabilitated, is very limited.
6.8.11 Surface water (Hydrology)
Cumulative impacts on the surface water in the area from the existing plant may be exacerbated by the
discharge from the new plant.
Some scenarios to consider include:

¡ There are no additional downstream projects planned as a result of the OLTIN YO’L GTL;

¡ The region's economy will continue to focus on irrigated agriculture for the foreseeable future; and

¡ Possible background creep or rises in ambient levels of environmental parameters such as noise, air
quality or water quality as a result of the project due to its close proximity to SGCC, etc.
6.8.12 Waste management
Cumulative impacts from a waste management perspective could include the impact of the hazardous waste
generated from the OLTIN YO’L GTL site.
The only hazardous waste disposal facility close to the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant is the nearby SGCC
hazardous facility which is not sizable enough for the disposal of general and hazardous waste generated at
the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant as well. OLTIN YO’L GTL therefore needs to develop a hazardous waste disposal
facility to accommodate hazardous waste streams generated at the new plant that cannot be recycled, or
these wastes will have to be transported to an approved hazardous waste facility.
It is anticipated that the region's economy will continue to focus on irrigated agriculture for the foreseeable
future, and therefore the risk of similar heavy industry in the immediate vicinity of the OLTIN YO’L GTL site
is limited, at this point in time. Therefore, the cumulative waste management impact in the project area is
limited.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 419
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

6.9 Residual Imapcts

6.9.1 Air Quality
No specific mitigation is required to reduce stack emissions as all applicable IFC and local Uzbekistan ELV’s
and air quality standards are achieved. There has been some local concerns raised about existing air quality
but the addition of this plant will only make a small extra contribution for all parameters proposed.

6.9.2 Ecology
6.9.2.1 Avifauna
The project has no relevant residual impacts from an avifauna point of view, if good management practices
are followed and mitigation measures taken into account. The implementation of the mitigation measure of
establishing a Bird Sanctuary at the potential burrow pit site could have a positive residual impact.
6.9.2.2 Terrestrial (Fauna and Flora)
Residual impacts on the terrestrial ecology with the successful implementation of the mitigation measures
indicated in this report should result in a low negative impact on the fauna and flora. This is mainly due to
the similarity of the vast majority of the larger landscape and its species as described in the cumulative
impact assessment.
6.9.2.3 Cultural heritage and archaeological resources
The results of the cultural heritage impact assessment have confirmed that there are no known cultural
heritage resources within the footprint of the development. From this baseline information, an impact
assessment has been undertaken and recommendations have been made to adequately mitigate the
project development scheme.
6.9.2.4 Hydrogeology
Residual impacts on groundwater would depend on the success of implementation of mitigation measures to
prevent the contamination of groundwater resources by activities of all phases of the project lifecycle.
Ongoing groundwater monitoring would indicate if residual impacts could occur and should be managed
accordingly.
6.9.3 Human health risks
The residual impacts identified in the human health study of moderate significance are related to:

¡ Extensive treatment systems have been included in the plant design in order to re-use process effluent
in this plant and to prevent potential contamination of surface water from discharge of effluent into the
drainage canal. Only clean storm water run-off and oily spills due to start-up and shut down operations
and ad hoc equipment failure will be collected in a storm water pond and discharged to the channel if it
meets the required water quality discharge standards. The discharge of effluent to the canal may
however have a moderate impact if not treated adequately prior to discharge. The impacts from spills
and leaks and contaminated storm water run-off have been ranked as low due to the low rainfall in the
area.

¡ Potential air impacts during operation. The low to moderate environmental significance is mainly due to
the long duration of the impact. Nevertheless, predicted maximum air levels and levels at the various
settlements did not exceed recommended air quality guidelines without the requirement of specific
mitigation technology at the point of release. Those predictions were based on conservative
assumptions. Therefore changes in air quality are unlikely to pose human health risks to residents and
OLTIN YO’L GTL plant workers. Due to the conservative nature of air assessment, it is likely that the
actual environmental significance would actually be low rather than medium.

¡ The measured and observed levels of radioactivity in the soil, sediment, water and air (in terms of
airborne radon inside buildings) were all low and well below what can be considered as local and
international compliance and acceptable levels. Viewed from this perspective it is not necessary or
justify proposing or implementing any mitigation measured to reduce the potential radiological impact.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 420
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The only measure that can be considered is to clean the sites that revealed higher than acceptable
radon exhalation rates (or Radon Flux Densities). The coordinates of these sites are listed in the
Baseline Radiation Protection Specialist Report (AquiSim Report ASC-1025L-2). As indicated, these
locations are associated with material brought in for construction work and not naturally occurring soils.

6.9.3.1 Landscape and visual aesthetics

For the purposes of the VIA, residual impacts are those that are expected to remain once closure of the
operations and decommissioning of all infrastructure has occurred, and full post-closure rehabilitation has
occurred.
Due to the arid climate and existing patters of land use, it is likely that the region's economy will continue to
focus on irrigated agriculture for the foreseeable future. Furthermore the relative isolation of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL and SGCC sites from other significant development means that it is unlikely that extensive use of the
land will occur post-closure. As a result, the landscape could, and should, be returned to a state
approximating the pre-development condition. The landscape topographical character can largely be
restored and any pre-existing vegetation re-instated. Alternatively the area may be suitable for irrigated
agriculture, which would be in keeping with the regional context. Thus the likelihood of any mentionable
residual impact occurring, once the site has been fully rehabilitated, is very limited.
In summary, it can be stated that with a few exceptions, the study area is of a moderate visual quality due to
a lack of visually distinct features, and the prominence of existing localised industrial / mining development.
The project components will impact negatively on the visual environment; however, the significance of the
impact will generally be moderate to low. This is due to the fact that project, although of a visually
detrimental nature, is not unique within the study area and does not threaten a significant visual resource.
The most significant visual impacts are expected to be caused during the operational phases and will be
caused by the visual appearance of the plant itself, as well as lighting of the plant and flaring at night.
6.9.3.2 Noise
There is no detail currently available regarding plans for decommissioning. However, it is assumed that the
noise level and (thus impact) associated with this phase will be no higher than that of the construction phase.
6.9.3.3 Major accident hazards risk
Implementation of all the preventative, mitigation and protective measures will still leave some residual
impact from major accident hazard events, which must be accepted. These include the possibility of fatalities
on site or offsite in the public domain, injuries on site or offsite in the public domain, environmental pollution,
and damage. Residual impacts are considered acceptable internationally if the individual risk to a member of
-6 -5
the public is less than 1 x 10 fatalities per person per year or to employees less than 1 x 10 fatalities per
person per year.
Addition of more preventative, mitigation and protective measures will reduce the risks further, but each
reduction will be accompanied by an increase in capital as well as operating cost, which will make the OLTIN
YO’L GTL project not viable, and the region will lose the benefit.
Additional residual impacts from a risk point of view could be tolerated up to an individual risk to a member of
-4 -3
the public of less than 1 x 10 fatalities per person per year or to employees less than 1 x 10 fatalities per
person per year. This is known as the “As low as reasonably practical” abbreviated as ALARP. This is
acceptable provided implementing additional preventative; mitigation and protective measures would be
impractical or involve unaffordable cost.
Based on the above assessment it can be concluded that the OLTIN YO’L GTL project will not have an
unacceptable impact as a result of possible major accident hazards on the people, the environment, the
region and the state.
6.9.4 Socio-economic Environment
Residual impacts are expected to be positive or only at a low negative level. If identified mitigation measures
are implemented, negative impacts are not expected to impair or change the quality of life of affected
persons. This conclusion will be reviewed on a regular basis and assessed against the results of continued
stakeholder engagement work that will seek to identify any negative impacts that have not been considered

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 421
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

in this study. The mitigation measures will be included in the ESHMP and monitored as part of the regular
ESHMP monitoring.

6.9.5 Soils
The four main impacts on the soil resource, resorts to loss of the soil resource within the site perimeter,
contamination, erosion and compaction. The residual impacts of each of these are considered in the
following section.
6.9.5.1.1 The Residual Impact of Soil Loss
The entire perimeter of the three sites for the OLTIN YO’L GTL project will be unavailable for any other
possible use of production. This is an inevitable event because the soil resource cannot be replaced and
thus, this impact not be mitigated. The impact is negative for the entire term of the project, however can be
regarded as low due to the relative small sizes of the impacted areas in relation to the huge, low utilized
surround.
6.9.5.1.2 The Residual Impacts of Contamination
The impact of possible contamination was considered for all three phases. It is anticipated in the events of
spills and leaks emanating from machinery use during the soil stripping and stockpiling processes during the
construction phase. It also comes about during the restoration activity in the decommissioning phase.
Furthermore, it is anticipated that where containment infrastructure is damaged or overflow and hazardous
fluids and substances may reach underlying and or adjacent soil, it poses potential for pollution. However, if
the suggested mitigation measures are implemented and adhered to, the residual impact for all the specified
scenarios is anticipated to alter from moderately negative to negligible negative (Table 6.66).
Table 6.66: Residual impacts of compaction

Phase Significance: pre-mitigation Significance: post-mitigation

Construction Moderate negative Negligible negative

Operation Moderate negative Negligible negative
Decommissioning Moderate negative Negligible negative

6.9.5.1.3 The Residual Impacts of Erosion

The potential for erosion on the stockpiled soil and adjacent land through runoff was identified to take place
during the construction and operational phases. Assuming topsoil is stored in correctly shaped stockpiles t
and containment structures are erected to control and divert runoff, the residual impact will change from
moderate negative to negligible negative (Table 6.67).
Table 6.67: Residual impacts of erosion
Phase Significance: pre-mitigation Significance: post-mitigation

Construction Moderate negative Negligible negative

Operation Moderate negative Negligible negative

6.9.5.1.4 The Residual Impacts of Compaction

Handling of topsoil and the use of heavy machinery for stripping and restoration during the construction and
decommissioning phases will take place, with subsequently compaction of the soil. If the suggested
mitigation measures are adhered to, then the residual impact is assumed to be negligible negative both
during the construction and decommissioning phases (Table 6.68).

Table 6.68: Residual impacts of compaction

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 422
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Phase Significance: pre-mitigation Significance: post-mitigation

Construction Moderate negative Negligible negative

Decommissioning Moderate negative Negligible negative

6.9.6 Hydrology (Surface water)

Residual impacts on surface water resources that could potentially occur due to the mobilisation of
contaminants in soils during infrastructure demolition. Mitigation measures suggested by this study should be
implemented during all phases of the project.
6.9.7 Waste management
Specific environmental objectives and mitigation measures have been defined to ensure that the impacts
associated with the project are properly mitigated managed and/or avoided (where possible). The
environmental objectives need to be attained and/or maintained to ensure satisfactory environmental waste
management at the new facility.
The only residual impact foreseen after decommissioning is the possible impact of the landfill site. The
landfill facility would normally be monitored for a 30 year period after closure to prevent or manage any
environmental impacts emanating from it. This will include the groundwater around the site, the final capping
layer, vegetation on and around the site, potential leachate and contaminated and uncontaminated runoff.
Part of the engineering design of the facility is to accommodate these requirements. OLTIN YO’L GTL will
have to report to the State Committee for Nature Protection (Goskompriroda) (SCPN) on an annual basis or
when required.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD.

Reg. No. 2002/007104/07

Directors: SAP Brown, L Greyling, RGM Heath

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

k:\projects\12614848_uzbekistan_eshsia_2013\4_reports\eshsia update\final\final_report_to_client\final changes accepted\12614848-12330-10_oltin yo'l

gtl_eshsia_section_6_changes accepted_17jan2014.docx

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 423
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.
PO Box 29391
Maytime, 3624
Block C, Bellevue Campus
5 Bellevue Road
Kloof, 3610
KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa
T: [+27] (31) 717 2790
 January 2014

OLTIN YO'L GAS TO LIQUIDS PROJECT

SECTION 7.0 - ESHMP

Environmental, Social, Health

and Safety Impact Assessment
(ESHSIA)
Performed on behalf of:
OLTIN YO'L GTL LLC
41/4 Mirabadskaya Street,
Mirabad District 100015 Tashkent,
Republic of Uzbekistan.
REPORT

Report Number. 12614848-12330-10

Distribution:
1 x copy: OLTIN YO'L GTL
2 x copies: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table of Contents

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................... 423

7.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 423

7.2 Objectives of the ESHMP ......................................................................................................................... 423

7.3 Finalisation of the ESHMP ........................................................................................................................ 423

7.3.1 Timing ................................................................................................................................................. 423

7.4 Applicable laws / regulations / policies ...................................................................................................... 424

7.5 ESHMP implications for detailed engineering design................................................................................ 424

7.5.1 Technical design codes ....................................................................................................................... 424

7.5.2 Environmental criteria.......................................................................................................................... 424

7.5.2.1 Qualitative criteria ............................................................................................................................ 425

7.5.2.2 Quantitative Design Criteria ............................................................................................................. 425

7.5.2.2.1 Ecology......................................................................................................................................... 425

7.5.2.2.2 Hydrogeology (Ground water) ...................................................................................................... 425

7.5.2.2.3 Design measures relating to visual impacts ................................................................................. 425

7.5.2.2.4 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 425

7.5.2.2.5 Major hazard accident management ............................................................................................ 426

7.5.2.2.6 Soil ............................................................................................................................................... 427

7.5.2.2.7 Hydrology (Surface water) ............................................................................................................ 427

7.5.2.2.8 Waste management ..................................................................................................................... 428

7.6 Social responsibility .................................................................................................................................. 428

7.7 Grievance mechanism .............................................................................................................................. 428

7.7.1 Purpose of grievance mechanism ....................................................................................................... 429

7.7.2 OLTIN YO’L GTL custodian of the grievance mechanism ................................................................... 429

7.7.3 Grievance submission mechanism ...................................................................................................... 429

7.7.4 Grievance record keeping system ....................................................................................................... 430

7.8 Environmental Management System (EMS) ............................................................................................. 430

7.8.1 SHERQ Policy ..................................................................................................................................... 430

7.9 Performance monitoring of ESHMP implementation ................................................................................. 431

7.10 Environmental and Social Monitoring........................................................................................................ 431

7.10.1 Monitoring aim and requirements ........................................................................................................ 431

7.10.2 Frequency ........................................................................................................................................... 432

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.11 Contractor management ........................................................................................................................... 432

7.12 Environmental, Social, Health and Safety awareness plan ....................................................................... 432

7.13 Socio-economic mitigation measures ....................................................................................................... 433

7.13.1 Economy and employment .................................................................................................................. 433

7.13.1.1 Royalties and taxes ......................................................................................................................... 433

7.13.1.2 Employment opportunities ............................................................................................................... 433

7.13.1.3 Procurement of local goods and services ........................................................................................ 435

7.13.1.4 Inflation ............................................................................................................................................ 435

7.13.2 Health, education and community safety ............................................................................................ 435

7.13.2.1 Health and education ....................................................................................................................... 435

7.13.2.2 Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and commercial sex work .................................................... 435

7.13.2.3 Migration .......................................................................................................................................... 435

7.13.2.4 Community safety and security ........................................................................................................ 436

7.13.3 Land, ownership and use .................................................................................................................... 436

7.13.3.1 Physical displacement ..................................................................................................................... 436

7.13.3.2 Economic displacement ................................................................................................................... 436

7.14 Construction phase ESHMP ..................................................................................................................... 439

7.14.1 Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 439

7.14.2 Ecology ............................................................................................................................................... 441

7.14.2.1 Avifauna biodiversity................................................................................................................................. 441

7.14.2.2 Terrestrial (Fauna and Flora) biodiversity ........................................................................................ 442

7.14.3 Cultural heritage .................................................................................................................................. 445

7.14.4 Hydrogeology (Groundwater) .............................................................................................................. 446

7.14.5 Landscape and visual aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 447

7.14.6 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 449

7.14.7 Risk assessment (Major hazard accidents) ......................................................................................... 450

7.14.7.1 Exclusion zone / Sanitary zone ........................................................................................................ 453

7.14.8 Socio-economic Environment.............................................................................................................. 453

7.14.9 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 453

7.14.9.1 Mitigation measures for loss of the soil resource ............................................................................. 453

7.14.9.2 Mitigation measures for the impact of potential contamination ........................................................ 453

7.14.9.3 Mitigation measures for the impact of soil erosion ........................................................................... 455

7.14.9.4 Mitigation measures for the impact of soil compaction .................................................................... 456

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.14.9.5 Additional soil conservation measures ............................................................................................. 457

7.14.10 Surface water (Hydrology)................................................................................................................... 457

7.14.10.1 Mitigation measures for storm water management .......................................................................... 457

7.14.10.2 Mitigation Measures for surface water ............................................................................................. 459

7.14.11 Waste management ............................................................................................................................ 460

7.14.11.1 Development of a hazardous landfill site ......................................................................................... 462

7.14.12 Logistics .............................................................................................................................................. 463

7.14.13 Radiation Management Plan ............................................................................................................... 465

7.14.13.1 Radiation Protection Measures ........................................................................................................ 466

7.15 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................... 466

7.15.1 Air Quality............................................................................................................................................ 466

7.15.2 Hydrogeology (groundwater) ............................................................................................................... 467

7.15.3 Landscape and visual aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 469

7.15.4 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 473

7.15.5 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 473

7.15.5.1 Mitigation measures for the impact of potential contamination ........................................................ 474

7.14.5.2 Mitigation measures for the impact of soil erosion ........................................................................... 474

7.14.5.3 Additional soil conservation measures ............................................................................................. 475

7.15.6 Surface water (Hydrology)................................................................................................................... 476

7.15.7 Waste management ............................................................................................................................ 476

7.15.7.1. Waste hierarchy ...................................................................................................................................... 483

7.15.7.2 Development of an on-site landfill .................................................................................................... 483

7.15.7.3 Development of an off-site hazardous landfill site............................................................................ 483

7.15.7.4 Temporary waste storage at OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................................................ 485

7.15.7.5 Development of landfarm ................................................................................................................. 485

7.15.7.6 Transportation of waste ................................................................................................................... 486

7.15.7.7 Waste management strategy ........................................................................................................... 486

7.15.7.8 Incineration ...................................................................................................................................... 488

7.15.7.9 Monitoring and auditing.................................................................................................................... 488

7.15.8 Risk assessment (Major Accident Hazards) ........................................................................................ 488

7.15.9 Ecology ............................................................................................................................................... 491

7.15.9.1 Avifauna ........................................................................................................................................... 491

7.15.9.2 Terrestrial ecology (Fauna and Flora) .............................................................................................. 492

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.15.10 Ecosystems Goods and Services ........................................................................................................ 494

7.16 Decommissioning phase ESHMP ............................................................................................................. 495

7.16.1 Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 495

7.16.2 Ecology: .............................................................................................................................................. 496

7.16.2.1 Avifauna ........................................................................................................................................... 496

7.16.2.2 Terrestrial ecology (Fauna and Flora) .............................................................................................. 497

7.16.3 Hydrogeology (groundwater) ............................................................................................................... 500

7.16.4 Visual and landscape aesthetics ......................................................................................................... 501

7.16.5 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 501

7.16.6 Socio-economic aspects ..................................................................................................................... 502

7.16.7 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 502

7.16.7.1 Mitigation measures for loss of the soil resource ............................................................................. 502

7.16.7.2 Mitigation measures for potential soil contamination ....................................................................... 502

7.16.7.3 Mitigation measures for potential soil compaction ........................................................................... 503

7.16.7.4 Soil stability ...................................................................................................................................... 503

7.16.8 Hydrology (surface water) ................................................................................................................... 504

7.16.9 Waste management ............................................................................................................................ 505

7.17 Sampling and monitoring requirements for specific mitigation measures ................................................. 507

7.17.1 Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 507

7.17.2 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................................... 508

7.17.3 Hydrology (Surface water)................................................................................................................... 511

7.17.3.1 Zero discharge management ........................................................................................................... 514

7.17.4 Greenhouse gasses ............................................................................................................................ 515

7.17.5 Socio-economic Monitoring and evaluation ..................................................................................... 516

7.17.5.1 Economy and employment .............................................................................................................. 516

7.17.5.2 Health, education and community safety ......................................................................................... 516

7.17.5.3 Land ownership and use .................................................................................................................. 517

7.17.6 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 517

7.18 Emergency Response Plan ...................................................................................................................... 518

7.18.1 Emergency plan preparation ............................................................................................................... 518

7.18.2 Optimisation ........................................................................................................................................ 519

7.19 General duty of care ................................................................................................................................. 519

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 iv
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

TABLES
Table 7.1: Environmental Management Programme- Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ............................................... 439

Table 7.2: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ............................................. 441

Table 7.3: Environmental Management Programme - Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL .............................................. 442

Table 7.4: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ............................................. 445

Table 7.5: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ............................................. 446

Table 7.6: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: UZGT ............................................................... 447

Table 7.7: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ............................................. 449

Table 7.8: Environmental Management Plan Construction phase: OLTIN YO'L GTL ............................................................ 450

Table 7.9: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil contamination – Construction
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ....................................................................................................................................... 455

Table 7.10: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil erosion – Construction
Phases: OLTIN YO’L GTL ..................................................................................................................................... 455

Table 7.11: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil compaction – Construction
Phases: OLTIN YO’L GTL ..................................................................................................................................... 456

Table 7.12: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of storm water management – Detailed
Design/Construction Phases: OLTIN YO’L GTL .................................................................................................... 457

Table 7.13: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ........................................... 460

Table 7.14: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ........................................... 461

Table 7.15: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ........................................... 463

Table 7.16: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................ 467

Table 7.17: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................ 467

Table 7.18: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................ 469

Table 7.19: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil contamination – Operational
Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ....................................................................................................................................... 474

Table 7.20: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil erosion – Operation Phases:
OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................................................................................................................... 475

Table 7.21: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................ 476

Table 7.22: Environmental Management Programme – Operational Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ............................................. 477

Table 7.23: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................ 488

Table 7.24: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................ 491

Table 7.25: Environmental Management Programme - Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................................. 492

Table 7.26: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................... 495

Table 7.27: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................... 497

Table 7.28: Environmental Management Programme - Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL .................................... 497

Table 7.29: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................... 500

Table 7.30: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................... 501

Table 7.31: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil contamination –
Decommissioning Phases: OLTIN YO’L GTL ........................................................................................................ 502

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.32: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil compaction –
Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL .......................................................................................................... 503

Table 7.33: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil compaction –
Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL .......................................................................................................... 503

Table 7.34: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................... 504

Table 7.35: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL ................................... 505

Table 7.36: Baseline air quality monitoring localities in the vicinity of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site ................................... 507

Table 7.37: Details of the hydrogeological monitoring localities on the OLTIN YO’L GTL site ............................................... 510

Table 7.38: IFC effluent guidelines for Natural Gas Processing Facilities, the WHO guidelines for drinking water
and local Domestic water use guidelines............................................................................................................... 514

Table 7.39: Construction Noise Assessment Periods and Lower Thresholds ........................................................................ 517

Table 7.40: Predicted Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................................................... 517

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 ii
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

FIGURES
Figure 7.1: Sanitary zone of 1km to be maintained by OLTIN YO'L GTL throughout the phases of the Project..................... 454

Figure 7. 2: Location of proposed water monitoring points SW01 and SW02 and the proposed clean and dirty
water systems on the OLTIN YO'L GTL footprint .................................................................................................. 459

Figure7.3: Avoid up-lighting of structures, but rather direct the light downwards and focused on the object to be
illuminated (CKA, 2008)......................................................................................................................................... 472

Figure 7.4: All security lighting shall have ‘blinkers’ or be specifically designed to ensure light is directed
downwards while preventing side spill (CKA, 2008) .............................................................................................. 472

Figure 7.5: Lighting for security and safety must be directed downwards and towards buildings and plant (CKA,
2008) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 473

Figure 7.6: Position of the on-site landfill ................................................................................................................................ 484

Figure 7.7: Position of the Landfarm ...................................................................................................................................... 487

Figure7.8: Existing monitoring boreholes for the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL facility. ............................................................ 509

Figure 7.9: Map indicating the location of the surface water monitoring localities sampled during the baseline
determination of the ESHSIA hydrology specialist study ....................................................................................... 512

Figure 7.10: ENCORD Protocol operational definitions .......................................................................................................... 516

Figure 7.11: Noise monitoring localities .................................................................................................................................. 518

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND HEALTH AND SAFETY

MANAGEMENT PLAN
7.1 Overview
This document is an Environmental, Social and Health and Safety Management Plan (ESHMP) developed to
guide environmental, social and health management on the site of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Project during all
three project phases (construction, operational and decommissioning phases – see Chapter 2 of the ESHSIA
report for more detail). The primary aim of this ESHMP is to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive
benefits of the project. The development of this ESHMP has been informed by the ESHSIA conducted by
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd who were appointed by OLTIN YO’L GTL.

The ESHMP comprises a series of individual plans that outline the scope of environmental, social and health
management pertaining to compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. It transfers the findings and
recommendations of the ESHSIA into clear measures for the management and monitoring of impacts during
the three project phases. Where potential impacts of moderate or higher significance were identified by the
ESHSIA specialists, mitigation measures were recommended to avoid or reduce the impact, if negative, or
enhance the impact if positive.

7.2 Objectives of the ESHMP

Key objectives of the ESHMP are:

¡ To facilitate compliance with applicable acts, projects specific Legal Register, regulations and guideline;

¡ To recognise that social responsibility and environmental management are among the highest
corporate priorities;

¡ To assign clear accountability and responsibility for environmental protection, safety and social
responsibility to management and employees;

¡ To facilitate ESH planning through project life cycle;

¡ To provide a process for achieving targeted performance levels;

¡ To provide appropriate and sufficient resources, including training, to achieve targeted performance
levels on an on-going basis; and

¡ Evaluate environmental performance, safety and social responsibility against OLTIN YO’L GTLs
environmental and other policies, objectives and targets and seek improvement where appropriate.

7.3 Finalisation of the ESHMP

This ESHMP is a “living document” and information contained in this current version, will be reviewed and
updated annually. The findings and recommendations of periodic assessments (annually or more frequently)
by internal / external auditors will be used by a competent and assigned person to update the current version
at that time, if required. The ESHMP is structured to address the impacts identified in the ESHSIA. A formal
management system will be implemented (See section 7.8).

7.3.1 Timing
In order to ensure that the ESHMP is time-bound and measurable, the ESHMP utilises activity-based
planning that is triggered by appropriate future events/milestones. By utilising this approach, all
management/mitigation plans will be developed and implemented relative to the timing of the actual
activities in the overall project schedule. The timing of the triggers automatically adjust (whether earlier or
later) to match the progress of the Project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 423
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.4 Applicable laws / regulations / policies

Chapter 4 gives a detailed account of the relevant Uzbek and international legislation, project and specific
legal register and other legal requirements, as well as an overview of the applicable IFC EHS guideline
requirements.

7.5 ESHMP implications for detailed engineering design

As discussed in earlier chapters of this ESHSIA, at the time of the completion of the ESHSIA study for the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project, the detailed engineering design phase had not commenced.

During the detailed engineering design phase, the design criteria for the project will be based on the
following:

¡ Applicable local and national laws and regulations;

¡ Applicable technical design codes;

¡ Applicable national environmental criteria and standards; and

¡ Project specific legal register.

7.5.1 Technical design codes

Project Design Codes that could be applicable to the detailed engineering design phase of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL project shall include, but not be limited to the following:

¡ American Petroleum Institute Standards;

¡ American Society for Testing and Material Standards;

¡ British Standards Institute;

¡ International Standards Organisation;

¡ Industrial Engineering Council Standards;

¡ Deutsches Institut für Normung;

¡ American Society for Mechanical Engineering; and

¡ The European Standards, amongst others.

In terms of the engineering design of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility, these standards address the following
themes:

¡ Mechanical materials, integrity, piping classes, design of pressure relief, flare and vent systems
(exploration and production);

¡ Process automation control and optimisation, fire, gas and smoke detection systems, control valves,
selection, sizing, and specification;

¡ Process safety active fire protection systems and equipment for onshore facilities; and

¡ Civil structural and offshore, earthquake design for onshore facilities, seismic hazard assessment,
geotechnical and foundation engineering, and passive fire protection for onshore facilities.

7.5.2 Environmental criteria

It is acknowledged that the FEED2 design would have taken into account the following sections. However,
these are left in the ESHMP for completeness sake.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 424
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.5.2.1 Qualitative criteria

The environmental criteria have been subdivided into qualitative and quantitative criteria. Qualitative criteria
correspond to general and specific criteria that cannot be measured, with the aim of preventing or minimising
environmental impact. Quantitative criteria correspond to those defined limit values, established in national
regulations. These limits will continue to be used as a control of the mitigation measures detailed in the
preliminary sampling and specific monitoring requirements as described in Section 7.17.

7.5.2.2 Quantitative Design Criteria

The following design criteria have been recommended by the ESHSIA specialist studies. There criteria must
be considered and implemented, during the detailed engineering design phase of this OLTIN YO’L GTL
project.

7.5.2.2.1 Ecology
Design measures relating to ecological aspects
The following measures shall be considered during detailed engineering design:

1) The design of power lines shall be such as to reduce bird collisions and electrocution of birds to a
minimum.

7.5.2.2.2 Hydrogeology (Ground water)

Design measures relating to site preparation and construction of facilities, to prevent
groundwater contamination
The following measures should be incorporated into the detailed engineering design:
1) Establish designated areas in which activities that can produce hydrocarbon contaminated waste
should take place;

2) Use impervious surfaces for all the workshop areas and refuelling bays;

3) Construct bunded impervious perimeters for all storage areas and vessels / tanks, with a capacity of
110% of the vessel / tank; and

4) Construct adequate drainage structures to collect contaminated waste water together with the use of oil
separators.

7.5.2.2.3 Design measures relating to visual impacts1

The height from which floodlights are fixed shall be reduced to be as low as possible whilst still maintaining
the required levels of security illumination. Area lighting on tall masts should be confined to the lower
landform elevations;

Avoid up-lighting of structures, but rather direct the light downwards and focused on the object to be
illuminated. Avoid directing the light towards external receptors;

Light spill must be minimised. All security lighting shall have ‘blinkers’ or be specifically designed to ensure
light is directed downwards while preventing side spill;

Lighting for security and safety must be directed downwards and towards buildings and plant, to reduce light
spill beyond the property boundary.

7.5.2.2.4 Noise
Design measures relating to noise impacts that should be considered during detail engineering design of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL facility:

1
Visual mitigation measures (number 1 - 3 above) are illustrated in the specific ESHMP sections later on in this Chapter.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 425
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

1) Site buildings such as offices / stores should be grouped together to form a substantial barrier
separating site operations and receptors;

2) Stacks of certain materials such as bricks, aggregate, timber or top soil can be strategically placed to
provide a noise barrier;

3) Areas which have been excavated below ground level can be used to position static plant such as
generators, compressors and pumps;

4) Earth bunds can be built to provide screening for major earth-moving operations and can be
subsequently landscaped to become permanent features of the environment when works have been
completed. This may also help to reduce operational noise when commissioned;

5) Piling method: Bored or augured method piling will result in a continuous noise emission. This will
result in a lower noise impact than impulsive methods such as drop-hammer piling;
6) Using rubber linings in, for example, chutes and dumpers to reduce impact noise;

7) Plants and vegetation to be used as a noise barrier wherever possible; and

8) As far as reasonably practicable, sources of significant noise should be enclosed. The extent to which
this can be done depends on the nature of the machine or process and ventilation requirements.

7.5.2.2.5 Major hazard accident management

Major hazard accident mitigation measures are explained in detail in the ESHMP tables in this chapter of the
ESHSIA. The following specific design criteria should be considered during detailed design:

1) Overfilling of tanks (including site, rail and road tankers) – Level sensors, level indicators and a high
alarm for monitoring and a separate high level switch for automatic shut off;

2) Rail and road tanker overfilling - Similarly as for filling of storage tanks, the filling operation needs to be
improved by measuring the level in a tanker and automatically closing off the filling with an actuated
valve;

3) Liquid spillages - Provision shall be made for shallow containment areas underneath road tankers or rail
tankers when stationer, as well as a trench to route spillages to a sump some distance away. The
design should ensure that spills cannot enter surface water.

4) Hose burst - A spring loaded manually activated filling valve, which will only remain activated when held
open by the operator (“dead man’s handle”), will allow for rapid close off of the filling and reduce the risk
associated with hose bursts;

5) Emergency action - It is essential that an emergency and response plan should be drawn up and should
be in place at all times. In addition, the emergency and response plan must be practised and tested.
The local emergency services should, in turn, develop their off-site emergency and response plan for
the site;

6) Integrity assurance - Even if an installation has been designed and constructed according to high
standards, it is essential to ensure that the integrity of the installation is maintained, any deterioration is
detected, and plant and equipment are restored and maintained in their original condition. Thus, the
condition of the installation must be monitored by means of implementing scheduled inspections of
tanks, vessels, piping, hoses, etc. A record of the findings of the inspections must be kept;

7) Fire protection - Fire protection systems should be provided in the form of manual cooling on the
aboveground storage tanks and foam injection. Foam trolleys, as well as portable fire extinguishers
should be provided at the tanker offloading and filling points.

8) Operating information - Operating, technical and training manuals, as well as formal standard Piping
and Instrumentation (P & I) diagrams for the installation will be available. This information is essential
for proper operation and identification of valves, piping, equipment and instrumentation when doing

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 426
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

maintenance. Accidents originating from modifications or operations based on inadequate information

will thus be avoided; and

9) Training and awareness - All operating personnel should be trained in the operation of the various
sections of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant and should be assessed competent. An awareness of major
hazards on the site should be instituted by means of accident recall and reviews.

7.5.2.2.6 Soil
During detailed design of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility, the following design measures shall be considered:

1) Topsoil stockpiles shall be extensive and low, rather than high; an ideal stockpiling arrangement would
be to stockpile topsoil not higher than 1.5 meters, spread over the available area; and
2) Stockpile slopes should be constructed at a 1:6 (9.5%) ratio or lower.

7.5.2.2.7 Hydrology (Surface water)

Stormwater management
There are no significant drainage channels located adjacent to the site. However a stormwater cut-off berm
and trenches will be constructed around the site to prevent clean water runoff from the catchment areas
around the site from entering the plant area. The berm and trench will also serve to prevent the
contaminated runoff from leaving the site. The berm system will be sized to convey the 50 year recurrence
interval flood peak.

The total footprint of the proposed plant process and utility areas is approximately 69 ha (OLTIN YO’L GTL
2013a). Stormwater may become contaminated as a result of spills of process liquids. Natural gas
processing facilities should provide secondary containment where liquids are handled, segregate
contaminated and uncontaminated. Drainage systems have to be separated for drainage water from
process areas that could be contaminated with oil (closed drainage) and drainage stormwater from non-
process areas (open drainage) that includes any surface runoff and flows resulting from precipitation,
drainage or other sources.

The principles adopted are summarized as follows:

¡ The runoff from uncontaminated and contaminated needs to be kept separate. The uncontaminated
runoff will be returned to the surface water environment via a stormwater pond if the water quality is
suitable for discharge;

¡ In order to reduce the volume for treatment, stormwater is separated from process contaminated runoff
and clean stormwater runoff;

¡ A water management system of diversion bunds, trenches, pollution control dams and operating rules
need to be implemented in order to meet the design requirements of the system; and

¡ Stormwater ponds should be designed with sufficient capacity for foreseeable operating conditions.
The following recommendations regarding stormwater management are made:

1) To prevent pollution of the ground water, the stormwater ponds must be lined with a suitable liner;
3
2) The CSP with a capacity of 14280 m is to be constructed. .

3) It is recommended that a monitoring programme be set up at the site to monitor the rainfall and water
quality of the stormwater pond from the commencement of the project so that water management can
be optimized;

4) Further characterisation of climatic conditions such as intensity of high rainfall events and evaporation
at the site needs to be obtained via continued rainfall and evaporation monitoring;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 427
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

5) Stormwater flow channels and collection stormwater ponds installed as a part of the open drainage
system should be fitted with oil/water separators; and

6) The stormwater collection and management system needs to be appropriately designed.

7) A maintenance manual needs to be developed for the stormwater drainage system.

7.5.2.2.8 Waste management

During the waste site selection process in consultation with local authorities, OLTIN YO’L GTL decided to
locate the waste site / landfill site on the OLTIN YO’L GTL footprint. The following design parameters for this
site shall be implemented:

1) The disposal cells shall be designed in such a manner that hazardous waste streams are not mixed
together and are separated from general waste materials;

2) The facility shall be suitably lined to prevent leachate from polluting the sub-soils and groundwater and
surrounding environment; and

3) The facility should further be provided with suitable drainage systems to divert clean runoff away from
the site and for contaminated runoff and leachate to be contained and treated before release into the
environment.

Requirements for design of temporary waste storage areas:

1) A temporary waste storage site will require a firm waterproof base that is protected from the ingress of
storm water from the surrounding areas;

2) Such a storage area shall be provided with an effective drainage system and a waterproof spillage
collection area, where any spillage can be recovered and suitably treated;

7.6 Social responsibility

During the project implementation phases (construction and operation), OLTIN YO’L GTL should
communicate their strategy toward social investment in Uzbekistan and in particular, in regions and local
communities potentially affected by the project. This strategy should emphasise the distinction between
social investment offered as philanthropic good will to support community needs and “mitigation” required to
reduce negative impacts. This distinction should be combined with efforts to align on-going communication
processes between the CLO and the local communities. Women shall be a key focus in the social
responsibility initiatives.

7.7 Grievance mechanism2

The purpose of a grievance mechanism is to demonstrate responsiveness to stakeholder needs. A clear
and widely publicised grievance mechanism improves stakeholder management by ensuring the grievances
are documented in writing and clearly understood. All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written
3
grievances to the Community Liaison Officer (CLO ) and should be reassured that written submissions will
not be used in any way to intimidate those submitting the complaints. The Stakeholder Engagement Plan is a
live document and will be continuously updated and used for ongoing stakeholder consultation throughout
the life of the project.

Key elements of a grievance mechanism include:

2
Also see ADB requirements in section 7.13.4
3
CLO reporting structure for ESHSIA report.
ADMINISTRATIVE: CLO reports directly to Coporate Services Director
FUNCTIONAL - CLO ESHIA: CLO reports directly to HSE Manager. Grievances, Issues and Response report, ESHSIA management according to ESHMP.
FUNCTIONAL - CLO GAPA (Government Affairs & Public Afairs): CLO reports directly to Corporate Services Director.
REPORTING to OLTIN Y'OL GTL Board: CLO issues and grievances reported to OLTIN Y'OL GTL Internal HSE Committee.
Internal SHE reports reported to Board SHERQ Audit Committee who reports to Board twice per year as a standing Board committee.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 428
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Clear instructions on how grievances are submitted and handled after submission, including a
maximum period that a stakeholder must wait to receive a reply; and

¡ Alternatives for submitting a grievance in person to a staff member if a stakeholder is not able to or
comfortable submitting a grievance in writing.

Grievances are regularly summarized in a grievance log, and anyone submitting a grievance will
automatically be included in the overall stakeholder log or data base.

The following sections explain the OLTIN YO’L GTL grievance mechanism.

7.7.1 Purpose of grievance mechanism

It is a mechanism through which communities and individuals affected by OLTIN YO’L GTL’s activities can
formally communicate their concerns and grievances to the company and facilitate resolutions that are
mutually acceptable by the parties, within a reasonable timeframe. The grievance process is a management
tool designed to help address stakeholder concerns promptly and facilitate a trustworthy and constructive
relationship.

The grievance procedure may be used by anyone at no cost and without any fear of retribution.

7.7.2 OLTIN YO’L GTL custodian of the grievance mechanism

The Community Liaison Officer (CLO) is the OLTIN YO’L GTL staff person responsible for coordination of
stakeholder engagement activities and the management of the corporate grievance procedure. This person
does not have the authority to resolve grievances, but rather works with a team of managers to collect
accurate information about a given issue, to share it with appropriate senior management, and to
communicate the resolution back to the person submitting the grievance.

7.7.3 Grievance submission mechanism

Grievances should be submitted using the contact information of the CLO.

¡ Grievances may be submitted by telephone, in writing or in person at the company offices, or verbally
through the external relations staff, who will put the grievance in writing for management purposes;

¡ All formal grievances shall receive a formal reply within two weeks (10 working days). The formal
response will provide additional information or, if appropriate, further instructions on proposed
measures to resolve the issues;

¡ All grievances will be documented. The importance of documenting all grievances is to make sure
problems are accurately understood and handled appropriately;

¡ Documented grievances will not be used in any way to intimidate the person or organisation submitting
the complaint;

¡ As a general rule, names of persons submitting a grievance will be kept confidential unless a grievance
is made in a public meeting;

¡ Only the number of grievances and the general nature of complaints will be regularly reported. This
information will be summarised in a grievance log, but personal information will be kept private;

¡ Grievances received anonymously will be treated as comments or issues and recorded, but no formal
response will be issued; and

¡ While efforts will be made to resolve all grievances amicably, if a grievance cannot by resolved, OLTIN
YO’L GTL will seek to involve other external experts, neutral parties or local and regional authorities, as
necessary.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 429
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Written grievances may be submitted on the appropriate form or by including the following information in a
letter, fax or e-mail:

¡ Name;

¡ Organisation and position, if relevant;

¡ Address;

¡ Telephone/Fax and e-mail;

¡ Most effective means to send a response; and

¡ Details of the grievance (any important details; date of the incident, location, etc.).

Where the grievance is submitted verbally this information will be obtained and documented by the relevant
member of staff.

7.7.4 Grievance record keeping system

OLTIN YO’L GTL shall establish as dedicated and grievance mechanism record keeping system/log. This
shall be maintained by the CLO to capture the info listed above and track issue resolution up the point of
close out. The record system should entail the grievance report form which includes the following
information:

¡ Case number;

¡ Date the complaint was reported;

¡ Complainant’s name and contact details;

¡ Nature of the complaint;

¡ Follow-up action / corrective action;

¡ The final outcome; and

¡ Any information on the case closure, including the date.

7.8 Environmental Management System (EMS)

OLTIN YO’L GTL shall consider the development and implementation of an Environmental Management
System (EMS) to a recognised standard (i.e. IFC PSs and external certification to. ISO 14001 and OHSA S
18001), in accordance with their environmental policies and financier requirements to ensure the
management of environmental impacts caused by the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant and operations are continually
monitored and improved (in line with the IFC Performance Standards). The EMS must not only focus on the
operational phase, but it is recommended that it should also incorporate the construction and
decommissioning phases and therefore should be in place prior to construction starting. It must
accommodate the stipulations contained in the relevant environmental laws and regulations of RUz.

Legal register
As part of the EMS elements, OLTIN YO’L GTL shall maintain and update a legal register for the project. The
legal register shall be independently audited on an annual basis by a suitably qualified legal professional.

7.8.1 SHERQ Policy

OLTIN YO’L GTL shall implement a SHERQ (Safety, Health, Environment, Risk and Quality) policy for its
OLTIN YO’L GTL project. This policy will contain but not be limited to the following:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 430
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

1) Compliance and where possible exceedance of National RUz statutory requirements;

2) Compliance with IFC Environmental and Social Performance Standards, appropriate industry guidelines
4
and relevant Lender requirements;
3) Social commitments (no child labour, gender equality, non-discrimination etc.);

4) Identification of potential hazards and environmental impacts and relevant corrective measures to reach
acceptable risk level; and

5) Roles and responsibilities within OLTIN YO’L GTL management structures to execute the content of the
SHERQ policy.

In addition, OLTIN YO’L GTL shall compile a SHERQ Manual which shall be available for use by employees,
contractor/subcontractor and their workers.

Section 7.13 also contains elements pertaining to socio-economic matters which OLTIN YO’L GTL can use
to guide their formulation of the SHERQ policy.

7.9 Performance monitoring of ESHMP implementation

Performance assessments of OLTIN YO’L GTL’s implementation of the ESHMP will be conducted annually,
and should be done by an independent reputable environmental consultancy. The ESHMP Performance
Assessment Report will contain the following information:

¡ Information regarding the period applicable to the performance assessment;

¡ The scope of the assessment;

¡ The procedure used for the assessment;

¡ The interpreted information gained from monitoring the approved environmental management
programme or environmental management plan;

¡ The evaluation criteria used during the assessment;

¡ Logs of mitigation measures;

¡ Time bound performance targets and performance improvements;

¡ The results of the assessment;

¡ Recommendations on how and when non-compliance and deficiencies will be rectified; and

¡ Personnel responsible for the implementation of mitigation measures.

The ESHMP performance assessment report must be submitted to the relevant financiers. It should be noted
that financiers might require the Performance Assessments to be conducted in time frames shorter than
annually. The Performance Assessment shall be done over and above the environmental monitoring
activities suggested in this report as well as any local RUz environmental reporting requirements

7.10 Environmental and Social Monitoring

7.10.1 Monitoring aim and requirements
It is therefore advised that OLTIN YO’L GTL shall continue to monitor environmental parameters in line with
the IFC Environmental and Social Performance Standards, during the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL project, in order to:

4
This shall be confirmed upon the finalisation and confirmation of Lender agreements with OLTIN YO’L GTL. NOTE: The implementation of the SHERQ policy shall not delayed until
after Lender agreements are in place.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 431
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

1) Confirm baseline conditions established during the ESHSIA;

2) To assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures implemented to mitigate the anticipate
environmental and social impacts of the project; and
3) Build up a database of background environmental data, prior to the onset of the operational phase.

In addition, an independent environmental monitor (EM) will be onsite on a monthly basis during the
construction phase. The primary responsibilities of the EM will be to:

¡ Monitor the implementation and functioning of mitigation measures;

¡ Conduct routine environmental monitoring (i.e., biophysical parameters) that are described in the
ESHSIA report, ESHMP and EMS;

¡ Liaise with the contractor and provide daily input into the functioning and adequacy of mitigation
measures, and make recommendation for further measures if necessary; and

¡ Have the authority to stop work in the event of an identified risk to the environment and human health.

Monitoring localities described in the ESHSIA specialist studies should form the basis of the monitoring plan.
This is described more in Section 7.17.

7.10.2 Frequency
The Monitoring shall be conducted on a continual basis, and as stipulated by the monitoring plan for the
OLTIN YO’L GTL site.

7.11 Contractor management

The OLTIN YO’L GTL SHERQ/principles/philosophies are applied in contractor management (from
evaluation and selection of the successful bidder to execution of their contract) to ensure compliance with
legal requirements and IFC standards, which in turn also apply to subcontractors. As part of the bidding
documents, all bidders receive a copy of the ESHMP and Environmental Policy for the Project. The relevant
section of the ESHMP – whether the construction, operational or decommissioning section – will be included
in the Scope of Work as part of contract documents of contractors. The conditions of contract will place an
obligation on contractors to comply with the requirements of the ESHMP and the Environmental Policy.
5
Based on the above, OLTIN YO’L GTL shall develop and include SHE and social clauses in contracts to
give effect to the above.

7.12 Environmental, Social, Health and Safety awareness plan

All employees and contractors will receive training on the contents and requirements of the ESHMP. A
detailed ESHS awareness plan will be developed by OLTIN YO’L GTL, prior to commencement each phase
of the project. The plan shall address the following items:

¡ Basic workforce ESHS awareness;

¡ Environmental / Social sensitivities of the site;

¡ No go areas;

¡ Personnel ESHS training needs; and

¡ Resources available for use during personnel ESHS awareness training.

5
Also see section 7.13.4 for relevant ADB requirements

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 432
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.13 Socio-economic mitigation measures

Socio-economic impacts are part of an on-going process of interdependent economic and social change.
Although there are isolated exceptions, most socio-economic impacts are experienced continuously by
people; therefore the mitigation measures are discussed in a single section in this report, rather than
discussing it per project phase.

7.13.1 Economy and employment

7.13.1.1 Royalties and taxes
Though royalties and taxes are considered positive, OLTIN YO’L GTL will fulfil the IFC requirement of
reporting on all taxes and government payments, as stipulated by the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI) and required for new extractive industry projects.

7.13.1.2 Employment opportunities6

Employment and new job opportunities are generally considered a positive impact. However, to ensure that
the benefits are maximized and positive, the OLTIN YO’L GTL will adhere to the international guidelines set
out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and IFC Performance Standard 2. Such mitigation steps
include that OLTIN YO’L GTL will:
7
¡ Implementation of the In-house Rules and Regulations , which represents the main internal policy
regulating conclusion, modification and termination of employment agreements, work, rest time, work
discipline and other issues of legal relationships arising between the OLTIN YO’L GTL and employees.
The policy includes information on the following key elements:

§ Recruitment and hiring procedure;

§ Changes of terms of employment, workplace and transfer of an employee to a different job;
§ Termination of the employment agreement;
§ Labour discipline and responsibilities;
§ List of breaches that may involve fines;
§ List of breaches that may involve termination of the employment agreement;
§ Working hours, rest time and overtime;
§ Remuneration;
§ Health and Safety;
§ Smoking, alcohol, drugs and intoxication;
§ Confidentiality;
§ Material aid;
§ Security;
§ Organisation of work process;
§ Entitlement to leave for holidays, vacation, illness, and maternity and other reasons;
§ Equal pay for men and women;
§ No child or forced labour may be employed by OLTIN YO’L GTL or its contractors; and

6
Also see 7.13.4 for ADB specific requirements relating to employment
7
The In-house Rules and Regulations serve approximately the same function as the Human Resources Policy required by the IFC as part of Performance Standard 2.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 433
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

§ The employer’s obligation to comply with the rights of employee’s representative body and to
8
facilitate its activities .

¡ Ensure all employees have clear documentation of their working relationship to OLTIN YO’L GTL;

¡ Adhere to the clear policy statements on non-discrimination and equal opportunity in the Recruitment
Policy;

¡ Develop clear policy statements that forbid any form of child or forced labour, which may mean
developing specific references to national legislation;

¡ Develop an internal worker’s grievance mechanism, which complements the grievance mechanism for
external actors;

¡ Document efforts to explain to all contractors and non-employee workers that the key elements of ILO
and IFC Performance Standard 2 are relevant for non-employee workers; and

¡ Document efforts to explain to suppliers that they must conform to international guidelines related to
child and forced labour.

In addition to these elements, the Human Resources Department has developed a People Performance
Management Procedure, which is a system that aims to ensure a culture of performance and personal
growth in human resources.

The existing Recruitment Policy, aside from making clear statements on non-discrimination, provides clear
procedures on advertising and filling vacancies. The policy also requires that all new employees undergo an
orientation to cover:

¡ Company mission, values and culture;

¡ Health and safety;

¡ Training and development programmes;

¡ Overview of administrative and policy issues;

¡ Overview of disciplinary, grievance and performance management systems;

¡ Provision of initial training; and

¡ Remuneration and related issues linked to employee benefits.

OLTIN YO’L GTL will face the common challenge of meeting high expectations for employment with local
residents that have little technical training. OLTIN YO’L GTL will develop a Recruitment Policy that seeks to
maximise employment in the local study area. The recruitment policy has the following hierarchy of
preference: Kashkadarya, Uzbekistan, CIS countries, International.

A key means for addressing the high expectations will be through a proactive stakeholder engagement
programme, which will be managed by the Community Liaison Officer (CLO).
The CLO will work with the human resources department, local leaders in Nishon and Guzor and residents of
the two regions to create a realistic strategy for attracting and retaining “local” workers. This iterative
communication process includes explaining to local residents the types of jobs available and why more
skilled positions require higher levels of education and technical training.

Retrenchment Procedure/Plan
Human Resource department shall also compile a ‘Retrenchment Procedure/Plan’ at the appropriate time, in
advance of anticipated retrenchments due to unforeseen factors or ultimately for decommissioning of the
plan at the end of its operational life.

8
The In-house Rules and Regulations do not explicitly state employees have the right to form and join workers’ organisations, it does commit for comply with the rights of employee’s
representative body. The policy also references a Collective Agreement in the context of providing material aid.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 434
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.13.1.3 Procurement of local goods and services

There is an existing Procurement Policy that provides a broad framework to procure goods and services in
accordance with the applicable regulatory and environmental requirements and leading practice that is fair,
equitable, transparent, cost-effective, efficient, effective, competitive and promotes sound governance
practices.

The Procurement Policy directly relies upon the corporate Gift Policy and states that all procurement
decisions and business transactions should be made with uncompromised integrity, honesty and objectivity
of judgement.

The Procurement Policy is linked to separate Procurement Procedures for contracts equal to or greater than
$100,000 USD and contracts for less than this amount.

OLTIN YO’L GTL’s Procurement Policy states that, where practical, it will seek to purchase from local
supplies before considering international suppliers and will make efforts to maximise procurement from local,
regional and national businesses. However, the underdevelopment of the business environment is a
challenge for setting procurement targets and meeting minimum requirements of quality control.

OLTIN YO’L GTL will work to set up an initial meeting with government representatives and development
organisations seeking to support business development to discuss the procurement needs of the Project.
The purpose of the meeting will be to identify groups or organisations that could meet procurement needs or
identify training and business support services that could allow Uzbekistan businesses and suppliers to meet
procurement needs in the future.

A system will be developed to monitor expenditures within the country and OLTIN YO’L GTL will seek to
increase the percentage of procurement in Uzbekistan. Results of these efforts will be included in regular
reporting.

7.13.1.4 Inflation
OLTIN YO’L GTL will assess inflationary impacts through is regular consultation to be managed by the CLO.
If feedback includes comments about a rise in prices, a more formal monitoring system will be set up to
monitor prices for staple goods in local markets on a monthly basis. This will be done in the local study area,
as well as in other areas of the regional study area to determine if inflation is a localised impact related to the
Project or may have other causes.

7.13.2 Health, education and community safety

7.13.2.1 Health and education
Impacts are small and expected to be positive through the indirect links with improving economic
opportunities. No further mitigation required.

7.13.2.2 Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and commercial sex work

OLTIN YO’L GTL will create an HIV Policy that will to provide accurate information on HIV, other sexually
transmitted diseases, as well as the risks related to commercial sex work. HIV screening will not be used as
a mitigation measure since such measures contradict the principles of non-discrimination and can provide
incentives for avoiding tests, hiding results and generating complacency around HIVs.

The OLTIN YO’L GTL CLO will engage periodically with HIV NGOs and health NGOs to stay informed about
the national efforts to raise awareness.

On site, OLTIN YO’L GTL health professionals will use the HIV Policy to raise awareness with all employees
and ensure condoms are available in worker camps.

7.13.2.3 Migration
The primary mitigation measure to limit the impact of migration is to develop an isolated workers camp. The
camp is planned for an adjacent piece of land in close proximity to the planned Project site. The contract
scope of work for construction phase contractors includes the responsibility to develop a complete

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 435
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Construction Health Safety and Environment Management Plan for approval by OLTIN YO’L GTL. This
includes the construction camp, employee selection, management and final repatriation of foreign workers,
management of sub-contractors, government and public stakeholder relations. The workers’ accomodation
will be devloped to follow the Workers’ Accommodation: Processes and Standards. A Guidance Note by IFC
and the EBRD.

If additional facilities are needed for long-term workers after the construction phase, OLTIN YO’L GTL will
conduct an assessment of where to locate these workers. This assessment will include a set of mitigation
measures to reduce negative impacts and will be summarised in an In-flux Management Plan (which will
become part of the EMS). The assessment and In-flux Management Plan will be developed in consultation
with government authorities, host community residents and other stakeholders.

The CLO will support efforts to mitigate migration impacts through the administration of a formal Grievance
Mechanism, describe in the SEP developed during the scoping phase of the Project. Through the
stakeholder engagement process, all stakeholders in the area of influence will be informed about the
procedures to inform OLTIN YO’L GTL of problems or specific grievances that arise as a result of migration.

7.13.2.4 Community safety and security

OLTIN YO’L GTL will coordinate safety and security procedures with external communication. All security
9
employees, including contractors or government-managed security , will receive an induction on the overall
objectives related to stakeholder engagement. The induction will include an overview of their responsibilities
for passing information to the CLO or appropriate managers, especially when a situation may affect
community safety. The induction will include instructions on the grievance mechanism and how to accurately
record any grievances for the CLO. All security employees will be provided with the employee Code of
Conduct, as well as periodic updates of information that may be relevant to changes in the stakeholder
engagement procedures.

Travellers on the main roads will experience greater volumes of traffic and may notice an increase. To
mitigate this impact, OLTIN YO’L GTL will train all drivers in road safety. Accidents will be logged and results
will be included in regular environmental and social reporting.

7.13.3 Land, ownership and use

7.13.3.1 Physical displacement
There will be no physical displacement as a result of the Project. Mitigation is not applicable; however, if any
physical displacement is needed in the future, OLTIN YO’L GTL will use IFC Performance Standard 5 to
mitigate all impacts.

7.13.3.2 Economic displacement

There will be no economic displacement or loss of access to natural resources as a result of the Project.
Mitigation is not applicable; however, if any such displacement is needed in the future, OLTIN YO’L GTL will
use IFC Performance Standard 5 to mitigate all impacts.

7.13.4 Social protection requirements10

ADB has a Social Protection Strategy (2001) which requires developers, contractors, subcontractors and
suppliers to comply with the internationally recognized core labour standards (CLS) in its operations. CLS

9
As the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant will be a National Key Point in Uzbekistan, governemental security forces will assist on site with security during the operational phase. Government
security forces will be inducted and trained in terms of site requirements to ensure compliance.
10
For full details on the specific ADB repuirements see the following reference sources:
- ADB 1998 Gender and Development Policy, please specify gender mainstreaming category as per http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-gender-
mainstreaming-categories-adb-projects.pdf;
- ADB 2001 Social Protection Strategy;
- ADB SPS 2009 Safeguards Requirement 2 on Involuntary Resettlement, also specify the IR project category and provide justification as per OMF1
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/OM-F1-20131001.pdf;
- ADB SPS 2009 Safeguards Requirement 3 on Indigenous Peoples, also specify the IP project category and provide justification as per OMF1
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/OM-F1-20131001.pdf; and
- ADB 2011 Public Communications Policy see http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pcp-2011.pdf.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 436
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

include four basic rights and principles at work as per the relevant conventions of the International Labor
Organization:

¡ Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining;

¡ Elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation;

¡ Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour; and

¡ Effective abolition of child labour.

OLTIN YO’L GTL shall comply with applicable labour laws in relation to the Project, and shall take the
following measures to comply with the core labour standards for the ADB financed portion of the Project;

1) OLTIN YO’L GTL shall carry out its Project activities consistent with the intent of ensuring legally
permissible equal opportunity, fair treatment and non discrimination in relation to recruitment and hiring,
compensation, working conditions and terms of employment for its workers (including prohibiting any
form of discrimination against women during hiring and providing equal work for equal pay for men and
women engaged by the OLTIN YO’L GTL);

2) OLTIN YO’L GTL shall not restrict its workers from developing a legally permissible means of
11
expressing their grievances and protecting their rights regarding working conditions and terms of
employment;
12
3) Engage contractors and other providers of goods and services:
13
a. Who do not employ child labour or forced labour ;

b. Who have appropriate management systems that will allow them to operate in a manner
which is consistent with the intent of (A) ensuring legally permissible equal opportunity and
fair treatment and non discrimination for their workers, and (B) not restricting their workers
from developing a legally permissible means of expressing their grievances and protecting
their rights regarding working conditions and terms of employment; and

c. Whose subcontracts contain provisions which are consistent with paragraphs (a) and (b)
above.

ADB’s Policy on Gender and Development (GAD) (1998) adopts mainstreaming as a key strategy in
promoting gender equity. OLTIN YO’L GTL shall comply with this requirement. The GAD Policy aims to
ensure that special design features and strategies are built into projects to facilitate and encourage women’s
involvement and ensure tangible benefits to women. OLTIN YO’L GTL shall conduct gender analysis and
incorporate gender measures in the Project design. Specific gender measures required during in Project
design and typically incorporated in the environmental and social management plan are as follows:

a) Conduct meaningful consultations with affected people and facilitate their informed participation
– ensuring women’s active participation in consultation activities;

b) Include gender issues in the conduct of social analysis as part of the environmental impact
assessment process;

c) Conduct gender analysis specifically related to project impacts and risks on women and
prepare a social impact assessment report that will include (inter alia) gender disaggregated
information pertaining to the economic and socio-cultural conditions of women;

11
Also see requirements of section 7.7
12
Also see requirements of section 7.11
13
Also see requirements of 7.13.1.2

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 437
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

d) Incorporate measures that protect women include adoption of workers’ code of conduct,
enforcement of workers’ camp habitation rules, conduct of HIV/AIDS awareness programs, and
improvement of health infrastructure to address potential negative effects of large influx of male
construction workers.

e) Consult with ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in a gender sensitive manner; and
undertake a culturally appropriate and gender-sensitive social impact assessment or use similar
methods to assess potential project impacts, both positive and adverse, on ethnic minorities
indigenous peoples; and

f) Training programs, and community development programs that benefit women workers and
14
women in the community.

14
See focus on women that is required in the context of social responsibility intiatives in section 7.6.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 438
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.14 Construction phase ESHMP

15
The following sections stipulate the mitigation measures that OLTIN YO’L GTL shall implement during the construction phase of the project.

7.14.1 Air quality

Table 7.1 describes the air quality mitigation measures that were identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.1: Environmental Management Programme- Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Dust
Project activity: Earthworks including soil stripping and earth excavations.
Impact: Soil stripping and earth excavations are associated with the movement of large amounts of materials and there is the potential for dust releases to
accompany these activities.
Management objective: To prevent dust releases and potential dust impacts during earthworks.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Dampen down all dusty activities, especially during dry weather;
¡ Temporarily cover earthworks where possible;
¡ Minimise drop heights; and
¡ Load and unload materials in areas protected from wind, where practicable.
Project activity: Construction of OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp and pipelines.
Impact: Potential dust release during the construction period from construction activities including general plant usage, cutting, grinding, sawing and scrabbling,
usage of skips and chutes.
Management objective: To prevent potential dust release and potential dust impacts during construction works.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Locate machinery, fuel and chemical storage and dust generating activities away from site boundaries and sensitive receptors where possible;
¡ Utilising pre-fabricated materials to reduce cutting, grinding and sawing;
¡ Using water suppressant systems or dampening down whenever possible;
¡ Use of dust extraction techniques if available;
¡ Pre-washing of work surfaces when scrabbling;
¡ Screening off work areas;

15
Additional land may be required in the southern quadrant of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility for additional laydown areas and will be included in the EMS as required.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 439
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Secure cover for all skips, where possible;

¡ Minimising drop heights to control the fall of materials; and
¡ Sweeping and dampening down working area regularly to prevent the build-up of fine waste dust material.
Project activity: Stockpiling and storing of materials.
Impact: Potential dust release from stockpiled or stored materials.
Management objective: To prevent potential dust releases and potential dust impacts from stockpiled and stored materials.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Ensure that stockpiles exist for the shortest possible time;
¡ Minimise surface areas of stockpiled material to reduce the surface area exposed to wind erosion;
¡ Do not build steep sided stockpiles or those that have sharp changes in shape;
¡ Whenever possible, keep stockpiles away from the site boundaries, sensitive receptors and surface drains;
¡ If possible, keep stockpiles securely sheeted; and
¡ Cover and protect stored materials from wind and dampen stored materials where appropriate.
Project activity: Clearing of construction area (stripping of vegetation).
Impact: Stripping of vegetation may increase erosion, which has the potential to increase dust releases.
Management objective: To prevent erosion from barren areas, thereby preventing potential dust releases especially under dry and windy weather conditions.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Areas that may be prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident will be stabilised and/or
re-vegetated; and
¡ The total footprint area to be disturbed / developed will be kept to a minimum by demarcating the construction areas and restricting construction to these
areas only.
Project activity: Haul road and construction traffic.
Impact: Potential dust release from traffic on haul roads.
Management objective: To prevent potential dust release and potential dust impacts from haul road traffic.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Use of hard surfaced roads where practicable;
¡ Consideration of a vehicle tracking system;
¡ Regular inspection of haul roads for integrity and repair if required;
¡ Wheel and vehicle wash at exit of OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp construction site;
¡ On-site speed limits;
¡ Regularly cleaning and dampening down of haul roads;
¡ Limit vehicles idling motors; and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 440
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Covering of loads transported to and from site.

7.14.2 Ecology
7.14.2.1 Avifauna biodiversity
Table 7.2 describes the avifaunal mitigation measures that were identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.2: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Avifauna
Project activity: Land removal from project sites.
Impact: During field surveys, a proposed borrow pit was identified. This is located in a borrow pit close to the village of Nushon, at about 12 km West of the project
site. Land is degraded due to human activities, but a special bird community is present. Due to land disposal, present habitat will be lost and breeding bird
communities will be affected.
Management objective: To safeguard the most interesting examples of regionally relevant bird community of ground walls (House Sparrows, Rollers, other
potential species)
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ An executive project for land disposal is needed, taking into account the following points, and should be evaluated by an expert ornithologist. It is suggested
the project including a subsequent development of the area in a Bird Sanctuary.
¡ Identified area at the borrow pit be left in the present condition.
¡ Ground works in the immediate vicinities might be avoided during the early phase of the breeding cycle, corresponding for those species to the month of
April. Traffic and movement close to these areas will be restricted and controlled, and damage to identified ground walls shall be repaired and maintained to
the satisfaction of the Environmental Manager (or equivalent).
Project activity: Habitat removal during operation of the borrow pit site.
Impact: Possible impact on local and migratory bird species.
Management objective: Consider the establishment of a Bird Sanctuary at the borrow pit site at the end of the construction phase. Investigate the feasibility of
establishing an area covered by indigenous bush / trees at the sanctuary site, as this would allow Passerine migrants to perform a successful stop-over. This
would enhance the probability of migrant birds continuing their visits the project area and its surrounding areas, which forms part of the Central Asian migratory
flyway.
Operational measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Involve an ornithologist when operations are planned for the borrow pit site.
¡ The design of the borrow pit site shall take into account potential future research activities and possible educational programmes relating to the bird
populations in this area.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 441
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ The vegetation planning for a possible sanctuary shall be done according to the biology of the bird species and the composition of the local plant
communities. Species such as Lycium ruthenicum and Eleagnus angustifolius should be used (possibly substituted or accompanied by E. orientalis), in mixed
stands with other local shrub species (Atraphaxis sp., Peganum harmala). Plantations of black saxauls Haloxilon aphyllum and other alloctonous species
must be avoided; natural vegetation formed in natural climatic conditions would be more stable to the existing factors of abiotic environment.
¡ Educational programs regarding the avifauna present in the area as well as the proposed bird sanctuary should be implemented. An ornithologist shall be
involved in the planning and implementation of these activities.
Project activity: Building of OLTIN YO’L GTL Shift camp (accommodation site).
Impact: Noise disturbance on the Turkestan Shrike Lanius phoenicuroides breeding population.
Management objective: To prevent these birds abandoning their breeding habitat in the early phase of breeding territories occupancy.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
th th
¡ High levels of noise pressures will be avoided during the early phase of the species’ breeding season, annually from May 11 to June 10 .
¡ Traffic and movements in the vicinities of the occupied area (100 m radius) will be restricted and controlled in the same period.
Project activity: Design and construction of power lines.
Impact: Possible collision and electrocution of local and migratory birds.
Management objective: To minimise bird mortalities caused by collision with, or electrocution by power lines.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Engineering design shall focus on designing bird-friendly power lines.
Project activity: Traffic movement during the construction phase.
Impact: Possible mortalities of birds by collisions with vehicles used during construction.
Management objective: To prevent bird collisions with vehicles.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ A speed limit of 70 km/h should be enforced, from the Alanga settlement to OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site.

7.14.2.2 Terrestrial (Fauna and Flora) biodiversity

Table 7.3 describes the terrestrial ecology mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.3: Environmental Management Programme - Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Terrestrial Ecology
Project activity: Clearing of land for access routes and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint
Impact: Existing vegetation communities will be completely destroyed due to clearing of land for access routes and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L
GTL site footprint.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 442
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Management objective: To minimise the loss of vegetation communities.

Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Appoint a suitably qualified person before construction commences to search and locate any plants of significance in order to re-establish such plants in a
place safe from future construction activities.
Project activity: Clearing of land for access roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint
Impact: Red data plant species may be destroyed due to clearing of land for access roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of red data species
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Appoint a suitably qualified person before construction commences to search and locate any red data plant species in order to re-establish such plants that
may be found in a place safe from future construction activities.
Project activity: Clearing of land for access roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint
Impact: Floral species diversity may be reduced due to clearing of land for access routes and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of floral species diversity.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Appoint a suitably qualified person before construction commences to search and locate any plant species of significance in order to re-establish such plants
that may be found in a place safe from future construction activities.
Project activity: Clearing of land for access roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint
Impact: Faunal species communities will be lost due to clearing of land for access routes and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of faunal species communities.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Appoint a suitably qualified person before construction commences to search and locate any faunal species of significance in order to re-establish such
species that may be found in a place safe from future construction activities.
Project activity: Clearing of land for access roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint
Impact: Faunal red data species may be lost due to clearing of land for access routes and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of faunal red data species.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Appoint a suitably qualified person before construction commences to search and locate any faunal red data species in order to re-establish such species
that may be found in a place safe from future construction activities.
Project activity: Construction activity and building of access roads
Impact: Dust created by construction activity and building of access roads will settle on the surrounding environment thereby reducing growth vitality of the
vegetation and contaminate the food source of the herbivores.
Management objective: To minimise the creation of dust.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 443
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Regularly spray construction areas with water to reduce the creation of dust by construction activity.
¡ Pave permanent roads with tar or concrete.
Project activity: Construction activity - general
Impact: Increase in invasive species.
Management objective: To minimise the increase in invasive species.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Environmental manager (or equivalent) to implement an invasive species control strategy throughout the construction phase.
Project activity: Erection of plant and accommodation facilities
Impact: Due to complete removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities the footprint areas will no longer contain grazing pastures to be
utilised by livestock belonging to the local population.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of grazing pastures.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Make surrounding areas available to the local population for grazing by livestock.
Project activity: Erection of plant and accommodation facilities
Impact: Due to complete removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities the footprint areas will no longer be available to the local population
to plant crops.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of crop lands.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Make surrounding areas available to the local population for grazing by livestock.
Project activity: Construction activity - general
Impact: The presence of a large number of people and heavy equipment in the project area may cause trampling of the surrounding area thereby destroying
vegetation and cause disturbance to the faunal community which will disrupt their life patterns and possibly drive them away.
Management objective: To minimise the effect of increase human presence.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Limit human activity to construction sites; and
¡ Security fencing to be erected early in the civil stage where and when practical.
Project activity: Construction activity - general
Impact: Change in drainage patterns due to construction activity may result in erosion which will reduce vegetation and promote invasive species.
Management objective: To minimise the effect of changed drainage.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Properly design drainage channels to remove rain water from the construction site.
Project activity: Use of motorised equipment
Impact: Oil spilled or leaking from motorised equipment will contaminate the soil and present a hazard to the fauna of the area.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 444
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Management objective: To prevent pollution by vehicle oil.

Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Regularly maintain motorised equipment in properly designed maintenance bays.
¡ Withdraw leaking equipment from service until such leaks are repaired.

7.14.3 Cultural heritage

Table 7.4 describes the cultural heritage mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.4: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Cultural Heritage
Project activity: Construction activities - general
Impact: Accidental disturbance to buried archaeological remains.
Management objective: To prevent the loss of archaeological resources.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ OLTIN YO’L GTL shall produce and implement an operating procedure including a method statement addressing “chance finds” of archaeological resources
unearthed during the construction phase. This procedure(s) will be distributed to all contractors and workforce in order to reduce the potential for accidental
destruction of heritage resources during development of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility. The method statement will include:
§ The chance find procedure shall be applicable to all excavations associated to the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility – site footprint, excavations for roads,
pipelines, waste facilities (inside as well as outside the site footprint), and any other relevant earthworks;
§ An indication of what heritage resources to be aware of (prepared by an heritage expert);
§ Stop work procedures and authority designation on site in the event of a find;
§ Contact details for relevant government departments and an accredited archaeologist who should be contacted in the event of a find;
§ A professional archaeologist will be employed to inspect exposed sections (e.g. site foundation area) following excavation;
§ Should archaeological remains be identified the archaeologist is to be afforded the opportunity to record and document any findings made and to prepare
a report on all discoveries made; and
§ Should archaeological remains be discovered during the construction phase then the Environmental Manager (or equivalent) will be informed and an
archaeologist brought to site to undertake any salvage recording as necessary and practicable.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 445
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.14.4 Hydrogeology (Groundwater)

Table 7.5 describes the hydrogeological mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.5: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Hydrogeology
Project activity: Maintenance and refuelling of plant and machinery
Impact: Soil and groundwater contamination from accidental spills from oil and chemical storage.
Management objective: To prevent contaminants such engine oil, used oil, diesel and other hydrocarbon based fluids to infiltrate into the groundwater.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Establish designated areas in which activities that can produce hydrocarbon contaminated waste should take place;
¡ Use impervious surfaces for all the workshop areas and refuelling bays;
¡ Construct adequate drainage structures for the collection of contaminated waste water and use oil/water separators;
¡ Empty oil/water separators regularly and dispose of the product at specialised facilities;
¡ Remove and treat any contaminated soil as soon as possible; and
¡ Establish an emergency management plan and equipment (HZMET).
Project activity: Wastewater generation
Impact: Soil and groundwater contamination from improper discharge of sanitary wastewater. Management objective: To prevent sanitary wastewater from
entering groundwater.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Provide permanent and sufficient sanitation facilities for the workers;
¡ Provide portable sanitary facilities at the site;
¡ Regular de-sludging of the sanitary facilities must take place;
¡ All sanitary effluent will be collected and treated separately from other effluents;
¡ Recovered water from facility sanitary treatment processes shall be routed to the drainage header;
¡ Manage and dispose of the sanitation waste generated during the construction period in a manner that will not impact the environment; and
¡ Implement policy to monitor and report any leakages observed.
Project activity: Site preparation and construction of facilities
Impact: Hydrocarbon contamination of groundwater from accidental spills.
Management objective: To prevent hydrocarbon contamination of groundwater as a result of accidental spills.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 446
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Use impervious surfaces for all storage areas;

¡ Construct bounded perimeters for all storage area;
¡ Implement a spill response strategy; and
¡ Remove and dispose of any contaminated soil from accidental spills in an appropriate manner.

OLTIN YO’L GTL

7.14.5 Landscape and visual aesthetics
Table 7.6 describes the landscape and visual aesthetics mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL project.
Table 7.6: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: UZGT
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Landscape and visual aesthetics
Project activity: Construction activity and increased traffic
Impact: Introduction of visually incongruous and intrusive elements in the landscape
Management objective: To minimise construction-related impacts by improving the appearance of the site during construction
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Although indicated as being of low significance, it is recommended that all reasonable effort be made to maintain the construction site in a neat and orderly
condition at all times. Designated areas for material storage, waste sorting and temporary storage, batching and other potentially intrusive activities should
be created and screened off to whatever extent is feasible.
¡ Where allowable, the Contractor shall during construction utilise security lighting that is movement activated rather than permanently switched on, to prevent
unnecessary constant illumination.
¡ During construction selective and judicious lighting for the construction camps and other secured areas should be employed.
Project activity: Construction activity
Impact: Dust pollution during construction
Management objective: To minimise and control airborne dust
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ All mitigation measures recommended in the air quality assessment specialist investigation, that addresses the issue of dust pollution, must be adhered to.
These include the following:
¡ Dampen down all dusty activities, especially during dry weather;
¡ Temporarily cover earthworks where possible;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 447
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Minimise drop heights;

¡ Load and unload materials in areas protected from wind, where practicable;
¡ Locate machinery, fuel and chemical storage and dust generating activities away from site boundaries and sensitive receptors where possible;
¡ Utilising pre-fabricated materials to reduce cutting, grinding and sawing;
¡ Using water suppressant systems or dampening down whenever possible;
¡ Use of dust extraction techniques if available;
¡ Pre-washing of work surfaces when scabbling;
¡ Screening off work areas;
¡ Secure cover for all skips, where possible;
¡ Minimising drop heights to control the fall of materials;
¡ Sweeping and dampening down working area regularly to prevent the build-up of fine waste dust material;
¡ Ensure that stockpiles exist for the shortest possible time;
¡ Minimise surface areas of stockpiled material to reduce the surface area exposed to wind erosion;
¡ Do not build steep sided stockpiles or those that have sharp changes in shape;
¡ Whenever possible, keep stockpiles away from the site boundaries, sensitive receptors and surface drains;
¡ If possible, keep stockpiles securely sheeted;
¡ Cover and protect stored materials from wind and dampen stored materials where appropriate;
¡ Areas that may be prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident will be stabilised and/or
re-vegetated;
¡ The total footprint area to be disturbed / developed will be kept to a minimum by demarcating the construction areas and restricting construction to these
areas only;
¡ Use of hard surfaced roads where practicable;
¡ Regular inspection of haul roads for integrity and repair if required;
¡ Wheel and vehicle wash at exit of OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp construction site;
¡ On-site speed limits;
¡ Regularly cleaning and dampening down of haul roads;
¡ Limit vehicles idling motors; and
¡ Avoid overloading and cover loads transported to and from site.
¡ Unless specified otherwise in the aforementioned study, the following additional dust suppression measures are suggested:
¡ Daily watering down of all bare areas, areas where construction activities result in dust creation and vehicular movement occur must be done. The
frequency of watering must be increased if and when required, due to windy conditions. However due to aridity and supposed water scarcity of the region,
the watering frequency can potentially also be reduced if daily watering is at times found to be excessive.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 448
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Any stockpiles of material that may be blown away during windy spells such as sand, soil and excavated material etc., must be suitably covered to prevent
such occurrence. Suitable methods of coverage will be determined by the environmental control officer or site engineer based on the nature of the material,
its use, etc.
¡ In areas where extreme dust generation is likely and where feasible, spraying of exposed areas with soil adhesive chemicals may be required.

7.14.6 Noise
Table 7.7 describes the noise mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL.
Table 7.7: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Noise
Project activity: Construction activity - general
Impact: Temporary elevation of ambient noise levels due to construction of site activity
Management objective: To minimise the noise impact upon neighbouring receptors as far as is reasonably practicable.
Mitigation measures: There are many general site management measures that can reduce noise levels, these include:
¡ Restrict noisy activities to day time only (e.g. 08:00 – 17:00). No noisy activities shall take place during night time construction activities.
¡ Avoiding unnecessary revving of engines and switching off equipment when not required;
¡ Minimising the drop height of materials;
¡ Starting up plant and vehicles sequentially rather than all together;
¡ Audible reversing warning systems on mobile plant and vehicles should be of the types which, whilst ensuring that they give a proper warning, have a
minimum noise impact on neighbouring receptors. The use of conventional audible reversing alarms has the potential to cause annoyance due to the tonal
component. It should be noted that alternatives, such as “white-noise” type alarms, are available which are generally considered to be less annoying;
¡ Vehicles will be maintained regularly and kept in a good working order;
¡ Increasing the distance between plant and noise sensitive receptors is the most effective method of controlling noise. Whilst it will not be possible to do this
when work takes place along a fixed route, stationary plant such as compressors and generators should be located as far away from noise sensitive
receptors as possible.
¡ On sites where it is not possible to reduce noise by increasing the distance between source and receiver, screening may have to be considered. For
maximum benefit, screens should be as close to the source as possible. Some examples are as follows:
§ Site buildings such as offices/stores can be grouped together to form a substantial barrier separating site operations and receptors;
§ Stacks of certain materials such as bricks, aggregate, timber or top soil can be strategically placed to provide a barrier;
§ Areas which have been excavated below ground level can be used to position static plant such as generators, compressors and pumps; and
§ Earth bunds can be built to provide screening for major earth-moving operations and can be subsequently landscaped to become permanent features of

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 449
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

the environment when works have been completed. This may also help to reduce operational noise when commissioned.
¡ The use of bored or augured method piling will result in a continuous noise emission. This will result in a lower noise impact than impulsive methods such
as drop-hammer piling.
¡ Using rubber linings in, for example, chutes and dumpers to reduce impact noise;
¡ As far as reasonably practicable, sources of significant noise should be enclosed. The extent to which this can be done depends on the nature of the
machine or process and ventilation requirements.
¡ Maintenance of equipment. For example, rattling noises can be controlled by tightening loose parts and by fixing resilient material (such as rubber)
between the surfaces in contact.
¡ Quietest equipment that can economically undertake the work should be selected wherever possible.
¡ Maintenance of mufflers and other noise suppression devices.
¡ Construction work to occur, whenever possible, within the daytime period, avoiding evening and night time (630pm to 630am).
¡ Community complaint management procedure to be in place.

7.14.7 Risk assessment (Major hazard accidents)

Although major accident hazards are not possible or relevant during construction, the normal hazards from the construction activities and increased
road traffic should be minimised or prevented by implementation of the following mitigating measures as detailed in.
Table 7.8: Environmental Management Plan Construction phase: OLTIN YO'L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
OLTIN YO’L GTL production
Project activity: Construction and installation.
Impact: Fatalities, injuries to construction personnel, public and environmental damage.
Management objective: To, in the first place, prevent construction and road accidents, and if these did occur, either mitigate the severity or protect employees,
the public and the environment against the effects.
Mitigation measures: The following system and measures must be implemented:
1. Construction management system
This should include the following elements:
¡ Define the roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in the management of construction during the project execution.
¡ Identify the training needs of such personnel and provide the training identified.
¡ The roles, responsibilities, accountability, authority and interrelation of all personnel who manage, perform or verify work, which affects safety, should be

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 450
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

defined.
¡ Employees and others, for example contractors, present on site, should be involved in the arrangements and their implementation. Particular attention
should be paid to contractors to ensure they receive the necessary information and training. They need to be aware of the hazards involved and the roles
and responsibilities of key personnel.
¡ Adoption and implementation of procedures for systematically identifying hazards arising from construction activities and transport and the assessment of
their likelihood and severity.
¡ The safety management system should describe how hazard identification and evaluation procedures are applied to all relevant stages of construction.
¡ Adoption and implementation of procedures and instructions for safe construction, including transport to and from the site;
¡ Management of change - adoption and implementation of procedures for construction modifications;
¡ Planning for construction and road transport emergencies by adoption and implementation of procedures to identify foreseeable emergencies; prepare, test
and review plans to respond to such emergencies; and provide specific training for all construction and transport personnel;
¡ Monitoring performance by adoption and implementation of procedures for the on-going assessment of compliance with the objectives set by the OLTIN
YO’L GTL construction and transport accident prevention policy, and the mechanisms for investigation and taking corrective action in the case of non-
compliance;
¡ Audit and review of the construction and transport accident prevention measures by adoption and implementation of procedures for periodic systematic
assessment and the effectiveness.
¡ Conduct and maintain a construction specific risk assessment and implement a mitigation plan.
2. Specific preventative and protective measures
¡ Provision of special services
Security; gas sampling; geophysical; water levels; soil monitoring/ sampling; explosives; atmospheric monitoring; Noise measurements. Cleaning services;
precautions for work in confined spaces
¡ Emergency services required
¡ Fire; medical, first aid and Medivac; routes for emergency vehicles; Safety showers; eye-wash facilities; breathing and escape sets; Means of escape (ladders
etc.); Handling of accidents on site.
¡ Movement, loading and unloading
Access/egress for people, plant and equipment; parking; Unloading/loading areas; turning circles; routing; barriers; Tankers, lorries; dumper trucks; cranes;
forklifts; Mobile units (pumps, compressors);
Effects on existing site traffic and adjacent public roads; traffic control.
¡ Working conditions during construction
Noise (compressors; explosion; drills, etc.); time of day, frequency and intensity. Smoke; dust; vehicle fumes; Climatic effects on construction activities (wind,
rain, heat, cold; fog).
¡ Waste handling
Wash water; storm/flood and fire water/foam; Contamination and damage to existing drains and sewers; Spillage’s of chemicals, oil, fuel; Means of disposal
and licence. Bunds; pits; sumps; drain isolation; dredging; draining. Tenting; fencing; temporary sheeting; scaffolding

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 451
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Construction work safety

Excavators; warning signs; What effect on live plant equipment? What precautions?
How will it be coordinated/supervised? Any checks or tests needed? Is it a recognised safe practice or one-off?
Is timing critical? Is access/egress and boundary security satisfactory? Work at heights or elevations; Confined spaces; Excavations, trenches, underground;
Access for erection and installation, vehicles, cranes
¡ Management and supervision
Guidance to construction traffic (route plan, signs etc.) Obstruction to normal traffic/emergency vehicles (cranes, contractors' vehicles)
Increase in site traffic - implications? Size of vehicles (pipe bridge clearances?)
Quality of safety equipment and signs on new plants (support and fixing durable?)
Personal safety equipment (attitudes/quality)
Standards of work, safety, cleanliness (contractors' vehicles, tools, methods of working)
¡ Coordination and organising
Permits to work etc. (linking with plants & service groups - encourages co-operation); Training and awareness; Communications (who needs to know, why,
when)
¡ Auditing and inspections
Safe working practices (e.g. scaffold-tags, permits, safety equipment etc.); Knowledge of the contractor (does he understand? does he know?)

All reasonable provisions are being made to ensure the job is carried out safely.
¡ The contractor understands the implications of deviating from his defined method of working.
¡ The contractor and supervisors understand that safety and safe working practices have a higher priority than achieving target completion dates. The basic
guidance is “If in doubt or concerned, stop the job and seek management advice".
¡ Sufficient thought is given to access/egress to the construction site, which on occasions involves checking the suitability/standards of the vehicles, linking
with the plant control room, providing escorts for abnormally large vehicles and providing permits to work, etc.
¡ Consideration is given to the location of construction huts relative to major hazard plant, vents, and relief systems, flare stacks, electrically classified areas
and potential emissions of harmful or flammable material.
¡ Appropriate site and plant induction training is given in advance to all contract personnel employed on site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 452
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.14.7.1 Exclusion zone / Sanitary zone

The Risk assessment specialist study proposed a “no development zone” based on the modelled risk event impacts. In addition to this, the local Uzbek
requirements for industrial facilities of this nature, further requires a “sanitary / exclusion zone” of a radius of 1km around such a development. Figure
7.1 below shows the sanitary zone which shall be implemented by OLTIN YO’L GTL. This overlaps with the existing sanitary zone around the existing
SGCC site. This area is currently free of human settlements or sensitive receptors and OLTIN YO’L GTL shall ensure that it remains as such during
Project development phases.

7.14.8 Socio-economic Environment

See Section 7.13.

7.14.9 Soils16
Based on the potential impacts considered, a moderate significance score emanated from the impacts of soil loss, contamination, compaction and
erosion. Remediation measures to reduce the impacts are presented in the following sections.

7.14.9.1 Mitigation measures for loss of the soil resource

The soil resource can be regarded as ‘lost’ when there is prevention of using it in its capacity of producing or sustaining vegetative matter, which directly
or indirectly effects the sustainment of the human life depending on it. The project will result in a loss of the soil resource during all of the phases.
Although it cannot be mitigated, it can be regarded as a temporary loss, as there will be an attempted to restore the soil resource back to its original
state after the project has ceased.

7.14.9.2 Mitigation measures for the impact of potential contamination

The potential impact of soil contamination arises during all of the phases. Similar causes and subsequently mitigation measures are anticipated for the
construction and decommissioning phases.

16
Mitigation measures also apply to the Spoils dump.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 453
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 7.1: Sanitary zone of 1km to be maintained by OLTIN YO'L GTL throughout the phases of the Project.

Table 7.9 describes the soil contamination mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction and demolition phase of the OLTIN YO’L
GTL project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 454
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.9: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil contamination – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL

Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Soil - contamination
Project activity: Construction and decommissioning phases: Vehicle/machinery presence and movement on site for soil stripping, stockpiling and restoration
purposes. Human activity on site.
Impact: Soil contamination as a result of vehicle/machinery presence and movement which bare potential for fuel/oil leaks and spills. Human activities, including
discard of construction materials or discard of domestic waste, may cause contamination to the soil resource.
Management objective: To prevent /reduce soil contamination emanating from fuel/oil spills and leaks and/or improper discards of waste.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Vehicles and machinery on the construction site must be subjected to daily inspections for possible leakages and damages that could cause leakage;
¡ Vehicles and machinery must be maintained regularly and kept in good working order;
¡ Maintenance tasks must be restricted to designated workshops and must not be conducted on site;
¡ Spill kits should be on-hand to deal with immediate oil/fuel spills;
¡ Adequate waste facilities must be provided and maintained at the plant and accommodation facilities;
¡ Storage of fuel/fluids and chemicals – should only occur in appropriately bunded are where all spills can be contained. MSDS’es shall be consulted to ensure
that appropriate chemicals are stored together to prevent chemicals reacting with one another;
¡ Appropriate sanitation facilities to be in place on site, laydown areas and accommodation facilities to prevent impacts from sewage spills; and
¡ Personnel must be trained to execute and respect waste management measures.

7.14.9.3 Mitigation measures for the impact of soil erosion

Potential impacts anticipated for soil erosion calculated to a moderate significance score in both the construction and operation phases of the OLTIN
YO’L GTL project.

Table 7.10 describes the soil erosion mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.10: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil erosion – Construction Phases: OLTIN YO’L GTL

Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Soil
Project activity: Stockpiling of soil during the construction phase and maintenance of stockpiles during the operation phase. Soil can be incorrectly stockpiled

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 455
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

and inadequately maintained.
Management objective: To prevent /reduce soil erosion emanating from incorrect stockpiling and/or inadequate maintenance.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Topsoil stockpiles shall be extensive and low, rather than high; an ideal stockpiling arrangement would be to stockpile topsoil not higher than 1.5 meters,
spread over the available area;
¡ Slopes should be constructed at a 1:6 (9.5%) ratio or shallower;
¡ Prior to the establishment of vegetation, it is recommended that erosion control measures such as benches or bund walls to prevent erosion of stockpiled
material and deflect water runoff;
¡ Stockpiles must be vegetated for the life of the operation to avoid excessive runoff;
¡ The initial application of fertilizer to the disturbed soils is necessary to establish a healthy plant cover as soon as possible;
¡ weed growth on the stockpiles must be prevented to reinstitute the ecological processes within the soil; and
¡ If eroded areas occur, they must be filled in and vegetation re-established; and
¡ Traffic and movement over stockpiles must be limited, especially heavy machinery.

7.14.9.4 Mitigation measures for the impact of soil compaction

Based on the potential impacts considered, a moderate significance score emanated from the impacts of soil compaction expected to occur during the
construction and decommissioning phases.

Table 7.11 describes the economic displacement mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL
project.
Table 7.11: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil compaction – Construction Phases: OLTIN YO’L GTL

Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Soil – soil compaction
Project activity: Construction phase: soil handling during stripping and stockpiling of topsoil.
Impact: Soil compaction as a result of handling of topsoil and the movement of heavy vehicles and machinery over it, especially when in a moist condition.
Management objective: To prevent /reduce soil compaction emanating from the specified activities.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Where possible, remove and place soils when in a dry state and not when moist or wet;
¡ Loosening of the soil through ripping and discing prior to the stripping process is recommended in order to break up crusting;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 456
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ A secondary cultivation may be required to break up large clods:

¡ Topsoil stockpiles shall be extensive and low, rather than high; and
¡ Unnecessary trafficking and movement over the areas targeted for construction must be avoided, especially heavy machinery.

7.14.9.5 Additional soil conservation measures

The following measures will add value to conserving the soil resource and further reduce the anticipated impacts:

¡ Where possible, vegetation should not be cleared from the site prior to stripping. The maintenance of the vegetative matter will provide additional
organic nutrients to the soil;

¡ In general, it is recommended that fertilizer and organic matter be added to the soil prior to stripping. This will ensure that the fertilizer is well mixed
into the soil during the stripping operations and will reduce the amount of fertilizer that will be needed on vegetation establishment and
rehabilitation later on; and

¡ Soil amelioration can be considered during the storage stage to enhance the capability of the soils and sustain the soils ability to vegetative
material.

7.14.10 Surface water (Hydrology)

The following section describes the associated mitigation measures that OLTIN YO’L GTL is required to implement, aimed at reducing potential
negative impacts while enhancing potential positive impacts.

7.14.10.1 Mitigation measures for storm water management

The mitigation measures for storm water management need to be included during the detailed design phase so that they can be implemented during
construction. Table 7.12 describes the storm water mitigation measures that have been identified for the detailed design/construction phase of the
OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.12: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of storm water management – Detailed Design/Construction Phases:
OLTIN YO’L GTL

Detailed design / construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Storm water management
Project activity: Detailed design/construction phase.
Impact: Storm water management.
Management objective: To mitigate the effects of storm water runoff from the site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 457
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:

¡ A storm water cut-off berm and trenches must be constructed around the site to prevent clean water runoff from the catchment areas around the site from
entering the plant area. The berm and trench will also serve to prevent the contaminated runoff from leaving the site;
¡ The berm system will be sized to manage the 100 year recurrence interval flood peak;
¡ The storm water runoff from the site will to be collected in a storm water pond. The water in the pond will be recycled into the process replacing raw water.
The pond will be sized to contain the runoff from the 100year recurrence interval 24 hour storm;
¡ Storm water may become contaminated as a result of spills of process liquids. Gas processing facilities should provide secondary containment where liquids
are handled (segregate contaminated and uncontaminated);
¡ Drainage systems have to be separated for drainage water from process areas that could be contaminated with hydrocarbons (closed drainage) and
drainage storm water from non-process areas (open drainage) that includes any surface runoff and flows resulting from precipitation, drainage or other
sources;
¡ The runoff from uncontaminated and contaminated needs to be kept separate. The uncontaminated runoff will be returned to the surface water environment;
¡ A first-flush system will be used to manage the treatment of the first flush of storm water where the majority of potential contaminants tend to be present;
¡ In order to reduce the volume for treatment, storm water should be separated from process contaminated runoff and storm water runoff (The hydrology
study of the ESHSIA modelled the contaminated area to be 5.1 ha while the uncontaminated area was modelled at 25.5 ha – see Figure 2);
3.
¡ The storm water pond capacity required for the run-off from the contaminated area for the 1:100 year recurrence interval is 5,975 m and engineering design
should make provision for this. (The runoff volume for contaminated area was determined for the 1 in 100 year recurrence interval 24-hour rainfall storm
depth.);
¡ A water management system of diversion bunds, trenches, pollution control dams and operating rules need to be implemented to in order to meet the
design requirements of the system;
¡ All discharge points shall be equipped with a shut-off mechanisms;
¡ Storm water ponds should be designed with sufficient capacity for foreseeable operating conditions.
¡ To prevent pollution of the ground water, the stormwater pond must be lined with a suitable liner;
¡ A monitoring programme to be set up at the site to monitor the rainfall and water quality of the storm water pond from the commencement of the project so
that water management can be optimized;
¡ Further characterisation of climatic conditions such as intensity of high rainfall events and evaporation at the site needs to be obtained via continued rainfall
and evaporation monitoring;
¡ Runoff from parking areas for vehicles shall be skimmed of free oil before discharge;
¡ Storm water flow channels and collection storm water ponds installed as a part of the open drainage system should be fitted with oil/water separators; and
¡ The storm water collection and management system needs to be appropriately designed.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 458
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 7. 2: Location of proposed water monitoring points SW01 and SW02 and the proposed clean and dirty water systems on the OLTIN YO'L GTL footprint

7.14.10.2 Mitigation Measures for surface water

Table 7.13 describes the surface water mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 459
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.13: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Surface water
Project activity: Construction activities
Impact: Stripping of vegetation may increase erosion, which might increase the amount of suspended solids in downstream watercourses.
Management objective: To prevent erosion from barren areas, thereby preventing increased suspended solids in downstream watercourses.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Areas that may be prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident will be stabilised. Methods of stabilisation include: brush-cut packing, mulch or
chip cover, straw stabilising, hydro-seeding, the application of soil binders and physical stabilisation methods such as gabions, reno-mattresses, armour flex
or retaining walls.
¡ Traffic and movement over stabilised areas will be restricted and controlled, and damage to stabilised areas shall be repaired and maintained to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Manager (or equivalent).
¡ The total footprint area to be disturbed / developed will be kept to a minimum by demarcating the construction areas and restricting construction to these
areas only.
Project activity: Servicing and/or refuelling of construction equipment and vehicles.
Impact: Hydrocarbon contamination of surface water from construction equipment and/or vehicle spillages.
Management objective: To prevent hydrocarbon contamination of surface water from equipment and/or vehicle spillages.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Excessive soil contamination by fuel or oil spills, for example, from construction vehicles, will be collected to be treated at a pre-determined and dedicated
location, or will be treated in situ using bioremediation, in accordance existing procedures.
¡ Vehicles will be maintained regularly and kept in a good working order.
¡ Vehicle maintenance will not be carried out on - site, but in existing contractor workshops.

7.14.11 Waste management

Table 7.14 below describes the waste management mitigation measures proposed for the identified potential impacts during the construction phase of
the project:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 460
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.14: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Waste Management
Project activity: Preparation of the site for the construction of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant
Impact: Removal, storage and disposal of top soil and overburden material.
Management objective: To prevent erosion and loss of stored soil material until it will be used to restore and rehabilitate the site during decommissioning.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Excavations and removal of overburden and topsoil will be minimized as far as possible;
¡ Some of the topsoil and overburden material removed during the pre-construction phase will be used for backfilling and building of roads while the rest will
be stored as berms at strategic areas around the OLTIN YO’L GTL site;
¡ These stockpiles will be sloped and capped to prevent erosion and loss of material. The integrity and aesthetics of the capping layer will further be
enhanced by vegetating it with suitable natural plants and grasses indigenous to the area;
¡ Opportunities to locate the top soil stockpiles within the borrow pit site should be investigated and considered; and
¡ Storm and run-off water management systems will be implemented to divert storm and run-off water away from these stockpiles.
Project activity: Preparation of the site for the construction of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant
Impact: Generation of non-hazardous industrial waste materials.
Management objective: To minimize the generation of industrial waste where possible, if not possible, to ensure waste is separated and recycled to limit
quantities requiring disposal at the landfill site.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to achieve this objective:
¡ Development and implementation of an Integrated Waste Management Plan for the project;
¡ Prevent and minimize industrial waste generation as far as possible;
¡ Provide suitable containers and temporary storage areas as close to the point of generation as practical possible;
¡ Re-use waste during construction where possible;
¡ Separate waste at source and recycle wherever possible;
¡ Sell waste to recycling contractors; and
¡ Ensure unusable waste is disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner at licensed disposal facilities only (“Cradle to grave” responsibility).
Project activity: Excavation of the site for the construction of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant
Impact: Generation of hazardous waste materials during construction phase.
Management objective: To minimize the generation of hazardous waste where possible, to recycle or re-use or if possible return to the supplier.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to achieve this objective:
¡ Implementation of an Integrated Waste Management Plan;
¡ Minimization of hazardous waste at source wherever possible;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 461
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ Separation of hazardous waste streams for re-use or to recycle;

¡ Sell recycled waste to recycling contractors;
¡ Return waste to the supplier if possible; and
¡ As a last option to pre-treat and dispose at new OLTIN YO’L GTL hazardous landfill site.
Project activity: Excavation of the site for the construction of the OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant
Impact: Generation of general household food waste from the kitchen, canteen, offices and temporary staff residential camp during construction.
Management objective: To minimize the generation of food waste and to recycle wherever possible.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to achieve this objective:
¡ Sufficient food waste containers will be provided as close to the generation source as possible;
¡ Food waste will be used for pig food or composting purposes;
¡ Food waste will be collected daily to prevent any nuisances at these facilities; and
¡ Landfilling of food waste will only be employed as a last option.

7.14.11.1 Development of a hazardous landfill site

The only hazardous waste disposal facility close to the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant is the nearby SGCC hazardous facility which does not allow for the
additional disposal of additional general and hazardous waste generated by OLTIN YO’L GTL. OLTIN YO’L GTL therefore needs to develop a
hazardous waste disposal facility to accommodate all the general and hazardous waste streams generated at the new plant that cannot be recycled.
The RUz has certain requirements and authorisation processes in place that must be complied with before approval and development for such a facility
can be obtained.

A wide site selection process to identify suitable candidate sites for such a facility was completed during the waste study for this ESHSIA. Potential sites
were compared with one another and evaluated and unsuitable sites were eliminated. The three highest ranked candidate sites within close proximity to
the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL site were recommended. The highest rated site was the potential site located within the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant footprint.
OLTIN YO’L GTL will approach the Karshi SCNP for finalisation. The next phase of the hazardous waste disposal facility development will be the
detailed design and construction of the infrastructure.

It is proposed that the disposal cells be designed in such a manner that hazardous waste streams are not mixed together and are separated from
general waste materials. The facility must also be suitably lined to prevent leachate from polluting the sub-soils and groundwater and surrounding
environment. The facility should further be provided with suitable drainage systems to divert clean runoff away from the site and for contaminated runoff
and leachate to be contained and treated before release into the environment. The facility should be operated in a professional manner to prevent any
hazardous waste escaping or endangering the natural environment.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 462
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.14.12 Logistics
Table 7.15: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Logistics
Project activity: Operation phase
Management objective: To minimise the likely environmental and social impacts associated with logistics activity.
Mitigation measures: The following measures are recommended:
¡ It is recommended that Uzbekistan GTL apply the requirements of the IFC EHS guidelines as part of their contracts with the logistics company and transport
contractors to ensure they include environmental management controls to limit potential environmental and social impacts during the construction and
operation of the logistics exercise;
¡ Ensure environmental and social management requirements are part of the logistics company and any transport contractor’s contracts. They should plan
and implement the work to minimize and potential environmental and social impacts;
¡ As logistics planning continues develop an Environmental and Social Management Plan to IFC standards to cover the planning and implementation of the
logistics exercise.
¡ Locating road upgrades and support facilitates away from critical terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Use existing transport routes wherever possible;
¡ Ensure designs provide wildlife access to limit habitat fragmentation;
¡ Avoid construction activities during breeding seasons;
¡ Limit clearing riparian vegetation, and take into consideration season fluctuations (e.g. increased scouring and erosion during the rainy season);
¡ Minimize the removal of indigenous plant species;
¡ Explore ways to enhance habitat rehabilitation;
¡ Storm water management:
§ Use management practices to reduce storm water runoff flow rate and minimise pollutant run off;
¡ Waste management during construction:
§ Manage site excavation materials according to the IFC EHS guidelines;
§ Maximise the rate of recycling of road resurfacing waste;
§ Collect road litter or illegally dumped waste;
¡ Noise:
§ Consider noise impacts during the development and implementation of the logistics plan
§ Design and implement noise control measures, such as noise barriers, insulation of nearby building structures etc.;
¡ Air emissions:
§ Control fugitive dust emissions through methods such as water suppression and covering storage piles etc;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 463
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ Occupational health and safety:

§ Chemical hazards – Use equipment with exhaust ventilation systems as well as other methods specified in the extensive list of the IFC EHS for toll
roads (IFC, 2007) document;
¡ Community health and safety:
§ Pedestrian safety – develop corridors and barriers to control movement of pedestrians and erect and maintain road signs;
§ Traffic safety – erect and maintain road signs, reduce speed limits etc; and
§ Emergency preparedness – develop a response plan in coordination with the local authorities and community.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 464
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.14.13 Radiation Management Plan

¡ A Radiation Management Plan (RMP) generally consists of various elements, collectively aimed at
managing and controlling the potential radiation exposure conditions at an operating facility. These
exposure conditions relate to worker (occupational) radiation exposure and potential exposure
conditions to members of the public. Generically, the RMP may include the following components:
Worker and public safety assessments, which is then used as basis to define worker and public
Radiation Protection Programmes;

¡ Definition of the radiation protection function, which basically outline the responsibilities for radiation
protection;

¡ An emergency preparedness and response procedure, supplemented with an occurrence reporting

procedure;

¡ Physical security procedure, takes into consideration the nature of the operation and imposes measures
that will ensure that unauthorized access of workers and members of the public to facilities or areas of
radiation exposure is prevented;

¡ Medical surveillance procedure, outline the responsibilities, processes and mechanisms to comply with
the requirements for medical surveillance and control of persons occupationally exposed to radiation;

¡ Definition of a quality assurance programme;

¡ Radioactive waste management procedure that outlines a radioactive waste managing process for the
waste that will be generated as part of the operations; and

¡ Transport procedure that covers all aspect of the transport of radioactive material to, from, and as part
of the mining and mineral processing operation.

The RMP is applicable to all phases associated with the life cycle of the operation. However, the level of
details that may be required for the different phases may vary. It may also be required to update these
documents as the operation progress through the different phases. The baseline survey performed before
operations commence can be included as an element of the RMP, while a decommissioning strategy and
plan has to be prepared towards the end of the operation.

Some of the documents may be combined (e.g., the medical surveillance programme can be defined as part
of the worker radiation protection programme). Interdependencies may thus exist between the different
documents.

The OLTIN YO’L GTL plant is not operational yet, and only a baseline survey of the potentially affected
areas has been performed. Furthermore, it is unclear to what extent a full RMP as outlined above would be
necessary. This would depend on the level of radioactivity present in their feedstock and residue materials
that will be generated.

The results from the baseline survey suggest that the levels of radioactivity present at the three sites in all
likelihood are due to natural background radiation, which does not require a comprehensive RMP. What will
be presented in this section though are some basic radiation protection measures that can be adhered to
during the construction period. The purpose of these measures would be to keep doses As Low As
Reasonable Achievable (ALARA principle). These measures are not sufficient for an operating facility, which
would require a prospective facility specific safety assessment to define appropriate radiation protection
measures.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 465
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.14.13.1 Radiation Protection Measures

General
At this stage, it is not clear whether the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant and associated activities would lead to
radiation exposure conditions above the national and internal compliance criteria. The RMP outlined above
will only be necessary if this is the case.

The worker and public safety assessments of the proposed operations that will be performed for this purpose
will be prospective in nature and cover all phases of the operation, from construction to decommissioning. All
potential exposure routes that may lead to a radiation exposure condition are considered for this purpose.
The outcome of these assessments is then used to define appropriate radiation protection measures for
workers and members of the public.

Radiation Protection Measures

As a precautionary measure (during the construction period), the following radiation protection measures can
be considered:

¡ Appoint a Radiation Protection Officer to monitor the radiation exposure conditions and to manage the
Radiation Protection Function;

¡ Group the areas of concern into those with potential similar radiation exposure conditions. This could be
as simple as the three sites, but depending on site specific conditions can be more;

¡ Provide training to workers to ensure that they have a basic understanding of radiation protection and
the effect of radiation exposure;

¡ Issue external gamma radiation dose meters or thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) to workers to
monitor any potential external gamma radiation;

¡ Measure the airborne radon concentration in the divided areas using passive radon measurement
equipment. From these airborne radon concentrations, the radon inhalation dose can be calculated;

¡ Implement a medical surveillance programme and ensure that radiation monitoring is part of the general
medical surveillance;

¡ Keep a dose record as measured with the TLDs and radon concentration of each worker.

¡ Impose basic measures in terms of protection of health risks;

¡ Implement a physical security programme that would control access to potential radiation exposure
areas.

7.15 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures

The following sections stipulate the mitigation measures that OLTIN YO’L GTL shall implement during the
operational phase of the project. Cumulative impacts would need to be monitored during the operation of the
facility. The best information currently available is via modelling.

7.15.1 Air Quality

Table 7.16 describes the mitigation measures identified for air quality impacts during the OLTIN YO’L GTL
operational phase.

Mitigation measures for dust during the operational phase are not included as the ESHSIA specialist study
did not identify dust generation (>PM10 particulate size) as a significant impact. However, should dust prove
to be a concern during the operational phase, the ESHMP updates shall make provision for the addition of
dust management measures, in line with the dust control measures suggested for the construction phase in
this ESHMP section?

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 466
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.16: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Air Quality
Project activity: Operation of facility
Impact: Point- source emissions to air
Management objective: To ensure compliance with AQS and IFC guidance requirements
Mitigation measures:
¡ Based on the outcome of the Air Quality specialist study for this ESHSIA, all applicable IFC and local Uzbekistan ELV’s and air quality standards are
achieved based on the updated FEED2 design data. No specific mitigation is required to reduce stack emissions for this reason.
¡ Plant components shall be constructed in line with the design data available at the end of FEED2 (e.g. stack heights) to ensure that the plant operates in line
with the modelled outcomes.
¡ The OLTIN YO’L GTL plant shall be operated in line with optimum capacity requirements. Operating the plant at maximum capacity might result in higher
emissions than modelled.
¡ Continuous in-line monitoring equipment shall be installed and operated in all stacks in order to monitor emissions.
¡ Continuous monitoring results shall be included in annual reports (to regulating state departments and relevant financiers) to confirm compliance to relevant
IFC standards and local standards.

7.15.2 Hydrogeology (groundwater)

Table 7.17 describes the mitigation measures that have been identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.17: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Hydrogeology
Project activity: Operation of plant facilities and production processes
Impact: Accidents / spillage during storage and transport of potential contaminants.
Management objective: To ensure adequate intervention practices are in place and to prevent groundwater contamination from accidental spillages.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ All storage areas as well as the pipe routes to be constructed with impervious floors to avoid losses to the environment;
¡ All storage areas must have bunded perimeters;
¡ All storage area must drainage systems to a collector or containment structure fitted with oil/water separators and grease traps;
¡ The drainage system at the storage facilities must not be connected to the stormwater collection system; and

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 467
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ Accident response procedure must be in place.

Project activity: Operation of plant facilities and production processes
Impact: Infiltration of contaminants into the groundwater system as a result of inadequate drainage management and failure to maintain the drainage system.
Management objective: To ensure adequate drainage system and maintenance practices and avoid infiltration of contaminants into the groundwater system.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Monitor drainage volumes and ability of the system to handle peak volumes;
¡ Maintain separators and grease traps regularly;
¡ Dispose of the volumes in the separators and traps regularly;
¡ Runoff from processes and storage areas should be separated from potentially less contaminated runoff; and
¡ Augment the drainage and capture of contaminated runoff as required.
Project activity: Operation of plant facilities and production processes
Impact: Infiltration of contaminants into the groundwater system as a result of unforeseen releases of hazardous materials or as a result of accidents during
production process.
Management objective: To prevent contamination of groundwater with hazardous materials.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Preparation and implementation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s);
¡ Implement Hazardous Material Management Plan;
¡ Carry out regular inspections of hazardous material handling; and
¡ Institute spill response procedures.
Project activity: Waste dump operation (assuming location within the present proposed development footprint)
Impact: Leachate generation and seepage infiltration into the groundwater system.
Management objective: To prevent contamination of groundwater with seepage from the waste dump.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Use the readily available low permeability materials in the construction design;
¡ Construct a drainage system to capture seepage and potential leachate; and
¡ Implement a Waste Management Plan.
Project activity: Operation of plant facilities and production process
Impact: Alterations to baseline hydrogeology
Management objective: To monitor changes to groundwater as a result of OLTIN YO’L GTL operations
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 468
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ Inclusion of a baseline groundwater well point at the closest sensitive receptor for future reference; and
¡ Regular samples should be taken from the existing well.

7.15.3 Landscape and visual aesthetics

Table 7.18 describes the landscape and visual aesthetics mitigation measures that have been identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL
project.
Table 7.18: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Landscape and visual aesthetics
Project activity: Creation of primary plant and ancillary infrastructure within the landscape
Impact: Presence of visually intrusive elements into the landscape
Management objective: To screen and otherwise improve the appearance of the plant complex to whatever extent possible.
Mitigation measures: Due to practical / operational, safety and cost implications, the mitigation potential in this regard is somewhat limited. However, the
following measures will be implemented:
¡ A dense vegetative screen should considered be established around the perimeter of the OLTIN YO’L GTL complex site, especially along the northern,
eastern and western boundaries that face roads and other settled areas. Although this will only screen the lowest building and infrastructure elements, the
appearance of the complex will be improved, especially in short range views, i.e. for persons visiting or working at the plant.
¡ All areas that are to be visited by persons not employed at the plant (i.e. offices, workshop areas) as well as any residential quarters must be properly
landscaped and designed by a Landscape Architect.
¡ Plant components should be painted colours that blend in well with the landscape (e.g. natural colours of the surrounding areas should be considered).
Project activity: Operational activity at the plant
Impact: Dust pollution during operations
Management objective: To reduce the impact from dust.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented
¡ All mitigation measures recommended in the air quality assessment specialist investigation, that addresses the issue of dust pollution, must be adhered to.
These include the following:
¡ Dampen down all dusty activities, especially during dry weather;
¡ Temporarily cover earthworks where possible;
¡ Minimise drop heights;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 469
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Load and unload materials in areas protected from wind, where practicable;
¡ Locate machinery, fuel and chemical storage and dust generating activities away from site boundaries and sensitive receptors where possible;
¡ Utilising pre-fabricated materials to reduce cutting, grinding and sawing;
¡ Using water suppressant systems or dampening down whenever possible;
¡ Use of dust extraction techniques if available;
¡ Pre-washing of work surfaces when scabbling;
¡ Screening off work areas;
¡ Secure cover for all skips, where possible;
¡ Minimising drop heights to control the fall of materials;
¡ Sweeping and dampening down working area regularly to prevent the build-up of fine waste dust material;
¡ Ensure that stockpiles exist for the shortest possible time;
¡ Minimise surface areas of stockpiled material to reduce the surface area exposed to wind erosion;
¡ Do not build steep sided stockpiles or those that have sharp changes in shape;
¡ Whenever possible, keep stockpiles away from the site boundaries, sensitive receptors and surface drains;
¡ If possible, keep stockpiles securely sheeted;
¡ Cover and protect stored materials from wind and dampen stored materials where appropriate;
¡ Areas that may be prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident will be stabilised and/or
re-vegetated;
¡ The total footprint area to be disturbed / developed will be kept to a minimum by demarcating the construction areas and restricting construction to these
areas only;
¡ Use of hard surfaced roads where practicable;
¡ Regular inspection of haul roads for integrity and repair if required;
¡ Wheel and vehicle wash at exit of OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp construction site;
¡ On-site speed limits;
¡ Regularly cleaning and dampening down of haul roads;
¡ Limit vehicles idling motors; and
¡ Covering of loads transported to and from site.
Project activity: Operations at night
Impact: Light pollution and flares
Management objective: To minimise light spill, non-directional lighting and excessive lighting of the plant at night
Mitigation measures: During the Operational Phase, careful planning of the lighting requirements of the facilities installations should be done to ensure that
lighting meets the needs to keep the locations secure and safe, without resulting in excessive illumination. The following general lighting requirements have been

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 470
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

identified for the project:

¡ The height from which floodlights are fixed shall be reduced to be as low as possible whilst still maintaining the required levels of security illumination. Area
lighting on tall masts should be confined to the lower landform elevations.
¡ Identify zones of high and low lighting requirements with the focus on only illuminating areas to the minimum extent possible to allow safe operations at night
and security surveillance. Buildings that are typically not used at night such as offices and workshops should be fitted with sensors that switch off lights in
empty rooms, to prevent them from inadvertently being left on.
¡ Avoid up-lighting of structures, but rather direct the light downwards and focused on the object to be illuminated. Avoid directing the light towards the
direction from where it would be most experienced by external receptors (Figure7.3).
¡ Light spill must be minimised. All security lighting shall have ‘blinkers’ or be specifically designed to ensure light is directed downwards while preventing side
spill. Light fixtures of this description are commonly available for a variety of uses and should be used o the greatest extent possible. This may require that
light pole numbers will increase to give the required illumination on the ground (Figure7.3).
¡ Lighting for security and safety must be directed downwards and towards buildings and plant, to reduce light spill beyond the property boundary Figure 7.4).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 471
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure7.3: Avoid up-lighting of structures, but rather direct the light downwards and focused on the object to be
illuminated (CKA, 2008)

Figure 7.4: All security lighting shall have ‘blinkers’ or be specifically designed to ensure light is directed downwards
while preventing side spill (CKA, 2008)

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 472
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 7.5: Lighting for security and safety must be directed downwards and towards buildings and plant (CKA, 2008)

7.15.4 Noise
The noise impact assessment for the operational phase of the project has been performed based on the
assumption that the facility will operate in accordance with the “Noise Control Philosophy” document OLTIN
YO’L GTL-04-4 Rev.01. In Section 3 of the document “noise limits” are referred to as follows:

“The noise limit criteria established in this section are intended to prevent the permanent loss of hearing in
workers, to ensure satisfactory communication in the work area and reduce the environmental impact of
noise generated by the plant equipment. The objective is to limit the combined noise levels from all
equipment supplied to a maximum of 80 dB(A) at one metre in any work or passage area.”
In order to achieve this objective, it will be the responsibility of the suppliers of the process equipment to
ensure that each piece of external plant will be mitigated in accordance with the site requirement detailed
above. It is, therefore, assumed that all operational processes will be mitigated as necessary and as far as
is reasonably possible. Further mitigation measures may also include:

¡ Maintenance of mufflers and other noise suppression devices;

¡ Community complaint management procedure to be in place; and

¡ Undertaking of rigorous preventive maintenance for noise-generating equipment to avoid upset.

7.15.5 Soils
Based on the potential impacts considered, a moderate significance score emanated from the impacts of soil
loss, contamination, compaction and erosion. Remediation measures to reduce the impacts are presented in
the following sections.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 473
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.15.5.1 Mitigation measures for the impact of potential contamination

Table 7.19 describes the soil contamination mitigation measures that have been identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.19: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil contamination – Operational Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Soil - contamination
Project activity: The transportation of fluids and chemicals used in the operational processes and transported via containment structures. The generation of
waste material through the various processes and human presence may lead to irresponsible dumping of waste by personnel members.
Impact: Soil contamination through hazardous fluids/chemicals used in the operational processes that may seep through damaged infrastructure and containment
structures. Irresponsible dumping of hazardous waste may generate potential for soil contamination.
Management objective: To prevent /reduce soil contamination emanating from the abovementioned activities.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ All containment structures must be maintained and regularly monitored;
¡ Where hazardous substances are required to be moved, it must be safely contained and transported in order to minimise the risk of spilling;
¡ In the event of a spillage or leakage an emergency response plan and trained personnel must be ready to deal with it;
¡ Where seepages and leakages are noted, it must be treated according to an applicable procedure as determined by a plan of action for the specific type of
disturbance;
¡ A leakage detection/monitoring system should be installed in identified high risk areas;
¡ Adequate waste facilities must be provided and maintained at plant, accommodation and construction facilities; and
¡ Personnel must be trained to deal appropriately with disposal of waste.

7.14.5.2 Mitigation measures for the impact of soil erosion

Table 7.20 describes the landscape and visual aesthetics mitigation measures that have been identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL
project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 474
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.20: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil erosion – Operation Phases: OLTIN YO’L GTL

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Soil - erosion
Project activity: Stockpiling of soil during the construction phase and maintenance of stockpiles during the operation phase. Soil can be incorrectly stockpiled
and inadequately maintained.
Management objective: To prevent /reduce soil erosion emanating from incorrect stockpiling and/or inadequate maintenance.
Mitigation measures: The following measures are recommended:
¡ Topsoil stockpiles shall be extensive and low, rather than high; an ideal stockpiling arrangement would be to stockpile topsoil not higher than 1.5 meters,
spread over the available area;
¡ Slopes should be constructed at a 1:6 (9.5%) ratio or shallower;
¡ Prior to the establishment of vegetation, it is recommended that erosion control measures such as benches or bund walls to prevent erosion of stockpiled
material and deflect water runoff;
¡ Stockpiles must be vegetated for the life of the operation to avoid excessive runoff;
¡ The initial application of fertilizer to the disturbed soils is necessary to establish a healthy plant cover as soon as possible;
¡ weed growth on the stockpiles must be prevented to reinstitute the ecological processes within the soil; and
¡ If eroded areas occur, they must be filled in and vegetation re-established; and
¡ Traffic and movement over stockpiles must be limited, especially heavy machinery.

7.14.5.3 Additional soil conservation measures

The following measures will add value to conserving the soil resource and further reduce the anticipated impacts:

¡ Where possible, vegetation should not be cleared from the site prior to stripping, should any additional stripping be required during the operational
phase. The maintenance of the vegetative matter will provide additional organic nutrients to the soil;

¡ In general, it is recommended that fertilizer and organic matter be added to the soil prior to stripping. This will ensure that the fertilizer is well mixed
into the soil during the stripping operations and will reduce the amount of fertilizer that will be needed on vegetation establishment and
rehabilitation later on; and

¡ Soil amelioration can be considered during the storage stage to enhance the capability of the soils and sustain the soils ability to vegetative
material.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 475
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.15.6 Surface water (Hydrology)

Table 7.21 describes the surface water mitigation measures that have been identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.21: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Operation Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Surface water
Project activity: Offloading of chemicals, servicing and/or refuelling of equipment and vehicles.
Impact: Hydrocarbon contamination of surface water from equipment and/or vehicle spillages.
Management objective: To prevent hydrocarbon contamination of surface water from equipment and/or vehicle spillages.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Two dedicated sewers will be constructed with the aim of separating water from the potentially oily paved areas from the water from clean paved areas.
¡ Excessive soil contamination by chemicals, fuel or oil spills, , will be collected for treatment at a pre-determined and dedicated location, or will be treated in
situ using bioremediation, in accordance with existing procedures.
¡ Vehicles will be maintained regularly and kept in good working order.
¡ Chemical storage areas will be adequately bunded to prevent chemicals entering the storm water system;
¡ Dirty areas will be adequately drained to the pollution control dam;
¡ Vehicle maintenance will not be carried out on the site, but in contractor workshops.
Project activity: Discharge of effluent to the drainage canal
Impact: Contamination of surface water from discharge of effluent
Management objective: To prevent contamination of surface water from effluent discharged into the drainage canal.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Clean storm water run-off will be stored at the CSP, analysed for fitness of discharge before being discharged to the outside location.
¡ Effluent will be treated to acceptable standards prior to discharge.

7.15.7 Waste management

Table 7.22 describes the waste management mitigation measures proposed for potential waste related impacts expected during the operational phase
of the plant.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 476
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.22: Environmental Management Programme – Operational Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Waste Management
Project activity: Generation of general and non-hazardous waste during operations.
Impact: Environmental health and safety of community and workers could be put at risk.
Management objective: To ensure all non-hazardous waste materials generated at the plant is managed and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable
manner to prevent any impacts to the health and safety of the community and environment.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ An Integrated Waste Management Plan will be developed and implemented for the project, including objectives for the collection, storage, transport,
minimization and disposal of all wastes generated at the plant;
¡ Demarcated areas with suitable waste bins will be provided for non -hazardous household and industrial waste;
¡ Waste will be separated and recycled at source as far as possible to minimize volumes requiring landfilling; and
¡ Employees and the community will be educated to ensure the objectives of the Integrated Waste Management Plan are achieved.
Project activity: Generation of hazardous waste during operations
Impact: Hazardous waste is toxic to humans and the natural environment.
Management objective: To prevent hazardous waste generated at the plant from impacting the surrounding environment or cause injury to human health.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Develop and implement an Integrated Waste Management Plan for the project, including objectives for the collection, storage, transport, minimization and
disposal of all hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated at the plant;
¡ Demarcated temporary collection/storage areas with suitable waste bins for hazardous waste will be provided at strategic places;
¡ Hazardous wastes classified as class 1 and 2 should be sent to licensed contractor for proper disposal;
¡ Hazardous waste streams will be labelled and stored separately and recycled as far as possible to minimize volumes requiring landfilling.;
¡ Where possible hazardous waste will be returned to the suppliers; and
¡ Employees and the surrounding community will be educated to ensure the objectives of the Integrated Waste Management Plan are achieved.
Project activity: Temporary storage of non-hazardous waste on site during operations
Impact: If not managed correctly, domestic and other waste can affect the health and safety of humans and harm the natural environment.
Management objective: To ensure all solid domestic waste generated at the facility and residential quarters is managed and disposed of in an environmentally
acceptable manner.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ An Integrated Waste Management Plan will be implemented;
¡ Sufficient storage and waste bins will be provided as close to the point of generation as possible;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 477
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ Suitably designed central sorting and temporary storage area (salvage yard) for non-hazardous household and industrial wastes will be provided; and
¡ Employees and the community will be educated to ensure the objectives of the strategy are achieved.
Project activity: Temporary storage of hazardous waste during operations
Impact: Hazardous waste is toxic and harmful to humans and the natural environment.
Management objective: To prevent hazardous waste (including medical and radioactive waste) generated at the plant from entering the natural environment or
cause injury to human health.
Mitigation measures: The following measures to prevent the impact will be implemented:
¡ Development and implementation of an Integrated Waste Management Plan for the project, including objectives for the collection, storage, transport,
minimization and disposal of all hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated at the plant;
¡ All hazardous waste streams will be identified (inventory) and classified to ensure their toxic components are known and to ensure it is managed and
disposed of in a safely manner;
¡ Hazardous wastes will be stored in sealed containers constructed of a suitable material and will be labelled as required by the relevant RUz regulations and
best international practices;
¡ All hazardous waste will be stored, transported, and disposed of in compliance with the relevant legislation for hazardous waste;
¡ Hazardous waste storage areas on site will be positioned away from any stormwater drains and watercourses and away from moving vehicles and
equipment to prevent accidental spills;
¡ The storage/sorting site will at least comply with the following:
§ The migration of any accidental spillage of hazardous liquids or materials into the soil and groundwater regime around the temporary storage area will
be prevented;
§ The site will be provided with an impervious base to prevent ingress of leach;
§ The hazardous storage area will be provided with a roof;
§ The facility will be provided with a spill containment sump to accommodate a volume equal to 1.5 times the volume of all containers stored on it as well
as precipitation from a 25 year storm event, plus the greater of 10% of the aggregate volume of all containers or 100% of the capacity of the largest tank
within its boundary, whichever is greater;
§ Leachate generated at the facility will be stored in a contaminated liquid pond and treated before re-use or being released;
§ Different and incompatible wastes such as chlorine and ammonia will be clearly labelled and stored separately to prevent any chemical reactions such
as combustion and fire hazards from occurring;
§ Throughout the rainy season, temporary containment facilities will be covered during non-working days, and prior to rain events. Covered facilities may
include use of plastic tarps for small facilities or constructed roofs with overhangs;
§ Drums will not be overfilled and different wastes types not be mixed;
§ Unless watertight, containers of dry waste will be stored on pallets or similar; and
§ Waste containers or tanks whilst on site will be clearly labelled with the words “Hazardous Waste”.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 478
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ The production or generation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste will be minimized as far as possible;
¡ Containment berms will be provided in fuelling and maintenance areas and where the potential for spills is high;
¡ Liquid or semi-liquid hazardous waste in will be kept in appropriate containers (closed drums or similar) and under cover;
¡ All hazardous waste containers will clearly be labelled with the waste being stored and the starting date of accumulation;
¡ Potentially hazardous waste materials will not be accumulated on the ground;
¡ The entire product will be used before disposal of the container;
¡ Used and empty hazardous containers will be punctured before disposal to prevent it from being re-used;
¡ The original label of liquids and materials will not be removed as it contains important safety and disposal information;
¡ Replacement of toxic raw materials with more environ-friendlier resources will continuously be considered;
¡ Hazardous waste will be separated and recycled as far as possible to minimize volumes requiring landfilling; and
¡ Employees and community will be educated to ensure the objectives of the Integrated Waste Management Plan are achieved.
Project activity: Permanent storage disposal of bio-sludge waste during operations
Impact: Waste contaminated with hydrocarbons can affect the health and safety of humans and harm the natural environment.
Management objective: To ensure all hydrocarbons contaminated waste/bio-sludge generated at the plant are disposed of in an environmentally acceptable
manner.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to achieve this goal:
¡ Hydrocarbons waste will be prevented and minimized at the point of generation where possible (removal of as much hydrocarbons as possible at source);
¡ Reusable or recyclable hydrocarbons wastes will be sold to approved waste contractors. This activity is regulated by environmental law, technical and
financial viability factors or in terms of contracts, specifying the technical aspect of waste treatment, transportation to treatment sites and safe landfilling of
unused residues (“cradle-to-grave” responsibility);
¡ Waste with high hydrocarbons content will be removed to the landfarm as a last resort. This option will only be considered if other measures are not financially
viable;
¡ The Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) for OLTIN YO’L GTL will include the development of a new landfarm facility on-site. The landfarm site will
be utilized for bio-sludge bioremediation treatment, for and hydrocarbon wastes that cannot be reused or recycled; and
An on-going environmental monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure the waste disposal facility is managed in compliance with relevant local legislation and
internationally accepted best practices
Project activity: Permanent storage of non-hazardous waste during operations
Impact: Household waste can affect the health and safety of humans and harm the natural environment.
Management objective: To ensure all household and other non-hazardous waste generated at the facility are disposed of in an environmentally acceptable
manner.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to achieve this goal:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 479
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ Waste will be prevented and minimized at the point of generation where possible (reduction at source). This is the most preferable measure, since the costs
of preventing or diverting unavoidable waste (recycle, re-use) away from being landfilled is as a rule less than the actual landfill cost projected over the long
term;
¡ Waste minimization is a strategy that involves altering the design, manufacture, purchase, use or reuse of products and materials to reduce their volume or
toxicity before they enter the solid waste stream. Landfill costs are as a rule in directly proportional to the volume (mass) of waste and not only on its
hazardous components. Separation and concentration make it possible to reduce the relevant expenses considerably;
¡ Recycled waste will be sold to approved waste contractors. This activity is regulated by environmental law, technical and financial viability factors or in
terms of contracts, specifying the technical aspect of waste treatment, transportation to treatment sites and safe landfilling of unused residues (“cradle-to-
grave” responsibility);
¡ Waste with high calorific value will be extracted where possible and used to generate energy where possible or to be incinerated. Economic factors
determine the viability in these cases. OLTIN YO’L GTL will consider the use of incineration;
¡ Landfilling of waste will be implemented as a last resort. This option will only be considered if other measures are not financially viable;
¡ The IWMP for OLTIN YO’L GTL will include the development of a new waste disposal facility (hazardous) close to the site. The landfill site will be utilized for
non-hazardous that cannot be re-cycled and the pre-treatment of hazardous waste streams prior to disposal;
¡ Solid and slurried industrial wastes, which contain hazardous substances such as heavy metals, as well as combustible and highly explosive wastes will be
neutralized and disposed of in compliance with the SanPiN RUz № 0127-02 “Sanitation Rules of Inventory, Classification and Neutralization of Industrial
Wastes” and SanPiN RUz № 0128-02 “Hygienic Classified Index of Toxic Industrial Wastes and Conditions of the Republic of Uzbekistan”; and
¡ An on-going environmental monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure the waste disposal facility is managed in compliance with relevant local legislation
and internationally accepted best practices.
Project activity: Permanent storage of hazardous waste during operations (on-site for an interim period of 5 years until the off-site landfill is developed).
Impact: Hazardous wastes are toxic to humans and the natural environment.
Management objective: To prevent hazardous waste generated at the plant from entering the natural environment and cause injury to human health.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Develop and implement an Integrated Waste Management Plan for the project, including objectives for the collection, storage, transport, minimization and
disposal of all hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated at the plant;
¡ Demarcated and suitably designed collection/storage areas and labelled waste bins for hazardous waste will be provided;
¡ Hazardous waste streams will be separated from one another to prevent any potential chemical, explosive or combustible interactions;
¡ Residues from production processes will be re-used optimally where possible;
¡ Enhance knowledge and information on the economics of prevention and management of hazardous wastes;
¡ Reduce the generation of hazardous wastes where feasible, as part of an integrated cleaner production approach;
¡ Investigate possible replacement in the production process of toxic raw materials with more environmentally friendlier resources;
¡ OLTIN YO’L GTL will establish environmental management systems, including environmental auditing of its production and utility sites in order to identify

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 480
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

where cleaner production methods can be implemented; and
OLTIN YO’L GTL will educate and train employees and community in waste and environmental practices to ensure the objectives of the Integrated Waste
Management Plan are achieved.
Project activity: Spillage of hazardous waste during transport to the off-site landfill site
Impact: Hazardous liquid wastes can pollute the immediate surroundings and harm humans and ecosystems.
Management objective: To prevent hazardous waste generated at the mine from entering the natural environment and cause injury to human health.
Mitigation measures: The following mitigating measures will be implemented:
¡ All hazardous liquid waste should be returned to the supplier if possible;
¡ Hazardous liquid waste should be placed in suitable sealed containers and labelled;
¡ Only trained persons should handle hazardous wastes;
¡ Vehicles transporting waste should be purposed build and all required Haz-chem signage and emergency contact details should be displayed on these
vehicles;
¡ Strict speed limits should be imposed on hazardous waste vehicles;
¡ Only trained and informed persons should transport hazardous wastes; and
Access roads should be well maintained to ensure a save trip to the off-site landfill.

Project activity: Disposal of solid and liquid waste at the landfill site during the operations of the plant
Impact: Landfill odours emanating from the landfill site can cause a nuisance to close by communities whilst the landfill gasses, mainly methane (CH4) and CO2
affect air quality and human health.
Management objective: To ensure landfill odours and gasses are minimized and managed in compliance with the required local legislation and international
best practices.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Disposal of liquid waste will be minimized and diverted away from the landfill as far as possible;
¡ Surface emission impacts will be minimised by maintaining a minimal operational area, the application of a daily cover to the operational area, capping of
waste following deposition, implement a gas management and extraction strategy if needed; and
Implement an on-going environmental monitoring plan (air quality and ground water) to ensure the waste disposal facility is managed in compliance with relevant
local legal requirements and internationally accepted best practices.

Project activity: Management of the hazardous OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site during operations and after closure and rehabilitation
Impact: Untreated leachate and contaminated runoff escaping and causing harm to the environment.
Management objective: To prevent untreated leachate and contaminated runoff from escaping or being released into the natural environment.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to achieve this goal:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 481
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operational Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ The landfill site will comply with liner and other engineering design and international best practice requirements for hazardous landfill sites;
¡ All waste streams will be classified to ensure they are handled and disposed of in an environmentally safe manner as a last option;
¡ Proper and efficient drainage systems will be implemented to divert clean run-off away from the facility and contaminated run-off from the site together with
leachate will be directed to the leachate/contaminated pond for treatment;
¡ Various monitoring boreholes provided up- and down-stream from the landfill site will be monitored on a continual basis to detect any leachate escaping to
the environment;
¡ Sanitary landfill operation measures will be implemented at the facility; and
The landfill site will be externally audited at least twice a year to ensure all operational and other requirements are met.

Project activity: Waste management during the operation of the plant

Impact: Unauthorised disposal of waste to the environment
Management objective: To ensure all waste materials generated at the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility is managed according an approved IWMP, and to prevent
illegal waste disposal in the surrounding area.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ An Integrated Waste Management Plan for the plant will be implemented which will include the collection, transport, storage, recycling and disposal of all
waste materials, but also regular auditing and the on-going monitoring of all waste management activities as well;
¡ Corrective actions for non-compliance with the IWMP will be implemented;
¡ Regular environmental audits and inspections of the surrounding area will be undertaken to identify any environmental concerns and take action to rectify
them; and
Workers and the community will be educated and trained to ensure the environment is kept clean and a reporting system will be implemented to report
transgressors.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 482
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.15.7.1. Waste hierarchy

The waste management hierarchy is an internationally accepted guide to prioritise waste management
options and aims to achieve optimal environmental results. The main priority of OLTIN YO’L GTL should be
to prevent the generation of waste. If not possible, waste should be minimised or re-used as far as possible.

OLTIN YO’L GTL should develop realistic targets and time frames to reduce the generation of waste and to
identify and implement measures for more environmentally friendly waste management practices.

To further promote the minimization of hazardous waste generation, OLTIN YO’L GTL should develop and
implement a “Green Procurement Policy” aiming to acquire and use only environmentally friendly products in
their operations where possible. The quality and type of the input materials and resources determines the
output and waste streams that can be expected.

7.15.7.2 Development of an on-site landfill

A new on-site landfill will be developed at the location shown in Figure 7.6. The on-site landfill site will be
developed for the disposal of class 2, 3, 4 and municipal solid wastes by upgrading the currently proposed
class 4 landfill to a class 2 landfill. The approach to upgrade the on-site landfill site to a class 2 site provides
a workable schedule and optimised solution for waste handling during the first few years of the project life.
The landfill will be equipped with a conservative class 2 liner, meaning that it will be able to accept semi-
hazardous waste streams, as well as municipal or domestic wastes from the plant. The on-site disposal
facility will be used for an interim 5 year period after which a new long-term hazardous landfill will be
developed for the disposal of hazardous wastes.

7.15.7.3 Development of an off-site hazardous landfill site

The only hazardous waste disposal facility close to the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility is the nearby SGCC
hazardous facility, which is not sizable enough for the disposal of general and hazardous waste generated at
the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility as well. OLTIN YO’L GTL therefore needs to develop a hazardous waste
disposal facility to accommodate all the general and hazardous waste streams generated at the new plant
that cannot be recycled. The Republic of Uzbekistan (RUz) has certain requirements and authorisation
processes in place that must be complied with before approval and development for such a facility can be
obtained.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 483
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 7.6: Position of the on-site landfill

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 484
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

A wide site selection process to identify suitable candidate sites for such a facility had been followed. After a
thorough comparison and evaluation process was followed to eliminate unsuitable sites the three best
candidate sites within a close proximity to the new OLTIN YO’L GTL facility had been recommended and
should be presented to the Karshi SCNP for finalisation. The next phase of the hazardous waste disposal
facility development will be the detailed design and construction of the infrastructure.

This new long-term hazardous landfill will be off the current site footprint towards the southwest. It represents
site 5 proposed during the site selection process study as per the Waste specialist study. This approach
to develop an off-site landfill site for handling of waste after end-of-life of the on-site landfill provides a
workable solution for the project lifetime.

It is proposed that the disposal cells be designed in such a manner that hazardous waste streams are not
mixed together and are separated from general waste materials. The facility must also be suitably lined to
prevent leachate from polluting the sub-soils and groundwater and surrounding environment. The facility
should further be provided with suitable drainage systems to divert clean runoff away from the site and for
contaminated runoff and leachate to be contained and treated before release into the environment. The
facility should be operated in a professional manner to prevent any hazardous waste escaping or
endangering the natural environment.

7.15.7.4 Temporary waste storage at OLTIN YO’L GTL

The migration of leachate or spillage into the ground and groundwater regime around all temporary storage
areas, specifically the middlings must be prevented. A temporary storage site therefore requires a firm
waterproof base that is protected from the ingress of storm water from the surrounding areas. The storage
area must also be provided with an effective drainage system and a waterproof spillage collection area,
where any spillage can be recovered and suitably treated.

It is envisaged that a salvage yard will be established on the site. This area must be clearly demarcated, well
designed and provided with suitable containers and smaller storage areas for the different waste streams.
Wastes must be stored separately and not be mixed. The salvage yard, middlings storage area and other
waste storage areas, especially hazardous waste storage areas should not be accessible to unauthorized
persons. If non-compatible wastes are to be stored in the same area, care should be taken to adequately
keep them separated, and to prevent possible interactions between different wastes in the event of fire or
spillages. Flammable or combustible wastes must in any event be stored separately from other waste
materials. Used oil must be stored in clearly marked containers in a well bunded area to contain accidental
spillages.

Suitable waste collection containers should be placed at strategic points, as close as possible to the point of
generation and these areas and containers should be properly marked to indicate the type of waste it is
meant for. Colour coding of receptacles can assist in the separation of waste at source and the further
handling thereof. Areas where hazardous wastes are kept must be clearly marked with the correct warning
and safety signage in place. Precautionary measures to prevent spillages and the speedily cleaning up in
such events should be developed and implemented. Sawdust is a good absorbent for liquid spillages and
should be provided as emergency clean-up kits in strategic areas. Storage areas and containers should be
kept clean to prevent any nuisances such as odours from occurring.

7.15.7.5 Development of landfarm

A new on-site landfarm facility will be developed as shown in Figure 7.7 for the disposal of bio-sludges. The
location for the landfarm was selected adjacent to the new on-site landfill site. Bio-sludge of a class 4 rating
will be placed in the landfarm and undergo a bioremediation treatment process in the upper soil zone or in
bio treatment cells. Contaminated soils, sediments, or sludges in the soil surface will be turned over
periodically or tilled to aerate the mixture. Land farming is successful in treating petroleum hydrocarbons and
other less volatile, biodegradable contaminants. The landfarm treatment area will be properly managed to
prevent both on-site and off-site migration/cross contamination problems with ground, ground water, surface
water contamination.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 485
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.15.7.6 Transportation of waste

The Waste Management Act provides regulations for the transportation of hazardous waste. It is regulated
from collection to the point of disposal. The generator of waste is responsible (“cradle –to-grave”) for the safe
disposal thereof at an approved and licensed disposal facility even though the collection and transportation
might be undertaken on his behalf by a private service provider. This also includes hazardous waste
collected by private contractors for treatment or recovering purposes elsewhere away from the plant. The
waste must be accompanied by the waste manifest as prescribed in the waste management regulations.

7.15.7.7 Waste management strategy

It is recommended that OLTIN YO’L GTL develop and implement a detailed WMP for the life of the project.
The IWMP should be consistent with the waste legislation of RUz and other national and international best
practices. The IWMP is a holistic approach to manage all waste components in accordance with the best
health, environmental, economical and engineering practices (and responsive to public attitudes). The
components of such a plan will at least include the following:

¡ Generation of waste;

¡ Minimization, recycling and separation (at source);

¡ Storage and collection;

¡ Transfer and transport; and

¡ Disposal/treatment/destruction.

A manager from the corporate level of OLTIN YO’L GTL should be tasked with the responsibility for waste
management as required by the waste regulations. The IWMP should be reviewed and updated on a regular
basis.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 486
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 7.7: Position of the Landfarm

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 487
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.15.7.8 Incineration
Incineration uses combustion to convert wastes into less bulky materials. Commercial incinerators can control the residence time, temperature and turbulence within
the incineration chamber to optimise the combustion. They are also equipped with air pollution control devices to remove most NOx emissions. Incinerators are
usually employed to destroy hazardous organic type wastes to reduce their potential risk to health and the environment. Incinerators are expensive to use and are
20
more suitable in environmentally sensitive areas and industries where large volumes of hazardous organic waste are generated .

Based on the available waste information and volumes expected to be generated at OLTIN YO’L GTL, it seems that the installation of an incinerator would not be a
requirement. Nothing however prevents OLTIN YO’L GTL from exploring this option further; keeping in mind that special authorisation will be required.

7.15.7.9 Monitoring and auditing

It is recommended that a monitoring plan be developed to monitor overall waste releases from the plant. The monitoring plan should include all solid, liquid and
gaseous wastes generated during the operation and as required by the local environmental legislation. The quantities and key contaminants of waste streams
should be measured and monitored along with identifying the sources of generation and the details to be captured on a central database. The classification of waste
streams should be determined in accordance with the waste classification regulations.

Environmental audits should be conducted at regular intervals as required by the RUz waste legislation.

7.15.8 Risk assessment (Major Accident Hazards)

Table 7.23 describes the major accident hazards mitigation measures that have been identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.23: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Construction Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
OLTIN YO’L GTL production
Project activity: Construction and installation.
Impact: Fatalities, injuries to construction personnel, public and environmental damage.
Management objective: To, in the first place, prevent construction and road accidents, and if these did occur, either mitigate the severity or protect employees,
the public and the environment against the effects.
Mitigation measures: The following system and measures must be implemented:
Construction management system
This should include the following elements:
¡ Define the roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in the management of construction during the project execution.
¡ Identify the training needs of such personnel and provide the training identified.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 488
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ The roles, responsibilities, accountability, authority and interrelation of all personnel who manage, perform or verify work, which affects safety, should be
defined.
¡ Employees and others, for example contractors, present on site, should be involved in the arrangements and their implementation. Particular attention should
be paid to contractors to ensure they receive the necessary information and training. They need to be aware of the hazards involved and the roles and
responsibilities of key personnel.
¡ Adoption and implementation of procedures for systematically identifying hazards arising from construction activities and transport and the assessment of
their likelihood and severity.
¡ The safety management system should describe how hazard identification and evaluation procedures are applied to all relevant stages of construction.
¡ Adoption and implementation of procedures and instructions for safe construction, including transport to and from the site;
¡ Management of change - adoption and implementation of procedures for construction modifications;
¡ Planning for construction and road transport emergencies by adoption and implementation of procedures to identify foreseeable emergencies; prepare, test
and review plans to respond to such emergencies; and provide specific training for all construction and transport personnel;
¡ Monitoring performance by adoption and implementation of procedures for the on-going assessment of compliance with the objectives set by the OLTIN YO’L
GTL construction and transport accident prevention policy, and the mechanisms for investigation and taking corrective action in the case of non-compliance;
¡ Audit and review of the construction and transport accident prevention measures by adoption and implementation of procedures for periodic systematic
assessment and the effectiveness.
3. Specific preventative and protective measures
i) Provision of special services
Security; gas sampling; geophysical; water levels; soil monitoring/ sampling; explosives; atmospheric monitoring; Noise measurements. Cleaning services;
precautions for work in confined spaces
ii) Emergency services required
Fire; medical & first aid; routes for emergency vehicles; Safety showers; eye-wash facilities; breathing and escape sets; Means of escape (ladders etc.);
Handling of accidents on site.
iii) Movement, loading and unloading
Access/egress for people, plant and equipment; parking; Unloading/loading areas; turning circles; routing; barriers; Tankers, lorries; dumper trucks; cranes;
forklifts; Mobile units (pumps, compressors);
Effects on existing site traffic and adjacent public roads; traffic control.
iv) Working conditions during construction
Noise (compressors; explosion; drills, etc.); time of day, frequency and intensity. Smoke; dust; vehicle fumes; Climatic effects on construction activities (wind,
rain, heat, cold; fog).
v) Waste handling
Wash water; storm/flood and fire water/foam; Contamination and damage to existing drains and sewers; Spillage’s of chemicals, oil, fuel; Means of disposal
and licence. Bunds; pits; sumps; drain isolation; dredging; draining. Tenting; fencing; temporary sheeting; scaffolding

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 489
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

vi) Construction work safety

Excavators; warning signs; What effect on live plant equipment? What precautions?
How will it be coordinated/supervised? Any checks or tests needed? Is it a recognised safe practice or one-off?
Is timing critical? Is access/egress and boundary security satisfactory? Work at heights or elevations; Confined spaces; Excavations, trenches, underground;
Access for erection and installation, vehicles, cranes
vii) Management and supervision
Guidance to construction traffic (route plan, signs etc.) Obstruction to normal traffic/emergency vehicles (cranes, contractors' vehicles)
Increase in site traffic - implications? Size of vehicles (pipe bridge clearances?)
Quality of safety equipment and signs on new plants (support and fixing durable?)
Personal safety equipment (attitudes/quality)
Standards of work, safety, cleanliness (contractors' vehicles, tools, methods of working)
viii) Coordination and organising
Permits to work etc. (linking with plants & service groups - encourages co-operation); Training and awareness; Communications (who needs to know, why,
when)
ix) Auditing and inspections
Safe working practices (e.g. scaffold-tags, permits, safety equipment etc.); Knowledge of the contractor (does he understand? does he know?)

All reasonable provisions are being made to ensure the job is carried out safely.
¡ The contractor understands the implications of deviating from his defined method of working.
¡ The contractor and supervisors understand that safety and safe working practices have a higher priority than achieving target completion dates. The basic
guidance is “If in doubt or concerned, stop the job and seek management advice".
¡ Sufficient thought is given to access/egress to the construction site, which on occasions involves checking the suitability/standards of the vehicles, linking with
the plant control room, providing escorts for abnormally large vehicles and providing permits to work, etc.
¡ Consideration is given to the location of construction huts relative to major hazard plant, vents, and relief systems, flare stacks, electrically classified areas
and potential emissions of harmful or flammable material.
¡ Appropriate site and plant induction training is given in advance to all contract personnel employed on site.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 490
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.15.9 Ecology
7.15.9.1 Avifauna
Table 7.24 describes the avifaunal mitigation measures that were identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.24: Environmental Management Programme – Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Operation Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Ecology - Avifauna
Project activity: Road traffic increase due to operation phase activities.
Impact: Bird mortalities by traffic.
Management objective: To prevent bird (and other animals) mortalities.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ An education programme will be implemented with appropriate awareness communication to the personnel.
¡ Agreement with SGCC and local authorities will be pursued, in order to set up a speed limit of 70 km/h on the main road from Alanga to the site.
¡ Birds (and other animal) mortalities will be monitored along the 27 km road to Alanga on a frequent basis (twice a month), to assess the overall impact of road
traffic and to verify the efficiency of the mitigation measures. Monitoring results will be included in the internal OLTIN YO’L GTL reporting activities,
administered by the Environmental Manager (or equivalent).
Project activity: Increased lighting during operational phase activities.
Impact: Bird mortalities and injuries as a result of being misguided by plant lighting.
Management objective: To reduce bird mortalities and injuries, particularly during migration.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ It would be advisable to make resources for the birds more abundant, such as by implementing a bird sanctuary in the area. This may reduce the risk of a
dangerous, biologically unexpected stop over for the migrants.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 491
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.15.9.2 Terrestrial ecology (Fauna and Flora)

Table 7.25 describes the terrestrial ecology mitigation measures that have been identified for the operation phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.25: Environmental Management Programme - Operation Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Operation Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Ecology - Terrestrial Ecology
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Existing vegetation communities will be completely destroyed due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site
footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of vegetation communities.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
¡ Implement a nursery program to propagate and grow suitable plants on open areas within the project site to maintain diversity and improve the project area.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Red data plant species may be destroyed due to clearing of land for access roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of red data species
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Floral species diversity may be reduced due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of floral species diversity.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Faunal species communities will be lost due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of faunal species communities.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Faunal red data species may be lost due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 492
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operation Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Management objective: To minimise the loss of faunal red data species.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Dust created by construction activity and building of access roads will settle on the surrounding environment thereby reducing growth vitality of the
vegetation and contaminate the food source of the herbivores.
Management objective: To minimise the creation of dust.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Regularly spray relevant project areas with water to reduce the creation of dust by project activities.
¡ Pave permanent roads with tar or concrete.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Increase in invasive species.
Management objective: To minimise the increase in invasive species.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Environmental manager (or equivalent) to implement an invasive species control strategy throughout the operation phase.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Due to complete removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities the footprint areas will no longer contain grazing pastures to be utilised
by livestock belonging to the local population.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of grazing pastures.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
¡ Make surrounding areas available to the local population for grazing by livestock.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Due to complete removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities the footprint areas will no longer be available to the local population to
plant crops.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of crop lands.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
¡ Make surrounding areas available to the local population for grazing by livestock.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 493
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Operation Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: The presence of a large number of people and heavy equipment in the project area may cause trampling of the surrounding area thereby destroying
vegetation and cause disturbance to the faunal community which will disrupt their life patterns and possibly drive them away.
Management objective: To minimise the effect of increase human presence.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Limit human activity to project area.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Change in drainage patterns due to construction activity may result in erosion which will reduce vegetation and promote invasive species.
Management objective: To minimise the effect of changed drainage.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ After cessation of construction activities no further loss is expected.
¡ Maintain drainage channels in a clean and free of erosion and invasive plants.
Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Oil spilled or leaking from motorised equipment will contaminate the soil and present a hazard to the fauna of the area.
Management objective: To prevent pollution by vehicle oil.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Regularly maintain motorised equipment in properly designed maintenance bays.
¡ Withdraw leaking equipment from service until such leaks are repaired.

7.15.10 Ecosystems Goods and Services

Operation Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Ecosystems goods and services

Project activity: Operation phase
Impact: Loss of available grazing land for the local population
Management objective: Ensure sustainable local agriculture is maintained throughout the project.
Mitigation measures: Make the areas surrounding the plant available for grazing for the local population.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 494
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.16 Decommissioning phase ESHMP

Should it not be possible to extend the plant life, in the absence of technology up-grades or other potential uses, the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant shall be
decommissioned. The following sections stipulate the mitigation measures that OLTIN YO’L GTL shall implement during the decommissioning phase of the project.

7.16.1 Air quality

Table 7.26 describes the air quality mitigation measures that have been identified for the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.26: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Air Quality
Project activity: Decommissioning of OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant and associated infrastructure.
Impact: Potential dust release during the decommissioning period
Management objective: To prevent potential dust release and potential dust impacts during decommissioning works.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Locate machinery, fuel and chemical storage and dust generating activities away from site boundaries and sensitive receptors where possible;
¡ Utilising pre-fabricated materials to reduce cutting, grinding and sawing;;
¡ Using water suppressant systems or dampening down whenever possible;
¡ Use of dust extraction techniques if available;
¡ Pre-washing of work surfaces when scabbling;
¡ Screening off work areas;
¡ Secure cover for all skips, where possible;
¡ Minimising drop heights to control the fall of materials; and
¡ Sweeping and dampening down working area regularly to prevent the build-up of fine waste dust material.
Project activity: Stockpiling and storing of materials.
Impact: Potential dust release from stockpiled or stored materials.
Management objective: To prevent potential dust release and potential dust impacts from stockpiled and stored materials.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Ensure that stockpiles exist for the shortest possible time;
¡ Minimise surface areas of stockpiled material to reduce the surface area exposed to wind erosion;
¡ Do not build steep sided stockpiles or those that have sharp changes in shape;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 495
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Whenever possible, keep stockpiles away from the site boundaries, sensitive receptors and surface drains;
¡ If possible, keep stockpiles securely sheeted and only remove; and
¡ Covering and protecting of stored materials from wind and dampen stored materials where appropriate.
Project activity: Clearing of construction area (stripping of vegetation).
Impact: Stripping of vegetation may increase erosion, which has the potential to increase dust releases.
Management objective: To prevent erosion from barren areas, thereby preventing potential dust releases especially under dry and windy weather conditions.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Areas that may be prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident will be stabilised and/or re-vegetated; and
¡ The total footprint area to be disturbed / developed will be kept to a minimum by demarcating the construction areas and restricting construction to these
areas only.
Project activity: Haul road and construction traffic.
Impact: Potential dust release from traffic on haul roads.
Management objective: To prevent potential dust release and potential dust impacts from haul road traffic.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Use of hard surfaced roads where practicable;
¡ Regular inspection of haul roads for integrity and repair if required;
¡ Wheel and vehicle wash at exit of OLTIN YO’L GTL accommodation camp construction site;
¡ On-site speed limits;
¡ Regularly cleaning and dampening down of haul roads;
¡ Limit vehicles idling motors; and
¡ Covering of loads transported to and from site.

7.16.2 Ecology:
7.16.2.1 Avifauna
Table 7.27 describes the avifaunal mitigation measures that were identified for the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 496
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.27: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning & Closure Phase –Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Ecology - Avifauna
Project activity: Habitat restoration.
Impact: Positive impact. Removal of aboveground structures would eliminate the impacts to wildlife that occur during operation.
Management objective: To return the area to its initial condition, with possible increasing of steppe/pastures bird species.
Operational measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Re-contouring the site to the pre-development topography;
¡ Re-vegetation to be done according to a re-vegetation plan, using indigenous plant species. The re-vegetation plan shall be in line with the recommendations
of the ESHSIA Terrestrial ecology specialist study.
Project activity: Removing of OLTIN YO’L GTL Shift camp (accommodation site) structures.
Impact: Noise disturbance on the Turkestan Shrike Lanius phoenicuroides breeding population.
Management objective: To prevent this bird from leaving the breeding habitat in the early phase of breeding territories occupancy.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
th th
¡ High levels of noise pressures will be avoided during the early phase of the species’ breeding season, annually from May 11 to June 10 .
¡ Traffic and movements in the vicinities of the occupied area (100 m radius) will be restricted and controlled in the same period.

7.16.2.2 Terrestrial ecology (Fauna and Flora)

Table 7.28 describes the terrestrial ecology mitigation measures that have been identified for the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.28: Environmental Management Programme - Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Ecology - Terrestrial ecology
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Existing vegetation communities will be completely destroyed due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site
footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of vegetation communities.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Implement a properly developed rehabilitation plan to restore natural vegetation communities.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 497
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Project activity: Decommissioning phase

Impact: Red data plant species may be destroyed due to clearing of land for access roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of red data species
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Implement a properly developed rehabilitation plan to restore suitable habitat for floral red data species that may have existed in the project area before
commencement of project activities.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Floral species diversity may be reduced due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of floral species diversity.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Implement a properly developed rehabilitation plan to restore natural vegetation diversity.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Faunal species communities will be lost due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of faunal species communities.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Implement a properly developed rehabilitation plan to restore suitable habitat for faunal species communities may have existed in the project area before
commencement of project activities.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Faunal red data species may be lost due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of faunal red data species.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Implement a properly developed rehabilitation plan to restore suitable habitat for faunal red data species that may have existed in the project area before
commencement of project activities.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Faunal species diversity may be reduced due to clearing of land for roads and within the accommodation and OLTIN YO’L GTL site footprint.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of faunal species diversity.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Implement a properly developed rehabilitation plan to restore natural faunal species diversity.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Dust created by project activity and use of access roads will settle on the surrounding environment thereby reducing growth vitality of the vegetation and
contaminate the food source of the herbivores.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 498
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Management objective: To minimise the creation of dust.

Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Rehabilitate all roads and open areas to restore natural vegetation communities to stabilise loose soil.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Increase in invasive species.
Management objective: To minimise the increase in invasive species.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Maintain an environment management program in order to continually remove invasive species that may occur.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Due to complete removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities the footprint areas will no longer contain grazing pastures to be
utilised by livestock belonging to the local population.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of grazing pastures.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Implement a properly developed rehabilitation plan to restore natural vegetation communities.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Due to complete removal of vegetation to erect a plant and accommodation facilities the footprint areas will no longer be available to the local population
to plant crops.
Management objective: To minimise the loss of crop lands.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Implement a properly developed rehabilitation plan to restore natural vegetation communities.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: The presence of a large number of people and heavy equipment in the project area may cause trampling of the surrounding area thereby destroying
vegetation and cause disturbance to the faunal community which will disrupt their life patterns and possibly drive them away.
Management objective: To minimise the effect of increase human presence.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Limit human activity to rehabilitation sites.
Project activity: Decommissioning phase
Impact: Change in drainage patterns due to construction activity may result in erosion which will reduce vegetation and promote invasive species.
Management objective: To minimise the effect of changed drainage.
Mitigation measure: The following measure will be implemented:
¡ Restore original topography to original configuration as best as possible.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 499
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Project activity: Decommissioning phase

Impact: Oil spilled or leaking from motorised equipment will contaminate the soil and present a hazard to the fauna of the area.
Management objective: To prevent pollution by vehicle oil.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Regularly maintain motorised equipment in properly designed maintenance bays.
¡ Withdraw leaking equipment from service until such leaks are repaired.

7.16.3 Hydrogeology (groundwater)

Table 7.29describes the mitigation measures that have been identified for the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.29: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning & Closure Phase – Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Hydrogeology
Project activity: Decommissioning and closure activities
Impact: Erosion due to incomplete site rehabilitation.
Management objective: Ensure rehabilitation and groundwater recharge.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to mitigate potential hydrogeological impacts:
¡ Make allowance for the natural drainage lines to be restored;
¡ Vegetation will be used to stabilise the soil and avoid erosion; and
¡ Presence of vegetation will retain water in the soil and improve groundwater recharge (positive impact).
Project activity: Decommissioning and closure activities
Impact: Spill of hazardous materials during disassembling storage facilities.
Management objective: Ensure that soil and groundwater are not contaminated from spills during dismantling storage facilities.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to mitigate potential hydrogeological impacts:
¡ Ensure inspection of tanks and storage facilities before permission for dismantling is issued;
¡ Remove and dispose in a safe manner of all the residual materials from the storage facilities before dismantling; and
¡ Remediate (remove) any contaminated soil after the removal of the storage facilities.
Project activity: Decommissioning and closure activities
Impact: Temporary storage of materials and equipment.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 500
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Management objective: Ensure that soil and groundwater are not contaminated from temporary storage of materials and equipment during decommissioning.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to mitigate potential hydrogeological impacts:
¡ Establish a designated area for temporary storage;
¡ Limit the storage time; and
¡ Remediate (remove) any contaminated soil after the removal of equipment and materials.
Project activity: Decommissioning and closure activities
Impact: Closure and rehabilitation of landfill site.
Management objective: To close and rehabilitate the landfill site and avoid groundwater contamination.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to mitigate potential hydrogeological impacts:
1. The site will be, capped and sealed in compliance with international best practices to limit the generation of leachate; and
2. An approved environmental groundwater monitoring plan will be implemented after closure for the duration required by the authorities.

7.16.4 Visual and landscape aesthetics

Table 7.30 describes the visual and landscape aesthetics mitigation measures that have been identified for the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL
project.
Table 7.30: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning & Closure Phase – Scenario 1: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Visual and landscape aesthetics
Project activity: Dismantling and removal of all infrastructure from site
Impact: Introduction of visually incongruous and intrusive elements in the landscape
¡ No mitigation is recommended due to the low significance of the impact
Project activity: Implementation of standard rehabilitation measures including re-contouring of the landscape and re-installation of natural land cover
Impact: Improvement of the visual condition of the site
¡ No additional mitigation is recommended, as rehabilitation will result in an improvement of the visual condition of the site.

7.16.5 Noise
There is currently no detailed plans available regarding decommissioning. It is assumed that the noise levels and (thus impact) associated with this phase will be no
higher than that of the construction phase. The mitigation measures will therefore be similar to those described for the construction phase.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 501
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.16.6 Socio-economic aspects

See section 7.13. The evolution of socio-economic mitigation measures during construction and operation, will determine what decommissioning actions would be
required. Social investment projects initiated during operation shall be assessed prior to decommissioning and appropriate sustainable solutions shall be developed
during the operational phase so as to limit / prevent local communities experiencing an unfavourable employment / financial climate after decommissioning.

7.16.7 Soils
7.16.7.1 Mitigation measures for loss of the soil resource
The soil resource can be regarded as ‘lost’ when there is prevention of using it in its capacity of producing or sustaining vegetative matter. The project will result in a
loss of the soil resource during all of the phases. Although it cannot be mitigated, it can be regarded as a temporary loss, as at the end of the demolition phase the
soil will be restored back to its original state.

7.16.7.2 Mitigation measures for potential soil contamination

Table 7.31 describes the soil contamination mitigation measures that have been identified for the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.31: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil contamination –Decommissioning Phases: OLTIN YO’L GTL

Decommissioning Phase: Environmental mitigation measures

Soil - contamination
Project activity: Decommissioning phase: Vehicle/machinery presence and movement on site for soil stripping, stockpiling and restoration purposes. Human
activity on site.
Impact: Soil contamination as a result of vehicle/machinery presence and movement which bare potential for fuel/oil leaks and spills. Human activities, including
discard of construction materials or discard of domestic waste, may cause contamination to the soil resource.
Management objective: To prevent /reduce soil contamination emanating from fuel/oil spills and leaks and/or improper discards of waste.
Mitigation measures: The following measures should be implemented:
¡ Vehicles and machinery on the construction site must be subjected to daily inspections for possible leakages and damages that could cause leakage;
¡ Vehicles and machinery must be maintained regularly and kept in good working order;
¡ Maintenance tasks must be restricted to designated workshops and must not be conducted on site;
¡ Spill kits should be on-hand to deal with immediate oil/fuel spills;
¡ Adequate waste facilities must be provided and maintained at the plant and accommodation facilities; and
¡ Personnel must be trained to execute and respect waste management measures.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 502
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.16.7.3 Mitigation measures for potential soil compaction

Table 7.32 describes the soil contamination mitigation measures that have been identified for the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.32: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil compaction – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Soil – compaction
Project activity: Decommissioning phase: Reinstatement of topsoil and avoidance of compaction.
Impact: Soil compaction as a result of the movement of heavy vehicles and machinery and handling and levelling op topsoil, when in a moist or wet condition.
Management objective: To prevent /reduce soil compaction emanating from the specified activities
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Where possible, remove and place soils when dry, and not when moist or wet;
¡ After removal of infrastructure and prior to topsoil placing, the disturbed area must be ripped to loosen the soil surface;
¡ After restoration of the topsoil, a proper seedbed must be prepared for vegetation re-establishment;
¡ At this stage amelioration is recommended to raise the fertility status of the soil to a suitable level prior to seeding;
¡ Fertilizer requirements should then be evaluated at the time of rehabilitation as levels will change during the stockpiling period; and
¡ After restoration, traffic and movement over the restored area must be restricted to avoid damage to these areas.

7.16.7.4 Soil stability

Table 7.33 describes the soil stability mitigation measures that have been identified for the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.33: Environmental Management Programme for mitigation of potential soil compaction – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Soil
Project activity: Decommissioning phase: Reinstatement of topsoil and avoidance of compaction.
Impact: Soil compaction as a result of the movement of heavy vehicles and machinery and handling and levelling op topsoil, when in a moist or wet condition.
Management objective: To prevent /reduce soil compaction emanating from the specified activities
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Where possible, remove and place soils when dry, and not when moist or wet;
¡ After removal of infrastructure and prior to topsoil placing, the disturbed area must be ripped to loosen the soil surface;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 503
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Decommissioning Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

¡ After restoration of the topsoil, a proper seedbed must be prepared for vegetation re-establishment;
¡ At this stage amelioration is recommended to raise the fertility status of the soil to a suitable level prior to seeding;
¡ Fertilizer requirements should then be evaluated at the time of rehabilitation as levels will change during the stockpiling period; and
¡ After restoration, traffic and movement over the restored area must be restricted to avoid damage to these areas.

7.16.8 Hydrology (surface water)

Table 7.34: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: describes the surface water mitigation measures that have been identified for the
decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.34: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning & Closure Phase – Scenario 1: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Surface Water
Project activity: Decommissioning phase activities
Impact: Decommissioning may leave large barren areas that may increase erosion, which might increase the amount of suspended solids in downstream surface
water.
Management objective: To prevent erosion from barren areas, thereby preventing increased suspended solids in downstream surface water.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented:
¡ Areas that may be prone to erosion or where signs of erosion are evident will be stabilised. And re-vegetation will commence as soon as is practicable after
areas are cleared.
¡ Traffic and movement over stabilised areas will be restricted and controlled, and damage to stabilised areas shall be repaired and maintained to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Manager (or equivalent).

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 504
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.16.9 Waste management

The following mitigation measures are proposed for impacts identified during the decommissioning phase:

Table 7.35: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: describes the surface waste management measures that have been identified for
the decommissioning phase of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project.
Table 7.35: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning Phase: OLTIN YO’L GTL
Decommissioning & Closure Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
Waste Management
Project activity: Decommissioning and closure activities
Impact: Removal, dismantling and demolishment of existing infrastructure and equipment and the temporary storage of waste materials on the site.
Management objective: To limit the storage time and volumes of waste on the site after decommissioning.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts:
¡ All re-usable materials and equipment will be recycled as far as possible;
¡ Topsoil stockpiles preserved since the construction phase will be used to level and rehabilitate the area to its original condition;
¡ Natural vegetation of the area will be re-introduced on the site; and
¡ Hazardous waste that cannot be recycled will be disposed of via the existing off-site disposal system at the time or at the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site before
the landfill is finally closed and rehabilitated.
Project activity: Decommissioning and closure activities
Impact: Closure and rehabilitation of the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site.
Management objective: To close and rehabilitate the landfill site in accordance with local legislation and internationally acceptable best practices.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts:
¡ The site will be finally shaped, capped and sealed in compliance of a locally approved closure plan and international industry best practices to limit the
generation of leachate at the facility;
¡ An approved environmental monitoring plan (boreholes, air, capping integrity, vegetation etc.) will be implemented to monitor the facility after closure on an
on-going long-term basis for as long as required by the authorities; and
¡ Any deviations from set environmental requirements and standards during this period will be addressed immediately.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 505
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Decommissioning & Closure Phase: Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

Project activity: Decommissioning and closure activities
Impact: Temporary storage of dismantled used infrastructure materials, steel works, equipment, building rubble etc.
Management objective: To ensure waste materials are sorted and recycled wherever possible, minimizing the need for landfilling.
Mitigation measures: The following measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts:
¡ Dismantled and used materials will be sorted at source;
¡ Hazardous and contaminated waste will be disposed of at the OLTIN YO’L GTL landfill site or other suitable facilities;
¡ Landfilling of any waste will be implemented only as a last resort; and
¡ Any deviations from set environmental requirements and standards during this phase will be addressed immediately.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 506
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

7.17 Sampling and monitoring requirements for specific mitigation

measures
The following sampling and monitoring requirements should be undertaken to ensure that the mitigation
measures proposed are implemented in order to prevent or minimize environmental incidents that can result
in environmental impacts.

A formal Environmental and Social monitoring plan shall be implemented at the onset of the construction
phase and be maintained and updated annually through the lifetime of the OLTIN YO’L GTL project. The
following sections provide detail monitoring requirements to be included in the Environmental and Social
management plan of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility.

The monitoring requirements listed below, shall be implemented along with the mitigation measures
described in this chapter for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases, as applicable.

7.17.1 Air quality

Emissions monitoring and reporting at the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL Plant is necessary to prove ongoing
compliance with RUz and IFC Standards. It is therefore necessary to monitor emissions on a routine basis.

Ambient air quality monitoring

Meteorological information is already being collected by the Karshi meteorological station using continuous
monitors. It is recommended that OLTIN YO’L GTL considers establishing a mini meteorological station on /
or in the vicinity of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant.

Existing monitoring localities

During the ESHSIA air quality specialist study, baseline monitoring activities were undertaken to obtain data
on existing ambient concentrations pollutants. Diffusion tubes were placed at the following five strategically
selected localities:

¡ Existing SGCC Workers Compound;

¡ Proposed GTL Construction Camp;

¡ The proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL Site (near rail head);

¡ Otkuduk; and

¡ Navbahor.

These monitoring localities are situated as follows:

Table 7.36: Baseline air quality monitoring localities in the vicinity of the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site
Name Description Coordinates
UZ1 Otkuduk Village N 38º28’15.8” ; E 65º44’29.7”
UZ2 Existing SGCC Workers Compound N 38º28’18.7” ; E 65º49’37.7”
UZ3 Proposed GTL Construction Camp N 38º29’17.2” ; E 65º48’15.1”
UZ4 Navbahor village N 38º29’30.4” ; E 65º42’26.6”
OLTIN YO’L GTL Site (adjacent to
UZ5 N 38º28’03.0” ; E 65º47’34.0”
railway)

Monitoring was undertaken using passive diffusion tubes which are exposed to the atmosphere for 1 month
intervals (June to December to appropriately account for seasonal variation). These ranges of tubes are
attached to lamppost at elevated levels (or similar) at select locations representing potential sensitive
residential properties where possible. At the end of the exposure period, the exposed tubes were sent to the
UK for laboratory analysis. A certificate was then produced from the laboratory detailing the concentrations in
3
µg/m .

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 507
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Monitoring was undertaken for the following substances:

1) Nitric Oxides (NOx);

2) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2);

3) Sulphur Dioxide (SO2);

4) Ozone (O3); and

5) Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzenes and xylenes (BTEX)

For one month, analysis was undertaken for the top 20 petroleum related hydrocarbons. The objective was
to identify any potentially elevated background levels.

Additional monitoring localities

The monitoring plan shall make provision for in-stack continuous monitoring equipment being installed during
the construction of the OLTIN YO’L GTL facility. At minimum, in-stack monitoring equipment shall be
installed in the following stacks:
1) Unit 20 Reformer Furnaces (x 2);

2) Unit 50 Hydrocracker Reactor Feed Heater;

3) Unit 50 Hydroprocessing Furnace;

4) Unit 60 Hydrogen Production Furnace;

5) Unit 72 HP Steam Boilers (x3);

6) Unit 72 Fired Steam Superheater; and

7) Unit 81 Flare.

The following constituents shall be monitored in the applicable stacks:

1) Nitric Oxides (NOx);

2) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2);

3) Sulphur Dioxide (SO2);

4) Ozone (O3); and

5) Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzenes and xylenes (BTEX)

The sampling equipment to collect data must be well maintained and calibrated.

In addition, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) shall be monitored quarterly. On an annual basis, emissions
of CO2 and CH4 shall be determined and reported to financiers and the SCNP.

7.17.2 Groundwater
The hydrogeological investigation carried out to determine the baseline conditions in and around the study
area has facilitated the construction of four borehole pairs located just outside the footprint of the proposed
plant (see Table 7.37). .

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 508
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure7.8: Existing monitoring boreholes for the proposed OLTIN YO’L GTL facility.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 509
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table 7.37: Details of the hydrogeological monitoring localities on the OLTIN YO’L GTL site
Groundwater Groundwater
Coordinates Elevation (mamsl)
Hole ID Level elevation
Х Y Ground Casing mbgl mamsl
GW01 50638.15 6168.35 414.57 415.38 5.5 409.88
GW01S 50637.26 6155.80 414.33 415.12 5.4 409.72
GW02 50727.11 5384.21 406.44 407.19 6.5 400.69
GW02S 50734.31 5374.18 407.12 407.98 7.1 400.88
GW03 49512.98 5969.41 433.46 434.40 24.3 410.1
GW03S 49506.75 5965.95 433.61 434.46 n/a n/a
GW-05 49559 6347 * * * *
GW-05S 49562 6347 * * * *
* Not available
The boreholes were strategically positioned to address the following aspects

1) Provide groundwater information upstream from the plant (i.e. background – GW03 and GW03S)

2) Provided groundwater information on the area between the new plant and the existing plant (i.e.
Shurtan – GW05 and GW05S);

3) Provide groundwater information downstream from the proposed plant (GW01, GW01S, GW02; and
GW02S)

4) To be preserved and become permanent groundwater monitoring fixtures.

The groundwater monitoring programme shall be implemented and incorporated in the Environmental and
Social Monitoring Plan for the proposed development. The following basic groundwater monitoring
programme is proposed:

1) Groundwater levels to be recorded every month; and

2) Groundwater sampling and analysis biannually (dry and wet season)

The following in-organic constituents shall be analysed for:

¡ pH ¡ SO4

¡ EC ¡ Anions

¡ TDS ¡ NO3-N

¡ Ca ¡ NO2-N

¡ Mg ¡ F

¡ Na ¡ Al

¡ K ¡ Fe

¡ PALK ¡ Mn

¡ MALK ¡ N_Amonia

¡ Cl ¡ PO4-P
The following organic constituents shall be analysed for:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 510
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Mono Aromatic Hydrocarbons ¡ TPH volatile >C8 - C10

¡ Benzene ¡ TPH volatile (Sum C6 - C10)

¡ Toluene ¡ TPH

¡ Ethylbenzene ¡ TPH (C10-C12)

¡ o-Xylene ¡ TPH (C12-C16)

¡ m,p-Xylene ¡ TPH (C16-C21)

¡ Xylenes (sum) ¡ TPH (C21-C30)

¡ BTEX (sum) ¡ TPH (C30-C35)

¡ TPH volatile ¡ TPH (C35-C40)

¡ TPH volatile C6 - C8 ¡ TPH Sum (C10-C40)

The sampling equipment to collect data must be well maintained and calibrated.

Additional groundwater monitoring wells shall also be installed and monitored in the vicinity of landfarm and
waste landfill upon completion of construction to monitor impact of leachate in the soil and groundwater.

7.17.3 Hydrology (Surface water)

The hydrological investigation during the ESHSIA study, determined the baseline conditions around the
study area. Due to the regional location and the arid climate, no natural streams / rivers are present in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. Two surface water sampling localities were sampled (SW01 and SW02
presented in (Figure 7.9). SW01 represents the water quality of the receiving environment while SW02
represents the effluent disposal canal. According to the preliminary engineering design data available during
the time of the ESHSIA study, it is understood that effluent from the effluent treatment facility at the OLTIN
YO’L GTL plant site, shall be disposed of in the vicinity of SW02.

A surface water monitoring programme shall be implemented and incorporated in the Environmental and
Social Monitoring Plan for the proposed development. Once the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant is operational,
additional surface water monitoring facilities shall be identified and incorporated in the monitoring plan.
In addition, all effluent streams originating from the OLTIN YO’L GTL shall be sampled.

The following basic surface water monitoring programme is proposed:

1) Surface water samples shall be taken monthly at SW01 and SW02;

4) Continuous water sampling equipment shall be installed to sample effluent originating on the OLTIN
YO’L GTL plant site and flowing via the biological treatment facility and effluent treatment facility, to the
environment.

For the surface water monitoring points (SW01 and SW02) the following constituents shall be analysed for
on a monthly basis:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 511
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 7.9: Map indicating the location of the surface water monitoring localities sampled during the baseline determination of the ESHSIA hydrology specialist study

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 512
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Chromium (VI) ¡ o-Xylene

¡ Strontium (Sr) ¡ m,p-Xylene

¡ Arsenic (As) ¡ Xylenes (sum)

¡ Calcium (Ca) ¡ BTEX (sum)

¡ Cadmium (Cd) ¡ Oils and fats IR (TCE)

¡ Cobalt (Co) ¡ Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

¡ Chromium (Cr) ¡ Total suspended solids

¡ Copper (Cu) ¡ Organic compounds - Dry residue

¡ Iron (Fe) ¡ Ammonia as NH4-N

¡ Mercury (Hg) ¡ Ammonia (NH4)

¡ Potassium (K) ¡ Chemical oxygen demand (COD)

¡ Magnesium (Mg) ¡ Chloride

¡ Molybdenum (Mo) ¡ Nitrate equivalent NO3-N

¡ Nickel (Ni) ¡ Nitrate (NO3)

¡ Phosphorus total (P) ¡ Nitrite as NO2-N

¡ Phosphorus total (PO4) ¡ Nitrite (NO2)

¡ Phosphorus total (P2O5) ¡ Sulphate dissolved (SO4)

¡ Lead (Pb) ¡ Sulphate expressed as (SO4-S)

¡ Selenium (Se) ¡ Thiocyanide (calculated)

¡ Zinc (Zn) ¡ Cyanide total

¡ Benzene ¡ Cyanides EPA (335.3)

¡ Toluene ¡ Total Phenoles

¡ Ethylbenzene ¡ BOD5

Recognised continuous effluent sampling equipment shall be installed at strategic localities in the effluent
reticulation system, particularly where the effluent exits the OLTIN YO’L GTL plant site. Appropriate indicator
constituents that can be sampled accurately and cost effectively (e.g. Electrical Conductivity), shall be
identified for the continuous sampling. Effluent shall be sampled at minimum on a monthly basis, and
analysed for the following:

¡ BOD20 ¡ Ammonia Nitrogen (NH4)

¡ COD ¡ Phosphates (PO4)

¡ Free Oil and Grease ¡ Sulphates (SO4)

¡ Iron (Fe) ¡ Total Dissolved Solids

¡ M-Alkalinity

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 513
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

The sampling equipment to collect data must be well maintained and calibrated.

7.17.3.1 Zero discharge management

17
The zero discharge philosophy at OLTIN YO’L GTL dictates that the fate of all water from clean paved
areas is essentially destined for the discharge channel situated outside the plant or for re-use within the
plant. However, prior to discharge this water is routed to a clean stormwater pond (CSP) and assessed for
discharge water quality standards as mentioned above. It is recommended that this zero discharge be
achieved by a systematic and continuous reduction of harmful discharges and therefore a reduction in the
risk of environmental impact. The harmfulness of the discharges depends on chemical properties of the
water in the CSP, the amount of chemicals discharged (load) as well as time of the discharge.
3
The conceptual water balance provided indicates a likely winter design base treated volume of 252 m /h to
the discharge channel, according to document UZGTL-F2-PRO-HM-00052.

The discharge must meet the lesser of the following industry specific IFC effluent discharge guidelines (IFC,
2007), WHO drinking water quality guidelines (WHO, 2011) and local Uzbek Wastewater Discharge
Specifications for domestic use.
Table 7.38: IFC effluent guidelines for Natural Gas Processing Facilities, the WHO guidelines for
drinking water and local Domestic water use guidelines.
WHO 2011
IFC Guideline Domestic
Pollutant Units 18 Guideline 19
Value Water Use
Value
pH - 6 to 9 6.5 to 8.5 6.5 to 8.5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand b c
mg/l 50 - 3 to 6
(BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/l 150 - 40
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/l 50 - 30
Total Residual Chlorine mg/l 0.2 0.2 -
Oil and Grease mg/l 10 - -
a
Aluminium (Al) mg/l - 0.1 -
Ammonia mg/l - 1.5 2
Arsenic (As) mg/l 0.05
Boron mg/l - 2.4 -
Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.1 0.003 0.01
a
Chloride (Cl) mg/l - 250 350
Chromium (Total Cr) mg/l 0.5 0.05 -
Chromium (VI) mg/l 0.05
Cobalt (Co) mg/l 1
Copper (Cu) mg/l 0.5 2 1
Dissolved ether mg/l 0.8
Fluoride (F) mg/l - 1.5 1.5
Free Cyanide (CN) mg/l 0.1 - 0.1

17
Zero discharge is not a standard or a discharge level, but more a strategy or a philosophy and in line with the precautionary principle. Also see section 2.0.
18
95th percentile value
19
Maximum permissible concentration value

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 514
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

WHO 2011
IFC Guideline Domestic
Pollutant Units 18 Guideline 19
Value Water Use
Value
a
Iron (Fe) mg/l 3 0.3 0.3
Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.1 0.01 0.1
a
Manganese (Mn) mg/l - 0.1 -
Mercury (Hg) mg/l 0.0005
Molybdenum (Mo) mg/l 0.5
Nickel (Ni) mg/l 1.5 0.07 0.1
Nitrate (NO3- as N) mg/l 10.2
Nitrite (NO2- as N) mg/l 0.5
Nitrogen (N) mg/l 40* - 12.7
Petrochemicals mg/l 0.3
Phenol mg/l 0.5 - 0.001
Phosphorus (P) mg/l 3* - -
Selenium (Se) mg/l - 0.04 -
a
Sodium (Na) mg/l - 200 -
Strontium (Sr) mg/l - - 2
a
Sulphate (SO4) mg/l - 250 500
Total Cyanide (Total CN) mg/l 1 - -
Total Heavy Metals mg/l 5 - -
Zinc (Zn) mg/l 1 4 1
a
Value is based on aesthetic requirement, thus what is an acceptability aspect. These are Chemicals for which guideline values have
not been established.
b
Value reported as a 5-day BOD
c
Value reported as a 20-day BOD
* Value assumed total element species

7.17.4 Greenhouse gasses

A construction sector GHG protocol has been developed by ENCORD (European Network of Construction
Companies for Research and Development), to provide guidance on how an organisation within the
construction sector can measure and report its GHG emissions. The protocol sets out minimum requirements
20
for measuring and reporting emissions in order to meet best practice . The ENCORD protocol defines three
specific areas of operation as follows:

¡ Off-site production and transport of materials used for construction;

¡ Project design and construction (civil engineering or building, including demolition and refurbishment,
and on-site materials manufacture);

¡ Project operation (the management and / or use of the final product).

20
The guidance is developed to complement the methodology of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard March 2004 revision, developed by
the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The sector guidance has been reviewed by the GHG Protocol and is in
conformance with the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 515
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 7.10: ENCORD Protocol operational definitions

The “construction” operations defined above have not been quantified as part of this GHG footprint for the
following reasons:

1) Insufficient accurate input data exists to enable a reasonable estimate of GHG emissions to be made;

2) The construction operations GHG footprint should be accountable only to the construction contractors
and sub-contractors working on the site, to avoid double-accounting of GHG;

3) Insufficient information exists regarding demolition or refurbishment of the facility at this stage.

Reporting mechanisms shall be put in place in order to quantify the GHG footprint during the various project
stages and reported on appropriately.

7.17.5 Socio-economic Monitoring and evaluation

7.17.5.1 Economy and employment
Monitoring requirements related to economic impacts include:

¡ Monitoring and disclosure of all royalties, taxes and profit sharing paid to national, regional and local
government;

¡ Monitoring and disclosure of total sum collected from Gifts Policy, including total donated to charity;

¡ Disclosure of Human Resources Policy;

¡ Disclosure of policy of non-discrimination (if not included in Human Resources Policy);

¡ Disclosure of Recruitment Policy;

¡ Documentation and reporting of training provided to all workers;

¡ Documentation and disclosure of employment statistics, including proportion of expatriate workers,

workers from the local and regional areas, and other demographic information (gender, ethnic group,
etc.) that demonstrates OLTIN YO’L GTL’s commitment to non-discrimination and equal opportunity;

¡ Documentation and reporting on all worker grievances;

¡ Monitoring in-country procurement; and

¡ Monitoring inflationary impacts through regular engagement with stakeholders.

7.17.5.2 Health, education and community safety
Monitoring requirements related to economic impacts include:

¡ Disclosure of HIV Policy;

¡ Documentation and reporting on all grievances;

¡ Documentation and reporting of inductions provided to all security employees and contractors, including
government-managed security personnel;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 516
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Documentation of driver training and records on driving safety for contractors verified; and

¡ Records of road accidents maintained and reported regularly.

7.17.5.3 Land ownership and use
No displacement, therefore no mitigation measures are applicable.

7.17.6 Noise
The requirements for noise monitoring are as follows:

1) Construction noise shall be monitored on a monthly basis during (a) day-time construction and (b) night
time construction.

2) Noise monitoring localities shall be in line with the monitoring localities as presented in the Noise
Specialist study of this ESHSIA, and as show below in Figure 7.11.

3) Calibrated noise monitoring equipment shall be operated by a suitably qualified person.

4) Monitoring standards:
Due to the absence of any local guidance specifically related to construction noise, the ESHSIA specialist
21
study referred to the British Standard document BS 5228:2009 as detailed below.
Table 7.39: Construction Noise Assessment Periods and Lower Thresholds
Category A Category B Category C
Assessment Category and
Threshold Value Threshold Value Threshold Value
Threshold Value Period (LAeq)
dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
Night-time
45 50 55
2300-0700

Evenings and Weekends

1900-2300 Weekdays
55 60 65
1300-2300 Saturdays
0700-2300 Sundays

Daytime
0700-1900 Weekdays 65 70 75
0700-1300 Saturdays

During the Noise specialist study, the predicted noise emissions during construction were as presented in
Table 7.40. Noise monitoring programmes shall monitor whether the construction noise emitted is
maintained within the modelled amounts. Should there be significant deviation from these amounts;
additional mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise emissions to within these acceptable
limits.
Table 7.40: Predicted Construction Noise Levels
Predicted Noise Levels (dB LAeq)
Receptor Construction Construction Construction
Stage 1 – Ground Stage 2 – Piling and Stage 3 – Erection of
Improvement Works Foundations Structures
R1 Otkuduk Village 37.4 56.5 34.2
R2 SGCC Staff
38.9 57.4 35.4
Complex
R3 Construction Camp 43.2 59.6 37.7
R4 Navbahor Village 26.8 51.0 19.4

21
BSI (2009); British Standard 5228-1:2009 – Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1:Noise

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 517
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Figure 7.11: Noise monitoring localities

7.18 Emergency Response Plan

All emergencies shall be handled according to the existing OLTIN YO’L GTL Emergency Plan. OLTIN YO’L
GTL’s Emergency Response Team shall provide immediate response to any significant incident, and the
emergency contingency plan will also be integrated with that of the local Municipality, if required.

7.18.1 Emergency plan preparation

When preparing additional measures for emergency, the following aspects will be taken into account:

¡ An evacuation procedure that is consistent to that of the neighbouring SGCC plant, and which includes
the consideration of shelter in case of gas releases;

¡ Detail of the method for identifying and accounting for the number of persons on site at all times;

¡ Means of visitor control;

¡ All employees, contractors and visitors will be made aware / trained on the contents of the Emergency
plan;

¡ Allocated responsibilities and specific action details;

¡ Training of staff to manage emergencies on site;

¡ Frequency of revision and update of the plan;

¡ A procedure for activating the emergency plan;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 518
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ An Emergency Control Centre (ECC) available on site, complete with:

§ Copies of the most recent version of the emergency plan and the most recent version of the site
layout and location plans / maps;

§ Diagrams of those service facilities, communications, fire hydrants, safety refuges, building
emergency exits and muster points required in an emergency;

§ Relevant equipment for both internal and external communications;

§ A readily available means of recording messages and communications in chronological order; and
§ Sufficient room to accommodate the emergency management personnel.

¡ Emergency resources including but not limited to:

§ On-site first aid services and facilities are available;

§ A vehicle, suitable for the transport of casualties, is available on site at all times;
§ Fixed location fire fighting equipment (extinguishers, host reels, etc.) is distributed and located
where necessary, accordingly to a risk analysis and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s
instructions; and

§ A fire water main system, which would include a fire water source. The coordination and approach
regarding these resources must be consistent with the neighbouring SGCC plant.

¡ An incident command protocol must be drawn up and agreed upon by the local Fire Service to avoid
conflict when they arrive on site for large incidents, and

¡ A Mutual Aid corporation agreement with the existing SGCC site should be negotiated where possible
although in the current Uzbek context, this is not allowed. Discussions with Government is currently
underway, and should Government approve cooperation in future, such an agreement should address
all relevant factors, such as financial contributions by both parties, maintenance of equipment,
emergency response plan shared between the two sites, location of emergency response vehicles,
training etc.

7.18.2 Optimisation
The ERP will be optimised and finalised at the appropriate time during Project development. Communication with both
internal and external stakeholders will be provided for in the ERP.

7.19 General duty of care

OLTIN YO’L GTL shall comply with the general duty of care principles. Although, the principles were
considered during the formulation of this ESHMP and included in the ESHMP where relevant, the ultimate
duty of care throughout the Project lifespan remains with OLTIN YO’L GTL.

Generally, landholders/project proponent/companies etc. have a statutory obligation of duty of care relating
to SHERQ management. This implies that entities (e.g. OLTIN YO’L GTL) are responsible for managing their
SHERQ related impacts throughout the lifespan of the project (and in some instances thereafter), and must
take all reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm to the receiving environment (biological, physical,
social). The ‘cradle to grave principle’ used widely in the waste management field (where a company remains
responsible for waste even if it has been handed over to a third party) illustrates how the duty of care
principle is made relevant to a specific aspect such as waste.

The three basic components of the duty of care principle are:

¡ sustainable use of natural resources;

¡ conservation of biological diversity;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 519
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ avoidance of harm to people.

Duty of care therefore requires OLTIN YO’L GTL to take reasonable measures (“care” ie. the requirements of
this ESHMP as well as the future Environmental Management System and any other relevant company
polies, procedures and work instructions) to prevent, minimise and rectify pollution and environmental
degradation. Liability in terms of general duty of care is normally strict and retrospective.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 520
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Block C, Bellevue Campus
5 Bellevue Road
Kloof
KwaZulu Natal
South Africa
T: [+27] (31) 717 2790
 January 2014

OLTIN YO'L GAS TO LIQUIDS PROJECT

SECTION 8.0 - BIBLIOGRAPHY

Environmental, Social, Health

and Safety Impact Assessment
(ESHSIA)
Performed on behalf of:
OLTIN YO'L GTL
41/4 Mirabadskaya Street,
Mirabad District 100015 Tashkent,
Republic of Uzbekistan.
REPORT

Report Number. 12614848-12330-10

Distribution:
1 x copyOLTIN YO'L GTL
2 x copies: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

Table of Contents

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................... 519

8.1 General references used by the ESHSIA team ......................................................................................... 519

8.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 519

8.3 Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................... 520

8.4 Cultural Heritage ....................................................................................................................................... 526

8.5 Ecosystems Services ................................................................................................................................ 526

8.6 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................. 527

8.7 Health Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 528

8.8 Landscape and Visual Assessment .......................................................................................................... 529

8.9 Noise Assessment .................................................................................................................................... 529

8.10 Radiation Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 529

8.11 Social and Economic Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 530

8.12 Soil Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 531

8.13 Surface Water Specialist Study ................................................................................................................ 532

8.14 Waste specialist study .............................................................................................................................. 532

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 i
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
8.1 General references used by the ESHSIA team
¡ Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. 08 December 1992.

¡ Bertling Global Project Logistics (2012) ‘Uzbekistan Gas to Liquids Priject: Delivery of Oversized &
Overweight Equipment to Shurtan. (Report no. HL-C-183-Report003);

¡ Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On environmental protection” № 754-XII as of 9 December, 1992
(with subsequent changes).

¡ International Finance Corporation; Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines; GENERAL
EHS GUIDELINES.

¡ International Finance Corporation; Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines; NATURAL GAS
PROCESSING.

¡ International Finance Corporation; Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines; LNG
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES; and

¡ Sasol Uzbekistan GTL Project, Outbound Supply Chain Update, 2012.

¡ State Environmental Impact Stetement, Ref No. 18/1143z. 12 December 2012. JV Warley Parsons
Uzbekistan Engineering.

¡ Uzbekistan Gas to Liquid Project; SH&E Design Basis; UZGTL-01-2 (Revision 03)
8.2 Air Quality
¡ Design Manual For Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3
Environmental Assessment Techniques. Highways Agency, May 2007.

¡ Environment Agency (2010); H1 Environmental Risk Assessment- Annex F

¡ Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2002). Technical
Instructions on Air Quality Control – TA Luft.

¡ Highways Agency (May 2007); Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11
Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques.

¡ IFC (2012); Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines. General EHS Guidelines: Environmental. Air
Emissions and Ambient Air. April 2007.

¡ IFC. Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines. Natural gas Processing. April 2007.

¡ OAO “O’ZLITINEFTGAZ Regulatory EIA: Stage 2 EIS GTL.

¡ Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005). Planning Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and
Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England. Annex1: Dust.

¡ Ostro, B (2004); assessing the environmental burden of disease at National and Local levels. Geneva,
World Health Organisation (WHO Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 5)

¡ SanPiN of RU, N 0179-04. Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) of Contaminants in Community

Air.

¡ Technip Italy S.p.A (2010); Uzbekistan GTL Project, UZGTL-01-2 rev: 01. SH&E Design basis.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 519
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

8.3 Biodiversity
¡ Alerstam, T, and Lindström, A (1990); Optimal bird migration: the relative importance of time, energy
and safety. In Bird migration: the physiology and ecophysiology (ed. E. Gwinner), pp. 331-51. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin.

¡ Alvo, R (1986); Lost loons of the northern lakes, Natural History 9/86, 59-64.

¡ Andren, H (1994); Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different
proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355-366.

¡ Askins, RA (1995); Hostile landscapes and the decline of migratory songbirds. Science 267:1956-1957.

¡ Askins, RA, Lynch, JF, and Greenberg, R (1990); Population declines in migratory birds in eastern
North America. Pages 1-58 in D. M. Power, editor. Current ornithology. Volume 7. Plenum Press, New
York, New York, USA.

¡ Awbrey FT, and Hunsaker D (1997); Effects of fixed-wing military aircraft noise in california gnatcatcher
reproduction. J. Acost. Soc. Am., Vol 102 (5): 3177.

¡ Barbault, R, and Sastrapradja, SD (1995). Generation, maintenance and loss of biodiversity. Global
Biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp.193–274.

¡ Bibby, CJ, Burgess, ND, Hill, DA, and Mustoe, SH (2000); Bird Census Techniques, Second edition.
Academic Press, London

¡ BirdLife International (2008); Persistent organic pollutants stay in the environment, affecting humans
and wildlife. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available from:
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/178.

¡ BirdLife International (2008a); Pollution from agriculture, forestry and industry has significant impacts on
birds. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available from:
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/155.

¡ Backhurts CG, Pearson DJ, 1977 - Ethiopian Region Birds Attracted to the Lights of Ngulia Safari
Lodge, Kenya. Scopus, 1: 98-103.

¡ Bascompte, J, and Sole, RV (1996); Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds in spatially explicit
models. Journal of Animal Ecology 65:465-473.

¡ Bender DJ, Contreras TH, and Fahrig L (1998); Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of
the patch size effect. Ecology, 79: 517-533.

¡ Bennett ,AF (1991). Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: a review. In Nature Conservation 2: the
Role of Corridors (DA Saunders and RJ Hobbs, eds), pp. 99-118. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty and
Sons.

¡ Bernard, JM, Lansiart, M, Kempf, C, and Tille, M (1987); “Routes et Fauna Sauvage: actes du
colloque”. Co,mar. SETRA.

¡ Bräutigam, H (1978); Vogelverluste auf einer Fernverkehrsstrasse von 1974 bis 1977 in den Kreisen
Altenburg und Geithain. Orn. Mitt. 30: 147-149.

¡ Bretherton BJ, 1902 - The destruction of birds by lighthouses. Osprey, 1(5): 76-78.

¡ Brouwer, J (1992); Road-kills of three nightjar species near Niamey, Niger. Malimbus 14 (1): 16-18.

Bruun-Schmidt, J (1994); [Traffic killed animals in relation to landscape, topography and type of road].
Upubliceret specialerapport, Odense Universitet, Biologisk Institut.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 520
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Bultot, J (1996); Operation Chevéche. L’Homme et l’Oiseau 2: 101-107.

¡ Busnel RG (1978); Introduction in Fletcher, J.L. & Busnel, R.G. (eds.). Effects of noise on wildlife.
Academic Press: 7-22.

¡ Cramp, S, and Gooders, J (1967); The return of the house martin, London Bird Report 31, London

¡ Dickerson, L M (1939); The problem of wildlife destruction by vehicle mobile traffic. J. Wildl. Manage. 3:
104–116.

¡ Douthwaite, R J (1992); Effects of DDT on the Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer population of Lake Kariba
in Zimbabwe. Ibis 134: 250-258.

¡ Drent, PJ and Woldendorp, JW (1989); Acid rain and eggshells, Nature 339.

¡ Dudley, N, and Stolton, S (1995); Air pollution and biodiversity: a review.

http://www.equilibriumresearch.com/upload/document/airpollutionandbiodi4f9.pdf

¡ Ellenberg, H, Müller, K, Stottele, T, (1981); Strassen-Ökologie. In “Ökologie un Strasse” (KH Walper, H

Ellenberg, H Müller, T Stottele, eds), pp. 19-115. Bonn: Broschürenreihe der Deutschen Strassenliga.

¡ Ellis, DH, Hjertaas, D, Johns, BW, and Urbanek (1998); Use of a helicopter to capture flighted cranes. –
Wild. Soc. Bull. 26(2): 103-107

¡ Emlen ST, 1967 - Migratory orientation in the Indigo bunting, Passerina Cyanea. Auk, 84: 309-342, 463-
489.

¡ Eriksson, MOG (1984); Acidification of lakes: Effects on waterbirds in Sweden, Ambio 13: 260-262

¡ Eriksson, MOG (1985); Prey detectability for fish-eating birds in relation to fish density and water
transparency, Ornis Scandinavia 16: 1-7.

¡ Eriksson, MOG (1986); Reproduction of black-throated diver Gavis arctica in relation to fish density in
oligotrophic lakes in southwestern Sweden, Ornis Scandinavica 17.

¡ Eriksson, MOG (1986), Fish delivery, production of young, and nest density of osprey (Pandion
halietus) in southern Sweden, Canadian Journal of Zoology 64.

¡ Eriksson, MOG (1987); Storlommens Gavia arctica produktion av ungar I sydvastvenska sjoar, Var
Fagelvarld 39: 163-166.

¡ Erritzoe, J (2002); Bird traffic casualties and road quality for breeding birds. A summary of existing
papers with a bibliography. www.birdresearch.uk.

¡ Erritzoe, J, Mazgajski, TD, and Rejt, Ł (2003): Bird casualties on European roads — a review. Acta
Ornithologica 38: 77-93.

¡ Fahrig, L (1997); Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of
Wildlife Management 61: 603-610.

¡ Fajardo, I, and Babiloni, G (1996); Estado de conservación de la rapaces nocturnas (O. Estrigiformes)
en el Mediterráneo Occidental. in: Muntaner, J. & J. Majol (eds.): Biology and Conservation of
Mediterranean Raptors. Monografias 4. SEO, Madrid.

¡ Fajardo, I, Pividal, V, Trigo, M, and Jiménez, M (1998); Habitat selection, activity peaks and strategies
to avoid road mortality by the Little Owl Athene noctua. Alauda 66 (1): 49-60.

¡ Flather, CH, and Sauer, JR (1996); Using landscape ecology to test hypotheses about large-scale
abundance patterns in migratory birds. Ecology 77: 28-35.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 521
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Flint, VE, Boeheme, RL, Kostin, YV, and Kuznetsov, AA (1984). A field guide to the Birds of the USSR.
Princeton University Press.

¡ Fornasari, 2002. Malpensa airport and bird migration: a matter of light pollution. In Cinzano P. (ed.):
Light Pollution and the Protection of Night Environment; Proceedings of the IDA Regional Meeting,
pp.123-135. ISTIL, Thiene, Italy.

¡ Fornasari L, and Brambilla S (2004); Linee guida per il monitoraggo delgi uccelli in Italia [Guidelines for
Breeding Bird Monitoring in Italy]. Report to the Italian Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservancy
Service. Unpublished.

¡ Fornasari, L (1997); I rapporti tra i Vertebrati e il paesaggio: teoria ed esempi. In Ingegnoli V. (ed.):
Esercizi di ecologia del paesaggio. UTET, Milano, Italy, pp.131-168.

¡ Fornasari, L, ed (2003); La migrazione degli uccelli ne.lla Valle del Ticino e l’impatto di Malpensa.
Consorzio Parco Lombardo della Valle del Ticino, Magenta, Italy.

¡ Fornasari, L, and Calvi, G (2003). Direzione Aeroporto Cantonale di Lovehicle no, Progetto
Aggiornamento Infrastrutture (progetto 2000); Stima dell’impatto sull’avifauna delle Bolle di Magadino.
FaunaViva, Rapporto alle autorità cantonali (unpublished).

¡ Gauthreaux SA Jr, Belser CG, 1999 - The behavioural response of migrating birds to different lighting
systems on tall tower. In: Proceedings Workshop on Avian Mortality at Communication Towers, Cornell
University.

¡ Gerdes, K, and Reepmeyer, H (1983); Zur räu Verteilung überwinternder Saat-und Blessgänse (Anser
fabalis und A. Albifrons) in Abhängigkei von naturschutzschädlichen und fördernder Einflüssen. –
Vogelwelt 104: 54-70.

¡ Glue, DE (1973); Seasonal mortality in four small birds of prey. Ornis Scand. 4: 97-102.

¡ Göransson, G, and Karlsson, J (1978); Changes in population densities as monitored by animals killed
on roads. Statens Naturvårdsverk. PM 1151. Sweden.

¡ Göransson, G, Karlsson, J, and Lindgren, A (1978); Vägars inverkan på omgivande natur. Rapport från
Statens Naturvårdsverk. p.124.

¡ Granacher, A (1985); Untersuchungen zum Einfluss von Fluglärm auf Produktivität, Verhalten und
Mortalität in der Mastputenhaltung. Dissertation, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover. 128 S.

¡ Green, GH, Greenwood, JJD, and Lloyd, CS (1977); The influence of snow conditions on the date of
breeding of wading birds in north-east Greenland. J. Zool. (London) 183:311-328.

¡ Günther, U (1979); Eine Untersuchung zur Frage der Gefährdung unserer Vogelwelt durch des
Straßenverkehr. Thüringer Ornithologische Mitteilungen 25: 3-14.

¡ Gwinner G, 1971 - Orienterung. In: Schutz E. (ed.): Grundib der Vogelzugskunde. Parey Verlag, Berlin,
pp. 299-348.

¡ Haas, W (1964); Verluste von Vögeln und Säugern auf Vehicle strassen. Orn. Mitt. 16 (12): 245-250.

¡ Hansen, L (1969): Trafikdøden i den danske dyreverden. Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidskrift 63: 81-
92.

¡ Haramis, GM (1984); Acid alteration of experimental wetlands: Effects on diversity and abundance of
macroinvertebrates and growth, behaviours and survival of juvenile black ducks, Draft research
summary, US Food and Wildlife Service, Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Kearneyville, WV

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 522
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Kerbs JR, Wilson JD, Bradbury RB, and Siriwardena GM (1999); The second silent spring.
Commentary in Nature, 400: 611-612.

¡ Harrisson, T (1954); Nightjars sitting on roads at night. Ibis 96: 626.

¡ Hernandez, M (1988); Road mortality of the Little Owl (Athena noctua) in Spain. Journal of Raptor
Research 22 (3): 81-84.

¡ Hilgerloh, G (1990); Ungewöhnliches Verhalten von Zugvögeln in Gibraltar: Störung durch Flugzeuge.
J. Ornithol. 131: 311-316.

¡ Husselquist, D, Bensch, S, and von Schantz, T (1995); Low frequency of extrapair paternity in the
polygynous great reed warbler, Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Behavioral Ecology, 6: 27–38

¡ IBCC (1969); Recommendations for an international standard for mapping method in bird census work.
Bird Study, 16: 248-255.

¡ Il’Ichev, VD.(1995); Bird songs in the industrial noise-polluted environment. Dodklady Biol. Sci. 345:
604-605.

¡ Illner, H (1992); Road deaths of Westphalian owls: methodological problems, influence of road type and
possible effects on population levels. UK Nat. Conserv. No. 5: 94-100.

¡ IUCN (2010); IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 07 December 2010.

¡ Iuell, B, ed (2003); “Wildlife and Traffic. A European handbook for Identifying Conflicts and Designing
Solutions”. KNNV Publishing.

¡ Johansson, O, and Eriksson, MOG (1987); Häckningsframgång och utbredning hos forsärla Motacilla
cinerea i sydrästra Sverige; en jämförelse mellan sura och icke sura rattendrag, Vår Fågelvärld 46, 365-
374

¡ Kempf, N, and Hüppop, O (1998); Wie wirken Flugzeuge auf Voegel? Eine bewertende Uebersicht.
Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 30: 17-28.

¡ Kerlinger, P, Lein, MR (1988); Causes of mortality, fat condition, and weights of wintering Snowy Owls.
J. Field Orn. 59: 7-12.

¡ Komenda–Zehnder, S, and Bruderer B (2002); Einfluss des Flugverkehrs auf die Avufauna –
Literaturestudie. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr 344, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern.

¡ Lanovenko, EN, and Kreuzberg, EA (2002); On the status of the Common Crane in Uzbekistan. Cranes
of Eurasia (distribution, numbers, biology). Collected scientific works. Moscow, pp. 178-182.

¡ Lanovenko, EN (2004); On the wintering of Common Crane in Uzbekistan in 2003-2004. Information

bulletin Crane Working Group of Eurasia. No7-8: pp. 72-73.

¡ Lanovenko, EN, Filatov, AK, Ten, AG, and Filatova, EA (2007); The experience of the monitoring of the
Common Crane in southern Uzbekistan. Biodiversity of Uzbekistan – monitoring and use. Tashkent, pp.
89-98.

¡ Leedy, DL, and Adams, LW (1982); Wildlife Considerations in Planning and Managing Highway
Corridors. Report No. FWHA-TS-82-212, Office of Research, Federal Highway Administration, US
Department of Administration, Washington.

¡ Maczey, N, and Boye, P (1995); Lärmwirkungen auf Tiere – ein Naturschutzproblem? Auswertung einer
Fachtagung des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz. Natur und Landschaft 70: 545-549.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 523
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Marchant, JT (1983); BTO Common Bird Census Instructions. BTO, Tring, Herts, UK.

¡ Marler, P, Konishi, M, Lutjen, A, and Waser, MG (1973); Effects of continuous noise on avian hearing
and vocal development. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 70(5): 1393-1396.

¡ Martens, J (1962); Gefährdung der Vogelwelt durch Kraftwagen. Orn. Mitt. 14: 221.

¡ Massa, R, and Fornasari, L (1999); Demografia delle popolazioni selvatiche. In R.Massa and
V.Ingegnoli (eds), “Biodiversità estinzione e conservazione”, UTET Libreria, Torino, Italy, pp. 107-125.

¡ Maurer, BA, and Heywood, SG (1993); Geographic range fragmentation and abundance in Neotropical
migratory birds. Conservation Biology 7: 501-509.

¡ Meltofte, H (1985); Populations and breeding schedules of waders, Charadrii, in high Arctic Greenland.
Bioscience 16:1-43.

¡ Merriam, G (1984); Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. Pages 5-

15 in Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research
and Planning. International Association for Landscape Ecology, Roskilde, Denmark.

¡ Miller GT, (2004); Sustaining the Earth, 6th edition. Thompson Learning, Inc. Pacific Grove, California.
Chapter 9, pp. 211-216.

¡ Moreau, RE, (1972); The Paleartic-African Bird Migration Systems. London, New York: Academic
Press, pp. 1-384.

¡ Newman, J, Novakova, RE, and McClave, JT (1985); The influence of industrial air emissions on the
nesting ecology of the house martin Delichon urbica in Czechoslovakia, Biological Conservation 31,
229-248

¡ Nijland, G, Weinreich, JA, and Wiertz, J (1982). De invloed van wegen en verkeer op de natuur. RIN-
rapport 82/22. Leersum: Rijksinstituut voor Naturbeheer.

¡ Newton, I, Wyllie, I, and Asher, A (1991); Mortality causes in British Barn Owls Tyto alba, with a
discussion of aldrin-dieldrin poisoning. Ibis 133: 162-169.

¡ Nikolaus G, Pearson DJ, 1983 - Attraction of Nocturla Migrants to Car Headlights in the Sudan Red Sea
Hills. Scopus, 7: 19-20

¡ Novelli, R, Takase, E, and Castro, V (1988). Astudo das aves mortas por atropelamento em um trecho
da Rodovia BR-471, entre os distritos da Quinta e Taim, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Revta Bras. Zool. 5:
441-454.

¡ Nyholm, NEI, Sawicka-Kapusta, K, and Swiergosz, R (1995); Effects of environmental pollution on

breeding populations of birds in southern Poland [abstract only], reprint from Acid Rain '95, 5th
International Conference on Acidic Deposition, Göteborg, Sweden, 26-30 June 1995.

¡ Nyholm, NEI, and Myhrberg, HE (1977); Severe eggshell defects and impaired reproductive capacity in
small passerines in Swedish Lapland, Oikos 29: 336-341.

¡ Nyholm, NEI (1981); Evidence for involvement of aluminium in causation of defective formation of
eggshells and of impaired breeding in passerine birds, Environmental Research 26: 363-371

¡ O'Connor, RL (1992); Population variation in relation to migrancy status in some North American birds.
Pages 6474 in J. M. Hagan, III, and D. W. Johnson, editors. Ecology and conservation of neotropical
migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., USA.

¡ Odzuck, W (1975); Im bayerischen Alpenvorland durch den Straßenverkehr getötete Wirbeltiere. Natur
und Mensch 17 (3): 153-158.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 524
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Oniki, Y, and Willis, EO (1996). Morte accidental em aves comuns por fatores humanos. R. Cent. Ci.
Bioméd. Univ. fed. Uberlandia 12: 33-37.

¡ Ormerod, SJ, Tyler, SJ, and Lewis, JMS (1985); Is the breeding distribution of dippers influenced by
stream acidity? Bird Study 32: 32-39

¡ Ormerod, SJ, Allison, M, Hudson, D and Tyler, SJ (1986); The distribution of breeding dipper (Cinclus
cinclus L. Aves) in relation to stream acidity in upland Wales, Freshwater Biology 16, 501-507

¡ Ormerod, SJ, and Tyler, SJ (1986); Dipper Cinclus cinclus and grey wagtails Motacilla cinerea as
indicators of stream acidity in upland Wales, paper presented to the ICBP Conference, Kingston,
Canada, June 14th 1986

¡ Orris, P, Chary, LK, Perry, K, and Asbury, J. (2000); Persistent organic pollutants and human health.
Washington, DC: World Federation of Public Health Associations.

¡ Ostapenko, MM, and Chernogaev, EA (1980); New data on migrations of cranes in the south-eastern
part of the Ridge Nuratau. Ecology and morphology of animals. Collected scientific works. Samarkand
State University after A. Navoi. Samarkand, pp. 68-77.

¡ Ostapenko, MM (1987); The order Gruiformes. Birds of Uzbekistan, Book 1. Fan Publishers, Tashkent.

¡ Palmer, WE, Bromley, PT, and Brandenburg, RL (2007); Wildlife & pesticides - Peanuts. North Vehicle
olina Cooperative Extension Service.

¡ Raess, M (2008); Continental efforts: migration speed in spring and autumn in an inner-Asian migrant.
J. Avian Biology, 32: 13-18.

¡ Reijnen, R, and Foppen, R (1995); The effects of vehicle traffic on breeding bird populations in
woodland. IV. Influence of population size on the reduction of density close to a highway. J. Appl. Ecol.
32: 481-491.

¡ Reijnen, R, Foppen, R, ter Braak, C, and Thissen, J (1995); The effects of vehicle traffic on breeding
bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. J. Appl.
Ecol. 32: 187-202.

¡ Reijnen, R, Foppen, R, and Meeuwsen, H (1996); The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds
in Dutch agricultural grassland. Biol. Conserv. 75: 255-260.

¡ Reijnen, R, Foppen, R, and Veenbas, G (1997); Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of
the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodivcersity and Conservation,
6: 567-581.

¡ Risebrough, RW (1989). Pesticides and bird populations. Current Ornithology 3: 397-427. Plenum
Publishing Corporation. New York.

¡ Rustamov, EF, Efimenko, NN, and Saparmuradov, DS (2007); Once again on the status of the
Common Crane (Grus grus lilfordi, 1984), pp 49-59.

¡ Salikhbaev, HS, Karpenko, VP, Kashkarov, DY, Ostapenko, MM, Petrova, AA, Zakirov, A, and
Pirnazarov, NA (1967); Ecology, measures of protection and sustainable use of vertebrate animals in
Karshi steppe. FAN Publishers of Uzbek SSR. Tashkent, 172 pp.

¡ Saparmuradov, DS (2002); The migrations of the Siberian Crane in Turkmenistan. The cranes of
Eurasia (distribution, numbers, biology). Collected scientific works. Moscow, pp. 183-186.Russel, HN,
and Amadon, D (1938); A note on highway mortality. Wilson Bull. 50: 205-206.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 525
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Scholes, RJ, and Biggs R, eds. (2004); Ecosystem services in Southern Africa: a regional assessment.
The regional scale component of the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. CSIR,
Pretoria, South Africa.

¡ Smettan, HW (1988); Wirbeltiere und Strassenverkehr – ein ökologischer Beitrag zum Strassentod von
Säugern und Vögeln am Beispiel von Ostfildern/Württemberg. Ornithologische Jahreshefte für Baden-
Württemberg 4 (1): 29.55.

¡ Smit, CJ, and Visser, JM (1993); Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of existing
knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta Area. Wader Study Group Bull. 68: 6-19.

¡ Stroud, DA, Mudge, GP, and Pienkowski, MV (1990). Protecting internationally important bird sites.
Nature Conservancy Concil, Peterborough, UK. 230pp.

¡ Temple, SA (1986); The problem of avian extinctions. Ornithology 3: 453-485

¡ Tourenq, C, Combreau, (O), Lawrence, (M), Pole, SB, Spalton, A, Kinji, G, Al Baidani, M, and Launay,
F (2005). Alarming houbara bustard population trends in Asia. Biological Conservation, 121: 1-8.

¡ Wäscher, S, Janisch, A, and Sattler, M (1988); VerkehrstrassenTodesfallen der Avifauna. Luscinia 46:
41–55.

¡ Wassink, A, and Oreel, GJ (2007); The Birds of Kazakhstan, pp. 288, ISBN 978-90-811462-1-0.

¡ Weins, JA (1989); Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385-397.

¡ Whitfield, P, Bullman, R, and Band, B (2005); Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of
onshore windfarms on bird communities, 50 pp. Scottish Natural Heritage, SNH Guidance Note Series.
SNH, Battleby, UK.

¡ Williamson, K (1964); Bird Census work in woodland. Bird Study, 11: 1-22.

¡ Winkler, H, and Christie DA (2002); Picidae. in: del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott, & J. Sargatal, (eds) Handbook of
the Birds of the World. Vol. 7. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

¡ Yosef, R, Fornasari, L, and Giordano, A (2000); Soaring migrants and the 1% principle. The Ring, 22:
79-84.

¡ van der Zande, AN, ter Keurs, WJ, Van der Weijden, WJ (1980); The impact of roads on the densities of
four bird species in an open field habitat – evidence of a long-distance effect. Biol. Conserv. 18: 299-
321.

8.4 Cultural Heritage

¡ IFC (2007); Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability
(Guidance Note 8: Cultural heritage)

¡ Сулейманов, Р.Х. (2000); ДРЕВНИЙ НАХШАБ: Проблемы цивилизации Узбекистана VII в до н. э. -

VII в н. э. (Suleymanov, P. X. (2000) Ancient Nakhshab: Problems of the civilization in Uzbekistan from
the 7th century BCE to the 7th century CE)

The World Bank (1994); The Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update No. 8, Cultural heritage in
Environmental Assessment .

8.5 Ecosystems Services

¡ Filatov, A. (2011). Report of the work carried out within the frames of ecological studies of Project GTL
Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2011.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 526
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Golder Associates (2011). Uzbekistan Gas to Liquids Project - Environmental, Social, Health and
Safety Impact Assessment (ESHSIA) – Chapter 3: Baseline

¡ Golder Associates (a) (2013). OLTIN YO'L GTL - Impact Assessment of proposed project water supply
on local water users – Specialist Study for ESHSIA

¡ Golder Associates (b) (2013). Socio-economic Specialist Study for ESHSIA.

¡ Komiljon, T. (2010). Botanical Review of Vegetation of Site Studies (Shurtan Gase Area, Karshi,
Uzbekistan). Institute of Botany, 232A, str. Bogishamol, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

¡ Landsberg, F., S. Ozment, M. Stickler, N. Henninger, J. Treweek, O. Venn, and G. Mock. (2011).
Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment: Introduction and Guide to Scoping. WRI Working
Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. Online at
http://www.wri.org/publication/ecosystemservices-review-for-impact-assessment.

¡ Makhmudovich, M. (2001). Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles – Uzbekistan. Centre of Plant

and Forages for Arid Zones, Uzbek Research Institute of Karakul Sheep Breeding and Ecology, St. M.
Ulugbek 47, Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

¡ Sasol. (2010). Design Premise, Feed Phase 1. Uzbekistan Gas To Liquids Project . Sasol Technology
(Pty) Limited.

WEBSITES
¡ Makhmudovich, M. (2001). Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles – Uzbekistan. Centre of Plant
and Forages for Arid Zones, Uzbek Research Institute of Karakul Sheep Breeding and Ecology, St. M.
Ulugbek 47, Samarkand, Uzbekistan. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/counprof/uzbekistan.htm
Accessed 18/06/14.

¡ InVEST version 2.5.4 (2013), - Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST)
- a modelling suite developed by the Natural Capital Project to support environmental decision-making.
Downloaded 30/04/13 <http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html> –

¡ The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – An Interim Report (2008). Accessed 01/06/13
<www.teebweb.org>

¡ The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Business (2012). Accessed 01/06/13
<www.teebweb.org>

¡ World Resources Institute (2011), Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment. Accessed
01/06/13 <http://www.wri.org/publication/ecosystem-services-review-for-impact-assessment>.

¡ WWF SA (2013). World Wildlife Federation (WWF), South Africa:Grasslands Ecosystem Services.
http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/outstanding_places/grasslands/grasslands_ecosystems_services/
accessed 26/6/13

8.6 Groundwater
¡ ADB. (2009) Environmental Assessment Report - Republic of Uzbekistan: Talimarjan Clean Power
Project. Project no. 43151.

¡ Asian Development Bank. (2004) Country Environmental Analysis for Uzbekistan. Available at
http://www.adb.org/environment/cea.asp.

¡ Dukhovny, V., Yakubov, K., Usmano, A., and Yakubov, M. (2002) Drainage water management in the
Aral sea basin - Summaries of case studies from FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 61. ISBN
05245234 available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4263E/y4263e0c.htm.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 527
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Geological Survey of the USSR (1972) Geology Map of the USSR v. XXIII-1 Published in Nedra,
Moscow.

¡ IPTRID FAO. (2006) Aral Sea Basin Initiative - Summary Report, Published by arrangement with the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations by Scientific Information Center of the
Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Central Asia.

¡ O’Zlitineftgaz. (2009) Draft EIS on Shurtan ICMW Treated Methane-based Production of Synthetic
Liquid Fuel.

¡ Republic of Uzbekistan. (1992) Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On environmental protection” №
754-XII as of 9 December, 1992 (with subsequent changes).

¡ Republic of Uzbekistan. (1993) Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On water and water consumption”
№ 837-XII as of 6 May, 1993.

¡ Sasol UZGTL. (2010) SPL Design Premise Index Document, February 2010.

¡ UNECE. (2010 ) Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 29 - Uzbekistan (Second Review).
Published by The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (Ref. ECE/CEP/156). Release
Date: September, 2010. ISBN 13: 9789210543439.

¡ UNESCO (2009) Facing the Challenges - The United Nations World Water Development Report 3
(Case Studies Volume), Published March 16, 2009.

¡ Websites: http://www.ednes.org/telesol/cis/Uzbekistan.html. (Accessed February 2011)

8.7 Health Risk Assessment
¡ ATSDR, 2010. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Minimal Risk Levels (December
2010).

¡ CCME, 2011. Canadian Council of Ministry of the Environment. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines
(CSQGs) for the protection of agricultural water uses (irrigation and livestock watering) were used for
chemical screening, update September 2010.

¡ HC, 2004a. Health Canada. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part I.
Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA). Safe Environments
Programme, Health Canada, Ottawa.

¡ HC, 2004b. Health Canada. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part II. Health
Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVS). Safe Environments Programme, Health Canada,
Ottawa.

¡ RIVM, 2001. Re-evaluation of human toxicological maximum permissible risk levels. RIVM report
711701 025. March 2001.

¡ U.S. EPA, 1992. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS): Human Health Evaluation Manual: Part B. Development of Risk Based Preliminary Remedial
Goals December 1991.

¡ WHO, 2010. WHO Human Health Risk Assessment Toolkit: Chemical Hazards. IPCS Harmonization
Project.

¡ WHO 2005. Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulphur Dioxide
(Update 2005)

¡ WHO, 2000. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe – 2nd edition.

Websites:

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 528
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ Cal EPA, OEHHA database: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/start.asp

¡ USEPA IRIS database: http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html

8.8 Landscape and Visual Assessment
¡ CKA, 2008. Visual Aesthetics Report for proposed New Multi-Products Pipeline (NMPP) between
Durban and Heidelberg.

¡ Crawford D. 1994.Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment, Landscape and
Urban Planning, No 30 p 71-81.

¡ Hull, R.B., and Bishop, I.E. 1988. Scenic Impacts of Electricity Transmission towers: The influence of
landscape type and observer distance. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol 27. p. 99-108.

¡ Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. 2002. Guidelines
for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Second Edition. Spon Press, London

¡ Lynch, K. 1992. Good City Form. The MIT Press. p 131.

¡ Young, G. 2004. Visual Impact Assessment for Proposed Long-term Coal Supply to Eskom’s Majuba.
NLA. p. 2.

¡ Online resources: Oberholzer, B. 2005. Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA
Processes. Edition 1 (Draft for Comment). [Online] Available:
http://www.capegateway.gov.za/Text/2005/4/deadp_visual_guideline_draft_15april05.pdf. (Accessed 02
September 2005).

8.9 Noise Assessment

¡ BSI (2009); British Standard 5228-1:2009 – Code of practice for noise and vibration control on
construction and open sites – Part 1:Noise.

¡ SanPIN No. 0267-09; Sanitary norms and rules in housing premises, public buildings and in residential
areas.

¡ International Finance Corporation (IFC) and World Bank Group (2012); Environmental, Health and
Safety (EHS) Guidelines; Section 1.7 – Noise.

¡ World Health Organization (1999); Guidelines for Community Noise.

¡ SanPIN No. 0120-01; Sanitary norms and rules to ensure acceptable noise levels in the workplace.

¡ Department of Transport (1998); Calculation of Road Traffic Noise.

¡ DEFRA (2002); Converting the UK Traffic Noise Index LA10,18h to EU Noise Indices for Noise Mapping;
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report PR/SE/451/02.

¡ Department of Transport (1995); Calculation of Railway Noise.

8.10 Radiation Assessment
¡ IAEA (1996), International Safety Standards for Protection against Radiation and for the Safety of
Radiation Sources, International Atomic Energy Agency Basic Safety Standards Report No. 115,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

¡ IAEA (2002), Monitoring and Surveillance of Residue from the Mining and Milling of Uranium and
Thorium, Safety Report Series No.27, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 529
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ IAEA (2003a), Radiation Protection and the Management of Radioactive Waste in the Oil and Gas
Industry, Safety Reports Series No. 34, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

¡ IAEA (2003b), Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material

(NORM) and Technological Options for Mitigation, Technical Report Series No. 419, International
Atomic Energy Agency, Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Management, Vienna, Austria.

¡ IAEA (2004a), Radiation, People and the Environment, IAEA/PI/A.75/ 04-00391, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna.

¡ IAEA (2004b), Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance, Safety Standard
Series No. RS-G-1.7, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

¡ IAEA (2007), Safety Glossary, Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and radiation Protection,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

¡ IAEA (2011), Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety
Standards: General Safety Requirements, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3 (Interim),
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

¡ INP (2012), Radiation Baseline Survey for the UzGTL Plant, Operation Camp, and the Construction
Camp Sites Under Contract UZGTL-CON-0065 dated September 4 2012, UZGTL-CON-0065, Institute
of Nuclear Physics of Uzbek Academy of Science, Uzbekistan.

¡ Kathren, R. L. (1998), NORM Sources and Their Origins, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 49(3), 149-
168.

¡ Martin, J. E. (2006), Physics for Radiation Protection: A Handbook. Second Edition, Completely
Revised and Enlarge, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim.

¡ OGP (2008), Guidelines for the management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in the
oil & gas industry, Report No: 412, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers.

8.11 Social and Economic Impact Assessment

¡ ADB, 2012. Uzbekistan: Sustaining Growth and Improving Welfare. http://www.adb.org/projects/42448-
012/details. Accessed 24 June 2013;

¡ Eggert, Roderick. 2001. Mining and Economic Sustainability: National Economies and Local
Communities. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development;

¡ Eurasianet, 2010. As Uzbekistan's Annual Cotton Fair Opens, Human Rights Groups Call for Boycott.
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62146. Accessed 23 November 2010;

¡ Eurasianet, 2011. Human Rights Groups Outraged at Brussels Visit of Uzbek Dictator.
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62757. Accessed 24 January 2011;

¡ Eurasianet, 2012. Is Tashkent Cooking Its HIV/AIDS Statistics? http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66322.

Accessed 20 June 2013;

¡ IFC, 2006. International Finance Corporation’s Policy on Social & Environmental Sustainability.
Washington, DC. 2006;

¡ IFC, 2007. International Finance Corporation’s Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Social &
Environmental Sustainability. Washington, DC. 2007;

¡ ILO, 2013. Uzbekistan Retifications.

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:103538.
Accessed 26 June 2013;

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 530
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ National Cotton Council of America, 2010. http://www.cotton.org/econ/cropinfo/cropdata/rankings.cfm.

Accessed 13 January 2011;

¡ Republic of Uzbekistan, 2007. Welfare Improvement Strategy;

¡ Republic of Uzbekistan, 2010. Kashkadarya Regional Administration.

http://www.gov.uz/en/regional_authorities/1317. Accessed 1 December 2010;

¡ UN, 2013. National Report Submitted in Accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Annex to Human Rights
Council Resolution 16/21. Uzbekistan. Geneva, Switzerland. 2013;

¡ UNDP, 2010. Human Development Report 2010. United Nations Development Programme. New York,
NY. 2010;

¡ UNDP, 2013. Human Development Report 2013, The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse
World. New York, USA. 2012;

¡ UNECE, 2010 Environmental Performance Reviews, Uzbekistan, Second Review, United Nations;

¡ USAID, 2010. The 2010 Europe & Eurasia Health Vulnerability Analysis. USAID. Washington, DC.
2010;

¡ US Department of State, 2011. Background Note Uzbekistan.

http://sharing.govdelivery.com/bulletins/GD/USSTATEBPA-1459A7. Accessed 20 June 2013;

¡ US State Department, 2011. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/186693.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2013;

¡ World Bank,
2010.http://www.worldbank.org.uz/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/UZBEKISTANEXTN/0,,
menuPK:294213~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:294188,00.html. Accessed 14 December
2010; and

¡ World Bank, 2011. Doing Business 2011, Uzbekistan: Making a Difference for Entrepreneurs.
Washington, DC. 2011.

8.12 Soil Assessment

¡ Brady, N.C. 1984. The Nature and Properties of Soils, Macmillan Publishing Company.

¡ IUSS Working Group WRB. 2006. World reference base for soil resources 2006, 2nd edition. World Soil
Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome.

¡ Spaargaren, Otto. Mediterranean soil types: examples of classification and interpretation. ISRIC –World
Soil Information Wageningen, The Netherlands.

¡ International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group. Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS)
Guidelines; GENERAL EHS GUIDELINES Environmental Contaminated Land.

¡ International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group. Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines
ONSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

¡ International Finance Corporation World Bank Group, 2006. Performance Standard 3: Pollution
Prevention and Abatement.

¡ State Design Research Institute of Engineering Survey in Construction, Geoinformatics and Urban
Planning Cadastre, Aug 2010. Technical Report on Engineering Survey Works Engineering – geological
Survey.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 531
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Directorate-General for Environmental
Protection, 2001.

¡ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality fact sheets\land\riskbasedcleanupforTPH\TPH.indd

12/2010. Land Risk Based Clean-up Levels.03SN

¡ Dregne, H.E. 1976. Soils of Arid Regions. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam the
Netherlands.

8.13 Surface Water Specialist Study

¡ ADB. (2009). Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Republic of Uzbekistan: Talimarjan Clean
Power Project .

¡ Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources. (2001). Karshi Pumping Cascade Rehabilitation Project.
Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report, Volume 2 . Republic of Uzbekistan.

¡ NHCU, ST and PET. (2010). Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Pre-feasibility Study .

¡ Sasol. (2010). Design Premise, Feed Phase 1. Uzbekistan Gas To Liquids Project . Sasol Technology
(Pty) Limited.

¡ Schulze, RE, Schmidt, EJ and Smithers, JC (2004) Design Flood Estimates for Small Catchments in
Southern Africa, User Manual.

¡ UNECE. (2010). Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 29. Uzbekistan, Second Review .
United Nations.

8.14 Waste specialist study

¡ Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On waste” № 362-P as of April, 5th, 2002.

¡ Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On water and water consumption” № 837-XII as of 6 May, 1993.

¡ RD UzRH 84.3.14:2005 “Production wastes management and consumption. Terms and definitions”.
The State Committee of nature protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 2005.

¡ SanPiN RUz № 0157-04 “Sanitation requirements for storage and neutralization of solid domestic
waste on special landfills in conditions of Uzbekistan”.

¡ SanPiN RUz № 00068-96 “Sanitation rules of collection, storage, transportation, neutralization and
recycling of solid domestic waste”.

¡ SanPiN RUz № 0127-02 “Sanitation rules of inventory, classification and neutralization of industrial
wastes”.

¡ SanPiN RUz № 0128-02 “Hygienic classified index of toxic industrial wastes in conditions of the
Republic of Uzbekistan”.

¡ UNEP 1997; Environmental Management in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production: An Overview of
Issues and Management Approaches; UNEP IE/PAC Technical Report 37; ISBN 92-087-1639-5.

¡ International Association of Oil & Gas Producers; September 2008 (updated March 2009); Guidelines
for waste management with special focus on areas with limited infrastructure; Report No: 413, rev 1.11

¡ O’Zlitineftgaz, 2009. Draft EIS on Shurtan ICMW Treated Methane-based Production of Synthetic Liquid
Fuel.

¡ Sasol UZGTL SPL Design Premise Index Document, February 2010.

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 532
 OLTIN YO'L GTL ESHSIA - DISCLOSURE DRAFT

¡ UNEP; Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Wastes Including Prevention of Illegal

International Traffic in Hazardous Wastes;
http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?DocumentID=52&ArticleID=68&l=en.

¡ Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. South African Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry, Pretoria, 1998.

¡ Exploration and Production (E&P) Waste Management Guidelines; 1993; Report No. 2.58/196; London.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD.

Nelius Scheepers Rob Hounsome

Project Manager Project Director

NS/RH/ns

Reg. No. 2002/007104/07

Directors: FR Sutherland, AM van Niekerk, SAP Brown, L Greyling

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

k:\projects\12614848_uzbekistan_eshsia_2013\4_reports\eshsia update\final\final_report_to_client\12614848-12330-10_oltin_yo'l_gtl_eshsia_section_8_07nov13.docx

January 2014
Report No. 12614848-12330-10 533
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Block C, Bellevue Campus
5 Bellevue Road
Kloof
KwaZulu Natal
South Africa
T: [+27] (31) 717 2790