Desal RG

Resource and Guidance Manual for
Environmental Impact Assessments

Desalination
1
Desalination
The world's oceans have always been a source of food and other goods. The in‐
dustrial‐scale production of drinking water from the sea, however, has only be‐
come possible since the 1950s. Today the worldwide number of desalination
plants increases at rapid pace, as production costs of desalinated water have de‐
clined and many regions turn to desalination in order to alleviate the burdens of
water scarcity. Desalination undoubtedly offers a wide variety of benefits for hu‐
man health and socio‐economic development. It provides a seemingly unlimited,
draught‐resistant and constant supply of high quality drinking water while reduc‐
ing the pressures on freshwater ecosystems and groundwater aquifers.
In spite of these advantages, concerns are raised over potential negative impacts
of desalination activity on the environment. These need to be investigated and
mitigated in order to safeguard a sustainable use of desalination technologies,
which can be attained by conducting project‐ and location‐specific environmental
impact assessment (EIA) studies. This publication intends to assist project design‐
ers, regulators and decision makers to anticipate and address all relevant public
health, socio‐economic and environmental concerns that may arise when under‐
taking a desalination project, for obtaining maximum beneficial use of the desali‐
nated water in terms of quality, safety and environmental protection.
UNEP/ROWA WHO/EMRO
United Nations Environment Programme World Health Organization
Regional Office for West Asia Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean
P. O. Box 10880 P.O. Box 7608
Manama Nasr City, Cairo 11371
Kingdom of Bahrain Egypt
Telephone: +973 17812777 Telephone: +202 6702535
Fax: +973 17825110/17825111 ii Fax: +202 670 2492/94
Email: uneprowa@unep.org.bh Email: postmaster@emro.who.int
www.unep.org.bh www.emro.who.int
Desalination
© UNEP/ROWA 2008
ISBN: 978‐92‐807‐2840‐8
Suggested Citation: UNEP (2008) Desalination Resource and Guidance Manual for
Environmental Impact Assessments. United Nations Environment Programme,
Regional Office for West Asia, Manama, and World Health Organization,
Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, Cairo
Principal author and editor: Sabine Lattemann
Co‐authors: Khalil H. Mancy, Bradley S. Damitz, Hosny K. Khordagui, Greg Leslie
Pictures (if not stated otherwise): Sabine Lattemann and Thomas Höpner,
Rani Amir (front cover top right).
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or
contributory organizations. The designations employed and the presentations do not
imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory
organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its
authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information
contained herein. The publication reflects the authors’ views only.
iii
Acknowledgements
T he author would like to extend thanks to all
individuals and organizations that made
this publication possible. Houssain Abouzaid and
Foundation for the Advancement of Science, the
Water Authority of the Cayman Islands, the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, AGFUND, and the Na‐
Joseph Cotruvo have been instrumental tional Water Research Institute (NWRI,
in initiating, coordinating and guiding USA). Members of the project’s
the process within the project on Oversight Committee included
“Desalination for Safe Water Houssain Abouzaid (WHO/
Supply”, which was carried EMRO, Cairo), Jamie Bartram
out under the auspices of (WHO/WSH, Geneva), Ha‐
the World Health Organ‐ bib El Habr (UNEP/ROWA,
ization, Eastern Mediter‐ Bahrain), Abdul Rahman
ranean Regional Office Al Awadi (ROPME, Ku‐
(WHO/EMRO). It had the wait), and Joseph Cotru‐
objective to develop vo (Joseph Cotruvo &
guidance for the health Associates LLC, USA).
and environmental as‐ The Steering Committee
pects applicable to desa‐ members consisted of
lination projects. Special Amer Al‐Rabeh (Saudi
thanks go to Khalil H. Arabia), Anthony Fane
Mancy, Bradley S. Damitz, (Australia), Gelia Frede‐
Hosny K. Khordagui, Greg rick‐van Genderen (Cay‐
Leslie and Klaus Genthner Editor: Sabine Lattemann man Island), Totaro Goto
for their dedicated participa‐ (Japan), Jose Medina San
tion in this project and for co‐ Juan (Spain), and Kevin Price,
authoring this publication. Work USA. Funding was furthermore
group meetings were held by WHO/ received from the European Com‐
EMRO in the years 2004, 2005 and munity, which fosters the sustainable
2006, for which additional sponsoring was re‐ development of desalination processes by fi‐
ceived from the U.S. Environmental Protection nancing the research project “Membrane‐Based
Agency's National Risk Management Research Desalination: An Integrated Approach” (Acronym
Laboratory, the American Water Works Associa‐ MEDINA, 2006‐2009) within the scope of the
tion Research Foundation (AwwaRF), The Kuwait Sixth Framework Programme (FP6).
iv
Preface
F or drinking water quality specifications,
many countries refer to the World Health
Organization (WHO) “Guidelines for Drinking
Five technical work groups were established that
addressed the following aspects of desalination
during the project:
Water Quality” (DGWQ). The guidelines provide Technology: engineering and chemistry
a framework for ensuring the safety of drinking Health: contaminants and nutritional aspects
water supplies through the control of hazardous Sanitary aspects and marine microbiology
water constituents. They cover a broad spectrum Monitoring requirements
of contaminants, from microbial indicators to Environmental effects and impact
chemicals, and are aimed at typical drinking wa‐ assessments
ter sources and technologies (WHO 2004).
As desalination is applied to non‐typical Independent from these developments, the Eu‐
source waters (mainly waste water, brackish and ropean Community has decided to foster the
seawater) and often uses non‐typical water sustainable use of desalination processes in the
treatment techniques (including distillation, re‐ EU by financing the research project MEDINA
verse osmosis, ultra‐, micro‐ and nanofiltration), (“Membrane‐Based Desalination: An Integrated
the concern was raised that the GDWQ might Approach”) within the Sixth Research Frame‐
not fully cover the unique factors that can be work (FP6). The project’s overall objective is to
encountered during the production and distribu‐ improve the performance of membrane‐based
tion of desalinated drinking water. water desalination processes by:
In 2004, the World Health Organization has developing advanced analytical methods for
therefore initiated a process to prepare a guid‐ feedwater characterization
ance document on “Desalination for Safe Water optimizing integrated membrane systems
Supply”, which will supplement the WHO Guide‐ identifying optimal pre‐treatment and
lines for Drinking Water Quality (WHO 2007). cleaning strategies for membrane systems
The guidance document is equally concerned reducing the environmental impacts of brine
with health and environmental aspects of de‐ disposal and energy consumption
salination developments. developing strategies for environmental
Health issues are primarily reflected in re‐ impact assessment (EIA) studies.
spect to potential chemical and microbial com‐
ponents that are specific to desalinated drinking The MEDINA project integrates and builds upon
water. Environmental aspects, which are nor‐ the findings of the recent WHO project for de‐
mally not covered in detail by WHO guidelines, veloping strategies on how to minimize envi‐
were in this case included because the protec‐ ronmental impacts and conduct environmental
tion of coastal ecosystems and groundwater aq‐ impact assessment studies. This report combines
uifers from desalination plant discharges were results and recommendations of the environ‐
considered key concerns that should also be ad‐ mental work group that could only partly be in‐
dressed during the design, construction and op‐ cluded in the WHO guidance, and recent results
eration of a desalination facility. from the MEDINA research project.
v
Executive Summary
B y definition, an Environmental Impact As‐
sessment (EIA) is a procedure that identi‐
fies, describes, evaluates and develops means of
Reader’s Guide
With the context so broad, the present docu‐

mitigating potential impacts of a proposed activ‐ ment cannot fully encapsulate the whole spec‐
ity on the environment. EIAs can be carried out trum and depth of implications of all possible
for single development projects (project EIAs) or desalination projects. The document tries to be
for strategic plans, policies or management pro‐ inclusive rather than exclusive by raising a wide
grammes, such as integrated water resources range of potentially relevant issues attendant to
management (IWRM) plans. Strategic EIAs will the use of desalination as a community water
not make EIAs at the project level dispensable; supply, including environmental, cultural, socio‐
both are rather complementing instruments. economic and human health implications. Based
A detailed EIA is often required for major in‐ on the information provided in this document,
frastructure projects, such as large dams or the reader should decide on a case by case basis
power generation plants. For relatively small which issues may be relevant to a particular de‐
projects, a simplified EIA may be warranted due salination project.
to the limited potential of the project to cause The document is divided into three parts. In
significant environmental impacts. In principle, Part A, an introduction to the concept, metho‐
EIAs for desalination projects will not differ in dology and practice of EIAs is given. The EIA
terms of complexity and level of detail from process proposed for desalination projects in‐
those for other infrastructure projects and espe‐ volves 10 basic steps. It is not limited to desali‐
cially other water supply systems. Depending on nation plants, but can be applied to other water
the proposed project, it is incumbent on national infrastructure projects in a similar manner.
authorities to individually define the need, scope In Part B, a modular outline of an EIA report
and complexity of each EIA study. for desalination projects is proposed. It gives an
EIAs are usually not limited to environmental overview on a range of thematic issues that may
aspects, but typically address all potential im‐ be relevant to individual desalination projects. It
pacts of new projects, plans or activities on ‘man may also serve as a reference source and blue‐
and environment’. This may require an inter‐ print for preparing EIA reports. As the EIA report
disciplinary approach, covering different natural presents and summarizes the information ga‐
and environmental science disciplines. Taken a thered during the EIA process, the structure of
step further in relating potential impacts to part B is reflecting the structure of the methodo‐
people and communities, it may also be neces‐ logical approach described in Part A.
sary to consider human health and socio‐ Part C gives an overview on the potential im‐
economic aspects where appropriate. Public par‐ pacts of desalination plants on the environment,
ticipation is another fundamental element of based on a comprehensive literature review.
EIAs in order to involve the public in the evalua‐ Moreover, an attempt is made to evaluate the
tion and decision‐making process of new pro‐ identified concerns in terms of significance and
jects. Where possible, an EIA should try to pre‐ relevance for EIA studies, using formal criteria.
dict all potential impacts, including those directly The appendices provide more detailed infor‐
and indirectly related to a project, as well as cu‐ mation on project screening and scoping, which
mulative impacts with other projects or activi‐ constitute the first two steps of an EIA.
ties, and transboundary effects.
vi
Key findings and recommendations Gender‐specific effects and variations among
the potentially affected population or com‐
I. An EIA should try to predict all impacts munity, such as social or ethnic affiliations,
related directly or indirectly to the implementa‐ should be considered in the assessment of
tion of a desalination project. This comprises all socio‐economic and cultural impacts.
‘environmental’ implications including ecosys‐
tem, socio‐economic, and public health effects Public health
and their cumulative and transboundary implica‐ Public health addresses the quality of life,
tions as an integral part of the process. It should improvement in community health, and po‐
attempt to identify the positive effects and offer tential risks associated directly or indirectly
mitigation measures for negative impacts. with the desalination project.
In essence, an EIA for a desalination project II. The EIA process proposed for desalina‐
should address the following ‘areas’ of impact: tion developments and other water supply
projects involves ten basic steps:
1. Decide, on the basis of a screening

process, whether or not an EIA is
required for the proposed project.
2. Conduct scoping to determine the
content and extent of the EIA.
3. Identify policy and administrative
aspects relevant to the project and
the EIA.
4. Describe the technical design and
process of the proposed desalination
project.
5. Describe and assess the environmental
Abiotic and biotic environment
baseline of the project site.
Abiotic factors include characteristic land‐
scape and natural scenery, as well as soils and 6. Describe and evaluate the potential
sediments, air and water quality. impacts of the project on the
The biotic environment encompasses the environment.
terrestrial and marine biological resources, 7. Identify approaches for mitigation of
including flora, fauna and sensitive species negative impacts.
that inhabit the area impacted by the pro‐
8. Provide a summary of the major
posed project.
findings and develop conclusions.
Socio‐economic and cultural environment 9. Establish a programme to monitor
Socio‐economic and cultural considerations impacts during construction and
include the project’s effects on the day‐to‐ operation.
day lives of the individuals and the commu‐
10. Review the EIA process for decision‐
nity, the project’s impact on the management
making purposes.
of natural resources and the project’s impact
on local and regional development.
vii
III. As EIAs are undertaken before projects Further remarks
are implemented, they can only give a prognosis
of the expected impacts based on the informa‐ The document recognizes that the need for de‐
tion available at that time, even if the EIAs are salination to augment water supplies varies re‐
based upon detailed analyses. It is therefore im‐ gionally. Also, environmental settings, cultural
portant to clearly identify any gaps of knowledge backgrounds, socio‐economic development and
in the EIA and to adopt a precautionary ap‐ human health conditions are highly variable and
proach in the evaluation of potential impacts. show major regional differences, as does the use
of desalination technology with regard to facility
IV. Public involvement is an integral part of size, processes, pretreatment systems and dis‐
the planning, decision‐making and implementa‐ charge options (cf. Introduction).
tion process of desalination projects for commu‐ No universally valid standards for environ‐
nity water supply. mental quality, best techniques or acceptable
risks of desalination exist nor shall be provided
V. In order to manage increasing desalina‐ within this document. The consideration of ben‐
tion activity on a national or regional scale, it is efits versus impacts of desalination develop‐
recommended to elaborate management plans ments can only be achieved at a local, project‐
which go beyond the scope of individual desali‐ specific level.
nation projects. The most relevant plans to ad‐
dress desalination projects along with other wa‐
ter supply alternatives are integrated water re‐
sources management (IWRM) and integrated
coastal zone management (ICZM) plans.
If a water resource management plan is de‐
veloped, it should cover a suite of supply, de‐
mand and management options. Water conser‐
vation and education programmes, the use of
water saving devices and water recycling for
agricultural, industrial and environmental appli‐
cations are important aspects to be considered
before new water supply options are developed.
Although this report primarily addresses EIAs
on the project level, it is emphasized that stra‐
tegic plans and assessments could be a more
adequate approach to manage water demand
and supply on a regional or even national scale.
VI. Despite a 50 year history of large scale

desalination projects, the present knowledge of
the environmental, socio‐economic, cultural and
human health implications of desalination activi‐
ty is still incomplete. More research into the ef‐
fects should be initiated, monitoring of existing
facilities conducted, and monitoring and EIA re‐
sults made available to a wider public to improve
our understanding of the actual impacts of desa‐
lination activity on man and environment.
viii
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Part A Concept, methodology and practice of environmental impact assessments

applicable to desalination projects
A.1 Definition and concept of EIA 5
A.2 Systematic EIA process for desalination projects 5
A.2.1 Step 1 – Screening of the project 8
A.2.2 Step 2 – Scoping of the project 9
A.2.3 Step 3 – Identification and description of policy and administrative aspects 14
A.2.4 Step 4 – Investigation and description of the proposed desalination project 15
A.2.5 Step 5 – Investigation and evaluation of environmental baseline 15
A.2.6 Step 6 – Investigation and evaluation of potential impacts of the project 16
A.2.7 Step 7 – Mitigation of negative effects 17
A.2.8 Step 8 – Summary and conclusions 18
A.2.9 Step 9 – Establishment of an environmental management plan 18
A.2.10 Step 10 – Review of the EIA and decision‐making process 19
Part B Outline and contents list of an environmental impact assessment

report for desalination projects
B.1 Title pages 20
B.2 Executive summary 21
B.3 Introduction to the EIA 22
B.4 Scope and methodology of the EIA 22
B.4.1 Scope of the EIA 22
B.4.2 Methodology of the EIA 22
B.4.3 Public involvement 22
B.4.4 Gender effects 23
B.4.5 Considered alternatives 23
B.5 Policy and administrative aspects 23
B.5.1 Legal and institutional basis of the EIA 23
B.5.2 National or international policies, agreements or programmes 24
B.5.3 Consistency with relevant management plans and policies 26
B.5.4 Permitting and regulatory aspects 27
B.5.5 Levels of involvement 27
B.6 Description of the proposed project 27
B.6.1 Objectives and goals of the project 27
B.6.2 Project delivery methodology 27
B.6.3 Project implementation status 28
B.6.4 Project location 28
B.6.5 Process and engineering characteristics 28
B.6.6 Construction activities 31
B.6.7 Commissioning and operation activities 31
ix
B.7 Socio‐economic and environmental health aspects 33
B.7.1 Population, housing and community structure 33
B.7.2 Economic growth and development activities 33
B.7.3 Environmental health factors 34
B.7.4 Water resources use 36
B.7.5 Land and marine use 37
B.7.6 Utilities and service systems 38
B.7.7 Cultural resources 38
B.8 Abiotic environment 39
B.8.1 Characteristic landscape and natural scenery 39
B.8.2 Terrestrial site (soils, ground‐ and surface water) 40
B.8.3 Marine site (seafloor, sediments and seawater) 41
B.8.4 Air quality and climate 42
B.9 Biotic environment 44
B.9.1 Terrestrial biological resources 44
B.9.2 Marine biological resources 45
B.10 Conclusion and recommendations 46
B.10.1 Overview on the main impacts of the project and mitigation measures 46
B.10.2 Comparison with alternative project configurations 47
B.10.3 Identification of the best practicable environmental option 47
B.11 Environmental management plan 47
B.11.1 Monitoring 48
B.11.2 Surveillance 48
B.11.3 Auditing 48
B.12 Review of the EIA process 49
B.13 References of the EIA 49
B.14 Appendices of the EIA 49
x
Part C Potential impacts on the environment
C.1 Ecological risk assessments 50

C.1.1 Stressors 51
C.1.2 Receptors 51
C.2 Construction activities 52
C.2.1 Intakes and outfalls 52
C.2.2 Desalination plant 58
C.2.3 Auxiliary infrastructure 61
C.3 Commissioning 64
C.4 Operation 64
C.4.1 Intake of seawater 64
C.4.2 Pretreatment of seawater 66
C.4.3 Corrosion 73
C.4.4 Discharge of the concentrate 74
C.4.5 Discharge of residual chemicals 93
C.4.6 Hazards and hazardous materials 95
C.4.7 Noise emissions 95
C.4.8 Energy use 95
C.5 Maintenance 100
C.5.1 Start‐up and shut‐down 100
C.5.2 Cleaning 101
C.6 Decommissioning 104
C.7 Evaluation of significance 105
C.7.1 Methodology 105
C.7.2 Evaluation 107
Part D Appendices
D.1 Appendix 1 – Guidance for screening of desalination projects 122
D.1.1 Information required for screening 122
D.1.2 Screening checklist 123
D.1.3 Criteria for defining significance 129
D.1.4 Summary of features of the project and of its location 129
D.2 Appendix 2 – Guidance for scoping of desalination projects 130
D.2.1 Checklist of project characteristics that could cause significant effects 130
D.2.2 Characteristics of the project environment 141
D.3 Appendix 3 – Ecotoxicity data 143
Bibliography 147
xi
Figures
Figure 1: Relative operation costs in US$ of the main desalination processes 2
Figure 2: Pre‐ or early EIA phases (scoping and screening) and main EIA phase 6
Figure 3: EIA decision phase and follow‐up activities 7
Figure 4: Deployment of a real time monitoring buoy, Perth SWRO plant 49
Figure 5: Open intake basin with breakwater 53
Figure 6: Construction of a sheet pile trench, Perth SWRO plant 56
Figure 7: Flow‐scheme of a SWRO system 67
Figure 8: Flow‐scheme of a MSF distillation plant 67
Figure 9: Chemical structures of common antiscalants 72
Figure 10: Posidonia oceanica seagrass meadow 79
Figure 11: Periodic discharge of filter backwash, Ashkelon SWRO plant 92
Figure 12: Energy recovery systems 96
Figure 13: Energy recovery turbine 96
Figure 14: Chemical structures of common RO cleaning chemicals 101
Figure 15: Pretreatment chemicals and pretreatment dosing system 104
Figure 16: Decision hierarchy used to identify high and low priority impacts 106
Tables
Table 1: Composition of 254SMO super austenitic steel 74
Table 2: Calculated salinity of RO plant reject streams 76
Table 3: Energy data of MSF, MED and RO 98
Table 4: Carbon dioxide emission factors 99
Table 5: European energy mix in 2005 99
Table 6: Proposed cleaning procedure for Hydranautics polyamide membranes 102
Table 7: Membrane cleaning solutions 103
Table 8: Significance ratings for evaluation criteria 106
Table 9: Impact summary: Landscape and natural scenery 108
Table 10: Impact summary: Air quality and climate 109
Table 11: Impact summary: Terrestrial soils 110
Table 12: Impact summary: Ground‐ and surface water quality and hydrology 111
Table 13: Impact summary: Seafloor and sediments 112
Table 14: Impact summary: Seawater quality and hydrology 113
Table 15: Impact summary: Terrestrial flora 115
Table 16: Impact summary: Terrestrial fauna 115
Table 17: Impact summary: Marine macroflora 116
Table 18: Impact summary: Marine plankton 117
Table 19: Impact summary: Marine benthic invertebrate fauna 118
Table 20: Impact summary: Marine nekton 119
Table 21: Impact summary: Marine mammals and reptiles 120
Table 22: Impact summary: Terrestrial birds and seabirds 121
Table 23: Screening checklist 124
Table 24: Project characteristics which could give rise to significant effects 132
Table 25: Chlorine toxicity 143
Table 26: Chlorination by‐products 143
Table 27: Antiscalant toxicity 144
Table 28: Antiscalant degradability 145
Table 29: Cleaning chemical degradability 145
Table 30: Cleaning chemical toxicity 146
Textboxes
Box 1: Noise emissions 57
Box 2: Overview on field and modeling studies 80
Box 3: Overview on salinity tolerance and toxicity studies (bioassay studies) 87
Box 4: Toxicity caused by co‐discharge with waste water from sewage plants 91
xii
1
Introduction
W ater scarcity can be a serious impedi‐
ment to economic growth, social devel‐
opment and human health. It furthermore may
The rate of capacity growth is expected to in‐
crease even further, reaching 64 million m3 per
day by 2010 and 98 million by 2015. The progno‐
cause severe ecosystem damage if water ab‐ sis is based on country‐by‐country analyses in‐
straction rates exceed natural renewal rates. To volving desalination projects and official data on
cope with water scarcity, many communities water supply and demand from agencies around
around the world turn to non‐typical source wa‐ the world [2].
ters and treatment techniques, such as rainwa‐ As desalination technology serves a broad
ter harvesting, water reuse or desalination of spectrum of uses and applications, facilities dif‐
sea‐ and brackish water. fer in terms of production capacity, process de‐
Desalination has been a well‐established sign and energy supply. They range from small‐
technology since the mid‐twentieth century. Un‐ scale, stand‐alone units with a water production
til a few years ago, large‐scale projects were li‐ of less than 100 m3 per day to large industrial‐
mited to a few arid countries of the Middle East, sized plants with an installed capacity of more
which had the financial and natural resources than 1 million m3 per day.
and no other water supply options. Today, desa‐ In the oil‐rich countries of the Middle East,
linated water has become a commodity for large cogeneration facilities predominate, which
many other regions that require more water for produce electricity and water at the same time.
socio‐economic development. Regional centers Historically, the most important process in the
of desalination activity that become more prom‐ Gulf region has been multi‐stage flash (MSF) dis‐
inent include for example the Mediterranean tillation, by which 90% of the water is produced.
Sea, the Red Sea, the Caribbean, or the coastal MSF will continue to be the main process in the
waters of China and Australia. foreseeable future, but will lose further market
shares to multi‐effect distillation (MED) and re‐
Sectors of use and installed capacities verse osmosis (RO). The combined capacity of all
seawater desalination plants in the Gulf is about
Desalinated water serves a broad range of appli‐ 12 million m3 per day, or slightly less than half
cations, including community water supply, tour‐ (44%) of the worldwide daily production. The
ism, industry, military and agriculture. The main largest producers of desalinated water in the re‐
sectors of use, however, remain to be drinking gion and worldwide are Saudi Arabia (25%) and
water for communities, tourist resorts and pure the United Arab Emirates (23%), followed by
water for industries, whereas desalinated waste Kuwait (6% of worldwide production).
water is still primarily used for irrigation. Where cheap fossil energy or waste heat is
The combined production of all desalination not available, RO is usually the preferred desali‐
plants worldwide, which are known to be in con‐ nation technology due to its lower energy de‐
struction or online, was 44.1 million m3 per day mand compared to thermal desalination pro‐
by the end of 2006. Wastewater desalination ac‐ cesses. Consequently, most countries outside
counted for 5% of this production, river water the Middle East use RO for water production.
for 8 %, brackish water for 19% and seawater for For example, 70% of the desalinated water in
63% [1]. 28 million m3 of water per day are pro‐ the Mediterranean region is produced by seawa‐
duced by seawater desalination plants alone – a ter RO plants. The total installed capacity in the
volume comparable to the average discharge of Mediterranean is 4 million m3 per day (14% of
the Seine River at Paris. The desalination market the worldwide total). The largest producer of de‐
has been growing rapidly ― at a compound av‐ salinated water in the region is Spain (8% of
erage rate of 12% a year over the past five years. worldwide production), while the largest RO
Desalination
2
Resource and guidance manual
plant with a daily production of 330,000 m3 is

currently located in Ashkelon, Israel, but projects
of similar size are being also planned in Algeria.
In the foreseeable future, Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates will continue to be the
largest desalination markets. China is expected
to dramatically expand its capacity and establish
itself as the third most important desalination
market until 2015, overtaking Spain, Algeria and
other countries that are at the moment ranking
at the top of the list [2].
Cost and energy implications
Desalination projects are typically driven by the Figure 1: Relative operation costs in US$ of the
main desalination processes [2].
limited availability of conventional freshwater
resources. However, as conventional water pro‐ For illustration, a medium‐sized RO plant with a
duction costs rise in many parts of the world and capacity of about 25,000 m3 per day and an
the costs of desalination decline due to techno‐ energy demand of 5 kWh per m3 would con‐
logical advances, desalination also becomes eco‐ sume about 125,000 kWh per day. The plant
nomically more attractive and competitive. could supply more than 41,000 four‐person
The average investment cost required for en‐ households with water, while the energy that is
gineering, procuring and constructing an MSF used for the desalination process could supply
plant is given as US$ 1,235 per m3/day installed more than 9,000 households with electricity (as‐
capacity. Capital costs for MED and RO plants are suming a water consumption of 150 liters per
lower with US$ 916 and US$ 641 per m3/day in‐ person and day and an average electricity de‐
stalled capacity, respectively [2]. The average mand of 5000 kWh/year for a 4 person house‐
production costs of desalinated water are in the hold). Energy demand is thus a major issue in
range of US$ 0.5 to 0.6 per m3. This includes the the planning and permitting process of new de‐
replacement of parts and membranes, chemicals salination plants and is closely interlinked with
for pretreatment of the intake water, plant power supply and power management strate‐
cleaning and post‐treatment of the product wa‐ gies.
ter, labour costs, and energy demand – as the Fossil fuels are typically used as primary
most important cost factor (Figure 1). energy source for producing the electrical or
The amount of energy needed for water thermal energy. Renewable energy driven desa‐
production is process‐dependant: MSF plants, lination technologies using wind or solar ther‐
having a maximum operating temperature of mal energy exist but are mostly limited to small
120°C, typically require 12 kWh of thermal and units or demonstration projects. For large
3.5 kWh of electrical energy for the production plants, compensation seems to be a more suita‐
of 1 m3 of water. MED plants, which operate at ble approach. For example, a 144,000 m3 per
temperatures of 70°C or less, require 6 kWh of day RO plant in Perth, Australia, was associated
thermal and 1.5 kWh of electrical energy per m3 with a 80 MW wind farm to compensate for the
of water. The RO process consumes between 4 electricity demand of the plant, and the
and 7 kWh per m3 depending on plant size and 140,000 m3 per day Thames Water plant near
energy recovery systems used [3]. London was proposed to be run on bio‐diesel.
Introduction 3
Community and equity considerations Impacts on poverty and development
Desalination projects – like other water infra‐ Poverty is inextricably linked with water and
structure projects – often consume considerable food security, human health, environmental sus‐
community resources which may not be reflect‐ tainability and socio‐economic development in
ed in the investment and operating costs. These many parts of the world. The links are well un‐
may be in the form of financial subsidies, access derstood and widely documented. To break the
to coastal land, or the provision of supporting or vicious circle of poverty also means to improve
connecting infrastructure. The desalinated water water security for the poor. This implies improv‐
should therefore be valued as a community as‐ ing water management practices and providing
set. In addition to considering the measures out‐ access to water of safe quality and in adequate
lined in this document to assess and mitigate po‐ quantity, so that basic personal requirements
tential impacts of the production process on the can be met and a livelihood provided.
environment, on socio‐economic development While desalination is vital for economic de‐
and on public health, communities should value velopment in many water scarce areas of the
the desalinated water by non‐wasteful use and world, one has to be skeptical whether it can
by looking for opportunities of multiple use. This have much effect on poverty reduction in eco‐
might be attained by adopting water allocation nomically less developed countries. The costs of
policies and pricing methods that foster an eco‐ building a large desalination plant are unattaina‐
nomic use of the water resources. ble for many of the poorest countries. Further‐
It appears reasonable to request that any pol‐ more, operating such a facility requires on‐going
icy or pricing model used for the allocation of expenses and technical efforts. Even if the in‐
desalinated water will not be contrary to the vestment and operating costs for a desalination
public interest, if the production process in‐ plant can be procured, this does not automati‐
volved a contribution of community resources. cally imply that the poorest in a society will get
Moreover, the allocation of desalinated water an equitable share of the benefits. A central
should satisfy two criteria. First, the desalinated problem of water poverty in many countries is
water should be allocated in a cost‐effective way after all the inequitable allocation between con‐
so that the overall benefits for the served popu‐ sumers (in addition to pollution and misma‐
lation are maximized. However, maximization nagement) rather than the absence of water re‐
alone may not be satisfactory if it measures the sources. Desalination cannot pose a solution to
sum of costs and benefits only, but ignores the the problem of water scarcity without address‐
pattern of their distribution across the popula‐ ing these root causes of water poverty, which of‐
tion affected by a desalination project. ten strikes the poorest in a society.
Equity considerations should thus be incorpo‐ As the production of desalinated water re‐
rated as a second important criterion in the allo‐ quires considerable energy and capital, it is often
cation and pricing model for desalinated water. used as a supplemental resource only. Except for
It has the goal of an equitable and just distribu‐ a few countries in the Middle East and some isl‐
tion of the benefits and costs of desalinated wa‐ ands, which depend almost exclusively on desa‐
ter among distinct stakeholder groups or indi‐ linated water, conventional resources still ac‐
viduals. Equity considerations in water allocation count for most of the water supplies worldwide.
can be a complex undertaking and no general Desalination projects are often proposed al‐
rules exist, but allocations ignoring equity con‐ though there is still potential for improving the
siderations are unlikely to produce satisfactory conservation and efficiency of use of conven‐
results in the long run. tional resources. This also holds true for less de‐
veloped countries, where it may be more cost‐
effective to tap the potential of alternative op‐
Desalination
4
Resource and guidance manual
tions before desalination projects are developed. cio‐economic impacts. These are mainly attri‐
These include for example purification of low‐ buted to the discharges to the sea, which may
quality local water and measures to reduce wa‐ impair coastal water quality and affect marine
ter pollution, attaining a more equitable alloca‐ life, and air pollutant emissions associated with
tion of resources, and encouraging wastewater energy use, which may impair local air quality
recycling and reuse. Desalination might after all and foil attempts to reduce greenhouse gas
have a share in securing water for development emissions. Desalination may also lead to con‐
and poverty reduction when the above options flicts with other human or commercial activities
are being considered. One promising approach in the coastal zone.
for less developed countries is the use of small The list of potential impacts can be extended,
autonomous desalination systems powered by but the given examples already indicate the
renewable energy for decentralized water sup‐ need for an evaluation of the costs and benefits
plies, which could make a contribution to pover‐ of desalination projects in comparison with al‐
ty reduction in rural areas. However, small sys‐ ternative water supply options. No general rec‐
tems are not in the focus of this report, which ommendations can be provided in this regard.
addresses large‐scale desalination projects. Decisions about desalination developments have
to revolve around complex evaluations of local
Costs and benefits of desalination in circumstances such as demand, financing, envi‐
comparison with alternative water supplies ronmental and socio‐economic impacts [4].
Available alternatives and their costs and bene‐
Desalination can provide a seemingly unlimited fits also need to be included in this evaluation.
supply of water. The oceans contain 97% of the For example, the continued use of coastal aqui‐
word’s water. Many coastal states and islands fers may result in a significant increase in
have no other option than desalination, but the groundwater salinity, or the transfers of water
technology also helps countries with limited re‐ from a river or lake may result in significant and
sources to meet the growing demand of their irreversible damage to that ecosystem. In such
populations and economies. Desalination can be cases, the impacts of constructing and operating
a vital need or supplemental commodity. It pro‐ a desalination plant may be more acceptable
vides safe, high quality drinking water in any de‐ than the consequences resulting from the con‐
sired quantity, and safeguards a constant supply tinuation or expansion of the exiting or alterna‐
of water even in the face of draught and climate tive water supply practices.
change. Moreover, it can reduce pressures on There seems to be little reason to object a
conventional resources, and may thus avert se‐ desalination project when a clear need has been
vere environmental damage from terrestrial and established and when the facility is carefully re‐
freshwater ecosystems. gulated and monitored. It is recommended to
Despite offering many socio‐economic, envi‐ conduct a feasibility study and an environmental
ronmental and public health benefits, desalina‐ impact assessment study before a new desalina‐
tion is not going to be the ultimate solution to tion project is implemented. In order to achieve
the world’s water problems. It is more likely decisions in an open and transparent manner,
going to remain one piece in the water man‐ clear rules and standards for permission and
agement puzzle [4]. The economic costs are still regulation of desalination projects should be de‐
relatively high compared to water supplies from veloped. To that end, this report offers guidance
local ground‐ or surface water resources. The that shall help regulators, project designers and
energy demand is also considerable so that desa‐ decision makers to anticipate and address all re‐
lination development may increase energy‐ levant concerns that may arise when undertak‐
dependence. Furthermore, concerns are raised ing a desalination project, for obtaining maxi‐
over potential negative environmental and so‐ mum beneficial use of the desalinated water.
Concept, methodology and practice of
5
environmental impact assessments (EIA)
Part A
environmental impact assessments
applicable to desalination projects
A.1 Definition and concept of EIA
An EIA is a systematic process used to identify,

evaluate and mitigate the environmental effects
of a proposed project prior to major decisions
and commitments being made. It usually adopts
a broad definition of ‘environment’ considering
socio‐economic as well as environmental health
effects as an integral part of the process.
The main objectives of EIAs are to provide in‐
formation on the environmental consequences
for decision‐making, and to promote environ‐
mentally sound and sustainable development
through the identification of appropriate alter‐
natives and mitigation measures [5]. The three
central elements of an EIA are:
The establishment of environmental, socio‐
economic, and public health baseline data
for the project site before construction. A
prognosis of the ‘zero alternative’ is given,
which is the expected development of the
project site without project realization.
The prediction and evaluation of potential – A.2 Systematic EIA process for
direct and indirect – environmental, socio‐ desalination projects
economic, and public health impacts of the
proposed project. The EIA process is generally marked by three ma‐
The identification of appropriate alternatives jor phases (Figure 2 and 3):
and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, screening and scoping of the project;
remediate or compensate for any environ‐ environmental impact assessment;
mental, socio‐economic, and public health decision‐making and EIA review.
impacts resulting directly or indirectly from
the project. In the following, a 10 step process is proposed
for conducting EIAs for desalination projects. It
In essence, an EIA of desalination projects is a should be noted that in practice, deviations from
systematic process that examines the environ‐ the outlined process may occur. Single steps may
mental, socio‐economic and health effects dur‐ not always be clearly limitable, some steps may
ing all life‐cycle stages of the project, i.e. during overlap or may be interchanged. The EIA proce‐
construction, commissioning, operation, main‐ dure should thus be understood as a continuous
tenance and decommissioning of the plant. and flexible process.
Desalination
6
resource and guidance manual
pre EIA stages

Project proponents
application for license to the competent authority
Step 1: Project screening

is a full‐fledge EIA required for the project?
may follow a standardized or customized approach no EIA required
may involve an initial environmental assessment
EIA required
Step 2: Scoping of the project
what is the scope and content of the EIA? public
consideration of project alternatives involvement
preparation of the Terms of Reference (ToR)
Project proponents and/or consultants

prepare EIA according to the ToR (Steps 3–8)
main EIA stages

Step 3: Policy / administrative aspects
which policies and regulations apply and
which permits must be obtained for the project?
consideration of EIA laws and requirements and
any other relevant policies and regulations
Step 4: Project description

provision of relevant background information about
the project which is required to evaluate the
potential impacts of the project on the environment
Step 5: Baseline data

establishment of environmental, socio‐economic and public
health baseline data for the project area before construction
often involves monitoring activities and surveys
Step 6: Evaluation of impacts

description of all potential environmental, socio‐economic
and public health impacts and evaluation of their significance
Step 7: Impact mitigation

identification of measures in order to prevent, minimize or
remedy significant adverse impacts to acceptable levels
Step 8: Summary / conclusions

summary and conclusions of the main findings of steps 5–7
identification of preferred project configuration
Figure 2: Pre‐ or early EIA phases (scoping and screening) and main EIA phase.
7
Step 9: Management / monitoring plan final EIA stages

specification of monitoring, surveillance and auditing
activities during construction and operation
public
Step 10: Review & decision‐making involvement
review of the EIA process and EIA documents to
verify the completeness and quality of the EIA
approval or rejection of the proposed project project not
imposition of impact mitigation measures and approved
monitoring activities
approved redesign and

Project proponents resubmit
construct, commission and operate facility
post EIA stages p

Environmental management
effects monitoring:
conducted during construction and operation in order to
detect changes that are attributable to the project, usually
compared to reference data established in baseline monitoring
compliance monitoring:
periodic measurements of selected parameters to ensure compliance
with environmental standards and regulations
evaluation of the predictions made in the EIA
if necessary, corrective actions such as adjustment of
impact mitigation measures
Figure 3: EIA decision phase and follow‐up activities.

Desalination
8
A.2.1 Step 1 – Screening of the project The regulations for desalination plants may vary
considerably in different states. If a categoriza‐
Screening is the process by which a decision is tion of projects in general or of desalination
taken on whether or not an EIA is required for a plants in particular has not been undertaken, or
particular project. It shall ensure that a full EIA is if a proposed desalination project is on the bor‐
only performed for projects with potentially sig‐ derline of a threshold, the project needs to be
nificant adverse impacts or where impacts are screened on an a case‐by‐case basis.
not sufficiently known.
Screening thus involves making a preliminary Customized approach
determination of the expected impact of a pro‐ Individual screening does not necessarily require
posed project on the environment and of its additional studies, but can be conducted on the
relative significance. A certain level of basic in‐ basis of indicative guidance, for example using
formation about the proposal and its location is indicators and checklists. These are intended to
required for this purpose. be used quickly by people with the qualifications
The screening procedures can be broadly and experience typically found in competent au‐
classified into two approaches: a standardized thorities or environmental consultant compa‐
approach, in which projects are subject to or ex‐ nies, based on the information which is readily
empt from EIA defined by legislation and regula‐ available about the project and its environment.
tions; and a customized approach, in which pro‐ The World Bank [6] categorization of projects
jects are screened on a case‐by‐case base, using may allow a first, broad screening of desalination
indicative guidance [5]. plants based on a few common indicators, such
as the type, size and location of the project, en‐
Standardized approach vironmental sensitivity, and likely health and so‐
Many states have implemented EIA laws and cial effects on the local population:
procedures, which facilitate the screening proc‐
ess by defining for which project categories an Category A: full EIA required
EIA is required, such as: Projects likely to have significant adverse envi‐
‘mandatory’ or ‘positive’ lists which include ronmental impacts that are serious (i.e. irrevers‐
projects always requiring EIA (e.g. major pro‐ ible, affect vulnerable ethnic minorities, involve
jects, possibly large co‐generation plants for involuntary resettlement, or affect cultural her‐
electricity and water); itage sites), diverse, or unprecedented, or that
project lists which define thresholds and cri‐ affect an area broader than the sites of facilities
teria above which EIA is required (e.g. a de‐ subject to physical works (e.g. dams and reser‐
salination plant larger than 20,000 m3/d); voirs, large‐scale industrial plants, ports, ther‐
‘exclusion’ or ‘negative’ lists which specify mal‐ and hydropower developments, etc.).
thresholds and criteria below which EIA is
never required or below which a simplified Category B: limited EIA
EIA procedure applies (e.g. a desalination Projects likely to have adverse environmental
unit with less than 500 m3/d capacity). impacts that are less significant than those of
category A, meaning that few if any of the im‐
A class screening may be undertaken for small‐ pacts are likely to be irreversible, that they are
scale projects that are routine and replicable, if site‐specific, and that mitigation measures can
there is a reasonably sound knowledge of the be designed more readily than for category A
environmental effects and mitigation measures projects (e.g. small scale aquaculture, renewable
are well established. For example, class screen‐ energy, rural electrification, water supply or sa‐
ing could be applicable to small stand‐alone re‐ nitation, etc.). The main objective of a limited
verse osmosis (RO) systems such as for hotels. EIA is to identify suitable mitigation measures.
9
Category C: no EIA areas [5]. If a preliminary assessment is underta‐

Projects that are likely to have minimal or no ad‐ ken to assist in the screening decision, the in‐
verse environmental impacts. formation from the preliminary assessment can
also be used for scoping and later in the actual
A more elaborate approach is the use of com‐ EIA process. The single steps in an EIA may thus
prehensive indicator lists or checklists for not always be clearly limitable and some overlap
screening. For example, two checklists have may occur.
been prepared by the EU within the EIA directive
framework1 to support the process of deciding Documentation of screening results
whether or not a project is likely to have signifi‐ After a formal decision has been made by the
cant effects on the environment [7]. competent authority, an official screening doc‐
The first screening checklist provides a list of ument is typically prepared which records the
questions about the project and its environment, screening decision and provides an explanatory
which shall help to answer the question if the statement for this decision. It may be extended
project is likely to have a significant effect on the into a short screening report which also gives the
environment. The second checklist provides cri‐ results of the preliminary assessment, and can
teria that shall facilitate the evaluation of signi‐ be used to prepare the scoping document for
ficance. The checklists have been included in public dissemination in the following stage. The
Appendix D.1 for easy reference and slightly screening decision should be briefly outlined in
modified to fit the specific conditions and re‐ the EIA report, preferably in the introductory
quirements of desalination facilities. section (cf. section B.3, p. 22).
There is no specific rule that can be used to
decide whether the results of a screening check‐ A.2.2 Step 2 – Scoping of the project
list should lead to a positive or negative screen‐
ing decision (i.e. that EIA is or is not required). As Scoping is the process of determining the con‐
a general principle, the greater the number of tent and extent of the EIA studies. The Terms of
positive answers and the greater the significance Reference (ToR), which are elaborated in the
of the effects identified, the more likely it is that process, provide clear instructions to the project
an EIA is required. Uncertainty about the occur‐ proponent on the information that needs to be
rence or significance of effects should also point submitted to the competent authority for EIA,
towards a positive screening decision as the EIA and the studies to be undertaken to compile that
process will help to resolve the uncertainty. If information.
the need for EIA has been affirmed, scoping fol‐ Scoping is a crucial step in EIA because it
lows as the next consecutive step. identifies the issues of importance and elimi‐
nates those of little concern. In this way, it en‐
Preliminary EIA study sures that EIAs are focused on the significant ef‐
In some EIA systems, screening is considered as fects and do not involve unnecessary investiga‐
a flexible process which can be extended into a tions that waste time and resources. The process
preliminary form of an EIA study (often termed is completed with the ToR, however, experience
preliminary or initial environmental assessment). shows that the ToR should be flexible and may
This is typically carried out in cases where the need alteration as further information becomes
environmental impacts of a proposal are largely available, and new issues emerge or others are
unknown, e.g. new technologies or undeveloped reduced in importance [5].
1
EIA Directive 85/337/EEC from 1985, amended by
Directive 97/11/EC in 1997.
Desalination
10
Consideration of alternatives tion(s). In many cases, the competent authority

The consideration of alternatives to a proposal, will give permission but attach conditions to pro‐
such as alternative technologies or sites, is a re‐ ject approval, such as to implement mitigation
quirement of many EIA systems. It should be un‐ measures or to make changes in project configu‐
derstood as a dynamic process, which starts ear‐ ration, in order to minimize impacts on the
ly in project planning and continues throughout project site. In some cases, however, the EIA
the EIA process and decision‐making. The pro‐ may also come to the final conclusion that the
cess should be open to new, emerging alterna‐ chosen site(s) are not suitable, even if impact
tives while previously considered options might mitigation measures are implemented.
be abandoned due to new information becoming To reduce the likelihood of this outcome,
available. The aim is to identify the best practic‐ site‐selection should be an important considera‐
able option under environmental, socio‐eco‐ tion in project planning. Site selection can take
nomic and human health criteria that is also place during a ‘preliminary’ EIA study as part of
technically and economically feasible. the screening process (cf. Step 1, p. 9) or during
It should be noted that alternatives to a pro‐ scoping when the EIA requirements are deter‐
posal can be generated or refined most effec‐ mined. To facilitate site selection for desalina‐
tively in the early stages of project development. tion plants, public authorities may designate
The consideration of alternatives is therefore a suitable areas in regional development plans or
fundamental part of the early EIA stages, espe‐ may provide criteria that can be used by project
cially of scoping. At this stage, a number of al‐ developers for site‐selection. Selection of sites
ternatives is typically identified for evaluation in must be carried out on a case‐by‐case basis,
the EIA. New alternatives may also be identified since there are a large number of site‐specific
later on, especially at the stage when impact mi‐ considerations that vary according to the specific
tigation measures are elaborated. It is important operational aspects of each plant.
that the consideration of alternatives during an Generally, it is important to consider the fol‐
EIA is not reduced to a superficial and meaning‐ lowing site features:
less exercise. This may easily happen if project
planning advances faster than the EIA and deci‐ Geologic conditions:
sions for a certain project configuration or loca‐ Sites should provide stable geologic conditions
tion have consolidated before the EIA process and little risk that construction and operation of
has been completed. the plant will affect soil and sediment stability.
Selection of the project site Biologic resources:

Environmental, socio‐economic and public Ecosystems or habitats should be avoided where
health impacts resulting from the construction possible if they are
and operation of a desalination plant are largely unique within a region
dictated by the location of the facility and its as‐ (e.g. riffs on a mainly sandy shoreline);
sociated infrastructure. Therefore, proper site worth protecting on a global scale
selection for a desalination plant during the (e.g. coral reefs, mangroves);
planning process is essential for minimizing important in terms of productivity
these impacts. or biodiversity;
Site selection typically takes place in the early inhabited by protected, endangered or rare
stages of a desalination project and leads to the species (even if temporarily);
identification of a preferred site and possibly important feeding grounds or reproductive
one or two alternatives. An EIA, usually accom‐ areas for a larger number of species or cer‐
panied by a site‐specific monitoring programme, tain key species within a region;
will then be carried out for the identified loca‐ important for human food production.
11
Oceanographic conditions: communication network, or may even allow the

The site should provide sufficient capacity to di‐ co‐use of existing infrastructure, such as sea‐
lute and disperse the salt concentrate and to di‐ water intakes or outfalls.
lute, disperse and degrade any residual chemi‐
cals. The load and transport capacity of a site will Conflicts with other uses and activities:
primarily depend on water circulation and ex‐ The site should ideally provide no conflict or as
change rate as a function of currents, tides, surf, little as possible with other existing or planned
water depth and bottom/shoreline morphology. uses and activities, especially recreational and
In general, exposed rocky or sandy shorelines commercial uses, shipping, or nature conserva‐
with strong currents and surf may be preferred tion efforts.
over shallow, sheltered sites with limited water
exchange. The oceanographic conditions will de‐ Public involvement
termine the exposure time of the ecosystem and Public participation is a mandatory requirement
marine life to increased salinity and any pollut‐ in the planning and implementation of develop‐
ants discharged along with the waste water (cf. ment projects, and an inherent component of
sections C.4.4 and C.4.5). the EIA process, especially of scoping. As a gen‐
eral rule, the public should be involved as early
Raw water quality and proximity: as possible and continuously throughout the EIA
The intake location should ideally provide a good process. The overall goal is the involvement of
and reliable water quality, taking seasonal the public in decision‐making. This is based on
changes into account, with minimum danger of fundamental premises of democratic societies,
pollution or contamination, in order to avoid such as transparency of decision‐making and
performance problems of the plant or impacts equity among the affected populations in terms
on product water quality. The plant site should of ethnic background and socio‐economic status.
ideally be close to the source water intake to
minimize land use for pipelines and to avoid pas‐ Public involvement seeks to:
sage of pipes through agricultural land, settle‐ inform the public about the project, the
ments, etc. However, this cannot be generalized value of the desalinated water and the ex‐
and in some cases it may be more appropriate to tent of the community investment, about
locate the plant further inland, for example project alternatives including water conser‐
when construction on the shore is not possible vation and recycling;
for certain reasons (e.g. use of beaches, nature gather a wide range of perceptions of the
reserves, geological instability, etc.). proposed desalination project and take ad‐
vantage of the knowledge of indigenous and
Proximity to water distribution local communities about their living envi‐
infrastructure and consumers: ronment, thereby ensuring that important is‐
The site should ideally be close to existing distri‐ sues are not overlooked when the Terms of
bution networks and consumers to avoid con‐ Reference of the EIA are prepared;
struction and land‐use of pipelines and pumping address and dispel if necessary subjective
efforts for water distribution. However, impair‐ doubts and concerns about the project;
ment of nearby communities (i.e. consumers) by develop trust and working relationships
visual effects, noise, air pollution or other envi‐ among the stakeholders, including the af‐
ronmental health concerns should be avoided. fected communities, particularly vulnerable
groups, developers, planners, local and na‐
Vicinity of supporting infrastructure: tional governments, decision‐makers, or
The site should allow easy connection with other non‐government organizations.
infrastructure, such as power grid, road and
Desalination
12
Important steps in the development of a conflicts and the reaching of a consensus

public involvement programme include: among interest groups concerning the pro‐
identification of the stages in project devel‐ posed project.
opment and decision‐making during which
public involvement is required; Human health
identification and categorization of the af‐ EIAs, as widely required by national legislations
fected public into stakeholder groups, e.g. in and international agencies, offer integrated ana‐
terms of demographic or geographic charac‐ lyses of potential impacts of development pro‐
teristics (indigenous groups, residents, etc.), jects on all components of the environment, in‐
employment or work categories (fishermen cluding human health. There has been recent
etc.), social or interest groups; emphasis on the necessity to delineate the
anticipation of key public participation issues health effects of environmental impacts (as
and questions relating to the project; stated in the 2003 European Directives 2 and the
determination of the necessary level of pub‐ ESPOO Convention on EIA 3 ) on directly or indi‐
lic participation, which should be done at a rectly affected populations. When conducting
level compatible with its relevance to the scoping for a desalination project, relevant hu‐
proposed project and available resources man health effects should therefore be identi‐
development of a realistic schedule, phasing fied, considering the following recommenda‐
and budget for public participation; tions.
identification of public participation and in‐ The human health component should be
formation mechanisms (e.g. press releases, broadly addressed in EIAs, relying on readily
display booths, distribution of brochures or available information. This includes community
newsletters, etc.) and information gathering health determinants, such as incidences of dis‐
mechanisms (e.g. public hearings, work‐ ease, public information and concerns, and tra‐
shops, opinion surveys, telephone hotlines); ditional knowledge of the local inhabitants and
identification of methods for information as‐ indigenous population. Baseline information on
similation, analysis, record keeping and health and quality of life needs to be established
documentation; in order to assess the significance of potential ef‐
report evaluations and conclusions to policy fects of environmental impacts. Potential envi‐
and decision‐makers, stakeholders, and the ronmental health impacts should be prioritized,
public. with corresponding indicators and risk factors.
Both positive and negative health effects should
Examples of public participation issues are: be delineated, for the public at large as well as
site specific sensitivities: e.g. sites with cer‐ for vulnerable groups.
tain religious and cultural significance; Where there are specific concerns with expo‐
historical context: e.g. incidences of negative sure to certain toxic emissions or infectious
environment or public health impacts of cur‐ agents, the scientific literature should be
rent or early projects; searched for relevant published studies and epi‐
political considerations: e.g. concerns with demiological investigations. This is usually suffi‐
the influence of certain industries, or interest cient to address concerns with the potential
groups, and the equity aspects of benefits health impact. Most EIA assessments rely on ex‐
and drawbacks of the proposed project; isting information. Except for large projects, it is
public education: e.g. information of the often too expensive, and too time consuming to
public about benefits and possible draw‐
2
backs of the project; EIA Directive 85/337/EEC from 1985, amended by
conflict resolution: e.g. in certain cases pub‐ Directive 97/11/EC in 1997
3
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in
lic participation may involve the resolution of a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991)
13
generate new health information within the “Women play a central part in the provision,
timeframe allotted to conduct the EIA. The me‐ management and safeguarding of water”, which
thodology for the Human Health component of is one of four recognized principles of the Dublin
EIA is further detailed in section B.7.3. It is gen‐ Statement on Water and Sustainable Develop‐
erally based on: ment 6 . The consideration and integration of
screening and scoping steps to establish an gender‐specific effects in EIAs for desalination
existing setting; plants, from scoping to decision‐making, is thus
assessment of potential impacts; highly recommended to evaluate the advantages
reporting, mitigation and avoidance meas‐ and disadvantages of desalination activity on
ures, and both sexes. Where appropriate, a distinction in
plans for monitoring activities. the EIA process should be made between im‐
pacts on men and women. The different effects
Gender effects may be evaluated for example in the chapter on
Gender mainstreaming is a globally accepted socio‐economic impacts (cf. B.7). It is recom‐
strategy for promoting gender equality [8] 4 . The mended to outline the scope and approach of
UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) 5 de‐ how gender effects are addressed in the EIA in
fined gender mainstreaming as the “process of the beginning of the report (cf. B.4.4).
assessing the implications for women and men
of any planned action, including legislation, poli‐ Scoping procedure
cies or programmes, in all areas and at all le‐ Scoping procedures may vary considerably in dif‐
vels”, so that “women and men benefit equally ferent states. For example, scoping may either
and inequality is not perpetuated.” be carried out under a legal requirement or as
Gender Impact Assessment (GIA) has been in‐ good practice in EIA, or it may either be under‐
creasingly recognized as an adequate tool for taken by the competent authority or by the pro‐
implementing gender mainstreaming in recent ject proponent [10].
years, especially in the wake of the Fourth World It is recommended that the competent au‐
Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. It is thority takes responsibility at least for monitor‐
usually applied to policies and programmes, and ing of the process, for preparing the minutes and
means to compare and assess, according to official transcripts of the scoping meetings, for
gender relevant criteria, the current situation keeping the records of the scoping outcome, and
and trend with the expected development re‐ for preparing the ToR. The scoping procedure
sulting from the introduction of the proposed may follow these four general steps:
policy [9]. Based on the information collected during
In the same manner as policies and pro‐ screening, a scoping document containing a
grammes may have a differential impact on preliminary environmental analysis will be
women and men, many development projects prepared. It will specify details and proposed
will not be gender neutral. Gender‐specific ef‐ location(s) of the project, review alterna‐
fects may not be easily recognized at first glance, tives, briefly and concisely describe the envi‐
but an effort should be made to identify any sig‐ ronmental characteristics of the considered
nificant differential impacts that may perpetuate site(s) and raise potentially significant pro‐
gender inequality. ject‐related issues. The scoping document
Water projects and thus desalination projects serves as a background document for hear‐
have a high potential for gender‐specific effects. ings and discussions during scoping.
4 6
UN Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues International Conference on Water and the Envi‐
and Advancement of Women (OSAGI 2001) ronment, Dublin 1992, organized by the UN World
5
ECOSOC Agreed Conclusions, 1997/2 Meteorological Organization (WMO)
Desalination
14
The date and venue for the scoping meet‐ For example, checklists for scoping are provided
ing(s) will be set and a provisional agenda by the EU as supporting information to the Eu‐
prepared. Invitations for the meeting(s) and ropean EIA directive framework7. The scoping
the scoping document will be sent to col‐ checklists allow users to sift through a set of
laborating agencies, stakeholder groups, project characteristics which could give rise to
NGOs, experts and advisers. The scoping significant effects, and a set of environmental
meeting will also be announced in public and characteristics which could be susceptible to sig‐
the scoping document put on display for nificant adverse effects.
public inspection. A handout may be circu‐ In order to evaluate significance, the same
lated, notices posted in communities and checklist as provided for screening (cf. Appendix
media advertisements arranged to enhance D.1) can be used. The scoping checklists have
public participation. If the number of poten‐ been included in Appendix D.2 for easy refer‐
tially interested people and organizations is ence and have been slightly modified to suit the
large, questionnaires requesting written purpose of this document.
comments should be considered.
During scoping consultations, a complete list Standardized scoping procedure
of all issued concerns should be compiled. An effective way of dealing with an increasing
These items may then be evaluated in terms number of desalination projects may be to ela‐
of their relative importance and significance borate a standardized scoping procedure and
to prepare a shorter list of key issues, which Terms of Reference. The scoping process will of‐
can be classified into different impact cate‐ ten involve the same representatives of govern‐
gories to be studied in the EIA. ment agencies, NGOs, and consultants.
The Terms of Reference for EIA will be pre‐ A guideline, elaborated in a collaborative ef‐
pared, including information requirements, fort between these groups, may establish a rou‐
study guidelines, methodology and protocols tine and set a standard for the environmental
for revising the work. studies to be undertaken and the information to
be submitted in EIAs for desalination plants. The
Scoping tools and instruments guideline could thus serve as a blueprint for
When a competent authority or a developer un‐ scoping, which should still allow for project‐
dertakes scoping, three key questions should be specific adjustments.
answered [10]:
What effects could this project have on the A.2.3 Step 3 – Identification and description
environment? of policy and administrative aspects
Which of these effects are likely to be signifi‐
cant and therefore need particular attention EIAs usually take place within the distinctive leg‐
in the environmental studies? islative frameworks established by individual
Which alternatives and mitigating measures countries and/or international agencies. It is
ought to be considered? therefore recommendable to gain a deeper in‐
sight and understanding of any national policies
Basic instruments such as checklists and matric‐ or international agreements that apply in a
es are often used to provide a systematic ap‐ country or region and that relate to EIA [5].
proach to the analysis of potential interactions For instance, the first two steps of an EIA,
between project and environment. screening and scoping, shall determine if a full‐
7
EIA Directive 85/337/EEC from 1985, amended by
Directive 97/11/EC in 1997.
15
fledge EIA will be required for a proposed A.2.4 Step 4 – Investigation and description
project, and what the scope and contents of the of the proposed desalination project
EIA will be. Existing EIA policies or regulations
should therefore be consulted as they will likely A technical project description should be pre‐
contain relevant information for resolving these pared and included in the EIA report. It should
issues. form the basis of the EIA process by providing
Moreover, any other policy relevant to the background information on the project which is
desalination project needs to be identified. Ma‐ required to investigate and analyze all potential
jor thematic areas that should be considered impacts.
when searching the national or international le‐ The project description should cover the dif‐
gal system for relevant laws include: ferent life‐cycle stages of construction, commis‐
conservation of nature; sioning, operation, maintenance and decommis‐
biological diversity; sioning of the desalination plant. It should be
control and prevention of pollution; succinct and contain all information necessary
water resources management; for impact assessment but omit irrelevant or dis‐
land‐use and regional planning. tracting details. For further guidance on what to
include please cf. chapter B.6, p. 27.
In many jurisdictions, more than one permit will
typically be required to realize a desalination A.2.5 Step 5 – Investigation and evaluation
project. The main approval process, which au‐ of environmental baseline
thorizes construction and operation of a plant,
will not necessarily replace other existing statu‐ This step will entail assembling, evaluating and
tory provisions and permits. presenting baseline data of the relevant envi‐
For example, work place safety is an impor‐ ronmental, socio‐economic and public health
tant consideration in all industrial facilities. The characteristics of the project area before con‐
construction and operation of a desalination struction, including any other existing levels of
plant can present a number of safety hazards to degradation or pollution.
plant workers, so that a specific workplace safety A nearby ‘reference area’ with similar base‐
permit will probably be required and/or a plan line characteristics should be identified and sur‐
must be developed to ensure occupational safe‐ veyed in addition to the project site. Results
ty and health of the workers. from both the potentially affected and non‐
It is important to clarify early in project plan‐ affected site can then be compared as part of
ning which additional permits must be obtained the monitoring process during construction,
and to contact the competent authorities in commissioning and operation of the project. The
these regards. The permitting process may be main purpose of a reference site is to distinguish
facilitated by nominating a ‘lead’ agency, which between changes caused by the desalination
coordinates the process by involving other agen‐ project and those caused by natural variability or
cies and by informing the project proponent other anthropogenic activities that are not attri‐
about permitting requirements. buted to the desalination project.
A chapter should be included in the EIA re‐ The scope of the baseline studies to be un‐
port, which provides a brief description of all re‐ dertaken in an EIA for a desalination project
levant policies, agreements, plans or regulations should have been determined during the step of
at regional, national and international level. It scoping (Step 2) and should be briefly outlined in
should be stated how the project relates to the EIA report (cf. B.4, p. 22). They will probably
these laws and the competent authority in each have the following information requirements
area should be named. For further details, (for further details, please refer to chapters B.7
please cf. to chapter B.5 on p. 23. to B.9).
Desalination
16
Socio‐economic and ‐cultural environment: tinguish between direct and indirect impacts,
Aspects such as demographic changes, land‐use, immediate and long‐term impacts, reversible
planned development activities, status of exist‐ and irreversible impacts, avoidable and unavoid‐
ing water resource management programmes able impacts, positive and negative impacts. It is
(conservation and reuse), community structure, recommended that identified positive and nega‐
employment, distribution of income, goods and tive effects are also balanced in terms of their
services, recreation, cultural properties, tribal societal and environmental costs and benefits.
and indigenous people, customs, attitudes, per‐ If possible, potential cumulative, transbound‐
ception, aspiration etc. ary and growth‐inducing effects should be iden‐
tified and investigated. This can be done in the
Public health environment: individual chapters of the EIA report dealing with
Health indices of the populations at risk of being socio‐economic, human health and environ‐
affected by the project, e.g. rates of morbidity, mental implications of the project (cf. B.7 – B.9),
mortality, injuries, accidents, and life expect‐ while relevant aspects should also be pointed
ancy, as well as relevant socio‐economic indica‐ out in the concluding section (B.10).
tors of the quality of life. It should be noted here It is recommended to deliberate carefully
that WHO Constitution defines health as the about the accuracy of all predictions made in the
“state of complete physical, mental, and social EIA. These can only be as accurate and valid as
well‐being and not merely the absence of dis‐ the data and information available. It is there‐
ease or infirmity”. fore necessary to identify any information gaps
and deficiencies in the EIA, and to assess any un‐
Abiotic environment: certainties associated with the prognosis of im‐
Aspects such as geology, topography, climate, pacts. A precautionary approach should be pur‐
meteorology, ambient air quality, surface and sued where uncertainty about impacts exists.
ground water quality and hydrology, coastal and
marine environmental quality, existing sources Methods for predicting impacts
of emissions to air, soils and water, capacity of All predictions in an EIA are based on conceptual
environmental systems to take up, degrade, models of the environmental systems. Several
dilute and disperse emissions or noise levels, etc. approaches and instruments can be used for
predicting impacts. Each covers the range of im‐
Biotic environment: pacts only partially and should therefore be used
Aspects such as flora and fauna, including rare in conjunction with others.
and endangered species, sensitive habitats, spe‐
cies of commercial value, species with potential Field and laboratory experimental methods:
to become nuisances, alien species, etc. This might include simple tests to predict im‐
pacts of a certain agent or activity on an indica‐
A.2.6 Step 6 – Investigation and evaluation tor (e.g. salinity tolerance or toxicity studies us‐
of potential impacts of the project ing a sensitive species from the region).
In this step of the EIA, a prognosis, description Physical or image models:

and evaluation of the potential environmental, This involves the design and construction of
socio‐economic and health impacts of the pro‐ small scale models to study effects with a high
posed project is elaborated. Furthermore, the degree of certainty in miniature (e.g. a miniature
magnitude, spatial and temporal range of all model of a discharge diffuser system tested in a
identified impacts and their relative significance laboratory simulation).
should be evaluated at this stage. Where possi‐
ble, an attempt should be made to further dis‐
17
Analogue models: A.2.7 Step 7 – Mitigation of negative effects

Predictions are based on analogies, i.e. by com‐
paring the potential impacts of the proposed de‐ The consideration of major alternatives such as
salination project to a similar existing project. alternative location, technology etc. should start
early in the planning of a new project (cf. Step 2)
Mathematical models: as the flexibility and disposition to make major
Models vary in complexity from simple input‐ modifications is typically still high at this time. As
output relationships to highly sophisticated dy‐ project planning progresses and consolidates,
namic models with a wide range of interrela‐ major alternatives will only be seriously consid‐
tions, variables and coefficient constants that ered if the EIA has revealed significant impacts
have to be identified and determined. (as part of Step 6) that cannot be mitigated oth‐
erwise. The investigation of impact mitigation
Mass balance models: measures should thus be understood as a proc‐
These models are based on the difference in the ess, which starts with the consideration of major
sum of the inputs as compared to the sums of alternatives in early project planning and contin‐
outputs (e.g. life cycle analyses). ues after potential impacts have been analyzed.
At this stage, specific recommendations need to
Matrices: be elaborated that mitigate the predicted effects
A two dimensional matrix is often used which of the project.
cross‐references the project activities on one The step of impact mitigation should identify
axis with the environmental, socio‐economic and the most feasible and cost‐effective measures to
human health setting in the project site on the avoid, minimize or remedy significant negative
other axis. This method allows for a systematic impacts to levels acceptable to the regulatory
identification and evaluation of cause‐effect‐ agencies and the affected community. The defi‐
relationships. nition of ‘acceptable’ will vary according to dif‐
ferent national, regional or local environmental
Criteria for evaluating significance standards, which depend on a society's or com‐
General criteria can be used to assess the signifi‐ munity’s social, ideological and cultural values,
cance of environmental and socio‐economic im‐ on economic potentials and on politics.
pacts of a desalination project. These criteria are For impacts which cannot be mitigated by
not mutually exclusive but are very much inter‐ technically and economically feasible methods,
related. The following general criteria should be compensation methods should be identified.
taken into account when examining potentially These may include monetary compensation or
significant adverse effects: remediation activities. The elements of mitiga‐
nature of impacts (direct/indirect, positive/ tion are organized into a hierarchy of actions [5]:
negative, cumulative, transboundary);
time‐span (short/medium/long‐term, per‐ Prevention:
manent/temporary, frequent/seldom); Avoid impacts by preventive measures, consider
extent (geographical area, size of affected feasible alternatives and identify the best practi‐
population/habitat/species); cable environmental option.
magnitude (severe, reversible/ irreversible);
probability (high/medium/low probability) Minimization:
possibility to mitigate, avoid or offset signifi‐ Identify customized measures to minimize each
cant adverse impacts. of the main impacts predicted and ensure they
are appropriate, environmentally sound, techno‐
Further details for evaluating the significance of logically feasible and cost‐effective.
impacts are given in Appendix D.1.3.
Desalination
18
Remediation: A.2.9 Step 9 – Establishment of an

Remedy or compensate for adverse residual im‐ environmental management plan
pacts, which are unavoidable and cannot be re‐
duced further, as a last resort. An environmental management plan should be
elaborated to ensure the ongoing assessment
Mitigation can include structural measures (e.g. and review of the effects of the proposed desali‐
design or location changes, technical modifica‐ nation project during construction, commission‐
tions, waste treatment) and non‐structural ing, operation, maintenance, and decommis‐
measures (e.g. economic incentives, policy in‐ sioning. It thus builds continuity into the EIA pro‐
struments, provision of community services, ca‐ cess and helps to optimize environmental bene‐
pacity building). Remediation and compensation fits at each stage of project development.
may involve rehabilitation of the affected site Increasing attention should furthermore be
(e.g. habitat enhancement, restocking of fish), given to public involvement in the EIA imple‐
restoration of the affected site to its previous mentation, for example by establishing stake‐
state after project demolition, and replacement holder monitoring committees. In general, the
of resource values at another location. key objectives of EIA implementation and follow
up are to [5]:
A.2.8 Step 8 – Summary and conclusions identify the actual environmental, socio‐
economic and public health impacts of the
This chapter gives a concise account of the main project and check if the observed impacts
findings and recommendations of steps 5 to 7 are within the levels predicted in the EIA;
(corresponding to chapters B.7 to B.10 in Part B). determine that mitigation measures or other
It should focus on the key information that is conditions attached to project approval (e.g.
needed for decision‐making. by legislation) are properly implemented and
An overview of the main impacts (possibly in work effectively;
the form of a table) should be provided for this adapt the measures and conditions attached
purpose, distinguishing between significant im‐ to project approval in the light of new infor‐
pacts which can be prevented or minimized, and mation or take action to manage unantici‐
those which cannot. Both direct and indirect im‐ pated impacts if necessary;
pacts, positive and negative impacts, as well as ensure that the expected benefits of the pro‐
potential cumulative effects, should be consi‐ ject are being achieved and maximized;
dered. Mitigation or alternative options should gain information for improving similar pro‐
be offered for significant impacts where possi‐ jects and EIA practice in the future.
ble. In essence, the original project proposal
should be systematically compared with alterna‐ To achieve these objectives, the management
tive project configurations in terms of adverse plan should specify any arrangements for
and beneficial impacts and effectiveness of miti‐ planned monitoring, surveillance and/or auditing
gation measures. As far as possible, trade‐offs activities, including methodologies, schedules,
and uncertainties should be mentioned. protocols for impact management in the event
Finally, the ‘best practicable environmental of unforeseen events etc. The main components
option’ should be identified, which is the pre‐ and tools of EIA implementation and follow up
ferred project configuration under environ‐ as part of an environmental management plan
mental, social, cultural and public health criteria. include [5]:
It should be ensured that this option is both
economically and technologically feasible. The
decision should be transparent and supported by
arguments.
19
Monitoring activities: pleteness of the identified impacts, proposed al‐

Measure the environmental changes that can be ternatives and suggested mitigation measures.
attributed to project construction and operation, The review process can be based on explicit
check the effectiveness of mitigation measures, guidelines and criteria for review. If these are
and ensure that applicable regulatory standards not available, it may draw on general principles,
and requirements are being met, e.g. for waste objectives and terms of references or use the
discharges and pollutant emissions. following questions [5]:
Does the EIA report address the Terms of
Surveillance activities: Reference?
Oversee adherence to and implementation of Is the requested information provided for
the terms and conditions of project approval. each major component of the EIA report?
Is the information correct and technically
Auditing activities: sound?
Evaluate the implementation of terms and con‐ Have the views and concerns of affected and
ditions, the accuracy of EIA predictions, the ef‐ interested parties been considered?
fectiveness of mitigation measures, and the Is the statement of the key findings complete
compliance with regulatory requirements and and satisfactory, e.g. for significant impacts,
standards. proposed mitigation measures, etc.?
Is the information clearly presented and un‐
Further details on the main elements of envi‐ derstandable?
ronmental management plans for desalination Is the information sufficient for the purpose
projects are specified in chapter B.11 on p. 47. of decision‐making and condition setting?
A.2.10 Step 10 – Review of the EIA The response to the last question is the most
and decision‐making process significant aspect for review and will largely de‐
termine whether or not the EIA can be submit‐
The purpose of review is to verify the complete‐ ted to the competent authority as it is or with
ness and quality of the information gathered in minor revisions for decision‐making.
an EIA. This final step shall ensure that the in‐ The competent authority will form its own
formation provided in the report complies with judgment on the proposed project based on the
the Terms of Reference as defined during scop‐ EIA report, the analysis of stakeholder interests
ing and is sufficient for decision‐making pur‐ and statements from collaborating agencies, and
poses. Review is a formal step in the EIA process decide on approval or rejection of the proposed
and serves as a final check of the EIA report that project. The competent authority will typically
will then be submitted for project approval. impose conditions if the project is approved,
The review may be undertaken by the re‐ such as mitigation measures, limits for emissions
sponsible authority itself, another governmental or environmental standards to be observed.
institution or an independent body. Participation
of collaborating and advisory agencies in the re‐
view process is strongly recommended, as is the
involvement of the public and major stake‐
holders in public hearings about the outcomes of
the EIA.
The review should follow a systematic ap‐
proach. This will entail an evaluation and valida‐
tion of the EIA methodology and procedure, and
a check for consistency, plausibility and com‐
Desalination
20
Part B
Outline and contents list of an
environmental impact assessment
report for desalination projects
In addendum to the methodological approach
proposed in Part A of this document, a modular
outline for an EIA report is presented in the fol‐
lowing. The EIA report is the primary document
for decision‐making, which organizes and syn‐
thesizes the information and results obtained by
the studies and consultations undertaken during
the EIA process.
The following contents list (checklist) gives an
overview on a range of thematic issues that may
be relevant to individual desalination projects.
The structure of the list widely reflects the meth-
odological approach of Part A and includes en-
vironmental concerns as well as socio‐economic
and human health implications.
As the list shall serve as a reference source
and blueprint for preparing an EIA report, it tries
to be inclusive rather than exclusive by raising a
wide range of potentially relevant issues for dif‐
ferent desalination projects and environments.
By screening the information, it can be decided
on a case by case basis which issues may be B.1 Title pages
relevant for a specific desalination project and
which are of minor or no importance. The front page(s) of an EIA report should briefly
define the project, and for transparency reasons
also identify the main stakeholders involved in
Front matter to an EIA report the project and EIA by specifying:
(sections B.1 – B.2) the name, location, size, nature (e.g. Build
Operate Transfer – BOT) of a project;
The front matter comprises all the material the names and contact details of all consult‐
that appears before the actual body content ants and institutions who participated in in‐
of the EIA report, including vestigations and/or carried out the EIA, also
the title pages, giving their accreditation status;
the table of contents, the names and contact details of the com‐
list of figures and tables,
pany or consortium planning the project (e.g.
preface,
acknowledgments, etc. government, public‐private partners);
An executive summary of the main findings the financial sponsor of the desalination pro‐
and results often precedes the full report as ject and the EIA study (e.g. project propo‐
part of the front matter. nent, government authorities).
21
environmental impact assessments (EIA) report
Other useful information that may be included in

the front matter of an EIA report: Project background information
copyright or confidentiality statement, (sections B.3 – B.6)
other restrictions;
table of contents, list of figures, A coherent EIA report should cover the main
tables and appendices; activities and results of the pre‐EIA stages
preface and acknowledgements to and all technical and legislative information
contributors; concerning the project and the EIA process.
list of abbreviations and glossary. As a first action, a new project is typically
screened in order to determine if a full EIA is
B.2 Executive summary required (cf. Step 1, p. 8). In the introduc‐
tion to the EIA report, the rationale and
The executive summary sums up the essential purpose of the EIA should therefore be
points and results of the EIA in a concise and stated as identified in the screening decision
non‐technical manner. It is a crucial part of the ( for more details cf. chapter B.3 below).
EIA – in fact, it is often the only part of the com‐ If the screening decision is positive, the
prehensive document that decision‐makers and scope and content of the EIA will be de‐
the general public will read. fined during the scoping phase (cf. Step 2,
It is strongly advisable to prepare the execu‐ p. 9), which usually ends with the prepara‐
tive summary such that a layman without any tion of the Terms of Reference. It is rec‐
background in desalination or the project can ommended to briefly outline the scope and
quickly and fully understand the important out‐ methodology of the EIA also in the EIA re‐
comes of the EIA and pass a considered opinion port, including an overview on the studies
on the environmental impacts and alternatives that are undertaken and the investigation
presented. For this purpose, executive summa‐ and evaluation methods used. An account
ries of EIA statements should: of the public participation process and
be short (up to 5 pages as a rule of thumb), considered alternatives may be included
‘stand alone’ without requiring references to ( for more details cf. chapter B.4, p. 22).
the rest of the report, clear and simple with‐ Moreover, the national EIA laws need to
out oversimplifying or eclipsing facts; be consulted in the early planning stages of
briefly cover all relevant issues and impart all a project in order identify applicable regula‐
essential information of the project, in par‐ tions and procedures (cf. Step 3, p. 14). Oth‐
ticular provide an overview of the main im‐ er policies, permitting and regulatory issues
pacts (possibly in the form of a table), distin‐ which may apply or relate to the project,
guishing between those which can be miti‐ such as water quality standards or nature
gated and those which cannot; conservation laws should also be investi‐
inform the reader of the major factors con‐ gated and pointed out in the EIA report
sidered in decision‐making, include the ma‐ ( for more details cf. chapter B.5 , p. 23).
jor conclusions and findings of the EIA study, Finally, a technical description of the
and identify the areas of remaining contro‐ proposed project (cf. Step 4, p. 15) over its
versy and explain unresolved issues. entire life‐cycle should be included in the
EIA report. The technical details should be
Considering these recommendations, it may be reduced to those aspects relevant to the EIA
necessary to prepare more than one executive ( for more details cf. chapter B.6, p. 27).
summary depending on the audience.
Desalination
22
B.3 Introduction to the EIA B.4.2 Methodology of the EIA
The introduction of an EIA report should convey National standards or guidelines may stipulate
a general idea of the project and the EIA process the EIA methodology to be followed for a certain
by briefly describing: type of project or activity. For a specific project,
the rationale behind the decision for the new the EIA methodology may also have been a mat‐
desalination project; ter of debate during the scoping phase, when
the rationale behind the decision for the EIA the Terms of Reference describing the content
study by referring to the screening decision and extent of the EIA are established.
and by summarising the main arguments; In either case, a reference to the applicable
the general purpose of the EIA, such as to: regulations or official documents should be
– provide a guide for project site selection, given and their requirements briefly outlined in
construction, commissioning, operation, the EIA report. If no conditions have been im‐
maintenance and decommissioning; posed on the methodology, EIA practitioners
– assess and minimize the environmental, may adopt an individual approach, which should
socio‐economic and public health impli‐ be briefly described in the EIA report. The EIA
cations throughout the life‐cycle of the methodology in general includes:
project; methodologies used for investigating the en‐
– identify aspects of uncertainty, need for vironmental baseline and the potential im‐
further research and information gaps; pacts, such as environmental sampling tech‐
– elaborate alternatives and impact miti‐ niques, laboratory analysis, statistical data
gation methods. analysis, controlled field or laboratory ex‐
periments, computer models, etc.;
B.4 Scope and methodology of the EIA methodological approaches for evaluating
the impacts, such as criteria for the identifi‐
B.4.1 Scope of the EIA cation of significance of impacts, for balanc‐
ing the effects against each other, for evalu‐
The scope of an EIA study is typically defined by: ating the combined risk of all impacts, etc.
the EIA legislation text, which usually con‐
tains general regulations; B.4.3 Public involvement
standard guidelines, which may be specific to
certain projects or activities; Public involvement is an essential process in the
the Terms of Reference as established during planning, decision‐making and implementation
scoping for a specific project (cf. Step 2, p. 9). of development projects, and mandated by na‐
tional and international organizations. The main
To describe the scope of an EIA study, a refer‐ goals, particularly for community water supply
ence to the applicable regulations or official projects, are to involve the directly or indirectly
documents should be given and their require‐ affected population in decision‐making and to
ments briefly outlined, particularly: establish trust and partnership. This requires
which environmental compartments, socio‐ that the public is informed and educated about
economic aspects and human health implica‐ the purpose and implementation plans of the
tions are being investigated in the EIA; proposed project. Benefits and drawbacks
which project components are included in should be explained, including environmental,
the EIA in addition to the desalination unit socio‐economic and public health implications.
(e.g. chemical storage facilities, intakes, out‐ Public involvement furthermore aims to gain all
falls, connecting infrastructure like water possible views and opinions to ensure that im‐
pipelines, power lines, access roads etc.). portant aspects are not overlooked in decision‐
23
making. Invariably, this information from the B.4.5 Considered alternatives

public is in the form of subjective opinions, influ‐
enced by socio‐economic, cultural and political The consideration of alternatives to a proposal is
factors. The information therefore needs to be a requirement of many EIA systems, and should
scientifically analyzed in order to develop an ob‐ ideally begin in the early EIA stages (cf. Step 2)
jective picture of public priorities of the ex‐ when the tolerance and disposition to make ma‐
pected benefits and potential impacts of the de‐ jor modifications to the project is still high. Pos‐
salination project. sible alternatives include alternative location,
An effective way of ensuring that participants technology, scale or process, but also the ‘no
understand how their views have been ad‐ project’ alternative, i.e. the use of alternative
dressed in the EIA is to summarize the results of water supplies, water recycling schemes or wa‐
the public involvement process in the EIA report. ter saving techniques.
Possible alternatives to the project or project
B.4.4 Gender effects parts should be briefly listed and described in
the EIA to indicate that alternative options have
The consideration of gender aspects in the EIA been seriously considered and evaluated. Rea‐
process is highly recommended to ensure that soning should be provided why certain options
gender‐specific effects which may perpetuate have been dismissed or selected, leading to the
gender inequality are identified and mitigated. one or two project configuration(s) that are
The scope and approach of the EIA in this regard eventually investigated in the EIA.
should be briefly outlined in the beginning of the
EIA report. B.5 Policy and administrative aspects
The actual evaluation of gender‐specific ef‐
fects is usually integrated in that part of the EIA This chapter in an EIA contains the results of
which deals with socio‐economic impacts (cf. Step 3 (Identification and description of policy
B.7). However, gender‐specific effects may also aspects, cf. p. 14). It has the following objectives:
be summarized in a separate chapter if signifi‐ to describe the legal and institutional basis
cant gender effects are anticipated. When socio‐ for the EIA;
economic impacts are investigated, it should to list other regional, national or interna‐
therefore be kept in mind that desalination ac‐ tional policies or agreements relevant to the
tivity has the potential to affect men differently project, describing them briefly and explain‐
than women, especially where traditional role ing in which way they relate to the project;
models and lifestyles prevail. to list regional, national or international
In many societies, water is at the core of plans or programmes relating to the project;
women’s traditional responsibilities. These may to outline any specific permitting require‐
encompass the collection of sufficient water for ments and regulatory issues defined by law;
the whole family, usage of water for household to identify the various levels of involvement,
tasks such as food preparation or maintaining i.e. involved authorities and stakeholders at
sanitation, or caring for family members who fell local, regional, national, and international
ill due to the use of contaminated water. The level.
quantity and quality of water that is available in
households is therefore a decisive factor for B.5.1 Legal and institutional basis of the EIA
women. Providing access to sufficient and clean
water by desalination might dramatically reduce This section describes existing national and in‐
women’s workloads, and free up time for other ternational EIA laws and procedures relevant to
social, educational or economic activities. the desalination project. When national proce‐
dural guidance is not available, it may be devel‐
Desalination
24
oped by reference to guidelines prepared by in‐ tional and regional EIA systems have been newly
ternational agencies. Two key international de‐ established or comprehensively reformed in
velopments in EIA policy and institutional ar‐ previous years [5]:
rangements from the last decade are [5]: long‐established EIA systems with compre‐
The Rio Declaration on Environment and De‐ hensive reform, e.g. New Zealand (1991),
velopment (1992), which calls for use of EIA Canada (1995), Australia (1999);
as an instrument of national decision‐making new or revised EIA legislation enacted by
(Principle 17). Moreover, it establishes im‐ many developing and transitional countries;
portant principles for sustainable develop‐ e.g. Vietnam (1993), Uganda (1994), Ecuador
ment that should be reflected in EIAs, such (1997);
as the application of the precautionary prin‐ European Directive on EIA (1997), which re‐
ciple (Principle 15). quires all member states to be in compliance
The UNECE (Espoo) Convention on EIA in a by 1999 and which is also being transposed
Transboundary Context, which entered into into the EIA laws of countries accessing to
force in 1997 as the first EIA‐specific interna‐ the EU, and EU Directive on Strategic Envi‐
tional treaty. It stipulates the responsibilities ronmental Assessment (SEA) of certain plans
of signatory countries with regard to projects and programmes (2001) to be implemented
that have transboundary impacts, describes by 2004.
the principles, provisions and procedures to
be followed, and lists the activities, content The IIED Directory furthermore provides ab‐
of documentation and criteria of significance stracts for 45 international development agen‐
that apply. cies and 800 bibliographic references for obtain‐
ing further information. For general guidance on
Furthermore, the World Bank [6] and some re‐ EIA methodology and practice, also the EIA train‐
gional development banks 8 have well‐ ing resource manual of UNEP is recommended
established EIA procedures for their lending ac‐ [5].
tivities, which oblige borrowing countries to
prepare EIAs according to the EIA requirements B.5.2 National or international policies,
of the development banks. Although these vary agreements or programmes
in certain respects, a relatively standard proce‐
dure for the preparation and approval of an EIA The following major thematic areas may be con‐
report is followed. The development banks sidered when searching the national or interna‐
therefore continue to set important standards in tional legal system for relevant agreements. Key
countries that have weak or non‐existent do‐ international conventions and programmes that
mestic arrangements. may be relevant to desalination projects include:
National EIA arrangements will be distinctive
to some degree and vary from the international Public participation policy and legal
standards. A useful starting point to investigate instruments:
the EIA systems of individual countries is the IIED Rio Declaration on Environment and
Directory of Impact Assessment Guidelines [11]. Development (1992);
It includes 140 country status reports which EU Protocol Strategic Environmental
summarize the legislative and administrative Assessment, Kiev, Ukraine (May 2003);
context of EIAs. For example, the following na‐ Article 152 of the EU Amsterdam Treaty;
Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Aarhus Convention
(2000).
8
African Development Bank, Asian Development
Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Devel‐
opment, Inter‐American Development Bank
25
Protection of wildlife and biological Convention on Wetlands of International

diversity, coastal seas and oceans: Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
The Convention on Biological Diversity 9 is a (Ramsar Convention) 15 , which aims to pre‐
key agreement adopted at the Earth Summit vent loss and encourage wise use of all wet‐
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It establishes three lands and their resources. The definition of
main goals: the conservation of biological di‐ wetlands includes estuarine and marine en‐
versity, the sustainable use of its compo‐ vironments, such as estuaries, deltas, tidal
nents, and the fair and equitable sharing of flats, near‐shore marine areas, mangroves
the benefits from the use of genetic re‐ and coral reefs.
sources. The convention cites EIA as an im‐ European Directives, which deal with the
plementing mechanism. conservation of wildlife and focus on the
The Convention on the Conservation of Mi‐ protection of species and habitats (Birds Di‐
gratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or rective and Habitats Directive). The sites pro‐
Bonn Convention, 1979) 10 aims to conserve tected under both directives form the Euro‐
terrestrial, marine and avian migratory spe‐ pean ‘Natura 2000’ network, covering 17% of
cies on a global scale throughout their habi‐ EU territory and including some coastal and
tats. It is an intergovernmental treaty con‐ marine sites 16 .
cluded under the aegis of UNEP, which acts The UN Regional Seas Programme 17 , which
as a framework convention for further aims to address the accelerating degradation
Agreements (legally binding treaties) and of the world’s oceans and coastal areas. Thir‐
Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) con‐ teen Regional Seas Programmes 18 have been
cerning different species and regions. established so far that engage riparian states
Agreements and MoU that might be relevant in concerted actions to protect the shared
for desalination projects are: marine environments. The programmes are
– Agreement on the Conservation of underpinned with a strong legal framework
Cetaceans of the Black Sea, in the form of Regional Seas Conventions,
Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Action Plans and associated protocols on
Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) 11 ; specific problems, such as protocols to pre‐
– Agreement on the Conservation of Small vent pollution from land‐based sources.
Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas Regional seas programmes not under the
(ASCOBANS) 12 ; auspices of UNEP, i.e. OSPAR for the North‐
– Agreement on the Conservation of East Atlantic and HELCOM for the Baltic Sea.
African‐Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds
(AEWA) 13 ; Control and prevention of emissions and
– Memorandum of Understanding on the environmental pollution:
Conservation and Management of Convention on Control of Transboundary
Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their
Indian Ocean and South‐East Asia 14 . Disposal (Basel, 1989) 19 , which aims to pro‐
15
http://www.ramsar.org/
16
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/
17
http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/
9 18
http://www.biodiv.org/ Black Sea, Wider Caribbean, East Africa, South East
10
http://www.cms.int/ Asia, ROPME Sea Area, Mediterranean, North‐East
11
http://www.accobams.org/ Pacific, North‐West Pacific, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden,
12
http://www.ascobans.org/ South Asia, South‐East Pacific, South Pacific, West
13
http://www.unep‐aewa.org/ and Central Africa, East Central Pacific.
14 19
http://www.ioseaturtles.org/ http://www.basel.int/
Desalination
26
tect human health and the environment to integrate desalination activity into existing
against the adverse effects which may result plans. The most relevant plans or programmes
from the generation, transboundary move‐ for desalination plants will be:
ment and management of hazardous and
other wastes. Integrated Water Resources Management.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Useful information sources on IWRM are:
Change (UNFCCC, New York, 1992) 20 and the Global Water Partnership 22 (GWP), a net‐
Kyoto Protocol, which aim to stabilize green‐ work of Regional Partnerships with the ob‐
house gas concentrations in the atmosphere jective to develop action plans based on
at a level that would prevent ‘dangerous in‐ IWRM. Provides information sources such as
terference with climate’ and to adapt to the a ‘ToolBox’ for Integrated Water Resources
expected impacts of climate change. Management;
Global Programme of Action on the Protec‐ UNESCO water portal 23 , which provides in‐
tion of the Marine Environment from Land‐ formation on UNESCO‐led programmes such
based Activities (GPA), adopted through the as the International Hydrological Programme
Washington Declaration, 1995 21 . The GPA (IHP) and the World Water Assessment Pro‐
shall provide guidance to national and re‐ gramme (WWAP);
gional authorities in devising and implement‐ World Bank recommendations and resources
ing sustained action to prevent and control (e.g. [13]).
marine degradation from land‐based activi‐
ties. The UN Regional Seas Programme is Integrated Coastal Zone Management:
used as framework for delivery of the GPA at Integrated coastal area management of the
the regional level. UN Regional Seas Programme:
Specific protocols addressing land‐based pol‐ – Guidelines for Integrated Management
lution have been adopted for the Mediterra‐ of Coastal and Marine Areas ‐ With Spe‐
nean (1980/1996), the South‐East Pacific cial Reference to the Mediterranean Ba‐
(1983), the Kuwait region (1990), the Black sin [14];
Sea (1992), and the Wider Caribbean (1999). – Good Practices Guidelines for Integrated
Seawater desalination activities in the Medi‐ Coastal Area Management in the Medi‐
terranean were reviewed and a guidance terranean [15];
document for the management of brine dis‐ – Guidelines for Integrated Planning and
charges prepared under consideration of the Management of Coastal and Marine
land‐based sources protocol for the Mediter‐ Areas in the Wider Caribbean Region
ranean region [12]. [16].
The Integrated Coastal Area Management 24
B.5.3 Consistency with relevant programme established by the Intergovern‐
management plans and policies mental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of
UNESCO and supporting documents.
This section of the EIA should include a descrip‐ World Bank resources, e.g.:
tion of each relevant plan or programme and an – Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone
analysis of how the project complies with it. For Management [17];
areas with increasing or high desalination capaci‐ – Coastal Zone Management & Environ‐
ty, it is recommended to elaborate specific plans mental Assessment [13].
for the management of desalination activity, or
22
http://www.gwpforum.org/
23
http://www.unesco.org/water/
20 24
http://unfccc.int/ http://ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/index.php
21
http://www.gpa.unep.org/ and http://ioc.unesco.org/icam/
27
Any other plan or programme which thorities. To facilitate the permitting process, a
includes considerations such as: ‘lead’ agency may have been nominated to
protection and facilitation of public access to coordinate the process, to involve other agen‐
coastal land; cies and to inform the project proponent about
protection and enhancement or restoration permitting requirements.
of coastal ecosystems or species; It is important to define and clarify the role of
management of other uses and activities in a each jurisdiction or agency involved in reviewing
coastal area, such as agriculture, fisheries, and permitting a project early in the process,
recreation, tourism, commercial uses, use of and to coordinate the information needs of each
resources, etc.; agency. An overview on the competencies and
urban, land use and development planning. interrelationships of involved agencies should be
given in the EIA to increase transparency of the
B.5.4 Permitting and regulatory aspects decision‐making process.
This section should include a review of the rele‐ B.6 Description of the proposed project
vant permits and regulatory controls that apply
to a desalination project in different stages of its B.6.1 Objectives and goals of the project
life‐cycle, including:
permits needed to begin construction or op‐ This section typically provides a short explana‐
eration according to agreed conditions; tory statement why the desalination project is
renewal of permits at different phases of needed and it gives some general goals of the
construction activities based on compliance project, such as to create a new cost efficient
with the outcomes of the approved EIA for and environmentally acceptable desalination
each phase; plant for a new water supply; or to create a
regular renewal permits during operation drought resistant reliable source of water. An
(semi annual, annual, etc.). outline of the purpose and rationale of a project
is a useful introduction to the project descrip‐
The relevant permits and regulatory controls tion. This should also entail a rather specific goal
may be organized by issue, such as: such as the delivery of a certain volume of
public health and safety; freshwater to a particular community for a cer‐
workplace safety; tain period of time (i.e. stating plant capacity
drinking water quality; and lifetime).
air quality;
land use and site disturbance; B.6.2 Project delivery methodology
conservation of marine and terrestrial bio‐
logical resources; The desalination project may be delivered using
utilities and service system regulations; a variety of methods. Delivery methods where
construction activities. the project is built using public funds and the
risks are identified and equitably proportioned
B.5.5 Levels of involvement between the public and private sector are:
design‐bid‐construct (DBC);
Desalination projects relate to a large variety of design‐construct (DC);
issues so that different permitting agencies will design‐build‐operate (DBO);
be involved in the regulatory and permitting design‐build‐operate‐transfer (DBO).
process. This process typically includes involve‐
ment from all levels of government, with coordi‐ Alternatively, the project may be initially built
nation and oversight from regional or federal au‐ and operated by private capital and the water is
Desalination
28
purchased from the contractor. The correspond‐ (a detailed description, however, should fol‐
ing delivery methods are: low in subsequent chapters);
design‐build‐own‐operate (DBOO); a calculation of plant space requirements,
design‐build‐own‐operate‐transfer (DBOOT). e.g. in terms of square kilometres.
The methodology selected will influence the pro‐ B.6.5 Process and engineering
ject delivery period and some of the project de‐ characteristics
tails available at the time of the environmental
impact assessment. Notwithstanding the deliv‐ This section of the EIA should provide a technical
ery method, the following sections outline the outline of the process and engineering characte‐
basic components of the project and the mini‐ ristics of the proposed project. It should be re‐
mum technical information required in the de‐ stricted to those aspects that are relevant for
velopment of the project to make an assessment the evaluation of potential impacts of the
on the potential impacts. project on the environment. Aspects for consid‐
eration are listed below. Further details on de‐
B.6.3 Project implementation status salination technology and processes can be
found in the WHO guidance document on “De‐
This section may give a short account of the pro‐ salination for Safe Water Supply” [18].
ject implementation status at the time the EIA is
submitted to the competent authority for ap‐ Process description:
proval, i.e. a brief history of preliminary planning functional description and process flow dia‐
stages, permits already obtained etc. Ideally, an grams, indicating the type of process (mem‐
EIA should be conducted in the early planning brane or thermal), the number of units,
stages of a project and prior to any action being chemical addition points etc.;
taken or permits being issued. However, for process flows and recovery, indicating the
large projects which often have a planning phase quantity of all process flows at each stage of
of several years, it may happen that different ac‐ the process as well as operating pressure
tions or permitting processes take place at the and temperature;
same time. For example, the workplace safety other characteristics of process streams
concept could be approved by the competent (feed water, product water, concentrate), in
authority while the EIA is still in process. Or the particular dissolved inorganic species (total
project could be split into different sub‐projects, dissolved solids (TDS), elemental analysis),
which are submitted for approval separately nutrients, and suspended solids;
(e.g. the desalination plant and a long water projected consumption of materials and re‐
pipeline transporting the water to different sources that will be used by the project;
communities). expected quantities of solid, liquid and gase‐
ous wastes and details on the proposed
B.6.4 Project location method of disposal, including the concen‐
trate, cleaning solutions, sludge disposal,
The EIA should provide a general overview on screen and filter backwash, sanitary waste,
the project site including e.g.: used reverse osmosis membranes, etc.
overview maps at different scales and geo‐
graphical coordinates; Power requirements:
distances to sites relevant for project plan‐ This section should contain information on the
ning (e.g. cities, nature reserves, etc.); projected power consumption, the power supply
a general classification and habitat descrip‐ source and power saving devices implemented
tion of the coastal and marine environment to reduce power consumption:
29
power consumption for desalination process Information on usage should be provided for
(total MWh and kWh/m3 distillate): each substance or formulation, in particular:
– projected total energy consumption for dosing levels and expected discharge con‐
plant operation; centrations;
– thermal energy requirements (e.g. point and time of injection and retention
heated steam in cogeneration plants); time;
– electrical energy requirements, including projected chemical consumption (e.g. total
requirements for pump stations, loads in tons per year).
high pressure reverse osmosis system,
pretreatment system etc.; The acceptability of all substances or formula‐
power saving devices: tions, including commercial products, that are
– energy recovery systems; used in the desalination plant should be evalu‐
– low‐energy devices (pumps etc.); ated in terms of safety of use, human health and
power consumption for construction and environmental effects. The evaluation should
transport vehicles; also include any substances produced during the
energy supply sources: process, for example by corrosion of materials,
– fossil energy (oil, gas, coal); transformation, side‐reaction, or in‐situ genera‐
– renewable energy (wind, solar, geo‐ tion such as the electrolysis of seawater to pro‐
thermal, biomass); duce hypochlorite.
energy suppliers: For risk characterization, a data set is usually
– public or private suppliers; required that covers chemical and physical
– from power stations nearby or import. properties, human health implications and envi‐
ronmental effects of the substance. This kind of
Based on the projected power consumption and information may either be obtained from scien‐
the energy supply sources, an estimate of the tific literature on the substance, or chemical
emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pol‐ dossiers and data sheets prepared by manufac‐
lutants should be provided, such as carbon diox‐ turers, authorities or independent expert work‐
ide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides (SOx and NOx), ing groups for registration or review of chemi‐
fine particulate matter (PM10), etc. The estimate cals. Data sheets such as the International
of atmospheric emissions is required in order to Chemical Safety Cards (ICSC) 25 usually also give
investigate potential impacts on local air condi‐ instructions on storage, transportation, handling,
tions and climate in chapter B.8.4. and emergency responses in case of spillages or
human exposure, and should thus be stored in a
Chemical engineering details place that is easily accessible at the workplace.
This section should contain information on the If additional laboratory tests are required for
usage and properties of chemical additives used risk characterization, they should be carried out
in the desalination plant, including all chemicals in accordance with existing national standards or
or formulations used for: internationally recognized guidelines, such as
pretreatment of the intake water against the OECD principles of Good Laboratory Practice
biofouling, scaling, corrosion, etc.; (GLP), OECD Testing Guidelines or ISO standards.
cleaning of the plant to remove biofilms, Data typically required for chemical data sheets
scales, etc.; and risk characterization of chemicals are:
membrane preservation during transport
25
and shut‐down; provided by the International Occupational Safety
product water disinfection and stabilization. and Health Information Centre (CIS) of the Interna‐
tional Labor Organisation (ILO) under http://www.ilo.
org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products
/icsc/dtasht/index.htm
Desalination
30
chemical identification: chemical formula, long‐term sediment toxicity tests if sub‐

molecular mass, CAS no. or other registra‐ stances have a strong potential to adsorb to
tion numbers, synonyms, etc.; sediments (e.g. such as heavy metals), using
for commercial products: product name and benthic organisms, preferably deposit or
manufacturer contact details; suspension feeders;
for formulations: composition and concen‐ information on the potential of chemicals to
trations of active and inactive substances; disrupt endocrine systems of aquatic species,
general usage information: labelling, packag‐ which may result in developmental and re‐
ing, storage, transportation, handling, waste productive problems;
disposal etc.; information on bioavailability to aquatic and
physical and chemical characteristics: melt‐ benthic species;
ing and boiling point, vapour pressure, water for substances that have a tendency to ac‐
solubility, dissociation constant (pKa), etc.; cumulate in biota, bioconcentration factors
fire, explosion and other hazard information, and biomagnification in the food web should
including emergency responses such as first also be determined if possible;
aid measures, fire‐fighting measures, expo‐ environmental fate and effect under aerobic
sure control and personal protection; and anaerobic conditions:
human health hazard data: acute mammal‐ – biotic and abiotic degradation rates;
ian toxicity, chronic toxicity, effects on skin – partition coefficient,
and eye, developmental and reproductive octanol/water coefficient;
toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity; – potential of substance for reaction with
information on acute aquatic toxicity, i.e. organic matter.
short‐term (24, 48, 72 or 96‐hours) tests with
organisms 26 from three trophic levels, in‐ Mechanical engineering details
cluding plants (algae), invertebrates (crusta‐ This section should contain information on the
ceans) and vertebrates (fish), and preferably physical nature of the mechanical systems that
using representative and sensitive organisms will be part of the desalination plant, including:
or life‐cycle stages. Frequently conducted seawater intake system;
acute freshwater tests are: pretreatment system;
– OECD guidelines 201 desalination system;
(growth inhibition test of algae); post treatment system;
– OECD guidelines 202 concentrate and residuals disposal system;
(acute immobilization test of Daphnia); product water storage system;
– OECD guidelines 203 distribution system;
(acute fish toxicity test); chemical storage and handling system.
information on chronic aquatic toxicity, i.e.
long‐term tests with organisms of three tro‐ Civil and structural engineering details
phic levels, using preferably representative This section should contain information on civil
and sensitive organisms or life‐cycle stages; and structural aspects of the desalination plant.
Minimum information should include details on
26
location, type, number, materials and method of
For seawater desalination plants, it should be con‐
construction, profile and footprint:
sidered whether the risk characterization can be
based on freshwater species, or if tests with repre‐ description of engineering works
sentative marine species such as echinoderms (e.g. (offshore, nearshore, onshore);
sea urchins) or molluscs should be preferred. Marine excavation and piling;
species are not necessarily more sensitive than structural works;
freshwater species, but some differences in the toxic
effects of certain chemicals may exist.
site works.
31
B.6.6 Construction activities the potential for the commissioning activities to

alter the physical environment in the vicinity of
The EIA document should contain a brief de‐ the plant and the extent to which the safety of
scription of the anticipated construction activi‐ the plant workers, the public and the environ‐
ties for the establishment of the desalination ment will be protected. The minimum informa‐
system. The construction phase is a temporary tion required should include a description of the
condition and the information will be used to as‐ various hazard identification techniques that will
sess the potential for the construction activities be used by the project proponent to protect the
to alter the physical environment in the vicinity safety of the public and the environment. The
of the plant. This section should include a de‐ topics may include:
scription of the: hazard and operability studies;
projected schedule; personnel requirements and operator atten‐
construction techniques; dance;
access requirements and restrictions; training and safety;
waste disposal; storage and handling of hazardous materials;
traffic movements; disposal and recycling of consumable items;
interruption to services and tie‐ins; emergency response preparedness and
projected emissions during construction security;
(atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic); flexibility for process modification.
proposed mitigation measures during the
construction period. Decommissioning activities
The EIA document should try to anticipate and
B.6.7 Commissioning and operation describe the planned decommissioning activities
activities of the desalination system after the life‐time of
the project, or other options of use, such as ex‐
Start‐up procedures tension of the system or renewal and prolonga‐
The EIA document should contain a brief de‐ tion of operation.
scription of the anticipated commissioning activ‐
ities for the establishment of the desalination Other project details, e.g.:
system. The commissioning phase is a temporary ISO 14000 certification;
condition. The information will be used to assess post‐contractual issues.
Desalination
32
Environmental setting, impact assessment and impact mitigation

(sections B.7 – B.12)
This part of the EIA report contains the actual impact assessment of the desalination project. It
comprises socio‐economic, human health as well as environmental implications.
For each of these areas, the following information should be included
a detailed description of the existing setting (i.e. baseline data);
a discussion of the expected impacts in the different life‐cycle stages of the project, i.e. im‐
pacts during construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning as
far as these are predictable at the stage of project planning, including a judgement whether
or not the project will cause any significant impacts;
a description of impact mitigation measures.
Existing setting
The existing setting describes the present and future state of the environment, including socio‐
economic and public health characteristics, in the absence of the desalination project (‘no
project’ or ‘zero’ alternative). It takes into account changes resulting from natural events and
from other human activities. Initial baseline studies may be elementary or wide‐ranging depend‐
ing on the project and applying regulations. They should focus on those aspects that may be sig‐
nificantly affected by the project, either directly or indirectly. As with most of the EIA process,
establishing the baseline is not an ‘on‐off’ activity. Studies should move from broad‐brush to
more detailed and focused approaches. The identification of new potential impacts may open
up new elements of the environment for investigation, or the identification of effective meas‐
ures for mitigating impacts may curtail new investigations.
Impacts
The impacts section of an EIA should identify, describe and evaluate all relevant socio‐economic,
human health and environmental impacts (adverse and beneficial) caused by the project
throughout the different life‐cycle stages. The prediction of impacts aims to identify the magni‐
tude and other dimensions of identified changes caused by the project, by comparison with the
situation before/without the project. The subsequent evaluation and assessment of significance
seeks to assess the relative significance of the predicted impacts in order to focus on the import-
ant adverse impacts.
Mitigation and avoidance measures

Impact mitigation involves the introduction of measures to avoid, reduce, remedy or compen‐
sate for any significant adverse impact resulting from construction, commissioning, operation,
maintenance and decommissioning of a desalination plant. Development of mitigation measures
includes the following three consecutive steps:
Prevention: avoid impacts by preventive measures, consider feasible alternatives
and identify the best practicable environmental option.
Minimization: identify customized measures to minimize each of the main impacts
predicted and ensure they are appropriate, environmentally sound and cost‐effective.
Remediation: remedy or compensate for adverse residual impacts, which are
unavoidable and cannot be reduced further, as a last resort.
33
B.7 Socio‐economic and environmental a projection of the anticipated future popu‐

health aspects lation development and changes to commu‐
nity structure without project realization
It is essential for an EIA to thoroughly investigate (zero alternative).
the ways in which a proposed project may
change the lives or affect the well‐being of the Impacts
present and future residents in the area poten‐ Describes and assesses the anticipated changes
tially affected by the proposal. This assessment to demographic development and community
can allow for the positive socio‐economic and structure caused by the project in comparison to
environmental health effects of a desalination the zero alternative, e.g.:
project to be realized to the maximum extent stimulation of population growth in the
possible, while minimizing the negative impacts community that receives the desalinated wa‐
related to the project. ter (e.g. due to immigration, improved living
Understanding the values and concerns pre‐ standards and health conditions);
sent in the potentially affected community is a decline in population size in other regions
crucial aspect of the evaluation (cf. also section due to drainage of people from dis‐
B.4.3 on Public involvement), and assessment of advantaged areas (in terms of water avail‐
both quantitative and qualitative aspects is im‐ ability, environmental quality, economic
portant. Quantitative measures may include in‐ prospects etc.) to more favourable areas;
creases in population, changes in employment, relocations and secondary effects on settle‐
or housing dynamics, while qualitative meas‐ ment structure;
urements might involve perceptions within the displacement of existing housing or people
population about how a desalination project fits due to the construction of the project and
in with the character of the community. associated infrastructure.
B.7.1 Population, housing and community Mitigation and avoidance measures

structure Mitigation and avoidance measures to avert ne‐
gative impacts on population and community
Existing setting structure are very specific to the project and re‐
Provides demographic information for the met‐ gional setting. In general, establishing water se‐
ropolitan areas, towns or rural areas which will curity for a certain region or community should
be affected by the project. This includes the not compromise the demands of another com‐
communities to which the desalinated water will munity or sub‐part of the population. Mitigation
be distributed (and which will probably benefit and avoidance measures might therefore focus
from this development), but also communities on establishing a fair and equal access to water
that may be indirectly affected, or will experi‐ for all communities.
ence negative effects of the project, for example
caused by the redistribution of water resources B.7.2 Economic growth and development
or environmental degradation. The baseline activities
demographic information can be detailed by
providing: Existing setting
figures on the current population size, popu‐ Provides an overview on the main economic ac‐
lation growth or decline rate, age structure, tivities in the communities that will benefit from
birth and death rates, and migration rates in or may be impaired by the project, such as fish‐
the project area and surroundings; eries and aquaculture, tourism, agriculture or
identification of racial and ethnic characteris‐ specific industries. This may include statistical
tics within the affected community; data and information on:
Desalination
34
business volume in terms of numbers (e.g. B.7.3 Environmental health factors

number of tourists) and total revenues;
importance of an activity for the local, re‐ Environmental health encompasses the assess‐
gional or national economy (e.g. share of the ment, communication and management of po‐
domestic gross project); tential health risks, due to the exposure of the
information on employment among the af‐ affected population to environmental physical,
fected population and importance of differ‐ chemical and biological hazards, as well as socio‐
ent activities as an employment opportunity economic, and psycho‐social changes, related di‐
and economic base; rectly or indirectly to the desalination project.
community economic data such as distribu‐
tion of income and wealth among the af‐ Existing setting
fected population, including median house‐ The existing setting is a baseline picture of the
hold income, median family income, and environmental health conditions prior to the
number of individuals and families below the construction and operation of the desalination
poverty line; project. It includes a projection of the antici‐
a projection of the anticipated future eco‐ pated future health conditions without project
nomic development without project realiza‐ realization (zero alternative). Emphasis should
tion (zero alternative). be given to relevant health hazards and the
baseline health status of the potentially affected
Impacts population, including sensitive subgroups, e.g.
Describes and assesses the anticipated changes the elderly and children. The description of the
to economic development and the economic existing setting may include:
prospects for the population if the project is re‐
alized. Identifies which market sectors will bene‐ Environmental quality
fit and which will be negatively affected by the geographical scope (physio‐geography, me‐
project. For example, a desalination project teorology, and natural and anthropogenic
could stimulate: features of the potentially affected areas);
an increase in tourism, agriculture or certain population at risk (size, age distribution, sen‐
producing industries if water is diverted to sitive subgroups such as children, elderly,
these market sectors; and those with health deficiencies);
a decline in coastal fisheries (e.g. shellfish) or hazardous agents (in air, water, soil, food):
coastal aquaculture if fish stocks or access to – biological infectious agents such as vi‐
fishing grounds are affected; ruses, bacteria, parasites, bio allergens,
subsequent increases or decreases of em‐ and other disease vectors;
ployment opportunities and income in these – chemical agents, in particular toxic
market sectors; chemicals;
increases or decreases in property values of – physical agents such as dust, noise, heat,
residential areas or industrial sites. vibration, etc.;
ecosystem perturbations due to environ‐
Mitigation and avoidance measures mental stresses;
Elaborates management strategies which allow industrial and hazardous waste;
different economic activities to coexist or identi‐ water supply and sanitation services;
fies measures to mitigate impacts on market sec‐ solid waste management services;
tors and stakeholders such as compensation, re‐ air quality management programs.
training and employment opportunities in new
sectors.
35
Health of potentially affected population entail the mathematical modeling of the dis‐
morbidity rates of communicable, non com‐ persion of contaminant emissions and their
municable, acute and chronic diseases; distribution and accumulation in air, water,
mortality rates, including infant and child soil, aquatic and terrestrial fauna and flora;
mortality; comparisons of environmental levels of given
life expectancy and DALYs (Disability Ad‐ contaminants, in the potentially affected
justed Life Years) distribution; areas, before and after the operation of the
biochemical indicators of exposure to envi‐ desalination project;
ronmental contaminants; consideration of the total burden rather than
psychological well‐being, e.g. due to water the effect of individual contaminants;
stress; quantitative assessment of health risk for
health and community social services and specific hazards, including where necessary:
availability of services; – exposure assessment;
socio‐economic indicators of the quality of – identification of exposure – health
life, e.g. poverty, crime, employment. effect relationship;
– risk characterization:
Impacts ‐ epidemiological methods (risk calcula‐
Key steps are the prediction of potential envi‐ tion for different contaminants at dif‐
ronmental health impacts and benefits, the ferent exposure levels);
evaluation of their significance, interpretation ‐ toxicological methods (carcinogenic
and communication of this information to deci‐ and non carcinogenic risk, comparison
sion‐makers and the public. A prospective as‐ of the predicted contaminant levels
sessment will entail the development of a listing with human health threshold limits)
of potential impacts and benefits, using screen‐ ‐ identification of uncertainties in the
ing, scoping and profiling of the existing envi‐ risk assessment, including sensitivity
ronmental and public health settings, inputs analysis and establishment of confi‐
from environmental health experts, and data dence limits on the results.
from similar desalination projects which are al‐ Summary of results, including (a) potentially
ready operating. impacted areas, (b) characterization of popu‐
Each of the predicted impacts and benefits lation at risk, (c) predicted levels and distri‐
will be assessed for relevance and significance to bution of environmental contaminants and
the EIA. A variety of methods of varying degrees ecosystem perturbations, directly or indirect‐
of complexity could be used to decide if the en‐ ly related to the desalination project, and
vironmental health impact is trivial and need be (d) prediction of the health risks to the ex‐
taken no further, and which ones will need a full posed population.
assessment of exposure and health risk.
Mitigation and avoidance measures
Environmental health impact assessment in‐ A first step is the communication of the envi‐
cludes the following methods: ronmental health assessment to planners, deci‐
inputs from public participation and expert sion‐makers and the public. The same message
opinion of concerns with possible environ‐ should be given to all with introductory sections
mental changes which may impact on public that address the interest of each group of stake‐
health quality of life; holders. Special attention should be given to the
comparison of predicted dispersion and le‐ presentation of health risk predictions.
vels of environmental contaminants emitted
from the desalination project, with applica‐
ble public health and safety limits. This may
Desalination
36
In general, the perception of risk depends on providing a projection of the anticipated fu‐
such factors as: ture use and management of water re‐
magnitude and probability of the potential sources without project realization (zero al‐
damage; ternative).
severity of consequences;
irreversibility and delayed effects; Impacts
equity; Describes and assesses the anticipated changes
impacts on children. in water use and water resources management if
the desalination project is implemented, such as:
The management of environmental health risk identification of beneficiaries and disadvan‐
essentially depends on the comparison of bene‐ taged stakeholders / groups;
fits from the desalination project to potential generation of further demand and stimula‐
damages. A decision on what could be an ‘ac‐ tion of wasteful use (as salt‐ and brackish
ceptable risk’, for given benefits, will depend on water provide a great reservoir for producing
the psychosocial and cultural characteristics of freshwater);
the affected population. Economic conditions impact of the desalination project on the
are important factors in deciding on the level ability of communities to develop other wa‐
and degree of mitigation and reduction of po‐ ter infrastructure in the short, medium and
tential health risks. long term;
disregard for or postponement of water sav‐
B.7.4 Water resources use ing measures and techniques;
disregard for or postponement of water re‐
Existing setting cycling schemes;
Describes the current water resources manage‐ provision of a constant and safe water supply
ment, or the use of water resources if no man‐ even in times of drought;
agement plan has been implemented, and its reduced pressure on natural freshwater re‐
implications for development and natural water sources and freshwater ecosystems;
balance by: potential impacts on groundwater aquifers if
providing figures on current water demand brackish water is extracted from the ground
and the main sectors of water use (commun‐ or waste brine is returned into the ground.
ities, agriculture, industries etc.);
quantifying the extracted water volume, the Mitigation and avoidance measures
renewable and non‐renewable resources The purpose of a desalination plant is typically to
(ground‐, surface‐, rainwater etc.) and the supplement and diversify existing water supplies
amounts which may be withdrawn from the by tapping into an additional, drought‐safe and
ecosystem without causing permanent eco‐ largely unlimited water resource. Desalination is
system damage; thus a mitigation measure to reduce the effects
describing the implications of the current of insufficient or variable water resources, which
water management for socio‐economic de‐ means that the effects on water resources avail‐
velopment (e.g. incentives or restrictions to ability will mainly be intentional and positive.
growth in certain regions) and the natural Negative side‐effects which may be associ‐
water balance and ecosystems (sinking ated with increasing desalination activity, such
groundwater tables, river flow rates etc.); as stimulated demand, changing use patterns,
providing figures on the current level of in‐ wasteful use or unequal distribution of water re‐
vestment in local water infrastructure sources, deferment of water resource manage‐
(stormwater collection and treatment, ment schemes such as recycling, should be ad‐
wastewater collection and treatment);
37
dressed and minimized by implementing an Impacts

overall water resources management plan. A desalination plant causes air, water and soil
It is critical that the project proponents dem‐ emissions and affects the audio‐visual character‐
onstrate that the development of the desalina‐ istics of a landscape in the project site and sur‐
tion project will not be at the expense of the im‐ rounding area. These impacts may lead to con‐
plementation of sound water management flicts with recreational or commercial uses or
strategies based on conservation, demand man‐ conservation efforts as indicated below. Con‐
agement and water recycling. flicts can also occur if the project is not compati‐
ble with any applicable land use plans, policies
B.7.5 Land and marine use or regulations of any entities with jurisdiction
over the project.
Existing setting
The existing setting should provide a description Recreational conflicts
of the pre‐construction status of the terrestrial Alterations to the environmental quality and
and marine site, including the area of the facility, natural scenery can have potential impacts on
intake and outfalls, and other plant components. human activity by reducing the recreational
This should include a discussion of existing and value of the coastal site for residents and/or
future uses of the land and marine environment tourists. The building complex and supporting in‐
in the project area. Relevant statistical informa‐ frastructure may furthermore restrict access to
tion and maps may be available from local au‐ beaches, hiking trails, fishing sites, etc.
thorities, or could be obtained by setting up a
public enquiry into present uses and activities. Commercial conflicts
If the plant is located within existing urban
The description may include, if relevant: boundaries, it could reduce the price for land or
commercial uses (e.g. fishing and aquacul‐ the value of adjacent residential properties.
ture, navigation, exploitation of oil, gas and Maritime structures like intakes or outfalls could
other natural resources, agriculture, other interfere with navigation, access to harbours or
industrial and commercial activities); other activities like commercial fishing or aqua‐
recreational uses (e.g. scuba diving, fishing, culture.
hiking, use of beaches, boating, etc.);
infrastructure and buildings at the site and in Nature conservation conflicts
the vicinity (e.g. pipelines, piers, etc.); Alterations to the environmental quality can
technical constraints (e.g. proximity of the have potential impacts on the ecological value of
plant to sewer lines); a project site as a habitat for terrestrial and ma‐
environmental constraints (e.g. presence of rine species. The decision to protect or open an
endangered species in the project site, highly area for development is often influenced by the
erosive coastline, etc.) presence or absence of rare and endangered
existing plans and policies including land use species or biological communities. By changing
plans and coastal zone management plans, the ecological value of a site, it may lose its pre‐
and any planned or potential future devel‐ sent protection status or may no longer be eligi‐
opment activity in the site; ble for becoming a protected area in the future.
a projection of the anticipated future devel‐
opment without project realization (zero al‐ Mitigation and avoidance measures
ternative). This section recommends various mitigation and
avoidance measures which may reduce conflicts
between existing activities and the proposed de‐
salination project, such as:
Desalination
38
If possible, desalination plants should be lo‐ Impacts

cated near other facilities which have similar This section discusses impacts from the project
requirements and repercussions (e.g. in in‐ to the above‐mentioned aspects including the
dustrial areas where existing infrastructure potential for it to increase the demand for public
may be used, where visual or noise distur‐ utilities and services. For example, discharges
bance is acceptable, where marine waters from the desalination plant to the sanitary sewer
have been classified for industrial use, etc.). system or energy transmissions from power sta‐
Site development should be optimized to re‐ tions to the desalination plant would be dis‐
duce land consumption and avoid impacts on closed here.
sensitive areas (e.g. by minimizing pipeline Also, any installation of new supporting infra‐
length and placing them underground, with‐ structure, such as the expansion of power plant
out accessing recreational areas or ecologi‐ capacities or new electricity lines from the grid
cally sensitive areas). to the plant that would result in substantial
Best available techniques (BAT) and best physical impacts on the environment would be
available practice (BEP) should be applied to pointed out in this section. Major changes to ex‐
limit emissions to the environment and au‐ isting infrastructure would probably necessitate
dio‐visual effects (e.g. sound proofing, visual an independent EIA, as their impacts cannot be
screening, limited height of buildings, sche‐ investigated in full depth within another pro‐
duling of construction activities for time pe‐ ject’s EIA.
riods that guarantee a low interference with
recreation and tourism or breeding and mi‐ Mitigation and avoidance measures
gration of coastal animals, etc.). Lists the various mitigation measures that are
Desalination activity should be reconciled proposed for the project.
with other interests and activities by includ‐
ing it into a coastal development and man‐ B.7.7 Cultural resources
agement plan (cf. also section B.5.3).
To the extent possible, construction activities Existing setting
should be coordinated with the affected This section describes and evaluates any existing
community, to minimize disruption of com‐ cultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed
mercial or recreational activities. project, particularly those that are considered
significant to a community, culture, or ethnic
B.7.6 Utilities and service systems group. This encompasses a description of prehis‐
toric and historic resources including paleon‐
Existing setting tological, and archaeological features as well as
Includes information on utilities and services af‐ the potential existence of human remains. Spe‐
fected by the project, such as: cific examples of cultural resources include fos‐
water conveyance, sanitary sewer and storm sils, native cultural sites, habitation sites, etc.
water system; This description is typically based upon informa‐
electricity and natural gas grid; tion and maps available from local authorities, or
traffic on access roads; an archaeological survey that was carried out for
emergency medical services and police and this or another project in the area. It may also
fire protection; involve a field survey carried out by experts for
solid waste disposal. the particular project. The section often does not
disclose sensitive information such as the exact
The EIA should also provide information on pub‐ location of sites, to avoid potential disturbances.
lic policies and regulations pertaining to these
utilities and services (cf. section B.5.4).
39
Impacts B.8 Abiotic environment

This section discusses impacts associated with
the construction of a desalination plant and its An EIA should provide a baseline description and
related infrastructure, in particular of ground assessment of the abiotic (non‐living) environ‐
disturbing activities such as grading and excava‐ mental properties of the project site, based on
tion works. These activities may uncover or acci‐ literature data and/or field inventory studies. In
dentally discover archaeological, paleontological the EIA report, a summary of the essential as‐
or human remains through the disturbance of pects may be given, while comprehensive data
surface and sub‐surface soils. This disturbance and more detailed studies may be included in an
could lead to direct damage to or removal of appendix.
sensitive cultural resources, potentially causing The ‘existing setting’ of the abiotic environ‐
permanent loss of scientific information. ment refers to the ambient environment in its
present state. It should as far as possible identify
Mitigation and avoidance measures any initial level of pollution or environmental de‐
This section lists the various mitigation measures gradation, such as pollutant concentrations in
that are proposed for the desalination project to air, soil or water. The sources of pollution may
avoid and minimize impacts, and in particular to either be mentioned in this section or in the pre‐
prevent irreversible damage to cultural re‐ vious sections on socio‐economic activities, e.g.
sources. This may include a plan for what to do if in section B.7.5 on Land and marine use.
archaeological specimens are discovered. Exam‐
ples of typical cultural resource mitigation B.8.1 Characteristic landscape and
measures include: natural scenery
a cultural resources treatment plan which in‐
cludes identification of highly sensitive areas, EIAs for desalination projects may include a
and a protocol for continuous monitoring of landscape impact assessment, which is directed
construction sites and responding to the ac‐ towards predicting and evaluating the magni‐
cidental uncovering of resources; tude and significance of effects that a new facil‐
known prehistoric and historic sites should ity has on the audio‐visual characteristics of the
be designated as sensitive areas and if possi‐ surrounding landscape.
ble avoided; The effects of a desalination project on land‐
all construction workers should be notified scape properties cannot be ‘measured’ and
and educated about the potential existence ‘quantified’ as precisely and objectively as for
of cultural resources on the project site, and other features of the project site. To assess the
should halt any construction activities upon magnitude and significance of effects, an expert
discovery until a qualified expert can assess judgement is typically obtained. This should be
the situation; based on good practice, follow a structured and
in particularly sensitive situations, a qualified systematic approach, and provide reasoned ar‐
expert (e.g. an archaeologist) should be guments, but even so, people will not necessarily
present to monitor excavation activities; subscribe to the expert opinion. Effects on land‐
if impacts to cultural resources cannot be scape properties will often be perceived differ‐
avoided, they should be assessed for their ently by people who judge by their own aesthet‐
significance by a qualified professional who ics and subjective perception of the project. A
can recommend appropriate mitigation. landscape impact assessment is typically dis‐
cussed controversially in the public.
Desalination
40
As impacts on landscape and natural scenery are Mitigation and avoidance measures
often a major concern of the public, the land‐ This section lists the various mitigation measures
scape impact assessment should be taken seri‐ that are proposed for the project, e.g.
ously, as it is the part of the EIA which will help screens during construction to shield off
the public to imagine the potential audio‐visual noise and unsightly views;
impacts arising from the project, and to form an noise reduction measures during operation
opinion about the project. such as noise barriers;
landscaping measures such as planting of
Existing setting trees and shrubbery;
This section depicts the pre‐construction setting materials of finishes (e.g. reflective or
of the project site with regard to natural fea‐ non‐reflective materials);
tures such as islands, cliffs, dunes, river mouths, colors of external appearance;
marshes, scenic views, etc. Typically, photos lighting of the building complex.
from different perspectives (e.g. from elevations,
in different directions) are taken during good The mitigation and avoidance measures should
weather and visibility conditions to illustrate the be designed to blend the facility in with the sur‐
landscape properties as they may be perceived rounding natural or artificial landscape features.
by a human observer. The different measures such as vegetation and
The description of the scenery would also in‐ noise barriers should be illustrated by visualisa‐
clude an assessment of the ambient noise level. tions (photomontages) and their effect on noise
It may distinguish between natural sounds levels illustrated in noise mappings.
caused by wind, waves, animals etc., and those
caused by human activity in the site or vicinity, B.8.2 Terrestrial site
such as by docksides, traffic, etc. (soils, ground‐ and surface water)
This section would include a projection of the
anticipated future development without project Usually this section includes literature data and
realization (zero alternative), but taking other the results of field investigations or other stud‐
development activities into account. ies, such as ground‐ or surface water modeling.
Impacts Existing setting

This section evaluates how the landscape will This section describes the terrestrial part of the
change and how an observer may perceive the project site, such as beach, wetlands, dune sys‐
scenery if the project is realized, including: tem, etc. with regard to:
noise generation; topography and geomorphology
obstruction or alteration of scenic views; (e.g. elevation, soil erosion and deposition);
production of glare; geology and seismicity
or any other audio‐visual effect that substan‐ (e.g. soil layering, faults, earthquakes);
tially alters the character of the area. soil composition and properties
(e.g. content of rocks, sand, silt, humus, or‐
This section typically includes a visualisation of ganic carbon, pollutants etc., air and water
the project from different viewpoints, for exam‐ permeability, soil compaction);
ple computer generated photomontages or an‐ groundwater basins and aquifers
imations, and provides ranges for visibility and (e.g. groundwater levels, flow direction,
audibility of the facility in the form of visibility groundwater composition and quality);
and audibility maps. surface water (e.g. estuaries, lakes, lagoons);
anticipated future state without project
realization (zero alternative).
41
Impacts topography and geomorphology

The description and evaluation of impacts would (e.g. slope of seafloor, water depth, sedi‐
include effects on: ment erosion and deposition processes, dis‐
topography and geomorphology tribution of sandy or silty areas (soft bottom)
(e.g. potential of plant components to influ‐ and rocky or stony areas (hard bottom));
ence erosion or deposition rates, slope sta‐ sediment composition and properties
bility, land sliding); (e.g. grain size fractions, content of sand, silt,
soil composition and properties clay, gravel, shell, organic carbon, levels of
(e.g. disturbance during construction, soil pollutants);
compaction, permanent surface sealing); seawater properties
groundwater (e.g. salinity, temperature, density, oxygen
(e.g. potential for beach wells to cause salt‐ levels, turbidity, nutrient levels and pollutant
water intrusion into aquifers, seepage of concentrations, general water quality);
contaminants into groundwater due to hydrology of the site
chemical spills, waste waters, site run‐off (e.g. open water, bay, estuary, including cur‐
and contamination of rainwater); rents, tides, water exchange rate);
surface water anticipated future state without project
(e.g. change of flow direction, pollution by realization (zero alternative).
chemical spills or waste water).
Impacts
Mitigation and avoidance measures The description and evaluation of impacts would
This section lists various mitigation measures include effects on:
such as best management practices for project topography and geomorphology
construction and operation activities, e.g. (e.g. potential of intake and outfall struc‐
minimization of the area affected by soil tures to influence erosion or deposition rates
compaction and surface sealing; of sediments; stability of seafloor slope etc.);
proper storage of chemicals, control practic‐ sediment composition and properties
es and spill prevention plans; (e.g. disturbance and resuspension of sedi‐
re‐vegetation after construction. ments during construction, sediment com‐
paction and surface covering, introduction of
B.8.3 Marine site artificial hard bottom substrates into soft
(seafloor, sediments and seawater) bottom habitats, increase in pollutants, etc.);
hydrology
Concentrate disposal and impacts on seawater (e.g. changes to currents, water density lay‐
quality are central aspects in EIAs for desalina‐ ers, mixing processes etc.);
tion projects. Correspondingly, the part of the seawater quality
EIA that deals with the characteristics of and im‐ (e.g. impacts on physical seawater properties
pacts on the marine site will be more detailed such as changes to salinity, temperature,
and comprehensive than other sections of the density, dissolved oxygen levels, turbidity,
EIA. It usually includes literature data and the re‐ and impacts on water quality due to the dis‐
sults of field investigations or other studies, such charge of pretreatment chemicals and
as hydrodynamic modeling. cleansers).
Existing setting An overview of the potential impacts of desali‐

This section describes the intertidal and marine nation plants on the marine environment, in par‐
part of the project site with regard to: ticular of reject streams and residual chemicals,
is provided in Part C, p. 50ff.
Desalination
42
The investigation of impacts typically includes a By using different variations of these parame‐
hydrodynamic modeling study that is carried out ters, worst‐case scenarios can be developed un‐
as part of the EIA process to simulate the near‐ der a number of theoretical conditions. Even
and far‐field effects of the project on surface wa‐ with these prerequisites, it may still be consid‐
ter hydrology. Surface water hydrology may be ered necessary to verify modeling scenarios with
affected by the intake and discharge of large field observations.
quantities of seawater and effluents. Modeling
studies have the main objectives to predict Mitigation and avoidance measures
changes to currents and flows caused by the in‐ This section lists the various mitigation measures
take, the mixing behaviour of the reject stream that are proposed for the project. A central as‐
in the receiving water body, and the dispersal pect will be the design and siting of intakes and
and dilution of the concentrate and residual outfalls to prevent interference with sediment
chemicals in the receiving water body. erosion or deposition processes, to improve mix‐
The mixing behavior of an effluent mainly ing of the effluent in the discharge site and to
depends on (a) the oceanographic conditions in prevent the formation of a widespread discharge
the receiving water body, (b) the discharge prac‐ plume.
tice and (c) the properties of the reject stream. Hydrodynamic modeling can be used as a tool
Therefore, hydrodynamic models usually have to to compare different mixing scenarios in order
integrate a large number of variable parameters. to identify the best practicable discharge option
Furthermore, they require detailed information and thus minimize environmental impacts. The
on the prevailing oceanographic conditions in modeling results can further be used to assess if
the discharge site and the planned discharge water quality objectives (if established) will be
practice in order to provide reliable information observed in the receiving water body, or to es‐
for impact assessment. Parameters which usu‐ tablish spatially restricted mixing zones based on
ally require consideration include: the modeling results.
site‐specific oceanographic features: Another important consideration is the use of
– ambient salinity, temperature and chemicals and formulations for pretreatment
density considering seasonal variations; and cleaning in desalination plants that possess
– tides, wind‐ or density‐driven currents little or no environmental risk. If possible, ha‐
including flow directions and net flows; zardous substances that minimize impacts on
– bathymetry and shoreline topography; seawater and sediment quality should be
processes which may significantly affect avoided or substituted by less problematic sub‐
chemical concentrations: stances. If feasible, treatment of residual chemi‐
– uptake and transfer into biota; cals should be considered before discharge into
– adsorption to particles and sedimenta‐ surface waters.
tion (transfer into sediments);
– decomposition and degradation rates; B.8.4 Air quality and climate
discharge practice:
– outfall location, discharge depth and Existing setting
water depth at the point of discharge; The description of the existing setting gives a
– effects of outfall pipelines, seawalls, jet‐ general classification of the climate (e.g. arid,
ties etc. on the mixing process; semi‐arid, hot, warm, temperate maritime cli‐
– single outfall or multiport diffusers, mate) accompanied with basic information on
discharge volumes and velocity; local meteorological conditions for different sea‐
discharge properties: sons like predominant winds, air masses and cur‐
– salinity, temperature and density; rents, rain patterns, temperatures etc.
– residual chemical concentrations.
43
This section furthermore lists ambient air quality quality standards or management plans, contri‐
standards or describes air quality management butes substantially to other existing or projected
plans if existing, and assesses the air quality for air emissions (cumulative impacts), exposes the
the area. The assessment of ambient air quality population to substantial pollutant concentra‐
should include an overview on major sources of tions or creates objectionable odours.
air pollution in the region and, if air quality mon‐
itoring data is available, a matrix of major pollu‐ Mitigation and avoidance measures
tants with measured concentrations, environ‐ Impacts on air quality and secondary effects on
mental characteristics and potential health ef‐ human health can be minimized by establishing
fects. A projection of anticipated future trends in an air emission reduction and monitoring pro‐
air quality and local climate without project rea‐ gramme. This may entail:
lization (zero alternative) should be provided if use of best available techniques to cut emis‐
possible. sions and strip pollutants from off‐gas;
Marine sites are typically characterized by regulations and controls, such as emission
good air quality due to strong and frequent limits and air quality standards.
winds blowing from the sea and a good ex‐
change of air masses. However, coastal air quali‐ As impacts of desalination plants on air quality
ty may be impaired by urbanization, off‐gas from are closely connected to energy demand, this
coastal industries, major shipping activities, land section should also investigate and propose
traffic or natural dust. energy saving options with regard to technology
and process design to reduce overall energy re‐
Impacts quirements. Energy saving options could include:
This section includes a discussion of the poten‐ selection of the most suitable desalination
tial impacts from the project on air quality and process in terms of energy availability and
climate, broken down into construction impacts demand (e.g. thermal versus reverse osmosis
and operation impacts. processes) and optimization of the desalina‐
Construction‐related emissions may include tion process with regard to energy efficiency;
dust generation (i.e. fugitive dust that is trans‐ where feasible, implementation of co‐gener‐
ported beyond the project site) or exhaust gas ation processes that re‐use the low energy
from heavy construction equipment, delivery steam from electricity plants as a heat
trucks and construction worker commute. source for the desalination plant;
During operation, the main sources of emis‐ use of energy saving devices and implemen‐
sions will be due to the production of electricity tation of energy recovery systems;
(onsite or offsite power plants) and heated increase of efficiency in electricity produc‐
steam (thermal plants only), if fossil fuels are tion (power plant efficiency).
used as primary energy source. Another relevant
source will be the traffic of transport vehicles Furthermore, the potential for renewable energy
and staff to/from the plant. Furthermore, the use (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass) should be
desalination process strips dissolved gases from investigated to minimize impacts on air quality
seawater, mainly carbon dioxide, oxygen and ni‐ and climate. This may be in the form of renew‐
trogen. able energy driven desalination technologies or
Air quality will mainly be affected by emis‐ as compensation measures such as the installa‐
sions of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2), acid rain tion and use of renewable energy in other locali‐
gases (NOx, SOx), fine particulate matter (PM10) ties or for other activities. Major determining
and other air pollutants that are produced when factors for renewable energy sources to become
fossil fuels are burned. Significant impacts may a realistic alternative to conventional energy
occur if the project conflicts with applicable air sources are:
Desalination
44
the distribution and overall demand for wa‐ B.9 Biotic environment
ter in a locality or region (so far, renewable
energy is sometimes used in decentralized This section provides a description of the biotic
small‐scale units, in rural areas or on islands, environment in the project site, based on litera‐
whereas larger plants are usually driven by ture data and field inventory studies. Detailed
conventional energy); literature or survey data may be included as an
the availability of conventional energy appendix. The ‘existing setting’ refers to the
sources (availability of national fossil fuel re‐ fauna and flora in its present state – i.e. it should
sources, existing power plant capacities and identify any initial decline in species abundance
grid connections); and biodiversity, change in distribution of spe‐
the environmental potential for renewable cies, or other impairment of a community. The
energy use; causes of these effects may either be identified
ongoing research and development to im‐ in this section or in the previous sections on
prove renewable energy driven desalination socio‐economic activities, for example in section
technologies in order to develop mature and B.7.5 on Land and marine use.
commercial applications;
demonstration projects to gain experience, B.9.1 Terrestrial biological resources
knowledge and trust in renewable energy
driven desalination technologies and to fos‐ Existing setting
ter their implementation on a wider scale Describes the terrestrial fauna and flora before
(e.g. ADIRA project in the MENA region, construction, broken up by:
[19]); sub‐ecosystems or habitat type
political incentives to increase renewable (e.g. dunes, saltmarshes, mangrove forests);
energy use for desalination, for example biological groups and species
through policies and programmes or finan‐ (e.g. plants, mammals, birds, amphibians).
cial support.
information to be provided on species‐level:
Even though the use of renewable energy for seasonal abundance and distribution;
desalination is still limited and will not solve the rarity and endangerment status of a species
world’s water and energy problems in the im‐ (e.g. threatened or endangered on a local,
mediate future, it does offer the potential of regional, global level, listed in the IUCN Red
providing a sustainable source of potable water List of Threatened Species), as well as pro‐
to some communities, particularly those which tection status (e.g. protected by national
have no indigenous sources of fossil fuels. Ma‐ law, international conventions).
ture technologies that have reached the com‐
mercial stage include [20]: information on community level:
solar thermal energy (solar collectors) and the total number of species in the site;
distillation (multiple effect distillation); biodiversity indices;
geothermal energy and distillation the protection status of habitat types and
(multiple effect distillation); their communities (e.g. by national law as
photovoltaics and membrane processes nature conservation area, international con‐
(reverse osmosis, electrodialysis); ventions such as RAMSAR);
wind energy and membrane processes their rarity in and importance for the overall
(reverse osmosis). ecosystem (i.e. wetlands on a rocky coast,
mangrove forests as nursery grounds).
45
The expected large amount of data should be B.9.2 Marine biological resources
summarized in a short but concise text accom‐
panied by a table listing the various habitats, Existing setting
species, their numbers, status, etc. within the This section describes the marine fauna and flora
area, while more detailed information can be before construction, usually based on literature
provided in the appendices of the EIA, where the data (if available) and site‐specific baseline
original field investigation studies and their re‐ monitoring surveys.
sults may be presented. The systematic description of the marine bio‐
logical resources can be broken down into habi‐
Impacts tat (i.e. sandy beaches, rocky shores, etc.) or bio‐
The prediction and evaluation of impacts is logical communities, in particular:
complicated by the fact that these vary between plankton (phyto‐ and zooplankton including
different species as well as individuals of the eggs and larvae);
same group, depending on: benthos (infauna and epifauna);
the type, magnitude, distance and duration fish species (commercially used species
of single impact factors; might also be included in chapter B.7.5);
the physiology and sensitivity of species and birds (feeding and resting on the water, nest‐
their perception of impacts; ing sites on land etc.);
the life‐cycle stage, season, inclination and mammals and reptiles (feeding grounds and
current activity (e.g. feeding, resting); breeding/haul out sites on land).
the function and attractivity of the project
site (e.g. as feeding ground); Similar to the data requirements for terrestrial
the ability to adapt or habituate to a certain biological resources, the description of marine
effect. biological resources should include information
on the abundance and distribution of single spe‐
The observed effects can be manifold, ranging cies, their endangerment and protection status,
from acute effects (e.g. death due to poisoning as well as information on the community struc‐
or mechanical impact) over loss of habitat (e.g. ture, biological diversity, protection status or
destruction or avoidance of previously occupied importance of habitat types.
habitats) to long‐term chronic effects (e.g. ac‐
cumulation of pollutants, stress, reduced fertility Impacts
etc.) and can impair single species as well as the The discussion of impacts of desalination plants
functioning of entire ecosystems if key species on marine biological resources will mainly in‐
are affected. volve the following aspects:
For each species, the relevant impact factors temporary and permanent impacts from
should be identified, and their potential effects construction of intake, outfall or other artifi‐
described and evaluated in the EIA. As the cial structures (e.g. seawalls, jetties), such as
evaluation will typically involve some degree of – disturbance of sediments which may af‐
uncertainty, a precautionary approach should be fect benthic species;
adopted in the data assessment. – loss of habitat by surface covering;
– provision of artificial hard bottom sub‐
Mitigation and avoidance measures strate for settlement (artificial reefs);
This section lists the various mitigation measures – resuspension of sediments which may
that are proposed for the project. For instance, affect pelagic species;
these may involve specific drilling and construc‐ – emissions of noise and vibrations;
tion practices to minimize impacts.
Desalination
46
impacts from impingement and entrainment; and impingement of organisms such as use of
impacts from reject streams and residual subsurface intakes (e.g. beach wells), screening
chemicals. techniques, or controlling the velocity of the in‐
take water.
An overview of potential impacts of desalination Another important consideration is the use of
projects on the marine environment with em‐ chemicals and formulations for pretreatment
phasis on the effects of reject streams and and cleaning that possess little or no environ‐
chemical is given in Part C, p. 50ff. mental risk. If possible, hazardous substances
that are toxic, persistent, that tend to bioaccu‐
The evaluation of impacts on marine species mulate or have other adverse properties should
should involve a risk characterization of the be avoided or substituted by chemicals and pre‐
chemicals and formulations that are used for treatment systems that minimize impacts on
pretreatment and cleaning in desalination marine biota. If feasible, treatment of residual
plants. This typically entails an investigation of chemicals should be considered before discharge
chemicals and formulations in terms of: into the environment.
acute and chronic aquatic toxicity;
long‐term sediment toxicity for substances B.10 Conclusion and recommendations
which may accumulate in sediments;
bioavailability to species, bioaccumulation This chapter gives a concise account of the main
and biomagnification in the food web; findings and recommendations of steps 5 to 7
environmental fate and effect under aerobic (chapters A.2.5 to A.2.7 in Part A, chapters B.7 to
and anaerobic conditions, in particular biotic B.9 in Part B). It should focus on the key informa‐
and abiotic degradation, adsorption poten‐ tion that is needed for decision‐making.
tial to suspended matter and transport into
sediments, or potential for reaction with B.10.1 Overview on the main impacts of the
seawater constituents. project and mitigation measures
The information can often be obtained from An overview of the main direct and indirect im‐
scientific journals, chemical data banks (e.g. pacts (possibly in the form of a table) should be
TOXNET 27 ) or Chemical Safety Data Sheets. La‐ provided, distinguishing between significant im‐
boratory tests may be specifically carried out to pacts which can be prevented or minimized, and
test the acceptability of substances, formula‐ those which cannot. Mitigation measures should
tions, or the whole effluent. Details on toxicity be listed for significant impacts where possible.
testing are also provided on p. 29f. (section on Special emphasis should also be given to effects
chemical engineering details). of the project that may become significant when
viewed in connection with the effects of past,
Mitigation and avoidance measures current or future projects, as well as growth‐
This section lists the various mitigation measures inducing, wide‐ranging or transboundary effects.
that are proposed for the project. This might in‐
clude design aspects or techniques to facilitate Cumulative impacts
mixing of the effluent in the receiving water Cumulative impacts are two or more individual
body and to reduce the salinity, temperature effects, that when combined are considerable or
and other potentially harmful constituents of the which compound or increase other environ‐
effluent, development of an ongoing monitoring mental impacts. This section is included in most
programme, or measures to reduce entrainment EIAs and usually looks at other proposed and ex‐
isting developments in a region, as well as other
27
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov existing and proposed desalination plants.
47
Growth inducing impacts ment systems and discharge options, or the en‐
The EIA should include a discussion of a desalina‐ vironmental setting, socio‐economic background
tion project’s potential to foster economic and and human health conditions in project sites.
demographic growth in a region. This may in‐ The consideration of benefits versus impacts of a
clude the opening of new business opportunities desalination project can only be achieved at a lo‐
or the construction of additional roads or hous‐ cal, project‐specific level. The ‘best practicable
ing in the region. Significant adverse environ‐ environmental option’ should be identified in
mental effects are not necessarily to be ex‐ this section, which is the preferred configuration
pected, but may result depending on the type, of a specific project under environmental, social,
magnitude and location of growth. The proposed cultural, and public health criteria. It should be
project’s growth‐inducing potential may be con‐ economically and technologically feasible. The
sidered significant if it could result in significant decision should be transparent and backed by
physical effects in one or more environmental conclusive arguments.
concern areas. For example, additional popula‐
tion growth can lead to increased urban runoff B.11 Environmental management plan
and other water quality impacts, and strains on
other natural resources such as land use. An environmental management plan builds con‐
tinuity into the EIA process and helps to optimize
Wide‐range and transboundary effects environmental benefits at each stage of project
Effects that may have an impact beyond the im‐ development. The key objectives of environ‐
mediate vicinity of the plant and discharge site, mental management plans are to [5]:
or beyond regional or national boundaries, identify the actual environmental, socio‐
should be disclosed here. Such impacts may oc‐ economic and public health impacts of the
cur for example due to dispersal of pollutants, or project and check if the observed impacts
impacts of the project on migratory species that are within the levels predicted in the EIA;
may affect their abundance or survival in other determine that mitigation measures or other
areas (e.g. destruction of breeding sites of en‐ conditions attached to project approval (e.g.
dangered migratory birds). by legislation) are properly implemented and
work effectively;
B.10.2 Comparison with alternative adapt the measures and conditions attached
project configurations to project approval in the light of new infor‐
mation or take action to manage unantici‐
The original project proposal should be system‐ pated impacts if necessary;
atically compared with alternative project con‐ ensure that the expected benefits of the
figurations in terms of adverse and beneficial project are being achieved and maximized;
impacts and effectiveness of mitigation meas‐ gain information for improving similar pro‐
ures. As far as possible, trade‐offs and uncertain‐ jects and EIA practice in the future.
ties should be mentioned.
If an environmental management plan has been
B.10.3 Identification of the best established, a chapter of the EIA report should
practicable environmental option briefly outline the details of the plan for each
project life‐cycle stage, covering the planned
No universally valid standards for environmental monitoring, surveillance and auditing activities
quality, acceptable risks, best available tech‐ and specifying the schedules, methodologies,
niques or best environmental practice exist. protocols etc. to be followed. When devising an
Standards vary regionally, as does the use of de‐ environmental management plan, consideration
salination with regard to processes, pretreat‐ should be given to involve the public in the fol‐
Desalination
48
low up activities, which may range from public more pro‐active approach to impact manage‐
disclosure of monitoring and audit reports, over ment, monitoring activities can be accompanied
opportunities for review and comment, to the by regular or periodic site inspections in order to
establishment of review committees. survey the implementation of EIA conditions,
such as [5]:
B.11.1 Monitoring compliance with conditions imposed by law
or by the EIA;
The primary aims of monitoring are to achieve a quality of monitoring activities including
better understanding of cause‐effect relation‐ sampling, measurements and analysis;
ships between the project and its environment observation of mitigation measures and gen‐
and to improve EIA predictions and mitigation eral progress;
methods for the purpose of an effective impact discussion of current issues.
management [5]. Monitoring refers to the col‐
lection of data through a series of repetitive Surveillance can be undertaken by the compe‐
measurements or other systematic observations tent authority, independent institutions or ex‐
of environmental, socio‐economic and human perts. Details of surveilling activities, such as
health parameters. This usually includes a review scope, frequency and supervisory bodies, should
of available literature data. be outlined in the environmental management
Effects or impact monitoring refers to the plan for the desalination project.
measurement of environmental parameters in
order to detect changes which are attributable B.11.3 Auditing
to the project, whereas compliance monitoring is
the periodic or continuous measurement of en‐ Auditing describes a systematic process of exam‐
vironmental parameters to ensure that regula‐ ining, documenting and verifying that EIA proce‐
tory requirements and environmental quality dures and outcomes correspond to objectives
standards are being met. Both types of monitor‐ and requirements. It draws upon monitoring
ing permit only reactive impact management, data and surveillance reports. The following
since they detect violations or adverse changes categories of EIA‐related audits can be distin‐
after they have taken place. It is therefore im‐ guished [5]:
portant to respond to the outcomes of monitor‐ impact audits, which determine the project’s
ing by establishing a linkage to impact manage‐ actual impacts and the accuracy of the pre‐
ment, for example by establishing protocols to dictions made in the EIA;
be followed and actions to be taken if a certain implementation audits, which verify that the
threshold value is exceeded. The monitoring conditions attached to project approval are
programme should be targeted at the informa‐ implemented as determined in the EIA;
tion that is necessary to manage significant im‐ compliance audits, which verify that project
pacts and to review the aspects of EIA practice impacts comply with environmental stan‐
that are of particular importance [5]. dards and regulatory requirements;
effectiveness or policy audits, which check
B.11.2 Surveillance the feasibility of mitigation measures and the
consistency of EIA practice.
Effects and compliance monitoring usually re‐
quires reporting of the monitoring data and
main findings to the competent authorities and
wider public. It permits only reactive impact
management after adverse effects or violations
of regulatory standards have taken place. For a
49
Figure 4: Deployment of a real time monitoring buoy for the Perth seawater desalination plant (by cour‐
tesy of 360 Environmental, Environmental Management Consultants, Australia).
B.12 Review of the EIA process B.14 Appendices of the EIA
A statement may be included at the end of the Relevant studies to be included in the appendix
EIA document which certifies that the EIA com‐ may for example be:
plies with the formal requirements as imposed visualizations of the project and visual
by national EIA legislative texts and regulations, impact assessment;
the Terms of Reference as defined during scop‐ survey studies of biological resources
ing, or existing general EIA standards. The in the locality;
statement should be provided and signed by the survey studies of abiotic characteristics
reviewer, which may be the responsible author‐ of the locality;
ity itself, another governmental institution or in‐ technical reports on air, soil and water
dependent body. For more information on the quality;
reviewing process, please cf. Step 10 – Review of hydrodynamic modeling studies of mixing,
the EIA and decision‐making process on p. 19. dilution and dispersal of reject streams;
laboratory test reports on toxicity, abiotic
B.13 References of the EIA and biotic degradation of substances;
technical report on energy requirements;
Includes all references cited in the EIA and pos‐ surveys regarding human health, socio‐
sibly key references for further reading. economic and cultural resources.
Back matter to an EIA report (sections B.13 – B. 14)

The back matter of an EIA report includes the reference cited in the EIA and possibly key references
for further reading. It furthermore contains appendices with additional or more detailed informa‐
tion on the proposed project, cartographic materials and larger figures (e.g. flow‐charts), or inde‐
pendent technical reports or surveys that were prepared as part of the EIA process. In this way,
more detailed information is easily accessible without burdening the EIA document with too many
facts. In the EIA, the relevant information from these studies is usually summarized.
Desalination
50
construction, or the introduction of an alien spe‐

Part C cies. The receptors are the different environ‐
mental features, usually operationally defined by
an ecological entity (e.g. a single species) and its
Potential impacts on the environment
indicators (e.g. population size, biodiversity).
The objective of the exposure analysis is to
This chapter is considered as a reference source describe the exposure of receptors in terms of
that provides an overview of the potential im‐ intensity, space, and time. To this end, exposure
pacts of desalination projects and references for pathways are established, including the stressor
further reading. It focuses on the impacts which source, the spatial and temporal distribution of
are specific to desalination projects, and in par‐ stressors in the environment, and the extent and
ticular on the impacts of reject streams and pattern of contact or co‐occurrence with recep‐
chemical additives on the marine environment. tors. The ecological effects analysis then investi‐
Impacts which are common to many develop‐ gates the relationship between stressor levels
ment projects are not covered here but listed in and resulting responses [21].
Part B of this document. It is assumed that In essence, the ecological risk assessment ap‐
common effects are sufficiently known and in‐ proach is based on an analysis of how exposure
formation is readily available from relevant lite‐ to stressors is likely to occur and on an analysis
rature. of the significance of the associated impacts. The
It must be pointed out that there are still result is a list of stressor‐response relationships,
some gaps of knowledge and uncertainties re‐ often also termed cause‐effect relationships.
garding the actual impacts of desalination As ecosystems are diverse and complex sys‐
projects, as monitoring results of operating tems, these relationships are often interrelated
plants are only available to a limited extent. Al‐ and have a netlike rather than a linear structure,
so, a wide variety of project‐ and site‐specific as one stressor may lead to multiple exposures
impacts may occur. and may also cause secondary (indirect) effects.
The following list can thus not be complete The establishment of single cause‐effect rela‐
nor final, and not every described effect will ap‐ tionships should therefore be understood as a
ply to each individual project. Further research is simplified conceptual model which is used to
certainly required, including field and laboratory systematically predict and investigate the key re‐
experiments, and provision of the monitoring re‐ lationships between stressors and receptors.
sults to a wider audience is recommended. The level of detail and accuracy of the cause‐
effect relationships depends on how well infor‐
C.1 Ecological risk assessments mation on stressor sources, exposure opportuni‐
ties, characteristics of the ecosystem at risk and
EIA studies are often based on a so‐called “eco‐ ecological effects is available. Risk assessments
logical risk assessment” approach. The objective are typically conducted at a time when not all
of this approach is to systematically identify and necessary information is available, in which case
evaluate the relationships between stressors as the process helps to identify missing data.
caused by anthropogenic activity (exposure On this basis, an analysis plan is usually de‐
analysis), and subsequent impacts on receptors veloped that includes a delineation of the as‐
(effects analysis). sessment design and a framework for further in‐
Stressors can be all single characteristics of a vestigations, including data needs and tech‐
project or activity that lead to an ecological ef‐ niques for data collection. In the following analy‐
fect. Stressors can be of chemical, physical, or sis phase, the ecological effects predicted in the
biological nature, such as for example the re‐ cause‐effect relationships are further investi‐
lease of a chemical, the mechanical impact from gated and refined.
Potential environmental impacts 51
The cause‐effect relationships are typically – pumping / high pressure system

summarized in a risk matrix (preference matrix – post‐treatment line
or Leopold matrix), in which the columns – storage facilities
represent the various stressors (or causes) of a – car park, gates, etc.
proposed project and the rows represent the the outfall system, including the
various environmental receptors (or media such – outfall channel or tunnel
as water). In the fields where rows and columns – diffuser system
intersect, the potential ecological effects are – pumping station or submersible pumps
listed. The risk matrix provides the basis for risk
characterization. In this step, the stressor‐ The main auxiliary infrastructure includes:
response relationships are integrated into an – the water distribution pipeline
overall risk estimation and description, which – the energy supply source and
takes the significance and likelihood of effects transmission line
into account as well as the limitations of the me‐ – access roads to the facility
thod and the analysis, such as scientific uncer‐
tainties and assumptions. Risk characterization is C.1.2 Receptors
to be distinguished from risk management and
decision making, which involves the selection of An environmental assessment should address
a course of action in response to the identified the effects of a project on fauna, flora, soil, wa‐
risks and other factors (e.g. social, legal, political, ter, air, climate and landscape, including all di‐
or economic) [21]. The stressors and receptors rect and indirect effects and the interactions be‐
provide the system boundaries for EIA studies. tween single factors. Based on this definition the
Stressors are usually classified according to life following categories will used for describing the
cycle stage and project components. In the fol‐ potential impacts of desalination projects on the
lowing, stressors and receptors relevant to desa‐ environment:
lination projects are listed. Landscape and natural scenery
Air quality and climate
C.1.1 Stressors Soils
Seafloor and sediments
Stressor sources of desalination projects can be Ground‐ and surface water quality and
subdivided into the following life cycle stages hydrology
and key elements: Seawater quality and hydrology
construction Terrestrial flora and fauna, which can be fur‐
commissioning ther subdivided into different functional and
operation taxonomic groups, i.e. plant communities
maintenance and habitat types such as salt marshes, dune
decommissioning / demolition vegetation and coastal scrubs, or taxonomic
groups such as invertebrates, mammals, am‐
The key elements of a desalination system are: phibians, reptiles, and birds including migra‐
the intake system, including the tory and resting seabirds.
– inlet with screens Marine flora and fauna, which can be further
– seawater supply pipeline to the shore subdivided into the different functional and
– pumping station or submersible pump taxonomic groups, i.e. phyto‐ and zooplank‐
the desalination system, including the ton, benthos such as macroalgae, seagrasses,
– pretreatment line benthic invertebrate species, demersal fish
– desalination units species, pelagic fish species and turtles, ma‐
– product water storage rine mammals and seabirds.
Desalination
52
Furthermore, potential impacts on human be‐ C.2.1 Intakes and outfalls

ings, material assets and the cultural heritage
need to be evaluated where relevant. Socio‐ Intake types
economic, cultural and environmental health as‐ Intake structures can be subdivided into open in‐
pects were considered in Part B, which identifies takes and sub‐(non)‐surface intakes. For open in‐
a wide range of potentially relevant issues asso‐ takes, the inlet structure can be located at the
ciated with the construction and operation of shoreline, typically near the surface or shallow
desalination projects and also the distribution of water, or further offshore and in deeper water
the product water, including impacts on popula‐ layers (submerged intakes). The seawater trans‐
tion, housing and community structure, eco‐ mission pipeline from the offshore intakes to the
nomic growth and development activities, water shore can either be placed on or below the
resources, land and marine use, utilities and ser‐ seabed.
vices, environmental health factors and cultural In contrast, below ground intakes are com‐
resources. pletely embedded in the seafloor, either in the
This chapter (Part C) contains only the analy‐ beach sediments onshore, such as vertical and
sis and description of strictly environmental im‐ radial beach wells or infiltration galleries, or in
pacts of desalination projects, limited to the the offshore marine sediments, such as horizon‐
most common abiotic and biotic environmental tally drilled drains (HDD). Beach wells are typical‐
factors. Stressor sources are categorized by life‐ ly drilled 30 to 50 m deep into the seabed, whe‐
cycle stage and potential impacts on relevant re‐ reas infiltration galleries consist of perforated
ceptors (as outlined above). pipes arranged in a radial pattern in the satu‐
rated sand onshore. Both are mainly used for
C.2 Construction activities smaller seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) sys‐
tems. Favorable conditions for beach wells are
For a systematic description and investigation of geologic formations with a high transmissivity
impacts, the construction activities can in gener‐ and a certain sediment thickness, whereas unfa‐
al be subdivided into three main categories. vorable conditions include beaches with high vo‐
These are the construction works: lumes of mud and a low degree of “flushing”,
at sea for the intake, the outfall and the such as a beach in a shallow bay environment,
seawater supply pipeline to the shore, where beach wells may become blocked [22]. An
at land for the desalination facility, pumping overview on relevant issues of beach‐wells in‐
station etc., and takes is given in [23].
for connecting infrastructure, e.g. product Open intakes are still the most commonly
water pipelines or power transmission lines. used intake system for large desalination plants,
although horizontally drilled drains are reported
Construction activities and ecological effects will to be used successfully in some larger SWRO
differ for the offshore and onshore sites. The plants and in different geological formations,
offshore structures, the desalination facility and both rocky and granular [24]. By mid 2004, how‐
the connecting infrastructure each form a struc‐ ever, there were only four SWRO plants with ca‐
tural entity, which is also relevant for the inves‐ pacities larger than 20,000 m3/d throughout the
tigation of alternative technologies, sites or world using beach wells for intakes according to
routes. Moreover, the permitting process for the [23]. Two desalination plants using horizontal
project and connecting infrastructure are often drills (NEDODREN® technology) with a capacity
carried out independently from each other, e.g. of 25,920 m3/d and 172,800 m3/d are listed in
separate EIAs may be required for the project [24]. Horizontal drain pipes were also considered
and the water supply pipeline in which different for the 200,000 m3/d plant in Barcelona, Spain,
technologies, sites and routes are evaluated. but an open intake was finally preferred over
wells for several reasons, such as assuring a Brine disposal via a subsurface discharge struc‐
greater water availability. Also, it was found that ture involves discharge into a beach well or per‐
both well water and open water would require colation gallery beneath the beach or seafloor.
similar pretreatment, as the open intake pro‐ Mixing occurs in the groundwater table and the
vided only a slightly worse water quality [25]. discharge plume is slowly dissipated into the surf
Screens, such as fine mesh screens, travelling zone. Percolation galleries are in some locations
or drum screen, are usually placed in front of the considered as an effective way to minimize envi‐
open intakes to reduce the amount of debris and ronmental impacts where suitable hydro‐
the number of organisms that are taken into the geological conditions exist. This practice is for
plant with the feedwater. In some cases, a example used for the Marina Coast Water Dis‐
breakwater basin may be constructed for the in‐ trict desalination plant with a capacity of
take (Figure 5). 1,000 m3/d and will also be used at the proposed
Sand City facility with a capacity of 1,700 m3/d in
California [23]. It seems to be mainly an option
for smaller SWRO plants.
Alternatives to surface or subsurface disposal
include sewer discharge, deep well injection,
evaporation ponds or zero liquid discharge (ZLD).
These methods are mainly used for inland brack‐
ish water reverse osmosis (BWRO) plants but
normally not for SWRO plants [32].
Construction activities
Figure 5: Open intake basin with breakwater. Different construction methods can be used for
installing the intake and outfall pipelines. A basic
Outfall types distinction is between open‐trench techniques,
The most widely used method of concentrate involving submarine excavators or jet streams
disposal is surface water discharge via a single for embedding the structures in the seafloor, or
open outfall or a diffuser system. Options for co‐ trenchless techniques. Alternatively, the struc‐
discharge exists with power plant cooling water. tures can be placed above ground and moored
Large distillation plants are typically cogenera‐ to the seafloor. The construction impact, though
tion plants, i.e. they are co‐located to power temporary and confined to the location of the
plants and receive thermal energy (steam) from works, may be significant. The severity of the
the low‐temperature end of the electricity gene‐ impact is a function of the level of disturbance to
rating turbine. Co‐location is also an option for the environment and of its natural sensitivity,
SWRO projects and is proposed/practiced for which in turn is dependent on the specific nature
some large projects (e.g. Carlsbad and Hunting‐ of the habitat and on the specific communities
ton Beach projects in California [26, 27], Tampa [33].
Bay plant in Florida [28], Ashkelon and Hadera Open trenches were for example used for the
plants in Israel [29, 30]). Co‐discharge with three intake pipelines of the Ashkelon plant in
wastewater treatment plant effluents is another Israel. Each pipeline had a length of 1,000 m and
option (e.g. Santa Barbara SWRO plant [31], pro‐ a diameter of 1.6 m. A trench of 6 m depth was
posed City of Santa Cruz’ SWRO plant in Califor‐ excavated by a marine excavator and the sand
nia [23]). However, there are several issues asso‐ from the trench placed on the seabed. The sand
ciated with the practice of blending SWRO con‐ was used for re‐filling of the trench in order to
centrate and wastewater treatment plant efflu‐ restore the seabed to “its former state” [29].
ents, such as toxicity of the combined discharge. This kind of construction activity probably dis‐
Desalination
54
turbs the layers of sand and clay along the exca‐ Similar to open trench techniques, considerable
vated ditch. Sediment material may become re‐ amounts of material are produced by trenchless
suspended during the laying of the pipes, and construction operations but the spoil is usually
rocky areas and reefs may suffer mechanical carried out to the exit point on land. For exam‐
blows [33]. A similar open‐trench construction ple, a tunnel with a length of 500 m and a di‐
technique was used for laying the three 1.8 m ameter of 3 m would result in the displacement
diameter, 1.3 km long intake pipelines of the of at least 3,500 m3 of material or about 100
Hadera SWRO plant in Israel [30]. standard containers (20‐ft).
Assuming that each trench would be 2 m Soil and material stockpiles, fuels, lubricants,
wide, about 36,000 m3 of material (a volume solid and liquid wastes stored within the active
equal to 1090 standard 20‐ft containers) would construction area may have detrimental effects
be moved for the construction of three pipelines on the environment without appropriate ma‐
and temporarily stored on the seabed. Spoil de‐ terial management plans. Contaminants could
position will likely double the size of the im‐ be released into soils, sediments or water bo‐
pacted seafloor area. Open trench techniques dies, or the placement of construction materials,
may result in a disturbance of the natural sedi‐ including equipment, pipes, shoring and spoils,
ment layers, cause sediment compaction where could temporarily impede or redirect flows dur‐
machinery movements take place or where spoil ing heavy rainfall and stormwater runoff.
is deposited, and affect the local benthic fauna. The magnitude of construction impacts large‐
Effects such as sediment compaction and distur‐ ly depends on the design of the intake and out‐
bance of benthic ecosystems normally require a fall systems and the construction methods used.
longer recovery time than the restoration of the The most environmentally acceptable intake ap‐
seabed to its former topography. pears to be a sub‐floor ocean intake, however,
Trenchless techniques are conducted by hori‐ this requires specific geological conditions which
zontal drilling from an onshore site, e.g. by hori‐ are not present at all sites [23]. In general, hori‐
zontal drilling of several radial drains (e.g. zontal drilling or tunneling from the shore will
NEDODREN® technology [34]) or tunnel boring minimize the disturbance of the coastal ecosys‐
and lining the tunnel with concrete segments tem, while underwater construction activities
[35]. In the first case, the porous drains for the such as digging or the use of jet streams will
intake are completely embedded in the seafloor generally have a larger physical impact on sedi‐
(i.e. in a permeable stratum in the marine sub‐ ments, water and marine life. However, noise
soil) and the working area is minimized to two emissions and groundborne vibrations may be
small areas, one on land and one offshore [34]. higher when drilling, blasting or pile driving is
The pipeline is reamed by means of a pushing‐ necessary for construction pipes in rocky under‐
reamer. The detritus coming from the bore is grounds.
carried out to the exit point on land, thus pre‐ Impacts will also depend on the selection of
venting that it affects the sea area [24]. In the the site and pipeline routes and the length and
second case, one or several intake structures diameter of the pipe. These factors require tho‐
protrude above the seafloor, which are con‐ rough consideration, as for example a longer
nected to the tunnels by drilling through the pipeline may evade some sensitive ecosystem
seabed, usually from a jack‐up barge. For exam‐ but would affect a larger area. Another impor‐
ple, the internal diameter of a tunnel for a 100 tant factor is the season in which construction
GL/a SWRO plant (274,000 m3/d) is expected to activities are carried out, as species abundance
be about 3 m and approximately 4 m for a and vulnerability may vary over the course of a
200 GL/a plant [35]. year. For example, seals come ashore for moult‐
ing and birthing and many fish species spawn in
coastal waters in a certain time of the year.
Potential impacts on receptors Artificial structures

Above ground structures such as pipelines or
Seafloor and sediments breakwaters normally cause wave refractions
and changes to longshore currents.
Disturbance of sediments
Construction activities may cause a displacement Accidental spills
or disturbance of sediments and sediment layer‐ Accidental spills or leakages may impair seawa‐
ing, or a compaction of sediments. ter quality.
Artificial structures Marine flora and fauna

When placed above the ground, the intake and
outfall structures and pipelines can act as an ar‐ Mechanical impact
tificial breakwater. A breakwater may change The construction of intake and outfall structures
wave and current patterns and thereby interfere and the laying of pipelines above or below the
with dynamic sediment processes, such as ero‐ seabed may lead to a destruction of benthic ha‐
sion or deposition, which may cause a redistribu‐ bitats. The mechanical impact is usually lethal for
tion of sediments along the shoreline. In front of benthic organisms in the immediate construction
the breakwater, sediments are normally trapped site. Studies of biological communities in near‐
while in the backward side scouring occurs. Fur‐ shore soft‐bottom habitats have demonstrated
thermore, a prominent breakwater may also in‐ that such communities often take one to three
tercept sand which is transported along the years to recover from disturbances, such as for
shore with coast‐parallel currents. As the break‐ example caused by boat anchors. Rocky sub‐
water deprives the down drift shore of sedi‐ strate also can sustain adverse environmental ef‐
ment, erosion may occur in other locations due fects caused by the laying of pipelines and other
to reduced sediment supply. construction activities when blasting is required
[23].
Accidental spills
Accidental spills of chemicals, oils or fuels, or the Resuspension of sediments
leakage of these substances from underwater Furthermore, the disturbance of sediments may
construction machinery may cause localized se‐ have short term indirect effects on marine life.
diment contamination. These can be manifold, including potential im‐
pacts on filter‐feeding organisms or the gills of
Seawater quality and hydrology fish from sediment plumes, impacts on light pe‐
netration and photosynthesis due to increased
Resuspension of sediments turbidity, potential effects of eutrophication due
The disturbance of sediments may lead to a re‐ to the remobilization of nutrients, the potential
suspension of material into the water column ingestion and accumulation of pollutants from
and a temporarily increased turbidity in the vi‐ contaminated sediments, or the effects asso‐
cinity of the construction site (Figure 6). ciated with the resettling of sediments which
Nutrients and pollutants deposited in the se‐ may cause the burial of benthic fauna and flora
diments may become resuspended along with or fish spawn.
the sediments. Water quality may thus be af‐
fected by increased levels of suspended matter, Disturbance and temporary habitat loss
nutrients or pollutants, or by reduced oxygen le‐ Construction activities may cause a significant
vels potentially caused by a resuspension of disturbance of sensitive wildlife, e.g. of marine
anaerobic sediments. mammals or seabirds, through noise emissions,
vibrations and sediment plumes. Where noise
Desalination
56
impacts on sensitive wildlife are expected, con‐ Indirect effects may result from the introduction
sultation of an expert may be recommendable. of new species to a certain location, due to the
Especially dredging and drilling may produce low reef effect, which may alter the existing commu‐
frequency noise emissions under water, includ‐ nity structure and local predator-prey relation-
ing structure‐borne sound emissions and vibra‐ ships.
tions, which can travel over considerable dis‐ Furthermore, changes in sediment transport
tances. Under water construction machinery attributed to artificial breakwaters may lead to
emits sound waves mainly in the low frequency the degradation of nearby or down‐drift sandy
range. For example, dredging systems emit habitats, such as seagrass beds, which may be
sound waves in the frequency range between affected by changed erosion and deposition pat‐
20 Hz and 1 kHz with sound levels of 150 to terns.
180 dB (re 1 µPa, in 1 m distance) [36].
Depending on the sound level, distance from Accidental spills
the noise source and hearing ability of the po‐ Accidental spills or leakage of lubricants could
tentially affected individuals, noise emissions affect marine life in the vicinity of the spill.
can have different effects. Most likely are beha‐
vioral responses such as to stop foraging, to start
directed movements away from the noise source
and avoidance of the construction area. Other
potential effects include the masking of commu‐
nication or echolocation sounds, or potential
impacts on hearing abilities that may be caused
by very loud noises such as caused by ramping or
blasting. In addition, low‐frequency sounds and
loud sounds can generally be perceived by the
sense of touch as vibrations (see also Box 1).
Permanent habitat alteration

Structures above the seafloor provide hard‐
bottom substrates to which sessile, epibenthic
animals can attach, such as algae, anemones,
mussels. The prolific growth of such an artificial
reef often attracts other reef‐dwelling inverte‐
brate species for food or shelter, such as echino‐
derms (e.g. starfish, sea urchins), crustaceans
(e.g. shrimps, lobsters), or marine snails (ab‐
alone, limpets), and often shows increased den‐
sities of pelagic and benthic fish species. In a
sandy environment, the introduction of hard‐ Figure 6: Construction of a sheet pile trench for
bottom substrates may lead to placement im‐ the Perth seawater desalination plant with mi‐
pacts, i.e. the small‐scale loss of habitat for the nor plume development (by courtesy of Water
native benthic infauna due to sediment sealing. Corporation of Western Australia).
Box 1: Noise emissions

Noise is defined as an unwanted or undesirable sound. Although sound levels are relatively easy to
measure, it is much more complex to evaluate impacts in terms of subjective perception and re‐
sponse. These will depend on many variables, including the sound level and frequency, the distance
of the individual to the sound source, the type of sound (e.g. fluctuating or constant), background
noise levels, the hearing abilities of the species and the individual, or other factors that may influence
if individuals tolerate or even habituate to a noise source, such as attractiveness of an area as feed‐
ing or breeding grounds for wildlife species.
When investigating potential impacts on marine organism, the physics of sound propagation un‐
der water must be taken into account. The speed of sound in seawater varies approximately between
1460 m/s and 1555 m/s depending on salinity, temperature, and pressure as a function of water
depth, and is thus more than four times faster than in air. As the sound waves propagate through a
medium, they lose energy (transmission loss). In an unbounded medium such as deep ocean water,
spherical spreading occurs, while in shallow coastal water, the propagation of sound is bounded by
the sea surface and the seafloor, so that a cylindrical spreading occurs. The transmission loss is
smaller for cylindrical spreading than for spherical spreading. It can be calculated by TL = 10 log10 R in
decibels [dB], with R being the distance from the source. For cylindrical spreading, it can be approx‐
imated that a doubling of the distance causes a reduction of the sound level by 3 dB [37]. Depending
on the frequency spectrum, salinity, temperature and pressure, the transmission loss may differ from
this nominal value. For example, deep‐frequency sound waves have lower transmission losses and
can travel greater distances than high frequency sound, while e.g. high seawater temperatures in
summer could increase transmission losses.
The noise emissions from construction are audible for marine species within range, depending on
their specific auditory frequency ranges and hearing thresholds. While humans can generally hear
sounds with frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, marine organisms have different hearing abili‐
ties. For example, audible frequencies range between 1 kHz and 150 kHz for harbor porpoises, with
highest sensitivity in the range from 16 kHz to 140 kHz and hearing thresholds of 32 to 46 dB re 1 μPa
in this frequency range [38, 39], or between 75 Hz and 60 kHz for harbor seals, with highest sensitivi‐
ty in the range from 10 to 30 kHz and a hearing threshold of 60 to 70 dB re 1 μPa in this frequency
range [40]. In principle, fish species can also detect sound waves, but the audible frequency seems to
be limited to low frequencies between 30 Hz and 1 kHz [41]. Low‐frequency sounds and loud sounds
can also be perceived through the sense of touch as vibrations.
Some further explanations: The sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, while the sound
intensity is the acoustical power per unit area in the direction of propagation. Both sound pressure
level (SPL) and sound intensity level (SIL) are measured in the logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. The A‐
weighted scale dB (A) is used to evaluate noise disturbances to humans. It weighs the frequencies of
the measured sound levels in a way that corresponds to the way the human ear perceives the sound.
In contrast, the linear weighted scale dB (linear) uses equal weights for all frequencies and is often
used to investigate impacts of noise on wildlife. The equivalent sound level Leq is used to “quantify”
the noise level of a fluctuating sound over a specific period of time in order to compare it with thre‐
shold levels. It is a sound‐energy average which takes maximum noise levels, number and duration of
noise events into account. The reference sound pressure levels are 20 µPa in air and 1 µPa in water.
Due to these differences, 100 dB in air is not the same as 100 dB in water. The conversion factors
from air to water are +26 dB for SPL and +62 dB for SIL. For example, a noise of 100 dB re 20 µPa (at
1 m distance) in air would be equal to a noise of 162 dB re 1 µPa in water.
Desalination
58
C.2.2 Desalination plant allowed for access and maneuvering of machi‐

nery.
Land requirements Construction activities will typically involve all
Desalination plants usually consist of a set of kinds of heavy machinery, including several bull‐
buildings that house the pumping station, the dozers, excavators, graders, compactors, cranes,
pretreatment and post‐treatment line, energy etc., as well as forklifts, loaders, and trucks for
recovery units and desalination units. Normally hauling away debris and excavated soils, and de‐
also part of the complex are storage water tanks, livering construction materials and plant compo‐
office buildings, a car park, fence and gate. In nents. For instance, it is estimated that construc‐
[42], the area required for SWRO plants is given tion of a 189,000 m3/d facility will require a 24
with approximately 10,000 m2 (1 ha) for 5,000 to month period when the desalination facility, the
10,000 m3/d product water. It is not possible to pump station, and the intake and discharge pipe‐
establish an exact correlation between plant size lines are constructed simultaneously. Construc‐
and land use. However, taking this estimate as a tion would require a crew of up to 80 workers on
rough rule of thumb, the area of land required site. It would involve about 13,360 truck trips
for a large SWRO plant of 100,000 m3/d capacity and the handling of about 40,000 m3 of soils (or
would be between 10 and 20 ha. The following 1,200 standard 20‐ft containers). The greatest
examples illustrate the land requirements of amount of equipment operating at the site
some large SWRO projects: would be during the earthwork phase, when
Plant with 548,000 m3/d (200 GL/a) capacity: 3 excavators, 3 backhoes, 3 loaders, 2 graders
20 to 40 ha, which includes an operational and 2 compactors would be operating on site,
buffer area [35]. and in the building structure phase, when
Plant with 500,000 m3/d capacity: 3 cranes, 2 cement mixers, 4 forklifts, 1 aerial
about 30 ha, of which about 20 ha would be lift, 1 generator set and 4 welders would be
covered in impervious surfaces such as build‐ needed. Other types of equipment used during
ings, roads, and hardstand areas, plus an ad‐ different phases would include pumps, pavers,
ditional 15 ha area which would become a rollers, pile drivers, trenchers and a drill rig [26].
conservation area (total of 45 ha) [43].
Plant with 274,000 m3/d capacity: Potential impacts on receptors
about 10 ha [33].
Plant with 189,000 m3/d (50 mgd) capacity: Landscape and natural scenery
about 1.6 ha, of which about one quarter
would be required for the desalination facili‐ Aesthetic impacts of construction
ty and another quarter for the pretreatment The construction activities can temporarily im‐
area [26]. The facility will be constructed pair the aesthetic landscape properties and the
within the 38 ha compound of a power gen‐ natural scenery in the construction site and
eration plant, which might explain the com‐ nearby areas within visual and acoustic range.
paratively lower land use. The impacts will vary in terms of intensity and
duration depending on construction phases
Construction activities (day‐night‐differences, working week vs. week‐
Construction generally comprises the initial end, busy and more quiet construction periods).
earthwork activities (site grading, excavation), Causes of annoyance may be the ‘hustle and
the laying of foundations, construction of facili‐ bustle’ caused by the movements of construc‐
ties, and landscaping measures (e.g. pavings, tion machinery and increased traffic on road‐
planting with trees, grass etc.). The area affected ways, the emissions of dust, exhaust fumes and
depends on the size and architectural design of noise, or the stockpiling of soil, debris, equip‐
the facility. Additional corridors must usually be ment and materials if exposed to public views.
Construction‐related clearing of mature vegeta‐ 132 kg of CO

tion and lack of screening of the project site may 21 kg of ROC
intensify visual disturbance. 176 kg of NOX
15 kg of SOX
Aesthetic impacts upon implementation 14 kg of PM10
Following construction, exposure of certain fea‐
tures of the plant facilities and exterior mechani‐ Based on these results, it was concluded that
cal equipment could potentially result in degra‐ construction activities may result in NOX‐
dation of the visual character or quality of the emissions that temporarily and locally exceed
site. The degradation could represent a poten‐ the established emission threshold during peak
tially significant impact if it has a substantial ad‐ activities [26].
verse effect on scenic vistas or the existing visual The emissions are project‐specific, however,
character of the site [26]. The significance of im‐ they illustrate the order of magnitude of con‐
pacts therefore depends on the existing scenic struction‐related air emissions and indicate that
features and the architectural design of the facil‐ construction causes a localized and temporal,
ity. Prominent features of the plant may include but measurable increase in air pollutants.
for example the main building when exceeding a Project‐specific emission estimates, based on the
certain height, storage tanks, air conditioning, specific emission factors of construction vehicles
plumbing lines, duct work and transformers. Sig‐ and fuel type, existing background levels and
nificant aesthetic impacts can also be related to other emission sources in the vicinity need to be
the production of glare on metallic or glass sur‐ taken into consideration when evaluating if
face, exterior lighting and noise generation project‐related construction activities may vi‐
which adversely affect the day and nighttime olate any existing air quality standards.
views in the area.
Soils
Air quality and climate
Surface sealing and compaction
Air quality may be affected by construction‐ If the plant is built on a previously undeveloped
related emissions. The main emission sources site it will have certain placement impacts. Im‐
are fugitive dust generated by demolition of pacts of construction activities on soils include
structures and site grading and trenching, and the surface sealing caused by buildings and as‐
exhaust generated by construction equipment, phalt and soil compaction by construction ma‐
trucks and worker vehicles. chinery, which may reduce air, water and nu‐
Fugitive dust is the main contributing factor trient exchange, reduce the permeability of soils
to increased levels of particulate material (PM10 and may impair natural soil processes.
and PM2.5), but diesel exhaust also contributes to
an increase in PM‐levels in the construction site. Erosion
Other air pollutants resulting from exhaust Where vegetation has been cleared und where
emissions which may affect air quality include underlying earth is temporarily exposed, the soil
carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ni‐ may be prone to erosion by runoff rainwater,
trogen and sulfur oxides (NOX and SOX), and wind, or wave action near the coastline, which
reactive organic compound (ROC, an ozone pre‐ may in turn aggravate the natural recovering
cursor substance). process of the vegetation or restoration efforts.
Estimated daily emissions generated during
construction on site for a 189,000 m3/d desalina‐ Deposition of excavated material
tion facility in California were as follows: Debris and excavated material from the con‐
struction site must be stored temporarily (if used
Desalination
60
for refilling) or must be disposed of which may can be in a natural state or may already show le‐
require the identification of a separate soil dis‐ vels of degradation, such as reduced plant cov‐
posal site. erage or species diversity. Often, an already de‐
veloped site within an industrial complex is cho‐
Accidental spills sen, for example within the compounds of an ex‐
Accidental spills of chemicals, oils or fuels, or the isting power plant (e.g. [26, 27]) or a site which
leakage of these substances from storage tanks, has already been classified for industrial use (e.g.
or the loss of lubricants or fuel by machinery etc. [44]).
may cause localized soil contamination. The clearing of vegetation results in a direct
loss of this vegetation. The loss will be perma‐
Contaminated soils nent for all areas covered in impervious surfaces
When the desalination plant is constructed in a (until project demolition and site restoration) or
site that was previously occupied by other indus‐ may be temporal in areas that suffered degrada‐
trial facilities or used for other industrial purpos‐ tion from the operation of machinery (if re‐
es, excavation activities may lead to an exposure growth of natural vegetation is allowed or en‐
of contaminated soils or groundwater that, forced). Often, the natural vegetation is replaced
when eroded by wind and rain, could create a by lawn, flower beds or other gardening meas‐
potential hazard [23, 26, 44]. ures. The clearing of the natural vegetation also
may lead to weed infestations from adjacent
Ground‐ and surface water quality areas [45].
and hydrology
Disturbance and temporary habitat loss
Surface water runoff The noise levels and general disturbance during
Construction activities or certain features of the construction may scare away sensitive wildlife.
plant facilities may affect urban runoff and storm The clearing of vegetation means a habitat loss
water discharge, e.g. by altering or impeding the for terrestrial and avian species, which may be
flow. Loose soils and material, including liquid or minimized and temporary, when re‐growth of
solid contaminants, may be washed away by the natural vegetation is allowed or enforced. Poten‐
runoff if not properly managed, and a contami‐ tially affected terrestrial taxa include amphibians
nation of the runoff water could have a short‐ (e.g. frogs, salamanders), reptiles (e.g. tortoises,
term effect on surface water quality down‐ snakes, lizards), mammals (e.g. small rodents,
stream of the project site [26]. bats) and birds (e.g. breeding seabirds, resting
migratory birds).
Groundwater table
Depending on groundwater levels and the floor Edge effects
elevations of the desalination plant facilities, the “Edge effects” may be caused by dust, erosion or
groundwater table may be affected by construc‐ run‐off and may adversely affect the vitality of
tion activities. the terrestrial habitats [26], including the plant
communities and associated fauna in the nearby
Terrestrial flora and fauna areas.
Clearing of vegetation Permanent habitat alteration

A clearing of vegetation or draining of coastal A permanent loss of natural habitat occurs in all
wetlands may be necessary in the construction areas covered in impervious surfaces and altered
site when the site is opened up for development. by gardening measures, which makes these
The impact depends on the ground area re‐ areas usually unusable for the local fauna and
quired and the existing site vegetation, which flora.
Barrier effect cility, or as a separate EIA if the infrastructure is

Prominent project features could proclude lin‐ considered an independent project (depending
kages and movement corridors of wildlife [26]. on the legislative system).
Accidental spills Water transfer pipelines

Accidental spills or leakage of lubricants could Construction can be carried out by open‐cut and
affect terrestrial plants and animals in the vicini‐ trenchless‐techniques. Construction mainly con‐
ty of the spill. sists of the following consecutive steps: trench‐
ing or tunneling, pipe laying, backfilling, compac‐
Seawater quality and hydrology tion, and reinstatement of the previous state
(e.g. pavement, vegetation) [26].
Surface water runoff For example, for the Melbourne Seawater
Due to the normally close proximity of desalina‐ Desalination plant it is estimated that a con‐
tion plants to the sea, loose soils and materials, struction corridor of 15 to 20 m will be required
including liquid or solid contaminants, may be for a pipeline with a diameter of 1.7 to 2.5 m to
washed into the sea by runoff from the construc‐ allow for trenching, spoil management and
tion site if not properly managed, which could access for pipe laying. The pipeline will have a
have a short‐term effect on seawater quality length from 20 to 90 km [35]. An area between
[26]. 30 and 180 ha will temporarily be disturbed by
construction of the water transmission pipeline,
C.2.3 Auxiliary infrastructure in relation to an area of 20 to 40 ha required for
the desalination plant itself.
The construction of major auxiliary infrastruc‐ Both open‐cut and trenchless construction
ture, such as water conveyance facilities and off‐ activities are being considered for the Carlsbad
shore pump stations, power transmission lines seawater desalination project [26] for different
and access routes, will involve all kinds of heavy sections of the pipeline. The pipeline is expected
machinery such as excavators, cranes or drilling to have a maximum diameter of 1.2 m and a
equipment. It will furthermore require the maximum length of 25 km. The majority of the
movement of considerable amounts of material pipeline will be constructed by open trench con‐
and a considerable work force. Construction im‐ struction techniques, which requires a corridor
pacts of auxiliary infrastructure are in the follow‐ of maximal 9 m for construction activities and
ing reduced to underground water pipelines. The lay‐down of equipment, or an area of about
connection to the power grid can also be made 23.5 ha. Trenchless construction activities in‐
by a ground cable but overhead lines are more clude micro‐tunneling, horizontal directional
common. drilling, or auger boring [26]:
The impacts are similar in type and nature to
the impacts caused by the construction of the Micro‐tunneling involves the excavation of
desalination facility but may vary in terms of two jacking and receiving pits, which are ver‐
magnitude (depending on the proximity of the tical excavations with shoring and bracing
facility to the water and power grid, the road systems (one on each side of the area to be
system, the selected routes and the construction crossed). A micro‐tunneling machine,
methods used). equipped with either an auger or slurry ma‐
The construction of auxiliary infrastructure terial removing device, is lowered into the
causes an additional (cumulative) disturbance to jacking pit and creates a tunnel connecting
soils, vegetation and fauna along the construc‐ the jacking and receiving pits. The pipeline
tion corridors. The impacts can either be eva‐ can then be installed within the underground
luated as part of the EIA for the desalination fa‐ tunnel [26].
Desalination
62
Horizontal directional drilling involves the Potential impacts on receptors

drilling of a pilot hole at a prescribed angle
from one end to the other utilizing a pilot Landscape and natural scenery
drill string. This hole is then enlarged to a
suitable diameter for the pipeline by “pre‐ Aesthetic impacts of construction
reaming”: a reamer is attached to the drill The construction activities can temporarily im‐
string and pulled through the pilot hole by a pair the aesthetic landscape properties and the
drilling rig. Large quantities of slurry are natural scenery along the construction corridor
pumped into the hole to maintain the integr‐ and nearby areas within visual and acoustic
ity of the hole and to flush out cuttings. The range. The impacts will vary in terms of intensity
pipeline is then connected to the reamer and and duration depending on construction phases
pulled through the tunnel by a drilling rig, (day‐night‐differences, working week vs. week‐
again circulating high volumes of drilling slur‐ end, busy and more quiet construction periods).
ry. The likely size of the impacted area for Causes of annoyance may be the ‘hustle and
this technology would be about 6 m by 12 m bustle’ caused by the movements of construc‐
at the front of the tunnel and 4.5 m by 4.5 m tion machinery and increased traffic on road‐
at the end of the tunnel [26]. ways, the emissions of dust, exhaust fumes,
noise emissions and vibrations, or the stockpiling
Auger boring forms a bore hole between of soil, debris, equipment and materials if ex‐
shafts by means of a rotating cutting head. posed to public views.
Spoil is transported back to the drive shaft by
helical‐wound auger flights rotating inside a Aesthetic impacts upon implementation
steel pipe casing that is being jacked in place The pipeline will normally not cause any long‐
simultaneously. The cutting head completely term impacts, as it is usually placed under‐
removes the spoil and does not compress ground. Only associated off‐site pumping sta‐
the surrounding soil, so that soil heave is not tions may be visible to public views, which are
a problem [26]. similar in height and dimensions to a one‐story,
single‐family home [26].
It is estimated that the construction of the 25 km
pipeline can be completed within a 20 month Air quality and climate
period, assuming that seven segments are con‐
structed simultaneously. For illustration, this The construction of auxiliary infrastructure can
would require a crew of up to 200 workers, up to cause a localized and temporal but measurable
108 truck trips per day handling about 11 m3 of increase in air pollutants. The main air pollutants
soils per truck. Due to forward progression of are PM10 and PM2.5 from fugitive dust and diesel
construction activities along the pipeline route, exhaust, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide
the intense construction phase would last only (CO), nitrogen and sulfur oxides (NOX and SOX),
two to three days at any one location [26]. and reactive organic compound from exhaust
Single effects may last longer than this pe‐ emissions.
riod, for example vegetation re‐growth will re‐ Estimated daily emissions generated during
quire a certain time to return to the original construction of a water transfer pipeline for a
state. major desalination facility were as follows:
91 kg of CO
12 kg of ROC
130 kg of NOX
11 kg of SOX
17 kg of PM10
Based on these results, it was concluded that Ground‐ and surface water quality
construction activities may result in NOX‐ and hydrology
emissions that temporarily and locally exceed
the established threshold during peak activities Surface water runoff
[26]. Construction activities may temporarily affect
These figures are project‐specific, however, urban runoff and storm water discharge, e.g. by
they illustrate the order of magnitude of con‐ altering or impeding the flow. Loose soils and
struction‐related air emissions and show that material, including liquid or solid contaminants,
construction of auxiliary infrastructure causes a may be washed away by the runoff if not proper‐
localized and temporal, but measurable increase ly managed, and a contamination of runoff wa‐
in air pollutants. Project‐specific emission esti‐ ter could have a short‐term effect on surface
mates, existing background levels and other water quality.
emission sources need to be taken into consid‐
eration in order to evaluate if project‐related Terrestrial flora and fauna
construction activities may violate any air quality
standards. Clearing of vegetation
A clearing of vegetation will be necessary along
Soils the trench. In environmentally sensitive areas,
trenchless construction may be utilized. The im‐
Soil compaction pact depends on the ground area required, the
Maneuvering of heavy construction machinery construction method and the existing site vege‐
and trenching may cause soil compaction and tation, which can be in a pristine state or may al‐
reduce air and water permeability of soils. ready show levels of degradation, such as re‐
duced plant coverage or species diversity. The
Erosion clearing of the natural vegetation may lead to
Where vegetation has been cleared, the soil may weed infestations from adjacent areas [45].
be prone to erosion by runoff rainwater and
wind, which may in turn aggravate the natural Accidental spills
recovering process of the vegetation or restora‐ Accidental spills or leakage of lubricants could
tion efforts. affect terrestrial animals in the vicinity of the
spill.
Deposition of excavated material
The disposal of debris and excavated material Habitat alteration and loss
from the construction site may require the iden‐ The noise levels and general disturbance during
tification of a separate soil disposal site. construction may scare away animals. The clear‐
ing of vegetation means a habitat loss for terre‐
Accidental spills strial and avian species. The habitat loss may be
Accidental spills of chemicals, oils or fuels, or the minimized and temporary, when re‐growth of
leakage of these substances from storage tanks, natural vegetation is allowed or enforced. Poten‐
or the loss of lubricants or fuel by machinery etc. tially affected terrestrial taxa include amphibians
may cause localized soil contamination. (e.g. frogs, salamanders), reptiles (e.g. tortoises,
snakes, lizards), mammals (e.g. small rodents,
bats) and birds (e.g. breeding seabirds, resting
migratory birds).
Desalination
64
C.3 Commissioning C.4 Operation
It may be necessary to discard the membrane The operation of a desalination plant necessi‐
storage solution and rinse the membranes be‐ tates the following activities which may have an
fore plant start‐up, to discard the water from the environment effect:
pretreatment line until the necessary feed water intake and pretreatment of the feed water,
quality is reached, or to discard the product wa‐ the discharge of the concentrate and other
ter until the desired product quality is reached. waste streams resulting from the process,
The discharge from the pretreatment line energy use, and
does not require any special treatment before handling of hazardous materials.
discharge. Its salinity is identical to that of the
seawater. The pH is usually about neutral and is The activities are discussed in further detail in
thus slightly reduced compared to ambient sea‐ the following sub‐sections.
water, which is slightly alkaline (about 8.3). It
does not contain any harmful chemicals, if the C.4.1 Intake of seawater
discharged water comes from a point located
downstream the dechlorination unit. Similarly, Desalination plants can receive feedwater from
the permeate does not have any characteristics open seawater intakes, below‐ground intakes or
which would avoid it from being discharged di‐ from the cooling water discharge conduits of
rectly to the sea [46]. If the storage solution con‐ power plants (cf. also section C.2.1, p. 52). The
tains a biocide or other chemicals which may be co‐location of seawater desalination plants with
harmful to marine life, precautionary measures power plants provides certain advantages [49]:
should be taken before discharge. it allows for the use of existing intake and
outfall structures, which reduces construc‐
Potential impacts on receptors tion impacts on the marine environment,
it reduces land use and landscape impacts as
Seawater quality and hydrology the facility is constructed in an industrial
area, and does not require additional power
The discharge of membrane storage solutions transmission lines,
may affect water quality. Sodium bisulfite, which the intake water is pre‐heated which reduces
is a reducing agent, also prevents biological the required energy demand by 5 to 8%,
growth by oxygen depletion and may be used for it re‐uses the cooling discharge water and
disinfection or long‐term storage of membranes thereby avoids additional seawater intake,
[47, 48]. When discharged to the sea, it may af‐ it allows for the mixing of the concentrate
fect dissolved oxygen levels in the discharge site. and the cooling water before discharge,
which significantly reduces salinity of the RO
Marine flora and fauna concentrate.
The discharge of membrane storage solutions However, a major argument against co‐location
may affect marine life when it contains biocides is that it might lead to a continued operation of
or oxygen scavengers. coastal power plants using once through cooling
(OTC) systems, which are not considered to be
best available technology (BAT) in terms of envi‐
ronmental impacts in some countries.
In California, for example, power plants with
OTC systems are required to prepare compre‐
hensive plans for reduction of impingement and
entrainment of marine organisms. Measures in‐ Marine flora and fauna

clude the replacement of OTC systems with air‐
cooling towers or water close‐circulation cooling Entrainment
towers. Desalination plants to be co‐located with Open seawater intakes usually result in the loss
power plants have executed long‐term agree‐ of eggs and larvae of fish and benthic inverte‐
ments with their power plant hosts to reserve brate species, spores from algae and seagrass,
the right to use the existing outfall and intake phytoplankton and zooplankton, as well as
systems [50]. Without power plant cooling water smaller marine organisms when these are drawn
discharges, however, the desalination plant can‐ into the plant with the seawater. The intake ve‐
not receive preheated intake water and dilute locity of the feedwater can be reduced to veloci‐
the concentrate before discharge. This may re‐ ties of about 0.1 m/s, which is comparable to
sult in a slight increase of the projected energy background currents in the oceans [35], in order
demand (by 5–8%) and may necessitate the im‐ to allow mobile organisms to swim away from
plementation of other impact mitigation meas‐ the intake under these flow conditions.
ures to disperse the concentrate, such as retro‐ This mitigation measure, however, is not ef‐
fitting with a diffuser system. fective against the intake of plankton organisms
which drift passively with currents. Due to the
Potential impacts on receptors pretreatment in desalination system, which
among other steps involves chlorination, it must
Ground‐ and surface water quality be assumed that the survival rate of organisms
and hydrology within the desalination plant is minimal.
The mortality caused by entrainment may af‐
Groundwater flows fect the productivity of coastal ecosystems, but
A concern of below ground intakes which re‐ effects are difficult to quantify. Although plank‐
quires site‐specific hydrological investigation is ton organisms show temporal and spatial varia‐
their possible influence on groundwater aqui‐ tions in species abundance, species diversity and
fers, e.g. by changing flow directions, causing productivity, it can be assumed that the com‐
saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, or mon native species will be prevalent in coastal
conversely freshwater intrusion into coastal surface areas. Furthermore, plankton species
aquifers when the freshwater moves from the have rapid reproductive cycles. Due to these cir‐
land towards the ocean [23, 51]. cumstances it seems unlikely that the operation
If a desalination plant is constructed further of a single desalination facility will have a sub‐
inland, there is a need for pipes to transport the stantial negative effect on the ability of plankton
seawater. Leakage from the pipes may result in organisms to sustain their populations.
penetration of salt water into groundwater aqui‐ The entrainment of eggs and larvae from
fers or surrounding soils [33]. common invertebrate and fish species will also
unlikely adversely affect the ability of these spe‐
Seawater quality and hydrology cies to reproduce successfully. The reproduction
strategy of these species is to produce a large
Influence on mixing processes number of eggs and larvae, of which only a small
The intake of large quantities of seawater may percentage reaches maturity due to natural mor‐
affect water circulation, especially in areas that tality (such as starvation of larvae or failure to
are characterized by weak natural currents and settle in a suitable location).
waves. When the feed water is taken from the For example, a sea urchin may release about
cooling water discharge conduits of power 1 million eggs of which about 1% may be ferti‐
plants, no additional effects occur above those lized, and 1% of the larvae may become mature
already caused by the power plant. adults. Even under this scenario, the offspring
Desalination
66
will account for 100 individuals. Similarly, more However, it should be noted in this context that
than 99% of the fish larvae do not become re‐ power plants typically require much larger feed
productive adults as a result of natural mortality volumes than desalination plants.
[26]. Impingement effects may also be a significant
The question is if entrainment causes a signif‐ source of mortality for endangered or protected
icant additional source of mortality which may marine species, such as sea turtles or sea snakes.
have a substantial negative effect on the ability
of a species to sustain its population. C.4.2 Pretreatment of seawater
Entrainment effects may be significant de‐
pending on local conditions, such as the exis‐ Open seawater often contains higher and more
tence of cumulative sources of mortality (other variable amounts of organic and inorganic ma‐
power or desalination plants), locally present terial than intakes embedded in the seafloor. As
endangered species or species of commercial in‐ open intakes have to cope with more variable
terest (e.g. some fish species). Entrainment and sometimes deteriorating surface water qual‐
caused by direct seawater intakes may also be a ity, pretreatment is generally more complex and
major concern in marine protected areas [23]. extensive than for below‐ground intakes. These
While it is relatively simple to quantify the le‐ naturally prefiltrate the incoming seawater and
vels of entrainment for a specific project, it is thereby reduce bacterial numbers and sus‐
very difficult and complex to estimate the actual pended material. Chemical and physical pre‐
ecosystem impacts, especially when cumulative treatment may become unnecessary under
effects with other projects may occur. these conditions or may be reduced to acid addi‐
tion for scale control.
Impingement The seafloor sediments might, however, also
Open seawater intakes usually result in the loss have unfavorable effects on feedwater proper‐
of larger marine organisms when these collide ties, for example by having increased carbonate
with screens at the intake (impingement of fish, or hydrogen sulfide contents, or elevated levels
jellyfish, turtles etc.). Impingement mortality is of iron or manganese. If the intake water is
typically due to suffocation, starvation, or ex‐ drawn from cooling water discharges, it might
haustion due to being pinned up against the in‐ contain residual pretreatment chemicals (e.g.
take screens or from the physical force of jets of biocides), corrosion by‐products and increased
water used to clear screens of debris ([23] after temperature values.
[52]). The different intake options are normally eva‐
For coastal power stations using once luated and the intake water quality analyzed in
through cooling water, the impacts of impinge‐ order to design and optimize the pretreatment
ment are typically assessed solely on impacts to system. The pretreatment system thus depends
commercially and recreationally fished species. on the intake type (e.g. open or sub‐surface) and
Impacts on fish species can be significant, caus‐ the intake water quality. Most desalination
ing fish mortality equivalent to the take of a fi‐ plants use a conventional pretreatment system
shery. (outlined below) but alternative designs using
For instance, an assessment for the Hunting‐ micro‐ and ultrafiltration membranes (MF, UF)
ton Beach power plant examined the impinge‐ will likely become more prominent in the future.
ment impacts of eleven power plants located on
the southern California coast. The estimated
combined total impingement mortality from the
once‐through cooling systems were estimated to
amount to 8–30% of the recreational fishing to‐
tals for Southern California ([23] after [53]).
Conventional steps in SWRO plants operat‐ Conventional steps in most distillation

ing on surface water include (cf. Figure 7): plants include (cf. Figure 8):
Control of biofouling, usually by chlorination, Control of biofouling, usually by chlorination,

and dechlorination with sodium bisulfite, Control of scaling by ‘antiscalant’ dosing,
Removal of suspended material by coagula‐ Reduction of foaming by ‘antifoam’ addition,
tion and media filtration, Deaeration or use of oxygen scavengers to
Control of scaling by acid addition (lowering inhibit corrosion.
the pH of the incoming seawater) and/or
dosing of special ‘antiscalant’ chemicals, In the following, the conventional pretreatment
Cartridge filters as a final protection barrier steps in SWRO and distillation plants are briefly
against suspended particles and microorgan‐ outlined before potential impacts are considered
isms before the RO units. in sections C.4.4 and C.4.5.
Figure 7: Flow‐scheme of a SWRO system showing the conventional pretreatment and chemical dosage
steps (green) and the different waste and side streams (the broken lines showing intermittent flows)
(adapted from [46, 47]).
Figure 8: Flow‐scheme of a MSF distillation plant showing the conventional pretreatment and chemical
dosage steps and the different waste and side streams (adapted from [47]).
Desalination
68
Control of biofouling Hypobromous acid has also disinfecting proper‐

Seawater contains dissolved and particulate or‐ ties but efficiency depends on the amount of
ganic matter and microorganisms that may undissociated species (HOBr) present, i.e. on pH.
cause biofouling on RO membranes and the heat HOBr is readily available in seawater (at about
exchanger surfaces of distillation plants. Biocide 85%) at a natural pH of about 8.
dosing is usually carried out in desalination In distillation plants, dosing concentrations
plants that receive water from an open intake, and resulting chlorine levels of 0.4 to 4 mg/l
as the concentration of organic matter and the have been reported. This concentration may be
biological activity is higher in surface waters than increased periodically to 6 to 8 mg/l for shock
in water from subsurface wells and drains. treatment. The initial chlorine concentration is
reduced inside the desalination plant due to the
Chlorination–dechlorination oxidant demand of the seawater, mainly caused
In most desalination plants, chlorine is added to by reactions with organic seawater constituents
the intake water to control and reduce biofoul‐ and abiotic degradation (decomposition).
ing inside the plant. Chlorine dosage depends on Residual chlorine levels between 200 and
the raw water quality. It may be unnecessary for 500 µg/l have been reported for distillation plant
beachwell water, whereas in severe cases of bio‐ reject streams [47]. While this level ensures that
fouling, continuous chlorination and intermittent the entire plant from intake to outfall is pro‐
shock treatment with increased chlorine concen‐ tected from biofouling, it also means that resi‐
trations may become necessary. To allow for a dual chlorine is discharged to surface waters,
sufficient reaction time within the plant, chlorine where it may harm aquatic life.
is usually injected at the plant’s intake, either as In RO plants, chlorination typically yields a
chlorine gas or hypochlorite salts, or is formed concentration of 0.1 to 1 mg/l in the intake wa‐
by electrolysis of the incoming seawater. Chlori‐ ter [47]. Residual chlorine is neutralized before
nation leads to the formation of hypochlorous the water enters the RO units to avoid mem‐
acid (HOCl) and hypochlorite ions (OCl–): brane damage, as RO membranes are typically
made from polyamide materials which are sensi‐
NaOCl NaOH – tive to oxidizing chemicals such as chlorine. So‐
+ H2O → + OCl + H+
Cl2 HCl dium bisulfite (SBS) is predominantly used for
dechlorination:
In the presence of bromide (Br–), which is like
chloride a natural component of seawater, hy‐ NaHSO3 + OCl − → NaHSO4 + Cl −
pobromous acid (HOBr) and hypobromite (OBr–)
ions are rapidly formed 28 : As a consequence, chlorine concentrations will
be very low to non‐detectable in the reject
OCl− + Br− → Cl− + OBr− streams of RO plants. De‐chlorination with SBS
may reduce dissolved oxygen levels in the reject
28
In freshwater, chlorine content is usually expressed stream as a side effect if SBS dosing is not prop‐
as free available chlorine (FAC), which is the sum of erly adjusted.
Cl2, HOCl acid and OCl−. In wastewater, where high If oxidant‐resistant RO membranes are used,
levels of ammonia are present, chloramines are pri‐ dechlorination is not required and residual chlo‐
marily formed, which also have oxidizing capacity and
are referred to as combined chlorine. The term total
rine in the reject stream could affect non‐target
residual chlorine (TRC) refers to the sum of FAC and organisms in the discharge site. However, only
combined chlorine, while total residual oxidant (TRO) one manufacturer currently produces RO capil‐
also includes other oxidants such as bromine species lary membranes for SWRO using cellulose ace‐
formed in seawater chlorination. However, the terms tate, which can be sanitized with chlorine [54].
chlorine or residual chlorine are also often used in
seawater for simplicity reasons.
Following discharge into warm, sunlit surface A major disadvantages of the current practice of
waters, a further decline in residual chlorine le‐ chlorination is the formation of organohalogen
vels by up to 90% can be expected [55]. Envi‐ compounds. The number of by‐products can
ronmental concentrations in the discharge site hardly be determined due to many possible side
of distillation plants can therefore be estimated reactions. A major component, however, are the
to range between 20 and 50 µg/l. This is consis‐ trihalomethanes (THMs) such as bromoform.
tent with observed concentrations between 30 Very few studies investigated coastal THM con‐
and 100 µg/l in the mixing zones of large distilla‐ centrations near distillation plants. In two cases,
tion plants, which may extend as far as 1 km increased levels up to 9.5 µg/l near the outlet
from the plant’s outlet [56, 57]. [61] and up to 83 µg/l [56] were reported. These
Although environmental levels are quickly findings are in line with bromoform levels of 15–
decreased by self‐degradation and dilution fol‐ 20 µg/l as observed near coastal power plants
lowing discharge, the potential for adverse ef‐ that use chlorine for disinfection. Concentrations
fects is still high. Chlorine is a very effective bio‐ of other halogenated organics are considerably
cide and its toxicity has been confirmed by many lower and usually in the nanogram per liter
laboratory studies. Based on toxicological data range. Substances of anthropogenic origin in
from a wide spectrum of marine species, the U.S. coastal waters, especially mineral oil or diesel
EPA [58] recommends long‐term and short‐term fuels, may give rise to compounds like chloro‐
water quality criteria for chlorine in seawater of phenols or chlorobenzenes [61‐64]. However,
7.5 µg/l and 13 µg/l, respectively. These are es‐ THMs such as bromoform account for most of
timates of the highest concentration in surface the compounds.
water to which an aquatic community can be ex‐ Dechlorination will considerably reduce the
posed without resulting in an unacceptable ef‐ potential for by‐product formation, but even the
fect. The toxicity to individuals, however, de‐ presence of low concentrations below acutely
pends very much on species sensitivity and life toxic levels could be harmful to marine life. Stu‐
cycle stage. The European environmental risk as‐ dies investigating the toxicity of chlorinated‐
sessment for hypochlorite has determined a dechlorinated seawater observed increased
predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) for mortality of test species [65, 66] and chronic ef‐
saltwater species of 0.06 µg/l total residual chlo‐ fects [67] of dechlorinated seawater and the ob‐
rine [59]. The PNEC is derived from fish, inverte‐ served effects were assumed to be due to the
brate and algae toxicity data. presence of halogenated organics formed during
Considering these data, the establishment of chlorination. Furthermore, sufficient evidence
stringent discharge regulations seems appropri‐ exists that some compounds have carcinogenic
ate for desalination plants. From a regulatory and mutagenic properties [64], which makes it
viewpoint, aquatic pollutants are typically regu‐ difficult to establish a “no‐effects‐threshold”.
lated at the point of discharge as well as within
the receiving water. The former encourages Alternative to chlorination
source control principles, such as effluent treat‐ Alternative chemical methods have been inves‐
ment, while the latter is associated with the con‐ tigated to control biofouling in SWRO plants, in‐
cept of a mixing zone, where the numerical wa‐ cluding monochloramine (NH2Cl), ozone (O3), or
ter quality standards may be exceeded. Mixing copper sulfate (CuSO4). None of these has gained
zones can extend over considerable areas in the wide acceptance over chlorine use. For seawater
water body, depending on the effluent volume applications, there is also a growing interest in
and the hydrology of the water body. In order to the use of chlorine dioxide, which is already ap‐
meet mixing zone regulations, properly sited plied in some of the desalination plants in the
outfalls with optimized high efficiency mixing Gulf region [68] and is also used in the Tampa
designs are typically needed [60]. Bay SWRO plant in Florida [28].
Desalination
70
Chlorine dioxide is – like chlorine – a strong oxi‐ Mainly ferric chloride (FeCl3) and ferric sulfate
dant, but requires a shorter contact time and (FeSO4) salts are used for coagulation:
dosage. Unlike other oxidants such as chlorine or
ozone, it does not readily react with bromides to FeCl3 + 3 HCO3 − → Fe(OH)3 + 3 Cl − + 3 CO2
form bromine, or with ammonia to form chlora‐
mines. Furthermore, it does not favor addition The coagulants neutralize the negative surface
and substitution reactions, and therefore chlori‐ charge of the suspended particles and adsorb
nation by products such as halomethanes. How‐ and enmesh colloid particles within the flocks.
ever, the untreated discharge of a biocide to sur‐ By this process, the particles are aggregated into
face water could also be harmful to non‐target larger, heavier and more filterable solids [54].
organisms. Dosing of sulfuric acid to establish slightly
Non‐chemical options for disinfecting the in‐ acidic pH values and addition of coagulant aids
take water include UV‐light of 200–300 nm wa‐ such as polyelectrolytes can enhance the coagu‐
velength and prefiltration membranes (UF and lation process. Polyelectrolytes are organic sub‐
MF, see also next section). UV‐light destroys the stances with high molecular masses (like polya‐
DNA, cell membranes and enzymes of microor‐ crylamide) that help to bridge particles together.
ganisms by forming free radicals in water which The dosage of coagulants and coagulant aids is
are mainly responsible for the breakdown of the normally correlated to the amount of suspended
organic material. Storage, handling and disposal material in the intake water. It can range be‐
of toxic chemicals are therefore avoided. UF/MF tween < 1 and 30 mg/l for coagulants and be‐
pretreatment usually requires chemically en‐ tween 0.2 and 4 mg/l for polyelectrolytes [47].
hanced backwash and periodic cleaning [48] of The particulate material is retained when the
the membranes and is therefore not entirely seawater passes through the filter beds. The fil‐
chemical free. ters are backwashed on a period basis, using fil‐
tered seawater or permeate water, in order to
Control of suspended matter (RO only) clean the filters from the particulate material,
The removal of suspended material from the RO which contains the natural suspended material
feed stream is necessary as solids can cause irre‐ and the coagulant chemicals.
versible damage to the membranes. Of concern The backwash water can either be discharged
are clay and silt (≤ 63 µm), plankton, bacteria into the sea, or may be treated and the sludge
(≤ 3 µm) and smallest colloids of less than 1 nm disposed in a landfill. Several levels of treatment
particle size. RO membranes are not robust may be required depending on the feedwater
enough to operate directly on open seawater quality and the volumetric sludge production, in‐
without pretreatment (unless in very good water cluding clarification, thickening and sludge de‐
quality). Conventional pretreatment technology watering prior to disposal. A worst‐case scenario
relies on a combination of chemical treatment would require a thickener followed by a sludge
and media filtration to achieve the required dewatering system (using a belt press or centri‐
conditioning of the water. An alternative is fuge) in a separate building with odor control
membrane filtration pretreatment [54]. (e.g. as in the Tampa Bay SWRO facility). Small
sludge amounts may be dewatered in a simple
Coagulation and granular media filtration and relatively inexpensive sludge drying bed on‐
For granular media filtration, the dosing of a site or the liquid sludge may simply be hauled to
coagulant is required. Coagulants are metal salts a landfill without treatment [69]. The clarified
which form dense suspended flocks as they react backwash water, which still contains about 1% of
to hydroxides in aqueous solutions. the particulate material, is normally discharged
into the sea [26].
It seems that there is a tendency for removal of [12]. This correlation is established for low do‐
the solids and land deposition despite the cost sages and good water quality.
increase, but it is difficult to substantiate this Under more difficult conditions of operation,
statement as examples for both practices exist. the sludge production can be larger. For exam‐
Plants with a sludge separation step are for ple, the estimated amount of sludge produced
example the Perth and Sydney projects (Austral‐ and transported to a landfill for a SWRO plant in
ia), Carlsbad (California), Chatan (Okinawa) and Okinawa, Japan, is 1860 kg/d (or 46.5 kg per
Javea (Mediterranean coast of Spain) SWRO 1,000 m3/d) [70].
projects with capacities between 24,000 m3/d
and 189,000 m3/d [26, 43, 70, 71]. Ultra‐ und microfiltration membranes
Examples where the sludge is discharged to The use of ultra‐ und microfiltration membranes
the sea are the Ashkelon plant in Israel and the (UF/MF) prior to RO, often characterized as an
Hamma plant in Algeria [72, 73] with capacities integrated membrane system (IMS), is an emerg‐
of 320,000 m3/d and 200,000 m3/d, respectively. ing area in SWRO applications. UF and MF mem‐
However, the Ashkelon plant and new SWRO branes have a general removal capability of
plants in Israel plan to collect the backwash wa‐ 0.01–0.02 micron and 0.1–0.2 micron respective‐
ter from the beginning of each washing cycle in a ly. The use of UF/MF systems can save about
storage tank and then to discharge it conti‐ one third in plant area size compared to conven‐
nuously in order to avoid turbidity peaks [74]. tional pretreatment. It eliminates the step of
The Hadera SWRO produces about 1,500 m3 per coagulation, and reduces RO cleaning frequency
hour of filter backwash water, which is dis‐ and replacement rate [54]. However, the UF/MF
charged along with about 19,000 m3 per hour of membrane pretreatment system also requires
concentrate into a power plant cooling water periodical cleaning and membrane replacement,
conduit with an approximate flow of 160,000 m3 i.e. it is not entirely chemical free.
per hour [30]. A comparative life cycle analysis between
Practices on the Canary Islands reviewed in conventional and membrane based pre‐
[42] indicate that the concentrate and other re‐ treatment revealed that membrane based pre‐
ject products such as chemical additives, pre‐ treatment reduces the overall environmental
treatment and membrane cleaning solutions, burden of the desalination process. However,
and waste water are usually discharged into the most reduction stems from associated reduction
sea. in overall energy demand, while the reduction of
Large RO plants may accumulate relatively usage of chemicals during operation of the desa‐
large amounts of sludge as they process large lination plant showed only minor effects on the
volumes of seawater. As the dosage of coagu‐ environmental load [75]. Energy consumption in
lants and coagulant aids is correlated to the MF is relatively low and comparable to a beach‐
amount of suspended material in the feedwater, well intake, while pressures of 1 to 5 bar are re‐
it can be assumed that a low dose of 1 mg/l coa‐ quired in UF with corresponding increases in
gulant and 0.2 mg/l coagulant aid may be re‐ energy demand in UF systems [76].
quired to remove a low natural background con‐ Extensive pilot plant tests on membrane pre‐
centration of 1 mg/l suspended matter. A corre‐ treatment have been conducted for RO plants in
lation of sludge volume and capacity can thus be Ashkelon, Tampa Bay and Trinidad. Although the
established: a SWRO plant (operated at 35% re‐ tests were successful, plant operators continued
covery) would produce 6.3 kg sludge per day per to use media filtration due to slightly higher cost
1,000 m3/day capacity, which amounts to e.g. for membrane pre‐treatment. In Ashdod, MF
630 kg/d for a 100,000 m3/day plant. The sludge and UF pretreatment has been incorporated.
produced would consist of the natural sus‐ The use of MF/UF are assumed to be more ro‐
pended matter and the pretreatment chemicals bust and reliable in handling fluctuations in
Desalination
72
feedwater quality with comparable unit water cium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide (‘al‐
cost [23]. kaline scales’) and sulfate scales due to high op‐
A membrane filtration system which was erating temperatures.
considered for the Carlsbad seawater desalina‐ Calcium carbonate scale formation is easily
tion plant [26] would require cleaning by three controlled either by dosing of sulfuric or hy‐
different processes: (a) membrane backwash, (b) drochloric acid, the dosing of special scale inhibi‐
chemically enhanced backwash (CEB) using chlo‐ tors, or a combination thereof. Acids must be
rine, acid and base conditioning on a daily basis added in relatively high concentrations of 20 to
and (c) membrane cleaning using the same 100 mg/l to the feed stream as acid reacts stoi‐
chemicals as for RO membrane cleaning on a chiometrically with calcium carbonate:
monthly basis. The membrane backwash, con‐
taining the natural solids from the sea, can ei‐ CaCO3 + H + → Ca 2+ + HCO3−
ther be discharged into the sea along with the HCO3− + H + → CO2 + H2O
concentrate, or dewatered and transported to a
landfill. The CEB and membrane cleaning waste Resulting pH values are usually between 6 and 7,
can be conveyed to a scavenger tank for initial with the natural pH of seawater being approx‐
treatment and then disposed of to the sewer for imately 8.3. As acid is depleted by reaction with
final treatment. calcium carbonate, pH values will be closer to
ambient at the point of discharge if overdosing is
Cartridge filter system avoided.
As a final barrier, the feed water is usually In contrast, antiscalants prevent scale forma‐
passed through 5 micron cartridge filters before tion in non‐stoichiometric doses of 1 to 2 mg/l
it enters the RO units. The cartridge filter is used by retarding the nucleation process of scale crys‐
in combination with both conventional and tals and by impairing crystal growth. The main
membrane pretreatment systems. The particles types of antiscalants are organic polymers (main‐
retained on the cartridge filters will be removed ly polyacrylic acid and polymaleic acid), phos‐
with the filters on a periodic basis, e.g. every six phonates and polyphosphates (Figure 9) [47].
to eight weeks, and typically disposed of to a sa‐
nitary landfill [26]. Polyphosphates
Control of scaling O ONa

The desalination process increases the concen‐ P
tration of all water constituents in the reject O O
NaO O
stream. Depending on the source water and the P P
process recovery rate, different salts can precipi‐ O
tate and form scales if solubility limits in the O ONa
brine solution are exceeded. In BWRO systems, Sodiumhexametaphosphate
the main concern is calcium carbonate scale SHMP (NaPO3)6
formation (CaCO3). Less frequently observed are
calcium sulfate and silica scales, and only occa‐
sionally barium sulfate or ferrous salt scales [54]. O O O
Calcium carbonate is also the main scale forming NaO P O P O P ONa
species in SWRO systems, whereas solubility lim‐ n
ONa ONa ONa
its for sulfate scales and silicates are generally
not exceeded in the reject streams due to the Pentasodiumtriphosphate
high ionic strength of seawater. In distillation STP (Na5P3O10)
plants, the main scale forming species are cal‐
Phosphonates C.4.3 Corrosion

COOH
HOOC C C C COOH Increases in metal concentrations in the dis‐
H2 H2 H2 charge may result from two effects:
from the concentrating effect of the desali‐
O P OH nation process, which also increases natural
OH metal ion concentrations in the concentrate
(e.g. by a factor of two at 50% recovery) and
Bayhibit, PBTCA
from corrosion processes, such as pit corro‐
sion in stagnant solutions.
O OH O
The first effect stems from metals of natural ori‐
HO P P OH gin to which marine organisms are adapted. Sim‐
OH CH3 OH ilar to elevated salinity, the discharge of elevated
metal levels can be harmful and the discharge
Etidron, HEDP
should be in compliance with the existing water
quality standards.
For example, in a pilot study for a SWRO
Polycarboxylic acids
plant in Florida, metal concentrations were cal‐
C CH culated for the point of discharge into marine
* n
H2 waters after the brine is diluted with power
COOH
plant cooling water. Three metals (nickel, iron
Polyacrylic acid (PAA) and copper) were found to be relatively close to
the state’s water quality standards, which were
therefore adopted as effluent limitations and in‐
COOH COOH
cluded in the proposed permit [77]. Nickel and
H H copper may also stem from the power plant
C C C C
H H cooling water when copper‐nickel alloys are
COOH COOH used for heat exchangers.
Polymaleic acid (PMA) In SWRO, stainless steel with a high corrosion
resistance or non‐metallic materials prevail, such
as concrete or plastic. Stainless steels are by de‐
Figure 9: Chemical structures of common finition all iron‐carbon alloys with a minimum
antiscalants (adapted from [47]). chromium content of 10.5%. Different types of
stainless steels are available:
Austenitic stainless steels have a minimum
Control of foaming (distillation plants only) chromium content of 16%, and a maximum
Antifoaming agents like polyethylene and poly‐ carbon content of 0.15%, and contain major
propylene glycol are added to the intake seawa‐ amounts of nickel and manganese.
ter of distillation plants to disperse foam‐causing Ferritic stainless steels contain a maximum
organics and to reduce surface tension in the of 27% chromium, typically some
water‐air interface. Polyglycols are not toxic but molybdenum, aluminum or titanium, but
can be highly polymerized, which reduces their usually very little or no nickel.
biodegradability. Potential adverse effects are Duplex stainless steels combine the benefits
not likely as dosage levels are low and discharge of austenitic and ferritic steels, with high
concentrations are further decreased by dilution chromium content (19–28%), some molyb‐
in the environment. denum and nickel.
Desalination
74
Super‐austenitic stainless steels, such as Dissolved copper levels in the environment are
254SMO (see below), have a minimum mo‐ usually decreased by precipitation, complex
lybdenum content of 6%, which makes it formation, and adsorption processes, which lead
very resistant to chloride pitting and crevice to a transportation of the element into sus‐
corrosion. pended material and finally into sediments. The
risk of copper accumulation is potentially high
Table 1: Composition of 254SMO super auste‐ for soft bottom habitats and areas of restricted
nitic steel in % [23]. water exchange, where sedimentation rates are
C Cr Cu Mn Mo high. Many benthic invertebrates (such as shell‐
0.02 19.5 – 0.5 – 1.0 6.0 – fish) feed on suspended or deposited material,
(max) 20.5 1.0 (max) 6.5 with the risk that heavy metals are enriched in
N Ni P Si S
their body tissues (bioaccumulation) and passed
0.18‐ 17.5‐ 0.03 0.8 1.01
on to higher trophic levels (biomagnification).
0.22 18.5 (max) (max) (max)
The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum cop‐
per concentration of 4.8 µg/l in seawater for
When appropriate construction materials are brief exposure and 3.1 µg/l for long‐term expo‐
used and the plant is designed properly, e.g. by sure [58]. Values of the same order of magnitude
eliminating dead spots and threaded connec‐ were determined for European saltwater envi‐
tions, corrosion is minimal [23]. The corrosion ronments: a predicted no effect concentration
resistance is generally considered good when (PNEC) of 5.6 µg/l was established [79], while
the corrosion rate is less than 0.1 mm/a [78]. the water quality objective for the Mediterra‐
Significant amounts of corrosion by‐products are nean is 8 µg/l [80]. However, these values must
therefore not to be expected in the concentrate be seen in the context of natural background le‐
discharge of SWRO plants. vels, which may range between 0.1 µg/l in ocea‐
In distillation plants, copper‐nickel alloys are nic water and 100 µg/l in estuaries [81].
commonly used for heat exchanger surfaces, As copper is an essential micro‐nutrient for
while other construction parts like brine cham‐ most organisms, it might only become toxic if
bers are often made from stainless steels. The excess amounts become biologically available.
corrosion of copper‐nickel alloys can result in The risk lies in long‐term accumulation in sedi‐
elevated copper levels in the concentrate. Cop‐ ments and marine biota. This is especially of
per levels in MSF reject brines between 15 and concern in areas of high desalination activity,
100 µg/l were reported [47]. such as for instance in the Arabian Gulf. A con‐
The toxicity of metals generally depends on servative estimate of copper discharges from
chemical and physical processes in seawater that distillation plants into this sea area is 292 kg per
affect metal speciation (solution, precipitation, day, based on a copper contamination level of
complex formation, adsorption etc.), which in the reject brine of 15 µg/l [82].
turn affects bioavailability of metals. It further
depends on the sensitivity of individual species C.4.4 Discharge of the concentrate
and organisms in their different life‐cycle stages.
Impacts of metal discharges are difficult to pre‐ The ‘waste stream’ mainly contains the natural
dict, and should be evaluated in the context of ingredients of the intake seawater: The RO
natural background levels. process filters the inorganic salts and other dis‐
In general, trace amounts of stainless steel al‐ solved or suspended substances from seawater.
loys in reject streams will pose relatively little The water is transported under high pressure
risk to the marine environment, whereas ele‐ through the semi‐permeable RO membranes,
vated copper concentrations can be a matter of while the contents of the source water are re‐
concern. tained by the membrane and concentrated into
a ‘waste stream’ that is returned to the sea. In Although the brine blow‐down in distillation
distillation plants, water is extracted by evapora‐ plants may have a salinity of almost 70, too,
tion. The process increases both the salt content which is the operational upper limit to prevent
and the temperature of the remaining brine. sulfate scaling [84], it is effectively diluted with a
Environmental concerns arise due to the in‐ threefold amount of cooling water 29 . Dilution re‐
creased concentration of inorganic salts and the sults in a salt concentration that is rarely more
increased temperature of the waste stream, than 15% higher than the salinity of the receiving
which may increase ambient salinity and tem‐ water [85], while the RO brine may contain twice
perature in the discharge site and may negative‐ or more the seawater salt concentration 30 .
ly affect local ecosystems.
Furthermore, the chemical pretreatment of Temperature
the feedwater (cf. section C.4.2) produces waste The brine and cooling water discharges of distil‐
streams that require appropriate management, lation plants are increased in temperature. Dif‐
and are in some cases discharged into the sea ferences of 5 to 15°C above ambient seawater
along with the concentrate. As seawater is a temperature have been reported [57, 86], whe‐
highly corrosive medium, which is further aggra‐ reas the temperature of the RO concentrate is
vated by the high salinity of the concentrate and close to ambient values.
the use of pretreatment chemicals such as acids
or chlorine, the waste stream may also contain Density
small amounts of metals that pass into solution In surface water, density is a function of salinity
when metallic parts inside the plant corrode (cf. and temperature. The density difference be‐
section C.4.3). tween reject stream and ambient seawater, as a
The discussion of potential impacts is there‐ function of salinity and temperature, primarily
fore subdivided into concerns related to the determines spreading and mixing of the plume in
physical properties of the waste stream (this sec‐ the receiving water body. Density calculations
tion), and concerns related to the chemical pol‐ and modeling studies can be carried out to ana‐
lutants that are added during the desalination lyze the project‐ and site‐specific spreading be‐
process (cf. section C.4.5, p. 93). However, po‐ havior of a plume.
tential synergistic effects of increased salinity,
temperature and residual chemicals might occur.
Salinity
The salinity of the concentrate is largely a func‐
tion of the plant recovery rate, which in turn de‐ 29
Thermal plants have lower recovery rates than RO
pends on the salinity of the source water and the plants. As they use cooling water for temperature
process configuration. RO plants have higher re‐ control, the seawater flow rate to thermal plants has
to be 3‐4 times higher than the feed to RO plants for
covery rates than distillation plants, and typically
the same amount of product water extraction. The
recover between 40% and 65% of the intake wa‐ cooling water is discharged along with the concen‐
ter as product water. The rest, i.e. 60% to 35%, is trate, so that mixing of both reject streams takes
discharged into the sea. The salinity of the reject place before surface water discharge.
30
stream usually ranges between 65 to 85 for In oceanography, the UNESCO definition of Practi‐
cal Salinity Units (psu) is used, which is the conductiv‐
SWRO plants [18]. A reject salinity up to 90 has
ity ratio of a seawater sample to a standard KCl solu‐
been reported in one case [83]. tion. Salinity is therefore given as a dimensionless
value. As salinity reflects the amount of total dis‐
solved solids (TDS) in ocean water, it was traditionally
expressed as parts per thousand (ppt or ‰). A salinity
of 35 ppt equals 35 g of salt per 1,000 g of seawater,
or 35,000 ppm (mg/l), or in approximation 35 (psu).
Desalination
76
Table 2: Calculated salinity of RO plant reject streams for feedwater salinities between 20 and 40 and
recovery rates between 20 % and 65 %, assuming a permeate salinity of 0.3. The salinity values are de‐
rived by the equation RS = (FS ∙ FF – PS ∙ PF) / RF where RS is the salinity and RF the flow rate of the reject
stream, FS the salinity and FF the flow rate of the feed stream, and PS the salinity and PF the flow rate of
the permeate stream.
Salinity 20 25 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Recovery
20 % 25 31 37 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 49 50
25 % 27 33 40 41 43 44 45 47 48 49 51 52 53
30 % 28 36 43 44 46 47 48 50 51 53 54 56 57
35 % 31 38 46 48 49 51 52 54 55 57 58 60 61
40 % 33 41 50 51 53 55 56 58 60 61 63 65 66
45 % 36 45 54 56 58 60 62 63 65 67 69 71 72
50 % 40 50 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80
55 % 44 55 66 69 71 73 75 77 80 82 84 86 89
60 % 50 62 75 77 80 82 85 87 90 92 95 97 100
65 % 57 71 85 88 91 94 97 99 102 105 108 111 114
Reject streams of RO plants have a higher densi‐ Environmental conditions such as wave, wind
ty than ambient seawater due to the high salt and tidal action, currents, ambient salinity, tem‐
content, whereas the discharge from distillation perature and density stratification are other va‐
plants can either be positively, neutrally or nega‐ riables which have an effect on the mixing and
tively buoyant depending on salinity and tem‐ dispersal of the waste water in the receiving en‐
perature values of the effluent. vironment.
Similar to beach wells used for the intake of
Oxygen content feedwater, desalination plants can also dis‐
As oxygen becomes less soluble in seawater with charge their concentrates by well injection, for
increasing temperature and salinity levels, the example into an injection well on the beach,
desalination process may result in reduced dis‐ where the concentrate is diluted through mixing
solved oxygen levels. More pronounced, howev‐ with natural groundwater before dissipating into
er, are the effects of pretreatment, i.e. the deae‐ the surf zone [23] or deep‐well injection [32].
ration of the feedwater in thermal plants to pre‐
vent corrosion and the dosing of a reducing Potential impacts on receptors
agent (sodium bisulfate, SBS) to remove residual
chlorine from the RO feedwater, which may re‐ Ground‐ and surface water quality
duce oxygen levels as a side‐effect. and hydrology
For the concentrate discharge, the most widely Groundwater salinity

used method of disposal is discharge into surface A concern of prolonged well injection is a poten‐
water, either via a single open outfall or a diffus‐ tial effect on the salinity of production wells. For
er system. Options for co‐discharge exists with instance, simulation scenarios for coastal aqui‐
power plant cooling water or wastewater treat‐ fers in Egypt showed that a salty plume may de‐
ment plant effluents (cf. section C.2.1). When di‐ velop around the recharge well, which migrates
lution with other waste streams is not an option, downward due to the high density of the plume
multiple outlets with multiple diffusers can be and which may thus affect deeper drinking water
installed, which can achieve a maximal dilution production wells [87].
with a minimum salinity increase of 1 unit above If a desalination plant is constructed further
background levels outside the mixing zone [35]. inland, there is a need for pipes to transport the
concentrate. Leakage from the pipes may result by a diffuser system at the outfall or discharged
in penetration of salt water and therefore into sufficiently turbulent waters. The effluent
presents a danger to groundwater aquifers or may otherwise accumulate near the bottom,
surrounding soils [33]. forming a water mass of elevated salinity (‘a bot‐
tom hugging plume’) which spreads over the
Seawater quality and hydrology seafloor in the vicinity of the outfall pipe.
For example, ambient salinity levels of 36–40
Increase in salinity and seasonal temperature variations of 15–30°C
The discharge of large concentrate volumes may (typical for Mediterranean surface water) result
lead to an increase in salinity in the discharge in density variations of 1,023–1,030 kg/m3. A
zone. When the concentrate is pre‐diluted with SWRO plant with a feedwater salinity of 36 and
other waste streams such as cooling water, dis‐ operating at 50% recovery would produce a con‐
sipated by a multi‐port diffuser system, or dis‐ centrate with a salinity of 72 (Table 2). At 20°C,
charged into a mixing zone that can effectively the density of the concentrate would be
dissipate the salinity load due to strong wave ac‐ 1053 kg/m3, which is negatively buoyant com‐
tion and currents, the salinity increase can be pared to an ambient density of 1025 kg/m3.
minimized. As increased salinity and temperature have
For example, the concentrate of the Carlsbad opposing effects on density, the reject streams
seawater desalination plant is mixed with power of distillation plants can either be positively,
plant cooling water before discharge. In 300 m neutrally or negatively buoyant [86, 90]. Typical‐
distance from the outfall, a salinity of 38.2 near ly, they are positively buoyant due to the influ‐
the bottom and 35.2 in the mid‐water column is ence of large amounts of cooling water dis‐
expected compared to an ambient salinity of charge of elevated temperature.
33.5 [26, 88]. In contrast, a diffuser system was For example, seawater salinities of 45 and
installed for the Perth SWRO project to ensure temperatures of 33°C are characteristic of Ara‐
that salinity would be within 1.2 units of back‐ bian Gulf seawater. The reject water of a MSF
ground levels within 50 m of the discharge point distillation plant would be negatively buoyant
and within 0.8 units of background levels within compared to ambient density (1028 kg/m3) at a
1,000 m of the discharge point [89]. salinity of 50 and a temperature increase of 5°C
(1030 kg/m3), and positively buoyant at a tem‐
Increase in temperature perature increase of 10°C (1027 kg/m3).
High volumes of reject concentrate and cooling
water from distillation plants cause thermal pol‐ Influence on mixing processes
lution in the discharge site and may change the The discharge of large quantities of seawater of
ambient temperature profiles. a different density may affect mixing processes
and density stratification, especially in areas that
Influence on density stratification are characterized by weak natural currents and
The density difference between concentrate dis‐ waves.
charge and ambient seawater is a controlling
factor for mixing and spreading of the plume in Seafloor and sediments
the receiving water body. In surface water, den‐
sity is primarily a function of salinity and tem‐ Increase in pore water salinity
perature. RO reject stream that spread over the seafloor
Due to the high salt content, the RO reject may also diffuse into sediment pore waters due
stream has a higher density than ambient sea‐ to their increased density and may increase sa‐
water. It therefore tends to sink to the seafloor linity in the interstitial water.
unless the concentrate is adequately dissipated
Desalination
78
Marine flora and fauna ambient levels to which the local species are
adapted may result in haline stress and can even
Effects from increased salinity cause toxic effects. This in turn may lead to a
Salinity and temperature are vital environmental die‐off of the sessile fauna and flora in the dis‐
parameters for marine life. Similar to thermal charge site. For example, salinity increases near
pollution, increased salt concentrations can be the outfall of the Dhekelia SWRO on Cyprus were
harmful and even lethal to marine life. In gener‐ reported to be responsible for a decline of ma‐
al, toxicity depends on the sensitivity of the spe‐ croalgae forests, and echinoderm species va‐
cies to increased salinity, the natural salinity var‐ nished from the discharge site (cf. Box 2).
iations of their habitat, and the life cycle stage.
For example, studies on the Mediterranean Effects from increased temperature
seagrass Posidonia oceanica showed that a salin‐ Thermal discharges that change annual tempera‐
ity of about 45 caused about 50% mortality in 15 ture profiles in the discharge site may enhance
days and growth rates were reduced by 50 % at biological processes by increasing seawater
a salinity of 43 (cf. Box 2, Formentera). In con‐ temperatures to favorable conditions in winter,
trast, two seagrass species common to Western but could result in stress or cause an abrupt de‐
Australian waters, Posidonia australis and P. cline in activity when critical values are exceeded
amphibolis, seem to be more adapted to higher in summer. Marine organisms could be attracted
salinities. Densest covers of meadows are being or repelled by the warm water, and species
observed at salinities between 40 and 50 (cf. more adapted to the higher temperatures and
Box 2, Perth). The available studies suggest that seasonal pattern may eventually predominate in
some seagrasses are more tolerant to hypersa‐ the discharge site of the distillation plant.
line conditions than others, at least some Atlan‐
tic and Pacific species [91]. Effects from decreased oxygen levels
Some macrofauna taxa such as echinoderms In the event that dissolved oxygen levels are re‐
(e.g. sea urchins, starfish), which are strictly ma‐ duced in the discharge site as a result of the de‐
rine, seem to be more sensitive to salinity varia‐ salination plant discharges, the lower oxygen
tions than for example organisms found in estu‐ content may be harmful to marine life (see also
aries, which are able to adapt to a wide range of section C.4.5 on p. 93).
salinities including fresh, brackish and saltwater
environments. Furthermore, young life cycle General impacts on ecosystems
stages, such as sea urchin embryos, are consi‐ The reject streams of SWRO and distillation
dered to be more sensitive than adults. plants generally affect different realms of the
Most marine organisms can adapt to minor marine environment: SWRO reject streams tend
deviations in salinity and might tolerate extreme to sink to the bottom and spread over the sea
situations temporarily. For example, P. oceanica floor, where they may affect benthic communi‐
plants that survived in a salinity of 43 over ties, whereas the reject streams of distillation
15 days were able to recover when returned to plants may affect the pelagic community as a re‐
normal conditions (cf. Box 2, Formentera). How‐ sult of surface spreading. However, it must be
ever, only few species will be tolerant of high pointed out that mixing and dispersal processes
salt concentrations over extended periods of are largely controlled by site‐specific oceano‐
time. Natural salinity values vary between 30 graphic conditions. To evaluate plume spreading
and 37 in the Atlantic Ocean, between 36 and 40 in a specific project site, the existing conditions
in the Mediterranean Sea, between 37 and 43 in should be analyzed by modeling studies, accom‐
the Red Sea, and can range up to 60 in naturally panied by salinity and temperature measure‐
saline environments of the Arabian Gulf. Salt ments in the project site for density calculations.
concentrations that considerably exceed these
Marine organisms normally occur in those envi‐ change of about Δ S = 1.5. The criteria for the
ronments to which they are adapted and which concentrate discharge set for the Perth SWRO
provide favorable environmental conditions in plant in Western Australia require that salinity is
terms of salinity, temperature, food supply and within 1.2 units of ambient levels within 50 m of
other biological and abiotic factors. Increased sa‐ the discharge point and within 0.8 units of back‐
linities and temperatures may therefore drive ground levels within 1,000 m of the discharge
mobile animals away from the point of discharge point [45].
even if no direct toxic effects occur. The conse‐ In the U.S., EPA recommendations state that
quence may be a lasting change in species com‐ salinity variation should not exceed 4 units from
position and abundance in the benthic commun‐ natural variation in areas permanently occupied
ities in the discharge site. by food and habitat forming plants when natural
For example, observations on the distribution salinity is between 13.5 and 35 [26].
on marine species from naturally hypersaline For a SWRO plant in Okinawa, Japan, a maxi‐
environments in the Arabian Gulf indicate that mum salinity of 38 in the mixing zone and a max‐
salinities above 45 alter the benthic community imum increase of 1 unit where the plume reach‐
considerably [92]. This stresses the importance es the seafloor was established [70].
of salinity as a controlling environmental factor An overview on the available field and model‐
and illustrates that salinity thresholds must be ing studies on concentrate discharge from SWRO
established depending on the salinity tolerance plants is given in Box 2 on the following pages.
of local species. Box 3 (p. 87) summarizes results from bioassay
In the Mediterranean, the major threat lies in studies investigating the effects of elevated sa‐
the loss of Posidonia oceanica meadows (Figure linity on marine organisms. Box 4 (p. 91) dis‐
10), which are classified as a priority habitat type cusses relevant issues of combined discharge
by European Community directive 92/43/CEE. from SWRO and wastewater treatment plants.
Besides their contribution to fix sand banks, oxy‐
genate the sea water and regulate biogeochemi‐
cal fluxes along the coast, the seagrass meadows
are characterized by elevated biological produc‐
tivity and diversity. Meadows shelter a high bio‐
diversity of associated algae and vertebrates and
they constitute the breeding habitat of numer‐
ous species [91, 93]. The large scale loss of Posi‐
donia meadows may therefore have far‐reaching
consequences on water quality, sediment stabili‐
ty and marine ecology.
It has been recommended to avoid dis‐
charges of desalination plant concentrate into
Posidonia meadows, or to dilute the discharge
salinity so that it exceeds a value of 38.5 in no
more than 25% of the time and a value of 40 in
no more than 5% of the time (cf. Box 2, Formen‐
tera, Box 3 [94]). Ambient salinities in the West‐
ern Mediterranean are between 37–38.
In Western Australian, guidelines for fresh Figure 10: Posidonia oceanica seagrass meadow
and marine waters specify that the median in‐ (Photo: Alberto Romeo, Creative Commons At‐
crease in salinity is to be less than 5% from back‐ tribution and Share Alike license, http://com‐
ground, which in marine environments is a mons. wikimedia.org).
Desalination
80
Box 2: Overview on field and modeling studies concerning the concentrate discharge
One of the first papers which noted that the brine and chemical discharges may pose a risk to the ma‐
rine environment appeared in 1979. It called for a thorough investigation of both the physical and bio‐
logical components of the environment, prior to construction and on a regular basis for a period of at
least one year but preferably for two or three years once the plant is in operation [95].
It took until the 1990's before an increasing number of scientific publications appeared (e.g. [57, 85,
86, 90, 96‐100]) which addressed the environmental concerns of desalination plants. In 2001, an ex‐
tensive review of existing literature sources on effluent properties of desalination plants was carried
out and the results analyzed in terms of potential impacts on the marine environment. The authors
conclude that more actual data is needed, including field investigations, laboratory toxicity tests and
modeling studies. To date, an increasing number of these studies become available [47].
However, the problem remains that only few of these studies have performed a comprehensive
analyses of the effects of brine discharge on the marine environment, while the majority of studies fo‐
cus on a limited number of species over a short period of time with no baseline data [4]. There is still a
surprising paucity of useful experimental data, either from laboratory tests or from field monitoring,
concludes a recent report of the U.S. National Research Council [101].
Often, the investigations are carried out under immense time constraints, e.g. only 4 months were
scheduled for an EIA study for a 200,000 m3/d SWRO plant in Algeria [72]. This indicates that environ‐
mental concerns can be of secondary importance when a ready supply of freshwater is urgently
needed. The opposite is also true: comprehensive and time‐consuming environmental studies are cur‐
rently being carried out for some major SWRO projects in Australia, and environmental concerns are
the major hurdle in the permitting process of new projects in California.
One of the most comprehensive monitoring programs so far was conducted for the Perth SWRO
project in Western Australia. Pre‐project studies encompassed modeling the stratification and dis‐
solved oxygen in Cockburn Sound, determining the sediment oxygen demand and contaminant releas‐
es, and assessing ecological effects. A peer review carried out by the National Institute of Water & At‐
mospheric Research (NIWA Australia) concluded that the studies have in general been carried out to a
high standard, but that they were constrained to using mostly existing data due to significant time
pressure. The reviewers were thus not convinced that the studies addressed all concerns adequately,
and did not believe that the conclusions of the reports, namely that there will be no or negligible eco‐
logical effects, can be accepted with a high degree of confidence [102]. In response to the review,
more extensive studies were initiated, including marine baseline studies, a real time monitoring sys‐
tem before and during operations, and laboratory tests on toxicity [89].
The Perth example underlines that monitoring is a basic prerequisite for implementing a desalina‐
tion project. This is also true for other projects, especially as desalination projects tend to increase
both in number and capacity. However, the Perth example also illustrates the difficulties involved in
the design of an adequate monitoring programme and an EIA study. An internationally agreed envi‐
ronmental assessment methodology for desalination plants does not exist so far and its development
would certainly be desirable according to the World Bank [103]. Existing monitoring and bioassay stu‐
dies from recent and earlier studies are summarized below. They show the wide range of approaches
and methods that are used to investigate environmental impacts of desalination plants and underline
the need for a more uniform assessment framework.
Box 2 (continued): Studies for facilities with a capacity ≥ 100,000 m3/d

Carlsbad SWRO project, Southern California
The U.S. Navy Coastal Water Clarity Model was used to analyze the dispersal and dilution of the
combined discharge from the Encina Power Plant and the Carlsbad SWRO plant under average and
extreme conditions [26, 88]. Under average conditions, the concentrate from the desalination plant
(about 50 mgd or 189,271 m3/d with a salinity of 67) will be combined with an average cooling water
discharge (526 mgd or 1.9 million m3/d of ambient salinity, i.e. 33.5), which is reduced under extreme
conditions (to 254 mgd or 0.96 million m3/d). Under average conditions, the end‐of pipe salinity
would be 36.2 near the bottom and 34.4 in the mid‐water column. Across the zone of initial dilution,
in 300 m distance from the point of discharge, the salinity would be reduced to 34.4 near the bottom
and 34.0 in the mid‐ water column. Under extreme conditions, the end‐of pipe salinity would be 40.1
near the bottom and 36.0 in the mid‐water column. In 300 m distance from the point of discharge,
the salinity would be reduced to 38.2 near the bottom and 35.2 in the mid‐water column.
Based on relevant literature data and plant‐specific salinity tolerance investigations (see Box 3
further below), it is concluded that operation of the plant under typical conditions would not result in
salinity levels in excess of 36.2 in the zone of initial dilution, and that this would not substantially af‐
fect any species. Short‐term and episodic salinities levels at or below 40 as potentially caused during
extreme conditions would also not have a substantial effect on species within the study area.
Perth SWRO project, Western Australia
The Perth desalination plant (144,000 m3/d) is located in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. Pre‐
construction studies, mostly using existing data, were carried out in 2005 encompassing modeling
the stratification and dissolved oxygen (DO) in the sound [104, 105], determining the sediment oxy‐
gen demand and contaminant releases [106], and assessing ecological effects [107]. A review report
[102] concluded that the findings, i.e., that there would be no or negligible ecological effects, cannot
be accepted with a high degree of confidence. It was criticized that a simplified box model was used
for modeling the stratification and DO in the Sound and that the results were not validated by obser‐
vational data. Little confidence was therefore placed in the actual values presented, but the basic
conclusions, i.e., that the discharge is unlikely to have a major effect on density stratification and DO
levels in Cockburn Sound, was considered reasonable. It was furthermore criticized that the analysis
of the ecological effects relied too heavily on the modeling results and that the conclusions were too
firmly stated given the uncertainty about the type and severity of impacts. The recommendations of
the original studies, such as to assess DO levels by an ongoing monitoring program and to conduct a
comprehensive survey of the macrobenthos in the sound, were thus fully embraced.
According to [89], the concerns raised by reviewers, scientists and stakeholders led to the estab‐
lishment of conservative water quality and discharge criteria for dissolved oxygen and salinity. The
Western Australian guidelines for fresh and marine waters specify that the median increase in salini‐
ty is to be less than 5% from background, which in marine environments is a change of about Δ S =
1.5 [45]. The criteria for the concentrate discharge set by the Western Australia Environmental Pro‐
tection Authority require that salinity would be within 1.2 units of ambient levels within 50 m of the
discharge point and within 0.8 units of background levels within 1,000 m of the discharge point.
More extensive marine studies and monitoring requirements were also adopted. The baseline stu‐
dies included concentrate modeling, water and sediment quality, macrobenthic surveys, sediment
oxygen demand and whole effluent toxicity testing [89].
Desalination
82
Box 2 (continued): Studies for facilities with a capacity ≥ 100,000 m3/d

The modeling results1 show that the desalination discharge, through the use of a diffuser, will influ‐
ence salinity only in the immediate vicinity of the discharge and in a very limited manner, meeting the
proposed water quality criteria. The small changes in salinity predicted to occur over a relatively small
spatial scale are assumed not be detrimental to the water quality in Cockburn Sound where greater
changes in salinity occur over larger areas naturally, on a daily and seasonal basis. Field testing during
the first year of operation, including tracing an environmentally benign dye (Rhodamine) added to the
plant discharge, showed that the desalination discharge rapidly mixes with the surrounding waters.
Furthermore, a real‐time telemetered monitoring system was established which provides feedback on
dissolved oxygen levels, conductivity and temperature [89].
In a an earlier literature study from 2002 [45], the capacity of the local marine fauna and flora to to‐
lerate the predicted levels of salinity were evaluated, using one meta‐literature source [108] that re‐
viewed available information on seagrass communities in Shark Bay. Shark Bay is a sheltered embay‐
ment with salinities naturally higher than those of ambient seawater, which also harbours two sea‐
grass species common to Perth’s Coastal Waters, Posidonia australis and P. amphibolis. Physiological
investigations of these species found maximum growth rates at a salinity of 42.5, and densest covers
of seagrass meadow in the region occurred at salinities between 40 and 50. It is concluded that the
existing data, though limited, indicates that seagrasses and benthic organisms are tolerant and poten‐
tially benefit from salinity levels of 40. Due to the small salinity increases caused by the Perth desalina‐
tion plants, it is furthermore concluded that direct or indirect adverse impacts on seagrass meadows,
reef or bare sand environments and associated biota are not to be expected. The extensive real‐time
monitoring in Cockburn Sound in combination with annual marine habitat mapping [89, 109] will help
to detect any real changes in the macrobenthic communities.
Studies for facilities with a capacity < 100,000 m3/d

Maspalomas, Gran Canaria, Spain
The mixing processes of brine discharges from the Maspalomas II (25,000 m3/d) plant in the south of
Gran Canaria were investigated in [83]. The brine with a volume of 17,000 m3/d and a salinity of 90 is
discharged via two outfalls with a diameter of 30 cm and 60 cm, respectively, which extend about
300 m into the sea. The discharge depth is about 7 m. The location is characterized by a sandy seafloor
where no segrass beds are present, since the depth and the marine dynamics impede their develop‐
ment. The study observed a high initial dilution of the brine: the salinity decreased from 75 (measured
near the outlet) to about 38.5 (near the seabed) and 37 (near the surface) within 20 m from the out‐
fall, with a decrease to almost ambient salinity values (37) within 100 m distance from the outfall.
1
The models used included:
3 dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC), 1D box model, 3D hydrodynamic and disper‐
sion model Mike 3 (Danish Hydraulics Institute), 3D numerical model Estuary, Lake and Coastal Ocean Model (ELCOM) and 3D
Computation Aquatic Ecological Dynamics Model (CAEDM).
Box 2 (continued): Studies for facilities with a capacity < 100,000 m3/d
Blanes, Mediterranean Sea, Spain
The effect of brine discharge from a desalination plant in Blanes, Spain, on macrobenthic commu‐
nities were investigated in [110]. The plant has a capacity of about 27,400 m3/d and a concentrate
discharge of about 32,900 m3/d with a salinity of 60. The concentrate is discharged via a diffuser
(perforated pipe). Salinity was found to decrease quickly with distance from the pipe, being back to
ambient values within 10 m distance from the outlet pipe. Two controls and one supposedly im‐
pacted location were selected and visual censuses were carried out by scuba divers 12 times before
and 12 times after the plant had begun operating.
No significant variations attributable to the brine discharge were found. This is explained by the
rapid dilution of the brine and the high natural variability that is characteristic of this type of habitat
(i.e. the sandy substratum), which is sufficiently large to be able to mask possible alterations caused
by the discharge. Any such alterations stayed within the system’s own natural variability range. It is
noted that the results do not necessarily mean that the brine discharge has no direct effects on the
populations present, but only that any such effects cannot be discerned in a statistically significant
manner on a short‐term basis. The absence of any observed impact could also be the result of e.g. af‐
fected area size or species mobility, but apparent effects were also not observed for certain sessile
species.
Javea, Mediterranean Sea, Spain
The effect of brine discharge from a desalination plant in Javea, on the Mediterranean coast of Spain,
were investigated in [71]. The desalination plant has a capacity of 28,000 m3/d which will rise to
42,000 m3/d in the future. The seawater is taken in through 10 beach wells, each with a depth of
200 m. The brine is diluted with seawater, which is specifically taken in for this purpose from a near‐
by river mouth, in order to reduce salinity below 45. The mixed brine and seawater then flow into a
holding tank before being discharged into a channel through 16 diffuser heads. The channel flows in‐
to the sea. The salinity of the combined discharge was on average 39.5 and reached often values of
44, depending on the salinity of the river which is influenced by freshwater runoff.
Four surveys (two in summer, two in winter) were carried out to assess the effects of the dis‐
charge on salinity in the channel and the nearby sea area. The salinity was measured in surface wa‐
ter, near the seabed, and in sediment pore water. Surface water salinities were increased within the
channel but not in the sea outside the channel mouth, whereas an increase in bottom and interstitial
water was observed to a maximum of 300 m distance from the mouth of the channel into the sea
under calm operations. Monitoring of a seagrass meadow “in the area surrounding the […] channel”
and two control sites was carried out over a two year period. It was concluded that seagrass dynam‐
ics in the potentially affected and the two control sites was very similar. The salinity increase in the
potentially affected site and the distance to the channel mouth were not specified. From presented
graphs it can be approximated that bottom salinity in the sea area surrounding the channel mouth
ranged between 38 and 40, with ambient values of around 37 in 300 m distance.
Desalination
84
Alicante, Mediterranean Sea, Spain
Preliminary effects of brine discharge from a desalination plant in Alicante, on the Mediterranean
coast of Spain, were investigated in [111]. The plant has an installed capacity of 50,000 m3/d and oper‐
ates at a recovery of 40%, producing a brine discharge of 75,000 m3/d with a salinity of 68. The feed‐
water is taken from beachwells. Discharge takes place on the southern shore of the harbor, which has
been previously impacted by other activities. Three surveys were carried out over the course of one
year, involving a sampling grid of more than 100 salinity sampling stations in the vicinity of the outfall.
Salinity depth profiles taken in a distance of 2 km from the discharge point showed increased salinities
of 38.5 in intermediate water (12 m) layers in August and near the bottom (16 m) in February and
April. Horizontally, it was found that dilution is high in the near field and low in the far field, with bot‐
tom water salinity increases higher than 0.5 above average up to 4 km distance from the outfall.
Echinoderms and Posidonia oceanica meadows were monitored in three locations (in front of the
discharge and two controls in 2 km distance to the north and to the south). Preliminary results from
the first year of monitoring showed that echinoderms had disappeared from the meadow in front of
the discharge and the southern control site. No decline of the seagrass meadow occurred, but a lower
vitality of plants near the discharge was observed. As the salinity increases measured in the meadow in
front of the desalination plant discharge were close to the ones that produced significant effects on
Posidonia growth and survival in other studies [94, 112], potential long‐term impacts were deemed
possible.
San Pedro del Pinatar (Murcia), Mediterranean Sea, Spain
Monitoring results from a SWRO desalination in San Pedro del Pinatar (Murcia, SE Spain) were pre‐
sented in [113]. The plant started operation in May 2005, progressively increasing the number of lines
in operation to a total of 9 with a maximum production of 65,000 m3/d at an average recovery rate of
44%. The intake water is supplied by wells that were constructed by horizontally directed drilling. The
concentrate has a salinity of about 70. The main discharge pipe, which has a length of 5 km length and
discharges at –35 m, was completed 8 months later. Between start‐up and completion of the pipe, the
brine was provisionally diluted with seawater and discharged near the coastline at –2 m water depth.
A monitoring program was established to investigate brine dispersal and potential effects on Posidonia
oceanica meadows in this time period. The meadows appeared in –4 m water depth and approximate‐
ly 200 m distance from the discharge point. The seabed in front of the discharge was characterized by
sandy sediments with a few patches of rocks. Before the concentrate discharge, salinity oscillated be‐
tween 37.5 and 38 in the upper limit of the meadow, which increased to more than 39 when the plant
began operation in May. As a result, the dilution of the brine before discharge was increased.
No changes in the biological communities (P. oceanica, Dendropoma petraeum and echinoderms)
were detected over the 8 months period of the provisional monitoring program. No information was
given on the characteristics of the new discharge site in –35 m water depths and the mode of dilution
of the discharge.
Cyprus, Mediterranean Sea
The impacts of the Dhekelia SWRO plant, Cyprus, on marine macrobenthos in the nearby coastal wa‐
ters were investigated over a two year period (1997‐1998) [114]. The production capacity of the
plant was increased from 20,000 m3/d to 40,000 m3/d in this time, with the facility discharging an
equal amount of brine with a salinity of about 70. The concentrate was initially disposed of into the
coastal area at a water depth of less than –0.5 m and then via an outfall at –5 m water depth and
200 m distance from the shore. Seasonal and spatial variations in salinity were observed in Dhekelia
Bay, which is an enclosed bay with low dispersion rates. Salinities up to 50 were observed in a limited
area around the outfall diffuser, with salinities decreasing to ambient values of 39 within 200 m
around the outfall.
Before discharge started, the area close to the outfall was characterized by rocky substrate domi‐
nated by forests of the brown macroalgae Cystoseira barbata, in which other species of macroalgae
were also found. Salinity increases seriously impacted the phytobenthic assemblage, with Cystoseira
forests vanishing from the area around the point of discharge. High salinities also had effects on ma‐
crofauna composition in the vicinity of the outfall. While the benthic community prior to the concen‐
trate discharge consisted of 27 % polychaetes, 27 % echinoderms, 26 % scaphopods and 20 % gastro‐
pods, the only remaining taxa after construction were polychaetes (71 %) and gastropods (29 %). Ac‐
cording to Tsiourtis [115], monitoring results carried out every 6 months for 4 years at the Dhekelia
site have shown that the situation around the outfall point is steady and confined to an area within a
radius of 200 m.
A larger SWRO plant was constructed in Larnaca in 2002 with a production capacity of
54,000 m3/d and a similar volume of brine production. Following the experience made in Dhkelia, the
discharge pipe was constructed at a length of 1,500 m and at a water depth of –25 m below the sur‐
face. According to the Cyprus Department of Fisheries, the first measurements conducted in the site
point to good dilution conditions [33].
Studies for facilities with a capacity < 10,000 m3/d

Antigua Island, Caribbean Sea
A comprehensive study was conducted for a small desalination plant on Antigua Island in the Carib‐
bean. The facility has a capacity of 5,000 m3/d and produces about 6,800 m3/d of concentrate. The
intake salinity is about 35, and the discharge salinity about 57. The site was chosen for its near shore
benthic community, which included expansive areas of seagrass (Thalassia), coral heads, and typical
tropical fish and invertebrate species. Biological and water quality data was collected before concen‐
trate discharge into the study area began. The discharge increased salinities within 10 m from the
discharge point.
After 3 months, a weak positive correlation was observed between the intensity of the discharge
plume and abundance of the algae Dictyota dichotoma, which may be due to nitrogen enrichment in
the plume. The nitrogen enrichment may be due to the concentrating effect of the desalination
process, or nutrient increases associated with filter backwashing. After 6 months, abundances of Dic‐
tyota dichotoma were lower than during the previous survey. Besides this, no discernible effects of
the concentrate discharge on density, biomass, and production of seagrass, or on benthic fauna or
pelagic fish species was observed during the surveys after 3 and 6 months [116].
Desalination
86
Formentera, Balearic Islands, Mediterranean Sea, Spain
The impacts of brine discharges from a small RO plant on seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica) were
investigated in [91] over a time period of 6 years. The plant has a maximum discharge rate of
2,000 m3/d during summer and receives feedwater from the groundwater table which is potentially
enriched in nutrients from agriculture. The discharge characteristics thus differed considerably from
ambient seawater, with (on average) salinity values around 50, a reduced pH (7.5), and high concen‐
trations of dissolved inorganic carbon, orthophosphate, nitrates and nitrites. Environmental samples
were taken from three transects that were perpendicular to the coastline. Salinity along the “im‐
pacted” transect varied between 37.8 and 39.8, and along the two supposedly unaffected reference
transects between 37.4 and 37.6. The sediment pore water showed a greater increase in salinity than
did the water column, also in some areas where water salinity was unaffected at the time of mea‐
surement. It was therefore assumed that the brine influence can extend beyond the areas of increased
water column salinity. The authors observed no extensive decline of seagrass meadows, but the mea‐
dow near the brine discharge showed characteristics significantly different from those of the reference
transects, such as increased nitrogen content in the leaves and a deterioration in plant health (reflect‐
ed by high frequencies of necrosis marks and low total non‐structural carbohydrates) as well as a high‐
er epiphyte load. It is concluded that the effects stem from two factors: increased nitrogen and hyper‐
saline conditions. Based on the observations, a critical salinity threshold of 39.3 is established, which
was found to be in good agreement with the salinity threshold of 39.1 established by [112] for P. ocea‐
nica based on experimental results. A measured change in ecosystem integrity was the absence of
echinoderms, holothurians and sea urchins, which are considered to be environmentally sensitive spe‐
cies based on laboratory findings.
The impacts of brine discharges on P. oceanica were also investigated in a two year study involving la‐
boratory (15 day tank experiments) and field investigations of effects caused by a SWRO pilot plant on
Formentera. It seems that the results presented in the above study [91] and the following results pre‐
sented in [117] are partly based on the same original study. Results are as follows:
Salinities of about 50 caused 100% mortality in 15 days. Salinities around 45 caused about 50%
mortality. Variable results were observed at salinities of 43, 42.9 and 40, which caused 20%, 55%
and 27% mortality, respectively. In the laboratory experiments, mortality was also frequently ob‐
served in water of ambient salinity (on average 8.5%).
At salinities of 48–50, no plant growth was observed. At a salinity of 43, growth rates were 50% of
the growth rates at natural salinity. At a salinity of 40–41, growth rates were on average reduced
by 14% compared to ambient.
Plants exposed to a salinity of 43 were able to recover when returned to normal conditions.
Mortality and diminished growth were also observed when only the basal part of the plants was
exposed to hypersaline water.
The increased nutrient levels of the discharge were assumed to be the cause of some of the
observed effects on the meadows.
Based on the results, it was recommended to avoid P. oceanica meadows, or when avoidance is not
possible, to dilute the discharge salinity appropriately so that it exceeds a value 38.5 in no more than
25% of the time and a value of 40 in no more than 5% of the time.
Box 3: Overview on salinity tolerance and toxicity studies (bioassay studies)

Carlsbad SWRO project, Southern California
Salinity tolerance investigations [26, 118] were conducted to evaluate the effects of increased salinity
on species commonly found in the discharge site of the proposed desalination project and species
considered to be sensitive to environmental stress.
In a first comparative study, a collection of 18 marine species was held in an aquarium containing
a blend of desalination plant concentrate and power plant effluent with a salinity of 36, which is
equal to the salinity that would occur within the zone of initial dilution during 95 % of the time (am‐
bient salinity is 33.5). Organisms were evaluated for overall health based on qualitative parameters
(appearance, willingness to feed, activity, gonad production in the urchins) and compared to organ‐
isms held in a control tank. The quantitative parameters measured were percent weight gain/loss
and fertilization success of the purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus). During the 5‐½
month test no mortality was encountered. All organisms remained healthy and showed normal activ‐
ity and feeding behavior at a salinity of 36. No statistical significant difference in weight gain/loss to
the control group was observed, and sea urchin spawning and fertilization was also successful.
The second study was a salinity toxicity study in which selected species of concern (purple sea
urchin S. purpuratus, sand dollar Dendraster excentricus, and red abalone Haliotis rufescens) were
kept at salinities of 37, 38, 39, and 40 over an extended period of time (19 days). These species were
chosen due to their known susceptibility to environmental stress and the objective was to capture
the biological effects of increased salinity that might occur during extreme operating conditions in
the zone of initial dilution. Survival rate was 100% at the end of the test in all test salinities. General
observations showed that all individuals were behaving normally.
In addition to the salinity tolerance investigations, a toxicity testing study was carried out [26,
119], using RO concentrate and diluting it with seawater to a salinity of 36. Standard bioassay test
were performed on giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera (48 hours germination and growth test), topsmelt
Atherinops affinis (7 day survival using 10‐day old larva) and red abalone Haliotis rufescens (48 hour
post fertilization embryonic development test). The results indicate that under worst case discharge
conditions, the blend of cooling water and RO concentrate will not exhibit acute or chronic toxicity.
Based on the salinity tolerance and toxicity investigations and results from relevant literature, it is
concluded that no significant effects are expected from operation of the SWRO plants under normal
and extreme conditions. Species found in the southern California bight have geographical ranges that
extend into sub‐tropical waters, which have higher salinity and temperature values than those ex‐
pected to occur during normal and extreme operating conditions of the proposed desalination plant.
Many species living in the project area therefore experience a natural salinity range that is compara‐
ble or greater to what is predicted for the combined discharge. Fish, plankton and other pelagic spe‐
cies will also have a shorter exposure time than applied in the tests [26, 119].
EPA (1986) recommendations state that, in order to protect wildlife habitats, salinity variation
should not exceed 4 units from natural variation in areas permanently occupied by food and habitat
forming plants when natural salinity is between 13.5 and 35. The food and habitat forming plants lo‐
cated in the vicinity of the proposed project are found in the subtidal hard bottom habitat located to
the north and to the south of the discharge channel. As applied to the proposed project, operational
conditions that do not elevate salinities above 38.4 (34.4 upper limit of the natural variation in salini‐
ty plus 4 units) in the subtidal hard bottom habitat would appear to be fully protective of the food
and habitat forming plants living in the discharge field [26, 119].
Desalination
88
Box 3 (continued)
Santa Barbara SWRO plant, California
To evaluate potential impacts of brine discharges from the Santa Barbara SWRO plant in California,
three representative benthic species were exposed to elevated salinity levels [120]. Salinity samples
were produced by mixing hypersaline brine with laboratory seawater. Brine was produced by freezing
and partially thawing laboratory seawater. It is concluded that the desalination waste brine is not toxic
to amphipods, kelp spores, or sea urchin embryo at concentrations expected to occur in the field. The
single test results were as follows:
Spore germination and tube growth of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera were tested in five dif‐
ferent salinities ranging from 34.5 to 43 (the end‐point of 43 was much higher than salinities pre‐
dicted by a dilution model for the discharge site of the plant). During the 48‐hour test, no statisti‐
cally significant effects were observed, i.e. elevated salinity did not affect kelp spore germination
or tube length. The highest germination percentage occurred at a salinity of 38.5, the lowest at
36.5. Germ tube length of kelp spores was highest at moderate salinities of 35.5 to 38.5 and low‐
est at the highest salinity of 43, but the effect was not significantly different from the control.
Ten day tests with amphipods (Rhepoxynius abronius) exposed to salinities of 34.5 to 38.5 did not
indicate any salinity effects and survival was only slightly reduced in the higher salinity vessels.
48‐hour salinity tests with sea urchin embryos produced variable results. A salinity of 36.5 pro‐
duced a small response, but a severe response was produced at 38.5. Based on the modeling re‐
sults for the Santa Barbara plant, which predict that salinities greater than 35 outside the zone of
initial dilution will occur in less than 10% of the time, impacts on sea urchin embryo are not ex‐
pected to occur in the field. The test, however, confirms sea urchin sensitivity, which is considered
among the most sensitive of marine embryos [120]. The next most sensitive species is the scallop,
where embryo development decreased 40% following a 20% increase in salinity [120, 121].
Alicante, Mediterranean Sea, Spain
The effects of salinity on leaf growth and survival of the Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia oceanica
were investigated by short‐term mesocosms experiments [112]. Plants collected from shallow mea‐
dows in Alicante with an ambient salinity of 36.8 to 38 were placed in tanks of different salinities be‐
tween 25 and 57 for 15 days. Leaf growth was at maximum at salinities between 25 and 39 and de‐
creased significantly at a salinity of 39.1 and above. No growth was observed at a salinity of 50. Plants
also sustained significant mortality at a salinity above 42 and below 29, with 100% mortality at a salini‐
ty of 50. Necrotic tissues were evident in treatments with salinities higher than 42.5 or lower than
33.4. Plants surviving at salinity below 46 for 15 days were able to regain growth when they were re‐
turned to normal seawater salinity. Epiphyte biomass was highly variable and did not show a clear re‐
sponse to salinity. The authors summarize that elevated salinity led to a significant reduction in leaf
growth at an increase of 1 unit over ambient and increased mortality at an increase of 4 units over
ambient salinity values. By comparison with salinity tolerance data for other seagrasses (Amphibolis
antarctica, Posidonia australis, Thalassia testudinum, Halodule wrightii), the authors conclude that P.
oceanica is one of the most sensitive species to high salinity and that meadows may be adversely im‐
pacted by salinity increases associated with brine discharge from desalination plants.
Box 3 (continued)
ACSEGURA and CEDEX research programme, Spain
Different studies were conducted within a research program funded by ACSEGURA and CEDEX and
the results published in several journal articles [91, 94, 111, 112, 117, 122]. An overview article [122]
summarizes the main findings from the research program which consisted of three parts:
Experimental work in the laboratory: a number of P. oceanica shoots were maintained in 300 l
tanks during 15 days under different salinity treatments (salinity: 23–57) (see also [112] above).
Experimental work in the field: 1 m2 surface plots located in a natural stand of P. oceanica were
treated in situ over a period of 3 months with two different concentrations of a hypersaline wa‐
ter obtained from a pilot desalination plant (salinity of 39.2 ± 0.8 corresponding to a 1.5 unit in‐
crease, 38.4 ± 0.3 corresponding to a 0.7 unit increase over ambient salinity of 37.7 ± 0.1).
Field surveys: study of the long term impact of desalination plant discharge on a P. oceanica
meadow in the Balearic Islands (Island of Formentera, see also [91, 117]).
Experimental work in the laboratory:
A salinity of 39.1 and above had significant effects on plant vitality (e.g. leaf growth). Results
were similar when the whole plant or only the basal part was exposed to hypersaline water.
A salinity of 40 and above had significant effects on plant mortality.
A salinity of 45 caused 50% mortality after 15 days exposure.
In some cases, plants exposed to short hypersaline episodes were able to recover their normal
growth after being returned to normal salinity.
Increased mortality of the mysid Letomysis posidoniae and the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus
(which are often found in the seagrass meadows) was observed at a salinity 40.5‐41.
Experimental work in the field and field surveys:
Increased plant mortality and lower plant vitality was observed in plots with brine treatment
compared to the plots without treatment.
Close to the discharge point (salinities: 38.4–39.8), a significant reduction in leaf size, an overload
of epiphytes, a higher nitrogen and phosphorous concentration in tissues and a higher herbivore
activity was observed compared to unaffected areas. The effects are probably caused by eutro‐
phication.
In the far field (salinities: 37.8–39.3), no eutrophication symptoms were observed. The meadow
did not show differences in shoot densities compared to reference sites, however, changes in the
structural pattern of the shoot distribution, an increase in the frequency of necrosis marks in the
leaves, and a significant lower abundance of the accompanying macrofauna compared to refer‐
ence meadows were observed. The effects are probably due to salinity stress.
Overall conclusions:
Due to the high sensitivity of P. oceanica and associated fauna to salinity increases, brine dis‐
charges into areas containing these ecosystems should be avoided.
In case that avoidance is not possible, salinity should not exceed 38.5 in any point of the meadow
for more than 25% of the observations on an annual basis and not more than 40 in any point of
the meadow for more than 5% of the observations on an annual basis. The thresholds require
further verification and are only applicable to P. oceanica of the Western Mediterranean region.
Desalination
90
Box 3 (continued)
Bioassay studies summarized from secondary sources (original not available)
Buceta et al. [20] investigated the effects of brine on local Posidonia seagrass meadows. Salinity in‐
creases caused growth reduction, permanent leaf fall, appearance of necrosis in the tissues, structural
pattern changes of the meadow, decreased abundance of the accompanying macrofauna and in‐
creased mortality rates. The sensitivity of fauna frequently found in the Posidonia meadows (in par‐
ticular Leptomysis posidoniae and Paracentrotus lividus) has also been investigated. Mortality general‐
ly increased with salinity, with statistically significant effects at a salinity of 40 and above, while for sa‐
linities close to 45, 50% of the plants died within the first 15 days. It has been recommended that salin‐
ity thresholds should not be given in terms of a referential value but as frequency distribution: for in‐
stance, the salinity should not surpass a salinity of 38.5 in over 25% of the measurements, or 40 in over
5% of the measurements in no point of the meadow (from [93] based on [94]). Due to the lack of long‐
term observations, uncertainty remains concerning chronic effects during long‐term exposures. Sea‐
son, temperature, depth variability and light availability as well as other environmental components
probably also alter the observed effects. For instance, plants in greater depth seem to be much more
sensitive. Also, the detrimental effects of chemical agents (sporadically or permanently found in the ef‐
fluent brine) remain poorly quantified [93].
Studies were conducted by [123] on the response of several species of decapod crustaceans to osmotic
stress gradients, in order to assess their ability to osmoregulate. One of the test organisms was the
sand crab Emerita analoga, an inhabitant of sandy beaches. The species was found to have a narrow
range of salinity tolerance (stenohaline). Tests were run using seawater concentrations of 50, 75, 90,
110, 125, and 150%, corresponding to standard seawater salinities of 17, 26, 31, 38, 44, and 52, re‐
spectively. Animals placed in 50% (salinity of 17) and 150% (salinity of 52) seawater concentrations
died within about two hours of immersion, while those placed in 75% (salinity of 26) to 125% (salinity
of 44) seawater concentrations were able to survive as long as 24 hours, thus demonstrating some
ability to tolerate changes for a limited period of time (from [23]).
Bioassay studies were conducted by [124] for the Sand City Plant in California. The studies investigated
the effects of saline water (using elevated salinity treatments of 33, 38, 43, and 48) on the survival of
two shallow subtidal beach species, the olive snail Olivella pycna and the sand dollar Dendraster excen‐
tricus, which occur in shallow subtidal sands of the Monterey Bay. It was found that salinity concentra‐
tions at some level between 43 and 48 would become lethal to young sand dollars (10–15 mm diame‐
ter) but not to olive snails (3–4 mm length). The authors discuss other pertinent studies and conclude
that measuring chronic effects to growth and reproduction as well as survival may be a better indica‐
tion of salinity toxicity and therefore require a longer test (from [23]).
Box 3 (continued)
Another series of bioassay tests was conducted on Japanese littleneck clams (Venerupis [Ruditapes]
philippinarum), juvenile sea bream (Pagrus major), and marbled flounder (Pseudopleuronectes yoko‐
hamae) [125], using hypertonic solutions made from a commercial salt mixture and aerated tap wa‐
ter (from [23]).
The clams showed unimpaired behavior in a salinity of 50 or less. Lethal effects were observed af‐
ter 48 hours in a salinity of 60, and after 24 hours in a salinity of 70.
The juvenile sea bream survived well in salinities of 45 or less. In a salinity of 50, 25% died within
24 hours. In a salinity of 70, all fish died after 1 hour.
In an avoidance experiment, researchers slowly pumped colored solutions of different salinity
concentrations into the bottoms of the tanks holding juvenile sea bream in water of normal (33)
salinity, thereby creating two layers of water in the tanks. The sea bream behaved normally in
water up to and including salinities of 40. Between salinities of 45 and 70 the fish spent less and
less time in the higher salinity water. The fish did not enter water with a salinity of 100.
Hatchability of eggs of the marbled flounder was successful at salinities up to 60 but dropped to zero
at a salinity of 70, however, hatchability was delayed with increasing salinity between 31 and 60.
Marbled flounder larvae survived with no ill effects in salinities up to 50. At a salinity of 55, mortality
began to occur after 140 hours. In salinities between 60 and 100 the number of dead larvae in‐
creased in shorter periods of time.
Box 4: Toxicity studies concerning co‐discharge with waste water from sewage plants
Direct discharge through an existing wastewater treatment plant outfall has found a limited applica‐
tion to date, especially for medium and large seawater desalination plants [18]. Waste brine is in
most cases discharged directly to the ocean. Only for some smaller plants, it is proposed to discharge
the brine through an existing waste water treatment plant outfall. For example, the City of Santa
Cruz’ proposed desalination plant in California would convey its brine discharge into the City’s
wastewater treatment plant where it will be combined with the advanced secondary treated waste‐
water [23]. The main benefit of this kind of co‐discharge is to allow for mixing of the two waste‐
waters before discharge, and to accelerate mixing in the environment that stems from blending the
heavier high‐salinity concentrate with the lighter low‐salinity wastewater discharge [18].
A disadvantage is the potential for whole effluent toxicity (WET) of the blended discharge, as the
mixing of the two waste streams may lead to synergetic effects not found in the individual waste
streams [23]. The studies cited below show that mixing of concentrate and waste water can cause
toxic effects on some aquatic species, but that the information is somewhat patchy and the effects
not fully understood. Site‐specific laboratory toxicity tests of combined effluents in different mixing
rations are required in order to detect potential impacts on the receiving environment, using efflu‐
ents from the treatment plants in question and local fauna and flora species.
Desalination
92
Box 4 (continued)
An ion make‐up shift (ion ratio imbalance) caused by blending of the two waste streams is considered
to be the most likely cause for the toxic effects of the concentrate‐wastewater blend on sensitive ma‐
rine species. Blending therefore requires a careful evaluation taking the advantages and disadvantages
of this option into account. Furthermore, reuse of the treated waste water may be preferable over
disposal, as treated waste water should be considered as a resource rather than a waste product [12].
Membrane technologies can be applied to both wastewater and seawater to produce a new water
supply source. Reuse is thus an option which may eliminate the need for a new desalination project
and adverse environmental effects associated with the waste water discharge.
Santa Barbara SWRO plant, California
A 48‐hour sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) embryo development test (endpoint: normal de‐
velopment) was conducted to investigate the potential interactions between elevated salinity and se‐
wage. A 24‐hour composite of secondary effluent from the El Estero wastewater treatment plant in
Santa Barbara was collected and mixed with laboratory seawater and hypersaline brine to produce the
desired combinations. Wastewater at 5.6% effluent (highest test concentration) and ambient salinity
(33.5) had a significant toxic effect on sea urchin development. At lower effluent concentrations there
were no effects on development. At higher salinity of 36.5, the proportion of normal embryos in‐
creased as the percent of sewage increased. It is concluded that salinity may have altered the chemical
speciation of toxicants in the sewage and reduced toxicity, as salinity can reduce the toxicity of some
trace metals by increasing the complexation of the toxic, free ion form [120].
Marin Municipal Water District’s pilot desalination, California
Bioassay studies conducted for the Marin Municipal Water District’s pilot desalination plant involved a
7‐day chronic inland silverside (Menidia beryllina) test, a 96‐hour diatom (Skeletonema costatum)
growth test, a 48‐hour bivalve larvae test, and a 96‐hour acute speckled sand dab (Citharichthys stig‐
maeus) test. Tests were performed on the brine concentrate itself and on the brine mixed with efflu‐
ent from the Central Marin Sanitation Agency sewage outfall. The studies found that a dilution of bay
water to brine of 23:1 and of CMSA effluent to brine of 20:1 were necessary to achieve a No Observa‐
ble Effect Concentration (NOEC) for these organisms [126].
Figure 11: Periodic discharge of filter backwash water from the Ashkelon SWRO plant in Israel (courtesy of
Rani Amir, Director of the Marine and Coastal Environment Division, Israel Ministry of the Environment).
C.4.5 Discharge of residual chemicals Heavy metals

The discharge of concentrate from desalination
The conventional pretreatment methods for plants may increase dissolved metal concentra‐
conditioning the incoming feedwater in desalina‐ tions in the mixing zone of the discharge plume
tion plants were outlined in section C.4.2 on and may thereby affect water quality.
p. 66. This section evaluates the potential im‐
pacts of the residual chemicals in the reject Coagulants (filter backwash)
streams on the marine environment. The filter backwash (if discharged into the sea)
may increase turbidity and decrease light pene‐
Potential impacts on receptors tration in the water column (Figure 11).
Landscape and natural scenery Antiscalants

Antiscalants generally have a slow to moderate
Coagulants (filter backwash) rate of elimination from the environment and
The filter backwash may significantly increase are often classified as inherently biodegradable
turbidity in the discharge site, which may be an (cf. Table 28, Appendix D.3, p. 143ff.) [47]. As an‐
aesthetic problem when ferric salts are used as tiscalants exhibit dispersing and complexing
coagulant, as these can turn the mixing zone of properties (they prevent scale formation by dis‐
the backwash plume into a deep red‐brown col‐ persing and complexing divalent ions such as
or (Figure 11, p. 92, [73, 127]). There is also con‐ calcium and magnesium), it seems plausible to
cern that the discharge of ferric coagulants may assume that antiscalants can also interfere with
cause a discoloration of sandy beaches when the natural processes of dissolved metal ions in
discharged at sea and dispersed by currents [89]. seawater following discharge. This may be a
concern in sea areas with high installed desalina‐
Seafloor and sediments tion capacity in combination with the prolonged
residence time of antiscalants in the environ‐
Heavy metals ment. For instance, it is estimated that about 60
Heavy metals such as copper, which may be tons of antiscalants could be discharged into the
present in the discharges of distillation plants, Gulf every day from desalination plants based on
have a tendency for accumulating in sediments. a typical dosage of 2 mg/l to the feedwater [82].
The risk of metal accumulation is potentially high
near point discharges, in soft bottom habitats or pH
in areas of restricted water exchange, and where Acid is normally used to adjust the pH to slightly
sedimentation rates are high. acidic values in order to enhance the coagula‐
tion‐flocculation process and can also be used
Seawater quality and hydrology for scale control. The pH value of the concen‐
trate may therefore be slightly acidic (pH 6–7) as
Chlorine and chlorination by‐products compared to ambient levels of around 8. A low
Seawater chlorination results in two groups of residual acidity will be neutralized quickly follow‐
chemicals – the oxidants and the chlorination by‐ ing discharge into well‐mixed waters and a pH
products. The oxidants decompose quickly fol‐ effect on the receiving water is unlikely due to
lowing discharge which results in a limited dis‐ the good buffering capacity of seawater, which
persal range, whereas some of the by‐products will neutralize surplus acidity quickly.
are persistent and can be dispersed over longer
distances. Both residual chlorine and chlorina‐ Decrease in dissolved oxygen (DO) levels
tion by‐products were detected in the discharge The use of sodium bisulfite for dechlorination
sites of distillation plants (cf. C.4.2, p. 68f). may cause reduced oxygen levels in the concen‐
Desalination
94
trate when overdosed. Also, when the feed wa‐ Coagulants (filter backwash)
ter is taken from a subsurface intake, it may con‐ Coagulant chemicals are commonly used in wa‐
tain reduced DO levels. These are often less than ter treatment and are generally not toxic to aq‐
2 mg/l, compared to ambient seawater DO levels uatic life. Iron is also not considered a priority
of 6–8 mg/l. This may result in a concentrate pollutant, as it is a common natural element in
with correspondingly low DO levels, which may seawater. The discharge of large sludge volumes,
not meet discharge and ambient water quality however, may cause physical effects. Lower light
standards [22]. For example, the California penetration may reduce primary production, e.g.
Ocean Plan limits the decrease in DO to no more of seagrass beds, or sedimentation of the ma‐
than 10% of the ambient level at the edge of the terial may blanket benthic plants and animals.
zone of initial dilution [26].
By turbulent discharge, e.g. through an out‐ Antiscalants
fall channel or diffuser system, the concentrate Phosphonate and organic polymer antiscalants
may become saturated again with oxygen. In this have a low toxicity to aquatic invertebrate and
case the concentrate may even supply oxygen to fish species, but some substances exhibit an in‐
the bottom water layers (due to its higher densi‐ creased toxicity to algae (cf. Table 27, Appendix
ty). The concentrate discharge may consequent‐ D.3, p. 143ff). The antiscalant dosing rate in de‐
ly have two opposing effects on DO levels: On salination plants (1–2 mg/l), however, is a factor
the one hand, a plume saturated with oxygen of 10 lower than the level at which a chronic ef‐
could add oxygen to bottom waters, while on fect was observed (20 mg/l), and it is 10–5,000
the other hand the plume may strengthen densi‐ times lower than the concentrations at which
ty stratification which impedes re‐oxygenation of acutely toxic effects were observed. Two ma‐
bottom water layers [102]. terial safety data sheets for commercial antisca‐
lant products note that the observed inhibition
Marine flora and fauna of algae growth is due to the product’s capacity
to bind nutrients and not to its toxicity as such.
Chlorine and chlorination by‐products This gives further evidence that antiscalant may
Chlorine is a highly effective biocide and may af‐ interfere with the natural processes of dissolved
fect non‐target organisms following discharge metals in seawater following discharge. Some of
even in low doses. Moreover, toxicological stu‐ these metals may be relevant micronutrients for
dies investigating the effects of chlorinated‐ marine algae. No field investigations about the
dechlorinated seawater on fish and invertebrate actual environmental fate and interactions of an‐
species observed chronic effects and increased tiscalants have been carried out to date.
mortality rates, which may be attributed to the Polyphosphate antiscalants are easily hydro‐
presence of halogenated organics formed during lysed to orthophosphate, which is an essential
chlorination (cf. section C.4.2, p. 68f). nutrient for primary producers. The use of poly‐
phosphates may cause a nutrient surplus and an
Heavy metals increase in primary production in the discharge
Metals may be assimilated by marine organisms, site, which may lead to oxygen depletion when
with the risk of bioaccumulation and biomagnifi‐ the organic material decays. Eutrophication was
cation (cf. section C.4.3). The toxicity generally reported at the outlets of some larger thermal
depends on metal speciation (which also affects desalination plants that used polyphosphates for
bioavailability), and the sensitivity of individual scale control [57, 98].
species and life‐cycle stages of organisms. Im‐
pacts of metal discharges are generally difficult Toxic effects from decreased oxygen levels
to predict, and should be evaluated in the con‐ Decreased oxygen levels may be harmful or even
text of natural background levels. toxic to marine life.
C.4.6 Hazards and hazardous materials Marine flora and fauna
The operation of a desalination plant requires Accidental spills into the sea may affect the local
the routine transport, storage and handling of fauna and flora.
hazardous materials, which is generally closely
regulated in order to minimize hazards to per‐ C.4.7 Noise emissions
sonnel, the public and the environment. Under
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident con‐ Desalination plants can produce significant noise
ditions, the risk of fire, explosion or release of emissions. For SWRO plants, noise levels of over
hazardous materials into the environment is 90 dB (A) have been reported [42]. Major
therefore low. However, despite all precautio‐ sources of noise during operation include (values
nary measures, a small risk remains that work‐ in dB (A) and 0,9 m distance [26]): the intake
ers, the public or the environment is unexpec‐ pumps (90), the RO high pressure pumps and the
tedly exposed to hazardous materials. The like‐ energy recovery systems (90), and other pumps
lihood of an accident is low, however, in the un‐ and equipment (88), such as the different pumps
foreseen event that hazardous material is re‐ and equipment of the pretreatment and cleaning
leased, impacts may be severe. systems. The facilities would normally be in‐
stalled in buildings which may include additional
Potential impacts on receptors noise attenuation measures, thereby reducing
the noise emissions to surrounding areas.
Soils
Potential impacts on receptors
The release of cleaning chemicals in larger quan‐
tities by accidental spills during routine trans‐ Landscape and natural scenery
port, handling and storage may cause localized
soil contamination. Noise emissions can permanently impair the aes‐
thetic landscape properties and the natural sce‐
Ground‐ and surface water quality nery of nearby areas within acoustic range.
and hydrology
Terrestrial flora and fauna
Chemicals may affect water quality if spilled into
a water body or washed into ground‐ or surface Increased noise levels during operation may
waters by rain and runoff after a spill. For exam‐ scare away sensitive wildlife.
ple, high and low pH values of strongly alkaline
or acidic cleaning solutions could affect the nat‐ C.4.8 Energy use
ural pH of the water body.
Energy use is a major factor in the environ‐
Seawater quality and hydrology mental assessment of desalination projects. En‐
ergy use associated with the operation of a de‐
Chemicals may also affect seawater quality if salination plant includes the electrical or thermal
chemicals are accidentally spilled into the sea or energy produced on site or taken from the elec‐
washed into the sea by surface runoff. tricity grid and used to operate the facility. The
total energy demand of the facility comprises
Terrestrial flora and fauna the energy for the desalination process, for heat‐
ing and air conditioning, for lighting and office
Accidental spills into the ground or surface water supplies, as well as the fuel energy used for
bodies may affect the local fauna and flora. maintenance visits and employee vehicles.
Desalination
96
The specific energy demand refers to the energy frequency pumps) and motors, and the effi‐
demand of the desalination process only. ciency of the energy recovery system if such a
system is installed.
Reverse osmosis
An external pressure must be applied to the
seawater solution, which exceeds the osmotic
pressure of the system, in order to reverse the
flow through the membranes. A concentration
of 1,000 mg/l total dissolved solids (TDS) corres‐
ponds to an osmotic pressure of 0.715 bar. For
seawater with a TDS of 35,000 mg/l, which has
an osmotic pressure of about 25 bars, the theo‐
retical energy demand is 0.7 kWh/m3 of mechan‐
ical work.
A net driving pressure must be applied, which
exceeds the osmotic pressure by 25 to 35 bars,
in order to obtain a sufficient permeate flux. The
required pressure of the feed water is site‐
specific. It ranges between 50 and 70 bars for
seawater applications. Taking the increasing os‐
motic pressure along the membrane, the process
recovery rate, and the efficiency of pumps and Figure 12: Energy recovery systems: pressure ex‐
motors into account, the RO energy demand is changer (top) and classical turbine (e.g. Pelton
about 7 kWh/m3 at 50% process recovery. turbine) [54, 129].
The use of energy recovery devices (Figure
12, 13) allow for a reduction of the specific ener‐
gy demand to 2–3 kWh/m3. Pressure exchangers
transfer the concentrate pressure directly to the
feed stream. A booster pump compensates for
the slight pressure loss [128]. Other devices first
transfer the concentrate pressure to mechanical
power and then convert the mechanical power
back to feed pressure. The efficiency of systems
ranges from 70% for turbochargers, 74–82% for
reverse running pumps, 80–86% for Pelton tur‐
bines, 90–95% for work exchangers to 95% for
pressure exchangers [23].
An additional 1–1.5 kWh/m3 must be added
on top of this basic energy requirement for pre‐
treatment and auxiliary equipment, leading to
an overall ‘real’ energy consumption of modern
SWRO of 3–4.5 kWh/m3 [129]. The total energy
requirement is dependent on the plant and pre‐
treatment design (e.g. process recovery rate,
conventional or membrane filtration), the type
of RO membranes used (e.g. low energy mem‐
branes), the efficiency of pumps (e.g. variable Figure 13: Energy recovery turbine
The Spanish National Hydrological Plan assumes region from 1.1 million m3/d in 2005 to over
a total energy value of 4 kWh/m3 under the as‐ 2.7 million m3/d until 2010. This will require
sumption that plants are equipped with state of an additional electricity of 11 GWh/d, assum‐
the art technologies [93]. For two other SWRO ing an energy requirement of 4 kWh/m3 [93],
projects, the energy demand is given with and will cause a 1.4% increase over 2005 na‐
3.9 kWh/m3 [130] and 4.5 kWh/m3 [26]31. Other tional electricity generation levels (805
examples for energy demand, which also include GWh/d, or 294 TWh in 2005 [135]).
the transfer of water, are 4.2 kWh/m3 [131]32, For California, it is estimated that the cur‐
4.5 kWh/m3 [132] and 5.3 kWh/m3 [35]33. rently proposed desalination plants with a
The use of state of the art pressure exchanger total capacity of 1.7 million m3/d would in‐
systems shift the recovery ratio towards lower crease the share of desalination to 6% of Cal‐
values, which results in a lower salinity of the re‐ ifornia’s year 2000 urban water use. The wa‐
ject stream and a reduced scaling potential in ter‐related energy use would increase by 5%
the plant, possibly resulting in lower antiscalant over 2001 levels assuming an average energy
pretreatment. Thus, potential environmental ef‐ use of 3.4 kWh/m3 [4]. The total water‐
fects from high salinity and antiscalants could be related energy use was 48,012 GWh in 2001,
reduced, however, a low recovery ratio leads to representing 19% of the total energy use in
higher feed water flow rates, which may in‐ California [136]. Another source [50] as‐
crease the use of other pretreatment chemicals sumes an average energy use of 2.9 kWh/m3
or entrainment and impingement impacts. to produce 1.7 million m³/day of new drink‐
As the treatment and distribution of water ing water by desalination in 2030. Desalina‐
from conventional sources and by conventional tion would thus increase the water related‐
processes also requires energy, it is necessary to energy use of the state by 1,800 GWh/year
consider both the total energy increase caused or about 4% over 2001 levels.
by desalination processes as well as the relative The Sydney desalination plant with an initial
increase compared to other water supply op‐ capacity of 250,000 m3/d is expected to re‐
tions. Furthermore, the chosen reference values sult in a 1.2% increase of New South Wales’
may influence how we perceive and evaluate electricity demand if upgraded to a capacity
energy demand, for instance if the energy de‐ of 500,000 m3/d [44].
mand is compared to energy usage on a local,
regional or national level. Some examples: A further reduction in energy demand seems
On the Canary Islands, desalination accounts likely in the future. The Affordable Desalination
for 14% of all energy demands [133]. Collaboration (ADC) in California carried out
The SWRO plant of Carboneras (capacity of tests using FILMTEC SW30XLE‐400i “low energy”
120,000 m3/d) on the Mediterranean coast membranes. When operated at 43% recovery,
of Spain consumes about one third of the the test facility required 1.58 kWh/m3. The most
province’s electrical energy [134]. affordable operating point for a 30 year life cycle
The Spanish Agua programme will increase is considered at 50% recovery, at which the
desalination capacity in the Mediterranean process required about 1.83 kWh/m3. Further‐
more, the very low energy demand had been
31
achieved at the expense of permeate water
maximum of 36 MWh during peak production of
quality, as TDS ranged from 190–379 mg/l and
50 mgd (Carlsbad SWRO project, Southern California)
32
at nominal capacity and a recovery rate of 42%, in‐ Boron varied from 1.04–1.45 mg/l34.
cluding seawater intake, pretreatment, two RO
34
passes, post‐treatment, potable water pumping and http://www.energy‐recovery.com/pdf/ adc_sets_
all electrical losses (Perth SWRO project, Australia) low_record.pdf (accessed on 25.11.2007)
33
800 GWh/a for a 150 GL/a (410,000 m3/d) desalina‐ http://www.affordabledesal.com/home/test_data.ht
tion plant (Melbourne, Australia) ml (accessed on 25.11.2007)
Desalination
98
Distillation processes or projected air emissions (cumulative impacts),

Large distillation plants are usually co‐generation expose the resident population to increased pol‐
plants, i.e. the desalination plant receives ther‐ lutant levels, or create an objectionable odour.
mal energy from a co‐located power plant. The daily air emissions of carbon monoxide
Multi‐stage flash (MSF) distillation plants (CO), reactive organic compound (ROC, an ozone
have a maximum operation temperature of precursor substance), nitrogen and sulfur oxides
120°C. They require 12 kWh of thermal energy (NOx and SOx) and particulate matter (PM10)
and 3.5 kWh of electrical energy for the produc‐ caused by the operation of a 189,000 m3/d facil‐
tion of 1 m3 of water. These figures are lower for ity are estimated in [26]. The daily direct emis‐
multi‐effect distillation plants (MED), which op‐ sions are associated with landscaping, delivery
erate at lower temperatures (< 70°C) and require trucks and employee vehicles. The indirect emis‐
on average 6 kWh of thermal and 1.5 kWh of sions are caused by electricity production to
electrical energy per cubic meter [3]. provide the electrical energy for the facility:
Table 3: Energy data of MSF, MED and RO [3]. Daily indirect emissions: Daily direct emissions:
MSF MED RO 130 kg of CO 3 kg of CO
9 kg of ROC 0.3 kg of ROC
Operating below below ambient 27 kg of NOX 3 kg of NOX,
temperature 120°C 70°C
15 kg of SOX < 0,1 kg of SOX
main energy steam steam electrical 29 kg of PM10 0,1 kg of PM10
source (heat) (heat) energy
Thermal en‐ 12 6 none It was concluded that operation activities will

ergy demand kWh/m3 kWh/m3
not exceed any established threshold and will
Electrical en‐ 3.5 1.5 4–7 not have an impact on local air quality, neither
ergy demand kWh/m3 kWh/m3 kWh/m3 by direct nor indirect emissions of air pollutants
[26]. Carbon dioxide emissions were not consi‐
dered in this study.
Potential impacts on receptors These figures are project‐specific, however,
they illustrate the order of magnitude of opera‐
Air quality and climate tion‐related air emissions of large SWRO
projects. Project‐specific direct and indirect
The energy used for the desalination of seawater emission estimates, existing background levels
is usually produced from fossil energy sources. A and other emission sources need to be taken in‐
main environmental concern associated with the to consideration in order to evaluate if project
energy demand of desalination processes is operation may violate any existing air quality
therefore the release of air pollutants into the standards or management plans.
atmosphere, including greenhouse gas (CO2), The air emissions of power generation plants
acid rain gases (NOx, SOx), or fine particulate depend on the fuel source (e.g. gas, coal), the
matter (PM10, PM2.5). technology and efficiency of the plant and any
Greenhouse gas is relevant in the context of exhaust purification equipment installed (e.g.
national and international efforts to limit emis‐ scrubbers capturing sulfur emissions). When
sions in order to minimise climate change im‐ electricity is taken from the electricity grid, the
pacts. Significant local impacts on air quality composition of the energy mix must furthermore
caused by any of the other pollutants may fur‐ be taken into account (i.e. the shares of the dif‐
thermore occur if the emissions conflict with ap‐ ferent fossil energy sources, of nuclear power
plicable air quality standards or management and renewable energies) when estimating the
plans, contribute substantially to other existing emissions associated with power production.
As non‐carbon dioxide emissions depend on the about 2 kg per m3. Spain’s Agua programme,
technology and the fuel type, they are difficult to which will augment Spain’s water supply by de‐
quantify in general, whereas carbon dioxide salination on the Mediterranean coast, will in‐
emissions from the combustion of fuel can be crease the installed capacity from 1.1 million
estimated with a relatively high degree of cer‐ m3/d (2005) to over 2.7 million m3/d until 2010.
tainty, as these emissions depend mainly on the For the production of this amount of water, a to‐
carbon content of the fuel. Basic emission fac‐ tal of 11 GWh/d (4,000 GWh/a) will be required
tors for carbon dioxide are for instance estab‐ assuming an energy requirement of 4 kWh/m3
lished as part of the EU emission trading scheme [93]. Based on the above emission scenario, the
in order to quantify carbon dioxide emissions production of 2.7 million m3/d would result in
from fuel combustion (Table 4). 5,475 t CO2 per day, which represents a 0.6 % in‐
crease in national CO2 emissions compared to
Table 4: Carbon dioxide emission factors [137]. pre‐2005 levels of 326 million t CO2 in 2004.
Fuel type g CO2 / kWh In [138], the most relevant airborne emis‐
Black coal (anthracite) 338 sions produced by the desalination systems
Brown coal (lignite) 404 throughout the entire life‐cycle are given (includ‐
Light fuel oil 266
ing natural resources required, manufacturing
Heavy fuel oil 281
process, etc.), assuming an energy mix of 43.3%
Natural gas 202
thermal; 40.3% nuclear and 16.4% hydroelectric.
Petrol 259
Diesel 266 For a SWRO plant with an energy requirement of
4 kWh/m3, typically around 1.78 kg CO2/m3,
Electricity generation in the EU 25 amounted to 4.05 g NOX/m3, 11.13 g SOX/m3 and 1.15 g non‐
3206 TWh in 2005, of which 28% were produced methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC)
by coal, 4% by oil, 21% by gas, 30% by nuclear per m3 can be assumed [138].
and 14% by renewable energy sources [135]. The The desalination approach is in danger of
European energy mix varies from the energy mix shifting the problem from water to energy [139]
in single countries (Table 5). or respectively from water to oil and airborne
emissions [93] in some parts of the world. In
Table 5: European energy mix in 2005 [135]. Kuwait, for instance, 90% of the water supply
EU 25 Spain comes from co‐generation plants. These produce
Fuel source [TWh] % [TWh] % 443 million m3 of water and 42,257 GWh of elec‐
Coal 900 28 79 27 tricity per year, using 462 million GJ of energy,
Oil 136 4 24 8
which is 54% of the national fuel use. The plants
Gas 682 21 80 27
use mainly heavy oil (78%) and crude oil (20%).
Nuclear 973 30 58 20
The air pollution from cogeneration plants
Renewables 440 14 44 15
Other 75 2 9 3 amounts to (in million tons per year):
Total 3207 100 294 100
Due to water production electricity generation
6.96 CO2 29.58 CO2
For the Spanish energy mix, ENDESA (the leading
0.13 SO2 0.54 SO2
utility company) specifies an emission factor of
0.02 NOx 0.06 NOx
507 g CO2 per 1 kWh of electricity35. If the pro‐
duction of 1 m3 of drinking water from seawater 62% of the total fuel energy (290 of 462 M‐GJ)
requires 4 kWh, this results in a CO2 emission of are rejected to the atmosphere (46 M‐GJ) and to
the sea (243 M‐GJ) as cooling water. 60% of the
35
http://www.endesa.es/Portal/en/our_commitment/ cooling water discharges are attributed to the
sustainabilty/fulfilment_commitments/ power plants and 40% to the MSF plants [140].
our_envionment.htm (accessed on 25.07.2008)
Desalination
100
Marine flora and fauna nature of membranes probably makes it difficult

to separate the single materials for recycling.
When existing power plant capacities are in‐ Cartridge filters are typically made out of
creased or new plants constructed in order to polypropylene and have to be replaced ap‐
provide additional electricity for the desalination proximately once per year, depending on the in‐
of seawater, impacts associated with power take water quality. Polypropylene is used for a
production could be intensified. For coastal wide variety of applications, including food
power plants using once through cooling water packaging or textiles. It can be assumed that re‐
systems, major concerns are the entrainment cycling systems for polypropylene materials have
and impingement of marine organisms (cf. sec‐ been introduced in parts of the world so that a
tion C.4.1) and impacts related to discharge of recycling of the cartridge filters should be a fea‐
waste heat and residual chemicals (e.g. chlo‐ sible alternative to landfill disposal.
rine). For example, a total of 15,904 FILMTEC
SW30HRLE‐400i polyamide thin‐film composite
membranes are being used in the 200,000 m3/d
C.5 Maintenance SWRO plant in Valdelentisco, Spain [144]. Each
membrane has an active surface area of 37 m2,
Plant operation will result in replacement of totalling 588,448 m2 (59 ha) for the entire plant,
worn‐out membranes and cartridge filters, which have to be replaced and disposed of every
pipework and brine chambers. While metallic 3 to 5 years. In addition, the cartridge filtration
parts can be recycled, the disposal of some other stage consists of a total of 300 cartridges made
materials at the end of their effective lives is from polypropylene. The cartridge shells are
questionable. Furthermore, the manufacturing made from carbon steel.
process consumes material and energy, with
possibly secondary environmental impacts re‐ C.5.1 Start‐up and shut‐down
sulting from the production process and the ex‐
traction and transport of raw materials. Material In addition to the concentrate, desalination
and energy flows are normally considered in life plants produce side‐streams at plant start‐up
cycle analyses [141‐143]. and shut down (Figure 7 and 8 in section C.4.2).
The standard life‐time of RO membranes is At start‐up, RO plants may discard the water
usually 3 to 5 years, as the salt rejection capacity from the pretreatment line until it matches the
of RO membranes deteriorates over time. Until desired quality, or it may discard the product
different polymers are developed and mem‐ water if the required quality is not reached. At
brane‐manufacturing techniques are improved, shutdown, rinsing water is required to reduce
the improvement in membrane life over the next the salinity of the water contained in the con‐
years can be expected to increase to possibly 10 centrate zone of the membranes. The rinsing
years. Most commonly, membranes are dis‐ water may contain a biocide.
posed in landfills. A few companies recover used The discharge from the pretreatment line
membranes and clean them for further use in a does not require any special treatment before
different application [23]. It is not clear if recy‐ discharge. Its salinity is identical to that of the
cling of the membrane materials is in principle seawater. The pH is about neutral and is thus
possible or practiced anywhere. The most com‐ slightly reduced compared to ambient seawater,
monly used RO membranes are thin film com‐ which is slightly alkaline. It does not contain any
posite membranes consisting of polymer mate‐ harmful chemicals, if the discharged water
rial, in which a thin polyamide layer is supported comes from a point located downstream the
by a polysulfone support layer. The composite dechlorination unit [46].
Similarly, the permeate does not have any cha‐ Detergents

racteristics which would avoid it from being dis‐ O
charged directly to the sea. The rinsing waters H3 C (CH2)10 C O S ONa
can either be pretreated seawater or permeate. H2
O
When a biocide has been added, some precau‐
Sodium dodecyl‐sulfate (Na‐DSS)
tions have to be taken before discharge [46].
C.5.2 Cleaning
H
H3C (CH2)m C (CH2)n CH3
Despite feedwater pretreatment, fouling occurs
inside the plant, necessitating periodic plant
cleaning. In RO plants, membranes may become
fouled by biofilms, accumulation of suspended
matter and scale deposits. Initial fouling can be O S O
detected by monitoring salt passage, permeate O
flux and membrane pressure, and needs to be Sodium dodecyl‐benzenesulfonate (Na‐DBS)
cleaned off periodically to avoid irreversible
membrane damage. In distillation plants, fouling
is caused by biofilms and scale deposits, which Oxidants
reduce heat transfer and plant efficiency, and 2‐
may enhance corrosion. HO O O OH
Cleaning intervals have to be established for B B
each plant and are determined by ambient sea‐ HO O O OH
water conditions and the efficiency of the pre‐
treatment scheme. Membrane cleaning is typi‐ Perborate anion
cally carried out a few times per year (e.g. clean‐
ing is expected to occur two times a year [26] up
to four times a year depending on the degree of Biocides
fouling of membranes [45]). The membrane
trains or distiller units to be cleaned are taken
out of service and the cleaning solution is circu‐ O CH2 OHC (CH2)3 CHO
lated through the system.
Formaldehyde Glutaraldehyde
Reverse osmosis
Different cleaning solutions are used in RO
plants depending on the type of foulant. Gener‐
ally, a chemical cleaning is performed with two Complexing agents
types of solutions, first with an acidic solution
H2 H2
and then with an alkaline solution [46]. The alka‐
HO CO C C CO OH
line solutions (pH 11–12) are typically used for
N C C N
removing silt deposits and biofilms, while the H2 H2
acidic solutions (pH 2–3) are used to dissolve HO CO C C CO OH
H2 H2
metal oxides and scales. The alkaline or acidic
Ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA)
solution may additionally contain detergents,
oxidants and complexing agents which improve
the cleaning process and help to remove biofilms Figure 14: Chemical structures of common RO
and scale deposits (Figure 14). cleaning chemicals [47].
Desalination
102
These additional chemicals are usually generic For heavy organic fouling, oxidants like sodium
types or special brands recommended by the perborate or hypochlorite may be used to de‐
membrane manufacturers. stroy the biofilm by chemical breakdown. The
After deposits have been removed, mem‐ removal of organic deposits can be enhanced by
brane cleaning is often followed by membrane dispersing the metal ions that bond organic par‐
disinfection. For membrane storage, a chemical ticles together. A chelating agent, typically ethy‐
preservation solution may be required [47]. Ma‐ lenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), is recom‐
jor suppliers of SWRO membranes are Dow Film‐ mended by most membrane manufacturers for
tec, Toyobo, Toray, Dupont and Hydranautics. this purpose [47, 48].
The information provided by some of these sup‐ Acidic solutions are used for dissolving scale
pliers on cleaning requirements is summarized in and metal oxide deposits. They may also contain
Tables 6 and 7 below. EDTA as an organic‐based chelating agents or
Alkaline cleaning solutions usually use sodium tripolyphosphate as an inorganic chelating agent
hydroxide to achieve a high pH. To improve and detergents. The additives are used for com‐
cleaning efficiency, anionic detergents like dode‐ plexing and dispersing the divalent (e.g. calcium
cylsulfate or dodecylbenzene sulfonate can be and magnesium) and trivalent ions (e.g. alumi‐
added which help to disperse organic particles in num), which reduces the hardness of water and
solution due to their surface active properties. helps to remove scale deposits.
Table 6: Proposed cleaning procedure for Hydranautics SWRO polyamide membranes [145].
Foulant Gentle cleaning Harsher cleaning
Calcium carbonate Solution 1: Solution 4:
scale low pH solution (target pH of 4) of low pH solution (target pH of 2.5) of
2.0% (w) citric acid 0.5% (w) hydrochloric acid
Calcium, barium, Solution 2: Solution 4:
or strontium high pH solution (target pH of 10) of low pH solution (target pH of 2.5) of
sulfate scale 2.0% (w) sodium tripolyphosphate 0.5% (w) hydrochloric acid
0.8% (w) Na‐EDTA
Metal oxides Solution 1: Solution 5:
or hydroxides low pH solution (target pH of 4) of high pH solution (target pH of 11.5) of
(Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Al) 2.0% (w) citric acid 1.0% (w) sodium hydrosulfite
Inorganic Solution 1: Solution 4:
colloids low pH solution (target pH of 4) of low pH solution (target pH of 2.5) of
2.0% (w) citric acid 0.5% (w) hydrochloric acid
Mixed Inorganic Solution 2: Solution 6:
and organic high pH solution (target pH of 10) of high pH solution (target pH of 11.5) of
colloids 2.0% (w) sodium tripolyphosphate 0.1% (w) sodium hydroxide and
0.8% (w) Na‐EDTA 0.03% (w) sodium dodecylsulfate
Biological and Solution 2: Solution 6:

natural organic high pH solution (target pH of 10) of high pH solution (target pH of 11.5) of
matter 2.0% (w) sodium tripolyphosphate 0.1% (w) sodium hydroxide and
0.8% (w) Na‐EDTA 0.03% (w) sodium dodecylsulfate
alternatively solution 3:
high pH solution (target pH of 10) of
2.0% (w) sodium tripolyphosphate
0.025% (w) Na‐DBS
Polymerized Solution 7:
silica high pH solution (target pH of 11.5) of
0.1% (w) sodium hydroxide
Citric acid also has chelating properties. In gen‐ Table 7: Membrane cleaning solutions [47, 48].
eral, different kinds of acid can be used, includ‐
Percentage of
Hydran. [149]
Dupont [147]
Filmtec [146]
Trisep [150]
ing citric acid, phosphoric acid and sulfamic acid,
Toray [148]
chemical in
Ionics [31]
solution*
to lower the pH value. Sodium hydrosulfite also
shows a weak acidity when dissolved in water
and is a strong reducing agent. Stronger mineral
acids such as hydrochloric acid can be used for Low pH (2‐3) %
heavier fouling [47, 48]. Alkaline scales
After deposits have been removed by clean‐ HCl + + + + 0.5 V%
ing, disinfection may be carried out to reduce C6H8O7 + + + + + 2 W%
bacterial numbers on the membranes. Oxidants H3PO4 + + 0.5 W%
Na2S2O4 + + 1 W%
like chlorine and hydrogen peroxide can be used,
NH2SO3H + 0.2 W%
but often require post‐treatment to restore the
Metal oxides
polyamide membranes. Non‐oxidizing biocides C6H8O7 + + + + 2 W%
like formaldehyde are therefore preferred by H3PO4 + + 0.5 W%
some membrane manufacturers. Sodium bisul‐ Na2S2O4 + + + 1 W%
fite, which is a reducing agent, also prevents bio‐ NH2SO3H + + 0.2 W%
logical growth by oxygen depletion and may be SHMP + 1 W%
used for disinfection or long‐term storage of High pH (11‐12)
Inorganic colloids (silt)
membranes [47, 48].
HCl + + + 0.5 V%
After the cleaning process is complete and C6H8O7 + + + 2 W%
the cleaning agents have been circulated NaOH + + + + 0.1 V%
through the membranes, the membranes are Na‐DDS + 0.025 W%
rinsed with product water several times. In many Na‐DBS + + 0.25 W%
cases, the residual membrane cleaning solution NaBO3 + 0.3 W%
and also the first rinse which contains most of NaOCl + 0.04 V%
STP + + + 2 W%
the constituents from cleaning are neutralized
SHMP + 1 W%
and diverted to a sanitary sewer for processing.
Na‐EDTA + + + 1 W%
The ensuing rinses are typically disposed with Biofouling
the brine [23]. The Tampa Bay desalination plant NaOH + + + + + 0.1 V%
in Florida, which experienced fouling problems Na‐DDS + + 0.025 W%
and required higher than expected levels of Na‐DBS + + + 0.25 W%
membrane cleaning and maintenance, violated NaBO3 + + 0.3 W%
their sewer discharge permit due to the pres‐ NaOCl + 0.04 V%
ence of membrane cleaning chemicals [4]. STP + + + + 1 ‐ 2 W%
TSP + + + 1 W%
Discharge into the sewer may not be the
Na‐EDTA + + + + + 1 W%
standard practice in all locations, and as little is Disinfection & storage
known on the current practice of waste disposal Formaldehyde + + + 0.1 ‐ 1 V%
of most SWRO plants, discharge of the cleaning Glutaraldehyde + + 0.1 ‐ 1 W%
wastes to the sea may also occur in some loca‐ SBS + + + 1W%
tions. It is possible that the cleaning wastes are H2O2 + 0.20%
either discharged by direct blow‐down imme‐ Propylene glycol + 20%
diately after cleaning, or by storage and conti‐ Glycerin + 20%
nuous blending into the waste stream [47]. 36 + recommended * may vary between manufacturers
Abreviations (Table 7): HCl hydrochloric acid, C6H8O7 citric Na‐DBS sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, NaBO3 sodium
acid, H3PO4 phosphoric acid, Na2S2O4 sodium hydrosulfite, perborate, NaOCl sodium hypochlorite, STP sodium tri‐
NH2SO3H sulfamic acid, SHMP sodium hexametaphosphate, phosphate, Na‐EDTA sodium ethylenediamine tetraacetic
NaOH sodium hydroxide, Na‐DDS sodium dodecylsulfate, acid, TSP trisodium phosphate, SBS sodium bisulfite.
Desalination
104
Discharge practices on the Canary Islands, re‐ C.6 Decommissioning

viewed in [42], indicate that the cleaning solu‐
tions must be neutralized before discharge into Waste management practices and dismantling of
the sea. The chemical additives are not consi‐ a desalination facility will mainly depend on the
dered very important in terms of marine envi‐ requirements and obligations that are attached
ronmental impacts. According to this source, the to a license for constructing and operating a
chemical products are mainly weakly acidic (ci‐ plant. Similar to other facilities, waste disposal
tric acids) or alkali solutions, sodium polyphos‐ and dismantling of a desalination plant has to be
phate and EDTA. In another source [46], it is ad‐ arranged on a case by case basis. Plant compo‐
vised to discharge the alkaline and acidic solu‐ nents and construction materials can either be
tion into a stirred buffer tank in order to achieve recycled, reused for other purposes or disposed
neutralization before conveying the mixture at a of in an appropriate way (e.g. deposition in an
slow rate into the concentrate drain, which dis‐ industrial landfill).
charges the concentrate into the sea.
Distillation processes
The cleaning of distillation plants is comparative‐
ly simple and usually involves acid washing at
pH 2. Special inhibitors may be added to control
corrosion in this highly acidic environment.
Potential impacts on receptors
Marine flora and fauna

The accidental or deliberate discharge of clean‐
ing solutions to surface waters may be harmful
to aquatic life in the discharge site due to very
high or low pH values and the presence of ha‐
zardous chemicals. For example, detergents like
dodecylbenzene sulfonate have surface active
properties, i.e. they have one lipophilic and one
hydrophylic residue and are therefore soluble in
water and organic material. Due to this property,
they have the potential to disturb the intracellu‐
lar membrane system of organisms. If complex‐
ing agents such as EDTA are released into seawa‐
ter, they could interact with dissolved metal ions
and interfere with natural processes of these
elements. EDTA was furthermore found to be
poorly degradable and persistent in the envi‐
ronment. Oxidizing or non‐oxidizing biocides
(e.g. chlorine or formaldehyde) used for disinfec‐
tion are potentially hazardous, as they are effec‐
tive biocides that may be toxic to marine life if Figure 15: Pretreatment chemicals (top) and
released to surface water [47]. pretreatment dosing system (below).
C.7 Evaluation of significance The following evaluation of significance should

thus be understood as an attempt to prioritize
The objective of an EIA study is to identify and impacts―as far as this is possible within the limi-
analyze all project‐related impacts on the envi‐ tations of a general approach. The primary pur‐
ronment, which includes an assessment of the pose is to provide some form of indicative guid‐
relative significance of the predicted impacts (cf. ance by identifying aspects that will typically
Part A of this document). have a high priority for project‐ and site‐specific
The evaluation of significance allows for a rat‐ investigations, and that would typically require
ing of the predicted impacts in terms of priority some form of impact mitigation.
for impact mitigation. Impacts that were found
to be significant have a high priority for impact C.7.1 Methodology
mitigation and should either be prevented or
minimized (if avoidance is not possible) by suita‐ The potential stressor sources identified in the
ble impact mitigation measures to levels that are preceding sections (C.2–C.6) are rated in terms
less than significant. If an impact remains signifi‐ of intensity, space, and time (cf. C.1, p. 50ff.).
cant after mitigation, some form of compensa‐ Space and time refer to the spatial and temporal
tion is normally required. For all impacts found distribution of the stressor sources. Whether or
to be less than significant, additional (optional) not an exposure occurs also depends on the spa‐
mitigation measures (“nice‐to‐haves”) can be tial and temporal distribution of the receptors in
identified, but these normally do not influence the environment (i.e. the distribution of algae
the overall outcome of the EIA and project as‐ stands or benthic species in the project site).
sessment. The evaluation of significance thus al‐ For the rating of intensity, it is assumed that
lows project planners and regulators to focus on the receptor is present in the impact area, and
the most relevant impacts, for which impact mi‐ that impacts are caused by a large desalination
tigation measures need to be implemented. plant as the intensity of impacts generally in‐
Whether or not an impact is rated to be sig‐ creases with the size of the facility. Impacts are
nificant depends on many factors, such as the rated under the assumption that no impact miti‐
project size and design, the sensitivity of the en‐ gation measures have been adopted so far. The
vironment in the selected site, the availability of probability criterion gives a rough estimate of
impact mitigation measures, but also the defini‐ the likelihood of exposure, taking the likelihood
tion and perception of significance. No universal‐ of stressor occurrence (e.g. of a chemical spill) as
ly valid definition of significance exists, and the well as receptor occurrence (e.g. presence of a
perception of significance may vary regionally. mobile species) into account.
For example, entrainment and impingement A three‐stage grading system was used for
caused by the intake of desalination plants is each criterion (e.g. severe, notable and negligi‐
perceived as the potentially most significant di‐ ble for the intensity of impacts, cf. Table 8 be‐
rect adverse impact in California [151]. In all low). The ratings for intensity, space and time
large Australian SWRO projects, carbon dioxide were formally integrated into a single rating for
emissions seem to be the central issue [35, 43‐ priority/significance37. The probability criterion
45], and project proponents are encouraged to was not formally integrated into this system but
provide for the use of energy from renewable used as an indicator. When a result between two
sources, planting of plantations or rehabilitation ratings was obtained, the next higher rating was
of vegetation to offset the emissions [45]. Dif‐ usually selected as a precautionary approach.
ferences are also observed with regard to the
backwash waters from the media filters or the 37
cleaning solutions, which are either discharged The average value was calculated (highest rating =
3, medium rating = 2, lowest rating = 1, results were
or treated (cf. sections C.4.2 and C.5.2). rounded to the next higher/lower value).
Desalination
106
Impacts of typically high priority for project‐ and Impacts of typically low priority for project‐ and
site‐specific EIA studies and for impact mitiga‐ site‐specific EIA studies and for impact mitiga‐
tion are those which fulfill the following criteria: tion are those which fulfill the following criteria:
Severe alterations of natural properties, Negligible alterations of natural properties,
functions or processes, which are of functions or processes of
– long‐term duration and far range, or – short‐term duration and localized, or
– long‐term duration and mid range, or – short‐term duration and mid range, or
– medium‐term duration and far range. – medium‐term duration and localized range.
Notable alterations of natural properties, Notable alterations of natural properties,

functions or processes, which are of functions or processes, which are of
long‐term duration and far‐range. short‐term duration and localized range.
Table 8: Significance ratings for evaluation criteria (adopted from [36, 152]).
Impact rating Description Significance
Intensity severe severe alteration of natural properties, functions, processes high
notable notable alteration of natural properties, functions, processes medium
negligible negligible alteration of natural properties, functions, processes low
Duration long‐term continuously or regularly (once per day) over project life, high
permanent or irreversible effects (including aftermath effects)
medium‐term several years (< 5) of duration, (including aftermath effects) medium
reversible, periodic events (several times per year)
short‐term less than one year or restricted to construction, reversible low
Spatial far‐range effects beyond project site and nearby areas high
extend beyond 1,000 m distance of origin
mid‐range within the project site and nearby areas medium
within 1,000 m distance of origin
localized punctual, within the area of the project site low
within 100 m distance of origin
Probability definite/likely highly probable (> 80%) or definite high
possible fair chance of occurring medium
unlikely little or no chance of occurring (< 20%) low
Figure 16: Decision hierarchy used to identify high (red bottom line) and low priority impacts (green).
C.7.2 Evaluation Terrestrial fauna and flora

habitat alterations that may cause a long‐
Based on the evaluation approach described in term to permanent loss of habitat
section C.7.1, the effects of highest priority for noise emissions that may scare away sensi‐
project‐ and site‐specific investigations and miti‐ tive wildlife within acoustic range
gation were (cf. Tables 9–22, p. 108ff.): prominent features that could preclude lin‐
kages and movement corridors of wildlife
Landscape properties and natural scenery
aesthetic effects from the discharge of red‐ Benthic macrofauna and –flora
dish‐brown backwash water from media fil‐ salinity or temperature increases in the mix‐
ters (specific to reverse osmosis plants) that ing zone that may cause a decline of algae
may cause a discoloration of the water col‐ stands or seagrass meadows, or that may be
umn in the mixing zone or nearby beaches harmful to benthic invertebrate species, de‐
acoustic impacts caused by noise emissions pending on exposure and species sensitivity
from plant operation any toxic effects of chemicals, e.g. from resi‐
dual chlorine, chlorination by‐products, or
Air quality and climate heavy metals, alone or in combination with
any significant impairment of local air quality other effects, e.g. synergetic effects between
by air pollutants increased temperature and chlorine
greenhouse gas emissions avoidance reactions, which may cause a last‐
ing change in species abundance and diversi‐
Groundwater quality and hydrology ty in the discharge site even if toxic effects
any changes in flow directions and ground‐ are not observed
water salinity a harmful blanketing of sessile species po‐
any pollution from spills and seepage tentially caused by the filter backwash plume
Marine sediments Marine mammals, reptiles or bird species

changed erosion and sedimentation patterns a loss of haul‐out sites, nesting grounds or
caused by artificial breakwaters important feeding grounds, for example
increases in pore water salinity which may caused by noise emissions and general dis‐
be caused by the concentrate discharge turbance within visible and acoustic range
the accumulation of coagulant material in
sediments near the outlet Most other potential effects were rated as being
the risk of heavy metal accumulation in se‐ of “medium priority”, such as for example all
diments if these are present in the discharge, construction‐related impacts, which are usually
e.g. copper from corroding plant materials severe in terms of intensity, but temporary, loca‐
lized, and reversible. Medium priority does not
Seawater quality and hydrology imply that these effects are per se negligible –
significant changes in salinity and tempera‐ although often not decisive for the project out‐
ture in the mixing zone of the plume come, these effects may also require some form
formation of a dense bottom water layer of impact mitigation. Furthermore, impacts
with a strengthening effect on density strati‐ which were classified into the medium category
fication, which may impede re‐oxygenation can be upgraded or downgraded into the next
of bottom waters higher or lower category depending on project‐
increases in turbidity and decreases in light and site‐specific conditions. This underlines the
penetration in the mixing zone potentially necessity for a case‐by‐case evaluation within an
caused by the filter backwash plume EIA as described in this document.
Desalination
108
Table 9: Landscape and natural scenery

Construction Landscape and natural scenery Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities sediment plume may increase water turbidity notable short‐term localized definite
Intake system to mid‐range
Outfall system noise emissions and machinery on land notable short‐term mid‐range definite
Equipment to far‐range
Onshore facilities potential impacts within visual and acoustic range due to movements, notable short‐term mid‐range definite
Pumping station dust, exhaust fumes, noise or stockpiles exposed to public views to far‐range
Desalination plant upon completion, visual appearance of buildings, prominent features, notable long‐term mid‐range definite
Office buildings plumbing or power lines, glare, and light sources, noises etc. to far‐range
Car park, gates,... may alter landscape properties
Equipment potential impacts within visual and acoustic range due to movements, notable short‐term mid‐range definite
Connecting dust, exhaust fumes, noise or stockpiles exposed to public views to far‐range
infrastructure
Operation Landscape and natural scenery Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Backwash water discoloration (reddish plume) near the outlet and surrounding areas notable long‐term/ mid‐range likely if dis‐
possible when FeCl3 is used and potential discoloration of nearby intermittent to far‐range charged
beaches
Noise emissions may impair landscape properties within acoustic range notable long‐term mid‐range likely
to far‐range
Table 10: Air quality and climate

Construction Air quality and climate Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities emissions of air pollutants from construction machinery on land notable short‐term mid‐range definite
Intake system (NOX, SOX, PM10) to far‐range
Outfall system greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions from construction machinery on land notable short‐term mid‐range definite
Onshore facilities emissions of air pollutants from construction machinery notable short‐term mid‐range definite
Pumping station (i.e. NOX, SOX, PM10) to far‐range
Desalination plant greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions notable short‐term mid‐range definite
Office buildings to far‐range
Car park, gates,... fugitive dust from demolition of buildings and site grading notable short‐term mid‐range definite
Connecting
infrastructure
Operation Air quality and climate Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Chemical storage accidental spillage or leakage of volatile substances may cause air pol‐ severe short‐term mid‐range unlikely
lution (e.g. chlorine) to far‐range
Energy use emissions of air pollutants from trucks and passenger cars negligible long‐term mid‐range definite
(depending on the (CO2,NOX, SOX, PM10) to far‐range
fuel source, plant emissions of air pollutants from power generation notable long‐term mid‐range definite
efficiency and pu‐ (NOX, SOX, PM10) to far‐range
rification equip‐ greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions from electricity generation notable long‐term mid‐range definite
ment) to far‐range
Desalination
110
Table 11: Terrestrial soils

Construction Terrestrial soils Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities construction in the landing area may affect beachslope stability, dune severe medium‐term localized possible
Intake system systems etc. and may cause erosion by wind and waves where vegeta‐ to long‐term
Outfall system tion has been cleared
Equipment in case of horizontal drilling: stockpiles of debris from the borehole notable short‐term localized possible
may have placement impacts and may require an offsite disposal to medium‐term
Onshore facilities soil compaction through machinery notable short‐term localized definite
Pumping station to medium‐term
Desalination plant erosion may occur where vegetation has been cleared severe medium‐term localized possible
Office buildings to long‐term
Car park, gates,... stockpiles of excavated material may have placement impacts and notable short‐term localized likely
Equipment may require a final / offsite disposal site to long‐term
Connecting
accidental spillage or leakage of fuel, chemicals, or lubricants may severe short‐term localized possible
infrastructure cause soil contamination to medium‐term
upon completion, surface sealing caused by asphalt and buildings severe long‐term localized definite
Operation Terrestrial soils Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Backwash water backwash sludge may require a final / offsite disposal site notable long‐term localized possible
spreading on land may affect soil properties notable medium‐term localized to possible
to long‐term mid‐range
Chemical storage accidental spillage or leakage may contaminate soils severe short‐term localized unlikely
to medium‐term
Membrane and disposal may require an appropriate site for landfill notable long‐term localized possible
cartridge
replacement
Table 12: Ground‐ and surface water quality and hydrology

Construction Ground‐ and surface water quality and hydrology Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Onshore facilities accidental spillage or leakage of fuel, chemicals, or lubricants may severe short‐term localized possible
Pumping station cause ground‐ and surface water pollution to mid‐range
Desalination plant loose or contaminated soils and other material washed away by runoff notable short‐term localized possible
Office buildings or eroded by wind may affect surface water quality to mid‐range
Car park, gates,... the groundwater table may be affected by construction severe short‐term localized possible
Equipment (e.g. drainage) to mid‐range
Connecting
infrastructure
Operation Ground‐ and surface water quality and hydrology Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Intake of intake from aquifers may change flow directions and changes in severe long‐term localized possible
feedwater groundwater salinity to mid‐range
Concentrate well injection may cause an increase in groundwater salinity severe long‐term localized possible
discharge to mid‐range
Backwash water potential seepage from landfill disposal into groundwater severe long‐term localized possible
to mid‐range
Chemical storage accidental spillage or leakage may contaminate ground‐ and surface severe short‐term localized unlikely
waters to mid‐range
Desalination
112
Table 13: Seafloor and sediments

Construction Seafloor and Sediments Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities sediment layering and structure may be disturbed notable short‐term localized definite if
Intake system to medium‐term excavating
Outfall system
Equipment sediment compaction from machinery notable short‐term localized likely if ex‐
to medium‐term cavating
surface sealing (if structures placed on the seabed) severe long‐term localized definite
upon completion, structures may act as breakwaters and change ero‐ severe long‐term localized possible
sion and sedimentation processes locally and in downdrift locations to far‐range
accidental spillage or leakage of fuel, chemicals, or lubricants may severe short‐term to localized possible
cause sediment contamination medium
Onshore facilities loose or contaminated soils and other material washed away by runoff notable short‐term localized possible
or eroded by wind may affect sediments
Operation Seafloor and Sediments Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Concentrate discharge plume may sink to the seafloor and may cause an increase severe long‐term localized likely
discharge in porewater salinity due to diffusion to mid‐range
Residual chemicals Heavy metals (if present in the concentrate from corrosion processes) severe long‐term localized possible
in the concentrate may accumulate in sediments in the discharge site to mid‐range
Backwash water sedimentation and accumulation of coagulants in sediments or severe long‐term localized to likely
beaches far‐range
Table 14: Seawater quality and hydrology

Construction Seawater quality and hydrology Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities resuspended sediments may increase turbidity, pollutant or nutrient notable short‐term mid‐range likely
Intake system levels or decrease oxygen levels to far‐range
Outfall system upon completion, structures may act as breakwaters and change wave notable long‐term localized to possible
Equipment patterns and currents mid‐range
accidental spillage or leakage of fuel, chemicals, or lubricants may severe short‐term localized possible
cause water pollution to mid‐range
Onshore facilities loose or contaminated soils and other material washed into the sea by notable short‐term localized possible
runoff or eroded by wind may affect water quality to mid‐range
Commissioning Seawater quality and hydrology Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Discarded waste membrane storage solutions could affect water quality if discharged notable short‐term localized possible
streams to mid‐range
Operation Seawater quality and hydrology Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Intake open intakes may change water circulation when large volumes of wa‐ notable long‐term localized likely
ter are extracted to mid‐range
Concentrate increases salinity in the mixing zone severe long‐term localized definite
discharge to mid‐range
large volumes may affect circulation and mixing processes in the dis‐ notable long‐term localized likely
charge area to mid‐range
increased density may cause sinking of the plume and seafloor severe long‐term localized definite
spreading to mid‐range
stratification of the water column may be strengthened severe long‐term localized possible
to mid‐range
stratification may impede re‐oxygenation of bottom waters severe long‐term localized possible
whereas turbulent discharge may add oxygen to bottom layers positive to mid‐range
potential enrichment of nutrients, organic matter, pollutants or trace notable long‐term localized possible
metals to mid‐range
Desalination
114
Operation Seawater quality and hydrology Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Residual chemicals residual chlorine and chlorination by‐products possibly detectable in notable long‐term localized possible
in the concentrate the mixing zones (if no dechlorination step) to mid‐range
sodium bisulfite is a reducing agent and may decrease dissolved notable long‐term localized possible
oxygen levels if overdosed
heavy metals (if present in the concentrate from corrosion processes) notable long‐term localized possible
may affect dissolved metal concentrations in the mixing zone to mid‐range
antiscalants may bind nutrients and ions dissolved in seawater notable long‐term localized possible
to mid‐range
a weak surplus acidity may be discharged which would be neutralized negligible short‐term localized possible
quickly by ambient seawater
Backwash water increased turbidity and decreased light penetration in the severe long‐term/ localized definite if
discharge zone intermittent to mid‐range discharged
Chemical storage accidental spillage or leakage may contaminate seawater severe short‐term localized unlikely
to mid‐range
Maintenance Seawater quality and hydrology Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Cleaning solutions discharge of acidic or alkaline cleaning solutions may affect the ambi‐ severe short‐term localized likely if dis‐
ent pH seawater in the mixing zone charged
detergents or complexing agents may interfere with natural processes notable short‐term localized possible if
of dissolved seawater constituents (e.g. metals) to medium‐term to mid‐range discharge
Table 15: Terrestrial flora

Construction Terrestrial flora Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities construction in the landing area may require a clearing of vegetation severe short‐term localized likely
Intake system to medium‐term
Outfall system
Equipment
Onshore facilities clearing or flattening of vegetation in construction site severe short‐term localized likely
Pumping station (impact depending area size or route and site vegetation) to medium‐term to mid‐range
Desalination plant potential weed infestations in cleared areas notable short‐term localized possible
Office buildings to medium‐term
Car park, gates,... potential contamination by spills or leakages severe short‐term localized possible
Equipment
upon completion, permanent loss of land usable by native plants in all severe long‐term localized definite
Connecting infra‐
areas covered by solid surfaces or landscaped areas
structure
Operation Terrestrial flora Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Chemical storage potential exposure to harmful substances by accidental spills severe short‐term localized unlikely
Table 16: Terrestrial fauna

Construction Terrestrial fauna Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities construction in the landing area may disturb wildlife notable short‐term mid‐range likely
Intake system
Outfall system
Equipment
Onshore facilities construction, e.g. through noise and vibrations, may cause behavioural notable short‐term mid‐range likely
Pumping station responses and temporary habitat loss
Desalination plant potential contamination by spills or leakages severe short‐term localized possible
Office buildings to medium‐term
Car park, gates,... upon completion, habitat alteration or loss of habitat for native species severe long‐term mid‐range definite
Equipment
upon completion, prominent features could preclude linkages and severe long‐term mid‐range definite
Connecting infra‐
movement corridors
structure
Operation Terrestrial fauna Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Chemical storage potential exposure to harmful substances severe short‐term localized unlikely
Noise emissions may scare away sensitive wildlife within acoustic range due, potential severe long‐term mid‐range likely
habitat loss
Desalination
116
Table 17: Marine macroflora

Construction Marine macroflora Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities habitat destruction by excavation works severe short‐term localized likely
Intake system to medium‐term
Outfall system potential impacts from increased turbidity
Equipment reduced light penetration notable short‐term localized likely
increased sedimentation rates (blanketing) severe short‐term to mid range likely
potential impacts from remobilization of nutrients or pollutants from notable short‐term localized possible
sediments to mid range
potential contamination by spills or leakages severe short‐term localized possible
upon completion, structures may act as artificial reefs notable long‐term localized likely
(attachment of macroalgae) (positive)
Onshore facilities potential burial by soils or other material washed into the sea severe short‐term localized possible
(Desalination plant)
Commissioning Marine macroflora Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Discarded waste may be exposed to residual chemicals that may be present in the dis‐ severe short‐term localized possible
streams carded water
Operation Marine macroflora Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Intake open intakes cause entrainment of spores notable long‐term localized definite
to mid range
Concentrate increased salinity may cause a decline of algae stands and seagrass severe long‐term localized definite
discharge meadows (depending on exposure levels and species sensitivity) to mid range
nutrient enrichment may enhance growth and eutrophication effects notable long‐term localized possible
to mid range
Residual chemicals antiscalants are non toxic at the concentrations used but they may notable long‐term localized possible
in the concentrate bind nutrients and ions needed for plant growth to mid range
residual chlorine levels and chlorination by products may severe long‐term localized likely
have toxic effects on organisms in the mixing zone to mid range
Backwash water coagulants are non‐toxic, however, blanketing may impair photo‐ severe long‐term localized likely
synthesis and could lead to a die‐off of seagrass and algae stands to mid‐range
Energy use when coastal power plant capacity increases: secondary effects from notable long‐term localized possible
cooling water to mid‐range
Maintenance Marine macroflora Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability

Cleaning solutions high or low pH values and residual cleaning chemicals such as biocides severe short‐term localized possible if
may be harmful discharged
Table 18: Marine plankton

Construction Marine plankton Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities potential impacts from increased turbidity (reduced light penetration) notable short‐term localized likely
Intake system to mid range
Outfall system potential impacts from remobilization of nutrients or pollutants from notable short‐term localized possible
Equipment sediments to mid range
Commissioning Marine plankton Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Discarded waste may be exposed to residual chemicals that may be present in the dis‐ notable short‐term localized possible
Operation Marine plankton Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Intake open intakes cause entrainment of phyto‐ and zooplankton notable long‐term localized definite
to mid range
Concentrate may be harmful or even toxic to organisms (depending on exposure notable long‐term localized definite
discharge levels and species sensitivity) to mid range
nutrient enrichment may enhance growth (algae blooms possible ?) notable long‐term localized possible
to mid range
Residual chemicals antiscalants are non toxic at the concentrations used but they may
notable long‐term localized possible
in the concentrate bind nutrients and ions needed for plant growth to mid range
Backwash water coagulants are non‐toxic, however, they may lower light penetration notable long‐term/ localized likely if dis‐
and primary production in the water column intermittent to mid range charged
Chemical storage potential exposure to harmful substances notable short‐term localized unlikely
Energy use when coastal power plant capacity increases: secondary effects from notable long‐term localized likely
cooling water to mid range
Maintenance Marine plankton Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Cleaning solutions high or low pH values and residual cleaning chemicals such as biocides notable short‐term localized possible if
may be harmful discharged
Desalination
118
Table 19: Marine benthic invertebrate fauna

Construction Marine benthic invertebrate fauna Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities habitat destruction (excavation works) severe short‐term to localized likely
Intake system medium‐term
Outfall system increased turbidity may affect filter feeding organisms notable short‐term localized possible
Equipment to mid range
re‐sedimentation may blanket sessile epifauna severe short‐term localized likely
to mid range
potential contamination by spills or leakages severe short‐term to localized possible
medium‐term
upon completion, structures may later act as artificial reefs (attach‐ notable long‐term localized definite
ment of sessile hard bottom species or attraction of reef‐dwellers) (positive)
Onshore facilities potential burial by soils or other material washed into the sea severe short‐term localized possible
Commissioning Marine benthic invertebrate fauna Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Operation Marine benthic invertebrate fauna Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Intake open intakes cause entrainment of invertebrate larvae notable long‐term localized definite
to mid range
Concentrate increased salinity may be harmful or even toxic to benthic species severe long‐term localized definite
discharge increased salinity may cause avoidance reactions notable to mid range likely
toxic effects and avoidance can cause a change in species abundance severe
and diversity in the discharge site (effects depending on exposure lev‐
els and species sensitivity
potential enrichment of pollutants in filter feeding organisms notable long‐term localized possible
Residual chemicals residual chlorine levels and chlorination by products may notable long‐term localized likely
in the concentrate have toxic effects on organisms in the mixing zone to mid range
potential for metal accumulation in filter‐feeding and deposit‐feeding severe long‐term localized possible
benthic organisms (bioaccumulation), with the risk of biomagnification to far‐range
Backwash water coagulants are non‐toxic, however, blanketing of sessile animals and severe long‐term localized likely if dis‐
ingestion of material by filter‐ and sediment feeders may occur to mid‐range charged
Maintenance Marine benthic invertebrate fauna Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Cleaning solutions high or low pH values and residual cleaning chemicals such as biocides severe short‐term localized likely if dis‐
may be harmful, esp. for sessile animals charged
Table 20: Marine nekton

Construction Marine nekton Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities construction may cause behavioural responses and temporary habitat notable short‐term localized likely
Intake system loss due sediment plumes, noise and vibrations, etc. to mid‐range
Outfall system increased turbidity may affect fish gills and re‐settling of material may notable short‐term localized possible
Equipment blanket fish spawn to mid‐range
potential contamination by spills or leakages severe short‐term localized possible
upon completion, structures may attract species notable long‐term localized possible
(reef effect), e.g. due to increased food supply (positive)
Commissioning Marine nekton Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Operation Marine nekton Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Intake open intakes cause entrainment of fish eggs and larvae or small juve‐ notable long‐term localized definite
niles to mid‐range
open intakes may cause impingement of nektonic species severe long‐term localized likely
Concentrate dis‐ may avoid the discharge area, loss of potential feeding or breeding notable long‐term localized likely
charge grounds to mid‐range
Residual chemicals chlorinated‐dechlorinated seawater may still have chronic effects due notable long‐term localized unlikely
in the concentrate to the presence of chlorination by products
Backwash water coagulants are non‐toxic, however, mobile animals may avoid the high notable long‐term/ localized likely if dis‐
turbidity discharge area and high levels of suspended matter may af‐ intermittent to mid‐range charged
fect fish gills
Desalination
120
Maintenance Marine nekton Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability

Cleaning solutions high or low pH values and residual cleaning chemicals such as biocides notable short‐term localized possible if
may be harmful, but animals will probably avoid the discharge site discharged
Table 21: Marine mammals and reptiles

Construction Marine mammals and reptiles Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities underwater construction may cause behavioural responses and tem‐ notable short‐term localized likely
Intake system porary habitat loss due sediment plumes, noise and vibrations, etc. to mid‐range
Outfall system haul‐out sites of seals or nesting sites of turtles in the landing area may severe short‐term localized possible
Equipment be affected
potential contamination by spills or leakages severe short‐term localized unlikely
to medium‐term
Onshore facilities Construction noise may cause a temporary loss of haul‐out sites severe short‐term localized possible
Commissioning Marine mammals and reptiles Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Discarded waste may be exposed to residual chemicals that may be present in the dis‐ severe short‐term localized unlikely
Operation Marine mammals and reptiles Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Intake open intakes may cause impingement e.g. of sea snakes or smaller tur‐ severe long‐term localized possible
tles
Concentrate dis‐ may avoid the discharge area, loss of potential feeding or breeding notable long‐term localized likely
charge grounds to mid‐range
Backwash water coagulants are non‐toxic, however, mobile animals may avoid the high notable long‐term/ localized likely
turbidity discharge area intermittent to mid‐range
Noise emissions may avoid the sites of increased noise levels, loss of potential severe long‐term localized likely
haul‐out sites to mid‐range
Energy use when coastal power plant capacity increases: secondary effects from notable long‐term localized possible
Maintenance Marine mammals and reptiles Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Cleaning solutions high or low pH values and residual cleaning chemicals such as biocides notable short‐term localized unlikely
may be harmful, but animals will probably avoid the discharge site
Table 22: Terrestrial birds and seabirds

Construction Birds (terrestrial and seabirds, migratory birds, penguins) Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Offshore facilities construction may cause behavioural responses and temporary habitat notable short‐term localized likely
Intake system loss due sediment plumes, noise and vibrations, etc. to mid‐range
Outfall system nesting sites of seabirds or penguins in the landing area may be af‐ severe short‐term localized possible
Equipment fected
potential contamination by spills or leakages severe short‐term localized unlikely
Onshore facilities construction, e.g. through noise and vibrations, may cause behavioural notable short‐term localized likely
(Desalination plant responses and temporary habitat loss to mid‐range
and connecting
infrastructure)
Infrastructure construction, e.g. through noise and vibrations, may cause behavioural notable short‐term localized likely
Equipment responses and temporary habitat loss to mid‐range
Operation Birds (terrestrial and seabirds, migratory birds, penguins) Intensity Duration Spatial extend Probability
Concentrate dis‐ may avoid the discharge area, loss of potential feeding or breeding severe long‐term localized likely
charge grounds
Backwash water coagulants are non‐toxic, however, mobile animals may avoid the high notable long‐term/ localized likely
turbidity discharge area intermittent to mid‐range
Noise emissions may avoid the sites of increased noise levels, loss of potential feeding severe long‐term localized likely
or nesting grounds to mid‐range
Desalination
122
Part D Contact details of the project proponent

Name, postal address, telephone and fax num‐
ber, e‐mail address and other contact details of
Appendix the company and main contact persons.
D.1 Appendix 1 – Guidance for screening Characteristics of the proposed project

of desalination projects For further information and explanations on the
project description see also section B.6 on p. 27,
The following screening criteria and checklists which outlines the scope and contents of a pro‐
are based on EU guidance [7] 37 and were mod‐ ject description for an EIA report. At the stage of
ified for the specific needs of desalination plants. screening, typically less detailed information will
This appendix contains three checklists: be requested than in an EIA report, including:
details on the information needed for objectives and goals of the proposed desali‐
screening (D.1.1); nation project (i.e. rationale of the project);
a screening checklist to determine if a full details on capacity, processes and flows
EIA should be conducted (D.1.2); (flow‐diagrams), input and output, recovery
criteria for defining the significance of im‐ technologies and rates, wastes, etc.;
pacts (D.1.3) to be used in conjunction with an estimate of consumables and resources
the screening checklist. used during construction and operation, e.g.
of materials, chemicals, water, energy, land;
D.1.1 Information required for screening process‐mechanical engineering details on
seawater intake system, pretreatment sys‐
During screening, some or all of the following in‐ tem, desalination system, etc.;
formation must be obtained in order to decide civil and structural engineering details on
whether a proposed project requires a full EIA. offshore, nearshore and onshore works, ex‐
The information may be outlined in a short cavation and piling activities, etc.;
screening report or on a standardized screening electrical engineering details on estimated
form that is submitted to the competent author‐ connected load, power connection or gener‐
ity. Details on the information requirements for ation details, etc.;
screening may be set out in a state’s legislation plans showing the boundary of the project
and/or specific guidance on EIA. As screening is development including any land required
typically carried out early in a project’s life, the temporarily during construction, and the
information will be available only to a certain form of the development, e.g. layout of
depth and may be subject to change during buildings and other structures;
project development. Information should thus new access arrangements or changes to ex‐
only be requested if the proponent can reasona‐ isting infrastructure which may be required
bly be expected to have it at this stage of project as a consequence of the project, e.g. new
development. Significant gaps of knowledge and roads, generation or transmission of power,
uncertainties should be identified and taken into water supply and sewage disposal lines;
account in the screening decision. brief work programmes and schedules for
construction, commissioning and operation
phases, decommissioning, restoration and
37
Further guidance is available from the European after‐use where appropriate;
Commission in the “Guidelines for the Assessment of In‐ details of any other permits required.
direct and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interac‐
tions” http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/eia‐
studies‐and‐reports/guidel.pdf (accessed on 25.07.2008)
Appendix
123
Guidance for screening
Characteristics of the proposed project site of cause‐effect‐relationships will typically evolve

brief description and general classification of with time when more information becomes
the existing environmental, socio‐economic available in the EIA process.
and human health setting of the project site; The following factors should be taken into ac‐
maps and photographs showing the location count when each pair of cause‐effect‐relation‐
of the project site relative to surrounding ships is examined for potentially significant ad‐
natural and man‐made features; verse effects:
existing land‐uses on and adjacent to the site nature of impacts (positive/negative,
and any future planned land uses, zoning or direct/indirect, cumulative, transboundary);
land‐use policies, including nature conserva‐ time‐span of impacts (short‐, medium‐, long‐
tion or sensitive areas. term, permanent/temporary, frequency);
extent of the impact (geographical area, size
Characteristics of alternatives considered of affected population/habitat/species);
alternative project configurations magnitude and complexity of the impact
(e.g. alternative processes, capacities etc.); (severe, reversible/irreversible);
alternative project locations. probability of the impact (certain,
high/medium/low probability);
Characteristics of the potential impacts of if mitigation to reduce, avoid or offset signif‐
the proposed project and alternatives icant adverse impacts is possible or not.
A brief description and initial assessment of the
likely impacts of the project should be given, as Mitigating measures being considered
far as impacts can be identified at this stage of In this section, any mitigation measures known
project planning. Impacts can be manifold, for at this stage of project planning can be listed.
example a desalination plant may have impacts
on fauna and flora, soil, water and air quality, D.1.2 Screening checklist
landscape properties, land use, use of resources,
as well as cultural, socio‐economic and human The following screening checklist provides a list
health effects during different life‐cycle stages. of questions to help identify where interactions
The identification of potential impacts can be between a project and its environment is likely
achieved by using the screening checklist below to occur. It should be used in conjunction with
(D.1.2). An alternative common approach which the criteria for evaluating the significance of en‐
ensures that all relevant impacts are identified vironmental effects below (D.1.3).
without overlooking any significant effects is to In a first step (column 1), the following ques‐
devise a table or matrix. This may list the main tions should be answered and a brief de‐
project parameters (over the entire life‐cycle) on scription of the expected interaction be‐
one axis, and the main environmental, socio‐ tween the project and its environment
economic and public health parameters on the should be provided.
other. A brief description of the potential impact In a second step (column 2), it should be
is provided where the x‐ and y‐rows intersect. A checked, using the criteria for evaluating sig‐
number of cause‐effect‐relationships is thus es‐ nificance (D.1.3), if this will likely result in
tablished, which can then be checked for poten‐ significant effects, including a brief descrip‐
tially significant adverse effects. tion and explanation.
The initial assessment of impacts can only be In a third step, the features of the project
based on the information available, which is and of its location indicating the need for EIA
typically rather limited at the stage of screening. should be summarized.
Gaps of knowledge and areas of uncertainty
should be clearly identified. The understanding
Desalination
124
Table 23: Screening checklist

Questions to be considered in screening please answer with yes / no / unknown will this likely result in significant effects?
please provide a brief description please answer with yes / no / unknown and pro‐
vide a brief explanation why
1. Will construction, commissioning, operation,

maintenance or decommissioning of the project
(in the following ‘the project’) involve actions which
will cause physical changes in the locality, e.g. on
topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc.?
2. Will the project use natural resources such as land,
water, materials or energy, in particular resources
which are non‐renewable or in short supply?
3. Will the project involve use, storage, transport, handling

or production of substances or materials which could be
harmful to human health or the environment, or raise
concerns about actual or perceived risks?
4. Will the project produce solid wastes?
5. Will the project cause noise and vibration or release of

light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation?
6. Will the project release pollutants or any hazardous,

toxic or noxious substances to air?
Appendix
125

toxic or noxious substances into surface or groundwater,
coastal or marine water, with the risk of contaminating
these?
toxic or noxious substances into the ground, soils or
sediments, with the risk of contaminating these?
9. Will there be any risk of accidents during construction

or operation of the project which could affect human
health or the environment?
10. Will the project result in social changes, for example, in

demography, traditional lifestyles, employment?
11. Will the project discourage water resource management

initiatives such as water conservation?
12. Will the project discourage water reuse / recycling?

Desalination
126
13. Will there be consequential development which could

lead to environmental effects, or will there be a potential
for cumulative impacts with other existing or planned ac‐
tivities in the locality?
14. Are there areas on or around the location which are
protected under international, national or local legisla‐
tion for their ecological, landscape, cultural or other
value, which could be affected by the project?
15. Are there any other areas on or around the location
which are important or sensitive for reasons of their
ecology, e.g. wetlands or other water bodies, dunes,
coastal ranges, woodlands etc., which could be affected
by the project?
16. Are there any areas on or around the location which
are used by protected, sensitive or otherwise important
species of fauna or flora, e.g. for breeding, nesting,
foraging, resting, overwintering, migration, which
could be affected by the project?
17. Are there any areas or features of high landscape or
scenic value on or around the location which could be
affected by the project?
18. Are there any routes or facilities on or around the loca‐

tion which are used by the public for access to recreation
or other facilities, which could be affected by the project?
Appendix
127
19. Are there any transport routes on or around the location

which are susceptible to congestion or which cause
environmental problems, which could be affected by
the project?
20. Is the project in a location where it is likely to be highly
visible to many people?
21. Are there any areas or features of historic or cultural

importance on or around the location which could be
22. Is the project located in a previously undeveloped area

where there will be loss of greenfield land?
23. Are there existing land uses on or around the location,

e.g. homes or other private property, public open space,
community facilities, tourism, recreation, industry,
commerce, mining, agriculture, forestry, aquaculture
or fisheries which could be affected by the project?
24. Are there any plans for future land uses on or near
the location which could be affected by the project?
Desalination
128
25. Are there any areas on or around the location which are
densely populated or built‐up, which could be affected
by the project?
occupied by sensitive land uses e.g. hospitals, schools,
places of worship, community facilities, which could be
27. Are there any areas on or around the location which
contain important, high quality or scarce resources,
e.g. groundwater, surface waters, forestry, agriculture,
fisheries, tourism, minerals, which could be affected by
the project?
already subject to pollution or environmental damage,
e.g. where existing legal environmental standards are
exceeded, which could be affected by the project?
29. Is the project location susceptible to earthquakes,
subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme or
adverse climatic conditions e.g. temperature inversions,
fogs, severe winds, which could cause the project to
present environmental problems?
Appendix
129
D.1.3 Criteria for defining significance D.1.4 Summary of features of the project
and of its location
In order to define what is ‘significant’, a simple
check is to ask whether the effect ought to be A conclusion has to be derived from the answers
considered and might have an influence on the given to the screening checklist (D.1.2) on the
decision. The following list of questions may be question whether or not an EIA is required for
additionally used. They are designed so that a the proposed project. There is no specific rule
‘yes’ answer will generally point towards the for deciding whether the results of the screening
need for EIA and a ‘No’ answer to EIA not being checklist should lead to a positive or negative
required. screening decision (i.e. that EIA is or is not re‐
quired).
Questions to be considered: As a general principle, the greater the num‐
Will there be a large change in ber of ‘Yes’ answers and the greater the signific‐
environmental conditions? ance of the effects, the more likely it is that EIA
Will new features be out‐of‐scale with is required. ‘Unknown’ answers, indicating un‐
the existing environment? certainty about the occurrence or significance of
Will the effect be unusual in the area or effects, should also point towards a positive
particularly complex? screening decision because the EIA process will
Will the effect extend over a large area? help to clarify the uncertainty.
Will there be any potential for transboun‐
dary impact?
Will many people be affected?
Will many receptors of other types (fauna
and flora, businesses, facilities) be affected?
Will valuable or scarce features or
resources be affected?
Is there a risk that environmental
standards will be breached?
Is there a risk that protected sites, areas,
or features will be affected?
Is there a high probability of the effect
occurring?
Will the effect continue for a long time?
Will the effect be permanent rather
than temporary?
Will the impact be continuous rather
than intermittent?
If it is intermittent will it be frequent
rather than rare?
Will the impact be irreversible?
Will it be difficult to avoid, reduce, repair or
compensate for the effect?
Desalination
130
D.2 Appendix 2 – Guidance for scoping Effects of different life‐cycle stages

of desalination projects and time‐scales
Users should remember that effects can occur
The following scoping criteria and checklists are not only permanently and over the long term
based on EU guidance [10] 38 and were modified but also temporarily during construction, com‐
for the specific needs of desalination plants. This missioning or decommissioning, intermittently
appendix contains two checklists: during certain phases of project operation (e.g.
Checklist of project characteristics which cleaning cycles), or rarely as a result of abnormal
could give rise to significant effects (D.2.1); events affecting the project (e.g. accidents,
Checklist of environment characteristics sus‐ harsh weather conditions, earthquakes, etc.).
ceptible to significant adverse effects (D.2.2).
Accompanying project‐related effects
The checklists shall help to identify all potential Accompanying effects are those which could
impacts of a desalination project and to select arise indirectly from the project as a result of
those impacts which are likely to be significant development activities taking place, e.g. provi‐
for the more detailed investigation process of sion of access roads, power supplies, water pipe‐
the EIA. To decide what is significant, the two lines, sewage treatment or waste disposal facili‐
scoping checklists should be used together with ties, etc. It may also mean the provision of
the criteria for defining significance in Appendix community infrastructure such as housing for
D.1.3 on screening. Less obvious effects, which people attracted to the area by the project.
can also have a significant impact, should not be
overlooked, such as: Cumulative effects
Cumulative effects could arise from a combina‐
Secondary and higher order effects tion of the project’s effects on the environment
When using these scoping checklists it is impor‐ with those of other existing or planned devel‐
tant to remember that secondary and higher or‐ opments in the surrounding area. For example,
der effects can occur as a result of a primary in‐ cumulative effects may be caused by two or
teraction between a project activity and the more desalination facilities, or a desalination and
project environment. For example, disturbance power plant, port, fisheries industry, chemical
and re‐suspension of sediments during construc‐ industry, sewage treatment plant, etc.
tion can affect water quality by increasing tur‐
bidity, nutrient or pollutant concentrations, D.2.1 Checklist of project characteristics
which may affect pelagic‐living species such as that could cause significant effects
plankton or fish, which may affect fisheries etc.
Where a primary effect is identified, the user For impact identification, it is recommended to
should always think about whether secondary or start with the first checklist below by answering
further effects on other aspects of the environ‐ the given questions with (column 1):
ment could arise as a result. yes ― if the activity is likely to occur
no ― if it is not expected to occur
unknown ― if it is uncertain at this stage
whether it will occur or not
For each activity to which the answer is ‘yes’ or

38
Further guidance is available from the European ‘unknown’, the second scoping checklist should
Commission in the “Guidelines for the Assessment of In‐ be used to identify characteristics of the project
direct and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interac‐ environment which could be affected.
tions” http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/eia‐
studies‐and‐reports/guidel.pdf (accessed on 25.07.2008)
Appendix
131
Guidance for scoping
Information on the surrounding environment

will be required in order to complete this stage.
The characteristics of the project environment
that could be affected and the nature of the po‐
tential effects should be briefly described (col‐
umn 2). Please refer to the criteria for evaluating
significance of impacts (Appendix D.1.3) to com‐
plete column 3. This will help to sort out those
impacts which are expected to be significant.
The questions are designed so that a ‘yes’
answer will point towards a significant impact.
Desalination
132
Table 24: Project characteristics which could give rise to significant effects
Questions to be considered please answer with which characteristics of the project environment is the effect likely to be significant and why?
yes / no / unknown could be affected and how? (use significance criteria)
please use the second scoping list below
1 Will construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance or decommissioning activities of the project (in the following referred to as ‘the project’)
involve actions which will cause physical changes in the locality (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc.)?
1.1 Pre‐construction investigations,
e.g. boreholes, soil testing?
1.2 Loss of greenfield land due to land

cover and surface sealing?
1.3 Changes to topography or shoreline

morphology, erosion/deposition rates
of soils or sediments, soils or sediment
layering, slope stability etc.?
1.4 Changes in land use, creation of new
land uses or increases in intensity of
land use?
1.5 Clearance and demolition works,
e.g. of vegetation, buildings, etc.?
1.6 Temporary sites used for construction

works or housing of construction
workers?
1.7 Earthworks including cut and fill or
excavations?
1.8 Construction of above ground build‐

ings or structures?
Appendix
133
1.9 Underground works including mining
or tunneling?
1.10 Land reclamation works?
1.11 Dredging?
1.12 Coastal or offshore structures,

e.g. seawalls, pipelines piers?
1.13 Facilities for storage of hazardous

substances or materials?
1.14 Facilities for treatment or disposal of

solid wastes or liquid effluents?
1.15 Facilities for long term housing of

operational workers?
1.16 Increased volumes of traffic or

transportation?
1.17 New transport infrastructure, closure

or diversion of existing transport
routes?
Desalination
134
1.18 New or diverted power transmission
lines or pipelines?
1.19 Changes to the hydrology of water‐

courses or aquifers?
1.20 Abstraction or transfers of water from

ground or surface waters?
1.21 Changes in water bodies or the land

surface affecting drainage or run‐off?
1.22 Activities during decommissioning

which could have an impact on the
environment?
1.23 Influx of people to an area in either
temporarily or permanently?
1.24 Loss of native species or genetic

diversity, or introduction of alien
species?
1.32 Any other actions?
Appendix
135
2 Will the project use natural resources such as land, water, materials or energy, especially any resources which are non‐renewable or in short supply?
2.1 Land especially undeveloped or
agricultural land?
2.2 Water?
2.3 Energy including electricity and fuels?
2.4 Any other resources?
3 Will the project involve substances or materials which could be harmful to human health or the environment or raise concerns about actual or perceived risks?
3.1 Will the project involve use of
substances or materials which are
hazardous or toxic to human health or
the environment (flora, fauna, water
bodies and supplies)?
3.2 Will the project result in changes in
occurrence of disease or affect
disease vectors?
3.3 Will the project affect the welfare
of people, e.g. by changing living
conditions?
Desalination
136
3.4 Are there especially vulnerable
groups of people who could be
affected by the project, e.g. hospital
patients, the elderly?
3.5 Any other causes?
4 Will the project produce solid wastes?

4.1 Municipal waste?
4.2 Industrial process wastes, in

particular hazardous or toxic wastes?
4.3 Sludge from effluent treatment?
4.4 Construction or demolition wastes?
4.5 Redundant machinery or equipment?
4.6 Contaminated soils or other material?

Appendix
137
4.7 Any other solid wastes?
5 Will the project release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air?
5.1 Emissions from combustion of fossil
fuels from stationary (on‐site and
off‐site) or mobile sources?
5.2 Other emissions to air from the sta‐
tionary process, including gases, par‐
ticulate matter and dust or odours?
5.3 Emissions from materials handling
including storage or transport
(e.g. fuels, chemicals)?
5.4 Emissions from construction activities
including construction equipment, fu‐
gitive dust of demolition works, etc.?
5.5 Emissions from any other sources?
6 Will the project cause noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation?
6.1 From operation of mobile equipment
or vehicles, including construction or
operational traffic?
6.2 From the stationary process?
Desalination
138
6.3 From construction or demolition,
including piling, drilling, blasting etc.?
6.4 From lighting or heating systems or

sources of electromagnetic radiation?
6.5 From any other sources?
7 Will the project lead to risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground, surface or groundwater, coastal or marine waters?
7.1 From handling, storage, use or
spillage of hazardous or toxic
materials?
7.2 From discharge of sewage or other
effluents (whether treated or
untreated) to water or the land?
7.3 By deposition of pollutants emitted
to air?
7.4 From any other sources?
7.5 Is there a risk of long term build up

of pollutants in the environment from
these sources?
Appendix
139
8 Will there be any risk of accidents during the different life‐cycle stages of the project that could affect human health or the environment?
8.1 From explosions, spillages, fires etc.
or from storage, handling, use or
production of hazardous or toxic
substances?
8.2 From events beyond the limits of
normal environmental protection, e.g.
failure of pollution control systems?
8.3 From any other causes?
8.4 Could the project be affected by

natural disasters causing environmen‐
tal damage (e.g. floods, earthquakes,
landslip, etc)?
9 Will the project result in social changes, for example, in demography, traditional lifestyles, employment?
9.1 Demographic changes, e.g. of
population size, age structure,
social groups etc.?
9.2 Community changes, e.g. resettle‐

ment of people, immigration of new
residents, demolition or creation of
homes or whole communities, etc.?
9.3 Life‐cycle changes, e.g. creation or
loss of jobs, income opportunities,
activities etc.?
Desalination
140
9.4 Any other causes?
10 Are there any other factors which should be considered such as consequential development which could lead to environmental effects or the potential for cumulative im‐
pacts with other existing or planned activities in the locality?
10.1 Will the project lead to pressure for
consequential development which
could have significant impact on the
environment, e.g.
housing development
infrastructure (roads, power lines,
waste or waste water treatment)
industries and commerce
tourisms
10.2 Will the project set a precedent for
later developments?
10.3 Will the project discourage the

development of water management
initiatives, such as water conservation
and the use of water saving devices?
10.4 Will the project discourage the
development of schemes and infra‐
structure for water recycling / reuse?
10.5 Will the project have cumulative
effects due to proximity to other
existing or planned projects with
similar effects?
Appendix
141
D.2.2 Characteristics of the project Are there any areas on or around the loca‐
environment tion which are densely populated or built‐up,
which could be affected by the project?
For each project characteristic identified in Ta‐ Are there any areas on or around the loca‐
ble 2 above, it should be considered whether tion which are occupied by sensitive land
any of the following environmental components uses that could be affected by the project,
could be affected: e.g. schools, places of worship, community
Are there features of the local environment facilities, etc.?
on or around the project site which could be Are there any areas on or around the loca‐
affected by the project, in particular: tion which contain important, high quality or
– areas which are protected under inter‐ scarce resources which could be affected by
national, national or local legislation for the project, e.g. groundwater resources, sur‐
their ecological, landscape, cultural or face waters, forestry, agriculture, fisheries,
other value? tourism, minerals etc.?
– areas which are otherwise important or Are there any areas on or around the loca‐
sensitive for reasons of their ecology, tion of the project which are already subject
e.g. wetlands or other water bodies, to pollution or environmental damage, e.g.
dunes, coastal ranges, woodlands etc.? where existing legal environmental stan‐
– areas used by protected, important or dards are exceeded, which could be affected
sensitive species of fauna or flora e.g. for by the project?
breeding, nesting, foraging, resting, Is the project location susceptible to earth‐
overwintering, migration? quakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion,
– areas or features of high landscape or flooding or extreme or adverse climatic con‐
scenic value? ditions, e.g. temperature inversions, fogs,
– routes or facilities used by the public for severe winds, which could cause the project
access to recreation or other facilities? to present environmental problems?
– transport routes susceptible to Is the project likely to affect the physical
congestion or which cause condition of any environmental media?
environmental problems? – atmospheric environment, i.e. microcli‐
– areas or features of historic or cultural mate, local and larger scale climatic con‐
importance? ditions?
Is the project in a location where it is likely to – aquatic environment, i.e. hydrological
be highly visible to many people? and sediment properties including cur‐
Is the project located in an undeveloped area rents, tides, waves, net flows, levels,
where there will be loss of greenfield land flow directions, sedimentation, erosion
(i.e. undeveloped land used for agriculture or and resuspension rates etc. in rivers,
left to nature)? lakes, groundwater, estuaries, coastal
Are there existing land uses on or around the waters, seawater and sediments?
location e.g. homes or other private proper‐ – terrestrial environment, i.e. soil proper‐
ty, public open space, community facilities, ties including depths and layering, per‐
tourism, recreation, industry, commerce, meability, compaction, humidity, stabili‐
mining, agriculture, forestry, aquaculture or ty, erosion, deposition, layering, geologi‐
fisheries which could be affected by the cal and ground conditions etc.?
project?
Are there any plans for future land uses on
or around the location which could be af‐
fected by the project?
Desalination
142
Are emissions from the project likely to af‐

fect the quality of any of the following envi‐
ronmental media?
– local air quality and/or global air quality
including climate change and ozone dep‐
letion?
– water quality of rivers, lakes,
groundwater, estuaries, coastal and
marine waters?
– contamination of soils and sediments?
– nutrient status and eutrophication of
waters?
– acidification of soils or waters?
– noise or vibrations, light or glare,
electromagnetic radiation or heat?
Will the availability or scarcity of any
resources be affected by the project?
– fossil fuels?
– Other non‐renewable resources?
– Infrastructure capacity in the locality ‐
sewerage, power generation and trans‐
mission, telecommunications, waste dis‐
posal, roads, etc.?
Is the project likely to affect human or com‐
munity health or welfare?
– quality or toxicity of air, water or other
products consumed by humans?
– occurrence or distribution of disease
vectors?
– community cohesion and identity?
– cultural identity and associations?
– minority rights?
– housing conditions?
– employment and quality of employ‐
ment?
– economic conditions?
– social institutions?
Appendix
143
Ecotoxicity data
D.3 Appendix 3 – Ecotoxicity data
Table 25: Chlorine toxicity (excerpt partly based on [47, 48]).

Concentration [ppb] Effect Test species Time [h] Reference
500 ppb LC100 Larval clam 100 [153]
440 ppb LC50 Bluegill 96 [153]
208 ppb LC50 Coho salmon 1 [153]
97 ppb LC50 Daphnia magna 0.5 [154]
70 ppb LC50 Coho salmon 96 [155]
65 ppb LC50 Herring 96 [156]
26 ppb LC50 American oyster 96 [157]
17 ppb LC50 Daphnia magna 46 [153]
50‐150 ppb shift in species composition possible marine phytoplankton ‐ [153]
20‐40 ppb photosynthesis may be reduced by 80 % marine phytoplankton ‐ [158]
Table 26: Chlorination by‐products (bromoform) toxicity (excerpt partly based on [47, 48]).
Concentration [ppb] Effect Test species Time [h] Reference
1,000 ppb LC50 oyster larvae Crassostrea virginica 96 [159]
16‐19 ppb respiration rate increased, feeding rate and size of gonads reduce adult oysters [67]
Desalination
144
Table 27: Antiscalant toxicity (excerpt partly based on [47, 48]).

Concentration [ppm] Effect Substance Test species Time [h] Reference
Polyacrylic acid
4,300 ppm LC50 Flocon 100, 36%, neutralized Bluegill 96 [160]
1,000 ppm LC50 Flocon 100, 36%, pH 3 Bluegill 96 [161]
Polymaleic acid
580 ppm LC50 50%, pH <2 Brown shrimp 96 [162]
10,000 ppm LC50 Belgard EV, 48% Brown shrimp 96 [160]
2,500 ppm LC50 Belgard EV, 48%, neutralized Bluegill 96 [160]
1,000 ppm LC50 Sokalan, 44%, pH 7.75 Brachydanio rerio 96 [163]
Phosphonate
2,700 ppm LC50 HEDP (diphosphic acid), 10‐20%, pH 2.8 Daphnia magna 48 [164]
11,400 ppm LC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline midge lavae 48 anon./conf.
> 330 ppm LC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Rainbow trout 96 anon./conf.
> 300 ppm LC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Bluegill sunfish 96 anon./conf.
1,212 ppm LC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Channel Catfish 96 anon./conf.
4,575 ppm LC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Brown Shrimp 96 anon./conf.
> 150 ppm LC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Rainbow trout 14 days anon./conf.
297 ppm LC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Daphnia magna 14 days anon./conf.
20 ppm EC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Selenastrum capricornutum (algae) 96 anon./conf.
20 ppm EC50 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Selenastrum capricornutum (algae) 14 days anon./conf.
Others
> 1,000 ppm LC50 biopolymer with low N and P content Rainbow trout 14 days anon./conf.
> 1,000 ppm biopolymer with low N and P content Daphnia magna 96
> 1,000 ppm biopolymer with low N and P content Ps. Putida (bacteria) 48
110 ppm biopolymer with low N and P content Scenedesmus subspicatus (algae) 72
Appendix
145
Ecotoxicity data
Table 28: Antiscalant degradability (excerpt partly based on [47, 48]).

Degradation rate Time [days] Substance Test Reference
Polyacrylic acid
52% 35 Flocon 100 [161]
Polymaleic acid
18% 35 Belgard EV Zahn‐Wellens test [160]
Phosphonate
7‐20% biodegradation 30 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline closed bottle test anon./conf.
25‐38% biodegradation 30 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline closed bottle test, after acclimatisation anon./conf.
23% DOC removal 28 amino phosphonic acid, alkaline Zahn‐Wellens test anon./conf.
90% DOC removal amino phosphonic acid, alkaline modified SCAS test, buffered at pH 7 anon./conf.
20% of theoretical CO2 evolution amino phosphonic acid, alkaline modified OECD screening test anon./conf.
0.5‐2 of theoretical 14CO2 evolution amino phosphonic acid, alkaline modified SCAS test anon./conf.
Others
20‐60 % biodegradation biopolymer with low N and P content OECD test method anon./conf.
Table 29: Cleaning chemical degradability (excerpt partly based on [47, 48]).
Degradation rate Time [days] Substance Test Reference
Detergents
87% 17 Na‐DBS (sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate) biodegradability tests indicate a decline by [165]
87% in 17 days, improved degradation in
warm seawater of 25‐30°C
80% 2‐6 days Na‐DDS (sodium dodecylsulfate) [166]
Complexing agents
5% 3 weeks microbial degradation in 3 weeks, aerobic condi‐ [167]
tions, activated sludge
18‐20 weeks half‐life of by photolytic degradation in marine [168]
environments
Desalination
146
Table 30: Cleaning chemical toxicity (excerpt partly based on [47, 48]).
Concentration [ppm] ffect Test species Time [h] Reference
Acid
pH 3‐3.5 LC50 using H2SO4, HCl, or H3PO4 Bluegill 96 [169]
pH 3‐3.3 LC50 using H2SO4 salt water prawn 48 [170]
pH 2‐2.5 LC50 using HCl starfish 48 [171]
Detergents
1‐10 ppm LC50 Na‐DDS (sodium dodecylsulfate) fish, Daphnia magna and algae [162]
Oxidants
8 ppm NOEC zooplankton
25 ppm NOEC fish [162]
11 ppm LC50 Daphnia magna 48 [162]
12 ppm EC50 Scenedesmus suspicatus (algae) 96 [162]
51 ppm LC50 Brachydanio rerio 96 [162]
160‐320 ppm LC501 fingerling trout 24 [150]
Biocides
0.1 ppm LC50 formaldehyde Bluegill 96 [159]
6.5 ppm NOEC isothiazole‐derivate1 Bluegill [164]
2.9 ppm LC50 isothiazole‐derivate Daphnia magna 48 [164]
12.1 ppm LC50 isothiazole‐derivate Bluegill 96 [164]
20 ppm LC50 isothiazole‐derivate Sheepshead minnow 96 [164]
Complexing agents
> 50 ppm LC501 Golden Orfe 96 [150]
> 100 ppm EC501 Daphnia magna 24 [150]
10‐100 ppm EC501 algae 72 [150]
100 ppm NOEC Bluegill [159]
159 ppm LC50 Bluegill 96 [159]
Bibliography [14] UNEP (1995) Guidelines for integrated
management of coastal & marine areas,
Regional seas reports and studies no. 161,
[1] IDA and GWI (2008) IDA worldwide desalting www. earthprint. com
plant inventory, no. 20 in MS Excel format, Media
[15] UNEP/MAP/PAP (2001) Good practices guidelines
Analytics Ltd., Oxford, UK
for integrated coastal area management in the
[2] GWI (2007) Desalination markets 2007, a global Mediterranean, Split, Priority Actions Programme
industry forecast (CD rom), Global Water
[16] UNEP/CEP (1996) Guidelines for integrated
Intelligence, Media Analytics Ltd., The Jam
planning and management of coastal and marine
Factory, Park End St, Oxford OX1 1HU, UK,
areas in the wider Caribbean region,
www.globalwaterintel.com/index.php
www.cep.unep.org/ pubs/ Techreports/tr42en/
[3] Wangnick, K. (2004) IDA worldwide desalting index.html
plants inventory report No. 18
[17] Post J. C. and Lundin C. G. (1996) Guidelines for
[4] Cooley, H., P. Gleick, and G. Wolff (2006) integrated coastal zone management,
Desalination, with a grain of salt, a California Environmentally sustainable development studies
perspective, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, and monographs series no. 9, The World Bank,
www.pacinst.org Washington, D.C.
[5] UNEP (2002) Environmental impact assessment [18] WHO (2008) Desalination for safe water supply,
training resource manual (2nd edition), guidance for the health and environmental
www.earthprint.com aspects applicable to desalination, World Health
www.unep.ch/etu/publications Organization Geneva, Eastern Mediterranean
Regional Office Cairo, http://www.who.int/water
[6] World Bank (1991) Environmental assessment _sanitation_health/gdwqrevision/desalination/en
sourcebook (volume I‐III) with updates in the
years 1993, 1994, 1995‐96, 1997, 1998‐99, 2002, [19] Seibert U., et al. (2004) Autonomous desalination
www‐wds.worldbank.org system concepts for seawater and brackish water
in rural areas with renewable energies –
[7] European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA, potentials, technologies, field experience, socio‐
screening, www.europa.eu.int/comm/ technical and socio‐economic impacts – ADIRA.
environment/eia/eia‐support.htm Desalination 168: 29‐37
[8] OSAGI (2001) Gender mainstreaming: strategy for [20] C.R.E.S (1998) Desalination guide using renewable
promoting gender equality, www.un.org/ energies, THERMIE Programme of the European
womenwatch/osagi/pdf/factsheet1.pdf Commission, Directorate General for Energy (DG
XVII), with contributions of C.R.E.S. Centre for
[9] European Commission (1997) A guide to gender
Renewable Energy Sources, Greece; University of
impact assessment, www.europa.eu.int/comm/
Las Palmas, Spain; Richard Morris and Associates,
employment_social/gender_equality/docs/
UK; Techenerg Limited, Ireland, 101p.
gender/ gender_en.pdf
[21] U.S. EPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk
[10] European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA,
assessment, Risks assessment forum, U.S. EPA,
scoping, www.europa.eu.int/comm/
Washington DC, Document number EPA/630/R‐
environment/eia/ eia‐support.htm
95/002F
[11] International Institute for Environment and
[22] Voutchkov, N. (2002) Thorough Study is Key to
Development (1998) Directory of impact
Large Beach‐Well Intakes, Desalination and Water
assessment guidelines (2nd edition),
Reuse 14(1): 16‐20
www.earthprint.com,
www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/ 7785IIED.pdf [23] Damitz, B., D. Furukawa, and J. Toal (2006)
Desalination feasibility study for the Monterey
[12] Lattemann, S. (2003) Guidelines for the
Bay region, final report prepared for the
environmental sound management of seawater
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
desalination plants in the Mediterranean region,
(AMBAG)
In: UNEP/MAP/MEDPOL, Sea water desalination
in the Mediterranean: assessment and guidelines, [24] Peters, T., D. Pinto, and E. Pinto (2007) Improved
MAP technical reports series no. 139, UNEP/MAP, seawater intake and pre‐treatment system based
Athens. on Neodren technology, Desalination 203(1‐3):
134‐140
[13] World Bank (1994) Environmental assessment
sourcebook, coastal zone management and [25] Sanz, M.A., et al. (2007) Barcelona:
3
environmental assessment updates no. 7, 1998‐ 200,000 m /day of potable water coming from
99, 2002, www‐wds.worldbank.org Mediterranean Sea, IDA world congress on
desalination and water reuse, Gran Canaria
147
[26] City of Carlsbad and Poseidon Resources (2005) [40] Mafris (2003) Fachgutachten Meeressäuger für
Environmental impact report for the Carlsbad den Offshore Windpark ENOVA North Sea
seawater desalination facility Windpower
[27] City of Huntington Beach and Poseidon Resources [41] Keller, O., K. Lüdemann, and R. Kafemann (2006)
(2005) Environmental impact report for the Literature review of offshore wind farms with
Huntington Beach seawater desalination facility regard to fish fauna, Ecological re‐search on
offshore wind farms: international exchange of
[28] Tampa Bay Water, 2575 Enterprise Rd., experiences – part B: literature review of
Clearwater, FL 33763, USA, ecological impacts, In: C. Zucco, et al. (eds.), BfN‐
www.tampabaywater.org Skripten
[29] Einav, R. and F. Lokiec (2003) Enviromnental [42] Sadhwani, J.J., J.M. Veza, and C. Santana (2005)
aspects of a desalination plant in Ashkelon, Case studies on environmental impact of
Desalination, 156(1‐3): 79‐85 seawater desalination, Desalination 185(1‐3): 1‐8
[30] Sinapsa Ltd. (2007) Summary of the [43] Sydney Water and Fichtner (2006) Preferred
environmental document for the desalination project report for Sydney’s desalination project
plant in Hadera (Israel)
[44] Sydney Water and Fichtner (2006) Environmental
[31] Woodward Clyde Consultants (1991) Final assessment for Sydney’s desalination project
environmental impact report (FEIR), City of Santa
Barbara and Ionics, incorporated's temporary [45] WEC (2002) Perth metropolitan desalination
emergency desalination project, SB‐106‐90, State proposal, environmental protection statement,
Clearing House No. 9010859 prepared by Welker Environmental Consultancy
for the Water Cooperation
[32] Mickley, M.C. (2006) Membrane concentrate
disposal: practices and regulation, desalination [46] Mauguin, G. and P. Corsin (2005) Concentrate and
and water purification research and development other waste disposals from SWRO plants:
program report no. 123 (2nd edition), Mickley & characterization and reduction of their
Associates, 752 Gapter Road, Boulder CO 80303, environmental impact. Desalination 182(1‐3):
USA 355‐364
[33] Einav, R., K. Harussi, and D. Perry (2003) The [47] Lattemann, S. and T. Höpner (2003) Seawater
footprint of the desalination processes on the desalination ‐ impacts of brine and chemical
environment, Desalination 52(1‐3): 141‐154 discharges on the marine environment,
Desalination Publications, L'Aquila, Italy, 142 p.
[34] Bascompte, D.P. and T.A. Peters (2007) Seawater
intake and pre‐treatment using Neodren‐ [48] Hodgkiess, T., et al. (2003): Assessment of the
technology based on sub‐seabed drains, IDA composition of desalination plant disposal brines,
world congress on desalination and water reuse, project no. 98‐AS‐026, Middle East Desalination
Gran Canaria, 2007 Research Center (MEDRC)
[35] Melbourne Water and GHD (2007) Melbourne [49] Alspach, B. (2007) The evolution of SWRO co‐
augmentation program seawater desalination location in the US: analysis and alternatives, IDA
feasibility study world congress on desalination and water reuse,
Gran Canaria
[36] H & M Engineering Office and Enova (2003)
Umweltverträglichkeitsstudie für den Offshore [50] Voutchkov, N. (2007) Advances and challenges of
Windpark ENOVA North Sea Windpower seawater desalination in California, IDA world
congress on desalination and water reuse, Gran
[37] Richardson, W.J., et al. (1995) Marine mammals Canaria
and noise,Academic Press, San Diego, 576 p.
[51] Pulido‐Bosch, A., P. Pulido‐Leboeuf, and J. Gisbert
[38] Kastelein, R., W.W.L. Au, and D. De Haan (2001) (2004) Pumping seawater from coastal aquifers
Hearing studies on a Pacific walrus (Odobenus for supplying desalination plants, Geologica Acta,
rosmarus divergens), two harbor porpoises 2(2): 97‐107
(Phocoena phocoena) and a striped dolphin
(Stenella coeruleoalba) to evaluate the impact of [52] California Water Desalination Task Force (2003)
human noise, 14th Biennial Conference on the Draft feedwater intake working paper
Biology of Marine Mammals, Vancouver, Canada
[53] California Energy Commission (2005) Issues and
[39] Kastelein, R.A., et al. (2002) Audiogram of a environmental impacts associated with once‐
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) measured through cooling at California’s coastal power
with narrow‐band frequency modulated signals, plants
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
112(1): 334‐344
148
[54] Wilf, M., et al. (2007) The guidebook to [67] Scott, G.I. (1983) Physiological effects of chlorine‐
membrane desalination technology, Balaban produced oxidants, dechlorinated effluents, and
Desalination Publications, L'Aquila, Italy, 524 p. trihalomethanes on marine invertebrates, In:
Water chlorination: environmental impact and
[55] Shams El Din, A.M., R.A. Arain, and A.A. health effects, Jolley, R.L., et al. (eds.), Ann Arbor
Hammoud (2000) On the chlorination of Science, Michigan, 827‐841
seawater, Desalination 129: 53‐62
[68] Lattemann, S. and T. Höpner (2008)
[56] Ali, M.Y. and J.P. Riley (1986) The distribution of Environmental impact and impact assessment of
halomethanes in the coastal waters of Kuwait, seawater desalination, Desalination 220: 1‐15
Marine Pollution Bulletin 17: 409‐414
[69] Pankratz, T. (2007) Personal communication,
[57] Abdel‐Jawad, M. and M. Al‐Tabtabaei (1999) Water Desalination Report, PO Box 75064,
Impact of current power generation and water Houston, Texas, 77234‐5064, USA
desalination activities on Kuwaiti marine
environment, IDA world congress on desalination [70] Environmental impact assessment report for the
and water reuse, San Diego, USA seawater desalination project in Okinawa, Japan,
executive summary, Okinawa Bureau for
[58] U.S. EPA (2006) National recommended water Enterprises
quality criteria, National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information, 11029 Kenwood [71] Malfeito, J.J., et al. (2005) Brine discharge from
Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242, USA, the Javea desalination plant, Desalination 185
www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/nr (1‐3): 87‐94
wqc‐2006.pdf
[72] Mooij, C. (2007) Hamma Water Desalination
[59] ECB (2005) Risk assessment report for sodium Plant: planning and funding, Desalination 203
hypochlorite (DRAFT, November 2005) European (1‐3): 107‐118
Chemicals Bureau (ECB), www.ecb.jrc.it/existing‐
chemicals/2006 [73] Safrai, I. and A. Zask (2008), Reverse osmosis
desalination plants — marine environmentalist
[60] Bleninger, T., et al. (2008) Environmental regulator point of view, Desalination 220: 72–84
planning, prediction and management of brine
discharges from desalination plants, Project [74] Cohen, Y. (2007) Personal communication,
Report Series No. 07‐AS‐003, Middle East Environmental Consulting, 19 Greenberg St., Haifa
Desalination Research Center (MEDRC) 34757, Israel
[61] Saeed, T., H. Khordagui, and H. Al‐Hashash (1999) [75] Fritzmann, C., et al. (2007) Comparative life cycle
Contribution of power/desalination plants to the assessment study of pretreatment alternatives for
levels of halogenated volatile liquid hydrocarbons RO desalination, IDA world congress on
in the coastal areas of Kuwait, Desalination 121: desalination and water reuse, Gran Canaria
49‐63 [76] Van der Bruggen, B. and C. Vandecasteele (2002)
[62] Allonier, A.S., et al. (1999) Characterization of Distillation vs. membrane filtration: overview of
chlorination by‐products in cooling effluents of process evolutions in seawater desalination,
coastal nuclear power stations, Marine Pollution Desalination 143(3): 207‐218
Bulletin 38: 1232‐1241 [77] Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
[63] Jenner, H.A., et al. (1997) Chlorination by‐ and S & W Water (1999), Fact Sheet for
products in chlorinated cooling water in some application for a permit to discharge reverse
European coastal power stations, Marine osmosis reject water to waters of the state,
Environmental Research 43: 279‐293 permit number FL0186813, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Road,
[64] Abarnou, A. and L. Miossec (1992) Chlorinated Tallahassee, Florida 32399‐2400. S & W Water,
waters discharged to the marine environment LLC, 5445 Mariner Street, Tampa, Florida 33609
chemistry and environmental impact, an
overview, The Science of the Total Environment [78] Outokumpu Stainless AB. Duplex Stainless Steel,
126: 173‐197 www.outokumpu.com
[65] Hose, J.E., T.D. King, and J.S. Stephens (1984) [79] Hall, L.W. and R.D. Anderson (1999) A
Effects of dechlorinated seawater on fish be‐ deterministic ecological risk assessment for
havior, Marine Environmental Research 11: 67‐76 copper in European saltwater environments.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(3): 207‐218
[66] Hall, L., et al. (1981) Effect of dechlorination on
early life stages of striped bass (Morone saxatilis), [80] UNEP and WHO (1996) Guidelines for
Environmental Science and Technology 15: 573‐ authorizations for the discharge of liquid wastes
578 into the Mediterranean Sea, MAP technical
reports series no. 107, UNEP, Athens
149
[81] Kennish, M.J. (1997) Practical handbook of marina Posidonia oceanica y su ecosistema, con el
estuarine and marine pollution (2nd edition), CRC fin de prever y minimizar los impactos que
Press, Boca Raton, 524p. pudieran causar los vertidos de aguas de rechazo
de plantas desaladoras, Ingenieria Civil 132
[82] Lattemann S. and Höpner T. (2008) Impacts of
seawater desalination plants on the marine [95] Winters, H., I.R. Isquith, and R. Bakish (1979)
environment of the Gulf, In: Protecting the Gulf’s Influence of desalination effluents on marine
Marine Ecosystems from Pollution, Abuzinada A., ecosystems, Desalination 30: 403‐410
et al. (eds.), Birkhäuser Verlag, Switzerland
[96] Ahmed, M., et al. (2000) Use of evaporation
[83] Talavera, J.L.P. and J.J.Q. Ruiz (2001) ponds for brine disposal in desalination plants,
Identification of the mixing processes in brine Desalination 130: 155‐168
discharges carried out in Barranco del Toro Beach,
south of Gran Canaria (Canary Islands), [97 ] Hoepner, T. (1999) A procedure for
Desalination 139(1‐3): 277‐286 environmental impact assessments (EIA) for
seawater desalination plants, Desalination 124
[84] El‐Dessouky, H. (2000) Multi‐stage flash (1‐3): 1‐12
desalination technologies, Eurosummer school
short corse on sustainability assessment of water [98] Shams El Din, A.M., S. Aziz, and B. Makkawi (1994)
desalination technologies, Vilamoura, Portugal Electricity and water production in the Emirate of
Abu Dhabi and its impact on the environment,
[85] Mickley, M. (1995) Environmental considerations Desalination 97: 373‐388
for the disposal of desalination concentrates,
Desalination and Water Reuse 54: 56‐61 [99] Del Bene, J.V., G. Jirka, and J. Largier (1994)
Ocean brine disposal, Desalination 97: 365‐372
[86] Altayaran, A.M. and I.M. Madany (1992) Impact
of a desalination plant on the physical and [100] Mannaa, A.J.I. (1994) Environmental impacts of
chemical properties of seawater, Bahrain, Water dual purpose plants, Desalination and Water
Research 26: 435‐441 Reuse 41: 46‐49
[87] Nassar, M.K.K., E.‐D. R.M., and A.H.M. Ghanem [101] NRC (2008) Desalination: A National Perspective,
(2007) Impact of desalination plants brine Committee on Advancing Desalination
injection wells on coastal aquifers, Environmental Technology, Water Science and Technology
Geology, online publication, Springer Verlag Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National
Research Council of the National Academies
[88] Jenkins, S.A. and J. Wasyl (2005) Hydrodynamic
modeling of dispersion and dilution of [102] Spigel, B., et al. (2005) Peer review of studies for
concentrated seawater produced by the ocean desalination plant discharge, Cockburn Sound,
desalination project at the Encina Power Plant, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Carlsbad, Part II: Saline anomalies due to Research (NIWA), prepared for EPA Services Unit,
theoretical extreme case hydraulic scenarios Department of Environment, Western Australia
[89] Crisp, G., M. Rhodes, and D. Procter (2007) Perth [103] Schiffler, M. (2004) Perspectives and challenges
Seawater Desalination Plant – Blazing a for desalination in the 21st century, Desalination
Sustainability Trail, IDA world congress on 165(1‐3): 1‐9
desalination and water reuse, Gran Canaria [104] Van Senden, D. and B.M. Miller (2005)
[90] Morton, A.J., I.K. Callister, and N.M. Wade (1996) Stratification and dissolved oxygen issues in
Environmental impacts of seawater distillation Cockburn Sound pertaining to discharge of brine
and reverse osmosis processes, Desalination 108: from desalination, WRL Technical Report
1‐10 2005/03, Water Research Laboratory, University
of New South Wales, Australia
[91] Gacia, E., et al. (2007) Impact of the brine from a
desalination plant on a shallow seagrass [105] Worley Pty Ltd. (2005) Perth desalination plant:
(Posidonia oceanica) meadow, Estuarine Coastal stratification and dissolved oxygen issues
And Shelf Science 72(4): 579‐590 [106] Read, D.J. and C.E. Oldham (2005) Sediment
[92] Coles, S.L. and J.C. McCain (1990) Environmental oxygen demand in the Cockburn Sound deep
factors affecting benthic infaunal communities of basin (final report), Centre for Water Research,
the western Arabian Gulf, Marine Environmental University of Western Australia
Research 29: 289‐315 [107] D.A. Lord & Associates Pty Ltd. (2005) Ecological
[93] von Medeazza, G.L.M. (2005) Direct and socially‐ assessment of the effects of discharge of
induced environmental impacts of desalination, seawater concentrate from the Perth seawater
Desalination 185(1‐3): 57‐70 desalination plant on Cockburn Sound, report no.
05/028/1
[94] Buceta, J.L., et al. (2003) Estudio de los efectos de
incrementos de salinidad sobre la fanerogama
150
[108] Walker, D.I. (1989) Regional studies – seagrass in [121] Tettelbach, S.T. and E.W. Rhodes (1981)
Shark Bay, the foundations of an ecosystem, In: Combined effects of temperature and salinity on
Biology of seagrasses – a treatise on the biology embryos and larvae of the northern bay scallop
of seagrasses with special reference to the Argopecten irradians irradians, Marine Biology
Australian region, Larkum, A.W.D., et al. (eds.), 63: 249‐256
Elsevier: Amsterdam
[122] Sánchez‐Lizaso, J.L., et al. (2008) Salinity tolerance
[109] Okely, P.N., J.P. Antenucci, and J. Imberger (2007) of the Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia
Field investigation of the impact of the perth oceanica: recommendations to minimize the
seawater desalination plant discharge on impact of brine discharges from desalination
Cockburn Sound during summer plants, Desalination 221: 602–607
[110] Raventos, N., E. Macpherson, and A. Garcia‐ [123] Gross, W.J. (1957) An analysis of response to
Rubies (2006) Effect of brine discharge from a osmotic stress in selected decapod crustacea,
desalination plant on macrobenthic communities Biological Bulletin 112: 43‐62
in the NW Mediterranean, Marine Environmental
Research 62(1): 1‐14 [124] ABA Consultants (1992) Effects of hyper‐saline
water on survival of Olivella pycna and
[111] Fernandez‐Torquemada, Y., J.L. Sanchez‐Lizaso, Dendraster excentricus, report to EIP Associates,
and J.M. Gonzalez‐Correa (2005) Preliminary Pasadena, California
results of the monitoring of the brine discharge
produced by the SWRO desalination plant of [125] Iso, S., S. Suizu, and A. Maejima (1993) The lethal
Alicante (SE Spain), Desalination 182(1‐3): 395‐ effect of hypertonic solution and avoidance of
402 marine organisms in relation to the dscharged
brine from desalination plant, IDA and WRPC
[112] Fernandez‐Torquemada, Y. and J.L. Sanchez‐ world conference on desalination and water
Lizaso (2005) Effects of salinity on leaf growth and treatment, Japan
survival of the Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia
oceanica (L.) Delile, Journal Of Experimental [126] Pantell, S.E. (1993) Seawater Desalination in
Marine Biology And Ecology 320(1): 57‐63 California, California Coastal Commission,
www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap3.html
[113] Fernández‐Torquemada, Y., et al. (2007)
Monitoring the Brine Discharge from a [127] Safrai, I. and A. Zask (2007) Reverse osmosis
Desalination Plant in the Mediterranean, IDA desalination plants — marine environmentalist
world congress on desalination and water reuse, regulator point of view, EDS conference on
Gran Canaria desalination and the environment, Greece
[114] Argyrou, M. (1999) Impact of desalination plant [128] Campbell, R.L. and A.T. Jones (2005) Appropriate
on marine macrobenthos in the coastal waters of disposal of effluent from coastal desalination
Dhekelia Bay, Cyprus, Department of Fisheries, facilities, Desalination 182(1‐3): 365‐372
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and [129] Goebel, O. (2007) Überblick über
Environment, 13 Aeolou Str., 1416 Nicosia, Cyprus Entsalzungsverfahren und Einbindungs‐
[115] Tsiourtis, N.X. (2001) Desalination and the möglichkeiten für Erneuerbare Energien, F.R.M.
environment, Desalination 141(3): 223‐236 Clean Energy Power, ICC Berlin
[116] Southwest Florida Water Management District [130] Tal, A. (2006) Seeking sustainability: Israel's
(1997) Effects of the disposal of seawater evolving water management strategy, Science
desalination discharges on near shore benthic 313(5790): 1081‐1084
communities, University of South Florida [131] Sanz, M.A. and R.L. Stover (2007) Low energy
[117] Latorre, M. (2005) Environmental impact of brine consumption in the Perth seawater desalination
disposal on Posidonia seagrasses, Desalination plant, IDA world congress on desalination and
182(1‐3): 517‐524 water reuse, Gran Canaria
[118] Le Page, S.D. (2005) Salinity tolerance [132] Faigon, M., et al. (2007) Larnaca desalination
3
investigations: a supplemental report for the plant, 51,000 m /day ‐ 6 years of operation, IDA
Carlsbad Desalination Project world congress on desalination and water reuse,
Gran Canaria
[119] MEC Analytical Systems (2005) Toxicity testing of
the concentrate discharge of the Carlsbad [133] von Medeazza, G.M. (2004) Water desalination as
seawater desalination plant a long‐term sustainable solution to alleviate
global freshwater scarcity? A north‐south
[120] Bay, S.M. (1993) Investigation of desalination approach, Desalination 169: 287–301
plant toxicity, Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, 7171 Fenwick Lane, [134] Downward, S.R. and R. Taylor (2007) An
Westminster, CA 92683 assessment of Spain's Programa AGUA and its
implications for sustainable water management in
151
the province of Almeria, southeast Spain, Journal [148] Toray (1989) Romembra operation, maintenance
Of Environmental Management 82(2): 277‐289 and handling manual, Toray Industries, Inc.,
Membrane Products Dept., Toray Building, 8‐1,
[135] European Commission (2007) Statistical Mihama 1‐chome, Urayasu, Chiba 279‐8555,
pocketbook, www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy Japan.
_transport/figures/pocketbook/2006_en.htm
[149] Hydranautics and Nitto Denko (2006) Technical
[136] Klein, G., et al. (2005) California's water – energy service bulletin, foulants and cleaning procedures
relationship, California Energy Commission (final for composite polyamide RO membrane elements
staff report), www.energy.ca.gov/ (ESPA, ESNA, CPA, LFC, and SWC),
2005publications/ CEC‐700‐2005‐011/CEC‐700‐ www.membranes.com
2005‐011‐SF.PDF
[150] Trisep (1999) Miscellaneous chemicals,
[137] Umweltbundesamt (2007) German greenhouse www.trisep.com
gas inventory 1990 – 2004 national inventory
report, submission under the United Nations [151] California Coastal Commission (2004) Seawater
Framework Convention on Climate Change, desalination and the California Coastal Act.
www.umweltbundesamt.de/emissionen/ www.coastal.ca.gov/energy/14a‐3‐2004‐
publikationen.htm desalination.pdf. 2004
[138] Raluy, R.G., et al. (2004) Life‐cycle assessment of [152] Bornman, T.G. and N.T.W. Klages (2004) Upgrade
desalination technologies integrated with energy of Kenton‐on‐Sea/Bushmansrivermouth bulk
production systems, Desalination 167(1‐3): 445‐ water supply environmental impact report,
458 Albany Coast Water Board
[139] Dolnicar, S. and A.I. Schäfer (2006) Public [153] Environment Canada (1981) Tech info for
perception of desalinated water versus recycled problem spills: chlorine
water in Australia, AWWA Desalination
Symposium [154] Mattice, J.S., et al. (1981) A toxicity testing system
for exposing small invertebrates and fish to short
[140] Darwish, M.A., F.M. Al‐ Awadhi, and A.M. Darwish square‐wave concentrations of chlorine, Water
(2008) Energy and water in Kuwait, part I, a Research 15(7): 923‐927
sustainability view point, Desalination 225: 341‐
355 [155] Buckley, I.A. (1976) Acute toxicity of residual
chlorine in wastewater to Coho Salmon
[141] Raluy, G., L. Serra, and J. Uche (2006) Life cycle (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and some resultant
assessment of MSF, MED and RO desalination haematological changes, Journal of Fish Research
technologies, Energy 31(13): 2025‐2036 Board Canadian 33: 2854‐2856
[142] Raluy, R.G., L. Serra, and J. Uche (2005) Life cycle [156] Thatcher, T.D. (1978) The relative sensitivity of
assessment of water production technologies ‐ Pacific northwest fishes and invertebrates to
part 1: life cycle assessment of different chlorinated sea water, In: Water chlorination:
commercial desalination technologies (MSF, MED, environmental impact and health effects, R.L.
RO), International Journal Of Life Cycle Jolley, et al., (eds.), Ann Arbor Science, Michigan
Assessment 10(4): 285‐293
[157] Roberts, M.H. and R.A. Gleeson (1978) Acute
[143] Stokes, J. and A. Horvath (2006) Life cycle energy toxicity of bromochlorinated seawater to selected
assessment of alternative water supply systems, estuarine species with a comparison to
International Journal Of Life Cycle Assessment, chlorinated seawater toxicity, Marine
11(5): 335‐343 Environmental Research 1: 19‐30
[144] Latorre, M., A. Letona, and J. Galdós (2007) [158] Eppley, R., E. Ringer, and P. Williams (1976)
3
Valdelentisco Desalination Plant: 200,000 m /day Chlorine reactions with seawater constituents
of Water for Irrigation and Drinking, IDA world and the inhibition of photosynthesis of natural
congress on desalination and water reuse, Gran marine phytoplankton, Estuarine, coastal and
Canaria shelf science 4: 147
[145] Hydranautics (2000) Technical service bulletins, [159] Verschueren, K. (1996) Handbook of
http://www.membranes.com environmental data on organic chemicals (3rd
edition), Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York
[146] FilmTec (2000), FILMTEC membranes tech manual
excerpts, FilmTec Corporation, The Dow Chemical [160] Wilcock, J.D. and M.A. Finan (1994) Ensuring the
Company, www.dow.com/liquidseps safety of additives used in desalination plants to
produce potable water: The role of independent
[147] DuPont (1994) PERMASEP Products engineering approval agencies and comprehensive
manual, bulletin 1020, 2010 and 4010, DuPont toxicological and ecotoxical product profiles,
Company, Wilmington, DE 19898, USA Desalination 97: 443‐451
152
[161] FMC (1994) Flocon 100 general product
information, FMC Corporation: Process Additives
Division, Tenax Road, Trafford Park, Manchester
M17 1WT
[162] Redox Chemicals (2001) Material safety data

sheets, www.redox.com.au
[163] BASF (1994) BASF speciality chemicals for water

treatment and safety data sheet for Sokalan PM
10 I, BASF AG, Marketing Spezialchemikalien,
67056 Ludwigshafen, Germany
[164] BetzDearborn (2000), Sicherheitsdatenblätter,

BetzDearborn GmbH, Siemensring 44, 47877
Willich, Germany
[165] Cook, T.M. and C.K. Goldman (1974) Degradation

of anionic detergents in Chesapeake Bay,
Chesapeake Science 15(1): 52‐55
[166] Anderson, D.J., et al. (1990) Die‐away kinetic

analysis of the capacity of epilithic and planktonic
bacteria from clean and polluted river water to
biodegrade sodium dodecyl sulfate, Applied and
Environmental Microbioly 56: 758‐763
[167] Budavari, S. (1996) The Merck index ‐ an

encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals,
Merck and Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ
[168] Virtapohja, J. and R. Alé (1999), Behaviour of

EDTA in marine microcosms, Chemosphere 38:
143‐154
[169] Ellgaard, E.G. and J.Y. Gilmore (1984) Effects of

different acids on the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis
macrochirus Rafinesque, Journal of Fish Biology
25(2): 133‐137
[170] U.S. Coast Guard (1984) Department of

Transportation, CHRIS ‐ Hazardous Chemical Data
Volume II, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office
[171] Environment Canada (1981) Tech info for

problem spills: hydrochloric acid
153
2
ISBN: 978‐92‐807‐2840‐8
DRC/0966/BA

Desal RG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Desal RG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Desal RG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resource and Guidance Manual for

Environmental Impact Assessments

With the context so broad, the present docu‐

1. Decide, on the basis of a screening

VI. Despite a 50 year history of large scale

Part A Concept, methodology and practice of environmental impact assessments

Part B Outline and contents list of an environmental impact assessment

C.1 Ecological risk assessments 50

plant with a daily production of 330,000 m3 is

Cost and energy implications

Community and equity considerations Impacts on poverty and development

A.1 Definition and concept of EIA

An EIA is a systematic process used to identify,

pre EIA stages

Step 1: Project screening

Project proponents and/or consultants

main EIA stages

Step 4: Project description

Step 5: Baseline data

Step 6: Evaluation of impacts

Step 7: Impact mitigation

Step 8: Summary / conclusions

Step 9: Management / monitoring plan final EIA stages

approved redesign and

post EIA stages p

Figure 3: EIA decision phase and follow‐up activities.

 Category C: no EIA areas [5]. If a preliminary assessment is underta‐

Consideration of alternatives tion(s). In many cases, the competent authority

Selection of the project site Biologic resources:

Oceanographic conditions: communication network, or may even allow the

Important steps in the development of a conflicts and the reaching of a consensus

In this step of the EIA, a prognosis, description Physical or image models:

 Analogue models: A.2.7 Step 7 – Mitigation of negative effects

Remediation: A.2.9 Step 9 – Establishment of an

Monitoring activities: pleteness of the identified impacts, proposed al‐

Other useful information that may be included in

B.3 Introduction to the EIA B.4.2 Methodology of the EIA

making. Invariably, this information from the B.4.5 Considered alternatives

Protection of wildlife and biological Convention on Wetlands of International

chemical identification: chemical formula, long‐term sediment toxicity tests if sub‐

B.6.6 Construction activities the potential for the commissioning activities to

Environmental setting, impact assessment and impact mitigation

Mitigation and avoidance measures

B.7 Socio‐economic and environmental a projection of the anticipated future popu‐

B.7.1 Population, housing and community Mitigation and avoidance measures

business volume in terms of numbers (e.g. B.7.3 Environmental health factors

dressed and minimized by implementing an Impacts

 If possible, desalination plants should be lo‐ Impacts

Impacts B.8 Abiotic environment

Impacts Existing setting

Impacts topography and geomorphology

Existing setting An overview of the potential impacts of desali‐

B.12 Review of the EIA process B.14 Appendices of the EIA

Back matter to an EIA report (sections B.13 – B. 14)

construction, or the introduction of an alien spe‐

The cause‐effect relationships are typically – pumping / high pressure system

Furthermore, potential impacts on human be‐ C.2.1 Intakes and outfalls

Potential impacts on receptors Artificial structures

Artificial structures Marine flora and fauna

Category C: no EIA areas [5]. If a preliminary assessment is underta‐

Analogue models: A.2.7 Step 7 – Mitigation of negative effects

If possible, desalination plants should be lo‐ Impacts

C.4.5 Discharge of residual chemicals Heavy metals

Landscape and natural scenery Antiscalants

Distillation processes or projected air emissions (cumulative impacts),

Notable alterations of natural properties, Notable alterations of natural properties,

Characteristics of the proposed project site of cause‐effect‐relationships will typically evolve