HZI, Besix and Itochu: Dubai Waste Management Center Environmental Impact Assessment Rev 6

Al
HZI, Besix and Itochu

Dubai Waste Management Center
Environmental Impact Assessment Rev 6
June 2020
This report: has been prepared by GHD for AG Abu Dhabi (HZI), N.V. Besix S.A. Sharjah
Branch (Besix) and Itochu Corporation (Itochu) and may only be used and relied on by HZI,
Besix and Itochu for the purpose agreed between GHD and the HZI, Besix and Itochu as set out
in Section 1 of this report.
GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than HZI, Besix and Itochu arising in
connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent
legally permissible.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those
specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions
encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no
responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring
subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions
made by GHD described in this report (refer section(s) 2.4 of this report). GHD disclaims
liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.
GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by HZI, Besix and Itochu and
others (e.g. Fichtner) who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities),
which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD
does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and
omissions in the report, which were caused by errors, or omissions in that information.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on information
obtained from, and testing undertaken at or in connection with, specific sample points. Site
conditions at other parts of the site may be different from the site conditions found at the specific
sample points.
Investigations undertaken in respect of this report are constrained by the particular site
conditions, such as the location of buildings, services and vegetation. As a result, not all
relevant site features and conditions may have been identified in this report.
Site conditions (including the presence of hazardous substances and/or site contamination) may
change after the date of this Report. GHD does not accept responsibility arising from, or in
connection with, any change to the site conditions. GHD is also not responsible for updating this
report if the site conditions change.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | i
QA / QC Page
GHD
United Arab Emirates
T: 971 2 696 8700 F: 971 2 447 2915 E: abumail@ghd.com
© GHD 2020
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose
for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission.
Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
\\ghdnet\ghd\AE\Abu Dhabi\Projects\76\10735\Wp\03 - ESIA Report\Report\Rev 6 - EIA\7610735-REP-
06_DM WMC EIAR (Rev.6).docx
Document Status
Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue
Name Signature Name Signature Date
Rev 0 Various1 G Squires GS S Bin Breik SBB 12 Nov 2018
Rev 1 J Calpo D Wright DW S Bin Breik SBB 13 Dec 2018
Rev 2 J Calpo D Wright DW S Bin Breik SBB 13 Feb 2019
Rev 3 J Calpo D Wright DW R Shine RS 09 July 2019
Rev 4 J Calpo D Wright DW R Shine RS 03 Oct 2019
Rev 5 J Calpo R. Shine RS R Shine RS 19 Feb 2020
Rev 6 J Calpo R. Shine RS R Shine RS 07 Jun 2020
1
Refer to Section 2.2 (Table 2-3)
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | ii
Executive Summary
Introduction
Dubai Municipality (DM) (the Project Proponent) proposes the development of the Dubai Waste
Management Center, a proposed Waste-to-Energy Plant (WtE plant), (Project) (Figure 1) at the
existing DM owned and operated vehicle storage site in Warsan, Dubai. The proposed WtE
plant will treat about 1,888,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year, with an
estimated nominal design capacity of 5,666 tonnes per day (tpd)) at 9.5 MJ/kg net calorific value
(NCV), to generate an average net power output of 193 MW of electricity to power about
135,000 homes.
Under contract with the Project Proponent, Hitachi Zosen Inova (HZI), a global leader in Energy-
from-Waste (EfW) technology, NV Besix SA, Sharjah branch (BESIX), a Belgian construction
company, and Itochu, a Japanese company formed a partnership to build, operate and transfer
(BOT) the WtE plant over a 35-year period. The contract is shared between a Special Project
Vehicle (SPV) and Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) partnership and
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) partnership.
HZI commissioned GHD Global Pty Ltd (GHD) as the Project environmental consultant for the
Project. The application for environmental clearance is made to the Dubai Municipality-
Environmental Department (DM-ED) in accordance with Technical Guidelines 1 (Environmental
Impact Assessment) and 2 (EIA for Land Development, Infrastructure and Utility Projects)
(March 2019).
To support funding applications from international lending institutions, the Project will also
comply with international guidelines such as the Eqeuator Principles (EP), International Finance
Corporations (IFC) Performance Standards, and World Bank (WB) Environment, Health and
Safety Guidelines.
A Preliminary Environmental Approval (PEA) was issued by the Dubai Municipality-Environment
Department (DM-ED) on 20 May 2019 (Ref. No. EPBI-200519-00125); however, it was
cancelled on 17 July 2019 (EPBI/200519-00125) and a revised Environmental Impact
Assessment Report (EIAR) Rev 4 was submitted on 3 October 2019 to present the following
modifications to the Project:
 Design improvement
 12 weeks Incinerated Bottom Ash (IBA) maturation
 Covered IBA Maturation Area
 Mobile waste shredder
 Installation of 132kV underground cable and connection to DM STP substation
An Environmental Clearance (EC Ref. No. EPBI-090719-00145) was issued by DM-ED on 13
October 2019 for EIAR Revision 4.
On 19 February 2020, the Project Company requested a re-submission of EIAR (Rev 5) to
incorporate the conditions of the EC into the report. As a response, DM-ED issued a number of
comments and clarifications. This EIAR Rev 6 addresses these comments and submitted for
DM-ED approval.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | iii
Figure 1 Dubai Waste Management Center Facility Rendering
Project Fact Sheet
Project Information Description
Project Proponent Dubai Municipality
SPV and EPC HZI, Besix and Itochu
Project Name Dubai Waste Management Center (Waste-to-Energy Plant)
Project According to DM-ED Technical Guideline No. 2 (March 2019), the

Categorisation Project requires the submission of Environmental Impact Assessment
Report (EIAR).
Under definition provided in Equator Principle 1 (2013), the Project is

classified as Category A as it may potentially have significant adverse
environmental and/or social impacts that can affect an area broader than
the site that is subject to physical works. The impacts associated with
the Project can be mitigated through appropriate environmental and
social management and monitoring measures.
Design Capacity 5,666 tpd MSW at full capacity
Project Location Al Warsan 2, Dubai, UAE
Total Area 506,096.14 m2 (based on the Affection Plan)
Production Average output of 193 MW at full capacity at 27°C ambient temperature

Capacity
Design Standards European Regulations/Industrial Emission Directive (Directive

2010/75/EU)
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | iv
Project Information Description
Manpower Peak of construction: Over 2000 workers

Normal operation conditions: 129 fulltime staff / workers
Annual outage overhaul: Additional 120 external workers
Project Schedule Detailed engineering is expected to be completed in Q2 2020. A three-

year construction period is expected to commence in Q2 2020, and
commissioning and trial run is anticipated 36 months after the start of
construction.
Project Rationale Consistent with the vision of the UAE towards integrated waste
management and energy diversification in Dubai, the integrated strategic
waste management master plan provides a roadmap for sustainable
waste management practices in the Emirate of Dubai up to 2030. Key
Performance Indicators (KPI) have been developed to drive the process
of the waste management strategy, which include: minimising wastes,
maximising environmentally sound waste reuse and recycling, promoting
environmentally soune waste disposal and treatment and extending
waste service coverage.
A stable energy supply is anticipated to foster continued economic
stability and growth in the country and surrounding areas. As such, the
Project is considered to be in line with addressing the following
overarching goals:
 In line with 2050 Energy Strategy (MOEI, 2017) in diversifying energy

resources (solar, nuclear, wind, WtE)
 Assist the Emirate of Dubai reach its 98% landfill diversion target by
2030 (Mott MacDonald, 2013)
 Support the goal of UAE Vision 2021 (i.e. avoid methane emission
from landfills and fossil fuel displacement)
Project Structure
The Project is owned by DM. Under contract with the Project Owner, SPV, EPC and O&M have
formed a partnership to build, operate and transfer (BOT) the WtE plant over a 35-year period.
Various entities involved in the Project is shown in Figure 2.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | v
Figure 2 Project Structure
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | vi
Project Location
The Project is proposed to be located at a DM-owned industrial site in Warsan, Dubai
(specifically Warsan 2). The Project site is located within land comprises other DM functions
including the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) Power Station to the southwest.
The site is located within a highly disturbed site within an operational industrial zone, with limited
environmental flora and fauna values, and no wetlands or waterways present on site (Figure 3).
There are no existing communities residing within the site limits that would be directly affected
by the Project construction and operation phases.
Nearest residential area is located approximately 300 m north from the proposed site boundary.
Individuals accessing the commercial and office facilities within the surrounding industrial and
commercial areas may potentially be affected during the construction and operation of the
Project.
There is currently an un-engineered Tadweer landfill located to the southwest of the Project.
There are no cultural sites within or surrounding the Project site (dubaiculture.gov.ae). The
nearest cultural heritage site is the Al Fahidi Historical Neighborhood, which is about 18 km
away from the site. The nearest protected area is the Al Wohoosh Desert Conservation Reserve
located approximately 20 km east of the site.
Study Area
The EIA study was undertaken primarily within the vicinity of the proposed Project footprint and
its potential impact areas. Baseline monitoring and sampling locations are provided in Figure 4.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | vii
Figure 3 Project site
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | viii
Figure 4 Sampling Locations
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | ix
Schematic Diagram
The technological concent and the related volume streams for the proposed Project are
illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Schematic Diagram
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | x
Project Components
The general layout of the proposed WtE plant is provided in Figure 6. The WtE plant will
comprise of the component provided in Table 1.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xi
Figure 6 Project Layout
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xii
Table 1 Project Components
Buildings Functional Description
Primary Supporting Facilities
Administrative & The Administration Building will be designed and constructed to be able to accommodate 20 people on a permanent basis and additionally
Visitors Building and up to approximately 30 visitors on a temporary basis. The building comprises (i) offices and meeting rooms, (ii) cafeteria, (iii) archive room
Operating and and storage rooms for office and cleaning supplies, (iv) restrooms, (v) kitchen, (vi) exhibition space, (vii) visitor area, (viii) training room and
Maintenance Staff (ix)lifts for personnel.
Facilities
Guardhouse Trucks entry and exit
Weighbridge Weighing of the waste deliveries (incoming truck weight minus outgoing truck weight) and acquisition of all relevant delivery data for
inventory control.
 Number of truck scales: 3 in - 2 out
 Peak hourly truck entry: 80 trucks / h
 Type truck scale: pit type / pitless type
 Annual availability: 8,760 h/y / 24 h/day
 Low and high temperatures:10 to 55ºC
 Size of each platform (Length x width): 18m x 3m
 Weighing range: 0.4-60 Mg
 Weighing scaling intervals: max. 20kg
 Horizontal movement of the platform in each direction: max. 10mm
 Number of load cells per platform: 8
 Type of cell: digital
 Load capacity per cell: Mg
 Weighing accuracy according to OIML Standards: Class III
 Weighing accuracy: Max. 0.025%
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xiii
 Automatic vehicle identification:

 Automatic ticket dispenser: 1 (exit scale)
 Alphanumeric display and Intercom system: 2, one per scale
 Automatic barriers: 2, one per scale
Weighing software and complete PC with mouse, printer and screen
Checkpoint Staff and visitors entry & exit
Accommodation To accommodate 120 people

Building
Primary Technical Buildings
Main Electrical The steam turbine generator will be connected through the Generator Circuit Breaker (GCB) to the Generator Step up Transformer.
Station
When sufficient steam is produced, the generator will be synchronized to the 132 kV grid. Once synchronized, the net power production is
delivered to the Grid.
The Facility electrical auxiliary system is fed from the 6.6kV metal-clad switchgear, which is connected to the Unit Auxiliary Transformer.
The plant system will be supplied from the 6.6kV switchgear.
Dry type distribution transformers 6.6kV/0.4kV will be used for low voltage consumers. Two (2) Emergency diesel generators for safe shut-
down will be installed and connected to the 6.6 kV switchboard.
In the event of total power failure, the redundant steady-state uninterruptible power supply system provides for the continuity of the power
supply for the operational instrumentation and control system, i.e. the power supply for instrumentation, monitoring systems, the voice
communications equipment, as well as the control voltage of the HV, MV and LV system.
Main Process
Building:
The tipping bays allow the transfer of the waste from the reception area to the waste bunker and guide the waste trucks in the tipping area.
1) Tipping Bay The waste delivery trucks back up to their assigned tipping bay made of concrete and unload their load into the waste bunker. Air is drawn
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xiv
from the waste bunker into the furnace combustion air. The resulting negative pressure within the waste bunker mitigates potential fugitive
emissions of dust and odour from leaving the waste bunker.
2) Waste Bunker Dimensions of waste bunker 1 (2 lines):

 Width – 56.0 m
 Height – 33.0 m
 Depth – 23.0 m
 Volume – 42,504 m3
Dimension of waste bunker 2 (3 lines)
 Width – 87 m
 Height 33 m
 Depth 23 m
 Volume 66,033 m3
3) Mobile Waste The mobile waste shredder will be used for processing bulky waste, as a contingency plan should waste be received at the site that is
Shredder unsuitable for feedstock to the incinerator lines.
4) Boiler Hall The boiler converts the heat of the flue gas into superheated steam. It is designed as a natural circulation boiler and is diviced into five main
subsystems: (i) the economiser system, (ii) the evaporator system, (iii) the superheater system, (iv) the boiler drum and (v) the boiler blow
down.
5) Flue Gas The dry flue gas treatment (FGT) process is designed to remove all dust particles, most of the acidic gaseous contaminants, by
Treatment (FGT) neutralisation with hydrated lime and organic pollutants (PCDD/F) as well as mercury and other heavy metals by adsorption on lignite coke.
system The system consists of a reactor with additive injection, fabric filter for solid-gas separation and residue recirculation.
SNCR Process
NOx reduction occurs in the combustion zone where an aqueous solution of urea is injected into the flue gas stream leaving the grate and
reacts selectively with the NOx in the combustion chamber.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xv
The DyNORTM system is an advanced SNCR (Selective Non Catalytic Reduction) system, which has been developed with the objective to
meet new European NOx standards with a SNCR-system.
6) Stacks The stack expels the purged flue gas after the flue gas cleaning system to the atmosphere. Each incinerator line has one single self-
standing stack of 70 m height.
The Project comprise of five incineration lines; as such, a total of five stacks grouped in two and three is anticipated. NOx emission from the
stacks will be reduced with the use of SNCR / DyNOR system.
Turbine Hall The steam is transformed into electrical energy in a turbo-generator set that is used to cover the plant’s own electricity needs and to feed to
the public electrical grid. The primary elements of the heat utilization include (i) turbine unit, (ii) control and lubrication oil supply, (iii)
generator, and (iv) cooling system.
Technical Block, Technical Block. The Technical Block will be designed and constructed to be able to accommodate 60 people during the dayshift and 17
Workshop and people during the other shifts. In addition, during the 3-week overhaul period per individual line, there will be an additional 80-120 external
Electrical Rooms workers using the locker rooms, showers and kitchen/canteen in the Technical Block. These overhauls will occur five times per year
(because there are five lines).
The technical block will comprise (i) kitchen, (ii) cafeteria, (iii) first aid room (or plant clinic), (iv) prayer rooms, (v) locker room, (vi) lift for
personnel, and (vii) toilets for male and femal employees.
Workshop. The Workshop will include maintenance manager’s office, store room, large ans small spare parts storage, electrical workshop,
instrumentation workshop, mechanical workshop, open area (e.g. for fabrication, temporary laydown), and storage for consumables (i.e.
lubricants, etc.)
Air Cool Condenser During regular plant operation, the exhaust steam from the turbine condenses in the air-cooled condenser (ACC), which is situated beside
the turbine house.
In case of start-up, shutdown, overload or trip of the turbine, all or a part of the live stream flows into the ACC via the turbine bypass
system. The thermal capacity of the ACC is high enough so that it is able to condensate the saturated steam that bypasses the turbine at
an ambient temperature of 45 ºC.
In transitions from normal operation to exceptional cases, such as “island mode” and by-pass operation, excess steam may need to be
blown off for a short period of time during in order to prevent a possible shutdown of the turbine or the plant. At ambient temperatures over
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xvi
approximately 35°C, it may also be necessary to reduce the boiler load during island mode operation or for the transition from by-pass
operation to normal turbine operation.
Bottom Ash The bottom ash maturation area is where the incinerated bottom ash will be temporarily stored before removal from the site to an off-site
Maturation Area location. It will comprise of the following:
 IBA Pre-treatment hall where the IBA is stored up to five days to reduce moisture content prior to treatment / metal separation
 IBA Process Hall where IBA are segregated into 0–10 mm, 10–40 mm and 40–200 mm fractions and ferrous and non-ferrous metals
separation takes place
 IBA Maturation area where the clean mineral fractions are stockpiled up to a maximum height of 4m. The setting and leaching
processes are undertaken in this covered area which can take up to 12 weeks depending on the bottom ash composition. After this
temporarily storage the material will be removed from site to an off-site location.
FGT Silos The residue storage silo is an interim / temporary storage for the FGT residues. The silos are placed on an elevated steel structure
prepared to the moistening system for open truck discharge.
A total of five silos for the whole Dubai WtE plant are anticipated. Each silo has an storage volume of approximatly 350 m3, corresponding
to approximately four days storage capacity
Storage Tanks Storage area for the following materials are anticipated: (i) fuel, (ii) aqueous urea solution, (iii) solid additives [hydrated lime], (iv) adsorbent,
and (v) inert gas supply.
Installation of 132kV The Project will be connected through a high voltage (HV) single circuit to the DM STP substation.
underground Cable
and connection to DM
substation
Water Treatment The WTP will treat secondary water. The key process elements for water treatment are as follows:
Plant (WTP)  Pre-treatment. Comprise of de-oiling filter, ultra-filtration and activated carbon filters. This pre-treatment system is designed to produce
water quality suitable to feed the demineralization unit. The water produced in this system will also be used as service water for the
Project.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xvii
 Demineralization. This system is designed to produce softened water for the Air Cooled Condenser (ACC) and Close Unit Cooling Water
(CCW) system.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xviii
Key Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are areas and environments where the occupants are more susceptible to
the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants (EPA, 2017).
This typically includes, but is not limited to, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing
and convalescent facilities.
Sensitive receptors categories relative to the Project, as per DM Technical Guideline No. 2
(2018), are shown in Figure 7 and described below:
 High Sensitivity (Type 1 Area) – high density residential block, hospitals and school
premises
 Moderate Sensitivity (Type 2 Area) – light density residential block, public parks and
natural body of water
 Light Sensitivity (Type 3 Area) – commercial buildings, offices and other public areas;
agricultural crops and farmland
 Marginal Sensitivity (Type 4 Area) – industrial area
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xix
Figure 7 Receptors
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xx
Summary of Findings
The EIA has identified potential environmental and social impacts as well as mitigation or
enhancement measures. The following section provides a summary of potential impacts
associated with the Project.
It is concluded that the environmental and social impacts associated with the construction and
operation of the WtE plant are manageable through the adoption and successful implementation
of mitigation measures and the undertaking of the monitoring activities and do not present an
unacceptable risk to the environment and social aspects.
Greenhouse Gas
Key features of the WtE greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions profile includes:
 The total construction emissions were estimated at 70 kt CO2-e during the construction
period of 49 months.
 The total emissions associated with operations were estimated as 25,300 kt CO2-e over
the project’s 30 year lifetime.
 Emissions avoided by not sending waste to landfill were estimated as 71,700 kt CO2-e
over the project’s 30 year lifetime equating to 2,400 kt CO2-e avoided annually.
 Emissions avoided by generating electricity from waste were estimated as
18,600 kt CO2-e over the project’s 30 year lifetime equating to 620 kt CO2-e avoided
annually.
 Net total emissions reductions over the construction and operation stages were estimated
at 64,900 kt CO2-e.
 Average annual emissions reductions are estimated as 1.2 t CO2-e/t waste treated.
GHG Assessment
EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Component
Impact GHG emissions from consumption of Emission from the WtE operation
Assessment fuel for commuting of construction
personnel, delivery of construction
materials and disposal of construction
waste.
Proposed  Optimise energy efficiency Mitigation measure is not required as

Management the impact is considered beneficial.
 Implementation of waste
The emisions from the WtE plant are
management measures
more than offset by avoided landfill
methane emissions and emissions
from on-site electricity generation
displacing existing sources
Residual No significant residual impact is There will be a net positive impact from
Impact anticipated with the implementation of the operation of the WtE palnt, as it will
management measures. result in a net total emissions reduction
of 64,900 kt CO2-e over the
construction and operation phases.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxi
Air Quality
Ambient air quality at the Project site and in the surrounding areas is influenced by the following:
 DEWA Power Station, with stationary source of emission, located to the southwest of the
site
 Various industrial facilities to the immediate east and southeast of the Project site
 Combustion emissions from vehicles using the surrounding road infrastructure
A two-week ambient air monitoring program was undertaken at three sites in the vicinity of the
Project site between 16 August to 9 September 2018. The results show that they were all
compliant with the ambient air quality standards for all parameters specified by the UAE Federal
Law and Dubai Municipality with the exception of PM10 at station AAQM2.
Air Quality Assessment

Component
Impact Potential air quality impacts will be Air emissions for the facility will be
Assessment emissions from power generation sets emitted from five point sources (tall
and dust generation. stacks) and IBA management area.
Dust generated during construction, if Air quality criteria including Ministerial

properly mitigated, are not considered Order No. 12 of 2006, US OSHA 29
to represent significant source of CFR Part 1910, USEPA NAAQs 40
emissions. CFR Part 50, WHO Ambient Quality
Standards, the NSW AMMAAP and
European Commission standards were
reviewed, and the most appropriate of
these used as a comparison to predict
ground level concentrations (GLCs) of
selected air pollutants. The results
demonstrate predicted incremental
GLCs for NO2, SO2, CO, TSP, PM10,
PM2.5, HCl, HF, NH3, TCDD and Hg do
not exceed the adopted assessment
criteria, based on the stack
characteristics and emission rates
assumed for the Project.
Results of the Air Quality Assessment
are summarised below:
 Predicted incremental 1-hour
concentrations of Cd exceed the
NSW AMMAAP guidelines, which is
likely due to the conservative
assumption that the IED emission
limit of 0.05 mg/Nm3, is 100% Cd as
oppose to be the sum of Cd and
thallium. Ambient concentrations of
Cd associated with the stacks are
likely to be lower in reality. The
predicted annual concentrations of
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxii

Component
Cd comply with the European

Commission criteria at all sensitive
receptors.
 The maximum predicted cumulative
concentration for 24-hour NO2
exceeds the UAE criteria by 3%;
however, the incremental
concentration complies with the
criteria.
 The cumulative concentrations for
PM10 exceed the UAE 24-hour and
annual WHO criteria, while the
cumulative concentrations for PM2.5
exceed the WHO 24-hour and annual
criteria due to the adopted
background concentrations
exceeding the criteria.
 The incremental contribution of the
WMC to TSP, PM10, and PM2.5
ambient concentrations are less than
the respective assessment criteria,
including the WHO Interim target 1.
Proposed  All construction and maintenance Built-in (WtE plant design)

Management equipment/vehicles to be maintained management measures: use of flue
to manufacturers specifications gas treatment (FGT) system, which
include:
 Defined haul routes to be used
 Particle separation
 Limit vehicular speed to 25 km/hour
 Dry flue gas cleaning with lime and
 Implement dust mitigation measures
lignite coke
 Selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) process).
Proposed  Visual dust monitoring  Stack emissions monitoring of

Monitoring parameters provided in the
 Dust monitoring at one location
Programme Continuous Environmental
where construction activities are
Monitoring System (CEMS)
undertaken.
 Quarterly monitoring of HF, dioxin
and furans, heavy metals, PM10 and
PM2.5
 Fixed and continuous monitoring of
PM10 and PM2.5 at one location
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxiii

Component
Residual No significant residual impact is No significant residual impact is

Impact anticipated with the implementation of anticipated as the emissions from the
mitigation measures. WtE plant are more than offset by
avoided landfill methane emissions
and emissions from on-site electricity
generation.
The emission is extremely low since
the Project is designed using Directive
2010/75/EU.
Odour
There are a number of potential odour sources around the proposed Project site. These include:
 The Tadweer landfill
 The Al Serkal/envirol grease trap waste recycling plant
 China state asphalt mixing plant

 Emirates beton readymix L.L.C (concentrate supplier)
A site investigation was undertaken to monitor the ambient air levels of odourous gases from
potential odour sources around the Project site. Based on the odour monitoring results, majority
of the target compounds were below the laboratory limit of detection.
Odour Assessment

Component
Impact Poor management of sanitary and The results of the dispersion modelling
Assessment waste disposal facilities (e.g. septic indicate that when negative pressure is
tanks, putrescible waste bins) may maintained, predicted odour
result in odour causing a nuisance to concentrations reaching the defined
people on or near the Project site. sensitive receptors will be undetectable
Good housekeeping, regular to the majority of the population. If
inspections and maintenance of waste negative pressure is lost and a flow
disposal, transfer and storage facilities rate of 0.6 m/s is achieved, predicted
will minimise the risk of odour release. odour concentrations at 7 out of 14
sensitive receptors should be
undetectable. If worst case conditions
prevailed resulting in a flow rate of
1.2 m/s during a loss of negative
pressure, predicted odour
concentrations at 2 out of 14 sensitive
receptors should be undetectable.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxiv
Odour Assessment

Component
Proposed  Locate toilet utilities, sewage tanks (if  Avoid waste storage for more than
Management any) and waste storage facilities five days in the waste bunker
away from sensitive receptors
 Installation of tipping bay gates
 Maintain the sanitary and waste
 Ventilation / slight negative pressure
disposal facilities in good and clean
at the waste bunker
conditions
 Maintain operation of four out of five
 Regular off-site disposal of waste
lines at any time to maintain slight
negative pressure in the waste
bunker
Proposed  Not required as potential impact is  Fixed and continuous monitoring of

Monitoring negligible. H2S, NH3, mercaptans, DMS and
Programme DMDS at two locations
 Complaints from surrounding land
users will be recorded and
addressed.
Residual No significance residual impact is Residual impact is not anticipated as

Impact anticipated with the implementation of the emissions from the WtE plant are
mitigation measures. more than offset by avoided landfill
odour emissions. Built-in odour
management measures (e.g. tipping
bays and ventilation at the waste
bunker) will be installed to avoid odour
emission.
Noise
Baseline noise monitoring was undertaken at four sites on 18 and 19 August 2018. The
monitoring locations were selected due to their proximity sensitive receptors, which has the
potential to be impacted by noise.
Noise monitoring results showed that average measurements (LAeq) recorded during daytime
were compliant with the UAE Federal and World Bank Guidelines. Nighttime measurements at
NQM1 exceeded the World Bank limit of 45 dBA during both weekends and weekdays. NQM1 is
adjacent to an internal road leading to the industrial area. The exceedances are most likely
associated with vehicle movement on the road as well as sound of insects/animals. An
exceedance of the Federal Limit was also recorded at NQM4 on a weekday, where a minor
exceedance of 1 dBA was recorded during night time. The minor exceedance is most likely
attributed to passing vehicles.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxv
Noise Assessment

Component
Impact Construction noise is anticipated due An impact assessment was performed

Assessment to movement of heavy machinery to determine the severity of the impact
moving about the Project site and of the Project operation at the nearest
operation of construction equipment. sensitive receptor.
During any given period, the machinery Based on the noise modelling, the
items used in the Project area will impacts of the operational noise
operate at maximum sound power assessment at the identified sensitive
levels for only brief times. Thus, receptor is predicted to be negligible
construction noise emissions will be for both daytime and night time.
intermittent and of short duration.
Proposed  Appropriate site layout (locate Implement engineering measures:

Management primary noise sources away from
 Provide built-in insulation walls
sensitive receptors
 Locate buildings close to the
 Maintain equipment in good working
Project’s boundary to provide
condition
shielding
 Limit general construction activities
 Enclose plant / equipment
to daytime (7 am to 8 pm)
considered causing major source of
noise
 Select quiet equipment
Proposed  Noise monitoring at one location Fixed and continuous noise monitoring
Monitoring where construction activities are at four locations
Programme undertaken.

Impact anticipated anticipated
Soil and Groundwater
A total of 10 soil samples were collected at five locations (at 1 mbgl and 5 mbgl) within the
Project site. Five groundwater samples were also collected from new groundwater wells.
The results of the soil quality analysis were compared to the limits set out by DM-ED Information
Bulletin No. 2 Land Contamination Indicator Levels (May 2003) and Dutch Soil Remediation
Circular (2009). Soil quality results show that majority of parameters were not detected in
concentrations above their respective minimum detection limits (MDL). Parameters that were
detected in concentrations above MDLs were within their respective standard limits.
The groundwater laboratory data was compared against the Intervention Values specified in
Dutch Soil Remediation Circular (2009), which is accepted by DM-ED. Groundwater samples
recovered from the monitoring wells did not report any analytes above the Dutch (2009)
Intervention Values with the exception of toluene (CAS 108-88-3), which was detected from the
sample taken from well BH-2018-02 (near Parking Area). According to Zogorski et.al. (2006),
the sources of most gasoline hydrocarbons in aquifers are probably releases of gasoline or
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxvi
other finished fuel products. It is not possible to determine the exact cause of the elevated
toluene concentrations from a single sampling event. However, it is likely highly that the source
originates from the vehicles parked near the monitoring well. Further investigation of the source
and extent of this impact is recommended.
Soil and Groundwater Assessment

Component
Impact Typical impacts associated with The operation of the Project is not
Assessment construction activities include: considered to generate significant
adverse impacts on the soil or
 Land alteration
groundwater condition. However,
 Soil erosion activities that have the potential to
 Soil and groundwater contamination cause soil and/or groundwater
contamination during the operation of
The risk associated with groundwater the WtE plant include:
contamination is considered low for the
following reasons:  Leak or overflow of untreated
sewage from sewage transfer
 The type of activities do not require infrastructure
or generate large amount of
hazardous materials / wastes  Accidental spillage or leakage from
storage of the feedstock on site (i.e.
 The arid climate condition on-site, waste bunker)
where there is no significant surface /
stormwater flow that will infiltrate any  Inappropriate storage of wastes (e.g.
contaminants into groundwater. bottom ash and FGT residue)
 Accidental spill or leakage from on-
site bulk storage and handling of fuel
and materials (i.e. aqueous urea
solution, solid additives, adsorbent)
Proposed  Implement erosion and sediment  Appropriate design of on-site

Management control plan temporary bottom ash and FGT
residue storage facilities
 Progressive compaction and
rehabilitation / lanscaping  Implement soil and groundwater
management (i.e. appropriately
 Provide efficient temporary drainage
bunded areas, lined storage areas,
system
etc.)
 Immediate clean-up of chemical and
 Appropriate waste management
fuel spill
 Implement appropriate hazardous
waste / materials practices
Proposed  Daily visual site inspection of  Regular inspection of waste

Monitoring potential soil contamination management facilities
Programme
 Where dewatering activities are  Daily visual site inspection of
undertaken, sampling and testing will potential soil contamination
be undertaken on a monthly basis
 Quarterly sampling and groundwater
analysis at one location
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxvii
Soil and Groundwater Assessment

Component

Impact anticipated. anticipated.
Biodiversity (Terrestrial Ecology)
A total of 39 species of flora and fauna were recorded at the Project site during the terrestrial
survey, which was conducted from 19 to 20 August 2018 (two days and one night). The overall
species richness of the area (approximately 3% of the total species of flora and fauna in the
UAE) is considered to be very low.
Species identified at the Project site are not currently classified as threatened species under the
IUCN 2018 Red List of Threatened Species, which suggests that only common and highly
resilient species are present. All habitats identified on-site have a little conservation value. No
threatened species or species that require specific habitat to survive are found.
Aquatic habitats are not present within or near the project site.
Biodiversity Assessment

Component
Impact Vegetation clearing is an unavoidable No significant impact on flora and

Assessment impact. However, the impact on floral fauna is anticipated except for potential
diversity is considered to be negligible introduction of invasive species if
given the plant species identified at the waste is not properly managed.
Project site. Further, the Project site
has already been modified and
disturbed and has limited conservation
value.
No threatened species or species that
require specific habitat to survive are
recorded for the project site.
Proposed  Manage size of land disturbance for  Implement appropriate wheel

Management temporary construction laydown washing of trucks prior to entering
areas to minimum necessary the site
 Reduce traffic speeds to prevent  Implement appropriate waste
fauna injury and mortality management plan
Proposed  Visual observation on the presence  Visual observation on the presence

Monitoring of injured fauna of injured fauna
Programme

Impact anticipated. anticipated.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxviii
Access, Traffic and Transport
The proposed site is accessed via the existing E44 highway (or Al Khail Road or Dubai-Hatta
Highway), a dual 4-lane highway that runs from the west to east. Other major routes to the west
and east of the Project are E311 (Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Road) and E611 (Emirates
Road). The major roads surrounding the development include the Academic City Road to the
south and the Al Awir Road to the north of the proposed development.
A Level 1 Traffic Impact Study was completed for the project.

From the E44 highway, the Project can be reached via D54 (or Sheikh Zayed Bin Hamdan Al
Nahyan Street). The proposed development falls under medium industry with a total GFA of
58,089 m2.
Traffic Assessment

Component
Impact Construction activities will lead to a Site access analysis has been carried
Assessment temporary increase in road traffic, out at the access points (1 and 2) to
which can potentially affect road safety determine the impact of generated trips
at the Project site and nearby road on the existing road traffic. The access
networks if traffic is not properly locations are analysed using HCS 7
managed. Transport requirements of software.
the Project will comprise of daily
Site access analysis indicate that the
transport of construction personnel to
access point will work at an acceptable
the Project site, delivery of construction
level of service (LOS) for the opening
materials and resources, delivery of
year 2023 during AM and PM peak
site equipment and supporting facilities
hours. The LOS are as follows:
and collection of solid waste for off-site
disposal.  Access 1: LOS A (AM) & LOS B (PM)
Potential impacts associated with the  Access 2: LOS C (AM) & LOS B
construction phase traffic include: (PM)
 Increase in traffic congestion on the

road network from Port Rashid
leading to the Project site
 Increased potential for vehicle
accident / incident associated with a
larger volume of traffic on the road
network
Proposed  Implement traffic management and  Implement traffic management and

Management access plan access plan
 Provide mass transport for workers
Proposed  Monitor traffic condition within the  Monitor traffic condition within the
Monitoring Project site Project site
Programme
Residual An increase in traffic is an unavoidable Residual impact is not anticipated as

Impact but transient impact from the the LOS on the access roads (1 and 2)
construction activities of the Project.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxix
Traffic Assessment

Component
planned for the Project is considered

sufficient.
Surface Water Resources
The nearest water body is the Al Warsan Lake located approximately 2.29 km west of the
Project site. Al Warsan Lake is a wetland that has been created by taking treated effluent from
the nearby Al Aweer STP and putting it in an unused quarry area (Nakheel, 2018). It is
becoming home to various species of plants, animals, mammals, fish and reptiles.
The total installed desalination capacity available in Dubai is 470 million imperial gallons per day
(MIGD) in addition to 32 MIDG from wells. Data shows that peak water demand increased by
2.96% (from 337 MIGD in 2015 to 347 MIGD in 2016). Residential areas consumed the most
water in 2016 (60.72%) followed by commercial areas (26.57%).
Approximately 4.80 m3/h of potable water will be used for domestic, sanitary as well as
firefighing system while about 42.35 m3/h (1 stream operation) or 76.06 m3/h (2 stream
operation) will be required for operation. Potable water will be sourced from DEWA while
sewage treated effluent (STE) from Al Aweer Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) will be treated for
WtE operation.

Component
Impact Potable water and water for domestic Water discharges from the plant
Assessment and other washing activities on-site will operation include process and
be supplied by existing DEWA facilities softened water, which can be reused.
on-site. As such, there is no water discharged
from the WtE operation.
Recycling and reusing water from Al
Aweer STP provides benefits such as
conservation of potable / freshwater
supply, reduces water discharge into
water bodies and provide economic
benefits.
Proposed Implement the following water  Water efficiency measures are

Management conservation measures: adopted as early as the design
phase and on an ongoing basis
 Use of water efficient devices and
during the operation phase
practices (i.e. high-pressure water for
equipment cleaning)  Built-in water management measures
are incorporated in the design of the
 Frequent site inspections of water
WtE plant; as such wastewater
leaks and wastage
discharge is not anticipated
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxx

Component
 Limit dust suppression to what is

necessary
 Provide employee training on water
use behaviour and best practice
procedures
 Re-use water (if applicable)
Proposed  Keep record of water consumption  Keep record of water consumption

Monitoring
Programme

Impact anticipated anticipated
Energy Resources
In 2015, DEWA produced a total gross generation of 42,006,335 MWh of power, which was
produced mainly through the use of natural gas (DEWA, 2015). The total installed capacity of
the power plants is 10,000 Megawatts (MW), which is greater than the 2016 peak demand of
7982 MW.
DEWA annual statistics for 2016 indicate that the annual average electricity consumption in
2016 was 43,093 Gigawatt hours (GWh), with the commercial sector reported as having the
highest consumption of electricity, followed by residential areas.
Energy Resources

Component
Impact Power requirements will most likely be The completion and operation of the
Assessment supplied through power generating proposed WtE plant is considered to
units, which causes air pollution have a significant positive impact in
emissions. Construction utilities and terms of energy sufficiency,
equipment will also require regular diversification of energy resources and
delivery of fuel, which may potentially contribution of additional power supply
cause oil spills and VOC emissions. to meet the demands of increasing
population and growing economy. The
WtE plant itself will operate from
energy produced from the processing
of MSW.
Proposed  Reduce electricity use (i.e. switch-off Mitigation measure is not required as
Management light when not in use, using energy the impact is considered beneficial
efficiency light bulbs)
 Optimising energy efficiency (i.e. no
idling of equipment, use of cleaner
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxi
Energy Resources

Component
fuel, use of equipment fitted with

pollution control devices, maintain
equipment and vehicles as per
manufacturer’s recommendation, use
main electricity or battery-powered
equipment)
Proposed  Keeping record of fuel use  Not applicable

Monitoring
 Environmental incident reporting (i.e.
Programme
fuel / oil spill)
Residual No significant residual impact is There will be a net positive impact from
Impact anticipated the operation of the WtE plant
Waste Management
In reference to the Strategic Integrated Plan for Solid Waste (Master plan) prepared for DM
Waste Management Department (WMD) by Mott MacDonald (May 2013), the approximate
tonnes of construction and demolition (C&D) waste generated per 1 million AED spent is about
500 tonnes. This can be used as a benchmark for the total construction waste estimated to be
generated from the project. However, as fabrication of the technology will be completed off-site,
there may be less waste attributed to this project than per typical construction projects in the
property and buildings development market.
Waste generation during the construction phase include:
 Food waste – 30 to 75 kg/day
 Solid waste – 30 to 75 kg/day
 Sewage – 125 to 300 m3/day
 Mixed waste -11,520 m3
 Metals – 3600 tonnes (entire construction period)
 Concrete – 22,000 m3 (entire construction period)
 Wood – 6000 m3 (entire construction period)
Waste generation during the operation phase include:

 Food waste – up to 60 kg/day
 Solid waste – up to 120 kg/day
 Wastewater – 70 to 103 m3/day

 Incineration bottom ash (IBA) – 39,950 kg/h bottom ash from wet extractor at LPN, total
for five lines; 282,269 tpa mineralic aggregates to be produces after pre-treatment,
processing and maturation.
 Boiler ash (non-hazardous) – 985 kg/h at LPN, total of tfive lines
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxii
 Flue gas treatment (FGT) residue (including fly ash (hazardous waste)) – 310 t/day for
five inceneration lines
Waste Management Assessment

Component
Impact Without appropriate management, the The benefits of the operation of the
Assessment generation, storage and disposal of Project with respect to waste include
construction waste may lead to (i) soil the reduction of waste disposed to
and groundwater contamination, landfills. The WtE plant can utilise
(ii) dispersion of waste in and around typical MSW, refuse-derived fuel from
the project site, (iii) odour from storage a materials recovery facility as well as
of putrescible waste and sewage commercial and industrial wastes that
storage tanks, (iv) hazards to fauna, may otherwise be disposed of in a
and (v) hazards to health and safety. landfill.
Operational waste generated by the
Project will form additional loads to
existing waste infrastructure and
utilities; however, will also reduce the
load on waste management facilities in
the Dubai Emirate.
Impacts of operational waste (including
bottom ash and flue gas treatment
residue), if not properly managed, are
similar to construction waste impacts.
Proposed  Implement waste management  Manage waste deliverables and

Management system to include waste unloading areas
minimisation, reuse, recycle and
 Maintenance of waste bunkers and
appropriate disposal.
receiving areas
 Provide spill kits and fire
 Maintenance of leachate collection
extinguishers
system
 Provide training and personal
 Establish a comprehensive waste
protective equipment (PPE) for
management system
workers for proper handling, storage
and disposal of wastes  Provide suitable waste storage
facilities
 Train workers on the waste
management requirements
Proposed  Daily visual inspection of waste  Daily visual inspection of waste

Monitoring storage facilities storage facilities
Programme
 Maintain waste registers  Maintain waste registers
Residual Waste generation cannot be wholly There will be a net positive impact from
Impact avoided nor will waste be entirely the operation of WtE plant because of
recycled or reused. However, with the overall reduction of waste disposed
to the landfill.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxiii
Waste Management Assessment

Component
proper handling and disposal, there

should be minimal residual impact.
Landscape and Visual Amenity
A roadway borders the site to the north, such that there is about 300 to 400 m of separation
from the proposed plant to the residential area (i.e. Residential Villas at Desert Palm Polo Club).
Southerly facing view shows exiting power plant (i.e. DEWA) stacks beyond the site limits.
Easterly facing view shows industrial sites beyond the project site. Westerly facing view show
Dubai Textile City beyond Al Aweer STP and sludge disposal.
Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment
EIA Construction / Operation Phase

Component
Impact Potential visual impacts associated with the Project include increase in the
Assessment number of trucks transporting construction materials (during construction phase)
and waste (operation phase). Increased in dust levels associated with the
increased vehicle movement is also anticipated. Visual impact to the residential
villa to the north of the site within Desert Palm Polo Club are anticipated to be
minimal given the existing landscape screening.
Proposed  Implement traffic management plan

Management
 Implement dust management plan
 Implement the following measures to ensure impacts on visual amenity is
mitigated:
– Colours and similar cladding harmonized with the adjacent industrial sites
– Maintenance of exterior facades of the building
– Landscaping around the WtE plant
Proposed Not applicable

Monitoring
Programme
Residual Residual impact is not anticipated

Impact
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxiv
Land Use
The existing site is operational as a vehicle storage area and there are no receptors within the
site footprint. According to DM Planning Department (2012), the Project site is categorised as
Area 2 (Metropolitan Area) or areas where ongoing, onhold or deferred mega projects are
planned. As detailed in Dubai 2020 Urban Masterplan (DM Planning Department, 2012), the
Project site is classified under ‘land for future development subject to environmental
investigations and detail studies’.
Based on existing land use, majority of the areas adjacent the Project site are industrial and
commercial facilities. A number of residential, institutional and resource/attraction areas are also
found surrounding the Project site. The nearest residential and resource / attraction areas are
found around 300 to 400 m north of the site.
Land Use Assessment

Component
Impact The proposed WtE plant is not anticipated to have any impact on land use and is
Assessment consistent with the land use classification. The classification of the site as ‘land for
future development subject to environmental investigation and detail studies’ is
satisfied through the preparation of this EIA report. Therefore, based on existing
land use and future land use development according to DM Planning Department
(2012), no impacts are anticipated in terms of conflict in land use.
Proposed Mitigation measure is not required as impacts on land use is negligible.

Management

Monitoring
Programme
Residual Not applicable

Impact
Protected Areas
The nearest protected area is the Al Wohoosh Desert Conservation Reserve located
approximately 20 km east of the site.
Protected Areas Assessment

Component
Impact The Project is located around 20 km east of a designated protected area; as such,
Assessment encroachment of the Project is not anticipated. Further, environmental and social
impacts (e.g. air emission, noise generation) generated during the construction and
operation phases is not anticipated to impact the protected areas.
Proposed Mitigation measure is not required as impacts on protected areas is negligible.

Management
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxv
Protected Areas Assessment

Component

Monitoring
Programme

Impact
Socio-economic
In 2016, the population of the Emirate of Dubai was approximately 2.97 million (Dubai Statistics
Center, 2017). Around 91.76% of the population comprises expatriates while the remaining
8.23% are Emiratis. The Project site is located in Warsan 2, Dubai (Sector 5), which had a
population of 764 at the end of 2017 equivalent to 0.02% of Dubai’s population. At the end of
2017, Dubai’s population consisted predominantly of males (70.18%); about 58.46% are
concentrated in the 25–44 age bracket; and total dependency ratio of 19%. Economic indicators
show that majority of the workforce is male, while the education indicaor shows a very high
literacy rate (97.4% in 2015) and good health and living condition indicators.
The Dubai Economic Profile (Department of Economic Development - Dubai (DED) 2016)
shows that the Emirate of Dubai accounts for 30% of the UAE’s total GDP. Since 2014, Dubai’s
GDP increased by 0.3% resulting in a growth rate of 4.1% in 2015 (DED, 2016). In 2016, the
real GDP growth rate was 2.9% as opposed to 4.1% in 2015 (DED, 2017). Stimulant policies
applied by the Federal Government and the Government of Dubai contributed in boosting the
economy, and hence, the continuation of growth in all sectors (DED, 2017).
In 2016, the wholesale, retail and repairing services sector (27.6%) has been contributing the
most to Dubai’s GDP followed by transport sector (11.6%), financial activities (10.6%), while real
estate and construction added 6.6% and 6.4%, respectively (DED, 2017).
Socio-Economic Assessment

Component
Impact Socio-economic impacts: Socio-economic impacts:

Assessment
The peak of the construction is Provision of long-term employment
anticipated to employ approximately opportunities to local Emiratis and
2000 workers. The Project will generate migrant workers is considered to be a
demand for construction materials that beneficial direct impact.
can be acquired from local areas in the
The operation of the WtE plant is
UAE thereby contributing to overall
anticipated to reduce Dubai’s reliance
economic growth of Dubai.
on imported energy supply from the
Impacts on workers: Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
Workforce will be provided with labour Impacts on workers:
accommodation. The workers and staff
The operation and maintenance of the
members could be exposed to various
WtE plant has associated occupational
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxvi
Socio-Economic Assessment

Component
occupational and safety hazards, which health and safety risks, which include
are inherent to construction works. exposure to air emissions, noise and
heat, electrical hazards, among others.
Migrant workers may be exposed to
adverse working and living conditions Workers will be provided with labour
accommodation. Migrant workers may
Conflict with community:
be exposed to adverse working and
Workers will most likely be migrants and living conditions
increase in population may have
adverse impact on the local community
if not adequately managed.
Proposed Enhancement measures for positive impacts:

Management
 Priority given to local workforce and local companies
 Just and fair compensation to workers
 Regular monitoring will be undertaken to ensure that rights of workers are
protected
Mitigation measues for potential adverse impacts:

 Appointment of community liaison officer (or similar) to maintain good
relationship with the community and other stakeholders
 Develop grievance management procedure and ensure that all complaints are
addressed
 To minimise the impacts associated with the influx of additional foreign /
expatriate workers, the Project should utilise the workforce currently and readily
available in Dubai
 Induction training will be provided to foreign workers to include understanding
and respecting culture and religion in the UAE
 Compliance with local and international labour and working condition guidelines
 Compliance with local and international labour accommodation guidelines
 Develop and implement Occupational Health and Safety Plan (OHSP)
Proposed  Construction labour monitoring procedures (observation of work and living sites,
Monitoring interviews with workers and management, review of employers’ systems and
Programme documents i.e. time keeping and payment)
 Review of grievance registration log
Residual There will be a net positive impact from With the completion and operation of
Impact the Project construction activities the Project, reliance on fossil fuel and
through the provision of employment imported energy (from Abu Dhabi
and business opportunities as well as Emirate) will be reduced, improving
simulations of the local and regional long-term revenues in the Emirate of
economy. Dubai.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxvii
Public Health
Health indicators show a very good health and living conditions in the Emirate of Dubai. Based
on the record of Dubai Health Authority (cited in DSC, 2016), the leading causes of morbidity in
2016 is chickenpox (38%) followed by pneumonia (13%).
Public Health Assessment

Component
Impact Increased community and occupational health and safety risk (air emission, noise,
Assessment waste generation and increased traffic).
Proposed  Implement environmental management measures (air and noise control

Management measures)
 Implement occupational and community health & safety plan

 Implement traffic management plan
 Implement grievance mechanism to address community complaints (if any)
Proposed  Air quality (dust), odour and noise monitoring (refer to the tables above)
Monitoring
 Daily occupational health and safety inspections
Programme
Residual Residual impact is not anticipated

Impact
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxviii
Archaeology and Cultural Resources
The proposed WtE plant will be located in a disturbed environment surrounded by industrial and
commercial (i.e. warehouse and stores) facilities. All the archaeological and cultural resources
identified by the Government of Dubai, represented by Dubai Culture, are considerably distant
from the WtE plant.
Archaeology and Cultural Resources Assessment

Component
Impact All the archaeological and cultural resources are considerably distant from the WtE
Assessment plant and are not anticipated to be affected during the construction and operation
of the Project.
Proposed No mitigation is required since the Project is not likely to have any impact on
Management archaeological and cultural resources. Nonetheless, the Proponent will report any
accidental findings to the relevant authorities (e.g. DM-Architectural Heritage and
Antiquities Department, AHAD).
Chance find procedures will therefore be developed and included in construction

and operations management plans in case of chance findings of archaeological
and cultural significance.

Monitoring
Programme

Impact
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xxxix
Table of contents
QA / QC Page........................................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... iii
Project Fact Sheet ......................................................................................................................... iv
Project Structure ............................................................................................................................ v
Project Location ........................................................................................................................... vii
Study Area ................................................................................................................................... vii
Schematic Diagram ........................................................................................................................ x
Project Components...................................................................................................................... xi
Key Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................................. xix
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................. xxi
Acronyms and Abbreviation ................................................................................................................... lvi
Units and Variables ................................................................................................................................ lix

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Title and Project Proponent ..................................................................................... 2
1.3 Project Rationale.................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Project Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 6
1.5 The Need for an EIA Report ................................................................................................ 8
1.6 Structure of the EIA Report .................................................................................................. 8
1.7 EIA Review Chronology ....................................................................................................... 9
2. Description of the Project’s EIA Process ..................................................................................... 12
2.1 EIA Scope of Work............................................................................................................. 12
2.2 EIA Team ........................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 EIA Methodology................................................................................................................ 16
2.4 Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................................. 25
3. Reference Laws, Regulations, and Standards ............................................................................ 27
3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 27
3.2 Dubai Municipality Regulatory Framework ........................................................................ 27
3.3 UAE Federal Regulatory Framework ................................................................................. 30
3.4 Regional Conventions and Protocols................................................................................. 31
3.5 International Conventions and Protocols ........................................................................... 32
4. Description of the Project ............................................................................................................. 41
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 41
4.2 Project Location and Area ................................................................................................. 42
4.3 Project Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................ 46
4.4 Potential Key Sensitive Receptors..................................................................................... 55
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xliv
4.5 Project Layout .................................................................................................................... 60
4.6 Material Balance ................................................................................................................ 70
4.7 Technology Overview ........................................................................................................ 72
4.8 Project Utility Requirements .............................................................................................. 95
4.9 Description of WtE Plant Development.............................................................................. 95
4.10 Manpower Requirements .................................................................................................103
4.11 Access Roads ..................................................................................................................105
4.12 Project Scope...................................................................................................................105
4.13 Project Status and Schedule ...........................................................................................105
4.14 Project Cost .....................................................................................................................106
5. Description of the Environment ..................................................................................................107
5.1 EIA Study Area ................................................................................................................107
5.2 Climate and Meteorology .................................................................................................107
5.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................112
5.4 Noise ................................................................................................................................134
5.5 Geology, Seismicity, Soil and Groundwater ....................................................................142
5.6 Biodiversity and Conservation .........................................................................................166
5.7 Access, Traffic and Transport ..........................................................................................189
5.8 Water and Energy Resources ..........................................................................................192
5.9 Waste Management .........................................................................................................202
5.10 Land Use and Visual Amenity..........................................................................................215
5.11 Socio-Economics, Culture and Health .............................................................................223
6. Assessment of Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................231
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................231
6.2 Greenhouse Gas Assessment .........................................................................................231
6.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................240
6.4 Noise ................................................................................................................................297
6.10 Land Use and Visual Amenity..........................................................................................337
6.11 Socio-Economic, Culture and Health ...............................................................................339
7. Mitigation Measures and Enhancement Plan ............................................................................353
7.1 Greenhouse Gas Assessment .........................................................................................353
7.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................353
7.3 Noise ................................................................................................................................358
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xlv
7.9 Land use and Visual Amenity ..........................................................................................368
7.10 Socio-economics, Culture and Health .............................................................................369
7.11 Environmental Impacts Summary ....................................................................................371
8. Environmental Management and Monitoring Program ..............................................................398
8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................398
8.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................398
8.3 Implementation ................................................................................................................398
8.4 Environmental Management Plans ..................................................................................399
8.5 Monitoring and Record Management ..............................................................................408
8.6 Environmental Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................408
8.7 Organisation Structure .....................................................................................................416
8.8 Responsibilities ................................................................................................................422
8.9 Resources ........................................................................................................................424
8.10 Induction and Training .....................................................................................................424
9. Conclusions and General Recommendations ...........................................................................425
9.1 Construction Phase..........................................................................................................425
9.2 Operation Phase ..............................................................................................................428
10. Statement of Commitment .........................................................................................................432
11. References .................................................................................................................................433
Table index
Table 0-1 Project Components.............................................................................................................. xiii
Table 1-1 Project proponent details ......................................................................................................... 2
Table 1-2 EPC Contractor Details ............................................................................................................ 2

Table 1-3 UAE Policy Framework in relation to WtE plant ....................................................................... 5
Table 1-4 Advantages and disadvantages of a ‘No Project’ scenario...................................................... 7
Table 2-1 Project categories .................................................................................................................. 13
Table 2-2 Contact details of environmental consultant .......................................................................... 14
Table 2-3 Expertise of key team members ............................................................................................ 14
Table 2-4 Subconsultants....................................................................................................................... 16
Table 2-5 EIA Approach and Methodology ............................................................................................ 17
Table 2-6 Sensitive Receptors Area....................................................................................................... 20
Table 2-7 Likelihood of Impact ............................................................................................................... 21
Table 2-8 Consequence of Impact ......................................................................................................... 22
Table 2-9 Significance of environmental impact matrix.......................................................................... 25
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xlvi
Table 3-1 Applicable environmental legislative requirements in Dubai Emirate .................................... 27
Table 3-2 Federal Environmental Laws and Regulations Relevant to the Project................................. 30
Table 3-3 Regional Conventions and Protocol Relevant to the Project ................................................. 31
Table 3-4 Applicability of Equator Principles at Various Phases of the Project ..................................... 33
Table 3-5 IFC Performance Standards relevant to the Project .............................................................. 37
Table 3-6 World Bank EHS Guidelines relevant to the Project .............................................................. 39
Table 3-7 International Conventions and Protocols relevant to the Project ........................................... 40
Table 4-1 Key performance data ............................................................................................................ 41
Table 4-2 Geographical Coordinates of the Project ............................................................................... 43
Table 4-3 Receptors identified within 5 km from the site ....................................................................... 56
Table 4-4 Project Components............................................................................................................... 63
Table 4-5 Process Tank Design Basis ................................................................................................... 94
Table 4-6 Management of Waste during Peak Delivery Conditions ...................................................... 99
Table 4-7 Average Turnaround Time per Truck ...................................................................................100
Table 4-8 Estimated Manpower Requirements ....................................................................................104
Table 5-1 Summary of GHG emissions for UAE for 2013 ...................................................................110
Table 5-2 Air pollution indicators at monitoring sites in Dubai (2013–2017) ........................................115
Table 5-3 Adopted Assessment Criteria ..............................................................................................116
Table 5-4 Baseline Air Quality Monitoring Locations ...........................................................................117

Table 5-5 Baseline air monitoring parameters and methodology (need to confirm with Core
Laboratories) ....................................................................................................................120
Table 5-6 Dioxin and furan monitoring schedule..................................................................................123
Table 5-7 Parameters and Equipment .................................................................................................124
Table 5-8 Dioxin and Furans that were considered .............................................................................124
Table 5-9 Baseline Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results ................................................................126
Table 5-10 Summary of results ............................................................................................................130
Table 5-11 Dioxin and furan monitoring laboratory results ..................................................................131
Table 5-12 Target compounds and sampling methodology .................................................................132
Table 5-13 Odour monitoring schedule ................................................................................................133
Table 5-14 Odour monitoring results ....................................................................................................134
Table 5-15 Baseline noise monitoring locations...................................................................................135
Table 5-16 Summary of adopted noise assessment crtieria ................................................................138
Table 5-17 Summary of adopted vibration assessment crtieria ...........................................................139
Table 5-18 Weekend survey timing and schedule ...............................................................................139
Table 5-19 Weekday survey timing and schedule ...............................................................................140
Table 5-20 Ambient noise survey results: daytime noise levels ..........................................................140
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xlvii
Table 5-21 Ambient noise survey results: night-time noise levels .......................................................141
Table 5-22 Site Observation and Sources of Noise .............................................................................141
Table 5-23 Summary of soil investigation taken by ACES ...................................................................148
Table 5-24 Summary of chemical testing .............................................................................................148
Table 5-25 Environmental baseline sampling locations .......................................................................150
Table 5-26 Baseline Soil Sampling Results .........................................................................................153
Table 5-27 Summary of Groundwater In-situ Data ..............................................................................156
Table 5-28 Summary of Groundwater Laboratory Data .......................................................................157
Table 5-29 Potential sources of ground gas at the site ........................................................................162
Table 5-30 Ground gas monitoring schedule .......................................................................................162
Table 5-31 Ground gas sampling laboratory analysis ..........................................................................164
Table 5-32 Flora species recorded at the Project site..........................................................................167
Table 5-33 Invertebrates recorded at the Project site ..........................................................................170
Table 5-34 Bird species recorded at the Project site ...........................................................................171
Table 5-35 Plant Species recorded at the Project Site ........................................................................177
Table 5-36 Bird Species recorded at the Project Site ..........................................................................180
Table 5-37 Mammalian Species recorded at the Project site ..............................................................183
Table 5-38 Reptiles Recorded at the Project Site ................................................................................187
Table 5-39 Distance of water bodies from the proposed WtE Plant ....................................................192
Table 5-40 Energy consumption and installed capacity in the UAE ....................................................197
Table 5-41 Estimated Annual Waste Generation from Dubai (tpd)......................................................203
Table 5-42 Existing Dubai Waste Management Facilities ....................................................................205
Table 5-43 Major Chemical Constituents Present in MSW Combustor Ash (ISWA-WGTT,
2006) ................................................................................................................................213
Table 5-44 Summary of Waste Generated ..........................................................................................214
Table 5-45 Location of protected areas from the proposed WtE plant ................................................218
Table 5-46 View shed surrounding the Project site..............................................................................222
Table 5-47 Socio-demographic indicators in the Emirate of Dubai ......................................................224
Table 5-48 Dubai GDP Growth Rate ....................................................................................................224
Table 5-49 Dubai’s GDP Structure .......................................................................................................225
Table 5-50 Economic activity area .......................................................................................................225
Table 5-51 Archaeological and heritage resources in Dubai ...............................................................227
Table 5-52 Health indicators in the Emirate of Dubai...........................................................................229
Table 5-53 Leading causes of morbidity in the Emirate of Dubai (2016) .............................................229
Table 6-1 Greenhouse gases and 100 year global warming potentials ...............................................232
Table 6-2 Assumptions for the GHG assessment ................................................................................234
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xlviii
Table 6-3 Summary of project life greenhouse gas emissions ............................................................236
Table 6-4 Summary of annual greenhouse gas emissions ..................................................................237
Table 6-5 Summary of greenhouse gas emissions for United Arab Emirates for 2014 .......................238
Table 6-6 Potential unmitigated impacts on climate change and meteorology ....................................240
Table 6-7 Emission source parameters as used in the AERMOD model ............................................246
Table 6-8 Source emission rates for modelling ....................................................................................246
Table 6-9 Comparison of estimated emission rates of Cd for this Project and monitored
emission rates of Cd for a number of existing WMCs .....................................................247
Table 6-10 Predicted 1-hour, 24-hour and annual NO2 concentrations ...............................................249
Table 6-11 Predicted 1-hour, 24-hour and annual SO2 concentrations ...............................................253
Table 6-12 Predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations ...............................................................256
Table 6-13 Predicted 24-hour and annual TSP concentrations – no dust control ...............................260
Table 6-14 Predicted 24-hour and annual TSP concentrations – with dust control .............................261
Table 6-15 Predicted 24-hour and annual PM10 concentrations – no dust control ..............................265
Table 6-16 Predicted 24-hour and annual PM10 concentrations – with dust control ............................266
Table 6-17 Predicted 24-hour and annual PM2.5 concentrations – no dust control..............................272
Table 6-18 Predicted 24-hour and annual PM2.5 concentration – with dust control .............................273
Table 6-19 Predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour HCl and 24-hour HF concentrations ............................278
Table 6-20 Predicted 1-hour TCDD and NH3 concentrations ..............................................................279

Table 6-21 Predicted 1-hour and annual mercury and cadmium concentrations ................................281
Table 6-22 Odour Criteria for the Assessment of Odour (EPA, 2016) .................................................283
Table 6-23 Odour assessment criterion ...............................................................................................285
Table 6-24 Modelled odour emission rates for each scenario .............................................................290
Table 6-25 Volume source parameters used in model ........................................................................291
Table 6-26 Predicted 1-hour 99th percentile peak odour concentration ...............................................291
Table 6-27 Potential unmitigated impacts on air quality.......................................................................295
Table 6-28 Predicted plant activity noise level (dBA) ...........................................................................298
Table 6-29 Vibration dose value (VDV) ranges and probabilities for adverse comment to
intermittent vibration (m/s1.75) ...........................................................................................299
Table 6-30 Guidance on the effects of vibration levels ........................................................................300
Table 6-31 Guidance values for short-term vibration on structures .....................................................300
Table 6-32 Summary of adopted vibration assessment criteria ...........................................................301
Table 6-33 Predicted vibration impacts at nearest receptor ................................................................302
Table 6-34 Noise impact assessment criteria ......................................................................................303

Table 6-35 Noise log (model inputs) ....................................................................................................304
Table 6-36 Boundary contribution from Project noisy equipment ........................................................306
Table 6-37 Contributed noise levels at sensitive receptor ...................................................................307
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | xlix
Table 6-38 Operational Impact Assessment ........................................................................................308
Table 6-39 Potential unmitigated impacts on noise .............................................................................315
Table 6-40 Potential unmitigated impacts on soil and groundwater ....................................................317
Table 6-41 Potential unmitigated impacts on biodiversity and conservation .......................................319
Table 6-42 Trip Generation Rates ........................................................................................................324
Table 6-43 Trip Generation Summary ..................................................................................................324
Table 6-44 Standard Parameters .........................................................................................................325
Table 6-45 LOS - Delay........................................................................................................................325
Table 6-46 Site Access Analysis – Opening Year 2022 ......................................................................326
Table 6-47 Parking Circulation (DTGPRM 2013) .................................................................................327
Table 6-48 Parking Circulation - DM ....................................................................................................327
Table 6-49 Parking Supply ...................................................................................................................327
Table 6-50 Potential unmitigated impacts on access, traffic and transport .........................................327
Table 6-51 Potential unmitigated impacts on water and energy resources .........................................332
Table 6-52 Potential unmitigated impacts on waste management ......................................................336
Table 6-53 Potential unmitigated impacts on land use and visual amenity .........................................338
Table 6-54 Potential unmitigated impacts on socio-economic, culture and health aspects.................350
Table 7-1 Waste Generation and Disposal ..........................................................................................365
Table 7-2 Environmental and social impact ratings before and after mitigation – Construction
Phase ...............................................................................................................................372
Table 7-3 Environmental and social impact ratings before and after mitigation – Operation
Phase ...............................................................................................................................387
Table 8-1 Impact management plan ....................................................................................................401
Table 8-2 Environmental monitoring plan – Construction Phase .........................................................409
Table 8-3 Environmental monitoring plan – Operation Phase .............................................................413
Table 8-4 Roles and Responsibilities in the Implementation of EMMP during the Construction
Phase ...............................................................................................................................422
Table 9-1 Key considerations - construction phase .............................................................................426
Table 9-2 Key considerations – operation phase .................................................................................430
Figure index
Figure 1 Dubai Waste Management Center Facility Rendering.............................................................. iv
Figure 2 Project Structure ....................................................................................................................... vi

Figure 3 Project site .............................................................................................................................. viii
Figure 4 Sampling Locations ................................................................................................................... ix
Figure 5 Schematic Diagram .................................................................................................................... x
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | l
Figure 0-6 Project Layout ....................................................................................................................... xii
Figure 7 Receptors ................................................................................................................................. xx
Figure 1-1 Power demand and planned capacity projection (2016 - 2030) ............................................. 4
Figure 4-1 Approximate Project Boundary (Highlighted Region) ........................................................... 44
Figure 4-2 Regional Setting of the Project ............................................................................................. 45
Figure 4-3 Surrounding Land Uses – 5 km radius ................................................................................. 48
Figure 4-4 Existing Potential Sensitive Receptor Categories ................................................................ 59
Figure 4-5 Project Layout ....................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 4-6 Project Rendering (View from South-West) .......................................................................... 62
Figure 4-7 Technological concept diagram ............................................................................................ 70
Figure 4-8 Bloc diagram (preliminary design to be finalised) ................................................................. 71
Figure 4-9 Block diagram showing incineration-boiler and dry flue gas treatment system .................... 72
Figure 4-10 Waste Bunker ..................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 4-11 Two Shaft Mobile Waste Shredder ..................................................................................... 75
Figure 4-12 Location of mobile waste shredder ..................................................................................... 76
Figure 4-13 Operation Mobile Waste Shredder ..................................................................................... 77
Figure 4-14 Thermal treatment schematic ............................................................................................. 78
Figure 4-15 Combustion Control System for a 5-zones grate with recirculated flue gas ....................... 79
Figure 4-16 Swirl Injection ...................................................................................................................... 81

Figure 4-17 Turbine generator within the WtE plant .............................................................................. 82
Figure 4-18 Principal function of bag filter and pulse-jet on-line cleaning ............................................. 83
Figure 4-19 Principle of HZI Dry Process – XeroSorp® ......................................................................... 84
Figure 4-20 Injection of Urea Solution .................................................................................................... 85
Figure 4-21 Comparison between regular SNCR-system and advanced SNCR-system
DyNORTM ........................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 4-22 Bottom Ash Treatment Flow Diagram................................................................................. 88
Figure 4-23 Mass flow diagram – Water Treatment Plant ..................................................................... 90
Figure 4-24 Reverse Osmosis (general) ................................................................................................ 93
Figure 4-25 EDI Membrane Deionization Process (general) ................................................................. 93
Figure 4-26 A typical waste delivery truck tipping off the waste into tipping bay .................................100
Figure 4-27 Traffic Swept Path / Waste Delivery .................................................................................101
Figure 5-1 EIA Study Area ...................................................................................................................108
Figure 5-2 Mean monthly temperature in the Emirate of Dubai (2013–2015) .....................................109
Figure 5-3 Mean monthly relative humidity in the Emirate of Dubai (2013–2015) ...............................110
Figure 5-4 Projected use of fuel types in Dubai, 2030 .........................................................................111
Figure 5-5 Seasonal Comparison of Air Pollutants in the UAE ............................................................113
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | li
Figure 5-6 Air Monitoring Stations ........................................................................................................119
Figure 5-7 Survey Summary of NDAMN by USEPA (August 2013) ....................................................123
Figure 5-8 Baseline noise monitoring stations .....................................................................................136
Figure 5-9 Geology of the UAE ............................................................................................................142
Figure 5-10 Tectonic Plates and Faults on Arabian Peninsula ............................................................143
Figure 5-11 Seismic activity in & around the UAE 1973 – 2006 ..........................................................145
Figure 5-12 Seismic activity in & around the UAE Dec 2013 to Current ..............................................145
Figure 5-13 Soils of Northern Emirates ................................................................................................146
Figure 5-14 Groundwater salinity map of UAE.....................................................................................147
Figure 5-15 Soil and groundwater monitoring stations ........................................................................151
Figure 5-16 Habitat map.......................................................................................................................176
Figure 5-17 Feeding Guilds of Avifauna Onsite ...................................................................................182
Figure 5-18 Mammals and Reptiles recorded at the Project site .........................................................184
Figure 5-19 Echolocation of Volant Mammals observed at the Project Site ........................................186
Figure 5-20 Feeding Guild of Mammals Onsite ...................................................................................187
Figure 5-21 Feeding Guild of Herpetofauna observed at the Project site ............................................188
Figure 5-22 Existing Road Network......................................................................................................190
Figure 5-23 Existing Public Transport Network ....................................................................................191
Figure 5-24 Surface water resources in the Emirates of Dubai ...........................................................194

Figure 5-25 UAE 2050 Energy Goals ...................................................................................................196
Figure 5-26 Total electricity consumption and residential percentage total .........................................196
Figure 5-27 Peak demand and planned capacity additions .................................................................197
Figure 5-28 Peak power demand (MW) and available power capacity (MW) ......................................198
Figure 5-29 Power installed capacity and peak demand in the Emirate of Dubai ...............................199
Figure 5-30 Electricity consumption by type of consumer ...................................................................199
Figure 5-31 Total water production capacity in 2016 (million imperial gpd) .........................................200
Figure 5-32 Desalination capacity and peak water demand in the Emirate of Dubai ..........................201
Figure 5-33 Water consumption by type of customer ..........................................................................201
Figure 5-34 Waste Changes over Years ..............................................................................................204
Figure 5-35 Location of current DM depots and facilities .....................................................................207
Figure 5-36 Diagram of the collection areas, and the transfer stations and MRFs..............................208
Figure 5-37 Annual Projected MSW Generation (Tonnes) ..................................................................209
Figure 5-38 MSW Generation (Projected vs Actual) (Tonnes) ............................................................210
Figure 5-39 Land area categories in Dubai ..........................................................................................216
Figure 5-40 Dubai 2020 Urban Masterplan ..........................................................................................217
Figure 5-41 Proximity of the Project site from Protected Areas ...........................................................219
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | lii
Figure 5-42 View of the existing site conditions ...................................................................................220
Figure 5-43 View shed surrounding the Project site ............................................................................221
Figure 5-44 Archaeological and heritage resources in the Emirate of Dubai ......................................228
Figure 6-1 IBA Management Area........................................................................................................244
Figure 6-2 Source Locations ................................................................................................................245
Figure 6-3 Predicted incremental 1-hour NO2 concentrations .............................................................250
Figure 6-4 Predicted cumulative 1-hour NO2 concentrations ...............................................................251
Figure 6-5 Predicted incremental 1-hour SO2 concentrations .............................................................254
Figure 6-6 Predicted cumulative 1-hour SO2 concentrations ...............................................................255
Figure 6-7 Predicted incremental 1-hour CO concentrations...............................................................257
Figure 6-8 Predicted cumulative 1-hour CO concentrations ................................................................258
Figure 6-9 Predicted incremental 24-hour TSP concentrations – No dust control...............................262
Figure 6-10 Predicted incremental 24-hour TSP concentrations – with dust control ...........................263
Figure 6-11 Predicted incremental 24-hour PM10 concentrations – no dust control ............................267
Figure 6-12 Predicted cumulative 24-hour PM10 concentrations – no dust control..............................268
Figure 6-13 Predicted incremental 24-hour PM10 concentrations – with dust control ..........................269
Figure 6-14 Predicted cumulative 24-hour PM10 concentrations – with dust control ...........................270
Figure 6-15 Predicted incremental 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – no dust control............................274
Figure 6-16 Predicted cumulative 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – no dust control .............................275
Figure 6-17 Predicted incremental 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – with dust control .........................276
Figure 6-18 Predicted cumulative 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – with dust control...........................277
Figure 6-19 Nearby odour sources.......................................................................................................286
Figure 6-20 Predicted odour contour plots around the Project site......................................................287
Figure 6-21 Predicted 98th percentile 1-hour average ground level odour concentrations ..................288
Figure 6-22 Waste bunker and tipping area locations .........................................................................289
Figure 6-23 Predicted 1-hour 99th percentile odour conditions ............................................................293
Figure 6-24 WtE plant boundary point receiver locations ....................................................................305
Figure 6-25 Noise measurement location ............................................................................................307
Figure 6-26 Overall Daytime Contour ..................................................................................................309
Figure 6-27 Overall Night-time Contour Plot ........................................................................................310
Figure 6-28 Overall Daytime Contour with Baseline ............................................................................311
Figure 6-29 Overall Night-time Countour with Baseline .......................................................................312
Figure 6-30 Daytime Contour with Receptors ......................................................................................313
Figure 6-31 Night-time Countour with Receptors .................................................................................314
Figure 6-32 Access road from Port Rashid to the Project site .............................................................322
Figure 6-33 Water Balance ..................................................................................................................331
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | liii
Figure 8-1 Proposed monitoring stations – Construction and Operation Phases ................................415
Figure 8-2 Project Structure .................................................................................................................417
Figure 8-3 EPC Contractor/Technology Provider.................................................................................418
Figure 8-4 Preliminary organization structure – construction phase ....................................................419
Figure 8-5 Preliminary organization structure – operation phase ........................................................421
Plate index
Plate 4-1 Panoramic view facing to the south from the approximate midpoint of the site ..................... 52
Plate 4-2 Panoramic view facing to the east from the existing sludge pits ............................................ 52
Plate 4-3 Existing Site Conditions surrounding the Project Area ........................................................... 54
Plate 5-1 Suspected lizard tracks observed at the Project site ............................................................172
Plate 5-2 Suspected small mammal burrow observed at the Project site ............................................172
Plate 5-3 Suspected large mammal tracks likely feral dog or fox observed at the site........................173
Plate 5-4 Suspected small snake tracks ..............................................................................................173
Plate 5-5 Habitat 4130 – Sand sheets and dunes with dwarf shrub cover ..........................................175
Plate 5-6 Habitat 9600 – Disturbed Ground .........................................................................................175
Plate 5-7 Flora observed on-site (A) Flowering Sodom’s Apple (Calatropis procera); and (B)
Devil’s Thorn (Tribulus terrestris).....................................................................................177
Plate 5-8 Dominant Plant Specis at the Project site: (A) Leptadenia pyrotechnica, and (B) H
bacciferum .......................................................................................................................179
Plate 5-9 Bird Species observed at the Project site: (A) Passer Domesticus, and (B) Euodice
malabarica .......................................................................................................................182
Plate 5-10 Reptiles observed at the Project site: (A) Stenodactylus arabicus, (B)
Acanthodactylus schmidti, and (C) Echis carinatus.........................................................188
Appendices
Appendix A – Authorization and Trade Licenses of EPC
Appendix B – Letter of Commitment from Dubai Municipality
Appendix C – Trade Licenses and Certification of GHD
Appendix D – Affection Plan
Appendix E – Approved Scope of Work Report
Appendix F – Scope of Work Approval and DM Correspondence
Appendix G – Regulatory Framework
Appendix H – Technical Process Description
Appendix I – Drawings
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | liv
Appendix J – Emergency Plan
Appendix K – EPC Performance Guarantee
Appendix L – Gantt Chart
Appendix M – Laboratory Reports and Calibration Certificates
Appendix N – Air and Odour Assessment Reports
Appendix O – Noise Impact Assessment
Appendix P – Terrestrial Ecology Survey Report
Appendix Q – Traffic Impact Study
Appendix R – Human Health Risk Evaluation
Appendix S – Product Specification: Mobile Waste Shredder
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | lv
Acronyms and Abbreviation
AAQM Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
ACC Air Cooled Condenser
ACF Activated Carbon Filters
ACES Arab Center for Engineering Studies
AD Anaerobic Digestion
AI Aluminium
As Arsenic
B Boron
Be Beryllium
Ba Barium
BAT Best Available Technique
BESIX NV Besix SA
BOT Build Operate and Transfer
Ca Calcium
CAIT Climate Analysis Indicators Tool
Cd Cadmium
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan
C&D Construction and Demolition
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CCW Close unit cooling water system
CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System
CI Chloride
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Co Cobalt
CH4 Methane
CN Cyanide
CPT Cone penetration tests
Cr Chromium
CSP Concentrated Solar Power
Cu Copper
DAC Dubai Accredited Center
DEWA Dubai Electricity and Water Authority
DIAC Dubai International Academic City
DIES Dubai Integrated Energy Strategy
DIC Dubai International City
DD Data deficient
DL Detection Level
DM Dubai Municipality
DM-ED Dubai Municipality Environment Department
DM-WMD Dubai Municipality Waste Management Department
DSC Dubai Statistics Center
DSCE Dubai Supreme Council of Energy
DWC Al Maktoum International Airport
DXB Dubai International Airport
EDI Electro-Deionization
ECS Environmental Control Section
EF Emission Factor
EfW Energy-from-Waste
EHS Environmental Health and Safety
EHSMS Environmental Health and Safety Management System
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EP Equator Principles
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
EPAP Equator Principles Action Plan
EPFI Equator Principles Financial Institutions
ERA Environmental Risk Assessment
EMMP Environmental Management and Monitoring Programe
ESMS Environmental and Social Management System
EU European Union
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | lvi
Fe Iron
FGT Flue Gas Treatment
GCB Generator Circuit Breaker
GCC Gulf Cooperation Council
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHD GHD Global Pty Ltd
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GLC Ground Level Concentrations
GPS Global Positioning System
GWh Gigawatt hour
GWP Global Warming Potential
HCl Hydrochloric Acid
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HF Hydrogen Fluoride
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessor
HIA Health Impact Assessment
Hg Mercury
HPW High Purity Water
HSE Health, Safety and Environment
HVS High volume samplers
HZI Hitachi Zosen Inova
IBA Incineration Bottom Ash
IED Industrial Emissions Directive
IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
IFC International Finance Corporation
IoA Institute of Acoustics
IP Indigenous Peoples
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPP Independent Power Producer
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
K Potassium
KPI Key Performance Indicator
kV Kilovolts
LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
MCA Multi Component Analyser
MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment
MDL Minimum detection limits
Mo Molybdenum
MOE Ministry of Energy
MOEW Ministry of Environment and Water
MOHRE Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation
Mg Magnesium
Mn Manganese
MRL Minimal Risk Level
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MW Megawatt
Na Sodium
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Ni Nickel
N2 Nitrogen
N2 O Nitrous oxide
NCV Net Calorific Value
NOC No Objection Certificate
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
NQM Noise Quality Monitoring
NSW AMMAAP Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New
South Wales
NSW EPA New South Wales Environment Protection Authority
NR Negligible Risk
O2 Oxygen
O&G Oil and Grease
OCC Old corrugated containers
ODS Ozone Depleting Substances
OEP Operational Emergency Plan
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | lvii
OEMP Operational Environmental Management Plan
OHSP Occupational Health and Safety Plan
Pb Lead
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
PO4 Phosphate-Phorphorus
PD Project Director
PM Project Manager
PM Particulate Matter
POP Persistent organic pollutant
PPE Personal protective equipment
PUF poly-urethane foam
R&D Research and Development
RDF Refuse-derived Fuel
RO Reverse Osmosis
S2 Sulphide
SF6 Sulphur hexaflouride
S&P Standard & Poor
Sb Antimony
SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan
SF6 Sulphur hexafluoride
SIA Social Impact Assessment
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
SO3 Sulphur Trioxide
SOP Standard Operation Procedure
SoW Scope of Work
SPV Special Project Vehicle
STP Sewage Treatment Plan
TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (Dioxin and Furan)
TEF Total Equivalent Factor
TEQ Total Equivalent Value
TIS Traffic Impact Study
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TSE Treated sewage effluent
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
UAE United Arab Emirates
UF Ultrafiltration
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UPS Uninterrupted Power Supply
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Total Volatile Organic Compounds
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organization
WMC Waste Management Center
WtE plant Waste to Energy
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WMMP Waste Management Master Plan
WMD Waste Management Department
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Zn Zinc
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | lviii
Units and Variables
µg/m3) Micrograms (one-millionth of a gram) per cubic meter
°C degrees Celsius
% Percent
CO2-e Carbon dioxide equivalent
dBA Decibels adjusted.
GW Gigawatt
kg/t kilogram per tonne
km2 square kilometer
kV Kilovolts
kWh Kilowatt hour
kW/t kilowatt per tonne
ha hectare
m meter
mm millimeter
m2 square meter
m3 cubic meter
m3/d cubic meter per day
m3/h cubic meter per hour
m3/yr cubic meter per year
mbgl meters below ground level
mg/Nm3 milligrams per cubic meter
MJ/kg megajoules per kilogram
tpa tonnes per annum
tpd tonnes per day
tph tonnes per hour
TWh terawatt hours
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | lix
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
As the Project Proponent, Dubai Municipality (DM) proposes the development of the Dubai
Waste Management Center (WMC), a proposed Waste-to-Energy Plant (WtE plant), (Project) at
the existing DM vehicle storage site in Warsan, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, specifically
Warsan 2.
The proposed WtE plant is considered by the DM to be an outcome of the 2013 Strategic
Integrated Waste Management Plan (Master Plan), in an effort to efficiently achieve
sustainability initiatives in line with the Dubai Strategic Plan 2021, UAE National Agenda 2021
and Dubai Integrated Energy Strategy 2030 (DIES).
The proposed WtE plant will treat about 1,888,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per
year, with an estimated nominal design capacity of 5,666 tonnes per day (tpd) at 9.5 MJ/kg net
calorific value (NCV), to generate an average net power output of 193 MW of electricity to the
local grid and resulting in power to about 135,000 homes.
Under contract with the Project Proponent, Hitachi Zosen Inova (HZI), a global leader in Energy-
from-Waste (EfW) technology, NV Besix SA, Sharjah branch (BESIX), a Belgian construction
company, and Itochu Corporation (Itochu), a Japanese company, formed a partnership to build,
operate and transfer (BOT) the WtE plant after 35 years. The contract is shared between a
Special Project Vehicle (SPV) and Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC)
partnership.
HZI commissioned GHD Global Pty Ltd (GHD) as the Project environmental consultant to
undertake the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and prepare documentation to support
applications for environmental clearance for the proposed Project.
The original Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) Rev 2 was submitted on
14 February 2019 (Ref. No. EPBI-121118-00005) and was re-submitted on 19 May 2019 (Ref.
No. EPBI-200519-00125). A Preliminary Environmental Approval (PEA) was issued by the
Dubai Municipality-Environment Department (DM-ED) on 20 May 2019 (Ref. No. EPBI-200519-
00125) and valid until 18 May 2020.However, it was cancelled on 17 July 2019 (EPBI/200519-
00125) and a revised EIAR Rev 4 is submitted on 3 October 2019 to present the following
modifications to the Project:
 Design improvement
 12 weeks Incinerated Bottom Ash (IBA) maturation
 Covered IBA Maturation Area
 Mobile waste shredder
 Installation of 132kV underground Cable and connection to DM STP substation
An Environmental Clearance (EC Ref. No. EPBI-090719-00145) was issued by DM-ED on 13
October 2019 for EIAR Rev 4.
On 19 February 2020, the Project Company requested a re-submission of EIAR Rev 5 to
incorporate the conditions of the EC into the report. DM-ED issued a number of clarifications.
This EIAR Rev 6 addresses the comments of DM-ED and submitted for approval.
GHD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | 1
1.2 Project Title and Project Proponent
1.2.1 Project Proponent
The details of the key point of contact at the Dubai Municipality are provided in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Project proponent details
Proponent Dubai Municipality
Address Dubai Municipality Headquarters
Telephone Number +971 4 206 3131
Contact Person Talib Abdulkareem Julfar
Email Address TAMOHAMMED@dm.gov.ae
1.2.2 Development Partnership
The Proponent commissioned the partnership between HZI, BESIX and Itochu. The details of
key contacts are provided in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2 EPC Contractor Details
Company Name Hitachi Zosen Inova AG (HZI)

Abu Dhabi Business Center
CN-2402965
Commercial License No.
Branch Office Abu Dhabi
Bin Hamoodah Tower, 9th Floor Office 904
Address
Khalifa Street, PO Box 43199
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Facsimile Number +971 2 627 6181
Mr. Roni Araiji

Contact Person
Managing Director
Company Name BESIX Group
Sharjah Economic Development
Department License No. 531313
11A Street
Address Al Quoz 3
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Mr. Nico De Koning

Contact Person
Bid Manager
Company Name Itochu Corporation
JAFZA General Trading License 3369
Address TOKAC Section
5-1, Kita-Aoyama 2-chome, Minato-ku
Tokyo 107-8077 Japan
Yu Tanaka
Contact Person Project Leader
Water & Environment Project Section
1.3 Project Rationale

The following general project introduction was prepared by DM for the Project (Request for
Prequalification, Project No. GS 002, Engineering, Procurement & Construction related to The
Waste to Energy Project, Works Description & Pre-Qualification Criteria, announcement date 12
May 2015):
Dubai is making great strides in the field of sustainability in line with the Dubai
Strategic Plan 2021, UAE National Agenda 2021 and Dubai Integrated Energy
Strategy 2030. These strategic plans aim to protect the environment and ensure
sustainable development through various projects and initiatives for conservation of
natural resources, rationalized consumption and inclusion of alternate and renewable
energy resources to Dubai‟s energy mix
In accordance with the objectives envisaged hereunder, Dubai Municipality is keen to
strengthen the national as well as emirate’s efforts to achieve the targets for
minimizing the municipal wastes disposed in landfills and for developing alternate
energy sources through prompt implementation of projects for the sustainable
management of wastes, energy and environment. In all its endeavors related to waste
to energy, Dubai Municipality partners with the Dubai Electricity & Water Authority
(DEWA) and Dubai Supreme Council of Energy (DSCE).
All of the electricity generated from this project after meeting its own power
requirement will be fed into the DEWA Grid. The project thus have a high significance
in contributing to the scaling up of sustainable energy solutions not only achieving
reduction in landfill requirements, carbon footprint, impacts of climate change etc. but
also offering various other environmental benefits.
Dubai Municipality’s core vision is “Creating an excellent city that provides the
essence of success and comfort of sustainable living”. This vision is underpinned by
the key strategic directive “Ensuring a clean and sustainable environment in the
Emirate of Dubai”. To achieve this objective, Dubai Municipality (DM) has developed
and adopted an Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) for the Emirate
of Dubai. The WMMP provides the roadmap and approach required to efficiently
manage wastes generated from the Emirates.
The Waste Management Department (WMD) of DM has the responsibility for
management of waste generated in the Emirate of Dubai. This includes collection,
treatment and disposal of wastes generated. Waste generated in Dubai is mainly
classified based on its source and the predominant disposal method. This includes
Municipal solid wastes, Construction and demolition wastes, Horticultural wastes,
Hazardous wastes, Medical wastes, Tyres and Sewage sludge.
In line with the UAE National Agenda 2021, Dubai Strategic Plan 2021, Dubai Integrated Energy
Strategy (DIES) 2030 and the Strategic Integrated Master Plan for Solid Waste, the Project
reflects the importance of accommodating a viable and efficient solution to achieve targets set
for these plans and strategies.
In line with the UAE Vision 2021 National Agenda of diversifying energy mix and the growing
energy demand, the country is forming a strategy to slow the growth in energy consumption and
diversify supply sources (e.g. nuclear power, renewable energy, liquefied natural gas). This
strategy will support the country to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and meet the demand of
rising energy (Ministry of Energy, 2015).
According to the Ministry of Energy (2015), the UAE’s demand for energy grows by 9% annually
in line with the growth of population. Dubai electricity consumption has increased by 5% in 2017
(45,162 GWh) compared to 43,093 GWh in 2016. Power demand projection has been
conducted by DEWA reflecting the increase in available power capacity up to 2030 as shown in
Figure 1-1 (DEWA, 2016).
Figure 1-1 Power demand and planned capacity projection (2016 - 2030)
Source: DEWA Sustainability Report 2016
Consistent with the vision of the UAE towards integrated waste management and energy
diversification in Dubai, the integrated strategic waste management master plan provides a
roadmap for sustainable waste management practices in the Emirate of Dubai up to 2030 and
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been developed to drive the process of the waste
management system strategy. These KPIs have been developed by the waste hierarchy and
sustainable development background, which are:
 Minimising wastes
 Maximising environmentally sound waste reuse and recycling
 Promoting environmentally sound waste disposal and treatment

 Extending waste service coverage
This strategy could be achieved by improving air quality, preserving water resources, increasing
the use of clean energy and implementing green growth plans. One of the indicators to achieve
the vision is to produce clearner energy by increasing the percentage of treated waste via
various treatment methods such as the use of WtE plant.
A stable energy supply is anticipated to foster continued economic stability and growth in the
country and the surrounding areas. As such, the Project is considered by the proponent to be in
line with addressing the following overarching goals:
 In line with 2050 Energy Strategy in investing in diversifying energy sources (solar,
nuclear , waste to energy and wind)
 Assist the Emirate of Dubai reach its 98% landfill diversion target by 2030 (Mott
MacDonald, 2013)
 Support the goal of UAE Vision 2021 and existing regulations (Table 1-3)
 Create business and job opportunities
 Encourage technology development by using renewable energy sources
Table 1-3 UAE Policy Framework in relation to WtE plant
Index UAE Vision 2021 Dubai Recovery Facility WtE Plant Contribution to
Indicator 1 2021 Indicator
UAE 1 Air Quality Index  Avoid methane emission from landfills:

Vision – Emissions avoided by not sending waste to
2021 landfill = 2400 kt CO2-e annually
 Continuing to landfill waste would be expected to
result in higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane (CH4) emissions contributing to greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and ozone depletion, leading
to climate change
2 Percentage of  The Project will assist Dubai reach its 90% landfill
treated waste out diversion by 2030
of total waste
 The Project will reduce land requirements for new or
generated
expanded landfill areas – landfill operations would
generate community health and safety impacts
3 Share of clean  The Project will help reduce the country’s reliance
energy on fossil fuels
contribution  The Project will contribute in producing clean
energy
 Emissions avoided by generating electricity from

waste = 620 kt CO2-e annually
5 Share of UAE  Employment of UAE nationals in addition to the

national in the experts in the field of waste management – assuring
workforce their professional development
7 Emiratization rate  Use of Best Available Technique (BAT) and leading

in the private technologies developed by HZI, a global leader in
sector waste-to-energy technology.
Index UAE Vision 2021 Dubai Recovery Facility WtE Plant Contribution to
Indicator 1 2021 Indicator
10 Global Innovation  Avoid methane emission from landfills:

Index – Emissions avoided by not sending waste to
landfill = 2400 kt CO2-e annually
 Continuing to landfill waste would be expected to
result in higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane (CH4) emissions contributing to greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and ozone depletion, leading
to climate change
Federal  Federal Law No. 2 of 1998 for Water and Electricity

Laws 2
 Federal Law No. 24 of 1999 for the Protection and Development of the
Environment
 Executive Order of Federal Law No. 24 for Regulation in Handling Hazardous
Materials, Hazardous Wastes and Medical Wastes
 Federal Cabinet Decision 37 of 2001 – Environmental Protection Executive
Regulations
1 – www.vision2021.ae Sustainable Environment and Infrastructure Pillar
2 – Relevance of these laws and how it applies to the Project is provided in Chapter 3
1.4 Project Alternatives

This section discusses the project alternatives considered in determining the preferred Project
concept defined in Section 4 (Project Description).
1.4.1 No Project Scenario
The Strategic Integrated Plan for Solid Waste Master Plan (Mott MacDonald, 2013) helped to
clarify the two main objectives under waste management which are related to achieveing
“integrated” waste management and, in general, to maintain the cleanliness of all areas within
the Emirate of Dubai. The 2013 master plan outlined three options that were considered for
waste management depending on population growth through 2030.
Master Plan Option 1 – Master Plan solution

Various types of waste treatment aimed at different years of operation such as source
segregation, composting, Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT).
Master Plan Option 2 - Energy from Waste (EfW)

All the waste treated at an EfW facility and the only byproduct would be the bottom ash. The
concern with this option had been relative to economic viability. The 2013 Master Plan
concluded that this option was considered economically unsustainable.
Master Plan Option 3 – Landfill

Also shows “do nothing” scenario, which assumes recycled materials will be in an un-centralised
scheme and all the rest of the waste will end up at the landfill only, with minimal recycling. The
plan notes that, “In the long-term, the ‘do nothing scenario’ would require more than three times
the landfill capacity than the ‘EfW’ scenario and over three and half times more than the Master
Plan solution by 2030.” The 2013 Master Plan concluded that this option was unsustainable in
terms of landfill capacity.
The ‘No Project’ scenario or “do nothing” has a number of advantages and disadvantages
outlined in Table 1-4. This option allows for the potential community health and safety issues
(e.g. emission of air pollutants, increased noise, and traffic impact) on the nearby sensitive
receptors to be avoided. The “No Project” scenario will not support Dubai to achieve the UAE
National Agenda 2021 target and DM objectives related to waste management.
The advantages of building the Project outweighs the advantages of a ‘No Project’ scenario.
With the Project, the goal of the Master Plan in diverting 98% of solid waste from landill by 2030
would be achieved. Another advantage includes the country’s reduction in its reliance on fossil
fuels. The potential adverse impacts in terms of community health and safety brought about by
the WtE plant can be mitigated through the installation of engineered environmental controls
(e.g. flue gas treatment described in Section 4) and development of environmental management
measures (defined in Section 7).
Table 1-4 Advantages and disadvantages of a ‘No Project’ scenario
Advantages Disadvantages
Potential impacts on community Increased land requirements for new or expanded

health and safety (e.g. traffic) during landfill areas. Landfill operations would generate
delivery of materials will be avoided community health and safety impacts.
Potential emission of air pollutants The goal of UAE Vision 2021 of diverting 75% solid
and increased noise during waste from landfills into energy may not be achieved
operation will be avoided without implementation of the project
Failing to achieve Dubai Emirate goal of 98% landfill

diversion by 2030
Depleting natural gas reserves in the country by not

allowing for the development of alternative waste
management strategies for energy diversification
Allows for alternative integrated Continuing to landfill waste would be expected to

waste management facilities to be result in higher levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and
pursued, or improvements made to Methane (CH4) emissions, contributing to greenhouse
new landfill cells gas (GHG) emissions and ozone depletion, leading to
climate change.
1.4.2 Project Site Alternatives
The project site selection was considered for the following reasons:
 Proximity to existing Warsan Landfill, which has minimal impact in transporting waste
routed to the WtE plant
 Proximity to high voltage transmission line for connection to the grid, coordinated with
DEWA
 Adjacency with other significant industrial installations and commercial uses such as the
Al Aweer Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and the existing concrete producing facilities
 Availability of suitable sized land
 Land ownership by DM and ability to relocate the existing vehicle storage area to
alternative location
 Stable peace and order situation

 The area is an industrial zone and the Project is compatible with the existing land use
 Separation of the plant from residential facilities, but suitable proximity to avoid costly
impacts due to energy distribution and grid transmission over a long distance
1.4.3 Technology Alternatives
In 2016 Fichtner, as the technical adviser of DM, defined the grate combustion technology and
Industrial Emission Directive (IED) 2010/75/EU as the basis for the design compliance.
Therefore, the design of the WtE plant is based on IED 2010/75/EU.
1.5 The Need for an EIA Report

This EIA was developed to identify and assess the potential environmental and social impacts of
the proposed Project and facilitate that the Project complies with relevant local, federal and
international standards, specifically the Equator Principle, International Finance Corporation
(IFC) Performance Standards, World Bank Group Environmental Health and Safety (EHS)
Guidelines. The requirements of these standards and guidelines are further detailed in
Section 3.
This EIA was prepared to support obtaining permits required by the local authorities (e.g. Dubai
Muncipality) for the Project. As such, the EIA was developed to meet the following objectives:
 Prepare EIA report in a manner that is consistent with local and international regulatory
requirements and guidelines
 Consult with relevant stakeholders through the issuance of correspondence and

documentation
 Identify potential significant environmental and social impacts (negative and positive)
associated with both construction and operation phases of the Project
 Develop mitigation measures to avoid or eliminate, minimise or reduce, manage and
offset negative environmental and social impacts and/or enhance benefits (positive
impacts)
 Develop an environmental and social management programme that provides a framework
for environmental management of the Project’s impacts
 Develop monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation of identified
mitigation measures
 Provides relevant stakeholders with a thorough understanding of the key elements,
impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed Project
1.6 Structure of the EIA Report

This report presents the detailed findings of the environmental and social investigations and
assessments undertaken for the Project and has the following structure with supporting
appendices:
 Executive Summary
 Section 1 – Introduction
 Section 2 – Description of the Project’s EIA Process
 Section 3 – Reference Laws, Regulations, and Standards
 Section 4 – Description of the Project
 Section 5 – Description of the Environment

 Section 6 – Assessment of Environmental Impacts
 Section 7 – Mitigation Measures and Enhancement Plan
 Section 8 – Environmental Management and Monitoring Program
 Section 9 – Conclusions and General Recommendations
 Section 10 – Statement of Commitment
 Section 11 - References
1.7 EIA Review Chronology
No. Description Method Date
1 Attempted submission of Scope of Work Report (Rev 0) to In person 06 May 2018

EPSS, denied due to requested additional documents to
be submitted (i.e. Project Affection Plan, Valid DED
license of Project Contractor2)

EPSS, denied at time of submission because lacking a
current site Affection Plan (Attempt 2)
3 Request for updated Affection Plan from the DM Email 13 May 2018
4 Receipt of an Affection Plan from the DM Email 17 May 2018
5 Email from Eng. Saif regarding direction to proceed with Email 16 May 2018
the EIA study and to later submit the site/plot plan with the
number 622-146

EPSS, denied at time of submission because EPSS
indicating no review needed for a DM-sponsored project
(Attempt 3)
7 Acknowledgement by DM that Scope of Work Report can n/a 21 May 2018

be submitted for review in line with international
requirements for the Scoping Study approval by the
regulatory authority
8 Submission of Scope of Work Report (Rev 0) to EPSS In person 22 May 2018

(Attempt 4, completed)
9 Receipt of DM-EPSS Comments (by email) By email 06 June 2018
10 Meeting with SPV to discuss comment resolution In person 11 June 2018
11 GHD Summary of Preliminary Comment Resolution By email 14 June 2018
2
Note: In previous Projects with DM-ED, these documents were submitted along with the EIA Report.
12 Comment Resolution Meeting with EPSS In person 19 June 2018
13 Comment Resolution Meeting with SPV and EPC In person 21 June 2018
14 Agreement regarding comment resolution for comments By email 04 July 2018

by DM-EPSS dated 04 June 2018
15 Submission of Final Comment Resolution Sheet to EPSS In person 09 July 2018
16 Submission of Scope of Work Report (Rev 1) to EPSS In person 17 July 2018
17 Submission of additional documents for SoW Report to By email 26 July 2018

EPSS
18 Letter of Conditional Approval received from DM-ED By email 09 August

2018
19 Submission of ESIA Rev 0 (EPBI-121118-00005) Via DM 12 Nov 2018

online
20 Received DM-EPSS comments portal 06 Dec 2018
21 Submisison of ESIA Rev 1 12 Dec 2018
22 Received DM-EPSS comments 23 Dec 2018
23 Submission of ESIA Rev 2 14 Feb 2019
24 Dubai Municipality, Project Company and GHD discussion In person 06 March to

16 May 2019
25 Preliminary Environmental Approval (PEA) received from Via DM 20 May 2019

DM-ED (EPBI-200519-00125) online
portal
26 Submission of ESIA Rev 3 Via DM 09 July 2019

online
portal
27 GHD letter of proposed changes to EPBI-200519-00125 By email 27 June 2019
28 DM-ED Letter No. EPSS/L/2019/096 - cancellation of PEA By email 17 July 2019

(EPBI-200519-00125)
29 EPBI/090719-00145 Amendment Request Comments Via DM 18 July 2019

online
portal
30 Submission of ESIA Rev 4 Via DM 03 Oct 2019

online
portal
31 Environmental Clearance received (EPBI-090719-00145) Via DM 13 Oct 2019

online
portal
32 Submission of GHD clarification letter By email 08 Dec 2019
33 Dubai Municipality and GHD discussion on EPBI-090719- In person 30 Dec 2019

00145
34 Submission of EIAR Rev 5 (EPBI-190220-00228) Via DM 19 Feb 2020

online
35 Received DM-EPSS comments portal 27 Feb 2020
36 Submission of EIAR Rev 6 08 June 2020
2. Description of the Project’s EIA
Process
2.1 EIA Scope of Work
2.1.1 Technical Requirements
The EIA has been undertaken in accordance with relevant DM guidelines and laws and in
consideration of international standards, policies and guidelines. The proponent is committed to
implement leading industry best practices to manage key environmental and social impacts
associated with the Project’s construction and operation.
Local Requirements
Considering the nature and scale of the proposed Project, it is considered that an EIA is
required3. As such, this EIA was prepared consistent with the requirements of the following
documents:
 DM-ED Technical Guideline (TG) No. 1 – Environmental Impact Assessment (March
2019)
 DM-ED Technical Guideline (TG) No. 2 – EIA Requirements for Land Development,
Infrastructure and Utility Projects (March 2019)
 Scope of Work (SoW) Report for the Project EIA (GHD, 2018) (Appendix E) (as approved
by DM-ED)
International Requirements
As the SPV is seeking project funding from international lending institutions, the Project needs
to comply with the following:
 Equator Principles 1 to 10 (effective June 2013)
 IFC Performance Standards 1 to 8 (effective January 2012)
 World Bank Group EHS Guidelines (April 2007)
As provided in Principle 8 (Covenants) of the Equator Principle, “all Category A and Category B
Projects shall provide representation of compliance with relevant local, state and host country
environmental and social laws, regulations and permits”; as such the Projects should comply
with the host country standards (listed above).
Under definition provided in Table 2-1, the Project is classified as Category A as it may have
potential significant adverse environmental and social risks and/or impacts that are diverse,
irreversible and/or unprecedented. However, the impacts associated with the Project can be
mitigated through appropriate environmental and social management and monitoring measures,
presented in this EIA and provided in detail in the environmental management and monitoring
programme (EMMP).
3
As per DM-EPSS Technical Guideline Number 1: Environmental Imapct Assessment dated March 2014.
Table 2-1 Project categories
Category Description
Category A Project with potential significant adverse environmental and social risks
and/or impacts that are diverse, irreversible and/or unprecedented.
Category B Project with potential limited adverse environmental and social risks
and/or impacts that are few in number, generally site-specific, largely
reversible and easily addressed through mitigation measures.
Category C Projects with minimal or no adverse environmental and social risks

and/or impacts.
Source: Equator Principles 2013
2.1.2 EIA Scope
The scope of the EIA will cover:

 The Project description, which includes project information, rationale, alternatives and any
associated activities during all phases of project development (planning, construction and
commissioning, operations and decommissioning)
 Environmental aspects the could potentially be affected by the proposed works
 Potential significant environmental and social impacts associated with both construction
and operation of the Project
 Environmental and social management and monitoring requirements for the Project
Given the existing site conditions, project nature and scoping undertaken to understand the
likely environmental and social impacts of the Project, the EIA focused on the following aspects,
which are considered to have the potential to be significantly impacted by the Project or result in
significant impacts as a result of the Project if appropriate mitigation measures are not
implemented. This is in line with the SoW Report approved by DM (Appendix F).
 Air Quality
 Noise
 Water resources (reuse)
 Subsurface soils
 Water quality (surface waters and groundwater)
 Waste management
 Traffic
 Socio-economic and health
The proposed Project will be located within a previously disturbed and cleared industrial area;
as such, significant impacts are not considered on the aspects listed below. Nevertheless, these
aspects are addressed at a high level in the EIA report:
 Climate and meteorology

 Geology and seismicity
 Biodiversity and conservation
 Land use and visual amenity
 Archaeology and cultural resources
The Project is located approximately 20 kilometres (km) away from the coastal area of Dubai
within a terrestrial environment. An assessment of impacts on marine ecosystems is excluded
from the scope.
2.2 EIA Team
2.2.1 Environmental Consultant
GHD was appointed as environmental consultant for the Project. This EIA has been undertaken
and prepared by GHD on behalf of the SPV, partnership between HZI, Besix and Itochu. The
contact details for GHD are provided in Table 2-2. The professional staff involved in the
preparation of the EIA and their relevant expertise is provided in Table 2-3.
Table 2-2 Contact details of environmental consultant
Name GHD Global Pty Ltd.
Dubai Economy Licence 526735
Address 3rd Floor Guardian Tower, Danet Community

P.O. Box 45921
Abu Dhabi
United Arab Emirates
Contact Person Roland Shine

Project Director
Table 2-3 Expertise of key team members
Name Key Role in EIA Expertise
Roland Shine Project Director EIA Study

Oversee the program management to Contract Management
ensure delivery in accordance with HZI,
Besix and Itochu’s expectations
Salma Bin Breik Former Project Director (PD) EIA Study

Oversee the program management to Contract Management
ensure delivery in accordance with HZI,
Waste Management
Besix and Itochu’s expectations.
David Wright Project Manager (PM) EIA Study

Responsible for the day-to-day project Project Management
activities. David is familiar with project
Waste Management
approvals for DM and brings industry
leading experience in waste services.
Geraldine Squires Technical Lead – EIA EIA Study (Impact

Assessment Specialist)
Provides technical advice throughout the
Project and reviews all EIA deliverables. Environmental Management
Reviews compliance to international
Social Sustainability and
requirements
Stakeholder Engagement
Sue Trahair Lead Environmental and GHG Auditor EIA Study

Undertake the greenhouse gas (GHG) GHG Assessment Lead
assessment for this project.
James Forrest Air and Noise Specialist EIA Study

Undertake the air and noise modelling and Air and Noise Modelling
impact assessment for the Project. Review
Jennifer Calpo Environmental Scientist / Stakeholder EIA Study

Engagement Specialist
Social Sustainability and
Undertake stakeholder engagement, social Stakeholder Engagement
impact assessment (SIA) and assist with
Environmental and Social
all aspects of Project deliverables.
Management
Francis Ramacciotti Senior Human Health Risk Assessor Human Health Risk
Assessment
Undertake the qualitative Human Health
Risk Assessment (HHRA) for this Project.
April Gowing Health, Safety and Environment Specialist Human Health and Risk
/ Human Risk Assessment Assessment
Undertake the qualitative Human Health
Risk Assessment for this Project.
Prasanna Project Support Field support

Wijesinghe
Field support
Dr David Maunder Technical Advisor Technical Support

Provide technical advice to Project team
on operational aspects related to the
Project
2.2.2 Subconsultants
GHD engaged subconsultants during the baseline sampling and monitoring for the Project.
Details are provided in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Subconsultants
Core Laboratories Air and Noise Monitoring; Soil, Water and Baseline monitoring
Groundwater Analysis
Laboratory analysis
A Dubai Accredited Center (DAC)
laboratory engaged by GHD to undertake
baseline air and noise monitoring as well
as analysis of soil, water and groundwater
samples collected from the Project site.
Al Futtain Exova Dioxin and Furan Monitoring, Odour Baseline monitoring

Monitoring and Screening of Groundwater
Laboratory analysis
Wells
A DAC laboratory engaged by GHD to
undertake monitoring of odour as well as
dioxin and furan at the Project site. They
were also engaged to do screening of
groundwater wells for landfill gases.
WKC Terrestrial Ecology Survey, and Air Baseline sampling

Environmental Modelling (Peer Review) and Noise
Air Modelling (Peer Review)
Consultancy Modelling
Noise Modelling
A DM-EPSS registered environmental
consultancy engaged by GHD to perform a Terrestrial Ecology Baseline
single day terrestrial ecology survey and
undertaken air and noise modelling for the
Project
Arab Center for Geotechnical Investigation Drilling

Engineering
A DAC laboratory engaged by GHD to
Studies (ACES)
undertake drilling of land boreholes to
specific depths and collect soil and
groundwater samples from the Project site.
2.3 EIA Methodology
2.3.1 Overview
In order to identify, assess and minimise impacts of the proposed Project on the surrounding
environmental and social receptors, coupled with addressing relevant international and local
requirements, the EIA adopted a combination of the following:
 Stakeholder consultation (i.e. liaison with DM-ED and consultation with stakeholders)
 Literature review
 Review of legislative framework
 Baseline data collection
 Qualitative and quantitative impact assessments and evaluation of findings
 Identification of appropriate mitigation measures

 Risk assessment and management
 Establishment of an environmental management programme
The key tasks and methodology for the EIA are outlined in Table 2-5 while a detailed EIA
programme is attached in Appendix E.
Table 2-5 EIA Approach and Methodology
EIA Task Description Methodology
1. Understanding the  Review of DM Technical Guidelines on EIA and

requirements of DM environmental management
 Review of Federal (UAE) and Emirates (DM)
environmental regulatory requirements
 Preparation and submission of SoW Report for DM
EPSS approval (Appendix E)
2. Understanding the  Review the Equator Principles 1 to 10 (June 2013)

international standards
 Review the IFC Performance Standards 1 to 8 (January
and the Lender’s
2012)
Requirements on EIA, and
their relevance to the  Review the World Band Group EHS) Guidelines (April
proposed Project 2007) and industry-specific guidelines
3. Understanding the Project  Liaison with the Project proponent including its
consultants and contractors
 Literature review of Project reports issued by the
consultants and contractors
4. Understanding the Project  Site walk-over / inspections

site
 Literature review of relevant environmental data
 Secondary data collection (desktop research)
 Field surveys to collect primary data of the project site
(refer to Items 4.1 to 4.6)
4.1 Baseline ambient air  Literature review of air quality monitoring data in Dubai
monitoring Emirate provided by DM-ED or via Dubai Statistics
Center (DSC)
 Two-week baseline real-time continuous monitoring at
three locations
 Evaluation of air baseline data against the Federal and
Emirate ambient air standards
4.2 Dioxin and Furans  Two months real-time active sampling of dioxin and
furans at two monitoring locations
 Evaluation of data against the Federal and Emirate air

quality standards
4.3 Odour assessment  Field observations via deployment of odour monitoring

stations (ambient air) at four locations (8 hours sampling
duration per location)
4.4 Baseline noise  Noise measurements at four locations

monitoring
 At each location, noise levels were measured for a
period of 15 minutes during day and night on both
weekday and on a weekend day
 Evaluation of noise baseline data against the Federal
and Emirate ambient noise standards
4.5 Soil sampling  Collected at total of eight soil samples at four sampling
sites at 1 m and 5 m below ground surface (BGS)
 Collected two surface soil samples
 Observed visual signs of contamination and potential
sources of contamination
 Evaluation of soil quality against Dutch Guideline
4.4 Groundwater  Collected four groundwater samples: two at two existing

sampling piezometers and two at new groundwater piezometers
 Evaluation of groundwater quality against Dutch

Guideline
4.5 Terrestrial ecology  Walkthrough site observation

 Observations were recorded with photographs in
accordance with Brown and Boer (2004)
 Observation of IUCN Red List of Species and Priority
Habitats
4.6 Social and economic  Site walk over and inspection to identify land use near
baseline survey the project site and sensitive social receptors
 Literature review of UAE and Dubai socio-economic
data
 Stakeholder Consultation
7. Human Health Risk  Identification of exposure pathways

Assessment (HHRA)
 Evaluation of likelihood and consequence of exposure
 Identification of mitigation measures
8. GHG Inventory  Identification of relevant aspects of energy use and

emissions from construction and operation phases
 Identification and application of appropriate international
emission factors
 Estimated the total GHG emissions attributable to the

project
 Discussed potential GHG mitigation and reduction
opportunities
9. Impact identification and  Identification of Project activities, equipment and utilities

assessment which could potentially cause environmental impacts
 Qualitative assessment of impacts
 Quantitative assessment / modelling of major
environmental impacts including air and noise (refer to
Items 9.1 and 9.2, respectively)
9.1 Air dispersion  Review of meteorological data and source emission

modelling data
 Undertake air dispersion modelling for one scenario with
the WtE plant plan at full operating capacity
(5,660 tonnes per day)
9.2 Noise impact  Identification of key environmental noise catchment

modelling areas and noise sensitive receptors from aerial and
terrestrial topography
 Review of project specific noise goals for the operation
of the plant
 Identification of principal noise and vibration sources

and review of potential impacts
 Undertaken noise modelling scenario using SoundPLAN
noise model
9.3 Odour Modelling  Review WtE plant proposal including waste quantities
and how it will be stored prior to incineration.
 Review data from nearby air quality monitoring stations
or other studies in the area
 Prepare an odour inventory for the existing Al Aweer
STP, Tadweer landfill and proposed WtE plant
10.Development of  Review of environmental regulatory standards and

environmental mitigation requirements applicable to the Project
measures
11. Environmental  Development of an Environmental Management and

Management and Monitoring Program (EMMP) for the construction and
Monitoring Programme operation phase
2.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
Sensitivity
Sensitive receptors are areas where the occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects
of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides and other pollutants (EPA, 2017). The categories of
sensitive receptors as per DM Technical Guideline No. 2 (2014) is presented in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6 Sensitive Receptors Area
Sensitivity and type Description and features of the receptors Existing Planned
of area area
High (Type 1 Area) Protected areas for conservation of national N N

or international importance
Water supply reserves N N
Hospitals and school premises Y N
High density residential block, town center Y Y1
Moderate (Type 2 Vital utilities such as electricity and energy Y N

Area) sources, natural wealth reserves and state-
protected economic zones
Light density residential block, public parks Y Y2
Natural body of water Y N
Place of cultural heritage Y Y
Light (Type 3 Area) Commercial buildings, offices and other Y Y3

public areas
Good products manufacturing premises Y N
Agricultural crops farmland Y N
Marginal (Type 4 Industrial Y Y4

Area)
Animal farmland but without dairy or meat N N
food products processing
Source: DM Technical Guideline No. 2 (March 2014)

Notes: Existing – Baseline receptor; Planned – a receptor that will be introduced by the Project [1-International City (under construction)
and Ruwaya Village (planned); 2-Labour Accommodation to be established during the operation phase; 3-Offices at the proposed Project
site; 4-the proposed WtE plant Power Plant]
Magnitude of Impact
This EIA assesses the degree of impact associated with the Project both prior to and following
the implementation of mitigation measures. Assessment of the level of impact is based on two
criteria:
 Likelihood of the impact (Table 2-7): Almost certain, Likely, Possible, Unlikely and Rare
 Consequence level of the impact (Table 2-8): Catastrophic, Major, Moderate, Minor and
Insignificant
The impact significance level is based on the following calculation:
Significance of impact = Likelihood Level x Consequence Level
Based on the above calculation, the level of the impact is classified in the following five levels
and can be expressed in a matrix, as illustrated in Table 2-9.
 Extreme
 High
 Medium
 Low
 Negligible
Table 2-7 Likelihood of Impact
Likelihood Rating Explanation
5 – Almost Certain The impact is expected to occur in most circumstances
4 – Likely The impact will probably occur in most circumstances
3 – Possible The impact could occur
2 – Unlikely The impact could occur but is not expected
1 – Rare The impact may occur only in exceptional circumstances
Table 2-8 Consequence of Impact
Consequence Explanation
Rating
Magnitude Permanence Reversibility Example
1 – Insignificant Only within No change or No change or  Negligible and short term disruption to flora, fauna, habitats
the project Temporary reversible
site  Minor soil erosion
 Temporary nuisances form emission / minor injuries requiring self-administered first aid.
 No health effect on surrounding communities

 Minimal use of energy and natural resources
 Generation of non-hazardous wastes
 Minor repairable damage to structure
2 – Minor Only within Temporary Reversible  Minor impact on fauna, flora and habitat at non-ecologically sensitive areas
the project
site  No significant loss of land / marine resources
 Minor emissions with no lasting detrimental effect
 No health effect on surrounding communities

 Significant use of energy and natural resources
 Minor infringement of cultural values
 Minor injuries requiring on-site treatment by medical practitioner
3 – Moderate Effect to Permanent Reversible  Significant changes in flora and fauna communities (e.g. population, biodiversity), but
areas yet to resulting in eradication of endangered species
immediately
outside the  Impact on the ecosystem is short-term (less than one year)
project site
Rating
 Non-persistent but possibly widespread damage to land which could be remediated

without long-term loss
 Minor health effect on surrounding communities
 Localised persistent damage
 Emission at significant nuisance levels
 Generation of hazardous wastes
 Significant infringement of cultural values
 On-going complaints raised by the surrounding communities
 Serious injuries requiring off-site treatment by medical practitioner or immediate
evacuation to hospital
4 – Major Regional or Permanent Irreversible  Continuous and serious damage by erosion

national
change or  Significant impact on ecologically sensitive areas / protected areas (e.g. causing death)
effects  Emission due to uncontained release, fire or explosion
 Significant health effect on surrounding communities
 Significant damage to the structure, infringement of cultural values
5 – Catastrophic Regional, Permanent Irreversible  Long-term and extensive change in the habitats, population of flora and fauna and
national or biodiversity, eradication of endangered species
international
change or  Depletion of groundwater resources
effects
 Extensive chronic discharge of persistent hazardous pollutants / transboundary
dispersion of the pollutants
Rating
 Significant quantities of hazardous wastes generated

 Irreparable damage to highly valued buildings / structures / location of cultural
significance
 Death in surrounding communities
 Multiple fatalities
Table 2-9 Significance of environmental impact matrix
Consequence Rating
Likelihood Rating
A – Insignificant B – Minor C – Moderate D – Major E – Catastrophic
5 – Almost Certain Medium Extreme

Low (5A) High (5C) Extreme (5E)
(5B) (5D)
4 – Likely Medium
Low (4A) High (4C) High (4D) Extreme (4E)
(4B)
3 – Possible Negligible (3A) Low (3B) Medium (3C) High (3D) High (3E)
2 – Unlikely Medium
Negligible (2A) Low (2B) Medium (2C) High (2E)
(2D)
1 – Rare Negligible Medium

Negligible (1A) Low (1C) Medium (1E)
(1B) (1D)
Note: the above colours are utilised to denote negative impacts. Where an
Positive
impact is deemed to be positive, it will be represented by a dark grey colour.
Overall, the following were considered in the evaluation of impacts:

 Direct and indirect impacts
 Adverse and beneficial impacts
 Temporary, short-term or long-term impacts

 Reversible and irreversible impacts
 Cumulative impacts over time (as well as combined impacts of the proposed project with
existing developments and other land use activities in the project areas)
2.4 Assumptions and Limitations

The EIA Report has been prepared on the basis of the following assumptions and
considerations:
 This EIA Report addresses the WtE Plant (i.e. nominal design capacity of 5,666 tpd at
9.5 MJ/kg NCV).
 The EIA Report will be limited to the Project site footprint and the area of impact
immediately around it.
 The EIA Report is based on the Project’s preliminary design. The final design will be
provided by the EPC during detailed design stage but will generally comprise the same
project components and parts as proposed.
 The EIA report excludes assessment of the permanent waste storage facility for the
incinerated bottom ash (IBA) and flue gas treatment (FGT) residue. It therefore does not
include the permanent ash storage/disposal facilities (e.g. municipal solid waste cell for
bottom ash and hazardous waste storage cell for fly ash residue). An assessment and
approval for the construction (if a new facility will be built) of the permanent storage
facilities will be obtained separately by others (e.g. DM as the Project Proponent /
Owner), if required.
 All information provided by the Project Proponent, which formed the basis of this EIA, is
accurate at the time of issuance.
 All available information relevant to the Project and this EIA has been provided to GHD.
 Other future development around the WtE plant was not assessed as part of the EIA.
3. Reference Laws, Regulations, and
Standards
3.1 Overview
The regulatory framework that govern the environmental performance of the Project comprise
the following:
 DM legislation, guidelines, policies and procedures
 UAE Federal environmental legislation and policy
 Regional conventions and protocols
 International conventions, protocols and guidelines
The following sections provide an overview of key environmental requirements relevant to
Project construction and operation activities. It is to be noted that these are based on GHD’s
understanding and interpretation of current environmental regulatory standards applicable to the
Project, and should not be construed as legal opinion.
Similarly, this is a general analysis based on the facilities and land uses that are currently
known to be built as part of the Project. As development progresses, or with the expansion of
the processing facilities, any proposed additional activities should be assessed against the
relevant policy, legal and administrative frameworks.
3.2 Dubai Municipality Regulatory Framework

The environmental laws and regulations in the Emirate of Dubai that are applicable to the
Project are provided in Table 3-1 and summarised in Appendix G. Where there are no
standards or regulations existing in Dubai Emirate, the Federal law standards provided in
Section 3.3 may be adopted. Existing environmental standards and regulations in the
neighbouring Emirates (e.g. Abu Dhabi) may also be adopted where necessary and applicable
to facilitate avoiding environmental harm.
Table 3-1 Applicable environmental legislative requirements in Dubai Emirate
Legislation Project relevance Aspect
DM Local Order No. 61 of The Project is identified as having the potential to Overarching
1991 on the Environment impact on the environment and as such will be environmental
Protection Regulations in the required to comply with the environmental assessment
Emirate of Dubai protection regulations stipulated in this Local
Order.
DM Administrative Order No. This Project may potentially use wastewater from Overarching
211 of 1991 on the Issue of the Al Aweer Wastewater Treatment Plan environmental
Executive Regulations for (WWTP). As such, will be required to comply with assessment
the Local Order No. 61 of this Administrative Order.
1991 on the Environment
Protection Regulations in the
Emirate of Dubai
Local Order No. 11 of 2003 Air emissions and noise generation associated Public health
Concerning Public Health with the Project may impact on public health and and safety
and Safety of the Society in amenity if unmitigated.
the Emirate of Dubai
This Local Order aims to ensure protection of
public health and community safety, which will be
complied with by the Project during construction
and operation phases.
DM-ED
DM-ED Information Bulletin The Project has the potential to cause impacts on Wastewater
No. 2 environmental aspects. As such, it will be discharge, land
required to comply with the standards and contamination,
allowable limits of polluants on land, water and emission limits
air environment provided in this Information
Bulletin.
DM-EPSS
Guidnce on the The EIA was undertaken in accordance with the Overarching
Environmental Clearance requirements of this TG. environmental
(EC) Requirements (2019) assessment
TG No. 07: Policy on the Ozone depleting substances (ODS) listed in this GHG
Control of Ozone Depleting TG will not be used for the Project.
Substances (December
2014)
TG No. 08: Requirements for The Project has the potential to impact on air Air quality
the Discharge of Waste quality through the release of emissions. The
Gases, Fumes and stack of the Project was designed in line with the
Particulates to the requirements of this TG.
Atmosphere (April 2011)
TG No. 09: Requirements for The Project has the potential to generate high Noise
the Reduction of noise level during construction, as such noise
Construction and Demolition generation will be monitored to reduce
Noise (April 2011) construction noise in line with the requiremens of
this TG.
TG No. 08: Management of The Proponent has to ensure that waste Waste
Recyclable Waste Material recycling will be undertaken (where appropriate) management
(December 2014) in line with the requirements of this TG.
TG No. 10: Waste The Proponent has to ensure that waste Waste
Minimisation (December minimisation will be undertaken (where management
2014) appropriate) in line with the requirements of this
TG.
Other Sections in DM Environment Department
TG No. 01: Disposal of Flue gas treatment (FGT) residue will be Waste
Hazardous Waste (May managed and disposed by DM-WMD in management
2017) issued by ECS accordance with the requirements of this TG.
(Note: This is not part of the scope but it will be
ensured that FGT are managed by DM-WMD in
accordance with this TG)
TG No. 06: Bunding of Bunding of storage tanks (i.e. fuel, sewage, etc.) Waste
Storage Tanks and Transfer at the Project site will be in compliance with this management
Facilities (June 2011) issued TG.
by Environmental Control
Section (ECS)
TG No. 07: Development of An Emergency Response Procedure will be Storage of

Emergency Response developed and implemented for the Project to dangerous
Procedures for Incidents address risks involving dangerous goods (i.e. goods
involving Dangerous Goods fuel).
(June 2011) issued by ECS
TG No. 10: Guidelines for Service providers will be engaged in disposal and Waste
the Disposal and Re-Use of re-use of used chemical containers from the Management
Used Chemical Containers Projecct site.
(June 2011) issued by ECS
Hazardous and General Waste

Waste Processing and management
Recycling Premises in the
Emirate of Dubai 2017
Approved Hazardous Waste Service providers to be engaged for waste Waste

Transporter 2017 management for the Project will include only management
entities approved by DM.
Companies Permitted to Waste
Collect and Transport Oily management
Waste in the Emirate of
Dubai for Purpose of
Recycling / Reuse 2017
Green Building Regulations This regulation is relevant to the Project (i.e. Building Design
and Specifications in the Administration Building and Labour
Emirate of Dubai Accommodation Building) since it is applicable to
all new buildings in the Emirate of Dubai.
TG on Health and Safety Air emission and noise generation associated Health and
with the Project may impact on publid health and Safety
amenity if unmitigated; as such, the Project will
comply with all relevant health and safety
guidelines issued by Dubai Municipality.
Guidelines on Labour Labour accommodation will be provided during Labour

Accommodation issued by the operation phase; as such, the Project will Accommodation
Public Health and Safety comply with all relevant guidelines on labour
Department accommodation issued by Dubai Municipality.
3.3 UAE Federal Regulatory Framework

UAE federal regulations relevant to the Project construction and operational activities are
provided in Table 3-2 and summarised in Appendix G
Table 3-2 Federal Environmental Laws and Regulations Relevant to the
Project
Federal Law No. (24) of 1999: The Project has the potential to cause Overarching
Protection and Development of impacts on environmental aspects. environmental
the Environment However, there is an opportunity to benefit assessment
the environment through the
implementation of WtE plant technology.
This EIA was prepared in compliance with

this Federal Law.
Executive Order issued by Council This EIA has been prepared in compliance Overarching
of Ministers Decree No. (37) of with the executive order environmental
2001: Regulation concerning assessment
Environmental Impact
Assessment Projects
Ministerial Order No. (12) of 2006 Air quality and noise impacts have the Air and noise
regarding Regulation Concerning potential to be significant if appropriate
Protection of Air from Pollution mitigation measures are not implemented.
Mitigation measures need to be
implemented to comply with the standards
and limits specified in this Ministerial Order.
The standards and limits specified in this
Ministerial are applicable to the Project and
shall be maintained, to safeguard human
health in the UAE.
Federal Law No. (07) of 2009 – The Project needs to comply with the Water and
Establishment of UAE Ministry of standard operating procedures (SOP) of the environment (in
Environment and Water (MoEW) Ministry in terms of its impacts on water and general)
the environment, in general.
Executive Order issued by Council The Proponent has to ensure that the Waste
of Ministers Decree No. (37) of hazardous waste generated during the management
2001 concerning Regulation for Project activities are managed in
Handling Hazardous Materials, accordance with this Executive Order.
Hazardous Wastes and Medical
Wastes
Executive Order issued by Council Management and disposal of waste during Waste
of Ministers Decree No. (37) of the construction and operation phases will management
2001 – Regulation for Handling be in line with the requirements of this
Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Executive Order.
Wastes and Medical Wastes
Federal Law No. (12) of 1986 The Project needs to comply with the Labour and
concerning Regulations on Labour provisions stated in this Law regarding working
Relations (latest amendment to employment of women and children, conditions
Federal Law No. (08) of 1980) or employment contracts, records and wages,
the UAE Labour Law working hours, workers’ safety, protection,
health and social care, reporting and
compensation for work related injuries and
occupational disease.
UAE Ministry of Human Accommodation of project workers will be Labour

Resources and Emiratisation provided in line with this Decree. Accommodation
(MOHRE) Accommodation
Decree issued in 2014
Federal Law No (27) of 1981 The Project needs to comply with the Worker and
concerning Prevention from provisions of this Federal Law relevant to Community
Communicable Diseases preventing and reporting suspected Helath
communicable diseases.
3.4 Regional Conventions and Protocols

Regional conventions and protocols that are considered relevant to the Project are summarised
in Table 3-3 and discussed in subsections below.
Table 3-3 Regional Conventions and Protocol Relevant to the Project
Convention on Conservation Biodiversity values associated with the Project site Biodiversity
of Wildlife and its Natural are limited. However, consideration will be given
Resources in the GCC in compliance with this Convention.
Countries
The Project needs to comply with the provisions of
this convention in terms of biodiversity
conservation.
Convention on Conservation of Wildlife and Its Natural Habitats in the GCC Countries
(2003)
This Convention is reportedly the first legal instrument binding the six member States of the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) to coordinate their activities toward the conservation of wildlife and
natural habitats.
Parties to this Convention agree to undertake development and implementation of policies and
activities for the purposes of wildlife and natural habitat conservation, rehabilitation and
ensuring sustainable exploitation thereof.
This Convention provides the following Appendices listing the wildlife species requiring
conservation:
 Appendix I – To be Protected Flora Species

 Appendix II – To be Protected Fauna Species
 Appendix III – Animal Species Threatened with Extinction
The Proponent will ensure that no damage to the wildlife species listed in the Convention during
the construction and operation of the Project.
3.5 International Conventions and Protocols

The international conventions, protocols, guidelines and standards that were considered
relevant to the construction and operation of the WtE plant are provided in this section.
3.5.1 The Common Approaches
As the Proponent seeks Project funding from international lending institutions, the Project needs
to comply with the following:
 Equator Principles
 IFC Performance Standards
 World Bank Group EHS Guidelines
3.5.2 Equator Principles
The Equator Principles (EPs) is a risk management framework, adopted by financial institutions,
for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in projects and is
primarily intended to provide a minimum standard for due diligence to support responsible risk
decision-making.
The EPs apply globally, to all industry sectors and to four financial products:
 Project Finance Advisory Services (where total project capital cost is US$10 million or
more)
 Project Finance (with total Project capital costs of US$10 million or more)
 Project-Related Corporate Loans (the total aggregated load amount is at least US$100
million)
 Bridge Loans
Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) commit to implementing the EPs in their
internal environmental and social policies, procedures and standards for financing projects and
will not provide Project Finance or Project-Related Corporate Loans to projects where the client
will not, or is unable to, comply with the EPs.
The EPs are based on the International Financial Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on
Social and Environmental Sustainability and on the World Bank Group EHS Guidelines. The
statement of Equator Principles (June 2013) and the applicability to various project cycles of the
proposed Project/borrower are provided in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 Applicability of Equator Principles at Various Phases of the Project
Equator Principle Major requirements Applicability of the Equator Principles

(June 2013)
Design phase Construction Operation
phase phase
Principle 1 Categorizing the project based on the magnitude of its potential environmental and Y Y Y
Review and social risks and impacts in accordance the International Financial Corporation (IFC)
Categorization categorization criteria.
Note a.
Principle 2 The borrower to conduct an assessment process to address the relevant Y N/A N/A
Environmental and environmental and social risk and impacts of the proposed project (which may
Note b Note b
Social Assessment include the illustrative list of issues found Exhibit II of the Equator Principle).
Principle 3 The assessment process should demonstrate: Y N/A N/A

Applicable  Compliance with relevant host country laws, regulations and permits that pertain Note c Note c
Environmental and to environmental and social issues
Social Standards
 Applicable IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social
Sustainability (Performance Standards)
 The World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines
(Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines)
Principle 4 The borrower is required to develop or maintain an Environmental and Social Y Y Y

Environmental and Management System (ESMS).
Social Management Where the applicable standards are not met to the Equator Principles Financial
System and Equator Institutions (EPFI) satisfaction, the borrower and the EPFI will agree an Equator
Principles Action Principles Action Plan (EPAP) to outline gaps and commitments to meet EPFI
Plan
requirements in line with the applicable standards.
(June 2013)
phase phase
Principle 5 The borrower has to demonstrate effective Stakeholder Engagement as an ongoing Y Y Y

Stakeholder process in a structured and culturally appropriate manner with affected communities
Engagement and, where relevant, other stakeholders.
Principle 6 As part of the Environment and Social Management System, the borrower has to Y Y Y
Grievance establish a grievance mechanism designed to receive and facilitate resolution of
Mechanism concerns and grievances about the Project’s environmental and social performance.
Principle 7 An Independent Environmental and Social Consultant, not directly associated with Y Y Y
Independent Review the client, should be engaged to carry out an Independent Review of the
Assessment Documentation including the Environmental and Social Management
Plan, the Environment and Social Management System, and the Stakeholder
Engagement process documentation.
Principle 8 The borrower has to provide periodic reports to the EPFI (not less than annually), N/A Y Y
prepared by in-house staff or third party experts, that:
Covenants
 document compliance with the Environmental and Social Management
Plans and Equator Principles Action Plan (where applicable)
 provide representation of compliance with relevant local, state and host
country environmental and social laws, regulations and permits
Principle 9 The EPFIs will appoint an Independent Environmental and Social Consultant, or Y Y Y
Independent require that the borrower retain qualified and experienced external experts to verify
Monitoring and its monitoring information which would be shared with the EPFI.
Reporting
Principle 10 The borrower will ensure that, at a minimum, a summary of the Environmental and N/A N/A Y
Reporting and Social Impact Assessment is accessible and available online.
Transparency
(June 2013)
phase phase
The borrower will publicly report GHG emission levels during the operational phase
for Projects emitting over 100,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent annually.
The EPFIs have to report on the implementation status of Equator Principles.
Notes:
a: As per the impact scale of the proposed Project, the Project can be considered as Category A (Project with potential significant adverse environmental and social risks and/or impacts that are
diverse, irreversible and/or unprecedented).
b: Should there be a significant change of the proposed project after the submission / approval of EIA, the lender should be consulted if an updated EIA is required.
c: The mitigation measures and environmental and social management programme specified in the EIA Report will be implemented during the construction and operation phases of the project,
where appropriate.
3.5.3 IFC Sustainability Framework and Performance Standards on
Environment and Sustainability
As per Equator Principle 3 (Applicable Environmental and Social Standards), for projects
located in Non-Designated Countries4 (including the UAE), the EPFIs require that the
assessment process evaluates compliance with the then applicable IFC Performance Standards
on Environmental and Social Sustainability (Performance Standards) and the World Bank Group
Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (EHS Guidelines) (Exhibit III).
IFC is a member of the World Bank Group and is owned by more than 180 member countries.
IFC works in more than 100 developing countries and allows companies and financial
institutions in emerging markets to create jobs, generate tax revenues, improve corporate
governance and environmental performance, and contribute to their local communities.
IFC's Sustainability Framework articulates the Corporation's strategic commitment to
sustainable development, and is an integral part of IFC's approach to risk management. The
IFC Sustainability Framework consists of the following:
 Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability, which defines IFC's commitments to
environmental and social sustainability;
 Performance Standards, which define clients' (i.e. borrower’s) responsibilities for
managing their environmental and social risks; and
 Access to Information Policy, which articulates IFC's commitment to transparency.
The first version of IFC’s Sustainability Framework was published in 2006. In 2012, an updated
version was released, which applies to all investment and advisory clients whose projects go
through IFC's initial credit review process after 1 January, 2012.
There are eight performance standards that outline the borrower’s environmental and social
responsibilities in relation to the project for which they are requesting. The IFC Performance
Standards considered in this EIA are provided in Table 3-5.
The Performance Standards provides guidance on how to identify risks and impacts, and are
designed to help avoid, mitigate, and manage risks and impacts as a way of doing business in a
sustainable way, including stakeholder engagement and disclosure obligations of the client in
relation to project level activities. Together, the eight Performance Standards establish
standards that the client is to meet throughout the life of an investment (design, construction,
commissioning, operation, decommissioning, closure or, where applicable, post-closure) by IFC.
IFC requires the client to establish and maintain a process for identifying the environmental and
social risks and impacts of the project
For greenfield developments or large expansions with specifically identified physical elements,
aspects, and facilities that are likely to generate potential significant environmental or social
impacts, IFC will require the client to conduct a comprehensive EIA, including an examination of
alternatives, where appropriate (IFC, 2012b).
It should be noted that the IFC performance standards have been incorporated in the Equator
Principles III (June 2013) and an assessment of this in terms of applicability to the Project is
identified in Section 3.5.2.
4 Designated Countries defined by EPFIs: http://equator-principles.com/index.php/ep3/324
Table 3-5 IFC Performance Standards relevant to the Project
Performance Standard Objectives Project relevance Aspect
Performance Standard 1 This standard establishes the importance of (i) The provisions in this performance standard were Overarching
integrated assessment to identify the environmental considered in assessing the environmental and social EIA study
Assessment and Management
and social impacts, risks, and opportunities of the impacts of the Project and in recommending the
of Environmental and Social
project; (ii) effective community engagement through mitigation measures to prevent any adverse impacts
Risks and Impacts
disclosure of project-related information and associated with the Project.
consultation with local communities on matters that
directly affect them; and (iii) the client’s management of
environmental and social performance throughout the
life of the project.
Performance Standard 2 This standard recognizes that the pursuit of economic The requirements in this standard were taken into Labour and
growth through employment creation and income consideration in terms of planning for the hiring of working
Labour and Working Conditions
generation should be accompanied by protection of the workers, providing compensation and benefits, condition –
fundamental rights of the workers. accommodation, and the total health and safety condition social impact
of workers. Labour and working condition were assessed assessment
and included in the social impact assessment.
Performance Standard 3 This standard encourages more efficient and effective The provisions in this performance standard were Air quality and
resource use, pollution prevention and GHG emission considered in identifying the mitigation measures used in GHG
Resource Efficiency and
avoidance and mitigation with technologies and pollution prevention and GHG avoidance as well as use emissions
Pollution Prevention
practices. of more efficient and effective resources.
Waste
management
Performance Standard 4 This standard addresses the client’s responsibility to The provisions in this performance standard were Social impact
avoid or minimize the risks and impacts of project considered in the assessment of project impacts to the assessment –
Community Health, Safety and
activities, equipment and infrastructure to community community arising from air emissions, noise generation public health
Security
health, safety and security. as well as traffic and security within the Project site. and safety
Performance Standard Objectives Project relevance Aspect
Performance Standard 5 This standard recognizes that project-related land Land acquisition and resettlement are not proposed for Social impact
acquisition and restrictions on land use have adverse the Project. The Project is proposed to be located within assessment
Land Acquisition and
impacts on communities and persons that use the land. an industrial zone owned by the Project proponent. As
Involuntary Resettlement
such, this standard is not applicable. However, this
standard will apply if surrounding communities need to
be relocated if they are adversely affected by the Project
operation.
Performance Standard 6 This standard recognized the importance of protecting Biodiversity values associated with the Project area are Biodiversity
and conserving biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem limited in value. The provisions set out in this (terrestrial
Biodiversity Conservation and
services and sustainably managing living natural performance standard were considered in the ecology)
Sustainable Management of
resources in achieving sustainable development. assessment of terrestrial ecology.
Living Natural Resources
Performance Standard 7 This standard recognized that Indigenous Peoples The rights and heritage values associated with Social impact
(IPs) are often among the most marginalized and Indigenous Peoples are not expected to be impacted as assessment
Indigenous Peoples
vulnerable segments of the population. IPs are a result of the Project. The Project is proposed to be
vulnerable if their lands and resources are transformed, located within a declared industrial zone, cleared and
encroached upon, or significantly degraded. currently accommodating the Dubai Municipality vehicle
storage area, owned by the Project proponent. As such,
this standard is not applicable.
Performance Standard 8 This standard recognizes the importance of cultural Local heritage is not expected to be impacted as a result Archaeological
heritage for current and future generations. of the Project since the Project is proposed to be located and cultural
Cultural Heritage
within a declared industrial zone, cleared and currently resources
accommodating the Dubai Municipality vehicle storage
area, owned by the Proponent. As such, this standard is
not applicable. However, this will apply in the event that
important cultural and archaeological sites are identified
during construction.
3.5.4 World Bank Group EHS Guidelines
The World Bank Group EHS Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and
industry-specific examples of good international industrial practice. The IFC uses the World
Bank EHS Guidelines as a technical source of information during project appraisals.
The proposed Project will comply with the World Bank EHS Guideline standards provided in
Table 3-6.
Table 3-6 World Bank EHS Guidelines relevant to the Project
General EHS This guideline contains information on the Environmental (e.g. air emissions,
Guidelines performance levels and measures that are energy efficiency and GHG
generally considered to be achievable in emissions, water consumption,
new facilities. As such, the provisions in this effluents, solid wastes, hazardous
guideline were used together with the materials and noise) and social
relevant industry-specific sector EHS (occupational health and safety,
guidelines in assessing the impacts of the community health and safety)
proposed Project. Mitigation measures were aspects
also identified based on the
recommendations provided in this guideline.
EHS This guideline covers information relevant to Environmental (e.g. air emissions,
Guidelines for combustion processes fuelled by gaseous, energy efficiency and GHG
Thermal liquid, and solid fossil fuels and biomass. As emissions, water consumption,
Power such, the provisions in this guideline were effluents, solid wastes, hazardous
considered in the assessment of project materials and noise) and social
impacts on environmental and social (occupational health and safety,
aspects. Further, the measures community health and safety)
recommended in this guideline were aspects
considered in the determining the mitigating
and enhancement measures to address
impacts of the proposed Project.
EHS This guideline covers facilities that include Environmental aspects (e.g. air
Guidelines for management of waste through incineration. emissions, ash and residuals,
Waste As such, the provisions in this guideline water effluents, noise)
Management were considered in the assessment of
Facilities project impacts on environmental and social
aspects. Further, the measures
recommended in this guideline were
considered in the determining the mitigating
and enhancement measures to address
impacts of the proposed Project.
3.5.5 Other International Guidelines
International conventions and protocols that were considered relevant to the proposed Project
are provided in Table 3-7. A summary of each protocol and convention is also provided in
Appendix G.
Table 3-7 International Conventions and Protocols relevant to the Project
Convention / Protocols Date of Project relevance

ratification /
accessions
Dutch Circular on Target Values NA This Circular was adopted for the soil
and Intervention Values for Soil and groundwater baseline data and
Remediation impact assessment.
Montreal Protocol on Substances 2005 Ozone depleting substances (ODS)

that Deplete the Ozone Layer of listed in the Montreal Protocol will not
1987 & Montreal Amendments be used during the construction and
operation of the Project.
United Nations Framework 1995 The provisions in this Convention

Convention on Climate Change were considered in recommending
mitigation measures to minimise
GHG emissions associated with
Project construction and operation.
The Project provides overall positive
benefit from reduced use of fossil
fuel as an energy use.
Kyoto Protocol to the United 2005 The provisions in this Protocol were
Nations Framework Convention on considered in recommending
Climate Change mitigation measures to minimise
GHG emissions associated with
fuel as an energy use
United Nations Climate Change 2016 The agreement on the reduction of

Conference climate change is taken into
consideration in adopting technology
for the proposed Project.
fuel as an energy use
Vienna Convention for the 2004 The Proponent will take into account
Protection of the Ozone Layer the mechanisms adopted in this
Convention.
Convention on Biological Diversity 1999 The provisions in this convention

were considered in assessment of
impacts on terrestrial ecology.
European Regulations/Industrial 2010 Directive on industrial emissions

Emissions Directive (Directive (integrated pollution prevention and
2010/75/EU) control)
4. Description of the Project
4.1 Introduction
The DM proposes the development of the Dubai Waste Management Center comprising of a
WtE plant that will treat approximately 1,888,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per
year nominal design capacity at 9.5 MJ/kg NCV to generate an average net power output of 193
MW of electricity to the local grid, powering about 135,000 homes. The construction of the WtE
plant is scheduled to commence in Q4 2019.
4.1.1 Basic criteria for the Project WtE Plant
The estimated nominal design capacity of the WtE plant is about 5,666 tonnes per day (tpd),
consisting of five lines, each with a nominal capacity of 1,132 tpd. Based on the projected
throughput, there will be an estimated production capacity power output of 193 MW of electricity
generated to the electrical grid of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) and to Al Aweer
Sewage Treatment Plan (STP). A summary of key performance data for the proposed WtE plant
is shown in Table 4-1. At the time that the facility is operating at full capacity, it will be the
largest WtE plant globally.
Table 4-1 Key performance data
Performance data New Design (at full capacity

of plant)
Daily MSW throughput by Plant (=5 incineration lines) 5,666 tpd
Daily MSW throughput per incineration line 1,132.8 tpd
Annual MSW throughput by Plant (=5 incineration lines) min. 1,888,000 tpa
Annual incineration bottom ash (IBA) production by Plant (=5 39,950 kg/h bottom ash
incineation lines) from wet extractor at LPN
282,269 tpa mineral
aggregates to be produces
after pre-treatment,
processing and maturation
Total net power output by Plan (=5 incineration lines) 193 MW @ 27°C ambient
temperature
Estimated number of homes powered by Plant if based on total 135,000 homes

net power output above
*LP N stands for nominal load point, which is the design load point of the WtE Plant
Source: HZI and Besix (2016b)
4.1.2 Basic overview of Waste to Energy
As per the World Energy Council 2013 report titled World Energy Resources: Waste to Energy,
“Waste-to-Energy (WtE plant) technologies consist of any waste treatment process that creates
energy in the form of electricity, heat or transport fuels (e.g. diesel) from a waste source.” The
same article notes that MSW, when coupled with proper environmental and pollution controls,
can provide beneficial reuse of waste as a resource to support energy diversification for the
“urban sustainable energy mix of tomorrow” (WEC 2013). According to WEC 2013, the following
general observations are noted relative to WtE plant projects:
1. Contributing factors to basis for projects in WtE plant – Globally, the following factors
are primary contributors to the pursuit of alternative waste treatment technologies,
including WtE plant projects:
– Growing urban populations with increased population density

– Higher energy consumption on a per capita basis
– Higher energy costs
– Increasing waste generation on a per capita basis
– Changing waste composition, with higher content of recycleables (plastics, paper)
– Decreasing landfilling capacity
2. Benefits of WtE plant projects – WtE plant technologies offer the following typical
benefits:
– Converting the “energy content” of waste into energy
– Producing power that can be distributed through electrical grid
– Generating heat which can be used for thermodynamic processes
– Managing residual materials that can be recycled such as metals recovery or ash
reuse
3. Challenges of WtE plant projects – WtE plant technologies offer the following typical
challenges:
– Centralized waste management creating challenges for transportation and traffic

– Incineration of waste requiring enhanced environmental and pollution controls
– High degree of facility complexity with high operational and maintenance requirements
– Emissions into the atmosphere, even with proper pollution controls
4.2 Project Location and Area

The Project location is at a DM owned industrial site in Warsan 2, Dubai (Parcel No. 6221673).
A copy of the Affection Plan5 is included in Appendix D. The geographical coordinates defining
the boundary of the Project site is provided in Table 4-2 and shown in Figure 4-1. The total area,
based on the Affection Plan, is 506,096.14 m2.
The Project site is located within an area comprised of other DM functions, notably the Al Aweer
STP to the west of the Project location, as shown in Figure 4-2. In general, the site is located
approximately 40 km northeast of Al Maktoum International Airport (DWC), approximately 12 km
southeast of Dubai International Airport (DXB), and approximately 17 km east of Burj Khalifa.
Electrical energy generated from the proposed WtE plant will be exported to the electrical grid of
DEWA. The Al Aweer STP is anticipated to provide treated sewage effluent (TSE) to the WtE
plant (as the WtE plants main process water source); the Al Aweer STP will also receive
sanitary wastewater (no process water) from the WtE plant. Steam generated by the WtE plant
will be managed on-site.
5
Affection Plan is an official site plan document issued by the government of Dubai that includes a site map
image detailing location (survey coordinates) and dimension of the plot. This is required to obtain a license to
carryout proposed alterations / additions / construction of buildings.
Table 4-2 Geographical Coordinates of the Project
Corner Northing Easting
Point 1 (NE corner) 2783734.92 511544.94
Point 2 (E edge) 2783699.85 511547.77
Point 3 (E edge) 2783420.24 511205.01
Point 4 (SE corner) 2783350.29 511119.27
Point 5 (SW corner) 2783460.30 510718.58
Point 6 (NW corner) 2783987.38 510871.06
Point 7 (frontage) 2783975.35 510930.87
Point 8 (frontage) 2783877.14 511244.60
Point 9 (frontage) 2783820.32 511372.63
Figure 4-1 Approximate Project Boundary (Highlighted Region)
Figure 4-2 Regional Setting of the Project
4.3 Project Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
4.3.1 Land Use
Land uses surrounding the proposed Project site are shown on Figure 4-3 and can be described
as follows:
 Industrial areas (grey):
– To the immediate west of the proposed Project site is the Al Aweer STP. As one of
two wastewater treatment plants serving Dubai, the Al Aweer STP is an essential
component of the wastewater treatment capacity of the Emirate. The plant receives
both domestic wastewater and septage. The plant performs both tertiary wastewater
treatment for irrigation reuse and sludge treatment for reuse as soil amendment. The
plant was initially designed with a capacity of 130,000 m3 per day, which was later
upgraded to 260,000 m3 per day.
– To the southwest is the DEWA Power Station. Support facilities for the Power Station
also include DEWA’s corporate office and the DEWA Al Warsan Central Store.
– To the southwest is also an un-engineered Tadweer landfill.
– Industrial Facilities. To the immediate east and southeast of the Project site are a
number of industrial facilities and storage areas such as German Ready Mix-RAK Mix,
Arar Store, EEE Warsan Store, Emirates Beton, Readymix LLC, China Asphalt Mixing
Plant, DEWA Al Warsan Central Store, among others.
– To the southeast of the Project is the Dubai Police Transport Impounding Area.
 Resource / Attraction (green):
– To the north of the Project site is the Desert Palm Polo Club and Hotel and Dubai
Safari Park, both of these sites include recreational uses.
– The Dubai Pivot Fields consisted of two circular grassy fields (watered by two pivotal
watering structures). It was a location for bird watching. The site used to consist of a
turf farm where there was recorded presence of masked shrikes and white-tailed
lapwings. However, in the present-day condition, the site is inoperable, and the
watering stopped in July 2015. The site is no longer grass covered because it is no
longer maintained and not irrigated.
– Al Warsan Lakes are two lakes connected to each other, located around 1.85 km west
of the Project. Al Warsan Lakes used to be one of Dubai’s birding sites but with the
construction of facilities in the surrounding areas, it has shrunk in size and lost 90% of
the birds used to be present (Pedersen, undated).
 Residential areas (yellow):
– Al Warqa Neighbourhood is approximately 2 km north of the Project.
– Dubai International City (DIC) Phase 1 is located around 2 km west of the Project.
– DIC Phase 2, which is under construction, is located around 3 km southwest of the
Project.
 Commercial areas (red):
– Located around 2 km northwest of the Project is the Dubai Textile City, which consist
of modern warehouses, offices and showrooms that exhibits Dubai’s textile business.
– Located northwest of the Project is the Dragon Mart Commercial Center, which is
considered as the largest trading hub for Chinese products outside mainland China
and offers a unique platform for traders of Chinese goods in the Middle Eastern and
North African markets.
– The Dubai Municipal Nursery is a plant nursery. At the site there are a variety of plants
sold, and other gardening activities undertaken.
 Academic City (light blue): Located around 3 km south of the Project is the Dubai
International Academic City (DIAC), which covers an area of 12,000,000 m2 where
educational institutions are based.
 Place of Worship (light purple). Located around 1.8 km northwest of the Project is the
Dragon Mart Mosque.
Figure 4-3 Surrounding Land Uses – 5 km radius
4.3.2 Existing Site Conditions
In the existing condition, the Project site is relatively flat and cleared. DM currently uses the site
for storage of a variety of vehicles such as large long-haul trailers and other pedestrian vehicles.
Trucks and other vehicles are stored at the site on existing asphalt-paved surfaces. The car
parking area was noted by BESIX to be for DM, without much turnover in vehicles stored on-
site. BESIX noted that DM overseen the operations and management of this area. There was a
recent expansion of asphalt pavement (compacted millings) to the southern boundary of the
paved area, which is not reflected in aerial photographs. Refer to Plate 4-1 and Plate 4-2 for
panoramic views of the Project site
A description of the existing physical environment within and around the Project site, based on
GHD site observations on 9 April 2018, is provided below.
4.3.2.1 Biodiversity
Biodiversity consists of the presence of natural communities, habitat and species. At the site
currently, there exists both constructed/built environments and natural habitats. Due to the
presence of on-site industrial uses and the surrounding industrial facilities, the site is considered
to have a limited capacity to support biodiversity. Furthermore, there are waste deposition
activities occurring nearby the site such as the ongoing landfilling and sludge dewatering
lagoons, which do not provide historically suitable habitat for wildlife.
Limited-to-no surface water habitats exist within the proposed development footprint. Surface
water bodies present are most likely formed from leachate outbreaks from the adjacent waste
landfill and the sludge deposition area.
Detailed terrestrial ecology baseline study is provided in Section 5.5.3.
4.3.2.2 Noise
The site and surrounding land uses comprise heavy industrial uses. It is observed that there are
both traffic noise and operational noise from the adjacent waste disposal area (compactor and
truck deliveries of waste), concrete producing plants (typical cement production equipment
noises and truck noise) and road network (vehicle traffic). On-site noise impacts are also
attributed to truck traffic within the vehicle storage area and existing generators for
office/construction trailers on-site, which generate ambient background noise.
There are no known existing noise monitoring stations at the Project site. Detailed noise studies
undertaken for the Project is provided in Section 5.4.
4.3.2.3 Air Quality

Cement dust, most likely from concrete producing plants, was evident across the surface of the
sand adjacent to these facilities (eastern boundary of the site). There also appears to be
concrete washout occurring to the south of the site limits, and adjacent to the existing landfill
area. There is concrete along the embankment slope and miscellaneous concrete debris at this
location. Entrained dust has also been observed as is expected given the open area and
exposed sand dunes.
While there are existing undeveloped areas, the adjacent land uses present odour conditions
typical for industrial zoned areas, specifically odours from landfilling (waste/refuse), concrete
producing plants (industrial/oil smells), the power plant to the south of the site, and organic
odours from the Al Aweer STP and sludge disposal areas.
There are no known existing air monitoring stations at the Project site. Air monitoring activities
undertaken for the Project is detailed in Section 5.3.
4.3.2.4 Soil and Groundwater
Landfill Disposal Area

There is an active landfilling taking place at the disposal area (Warsan Landfill) to the southwest
of the Project site. The waste disposal area is generally covered with mounded sand, and a
steep slope rises from a shallow surface water body at the toe of slope. Given the appearance
of this water, there exists a potential for leachate impacts in proximity to the landfill cell.
Surface Soil
There was evidence of a possible oil/petroleum spill near the edge of the existing site limits. The
oil was running from a point upland near one of the existing cement plants. The oil appeared
dried at the surface, so the spill was not recent. In addition, the source of the spill could not be
identified, and the oil generally appeared at the surface. Subsurface investigations were not
carried out at the time of the site visit.
Sludge Pit
The sludge disposal areas at the western site boundary appear to be in limited use, but recent
sludge deposition was observed at the pit furthest north. The elevation of these pits is much
higher than the proposed development site grade. Similar to the landfill cell, pooling surface
water with associated reed growth was observed at the foot of the slope leading up to the lower
of the pits (closest to the Project site).
Previous Soil and Groundwater Studies

ACES completed a site soil survey in 2009. An additional site soil survey was completed in 2018
by ACES under contract by BESIX. The site investigation report from the recent survey is
currently being prepared. ACES (2009) indicates that surface soils are generally sand in native
areas, but there were signs of waste (blowing garbage) and cement dust impacts within the site
vicinity adjacent to industrial facilities. The paved parking area is primarily asphalt,
stone/aggregate or asphalt millings.
As per BESIX, groundwater depths vary across the Project site, and typically within a range of 7
to 10 metres (m) below existing ground surface. An updated site investigation was completed by
ACES in March 2018, and have been considered further for the EIA as discussed in Section 5.5.
ACES also completed additional groundwater and soil sampling for the EIA.
4.3.2.5 Road and traffic network

The Project site is accessed via the existing E44 highway (also known as Al Khail Road or
Dubai-Hatta Highway). The E44 is a dual 4-lane highway and runs from the west to east. The
E44 bisects Al Warqa area to the north and Warsan area to the south. The congestion levels on
this highway are high during rush hours. From the E44, the Project can be reached via D54 (or
the Sheikh Zayed Bin Hamdan Al Nahyan Street) and an internal road to access the Al Aweer
STP.
The other major routes to the west and east of the Project are E311 (Sheikh Mohammed Bin
Zayed Road) and E611 (Emirates Road).
No detailed information is currently available regarding traffic levels on local access roads
around the immediate vicinity of the Project, but based on preliminary observations at site, traffic
levels appear to be generally low and uncongested. No new roads or accesses are proposed to
be constructed off-site in relation to the Project. Internal access roads will be constructed to
facilitate construction and operations. Detailed discussion on road and traffic network in
provided in Section 5.7, and a Level 1 Traffic Impact Study was undertaken for the Project.
4.3.2.6 Social and Cultural
The site and surrounding land uses comprise heavy industrial uses. The estimated area of
disturbance is approximately 320,000 m2, is an industrial area. The northern part of the site,
where the WtE plant will be constructed, is currently used for storage of a variety of vehicles.
There are no communities residing within the site limits that would be directly affected by the
Based on Dubai Statistics Report (2017), Warsan 2 (i.e., location of Project site) has a
population of 764 or about 0.02% of the population in the Emirate. The majority of the
population in Warsan 2 reside in residential villas inside the Desert Palm, Dubai, which is
located approximately 300 m away from the proposed site boundary. Individuals accessing the
commercial and office facilities within the surrounding industrial areas may potentially be
affected during the construction and operation of the Project.
In reference to Dubai Heritage site listings (dubaiculture.gov.ae) there are no cultural sites
within or surrounding the Project site. Based on a review of literature, the nearest cultural
heritage site is the Al Fahidi Historical Neighbourhood, which is about 18 km away from the site.
Detailed discussion on social and cultural aspect is provided in Section 5.11.
4.3.2.7 Visual Resources

There appears to be a direct line of sight from the Desert Palm Polo Club and Hotel properties
located to the north of the project site, although there exists both a landscape buffer and
highway between. A new building is being constructed to the northwest of the project site. It will
sit at an elevation above the site grade. A complete discussion on visual resources is provided
in Section 5.10.
Plate 4-1 Panoramic view facing to the south from the approximate midpoint of the site
Plate 4-2 Panoramic view facing to the east from the existing sludge pits
Photographs of the existing site conditions taken on 9 April 2018 are include in the following
Plate 4-3.
View of millings driving surface, asphalt paved View of existing parking area over asphalt
area with truck parking beyond (facing north) pavement (facing east from edge of site)
Eastern boundary of the proposed Project
area
View of existing natural area at approximate View of existing maintenance area (facing
mid-point of plot (facing south towards landfill southeast from edge of site)
area beyond)
View of off-site sludge management area (Al

View of concrete producing plant(s) along
Aweer STP), off-site (facing south)
western site boundary (facing west)
Continued from previous page
View of existing landfill with power plant stacks Existing landfill along western site boundary,
shown beyond (facing southwest) beyond limits of project disturbance (facing
northwest)
View of active landfilling area (facing View of natural vegetation (interior of plot)
southwest)
View of existing site (facing east towards View of existing site (facing north towards car
concrete producting plants from interior of plot) park from interior of plot)
Plate 4-3 Existing Site Conditions surrounding the Project Area
4.4 Potential Key Sensitive Receptors
Based on the site assessment and literature review on land uses around the Project site,
anticipated potential sensitive receptors have been considered in the environmental impact
assessment process.
Sensitive receptors are areas where the occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects
of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants (EPA, 2017). This include, but
are not limited to, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and convalescent
facilities. Sensitive receptors categories, as per DM Technical Guideline No. 2 (2014), are
defined for the Project in Table 4-3 and their locations shown on Figure 4-4.
An assessment of the Project’s potential impacts on sensitive receptors is included within the
EIA report. Reference is given to air, odour and noise baseline data obtained during the EIA
baseline survey to assess potential impacts during the construction and operation phases of the
Project (Sections 5.3 and 5.4, respectively).
Table 4-3 Receptors identified within 5 km from the site
Sensitivity Description and features of the receptors Receptors within 5 km of the Project
and type of area (1) Planned (a receptor that will be introduced
Existing (baseline receptor)
area 1 by the Project or planned by other entities)
High Protected areas for conservation of national None None

(Type 1 Area) or international importance
Water supply reserves None None
Hospitals and school premises Desert Palm Riding Schools (370 m north) None
(i.e. workers, patients, students) Dubai Academic City (2–5 km southwest)
New Dubai Police Academy (2.5 km south)
Wadi Al Shabak Army Training Camp (4 km
northeast)
High density residential block, town center Desert Palm Residential Villas (300 m north) International City Phase (under
(i.e. residents and visitors) construction) (edge is 3.25 km southwest)
Al Warqa 4 (1.3 km northeast) Ruwaya Village / Desert Rose (planned)
(edge is 3.82 km south, southeast)
Al Warqa 1, 2 and 3 (2.5–5 km northwest)
Dubai International City (1.5 km west)
Moderate Vital utilities such as electricity and energy None None

(Type 2 Area) resources, natural wealth reserves and
state-protected economic zones
Light density residential block, public parks Dubai Safari Park (public park) (1.3 km north) WtE Plant Accommodation (light density)
(i.e. residents and visitors) (within project boundary)
Desert Palm Polo Club Resort and Hotel
(public park) (620 m north)
Al Naboodah Labour Accommodation (light
density) (4 km east)
Natural body of water Warsan Lake (1.6 km west) None
(i.e. tourist/visitors to the site)
Place of cultural heritage None None
and type of area (1) Existing (baseline receptor) Planned (a receptor that will be introduced
Light Commercial buildings, offices and other Dragon Mart Mosque (public area) (1.6 km Offices at the project site - -future workers
(Type 3 Area) public areas northwest) / visitors at the Project site
(i.e. workers, costumers and visitors)
Pivot Fields (public area) (300 m northwest)
DEWA Headquarters (offices) (200 m
southwest)
Dubai Textile City (commercial building) (1.6
km northwest)
Dragon Mart Commercial Center (commercial
building) (2 km northwest)
Commercial areas northeast of the Project site:
Hardware and Building Material Market, ENOC
Substation, RTA Bus Depo (1.59 km
northwest)
Commercial areas east of the Project site:
Emirates Transport Driving, restaurants and
groceries (1.64 km east)
Good products manufacturing premises None None
Agricultural crops farmland Dubai Municipality Plant Nursery (500 m east) None
(i.e. workers, costumers and visitors)
Warsan Plant Nurseries (1.5 km east) None
Marginal Industrial Unibeton – International City (concrete The Project - future workers / visitors at
(Type 4 Area) (i.e. workers and visitors) supplier) (350 m northeast) the Project site
Industrial Area adjacent to the site (Concrete
suppliers: German Ready Mix, Emirates Beton
Readymix LLC, China State Asphalt Mixing
Plant) & Warehouse (Al Warsan Store and Arar
Store)
Dubai Police Vehicle Impound Center (790 m
southeast)
and type of area (1) Existing (baseline receptor) Planned (a receptor that will be introduced
Dubai Police Traffic Department and Impound

Yard (1.20 km south)
Emirates Engine Maintenance Center (1.12 km
south)
Power Station (edge is 350 m south)
Al Aweer STP (edge is 200 m west)
Envirol Plant (recycling facility) (390 m west)
Tasjeel (car inspection station) (1.2 km

southwest)
DEWA Al Warsan Central Store (10 m
southeast)
Tadweer Waste Treatment LLC (1.3 km west)
TransPro Systems (4.10 km east)
Trucks and Used Spare Part Market (3.92 km

southeast)
Animal farmland but without dairy or meat Dubai Bird and Pets Market (2 km southeast) None
food products processing
(i.e. workers and visitors)
(1) - Categorisation of sensitive receptors is defined in DM-EPSS Technical Guideline No. 02 (March 2014)
Figure 4-4 Existing Potential Sensitive Receptor Categories
4.5 Project Layout
The general project layout of the proposed WtE plant is provided in Figure 4-5. Project
rendering is shown in Figure 4-6. It should be noted that the layout provided in this report is
preliminary; the final layout will be provided by the EPC during detailed design stage but will
generally comprise the same project components and parts as proposed. It is assumed that the
final design / layout will reflect the current impacts and assessment. In the event that final
design / layout differ from the preliminary design presented in this EIA, and EIA Addendum will
be submitted to DM detailing the proposed changes and anticipated impacts.
The WtE plant will comprise of the components provided in Table 4-4, grouped as primary
supporting functions and primary technical buildings.
Detailed description of the above facilities and buildings are provided in Appendix H with further
discussion in subsequent sections describing processes and functions associated with key
components and areas.
Figure 4-5 Project Layout
Figure 4-6 Project Rendering (View from South-West)
Table 4-4 Project Components
Primary Supporting Facilities
Administrative & Visitors Building and The Administration Building will be designed and constructed to be able to accommodate 20 people on a
Operating & Maintenance Staff Facilities permanent basis and additionally up to approximately 30 visitors on a temporary basis. The building comprises
(i) offices and meeting rooms, (ii) cafeteria, (iii) archive room and storage rooms for office and cleaning
supplies, (iv) restrooms, (v) kitchen, (vi) exhibition space, (vii) visitor area, (viii) training room and (ix)lifts for
personnel.
Guardhouse Trucks entry and exit
Weighbridge Weighing of the waste deliveries (incoming truck weight minus outgoing truck weight) and acquisition of all
relevant delivery data for inventory control.
 Number of truck scales: 3 in - 2 out
 Peak hourly truck entry: 80 trucks / h
 Type truck scale: pit type / pitless type
 Annual availability: 8,760 h/y / 24 h/day
 Low and high temperatures:10 to 55ºC
 Size of each platform (Length x width): 18m x 3m
 Weighing range: 0.4-60 Mg
 Weighing scaling intervals: max. 20kg
 Horizontal movement of the platform in each direction: max. 10mm
 Number of load cells per platform: 8
 Type of cell: digital
 Load capacity per cell: Mg
 Weighing accuracy according to OIML Standards: Class III
 Weighing accuracy: Max. 0.025%
 Time for one weighing process: max. 60sec
 Automatic vehicle identification:
 Automatic ticket dispenser: 1 (exit scale)
 Alphanumeric display and Intercom system: 2, one per scale
 Automatic barriers: 2, one per scale
 Weighing software and complete PC with mouse, printer and screen
Checkpoint Staff and visitors entry & exit
Accommodation Building To accommodate 120 people
Primary Technical Buildings
Main Electrical Station The steam turbine generator will be connected through the Generator Circuit Breaker (GCB) to the Generator
Step up Transformer.
When sufficient steam is produced, the generator will be synchronized to the 132 kV grid. Once synchronized,
the net power production is delivered to the Grid.
The Facility electrical auxiliary system is fed from the 6.6kV metal-clad switchgear, which is connected to the
Unit Auxiliary Transformer. The plant system will be supplied from the 6.6kV switchgear.
Dry type distribution transformers 6.6kV/0.4kV will be used for low voltage consumers. Two (2) Emergency
diesel generators for safe shut-down will be installed and connected to the 6.6 kV switchboard.
In the event of total power failure, the redundant steady-state uninterruptible power supply system guarantees
the continuity of the power supply for the operational instrumentation and control system, i.e. the power supply
for instrumentation, monitoring systems, the voice communications equipment, as well as the control voltage of
the HV, MV and LV system.
Main Process Building: The tipping bays allow the transfer of the waste from the reception area to the waste bunker and guide the
waste trucks in the tipping area. The waste delivery trucks back up to their assigned tipping bay made of
1) Tipping Bay
concrete and unload their load into the waste bunker. Air is drawn from the waste bunker into the furnace
combustion air. The resulting negative pressure within the waste bunker ensures that dust and odour are
prevented from leaving the waste bunker.
2) Waste Bunker Waste bunker for two lines (please refer to PDE-HZI-50071808_1.0 in Appendix H and Section 4.7.2 for
detailed design of waste bunker):
Dimensions of bunker 1 (2 lines):

 Width – 56.0 m
 Height – 33.0 m
 Depth – 23.0 m
 Volume – 42,504 m3
Dimension of waste bunker 2 (3 lines)
 Width – 87 m
 Height 33 m
 Depth 23 m
 Volume 66,033 m3
3) Mobile Waste Shredder The mobile waste shredder will be used for processing bulky waste. Detailed description is provided in
Section 4.7.3.
4) Boiler Hall The boiler converts the heat of the flue gas into superheated steam. It is designed as a natural circulation
boiler and is diviced into five main subsystems:
 The economiser system
 The evaporator system
 The superheater system
 The boiler drum
 The boiler blow down
5) Flue Gas Treatment Refer to Section 4.7.6
6) Stacks The stack expels the purged flue gas after the flue gas cleaning system to the atmosphere. Each incinerator
line has one single self-standing stack of 70 m height.
The Project comprise of five incineration lines; as such a total of five stacks grouped in two and three is
anticipated. NOx emission from the stacks will be reduced with the use of SNCR / DyNOR system (refer to
Section 4.7).
Turbine Hall Refer to Section 4.7.5
Technical Block, Workshop and Electrical Technical Block. The Technical Block will be designed and constructed to tbe able to accommodate 60 people
Rooms during the dayshift and 17 people during the other shifts. In addition, during the 3-week overhaul period per
individual line, there will be an additional 80-120 external workers using the locker rooms, showers and
kitchen/canteen in the Technical Block. These overhauls will occur five times per year (there are five lines.
The technical block will comprise (i) kitchen, (ii) cafeteria, (iii) first aid room (or plant clinic), (iv) prayer rooms,
(v) locker room, (vi) lift for personnel, and (vii) toilets for male and femal employees.
Workshop. The Workshop will include maintenance manager’s office, store room, large ans small spare parts
storage, electrical workshop, instrumentation workshop, mechanical workshop, open area (e.g. for fabrication,
temporary laydown), and storage for consumables (i.e. lubricants, etc.)
Air Cool Condenser During regular plant operation, the exhaust steam from the turbine condenses in the air-cooled condenser
(ACC), which is situated beside the turbine house.
In case of start-up, shutdown, overload or trip of the turbine, all or a part of the live stream flows into the ACC
via the turbine bypass system. The thermal capacity of the ACC is high enough so that it is able to condensate
the saturated steam that bypasses the turbine at an ambient temperature of 45 ºC.
In transitions from normal operation to exceptional cases, such as island mode and by-pass operation, excess
steam may need to be blown off for a short period of time during in order to prevent a possible shutdown of the
turbine or the plant. At ambient temperatures over approx. 35°C, it may also be necessary to reduce the boiler
load during island mode operation or for the transition from by-pass operation to normal turbine operation.
Bottom Ash Maturation Area Refer to Section 4.7.7
FGT Silos The residue storage silo is an interim / temporary storage for the flue gas treatment residues. The silos are
placed on an elevated steel structure prepared to the moistening system for open truck discharge. A
continuous weighing device and analogue level measurement are fitted underneath the silo to monitor the
filling level of the silo. A binary level switch is installed for overfill protection. A safety valve is installed to
protect the silo against over and under pressure.
A total of five silos for the whole Dubai WtE plant are anticipated. Each silo has an storage volume of
approximatly 350 m3, corresponding to approximately four days storage capacity
Storage Tanks Fuel oil tank (1x130m3 and 1x200m3). Two containerized tanks will be located south of the main process
building at a safe distance. The fuel will be unloaded from the delivery truck by means of its pump.
Aqueous urea solution tank (1 tank at 60 m3). The 32.5% urea solution (NH4OH) is stored in a steel tank.
According to the effective regulations the filling line and the tank are equipped with safety equipment
necessary for unloading and storage of the urea solution. The tank is located outside the main process building
and sun shielded by roofs. A filling pump including necessary fittings is installed on a rack close to the
unloading area. The tank truck must be able to receive the displaced urea gas exhaust during the unloading
process via a return pipe.
Reception and storage of Solid Additives (hydrated lime) 5 silos each 150m3. The storage of hydrated lime is
done in dust-tight silos. The product is delivered by silo trucks. On-site unloading of the trucks is done
pneumatically using conveying air generated by the vehicle’s on-board compressor. During silo filling the
exhaust filter is cleaned automatically by compressed air pulses. The filling of a silo is released from the
control room and started by the truck driver from a local control panel in the vicinity of the unloading station.
When the filling is started the filling valve is opened and the exhaust filter cleaning is started. A silo is
monitored with level switches in order to prevent overfilling of the silo and to indicate a low level. In addition, an
analogous level measurement is installed. A silo is equipped with a safety valve in order to protect the silo
against over- and sub-pressure. The safety valve is connected to an exhaust pipe to the atmosphere. The silo
is supported on an independent steel structure that is put onto weighing cells. At the bottom outlet of the silo a
manually operated slide valve is installed. The discharge of the silo is ensured by means of a pneumatic
discharge system using compressed air.
Storage of adsorbent (PAC or lignite coke) 2 silos, each 80m3. The adsorbent applied is activated carbon. The
storage of adsorbent is done in two silo for the whole WtE plant. The adsorbent is delivered by silo trucks. On-
site unloading takes place pneumatically using conveying air pressure generated by the vehicle’s on-board
compressor. The exhaust filter is cleaned automatically by a differential pressure controller. The cleaned
exhaust air is expelled into the atmosphere. The fill level of the silo is monitored with level switches in order to
prevent overfilling of the silo and to indicate the low level. The silo is equipped with a safety valve against over-
and sub-pressure. At the bottom outlet a manually operated slide valve is installed. The silo is controlled by
temperature measurements installed at the bottom and at the top of the silo. In case of an unusual temperature
excursion the silo is rendered inert with inert gas. The inerting is to be released manually by the operating staff.
Inert gas (N2) supply. Two locations at the two adsorbent silos with bundles of bottles, each in total minimum
2100 litres (and bottle gas pressure 200 barg). Local UAE supplier will provide 40-litre as per below
specifications. So, for a capacity on-site of 2100 litres, and each at 40-litre per unit, this would result in about
53 units per each location, or about 106 units in total. [NITROGEN GAS 240 CFT (40 LTR), Bottle gas
pressure 2000 psI (Pounds per square inch)]. The The inert gas system smothers potential adsorbent fires in
the conveying system, the adsorbent silos and the fabric bag filter by flooding them with inert gas. Potential
fires, in particular smouldering in silos, are detected by temperature measurements as quick as possible and
fought as a first measure by manually activating inert gas flooding of the affected area. The inert gas storage
system is designed to ensure that typical smouldering fires may be extinguished or delayed until the fire
brigade is on site and/or respective countermeasures, e.g. emptying of silos towards the incinerator, can be
executed. The inert gas used is Nitrogen (N2). Compared to the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) the risk of
smothering of staff is much lower due to the fact that nitrogen is immediately mixing up with air in an open
system. Cylinder banks at about 200 bar cylinder pressure are available as inert gas storage. The cylinder
banks, including fitting and gauge, are supplied by the Client and can be procured on a leased basis from a
nitrogen supplier. Inert gas is distributed by a piping system including necessary fittings to the respective
consumer.
Installation of 132kV underground cable The Project will be connected through a high voltage (HV) single circuit to the DM STP substation. Refer to
and connection to DM substation Section 4.7.8 for detailed description.
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Refer to Section 4.7.9
4.6 Material Balance
The technological concept and the related volume streams for the proposed Project are
illustrated in Figure 4-7. It should be noted that the figures provided in this section are
preliminary and will be revised once final design is completed.
The primary input materials include MSW, diesel for start-up and water. The WtE plant requires
approximately 5,666 tpd of fuel source (i.e. waste) at a net calorific value (NCV) of 9.5 MJ/kg,
approximately 85 to 100 m3/hour of water and diesel fuel used for auxiliary burners. Details
regarding the gross, parasitic, net power, bottom ash generation, and air emissions are shown
in Figure 4-8.
Dubai Population: 2,698,600 (DSC, 2017a)

Domestic waste generated 3,570,072 metric tonnes (DSC, 2017b)
Capacity: 1,888,000 tpa MSW for DM
Electricity exported:
193 MW power output at full capacity
135,000 (+/-) homes
Dubai waste treatment centre

(Waste-to-Energy Plant)
Flue gas treatment Incinerated Bottom

residuals to off-site Ash Managed by DM
facility by DM (recycling or
disposal)
Figure 4-7 Technological concept diagram
Figure 4-8 Bloc diagram (preliminary design to be finalised)
4.7 Technology Overview
As per HZI, the proposed technology is based on the most reliable and continuously improved
solution that complies with European Regulations/Industrial Emission Directive (Directive
2010/75/EU), allows for environmentally and ecologically optimised operation, and provides for
maximum flexibility. In 2016 Fichtner, as DM’s technical adviser, defined the IED 2010/75/EU as
the basis for the design compliance. The design of the WtE plant, therefore, is based on IED.
The proposed Project consists of five lines each comprising a furnace equipped with the
Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) process for nitrogen oxide (NOx) control, a HZI 4-
pass heat recovery boiler, the HZI-dry flue gas treatment system and, for all units, a common
water-steam-cycle with an effective turbine-generator set for the heat utilisation.
A block diagram of incinerator-boiler and dry flue gas treatment sysem is provided Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-9 Block diagram showing incineration-boiler and dry flue gas
treatment system
4.7.1 Feedstock (Waste) Handling
For the Project, and at the time of the EIA development, input MSW as feedstock to the WtE
plant will be sourced from the Dubai Municipality. MSW is currently disposed of at DM’s Al
Qusais Landfill, which is approximately 13 km north of the Project site. Transportation of MSW
will generally be via the existing road network, but not necessarily rerouted from the landfill
because trucks can deliver directly from the source of generation (“pick-up”) to the WtE plant
(“drop-off”).
At the WtE plant, the waste handling system will consist of tipping bays for receiving waste, and
a waste crane for feeding the thermal treatment system. Waste delivery vehicles are anticipated
to be registered into a database of certified haulers and identified by means of an electronic
card system, or equivalent, to facilitate efficient scaling (weigh-in) for delivered materials.
In parallel with the EIA, a traffic impact study (TIS) was completed to assess the impacts
associated with transporting of MSW associated with the Project. A copy of the TIS is included
in Appendix Q and potential impacts are assessed in Section 5.7.
4.7.2 Waste Bunker
One waste bunker hall with two waste bunker pits will be installed. The waste bunker pits will be
separated by the central control room block (i.e. the waste is physically stored within two waste
bunker compartments but they share the same ‘headspace’ – including common waste crane
rails – and roof and air).
Dimension of the waste bunker 1 (2 lines) is:
 Width – 56.0 m
 Height – 33.0 m
 Depth – 23.0 m
 Volume – 42,504 m3
Dimension of the waste bunker 2 (3 lines) is:
 Width – 87 m
 Height 33 m
 Depth 23 m
 Volume 66,033 m3
Illustration of waste bunker is shown in Figure 4-10. Set-up within waste bunker hall is as
follows:
 Waste bunker compartment 1 with 2 incineration lines
 Waste bunker compartment 2 with 3 incineration lines

Therefore, if 1 out of 2 or 3 respectively, incineration lines are in operation, the slightly negative
pressure in the waste bunker hall can be maintained.
Figure 4-10 Waste Bunker
4.7.3 Mobile Waste Shredder
A mobile waste shredder is proposed to be used for processing bulky waste, as a contingency
plan should waste be received at the site that is unsuitable for feedstock to the incinerator lines.
A two-shaft shredder (Urraco 75 or similar) will be used (Figure 4-11). Detailed description of
the proposed mobile shredder is provided in Appendix S.
The mobile waste shredder has the following descriptions:
 Mobile shredder will be positioned in the corner of the waste bunker area (Figure 4-12). If
bulky waste is received (requiring shredding) then the mobile shredder will be used to
reduce the waste to suitable size processing.
 The unit will be installed within the interior of the building, with two roller access doors
(Figure 4-13). The shredder will be placed in a closed door to avoid noise emissions. The
roller access doors will only open to load the shredder with bulky waste and during
picking up of shredded material by the wheel loader. The shredder should be switched off
while the access doors are open.
 Waste will be loaded into the unit, and then the doors closed while the unit is operating
(shredding the waste).
 When the shredding is completed, the shredded waste will be moved via front-end loader
from the shredding area to the waste bunder for processing with MSW.
Figure 4-11 Two Shaft Mobile Waste Shredder
Waste Bunker
Waste Bunker
Figure 4-12 Location of mobile waste shredder
Figure 4-13 Operation Mobile Waste Shredder
4.7.4 Thermal Treatment
The thermal treatment system consists of an air-cooled grate, combined with a 4-pass tail end
heat recovery boiler, which forms the basis for this WtE plant’s conversion technology
(Figure 4-14). In general, a 4 pass boiler is designed to provide improved “opportunity” for hot
gasses to transfer heat to the water in a boiler, which allows for more efficiency in the operation,
i.e., yielding a higher overall heat-transfer coefficient (Industrial Boiler & Mechanical, 2018).
Figure 4-14 Thermal treatment schematic

For the project: 4 pass heat recovery boiler with 2 vertical empty passes, 1 horizontal pass and 1 vertical economiser pass (VVHV)
Source: HZI and Besix (2016a)
4.7.4.1 Combustion Control System

The combustion control is fully automatic (Figure 4-15). The operator only selects the desired
steam output and all other parameters (waste feeding, grate speed, amount of combustion air
etc.) are handled by the control system itself. This secures that the plant operates continuously
at an optimum regarding efficiency, environmental protection and life expectancy of the
equipment.
Figure 4-15 Combustion Control System for a 5-zones grate with recirculated flue gas
Source: HZI and Besix (April 2018)
4.7.4.2 Incineration Design
The incineration system grate is designed primarily for municipal waste. It is also capable of
treating industrial and commercial waste with similar characteristics. The specific thermal and
static surface loads are important design parameters of an incineration unit, which is expected
to demonstrate low wear and long life expectancy. For the given calorific values, the HZI air-
cooled grate serves best with its well proven design.
The furnace is designed for continuous waste combustion in the range between 70 and 100% of
the thermal design load. Short-term peaks caused by the non-homogeneity of the waste are
absorbed by the system up to 110% of the design load.
In case the temperature in the secondary combustion chamber drops below the legal permit
limit, oil fired support burners automatically start operation. Experience shows that such
activation occurs very rarely. Predominantly the burners remain in a stand-by position and are
cooled by cooling air fans. The burners are, however, routinely used for start-up and shut down
of the plant.
Combustion Temperature
Temperature controls for incineration are closely related to the overall design compliance
strategy as per European Regulations/Industrial Emission Directive 2010/25/EU.
The furnace temperature is compliant with European Regulations/Industrial Emission Directive
(Directive 2010/75/EU) as follows: "WtE Plant furnaces temperature maintained for at least two
seconds after the last injection of combustion air and in the presence of sufficient oxygen to
meet IED 2010/75 EU for all points within the Combustion Diagram ≥850°C".
Temperatures are variable across the combustion chambers. For simplicity, the temperatures in
the combustion chambers can be generally defined and outlined in the following way:
 Primary combustion chamber: regarding the temperature in the primary combustion

chamber, only a theoretical value can be given, that is what is referred to as "theoretical
adiabatic temperature". It is the combustion temperature that theoretically the flue gas will
reach in case of complete combustion (100% of the combustion air participates to the
combustion, while in reality there is a split in the total flow in primary and secondary air)
and no heat exchanged with the combustion chamber itself (walls etc.). This temperature
is 1312°C at the design load point LPN.
 Secondary combustion chamber: assuming that one defines the secondary combustion
chamber as the portion of the furnace after the injection of the secondary air, then
different temperatures can be calculated at different positions. As an example, in the
design load point LPN at the end of the first pass we calculate 927°C (with a fouled
boiler).
These values are expected averages in the furnace section, that is, assuming uniform
temperature distribution in the cross sectional area of the furnace. Again, the temperature
compliance is in line with IED specifications referenced above.
4.7.4.3 Flow optimised SCC with Swirl Injection

The geometry of the secondary combustion chamber (SCC) is designed for optimal flow
conditions. In addition, a further improvement is accomplished by the arrangement of the
secondary air nozzles which create a swirl in the SCC. Due to this swirl the flow is homogenised
with respect to temperature, velocity and concentrations. Peaks in temperature, velocity and
concentrations are minimised in order to:
 Improve burn-out of the flue gas
HD | Report for HZI, Besix and Itochu - Dubai Waste Management Center, 76/10735 | 80
 Provide a uniform temperature profile across the secondary combustion chamber
 Reduce CO-concentrations
 Minimise risk of corrosion of unprotected heating surfaces

 Improve burn-out of fly ash
 Reduce the amount of fly ash
 Reduce the formation of dioxins
The swirl injection (Figure 4-16) has been applied with great success in all recent HZI plants.
Figure 4-16 Swirl Injection
4.7.5 Heat Utilisation
The steam is transformed into electrical energy in a turbo-generator set that is used to cover the
plant’s own electricity needs and to feed to the public electrical grid (Figure 4-17). The primary
elements of the heat utilization include:
 Turbine Unit. A steam turbine transforms the thermal energy of the high-pressure steam
into a rotary motion and, coupled with a generator, electricity can be produced. Bleed
pipes located at three locations on the turbine body allow to extract steam at several
pressure levels, so that different internal steam consumers within the WtE plant can be
supplied.
 Control and Lubrication Oil Supply. This system supplies the turbine with oil to lubricate
the bearings of the turbine shaft and to operate the control valves.
 Generator. The generator system transforms the mechanical energy into electrical
energy.
 Cooling System. This is designed as a closed circuit to cool down the oil circuit of the
steam turbine, the generator, the steam / water sampler as well as other process
equipment that requires active cooling.
Figure 4-17 Turbine generator within the WtE plant
4.7.6 Flue Gas Treatment
Flue gas is a mixture of gases resulting from combustion and other reactions in a furnace,
passing off thourgh the smoke stack (MerriamWebster). Flue gases from WtE plant contain
substances such as particulate matter, acid gases or organochlorides (HCl and HF), sulphur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium, chromium,
copper, zinc, nickel, etc.), carbon monoxide (CO), together with hightly toxic polyhalogenated
aromatics as the dioxins, a class of species including polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) (ScienceDirect, 2016).
4.7.6.1 Particle Separation

A fabric filter will be used for the separation of solids from the flue gas. In the physical process
of separation, the solids are filtrated on the surface of a gas-permeable fabric. Due to the
intensive contact of the flue gas and the adsorbents in the filter layer, the removal of pollutants
from the flue gas is further improved.
The fabric filter is a pulse jet, multi chamber bag filter with several compartments (Figure 4-18).
It is designed to reduce welding work and mounting time on site: the compartments are
assembled to a high degree in the workshop, with a positive effect to final quality.
The fabric filter separates solid reaction products from the flue gas. Solids collected in the filter
hoppers are transported with chain conveyors to collecting bins. From the first collecting bin the
solids are recirculated back to the reactor. Overflown residues coming directly from the first to
the second collecting bin are pneumatically transported to the residue storage silos, which are
interim storage for the FGT residues. Silos are placed on an elevated steel structure prepared to
the moistening system for open truck discharge and then removed from the WtE plant site by
DM-WMD registered haulers for disposal6.
6
The EIA excludes assessment of the waste storage facility for the bottom ash and flue gas treatment (FGT) residue. An
assessment and approval for the construction (if a new facility will be built) of the permanent storage facilities will be obtained
separately by others (e.g. DM-WMD as the Project Owner), if required. Letter of Understanding / Commitment from DM-WMD is
provided in Appendix B.
Figure 4-18 Principal function of bag filter and pulse-jet on-line cleaning
4.7.6.2 Dry Flue Gas Cleaning with Lime and Lignite Coke
The dry flue gas treatment process is designed by HZI specialists to remove all dust particles,
most of the acidic gaseous contaminants, by neutralisation with hydrated lime and organic
pollutants (PCDD/F) as well as mercury and other heavy metals by adsorption on lignite coke
(Figure 4-19). The system consists of a reactor with additive injection, fabric filter for solid-gas
separation and residue recirculation. To achieve the best adsorption performance with minimum
additive consumption, solids from the fabric filter are recirculated into the reactor.
Figure 4-19 Principle of HZI Dry Process – XeroSorp®
Source: HZI and Besix (2018)
The Xerosorp® flue gas treatment process is characterised by the following features:
 Simple design of the reactor ensures high availability, low maintenance and operation
cost
 Reduction in residue costs and additive amount due to residue circulation
 High energy efficiency thanks to dry injection of additives and low pressure drop over
reactor
 Dry injection of additives enables adsorption without waste water
 Recirculated solid injection in addition to fresh additives enables to smooth emission

peaks and low stoichiometric ratio
4.7.6.3 SNCR Process

NOx reduction occurs in the combustion zone where an aqueous solution of ammonia is injected
into the flue gas stream leaving the grate and reacts selectively with the NOx in the combustion
chamber.
Due to the optimised flue gas flow and well-designed distribution of reagent solution, a high
removal efficiency of NOx and low excess of ammonia is achieved.
The results are:
 Well controlled emissions of NOx

 Optimised consumption of ammonia solution
4.7.6.4 DyNORTM – Advanced SNCR
The DyNORTM system is an advanced SNCR (Selective Non Catalytic Reduction) system which
has been developed by HZI with the objective to meet new European NOx standards with a
SNCR-system. With today’s SNCR-systems the limits set by the EU-directive can be easily met
with a minimum ammonia slip. If lower NOx limits are requested either a SNCR-system
combined with a wet flue gas cleaning system and an ammonia recovery from the waste water
or a SCR-system - Selective Catalytic Reduction - is required. Both alternatives cause much
higher internal consumption of power and heat.
The essestial measures for an advanced SNCR-system are:
 Quick temperature measurement
 Precise and fast-acting distribution of reagent injection
 Virtual segmentation of the boiler
Urea solution is injected into the secondary combustion chamber depending on the temperature
profile exactly on the level where the best reaction is expected. It is injected simultaneously on
one or more levels (Figure 4-20). The measurements comparing the operation with the regular
SNCR-system and the advanced SNCR-system DyNORTM in the same WtE plant show a
significant improvement (Figure 4-21).
Figure 4-20 Injection of Urea Solution
Figure 4-21 Comparison between regular SNCR-system and advanced SNCR-

system DyNORTM
4.7.7 Bottom Ash and FGT Residue
The Project will be compliant with the stringent European Regulations/Industrial Emissions
Directive (Directive 2010/75/EU) with regard to ash quality. The by-products of the WtE plant
are bottom ash, boiler ash and flue gas treatment (FGT) residue. Fly ash is the residue
composed of fine particles that rise with the flue gas while bottom ash is the ash collected at the
bottom of the furnace. Boiler ash is formed as the hot flue gases are led up through the boiler.
4.7.7.1 Bottom Ash Treatment Area

Bottom ash primarily comprise of silicon, calcium, iron, aluminium and sodium. The appearance
of bottom ash is a mix of a very fine grey porous material, inert components such as fine gravel,
rocks, glass, ceramics and metallic items (ISWA, 2015).
On-site IBA management comprise of the following:
 IBA Pre-treatment Hall (refer to Section 4.5 Figure 4-5 Area 07 [structure number] and
Building Section BS13-B). The IBA is conveyed to this covered area where it is stored up
to five days to reduce moisture content prior to the treatment / metal separation in BS13-
C Process Hall.
 IBA Process Hall (refer to Section 4.5 Figure 4-5 Area 08 [structure number] and Building
Section BS13-C). In this covered area, the IBA from the Pre-treatment Hall is processed.
The Bottom Ash Treatment diagram is illustrated in Figure 4-22. An extraction of ferrous
and non-ferrous metals takes place in this area with a series of different flows including
crusher, overband magnets, magnetic drum, eddy current separators, a hand sorting
platform, screens and belts, producing mineral fractions of diffrerent particle sizes.
 IBA Maturation (refer to Section 4.5 Figure 4-5 Area 09 [structure number] and Building
Section BS13-D). After passing the IBA Process Hall, the clean mineral fractions (0–10
mm, 10–40 mm, 40–200 mm) are expected to be stockpiled in the covered maturation
area. The term “maturation” is widely used within the IBA treatment sector to describe
“weathering” and “aging” which includes the following:
Highly reactive bottom ash is exposed to the atmosphere to allow metal oxides and
hydrates to react with water and carbon dioxide to form carbonates (=carbonation),
including the reduction of pH value. These reactions reduce the leaching ability of the
metals and reduce potential impact on the environment. Reactions with water can cause
swelling of the materials, therefore weathering is essential. Weathering (maturation) is
normally achieved by leaving the ash in a stockpile to allow water and time to complete
the reactions.
In this area, as maturation is going on, the material is setting and moisture adjustment is
being made. Depending on the bottom ash composition, these processes can take up to
12 weeks. To enable the maturation processes, the material is moistened and restacked
periodically. When the maturation is finished, the material is loaded onto trucks and
removed from the site.
The covered IBA Maturation area has the following description:
– De-dusting spraying frequency – as required
– Runoff and process water management for de-dusting water – not applicable7
– Number of operating vehicles and type – one front loader and one tipping truck
7
Moisture addition processes within bottom ash piles are needed as part of the maturation (with the
help of moisture contained within bottom ash and additional water spraying from top) but no standing
water extected at concrete floor which would require a runoff collection / management due to ambient
temperatures and evaporation taking place.
4.7.7.2 Residue Handling
The boiler ash is discharged partly to the FGT residue silo and partly to the bottom ash
extractor. The hazardous boiler fly ash from the third pass of the boiler is transported to the FGT
residue silo via a pneumatic conveying system, while the non-hazardous fly ash from the
second boler pass is transported to the bottom ash extractor by a trough chain conveyor.
A redundant pneumatic system will be installed to transport the residues from the collecting
container towards the residue silos. In case of malfunction of the residue transport system, it
can be discharged into big bags via chutes.
A total of five FGT residue silos is anticipated for the Project with an approximate storage
capacity of 350 m3 each or corresponding to approximately four days storage capacity.
The residue storage silo is an interim / temporary storage for the FGT residues. Silos are placed
on an elevated steel structure prepared to the moistening system for open truck discharge and
then removed from the WtE plant site by DM-WMD registered haulers for final disposal8.
The FGT diagram is provided in Appendix I (Drawing Reference EVB 90107029).
4.7.8 Connection to DEWA 132kV Grid
The Dubai WMC will be connected through a high-voltage (HV) single circuit between the facility
general step up transformer on the plant side to the DM STP Substation on the grid side. Refer
to Appendix I (Drawing No. 03055-01-8.2 Mechanical and Electrical External Connections).
The EPC project interface point is the 132 kV bay terminals provided by DM at the DM STP
Substation.
The HV underground cable route is still under discussion.
8
As above.
Figure 4-22 Bottom Ash Treatment Flow Diagram
4.7.9 Water Treatment Plant
The proposed Water Treatment Plant (WTP) will treat seconday water generated from Al Aweer
STP as main source. As an alternative source of supply for the demineralized water
requirement, the Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Electro-Deionization (EDI) plant can use drinking
water. On the advice of Al Aweer STP Management, the proposed typing point (TP 02) has
been relocated and corresponds now to the discharge of DS167 (chlorinated effluent of 60,000
m3/day capacity in Al Aweer before it is blended with the effluent of the largest plant) as shown
in Appendix I (External Connections).
The key process elements for water treatment can be segregated in two systems:
 Pre-treatment, composed of de-oiling filter, ultra-filtration and activated carbon filters
 Demineralisation plant, composed of RO and EDI
The Pre-treatment system is designed to produce water quality suitable to feed the
demineralization unit. In addition, this water will be used as service water for the entire WtE
plant site.
The Demineralization system is designed to produce softened water for the Air Cooled
Condenser (ACC) and Close Unit Cooling Water (CCW) system (after the first pass of the RO)
and water quality suitable for the stream cycle water (boiler make-up, after the EDI units).
The WTP flow diagram for the Project is provided Figure 4-23 and briefly discussed below.
Figure 4-23 Mass flow diagram – Water Treatment Plant
The key process elements of the water treatment can be segregated into two systems:
 Pre-treatment – composed of de-oiling filter, ultra-filtration and activated carbon filters;
and
 Demineralisation plant – componsed of RO and EDI
4.7.9.1 Water Treatment Plant

The sewage treatment effluent (STE) from the Al Aweer STP will be routed to the WTP. The
WTP will comprise of the following:
 TSE Transfer Pumps (two units TSE pump sets, complete with drive motor, coupling and
coupling protection). This will pump the STE from the Al Aweer STP.
 Automatic Backwash strainers (two units). An authomatic backwash strainer is a pressure
filter with an automatic flushing arrangement. These are provided to protect the
coalescing filters.
 Coalescing Filters (two units): Oil and Grease (O&G) Removal System. The highest level
of O&G recorded in 2015 is 91 mg/l; as such, coalescent filter will be provided for O&G
removal.
 TSE buffer tank (one unit), with all connections, piping and fittings (including provision of
overflow and drain line). The purpose of the buffer tank is to provide continuous supply of
treated effluent to downstram ultrafiltration unit for further treatment. Sodiuim chloride
dosing will be provided to prevent bacterial growth in the buffer tank.
 Ultrafiltration (UF) feed pump sets complete with drive motor equipped with variable
speed drives, coupling and coupling protection. UF system will be provided to remove
suspended solids and turbidity from STE water to improve feed SDI of downstream RO
system.
 Activated Carbon Filters (ACF). The treated sewage from ultrafiltration unit is then passed
through the ACF for enhanced removal of organic compound and iron content from water.
The filtration medium consists of a layer of gravel along with Activated Carbon. Bypass
line is provided to bypass filters if necessary. The ACF will be to be used for two
purposes: Filtration of effluent from Al Aweer after being filtrated in the UF or, Filtration of
potable water when this is used as a backup for the supply of the DEMI plant (RO/EDI
plant).
 Service Water Storage Tank. The service water tank Capacity is 1100 m3. The service
water tank is designed to serve following service water demand in the WtE Plant:
– Supply of 2.37 m3/hr transfer to Process water tank as make up service water utility
– Supply of 2.61 m3/hr connection for residue moistening , Boiler shower cleaning , Dry
lime slaking
– Landscaping Irrigation (Provisional supply) up to 1.6 m3/hr, potential increase to 2.25
is achievable by increase the operational flow from the UF.
– To serve downstream RO system demineralization tank with polished TSE or
alternative water supply DEWA in case of unavailability of Al Aweer TSE (It is strongly
advised that in normal operation, feeding of the RO treatment is couple directly from
the pre-treatment plant, however the design makes provision of connection to feed
from the service water tank).
– Supply of Wash-down service water (Provision up to 1.25 m3/hr.)
 Sodium Hypochlorite – Chlorination. This system is used for chlorination (disinfection)
system at the following locations:
– Pre-chlorination-upstream of buffer tank
– Potable water tank – Potable water chlorination
– Service water tank (Provision
 Process Water Tank. The capacity for this tank is 600 m3. The Process water tank is
designed to store reject water from RO. A provision is made to fill this tank with service
water and or directly from the UF filtrate. Process water will be used for the following
purposes:
– Supply of 11.40 m3/hr to serve Bottom ash extractor area utility (5 lines)
– BA 12 maturation area Utility requirement.
4.7.9.2 Demineralized Water System

The demineralization system is designed in two parallel streams working as duty - standby in
normal operation or two duty during peak flow condition. The demineralized water treatment
process for contain following treatment units: (i) Reverse Osmosis (RO) system and (ii) Electro-
deionisation (EDI) system.
 LP RO Feed Pumps. Filtrate from UF and activated carbon unit further fed to RO
cartridge /RO unit with RO feed pumps.
 RO Cartridge Filters. A set of cartridge filters are provided to safeguard the RO
membranes against any traces of fine solids escaping from UF.
 High Pressure Pumps (1st pass). High Pressure Pump is VFD operated to maintain flow
and system recovery within design limits.
 High Pressure Pumps (2nd pass). High pressure feed pumps shall be provided with 2 nos.
(1 duty per stream) vertical multi-stage centrifugal type, to feed the RO membranes. Each
pump is selected to pump out the filtered water at required flow rate and pressure rating
as per process requirement.
 Reverse Osmosis System. Treated Sewage effluent from UF fed to reverse osmosis unit
for removal of ions, molecules and dissolved solids. Osmosis is a natural phenomenon
where water diffuses through a semi-permeable membrane toward region of higher
concentration to equalize solution strength. At equilibrium, the height difference between
the concentrated and dilute sides corresponds to the osmotic pressure differential
between the two sides. Applying pressure, in excess of osmotic pressure, reverses water
flow direction. Hence, the term “Reverse Osmosis” is derived. Pressurized Treated
effluent is fed to RO Units thru high Pressure Pump. The RO system reduces the TDS in
permeate. The overall recovery of RO system is 63% (overall including RO pass 1 and
pass 2).
Figure 4-24 Reverse Osmosis (general)
4.7.9.3 Electro-Deionization (EDI) Process

De-carbonated water (CO2 free water) enters to Electro deionization unit for further removal of
excess ions and polar species to treat water up to meet boiler make up water requirement.
Electro deionization uses an electric field to remove ions and polar species from an aqueous
stream. EDI is used with reverse osmosis to replace ion exchange resin-mixed beds, which
require onsite or offsite chemical regeneration. By eliminating resin-regenerating chemicals, EDI
delivers significant economic and environmental benefits. In addition, EDI’s continuous process
improves water quality by reducing spikes and upsets.
Electrodeionization modules are used to produce High Purity Water (HPW) by removing
ionisable species from liquids using electrically active media and an electrical potential to effect
ion transport. CEDI is a process which combines semi-impermeable membrane technology with
ionexchange media to provide a high efficiency demineralization process. Reject quality from
EDI and second pass RO units are still at better quality than the filtered water supplied to first
pass RO system and is thus returned back to the filtered water tank for water conservation.
Reject from first pass RO and backwash dirty water are directed to process water tank.
Figure 4-25 EDI Membrane Deionization Process (general)
4.7.9.4 Potable Water Supply
A potable water supply is required for the following purpose:
 Makeup water requirement in case no availability of Al Aweer TSE (back up supply for the
ROEDI plant)
 Firefighting system
 Domestic Potable water
Potable Water Storage Tank

Potable water from DEWA water network shall be stored in a Potable water storage tank to
serve sanitary, firefighting requirement and steam cycle make requirement plant in case of no
availability of Al Aweer STP effluent:
 For firefighting system Supply
 Supply of 4.8 m3/hr for domestic and sanitary use
 Alternative water supply for the demineralized plant in case of no availability of Al Aweer
TSE (Up to 70 m3/h of drinking water).
Potable Water Booster Pumps

The purpose of the potable water booster pumps is to feed the make water demineralization
plant in case of issues with TSE supply from Al Aweer STP.
Main Storage Tanks

The design basis for the main storage tanks is summarised in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Process Tank Design Basis
Item Tank volume
Buffer tank 880 m3
Service water tank 1100 m3
Process water tank 600 m3
Potable water tank Domestic water requirement = 40 m3

Firefighting water requirement = 1000 m3
Backup water requirement = 560 m3
Provided tank volume = 1600 m3
Demineralization water tank 900 m3, 2 nos. tanks 450 m3
Softened water tank 900 m3, 2 nos. tanks 450 m3
4.7.10 Continuous Emission Measurement System (CEMS)
The Continuous Emission Measurement System (CEMS) monitors the flue gas properties and
detects the composition in the flue gas duct after the last flue gas cleaning stage or the stack
respectively. The CEMS is designed to meet the particular requirements of the operating permit
for the WtE Plant as well as applicable directives for installation and quality assurance (EN
14181).
The CEMS includes the following components:
 Sampling system with extraction device, hose, pump, trace heating etc.
 Instruments for temperature, pressure and flow rate measurement
 Measurement instrument for particulate matter

 MCA (Multi Component Analyser). Extractive gas concentration measurement system for
determination of gaseous flue gas components (H2O, O2, CO, HCl, SO2, NOx, NH3, TOC)
 CEMS-PC. Computer-based data acquisition system; calculation, standardisation and
validation of the emission data
 Data Exchange Unit
 Calibration gas preparation and transport with automatic calibration devices and control
system
 Ethernet or Modem for remote maintenance
 CEMS enclosure
4.8 Project Utility Requirements

Water and power supply connections are shown in Appendix I (External Connections) and
briefly described below.
4.8.1 Water Supply
WtE plant operation requires approximately 42.35 m3/h (1 steam in operation) or 76.06 m3/h
(2 steam in operation) of water, which will be sourced from Al Aweer STP. The water will be
treated (refer to Section 4.7.9) before it is fed into the water / steam cycle. Further,
approximately 1.80 m3/h of potable water will be used for domestic and sanitary use as well as
firefighting system (1000 m3/d).
4.8.2 Power Supply and Distribution System
The steam turbine generator will be connected through the Generator Circuit Breaker (GCB) to
the Generator Step-up Transformer. The generator will be synchronized to the 132 kV grid.
Once synchronized, the net power production is delivered to the Grid.
The WtE plant electrical auxiliary system is fed from the 6.6 kV metal-clad switchgear, which is
connected to the Unit Auxiliary Transformer. The plant system will be supplied from the 6.6 kV
switchgear.
Two emergency diesel generators will be installed and connected to the 6.6 kV switchboard for
safe shutdown in case of power failure. In the event of total power failure, the redundant steady-
state uninterruptible power supply system guarantees the continuity of the power supply for the
operational instrumentation and control system, i.e. the power supply for instrumentation,
monitoring systems, the voice communications equipment, as well as the control voltage of the
HV, MV and LV system.
4.9 Description of WtE Plant Development

The following subsections delineate the activities involved in the development of the WtE plant.
4.9.1 Pre-Construction
The pre-construction phase of the Project consists of the planning, financing, conceptual and
detailed engineering works. It is also at this phase that engineering and environmental and
social studies, such as the EIA, are undertaken to facilitate / inform decisions made at the
detailed design phase with a view to ensure these decisions are being carried into the
construction of the Project.
It also entailed the following site preparation and development activities:

 Sourcing of suppliers, contractors and other service providers
 Acquisition of necessary permits and licenses
 Fuel supply and power offtake arrangements
Planned Staggering for Construction and Operation Phases

There is planned staggering for the construction and operation of the WtE plant. Lines 1 and 2
will be the first built and operated; followed by Lines 3, 4 and 5 to be built and operated
approximately 6 months later.
4.9.2 Construction Phase
4.9.2.1 Construction Activities

An overview of the general anticipated construction activities is provided below. The complete
methodology of construction activities will be provided once contractors for the Project are
engaged.
 Site Development Works – this includes earthmoving, clearing, excavation, fill placement,
grading and other ground preparation works.
 Construction Activities – this includes construction and installation of the WtE plant
components, its auxiliary facilities and the temporary storage facility for bottom ash and
FGT residue9.
4.9.2.2 Materials
Typical construction materials will be used for the Project, which may likely include ready mix
concrete, concrete products, pre-fabricated concrete, steel reinforcement, rock, pipes, etc.
Where possible, these materials will be sourced locally.
4.9.2.3 Construction Equipment

The equipment to be used for the construction of the facility is listed below. It should be noted
that the quantities of equipment are tentative and may changed during the construction period.
 Asphalt Pavers (1 unit)
 Tampers / Rammers (2 units)
 Plate Compactors (2 units)
 Rollers (3 units)
 Surfacing equipment (1)
 Signal boards (10 units)
 Excavators (10 units)
 Cranes (11 units)
 Rubber-tyred Loaders (10 units)
 Rubber-tyred Dozers (3 units)
9
On-site management of bottom ash and FGT residue are discussed in Section 4.7.7. Off-site disposal of bottom
ash and FGT residue is under separate review by DM Waste Management Department (WMD)
 Tractors/Loades/Backhoe (2 units)
 Skid Steer Loaders (1 unit)
 Dumpers /Tenders (30 units)

 Generators <50 hp or 37 kW (2 units)
 Welders <50 hp (16 units)
 Forklifts (2 units)
4.9.2.4 Temporary Facilities

To facilitate the construction activities, temporary facilities will be required on-site. These
facilities may include, but are not be limited, to the following:
 Site offices
 Welfare facilities / clinic
 Security facilities
 Parking facilities
 Fencing and barrier
 Project signage
 Traffic signage
 Portable toilets
 Water tanks
 Septic tanks
 Power generators
 Fuel storage tanks
 Storage areas and warehouse
 Plant yards
 Laydown areas
 Waste management areas
 Wash-down facilities
These temporary facilities will be situated within the temporary laydown and construction
staging areas surrounding the proposed WtE plant.
4.9.2.5 Waste Generation

Expected wastes to be generated during the construction phase are listed below. A complete
description and management measures to address waste generation is provided in Section 5.9.
 Sediment and rocks from earthmoving activities
 Oil and fuel from construction equipment and vehicles
 Waste from septic tank

 General construction wastes (e.g. concrete, timber, etc.)
 Hazardous waste from hazardous materials and substances (e.g. paint, oil, fuel)
4.9.3 Operation Phase
4.9.3.1 Operation Activities

The main activities during the operation phase include 24/7 operation of the power plant and its
auxiliaries, sourcing and delivery of waste, unloading of waste at the feeding system, waste
handling and combustion for electricity generation. Relative to operations, the following provides
a high-level overview:
 Typical Operations Scenario
– WtE plant operations on a 24-hour, 7-day per week schedule
– 4 shifts anticipated, each shift to be an estimated 12 hours
 Delivery of MSW from Dubai Municipality
– MSW deliveries from Dubai Municipality up to a maximum of 80 waste delivery trucks
per hour during peak times
 Waste Mass Flows during Peak Waste Truck Traffic
– Table 4-6 shows the various plant data and parameters that are relevant for analysing
what type of peak operating conditions the plant can successfully accommodate.
 Reference Waste Composition
– Ash in percent by weight (design estimate): 16%, estimated range of 15 to 22%
– Moisture in percent by weight (design estimate): 39%, estimated range of 25 to 50%
– Combustible in percent by weight (design estimate): 45%, estimated range 35 to 53%
– Net Calorific Value (NCV) in MJ/kg (design estimate): 9.5, estimated range 7.0 to 14.0
Maintenance of the plant facilities, including the waste receiver area as well as environmental
pollution control and monitoring will also be part of the operational activities. Environmental
management measures (defined in Section 7 ) will be implemented during the operational
phase. EPC Performance Guarantees are provided in Appendix K.
4.9.3.2 Waste Generation

The estimated waste generation during the operation phase is provided below. A complete
description of, and management measures for waste generation during the operation phase are
provided in Section 5.9.
 Wastewater
– Domestic sewage estimated at 170 m3 per day
– Plant area surface water will be transferred to the collection pond
– Process area cleansing water estimated at 40 tonne/week will be reused within the
process system
 Hazardous waste
– A marginal amount of painting residues and batteries
– A minimum amount of aged oil due to periodic exchange of hydraulic oil and lubricants
are typically sent to specialized oil reprocessing or dedicated incineration
 Solid wastes
– Incinerator bottom ash (non-hazardous)
– Flue gas treatment residue (commonly considered as hazardous waste)
 Dry flue gas systems will be used; as such, semi-solid waste is not anticipated
4.9.3.3 Management of Waste during Peak Waste Delivery
Plant Design and Traffic Swept Path for Waste Delivery

The Project comprise of a main gate and entrance together with three incoming weighbridges
and two outgoing weighbridges (but three exit lanes), road lanes to the tipping area, the tipping
area as well as array of 27 tipping bays that lead into the waste bunker (refer to Figure 4-5). The
waste bunker is designed with a four-day capacity of waste under nominal operating conditions.
The traffic swept path of the waste delivery trucks on the tipping areas of both Block 1 and Block
2 when manoeuvring to unload the waste to the tipping bays is shown in Figure 4-27. It shows
swept path for two types of waste delivery trucks:
 A truck with an overall length of 12 m and no trailer
 A trailer truck configuration with an overall length of 16.2 meters
Waste Mass Flows during Average and Peak Waste Truck Traffic
Table 4-6 shows the various plant data and parameters that are relevant for analysing what type
of peak operating conditions the plant can successfully accommodate.
Table 4-6 Management of Waste during Peak Delivery Conditions
No. Item Line / Value Unit

Plant
1 Waste throughput at Design Point LP N Per Line 47.222 t/h
2 Waste throughput at Design Point LP N Plant 236.11 t/h
3 Incoming peak waste mass flow Plant 535 t/h
4 Peak hourly number of waste trucks Plant 80 Trucks/h
5 Average turnaround time per truck Plant 35 Min
6 Number of tipping bays Plant 27 –
7 Max. Tipping time for trucks 15 Min/truck
8 Average tipping time where the roll gates 6 Min/truck

are open
9 Frequency of waste trucks exiting plant – Plant 1.33 Trucks/min

peak
10 Number of incoming weighbridges Plant 3 Weighbridges
11 Number of exiting weighbridges Plant 2 Weighbridges
12 Frequency of waste trucks on Plant 0.66 Trucks/min

weighbridge exiting plant - peak
13 Available time for weighing on exit Plant 91 s/Truck

weighbridge - peak
The nominal waste throughput per line at the incineration design point LP N is 47.222 t/h.
Multiplying that by 5 lines for the whole plant, the total nominal waste throughput of 236.11 t/h is
obtained at the design point LPN. At maximum load point conditions LP1 these values will be
respectively 53.5 and 267.5 ton/h.
During peak delivery conditions the plant will be able to accommodate a peak truck traffic of 80
trucks per hour and a peak waste mass flow equal to 2 times the maximum load conditions of
LP1 equivalent to 535 t/h.
Average Turnaround Time per Truck

Table 4-7 below shows the average turnaround time per truck, broken down into its various
constituent steps.
Table 4-7 Average Turnaround Time per Truck
Step Description Time Time Unit
1 Weighing time IN 1 minute
2 Driving from weighbridge IN to tipping floor 2 minute
3 Time between trucks on tipping floor 2 minute
4 Manoeuvring time IN 4 minute
5 Maximum tipping time 15 minute
6 Average tipping time where the roll gates are open 6 minute
7 Manoeuvring time OUT 3 minute
8 Driving from tipping floor to weighbridge OUT 7 minute
9 Weighing time OUT 1 minute
Total time (in minutes) 35 Minutes
Figure 4-26 A typical waste delivery truck tipping off the waste into tipping
bay
Figure 4-27 Traffic Swept Path / Waste Delivery
Waste Bunker Capacity as Buffer for Peak Conditions
The waste bunker is designed with a capacity of four (4) days of nominal operation at design
point LPN. The peak delivery conditions may occur several times per day for a short period of
time, usually about an hour. During these times, the rate of the waste delivery will increase
above the nominal delivery rates.
Typically, the high and low delivery periods during a 24-hour period, cancel each other out so
that the daily average equals the nominal conditions. Since the bunker has a four day capacity,
even longer variable deliveries can be averaged out.
Frequency of Trucks Exiting the Plant for Peak Conditions

Table 4-6 shows that during times of peak delivery conditions, there will be 1.33 trucks leaving
the plant every minute, which corresponds to one (1) waste truck leaving every 45 seconds. The
plant road is designed such that it can accommodate this kind of peak waste truck traffic.
Available Time for Weighing Trucks on Weighbridges For Peak Conditions

As provided in Table 4-6, the frequency of waste trucks on the weighbridges during peak
delivery conditions is 0.66 trucks per minute, which means that the available time for weighing
trucks on the exit weighbridges is 91 seconds per truck. Considering that the weighbridges are
fully automated and digitized with no required manual operation either by the driver or
weighbridge operator, this available time is sufficient to perform the exit weighing of the waste
trucks.
4.9.3.4 Emergency Procedure

An Operational Emergency Plan (OEP) will be developed and agreed with the DM six months
prior to commencement of operations. The OEP will cover all aspects to comply with the
requirements of local and federal emergency procedures. It will also provide detail of how the
WtE plant will be operated under emergency situations to ensure it remains compliance with all
appropriate consents and permissions, where possible, including any requirement for the
controlled shut down of processes.
The following scenarios will be covered in the OEP for the Project:
 Major fire, including administrative block and visitor center fire, vehicle fire, refuse bunker
fire, propane fire, diesel oil fire
 Major flooding
 Earthquake
 Major ground condition incident
 Major injury accident
 Terrorist action
 Site evacuation
 Explosion
 Major spillage of different chemicals (i.e. lime, ammonia, activated carbon, diesel, etc.)
 Intruder on site
 Serious loss of site electrical supples
 Significant breack of environmental permit (including but not limited to emissions to air,
ground, water, noise, dust, odour, vermin, etc.)
Framework Emergency Procedures and Response Plan (EPRP) specific to address
environmental emergencies are provided Appendix J and listed below:
 Environmental Emergency Management Plan Framework;

 Framework Fugitive Emissions Management Plan;
 Fire, Emergency and Self-Protection Plan; and
 Design Basis Fire and Life Safety Strategy.
4.9.4 Decommissioning Phase
The projected operating life of the WtE plant is projected at over 35 years. However, shutdown
of the plant may be necessary due to the following potential scenarios:
 Unsuitable business operations due to economic downturns
 Accidents and emergencies, either natural or manmade, that resulted in severe facility
damage and loss of human life
 Closure order from government agencies
 Changes in the waste generation or economic model for the plant
In the event that the Proponent decides to decommission the plant and/or shutdown the Project
area, the following basic steps will be carried out:
 All excess materials, chemicals and supplies will be transported offsite where cradle-to-
grave management will be undertaken in full compliance with UAE and Dubai Emirate
regulation on solid waste, toxic substances and hazardous waste
 Structures shall be removed from the site and taken offsite for recycling to re-use
 Trash materials and other residual solid wastes will be collected and hauled to a
designated disposal area
 Recyclable wastes such as metals, glass, rubber and plastics shall be collected and
forwarded to a recycling facility
 Rehabilitation and restoration measures will be conducted for areas occupied by

structures. These activities will be done in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the
permits provided by relevant authorities. Site restoration will include revegetation or
replanting of suitable species.
Prior to the end of the Project’s operating life, a more detailed decommissioning or
abandonment plan will be developed in line with the existing UAE and Dubai Emirate
regulations.
4.10 Manpower Requirements

Consistent with development goals and objectives, DM is committed to enhance socio-
economic conditions by implementing the Emiratisation Policy10, paying appropriate salary and
benefits to the workers and minimising environmental and social impacts to the sensitive
receptors.
10
To overcome the structural division in the labour market, the UAE Governmnet launched Emiratisation (TaWtE
planten in Arabic) campaign, which mandates the inclusion of Emiratis in the job sector, particlularly in the private
sector. Emiratisation aims to increase the number of Emiratis in the job market and their contribution to the
Economy (Government.ae, 2018)
Table 4-8 presents the estimated manpower required during all phases of the Project. Different
manpower requirements, for both skilled and non-skilled workers, are required depending on the
development phase.
For the Project, priority will be given to hiring of locals whose skills and experience match the
Project’s specific needs.
Table 4-8 Estimated Manpower Requirements
Project phase Estimated manpower Tasks Skill requirement(s)

requirements
Pre-construction 50 technical staff Complete feasibility Engineers, project

phase including consultants study, detailed managers, financial
engineering designs, managers, technical
detailed drawings, advisers
permit requirement and
tender documents
Construction Approximately 2950 Civil works, architectural Engineers, project

during peak and electro-mechanical managers, skilled and
construction11 works non-skilled labourers
Operation During normal operation Oversee the entire Management and

conditions, a total of 129 operations of the administration skills,
fulltime staff / workers Project, including operations and
will be employed.12 emergency situations maintenance staff with
general knowledge on
Additional 120 external Ensure safety and
operation of the WtE
workers will be engaged welfare of personnel
plant including
during the annual
Maintain conformity of environmental, labour
outage overhaul of a
Project to relevant local and regulations (local
single incineration line,
and international laws, and international)
which lasts
regulations, standards
approximately 20
and guidelines
consecutive days.13
Promote and uphold a
harmonious relationship
with the stakeholders
Decommissioning TBC Design of abandonment As required

or decommissioning
plan
Decommissioning TBC Decomissioning or Engineers, project

construction abandonment works managers, skilled and
works non-skilled labourers
11
BESIX EPC and its Subcontractors totals approximately 850 workers and staff, while HZI EPC and its
subcontractors totals approximately 2100 workers and staff during the peak of construction.
12
The 129 staff and workers during the operation phase comprise of 45 technical staff, 72 non-
technical staff, five office staff and seven managerial staff.
13
Five lines will be hauled sequentially during the operation phase; as such, there will be a total of 100 days of
overhaulling annually.
Labour Accommodation
In accordance with labour laws and related legal requirements (e.g. Ministerial Resolution No.
(591) of 2016; health and safety requirements), labour accommodation for the workers will be
provided.
All worker accommodation during the construction phase will be external to the Project site and
will be provided by subcontractors. Transportation services to and from the labour camp will be
provided by contractors.
Labour accommodaton for the operation and maintenance phase is proposed to be located at
the southeastern part of the plot proximate to the Administration and Visitors Building (refer to
Figure 4-5).
4.11 Access Roads

The Project site can be accessed via the existing E44 highway (also known as Al Khail Road or
Dubai-Hatta Highway). The E44 is a dual 4-lane highway and runs from the west to east. The
E44 bisects Al Warqa area to the north and Warsan area to the south. The congestion levels on
this highway are high during rush hours. From the E44, the Project can be reached via D54 (or
the Sheikh Zayed Bin Hamdan Al Nahyan Street) and an internal road to access the Al Aweer
STP. The other major routes to the west and east of the Project are E311 (Sheikh Mohammed
Bin Zayed Road) and E611 (Emirates Road). A complete description of access, traffic and
transport to be implemented during the construction phase is provided in Section 5.7.
It is noted that a No Objection Certificate (NOC), where required, for this access road will be
obtained by the Proponent prior to operation. Further, a traffic management plan will be
developed to minimise potential impacts of transporting material, workers and wastes on
sensitive receptors.
4.12 Project Scope

The Project scope includes the following:
 Detailed engineering studies and designs
 Acquisition of necessary permits and licenses

 Site preparation
 Construction of facilities
 Procurement and installation of technology components

 Procurement of necessary equipment and materials
 Environmental management and protection (e.g. air pollution devices, water treatment
facilities and ash disposal facilities)
 Start-up and commissioning
 Environmental management and monitoring activities
 Operational management (35-year BOT contract)
4.13 Project Status and Schedule
4.13.1 Project Status
The proposed Project is currently in the preparation phase (pre-construction) where finance,
design, permitting and approval from various government authorities are obtained.
4.13.2 Project Schedule
Detailed engineering is expected to be completed in Q2 2020. A three-year construction period

is expected to commence in Q2 2020, and commissioning and trial run is anticipated 36 months
after the start of construction. A preliminary schedule is provided in Appendix L.
4.14 Project Cost

The EPC has requested that costing figures relating to the Project remain confidential at this
stage for commercial reasons.
5. Description of the Environment
5.1 EIA Study Area
The EIA study was undertaken primarily within the vicinity of the proposed Project foorprint and
its potential impact areas. Summary of baseline monitoring and sampling locations as well as
loation of receptors who were consulted (i.e. within 5-km radius from the boundary of the project
site) is provided in Figure 5-1.
5.2 Climate and Meteorology
5.2.1 Overview
5.2.1.1 Weather Patterns

The Gulf is located in the subtropical high-pressure region, where the climate is classified as
arid. The climate can be divided into two main seasons with two transition periods as follows:
 The summer season – from June to September
 Fall transition season – during October and November
 The winter season – from December to March
 Spring transition season – during April and May (Walters, 1990)
During transition periods, the weather is commonly unstable with no well-defined weather
patterns, and tropical storms are common (Al Senafi and Anis, 2015).
Summer in the northern Gulf is influenced by two main pressure systems. The first is the
stationary summer monsoon low pressure system centerd over north west of India extending
west to the south east of the Gulf. The second is the stationary high pressure system over the
east of the Mediterranean with a ridge extending south east towards the north west of the Gulf.
These two systems produce a steep pressure gradient in between, which lies over the north
east of the Gulf (Nasrallah et al,. 2004) and produces strong north westerly winds (7–13 m/s–1)
(Bartlett, 2004) known as summer Shamals (Rao et al., 2003), which could last up to weeks at a
time (Wilkerson, 1991). The summer Shamals commonly bring dust or ‘blazes’ of hot (up to
51°C) and dry air.
The winter season in the northern Gulf is influenced by cold air carried into the region by the
quasi-stationary Siberian high-pressure system in the east (Crook, 2009). This climate is often
interrupted by frontal systems that build up in the eastern Mediterranean and move south east
due to the upper-westerlies, namely the Polar Front Jet. These moisture bearing frontal systems
are the primary source of precipitation in the region (Barlow et al., 2005). As the frontal system
moves towards the Gulf, the Polar Front Jet behind the frontal system and the Sub-Tropical Jet
ahead of it converge, strengthen the system and generate strong winds at the front. On the
passage of the front over the northern Gulf, strong north westerly winds develop with fivefold the
initial speed and reach values up to 15–20 m/s–1 near the surface at the center of the Gulf
(Thoppil and Hogan, 2010); these are known as winter Shamals. The duration of a winter
Shamal event depends on the speed of the upper air moving through the region, however,
typical duration of a Shamal event is two to five days (Ali, 1994).
Figure 5-1 EIA Study Area
5.2.1.2 Precipitation and Temperature
Precipitation occurs almost exclusively in winter and is highly variable in both volume and
spatial occurrence. The annual precipitation levels in the Emirate of Dubai are low. Between
2015 and 2017, there were on average 17 rainy days per year and total annual rainfall was in
the range of 14.4 mm to 22.8 mm (Dubai Statistics Center, 2018).
The coastal areas of Dubai are influenced by the waters of the Arabian Gulf and as such have a
lower maximum but a higher average temperature and a higher humidity. The mean monthly
temperature in the Emirate of Dubai for 2013 - 2015 is shown in Figure 5-2, while the mean
monthly relative humidity is presented in Figure 5-3.
The average daily temperature in 2015 ranged between 16.5 °C to 43.3 °C (Dubai Statistical
Center, 2016). The 2015 climate data showed that August had the highest average daily
maximum temperatures while the lowest average daily minimum temperature was recorded in
January.
The average monthly relative humidity from 2013 to 2015 ranged from 13% to 82%. In 2015,
May had the lowest average daily minimum relative humidity whereas the highest average of
daily maximum relative humidity was recorded in January.
50
45
40
35
Mean Temperature (°C)
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2013 2014 2015
Maximum Minimum
Month and Year
Figure 5-2 Mean monthly temperature in the Emirate of Dubai (2013–2015)
Source: Dubai Statistics Center, 2016
90
Average Relative Humidity % by Month

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2013 2014 2015
Maximum Minimum
Month and Year
Figure 5-3 Mean monthly relative humidity in the Emirate of Dubai (2013–
2015)
Source: Dubai Statistics Center, 2016
5.2.2 Climate Change
A summary of estimated GHG emissions in the UAE for the year 2013 is provided in Table 5-1
The data was obtained from the World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool
version 2.0 (CAIT 2.0), accessed on 22 May 2017. Data for 2013 was the most recent data
available at the time of writing this report.
Table 5-1 Summary of GHG emissions for UAE for 2013
Source and sink category Emissions (Mt CO2-e)
Energy 203.13
Industrial processes 12.17
Agriculture 1.64
Land use change and forestry -0.21
Waste 4.47
Total national emissions 221.42
Net national emissions 221.21
Statistics published by the United States Energy Information Administration for total CO2
emissions from the consumption of energy indicate that UAE’s emissions totalled 229 million
metric tonnes in 2014, which is 70% higher than the CO2 emissions in 2004 (134 million metric
tonnes) (United States Energy Information Administration, 2015). UAE was ranked 26th highest
globally in terms of CO2 emissions in 2013, with a per capita emission record of 18.7 tonnes
(third highest in the world), as compared to the global average of approximately 5 tonnes (World
Bank, 2015).
Major GHG mitigation strategies that have been developed in the UAE include sustainable
(green) building codes, ecological footprint assessment, low carbon electricity using renewable
energy, nuclear energy, natural gas, sustainable transport initiatives, and increasing climate
change awareness. The strategies are projected to yield reductions of about 1.0 billion tonnes
of CO2 – equivalent cumulatively through 2030.
DIES 2030 was developed in 2010 to support the UAE’s commitments to mitigate climate
change. The strategy was implemented in January 2011 in order ‘to set the strategic direction of
Dubai towards securing sustainable supply of energy and enhancing demand efficiency (water,
power and transportation fuel) (Dubai Supreme Council of Energy, 2012).
The following strategies will be undertaken by the Dubai Supreme Council of Energy as part of
the DIES 2030:
 Carbon dioxide baseline study
 Complete a detailed inventory of Dubai’s greenhouse gas emissions in line with the
requirements of the IPCC, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change
 Develop a monitoring, reporting and verification framework, in order to harmonise and
streamline data collection from the Council’s members, which include the main energy,
manufacturing and utilities companies in Dubai
 Recommend / establish viable targets for reducing CO2 and GHGs, and a methodology to
monetise emissions, similar to the European Trading Scheme, the Clean Development
Mechanism developed under the Kyoto Protocol, and other carbon reduction schemes
In 2013, the 13 MW solar photovoltaic power plant, which comprised the first phase of the
landmark Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park, was completed. The solar power
plant is expected to generate approximately 24 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year,
which will on average displace approximately 15,000 metric tons of CO2 annually (Ministry of
Environment and Water, 2014).
Under the DIES 2030, Dubai’s projected fuel use will be altered towards use of sustainable
energy (Figure 5-4).
Figure 5-4 Projected use of fuel types in Dubai, 2030
Adapted from Dubai Supreme Court of Energy (2017)
5.3 Air Quality
5.3.1 Air Quality
5.3.1.1 Overview
Air pollution has been stated as the primary environmental threat to public health in the UAE
and ambient air quality has been recorded to be steadily deteriorating (Willis et al., 2010,
Environment Agency Abu Dhabi, 2017).
Gaseous Emissions
Common pollutants emitted by major sources in the UAE include sulphur dioxide (SO2), ozone
(O3), nitrogen oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), cyanide (CN) and aerosols, largely produced
by transportation and the construction industry (Climatology Research Group, 2004). According
to the State of the Environment Report (Tolba and Saab, 2008), CO2 emissions in the UAE
increased from 80.8 million tonnes in 1990 to over 94 million tonnes in 2002. Pollution levels are
generally highest along the coastal interface and over refineries and oilfields (Climatology
Research Group, 2004).
Haze layers are commonly observed over the UAE due to stable air layers that reduce the
vertical motion of air. These stable layers play a key role in the UAE’s air quality, as gaseous
emissions are frequently trapped at ground level resulting in elevated pollutants.
Emissions from the coastal areas are typically transported in-land through advection in the form
of afternoon sea breezes, while transport offshore at night occurs through the reverse process.
Seasonal comparisons of average sulphur dioxide, ozone and NOy concentrations across urban
areas of the UAE (Climatology Research Group, 2004) are provided in Figure 5-5 and are
summarised as follows:
 Sulphur dioxide (SO2) concentrations in Dubai are similar to those recorded in Abu Dhabi
and Al Ain, at approximately 25 parts per billion (ppb). As SO2 has a relatively short
residence time, concentrations are highly dependent on proximity to the source;
 Ozone (O3) concentrations in Dubai are somewhat similar across the urban areas and are
all generally higher in the winter seasons. Average Dubai concentrations are
approximately 46 ppb; and
 Total reactive oxides (NOy) concentrations are significantly greater during summer than
winter in all measured urban locations. This correlates with the reduced ozone during
summer, as nitrogen oxides break down ozone molecules. Average Dubai concentrations
range between 3 and 15 parts per billion for winter and summer, respectively.
Air monitoring within the Dubai Emirate has been undertaken by the Dubai Municipality-
Environment Department at 13 sites across urban and industrial areas. The results from 2013 to
2017 are provided in Table 5-2 and show that ambient concentrations of CO, O3, SO2 and NO2
are generally within the ambient air quality objectives.
Figure 5-5 Seasonal Comparison of Air Pollutants in the UAE
Source: Climatology Research Group, 2004
Particulates
According to the World Health Organisation (2017), the region including UAE, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman recorded the highest levels of dust (PM10) in the world from
2008 to 2015. In 2013, at the mean annual PM10 in UAE urban areas ranged between 123 and
146 µg/Nm3, while PM2.5 ranged between 52 and 62 µg/Nm3 (WHO, 2016b). The mean annual
concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in urban areas of the UAE in 2014 was 64
µg/Nm3, ranking 12th highest in the world (WHO, 2016a).
Ambient concentrations of airborne particulates, PM10 and PM2.5, throughout the UAE are
commonly recorded in higher concentrations than the World Health Organization (WHO, 2006)
annual mean limits of 20 g/m3 and 10 g/m3, respectively (Table 5-2). This is largely
attributable to the prevalence of dry sandy soils inherent in the desert environment.
Anthropogenic activities such as the large-scale construction projects, industrial discharges,
increased number of vehicles on the roads, the removal of natural vegetation and increases in
off-road driving activities all contribute to elevated ambient levels of airborne particulates in the
UAE.
Table 5-2 Air pollution indicators at monitoring sites in Dubai (2013–2017)
Indicator Carbon monoxide Ozone (O3) Nitrogen dioxide Sulphur dioxide Particulate matter Particulate matter
(CO) (max) (1) (max) (1) (NO2) (max) (1) (SO2) (max) (1) (PM10)(2) (µg/m3) (PM2.5) (µg/m3)
Objective 20 ppm 0.80 ppm 0.15 ppm 0.13 ppm 20 µg/m3 (2) 10 µg/m3 (2)
Year 2017 2016 2015 2017 2016 2015 2017 2016 2015 2017 2016 2015 2017 (3) 2017 (3)
Sheikh Zayed Road 2.55 2.19 2.69 0.12 0.06 -- 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.06 -- --
Dubai Airport 2.26 2.53 2.36 0.13 0.12 -- 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.10 -- --
Emirates Hills 2.5 2.17 1.45 0.13 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.05 131 --
Zabeel Park 2.64 2.48 2.28 0.21 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.09 -- --
Al Karama 2.72 3.71 2.47 0.6 0.12 -- 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.09 -- --
Safa Park -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Deira 2.52 2.39 2.27 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.07 -- --
Sheikh Mohammed
1.57 1.68 1.87 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.09 157 50
Bin Zayed Road
Warsan 1.3 1.6 1.53 0.11 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.10 -- --
Hatta Station 1.69 1.53 1.27 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.02 - -- --
Jebel Ali Port 1.43 -- -- 0.11 -- -- 0.11 -- 0.13 0.1 -- 0.08 -- --
Jebel Ali Village 1.57 2.23 1.53 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.06 -- --
Mushrif Park 4.38 2.61 -- 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.03 -- 141 48
Sources: (1) Dubai Statistics Center (2018 and 2016); (2) World Health Organization, 2006; (3) DM-ED (2018)
5.3.1.2 Baseline Air Quality Monitoring
Adopted Assessment Criteria

Following review of the relevant legislation and guideline criteria for air quality standards (refer
to Section 3 of the Air Quality Assessment Report in Appendix N), it is evident that some criteria
are more stringent than others. Therefore, for assessment purposes, the more stringent air
quality standards have been selected for comparison of the predicted GLCs. The adopted
criteria are provided in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3 Adopted Assessment Criteria
Pollutant Averaging time Authority Criteria (µg/m3)
NO2 1-hour UAE1 400
WHO2 200
24-hour UAE 150
Annual WHO 40
SO2 1-hour UAE 350
24-hour UAE 150
WHO 20
Annual UAE 60
CO 1-hour UAE 30000
8-hour UAE 10000
TSP 24-hour UAE 230
Annual UAE 90
PM10 Annual WHO 20
24-hours UAE 150
PM2.5 24-hours WHO 25
Annual WHO 10
HCl 1-hour 99.9th NSW AMMAAP3 140

percentile
HF 24-hour NSW AMMAAP 2.9
TCDD 1-hour 99.9th NSW AMMAAP 2.00E-06

percentile
NH3 1-hour 99.9th NSW AMMAAP 330

percentile
Pollutant Averaging time Authority Criteria (µg/m3)
Hg 1-hour 99.9th NSW AMMAAP 1.8

percentile
Cd 1-hour 99.9th NSW AMMAAP 0.018

percentile
Notes:
1 – UAE Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (Source: Cabinet Decree (12) of 2006 Regarding Regulation
Concerning Protection of Air from Pollution, Annex (4).
2 – World Bank / WHO Ambient Air Quality Standards
3 – Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales, Australia (NSW
AMMAAP)
Monitoring Methodology
Air Quality
Baseline air monitoring was undertaken for two weeks at three sites in vicinity to the Project site.
Air quality monitoring stations AAQM1 and AAQM3 were installed between 16 to 30 August
2018 by a DAC accredited laboratory while station AAQM2 was deployed from 26 August to 09
September 2018 using DM Mobile Station. These locations are detailed in Table 5-4 and
illustrated in Figure 5-6. The sites comprised areas proximate to identified sensitive receptors.
The air quality monitoring parameters and monitoring methods utilised are summarised in
Table 5-5
The calibration certificate for the air sampler is provided in Appendix M.
Table 5-4 Baseline Air Quality Monitoring Locations
Site Site Description Approximate Coordinates –

Name Minimum World Geodetic
Distance to System of 1984
Project (m) datum
AAQM1 Located between the Project site and the 250 25.162863,
existing Desert Palm Dubai Resort and Hotel. 55.444350
This station represents the closest sensitive
receptor to the Project site, and includes
residential uses (i.e. residential villas are
found inside the Desert Palm Dubai Resort
and Hotel)
AAQM2 Located between the Project site and the 300 25.161090,
existing Al Aweer STP. During the initial site 55.435300
walkthrough, GHD personnel observed
prevailing wind direction from the STP
towards the proposed WtE plant. Therefore,
there is a need to consider the up-gradient
wind impacts from the existing facilities to the
west. There is also a new commercial building
being developed to the northwest of the area.
Furthermore, the existing DIC Phase 1 is
further to the west and A2 should be between
the DIC Phase 1 and proposed WtE plant.
Project (m) datum
AAQM3 Located between the Project site and 16 25.156539

industrial facilities south of the site. This 55.444237
station represents the closest industrial
facilities to the Project site.
Figure 5-6 Air Monitoring Stations
Table 5-5 Baseline air monitoring parameters and methodology (need to
confirm with Core Laboratories)
Air Quality Parameter Monitoring Method / Monitoring Equipment

Principle
Particulate Matter (PM10).

US CFR Title 40, Appendix Fine Particulate Sampler
Total Suspended Particles B to Part 50 APM 550
(TSP)
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) & US CFR Title 40, Appendix

S to Part 50 Sampling: APM 433 Gaseous
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Pollutants Sampler
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) US CFR Title 40, Appendix Lab test: Spectrophotometer
A2 to Part 50
Total Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC)
Electrochemical Sensors /
RAE Monitoring System
Carbon monoxide (CO) Cells
Ozone (O3)
Dioxin and Furan

There is no existing guideline for undertaking ambient air monitoring of dioxins and furans in the
Emirate of Dubai. Accordingly, the Project used international standards by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as recommended by Exova, a DAC qualified
laboratory.
In the UAE, there are emission limits for dioxins and furans as referenced to Cabinet Decree No.
12 of 2006; however, there are not well-defined locally established or international limits, for
ambient air concentrations of dioxins and furans.
In international contexts, including the USA, EU and Japan, few studies have been undertaken for
dioxins and furans. As quoted from the Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment &
Forests (Delhi, India), “Owing to the difficult sampling and analytical problems in determining
submicro level … of dioxin and furan, there are only few studies and reporting on levels of PCDDs
and PCDFs in air environment.”14 Also, ambient air concentrations of dioxins and furans can be
influenced by concentration of emissions sources, commercial processes, geographical influences
and/or climatic variations, so it is considered inappropriate to compare ambient air concentrations
of dioxins and furans across a global context. In general, the following summary is referenced from
eurofins (2013)15:
“The group of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs, Dioxins) and Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans (PCDFs, Furans), colloquially often referred to as “Dioxins” consists of 210
tricyclical chlorine organic compounds (congeners), that differ widely in the chlorine content
and their respective toxicity. In particular 17 of the 210 compounds are extremely toxic.
These congeners have a chlorine substitution in the 2,3,7,8-position. The most well-known
14
Central Pollution Control Board at ENVIS Centre, Delhi, India (December 2004). Dioxins (PCDDs) and Furans (PCDFs) – Critical
Persistant Organic Pollutants (POPs). Retrieved from www.cpcb.delhi.nic.in on 23 October 2018
15
Eurofin (2013). Dioxins and Furans. Retrieved from www.dioxine.de on 23 October 2018
compound is the 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) which is generally
known as “Seveso Dioxin”. In February 1997 the World Health Organisation (WHO)
declared this substance as carcinogenic for humans.”
Furthermore, USEPA states “Of all of the dioxins and furans, one, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dibenzo-
dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) is considered the most toxic.”16 Accordingly, this is the parameter assessed
for the emissions model.
For comparative purposes and general information, the USEPA completed “The National Dioxin
Air Monitoring Network (NDAMN)” final report in August 2013, and an extraction of their summary
table for the concentrations observed is provided below in Figure 5-7 (reference Table 4-5
“Survey-wide statistics for all congeners and homologue groups” concentrations in fg/m3, from the
referenced USEPA report).
The USEPA study was completed from June 1998 through November 2004. The full database
composed of 685 samples, measured for 17 dioxin and furan congeners. The overall average total
toxic equivalent (TEQ) concentration was 11.1 fg/m3 with dioxin-like PCBs contributing only 0.8
fg/m3 (7%) of this total.
16
USEPA. Dioxins and Furans. Retrieived from US EPA Archives on 23 October 2018
Figure 5-7 Survey Summary of NDAMN by USEPA (August 2013)
The duration of sample collection was defined by detection limits and in consideration of the
proximity or relative contribution of “source generators” for the emissions of interest. The sample
duration was specified considering a toxic equivalency, which can be measured by accumulating
analytes in a high volume sampler over specified duration.
A 24-hour real-time active sampling approach was undertaken at two sampling locations (refer to
Figure 5-6) during two sampling events (Table 5-6).
The sample equipment, analysis and reporting was provided by Exova who is a DAC registered
laboratory, and testing analysis was completed in accordance with US EPA Method TO-9A. The
dioxin and furan compounds that were considered are provided in Table 5-8.
Table 5-6 Dioxin and furan monitoring schedule
Locations Coordinates Event 1 Event 2
Start date / End date / Start date / End date /

time time time time
DF1 25.1514 11-Sep-2018 12-Sep-2018 01-Oct-2018 02-Oct-2018

55.4456 12:38 12:38 11:30 11:30
DF2 25.1622 10-Sep-2018 11-Sep-2018 30-Sep-2018 01-Oct-2018

55.4403 11:14 11:14 10:54 10:54
Table 5-7 Parameters and Equipment
Parameter Equipment
Dioxin and Furan High volume samplers (HVS) and poly-

urethane foam (PUF) sampling heads
Table 5-8 Dioxin and Furans that were considered
Compound WHO-2005 TEF(1)
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDD 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01
OCDD 0.0003 (2)
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.03 (2)
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.3 (2)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01
OCDF 0.0003 (2)
Source: WHO, 2009

(1) WHO-2005 TEF means World Health Organization (2005) Total Equivalency Factor
(2) Change in TEF value from WHO (1998)
CDD, chlorodibenzodioxin; CDF, chlorodibenzofuran; Hp, hepta; Hx, hexa; O, octa; Pe, penta; T, tetra
Air Monitoring Results
Ambient Air Quality

The monitoring results are summarised in Table 5-9. The results show they were all compliant with
the ambient air quality standards for all parameters as specified by the Federal Law and Dubai
Municipality with the exception of PM10 at station AAQM2.
Ambient concentrations of airborne particulates (PM10 and TSP) throughout the UAE are
commonly recorded in higher concentrations than the national limit. This is largely attributable to
the prevalence of dry sandy soils inherent in the desert environment. Anthropogenic activities such
as large scale consstrution projects, industrial emissions, increase vehicles on the UAE’s roads,
and increaseds in off-road driving activities all contribute to elevated ambient levels of airborne
particulates in the UAE.
The remaining parameters (i.e. NO2, SO2, CO and O3) were all below the guidelines. It is worth
noting that the average values recorded for NO2, SO2, CO and O3 were overall slightly higher at
Station AAQM1. Station AAQM1 is located approximately 150 m from an internal road, while
AAQM3 is approximately 500 m away. As such, it is suggested that the higher number of vehicles
travelling on the internal road could be contributing to the slight increase in levels of these
parameters in AAQM1 compared to the levels recorded at AAQM3.
It should be noted that the two-week monitoring period provides only a snap shot of conditions at
the Project site. Monitoring results are to be used with consideration of the following limitations:
 Short-term measurements made over a limited sampling period involve a large uncertainty
as to the representativeness throughout the various times of the year.
 The data was collected during the period of summer season, during which time conditions
can fluctuate with days. Summer in the northern Gulf in influrenced by summer Shamals
which commonly bring dust or ‘blazes’ of hot and dry air.
Ambient air quality at the Project site and in the surrounding areas is most likely to be influenced
by the following:
 DEWA Power Station to the southwest of the site with stationary sources of emission
 Various industrial facilities to the immediate east and southeast of the Project site
 Combustion emissions from vehicles using the surrounding road infrastructure
Table 5-9 Baseline Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results
Measurement Daily Average
Sampling Parameter Nitrogen Sulfur Dioxide Carbon Ozone (O3) VOC TSP PM10 PM2.5
Date Dioxide (NO2) (SO2) Monoxide (CO)
Unit µg/m3 µg/m3 mg/m3 µg/m3 mg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3
UAE Limit 1-hour: 400; 1-hour: 350; 1-hour: 30; 1-hour: 200; – 24-hour: 24-hour: –
(average) 24-hour: 150 24-hour: 150 8-hour: 10 8-hour: 120 230 150
16 Aug 2018 AAQM1 84.24 72.11 1.43 73.72 0.46 127.35 95.29 -
AAQM3 78 6.00 0.53 25 0.35 133 112 -
17 Aug 2018 AAQM1 76.43 64.10 0.98 66.25 0.27 149.44 103.06 -
AAQM3 72.18 2.34 0.42 38.06 0.16 194.02 142.77 -
18 Aug 2018 AAQM1 101.44 67.89 1.43 70.86 0.33 125.70 74.02 -
AAQM3 71.94 0.00 0.45 29.83 0.07 168.80 121.01 -
19 Aug 2018 AAQM1 112.78 48.11 1.54 79.92 0.23 129.72 80.54 -
AAQM3 59.94 0.00 0.48 18.99 0.05 165.24 111.10 -
20 Aug 2018 AAQM1 87.98 54.59 1.85 87.80 0.24 115.55 71.00 -
AAQM3 70.45 2.95 0.47 25.79 0.19 139.67 90.90 -
21 Aug 2018 AAQM1 91.23 71.75 1.75 90.01 0.25 98.51 57.33 -
AAQM3 54.15 0.93 0.34 24.27 0.06 106.08 73.78 -
22 Aug 2018 AAQM1 88.44 67.79 2.21 90.09 0.29 108.99 61.23 -
AAQM3 61.28 0.00 0.36 25.33 0.06 88.16 70.08 -
23 Aug 2018 AAQM1 118.57 69.01 1.37 77.88 0.25 127.00 53.58 -
AAQM3 69.50 1.72 0.41 17.21 0.05 144.23 93.18 -
24 Aug 2018 AAQM1 106.10 66.15 1.50 98.33 0.25 93.53 44.57 -
AAQM3 60.12 2.23 0.35 29.05 0.12 106.69 71.64 -
25 Aug 2018 AAQM1 99.41 60.43 1.24 59.41 0.16 106.97 54.58 -
AAQM3 67.40 17.36 0.50 11.69 0.29 166.20 106.99 -
26 Aug 2018 AAQM1 87.96 62.89 1.35 78.86 0.14 96.64 46.62 -
AAQM3 59.93 8.97 0.46 17.88 0.23 130.68 88.80 -
27 Aug 2018 AAQM1 103.07 65.41 1.95 83.20 0.27 89.70 50.76 -
AAQM3 62.77 1.58 0.37 18.01 0.14 137.16 85.50 -
28 Aug 2018 AAQM1 89.10 59.05 1.87 76.12 0.23 102.66 66.30 -
AAQM2 0.028 ppm 0.009 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.026 ppm - - 212 55
AAQM3 63.13 0.57 0.42 8.96 0.06 155.53 103.25 -
29 Aug 2018 AAQM1 99.63 51.35 1.36 83.49 0.18 78.38 57.26 -
AAQM3 66.82 15.63 0.39 16.88 0.20 114.04 74.45 -
30 Aug 2018 AAQM1 109.57 68.58 1.18 64.63 0.08 110.88 68.94 -
AAQM3 61.97 14.60 0.35 11.06 0.09 135.44 81.67 -
31 Aug 2018 AAQM2 0.022 ppm 0.009 ppm 0.26 ppm 0.034 ppm - - 167 43
01 Sep 2018 AAQM2 0.032 ppm 0.010 ppm 0.33 ppm 0.032 ppm - - 160 57
07 Sep 2018 AAQM2 0.023 ppm 0.009 ppm 0.24 ppm 0.042 ppm - - 145 -
08 Sep 2018 AAQM2 0.043 ppm 0.010 ppm 0.47 ppm 0.028 ppm - - 190 -
Source: DM-ED Mobile Station provided data for AAQM2, for 30-minute, 1-hour and 24-hour averages taken from 08 August 2018 to 10 September 2018.
Dioxin and Furan
The summary of results is provided in Table 5-10 while actual concentration for each compound,
or compound group, is provided in Table 5-11. The complete laboratory report is provided in
Appendix M.
There does not exist a local UAE standard for ambient air concentration of dioxins, furans and
dioxin-like PCBs; therefore, and in consultation by the EPSS, reference is made to an ambient air
concentration of 0.1 pg TEQ/m3 (24-hour) as per Ontario, Canada reference titled “Ontario’s
Ambient Air Quality Criteria – Sorted by Contaminant Name.” This document lists the Ambient Air
Quality Criteria (AAQCs) developed by the Ontario Minitstry of the Environment and Climate
Change. As stated by them, “An AAQC is a desireable concentration of a contaminant in air and is
used to assess general air quality resulting from all sources of a contaminant to air,” and “AAQCs
are most commonly used in environmental assessments, special studies using ambient air
monitoring data, assessment of general air quality in a community and annual reporting on air
quality across the province.”
The concentrations of both dioxins and furans in stations DF1 and DF2 during Events 1 and 2 are
below the WHO-2005 TEF values (Table 5-11). It is worth noting that the 2,3,7,8-TCDD
compound, which is the most potent congener of this group of related compounds and considered
one of the most potent toxicants and carcinogens known to date (WHO, 2009), was not detected in
both monitoring stations during Event 1 and at station DF2 during Event 2.
Table 5-10 Summary of results
Stations Events Sampling volume Analysis result Concentration

(m3) (ng TEQ) (ng/m3 TEQ)
DF1 Event 1 322.56 0.00242 0.000007
Event 2 322.56 0.00589 0.000018
DF2 Event 1 322.56 0.00194 0.000006
Event 2 322.56 0.00172 0.000005

(1) – Annex 1 of Cabinet Decree (12) of 2006
(2) – Annex 3 of Cabinet Decree (12) of 2006
TEQ - Toxic Equivalent Value
As shown in the above table, the TEQ is approximately 18% (at maximum-recorded concentration)
and 5% (at minimum-recorded concentration) of the criteria from Ontario, Canada, for AAQCs.
Table 5-11 Dioxin and furan monitoring laboratory results
Compound WHO DF1 (N22’09’25 E55’26”44) DF2 (N25’09”44 E55’26”25)

(2005)
TEFs Event 1 (10-11 Sep 2018) Event 2 (30 Sep to 02 Oct 2018) Event 1 (10-11 Sep 2018) Event 2 (30 Sep to 02 Oct 2018)
Conc TEFs TEQ1 TEQ2 Conc TEFs TEQ1 TEQ2 Conc TEFs TEQ1 TEQ2 Conc TEFs TEQ1 TEQ2
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 * 1.000 0.0002 0.0000 0.000154 1.000 0.0002 0.0002 * 1.000 0.0002 0.0000 0.000157 1.000 0.0002 0.0002
1,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1 * 0.500 0.0002 0.0000 0.000557 0.500 0.0003 0.0003 * 0.500 0.0001 0.0000 * 0.500 0.0001 0.0000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.000294 0.100 0.0000 0.0000 0.000609 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.00033 0.100 0.0000 0.0000 0.00025 0.100 0.0000 0.0000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.000771 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.000784 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.00127 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.000616 0.100 0.0001 0.0001
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.000387 0.100 0.0000 0.0000 0.000817 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.000568 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.000214 0.100 0.0000 0.0000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.0057 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.00647 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.00683 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.00579 0.010 0.0001 0.0001
1234678-OCDD 0.0003 0.0126 0.001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0108 0.001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0124 0.001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0111 0.001 0.0000 0.0000
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.00132 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.0033 0.100 0.0003 0.0003 0.00125 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.00121 0.100 0.0001 0.0001
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.03 0.000639 0.050 0.0000 0.0000 0.00205 0.050 0.0001 0.0001 0.000268 0.050 0.0000 0.0000 0.000484 0.050 0.0000 0.0000
23478-PeCDF 0.3 0.00194 0.500 0.0010 0.0010 0.00425 0.500 0.0021 0.0021 0.000729 0.500 0.0004 0.0004 0.00112 0.500 0.0006 0.0006
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.00165 0.100 0.0002 0.0002 0.00858 0.100 0.0009 0.0009 0.00237 0.100 0.0002 0.0002 0.00165 0.100 0.0002 0.0002
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.00185 0.100 0.0002 0.0002 0.00683 0.100 0.0007 0.0007 0.00114 0.100 0.0001 0.0001 0.00128 0.100 0.0001 0.0001
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.00224 0.100 0.0002 0.0002 0.00687 0.100 0.0007 0.0007 0.00316 0.100 0.0003 0.0003 0.00171 0.100 0.0002 0.0002
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.000222 0.100 0.0000 0.0000 0.000455 0.100 0.0000 0.0000 0.000303 0.100 0.0000 0.0000 0.000302 0.100 0.0000 0.0000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.00884 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.0311 0.010 0.0003 0.0003 0.0114 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.00625 0.010 0.0001 0.0001
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.000297 0.010 0.0000 0.0000 0.000709 0.010 0.0000 0.0000 0.000462 0.010 0.0000 0.0000 0.000239 0.010 0.0000 0.0000
123467-OCDF 0.0003 0.00541 0.001 0.0000 0.0000 0.00971 0.001 0.0000 0.0000 0.00659 0.001 0.0000 0.0000 0.00343 0.001 0.0000 0.0000
TEQ (NATO) 0.00242 0.00204 0.00589 0.00589 0.00194 0.00162 0.00172 0.0016
* Isomer not detected
TEQ Toxic Equivalent Value
TEF Toxic Equivalent Factor
Conc Concentration17
DL Detection Value
REC Recovery
1
TEQ Concentration of Non Detected Congeners at Detection Limit (ng/sample)
2
TEQ Concentration of Non Detected Congeners at Zero (ng/sample)
17
The actual concentration in the sample for each compound, or compound group, as determined by analysis (ALS Laboratory Group).
5.3.2 Odour Monitoring
Nuisance odour emissions may cause environmental nuisance and has the potential to cause for
complaint by the local community. Odour sources can be continuous or intermittent, point source
(e.g. chimneys, stacks or building vent/exhaust pipes), area sources (e.g. stockpiles, ponds or
open-topped tanks) or volume sources (e.g. building with many opening from which odour
escapes) (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, undated).
A review of the existing condition around the proposed WtE plant indicates that there are a number
of potential odour sources, which include:
 The Tadweer landfill;
 The Al Aweer STP;
 The Al Serkal / Envirol grease trap waste recycling plant;
 Chinal state asphalt mixing plant; and
 Emirates beton readymix LLC (concrete supplier).
A site investigation was undertaken to monitor the ambient air levels of odourous gases from
potential odour sources around the Project site. Sampling was conducted by pumping ambient air
on to various sampling media to capture the target compounds (Table 5-12).
Table 5-12 Target compounds and sampling methodology
Target compounds Sampling media Analysis
Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Orbo 34 Tube Ion Chromatography
Ammonia (NH3) Treated Silica Tube Ion Chromatography
Mercaptans Treated Filter GC-MS
Dimethyl Disulphide (DMDS) Charcoal Tube GC-FID
Dimethyl Sulphide (DMS) Charcoal Tube GC-FID
Baseline odour monitoring was conducted by Al Futtaim Elements Materials Technology (2018) at
four locations at the Project site, as shown in Figure 5-6 and detailed in Table 5-13. Odour
monitoring was carried out for a period of eight hours at each monitoring location. Prevailing
meteorological conditions at Dubai International Airport on the day of sampling are also included in
Table 5-13.
Table 5-13 Odour monitoring schedule
Location Coordinates Date / Time Averaging period Wind direction Wind strength Temperature Humidity (%)
(° from North) (km/hr) (°C)
Od1 (1) 25.1629; 55.4444 15 Oct 2018 (08:15– 8 hours West 23 35 47

16:15)
Od2 (2) 25.1610; 55.4384 15 Oct 2018 (08:30– 8 hours West 23 35 47

16:30)
Od3 (3) 25.1537; 55.4419 16 Oct 2018 (08:00– 8 hours Northwest 17 33 57

16:00 )
Od4 (4) 25.1597; 55.4479 16 Oct 2018 (08:20– 8 hours Northwest 17 33 57

16:20)
(1) Al Warsan N1 in laboratory report
Results
Odour monitoring results is summarised in Table 5-14 while detailed laboratory result is provided
in Appendix M.
It can be seen that concentrations of H2S are highest at Od2, which is west of the proposed WtE
plant and east of the Al Aweer STP. On this occasion, wind was blowing west dispersing H2S from
the STP in the direction of the monitor.
Concentrations of NH3 were only high enough to be detected by the equipment at one monitoring
location. This was at Od3, situated south of the proposed WtE plant and east of the STP. On this
occasion, winds were blowing from a north westerly direction carrying NH3 from the STP.
Concentrations of dimethyl disulphide and dimethyl sulphide were not high enough to be detected
by the equipment at any monitoring location throughout the monitoring period.
Table 5-14 Odour monitoring results
Location H2S NH3 Mercaptans DMDS DMS

(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
Od1 6 <1 <10 <5 <5
Od2 20 <1 <10 <5 <5
Od3 11 3 <10 <5 <5
Od4 <5 <1 <10 <5 <5
< Denotes the result is less than the laboratory limit of detection
5.4 Noise
Dubai is subject to relatively high levels of traffic and construction noise as a result of the high
level of development and growth of the country. In a study conducted to evaluate the impact of air
and noise from transportation in Dubai, noise levels recorded within the city of Dubai were higher
than those recorded outside the city due to increased human activity. The main sources of noise
included road traffic and aircraft movement from the Dubai Airport (Al Mehairi, 1995). In the
absence of local noise data, this section details the methodology and results of a baseline noise
survey undertaken around the Project site.
5.4.1 Baseline Noise Survey
5.4.1.1 Monitoring Methodology

Baseline noise monitoring was undertaken at four sites over two monitoring periods on 18 and 19
August 2018. These locations are detailed in Table 5-15 and illustrated in Figure 5-8. The
monitoring locations were selected due to their proximity to the Project and potential to be
impacted by noise.
Table 5-15 Baseline noise monitoring locations

Project (m) datum
NQM1 Located between the Project site and the 250 25.162889,
existing Desert Palm Dubai Resort and Hotel. 55.444389
This station represents the closest sensitive
receptor to the Project site, and includes
residential uses (i.e. residential villas are found
inside the Desert Palm Dubai Resort and
Hotel)
NQM2 Located between the Project site and the 300 25.161000,
existing Al Aweer STP. During the initial site 55.438389
walkthrough, GHD personnel observed
prevailing wind direction from the STP towards
the proposed WtE plant. Therefore, there is a
need to consider the up-gradient wind impacts
from the existing facilities to the west. There is
also a new commercial building being
developed to the northwest of the area.
Furthermore, the existing DIC Phase 1 is
further to the west and N2 should be between
the DIC Phase 1 and proposed WtE plant.
NQM3 Located at the southeast of the Project site 650 25.153694,

near the existing concrete producing plants. 55.441889
This location considers the existing noise from
adjacent facilities relative to cumulative
impacts.
NQM4 Located near the internal road access and 110 m 25.159694,
northeast corner of the Project site. This 55.447889
location is important to document the existing
traffic noise from highway relative to cumulative
impacts.
Figure 5-8 Baseline noise monitoring stations
The objective of the baseline monitoring survey was to measure current daytime and night time
ambient noise. A total of four measurements were taken for a duration of 15-minutes at each
site, comprising:
 One measurement on a week day (Sunday – Thursday) during day time (7 am to 8 pm);
 One measurement on a week day during night time (8 pm to 7 am);
 One measurement on the weekend (Friday or Saturday) during day time; and
 One measurement on the weekend during night time.
For each measurement, the following parameters were measured:
 LAeq – The average measured noise level;
 LAmax – The highest single noise level;
 LAmin – The lowest or minimum noise level measured;
 LA10 – The average noise level exceeded for ten percent of the duration of the
measurement; and
 LA90 – The noise level which is exceeded for an average of 90 percent of the duration of
the measurement-
Measurements were taken using a Cirrus CR:171B sound level meter in accordance with EPA
Victoria (Australia) Publication 280-1991. Readings were taken at approximately 1.5 m above
the ground level. Other details such as surrounding activities and noise sources at the time of
measurement were noted.
Immediately prior to and following each noise measurement, the accuracy of the sound level
meter was checked by a sound level calibrator generating a known sound pressure level at a
known frequency. Measurements were accepted as valid only if the calibration levels before and
after the noise measurements agreed to within 1.0 dB. Noise level data obtained during rain and
wind with an average speed exceeding 5 m/s or wind with gusts exceeding 10 m/s was not
accepted. The calibration certificate for the sound level meter and calibrator as well as
laboratory reports are provided in Appendix M.
5.4.1.2 Adopted Guidelines
Federal Laws and Ministerial Decrees - Council of Minister Decree No. 12 of Year 2006
under Federal Law No. 24
Ministerial Decree No. 12 (UAE MoEW, 2006) was enacted in line with the air pollution control
objective of Federal Law No. 24 of 1999, which also provides regulations concerning the
protection of the environment from noise pollution. The regulations outline the required ambient
noise levels for different types of land use such as residential, commercial and industrial.
The allowable noise limits stipulated in the regulations are shown in Table 5-16.
World Bank Guidelines

The International Finance Corporation (IFC), as part of the World Bank (WB) Group, provides
guidance on maximum allowable ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors (IFC, 2007).
The guideline also states that noise impacts should not exceed the maximum allowable daytime
and night-time noise levels shown in Table 5-16 or result in a maximum increase in background
levels of 3 dB at the nearest sensitive receptor location off-site.
World Health Organisation Guidelines
World Health Organisation – Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999

The World Health Organisation (WHO) discusses the effects of environmental noise in non-
industrial environments in its Guideline for Community Noise (WHO, 1999). This guideline
examines aspects such as sleep disturbance, annoyance, and speech intelligibility and provides
guidance for protecting people from adverse effects induced by excessive noise.
World Health Organisation – Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, 2009

The WHO Night Noise Guidelines (NNG) for Europe (WHO Europe, 2009) provides detailed
discussion of night time noise levels and the effects on sleep and health for residential noise
receptors. The NNG is based on noise studies undertaken since the implementation of the
WHO 1999 Guideline, which is considered relevant and complementary to the WHO 2009
Guideline.
Noise and vibration criteria adopted for the assessment are summarised in Table 5-16 and
Table 5-17.
Table 5-16 Summary of adopted noise assessment crtieria
Area Adopted noise limits LAeq dB(A)
Daytime Night-time
FEA Federal Lawa

Residential areas which include some 50–60 40–50
workshops and commercial business or
residential areas near the highways
Industrial areas (heavy industry) 60–70 50–60
b
IFC World Bank
Residential; institutional; educational18 55 45
Industrial; commercial 70 70
OR
All sensitive receptors d ≤ Background level + 3 dB(A)
WHOc
Sleep Disturbance - 40 Lnight, outside
a
Daytime is defined as period of the day between 7:00 am to 8:00 pm and night-time is defined as period of the day
between 8:00 pm to 7 am.
b
Daytime is defined as period of the day between 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and night-time is defined as period of the day
between 10:00 pm to 7:00 am.
c
Night-time is defined as period of the day between 11 pm to 7 am.
d
The incremental noise impact criteria were based on IFC (WB) guideline, recommending that ‘noise impacts should
not result in a maximum increase in background levels of 3 dB at the nearest receptor location off-site.’
Table 5-17 Summary of adopted vibration assessment crtieria
Guideline values for

Line Receptors description
velocity (mm/s)
Human comfort
Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive
- situations for most vibration frequencies associated with ≤ 0.14
construction.
Structural damage
Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial

1 ≤ 20
buildings, and buildings of similar design.
2 Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or occupancy ≤5
Structures that, because of their particular sensitivity to

vibration, cannot be classified under lines 1 and 2 and are
3 ≤3
of great intrinsic value (e.g. listed buildings under
preservation order)
5.4.1.3 Noise Monitoring Results

The measurement period for weekend and weekday measurements are summarised in Table
5-18 and Table 5-19, respectively. The ambient noise measurements recorded at the identified
locations at daytime and night-time are summarised in Table 5-20 and Table 5-21, respectively.
Table 5-18 Weekend survey timing and schedule
Station Site Daytime Measurements Night-time Measurements

description
Date Start Time End Date Start End
Time Time Time
NQM1 North point 18 Aug 10:40 10:55 18 Aug 21:15 21:30

2018 2018
NQM2 West point 18 Aug 11:20 11:35 18 Aug 21:30 21:45

2018 2018
NQM3 South 18 Aug 09:30 09:45 18 Aug 20:15 20:30

point 2018 2018
NQM4 East point 18 Aug 10:20 10:45 18 Aug 20:50 21:10

2018 2018
Table 5-19 Weekday survey timing and schedule
Station Site Daytime Measurements Night-time Measurements

description
Date Start Time End Date Start End
Time Time Time
NQM1 North point 19 Aug 11:15 11:30 19 Aug 20:45 21:00

2018 2018
NQM2 West point 19 Aug 11:40 11:55 19 Aug 21:15 21:30

2018 2018
NQM3 South 19 Aug 10:25 10:40 19 Aug 20:00 20:15

point 2018 2018
NQM4 East point 19 Aug 11:05 11:20 19 Aug 21:35 21:50

2018 2018
Table 5-20 Ambient noise survey results: daytime noise levels
Station Site description Weekend (18 Aug 2018) Weekday (19 Aug 2018)
Leq dBA L90 dBA Leq dBA L90 dBA
NQM1 North point 55 48 50 46
NQM2 West point 53 47 59 42
NQM3 South point 53 39 52 45
NQM4 East point 55 47 60 45
Guideline limits:
Federal allowable limit for residential areas near highways – NQM1 50–60
Federal and World Bank allowable limit for industrial areas – NQM2, NQM3 & 60–70
NQM4
World Bank allowable limit for residential area – NQM1 55

dBA – means decibels adjusted. dBA is used for determining the sound exposure to humans
Table 5-21 Ambient noise survey results: night-time noise levels
Station Site description Weekend (18 Aug 2018) Weekday (19 Aug 2018)
Leq dBA L90 dBA Leq dBA L90 dBA
NQM1 North point 49 46 48 45
NQM2 West point 49 42 56 48
NQM3 South point 42 40 49 47
NQM4 East point 45 40 61 48
Guideline limits:
Federal allowable limit for residential areas near highways – NQM1 40–50
Federal and World Bank allowable limit for industrial areas – NQM2, NQM3 & 50–60
NQM4
World Bank allowable limit for residential area – NQM1 45
World Bank allowable limit for industrial areas – NQM2, NQM3 & NQM4 70
dBA – means decibels adjusted. dBA is used for determining the sound exposure to humans
As can be seen from the results above, the daytime measurements for locations NQM2, NQM3
and NQM4 on weekdays and weekends were below the relevant limits. Night time
measurements for NQM2, NQM3 and NQM4 were below the relevant limits except for
exceedances of the lower end of the standard at NQM2 and the upper limit at NQM4 during the
weekday measurements. These exceedances are most likely attributed to passing vehicles.
The daytime measurement at NQM1 is above the lower limit (50 dBA) of the Federal standard
for residential areas near highways while night time measurementas exdeeded the World Bank
limit of 45 dBA as well as the Federal Guideline of 40 dBA (lower limit) during both weekends
and weekdays. NQM1 is adjacent to an internal road leading to the industrial area. The
exceedances are most likely associated with vehicle movement on the road as well as sound of
insects/animals (Table 5-22).
Table 5-22 Site Observation and Sources of Noise
Station Weekend (18 August 2018) Weekday (19 August 2018)
Daytime Night time Daytime Night time
NQM1 Open area Open area Open area Open area

Sound of wind Sound of wind and Sound of wind Sound of wind
animals/insects
NQM2 Vehicles / Tankers Vehicles Vehicle / Tankers Vehicles

Unloading Noise generated Unloading Noise generated
vehicles passing by passing vehicle vehicles passing by passing vehicle
(less frequent) from Envirol (less frequent) from Envirol
Company Company
Sound from Sound from
animals/insects animals/insects
Station Weekend (18 August 2018) Weekday (19 August 2018)
Daytime Night time Daytime Night time
NQM3 Open area Open area Open area Open area
Sound of wind Sound of wind and Sound of wind Sound of wind and
animals/insects animals/insects
NQM4 Vehicles / Tankers Passing light Vehicle / trucks Passing light

moving vehicles passing and light moving vehicles
Unloading
(cars) moving vehicles (cars)
vehicles
(cars)
Passing light
moving vehicles
(less frequendt)
5.5 Geology, Seismicity, Soil and Groundwater
5.5.1 Geology and Geomorphology
5.5.1.1 Geology
The Arabian Gulf measures approximately 1000 km in length and 200 to 300 km in width. The
water depth profile is generally shallow, with the deepest water (about 100 m) being located
near Iran. The Arabian Gulf is a shallow tectonic depression formed in the tertiary period
(approximately 7 million years ago) in front of the rising Zagros Mountains (Zaghloul, 2008).
The asymmetry of the depression results in steep coastal slopes and deeper water on the
Iranian side, and the low-lying Arabian coastline with adjacent shallow sea floor on the other.
This geological structure has resulted in the UAE incorporating an extensive low-lying plain on
the west side, which gradually climbs to the Hajar Mountains in the east (Figure 5-9). In general,
Dubai consists of a linear coastline dissected by creeks with superficial deposits comprising
beach dune sands with marine sands and silts. Erosion, the capillary rise phenomena and
evaporation have led to extensive silt deposits in some areas, especially near creeks. These
superficial deposits are underlain by alternative layers of calcarenite, carbonate sandstone,
sands as well as cemented sand layers (Tarawaneh and Matraji, 2014).
Figure 5-9 Geology of the UAE
5.5.1.2 Seismicity
The Arabian Peninsula lies on the Arabian Plate, which is bordered to the south by the African
Plate and to the east by the Indian Plate. To the west lies a lateral fault known as the Dead Sea
Transform Fault and a divergent boundary, known as the Red Sea Rift, which runs the length of
the Red Sea. To the north lies the Eurasian Plate. The Arabian, African and Indian plates are all
moving northward, colliding with the Eurasian Plate and causing the uplift of mountain ranges,
most notably the Zagros Mountains of Iran (Figure 5-10).
The Zagros Fold and Thrust Belt and Makran Subduction Zone are the only fault systems that
have a direct effect on the seismicity of the UAE (Abdalla and Al-Homoud, 2004). In this region,
the Arabian tectonic plate has been pushing against the Eurasian plate at a rate of
approximately 22 mm per year (Johnson and Stern, 2010).
Figure 5-10 Tectonic Plates and Faults on Arabian Peninsula
Adapted from: Johnson and Stern, 2010
Limited seismic activity takes place at the UAE’s local fault zones that are located in the vicinity
of Dibba. Unlike the Western Region, the northern emirates have experienced earthquakes
several times since March 1999. Almost all regional earthquakes are located on the northern
side of the Arabian Gulf, within the Straits of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman and in southern Iran.
Tremors from earthquakes in Southern Iran and South West Pakistan measuring 5.5 and 7.8 on
the Richter scale were felt in Dubai in April 2014 and May 2016 respectively, indicating that
there is a degree of seismic risk in the UAE (UAE Interact, 2014 and Time Out, 2016). On a
lesser scale, tremors measuring 2.6 on the Richter scale were felt in Dibba in Fujairah on the
east coast of the UAE in February and August 2016. The effects of the shudders were minimal,
with no reports of injuries or structural damage (Time Out, 2016).
The Abu Dhabi Municipality Town Planning Sector publish seismic hazard assessment maps
(Abu Dhabi Municipality, 2012). The maps identify Dubai as falling within a low seismic area
with a peak ground acceleration of between 0.07 g and 0.08 g (0.7 to 0.8 m/s2) for a 475 year
return period event (typically used for design). Similarly, even for a 1 in 2475 year extreme
event, peak ground acceleration values are below 0.2 g. Available maps plotting recent seismic
activity from 1973 to 2006 (Figure 5-11) and December 2013 to March 2014 (Figure 5-12)
indicate minimal seismic activity in the Dubai Emirate.
Figure 5-11 Seismic activity in & around the UAE 1973 – Figure 5-12 Seismic activity in & around the UAE Dec
2006 2013 to Current
Source: http://www.seismo.geodesy.ae/images.aspx?img=figureS3.gif&wid=526 Source: http://seismology.ncms.ae/earthquakes
5.5.1.3 Soil
A soil survey of the Northern Emirates was conducted during 2010-2012 by the Environment
Agency-Abu Dhabi (EAD) in partnership with the Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW)
(Pain, 2012). The investigation noted that the most predominant deposits in the UAE desert
environment are Aeolian deposits (Figure 5-13), which are soil deposits formed through
transportation of soil material via wind. Soils formed through this process are the least
developed young soils without any horizon development, and are very widely distributed in the
Emirate of Dubai in the form of loose sandy, hummocky dune soils (Shahid and Abdelfattah,
2008).
Sandy soils are characterised by a high infiltration rate, which is more than 250 mm/hr, very
high drainage capacity, moderate to rapid permeability, low runoff and highly prone to wind
erosion. Climatic conditions prevailing in the country, such as high temperatures, evaporation,
relative humidity, and low average rainfall, play a major role in the degradation of land, and
contribute greatly to the emergence of fragile ecosystems characterized by vulnerable
vegetation and predominant erodible soil.
Figure 5-13 Soils of Northern Emirates
(Source: M.A. Abdelfattah, 2014)
5.5.1.4 Groundwater
Groundwater is the main natural resource and most used water resource in the UAE accounting
for 44% of the total water resources used (Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW), 2015).
Most of the groundwater is used in the agricultural sector. Over the years, pumping has
exceeded annual feeding rates, resulting in a net reduction in groundwater levels of ten meters
per decade until the mid-nineties and by 70 meters since then (MOEW, 2015).
A groundwater salinity map for the UAE is provided in Figure 5-14, which shows that hyper-
saline waters in excess of 150,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS) are found along the Abu
Dhabi coastline, while lower values of around 50,000 mg/L are present further north along the
Dubai coastline. Salinities generally decrease with distance from the coastline with some
potable water being observed deep in the western and eastern regions of the Abu Dhabi
Emirate (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2008).
Figure 5-14 Groundwater salinity map of UAE
5.5.2 Baseline Soil and Groundwater Survey
5.5.2.1 Previous Studies

GHD was provided with copies of the following site investigation reports:
 Geotechnical Site Investigation for Proposed Warsan Landfill Waste to Energy Project on
Plot No- 622-146, Al Warsan Second Dubai - UAE (Report No. SS18000022, Rev. 00) –
Draft Factual Report, dated 15 April 2018, prepared for M/S. Six Construct, Sharjah, UAE;
and
 Site Investigation, Proposed Warsan Landfill Waste to Energy Project, Plot No- 622-146,
Al Warsan Second, Dubai - UAE (Report No. S/D08-178, Rev. 0) – Final Interpretative
Report, dated 7 April 2009, prepared for M/S. Dubai Municipality, Dubai, UAE.
For the 2018 site investigation, the following was completed by ACES:
 Excavation of four (04 Nos.) trial pits to varying depths;
 Conducting thirty nine (39 Nos.) cone penetration tests (CPT); and
 Monitoring groundwater levels at two (02 Nos.) existing standpipe piezometers.
During the 2018 site investigation, ACES took only groundwater level readings from previous
borings numbers BH-01 and BH-14 (existing piezometers), using a dip meter, as summarized in
Table 5-23.
Table 5-23 Summary of soil investigation taken by ACES
BH No. Elevation Date Time Ground Water GW Reduced

(m DMD) Depth [Below Level (DMD)
EGL (m)] (m RL)
BH-01 44.92 05 April 2018 10:30 AM 15.70 29.22
BH-14 38.07 05 April 2018 10:40 AM 7.32 30.75
Taken from Appendix E, Site Investigation Report (Draft) prepared by ACES dated 15 April 2018 Revision 00
In general, groundwater levels at the above two locations were reported in a range of 7.32 to
15.70 m below existing ground level, but the groundwater elevation was relatively consistent at
29.22 m and 30.75 m, at BH-01 and BH-14, respectively.
For the 2018 site investigation, it is GHD understanding that there were no surface soil or
groundwater samples taken by ACES. However, groundwater sampling was carried out during
the 2009 site investigation. The chemical testing completed in 2009 is provided in Table 5-24.
Findings of the 2009 survey were limited.
Table 5-24 Summary of chemical testing
No. Chemical Testing
1 Determination of Sulphate for Soil and Groundwater – BS 1377: Part 3; 1990, Cl.5
(Amd. 9028/96)
1 Determination of Chloride for Soil and Groundwater – BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, CL.7
(Amd. 9028/96)
1 Determination of pH for Soil and Groundwater – BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, CL.9

(Amd. 9028/96)
1 Determination of Carbonate Content – BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, CL.6.3

(Amd. 9028/96)
1 Determination of Organic Matter Content – BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, CL.3

(Amd. 9028/96)
2 Determination of Magnesium Content of Soil by using AA/Spectro Photometer

APHA/AAS
2 Determination of the Ammonia Content APHA / Ammonia Chem Kit
2 Determination of Water Soluble Salt Content BA 1377: Part 3, Cl.8, 1990 & Eart
Manual, Des. 8
2 Determination of Bicarbonate Content ASTM D 1067-92, Text Method B
Taken from Section 6.0 Laboratory Testing, Site Investigation Report prepared by ACES (2009)
5.5.2.2 Site Walkthrough
A site walkthrough was undertaken by GHD staff on 9 April 2018. The following general
observations were made, and informed the sample collection locations for soil and groundwater
(refer to Section 5.5.2.3):
 It was observed that along the western site boundary there is presence of standing
surface water at the toe of the landfill slope and base of the sludge fill area. While the
extent of the proposed Project development will not disturb these existing areas, this
indicates a potential that groundwater may exhibit potential contamination in this vicinity.
Given the proximity of the landfill and sludge disposal areas to the west, GHD has
planned for two borings (or test pits) to be provided in this area.
 In the vicinity of the proposed footprint of the WtE plant, GHD has planned for two borings
(or test pits) to be provided for subsurface soil samples. Given the vehicle traffic and
storage of vehicles in this area, there is potential for petroleum impacts below asphalt or
at the edge of the asphalt paved areas.
5.5.2.3 Soil and Groundwater Sampling
Sampling Methodology
Soils Survey
Soil samples were collected at five locations at the project site. Samples were collected at
regular intervals: surface, 1 m and 5 m; therefore, 10 samples were collected for soil analysis.
Where there is visible change in strata or ‘horizon’ from each discrete layer within the boring or
where there is visual or olfactory evidence of potential contamination, one sample was collected
and analysed. The soil samples were digested and analysed in a Dubai Accredited Center
(DAC) laboratory.
Groundwater Survey
Five groundwater samples were collected from new groundwater wells and were analysed for
the full suite of parameters. Boreholes were drilled to the specified depths and groundwater
samples recovered from select boreholes:
 A new disposable bailer were used for each borehole to ensure that there is no cross
contamination between monitoring locations, disposable sampling bailers were used.
 Before sampling, each well were purged by removing a volume of groundwater to
approximately three times the theoretical volume of each well. After the purge volume has
been removed, samples were taken using the bottom end sampling method.
 The groundwater sample in the bailer (one sample per each of the sampling locations)
were poured into suitable sample bottles with pre-added chemical preservatives
appropriate to the tests (where applicable).
Sampling Locations
Soil and groundwater samples were collected at the following locations:
 Two borings, each to an estimated depth of 10 to 15 m (or until groundwater
encountered), with piezometers installed for groundwater sampling;
 Two borings (or test pits) for soil sample recovery, each to 5 m depth, soil samples to be
collected from 1 m and 3 m depths below existing ground surface level; and
 Additional groundwater samples were collected from the two existing piezometer
locations at BH-01 and BH-14.
A summary of the proposed baseline sampling is provided in Table 5-25 while approximate
sampling locations is provided in Figure 5-15.
Table 5-25 Environmental baseline sampling locations
Description Label / ID Assumed Groundwater Soil sample(s)

depth sample
Existing Existing BH- -- 1 sample --

Piezometer 01
Existing Existing BH- -- 1 sample --

Piezometer 14
New Groundwater BH-2018- 15 m BGS 1 sample, 1-week 1 sample at 1 m

Well with 01(P) after purge BGS
Piezometer
1 sample at 5 m
BGS
New Groundwater BH-2018- 15 m BGS 1 sample, 1-week 1 sample at 1 m

Well with 02(P) after purge BGS
Piezometer
1 sample at 5 m
BGS
New Bore Hole BH-2018-03 5 m BGS -- 1 sample at 1 m

(no Piezometer) BGS
1 sample at 5 m
BGS
New Bore Hole BH-2018-04 5 m BGS -- 1 sample at 1 m

(no Piezometer) BGS
1 sample at 5 m
BGS
Surface soil SS-2018-01 0.5 to 1 m BGS -- 1 sample from

sample surface soil,
hand auger
method
Surface soil SS-2018-02 0.5 to 1 m BGS -- 1 sample from

sample surface soil,
hand auger
method
Totals 4 groundwater 10 soil samples

samples
Figure 5-15 Soil and groundwater monitoring stations
Soil Sampling Results
The results of the soil quality analysis were compared to the limits set out by DM-ED via
Information Bulletin No. 2 Land Contamination Indicator Levels (May 2003) and Dutch Soil
Remediation Circular (2009). A summary of the results is presented in Table 5-26, while a more
complete set of results for all samples analyses and associated laboratory reports is presented
in Appendix M.
The results show that the majority of parameters were not detected in concentratrions above
their respective minimum detection limits (MDL). Parameters that were recorded in
concentrations above their respective MDLs include Nitrite, Phosphate, Boron, Chromium III,
Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Nickel and Zinc although all parameters were
considered to be within expected natural background concentrations.
Although there are no standards available for assessment of nutrients, it should be noted that
Nitrite Nitrogen and Phosphate were reported above their respective MDLs at several sites.
These parameters are potentially being stored in the soil due to the presence of nutrients.
Concentrations of BTEX, gasoline range, diesel range and motor oil range all remained below
their respective laboratory MDL. As a consequence, there is no evicence of petroleum
hydrocarbon or volatile contamination of soil at the Project site.
Table 5-26 Baseline Soil Sampling Results
Parameters Unit MDL Test Method Guidelines Results
Dubai Dutch BH-2018-01 BH-2018-02 BH-2018-03 BH-2018-04 SS-2018- SS-2018-

Municipality1 Guidelines 01 02
(Intervention
Values)2 1m 5m 1m 5m 1m 5m 1m 5m 0.50 m 0.50 m
Cyanide as CN mg/kg 0.002 Pyridine Pyrazalone 10 20 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Nitrate Nitrogen as NO3-N mg/kg 1.5 Cadmium Reduction – – <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 4.9 10.7 6.9 <1.5 <1.5 2.4
Nitrite Nitrogen as NO2-N mg/kg 0.010 Diazotization – – 0.571 0.563 0.571 0.299 0.034 0.010 0.020 <0.002 0.247 0.175
Phosphate Phosphorus as PO4 mg/kg 0.10 USEPA PhosVer3 – – 444.70 493.50 502.10 333.6 427.30 433.70 428.20 531.00 573.40 517.00
Benzene mg/kg 0.05 USEPA 8260 1 1.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Toluene mg/kg 0.05 USEPA 8260 – 32 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.05 USEPA 8260 – 110 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Xylene mg/kg 0.05 USEPA 8260 – 17 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Gasoline Range (C5-C10) mg/kg 2.0 USEPA 8015 – – <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Diesel Range (C11-C28) mg/kg 20.0 USEPA 8015 – – <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Motor Oil Range (C29-C40) mg/kg 50.0 USEPA 8015 – – <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0
Antimony as Sb mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B – 22 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Arsenic as As* mg/kg 5.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B 50 76 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Beryllium as Be mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B – 30 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Boron as B* mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B – – 20.8 14.7 20.7 17.3 12.7 12.8 16.9 13.3 20.5 18.7
Cadmium as Cd* mg/kg 2.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B 5 13 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Trivalent Chromium as Cr III mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B / 250 180 33.6 20.2 26.1 29.3 16.9 27.1 21.4 20.3 27.4 24.1
Calculation
Hexavalent Chromium as Cr VI mg/kg 5.0 USEPA 3060 / APHA – 78 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
AWWA 3120 B
Cobalt as Co* mg/kg 2.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B – 190 2.5 1.6 2.5 2.6 <1.0 1.6 1.8 1.1 2.4 2.4
Copper as Cu* mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B 100 190 9.3 6.9 8.8 7.9 16.9 10.5 10.0 10.4 7.2 8.5
Iron as Fe* mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B – – 5371.0 4050.5 5370.7 5615.5 4021.9 4396.4 5038.7 3911.6 5311.8 4717.3
Lead as Pb* mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B 200 530 1.7 2.1 1.7 2.0 <1.0 1.5 1.4 3.3 1.8 1.2
Manganese as Mn* mg/kg 2.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B 700 – 206.8 135.9 213.9 204.0 114.5 142.4 169.8 104.5 223.8 215.4
Parameters Unit MDL Test Method Guidelines Results
Dubai Dutch BH-2018-01 BH-2018-02 BH-2018-03 BH-2018-04 SS-2018- SS-2018-

Municipality1 Guidelines 01 02
(Intervention
Values)2 1m 5m 1m 5m 1m 5m 1m 5m 0.50 m 0.50 m
Mercury as Hg mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B 2 4 (organic) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Nickel as Ni* mg/kg 2.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B – 100 30.0 18.4 23.2 31.1 13.2 20.2 18.8 15.3 24.0 25.2
Selenium as Se* mg/kg 1.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B 2 100 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Zinc as Zn* mg/kg 2.0 APHA AWWA 3120 B 500 720 12.0 7.7 10.0 9.2 6.5 7.4 8.9 7.5 10.3 9.5
1 – Dubai Municipality Environment Department (DM-ED) Information Bulletin No. 2 Environmental Standards and Allowable Limits of Pollutants on Land, Water, and Air Environment (May 2003)
2 –Dutch Soil Remediation Cirular, 2009
* - This result is accredited by Dubai Municipality (DAC)
Groundwater Sampling Results
In-situ groundwater quality was undertaken using Multi-Parameter Probe. The analyses focused
on six sampling parameters that include:
 pH
 Electrical Conductivity
 Salinity
 Temperature
 Dissolved Oxygen
 Total Dissolved Solids
In-situ groundwater quality monitoring results are summarised in Table 5-27 while a complete
report and calibration certificate is provided Appendix M.
One groundwater sample was recovered from each of the two existing boreholes (BH-01 and
BH-14) and three new boreholes (BH-2018-01, BH-2018-02 and BH-15). Samples were
submitted to Core Laboratory, a DAC-approved laboratory, for analysis of a broad suite of
metals, inorganic substances, aromatic compounds and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The laboratory data was compated against the Intervention values specified in Dutch Soil
Remediation Circular (2009), which is accepted by DM-ED. A summary of groundwater
laboratory data is presented in Table 5-28 while complete laboratory report is provided in
Appendix M.
The key findings of the groundwater assessment include:
 Groundwater samples recovered from the monitoring wells did not report any analytes
above the Dutch (2009) Intervention Values with the exception of:
– Toluene, reported in one sample from well BH-2018-02 (located near Parking Area) at
concentration of 1728 µg/l, was above the intervention limit of 1000 µg/l. Toluene may
be introduced into the environment through petroleum seepage and weathering of
exposed coal containing strate and into groundwater from petroliferous rocks. The
anthropogenic contamination forms include chemical spills, spills of petroleum
products, and from discharges of industrial effluents (Government of Canada, 1992).
Soluble components such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) are
washed out of petroleum and fuels, in water presence (Prince, et.al, 2016). According
to Zogorski et.al. (2006), the sources of most gasoline hydrocarbons in aquifers are
probably releases of gasoline or other finished fuel products. It is not possible to
determine the exact cause of the elevated toluene concentrations from a single
sampling event. However, it is likely highly that the source originates from the vehicles
parked near the monitoring well. Further investigation of the source and extent of this
impact is recommended.
Table 5-27 Summary of Groundwater In-situ Data
Parameters Unit MDL Test Method Results
BH-2018-01 BH-2018-02 BH-011 BH-141 BH-15
9.96 m 8.37 m 15.34 m 7.24 m 7.24 m
25.159603 25.158983 25.157818 25.159838 25.159797

55.440754 55.443112 55.439291 55.446015 55.447094
pH @25ºC* – 2.0 APHA AWWA 4500 H+B 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.1 7.0
Electrical Conductivity µS/cm 0.1 APHA-AWWA 2510 B 3870.0 4960.0 6780.0 6950.0 6940.0
@25ºC*
Salinity psu 0.01 APHA-AWWA 2510 B 1.96 2.68 3.66 3.86 3.85
Temperature * ºC 0.1 APHA-AWWA 2510 B 33.8 33.6 32.6 32.6 35.6
Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 0.1 HACH LDO Method 3.8 4.0 4.7 3.4 3.3
Total Dissolved Solids * mg/l 9 APHA AWWA 2540 C 2008 3125 4020 3840 3790
Table 5-28 Summary of Groundwater Laboratory Data
Parameters Unit MDL Test Method Dutch Results

Guideline
(Intervention BH-2018-01 BH-2018- BH-011 BH- BH-15
02 141
Values)**
(µg/l)
Benzene µg/l 1 USEPA 8260 30 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Toluene µg/l 1 USEPA 8260 1000 604 1728 <1 <1 <1
Ethylbenzene µg/l 1 USEPA 8260 150 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Xylene (sum) µg/l 1 USEPA 8260 70 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
TPH Gasoline Range mg/l 0.02 USEPA 8015 – 0.53 1.40 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
(C5-C10)
TPH Diesel Range mg/l 0.10 USEPA 8015 – <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
(C11-C25)
TPH Motor Oil Range mg/l 0.50 USEPA 8015 – <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
(C29-C40)
Antimony (Sb) * mg/l 0.10 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Arsenic (As) * mg/l 0.01 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 60 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Barium (Ba) * mg/l 0.01 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 625 0.12 0.10 0.05 <0.01 0.01
Cadmium (Cd) * mg/l 0.002 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 6 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Chromium (Cr) * mg/l 0.006 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 30 0.088 0.037 0.177 <0.006 <0.006
Guideline
02 141
Values)**
(µg/l)
Cobalt (Co) * mg/l 0.002 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 100 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002
Copper (Cu) * mg/l 0.006 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 75 0.012 0.014 0.011 0.013 0.014
Lead (Pb) * mg/l 0.015 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 75 0.032 0.018 <0.015 <0.015 0.016
3
Manganese (Mn) * mg/l 0.002 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 0.034 0.168 0.012 0.040 0.039
Mercury (Hg) * mg/l 0.001 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 0.03 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Nickel (Ni) * mg/l 0.005 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 75 <0.005 0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Zinc (Zn) * mg/l 0.006 APHA AWWA 3030 E / 3120 B 800 0.026 0.036 0.023 0.020 0.035
pH @25ºC* - 0.1 APHA AWWA 4500 H+B – 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.2
(Laboratory)
Electrical Conductivity µS/cm 0.1 APHA AWWA 2510B – 4050.0 5060 6900 7050 7100
@25ºC* (Laboratory)
Temperature @ site ºC - APHA AWWA 2550B – 33.8 33.6 62.6 32.6 35.6
Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 9 APHA AWWA 2540C – 2100 3580 4200 4000 4100
@ 180ºC*
BOD @ 5days mg/l 6 ASTM D 888 – 15 18 <6 <6 <6
Oil & Grease (Free) * % 0.001 Gravimetric / IP-13 – -<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Guideline
02 141
Values)**
(µg/l)
Oil & Grease mg/l 10 APHA AWWA 5520 B – <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
(emulsified) *
3
Chloride (Cl-) * mg/l 1 APHA AWWA 4500 Cl B 1281 1009 1941 1242 1274
Total Sulfates (SO4) * mg/l 8 APHA AWWA 4500 SO4 C – 261 850 450 950 1090
Total Chlorine mg/l 0.01 USEPA DPD Method – <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02
Cyanide (CN) * mg/l 0.002 Pyridine Pyrazalone Method 1500 2 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Colour Pt-Co 15 Platinum-Cobalt Method – <15 <15 <15 <15 <15
Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 0.1 APHA AWWA 4500-O H/G – 4.0 4.1 4.9 3.6 3.5
(Laboratory)
3
Nitrate (NO3) * mg/l 0.01 Cadmium Reduction Method 6.60 6.60 59 20.30 25.60
3
Phosphate-Phorphorus mg/l 0.02 USEPA Phos Ver 3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
(PO4) *
Sulphide (S2-) * mg/l 0.005 USEPA Methylene Blue – <0.005 0.006 0.013 0.010 0.005
Method
Turbidity * NTU 0.1 USEPA 180.1 – 1.9 0.4 0.9 1.5 1.4
Pesticide (Non- mg/l 0.01 USPEA 8081 – <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Chlorinated)
Guideline
02 141
Values)**
(µg/l)
Phenol mg/l 0.005 USEPA 528 2000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.001 USEPA 8260 900 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Dichloromethane mg/l 0.001 USEPA 8260 1000 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
3
Aluminium (Al) * mg/l 0.01 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02
Boron (B) * mg/l 0.01 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B – 1.51 2.75 3.00 4.06 4.16
Beryllium (Be) mg/l 0.01 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B 15 4 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Calcium (Ca) mg/l 0.10 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B – 247.00 621.00 240.50 890.00 850.00
Iron (Fe) * mg/l 0.011 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B – 0.038 0.048 0.049 0.068 0.079
3
Magnesium (Mg) mg/l 0.10 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B 91.50 234.00 86.00 319.50 311.00
Molybdenum (Mo) * mg/l 0.01 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B 300 <0.01 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.06
Potassium (K) * mg/l 0.10 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B – 36.70 67.50 42.95 88.50 84.50
Sodium (Na) * mg/l 0.10 APHA AWWA 3030 E/3120 B – 440.00 571.00 467.00 622.00 496.00
Escherichia coli CFU/100 1 APHA AWWA 9222 G – ND ND ND ND ND

ml
Total Coliforms CFU/100 1 APHA AWWA 9222 B – ND ND ND ND ND

ml
1 – Existing
2 – Cyanides (free) (complex)
3 – It was decided not to derive a proposal for an intervention value for thes parameters (New Dutch Guidelines, 2000).
 Aluminium (Al), Magnesium (Mg) and Manganese (Mn) naturally occurs in high concentrations in the soil. High concentrations in groundwater are more likely to be a result of aciditication
than from increase emissions. Preference for testing these in other contexts.
 Nutrients (Phosphate and Nitrogen compounds) in principle has short residence time in soil: however repeated input into the soil takes place and, through the soil, into groundwater. For this
reason, elimination of such compounds is mainly a question of regulating the input.
 Chloride: Too short residence time in the soil. Preference of tackling this is by legislative frameworks. Because chloride’s toxicity for plant and animal life, an intervention value for
groundwater might be considered, but then proper account has to be taken at areas subject to marine influence.
4 – Indicative level of serious contamination
* This test is accredited by DAC
** Soil Remediation Circular
ND – Not Detected (<1)
CFU – Colony Forming Unit
5.5.3 Ground Gas Sampling
Ground gases are frequently encountered in areas that are potentially contaminated. However,
it is also important to recognise that a wide range of potential sources of ground gases exist,
both anthropogenic and natural. The natural sources of ground gases include soil (physical,
chemical and biological weathering, swamps and wetlands (anaerobic microbial decay of
organic material), coal measures strata (coal-seam methane), carbonate strata (dissolution of
carbonates by acidic groundwater), natural gas traps (leakage), and granites (radioactive decay
of uranium) (NSW EPA, 2012). The potential sources of ground gas at the project site are
provided in Table 5-29.
Table 5-29 Potential sources of ground gas at the site
Source Origin
Project site – vehicle storage site Petroleum fuel spills and leak from parked vehicles
Tadweer site Anaerobic microbial decay of putrescible waste, organic

materials
Decay of timber, green waste, etc. co-disposed with inert
waste
Al Aweer STP Anaerobic migrobial decay of organic material
A site investigation was undertaken to determine the presence of ground gases at the existing
site. Monitoring was undertaken from the ground surface using a portable handheld multi-gas
meter for measurement of the following parameters:
 Methane (CH4)
 Hydrogen sulphide (H2S)
 Carbon monoxide (CO)
 Carbon dioxide (CO2)

 Oxygen (O2)
Initial monitoring was undertaken at the time of piezometer establishment on 28-29 August 2018
(Event 1), while second observation was undertaken on 23 September 218 (Event 2). The
summary of ground gas monitoring schedule is provided in Table 5-30. Monitoring locations
were undertaken at two existing boreholes (BH1 and BH14) and four new boreholes (BH-201-
01, BH-201-02, BH-201-03 and BH-201-04). The location of these boreholes are shown in
Section 5.5.2 (Figure 5-15).
Table 5-30 Ground gas monitoring schedule
Borehole No. Event 1 Event 2 Averaging period
BH1 29-Aug-2018; 11:20-11:30 23-Sep-2018; 09:25-09:35 10 min
BH14 28-Aug-2018; 10:40-10:50 23-Sep-2018; 08:40-08:50 10 min
BH-2018-01 29-Aug-2018; 10:55-11:05 23-Sep-2018; 10:05-10:15 10 min
BH-2018-02 29-Aug-2018; 11:40-11:50 23-Sep-2018; 10:25-10:35 10 min
BH-2018-03 28-Aug-2018; 11:40-11:50 10 min
Borehole No. Event 1 Event 2 Averaging period
BH-2018-04 28-Aug-2018; 11:10-11:20 The trial pit has collapsed to 10 min

a current depth of 2.5 m
Results
The result of analysis of ground gas is provided in Table 5-31 while a complete laboratory report
is provided in Appendix M. Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) was not detected at the Project site while
low concentrations of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) were
recorded.
Low concentrations of methane were detected near the Al Aweer STP (BH1 and BH-2018-01)
and northeastern boundary (BH-14) of the site while methane was not detected at three
locations within the Project boundary (BH-2018-02, BH-2018-03 and BH-2018-04). The average
and peak concentrations of methane were below the explosive limits of 5–15%.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) was detected at four sites during Event 1 while it was not detected during
Event 2. Carbon monoxide (CO) was detected at northeastern boundary of the site (BH14)
during Events 1 and 2 and at northwestern boundary during Event 1. The concentrations of CO
observed at the project site are below the explosive limits and workplace exposure standards as
defined by Safe Work Australia Hazardous Chemicals Information System (HCIS).
Table 5-31 Ground gas sampling laboratory analysis
Borehole No. Methane (CH4) (%) Carbon Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Oxygen (O2) (%) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) (ppm)
(CO2) (%) (CO) (ppm)
Event 1 Event 2 Event 1 Event 2 Event 1 Event 2 Event 1 Event 2 Event 1 Event 2
Average Peak Average Peak Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Peak Average Peak
BH1 0.07 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.28 0 0 0 20.0 20.8 0 0 0 0
BH14 0.88 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 1.4 0.7 20.6 20.5 0 0 0 0
BH-2018-01 0.04 0.4 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 20.5 20.5 0 0 0 0
BH-2018-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 20.8 20.8 0 0 0 0
BH-2018-03 0.0 0.0 - - 0.01 - 0 - 20.8 - 0 0 0 0
BH-2018-04 0.0 0.0 - - 0.25 - 2.6 - 20.6 - 0 0 0 0
Hazardous properties (1)
Lower 5 Non-combustible 12.5 – 4.5

explosive or
flammable
limit (v/v)
Upper 15 Non-combustible 74.2 – 45.5

explosive or
flammable
limit (v/v)
Toxicity Not toxic (but can cause Headaches and Symptom of mild – At 20–150 ppm watering eyes,
asphyxiation by displacing oxygen) shortness of poisoning include blurred vision, shortness of breath,
breath at 3% v/v headaches and flu- sore throat.
becoming severe like effects.
at 5% v/v. Greater exposure
Borehole No. Methane (CH4) (%) Carbon Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Oxygen (O2) (%) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) (ppm)
(CO2) (%) (CO) (ppm)
Event 1 Event 2 Event 1 Event 2 Event 1 Event 2 Event 1 Event 2 Event 1 Event 2
Average Peak Average Peak Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Peak Average Peak
Loss of can lead to loss of At 400–500 ppm pulmonary
consciousness at consciousness and oedema, headache, dizziness,
10%, fatal at 22% death. coma, asphyxiation
Workplace None TWA: 5000 ppm TWA: 30 ppm – TWA: 10 ppm

exposure
STEL: 30,000 ppm STEL: 15 ppm
standards
(Safe Work
Australia
HCIS)
Environmental – –  100 mg/m3 – 7 µg/m3 (aesthetic)
guideline (90ppm) for 15
levels for air minutes 150 µg/m3 (health)
(WHO 2000a  60 mg/m3 (50
and 2000b) ppm) for 30
minutes
 30 mg/m3 (25
ppm) for 1 hour)
 10 mg/m3 (10
ppm) for 8 hours
Notes Explosive limit changes when – – – After short period of exposure the
oxygen concentration reduces. gas paralyses the sense of smell
When CO2 concentration reaches
24.5% v/v methane is non-
flammable. Oxidises to CO2 by
bacterial action.
Source: (1) – Physical, chemical and toxicological properties of ground gases (NSW EPA, 2012); Notes: v/v – concentration; TWA – Time Weighted Average; STEL – Short Term Exposure Limit
5.6 Biodiversity and Conservation
5.6.1 Overview
Located in the arid tropical zone extending across Asia and northern Africa, the UAE's major
terrestrial habitat is sandy desert that supports varying amounts of sparse seasonal vegetation
(WWF, 2017). The City of Dubai is characterised as a highly urbanised environment, where
native vegetation and undisturbed environments are largely absent.
The Project site is comprised of historically disturbed, developed, regraded, or natural terrestrial
land. Native terrestrial fauna within the Project site is present to some extent.
Introduced terrestrial fauna species such as the adaptable five-striped palm squirrel
(Funambulus pennantii), feral cats (Felis catus) and rats (Rattus sp.) may be present, but are
considered a pest species and likely to move out of any area under disturbance.
5.6.2 Initial Site Assessment
5.6.2.1 Survey Methodology

For the baseline survey of existing conditions, two GHD staff performed a half-day site
walkthrough on 9 April 2018. The purpose of the walkthrough was to provide high-level visual
observations of the terrestrial environment. The site survey was completed via foot and
observations were logged with photographs. The focus of the review was within the proposed
development limits of the project, which is the northern half of the project site.
5.6.2.2 Survey Results and Discussion

There is an existing asphalt paved area used by the DM for vehicle storage in the proposed
development footprint of the WtE plant. At the time of the site visit, the limits of project
disturbance were not delineated in the field, but in general, the building development and
primary construction disturbance will be over an existing asphalt paved area. To the south of
this area, BESIX indicated that development would extend an additional 50 m, for site levelling
and temporary construction staging. Further to the south, it was noted that the existing site
conditions would remain undisturbed for the Project.
Biodiversity
The remaining undeveloped land adjacent to the parking and sludge disposal areas consists of
a mix of naturally occurring sand sheets with dunes and gravel plains. Areas of lithified sand
dunes were also observed throughout the site.
Relatively high-density vegetation for a desert landscape was present and included common
desert shrubs and perennials Table 5-32.
Table 5-32 Flora species recorded at the Project site
Scientific name Perennial / Annual Conservation status (IUCN Red List) Example from site
Zygophyllum qatarense Annual Not Evaluated by IUCN
Calotropis procera Perennial No known conservation measures place

for this species
Hyparrhenia hirta Perennial Not Evaluated by IUCN
Convolvulus virgatus Perennial Not Evaluated by IUCN
Tribulus terrestris Annual / Biennial Not Evaluated by IUCN
Leptadenia pyrotechnica Perennial Not Evaluated by IUCN
No protected or culturally significant flora with conservation status, such as the Ghaf tree
(Prosopis cineraria) was identified within or near to the plot limits. A single Ghaf was observed
well outside the southern extent of the plot limits, along a sloped sand embankment near to the
existing landfill site.
Invertebrates
Invertebrates were observed throughout the site and are expected to be relatively abundant
given the density of flora present. Species identified within the site are listed in Table 5-33.
These species are not currently evaluated under the IUCN list of threatened species and their
conservation status can therefore be considered data deficient19.
Several burrows or nests were observed around the site, some of which may belong to active
colonies the species of ant observed at the site, indicated above (Cataglyphis niger), the Desert
Runner).
Table 5-33 Invertebrates recorded at the Project site
Scientific name Common Name Example from Site
Apis florea Little Honey Bee No photo
Cataglyphis niger Desert Runner Ant
Suspected C.niger nest
Evippa arenaria Wolf Spider

(Arenaria species)
19
Data Deficient (DD) is a category applied by IUCN, other agencies and individuals to a species
when the available information is not sufficient for a proper assessment of conservation status to be
made. This does not necessarily indicate that the species has not been extensively studied, but it does
indicate that little or no information is available on the abundance and distribution of the species (The
Animal Files, 2014).
Avifauna
Avifauna observed at the site are provided in Table 5-34. Both birds are listed by IUCN as
‘Least Concern’ and indicate increasing population trends based on current data. Collard Doves
(Streptopelia decaocto) were abundant throughout the site and particularly nearest to the landfill
site to the south.
Table 5-34 Bird species recorded at the Project site
Scientific name Common name Example from site
Streptopelia Collared Dove

decaocto
Merops orientalis Green Bee Eater
Mammals and Reptiles

Mammals and reptiles were not directly observed at the site during the walkover. However,
tracks belonging to lizards, snakes and quadrupedal mammals were observed. Due to the
relatively fine nature of the sand at the site, a positive identification could not be made based on
tracks alone. However, a lack of sufficiently size burrows at the site suggest that the protected
Egyptian Spiny Tailed or Dhub lizard (Uromastyx aegyptia) is likely not present within the
construction footprint of the site. Lizard tracks observed suggested smaller species.
Plate 5-1 Suspected lizard tracks observed at the Project site
The prevalence of smaller burrows at the site suggests also that smaller mammals may be
present, such the Cheeseman’s Gerbil (Gerbillus cheesmani) or similar species. This could not
be confirmed, however. This species is listed as Least Concern according to IUCN’s Red List of
Threatened Species.
Plate 5-2 Suspected small mammal burrow observed at the Project site
Larger mammal tracks were observed, likely belonging to feral dogs or cats or possibly one or
more resident Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes arabica), also listed as Least Concern by the IUCN, and
known to thrive near areas of human habitation. As described above, a positive ID could not be
made due to the nature of the sand, resulting in relatively undefined tracks.
Plate 5-3 Suspected large mammal tracks likely feral dog or fox observed at
the site
Small snake tracks were observed at the site periphery. As described above, a positive ID could
not be made due to the nature of the sand, resulting in relatively undefined tracks, also snake
tracks can be ambiguous. No sitings occurred during the time of the site visit.
Plate 5-4 Suspected small snake tracks
The site is separated from other potential habitats by a road to the north, a construction site to
the east and a landfill to the south. West of the project are some limited areas of similar desert
habitat, as well as north beyond the existing road. However, each of these lies within otherwise
developed sub-urban/city infrastructure and utilities zones and likely do not link to broader
habitats due to the barriers that surrounding roads and land development create. Overall the
site appears to be of low ecological value.
5.6.3 Terrestrial Survey
The terrestrial ecology survey was conducted from 19 to 20 of August 2018 (two days and one
night) with the following objectives:
 Survey for flora and fauna present at the Project site

 Determine the species richness, composition and conservation value
 Identify environmentally sensitive terrestrial areas and critical habitats within the Project
area
 Identify and map terrestrial habitat types present in the area
A combination of transect counts, quadrat sampling, trapping and general observations were
employed to assess the flora and fauna in the Project area. An assessment of current satellite
imagery of the Project area was also undertaken prior to mobilisation to identify hotspots for
targeted surveys. Detailed methodology employed during the survey is provided in Appendix P.
5.6.3.1 Habitat Types and Associated Flora and Fauna

The habitat types prominent in the study area, based on EAD Habitat Classification (Brown,
2004), are Habitat 4130 and Habitat 9600. Description of these habitat types are provided
below.
Habitat 4130 – Sand sheets and dunes with dwarf shrub cover
Habitat 4130 is the only natural habitat type present onsite. This habitat type is subdivided into
two substypes based on dominant plant communities (Plate 5-5).
 Habitat 4130 A. This sub-habitat type is located at the northern section of the survey area
in which Zygophyllum-Heliotropium community is the dominant vegetation type. The plant
density and species richness in this habitat can be considered as relatively high when
compared with Habitat 4130 B and Habitat 9600. A total of 12 plants, nine birds, three
mammals and four reptiles were recorded in this habitat. The Bean Caper (Z. qatarense)
and Turnsole (H. kotschyi) are the dominant plant species in this habitat type. Several
flowering and fruiting individuals of Sodom's Apple (C. procera) have been observed.
Furthermore, Sind saw-scaled viper (E. carinatus sochureki) was observed in this area.
Compared with Habitat 4130 B, this area is also relatively undisturbed.
 Habitat 4130 B. This sub-habitat type is located at southern part of the Project site in
which Leptodinia-Calatropis community are the dominant vegetation type. The plant
density and species richness in this vegetation type is low when compared with Habitat
4130 A. This habitat type is dominated by Broom Brush (L. pyrotechnica) whilst scattered
individuals of Sodom's Apple (C. procera) were also observed. The remaining plant
species are restricted in northern section of this habitat. A total of 10 plants, 13 birds, one
mammal and four reptiles were recorded in this habitat. The relatively high bird species
richness in this area could be due to several flowering individuals Broom Brush
(L. pyrotechnica) and Sodom's Apple (C. procera) as the majority of the mixed feeding
units were observed in areas where patches of these species exist.
Habitat 4130 A Habitat 4130 B
Plate 5-5 Habitat 4130 – Sand sheets and dunes with dwarf shrub cover
Habitat 9600 – Disturbed Ground

Habitat 9600 is located at the middle and western sections of the Project site and is considered
as the dominant habitat type onsite. Species richness in this area is very low when compared
with Habitat 4130 A and Habitat 4130 B, which could due to complete alteration of the natural
landscapes into asphalt paved parking spaces (Plate 5-6). Three species of plants and five
species of birds were recorded in this habitat.
Plate 5-6 Habitat 9600 – Disturbed Ground
The location of different habitat types identified at the Project site is provided in Figure 5-16.
Figure 5-16 Habitat map
5.6.3.2 Flora
Species Richness
The study area is sparsely vegetated with a low species diversity of about 12 species (less than
2 % of the total species present in the UAE). The main vegetation consists of scattered large
and small shrubs, and perennial grasses. The majority of the species are present in the northern
and southern sections of the study area. Several species of plants such as Broom Brush
(Leptodinia pyrotechnica), Sodom's Apple (Calatropis procera), alqa (Dipterygium glaucum),
Rusty Indigo (Indigofera colutea) and Devil's thorn (Tribulus terrestris) were observed to be on
the flowering and/or fruiting stages (Plate 5-7).
A B
Plate 5-7 Flora observed on-site (A) Flowering Sodom’s Apple (Calatropis
procera); and (B) Devil’s Thorn (Tribulus terrestris)
All plants recorded during the survey are native species and are well adapted to desert
environment. The status of majority of the plant species observed at the site is currently
unknown as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened
Species has not yet assessed their respective populations (IUCN, 2018). All the recorded plant
species in the study area are commonly found in the desert environment of the Emirate of Dubai
(Jongbloed, 2003). The species list which includes the local distribution, population status, and
habitat observed during the survey is provided in Table 5-35.
Table 5-35 Plant Species recorded at the Project Site
Common Name Scientific Name Local Distribution 1 IUCN Red List 2 Habitat
Family Poaceae
Turgid panic Panicum turgidum Common and Not Yet A, B

grass widespread Assessed
Desert grass Stipagrostis Common and Not Yet A, B

plumosa widespread Assessed
Family Cyperaceae
Cyperus Cyperus Common and Not Yet A, B, C

conglomeratus widespread Assessed
Family Asclepiadaceae
Broom Brush Leptodinia Common and Not Yet A, B, C

pyrotechnica widespread in Assessed
Northern Emirates
Common Name Scientific Name Local Distribution 1 IUCN Red List 2 Habitat
Sodom's Apple Calatropis Common and Not Yet A, B

procera widespread in Assessed
Northern part of the
country
Family Boraginacae
Turnsole Heliotropium Common and Not Yet A, B

kotschyi widespread Assessed
Family Capparaceae
Alqa Dipterygium Common and Not Yet A, B, C

glaucum widespread Assessed
Family Cucurbitaceae
Desert squash Citrullus Common and Not Yet A

colocynthis widespread Assessed
Family Fabaceae
Rusty Indigo Indigofera colutea Locally common Not Yet A

Assessed
Family Tamaricaceae
Tarfa Tamarix cf. Common along the Least Concern A, B

nilotica Arabian Gulf coast
and sandy desert
area
Family Zygophyllaceae
Devil's thorn Tribulus terrestris Not common but Not Yet A, B, C

widespread in urban Assessed
areas
Bean Caper Zygophyllum Common and Not Yet A, B

qatarense widespread along the Assessed
Arabian Gulf coast
Notes: A - Habitat 4130 A; B - Habitat 4130 B; C - Habitat 9600
Sources: 1 - Jongbloed (2003); 2 - IUCN (2018)
Vegetation Type and Species Dominance
The floristic association of the vegetation types in the Project are as follows:
 The Zygophyllum-Heliotropium Type is found mainly in the northern part of the area. The
plant density in this area is relatively high and species richness consists of 12 species,
with unpalatable species the most common. The dominant species are Bean Caper
(Zygophyllum qatarense) and Turnsole (Heliotropium kotschyi) whilst Broom Brush
(Leptodinia pyrotechnica) and Sodom's Apple (Calatropis procera) are also abundant. In
addition, scattered individuals of Alqa (Dipterygium glaucum), Rusty Indigo (Indigofera
colutea), and Devil's thorn (Tribulus terrestris) were noted in this vegetation. Three
species of grass were found to be common in this vegetation type.
 Leptodinia-Calatropis Vegetation Type is found in the southern part of the area. The plant
density and species richness (10 species) in this vegetation type is lower when compared
with Zygophyllum-Heliotropium type. The dominant species are Broom Brush
(L. pyrotechnica) and Sodom's Apple (C. procera). Scattered individuals of Bean Caper
(Z. qatarense), Turnsole (H. kotschyi), Alqa (D. glaucum) and Devil's thorn (T. terrestris)
area were also noted in this vegetation type. Cyperus (Cyperus conglomeratus) is the
only representative of the grass group in this area during the survey.
A B
Plate 5-8 Dominant Plant Specis at the Project site: (A) Leptadenia
pyrotechnica, and (B) H bacciferum
5.6.3.3 Birds
Species Richness
Bird species diversity onsite is low, with 17 species representing seven avian families, which is
approximately 4% of the total number (445) of bird species recorded in the UAE. As provided in
Table 5-36) the avifauna recorded in the Project site is composed of 12 (71 %) breeding
resident, three (18%) introduced species with stable breeding population and two (12%) species
that have resident and migrant populations (Aspinall, 2011 & UBC, undated). The majority of
recorded birds onsite are common and well adapted to desert environment specifically on dune
with dwarf shrubs habitat. Several species of birds such as Rock Dove (Columba livia), Rose-
ringed Parakeet (Psittacula krameri), Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) and House Sparrow
(Passer domesticus) are well known to be associated with human influenced landscapes such
as parks and farmland.
All species recorded during the survey period are classified as Least Concern species in IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2018).
Table 5-36 Bird Species recorded at the Project Site
Common Name Scientific Name OSME 1 IUCN Red List 2 Habitat
Family Phasianidae
Grey Francolin Francolinus Very common and Least Concern B

pondicerianus widely distributed
Family Charadriidae
Red-wattled Vanellus indicus Very common Least Concern A, B

Lapwing resident, passage
migrant and
winter visitor
Family Columbidae
Laughing Dove Spilopelia Abundant and Least Concern A, B, C

senegalensis widespread
resident.
Eurasian Streptopelia Locally abundant Least Concern A, B, C

Collared-dove decaocto
Rock Dove Columba livia Very common Least Concern A, B, C
Family Psittacidae
Rose-ringed Psittacula krameri Common resident Least Concern A, B

Parakeet
Family Meropidae
Green Bee-eater Merops orientalis Common to very Least Concern A, B

common resident
Family Alaudidae
Crested Lark Galerida cristata Very common to Least Concern A, B

abundant resident
Family Cisticolidae
Graceful Prinia Prinia gracilis Very common Least Concern A

breeding resident
Family Leiotrichidae
Arabian Babbler Turdoides Common Least Concern A, B

squamiceps breeding resident
Family Laniidae
Lesser Grey Lanius minor Fairly common Least Concern A, C

Shrike migrant, April to
May, uncommon
Common Name Scientific Name OSME 1 IUCN Red List 2 Habitat
late August to
mid-November
Family Pycnonotidae
White-eared Pycnonotus Common and Least Concern A, B, C

Bulbul leucotis widespread
Red-vented Pycnonotus cafer Common and Least Concern A, B

Bulbul range expanding
Family Sturnidae
Common Myna Acridotheres Very common, Least Concern A, B, C

tristis introduced
Family Nectariniidae
Purple Sunbird Cinnyris asiaticus Common Least Concern A, B

breeding resident
Family Estrildidae
Indian Silverbill Euodice Very common Least Concern A, B

malabarica resident
Family Passeridae
House Sparrow Passer An abundant Least Concern A, B, C

domesticus resident
Sources: 1 - UBC (undated), 2 - IUCN (2018)
Species Relative Abundance and Feeding Guild

The analysis of species relative abundance (RA) values indicates that House sparrow
(P. dometicus) (RA of16%), Indian Silverbill (E. malabarica) (RA of 13%) and Laughing Dove
(Spilopelia senegalensis) (RA of 10%) were the three most abundant species in the Project site.
These species are commonly observed in large feeding flocks onsite.
The Lesser Grey Shrike (Lanius minor) with RA value of 1% is considered as rare or uncommon
species onsite as only one individual was observed during the survey period. The remaining bird
species onsite such as Eurasian Collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), Purple Sunbird
(Cinnyris asiaticus) and Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) are considered common species.
Small mixed flocks or feeding units normally composed two to five individuals of Rose-ringed
Parakeet (Psittacula krameria), Arabian Babbler (Turdoides squamiceps), White-eared Bulbul
(Pycnonotus leucotis), Purple Sunbird (C. asiaticus), Indian Silverbill (E. malabarica) and House
sparrow (P. dometicus) were observed onsite. These small feeding units were usually observed
feeding in areas with flowering and/or fruiting individuals of Sodom's Apple and Broom Brush.
A B
Plate 5-9 Bird Species observed at the Project site: (A) Passer Domesticus,
and (B) Euodice malabarica
The foraging behaviours of bird species onsite were grouped into seven feeding guilds to
determine the feeding behaviours of different bird species and the food resources at the Project
site (Figure 5-17). The granivore/insectivore guild is comprised of species from Family
Columbidae (doves) and Crested Lark (Galerida cristata) whilst omnivores are represented by
Grey Francolin (Francolinus pondicerianus), Arabian Babbler (T. squamiceps) and Common
Myna (A. tristis). Nectivore/insectivore (5.88%), which is comprised of Purple Sunbird
(C. asiaticus) is considered as the rarest feeding guild in the Project area during the survey
period. The analysis of the feeding guilds suggests insects and grains/seed producing plants
are the main food resources onsite.
Figure 5-17 Feeding Guilds of Avifauna Onsite
5.6.3.4 Mammals
Species Richness and Population Status

The mammalian species diversity onsite is low with a total of five species recorded during the
survey period. The majority of the species onsite are listed as data deficient (DD) or additional
data are required to assess the local population in the UAE (ERWDA, 2005). However, except
for the Feral cat (Felis cattus), the remaining mammalian species are classified as Least
Concern species in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2018) (Table 5-37). The
survey points where different species of mammals were recorded onsite are presented in Figure
5-18.
Table 5-37 Mammalian Species recorded at the Project site
Common Name Scientific Name EAD Red List1 IUCN Red List 2 Habitat
Family Muridae
Cheesman’s Gerbillus Least Concern Least Concern B

Gerbil cheesmani
Family Felidae
Feral Cat Felis cattus Not Listed Not Listed B
Family Vespertilionidae
Kuhl’s Pipistrelle Pipistrellus kuhli Data Deficient Least Concern A, B
Common Pipistrellus Data Deficient Least Concern A, B

Pipistrelle pipistrellus
Muscat Mouse- Rhinopama Data Deficient Least Concern A

tailed Bat muscalletum
Sources: 1 - ERWDA (2005), 2 - IUCN (2018)
Non-Volant (Small Mammal)

Two species of small non-volant mammals representing two mammalian families were recorded
onsite. Three individuals of Cheesman’s Gerbril (Gerbillus cheesmani) were caught via
Sherman traps in Habitat B. This nocturnal and solitary rodent species is well adapted in arid
areas and commonly found on sandy soils and mud flats in eastern deserts and is considered
common in the Arabian Peninsula (IUCN, 2018). Although Cheesman’s Gerbril (G. cheesmani)
was only recorded in Habitat B it is highly likely that it is also present in Habitat A since both
habitats are generally classified as Habitat 4310, which is a known habitat of the species. In
addition, potential burrows of this species were also observed in Habitat A.
A juvenile feral cat (Felis cattus) was recorded at Habitat B during the night survey. The
population of feral cat in the UAE is growing exponentially, and impacts associated with feral cat
predation on native species is well documented throughout the world. In the UAE, a further
impact is the cross breeding of wild-domestic felines with Gordon’s Wild Cat (Felis silvestris
gordoni).
Figure 5-18 Mammals and Reptiles recorded at the Project site
Volant Mammals (Bats)
The volant mammal survey using Anabat Express bat detectors recorded three species of
volant mammals representing two mammalian families onsite:
 Kuhl’s Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus kuhli). This species is recognised as one of the most
common bat species in the Middle East. Kuhl’s Pipistrelle is a common and widespread
species, that can be found from Europe to the Middle-east and North Africa. Pipistrelle
bat species have been recorded utilising a variety of habitats, inclusive of urban and
agricultural areas where they predate on insects. It has been reported that urbanisation,
particularly in Dubai, has benefitted this species with the provision of favourable roost
sites and an increase in prey items due to changes in habitat composition. Throughout
the Project site, 60 registrations identified as Kuhl’s Pipistrelle were recorded during the
single evening of monitoring. Highlighted within Figure 5-19 (A), is a registration assigned
to Kuhl’s Pipistrelle. Note that the Fknee (knee frequency) in the call is registered at
42.83khz whilst the Fmin (minimum frequency) and Fmax (maximum frequency) are
41.16khz and 53.11khz respectively. These registrations are all within the assigned call
frequency for Kuhl’s Pipistrelle in the Middle East.
 Common Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). Whilst the species is considered common
and widespread throughout Europe, is yet to be confirmed in the Middle East. In the
instance of detailed bat studies conducted throughout the Middle East to date, there is an
increase in data suggesting that this species may occur from western Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA) to the UAE. As highlighted in Figure 5-19 (B), the call range comprises of a
Fmax at 50.56khz whilst the Fmin is 40.04khz. Of importance however is the Fknee, that
dictates the differentiation between Kuhl’s Pipistrelle and possible Common Pipistrelle
with in this instance, the echolocation registering a Fknee of 41.97khz.
There is limited data available on the distribution of Common Pipistrelle in the Middle
East, with confirmed records obtained in Jordan and more recently, western KSA. In both
instances, the calls recorded are of similar frequency to those obtained on the Project
site. However, detailed assessment of call frequency variation associated with the
pipistrelle family is yet to be conducted in the Middle East, and whilst the species has
provisionally been identified as Common Pipistrelle, there is the possibility that it may be
Arabian Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus arabicus), a species with a similar call range.
Common Pipistrelle will forage in a variety of habitats, including open woodland and
woodland edges, semidesert, farmland, rural gardens and urban areas. Predating on
primarily small moths and flies, this species are biological controls for mosquito
populations. Roosts are commonly found throughout buildings and trees. Owing to large
scale development and creation of landscaped facilities, this species is likely to have
benefitted from urbanisation in the Middle East.
 Muscat Mouse-tailed Bat (Rhinopama muscalletum). A solitary registration assigned to
the species Muscat Mouse-tailed Bat was recorded (Figure 5-19 [C]). This species is
considered common throughout the UAE, however it is primarily associated with
mountain and rocky areas, where suitable roost locations are available. Within the middle
east, this species is at present restricted to the UAE and Oman, with populations
recorded throughout southern Iran.
A. Kuhl’s Pipistrelle Bat echolocation
B. Possible Common Pipistrelle echolocation
C. Muscat Mouse-tailed Bat echolocation
Figure 5-19 Echolocation of Volant Mammals observed at the Project Site
Species relative abundance for this group was not assessed as the Anabat data do not provide
the actual number of individuals recorded onsite. The assessment of feeding guild of
mammalian fauna onsite indicates that insectivorous mammals (all bats) are the dominant
feeding trophic onsite. It suggests insects are stable food resource onsite. The feeding guilds of
the mammalian fauna onsite are presented in Figure 5-20.
Figure 5-20 Feeding Guild of Mammals Onsite
5.6.3.5 Reptiles
Species Richness and Population Status

Species richness of reptiles recorded onsite is low with a total of five species, which is
approximately 9% of the herpetofauna (54) of the UAE. The herpetofauna onsite is composed of
three geckoes, one lizard and one species of snake representing three reptilian families (Table
5-38). With the exception of the Sind saw-scaled viper (Echis carinatus sochureki), which is not
yet assessed by the IUCN, the remaining species on the list are classified as Least Concern
species. All reptilian species recorded during this survey are considered as common in the UAE.
Table 5-38 Reptiles Recorded at the Project Site
Common Name Scientific Name EAD Red List 1 IUCN Red List 2 Habitat
Family Gekkonidae
Arabian Sand Stenodactylus Not yet assessed Least Concern A, B

Gecko arabicus
Dune Sand Stenodactylus Not yet assessed Least Concern A, B

Gecko doriae
Slevin’s sand Stenodactylus Not yet assessed Least Concern A, B

gecko slevini
Family Lacertidae
Schmidt’s Fringe- Acanthodactylus Not yet assessed Least Concern A, B

toed Lizard schmidtii
Common Name Scientific Name EAD Red List 1 IUCN Red List 2 Habitat
Family Viperidae
Sind saw-scaled Echis carinatus Not yet assessed Not yet assessed A
viper sochureki by IUCN
Sources: 1 - ERWDA (2005), 2 - IUCN (2018)

Species RA values for the reptiles indicate that Arabian Sand Gecko (Stenodactylus arabicus) is
the most abundant in the study area with a value of 50% followed by Dune sand gecko
(Stenodactylus doriae) and Slevin’s sand gecko (Stenodactylus slevini) with RA values of 25%
and 12.5%, respectively. The Schmidt’s fringe-toed Lizard and Sind saw-scaled viper with R.A
value of 6.25 % are considered as uncommon in the Project area. The assessment of feeding
guilds of reptiles onsite indicates that insectivore (80%) and carnivore (20%) are the only
feeding guilds in the study area (Figure 5-21). The insectivores are composed of geckos such
as Arabian Sand Gecko and Schmidt’s fringe-toed Lizard. The dominance of the insectivores
suggest that the habitat onsite supports a healthy insect population.
Figure 5-21 Feeding Guild of Herpetofauna observed at the Project site
A B C
Plate 5-10 Reptiles observed at the Project site: (A) Stenodactylus arabicus,
(B) Acanthodactylus schmidti, and (C) Echis carinatus
5.7 Access, Traffic and Transport
5.7.1 Accessibility
The proposed site is accessed via the existing E44 highway (or Al Khail Road or Dubai-Hatta
Highway), a dual 4-lane highway and runs from the west to east. Other major routes to the west
and east of the Project are E311 (Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Road) and E611 (Emirates
Road). The major roads surrounding the development include the Academic City Road on the
south and the Al Awir Road on the north of the proposed development.
From the E44 highway, the Project can be reached via D54 (or Sheikh Zayed Bin Hamdan Al
Nahyan Street) and an internal road to access the Al Aweer STP. The access route of the
development is provided in Figure 5-22.
The proposed development falls under medium industry with a total GFA of 58,089 m2. Detailed
description of the land use at the site is provided in Section 5.10.1.
5.7.2 Traffic
The congestion levels on E44 is high during rush hours. No detailed information is currently
available regarding traffic levels on local access roads around the immediate vicinity of the
Project; however, based on preliminary observations at site, traffic levels appear to be generally
low and uncongested.
5.7.3 Public Transportation
The existing public transport provision to the Project site is a bus-based network, which serves
residents, employees and visitors. The Dubai Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) website
indicates that the following buse services operates in the vicinity of the site:
 Route No. 16 from Sabhka Bus Station to Hatta Bus Station. Operates with one-hour
frequency on Fridays and two-hour frequency from Saturday to Thursday. The nearest
bus stop to the Project site is located in Al Awir Road (named Awir, Sewage Treatment
Plant 1).
 Route No. X23 (from Gold Souq Bus Station to International City), Route No. 366 (from
Rashidiya Metro Station to Silicon Oasis), and Route No. 53 (from Gold Souq Bus Station
to International City). These bus services operate with 15 to 20-minute frequency all day.
The nearest bus stops to the Project are located in Dubai Textile City Main Gate, Dubai
Textile City and International City.
The Project site is a walking distance away from the bus stops (i.e. 1 to 2 km or 20 to 30
minutes walk). The existing bus route with service headway information is shown in Figure 5-23.
Figure 5-22 Existing Road Network
Figure 5-23 Existing Public Transport Network
5.8 Water and Energy Resources
5.8.1 Surface Water Resources in Dubai
5.8.1.1 Introduction
This section describes baseline conditions concerning surface water and energy resources
within the Emirate of Dubai. The information inclused baseline hydrological conditions including
surface water resources found in relative proximity to the Project site.
Groundwater resources are addressed in Section 5.5 of this EIA Report.
5.8.1.2 Existing Condition

The existing surface water bodies in Dubai relative to the Project are listed in Table 5-39 and
locations are provided in Figure 5-24. The nearest water body to the Project site is the Al
Warsan Lake located approximately 2.29 km west of the proposed WtE plant.
Al Warsan Lake is a man-made wetland that has been created by taking treated effluent from
the nearby Al Aweer STP and storing it in an unused quarry area (Nakheel, 2018). The lake is
also frequented by at least 186 bird species, which is roughly 44% of the total number of
species known to inhabit or migrate through the UEA (Nakheel, 2018) and is also home to
various species of plants, mammals, fist and reptiles since it was established.
Table 5-39 Distance of water bodies from the proposed WtE Plant
Name of water resource Distance from the Location relative to the

proposed WtE plant proposed WtE plant
Al Warsan Lake (W1) 2.29 km West
Ponds at Nad Al Sheba area (W2) 7.62 km West
Ras Al Khor (W3) 8.25 km Northwest
Dubai Creek (W4) 11.45 km West
Dubai Coastal area (W5) 23 km West
There are no surface water bodies, creeks or wetlands within the proposed Project’s
construction or operational footprint. Water supply for construction and operation will not be
sourced or abstracted from natural sources or near the site.
Near the project site are small “pockets” (or pools) of surface water features that may have been
formed from the leaching of water from the adjacent industrial site uses. A small surface water
body was observed (GHD 2018) at the toe of the slope of the existing sludge management area
and a small surface water body was observed at the toe of slope of the existing solid waste
landfilling area.
Photo A – Surface Water Body, Suspected Photo B – Surface Water Body, Suspected
Leachate, at Toe of Slope of Sludge Disposal Leachate, at Toe of Slope of Solid Waste
Area (not within Project’s construction limits Landfill Area (not within Project’s
of disturbance) construction limits of disturbance)
Figure 5-24 Surface water resources in the Emirates of Dubai
5.8.2 Energy Resources
5.8.2.1 Energy Resources in the UAE

As per the DEWA Sustainability Report 2016, “our [Dubai’s] generation capacity has expanded
to 10,000 Megawatts (MW) …as of the year 2016.”
The UAE Government developed UAE Vision 2021 to ensure sustainable development while
preserving the environment. It has set a target of a 24% clean energy contribution under the
UAE National Agenda Vision 2021. This could be achieved through the establishment of both
nuclear and clean-energy projects:
 Oil and Natural Gas. The UAE has the seventh largest proven oil and natural gas
reserved in the world, and this industry has been the backbone of the economy since its
foundation. Around 95% of oil reserves and more than 92% of gas reserves belong to the
Emirate of Abu Dhabi (UAE Ministry of Environment and Water, 2014). The Emirate of
Dubai as well as the northern emirates in general have small reserves of oil and natural
gas. Records show that domestic production of natural gas meets about 50% of electricity
demand, with the rest currently being imported (Ministry of Energy, 2015).
 DEWA 2,400 MW Hassyan clean coal power station. Under contract with DEWA, ACWA
Power and Harbin Electric consortium begun construction of a 2,400 MW Hassayan clean
coal power station, based on the Independent Power Producer (IPP) procurement model.
The project is currently under construction as of the timing of the EIA study.
 Solar. The UAE has a massive solar generation potential. The Renewable Energy Policy
Network (2014) reported that the UAE ranked third in the world in the production of
concentrated solar power (CSP) in 2013. Solar power plants installed in the country are
as follows:
– 10 MW solar PV plant in Masdar City;

– Shams 1 – 100 MW CSP in the Western Region of Abu Dhabi; and
– 13 MW solar PV facility at in Seih Al Dahal, first development within the Mohammed
bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park
 Nuclear Power. UAE is investing in a nuclear power plant, which is projected to generate
5.6 GW of low carbon electricity by 2020. The first reactor, with a capacity of 1.4 GW, is
expected to be commissioned in 2018.
 Waste-to-Energy. In addition to the proposed Project what will supply 200 MW, a 100 MW
waste-to-energy facility is planned in Abu Dhabi and a 26 to 29 MW waste-to-energy
facility is planned in Sharjah, namely the Sharjah Multifurel Waste-to-Energy Plant.
The UAE Energy Plan for 2050 was launched by the Vice President and Prime Minister of the
UAE in order to achieve a balance between energy production and consumption by 2050 and
help the country meet international environmental commitments (Gulf News Energy, 2017).
The strategy will achieve the UAE’s energy mix of clean energy (44%), gas (38%), clean coal
(12%) and nuclear energy (6%) as shown in Figure 5-25. The strategy will be implemented
within three main themes:
 Initiatives for the quick transition of power consumption efficiency;
 Diversifying its energy sources; and
 Ensuring security of energy supply.
Diversifying energy resources will focus on finding new solutions that complements power and
transport systems while development and innovation will be undertaken to ensure security of
energy supply.
Figure 5-25 UAE 2050 Energy Goals
Source: Gulf News Energy, 2017
5.8.2.2 Energy Consumption in the UAE

Energy consumption in the UAE has grown at an annual average of 4% over the past six years,
with estimates that it will increase by 5% through 2020 as shown in Figure 5-26 (Strategy&,
2015). According to the FEWA, an average UAE resident consumes 25 kWh of electricity per
day in comparison with the global average of 15 kWh (UAE Ministry of Energy, 2016). The
energy consumption and electricity installed capacity in the UAE from 2008 to 2013 is provided
in Table 5-40. Between 2012 and 2013, energy consumption increased by about 3.84% from
101.5 to 105.4 TWH while installed energy capacity increased by 0.71%.
Figure 5-26 Total electricity consumption and residential percentage total

Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2015; International Energy Agency (IEA) cited by Strategy&, 2015
Table 5-40 Energy consumption and installed capacity in the UAE
Year Energy consumption Installed capacity Peak load (GW)

(TWH) (MW)
2013 105.4 27,374 19.7
2012 101.5 27,180 19.1
2011 95.5 26,086 17.7
2010 89.6 23,199 16.8
2009 84.4 20,565 15.6
2008 77.9 19,814 14.5
Source: UAE Ministry of Energy, 2016
5.8.3 Power and Water Supply in Dubai
DEWA is the service provider of electricity and water supply in the Emirate of Dubai.
5.8.3.1 Power supply

DEWA Sustainability Report (2015) stated that the existing capacity within the water and
electrical generation system is sufficient to meet the demand with a reserved margin minimum
of 15% (Figure 5-27). It reported that resources for future plant additions have already been
identified and budgeted to meet forecasted demand until 2030.
Figure 5-27 Peak demand and planned capacity additions
Source: DEWA Sustainability Report, 2015
Figure 5-28 Peak power demand (MW) and available power capacity (MW)
Source: DEWA Sustainability Report, 2016
DEWA has a number of power plants in Jebel Ali, Al Aweer, and Mohammed bin Rashid Al
Maktoum Solar Park, located approximately 34 km southwest, 1.2 km southwest and 44 km
south from the Project site respectively. The total installed capacity of the power plants is
10,000 Megawatts (MW), which is greater than the 2016 peak demand of 7982 MW (Figure
5-29). DEWA annual statistics for 2016 indicate that the annual average electricity consumption
in 2016 was 43,093 Gigawatt hours (GWh), with the commercial sector reported as having the
highest consumption of electricity, followed by residential areas (Figure 5-30). Energy
consumption for the commercial sector has decreased by 0.37% over the past three years
(2014-2016), while an increase of 0.32% is recorded for residential areas.
Plant upgrades are not required to accommodate the additional 200 MW to be supplied by the
proposed project and that the use of power by the project for construction will not require the
addition of power sources and can be accommodated within the existing capacity of the DEWA
system. The Dubai Economic Report 2017 stated that Dubai government has succedded in
covering 100 percent of the electricity requirements for both industry and the population (DED
2017).
Figure 5-29 Power installed capacity and peak demand in the Emirate of
Dubai
Source: DEWA Annual Statistics Report, 2016
Figure 5-30 Electricity consumption by type of consumer
5.8.3.2 Water consumption
DEWA’s desalination plants are located in Jebel Ali. Total water production capacity in 2016 as
shown in Figure 5-31 taken from the DEWA Sustainability Report for 2016.
Figure 5-31 Total water production capacity in 2016 (million imperial gpd)
DEWA is meeting the Dubai’s needs of water sufficiently from eight water desalination plants
(DED 2017). In 2016, the total installed desalination capacity available in Dubai is 470 million
imperial gallons per day (MIGD) in addition to 32 MIGD from wells (Figure 5-32) while the peak
water demand is 347 MIGD. The current supplies are adequate to support the development
needs of the proposed project and no new sources are to be built.
Data shows that peak water demand increased by 2.96% (from 337 MIGD in 2015 to 347 MIGD
in 2016). Residential areas consumed the most water in 2016 (60.72%) followed by commercial
areas (26.57%) (Figure 5-33). Data indicates that water consumption in residential areas has
increased by 3.68% since 2014, while consumption in commercial areas has decreased by
1.37% since 2014.
The average water consumption in the UAE is reported to be 550 L/day per person, almost
twice the international average of 170–300 L/day per person (Khaleej Times, 2016). According
to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the UAE has the world’s third largest
per capita consumption of water (Fisher, 2014). Water demand and scarcity was one of the
three key issues raised by the United Nations Environment Programme report for the UAE
(Fisher, 2014).
Figure 5-32 Desalination capacity and peak water demand in the Emirate of
Dubai
Figure 5-33 Water consumption by type of customer
5.9 Waste Management
This section relates to Waste Management, and deals with two primary considerations:
1) A general overview of waste management in Dubai
2) Waste management considerations for the Project’s construction and operation phases;
excludes waste management activities20 associated with the plant operation that are
described in Section 2.4 “Description of the Project’s EIA Process (Assumptions and
Limitations)”
The Project is a key strategy of Dubai’s integrated waste management plan. The proposed WtE
plant seeks to change Dubai’s waste management strategy through reuse of municipal solid
waste and reduce the reliance on disposal of waste to landfill
5.9.1 Waste Management in Dubai
In a strategic effort, DM is committed to maintaining Dubai as one of the most sustainable and
physically clean cities in the world. From a historical perspective, landfilling has been the
predominant waste management strategy for the Emirate. However, there is increasing
momentum towards development of strategic alternative waste treatment facilties, including the
proposed Project WtE plant, with a goal of increasing recycling opportunities and minimizing the
harmful environmental impacts associated with landfilling, or dumping in some cases.
Overarching benefits associated with the recycling of waste as a fuel source during operations
are discussed earlier in the EIA report (refer to Section 1.3), such as reduced reliance on fossil
fuels (energy diversification), reduced waste to landfill management practices, and meeting
greenhouse gas and climate targets set by government. For this section, consideration is given
regarding annual waste quantities and waste management planning in Dubai, in general.
In the 2013 Strategic Integrated Plan for Solid Waste (master plan) three possible scenarios
were considered for the future management of waste in Dubai. These included:
 A master plan solution, which involved a multifaceted approach including multiple waste
treatment technologies: source segregation, composting, materials recovery facility
(MRF), anaerobic digestion (AD), and mechanical biological treatment (MBT);
 An energy from waste option, which was considered as the sole technology to be
developed within this scenario and considerations given to economic viability; and
 A landfilling option, which represented a “no change” condition from the existing waste
management strategies at that time.
In recent years, stressors on waste management in Dubai resulted from both rapid construction
of infrastructure and facilities and an increasing population. In general, the UAE has one of the
highest per capita waste levels per person in the world with waste generation rates, estimated to
be approximately 1.66 kg per capita per day of municipal solid waste over the period of 2012 to
2014 (EAD, 2016). The daily domestic waste output in Dubai is slightly higher than the national
average, at about 2.03 kg per person per day, based on the most recent data reported by DM
(The National UAE, 2017).
Table 5-41 shows the estimated daily waste generation volumes in Dubai over a 5-year period.
20
Assessment of the waste storage facility for the bottom ash and flue gas treatment (FGT) residue.
Table 5-41 Estimated Annual Waste Generation from Dubai (tpd)
Year Domestic Waste Horticultural waste Construction Waste
2017 3,570,072 139,938 18,870,968
2016 3,343,724 119,491 15,685,714
2015 3,181,063 116,913 11,116,212
2014 2,596,587 113,399 7,607,943
2013 2,590,020 118,629 7,418,781
2012 2,676,297 138,901 6,630,332
According to the UAE National Bureau of Statistics, the quantity of waste collected in the UAE in
2016 was 34.7 million tonnes with approximately 19.5 million tonnes produced in Dubai (UAE
Federal Competitiveness and Statistics Authority, 2016). In 2016, about 4% of the waste
produced in Dubai was diverted away from landfill (or dumping) to alternative disposal,
treatment or recycling facilities within the Emirate of Dubai.
In 2016, DSC (2016) reported that approximately 19.15 million cubic meters of solid waste was
generated in Dubai, a significant increase of 32.8% compared to the waste generated in 2015.
Construction waste formed the majority of the waste stream comprising 78% of the total solid
waste. This also showed a significant increase of 41% compared to the total construction waste
produced in 2015. In general, construction waste has increased on average by 43.5% per year
over the past three years (2014-2016) (DSC, 2016).
In Dubai, waste recycling generally occurs within the following framework:
 Collection of recycleable materials by private companies. Primary collected waste is Old

Corrugated Containers (OCC). Limited amounts of plastics, glass and metals are also
collected. DM also has begun public-private partnerships to address other types of waste.
 The Jebel Ali Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility is the only facility available within the
Dubai emirate. It should be noted that there is Local Order (No.) 7 for the year 2002 on
Management of Waste Disposal Sites in the Emirate of Dubai; as amended by Local
Order No. (5) of 2003) that waste created in the emirate should be treated in that emirate
and cannot travel across borders.
Dubai waste generally includes the following principle waste streams:
 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), or referred to as “domestic waste” (including MSW from
residential, commercial and industrial sectors)
 Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste
 Horticultural / Agricultural waste
 Hazardous waste
 Medical waste
Dubai has experienced rapid population growth since 1975. Coupled with increasing population,
increasing business activities have also resulted in growing solid waste quantities. The
construction industry represents the largest contributer to waste generation, with significant
growth from years 2015 to 2017, as shown in Figure 5-34. Opportunities for waste recycling and
diversion from landfill, therefore, become important environmental considerations.
Total Waste Generated by type since 2012 - 2017
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Domestic Waste Horticultural waste Construction Waste Sludge

Difficult Waste Other Hazardous
Figure 5-34 Waste Changes over Years
The waste facilities in Dubai as part of the Master plan are detailed in Table 5-42.
Table 5-42 Existing Dubai Waste Management Facilities
Site Type Wastes Accepted Basic Criteria
Al Qusais Landfill General Waste Operated since 1976
From 1998 to 2011, 23.4 M tonnes

recorded
Nearing full capacity
Warsan Landfill General Waste Operated since 2006

No base liner, leachate or landfill gas
management systems
Receives residual waste from Tadweer
MRF
Lehbab Landfill General Waste 30 km from Dubai

Operated by DM
No containment engineering, leachate or
gas management
Al Warqaa Landfill General Waste Closed, domestic waste landfill

No engineering controls
Hatta Landfill General Waste Operated by Hatta Local Municipality
Jebel Ali Landfill General Waste Operational since 2003

No containment engineering, leachate or
gas management
Al Bayadha Landfill C&D Waste 100 million tonnes received between 2005
and 2013
Jebel Ali Landfill Hazardous Waste Single and double-lined engineered

landfills
Tadweer MRF General Waste Operational since 2006 under a 25 year

BOO contract
4000 tonnes per day of Domestic waste
Dirty MRF
Tadweer Composting Horticultural Waste 500 tpd composting

(not operating*)
Al Qusais Tyre Tyres BOO contract with Emirates Recycling

Recycling Group
Estimated 3000 tyres per month
Al Lusaili Recycling C&D 25 year BOOOT contract with Emirates

Facility Recycling LLC
Site Type Wastes Accepted Basic Criteria
Estimated 560 tonnes per hour
Jebel Ali Incinerator Clinical Waste Vertical system with capacity of 19.2
tonnes per day
Scrubbing technology not designed to

remove dioxins
Jebel Ali Treatment Hazardous Waste Built in 2000

Facility
Number of treatment facilities, including
new (2018) liquid waste treatment facility
Source: Mott MacDonald, 2012
Figure 5-35 Location of current DM depots and facilities
Souce: Mott MacDonald, 2013
Figure 5-36 Diagram of the collection areas, and the transfer stations and MRFs
Souce: Mott MacDonald, 2013
5.9.2 Projections of Waste Diversion to WtE plant
Relative to the Project, anticipated inputs to the proposed WtE Plant are anticipated to primarily
include Domestic and/or C&D waste. It is envisaged, in line with the integrated waste
management plan, that alternative recycling or dispoal options will be continued for the
management of other waste streams.
As is typical with most municipalities, it would not be realistic to assume 100-percent capture
and recovery of all the suitable waste to the proposed WtE plant, so some assumptions are
made relative to waste inputs and variability over time. Waste generation data was compiled by
HZI and provided to GHD, including a projection for future years through 2030. While there are
a variety of factors influencing waste generation, a percentage based increase was assumed.
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Figure 5-37 Annual Projected MSW Generation (Tonnes)
Source: Hitachi Zosen Inova (HZI)
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,570,072
3,343,724
3,000,000 3,181,063
2,717,995
2,500,000
2,676,297 2,596,587
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Projected Actual
Figure 5-38 MSW Generation (Projected vs Actual) (Tonnes)
Source: Hitachi Zosen Inova (HZI)
5.9.3 Waste Generation for Project (Construction and Operation)
Consistent with the IFC requirements and regulations in Dubai, waste minimization is a top
priority for the Project. In practicality, however, there will be waste generated from both
construction and operational phases of the project. As a significant infrastructure development,
waste management remains a necessary environmental requirement, and, therefore, an
understanding of estimated generation rates is important to characterizing potential
environmental impacts and necessary mitigation measures and waste management strategies.
This section identifies the Project’s waste generation for both Construction and Operation
phases.
5.9.3.1 Construction Waste

In reference to the Strategic Integrated Plan for Solid Waste (Master plan) prepared for Dubai
Municipality WMD by Mott MacDonald (May 2013), the approximate tonnes of C&D generated
per 1 million AED spent is about 500 tonnes. This can be used as a benchmark for the total
construction waste estimated to be generated from the project. However, as fabrication of the
technology will be completed off-site, there may be less waste attributed to this project than per
typical construction projects in the property and buildings development market.
Solid Waste
Solid wastes generated during construction include:
 Spoil from site clearing activities
 Vegetative waste from site clearing actitivites
 Food waste
 Timber waste
 Concrete and cement waste

 Plastic waste (e.g. packaging)
 Scrap metals
 Paper products (cardboard, or other packaging)
 General refuse consisting of office waste, garbage, etc.
These types of wastes are generally easy to manage, with a large component that can
potentially be reused or recycled. There are existing waste management services and facilities
in Dubai that will be considered for managing construction waste generated by the Project.
Liquid Waste / Effluent

Liquid wastes generated during construction include:
 Domestic sewage
 Equipment and vehicle washdown (e.g. concrete / cement trucks)
The construction workforce is expected to be comprise between 850 to 2000 workers typically,
and exceeding 2,000 workers during periods of peak construction. An approved service provider
will collect sewage from the portable toilets for offsite disposal.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous wastes generated during construction include:
 Paint
 Oil, fuel and grease
 Batteries
 Light bulbs
 Chemical waste (e.g. adhesives)
 Containers of hazardous materials
 Industrial wastes
5.9.3.2 Operation Waste

During operations, domestic waste produced will be incorporated as MSW inputs (feedstock) to
the WtE Plant. Management of residuals (incinerated bottom ash and flue gas treatment
residuals); however, is an important consideration.
Solid Waste
Solid wastes generated during the operation phase include:
 Food waste
 Office waste
 General refuse
Solid wastes that will be generated by the Project consist mainly of domestic wastes such as
food, papers and other residual wastes from office operation. Solid wastes generated by the
WtE plant and its associated facilities shall be segregated into hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes. Non-hazardous solid wastes shall be further classified as compostable, recyclable and
residual waste and shall be managed as appropriate. The WtE plant operator will be responsible
for managing waste to appropriate disposal or recycling facilities.
Liquid Waste / Effluent

Liquid wastes generated during operations include:
 Domestic sewage (operation workforce is expected to be approximately 129 staff and
workers)
 Plant area surface water
Wastewater will be generated from the WtE plant’s use of water for cooling and domestic
purposes. Industrial wastewater generated from the plant site will be treated through the existing
industrial wastewater treatment plant while the domestic wastewater will be treated through the
domestic wastewater treatment facility.
Incineration Bottom Ash (IBA)

Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) is residue left behind in a WtE incinerator and typically about 20 to
30% of the input waste.21 World Bank 1999 report for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (World
Bank Technical Guidance Report) states that the main components of IBA include metals,
glass, and mineral constituents of the waste, but some salts—in particular, sodium chloride
(NaCl). World Bank also states that the most common disposal method is landfilling, and pre-
treatment can be completed via washing or sorting processes.22
The appearance of bottom ash is typically a mix of very fine grey porous material, inert
components such as fine gravel, rocks, glass, ceramics and metallic items (ISWA, 2015). In
most global context, IBA is defined as non-hazardous material, and beneficial reuses are
pursued for recycling of IBA as road aggregates, or similar recycling strategy. Sometimes,
however, IBA material is disposed to landfill either due to its chemical composition or a lack of
appropriate recycling options.
A 2006 report by the ISWA Working Group Thermal Treatment provided a review of IBA across
ISWA countries, including Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands. This report
highlights that, “more and more consideration is given to recycling and reuse of residues for
construction purposes” and in 2006, about 11 million tonnes of IBA was produced within 11
European countries. Legislation regarding the utilization of bottom ash, however, varies
throughout these countries in the EU, USA and Canada.
In some international jurisdictions there are specifications placed on the ash quality or
certification of IBA for reuse.23 From Table 1.2 of the 2006 report by ISWA-WGTT, the following
major chemical constituents are typically found in IBA, and there is noted presence of calcium
and other salts, sometimes in relatively high concentrations.
21
Hitachi Zosen Inova, Re-Use of IBA aggregates in the UK, Draft
22
World Bank Technical Guidance Report for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. USA
(1999).
23
International Solid Waste Association Working Group Thermal Treatment, Subgroup Bottom Ash from WTE-Plants (ISWA-
WGTT, 2006). Management of Bottom Ash from WTE Plants: An overview of management options and treatment methods.
Table 5-43 Major Chemical Constituents Present in MSW Combustor Ash
(ISWA-WGTT, 2006)
Parameter Example IBA percentage range
Silicum 16.8 – 27.4
Calcium 5.12 – 10.3
Iron 2.11 – 11.5
Magnesium 0.19 – 1.18
Potassium 0.72 – 1.16
Aluminium 3.44 – 6.48
Sodium 2.02 – 4.80
In general, relative to the reuse of IBA, proper legislation for reuse criteria applies in most
developed countries, and in Western European context specifically, it is common for regulations
to reference leaching limit values relative to the classification of IBA. In the case of Dubai, there
does not (yet) exist a standard for the reuse and recycling of IBA material, but there are laws for
waste management and disposal, including a series of Technical Guidelines (TGs) published by
the Waste Management Department. Relevant to the management of IBA, recycling or disposal
will need to comply with the applicable TGs.
Specifically, for the Project, approximately 282,269 t/a of mineral aggregates are expected to be
produced out of the IBA treatment and potentially temporarily stored on site in stockpiles if not
straight away transported off site. The covered IBA maturation area is approximately 20,000 m2
(refer to Section 4.5, Figure 4-5-BS13-D). Depending on the bottom ash composition, settling
and leaching processes in the maturation area can take up to 12 weeks. Estimated moisture
content is 14% depending on the actual moisture content of the input material, losses during
treatment, natural evaporation and moistening of the aggregates for dust suppression) and
estimated bulk density is 1400 kg/m3.24
On-site IBA management is provided in Section 4.7.7.1.
Flue gas treatment residue (hazardous waste)

FGT residue will be temporarily stored in silos. A total of five FGT silos are foreseen for the
Project. Each silo has a capacity of approximately 350 m3, corresponding to approximately four
days storage capacity.
5.9.3.3 Decommissioning Waste

Wastes generated during decommissioning will include:
 Food waste
 Solid waste
 Demolition waste
 Wastewater (sewage)
 Hazardous waste
24
All this can only be an estimate as it strongly depends on the actual waste composition and subsequent IBA treatment
process.
5.9.3.4 Summary of Waste Generated
Wastes produced during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project
and their respective estimated quantities are summarised in Table 5-44.
Table 5-44 Summary of Waste Generated
Waste Stream Estimated Quantity
Construction
Food waste 30 to 75 kg/day
Solid waste 30 to 75 kg/day
Wastewater (sewage) 125 to 200 m3/day
Mixed waste 11,520 m3 during the entire construction period
Metals and steel (including pipes) HZI: 7525 m3 during the entire construction period
Besix: 3600 tonnes for the entire construction
period (estimated reinforcement is 18,000 tonnes
with 2% wastage)
Besix: Estimated wastage of 4% from MEP
Concrete Besix: 22,000 m3 for the entire construction period

(estimated 110,000 m3 of concrete will be used with
2% wastage)
Wood / Timber / Plywood HZI: 5,635 m3 during the entire construction period
Besix: 980 m3
Paper Besix: 20 to 30 kg/day
Plastic HZI: 1250 m3 during the entire construction period
Hazardous waste HZI: 10 to 15 tonnes per year
Operation
Food waste (from offices and labour Up to 60 kg/day

accommodation)1
Solid waste (from site offices and labour Up to 120 kg/day

accommodation)
Wastewater (sewage)2 70 m3/ day to 103 m3/ day
Oil drums 50 m3/year to 320 m3/year
Incineration bottom ash (IBA) (non- 39,950 kg/h bottom ash from wet extractor at LPN,
hazardous waste) total for five lines
282,269 t/a mineralic aggregates to be produces
after pre-treatment, processing and maturation
Boiler ash (non-hazardous) 985 kg/h at LPN, total for five lines
Waste Stream Estimated Quantity
Flue gas treatment residue, including fly ash 63 t/day per incineration line
(hazardous waste)
310 t/day per five incineration line
Process water and soft water No wastewater generated by WtE plant process
Decommissioning
Food waste 20 kg/day
Solid waste 15 kg/day
Wastewater (sewage) 4 Unknown (to be confirmed prior to

decommissioning)
Demolition waste 4 Unknown (to be confirmed prior to

decommissioning)
Hazardous wastes 4 Unknown (to be confirmed prior to

decommissioning)
Notes:
1. Based on World Bank figures for average waste generated per capita per day in MENA, with 120 employees
present 24 h/day and 9 employees working in day shift only
2. First value valid during 265 days/year (only 129 own permanent employees), second value valid during
remaining 100 days per year for line overhaul outages occurring sequentially (on the average with an extra 120
external workers; each overhaul lasts 20 days; there are 5 lines)
3. Requires more time for realistic estimates of waste streams for decommissioning steel, concrete, manpower
estimates, etc.
4. To be confirmed during the decommissioning phase. A waste manifest will be prepared to be submitted to DM.
5.10 Land Use and Visual Amenity
5.10.1 Land Use
According to DM Planning Department (2012), the Project site is categorized under Area 2
(Figure 5-39). Area 2 (Metropolitan Area) comprise areas where on-going, on-hold or deferred
mega projects are planned. As detailed in Dubai 2020 Urban Masterplan (DM Planning
Department, 2012), the Project site is classified under ‘land for future development subject to
environmental investigations and detail studies’ (Figure 5-40). Based on existing land use (refer
to Section 4.3.1 Figure 4-3), the majority of the areas adjacent the Project site are industrial and
commercial facilities. A number of residential, institutional and resource/attraction areas are also
found surrounding the Project site. The nearest residential and resource / attraction areas are
found around 300 m north of the site. A detailed discussion on surrounding land uses is
provided in Chapter 4.
Figure 5-39 Land area categories in Dubai
Source: Dubai Municipality Planning Department, 2012
Project site
Figure 5-40 Dubai 2020 Urban Masterplan
Source: Dubai Municipality Planning Department, 2012
5.10.2 Protected Areas
The protected areas in Dubai are provided in Table 5-45 and shown in Figure 5-41. The nearest
protected area is the Al Wohoosh Desert Conservation Reserve located approximately 20 km
east of the site.
Table 5-45 Location of protected areas from the proposed WtE plant
Protected areas Type Distance from the Location relative

proposed WtE to the proposed
plant WtE plant
Hatta Mountain Conservation Terrestrial / 80 km Southeast

Area Mountain
Jabal Nazwa Conservation Terrestrial / 30 km Southeast

Reserve Mountain
Dubai Desert Conservation Terrestrial / 42 km Southeast

Reserve Desert
Al Wohoosh Desert Conservation Terrestrial / 20 km East

Reserve Desert
Al Marmoum Conservation Terrestrial / 42 km South

Reserve Desert
Ghaf Nazwa Conservation Terrestrial / 31 km Southeast

Reserve Desert
Jabal Ali Marine Sanctuary Marine / 53 km Southwest

Coastal
Figure 5-41 Proximity of the Project site from Protected Areas
5.10.3 Existing Conditions
The existing site is operational as a vehicle storage area, and surrounding areas comprise
industrial uses and there are no identified sensitive receptors within the existing site footprint.
There are no existing buildings or structures within the existing Project footprint. Some
vegetation are found within the site – these are discuseed in Section 5.5.3.
Furthermore, the design of the WtE plant is seeking to remain consistent with the industrial
conditions prevalent at the adjacent sites. A site walkthrough was undertaken at the site to
assess the existing land uses around the project site. The image below (Figure 5-42) shows an
elevation view of the existing site conditions taken in March 2018 during an aerial survey via
drone that was completed by BESIX, and Figure 5-43 and Table 5-46 includes photos showing
the general “view shed” surrounding the project site.
Figure 5-42 View of the existing site conditions
D
A
D
A
PROJECT
C SITE
B
DM Plant
Nursery
B C
Figure 5-43 View shed surrounding the Project site
Table 5-46 View shed surrounding the Project site
Direction Vew Shed (Photographic Representation) Observations
Northerly A roadway borders the

facing Villas at Desert site to the north, so
Palm Polo Club
viewshed there is about 300 to
(existing 400 m of separation
conditions) from the proposed
plant to the residential
area. Residential view
shed (at the southern
edge) will face the
proposed WtE plant.
Photo taken (zoomed in) towards the suspected

residential areas at the Dubai Polo Club, about 300
to 400 m from the proposed WtE plant facility.
Southerly Generally southerly

facing DEWA Power facing view (in
viewshed Station Stacks background), showing
(existing existing power plant
conditions) stacks beyond the site
limits.
Photo taken facing generally south, power plant

stacks are visible in distance.
Easterly facing Generally easterly

viewshed Dubai Municipality facing view, industrial
Plant Nursery
(existing sites beyond the
conditions) project site, showing
the existing paved
parking area in the
foreground.
Direction Vew Shed (Photographic Representation) Observations
Westerly Generally westerly

Al Aweer STP (left) and
facing Dubai Textile City beyond facing view, showing
viewshed Dubai Textle City
(existing beyond and Al Aweer
conditions) STP to the left of the
photo, sludge disposal
area shown in
foreground (Note that
this photo is taken
from top of berm, and
western berm will hide
the proposed facilities
with exception of taller
building walls and/or
stack.)
5.11 Socio-Economics, Culture and Health
5.11.1 Socio-Economic Factors
5.11.1.1 Population and Demography

In 2017, the population of the Emirate of Dubai was approximately 2.97 million (Dubai Statistics
Center, 2017). Around 91.76% of the population comprises expatriates while the remaining
8.23% are Emiratis. The active day population comprises tourists, sailors, temporary residents
and persons working in Dubai but living outside the city.
The Project site is located in Warsan
2, Dubai (Sector 5), which had a population of 764 at the end of 2017. The annual population
growth rate in Dubai from 2013 to 2015 was recorded at 5%, which indicated a decrease from
the annual growth rate of 7% recorded between 2009 and 2010 (DED, 2016).
Based on data provided by Dubai Statistics Center (2016), the population in Dubai has the
following associated demographics:
 At the end of 2017, Dubai’s population consisted predominantly of males (70.18%). This
is attributed to an influx of foreign workers consisting mostly of working-age males who
are not accompanied by their family members;
 About 58.46% (1,740,053) of the population is concentrated in the 25–44 age bracket,
where the 30–34 age group has the highest number of individuals representing 17.91% of
the total population;
 The total dependency ratio in 2017 was 19%, which indicates that less than a quarter of
the population in the Emirate comprise of children (aged under 15 years) or adults over
65 years;
 The Project site is part of Warsan 2, Sector 5 of Dubai, which had a reported population
of 764 in 2017 equivalent to 0.02% of Dubai’s population; and
 The estimated number of active individuals during peak hours (day) in Dubai is 4.1 million
individuals, which is attributed to additional 1.186 million workers residing outside Dubai
and temporary residents who move to Dubai during daytime for economic reasons.
A breakdown of socio-economic indicators in the Emirate of Dubai for the years 2013 to 2016
(DSC, 2016) is provided in Table 5-47. Economic indicators show that the majority of the
workforce is male, while the education indicator shows a very high literacy rate and good health
and living condition indicators.
Table 5-47 Socio-demographic indicators in the Emirate of Dubai
Indicators 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Demography (numbers)
Males (population by thousands) 1579.1 1613.2 1703.4 1888.5 2088.8
Females (population by thousands) 634.7 714.2 743.3 810.0 887.6
Educational indicators (percentage)
Literacy rate (15 years and above) 97.3 97.4 97.4 NA NA
Illiteracy rate for males (15 years 2.7 2.7 2.8 NA NA

and above)
Illiteracy rate for females (15 years 2.5 2.5 2.4 NA NA

and above)
Economic indicators (percentage)
Unemployment rate for males 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
Unemployment rate for females 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5
Source: DSC, 2017
Note: NA – Not available
5.11.1.2 Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

The Dubai Economic Profile (Department of Economic Development – Dubai (DED) 2016)
shows that the Emirate of Dubai accounts for 30% of the UAE’s total GDP. Since 2014, Dubai’s
GDP increased by 0.3% resulting in a growth rate of 4.1% in 2015 (DED, 2016). In 2016, the
real GDP growth rate was 2.9% as opposed to 4.1% in 2015 (DED, 2017) (Table 5-48).
Stimulant policies applied by the Federal Government and the Government of Dubai contributed
in boosting the economy, and hence, the continuation of growth in all sectors (DED, 2017).
Table 5-48 Dubai GDP Growth Rate
Unit 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*
Annual growth, % 3.5 3.0 4.1 4.6 3.8 4.1 2.9 3.1
Source: Dubai Statistics Center as cited in DED, 2017
* Forecast: Dubai Economy
In 2016, the wholesale, retail and repairing services sector (27.6%) has been contributing the
most to Dubai’s GDP followed by transport sector (11.6%), financial activities (10.6%), while real
estate and construction added 6.6% and 6.4%, respectively (Table 5-49) (DED, 2017).
Table 5-49 Dubai’s GDP Structure
Sectors 2015 2016
Wholesale and Retail Trade 27.9 27.5
Manufacturing 9.4 9.5
Transport and Storage 11.4 11.6
Real Estate 6.4 6.6
Finance and Insurance 10.8 10.6
Construction 6.7 6.4
Accommodation and food 4.7 5.1
Others 22.7 22.7
Source: Dubai Economic Profile 2017
UAE Interact (2015) reported that the UAE government plans to increase the contribution of the
non-oil sector to 80% of the nation’s GDP from the present figure of 70% in the next 10 to 15
years. The government has a policy of economic diversification to reduce dependence on oil
reveue to the overall GDP of the country (UAE Interact, 2015).
The economic structure is further broken down by activity area in Table 5-50. This shows that
the arts, entertainment and recreation sector only contributed 0.2% of economic activity in 2015
and construction activities contributed 6.8% of activity.
Table 5-50 Economic activity area
Economic Activity Growth 2015 2014

Rate (%)
Percentage Value Percentage Value
Contribution (Mill AED) Contribution (Mill
AED)
Agriculture, forestry and 3.0 0.1 475 0.1 461

fishing
Mining and quarrying -3.0 1.8 6,699 2.0 6,904
Manufacturing 3.4 9.8 36,019 9.9 34,845
Electricity, gas, steam 5.7 2.4 8,882 2.4 8,406

and air conditioning
supply
Water supply; 2.1 0.0 103 0.0 101

sewerage, waste
management and
remediation activities
Construction 0.9 6.8 24,925 7.0 24,698
Wholesale and retail 4.9 27.9 101,941 27.7 97,141

trade; repair of motor
Economic Activity Growth 2015 2014
Rate (%)
Percentage Value Percentage Value
Contribution (Mill AED) Contribution (Mill
AED)
vehicles and
motorcycles
Transportation and 5.1 11.8 43,191 11.7 41,098

storage
Accommodation and 8.0 4.4 16,150 4.3 14,949

food service activities
Information and 5.2 3.9 14,100 3.8 13,408

communication
Financial and insurance 3.7 10.8 39,648 10.9 38,248

activities
Real estate activities 3.5 6.3 23,106 6.4 22,327
Professional, scientific 2.3 3.3 12,172 3.4 11,903

and technical activities
Administrative and -0.3 2.5 9,187 2.6 9,219

support service activities
Public administration 4.3 5.2 18,967 5.2 18,188

and defence;
compulsory social
security
Education 9.5 0.6 2,302 0.6 2,101
Human health and 9.7 1.0 3,670 1.0 3,344

social work activities
Arts, entertainment and 7.3 0.2 820 0.2 764

recreation
Source: Dubai Statistics Center 2015
The Project is included within the electricity and gas sector. The electricity and gas sector has
made much progress in recent years, reaching an output (in constant prices) of AED9.3 billion in
2016, and a growth rate of 4.6% compared to 2015 (DED, 2017). Employment in the electricity
sector increased by around 19% between 2010 the 2015 as a result of the increasing demand
for electricity and gas due to population growth and from rising demand from the industrial, real
estate and tourism sectors (DED 2017).
5.11.2 Archaeological and Heritage Resources
The proposed WtE plant will be located in a disturbed environment surrounded by industrial and
commercial (i.e. warehouse and stores) facilities.
The archaeological and heritage sites in the Emirate of Dubai are listed in Table 5-51 and and
their locations shown in Figure 5-44. All the archaeological and cultural resources identified by
the Government of Dubai, represented by Dubai Culture, are considerably distant (more than
18 km) from the proposed WtE plant and are not anticipated to be affected during the
construction and operation of the Project.
Table 5-51 Archaeological and heritage resources in Dubai
Archaeological and Cultural sites Location from the site Approximate distance
from the WtE Plant
Archaeological sites
Saruq Al-Hadid Archaeological Site South 55.0 km
Jumeirah Archaeological Site West 20.70 km
Heritage sites
Heritage House Northwest 19.10 km
Traditional Architectural Museum Northwest 19.60 km
Diving Village Northwest 19.45 km
Sheikh Saeed Al Maktoum House Northwest 19.45 km
Majilis Ghorfat Umm Al Sherif West 21.57 km
Jumaa and Obaid Bin Thani House Northwest 19.39 km
Hatta Heritage Village Southeast 79.27 km
Heritage Village Northwest 19.79 km
Al Fahidi Historical Neighbourhood Northwest 18.31 km
Al Ahmadiya School Northwest 19.04 km
Sources: Dubai Culture, 2017; Dubai Tourism (2018)
Figure 5-44 Archaeological and heritage resources in the Emirate of Dubai
5.11.3 Public Health
Health indicators (Table 5-52) show a very good health and living conditions are experienced in
the Emirate of Dubai. Based on the records of Dubai Health Authority (cited in DSC, 2016), the
leading causes of morbidity in 2016 was chickenpox (38%) followed by pneumonia (12%) (Table
5-53).
Table 5-52 Health indicators in the Emirate of Dubai
Indicators 2013 2014 2015
Health indicators
Average number of doctors per 1000 3.7 3.0 3.6

population (excluding administrators)
Average number of beds per 1000 population 1.8 1.8 2.0
Number of hospitals 31 33 35
Living conditions
% of households with access to potable water 100 100 100
% of households with access to electricity 100 100 100
% of households with access to sanitation 100 100 100

facilities
Source: DSC, 2016
Table 5-53 Leading causes of morbidity in the Emirate of Dubai (2016)
Disease Nationality
Emirati Non- Emirati Grand Total
Number % Number % Number %
Chickenpox 434 43 3,642 37 4,076 38
Pneumonia 130 13 1,154 12 1,284 12
Viral hepatitis ( B ) 39 4 801 8 840 8
Malaria 0 0 826 8 826 8
Viral hepatitis ( C ) 125 12 544 6 669 6
Pulmonary 26 3 622 6 648 6

tuberculosis
Herpes zoster 39 4 554 6 593 5
Typhoid and para 7 1 238 2 245 2

Typhoid
Mumps 21 2 153 2 174 2
Disease Nationality
Emirati Non- Emirati Grand Total
Number % Number % Number %
Viral hepatitis ( A ) 0 0 0 0 0 0
HIV / AIDS 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 181 18 1,253 13 1,434 13
Total 1,002 9 9,787 91 10,789 100
Source: DSC, 2016
6. Assessment of Environmental Impacts
6.1 Introduction
This section identifies and evaluates the environmental and social impacts of construction and
operation of the proposed Project. The assessment of the impacts was based on the Project
information provided by the Proponent and EPC (Section 4) and the baseline conditions of the
Project site and its vicinity (Section 5).
The identification and assessment of impacts was performced through a process comprising on-
site observations, field surveys for acquiring quantitative baseline data, literature review,
consultation with DM and experience from similar projects. In addition, quantitative air, noise
and odour modelling was carried out for the operational phase of the Project.
The degree of impact was classified into five levels (Extreme, High, Medium, Low and Negligible
as per the methodology provided in Section 2.3.2), documented in this section along with the
impacts parties and nature of the impact (i.e. beneficial/positive or adverse/negative impact).
Where negative impacts are identified, mitigation measures are discussed to avoid or minimise
the impact to an acceptable level (Section 7).
The following aspects were examined for the potential impacts, detailed in the corresponding
subsections of this section:
 Greenhouse gas assessment  Access, Traffic and Transport
 Air quality  Water and Energy Resources

 Noise  Waste
 Geology, Soil and Groundwater  Land Use and Visual Amenity
 Biodiversity and Conservation  Socio-economic, Culture and Health
6.2 Greenhouse Gas Assessment
6.2.1 Scope of Work
This scope of work includes a quantitative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assessment for
the Waste to Energy (WtE plant) plant. The assessment considers emissions from the following
sources:
 Construction
– Fuel and electricity consumption
– Construction personnel commuting
– Freight of construction materials and waste
– Disposal of construction waste
 Operation
– Energy (fuel and electricity) consumption during operation of the WtE plant:
 Backup generators
 Diesel used during start-up and shut-down
 Ancillary and own electricity use
– Combustion of feedstock
– Sulphur hexafluoride in electrical equipment
– Employee commuting
– Transport of feedstock to the WtE plant
– Disposal of residual WtE plant process by-products
 Avoided emissions
– Landfill methane emissions (avoidance of wastes disposed to landfill)
– Electricity displacement (generation of electricity from non-fossil fuel sources)
6.2.2 International Standards
The GHG emissions assessment considered the following key international standards and
guidelines:
 Equator Principles
 International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Environmental and
Social Sustainability
 World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines
These standards require that Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions be quantified annually where a
project produces more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions annually.
Where Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are expected to be more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2
equivalent (CO2-e) annually, an alternatives analysis would need to be conducted to evaluate
less GHG intensive alternatives.
Public reporting requirements would be triggered by GHG emissions greater than 100,000
tonnes of CO2-e during the operational phase of the project.
6.2.3 Methodology
The GHG emissions assessment was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the guidelines
listed above. The guidelines do not recommend any particular standard, methodology or
protocol for the GHG assessment. This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with
the general principles of:
 2006 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories; and
 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised
Edition) developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the
World Resources Institute (GHG Protocol).
These are considered representative of good international practice in GHG accounting.
6.2.3.1 Greenhouse gases considered

The greenhouse gases considered in this assessment and the corresponding global warming
potential (GWP) for each GHG are listed in Table 6-1. The GWPs from the IPCC Fourth
Assessment report were used in this assessment for consistency with the IPCC guidelines.
Table 6-1 Greenhouse gases and 100 year global warming potentials
Greenhouse gas Global warming potential
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 25
Greenhouse gas Global warming potential
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 298
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) 22,800
6.2.3.2 Emission scopes

Emissions have been separated into Scope 1 and 2 in accordance with the GHG Protocol.
These scopes are defined as follows:
 Scope 1 emissions are GHG emissions created directly by a person or business from
sources that are owned or controlled by that person or business.
 Scope 2 emissions are GHG emissions created as a result of the generation of electricity,
heating, cooling or steam that is purchased and consumed by a person or business.
These are indirect emissions as they arise from sources that are not owned or controlled
by the person or business who consumes the electricity.
Scope 1 emissions are produced by the combustion of fuels in vehicles and equipment, which
the Proponent owns and has operational control over. Emissions occurring during both
construction and operation of the facility have been considered in the assessment.
Scope 2 emissions arise from the consumption of electricity at the development site, in plant
and equipment that is owned and operated by the Proponent. Note that emissions created as a
result of combustion of waste for electricity generation at the WtE plant facility are considered
scope 1 emissions (not scope 2).
Scope 3 emissions, i.e. GHG emissions that are generated in the wider economy as a
consequence of a person’s or business’s activities, are not required to be estimated for this
project (such as downstream use of electricity generated at the site and embodied emissions in
materials). However, Scope 3 emissions associated directly with freight of construction
materials and construction waste, and landfill emissions from construction and operational
waste were included to indicate the magnitude of these emissions.
6.2.3.3 Exclusions
Exclusions from the GHG assessment included:
 Consequential emissions from use of electricity produced
 Scope 3 emissions including:
– Transmission and distribution emissions of electricity imported and exported
– Embodied emissions of construction materials
– Emissions from extraction and transport of fuels
 Emissions associated with vegetation removal were assumed to be negligible, as the
project area is already mostly cleared of dense areas of vegetation, and new vegetation
will be added with landscaping improvements and palm tree buffer along select property
boundary.
 Emissions from the generation, storage, or use of perfluorocarbons. The development is
unlikely to store, generate, or use perfluorocarbons.
 Emissions associated with the leakage of hydrofluorocarbons. The project may use
negligible quantities of hydrofluorocarbons for refrigeration and air conditioning during
construction and operation. However, the associated emissions are likely to be negligible
compared with other emissions from the project and therefore were excluded from the
assessment.
 Other emissions considered to be negligible compared with the total emissions for the
project, including emissions associated with:
– the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the project site

– combustion of oils and greases and minor fuels at the plant
– wastewater treatment emissions during construction or operation
6.2.3.4 Assumptions
Activity data was sourced from the Proponent’s facility design documentation, and email
correspondence. The key information provided includes:
 A construction period of 49 months
 A project life of 35 years
 A daily treatment capacity of 5,666 tonnes/day (tpd) of waste at nominal design capacity
 An annual operating capacity of approximately 8000 hours
 An annual scheduled outage of 496 hours
 Average calorific value of waste of 9.5 MJ/kg
 Gross power output of 208 MWe
 Net power output of 193 MWe
Where activity data was unavailable, conservative assumptions were applied, as detailed in
Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Assumptions for the GHG assessment
Parameter Assumptions
Construction Emissions
Fuel generators Fuel consumption and machine scheduling data were not
provided. Equipment ratings were provided. As a result, fuel
emissions were calculated by applying the following parameters
to equipment ratings:
 Power factor of 0.95 adapted for electricity consumption
recommended by Dubai Electricity & Water Authority,
Regulations for Electrical Installations (2017)
 20 hours of operation for all equipment per construction day
 Conservative diesel generator efficiencies
 Total estimated diesel use was 19,800 kL over the
construction period.
Staff travel Travel distance (one-way) for ‘Client’s Site Management’, ‘HZI
Site Management’ and ‘HZI Subcontractor Management’ was
conservatively estimated as 50 km. Travel was assumed to be by
gasoline fuel passenger transport with a fuel economy of
0.124 L/km. Other construction workers would travel to site by
bus.
Total estimated gasoline use was 84 kL over the construction

period.
Freight of materials and Travel distance for normal and heavy transport of construction
waste materials conservatively assumed as 500 km (one way).
Travel distance for transport of construction waste from WtE

plant to Al Qusais waste landfill estimated to be 24 km, with a
total number of 190 trips during construction.
Construction waste Approximately 6,300 tonnes of construction waste was estimated

disposal as requiring disposal to landfill.
Operations Emissions
Electricity usage Electricity from the grid is only consumed during times of
scheduled maintenance, as all on-site electricity demand will be
met by the WtE plant’s energy production. Operational usage
was estimated as 8.9 GWh/a.
Start-up and shutdown Diesel is used during start-up and shutdown of the incinerator
lines. Estimated fuel usage for the five lines is 980 kL/a.
Freight of feedstock Travel distance for feedstock from Al Qusais waste landfill and/or
additional transport to the WtE plant was estimated to be 24 km.
This allows for either mining of waste from the existing landfill or
transporting feedstock from source the additional distance to the
landfill.
Operational waste Approximately 400 ktonnes/a of waste was estimated as

disposal requiring disposal to landfill during operations.
Staff travel Travel distance (one-way) for ‘off-site dwellers’ was

conservatively estimated as 50 km.
Travel was assumed to be by gasoline fuel passenger transport
with a fuel economy of 0.124 L/km and total estimated gasoline
use of 30 kL/a
Fuels for emergency A quantity of diesel use for emergency power generation was
generators applied to two weeks of continuous running, with estimated diesel
fuel use of 170 kL/a.
Sulphur hexafluoride Sulphur hexafluoride may be used in electrical equipment

(substation and circuit breakers). A conservative amount of the
total storage inventory was assumed to be leaked each year.
Waste incineration 1,888,000 tpa of waste incinerated. The WtE plant can accept
municipal solid waste (MSW), refuse-derived fuel (RFD) from the
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and commercial and industrial
(C&I) waste. Waste composition is based on the typical
composition of municipal solid waste in Dubai.
Derived emission factor (EF) for the combustion of incinerated
waste is 0.43 t CO2-e/ t waste.
Operations Emissions avoided
Electricity displacement The WtE plant will generate approximately 1,400 GWh/a
electricity net, which will be exported to the grid. This is
equivalent to grid electricity displaced (not derived directly from
fossil fuels).
The Scope 2 EF for electricity was sourced from Dubai’s DEWA
Sustainability Report equal to 0.4382 kg CO2-e/ kWh.
Waste emissions 1,888,000 tpa of waste will be incinerated, instead of landfilled,

avoided thus avoiding emissions of methane from landfill.
Derived EF for waste avoided was 1.3 t CO2-e/ t waste.
6.2.4 Calculation procedures
The derivation of the estimated total fuel and electricity use, waste disposed or avoided and
transport were as described in the table above, for each parameter. Each parameter was
multiplied by the relevant emission factor (EF) to obtain the total carbon dioxide equivalent.
These values were then summed to estimate the total GHG emissions attributable to the project
for the construction and operations stages. Emission factors were based on those available at
the time of the assessment. Note that potential future changes in emission factors were not
considered.
6.2.5 Assessment results
6.2.5.1 Predicted project emissions

The GHG emissions for the project were calculated based on estimated energy usage during
construction and operations, and electricity generated in a business-as-usual scenario. The
emissions results were assessed based on the project life (i.e. 30 years) and on an annualised
basis. These are discussed below.
Project life emissions

Project life Scope 1 and 2 emissions are summarised in Table 6-3. Emissions are estimated as
70 kt CO2-e during construction and 25,300 kt CO2-e during operations. Emissions avoided by
not sending waste to landfill amount to approximately 71,700 kt CO2-e. Emissions avoided by
generating electricity on-site (and hence displacing electricity produced from fossil fuels) are
approximately 18,600 kt CO2-e. Overall, this results in a net reduction in emissions of
approximately 64,900 kt CO2-e over the life of the project.
Table 6-3 Summary of project life greenhouse gas emissions
Project phases Emissions (kt CO2-e)
Scope 1 & 3 Scope 2 Total emissions
Construction
– Fuels - diesel generators 53 53
– Staff travel <1 <1
– Freight of materials and waste 14 14
Project phases Emissions (kt CO2-e)
– Waste disposal 2 2
Total construction emissions 70 0 70
Operational emissions
– Fuels from line start-ups and shutdowns 76 76
– Ancillary and own-use electricity 117 117

consumption
– Freight of feedstock 308 308
– Sulphur hexafluoride 6 6
– Staff travel 2 2
– Feedstock incineration 23,567 23,567
– Operational waste disposal 1,213 1,213
– Fuels for emergency generators 14 14
Total operational emissions 25,186 117 25,303
Operations emissions avoided
– Landfilled waste – 71,723 0 – 71,723
– Electricity generation 0 – 18,559 – 18,559
Total emissions avoided – 71,723 – 18,559 –90,282
Net lifetime emissions – 46,467 – 18,442 –64,909
Annualised emissions
Annualised scope 1 and 2 emissions for the project are summarised in Table 6-4. Emissions are
estimated as approximately 840 kt CO2-e/a during operations. Emissions avoided by not
sending waste to landfill amount to approximately 2,400 kt CO2-e/a. Emissions avoided by
generating electricity on-site (and hence displacing electricity produced from fossil fuels) are
approximately 620 kt CO2-e/a. Overall, this results in a net reduction in emissions of
approximately 2,200 kt CO2-e/a.
Table 6-4 Summary of annual greenhouse gas emissions
Project phases Emissions (kt CO2-e/a)
Operational emissions
– Fuels from line start-ups and shutdowns 3 - 3
Project phases Emissions (kt CO2-e/a)
– Ancillary and own-use electricity

- 4 4
consumption
– Freight of feedstock 10 - 10
– Sulphur hexafluoride <1 - <1
– Staff travel <1 - <1
– Feedstock incineration 786 - 786
– Operational waste disposal 40 - 40
– Fuels for emergency generators <1 - <1
Total operational emissions 840 4 844
Operations emissions avoided
– Landfilled waste – 2,391 0 – 2,391
– Electricity generation 0 – 619 – 619
Total emissions avoided – 2,391 – 619 – 3,010
Net annual emissions – 1,551 – 615 – 2,166
6.2.5.2 Impact and alternatives assessment
United Arab Emirates baseline greenhouse gas emissions

A summary of estimated GHG emissions for the UAE for the year 2014 is provided in Table 6-5.
The summary data was sourced from the World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators
Tool, accessed 09/08/18. Data for 2014 was the most recent data available at the time of this
report.
Table 6-5 Summary of greenhouse gas emissions for United Arab Emirates for
2014
Source and sink category Emissions (Mt CO2-e)
Energy 205.44
Industrial processes 9.80
Agriculture 1.68
Land use change and forestry -0.21
Waste 4.60
Total national emissions 221.51
Net national emissions 221.29
Based on currently available data, the average annual GHG emissions for the project are
estimated as approximately 0.84 Mt CO2-e per annum (refer to Table 6-4). Compared with
estimated GHG emissions for the UAE in 2014 of 221 Mt CO2-e, the average annual emissions
from the project were estimated to be approximately 0.4% of the UAe’s annual GHG emissions.
The emissions from the WtE plant are more than offset by avoided landfill methane emissions
and emissions from on-site electricity generation displacing existing sources as shown in Table
6-3 and Table 6-4. Overall, the WtE plant project will result in an estimated net reduction of
2,200 kt CO2-e per year and 64,900 kt CO2-e over the project life. This is significantly better
than the ‘do nothing’ alternative where waste would continue to be landfilled and electricity
generated from other sources including fossil fuels.
Emissions intensity
The net emissions intensity is -1.2 CO2-e/t waste (total lifetime emissions divided by total
lifetime waste treated). This means that for every tonne of waste sent to the waste to energy
plant, approximately 1.2 t CO2-e is avoided.
The net emissions intensity of electricity production from the incineration of waste was
estimated as 0.6 kg CO2-e/ kWh (total lifetime emissions divided by total lifetime electricity
output). This is comparable with the current carbon intensity for Dubai of 0.43 kg CO2-e/kWh
and is significantly lower than fossil fuel power projects emitting approximately 0.78 kg CO2-e
/kWh (emission factor from UK’s DEFRA Conversion Factors for Middle East).
6.2.6 Summary of Impacts
Key features of the WtE plant GHG emissions profile includes:

 The total construction emissions were estimated at 70 kt CO2-e during the construction
period of 49 months.
 The total emissions associated with operations were estimated as 25,300 kt CO2-e over
the project’s 30 year lifetime.
 Emissions avoided by not sending waste to landfill were estimated as 71,700 kt CO2-e
over the project’s 30 year lifetime equating to 2,400 kt CO2-e avoided annually.
 Emissions avoided by generating electricity from waste were estimated as 18,600 kt CO2-
e over the project’s 30 year lifetime equating to 620 kt CO2-e avoided annually.
 Net total emissions reductions over the construction and operation stages were estimated
as 64,900 kt CO2-e.
 Average annual emissions reductions are estimated as 1.2 t CO2-e/t waste treated.
The assessed impact level on climate during the construction and operation phases of the
Project (before implementation of mitigation measure) is provided in Table 6-6.
Table 6-6 Potential unmitigated impacts on climate change and meteorology
Potential impact Initial impact Status of

Impact
Likelihood Consequence Impact Aspect
Rating impacted
Construction phase
GHG emissions from Almost Insignificant Low Atmosphere Negative

consumption of fuel and certain
electricity for commuting
of construction
personnel, delivery of
construction materials
and disposal of
construction waste
Operation Phase
Emission from the WtE Almost Moderate High Atmosphere Positive

plant operation certain
6.3 Air Quality
6.3.1.1 Air Quality

Potential air quality impacts during construction and site development will be emissions from
heavy vehicle exhausts and dust generation during earthworks and wind erosion from disturbed
soil surfaces.
Heavy machinery and plant

Emissions from heavy vehicles would consist of products of combustion, including oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), SO2, PM10 and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Vehicle emissions will arise from diesel powered equipment used during construction.
Emissions from heavy equipment will be minimised by ensuring all vehicles on-site are well
maintained and operated in an efficient manner.
Emissions from vehicles on-site are not considered to represent a significant source of
emissions.
Construction dust
The impacts of dust emissions fall under two distinct categories, being health and amenity.
Potential health impacts are attributable to the concentration of respirable particles in ambient
air. Respirable particles of dust (PM10) would have maximum impact under light winds and
stable atmospheric conditions. These conditions most frequently occur overnight and very early
in the morning and therefore, become more significant only if construction operations extend
outside typical operating hours. PM2.5 has not been assessed for the Project due to insufficient
available data.
The presence of total suspended particles (TSP), greater than 35 micron, is likely to affect
amenity by way of reducing visibility (whilst in the air column) and by soiling of materials via dust
deposition. Amenity impacts are most marked in high wind conditions, when larger particles may
be displaced and transported a significant distance before being deposited and so soiling
surfaces. Mitigation of amenity related dust impacts would in turn act to reduce health impacts
due to dust emissions.
The extent to which these emissions may impact on the surrounding sensitive land uses would
depend upon a number of site-specific factors.
Dust emissions will arise during construction of the plant. The following construction activities
involve the movement and placement of soil, rock etc. and can be the source of dust emissions:
 Mechanical disturbance: dust emissions resulting from the operation of construction
equipment and vehicles
 Wind erosion: dust emissions from exposed and disturbed soil surfaces under high wind
speeds during construction
Extensive inventories for PM10 and TSP emissions from earth moving machinery are commonly
used to characterise the source dust emission rates from activities on-site during the
construction phase. At this stage, the reference design has not specified the schedule of
operations and the exact type and number of dozers, scrapers, trucks and other earthmoving
equipment, so that it is not possible to characterise these sources.
Dust emissions during construction, if properly mitigated are not considered to represent a
significant source of emissions.
For the construction phase, a framework which includes a comprehensive range of mitigation
measures for the management of dust emissions will be developed as a part of construction
dust management measures.
VOC Emissions
The use and storage of waste products and chemicals will result in the emission of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), although appropriate management of the chemicals and waste
storage areas will minimise VOCs emissions significantly. Exposure to VOCs without
appropriate mitigation measures in place can result in significant health impacts such as
respiratory and skin diseases.
6.3.1.2 Odour Emissions

Poor management of sanitary and waste disposal facilities (e.g. septic tanks, putrescible waste
bins) may result in odour causing a nuisance to people on or near the Project site. Good
housekeeping, regular inspections and maintenance of waste disposal, transfer and storage
facilities will minimise the risk of odour release.
Poor quality of fill material, if used on site during the construction phase, may also cause odoor
emissions. To prevent this, fill material will undergo analysis prior to delivery to site and only
materials of appropriate quality will be used.
6.3.2 Operation Phase – Cumulative Impact Assessment
6.3.2.1 Air Dispersion Modelling
Adopted background concentrations
Annual average background concentrations

For a cumulative assessment of annual average concentrations, data presented in Table 4.1 of
the Air Quality Assessment Report (refer to Appendix N) was adopted as background
concentrations. As the sensitive receptors are located in residential areas, data from the closest
residential AQMS was used, this being Mushrif Park, highlighted in Table 4-1 in bold.
24-hour background concentrations

Direct 24-hour background air quality measurements were not available from the AQMS
discussed in Section 4.1 of the Air Quality Assessment Report (refer to Appendix N). However,
it is considered appropriate to apply a factor to an annual concentration in order to determine
short-term ambient concentrations to use as background concentrations in an air quality
assessment such as this. The United Kingdom Environment Agency guideline (United Kingdom
Environment Agency 2016) suggests adopting a 24-hour background concentration based on
the annual average ambient concentration multiplied by a factor of two.
1-hour background concentrations

For a cumulative assessment of 1-hour average concentrations, the Air Pollution Indicators
(where available) have been adopted as the background concentrations and are considered a
conservative estimate. Data from the most recent monitoring period (2017) was used,
highlighted in Table 4-3 (in bold) of the Air Quality Assessment Report (refer to Appendix N).
PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality

Ambient air quality monitoring was carried out in 2017 for PM10 at Emirates Hill, Mushrif and
Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Road. Similarly, ambient air quality monitoring for PM2.5 was
carries out for Mushrif and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Road. The 75th percentile 24-hour and
annual averages for PM10 and PM2.5 are displayed in Table 4-4 of the Air Quality Assessment
Report (refer to Appendix N). Both parameters exceeds both the 24-hour and annual WHO
criteria. The maximum of this data were used as part of the cumulative assessment, highlighted
in Table 4-4.
Emission Sources
Air emissions for the facility will be emitted from:
 Five point sources (tall stacks), which are associated with fuel combustion sources from the
boilers. The stacks will be located at the main building.
 IBA management area. This will consist of:

– Wheel-generated dust from IBA product being transported offsite.
– Wheel-generated dust will be assessed for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 only.
– There are no dust emissions associated with wind erosion from any IBA stockpiles, as
the stockpiles within the IBA maturation area are entirely enclosed in the IBA building.
– Similarly, there are no dust emissions from loading of IBA product, as this will occur
within an enclosed IBA building.
– There will be no emissions from the IBA pre-treatment or IBA process hall as both
areas are located within a building.
Calculation methodology for both stack emissions wheel-generated dust are discussed below.
Main Building - Stack emissions

HZI, Besix and Itochu provided stack air emissions information to GHD for use in the air
assessment. The emissions information consisted of a technical process description and
emission guarantees for the various pollutants, which are expected to be produced from the
WMC. Stack parameters and stack gas flow emission loads were also provided. Table 6-7
summarises the stack parameters for the WMC as used in the modelling.
The following assumptions have been made by GHD in the modelling assessment:
 Building wake effects were modelled based on provided building dimensions
 Source locations were provided by HZI, Besix and Itochu to GHD for use in the dispersion
model
One operating case has been identified in which a thermal load of 100% is assumed. Boiler
emission rates modelled (g/s) and the total annual emissions (kg/yr) are presented in Table 6-8.
Air pollutant emission rate estimations were calculated using IED, Annex VI, Part 3 (Tables 1.1,
1.3 and sections 1.4 and 1.5) (European Union 2010) and methods from NSW AMMAAP (NSW
DEC 2005). An oxygen content of 11 percent was assumed as per IED. The following emission
concentrations limits, controls and considerations have been made for this assessment:
 NOx to NO2 ratio of 40 percent has been assumed. A ratio of 20 percent to 30 percent is
typical for combustion sources in low background ozone atmosphere, such as the Project
area. Therefore, the adopted conversion rate is considered appropriate for this
assessment.
 Modelled NOx emission rates correspond to a concentration of 200 mg/Nm3 (daily)
 Modelled SO2 and CO emission rates each correspond to a concentration of 50 mg/Nm3
(daily)
 Modelled TSP and HCl emission rates each correspond to a concentration of 10 mg/Nm3
(daily)
 Modelled HF emission rates correspond to a concentration of 1 mg/Nm3 (daily)
 Modelled NH3 emission rates correspond to a UAE stack limit concentration of 10

mg/Nm3 (Federal Environment Agency 2006)
 Modelled Dioxins and furans emission rates correspond to a concentration of 0.1 ng/Nm3
(six to eight hours)
 Modelled Hg and Cd emission rates each correspond to a concentration of 0.05 mg/Nm3
(30 minutes to eight hourly). It is noteworthy that the emission limit for Cd is specified in
the IED as the total of Cd and thallium, equal to 0.05 mg/Nm3. A conservative approach
was taken, assuming that 100% of the emissions are Cd. A comparison of Cd emissions
from other WMCs constructed by Hitachi Zosen Inova is shown in Section 5.1.1 of the Air
Quality Assessment Report (refer to Appendix N).
 A conservative approach of the ratio of 1:1 was assumed for TSP to PM10 and PM2.5
 The daily IED concentrations were adopted for NOx, SO2, CO, TSP and HCl over the half
hour limits as the shorter duration limits are designed for upset conditions, which typically
do not last longer than half an hour. As this assessment relates to ambient air quality
associated with typical plant operation, it is not considered appropriate to use the IED half
hour limits, as this will result in unrealistic emissions, and would not represent long-term
plant operation. Further, a similar facility built by HZI has demonstrated NOx (as NO2) half
hourly average values to be between 150 mg/m3 and 196 mg/m3 (Element 2020), which is
less than half the half hourly limit for NO2 of 400 mg/m3. Using the half hourly limit would
therefore severely over-predict ambient concentrations. Finally, HZI Besix and Itochu
have committed to a NOx control system to be implemented, which will control NOx to
ensure an average concentration of NOx below 200 mg/Nm3, and with few peaks above
this. The control system for NOx will therefore ensure that the concentration will not reach
the half hour emission limit value of 400 mg/Nm3.
Table 6-8 presents the adopted emission rates for activities associated from the stacks.
IBA Management Area Emissions
As discussed above (emission sources), the transportation of IBA product is likely to cause
particulate emissions from the IBA management area. The activities occurring at the IBA
management area are:
 IBA pre-treatment hall – IBA is conveyed (via enclosed conveyor) to a covered storage area
where it is stored up to five days to reduce the moisture content prior to the treatment /
metal separation in the IBA process hall. Dried IBA is conveyed (via enclosed conveyor) to
the process hall.
 IBA process hall – IBA from pre-treatment storage is processed and is undertaken for
ferrous and non-ferrous metals by a series of different flows including crusher, overband
magnets, magnetic drum, eddy current separators, a hand sorting platform, screens and
belts, producing mineral fractions of different particle sizes. The IBA is then transferred by a
front-end loader to the IBA maturation area, which is enclosed in the IBA building.
 IBA maturation area – Different mineral fractions are stockpiled for up to 12 weeks for
maturation and further stibilization with periodical moistening and restacking, resulting in
aggregates as the final product of this stage. The moistening also allows for dust
suppression.
 Once IBA maturation has been completed, the material is loaded onto a tipping truck and
transported offsite.
An indicative sketch of the IBA management area is shown in Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-1 IBA Management Area
Emission factors for fugitive road dust were estimated based on emission rates for fly ash in
coal fired power stations (Mueller et al., 2013). This is likely to lead to an over estimation and
therefore the assessment is considered conservative. The emission rates were based on the
following assumptions for activities occurring at the IBA maturation area:
 282,300 tpa of mineralic aggregate is expected to be transported offsite during either the
temporary or maturation process.
 Stockpiles and temporary storage of IBA will be enclosed within the covered IBA building.
 Loading/unloading of material will occur within the IBA building and is therefore expected to
generate negligible dust.
 A conservative approach was taken as 50% TSP assessed as PM10.

 For all the factor listed above, two scenarios were modelled:
– Without dust control
– With dust control. Dust control includes water spraying, as frequently as required on
transport routes. This will result in 50% dust control efficiency for fugitive road dust
emissions.
Meuller et al. (2013) estimated fly ash emission rates based on field data and AP-42 emissions
estimation techniques. For this assessment, this assessment has adopted the emission factors
estimated based on field trial data for the fugitive road dust emissions.
Table 6-8 presents the adopted emission rates for activities occurring at the IBA management
area. Location of emissions sources modelled are shown in Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-2 Source Locations
Table 6-7 Emission source parameters as used in the AERMOD model
Stack Stack Stack Exit Exit
Source Activity Source Location
base height diameter velocity temp
ID description type (UTM)
elev. (m) (m) (m) (m/s) (ºK)
Point 343046 E
1 Stack 1 34 70 2.4 19 408.2
source 2783416 N
Point 343051 E
2 Stack 2 34 70 2.4 19 408.2
source 2783414 N
Point 343047 E
3 Stack 3 34 70 2.4 19 408.2
source 2783411 N
343118.7
Point
4 Stack 4 E 2783393 35 70 2.4 19 408.2
source
N
Point 343123 E
5 Stack 5 35 70 2.4 19 408.2
source 2783391 N
Effective Initial
Source Activity Emissions Location Base
height sigma z
ID description type (UTM) elevation
(m) (m)
342884 E
6 Truck Volume 1 37 1
2783471 N
Table 6-8 Source emission rates for modelling
Emissions type Emission rate Unit

Stacks
NOx 5.47 g/s
172,411 kg/yr
SO2 3.42 g/s
107,757 kg/yr
CO 3.42 g/s
107,757 kg/yr
TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 0.68 g/s
21,551 kg/yr
HCl 0.68 g/s
21,551 kg/yr
HF 0.068 g/s
2155 kg/yr
NH3 0.68 g/s
21,551 kg/yr
TCDD 6.83x10-9 g/s
0.00022 kg/yr
Cd 0.0034 g/s
108 kg/yr
Hg 0.0034 g/s
108 kg/yr
IBA and mineral fractions Emission rate Unit
Fugitive road dust TSP – No dust control 0.81 g/s
25,597 kg/yr
TSP – Dust control 0.41 g/s
12,798 kg/yr
PM10 – No dust control 0.41 g/s
Emissions type Emission rate Unit
12,798 kg/yr
PM10 – Dust control 0.20 g/s
6,399 kg/yr
PM2.5 – No dust control 0.05 g/s
1,419 kg/yr
PM2.5 – Dust control 0.02 g/s
710 kg/yr
In Table 6-8, the emission rate for Cd for this Project is shown to be calculated at 0.0034 g/s, or
108 kg/yr. A comparison to the most recently built WMCs by Hitachi Zosen Inova is hereby
included to demonstrate the conservative nature of the emission rate for Cd used in this
assessment. Table 6-9 shows the Cd emission rates as monitored at several WMCs.
Table 6-9 Comparison of estimated emission rates of Cd for this Project and
monitored emission rates of Cd for a number of existing WMCs
Source: Email correspondence with Hitachi Zosen Inova
Note that monitored emission rates of Cd were provided in g/hr and were converted to g/s and kg/yr for comparative
purposes
1. Cd emission rate as 100%
From Table 6-9, it is evident that the emission rate for Cd and Thallium as monitored at the
existing Hitachi Zosen Inova WMCs is significantly less than the rate calculated for use in this
assessment. The FFC Waste Services WMC at Millerhill has an identical air pollution control
system as designed for the Dubai WMC, so it is expected that emissions of Cd in reality, will be
closer to 0.00006 g/s or 0.00003 g/s as opposed to the estimated 0.0034 g/s used in this
assessment.
Model Description
Atmospheric dispersion modelling for regulatory purposes requires meteorological data that is
representative of conditions at the site for input into the modelling software. GHD has used
meteorological data from the nearby Dubai International Airport. Data from the year 2015 was
used as this year is relatively recent and is generally seen to be representative of average
weather, with no unusual weather events. The meteorological parameters provided in the file
include temperature, wind speed and direction, cloud cover and ceiling height.
The AERMOD meteorological processor, AERMET, was used to synthesize the AERMOD
meteorological file. This process was undertaken in accordance with US EPA guidance.
AERMET was used in ‘on-site’ observation mode using the input raw, hourly meteorological
data obtained from Dubai International Airport and appropriate land use categorisations for the
site. The non-default approved option of “Adjust Surface Friction Velocity (ADJ_U*)” was
applied.
At the time of writing this report, the acceptable modelling method included the usage of the
non-default options of “LOWWIND3” and “FASTALL” which were generally accepted to better
resolve dispersion associated with light wind conditions. Since then, the US EPA approved
modelling methods have changed, allowing the modeller to carry out sensitivity testing with
these non-default options and choose the most appropriate method. Therefore, sensitivity
testing was carried out for this assessment with both the “LOWWIND3” and “FASTALL” options
both on and off. Subsequent predicted concentrations were found to differ minimally, and were
considered a nominal difference for the purpose of this assessment. In general, these non-
default options are important for ground level sources and less so for elevated sources, such as
the tall stacks in this assessment. It is noteworthy that with the “LOWWIND3” and “FASTALL”
options both on, concentrations were slightly higher and therefore these options were used in
the modelling described below for a more conservative approach.
Dispersion Modelling Results – Cumulative impact at sensitive receptors

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Table 6-10 shows the predicted 1-hour, 24-hour and annual GLCs for NO2.
The adopted background concentrations for NO2 are:
 1-hour concentration – 185 μg/m3, which is 46 percent of the UAE assessment criteria of
400 μg/m3.
150 μg/m3.
 Annual concentration – 34 μg/m3, which is 85 percent of the WHO assessment criteria of
40 μg/m3.
Using the NOx to NO2 ratio of 40 percent, the highest predicted cumulative concentrations fall
below the assessment criteria, with one exception only. This occurs at Residential Villas (Desert
Palm), with a cumulative annual average concentration of 41 μg/m3, equating to 103 percent of
the WHO criteria of 40 μg/m3.
It is noteworthy that the NOx to NO2 conversion ratio of 40 percent is conservative. It is likely
that ambient concentrations of NO2 associated with the operation of the stacks will be lower in
reality (in the range of 20 percent NOx to NO2). The incremental and cumulative 1-hour NO2
ground level concentration contours are presented in Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4 respectively.
Table 6-10 Predicted 1-hour, 24-hour and annual NO2 concentrations
Figure 6-3 Predicted incremental 1-hour NO2 concentrations
Figure 6-4 Predicted cumulative 1-hour NO2 concentrations
Sulphur dioxide
Table 6-11 shows the predicted 1-hour, 24-hour and annual GLCs for SO2.
The adopted background concentrations for SO2 are:
350 μg/m3.
 24-hour concentration – 12 μg/m3, which is eight percent of the UAE assessment criteria
of 150 μg/m3.
 Annual concentration – 6 μg/m3, which is 10 percent of the UAE assessment criteria of 60
μg/m3.
The highest predicted cumulative concentrations fall below the assessment criteria.
The incremental and cumulative 1-hour SO2 ground level concentration contours are presented
in Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6 respectively.
Table 6-11 Predicted 1-hour, 24-hour and annual SO2 concentrations
Figure 6-5 Predicted incremental 1-hour SO2 concentrations
Figure 6-6 Predicted cumulative 1-hour SO2 concentrations
Carbon monoxide
Table 6-12 shows the predicted 1-hour and 8-hour GLCs for CO.
The adopted background concentrations for CO are:

30,000 μg/m3.
 8-hour concentration – no data available, incremental assessment only is shown.
The highest predicted cumulative (1-hour averaging period) and incremental (8-hour averaging
period) concentrations fall below the assessment criteria.
For the incremental assessment, the highest predicted 8-hour concentration occurs at Pivot
Fields, equating to <1 percent of the UAE assessment criteria. This complies comfortably with
the WHO guideline regarding 25 percent of the criteria.
The incremental and cumulative 1-hour CO ground level concentration contours are presented
in Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8 respectively.
Table 6-12 Predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations
Figure 6-7 Predicted incremental 1-hour CO concentrations
Figure 6-8 Predicted cumulative 1-hour CO concentrations
Total suspended particulates
Table 6-13 and Table 6-14 show the predicted 24-hour and annual GLCs for TSP without and
with dust control respectively, as described in Section 5.1 of the Air Quality Assessment Report.
Background concentrations were not included for TSP, as appropriate data were not available
for use in this assessment. Therefore, an incremental assessment only is shown.
Results have been presented as stack TSP concentrations, IBA TSP concentrations and total
TSP concentrations in order to give a greater understanding of the proportion of TSP being
emitted at each source.
For no dust control (Table 6-13), the highest predicted incremental 24-hour and annual
averaging period concentrations fall below the assessment criteria for both the stack and IBA
emissions, as well as the total of these. The highest predicted incremental 24-hour and annual
total TSP concentrations both occur at Pivot Fields, equating to 5 percent and 1.9 percent of the
UAE assessment criteria respectively. These comply comfortably with the WHO guideline
regarding 25 percent of the criteria.
Similarly, with dust control (Table 6-14), the highest predicted incremental 24-hour and annual
averaging period concentrations fall below the assessment criteria for both the stack and IBA
emissions, as well as the total of these. The highest predicted incremental 24-hour total TSP
concentration occurs at Pivot Fields, equating to 3 percent of the UAE assessment criteria. The
highest predicted incremental annual total TSP concentration occurs at Pivot Fields and
Residential Villas (Desert Palm) equating to 1.3 percent of the UAE assessment criteria. These
comply comfortably with the WHO guideline regarding 25 percent of the criteria.
The predicted maximum 24-hour concentration from stack emissions do not necessarily occur
on the same day as predicted maximum 24-hour concentrations from the IBA management
area. Hence summed stack 24-hour TSP concentrations with IBA management area’s 24-hour
TSP concentrations do not equal the Project’s total predicted maximum TSP concentrations.
This is due to daily varying meteorological parameters, such as wind speed and wind direction
enabling a differing TSP dispersion patterns.
The incremental 24-hour TSP ground level concentration contours without and with dust control
are presented in Figure 6-9 and Figure 6-10 respectively
Table 6-13 Predicted 24-hour and annual TSP concentrations – no dust control
Table 6-14 Predicted 24-hour and annual TSP concentrations – with dust control
Figure 6-9 Predicted incremental 24-hour TSP concentrations – No dust
control
Figure 6-10 Predicted incremental 24-hour TSP concentrations – with dust
control
PM10
Table 6-15 and Table 6-16 show the predicted 24-hour and annual GLCs for PM10 without and
with dust control respectively, as described in Section 5.1 of the Air Quality Assessment Report.
The adopted background concentrations for PM10 are:
 24-hour concentration – 169 μg/m3, which is 113 percent of the UAE assessment criteria
of 150 μg/m3.
 Annual concentration – 141 μg/m3, which is 705 percent of the WHO assessment criteria
of 20 μg/m3.
Stack emissions were calculated assuming a conservative ratio of 1:1 for TSP to PM10 and
wheel-generated emissions were calculated using emission-specific factors.
Results have been presented as stack PM10 concentrations, IBA PM10 concentrations and total
PM10 concentrations in order to give a greater understanding of the proportion of PM10 being
averaging period concentrations fall well below the assessment criteria for both the stack and
IBA emissions, as well as the total of these. The predicted cumulative 24-hour total PM10
concentrations exceed the UAE criteria (with a maximum of 176 μg/m3 occurring at Pivot Fields,
equating to 117 percent of the criteria) due to the background concentration exceeding the
criteria. The predicted cumulative annual total PM10 concentrations exceed the WHO criteria
(with a maximum of 142 μg/m3 occurring at Pivot Fields and Residential Villas (Desert Palm),
equating to 711 percent of the criteria) due to the background concentration exceeding the
criteria.
IBA emissions, as well as the total of these. The predicted cumulative 24-hour total PM10
concentrations exceed the UAE criteria (with a maximum of 175 μg/m3 occurring at Residential
Villas (Desert Palm), equating to 117 percent of the criteria) due to the background
concentration exceeding the criteria. The predicted cumulative annual total PM10 concentrations
exceed the WHO criteria (with a maximum of 142 μg/m3 occurring at Pivot Fields and
Residential Villas (Desert Palm), equating to 711 percent of the criteria) due to the background
concentration exceeding the criteria.
area. Hence summed stack 24-hour PM10 concentrations with IBA management area’s 24-hour
PM10 concentrations do not equal the Project’s total predicted maximum PM10 concentrations.
enabling a differing PM10 dispersion patterns.
The incremental and cumulative 24-hour PM10 ground level concentration contours with no dust
control are presented in Figure 6-11and Figure 6-12 respectively. The incremental and
cumulative 24-hour PM10 ground level concentration contours with dust control are presented in
Figure 6-13 and Figure 6-14 respectively.
Table 6-15 Predicted 24-hour and annual PM10 concentrations – no dust control
Table 6-16 Predicted 24-hour and annual PM10 concentrations – with dust control
Figure 6-11 Predicted incremental 24-hour PM10 concentrations – no dust
control
Figure 6-12 Predicted cumulative 24-hour PM10 concentrations – no dust
control
Figure 6-13 Predicted incremental 24-hour PM10 concentrations – with dust
control
Figure 6-14 Predicted cumulative 24-hour PM10 concentrations – with dust
control
PM2.5
Table 6-17 and Table 6-18 show the predicted 24-hour and annual GLCs for PM2.5 without
andwith dust control respectively, as described in Section 5.1 of the Air Quality Assessment
Report.
The adopted background concentrations for PM2.5 are:
 24-hour concentration – 60 μg/m3 , which is 240 percent of the WHO assessment criteria
of 25 μg/m3.
 Annual concentration – 48 μg/m3, which is 480 percent of the WHO assessment criteria of
10 μg/m3.
Stack emissions were calculated assuming a conservative ratio of 1:1 for TSP to PM2.5 and
wheel-generated emissions were calculated using emission-specific factors.
Results have been presented as stack PM2.5 concentrations, IBA PM2.5 concentrations and total
PM2.5 concentrations in order to give a greater understanding of the proportion of PM2.5 being
IBA emissions, as well as the total of these. The predicted cumulative 24-hour total PM2.5
concentrations exceed the WHO criteria (with a maximum of 66 μg/m3 occurring at Residential
concentration exceeding the criteria. The predicted cumulative annual total PM2.5 concentrations
exceed the WHO criteria (with a maximum of 49 μg/m3 occurring Residential Villas (Desert
Palm), equating to 489 percent of the criteria) due to the background concentration exceeding
the criteria.
IBA emissions, as well as the total of these. The predicted cumulative 24-hour total PM2.5
concentrations exceed the WHO criteria (with a maximum of 66 μg/m3 occurring at Residential
concentration exceeding the criteria. The predicted cumulative annual total PM2.5 concentrations
exceed the WHO criteria (with a maximum of 49 μg/m3 occurring at Residential Villas (Desert
Palm), equating to 489 percent of the criteria) due to the background concentration exceeding
the criteria.
area. Hence summed stack 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations with IBA management area’s 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations do not equal the Project’s total predicted maximum PM2.5 concentrations.
enabling a differing PM2.5 dispersion patterns. The incremental and cumulative 24-hour PM2.5
ground level concentration contours with no dust control are presented in Figure 6-15 and
Figure 6-16 respectively. The incremental and cumulative 24-hour PM2.5 ground level
concentration contours with dust control are presented in Figure 6-17 and Figure 6-18
respectively.
Table 6-17 Predicted 24-hour and annual PM2.5 concentrations – no dust control
Table 6-18 Predicted 24-hour and annual PM2.5 concentration – with dust control
Figure 6-15 Predicted incremental 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – no dust
control
Figure 6-16 Predicted cumulative 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – no dust
control
Figure 6-17 Predicted incremental 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – with dust
control
Figure 6-18 Predicted cumulative 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations – with dust
control
Acid gases (hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride)
Table 6-19 shows the predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour HCl and 24-hour HF ground level
concentrations.
Background concentrations were not included for HCl or HF, as appropriate data were not
available for use in this assessment. Therefore, an incremental assessment only is shown.
The highest predicted 1-hour 99.9th percentile concentration for HCl occurs at Pivot Fields,
Residential Villas (Desert Palm) and Desert Palms Riding Schools, equating to 12 percent of the
NSW AMMAAP assessment criteria. This complies comfortably with the WHO guideline
The highest predicted 24-hour concentration for HF occurs at Residential Villas (Desert Palm),
equating to 19 percent of the NSW AMMAAP assessment criteria. This complies with the WHO
guideline regarding 25 percent of the criteri
Table 6-19 Predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour HCl and 24-hour HF

concentrations
Ammonia and dioxins and furans
Table 6-20 shows the predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour TCDD and NH3 ground level
concentrations.
Background concentrations were not included for TCDD or NH3, as appropriate data were not
The highest predicted 1-hour 99.9th percentile concentration for TCDD occurs at Pivot Fields,
The highest predicted 1-hour 99.9th percentile concentration for NH3 occurs at Pivot Fields,
Table 6-20 Predicted 1-hour TCDD and NH3 concentrations
Mercury and cadmium
Table 6-21 shows the predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour and annual Hg and Cd ground level
concentrations.
Background concentrations were not included for Hg or Cd, as appropriate data were not
The highest predicted 1-hour 99.9th percentile concentration for Hg occurs at Pivot Fields,
Predicted 1-hour concentrations of Cd exceed the criteria at all sensitive receptors. However,
the NSW AMMAAP can be considered a guideline only as opposed to a strict limit and states
“toxic air pollutants must be minimised to the maximum extent achievable through the
application of best-practice process design and/or emission controls” (NSW DEC, 2005). As this
is a national guideline designed for relevance to Australian projects, it is apparent that the
European Commission criteria are more suitable since the stack emissions of the WMC are
complying with the European IED. The highest predicted annual concentration for Cd occurs at
Residential Villas (Desert Palm), equating to 87 percent of the European Commission criteria.
Cd emission rates for this assessment were based on the regulatory IED concentration of 0.05
mg/Nm3, equating to an emission rate of 0.0034 g/s. This rate is for the total of Cd and thallium
emissions combined and therefore a conservative approach was taken, assuming that 100% of
the emissions are Cd. However, it is noteworthy that Cd levels in MSW are expected to be
relatively low and therefore, emission rates of the pollutant would not reach the levels
demonstrated. As shown in Section 5.1.1, WMCs most recently constructed by Hitachi Zosen
Inova showed emission rates of Cd and thallium to range between 0.00003 g/s to 0.00006 g/s
for the WMC with an identical air pollution control system to be implemented in the Dubai WMC.
Therefore, the expected maximum ambient concentration of Cd at the sensitive receptors in
reality is likely to be significantly lower.
Table 6-21 Predicted 1-hour and annual mercury and cadmium concentrations
Summary
For this assessment, air quality criteria including Ministerial Oder No, 12, 2006, US OSHA, 29
CFR, Part 1910, US EPA NAAQs 40 CFR Part 50, WHO Ambient Air Quality Standards, the
NSW AMMAAP and European Commission standards were reviewed, and the most appropriate
of these used as a comparison to predicted GLCs of selected air pollutants. The results
demonstrate predicted incremental GLCs for NO2, SO2, CO, TPS, PM10, PM2.5, HCl, HF,
NH3,TCDD and Hg do not exceed the adopted assessment criteria, based on the stack
characteristics and emission rates assumed for the Project.
Predicted incremental 1-hour concentrations of Cd exceed the NSW AMMAAP guidelines. This
is likely due to the conservative assumption that the IED emission limit of 0.05 mg/Nm3, was
100% Cd as opposed to the total of Cd and thallium, as the IED limits state. Ambient
concentrations of Cd associated with the stacks are likely to be lower in reality. As discussed in
above, WMCs most recently constructed by Hitachi Zosen Inova showed emission rates of Cd
and thallium to range between 0.00003 g/s to 0.00006 g/s as opposed to the 0.0034 g/s used in
this assessment. Further, the European Commission annual standard for Cd is considered more
relevant for this assessment over the Australian guidelines (NSW AMMAAP). The predicted
annual concentrations of Cd comply with the European Commission criteria at all sensitive
receptors.
The maximum predicted cumulative concentration for 24-hour NO2 exceeds the UAE criteria by
3 percent, however the incremental concentration complies with the criteria. The cumulative
exceedance is attributed to the background concentration being 85% of the criteria. It is also
noted that the conservative NOx to NO2 ratio of 40 percent was used, where in reality, this ratio
is likely to be around 20 percent for combustion sources.
The cumulative concentrations for PM10 exceed the UAE 24-hour and annual WHO criteria,
while the cumulative concentrations for PM2.5 exceed the WHO 24-hour and annual criteria due
to the adopted background concentrations exceeding the criteria. The incremental contribution
of the WMC to TSP, PM10, and PM2.5 ambient concentrations are less than the respective
assessment criteria, including the WHO Interim target 1.
6.3.2.2 Odour Emissions – Qualitative Assessment

GHD have reviewed the following documents in the preparation of this qualitative assessment:
 Al Aweer Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Environmental Performance Audit Report
(Hyder 2017)
 Odour Monitoring Report Al Warsan, Dubai (January 19, 2017)
Odour Criteria
In the absence of odour criteria in Dubai, the Australian The Approved Methods for the
Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (‘the Approved Methods’)
(EPA, 2016) have been adopted for this assessment. The Approved Methods list the statutory
methods for modelling and assessing emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources in New
South Wales, Australia. The assessment criteria for odour is applied at the nearest existing or
likely future off-site sensitive receptor.
The Approved Methods also defines odour assessment criteria and specifies how they should
be applied in dispersion modelling to assess the likelihood of nuisance impact arising from the
emission of odour.
Odour impact is a subjective experience and has been found to depend on many factors, the
most important of which are the:
 Frequency of the exposure
 Intensity of the odour
 Duration of the odour episodes

 Offensiveness of the odour
 Location of the source.
These factors are often referred to as the FIDOL factors.
The odour assessment criteria is defined to take account of two of these factors (F is set at 99th
percentile; I is set at from 2 to 7 OU). The choice of assessment criteria is also dependent on
the population of the affected area as shown in Table 6-22.
Table 6-22 Odour Criteria for the Assessment of Odour (EPA, 2016)
Population of affected community Odour performance criteria (nose response

odour certainty units at 99th percentile1)
Single Residence (≤ ~2) 7
~10 6
~30 5
~125 4
~500 3
Urban (≥~2000) 2
Note 1: This is a prediction of the odour level that may occur 1% of the time, or one hour in one hundred. Odour
performance criteria are designed to be precautionary, so that impacts on sensitive receivers can be minimised.
The criteria assumes that 7 OU at the 99th percentile would be acceptable to the average
person, but as the number of exposed people increases there is a chance that sensitive
individuals would be encountered. The criteria of 2 OU at the 99th percentile is considered to be
acceptable for large populations (more than 2,000 people).
The criteria have also been specified at an averaging time of nominally 1 second. The choice of
the short averaging time recognises that the human nose has a response time of less than 1
second, so that modelling of odour impact should allow for the short-term concentration
fluctuations in an odour plume due to turbulence.
For urban areas located adjacent to the proposal, the 2 OU criteria would be applicable.
Existing environment and sensitive receptors

A review of the existing environment around the WtE indicates that it is currently surrounded by
a number of potential odour sources. These include:
 The Tadweer landfill
 The Al Aweer STP
 The Al Serkal/envirol grease trap waste recycling plant
 China state asphalt mixing plant
 Emirates beton readymix L.L.C (concentrate supplier).

The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed WtE plant are:
 Dubai International City to the west, located adjacent to the Al Aweer STP
 Ruwaya Village (Planned residential area) to the South
 Desert Palm Polo club to the North
Odour sources (existing)

The major existing odour sources in the area include the Tadweer landfill and the Al Aweer
STP.
Potential odour sources from the Tadweer landfill would include:
 Active tipping face
 Daily cover
 Intermediate cover
 Leachate pond(s).
The exact contributions from each of these sources to the overall environment would depend on
their areas, volume of handled waste, age of the waste and the level of current odour mitigation
measures in place.
Potential odour sources from the Al Aweer STP would include:
 Odour control unit stacks

 Primary, secondary and tertiary settling tanks
 Sludge disposal, storage and drying areas.
The exact contributions from each of these sources to the overall environment would depend on
their areas, duration of sludge drying, the level of current agitation/aeration in the settling tanks
and the level of current odour mitigation measures in place.
Odour sources (WtE)

Potential odour sources from the proposed WtE include:
 Odour from bottom ash
 Odour from pollutants emitted from the stack
 Odour from outdoor storage of putrescible waste and sewage storage tanks
 Waste spill during transportation of waste from sources to the project site
 Settling tanks and/or sludge storage/disposal areas associated with the wastewater
treatment plant
Additionally, air quality impacts (NO2, SO2, H2S, etc.) may result from the combustion process,
the boiler system and the FGT system. These would need to be considered as part of a detailed
air quality assessment.
Qualitative assessment and recommendations

Based on a review of the provided information, GHD note the following:
 The Al Aweer STP is the dominant odour source in the area and for winds from the East,
cumulative odour impacts are likely to be dominated by the STP at the Dubai International
City
 For the residential areas to the South of the proposal, the STP, landfill and the proposed
WtE may potentially contribute to cumulative odour impacts
 For the residential areas directly to the North of the proposal, the WtE plant is likely to be
the dominant odour contributor.
6.3.2.3 Odour Modelling Result

A summary of the odour modelling study undertaken for the proposed project is provided below
while the detailed report is presented in Appendix N.
Assessment Criteria
There are no odour criteria for the UAE. As an alternative, odour criteria from Environmental
Protection Agency was used for this assessment, The Approved Methods for the Modelling and
Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (EPA, 2016) list the statutory methods for
modelling and assessing emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources in New South
Wales, Australia. The assessment criteria for odour is applied to the defined sensitive receptors
in Section 4.4.
Odour impact is subjective and can be described using the following factors, called the FIDOL
factors:
 Frequency of exposure
 Intensity of odour
 Duration of odour episodes
 Offensiveness of odour
 Location of odour source
The odour assessment criteria is defined to take account of two of these factors (F is set at the
99th percentile; I is set from 2 to 7 OU). The choice of assessment criteria is also dependent on
the population of the affected area as shown in Table 6-23.
Table 6-23 Odour assessment criterion
Population of affected community Odour performance criteria (nose response

odour certainty units at 99th percentile)
Single residence (≤~2) 7
~10 6
~30 5
~125 4
~500 3
Urban (≥~2000) 2
The criteria assumes that 7 OU at the 99th percentile would be acceptable to the average
person, but as the number of exposed people increases there is a chance that sensitive
individuals would be encountered. The criteria of 2 OU at the 99th percentile is considered to be
acceptable for large populations (more than 2000 people).
The criteria have also been specified at an averaging time of 1 second. The choice of the short
averaging time recognises that the human nose has a response time of less than 1 second, so
that modelling of odour impact should allow for the short-term concentration fluctuations in an
odour plume due to turbulence.
For urban areas located adjacent to the proposed WtE plant, the 2 OU criteria would be
applicable and is adopted for this assessment.
Reference to nearby odour sources

To gauge the level of odour the proposed site is predicted to contribute to the local environment,
odour concentrations from this assessment will also be compared to predicted odour
concentrations from nearby odour sources.
Odour impact from the Al Aweer STP was assessed by Hyder in an Environmental Performance
Audit Report for the Dubai Municipality in 2017 (Hyder 2017). The report predicted odour
concentrations at Al Aweer STP, Tadweer Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), Al Aweer Landfill
and Al Serkal/Envirol Grease Trap Waste Recycling Plant. These odour sources are situated
within 1.5 km of the proposed WtE plant, the locations of which are shown in Figure 6-19. The
predicted odour contour plots are shown in Figure 6-20.
Figure 6-19 Nearby odour sources
Figure 6-20(A) shows that odour concentrations at the STP reach up to 45 OU/m3 immediately
surrounding the source, and extends to sensitive receptors Dubai International City, Dubai
Textile City.
At the remaining three sources, odour concentrations range between 10 OU/m3 and 5 OU/m3,
with concentrations not dispersing as far as any defined sensitive receptors.
A. Predicted 1-hour, 99th percentile odour concentration plots for Al Aweer STP B. Predicted 1-hour, 99th percentile odour concentration plots for Tadweer MRF
C. Predicted 1-hour, 99th percentile odour concentration for Al Aweer Landfill D. Predicted 1-hour, 99th percentile odour concentration plots for Al Serkal
Waste Recycling Plant
Figure 6-20 Predicted odour contour plots around the Project site
Odour modelling was carried out at the Tadweer Waste Treatment LLC and the 1-hour 98th
percentile odour concentration was predicted. Model results showed that the Tadweer Waste
Treatment LLC emitted odour concentrations of 5 OU at the perimeter boundary of the facility.
The contour figure for the assessment are shown in Figure 6-21.
Figure 6-21 Predicted 98th percentile 1-hour average ground level odour
concentrations
Estimated emissions
Odour Sources
The main source of odour in the WtE plant is the MSW stored in the waste bunker. The odour
results from the waste composition and the aging process of the waste. The waste bunker is
split into two compartments, with shared airspace, one of which serves two of the incineration
lines, and the other serves the remaining three incineration lines. The waste bunker is located
within the main building as shown in Figure 6-22.
The waste bunker is accessed by 27 tipping bays, each of which have a roller door which
remain open only during the presence of a waste delivery truck (for approximately 6 minutes per
delivery). Forty-four (44) waste truck deliveries are anticipated every hour. The waste bunker is
expected to manage a nominal throughput of 236.11 t/hour. It is designed with a four day
capacity of waste under nominal operating conditions equating to a storage capacity of 22,666
tonnes (HZI 2018).
The waste bunker dimensions were taken from HZI (2018) to be a total of 33 m in height, 23 m
depth and 143 m in width. Therefore, the total volume of the bunker is 108,537 m3.
For the purpose of this assessment, when the tipping bay doors are closed, the fugitive odour
emissions from the waste bunker are considered negligible. Similarly, as the trucks are
enclosed, any odorous emissions from trucks are assumed negligible. No odour emissions are
expected from the stacks as the odorous compounds would have undergone chemical
decomposition during incineration.
Figure 6-22 Waste bunker and tipping area locations
Upset conditions
During normal operating procedure, air in the waste bunker is sucked into the boiler for
combustion and is replaced by fresh air. This flow of air provides a sufficient negative pressure
in the waste bunker, preventing the majority of odour from escaping. A minimum of two of the
five incineration lines will be in operation at any one time in order to maintain the slight negative
pressure and prevent the release of odorous gas.
This assessment was carried out for three operating scenarios, one of which represents nominal
operating conditions and two of which represent upset conditions to simulate worst case for
odour dispersion. The worst case conditions used in the model consist of:
 Temporary loss of negative pressure in the waste bunker due to shutdown of all five
incineration lines
 The delivery of MSW as normal (44 truck deliveries per hour)
Adopted OER inventory

In order to best estimate the odour emissions from the facility during a loss of negative
pressure, the model was set up with regard to the number of tipping bay doors, tipping bay door
dimensions and the duration the doors are open. It was estimated that during nominal
operation, four tipping bay doors would remain open continuously each hour. Therefore, the
source was configured to represent the equivalent of having four tipping bay doors open. It was
assumed that the area of each roller door would be 4.4 m in width and 9 m in height, resulting in
an area of 39.6 m2.
 Flow rate. Flow rate accounts for the volumes of air that escape the tipping bay when the
doors are open. Several flow rates were used for sensitivity testing of the model reflecting
negative pressure maintained and negative pressure lost. Flow rates used were 0.1 m/s
(negative pressure maintained), 0.6 m/s (based on two air exchanges per hour when
negative pressure is lost) and 1.2 m/s (worst case scenario based on four air exchanges
per hour when negative pressure is lost).
 Peak to mean ratio. The Gaussian Plume model used in this assessment for the
dispersion modelling of odour can only predict odour concentrations over an averaging
period of 3-minutes or more. However, as discussed above (odour assessment criteria),
the human response time to odour is approximately 1 second. During a 3-minute period,
odour levels can fluctuate significantly. The peak to mean ratio is the ratio between the
one second peak concentrations and three minute and longer average period
concentrations. Katestone Scientific Pty Ltd (1995, 1998) were commissioned by the EPA
to determine a suitable peak to mean ratio for a Gaussian Plume model and this ratio was
adopted for this assessment. The peak to mean ratio used was 2.3.
 OER. As no site specific OERs were available for the Project as it was still in the
approvals phase, the OER was adopted from PEL 2015, which is considered to be
representative of odour emission rates at the WtE plant. The odour concentration adopted
from PEL 2015 was supported by an article by Loghurst (2007), exploring the principle of
landfill odour emission. The OER for the WMC was estimated using the following
equations:
OER = (Odour conc x area) flow rate x PMR

Modelled OER for volume source = OER x nopen tipping bay doors
Where:
Odour concentration: 558 OU
Area: 39.6 m2
Flow rate: 0.1 m/s, 0.6 m/s or 1.2 m/s
PMR: 2.3
nopen tipping bay doors: 4
The modelled OER are presented in Table 6-24.

Table 6-24 Modelled odour emission rates for each scenario
Flow rate (m/s) Modelled OER (OU.m2/s)
0.1 (nominal conditions) 20,328
0.6 (upset conditions) 121,974
1.2(upset conditions – worst case) 243,948
Approach to Odour Modelling

AERMET is the meteorological pre-processor to AERMOD, which uses measured (or modelled)
meteorological observations to generate two meteorological input files required by AERMOD.
These two files consist of a surface file and an upper air file, which are used by AERMOD to
characterise boundary layer characteristics which influences dispersion in the atmosphere.
Using monitored data from Dubai International Airport, the following parameters were input into
AERMET, for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015:
 Year
 Month
 Day
 Hour
 Wind speed
 Wind direction
 Temperature
 Cloud cover
 Ceiling height
The USEPA preferred model – AERMOD is chosen for this assessment based on relatively
short distance between emission source and sensitive receptors. AERMOD is a steady-state
Gaussian Plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer
turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and
elevatedsources and both simple and complex terrain.
The odour source was modelled as a volume source in AERMOD, with the size of the source
representative of 4 tipping bay doors open at any one time. The volume source parameters
used in the model are displayed in Table 6-25.
Table 6-25 Volume source parameters used in model
Source coordinates 343091.26 m N

2783498.58 m E
Base elevation 34.73 m
Release height 4.5 m (taken as half the roller door height)
Length of side of source 17.6 m (to reflect 4 doors X 4.4 m width)
Initial lateral dimension 4.093 (calculated by AERMOD)
Initial vertical dimension 15.35 m (calculated by AERMOD)
Assessment of Impacts
Incremental impact
Based on dispersion modelling results, the predicted operational odour impacts on nearby
receptors is presented numerically in Table 6-26 and graphically as contours in Figure 6-23.
Table 6-26 Predicted 1-hour 99th percentile peak odour concentration
Receptor Predicted odour concentration (OU)
Flow rate 0.1 m/s Flow rate 0.6 m/s Flow rate 1.2 m/s
(negative pressure (negative pressure (negative pressure
maintained) maintained) maintained)
Dubai International City – 0.11 0.6 1.3

EM14, Emirates Cluster
International City Phase II 0.06 0.4 0.7

(under construction)
Residential Villas (Desert 0.93 5.6 11.1

Palm)
Al Warqa 4 (north of Al Awir 0.27 1.6 3.2

Road)
Dragon Mart Mosque 0.11 0.7 1.3
Receptor Predicted odour concentration (OU)
Flow rate 0.1 m/s Flow rate 0.6 m/s Flow rate 1.2 m/s
(negative pressure (negative pressure (negative pressure
maintained) maintained) maintained)
Dragon Mart Commercial 0.10 0.6 1.2

Center
Dubai Textile City 0.10 0.6 1.2
Desert Palm Resort and 0.58 3.5 7.0

Hotel
Dubai Nursery (plants) 0.08 0.5 0.9
Dubai Safari park 0.22 1.3 2.6
Pivot Fields 0.85 5.1 10.1
Desert Palm Polo Club 0.54 3.2 6.5
Desert Palm Riding 0.73 4.4 8.8

Schools
Warsan Lake 0.08 0.5 1.0
A. Flow rate 0.1 m/s B. Flow rate 0.6 m/s C. Flow rate 1.2 m/s
Legend:
Figure 6-23 Predicted 1-hour 99th percentile odour conditions
Review of Table 6-26 indicates that with the negative pressure maintained, predicted odour
concentrations at the defined sensitive receptors are lower than 1 OU. It is likely that with
negative pressure maintained odour from the WtE plant will not be detectable by the majority of
the population. This complies with the EPA assessment criterion of 2 OU.
With negative pressure lost and a flow rate of 0.6 m/s assumed (typical two air exchanges per
hour), predicted odour concentrations range from less than 1 OU (Dubai International City,
International City Phase II, Dragon mart Mosque, Dragon Mart Commercial Centre, Dubai
Textile City, Dubai Nursery and Warsan Lake) to 5.6 OUs (Residential Vilas). The EPA
assessment criterion of 2 OU is predicted to be exceeded at five defined sensitive receptor
(Residential Vilas, Desert Palm Resort and Hotel, Pivot Fields, Desert Palm Polo Club and
Desert Palm Riding Schools).
With negative pressure lost and a worst case flow rate of 1.2 m/s assumed (conservative four
air exchanges per hour), odour concentrations range from less than 1 OU (International City
Phase II and Dubai Nursery) to 11.1 OUs (Residential Vilas) at the defined sensitive receptors.
This is considered a worst case scenario as the flow rate of 1.2 m/s is conservative. The EPA
assessment criterion of 2 OU is predicted to be exceeded at seven defined sensitive receptors
(Residential Vilas, Al Warqa 4, Desert Palm Resort and Hotel, Dubai Safari Park, Pivot Fields,
Desert Palm Polo Club and Desert Palm Riding Schools).
The contour plots in Figure 6-23 indicate that the highest odour concentrations are found to
occur within the north-east boundary of the WtE plant, which is supported by the predicted
concentrations in Table 6-26.
Cumulative impact
To assess cumulative impacts of the WtE plant on sensitive receptors, the predicted odour
concentrations from the proposed site were added to the predicted odour concentrations from
the Al Aweer STP discussed above (Reference to nearby odour sources).
With negative pressure maintained, the contribution of odour from the WtE plant to the
cumulative odour impact at sensitive receptors Dubai International City, Dubai Textile City and
Warsan Lake is negligible (approximately 2% of the STP odour concentration).
With negative pressure lost, the contribution of odour from the WMC to the cumulative odour
impact at sensitive receptors Dubai International City, Dubai Textile City and Warsan Lake
remains negligible for both flow rates (approximately 3% of the STP odour concentration).
The defined sensitive receptors that are predicted to be impacted the most from odour
concentrations from the WtE plant are not predicted to be impacted by odour concentrations
from the STP (Residential Vilas and Pivot Fields). I.e. there is no cumulative impact predicted
for these sensitive receptors.
As ambient/background levels are typically relatively high in a desert environment, additional

dust sources have potential to exacerbate nuisance and health effects. Therefore, it is
suggested that a high level dust management plan is adopted as part of a site wide construction
environmental management framework for th Project.

The predicted results from air dispersion modelling of the proposed operations of the WtE plant
indicates that the Project is not anticipated to exceed relevant guidelines provided that emission
concentration guarantees, stack parameter as well as emission rates are met.
Odour Assessment
The results of the dispersion modelling indicate that when negative pressure is maintained,
predicted odour concentrations reaching the defined sensitive receptors will be undetectable to
the majority of the population. If negative pressure is lost and a flow rate of 0.6 m/s is achieved,
predicted odour concentrations at 7 out of 14 sensitive receptors should be undetectable.
Predicted odour concentrations at some sensitive receptors north of the WtE plant site may
experience odour concentrations of up to 5.6 OU. If worst case conditions prevailed resulting in
a flow rate of 1.2 m/s during a loss of negative pressure, predicted odour concentrations at 2 out
of 14 sensitive receptors should be undetectable. Predicted odour concentrations at some
sensitive receptors may experience odour concentrations of up to 11.1 OU.
Table 6-27 provides the unmitigated impact level on air quality during the construction and
operation phases.
Table 6-27 Potential unmitigated impacts on air quality

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Fugitive dust emission Almost Moderate High Workers / Negative

from site development / certain staff and
visitors on-
earthmoving works and site
wind erosion on
Occupants
unpaved surfaces
of
surrounding
land uses
Emission of exhaust Almost Insignificant Low Workers / Negative

gases from the certain staff and
visitors on-
operation of equipment, site
plant, tools and utilities
Occupants
using fuel
of
surrounding
residential
and
commercial
areas
VOC emissions Likely Insignificant Low Workers / Negative

staff and
visitors on-
site
Occupants
of
surrounding
residential
and
commercial
areas
Impact
Rating impacted
Odour emission from Likely Insignificant Low Workers / Negative

sanitary and waste staff and
visitors on-
disposal facilities, and site
poor quality dredged
Occupants
material
of
surrounding
residential
and
commercial
areas
Operation Phase
Emissions from furnace Almost Minor Medium Workers Negative

/ boiler certain and
occupants
on site and
surrounding
communities
Exhaust gases and Almost Minor Medium Residents, Negative

particulates emitted certain visitors and
from road traffic occupants
of the
Project site
and
surrounding
residential
and
commercial
areas
Odour emission from Unlikely Minor Low Workers / Negative

waste composition and staff and
visitors on-
aging process of waste site
Occupants
of
surrounding
residential
and
commercial
areas
6.4 Noise
6.4.1.1 Construction Noise

The major noise sources during the construction phase will include a range of construction
activities, earthmoving and construction equipment as well as traffic noise from nearby roads.
As observed during the baseline noise monitoring, road traffic noise was observed to be a major
source of noise at the Project site. Vehicles accessing the site during delivery of materials and
collection of waste, as well as transportation of workers and employees will also generate noise.
The increase in noise levels is anticipated to negatively affect the nearby noise sensitive
receptors (NSRs), if appropriate noise abatement and management measures are not
implemented. The principal NSRs include the residents of the Desert Palm Residential Villas
located approximately 350m North of the Project site as well as workers and occupants at the
commercial and industrial facilities surrounding the Project site.
Noise impacts associated with the WtE plant construction were estimated using the following
distance attenuation relationship:
SPL = SWL – 20 log(d) + 10 log(Q) -11
Where: d = distance between the source and receptor (m)

Q = directivity index (2 for a flat surface)
SPL = sound pressure level at the distance from the source (dB)
SWL = sound power level of the source (dB)
Typical noise levels produced by construction plant anticipated to be used on-site were sourced.
Propagation calculations take into account sound intensity losses due to spherical spreading,
with additional minor losses such as atmospheric absorption, directivity and ground absorption
ignored in the calculations. As a result, predicted received noise levels are expected to slightly
overstate actual received levels and thus provide a measure of conservatism.
Noise produced by anticipated activities during the construction of the Project are shown in
Table 6-28 for a variety of distances, with no noise barriers or acoustic shielding in place and
with each plant item operating at full power. The sound pressure levels shown are maximum
levels produced when machinery is operated under full load.
The magnitude of off-site noise impact associated with construction will be dependent upon a
number of factors:
 The intensity and location of construction activities
 The type of equipment used
 Existing local noise sources
 Intervening terrain
 The prevailing weather conditions
Construction machinery will move about the Project site area, altering the directivity of the noise
source with respect to individual receptors. During any given period, the machinery items used
in the Project area will operate at maximum sound power levels for only brief times. At other
times the machinery may produce lower sound levels while carrying out activities not requiring
full power. It is unlikely that all construction equipment would be operating at their maximum
sound power levels at any one time. Finally, certain types of construction machinery will be
present in the Project area for only brief periods during construction.
Table 6-28 Predicted plant activity noise level (dBA)
Equipment (1) Estimated Estimated SPL (dBA) at distance (m)

SWL
250 350 500 1000 3000 5000
(dBA) (2)
Backhoe 104 48 45 42 36 26 22
Backhoe (with auger) 106 50 47 44 38 28 24
Bulldozer 108 52 49 46 40 30 26
Compactor 113 57 54 51 45 35 31
Compressor (silenced) 101 45 42 39 33 23 19
Concrete agitator truck 109 53 50 47 41 31 27
Concrete pump truck 108 52 49 46 40 30 26
Concrete saw 117 61 58 55 49 39 35
Concrete vibratory screed 115 59 56 53 47 37 33
Crane (mobile) 104 48 45 42 36 26 22
Excavator 107 51 48 45 39 29 25
Front end loader 113 57 54 51 45 35 31
Generator (diesel) 104 48 45 42 36 26 22
Grader 110 54 51 48 42 32 28
Hand tools (electric) 102 46 43 40 34 24 20
Hand tools (pneumatic) 116 60 57 54 48 38 34
Jack hammers 121 65 62 59 53 43 39
Rock breaker 118 62 59 56 50 40 36
Roller (vibratory) 108 52 49 46 40 30 26
Scraper 116 60 57 54 48 38 34
Truck (>20 tonnes) 107 51 48 45 39 29 25
Truck (dump) 117 61 58 55 49 39 35
Truck (water cart) 107 51 48 45 39 29 25
Vehicle (commercial, 4WD) 106 50 47 44 38 28 24
Welder 105 49 46 43 37 27 23
Notes:
(1) The above equipment are typically used in construction sites and may or may not be used for the WtE plant site.
(2) GHD (2018)
The closest noise sensitive receptor to any potential noise source during the construction of the
WtE plant is Dubai Palm Residential Villas located about 350 m from the boundary of the site.
From Table 6-28, noise levels exceeding the Federal Law prescribed noise limit during daytime
(upper limit of 60 dBA for residential areas near highways) are not expected to impact on the
closest sensitive receptor, except when jack hammers are used during construction. The use of
jackhammers will be minimised as much as practicable during construction and where required
will be used for a short duration.
A number of equipment exceeds the night-time Federal limit of 50 dBA (upper limit). General
construction activities will be limited to day time working hours, where feasible and reasonable.
6.4.1.2 Construction Vibration
Vibration Criteria
Human Comfort Vibration Criteria

In the absence of local legislation and standards, the British Standard BS 6472:2008 - Guide to
evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings - Part 1: Vibration sources other than
blasting (BS 6472, 2008) is commonly recognised as the preferred standard for assessing
human comfort criteria for residential receptors. Table 6-29 includes the acceptable values of
vibration dose for residential receptors during daytime and night-time periods.
These values represent the best judgement available at the time the standard was published
and may be used for both vertical and horizontal vibration, providing that they are correctly
weighted. Because there is a range of values for each category, it is clear that the judgement
can never be exact.
Table 6-29 Vibration dose value (VDV) ranges and probabilities for adverse
comment to intermittent vibration (m/s1.75)
Location Low probability of Adverse Adverse

adverse comment (a) comment comment
possible probable (b)
Residential buildings 16-hour 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6

day (7:00 am to 11:00 pm)
Residential buildings 8-hour 0.1 to 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8

(11:00 pm to 7:00 am)
Notes:
(a) Below these ranges adverse comment is not expected.
(b) Above these ranges adverse comment is very likely.
Whilst the assessment of response to vibration in BS 6472-1:2008 is based on VDV and

weighted acceleration, for construction and industrial operation related vibration it is considered
more appropriate to provide guidance in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV), since this
parameter is likely to be more routinely measured based on the more usual concern over
potential building damage.
Humans are capable of detecting vibration at levels, which are well below those causing risk of
damage to a building. The degree of perception for humans is suggested by the vibration level
categories given in BS 5228-2:2009 – Code of practice for noise and vibration control on
construction and open sites: Part 2 Vibration (BS 5228.2, 2009), as shown in Table 6-30.
Table 6-30 Guidance on the effects of vibration levels
Vibration level Effect
0.14 mm/s Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for
most vibration frequencies associated with construction
0.30 mm/s Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments
1.0 mm/s It is likely that vibration at this level in residential environments will cause
complaints, but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation has been
given to residents
10 mm/s Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a brief exposure to
this level.
Based on Table 6-30 above, human response to vibration could be summarised as below:
 Vibration level in the range between 0.14 mm/s to 0.3 mm/s would generate low
probability of adverse comment or complaints.
 Vibration level in the range between 0.3 mm/s to 1 mm/s would generate the possibility of
adverse comment or complaints.
 Vibration level greater than 1 mm/s would likely cause adverse comment or complaints.
Structural Damage Vibration Criteria

Guidance on limiting vibration is attained by reference to the German Standard DIN
4150.3:1999 – Structural vibration – Part 3: Effects of vibration on structures (DIN 4150.3, 1999)
and British Standard BS 7385.2:1993 – Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings –
Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground-borne vibration (BS 7385.2, 1993). In comparison,
DIN 4150.3:1999 provides more stringent vibration criteria as opposed to BS 7385.2:1993.
Table 1 of Section 5 of DIN 4150.3:1999 presents guideline values for the maximum absolute
value of the velocity “at the foundation and in the plane of the highest floor of various types of
building. Experience has shown that if these values are compiled with, damage that reduces the
serviceability of the building will not occur. If damage nevertheless occurs, it is to be assumed
that other causes are responsible.”
Measured values exceeding those listed in Table 6-31 “… does not necessarily lead to damage;
should they be significantly exceeded, however further investigations are necessary.”
Table 6-31 Guidance values for short-term vibration on structures
Line Type of structure Guideline values for velocity v(t) (a) (mm/s)
1 Hz to 10 Hz to 50 Hz to 100 Hz
10 Hz 50 Hz (b)
1 Buildings used for commercial 20 20 to 40 40 to 50

purposes, industrial buildings, and
buildings of similar design
2 Dwellings and buildings of similar 5 5 to 15 15 to 20

design and/or occupancy
3 Structures that, because of their 3 3 to 8 8 to 10

particular sensitivity to vibration,
Line Type of structure Guideline values for velocity v(t) (a) (mm/s)
1 Hz to 10 Hz to 50 Hz to 100 Hz
10 Hz 50 Hz (b)
cannot be classified under lines 1

and 2 and are of great intrinsic
value (e.g. listed buildings under
preservation order)
(a) The terms vi refers to vibration levels in any of the x, y or z axis
(b) Where frequencies are above 100 Hz the values given in this column may be used as minimum values.
The vibration criteria presented in German Standard DIN 4150.3:1999 exceed human comfort
criteria presented in Table 6-30. Therefore, the human comfort criteria should be the over-riding
criteria for the assessment of any vibration.
Adopted Criteria
Vibration criteria adopted for the assessment is summarised in Table 6-32.
Table 6-32 Summary of adopted vibration assessment criteria
Level Receptor description Guideline values

/Line for velocity (mm/s)
Human comfort
1 Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive 0.14

situations for most vibration frequencies associated with
construction
2 Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments 0.30
3 It is likely that vibration at this level in residential environments 1.0

will cause complaints, but can be tolerated if prior warning and
explanation has been given to residents
4 Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a brief 10

exposure to this level.
Structural damage
1 Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial buildings, ≤ 20

and buildings of similar design
2 Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or occupancy ≤5
3 Structures that, because of their particular sensitivity to ≤3

vibration, cannot be classified under lines 1 and 2 and are of
great intrinsic value (e.g. listed buildings under preservation
order)
Assessment
Vibration impacts discussed essentially focus on potential structural damage to properties in
close proximity of the Project area and/or potentially affected by construction activities. It is
possible that construction vibration will be perceived at times by local sensitive receptors.
However, the level of annoyance will depend on individuals’ perceptions of the vibration felt.
Construction activity may result in varying decrees of ground vibration depending on the
equipment used and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground
vibration, which spreads through h the ground and diminishes in strength with distance.
Buildings founded on the soil in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations
with varying outcomes.
Vibration impacts associated with plant construction were estimated using the following
equation:
PPV equipment = PPVRef (25/D)n

25
Where: PPVRef = reference PPV at 7.6 m

D = distance from equipment to the receiver in meters
n = 1.3 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground)26
Table 6-33 Predicted vibration impacts at nearest receptor
Equipment (a) Reference PPV at Predicted vibration amplitude at

7.6 m (mm/s) (b) nearest receptor (350 m)
Clam shovel drop 5.1 0.47 mm/s

(slurry wall)
Hydromill (slurry 0.2 (in soil) 0.02 mm/s

wall)
0.4 (in rock) 0.04 mm/s
Vibratory roller 5.3 0.49 mm/s
Hoe ram 2.3 0.21 mm/s
Large bulldozer 2.3 0.21 mm/s
Caisson drilling 2.3 0.21 mm/s
Loaded trucks 1.9 0.18 mm/s
Jackhammer 0.9 0.08 mm/s
Small bulldozer 0.1 0.01 mm/s
Notes:
(a) The above equipment are typically used in construction sites and may or may not be used for the WtE plant site.
(b) Adapted from Hanson et.al. (2006) as cited by the Cenek et.al. (2012)
25
Taken from California Department of Transportation (2013). Page 37.
26
The suggested value for “n” is 1.1 because vibration from equipment originates primarily near the
ground surface.
From Table 6-33, equipment proposed for site preparation and construction of the project will
generate low levels of vibration (between 0.01 to 0.49 mm/s), which are unlikely to cause
human discomfort or result vibration risks to structures.
6.4.2.1 Methodology
Operational noise modelling was undertaken using modelling software SoundPLAN© to predict
the potential noise impact due to operation of the Project.
SoundPLAN© 8 is an internationally recognised noise modelling software that adopts ISO 9613
(Acountics – Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Ourdoors), and has been used to
estimate the operational noise levels associated with the Project. This software allows for a
spatially-constructed model, incorporating noise emission parameters of the Project
facilities/activities, and calculates sound propagation and attenuation by recognised methods in
order to predict the levels of environmental noise at a distance from the modelled sources. The
method predicts the LAeq under meteorological conditions favourable to propagation from
sources of known sound emission.
The criteria for the assessment of change in noise levels arising at noise sensitive receptors
(NSRs) from the operation of the Project have been adapted from the joint Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and the Institute of Acoustics (IoA)
guidelines for noise and vibration impact assessment categories and are given in Table 6-34.
Estimated sound power levels used in the model are presented in Table 6-35.
Table 6-34 Noise impact assessment criteria
Impact category Incremental change in Description of impact

ambient noise level
No Effect 0 dBA Not discernible
Negligible 0.1–2.9 dBA Not discernible – marginal changes in noise

levels of less than 3 dBA in residential areas, or
outdoor recreational areas in close proximity to
main roads.
Minor Negative 3 to 4.9 dBA Noticeable adverse – noise levels of 3–5 dBA in
residential areas, or at ourdoor recreational
areas.
Moderate 5 to <10 dBA Considerable adverse – noise levels warrant

Negative mitigation of residential properties on a
widespread basis in a community, or for outdoor
recreation areas close to main roads.
Major Negative 10 dBA or more Major adverse – noise increases to a level

where continued residential use of individual
properties is inappropriate, or where the use of a
community building could be inappropriate.
Table 6-35 Noise log (model inputs)
Equipment description LW (dBA) Octave Band Central Frequency Spectrum Noise (dB)
63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1k Hz 2k Hz 4k Hz 8k Hz
Waste bunker 69.5 88.0 77.0 78.0 69.0 70.0 46.0 38.0 30.0
Flue Treatment Hall 69.1 90.0 83.0 78.0 70.0 61.0 58.0 48.0 39.0
Boiler Hall 65.1 90.0 82.0 73.0 62.0 63.0 47.0 35.0 25.0
Steam Turbine Hall 75.5 88.0 88.0 76.0 71.0 67.0 66.0 62.0 58.0
IBA 70.0 90.0 82.0 75.0 70.0 63.0 62.0 49.0 43.0
Tipping Area 118.0 123.0 118.0 113.0 108.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 108.0
Stack Body 97.0 101.0 100.0 104.0 93.0 72.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
Stack Opening 100.0 116.0 112.0 106.0 88.0 70.0 68.0 68.0 68.0
ACC Inlet 112.0 119.0 117.0 112.0 109.0 108.0 99.0 95.0 91.0
ACC Outlet 108.0 116.0 114.0 109.0 106.0 104.0 96.0 90.0 85.0
ACC Steam Duct 108.0 104.0 104.0 98.0 97.0 98.0 105.0 95.0 92.0
ACC Recoolers 106.0 106.0 109.0 106.0 105.0 100.0 96.0 90.0 87.0
Transformer 104.0 107.0 107.0 104.0 104.0 98.0 93.0 88.0 81.0
IBA Conveyor 95.0 97.0 95.0 93.0 92.0 91.0 87.0 84.0 83.0
IBA Covered handling 110.0 112.0 115.0 110.0 105.0 103.0 102.0 100.0 95.0
6.4.2.2 Modelling Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made for the modelling assessment, and wherever
possible, a conservative approach has been taken:
 Only normal operations have been modelled;
 In the absence of a detailed equipment list, all noise sources have been based on data
provided by HZI;
 Equipment has been modelled at heights based on provided data where possible, where
not identifiable heights have been assumed;
 All equipment has been modelled as either point, area, line or block sources;
 Due to the absence of a detailed equipment list and associated plot plan, some
equipment locations were estimated based on the general areas provided;
 The model does not incorporate features which might provide partial screening (e.g.,
columns, pipe racks, structural steelwork, and small equipment);
 Ground absorption has been modelled as a mixture of hard and soft ground (having an
absorption coefficient of 0.6) to maintain a conservative assessment;
 Reasonable worst-case meteorological conditions have been applied, i.e. steady wind
conditions blowing in each direction.
6.4.2.3 Site Boundary Contributions

For the purposes of assessment, point receptors were set up on the boundary fence of the site.
A Boundary Limit of 70 dBA has been applied at the boundary as per the UAE Federal
Environment Agency’s Industrial limit. The boundary noise contributions from the plant is
detailed below.
Figure 6-24 details the locations of the modelled point receptors at the WtE plant’s boundary
used to carry out the boundary noise assessment.
Figure 6-24 WtE plant boundary point receiver locations
Table 6-36 details the modelled noise contribution of the project equipment at the point
receptors on the boundary of the site. The average baseline noise level recorded at the closest
measurement location, NQM4, has been applied along the power plant site boundary to
determine the potential operational cumulative noise levels.
Based on the point receiver noise levels along the site boundary, the WtE plant is not
anticipated to exceed the boundary noise limit. The highest value achieved was 64.2 dBA on
the southern boundary, this value is significantly below the limit of 70 dBA.
Table 6-36 Boundary contribution from Project noisy equipment
Receiver reference Boundary noise Receivier reference Boundary noise

contribution (dBA) contribution (dBA)
B1 55.8 B13 56.0
B2 57.4 B14 60.3
B3 60.3 B15 61.7
B4 61.9 B16 64.2
B5 62.3 B17 59.7
B6 61.3 B18 56.9
B7 60.0 B19 57.1
B8 57.2 B20 60.3
B9 53.6 B21 58.9
B10 52.8 B22 59.0
B11 53.0 B23 59.3
B12 54.6 B24 56.9
B7 60.0 B19 57.1
B8 57.2 B20 60.3
B9 53.6 B21 58.9
B10 52.8 B22 59.0
B11 53.0 B23 59.3
B12 54.6 B24 56.9
6.4.2.4 Environmental Noise Assessments

The environmental noise assessment takes into account all provided noise sources of the WtE
plant. The guidelines state that the noise levels in the residential areas should not exceed 55
dBA during the day and 45 dBA at night time. As provided in the noise contributions at the
measurement locations in Table 6-37, the predicted noise levels are below both the night time
and daytime noise limits.
Table 6-37 Contributed noise levels at sensitive receptor
ID Description UAE Federal Daytime Night time

Environment Agency modelled modelled
Noise Limits (dBA) results results
(dBA) (dBA)
Day Night
SR1 Northern residences 55 45 51.6 41.8

(i.e. Desert Polo Club)
6.4.3 Cumulative Impact Assessment
An impact assessment was performed in order to determine the severity of the impact of the
Project at the nearest sensitive receptor location (Figure 6-25). The results of the Project noise
contribution and resulting impact at SR1 is presented in Table 6-38 for daytime and night time
operations. NQM1 has been used as representative of the baseline noise level at SR1 due to
the proximity of the location.
The impacts of the operational noise assessment at the identified sensitive receptor is predicted
to be negligible based on the results of the study. Contour maps generated for the Project are
provided in Figure 6-26 to Figure 6-31.
Figure 6-25 Noise measurement location
Table 6-38 Operational Impact Assessment
ID Description Project Baseline Cumulative Maximum Impact

noise noise noise level change in severity
contribution level (dBA) noise level
(dBA) (dBA) at receptor
(dBA)
Daytime operational impact assessment
SR1 Northern 51.6 55 56.6 1.6 Negligible

residences (i.e.
Desert Polo Club)
Night time operational impact assessment
SR1 Northern 41.8 49 49.8 0.8 Negligible

residences (i.e.
Desert Polo Club)
Figure 6-26 Overall Daytime Contour
Figure 6-27 Overall Night-time Contour Plot
Figure 6-28 Overall Daytime Contour with Baseline
Figure 6-29 Overall Night-time Countour with Baseline
Figure 6-30 Daytime Contour with Receptors
Figure 6-31 Night-time Countour with Receptors
The boundary limit of 70 dBA was predicted to be not exceeded at any point along the property
fence line boundary. The cumulative noise impacts due to the operation of the WtE plant are
predicted to be negligible for both daytime and night-time periods.
The potential unmitigated impacts associated with noise generated during the construction and
operation phases of the Project are summarised in Table 6-39.
Table 6-39 Potential unmitigated impacts on noise

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Construction noise Almost Moderate High Workers Negative

(causing sleep certain and
disturbance (closest occupants
annoyance and sensitive on site and
hearing impairment) receptor) surrounding
communities
Construction vibration Almost Insignificant Low Workers Negative

(causing sleep certain and
disturbance and (closest occupants
annoyance) sensitive on site and
receptor) surrounding
communities
Operation Phase
Operational noise Possible Moderate Medium Surrounding Negative

(causing sleep (closest communities
disturbance, sensitive
annoyance and receptor)
hearing impairment)
Construction is anticipated to result in the following impacts and / or issues, which are typical of
any construction works:
 Land alteration: Construction requires a range of site development works including
earthmoving, excavation, fill placement, grading, cable installation activities and other
ground preparation works that will directly impact on landform
 Soil erosion: Site topography, soil composition and structure can be altered by:
– Soil erosion associated with deep excavation works (maximum of 7 mbgl) and
stockpiling of fill materials on-site
– Soil erosion caused by movement of construction vehicles
– Soil erosion caused by runoff from dust suppression water
 Soil Contamination: The risk of construction activities resulting in soil contamination is
associated with the following events:
– Introduction of contaminants via the use of contaminated fill material on-site
– Accidental spill or leak of fuel, lubricants, paint, solvents and / or other hazardous
chemicals and materials resulting from inappropriate storage and handling practices
– Leak or spill of sewage from temporary septic tanks and portable toilets onsite
– Inappropriate storage and management of wastes
– Contaminated water (from water tankers) used for dust suppression and wash down of
vehicles, equipment and machinery on site
The risk of soil contamination is generally considered to be low and can readily be controlled via
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Any soil contamination arising from most of
the above-mentioned events will likely be localised issues, readily addressed and remediated.
Water supply during construction is not anticipated to be significant and will be delivered to site
via tanker or will be sourced from the existing water supply from DEWA, therefore groundwater
will not be used during construction. Impacts to groundwater quality, through pollution, are
generally indirect or secondary to soil quality issues. Typically, groundwater contamination
occurs where there is sufficient percolation or intrusion of contaminated water / hazardous liquid
through the vadose zone (area of aeration above the water table) and into the underlying
aquifer.
Dewatering activities, which may be required during excavation, will potentially require settling /
filtration to remove suspended solids prior to reuse on-site (e.g. for dust suppression) or off-site
disposal. Pumping out of groundwater is likely to have localised impact on surrounding
groundwater levels given the temporary nature of the construction phase.
The overall risk associated with groundwater contamination is considered to be low, due to the
following:
 The types of activities to be undertaken during the construction phase do not require or
generate large volumes of hazardous materials / wastes
 The arid climate condition on-site, wherein there is no significant surface / stormwater
flow that will infiltrate any contaminants into the groundwater
The operation of the Project is not considered to generate significant adverse impacts on the
soil or groundwater condition. However, activities that have the potential to cause soil and/or
groundwater contamination during the operation of the WtE plant include:
 Leak or overflow of untreated sewage from sewage transfer infrastructure
 Accidental spillage or leakage from storage of the feedstock on site (i.e. waste bunker)
 Inappropriate storage and disposal of wastes (e.g. bottom ash and FGT residue)
 Accidental spill or leakage from on-site bulk storage and handling of fuel and materials
(i.e. aqueous urea solution, solid additives, adsorbent)
6.5.3 Cumulative Impact
Appropriate management of hazardous materials as well as waste (i.e. bottom ash and FGT
residue) will be implemented to prevent soil and groundwater contamination. Further, the WtE
plant components (i.e. waste bunker, FGT silo, bottom ash maturation area and storage tanks)
will be designed to prevent potential for soil and groundwater contamination.
Proper coordination with DM-WMD or its representatives (i.e. accredited waste collector and
disposal facilities) will be undertaken for the final disposal of bottom ash and FGT residue.
Hazardous waste management plan will also be prepared in coordination with DM-WMD to
prevent soil and groundwater contamination.
The potential unmitigated impacts associated with noise during the construction and operation
phases is summarised in Table 6-40.
There is the potential for soil and groundwater contamination to occur if accidental spillage or
leakage occurs from the raw materials storage areas or if waste management practices are
inadequate. The risk of soil and groundwater contamination is considered low and will be further
reduced and mitigated by suitable mitigation measures.
Table 6-40 Potential unmitigated impacts on soil and groundwater

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Seismic tremor causing Rare Major Medium Workers and Negative

collapse of visitors of
infrastructure, that is the site
under construction and during
not yet able to construction
withstand earthquake
tremors
Spread of potential pre- Unlikely Minor Low Terrestrial Negative

existing soil ecology
contamination via
movement of
contaminated fill /
stockpiled material
Soil contamination from Unlikely Minor Low Terrestrial Negative

using contaminated ecology
water for dust Employees
suppression and visitors
on-site
Soil contamination due Likely Minor Medium Terrestrial Negative

to handling, storage ecology
and use of hazardous Employees
materials (e.g. oil, fuel, and visitors
paint and other on-site
chemicals)
Impact
Rating impacted
Soil erosion due to Likely Minor Medium Terrestrial

earthmoving activities ecology
(stockpiling)
Groundwater Unlikely Major Medium Terrestrial Negative

contamination as a flora and
fauna
result of spill / leak of
Marine flora
potentially hazardous and fauna
material (i.e. oil, fuel,
sewage, paint and
other chemicals)
Groundwater Unlikely Major Medium Terrestrial Negative

contamination as a flora and
fauna
result of inadequate
waste management
(e.g. hazardous waste,
sewage)
Operation Phase
Potential soil and Possible Moderate Medium Soil and Negative

groundwater Groundwater
contamination from
inappropriate waste
storage (e.g. feedstock
[waste] storage and
IBA/FGT residue
storage)
Potential soil and Possible Minor Low Soil and Negative

groundwater Groundwater
contamination from fuel
and raw material
storage
During the site development phase, the removal of vegetation is unavoidable; however, the
impact on floral diversity is not anticipated to be significant considering that most of the plant
species identified at the Project site are considered common and widespread in the UAE, and
either not yet assessed or are considered Least Concern by the IUCN. Plants recorded within
the site are also common and can be found in nearby areas. Further, the middle and western
sections of the Project site is categorised as Habitat 9600 or Disturbed Ground where the
natural landscape was completely altered into asphalt paved parking spaces (refer to Section
5.6.3). As such, the construction of the WtE plant is not anticipated to induce additional impact
on habitat loss.
No invasive species were observed at the Project site during the terrestrial survey. However,
equipment and machinery brought to the Project site during the construction phase may carry
pests and weed species if not properly cleaned and managed.
Dust emissions and noise may be generated from construction activities as well as movement of
vehicles and equipment that could result in negative health effects on local terrestrial fauna.
General dust and noise are expected to be localised and intermittent; as such, the impact is not
considered significant. Terrestrial fauna species are adapted to such type of disturbances
brought about by the existing industrial activities in the area.
Mitigation measures that will be implemented during the construction phase to prevent adverse
impacts on terrestrial flora and fauna are discussed in Section 7.5.
Increased air and noise emissions and artificial lighting could disturb or result in negative health
and behavioural effects to local terrestrial fauna during Project operation; however, considering
the the Project is within an industrial area, no notable change in disturbance to terrestrial fauna
is anticipated during the operation compared with existing conditions.
If wastes are not properly managed during the operation phase it may lead to an increase in the
number of invasive species especially introduction of rodents or other vectors. Appropriate
mitigation measures and vector attraction reduction methods will be implemented to address
potential impacts of invasive species on the Project site.
Based on the foregoing, cumulative impacts on terrestrial flora and fauna is not anticipated.
Based on the assessment above, no significant impact on flora and fauna is expected due to
the construction and operation of the WtE plant. The potential unmitigated impact of the Project
on biodiversity (terrestrial) and conservation is summarised in Table 6-41.
Table 6-41 Potential unmitigated impacts on biodiversity and conservation

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Habitat loss due to Likely Insignificant Low Vegetation Negative

excavation and at the
earthworks Project site
Disturbance of fauna Possible Minor Low Fauna Negative

species due to noise species at
impacts
the Project
site
Operation Phase
Impact
Rating impacted
Noise generated from Likely Insignificant Low Fauna Negative

operation activities species at
the Project
site
Introduction of invasive Possible Moderate Medium Site Negative

species workers
and nearby
community
Construction activities will lead to a temporary increase in road traffic during the construction
period, which can potentially affect road safety at the Project site and nearby road networks if
traffic is not properly managed. Transport requirements of the Project during the construction
phase will comprise of daily transport of site workers and staff members to the Project site,
delivery of construction materials and resources including fuel / oil / water / cement / etc.,
delivery of site equipment and supporting facilities and collection of solid waste for off-site
disposal.
Potential impacts associated with the construction phase traffic include:
 Increase in traffic congestion on the road network from several ports in the UAE leading
to the Project site
 Increased potential for vehicle accident / incident associated with a larger volume of traffic
on the road network
Transportation of construction equipment and materials from Port Rashid (nearest Port to the
site) to the site will use existing road networks (Figure 6-32). Road networks that lead to the site
from Port Rashid include:
 Via Rebat St / D83 – 31.1 km (fastest route / usual traffic)
 Via Manama St / D67 – 30.6 km
 Via Al Ain Road / E66 – 34.4 km
It is assumed that these routes have previously been used to support construction and
operation activities (such as those undertaken by various industries surrounding the Project
site), and is currently used for the day-to-day operation of the Al Aweer STP and Tadweer
Waste Treatment LLC (dumpsite). As such, the increase in traffic volumes associated with the
construction works is not anticipated to cause an unacceptable level of traffic congestion on the
surrounding network. Construction work shifts27 will differ from regular office work shifts
(between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm) so that traffic periods will be spread from 6:30 am to 9:00 am and
4:00 pm to 6:00 pm.
27
Construction work shifts are typically between 7:00 am to 4:00 pm with one-hour break or 7:00 am to 6:00 pm
with three hours midday break (12:00 nn to 3:00 pm) during summer.
Construction transport will include a range of vehicles and equipment, most of which will use the
surrounding network. Traffic generated during the construction phase is not anticipated to be
significant as the movements would be intermittent and undertaken outside rush hour traffic.
Consequently, traffic congestion as a result of the Project is not anticipated. Movement of
construction vehicle and equipment will be limited within the construction site only and is not
anticipated to affect the surrounding facilities and roads within the site.
Where traffic congestion may be caused as a result of the construction works, this is likely to
generate significant disruption and ill feeling amongst members of the surrounding residential
areas as well as workers / visitors at the industrial and commercial areas that are adjacent to
the Project site. Traffic impacts during construction of the Project can be managed via
appropriate site traffic management and logistical planning, which would include on-site queing.
Figure 6-32 Access road from Port Rashid to the Project site
The traffic impact associated with the Project’s normal operations include:
 Daily delivery of MSW from Dubai Municipality
 Collection of FGT residue and bottom ash for off-site disposal

Assuming an average capacity of 5.391 tonnes per truck (refer to Section 4.9.3.3 Table 4-6),
MSW deliveries from DM is anticipated at 44 waste delivery trucks per hour on average and
approximately 80 waste delivery trucks per hour during peak times.
A Level 1 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was completed (refer to Appendix Q) for the project, and is
described in the subsequent subsections.
Trip Generation
The traffic expected to be generated by the development is evaluated by applying the rates in
the Dubai Trip Generation and Parking Rates Manual 2013. The applicable trip generation rates
for the critical AM, LT, PM and Peak Hour Generator are tabulated in Table 6-42. Table 6-43
provides the trip generation of the development estimated by applying the rates mentioned in
Table 6-42.
Table 6-42 Trip Generation Rates
Land Class Unit AM Peak LT Peak PM Peak Peak Hour Generator

use
Rate In Out Rate In Out
Medium 621 100 m2 0.424 51% 49% 0.52 47% 53% 0.28 49% 51% 0.52 47% 53%
Industry of GFA
Source: RTC Road and Traffic Engineering, 2018
Table 6-43 Trip Generation Summary
Land Class Unit AM Peak LT Peak PM Peak Peak Hour Generator

use
Rate In Out Rate In Out
Medium 621 58,089 247 126 121 303 142 161 163 80 83 303 142 161
Industry
Standard Parameters
Traffic analysis for site access of the proposed development is performed based on the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedure. To determine the operating conditions of a
roadway, the concept of level of service (LOS) is commonly used. The LOS grading system is a
rating scale ranging from LOS A to LOS F, where LOS A represents free-flow conditions and
LOS F represents congested or jammed conditions. Table 6-44 shows the factors and
assumptions used in the analysis.
Table 6-44 Standard Parameters
Factor / Assumption Value
PHF 0.95
Lane width 3.65 m
Lane utilization Varies
Ideal intersection capacity per lane 1900
Ideal freeway capacity per lane 2000
% of heavy vehicles 2%
Level of Service Criteria

Roadway LOS describes the operating conditions determined for a group of vehicles passing
over a given segment of the roadway during a specified period of time. It is a qualitative
measure of several factors, which include speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to
manoeuvre, driver comfort, convenience, safety and vehicle operating costs. The roadway LOS
analysis is performed using the method contained in the HCM where six Levels of Service have
been established by which we assess roadway performance, designated by the letters A
through F. These LOS levels are defined as follows:
 LOS A – free flow, individual users virtually unaffected by the presence of others
 LOS B – stable flow with a high degree of freedom to select operating conditions
 LOS C – flor remains stable, but with significant interactions with others
 LOS D – approaching unstable flow, freedom to manoeuvre is severely restricted
 LOS E – unstable flow, with volumes approaching capacity of the roadway
 LOS F – forced flow in which traffic exceeds the amount that can be serviced
LOS describing the operation of the access is based on delay occurring for vehicles. Table 5
shows the LOS and corresponding delay used to evaluate traffic conditions at the access
points.
Table 6-45 LOS - Delay
LOS Delay (in seconds)
F 50 and above
E 35 – 50
D 25 – 35
LOS Delay (in seconds)
C 15 – 25
B 10 – 15
A 0 – 10
Site Access Analysis

Providing effective and efficient access to the development is an important aspect to be
considered to ensure that safe and efficient flow of traffic is achieved through the access /
egress system.
The development has two access points. Access point 1 has both has both entrance and exit
accesses while Access point 2 has only entry access. Access analysis is carried out for the
opening year 2022 by adding the project trips with the project traffic count.
Site Access Analysis – Opening Year 2022

Site access analysis has been carried out at the access points to determine the impact of
generated trips on the existing road traffic. The access locations are analysed using HCS 7
software. The resulting delay and LOS are shown in Table 6-46. Detailed analysis results of the
site access are provided in Appendix Q. The below table indicate that the access point will work
at an acceptable LOS for the opening year 2022 during AM and PM peak hours.
Table 6-46 Site Access Analysis – Opening Year 2022
Access AM PM
LOS Delay(s) LOS Delay(s)
Access 1 A 9.3 A 8.0
Access 2 C 22.4 B 12.1

Parking Demand Supply and Circulation

The number of parking spaces required for the development is estimated from the DTGPRM
2013 parking rates and DM regulations. It is ensured that proper parking arrangement as well as
internal circulation is provided. Table 6-47 and Table 6-48 reflect the parking calculation of the
development as per DTGPRM 2013 parking rates and DM guidelines. Table 6-49 gives the
parking supply of the development.
Review of the above table indicates that the proposed development will adequately meet the
parking demand in accordance with DM parking regulations. The traffic circulation within the
project site has been designed to ensure no delay is formed at the access points. The
circulation plans along with the swept path analysis is provided in Appendix Q.
Table 6-47 Parking Circulation (DTGPRM 2013)
Land use Unit Quantity Parking Rate Parking

Demand
Medium industry m2 of GFA 58,089 0.357 208
Total 208
Table 6-48 Parking Circulation - DM
Land use Unit Quantity Parking rate Parking

Demand
Medium industry m2 of GFA 58,089 1 parking per 750 ft2 of 58

office area
Total 58
Table 6-49 Parking Supply
Parking Level No. of Parking
Ground floor 69
The Project would add to the existing road congestion within the area. The increase in traffic is
an unavoidable impact fom the construction and operation activities of the Project. The
increased predicted, however, will not significantly impact the overall capacity available for the
traffic network.
The potential unmitigated impacts of the Project on access, traffic and transport is summarised
in Table 6-50.
Table 6-50 Potential unmitigated impacts on access, traffic and transport

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Increase in road traffic Almost Minor Medium Residents of Negative

in the vicinity of the certain local
community
Project site
Users and
workers of
neighbouring
inductrial and
Impact
Rating impacted
commercial
facilities
Potential traffic Possible Minor Low Residents of Negative

congestion on the local
community
road network from the
port leading to the Users and
Project site workers of
neighbouring
inductrial and
commercial
facilities
Noise, dust and air Possible Moderate Medium Employees Negative

emissions due to truck and workers of
HZI, BESIX
movements and
subcontractors
Residents /
users of
facilities
surrounding
the site
Operation Phase
Increase in traffic Likely Minor Medium Residents / Negative

movement within the users of
facilities
WtE plant surrounding
the site
Workers at the
WtE plant
Noise, dust and air Likely Minor Medium Workers within Negative
emissions due to truck the WtE
movements PLANT
6.8.1.1 Utility requirements during Construction

During the construction phase, temporary service utilities will be provided on-site to facilitate
construction of the facility. This would include temporary source of water and energy supply.
The operation and maintenance of construction equipment and utilities on-site have associated
environmental issues, which could potentially lead to adverse impacts. The following
subsections discuss the key environmental issues associated with the operation of temporary
utilities on-site.
Water Resources
Potable water will be supplied on-site for consumption of workers and visitors. Water
requirements will be supplied by the existing DEWA facilities via water tankers. Temporary
water storage tanks will also be provided on-site to supply water for domestic and other washing
activities on site (e.g. equipment and concrete washing). Dewatering effluent, if available, is a
potential resource that can be reused for dust suppression measures. Given that excavating
significant areas is unlikely, dewatering effluent may not be available; as such, recycled water
from other sources (i.e. Al Aweer STP) will be delivered on site via tanker to be used for dust
suppression measures.
Power Supply
Temporary power requirements for the Project’s construction will most likely be supplied through
power generating units, which have the following associated impacts:
 Air pollutant emissions (NO2, SO2, TSP, HC, CO and O3). Emissions from power units are
typically localised, short term in nature and not significant; and
 Construction utilities and equipment will require regular delivery and storage of fuel on-
site. The temporary oil storage facilities may potentially cause oil spills and VOC
emissions.
6.8.1.2 Potential impacts on existing infrastructure and utilities

The Project site is located in an industrial area where utilities and infrastructure network
including water and power supply/distribution system are present. Without proper construction
management, site activities could potentially result in property damage and interruptions of
service to nearby industrial facilities and to local communities. This is particularly related to
development of areas where service lines could potentially be running and also to utility works
during which the Project service lines are to be connected to existing networks.
The risk of Project construction works resulting in utility / infrastructure damage or service
interruptions is considered low where management measures (e.g. early and close coordination
with utility providers) are implemented.
6.8.2.1 Water Resources

During the operation phase, approximately 4.80 m3/h of potable water will be used for domestic
and sanitary use as well as firefighting system (1000 m3/d). Potable water will be sourced from
DEWA while water for plant operation will be sourced from Al Aweer STP. Approximately
42.35 m3/h (1 stream in operation) or 76.06 m3/h (2 stream in operation) of water from Al Aweer
STP will be required during the operation. The water from Al Aweer STP will be treated in the
Water Treatment Plant (discussed in Section 4.7.9 [Description of the Project]) before it is fed to
the water / steam cycle.
Water discharges during the plant operation include process water and softened water. Process
water can be reused, as follows:
 Reuse for the Bottom Ash Extractor: 11.76 m3/h (1 or 2 steam in operation). During
normal operation, no return of process water from the WtE plant is foreseen to be sent to
Al Aweer (at “TP-04”). All the brine or rejects produced in the plant will be used for cooling
the bottom ash and for maturation and dust suppression of the stockpiled IBA in the IBA
Maturation Area (refer to Figure 4-5-BS13-D).
 Reuse for the Bottom Ash at the IBA Maturation Area: 0.35 m3/h (1 or 2 steam in
operation)
 Overflow / Return to Al Aweer STP: 0.00 m3/h (1 or 2 steam in operation)
Softened water, which is approximately 1.40 m3/h (1 or 2 steam in operation) can be fed to the
air cool condenser (ACC) for cleaning or close unit cooling water system (CCW). The CCW is a
sprinkler system where water evaporates; as such, there is no water discharge. As provided
above, both the process and softened water can be reused; as such, no wastewater will be
generated by the Project. Water balance for the Project is provided in Figure 6-33.
Recycling and reusing water from Al Aweer STP supports the sustainability goal of Dubai and it
provides environmental as well as economic benefits, such as:
 Conserved potable / freshwater supply. Using recycled water conserves potable water
supplied by DEWA; hence reducing air emissions and marine impacts associated with
desalination.
 Reduce water discharge. Using recycled water reduces the amount of treated water
discharged into water bodies; hence preventing potential water pollution.
 Commercial benefits. Recycled water costs less than potable water and the Project will
pay less for the same volume of water.
Figure 6-33 Water Balance
6.8.2.2 Power Supply
The completion and operation of the proposed WtE plant is considered to have a significant
positive impact in terms of energy sufficiency, diversification of energy resources and contribution
of additional power supply to meet the demands of increasing population and growing economy.
The WtE plant itself will operate from energy produced from the processing of MSW.
The proposed WtE plant will contribute in producing clean energy and an additional net power
output of 193 MW to the electricity grid, which could power approximately 135,000 houses in the
Emirate of Dubai.
The WtE plant operation is considered to continuously contribute, albeit on a minimal scale, to the
adverse environmental impacts associated with the operation of the power plants. Key impacts of
power plant operation include air emissions and noise generation. Air pollution and noise
generation control measures are provided in Section 7.2 and Section 7.3, respectively.
Cumulative impacts on water and energy resources is considered to be of low significance as

construction activities is temporary and short term. Emissions from power units are typically
localised, short-term in nature and not significant.
During the operation phase, cumulative impact on water resources is considered low given the
following reasons:
 Minimal amount (approximately 4.80 m3/h) of potable water from DEWA
 Recycling and reusing of water from Al Aweer STP

 Process water will be reused in plant operation; as such water discharges are not
anticipated
Cumulatie impacts arising from WtE plant operation in terms of power supply is considered to be a
significant benefit in terms of energy efficiency and diversification of energy resources.
Based on the assessment above, no significant impace on water and energy resources is
expected due to construction and operation of the Project. There will be a net positive impact on
the power generation from the operation of the WtE plant. The potential unmitigated impacts of the
Project on water and energy resources is summarised in Table 6-51.
Table 6-51 Potential unmitigated impacts on water and energy resources

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Water supply Unlikely Minor Low Other water Negative

competition with other users
users / consumers of
DEWA
Impact
Rating impacted
Additional traffic on the Unlikely Minor Low Workers and Negative

existing road traffic residents in
network due to the surrounding
distribution of water on- areas
site
Power / fuel Almost Minor Medium Construction Negative

consumption causing certain site workers
and visitors
localised air pollution,
noise emissions Workers and
residents of
surrounding
areas
Potential risk of spill Unlikely Minor Low Surface and Negative

from delivery and on- groundwater
site storage of fuel, sources
potentially resulting in
soil and groundwater
contamination
Operation Phase
Fuel consumption for Possible Minor Low Water Negative

plant start-up and resources
equipment / vehicle Site workers
use causing risk of spill and visitors
from delivery and on-
site storage of fuel
Water conservation, Almost Moderate High Water Positive

recycling and reusing certain resources
of water from Al Aweer Water users
STP for plant operation
Contribute to producing Almost Moderate High Energy Positive

clean energy and certain consumers in
additional energy the Emirate
resource in the Emirate of Dubai and
of Dubai and the UAE the UAE in
in general general
This section considers a qualitative assessment of environmental impacts due to waste generated
as a result of the project during construction and operation phases.
6.9.1 Assessment Methodology
This waste assessment has been prepared in accordance with Dubai Municipality, UAE and
International legislation, guidelines, conventions, protocols, policies and procedures (detailed in
Chapter 3) specifically including:
 Dubai Municipality Technical Guideline Number 02, EIA Requirements for Development,
Infrasturcture, and Utility Projects (August 2018)
 Executive Order issued by Council of Ministers Decree No. 37 of 2001 concerning
Regulation for Handling Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes and Medical Wastes
 IFC Performance Standard 3 – Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention (2012)
 World Bank EHS Guidelines including the General Guideline (2007), Guideline for Thermal
Power (2008) and Guideline for Waste Management Facilities (2007)
The methodology for the waste assessment considered the requirements of the aforementioned
legislation and guidelines:
 Describing waste generation and management practices in the UAE and Dubai Emirate
based on a review of available data (e.g. solid waste generated and waste management
facilities) as well as the existing waste management facilities in Dubai and the proposed
WtE plant for the Project
 Identifying waste types and streams (e.g., solid, liquid; hazardous or non-hazardous) and
quantities produced during construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the WtE
plant facility
 Assessing impacts associated with waste generation and management (such as health
hazards [Section 6.11], odour emissions [Section 6.3], soil and groundwater contamination
and impacts to existing waste management infrastructure in Dubai) using the impact
assessment criteria methodology outlined in Section 2.3 and discussing the benefits of the
Project
 Identifying mitigation measures to reduce the waste impacts including consideration of the
legislation and guidelines
 Summarising impacts along with the mitigation measures and identifying the residual
impacts
 Developing a framework monitoring program to monitor waste generated and how it is
managed
The assessment of waste impacts is usually associated with the impacts on receptors and
resources including waste infrastructure. The indirect impacts of waste management will be
addressed in other environmental components such as air quality (Section 7.1), soil and
groundwater (Section 7.4).
Without appropriate management, the generation, storage and disposal of construction waste may
lead to the following potential environmental impacts:
 Soil and groundwater contamination. The risk is primarily associated with storage of
sewage, waste oil and chemical waste onsite (and other hazardous materials and
substances). Due to the depth of groundwater (on average 7.24 to 15.34 mbgl), it is
considered possible that there could be groundwater contamination at the WtE plant site as
a result of a spill (refer to Section 6.4.4 for detailed assessment of spill). Any spills or leaks
at the WtE plant site should be rectified in a timely manner
 Litter from the site could disperse in and around the project site. This is comparable
condition as most infrastructure development projects. Although an impact may not be
readily apparent at the time of the discharge, some contaminants (e.g. oil, trace metals from
waste paints) tend to accumulate over time
 Odour from storage of putrescible wastes and sewage storage tanks. This impact is typically
localised and will affect construction workers. Odour may also be a potential indication of
contamination (e.g. leak / spill of sewage, chemical or oil)
 Hazards to fauna. Construction debris / litter could also pose an injury hazard to fauna.
Desert animals could potentially ingest waste or injure themselves from sharp or hazardous
waste items
 Health and safety. Construction debris / litter could potentially cause injury or fatalities to
workers or visitors to the site from contact with sharp, flammable or hazardous materials
The above potential environmental impacts and safety issues are predicted to be similar to
impacts experienced during decommissioning activities. Construction waste from the Project will
add to the waste loads of the existing waste management infrastructure and services. It should be
noted, however, that current facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate waste generated.
Potential cumulative waste impacts of the Project can be reduced by implementing the proposed
mitigation measures provided in Section 7.8.1. Segregation of wastes during construction will be
crucial, with proper signage and disposal containers allotted for separation of different waste
streams.
The benefits of the operation of the Project with respect to waste include the reduction of waste
disposed in the landfills. The WtE plant can utilise typical MSW, refuse-derived fuel from a
materials recovery facility as well as commercial and industrial wastes that may otherwise be
disposed of in a landfill.
Operational waste generated by the Project will form additional loads to existing waste
infrastructure and utilities; however, will also reduce the load on waste management facilities in the
Dubai Emirate. Similar to construction waste, operational waste may result in potential impacts if
not properly managed, including:
 Soil and groundwater contamination. The risk is primarily associated with storage of
sewage, waste oil and chemical waste onsite. Due to the distance to groundwater (7.24 to
15.34 mbgl), and containment of waste inputs and residual materials within engineered
containment areas, it is considered unlikely that there would be groundwater contamination
at the WtE Plant site. As for construction, any spills or leaks at the WtE Plant site should be
rectified in a timely manner
 Litter from the site, or during deliveries of wastes, could disperse in and around the project
site. Although an impact may not be readily apparent at the time of the discharge, some
contaminants (e.g. oil, trace metals from waste paints) tend to accumulate over time
 Hazards to fauna. Waste could also pose an injury hazard to fauna. Desert animals could
potentially ingest waste or injure themselves from sharp or hazardous waste items however,
this is less likely to occur during operations due to the reduction in waste generated
 Health and safety. Waste could potentially cause injury or fatalities to workers or visitors to
the site from contact with sharp, flammable or hazardous materials
With consistent implementation of the selected waste mitigation measures (Section 7.8.1),
unacceptable waste impacts from the Project are not anticipated during its operational phase.
While the Project may contribute to other environmental issues associated with waste transport
and landfill operations including land degradation, risk of soil and groundwater contamination and
GHG emissions, the cumulative impact of the Project would be the benefit in the overall reduction
of waste disposed to landfill.
No significant impact on waste management is anticipated for the Project. There will be a net
positive impact from the operation of the WtE plant due to the overall reduction of waste disposed
to the landfill. The potential unmitigated impacts of the Project on waste management is provided
in Table 6-52.
Table 6-52 Potential unmitigated impacts on waste management

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Potential soil and/or Possible Moderate Medium Soil Negative

groundwater
contamination due to
storage, handling and
transport of waste
Litter of waste on site Almost Insignificant Low Soil, site Negative

certain workers
and fauna
Odour from storage of Almost Insignificant Low Site Negative

putrescible wastes and certain workers
sewage storage tanks and visitors
Hazards to fauna Possible Moderate Medium Terrestrial Negative

fauna on
the Project
site
Impact
Rating impacted
Operation Phase
Potential soil and/or Possible Minor Low Soil Negative

groundwater
contamination due to
storage, handling and
transport of waste
Litter of waste on site Almost Insignificant Low Soil, site Negative

certain workers,
fauna
Hazards to fauna Possible Moderate Medium Terrestrial Negative

fauna on
the Project
site
Health and safety Possible Moderate Medium Site Negative

hazards to workers and workers
visitors and visitors
6.10 Land Use and Visual Amenity
Change / Inconsistency with Land Use

Based on existing land uses within and around the project site, the majority of the areas adjacent
to the proposed Project location comprise of industrial and commercial facilities; as such, the
proposed WtE plant is not anticipated to have any impact or result in a significant change to the
intended land use for the area. The classification of the site as ‘land for future development subject
to environmental investigation and detail studies’ is satisfied through the preparation of this EIA
report. Therefore, based on existing land use and future land use development according to DM
Planning Department (2012), no impacts are anticipated in terms of conflict in land use.
Encroachment in Environmental Protected Areas

As provided in Section 5.10.2, the Project is located around 20 km east of a designated protected
area; as such, encroachment of the Project is not anticipated. Further, environmental impacts (e.g.
air emission, noise generation) generated during the construction phase is not anticipated to
impact the protected areas (detailed assessment on air quality and noise generation is provided in
Sections 6.3 and 6.4, respectively).
Impacts on Landscape and Visual Amenity

Potential visual impacts associated with construction phase include:
 Traffic – increase in the number of trucks transporting construction material may be noticed
on the access road (public road and internal project site road). Traffic impact on receptors is
discussed in Section 6.7;
 Dust – potential increased dust levels associated with the construction impacts and
increased vehicle movements. Potential impacts associated with construction dust are
assessed in Section 6.3;
It is worthy to note that the abovementioned visual impacts are transient and inherent to
construction activities. As such, the overall impact of the proposed Project on landscape and visual
amenity is considered of very low significance.
The land use, landscape and visual impacts of the Project during the operation phase are
considered to be negligible. Visual impact to the villa accommodations to the north of the site
within the Desert Palm Polo Club area are anticipated to be minimal, given the existing landscape
screening, and a general improve aesthetic when changing the asphalt paved vehicle storage area
to a facility with architectural features.
The WtE plant is considered to conform to the overall industrial land use of the site and
surrounding areas. However, to ensure integration of the new infrastructure, the colours and
similar cladding will be used to harmonize with the adjacent industrial sites and facilities. Additional
measures are provided in Section 7.9.
Cumulative impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts on land use, landscape and visual amenity is negligible and consistent with an industrial
zoned land use. The impacts of the Project (prior to implementation of mitigation measures) is
summarised in Table 6-53.
Table 6-53 Potential unmitigated impacts on land use and visual amenity

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Change / Rare Insignificant Negligible NA Negative

inconsistency with
land use
Increased in the Possible Moderate Medium Community Negative

number of trucks and business
transporting establishments
construction leading to the
materials Project site
Potential increase in Likely Minor Medium Community Negative

dust levels and business
Impact
Rating impacted
associated with the establishments

construction impacts leading to the
and increased Project site
vehicle movement
Operation Phase
Visual impact Unlikely Minor Low Community Negative

associated with the and business
installation of new establishments
infrastructure leading to the
Project site
6.11 Socio-Economic, Culture and Health
6.11.1.1 Socio-Economic Impacts
Generation of Employment and Business Opportunities

During the construction phase, a significant positive impact of the Project will be the generation of
employment and business opportunities. The Project is anticipated to employ approximately 2,000
workers during the peak of construction, which will generally comprise of construction labourers
and skilled trades people.
Employment generation will provide income for workers and subsequently maintain and/or improve
the standard of living of their respective families. The workers’ wages will also contribute to the
local economy as a result of multiplier effects. Multiplier effect means that additional money earned
locally will be used to purchase goods and services that may add investment in local businesses,
which may in turn provide indirect employment opportunities. Local businesses that may positively
be affected include food and beverage as well as accommodation establishments (where
accommodation is not provided to labourers by the contractors). If accommodation is provided by
contractors to labourers, this would potentially generate income in the goods and services industry
such as catering/kitchen staff, laundry services, etc. Business opportunities that are anticipated to
contribute to the overall economic growth of Dubai include trading of materials and equipment
rental.
6.11.1.2 Impacts on Workers
Workforce Accommodation and Labour Conditions

As per existing polices and practices in Dubai, majority of the construction workforce are provided
with accommodation; as such, accommodation facilities will be provided to workers during the
construction phase. Existing labour camps used by the Contractors are located in Al Quoz and
Jebel Ali Area. Transportation services from labour accommodations to the WtE plant site will be
provided by the contractor/s.
In addition to the construction labour accommodation, some staff would be permanent employees
or contractors living locally or within the vicinity of the Project. Separate arrangements will be put
in place for these types of workers to comply with the local and international requirements.
Whether existing labour accommodation will be used or temporary/permanent facilities will be
established, it should meet the requirements of the following standards:
 Health Requirements for the Services provided inside Labours Accommodation, Public
Health and Safety Department (Doc Ref: DM-PH&SD-P7-WI18);
 Health Requirements for Permanent Labour Accommodation, Public Health and Safety
Department (Doc Ref: DM-PH&SD-P7-Wi02); and
 Health Requirements for Labour Accommodation, Public Health and Safety Department
(Doc Ref: DM-PH&SD-P6-WI-02).
If the above standards are adhered to, then the standard of living for the personnel working on the
Project would be deemed acceptable and will not pose a negative socio-economic or health
impact.
Occupational Health and Safety

The workers or staff members at the Project site could be exposed to various occupational and
safety hazards (e.g. exposure to heat, noise, electrical hazards, fire and explosion, fall from height,
inhalation of toxic chemicals, dangers associated with general construction equipment and
materials, etc.) which are inherent to construction works. Contractors will be required to develop
safe work methodologies to ensure protection of workers from injuries or ill health effects. The
Proponent, through the contractors, will ensure that construction work will meet all UAE and Dubai
Labour Law requirements including:
 Dubai Municipality Code of Construction Safety Practice (Latest Version);
 Provision of Local Order No. (3) of 1999 on Construction Activities Regulations in the
Emirate of Dubai;
 Provision of Local Order No. (11) of 2003 on Public Health and community Safety in the
Emirate of Dubai;
 Code of Construction Safety Practice (Adopted Under Local Order 61/1991); and
 UAE Fire & Life Safety Code of Practice outlined by the Civil Defence, which includes
“Chapter 12 - Fire & Safety Codes during Construction and Maintenance”.
Protecting the Work Force

Child labour and forced labour will not be tolerated at all phases of project development. The
Proponent will ensure that safety and protection of workers will be prioritised. A Human Resource
Management Plan will be prepared to ensure that employment of juveniles (under the age of 15)
and forced labour will be avoided. In the event juveniles (youth between the ages 15 and 18) are
employed (e.g. on-the-job training), it will be ensured that requirements of the Ministry of Human
Resources and Emiratization (MoHRE) on juvenile work permit issuance are complied with.
Appropriate measures to protect their rights will also be established. Appropriate penalties and
disciplinary action will be imposed in case of child labour, forced labour and other forms of
workers’ right violation.
The Proponent will ensure that its contractors, suppliers and operators will comply with its Human
Resource polices and procedures.
6.11.1.3 Community and Public Health Impact
Visual Amenity
The WtE plant will be located at the existing vehicle storage site owned by DM and surrounded by
industrial and commercial (warehouse and storehouses) facilities. The construction laydown area
will be located south of the proposed WtE plant in an already cleared area. The topography of the
site is lower than the surrounding site. As such, the overall impact of the construction activities on
visual amenity is considered of very low significance.
Potential visual impacts associated with the construction phase include:
 Traffic due to the anticipated increase of trucks transporting construction materials, which
may be observed on the access road. Traffic impact assessment is provided in Section 6.7
 Potential increase of dust levels associated with the construction impacts and increase
vehicle movements (Section 6.3)
It is worthy to note that the abovementioned visual impacts are transient and inherent to
construction activities. Further, the Project will conform with what would be expected to be
observed within an industrial area and consistent with the surrounding industrial landscape.
Disruption from Construction Traffic

Construction traffic could potentially result in increased congestion and disturbance to local
residents, schools and workers. Working hours for the construction site will be established outside
the normal working and school hours (i.e. 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM) to prevent traffic and congestion.
Working hours at the construction site are as follows:
 Saturday to Thursday – 07:00 to 18:00; and

 Summertime restricted hours Saturday to Thursday – 05:30 to 12:30 and 15:00 to 18:00 (or
as dictated by the Local Authorities due to climatic conditions (heat) and the requirement to
manage fatigue).
Any work outside these hours will require prior approval from authorities (e.g. Road and Transport
Authority) at least 48 hours in advance. Working hours and conditions will comply with the UAE
Labour Law and directives issued by Dubai Municipality. A traffic management plan will also be
developed to manage construction traffic entering and exiting the project site (as discussed in
Section 7.6).
Air Quality and Noise Impacts

The construction activities are likely to emit fugitive dust and gaseous pollutants and generate
noise that could potentially cause annoyance or sleep disturbance to surrounding sensitive
receptors, in case night-time construction activities are undertaken. The workers may also be
exposed to hazardous substances when hazardous materials and their wastes are delivered to
and removed from the construction site, respectively, if they are not properly handled.
Air and noise emissions during construction are likely to be temporary, reversible and localised. Air
and noise impacts on sensitive receptors are discussed in Section 6.3 and 6.4, respectively, while
an assessment of waste is provided in Section 6.7.
Conflict between Workers and Local Residents / Occupants

The potential influx of a large number of construction workers can be a challenge to the local
communities located close to the Project site. Some residents at the residential and resource /
attraction areas close to the site may find the behaviour of the workers a nuisance/disturbance
(e.g. hanging around and utilising areas in the local communities during rest breaks). Behavioural
or cultural differences and misconduct (e.g. littering) by construction workforce may result in public
health and safety concerns. The construction site is surrounded by industrial facilities, and local
communities and schools are not within the immediate vicinity of the site. As such, opportunities
for conflict between workers and local residents / occupants to arise is considered limited.
Possible conflict may also arise due to competition with basic resources (e.g. water and sanitation,
health, transportation, etc.). To prevent this situation, workers will be provided with proper
compensation package including provision of health benefits, accommodation facilities and
transportation.
6.11.1.4 Impacts on Archaeology and Cultural Resources

Based on available online information, construction of the proposed WtE plant is not likely to have
any impact on the archaeological and cultural resources of the Emirates of Dubai.
6.11.2.1 Socio-Economic Impacts

The Project is anticipated to generate long term employment opportunities as it requires
approximately 129 full time staff to oversee the entire operation of the WtE plant. Additional 120
external workers will be employed during the annual outage overhaul. The skills required for the
operations phase will be technical, management and administration staff. As with the current trend
in Dubai and the UAE in general, employees will likely consist mostly of expatriates although
priority will be provided to local Emiratis.
The workers’ wages will contribute to the local economy as a result of multiplier effect that will
potentially benefit local businesses such as food and beverages, tourism and other
establishments. Operation and maintenance activities will also generate business opportunities in
relation to maintenance and material supplies.
The long-term business and employment opportunities brought about by the Project will contribute
to the overall socio-economic development in the Emirate of Dubai. The operation of the WtE plant
is also anticipated to reduce Dubai’s reliance on imported energy supply from the Emirate of Abu
Dhabi.
6.11.2.2 Impacts on Workers
Occupational Health and Safety Impacts

The operation and maintenance of the WtE plant have associated occupational health and safety
risks, which require control measures to ensure protection of workers as mandated in the UAE
Labour Law. The plant operator will be directly responsible for managing health and safety risks
associated with the operation the WtE plant and activities of the employees.
The following occupational health and safety risks will be considered in developing the OHS Plan:
 Heat exposure during operation and maintenance of combustion units, pipes and related hot
equipment
 Exposure to air quality emissions
 Exposure to noise in combustion facilities
 Working in confined spaces (e.g. turbines, condensers, stack, etc.)

 Electrical hazards due to energized equipment and power lines
 Fire and explosion hazards;
 Chemical hazards (e.g. ammonia for NOx control system)

 Hazardous waste management (e.g. flue gas residue)
Labour and Working Conditions

Accommodation facilities will be established southeast of the WtE plant. All temporary and
permanent labour accommodation will be established to meet the requirements of the following
standards:
 Health Requirements for the Services provided inside Labours Accommodation, Public
Health and Safety Department (Doc Ref: DM-PH&SD-P7-WI18);
 Health Requirements for Permanent Labour Accommodation, Public Health and Safety
Department (Doc Ref: DM-PH&SD-P7-Wi02); and
 Health Requirements for Labour Accommodation, Public Health and Safety Department
(Doc Ref: DM-PH&SD-P6-WI-02).
Labour accommodation is considered to be a residential area; as such, it should conform with
guideline limits in terms of air and noise threshold criteria. Air and noise impact assessments for
the labour accommodation are provided in Sections 6.3 and 6.4, respectively.
6.11.2.3 Community and Public Health Impacts
Visual Amenity
Changes to visual amenity are considered to be permanent and irreversible; however, these
changes are consistent with the existing industrial landscape already established in the Project
site.
Odour Annoyance and Nuisance

Results of the odour dispersion modelling indicate that:
 When negative pressure is maintained, predicted odour concentrations will be undetectable
to majority of the population;
 If negative pressure is lost and a flow rate of 0.6 m/s is achieved, predicted odour
concentrations at 7 of the 14 receptors should be undetectable and some sensitive
receptors north of the WtE plant may experience odour concentrations of up to 5.6 OU; and
 In a flow rate of 1.2 m/s during a loss of negative pressure, predicted odour concentrations
at 2 receptors should be undetectable while some receptors may experience odour
concentrations of up to 11.1 OU.
Proposed mitigation measures to prevent odour concentrations reaching the identified sensitive
receptors are provided in Section 7.2.2.2.
Human Health Risks
Hazards
Many studies have been performed at incnerators around the world to characterise the health
impacts associated with WtE plants. The following hazards were considered in this assessment:
 Emissions. Contaminants evaluated in air dispersion model (refer to Section 6.3.2.1) include
NO2, SO2, CO, TSP, acid gases (HCl, HF and NH3) dioxins (2,3,7,8 TCDD), Hg and Cd.
 Ash. Short-term storage of IBA and FGT residues will be provided at the WMC. The IBA will
be pretreated and managed by DM prior to use as aggregate on Dubai roadways. The FGT
residues will also be managed by DM, however the final disposal option is currently not
known but it is defined as a hazardous waste in most contexts. Heavy metal concentrations
in leachate from ash disposal present the greatest risk based on several studies (Alba et al.,
1997) (Chichester and Landsberger, 1996) (Buchholz and Landsberger, 1995). Leachate
could contaminate groundwater, which could subsequently lead to contamination of the
groundwater resources. However, the pretreatment of the ash should stabilize it to control
leachate thereby reducing the potential impacts to ground water. Furthermore, groundwater
was encountered between 7 to 15 metres below ground level (mbgl). Consequently,
adverse human health impacts from the leachate associated with ash re-use or disposal are
not expected to be of consequence. Airborne dust from the ash will be minimized through
the use of covered vehicles and dust control measures at the facility. The potential risk to
human health associated with airborne dust from the ash is similar to the potential risks
associated with emissions from the incineration process and will be discussed generally as
a component of emissions.
Exposure Routes
Exposure to pollutants associated with WtE plant could occur through the following:
 Inhalation. Pollutants of concern could be found in gas or particulate form emitted from the
incinerator stack or residual ash. Inhalation of these gasses or particulates provides a
pathway for pollutants to impact human health. Preliminary studies have been done to
evaluate wind conditions and dispersion of emissions from the WtE plant as described in the
Air Quality Assessment Report (refer to Appendix N).
 Ingestion. Incidental ingestion of particulate matter from incinerator emissions or airborne

dust from incinerated bottom ash and flue gas treatment (FGT) residue is unlikely but could
occur if these particulates were to settle on food or in water that is subsequently consumed
by workers or the general public.
 Dermal contact. Dermal contact is possible for workers working with the incinerator bottom
ash. Deposition of particulates or airborne dust on non-workers under proper operation of
the emission control systems is anticipated to be negligible. However, the management
measures that will be in place should eliminated or minimize any potential exposure for the
workers.
Exposure response
 Inhalation
– Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). As numerous epidemiological studies have used NO2 as a
marker for the mixture of combustion-related pollutants, in particular, those emitted by
road traffic or indoor combustion sources, therefore, it has been difficult to provide a
robust basis for the health effects associated with inhalation of NO2 (WHO, 2005).
However, epidemiological studies have shown that bronchitic symptoms of asthmatic
children increase in association with annual NO2 concentration, and that reduced lung
function growth in children is linked to elevated NO2 concentrations within communities
already at current North American and European urban ambient air levels (WHO, 2005).
Section 6.3.2.1 shows the highest predicted cumulative concentrations fall below the
assessment criteria using the NOx to NO2 ratio, with the exception of Residential villas.
As the cumulative annual average concentration are above the WHO criteria, there may
be times when annual average of the NO2 levels may result in decrease in pulmonary
function for some individuals, particularly those with asthma.
– Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Inhalation exposure to SO2 primarily impacts the respiratory system
resulting in bronchoconstriction; asthmatics are particularly prone to adverse health
impacts associated with exposure to SO2 (ATSDS, 1998). Studies have been conducted
in controlled chamber experiments for short-term exposure and observational studies in
urban areas for 24-hour and long-term exposure (WHO, 2005).
The controlled chamber experiments indicate that “response to inhaled SO2 is rapid, the
maximum effect usually being reached within a few minutes” (WHO, 2005). However,
lung function returns to normal after the exposure ceases.
Observation studies in urban areas provide estimates of the correlation between SO2
concentrations in ambient air and mortality rate. Many of these studies indicate a
correlation exists between a decrease in the ambient SO2 concentrations and a decrease
in mortality rates. However, “there is still considerable uncertainty as to whether SO2 is
the pollutant responsible for the observed adverse effects or, rather, a surrogate for
ultrafine particles or some other correlated substance” (WHO, 2005). Using these studies,
the WHO established 24-hour average target air quality guidelines for SO2
concentrations. The WHO concluded that compliance with the 24-hours guideline would
assure low levels for the annual average and, consequently, an annual average was not
warranted.
The ATSDR within the US Department of Health and Human Services developed a
toxicological profile for SO2 as part of its evaluation of hazardous substances most
commonly found at National Priority List sites identified under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). ATSDR evaluated
clinical studies, occupational exposure incidents, and non-occupational exposure studies.
Using these studies, the ATSDR established a minimal risk level (MLR) and lowest-
observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL). The MLR “is defined as an estimate of daily
human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse
effects (noncarcinogenic) over a specified duration of exposure” (ATSDR, 1998). The
acute ATSDR MRL for SO2 is 0.01 part per million (ppm) or 26.2 µg/m3. Acute MRLs
typically applied for 1 to 14 day exposures, therefore the acute ATSDR MRL is
comparable to more conservative the WHO 24-hour average of 20 µg/m3, therefore a
direct comparison was not undertaken.
Section 6.3.2.1 shows the predicted 1-hour, 24-hour and annual incremental GLCs for
SO2. The highest predicted incremental concentrations fall below the assessment criteria
for all averaging periods. These modelled concentrations should not result in any adverse
human health effects. Therefore, these modelled concentrations should not result in any
adverse human health effects.
– Carbon Monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide is absorbed through the lungs and reacts in
the blood stream with hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin, which impairs the oxygen
carrying capacity of the blood (HSDB, 2014). In addition to its reaction with hemoglobin,
CO combines with myoglobin, cytochromes, and metalloenzymes. Unchanged CO is
eliminated through the lungs when exhaled (HSDB, 2014). When CO poisoning occurs, it
has been reported to cause tissue damage, to include the heart, brain, liver, kidney, and
muscles. The symptom and signs of CO poisoning include neurological effects such as
headaches, dizziness, weakness, nausea, confusion, disorientation, and visual
disturbances, exertional dyspnea, and increase in pulse and respiratory rates
(HSDB, 2014). Complications such as immediate death, myocardial impairment,
hypotension, arrhythmias, and pulmonary edema occur frequently from CO poisoning
(HSDB, 2014).
Section 6.3.2.1 shows the predicted 1-hour and 8-hour GLC for CO. Results do not
exceed the UAE Federal criteria of 10,000 µg/m3. Therefore, these modelled
concentrations should not result in any adverse human health effects.
– Total Suspended Particles (TSP) and Particulate Matter (PM). TSP is a mass
concentration of particulate matter (PM) in ambient air. PM refers to all airborne solid and
liquid particles (except water) that are microscopic in size. Particle diameters may range
from approximately 0.005 µm to 100 µm (CEPA, 1999). The most studied particles are
the PM10 and the PM2.5. PM10 is generally subdivided into a fine fraction (>2.5 µm)
(PM2.5) and coarse fraction (>2.5 µm). TSP generally consists of particles less than
40 µm. Up to 80% of PM10 and 60% of TSP are made up of PM2.5 (CEPA, 1999). The
major components of the fine fraction include sulphate, nitrate, ammonium, lead,
elemental carbon, metals, and hundreds of different organic carbon compounds that are
generally of primary anthropogenic origin (CEPA, 1999). The coarse fraction consists of
materials that are common to the earth's crust such as oxides of iron, calcium, silicon,
and aluminum and sea spray (sodium and chloride) (CEPA, 1999).
In evaluating potential health effects associated with inhalation of particulates, the
particulate size is of importance. Ultrafine and fine particulate matter are of greatest
concern to human health “because they can be transported long distances, penetrate
indoors readily, reach deep into the lung, and are the particles most enriched in toxic
compounds” (Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National
Research Council, 2000). Facility-specific information regarding particulate size in the
emissions fro mthe proposed incinerator is not available.
Section 6.3.2.1 shows predicted 24-hour and annual ground level incremental
concentrations of TSP. Results have been presented as stack TSP concentrations, IBA
TSP concentrations, and total TSP concentrations. For both no dust control and with
dust control, the highest predicted incremental concentrations for 24-hour and annual
averages fall below the assessment criteria. Although the background concentrations
were not available for TSP near the Project area, the low predictions of GLCs indicate
that the contribution to the air shed at the defined sensitive receptor from the proposed
Project will be minimal.
The respirable portion of TSP, PM10 and especially particles with aerodynamic diameters
less than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), pose the greatest health risk (Yang, 2016, VOL. 66, NO. 8)
(WHO, 2005) (US EPA, accessed October 4, 2018) because they can be inhaled deep
into the lungs. The WHO established air quality guidelines for annual average and 24-
hour mean PM10 and PM2.5. These guidelines were established as targets that would
allow for significant reductions in acute and chronic adverse health effects. The US EPA
has annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5, i.e., particles smaller than 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter) to 12 µg/m3. The
criteria for PM2.5 was set to protect healthy and sensitive populations (e.g., pregnant
women, people with preexisting conditions, obese population) against adverse health
effects linked to acute and chronic particulate mater exposure. Exposure to particulate
matter has been linked with adverse health outcomes (e.g., premature death,
cardiovascular effects, and respiratory effects). The 24-hour health standard for PM2.5 is
35 µg/m3. Coarse particulate matter (PM10, i.e., particles between 2.5 and 10 µm in
aerodynamic diameter) has been set at 150 µg/m3.
Assuming a conservative ratio of 1:1 for TSP and PM10, Section 6.3.2.1 shows the
predicted 24-hour and annual GLCs for PM10. The results in the tables have been
presented as stack PM10 concentrations, IBA PM10 concentrations and total PM10
concentrations in order to give a greater understanding of the proportion of the PM10
being emitted from each source. For no dust control and with dust control, the highest
predicted incremental concentrations for 24-hour and annual averages fall below the
assessment criteria. The predicted culumative 24-hour total PM10 concentrations exceed
the UAE criteria due to the background concentrations exceeding the criteria.
Assuming a conservative ratio of 1:1 for TSP to PM2.5, Section 6.3.2.1 shows the
predicted 24-hour and annual GLCs of PM2.5. For both no dust and with dust control, the
highest predicted incremental concentrations for 24-hour and annual averages fall below
the assessment criteria. The predicted cumulative 24-hour and annual total PM2.5
concentrations exceed the WHO criteria due to the background concentration exceeding
the criteria.
The health effects would be associated with the existing adopted background air
concentrations. The small cumulative increase in the ambient air concentration due to
the modelled emissions for TSP, PM10, and PM2.5 from the WMC is not anticipated to
result in a significant change to the air quality of the airshed or associated health effects.
The low predictions of GLCs indicate that the contribution to the air shed at the defined
sensitive receptor from the proposed Project will be minimal.
– Acid Gases (HCl and HF). Corrosive burns may result from the inhalation of acid fumes
and from skin contact with or the ingestion of strong acid. Symptoms after ingestion or
skin contact include immediate pain and ulceration of all membranes and tissues, which
come in contact with the acid. Ingestion may be associated with nausea, vomiting and
intense thirst; corrosion of the stomach may lead within a few hours or a few days to
gastric perforation and peritonitis. Late esophageal, gastric and pyloric strictures and
stenoses should be anticipated. Contact with concentrated acid with the eye can cause
extensive necrosis of the conjunctiva and corneal epithelium, resulting in perforation or
opaque scarring. Chemical pneumonitis can be expected after respiratory exposure to
acid vapors or after tracheobronchial aspiration of ingested acid. Death may occur due to
complications such as circulatory shock, asphyxia due to glottic or laryngeal edema,
perforation of the stomach with peritonitis, gastric hemorrhage, infection or anition due to
stricture formation (HSDB, 2014).
Section 6.3.2.1 shows the predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour HCl and 24-hour HF GLCs.
The highest predicted incremental concentrations are below the assessment criteria.
Although background concentrations were not available for HCl and HF near the Project
area, the low predictions of GLCs indicate that the contribution to the air shed at the
defined sensitive receptors from the proposed Project will be minimal. Therefore, these
modelled concentrations should not result in any adverse human health effects.
– Dioxins/Furans (TCDD) and Ammonia. Chlorinated dibenzo p dioxins/furans
(dioxins/furans) are a group of compounds (congeners) that exist as mixtures. Of all the
dioxin/furan congeners, 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is the best studied,
and is the reference compound for this group. Dioxins are combined to provide a single
meta parameter, 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQs. The use of TEQs is widely accepted in the
international scientific community and is commonly used in the evaluation of
dioxins/furans. Emission factors from the WtE plant were not provided on a congener
specific basis, rather as a total 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ. Therefore, dioxin and furan
emissions from the Project used in this HHRA were reported on a 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ
basis. They represent the suite of dioxin and furan congeners that are used to assess
the toxicity of these chemicals as a mixture. Only a very low level of dioxin and furans
would be expected in the MSW that is to be the feedstock material for the WtE plant.
These chemicals are formed in the WtE plant as a result of incomplete combustion of
organic material and will be emitted to the environment in low concentrations.
The primary and most immediate effect of ammonia exposure is due to its irritant and
corrosive properties, which results in burns to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. The
alkaline properties and high water solubility of ammonia allows it to dissolve in moisture
on the mucous membranes, skin, and eyes forming ammonium hydroxide. Ammonium
hydroxide causes liquefaction necrosis of the tissues (ATSDR, 2004). Airway blockage
and respiratory insufficiency may result from exposure to anhydrous ammonia vapours
or concentrated aerosols. Ingestion of concentrated solutions of ammonia may produce
severe hemorrhage of the upper gastrointestinal tract in addition to severe burns.
Section 6.3.2.1 shows the predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour TCDD and NH3 GLCs. The
highest predicted incremental concentrations fall below the assessment criteria. Although
background concentrations were not available for TCDD near the Project area, the low
predictions of GLCs indicate that the contribution to the air shed at the defined sensitive
receptors from the proposed Project will be minimal. Therefore, these modelled
concentrations should not result in any adverse human health effects.
– Mercury (Hg) and Cadmium. Respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological,
neurological and renal effects have been observed in both humans and animals after
acute duration inhalation exposure to metallic mercury (ATSDR, 1999). Tremors,
irritability, and decreased motor functions and reflexes were common neurological
symptoms following high level acute duration exposures to metallic mercury vapors.
Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapor can also damage the lining
of the mouth and irritate the respiratory tract, causing tightness of the breath, burning
sensation in the lungs and coughing. Other effects from mercury vapor exposure include
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increase in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and
eye irritation (ATSDR, 1999). Mercury has not been classified as a probable human
carcinogen. The primary target organ for exposure to mercury via inhalation is the
nervous system (USEPA, 1995).
Cadmium exposure, inhaled or ingested, can adversely impact the kidneys, respiratory
system, and skeletal structure in humans (WHO, 2010). Cadmium is also a known
human carcinogen. The kidneys are the primary target organ associated with chronic
exposure to Cd since it accumulates in the kidneys and is not readily excreted. Acute
exposure to high levels of inhaled Cd can result in death within days of exposure;
although, the instances of death due to high-dose exposure are associated with
occupational exposure in industries involved with heavy metals (WHO, 2005) (ATSDR,
2012).
Section 6.3.2.1 shows the predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour Hg and Cd ground level
concentrations. While the highest predicted incremental concentrations for Hg are below
the assessment criteria, the predicted 1-hour incremental concentration for Cd exceeds
the NSW AMMAAP. However, the NSW AMMAAP can be considered a guideline only as
opposed to a strict limit. As this is a national guideline designed for relevance to
Australian projects, it is apparent that the European Commission criteria are more
suitable since the stack emissions of the WMC are complying with the European IED.
The highest predicted annual concentration for Cd occurs at Residential Villas (Desert
Palm), equating to 87 percent of the European Commission criteria.
Although background concentrations were not available for Hg near the Project area, the
low predictions of GLCs indicate that the contribution to the air shed at the defined
sensitive receptors from the proposed Project will be minimal.
It is noteworthy that WMCs most recently constructed by Hitachi Zosen Inova showed
emission rates of Cd and thallium to range between 0.00003 g/s to 0.00006 g/s for the
WMC with an identical air pollution control system to be implemented in the Dubai WMC.
Therefore, the expected maximum ambient concentration of Cd at the sensitive
receptors in reality is likely to be significantly lower.
Acute inhalation exposure guidelines were developed for 1 to 14 days exposure duration,
therefore comparison to an one hour average is conservative. Therefore, these modelled
concentrations should not result in any adverse human health effects. For Cd, the
regulatory maximum emission rate was used in the modelling which is a conservative
approach and it is considered unlikely that emissions in reality would reach this limit.
Therefore it is expected that the contribution of Cd to the air shed would be lower in
reality
 Ingestion. Ingestion of the contaminants associated with emissions from the WtE plant could
occur through deposition of these materials on food, water, food crops, or animal feed.
Dioxins/furans in particular bioaccumulate in the food chain potentially leading to adverse
human health impacts if dioxin-contaminated food is consumed. Food crops and animal
farms are not located within the study area. Consequently, bioaccumulation of contaminants
through food production and plant or animals for human consumption, is not likely. Warsan
Lake was identified as one of the sensitive receptor locations, so there is potential that
deposition on to the lake and surrounding habitat may impact the soil and sediments.
Therefore, bioaccumulation up the food chain for the ecological receptors living within
Warsan Lake and surrounding habitat may occur but these ecological receptors will not be
used for human consumption.
 Dermal contact. Dermal contact with the contaminants in the vapour or particulate phase
that will be emitted from the WtE plant are not anticipated to result in adverse human health
effects due to low concentrations in the emissions.
6.11.3.1 Socio-Economic Impact

There will be a net positive impact from the Project construction activities through the provision of
employment and business opportunities as well as stimulation of the local and regional economies.
With the completion and operation of the Project, reliance on fossil fuel and imported energy (from
Abu Dhabi Emirate) will be reduced, improving long-term revenues in the Emirate of Dubai.
6.11.3.2 Community and Public Health Impacts

The majority of the predicted incremental GLCs for the pollutants assessed are below the adopted
assessment criteria, based on the stack characteristics and emission rates assumed for the
Project. Therefore, these modelled air concentration should not result in an adverse effect to
human health for the sensitive receptors via the inhalation exposure pathway.
The maximum predicted 1-hour NO2 concentration at a defined sensitive receptor exceeded the
WHO criterion when added to the adopted background concentrations. However, a conservative
conversion rate for NOx to NO2 was assumed (80%), which in reality is likely to be much lower.
Similarly, the cumulative concentration for PM10 and PM2.5 exceeds the WHO criteria when
background concentrations are considered. Again, the contribution of the WMC to PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations are less than the 25% of the criteria, showing compliance with the IFC guideline.
The health effects would be associated with the existing adopted background air concentrations.
The small incremental increase in the ambient air concentration due to the modelled emissions
from the WMC are not anticipated to result in a significant change to the air quality of the airshed
or associated health effects.
The highest predicted maximum for Cd exceed the criteria at grid maximum and three of the
sensitive receptor locations. However, the predicted concentrations at the sensitive receptor
locations were below the acute ATSDR MRL. It should be noted that the maximum emission rate
used in the model demonstrates a worst-case scenario and it is understood that emission rates are
likely to be lower in reality.
There will be a net positive impact from the Project construction through the provision of
employment and business opportunities. With the completion and operation of the Project, reliance
on fossil fuel and imported energy will be reduced.
The majority of the predicted incremental GLCs for the pollutants assessed are below the adopted
assessment criteria, based on the stack characteristics and emission rates assumed for the
Project. Therefore, these modelled air concentration should not result in an adverse effect to
human health for the sensitive receptors via the inhalation exposure pathway.
The potential unmitigated impacts of the Project during the construction and operation phases is
summarised in Table 6-54.
Table 6-54 Potential unmitigated impacts on socio-economic, culture and
health aspects

Impact
Rating impacted
Construction phase
Generation of Almost Minor Medium Local Positive

employment and certain residents and
business
business owners
opportunities
Expatriates /
foreign
workers
Reduced amenity due Almost Minor Medium Local Negative

to traffic and certain residents and
business
construction activities owners
and visual impact
Workers and
from the construction
customers of
site
retail and
commercial
establishments
Impact
Rating impacted
Increased health and Almost Moderate High Construction Negative

safety risk certain workforce and
site visitors
Conflict between local Possible Moderate Medium Local Negative

residents and workers residents
Workers and
customers of
industrial and
commercial
facilties
surrounding
the site
Workers on-
site
Poor labour and Possible Moderate Medium Construction Negative

working conditions workforce
Chance find of Rare Major Medium Archaeological Negative

resources with and cultural
archaeological and resources
cultural significance
Operation Phase
Generation of Almost Minor Medium Local Positive

residents and
employment and certain
business
business owners
opportunities
Expatriates /
foreign
workers
Reduced amenity due Almost Minor Medium Local Negative

to traffic certain residents and
business
owners
Workers and
customers of
retail and
commercial
establishments
Increased Almost Moderate High Construction Negative

occupational health certain workforce
and site
and safety risk visitors
Impact
Rating impacted
Community health Possible Moderate Medium Local Negative

and safety impacts residents
Workers and
customers of
industrial and
commercial
facilties
surrounding
the site
Conflict between local Possible Moderate Medium Local Negative

residents and workers residents
Workers and
customers of
industrial and
commercial
facilties
surrounding
the site
Workers on-
site
Poor labour and Possible Moderate Medium Construction Negative

working conditions workforce
7. Mitigation Measures and
Enhancement Plan
7.1 Greenhouse Gas Assessment
The GHG emissions associated with the consumption of fuel and electricity for the construction
of the Project can be mitigated by implementing the management measures aimed at increasing
energy efficiency, as discussed in Section 7.2.
Mitigation measures are not required as the emissions from the WtE plant are more than offset
by avoided landfill methane emissions and emissions from on-site electricity generation
displacing existing sources.
7.1.3 Residual Impacts
No significant residual impact is anticipated with the implementation of management measures.
There will be a net positive impact from the operation of the WtE plant, as it will result in a net
total emissions reduction of 64,900 kt CO2-e over the construction and operation phases.
7.2 Air Quality
7.2.1.1 Air Quality

Impacts on ambient air quality resulting from the construction activities can be controlled
through the implementation of the mitigation measures described below. A detailed dust and
gaseous emissions control plan will also be developed as part of the construction environmental
management plan for the Project.
Dust Control from General Earthmoving and Vehicle Movement

 Erect hoarding of at least 2.5 m along the site boundary and/or areas where dusty
activities are performed to minimise off-site dispersion of dust.
 Locate the dust generating activities, haulage routes, stockpiles and dusty materials away
from the sensitive receivers as far as possible (taking the predominant wind direction into
consideration).
 Provide surfacing and / or compaction of site access roads to minimise dust generated by
vehicle movements on-site.
 Provide hard surface and / or compaction of unsurfaced areas as soon as possible once
earthworks are complete to minimise areas susceptible to wind erosion.
 Dusty materials on site or being transported (within and outside the site) are to be
covered by impervious sheet to prevent wind erosion.
 Impose and signpost a maximum speed limit of 20 km/h to minimise the emission of dust
on unsurfaced roads and apply designated traffic routes to reduce traffic on unsurfaced
areas.
 Undertake dust suppression through water spraying on unsurfaced areas and areas
where dusty work is performed (cutting, grinding and sawing).
 Undertake wheel washing at site exits to minimise dust and soil on wheels being
transferred off-site.
 Minimise drop heights from conveyors, loading shovels, hoppers, loading or handling
equipment and use water sprays on such equipment / work areas where possible.
 Enclose chutes and conveyors and cover skips to prevent suspension of dust.
 Suspend dusty works during periods of high wind speed, where possible.
 Implement a construction logistic plan and construction traffic management plan to
manage the sustainable deliveries of machinery, materials, workers and staff members.
Dust Control from Stockpiles

Should sediment need to be temporarily stockpiled on-site, the following mitigation measures
will be implemented:
 Minimize stockpiles onsite (e.g. immediate removal of excavated materials requiring
offsite disposal).
 Stabilize stockpiled materials with one of the following:
– Apply water to at least 80 percent of stockpile surface areas on a daily basis when
there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust.
– Provide impervious cover to stockpiles of all dusty materials (i.e. sand, cement).
– Construct a three-sided enclosure around stockpiled material with walls of no more
than 50 percent porosity to the height of the stockpile.
 Limit the height and slope of stockpiles and locate away from sensitive receptors.
 Stockpiles will be located away from the Project boundary and will not be located on or
near drainage lines.
 Align stockpiles along their main axis in the direction of prevailing winds to ensure
minimal cross-section exposure to prevailing winds, whenever possible.
 Stockpiles within 100 meters of buildings/offices must be below two meters in height.
 When stockpiling or unloading dusty/friable material, ensure that the loader bucket is
close to the truck so that drop height is below three meters.
Control of Exhaust Gases and Particulate Emissions from Powered Equipment and Site
Activities
 Idling of equipment and vehicles will be prohibited, equipment and vehicles to be turned
off when not in use to minimise gaseous emissions and fuel consumption28.
 Use low sulphur diesel, ultra-low sulphur diesel or bio-diesel to minimise the emission of
sulphur dioxide, where practical.
 Use equipment fitted with pollution control devices (e.g. diesel particulate matter filter),
where possible.
 Maintain equipment and vehicles as per manufacturer recommendations and remove any
malfunctioning or sub-standard equipment and vehicles from service, particularly if
observed to be emitting black smoke.
28
UAEPA (2010) reports that idling engines waste up to 1 gallon of fuel per hour.
 Implement a construction logistic plan and construction traffic management plan to
manage the sustainable delivery of machinery, materials, workers and staff members.
 Open burning on site will be prohibited.
Control of VOC Emissions

 Storage of fuel, paints and other volatile materials:
– Provide a designated and well ventilated storage facilities of volatile organic materials.
– The storage area should be located away from on-site and off-site sensitive receptors
(with consideration of the predominant wind direction).
– The quantity of volatile materials to be stored on-site should be kept to minimum and
containers holding the volatile materials should be kept closed when not in use.
 An exhaust ventilation system is to be provided where volatile organic materials are
stored to protect workers and staff members from exposure.
7.2.1.2 Odour Emission

To control odour emission during the construction phase, the following measures will be
implemented:
 Locate toilet utilities, sewage tanks (if any) and waste storage facilities away from
sensitive receptors on-site (e.g. site office, works area) and off-site (neighbouring
residential villas).
 Maintain the sanitary and waste disposal facilities in good, clean conditions with any leaks
fixed as soon as possible.
 Waste bins holding putrescible waste should be covered to minimise odour emission and
attraction of vectors.
 Regular off-site disposal of waste should be arranged.
7.2.2.1 Air Quality

The predicted incremental results from air dispersion modelling of the proposed operations of
the WMC indicates the Project is not anticipated to exceed relevant air quality criteria for NO2,
SO2, CO, TSP, PM10, PM2.5, HCl, HF, NH3, TCDD and Hg provided that:
 The emission concentration guarantees listed in IED, Annex VI, Part 3 (Tables 1.1, 1.3
and Section 1.4 and 1.5) (European Union 2010) and set out in Section 6.3.2.1 are met.
 The stack parameters and emission rates used in this assessment as detailed in Section
6.3.2.1 (Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 respectively) are adhered to.
 Throughputs of IBA remain at the assumed rate (282,300 tpa).
Although the model predictions indicate exceedances of 1-hour incremental Cd for the NSW
AMMAAP criteria, this is only a guideline, and the European Commission annual criteria is
considered more appropriate. Predicted annual Cd concentrations comply with the European
Commission criteria. Further, the modelled emission rate reflects the regulatory maximum of
0.05 mg/Nm3 (sum of Cd and Tl), and it is considered unlikely that the emission rate for Cd in
reality would reach this level.
As outlined in section 4.7.4.2, the air pollution controls consists of a robust system, which
includes a dry flue gas treatment process. For the dry flue gas treatment process, the system is
designed to remove dust particles, most of the acidic gaseous contaminants by hydrated lime
and organic pollutants, as well as mercury and other heavy metals by absorption on lignite coke.
Specifically, and for the bag house filter, the fabric / bag house filter is used for the separation of
solids from the flue gas. In the physical process of separation the solids are filtrated on the
surface of a gas permeable fabric. Due to the intensive contact of the flue gas and the
adsorbents in the filter layer the removal of pollutants from the flue gas is further improved.
 The fabric filter is a pulse jet, multi chamber bag filter with several compartments.
 Each chamber has an inlet and outlet damper with one drive; operation in “n-1 chamber”
mode in case of a problem with a bag is possible at nominal load.
 Cleaning is done with classic pulse jet principal.
The filter control system has the following characteristics:
 Simple installation with bus connection within the filter (master and slaves) and to DCS
 Early bag rupture detection with dust sensor and software
 Diaphragm valve monitoring with cleaning pressure monitoring
 Standard software and components
The filter bags are automatically cleaned in relation to the pressure drop. In order to prevent
dew point undershooting and solids deposition during start-up and shutdown phases as well as
during operational interruptions the fabric filter hoppers are heated with electric heaters. To
detect material deposits, the filter hoppers are equipped with level and temperature
measurements.
7.2.2.2 Odour Emission

The proposed WtE plant consist of five incineration lines. Yearly revision works will be planned
to ensure that, as a minimum, two incineration lines are in operation at all times. This facilitates
sufficient negative pressure in the waste bunker.
To reduce the odour resulting from the aging process of the waste, the waste should not be
stored significantly longer than five days in the waste bunker. The storage capacity of the waste
bunker is four days.
Aside from the odour issue, the aging process brings additional undesirable side effects like
decrease of the waste quality needed for an optimal incineration process and an increased risk
of smouldering fire in the depth of the waste stock. As such, waste is not anticipated to be
stored longer than five days.
The following WtE plant components are installed to avoid odour emission during the operation
phase:
 Tipping bay gates. The only direct and open contact of the waste bunker to the
environment is the tipping bay. Each tipping bay will be equipped with a roller shutter door
which remains closed if no waste truck has to unload waste into the waste bunker.
 Ventilation / slight negative pressure. By sucking the primary air for the combustion out of
the waste bunker, a slight negative pressure is produced in the waste bunker. As a result,
fresh air is continuously entering in series the waste bunker, thus avoiding odour
emissions leaving the process building. This concept is state of the art best available
technique (BAT) for waste incineration plants as described by the European commission
in the IPPC “Waste Incineration”.
The following measures should be undertaken in order to reduce the impact of odour on nearby
receptors:
 To reduce the odour resulting from the aging process of the waste, the waste should not
be stored significantly longer than five days in the bunker. The storage capacity of the
waste bunker in the WtE plant is four days’ worth of MSW at nominal operating
conditions.
 Maintain operation of two out of five lines at any one time (shutdown of one line at a time
for maintenance purposes) to maintain slight negative pressure in the waste bunker and
ensure continual flow of fresh air into the waste bunker and avoid the escape of odorous
air.
No additional odour treatment system based on suction / filter type will be required for the WtE
plant due to the following justifications:
 The primary air flow is sufficient for producing the required negative pressure in the waste
bunker.
 During maintenance works on an incineration line, the remaining lines will be in operation
and the volume flows will be sufficient for ventilation purposes.
 Too high negative pressure in the waste bunker would disturb the functionality of the
tipping bay doors.
 The MSW will be continuously mixed and fed to the incineration, helping to reduce odour
formation due to aging.
 The composition of the MSW is expected to contain a rather small biodegradable portion
leading to increased odour development.
Odour Management Plan (OMP)

The Operator will ensure that all emissions to air from the proposed Project shall be free from
offensive odor, as perceived by an Authorised Person (i.e. DM-ED), outside the site boundary.
Within three (3) months prior to Commissioning of the Project or part thereof, the Operator shall
prepare, implement, maintain and submit to DM-ED an Odor Management Plan (OMP) setting
out the steps to be taken by the Operator to ensure that all appropriate preventative measures
are taken against odor pollution and that no significant odor pollution is caused.
The OMP shall include:

 Identification of those process operations which have the potential to be odorous.
 Identification of techniques to ensure al sources of potentially offensive odors are, as far
as practicable, enclosed.
 Procedures for managing odor particularly when parts of the process are shutdown.
 A methodology for undertakin an olfactory survey of the Permitted Installation only.
 Procedures for investigation, recording and subsequent remedial action following odor
complaints or detection of odor during olfactory surveys.
The Operator shall record:
 The results of each olfactory survey.
 The results of each investigation and any remedial action undertaken in compliance with
existing regulations.
At least every two years, or whenever there is change which could have an impact on emissions
of odor, the Operator shall review the OMP. Each review of the plan and any revisions shall be
recorded and the revised OMP shall be reported to DM-ED.
All doors and openings to the waste bunker and areas where odor is likely to be generated shall
be kept closed at all times other than to allow entry and exit of vehicles and personnel.
7.2.3 Residual Impact
During the construction phase, no significant residual impact is anticipated with the
implementation of mitigation measures.
During the operation of the project, significant residual impact is not anticipated as the
emissions from the WtE plant are more than offset by avoided landfill odour emissions. Built-in
odour management measures (e.g. tipping bays and ventilation at the waste bunker) will be
installed to avoid odour emission.
7.3 Noise
7.3.1.1 Construction Noise

 The construction sites should be laid-out in such a way that the primary noise sources are
at a maximum distance from sensitives receptors, with solid structures (sheds,
containers, etc.) placed between sensitive receptors and noise sources and as close to
the noise sources as is possible. This would include items such as the power generator
proposed at the construction depot
 Engines and exhaust are typically the dominant noise sources on mobile plant such as
compactors, trucks, etc. Residential grade mufflers fitted on this mobile plant would
minimise noise emissions from these sources
 All equipment should be selected to minimise noise emissions and maintained in good
repair (kept properly serviced). Equipment such as generators, etc., should be fitted with
appropriate silencers and acoustic enclosures (where practical) and be in good working
order. Machines found to produce excessive noise compared to normal industry
expectations should be removed from the site or stood down until repairs or modifications
can be made
 Where practical, machines should be operated at low speed or power and be switched off
when not being used rather than left idling for prolonged periods
 To reduce the annoyance associated with reversing alarms, broadband alarms (audible
movement alarms) should be used for all site equipment and reversing kept to a minimum
through improved route choice/layout/dimensions, and operational procedures (reversing
beepers are a key complaint issue among residents near construction sites).
Loader/dozer manoeuvring using the ‘swivel technique’ for turning may reduce the
frequency of reversing beeper use for this piece of equipment. Satisfactory compliance
with occupational health and safety requirements would need to be achieved and a safety
risk assessment may need to be undertaken to determine that safety is not compromised
 Optimise the number of deliveries to the site by amalgamating loads where possible and
scheduling arrivals within designated hours
 General construction activities should be limited to daytime (7am to 8pm) working hours,
where feasible and reasonable
 Where practical, machines should be switched off when not being used rather than left
idling for prolonged periods
 All mechanical plant and equipment should be checked regularly to avoid any
unnecessary noise caused by lack of maintenance
 Truck drivers should be kept informed of designated vehicle routes, parking locations,
operating hours and on-site speed limit
 All engine covers should be kept closed when equipment is operating
7.3.1.2 Construction Vibration

 Vibration intensive activities should be implemented during the least sensitive time
periods
 Operations should be sequenced so that vibration intensive activities do not occur
simultaneously
 Where possible, vibration intensive activities should be located as far away from sensitive
areas as possible
In addition to the specific requirements for insulation of steel walls and roofing for the
condensers as well as insulation of the steel boiler wall above the waste bunker, the following
mitigation measures are recommended during the operation of the Project:
 Buildings should be located close to the Project site’s boundary as much as practicable to
provide shielding effects of operational noise emanating from the site
 Plant and equipment considered to be the major noise sources and those located close to
the Project site’s boundary should, as much as practicable, be enclosed to minimise off-
site noise impact
 Selection of quiet equipment/system as early as the design phase should be considered
in the development of the Project’s operational noise management measures. A ‘buy
quiet’ purchasing policy should be established, where all equipment is purchased to meet
the dB(A) standard. This policy would assist in minimising the off-site impact and help in
preserving the hearing quality and reducing the Health and Safety risk for on-site
employees
 In line with the previous item, the WtE plant should be designed such that the noise levels
in the general workplace are as low as possible and meet the relevant Health and Safety
regulations as practicable through optimal engineering design
 Machines found to produce excessive noise compared to normal industry expectations
should be removed from the site or stood down until repairs or modifications can be made
 To reduce the annoyance associated with reversing alarms, broadband alarms (audible
movement alarms) should be used for all site equipment. Satisfactory compliance with
occupational health and safety requirements would need to be achieved and a safety risk
assessment may need to be undertaken to determine that safety is not compromised
 All equipment should be selected to minimise noise emissions and maintained in good
repair (kept properly serviced). Equipment should be filled with appropriate silencers and
be in good working order
 All mechanical plant and equipment should be checked regularly to avoid any
unnecessary noise caused by lack of maintenance
 Truck drivers should be kept informed of designated vehicle routes, parking locations,
operating hours and on-site speed limit
With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, residual impacts of noise are
expected to be negligible.
The risk for construction activities to generate significant soil and groundwater contamination is
considered to be minimal, provided that adequate mitigation measures are adopted and
consistently implemented on-site.
During the construction phase, the following mitigation measures will be implemented to
minimise the potential for adverse soil and groundwater impacts:
 Prepare and implement a grading and/or site clearance plan/s including a cut and fill
strategy to minimise area of disturbed and unconsolidated soil
 Prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control plan, including for excavation
and civil works as well as for stockpiles
 Where possible, excavated spoil material will be reused on site for fill / backfill purposes;
where it is necessary to stockpile spoil, appropriate protection measures will be
implemented to prevent wind and water erosion
 Progressive compaction (stabilisation) will be undertaken immediately after excavation
 Provision of efficient temporary drainage system on site to prevent loose soil from being
scoured off by surface runoff
 Soil stockpiles will be maintained at minimum height and located on flat areas
 Development and implementation of spill preventive and contingency measures
 A program of routine checking of equipment, machinery and vehicles will be implemented

to ensure there is no leakage of oil and fuel
 Chemical or fuel spills will be cleaned up as soon as practicable to prevent contaminants
from percolating into the soil and groundwater
 Appropriate hazardous waste management practices will be employed, covering storage
and handling (i.e. use of 110% bunded storage areas, availability of MSDS, spill kits and
emergency equipment, labelling of containers and areas, access restrictions at storage
areas and provision of training to relevant staff)
 In the event that new fill materials will be required, a procedure of assessment measures
and monitoring will be established to ensure that only clean fill materials are introduced
onsite and only fill materials from approved suppliers will be used
 Potentially contaminated soils will be tested and handled appropriately depending on the
levels and types of contaminants present
During the operation phase, the following mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise
the potential for adverse soil and groundwater impacts:
 Temporary bottom ash and FGT residue storage facilities will be designed, constructed, and
maintained for the materials stored in accordance with applicable safe handling and
disposal measures
 Regular general inspections and monitoring of temporary facilities (e.g. fly and bottom ash
storage facilities)
 Development and implementation of a soil and groundwater management and remediation

plan should soil and groundwater contamination occur
 Appropriate disposal of any contaminated soil and groundwater will be in accordance with
applicable management guidelines
With the implementation of the proposed waste management initiatives, in particular, the
construction of an adequate IBA maturation area and consolidation of other wastes into one
location, the potential for soil and groundwater contamination is reduced.
Post mitigation, residual impacts on soil and groundwater quality are considered negligible.
Impacts of construction activities on the terrestrial ecology (fauna) will be managed through the
implementation of noise control measures (Section 7.3.1). In order to mitigate risks of injuries or
fatality of fauna species, immediate reporting to the concerned individuals (e.g. Site
Environmental Engineer or HSE Officer) will be undertaken. Traffic control measures such as
use of designated areas, reducing speed limits, limiting night time delivery and movements
across the site when reptiles are more active will be implemented.
A Waste Management Plan will be developed and implemented to avoid the introduction of
invasive species (e.g. rodents, cockroach). The plan will include proper handling, disposal and
treatment of wastes. Pest management plan will be in place to control introduced species
especially invasive ones, which can potentially cause ill health effects to the site workers and
nearby community.
Residual impact on terrestrial ecology is not anticipated.
During the construction phase, a construction traffic management plan that complies with the
Dubai Road and Transport Authority (RTA) will be prepared to facilitate smooth traffic flow in the
vicinity of the construction site. The plan will include the following measures:
 Speed limits
 Flagmen and signalling equipment
 Traffic signs and control signals to direct and control traffic flow, to include:
– Signs that are reflective or adequately illuminated at night
– Advance warning signs (on approach and departure from work areas)
– All intermediate advance and positional signs and devices required in advance of the
taper or start of work area
– All delineating devices required to form the taper including the illuminated flashing
arrow sign at the end of the taper, where required
– Delineation past the work area
– All other required warning and regulatory sign
The impact of the increased traffic congestion on the road network from the port leading to the
Project site will be minimised by implementing logistics plan, which would include the following
measures:
 Heavy and oversized vehicles will preferably use the truck road
 Convoys of heavy and oversized vehicles will be used, preferably outside of peak traffic
hours
 Where practical, deliveries will be undertaken outside of peak traffic periods in the
morning and afternoon
 Construction materials will be delivered in bulk rather than in small quantities to reduce
the number of trips
 Coordinate with relevant authorities (i.e. RTA) during delivery of heavy and oversized
materials
Mass / shared transportation (e.g. buses) of workers will be arranged to minimise trips and
vehicle movement to and from the construction sites. Consistent implementation of the above
measures will reduce construction traffic impacts on the Project to acceptable levels.
To mitigate traffic impact associated with noise, dust and air emissions, air quality management
measures (Section 7.2) and noise control measures (Section 7.3) will be implemented.
In order to minimise impact of operation traffic, a transport management plan will be developed
to include the designated route of transport, speed limit as well as emergency spill response /
clean-up protocol. Truck operators should also be provided with suitable competency training on
traffic safety as well as environmental awareness and spill emergency response.
To minimise impacts of noise, dust and air emissions due to truck movements, measures
identified in air quality management (Section 7.2) and noise control (Section 7.3) should be
implemented.
An increase in traffic is unavoidable but transient impact from the construction activities of the
Project. During the operation phase, residual impact is not anticipated as the LOS on access
roads planned for the Project are considered sufficient.
Contractors will be required to provide suitable service utilities and ensure they are maintained
in good operating conditions. Relevant regulatory NOCs will be obtained, if required, for the
temporary utilities to be used on-site.
Other proposed measures for managing environmental issues associated with the operation of
construction utilities are provided below.
7.7.1.1 Water conservation measures
The use of water on-site will be minimised through the use of water efficient devices and
practices, where feasible. Potential water conservation measures include:
 Use of high-pressure water spray for equipment cleaning
 When cleaning small tools and equipment, use buckets, as opposed to running water
 Utilise auto-shut off taps and ensure water supply is able to be switched off at the point of
use
 Use closed-loop systems for plant and equipment
 Site inspections for water leaks and wastage are to be carried out frequently
 Use of water efficient bathroom products and taps in site offices
 When concreting, use water from settled concrete wash out area to clean equipment
 Limit dust suppression to what is necessary (avoid over watering)
 Provide employee training on site water use behaviour and best practise procedures
7.7.1.2 Energy conservation measures
Reduce electricity use

Energy use can be reduced at site offices by employing energy efficient practises such as
switching off lights when not in use, using automatic or timed light systems, using energy
efficient light bulbs (CFL or LED), switching off equipment when not in use and adjusting
temperature set points where possible in site offices.
Optimising energy efficiency

The following measures for increasing energy efficiency will minimise the demand for non-
renewable energy and reduce air emissions:
 No idling of equipment and vehicles
 Use of cleaner fuel (e.g. low sulphur diesel, ultra-low sulphur diesel or bio-diesel)
 Use of equipment fitted with pollution control devices
 Maintain equipment and vehicles as per manufacturer’s recommended intervals and
withdraw malfunction equipment
 Implementing a Construction Logistic Plan and Construction Traffic Management Plan
 Using battery powered equipment
The relevant authorities / agencies are being consulted with regards to the availability of
required service utilities (e.g. water supplies) and the respective connection points.
Early engagement of the authorities / service providers will enable the Project Proponent to
identify any constraints. Similarly, this provides an opportunity for the authorities to assess the
available resources and capacity of infrastructure against the current and future demands of the
Emirate in general. As provided in Section 5.8, sufficient water and energy supplies are
available to support the development needs of the Project. DEWA will participate in coordinated
discussions regarding the export of electrical energy to the grid.
The environmental issues associated with the Project’s additional load to the existing service
utilities can be addressed via the following measures.
Water Supply
Water supply during the operation phase is not anticipated to be significant. Water will be
supplied by DEWA. Although potential impacts of WtE plant operation on water supply is
considered of low significance, the following measures should be implemented:
 Optimising water efficiency. Water efficiency measures shall be adopted (i.e. using grey
water for irrigation of landscaped areas) as early as the design phase and on an ongoing
basis during the operation phase of the Project. This is particularly important given that
potable water is scarce in Dubai and the UAE.
 Wastewater discharge management. Built-in water management measures are
incorporated in the design of the WtE plant. Wastewater will not be discharged to the
receiving environment and will be recycled and reused.
Power Supply
The design of the Project’s buildings components (i.e. administration building and labour
accommodation facilities) shall comply with the requirements of the Green Building Regulations
and Specifications in the Emirate of Dubai with regard to energy efficiency, where appropriate.
In terms of power supply, mitigation measures are not required as the operation of the WtE
plant is considered to be an advantage and provides benefit to Dubai and the UAE. The Project
supports diversified energy sources and contributes to additional power supply to meet the
growing demand of the country. This will help achieve stable and optimal energy rates that will
result in continued economic stability and growth.
Residual impact on water and energy resources is not anticipated during the construction
phase. There will be a net positive impact from the operation of the WtE plant in terms of energy
sufficiency, diversification of energy resources and contribution of additional power supply to
meed the demands of increasing population and growing economy.

This section deals with waste generated by the proposed Project during the construction and
operation phases. Benefits associated with the use of waste materials as a fuel source during
operations are addressed in Section 1.2.2 including reduced reliance on fossil fuels, reduced
waste to landfill and meeting greenhouse gas and climate targets set by government.
7.8.1 Mitigation Measures
The measures recommended in the IFC and World Bank guidelines were considered in
determining the mitigating and enhancement measures to address waste-related impacts of the
Project.
IFC Performance Standard 3

The IFC Performance Standard for Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention promotes
resource efficiency through implementing measures to improve efficiency in the consumption of
energy, water as well as other resources and material inputs. Pollution prevention relates to
avoiding the release of pollutants or minimising these releases. The guideline specifically talks
about avoiding the generation of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes and adopting the
hierarchy where this is not possible i.e. reduce the generation of waste, recover and reuse
waste and where this is not possible treat, destroy or dispose of it in an environmentally sound
manner. Use of hazardous materials should be avoided where it is possible to use less
hazardous substitutes and if not possible then they should be disposed of in an environmentally
sound manner by a reputable and legitimate waste contractor.
World Bank EHS General Guideline

The World Bank’s EHS General Guideline states that facilities that generate and store wastes
should establish waste management priorities at commissioning and establish a waste
management hierarchy (prevention, reduction, reuse, recovery, recycling, removal and finally
disposal of wastes). This guideline is prescriptive on all elements of waste management
including storage, transport and monitoring.
World Bank EHS Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities

The World Bank’s EHS Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities and the EHS Guidelines for
Thermal Power Plants are relevant to the WtE Plant. They detail environmental issues including
air emissions (addressed separately in Section 7.2), energy efficiency, greenhouse gases
(addressed separately in Section 7.1), water consumption, effluents, wastes, hazardous
materials and oil and noise (addressed separately in Section 7.3).
Executive Order by Council of Ministers Decree No. 37 of 2001

Any hazardous wastes generated during the Project activities should be managed in
accordance with the Executive Order issued by Council of Ministers Decree No. 37 of 2001
concerning Regulation for Handling Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes and Medical
Wastes.
7.8.1.1 Management of Project Wastes

The proposed Project will utilise Advanced Moving Grate Combustion Technology and will
incinerate an estimated 236.11TPH of waste.
The waste produced by the construction and operation of the Project will be managed by Dubai
Municipality facilities, as described in Table 7-1. Detailed waste treatment practices (in line with
the waste management guidelines described above) will be provided in the CEMP and OEMP, if
required by DM.
Table 7-1 Waste Generation and Disposal
Major Waste Type Potential Disposal Site / Treatment Facility
Construction and demolition waste (including DM – Construction and Demolition Waste

metals, steel, timber, concrete, rocks, Recycling Facility
sediments)
Recyclable waste (except construction and DM – Material Recovery Facility

demolition waste) (including food waste,
municipal wastes, plastic/cardboard)
Non-recyclable waste (non-hazardous) DM – Landfill

(including food waste, municipal wastes)
Wastewater (sewage) Collected for off-site disposal
Hazardous waste (including oils and lubricants) Specialised oil reprocessing or dedicated
incineration
Incineration bottom ash (IBA) On-site IBA maturation area
Major Waste Type Potential Disposal Site / Treatment Facility
Transported to DM waste management facility

(landfill) by Contractor.
Flue gas treatment residue including fly ash Transported to DM Jebel Ali Hazardous Waste
(hazardous waste) Treatment Facility (landfill) by the Contractor
where it will bestabilised and stored in a
dedicated cell.
Wastewater (sewage) Collected for off-site disposal
Any materials that are known or suspected of being contaminated by hazardous substances will
be treated and managed as hazardous waste. This includes materials used for clean-up of a
spill or leakage of hazardous materials. The quantity of hazardous wastes from the Project will
be minimal compared to other wastes.
7.8.1.2 Construction Phase

Consistent with the hierarchy of waste management, the following measures will be
implemented during construction. Contractor(s) (including sub-contractors) as well as other
relevant entities (e.g., site visitors) will be required to adhere to these measures at all times:
 Contractors and sub-contractors will be required to identify the types of waste generated
from their activities. Waste registers will be maintained and kept updated on a regular
basis (i.e. minimum of monthly) depending on waste generation rates
 Waste minimisation can be achieved through efficient design, procurement and material
management practices. Construction Work Methods will be developed and corresponding
site instruction issued to facilitate the efficient use of construction materials and minimise
waste generation.
 Implement procurement procedures to minimise use of construction materials,
consumables and equipment / plant including measures such as specifying the actual
quantity of construction materials required, ordering materials in bulk; and organising
arrangements with the suppliers for the return or buy-back of containers and packing
materials; and preference for environmentally friendly materials
 Reuse and recycle scrap materials for site works including measures such as:
– Establishment of waste segregation areas on construction sites. The minimum
requirement is to segregate the hazardous waste from the non-hazardous stream.
Further, segregation (e.g. paper, wood, metal, plastic) will facilitate recycling
– Re-use of excavated materials for fill purposes during site development or foundation
works provided it is of suitable quality
– Use of scrap materials such as wood and metals for formworks and other temporary
structures onsite
– Recycling through approved service provider. Where possible, paper, wood, metal and
plastic wastes will be sent to suitable recycling facilities
 Provide appropriate waste bins for different waste e.g. food wastes require bins with lids
to avoid vermin infestation, and sharp waste materials will require sturdy waste bins.
Skips and bins will also be covered to prevent littering by light-weight materials,
particularly during periods of strong wind which could disperse litter offsite
 Label waste bins / containers and collection areas in English and other languages
understood by the general workers including the name of the waste and safety risks and
precautions (i.e. for hazardous waste) to assist workers in segregating waste and reduce
cross contamination
 Locate waste bins / containers where waste is produced (e.g. work areas, canteen) will
be provided with suitable waste bins / containers. Waste stockpiles will be located away
from stormwater flow paths
 Provide suitable temporary sewage holding tank onsite. The tank will be leak proof to
prevent soil contamination or health issues. A contractor will be used to ensure that the
volume of sewage will not exceed 80% of tank capacity, and regular collection of sewage
for offsite disposal will be arranged. Sewage tanks will be located away from sensitive
receptors
 Designate bunded areas for equipment and vehicle washing; the wastewater will be
collected in tanks for offsite disposal
 Provide bunded storage area and drip trays for hazardous waste with a capacity of at
least 110% of the volume of the largest container. Where practical, bunded areas will be
provided with a roof to prevent them from being filled with water during heavy rains. Drip
trays will also be provided for petrol-operated equipment and during handling of
chemicals (e.g. at workshops).
 Spill kits and fire extinguishers will be available where there is a risk of spill and fire,
respectively
 Provide training and personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers for the proper
handling, storage and disposal of waste as well as the proper use of PPE. Restrict access
to waste storage areas, particularly hazardous waste
With consistent implementation of the above mitigation measures, waste and other associated
impacts from the construction are not anticipated to adversely affect the site and surrounding
areas.
7.8.1.3 Operation Phase

Measures to manage waste produced during operation will include:
 Management of waste deliveries and unloading areas, with routine housekeeping
practices and litter collection at the site.
 Maintenance of waste bunkers and receiving areas. Leachate generation would be
attributed to the putrescible municipal solid waste delivered to the WtE plant and received
in the designated Waste Bunker. The Waste Bunker has been designed as a water
retaining structure, considering 0.2mm maximum crack width, which is considered to be
water tight, and is thus able to accommodate the material. Based on the design controls,
leachate outbreak from the Waste Bunker is not to be expected. Furthermore, it can be
clarified that Stormwater drainage has been considered in the overall plant design. A
drainage network has been allowed for, which leads the clean rainwater to the service
water tank and the dirty rainwater to the Boiler Hall pit. Dirty rain water (i.e. rain water that
precipitate upon process areas) is collected (if any) and transferred via the boiler hall pit
to the process water tank which mainly provides water for the bottom ash extraction
(internal re-use and recycling within the process).
 Establish a comprehensive waste management system for operation integrated with the
DM waste management program to optimise waste management practices across the site
 Develop a waste management plan for implementation during the operation phase
including proper handling, disposal and treatment of wastes that will be generated by the
project activities
 Provide suitable waste storage facilities for all wastes including:
– Providing 110% capacity bunded areas for hazardous waste
– Labelling waste containers / storage areas with the name of materials contained and
hazard warnings in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements
– Allocating spill kits and fire extinguishers, where risks are identified
– Establishing adequate waste documentations including waste inventory
 Train workers on the waste management requirements relevant to their line of work
7.8.1.4 Decommissioning Phase

The WtE Plant is projected to have an operating life of over 30 years. In the event that the plant
is decommissioned, the following steps will be carried out:
 All excess materials, chemicals and supplies will be transported offsite where cradle-to-
grave management will be undertaken in full compliance with the UAE and Dubai Emirate
regulation on solid waste, toxic substances and hazardous waste
 Structures shall be demolished, deconstructed and materials removed from the site and
taken offsite for recycling or re-use
 Technology components should be decommissioned and salvaged, with options
considered for re-use or reconditioning of components (if applicable or cost
advantageous)
 Trash materials and other residual solid wastes will be collected and hauled to a
designated disposal area
 Recyclable wastes such as metals, glass, rubber and plastics shall be collected and
forwarded to a recycling facility
 Rehabilitation and restoration measures will be conducted for areas occupied by

structures. These activities will be done in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the
permits provided by relevant authorities. Site restoration will include revegetation or
replanting of suitable species.
Prior to the end of the project operating life, a detailed decommissioning, demolition or
abandonment plan will be developed in line with the UAE and Dubai Emirate regulations
Waste cannot be wholly avoided nor will waste be entirely recycled or reused. However, with
propoer handling and disposal, there should be minimal residual impact during the construction
phase.
There will be a net positive impact from operation of the WtE plant because of the overall
reduction of waste disposed to the landfill.
7.9 Land use and Visual Amenity
Impacts on land use is negligible; hence, mitigation measure is not required.

Mitigation measures to minimise impacts on visual amenity are as follows:
 Implementation of traffic management plan (Section 7.6); and
 Implementation of dust management plan (Section 7.2).
A temporary fence of 1.80 m high minimum will be installed all around the site perimeter during
the construction phase to provide a temporary visual barrier.
The impacts on land use, landscape and visual amenity is considered to be insignificant.
However, to ensure that impact on visual amenity is mitigated, the following measures will be
implemented:
 Facades and buildings:
– Colours and similar cladding harmonized with the adjacent industrial sites; and
– Maintenance of exterior facades of the building.
 During the operation phase, a plain fence made of concrete or blockwork of about 1.80 m
high will be constructed around the site perimeter to provide a visual barrier.
 Landscaping features:
– North of the field:
o Double row of palm trees bordering the main access road to the plant;
o Displaced excavation soil to be used to construct mounded berm with an
estimated maximum height of 5 m; and
o Scattered plantings (shrubs) and isolated trees (palm and acacias) located
around the site and located close by the guardhouse and weighbridge areas.
– East of the field:
o Around the supporting functions (Administration, Accomodation and Checkpoint),
grass will be planted and with diverse plantings (shrubs of different specieis,
palms, acacias);
o Double row of palm trees bordering the eastern fence;
o Ground surface to remain sand; and
o Pathways to guide visitors and staff, consisting of interlocking concrete pavers.
– West of the field:
o Remain unchanged, compacted sand.
The main residual impact will be the development of the Waste Treatment Center in an area set
aside for industrial development.
7.10 Socio-economics, Culture and Health

The following measures will be implemented during both the construction and operation phases
of the Project.
7.10.1 Enhancement Measures for Positive Impacts
In order to optimise the benefits from employment and business opportunities, the following
enhancement measures shall be implemented:
Priority given to local workforce

As with the current trend in Dubai and the UAE, workers will most likely consist of expatriates;
however, local workers (based in Dubai) will be prioritised. This is in line with the UAE’s
Emiratisation Policy. Further, this measure will subsequently minimise impacts associated with
the influx of migrant workers; hence narrowing the gap between expatriates and local Emirati
population and cultural differences.
Priority given to local companies

During procurement of materials and services required for the Project, priority shall be given to
local suppliers and service companies, if available. This will optimise the economic benefits to
the Emirate and the UAE in general.
Just and fair compensation to workers

All parties involved in the Project (e.g. contractors and suppliers) shall comply with the UAE
Labour Code provisions on the minimum salary, working hours and working conditions (e.g.
occupational health and safety, labour accommodation).
Workers’ protection
All forms of forced or compulsory labour will be prohibited. Regular monitoring will be
undertaken to ensure that workers’ rights are protected. Collective bargaining agreements do
not exist in the UAE. In order for the Project to comply with IFC requirements, the Proponent,
contractors and suppliers should provide reasonable working conditions and terms of
employment in line with the UAE Labour Law (e.g. minimum wage, maximum working hours,
payment for overtime work, minimum leave for vacation, holiday, illness, injury, maternity, and
health and safety protections).
7.10.2 Mitigation Measures for Potential Adverse Impacts
Potential adverse impacts of the Project will be mitigated through the implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
Appointment of Community Laiason Officer (or similar)

The Proponent or the contractor (i.e. SPV) shall appoint a Community Liason Officer (or similar)
to maintain a good relationship with the local communities or other stakeholder groups who may
potentially be affected by construction and operation activities. Where possible, regular project
updates should be disseminated to the stakeholders via Proponent’s website, newsletter and /
or posters onsite.
Grievance management procedure

A grievance management procedure will be developed to ensure that all complaints are
addressed appropriately. Any complaints received with regard to the Project should be logged
through a Complaints Register. Any feedback, both positive and negative, received will be
considered by management, registered, investigated and addressed through appropriate
management measures.
Environmental management measures

With consistent implementation of environmental management measures described throughout
the EIA, potential nuisance / disturbance / adverse impacts (e.g. dust, odour, noise, traffic) to
nearby communities can be avoided. Similarly, any reduced amenity impacts in the surrounding
areas will be minimised.
Built-in pollution control measures are included in the design to avert the perceived adverse
impacts of the Project. This includes the use of flue gas treatment system and bottom ash
treatement.
Site logistics
The site layout, construction logistics and method will consider the potential environmental,
health and safety risk to the local communities. This will include review of procurement and
logistics schedules to minimise deliveries as far as practicable; limit deliveries to day time hours
to reduce night time noise; limit deliveries and workforce transport outside of peak hours to
reduce congestion; and implementation of air and noise control measures (as described in
Section 7.2 and Section 7.3, respectively) to minimise health impacts.
Use of local workforce

Where possible, the Project shall utilise the workforce currently and readily available in Dubai
instead of hiring workers outside the Emirate or the UAE. This measure will subsequently
minimise the impacts associated with the influx of additional foreign / expatriate workers (e.g.
population gap between expatriates and local Emirati population and cultural differences).
Induction
The induction training provided to foreign workers will include understanding and respecting
culture and religion of the UAE and the Emirate, life style and preferences of the local
community residents, rules and practices to be observed in order to ensure the harmony
between the local communities and foreign workforce.
Provision of a healthy and safe working environment

Project and site specific Occupational Health and Safety Plan (OHSP) in line with internationally
acceptable standards (ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001) [client need to confirm this commitment],
shall be developed and strictly implemented during the construction and operation phases to
minimise risk to workers. Further, the Proponent will prepare a Community Health and Safety
Plan to address the perceived adverse impacts of the Project to the surrounding
occupantsOperation Phase
Archaeology and Cultural Assessment

No mitigation is required since the Project is not likely to have any impact on archaeological and
cultural resources. Nonetheless, the Proponent will report any accidental findings to the relevant
authorities (e.g. DM-Architectural Heritage and Antiquities Department, AHAD). Chance find
procedures will therefore be developed and included in construction and operations
management plans in case of chance findings of archaeological and cultural significance.
There will be a net positive impact from the Project construction activities through the provision
of employment and business opportunities as well as simulations of the local and regional
economy. With the completion of the Project, reliance on fossil fuel and imported energy will be
reduced, improving long-term revenues in the Emirate of Dubai.
Post mitigation, residual health impacts is not anticipated.
7.11 Environmental Impacts Summary

The environmental impact levels before and after the implementation of mitigation measures
during the construction and operation phases of the project are consolidated in Table 7-2 and
Table 7-3, respectively.
Table 7-2 Environmental and social impact ratings before and after mitigation – Construction Phase
Project Impact Initial Impact (before implementing mitigation measures) Mitigation Measures Residual Impact (after implementing
mitigation measures)
Likelihood Consequence Impact Impacted Likelihood Consequence Impact

Rating Parties Rating
1. Greenhouse Gas
GHG emissions Almost Insignificant Low Atmosphere  Optimise energy efficiency: Likely Insignificant Low
from certain
consdumption – No idling of equipment and
of fuel and vehicles
electricity for – Use of cleaner fuel
commuting of
construction – Use of equipment fitted with
personnel, pollution control devices
delivery of – Proper and on-time
construction maintenance of equipment and
materials and vehicles
disposal of
construction – Implementation of Construction
waste Logistic and Traffic
Management Plan
– Use of battery-powered
equipment
2. Air Quality and Odour Emission
Fugitive dust Almost Moderate High Workers /  Dust control including erection of Likely Minor Medium
emission from certain staff and hoarding, site planning with dust
site visitors on- generating activities / sources
development / site located away from sensitive
earthmoving Occupants receivers, phasing of earthmoving
works and wind of works, stabilisation / compaction
erosion on surrounding of unsurfaced areas. Detailed list
land uses provided in Section 7.2.1.1.

unpaved
surfaces
Emission of Almost Insignificant Low Workers /  Ban open burning on site. Possible Insignificant Negligible
exhaust gases certain staff and
from the visitors on-  Use of cleaner fuel.
operation of site  Use of equipment fitted with
equipment, Occupants pollution control devices (e.g.
plant, tools and of diesel particulate matter filter),
utilities using surrounding where possible.
fuel residential
 Maintain the equipment and
and
vehicles as per the manufacturer’s
commercial
instructions.
areas
 Implementing a Construction
Logistic Plan and Construction
Traffic Management Plan.
 No idling of equipment and
vehicles.
VOC emissions Likely Insignificant Low Workers /  Provision of a well-ventilated Possible Insignificant Negligible
staff and storage facility for fuel, paints and
visitors on- other volatile materials.
site
 Storage areas to be located away
Occupants from sensitive receptor areas.
of
surrounding  Quantity of volatile materials to be
residential stored on-site shall be kept to
and minimum.
commercial
areas

Odour emission Likely Insignificant Low Workers /  Locate toilet utilities, sewage Possible Insignificant Negligible
from sanitary staff and tanks (if any) and waste storage
and waste visitors on- facilities away from sensitive
disposal site receptors.
facilities, and Occupants
poor quality  Sanitary and waste disposal
of facility to be kept in good condition
dredged surrounding
material at all times.
residential
and  Implement appropriate waste
commercial management measures, ensuring
areas proper waste storage and regular
waste collection for off-site
disposal.
3. Noise
Construction Almost Moderate High Workers and  Appropriate site layout (primary Likely Insignificant Low
noise (causing certain occupants noise sources are located away
sleep (closest on site and from sensitive receptors)
disturbance sensitive surrounding
annoyance and receptor) communities  Provide mufflers / silences and
hearing acoustic enclosures on mobile
impairment) plant equipment
 Use equipment with low noise
emission
 Maintain equipment in good
working condition
 Operate equipment in low speed
or power

 Broadband alarms should be used
 Reversing should be kept to a
minimum
 Optimise the number of deliveries
 Limit general construction
activities to daytime (7 am to 8
pm)
 Switch-off machine when not in
use
 Inform truck drivers of designated
traffic routes
Construction Almost Insignificant Low Workers and  Implement vibration sensitive Likely Insignificant Low
vibration certain occupants activities during lease sensitive
(causing sleep (closest on site and time periods
disturbance and sensitive surrounding
annoyance) receptor) communities  Vibration activities should be
sequenced
 Locate vibration intensive
activities away from sensitive
receptors
4. Geology, Geomorphology, Seismicity, Soil and Groundwater
Seismic tremor Rare Major Medium Workers and  Design and construct the Project Rare Moderate Low
causing visitors of in accordance with the
collapse of the site requirements of the DM Building
infrastructure, during Code and the findings of the site’s
that is under construction geotechnical investigation. Ensure

construction sufficient compaction and land
and not yet able stability is achieved prior to
to withstand commencing building and
earthquake infrastructure works.
tremors
Spread of Unlikely Minor Low Terrestrial  Any imported fill should be clean- Rare Minor Negligible
potential pre- ecology fill only and obtained from an
existing soil approved source.
contamination
via movement  Imported topsoil for landscaping
of contaminated should be from an approved
fill / stockpiled supplier.
material
Soil Unlikely Minor Low Terrestrial  Water used for dust suppression Rare Minor Negligible
contamination ecology should meet municipal health
from using Employees standards and should not exceed
contaminated and visitors the salinity levels of soil on-site.
water for dust on-site
suppression
Soil Likely Minor Medium Terrestrial Hazardous materials management Possible Minor Low
contamination ecology ensuring the following are provided:
due to handling, Employees
storage and use  Appropriate storage facilities
and visitors (suitably bunded).
of hazardous on-site
materials (e.g.  Siting the storage facility away
oil, fuel, paint from marine environment and
and other sensitive areas.
chemicals)

 Spill and fire response procedure
and equipment.
 Materials inventory / register and
MSDS files.
 Labelling of containers and areas.
Labels to include name of
chemical, hazard and
precautionary measures.
 Standard operating procedures for
materials handling.
 Access restrictions at storage
areas.
 Relevant staff to be provided with
training and PPE.
Soil Likely Minor Medium Terrestrial  Implementation of appropriate Possible Minor Low
contamination ecology waste management measures,
from inadequate Employees ensuring provision of suitable
waste and visitors collection and storage facilities
management on-site (e.g. bund systems)
(e.g. hazardous
waste, sewage)  Toilet facilities located at regular
intervals within site for workers
ease of access.
 Direct discharge of site offices
effluent to the municipal sewage
system where feasible.
 Portable toilets or facilities with
septic tanks to be regularly

checked for signs of leaks or
overflow. Storage tanks to be
emptied when ¾ full.
 Routine checking of equipment,
machinery and vehicles to ensure
no leakage of oil and fuel.
 Washout of concrete trucks only in
designated and fully bunded
concrete wash areas.
 No routine maintenance activities
to be carried out at the Project
site. Emergency maintenance only
in designated maintenance zones
with impermeable surfaces (such
as concrete slabs).
Soil erosion due Likely Minor Medium Terrestrial  The site should undergo Possible Minor Low
to earthmoving ecology progressive compaction
activities (stabilisation) immediately after
(stockpiling) earthmoving activity.
 Site roads and tracks should be
surfaced with milled asphalt or
gatch to reduce suspension of
dust and erosion of soil.
 An efficient temporary drainage
system within the Project area
should be provided to prevent
loose soil from being scoured off
by surface runoff.

 Excavation work plans should
specify cut slope and maximum
height to prevent erosion and to
minimise the area of disturbed
and unconsolidated soil.
 Soil stockpiles should be
maintained at minimum height and
located on flat areas and away
from stormwater flow paths.
Groundwater Unlikely Major Medium Terrestrial  Implementation of mitigation Unlikely Minor Low
contamination flora and measures for soil contamination
as a result of fauna impacts.
spill / leak of Marine flora
potentially and fauna
hazardous
material (i.e. oil,
fuel, sewage,
paint and other
chemicals)
Groundwater Unlikely Major Medium Terrestrial  Implementation of mitigation Unlikely Minor Low
contamination flora and measures for soil contamination
as a result of fauna impacts.
inadequate Marine flora
waste and fauna
management
(e.g. hazardous
waste, sewage)

5. Biodiversity and Conservation
Habitat loss due Likely Insignificant Low Vegetation  Manage size of land disturbance Possible Insignificant Negligible
to excavation at the for temporary construction
and earthworks Project site laydown areas to minimum
necessary
Disturbance of Possible Minor Low Fauna  Implement noise control measures Possible Insignificant Negligible
fauna species species at
due to noise the Project
impacts site
6. Access, Traffic and Transport
Increase in road Almost Minor Medium Residents of  Develop and implement Possible Minor Low
traffic in the certain local construction traffic management
vicinity of the community plan to ensure traffic flow and
Project site reduce traffic congestion
Users and
workers of  Arrange for shared transport
neighbouring where possible to minimise trips
inductrial
and  Manage material delivery
commercial schedule and avoidance during
facilities rush hours

 Arrange delivery of materials in
bulk
Potential traffic Possible Minor Low Residents of  Develop and implement logistics Unlikely Minor Low
congestion on local plan
the road community
network from – Use of truck road
Users and – Material delivery outside of peak
the port leading
workers of traffic periods
to the Project
neighbouring
site
inductrial – Use of convoys of heavy and
and oversized vehicles
commercial  Arrange delivery of materials in
facilities bulk
Noise, dust and Possible Moderate Medium Employees  Implementation of air quality Unlikely Minor Low
air emissions and workers management measures (refer to
due to truck of HZI, BESIX air section)
movements and
subcontractor  Implementation of noise control
s measures (refer to noise section)
Residents /
users of
facilities
surrounding
the site
7. Water and Energy Resources
Water supply Unlikely Minor Low Other water  Implement water conservation Unlikely Minor Low
competition with users measures
other users /
 Re-use water, if applicable

consumers of
DEWA
Additional traffic Unlikely Minor Low Workers and  Implement site traffic Unlikely Insignificant Negligible
on the existing residents in management plan
road traffic surrounding
network due to areas  Manage delivery schedule,
the distribution minimise delivery of water supply
of water on-site during peak traffic hours
 Limit night time deliveries (or no
night time deliveries)
Power / fuel Almost Minor Medium Construction  Optimise energy efficiency Almost Insignificant Low
consumption certain site workers certain
causing and visitors
localised air Workers and
pollution, noise residents of
emissions surrounding
areas
Potential risk of Unlikely Minor Low Surface and  Develop and implement oil spill Rare Minor Negligible
spill from groundwater preventive and contingency
delivery and on- sources management plan / procedure
site storage of
fuel, potentially  Provide onsite spill recovery kits
resulting in soil for a quick clean up
and  Provide inductions and
groundwater appropriate training to respond to
contamination hazardous spills

8. Waste Management
Potential soil Possible Moderate Medium Soil  Provide spill kits where there is a Possible Minor Low
and/or risk of spill
groundwater
contamination  Provide suitable waste storage
due to storage, facilities
handling and
transport of
waste
Litter of waste Almost Insignificant Low Soil, site  Provide suitable waste storage Possible Insignificant Negligible
on site certain workers and facilities
fauna
 Locate waste bins / containers
where waste is produced
Odour from Almost Insignificant Low Site workers  Provide suitable temporary Possible Insignificant Negligible
storage of certain and visitors sewage holding tank onsite
putrescible
wastes and  Locate sewage tanks away from
sewage storage sensitive receptors
tanks
Hazards to Possible Moderate Medium Terrestrial  Provide suitable waste storage Unlikely Minor Low
fauna fauna on the facilities
Project site
Health and Possible Moderate Medium Site workers  Provide training and PPE for Unlikely Minor Low
safety hazard to and visitors workers for the proper handling,
storage and disposal of waste

workers and  Label waste containers / storage
visitors areas
9. Land Use and Visual Amenity
Change / Rare Insignificant Negligible NA  Not applicable since impact is Rare Insignificant Negligible
inconsistency negligible and use is consistent
with land use with zoning and land use
Increased in the Possible Moderate Medium Community  Implement traffic management Possible Minor Low
number of and measures (refer to Item 6 of this
trucks business table)
transporting establishme
construction nts leading
materials to the
Project site
Potential Likely Minor Medium Community  Implement dust management plan Likely Insignificant Low
increase in dust and (refer to Item 2 of this table)
levels business
associated with establishme
the construction nts leading
impacts and to the
increased Project site
vehicle
movement

10. Socio-economic, Culture and Health
Generation of Almost Minor Medium Local  Prioritise local companies and Almost Moderate High
employment certain (Positive) residents local workers certain (Positive)
and business and
opportunities business  Provide just and fair
owners compensation to workers
Expatriates /
foreign
workers
Reduced Almost Minor Medium Local  Implement environmental Possible Minor Low
amenity due to certain residents management measures
traffic and and
construction business  Develop grievance management
activities and owners procedure and address
visual impact complaints of stakeholders
Workers and
from the customers of  Appoint Community Laiason
construction site retail and Officer (or similar) to coordinate /
commercial address complaints
establishment
 Develop and implement
s
Community Health and Safety
Plan
 Develop and implement Traffic
Management Plan
Increased Almost Moderate High Construction  Consider the potential risk of site Possible Moderate Medium
health and certain workforce layout, logistics and construction
safety risk and site activities to workers, visitors and
visitors local communities

Plan (OHSP)
Conflict Possible Moderate Medium Local  Include cultural sensitivity and Unlikely Minor Low
between local residents respect in Workers Induction
residents and Workers and Program
workers customers of  Ensure provision of adequate
industrial service utilities and infrastructure
and for wokers to avoid competition
commercial with local residents and workers
facilties
surrounding  Consult with the relevant service
the site providers for utility planning and
Workers on- management
site
Poor labour and Possible Moderate Medium Constructio  Ensure that workforce Unlikely Minor Low
working n workforce accommodation meet local and
conditions international requirements
 Provide transportation services
 Provide health benefits
 Ensure that sanitary facilities, rest
area, kitchen and dining area are
provided at the work place
Chance find of Rare Major Medium Archaeologi  Report chance findings to DM Rare Moderate Low
resources with cal and Architectural Heritage and
archaeological cultural Antiquities Department (AHAD)
resources

and cultural  Implement chance find procedure
significance
 Stop work until approval from
AHAD is sought
Table 7-3 Environmental and social impact ratings before and after mitigation – Operation Phase

1. Greenhouse Gas
Emission from Almost Moderate High Atmosphere  Mitigation measure is not required Almost Moderate High
the WtE plant certain (Positive) as the impact is considered certain (Positive)
operation beneficial. The emisions from the
WtE plant are more than offset by
avoided landfill methane
emissions and emissions from on-
site electricity generation
displacing existing sources
2. Air Quality and Odour Emission
Emissions from Almost Minor Medium Workers and  The emission concentration Possible Minor Low
furnace / boiler certain occupants on guarantees listed in IED, Annex
site and VI, Part 3 are met

surrounding  The stack parameters and
communities emission rates (refer to Section
6.3.2.1) are adhered to
Exhaust gases Almost Minor Medium Residents,  Implementation of Traffic Likely Insignificant Low
and particulates certain visitors and Management Plan.
emitted from occupants of
road traffic the Project site
and
surrounding
residential and
commercial
areas
Odour emission Unlikely Minor Low Workers /  Installation of built-in management Unlikely Insignificant Negligible
from waste staff and measures: tipping bays will be
composition and visitors on- equipped with roller shutter door
aging process of site
waste  Odour emission leaving the
Occupants of process building is not anticipated
surrounding due to proper ventilation / slight
residential and negative pressure
commercial
areas  Waste should not be stored longer
than five days in the waste bunker
 Maintain operation of two out of
five lines at any one time
3. Noise
Operational Possible Moderate Medium Surrounding Implement engineering measures: Possible Insignificant Negligible
noise (causing (closest communities
sleep sensitive  Provide built-in insulation walls

disturbance, receptor)  Locate buildings close to Project’s
annoyance and boundary to provide shielding
hearing
impairment)  Enclose plant / equipment
considered to be causing major
source of noise
 Select quiet equipment / system
as early as design phase
 WtE plant should be designed in
line with relevant Health and
Safety regulations
 Remove machines from the site
that are found to be producing
excessive noise
 Use broadband alarms for site
equipment
 Maintain all equipment / machine
in good working conditions
 Inform truck drivers of designated
traffic routes
4. Soil and Groundwater
Potential soil and Possible Moderate Medium Soil and  Waste bunker, IBA maturation Possible Minor Low
groundwater Groundwater area and FGT residue temporary
contamination storage facilities must be

from leachate designed, constructed and
generated by maintained for the materials
inappropriate stored in accordance to applicable
waste storage safe handling and disposal
(e.g. feedstock measures
[waste] storage
and IBA/FGT  Regular general inspections and
residue onsite monitoring of ash disposal
management) facilities
 Development and implementation
of soil and groundwater
management and remediation
plan should soil and groundwater
contamination occur
 Appropriate disposal of any
contaminated soil and
groundwater in accordance with
applicable management
guidelines
Potential soil and Possible Minor Low Soil and  Fuel and raw material storage Unlikely Insignificant Negligible
groundwater Groundwater areas must be designed,
contamination constructed and maintained for
from fuel and the materials stored or used in the
raw material area according to the applicable
storage MSDS safe handling and control
measures
 Regular inspections and
monitoring of storage facilities

 Where materials are stored in
tanks, drums or other containers,
they must have appropriate
containment structures
 Development and implementation
of soil and groundwater
management and remediation
plan should soil and groundwater
contamination occur
 Appropriate disposal of any
contaminated soil and
groundwater in accordance with
applicable management
guidelines
5. Biodiversity and Conservation
Noise generated Likely Insignificant Low Fauna species  Implement noise control measures Possible Insignificant Negligible
from operation at the Project
activities site
6. Access, Traffic and Transport
Increase in traffic Likely Minor Medium Residents /  Implement traffic management Likely Insignificant Low
movement within users of plan to include:
the WtE plant facilities
surrounding – Designated route of transport
the site – Speed limit within the site
Workers at the  Schedule delivery of MSW during
WtE plant non-peak hours, where possible

 Schedule FGT residue and bottom
ash collection during non-peak
hours, where possible
 Provision of competency trainings
on drivers
 Ensure that trucks and other
equipment are in proper condition
Noise, dust and Likely Minor Medium Workers within  Implementation of air quality Likely Insignificant Low
air emissions the WtE management measures
due to truck PLANT
movements  Implementation of noise control
measures
7. Water and Energy Resources
Fuel Possible Minor Low Water  Implement energy efficiency Possible Insignificant Negligible
consumption for resources measures
plant start-up
and equipment /
Site workers  Develop and implement oil spill
and visitors preventive and contingency
vehicle use
causing risk of management plan / procedure
spill from  Provide onsite spill recovery kits
delivery and on- for a quick clean up
site storage of
fuel  Provide inductions and
appropriate training to respond to
hazardous spills
 Provide storage within bunded
containers and/or areas

 Routinely inspect fuel / oil storage
areas and all containers for any
spill or leaks
 Handle all substances in
accordance with relevant
instructions (i.e. MSDS)
Water Almost Moderate High Water  Mitigation measure is not required Almost Moderate High
conservation, certain (Positive) resources as this is considered a beneficial certain (Positive)
recycling and impact of the Project
Water users
reusing of water
from Al Aweer  Incorporate water conservation
STP for plant measures during design phase to
operation minimise water use during
operation phase
Contribute to Almost Moderate High Energy  Mitigation measure is not required Almost Moderate (3) High
producing clean certain (Positive) consumers in as this is considered a beneficial certain (Positive)
energy and the Emirate of impact of the Project
additional energy Dubai and the
resource in the UAE in
Emirate of Dubai general
and the UAE in
general
8. Waste Management
Potential soil Possible Minor Low Soil  Provide spill kits where there is a Unlikely Minor Low
and/or risk of spill
groundwater
contamination  Provide suitable waste storage
due to storage, facilities
handling and

transport of
waste
Litter of waste on Almost Insignificant Low Soil, site  Provide suitable waste storage Possible Insignificant Negligible
site certain workers, fauna facilities
Hazards to fauna Possible Moderate Medium Terrestrial  Provide suitable waste storage Unlikely Minor Low
fauna on the facilities
Project site
 Develop a waste management
plan
Health and Possible Moderate Medium Site workers  Provide training and PPE for Unlikely Minor Low
safety hazards to and visitors workers for the proper handling,
workers and storage and disposal of waste
visitors
10. Land Use and Visual Amenity
Visual impact Unlikely Minor Low Community Impact is negligible, but to ensure Unlikely Insignificant Negligible
associated with and business integration of the new infrastructure
the installation of establishments the following will be implemented:
new leading to the
infrastructure Project site  Façade and buildings: (i) the
colours and similar cladding
harmonized with the existing
facilities; and (ii) maintenance of
exterior facades
 Landscaping features: (i) plant
tree buffers to the north and east

of the Project site; (ii) use
excavated soil to construct
mounded berm with an estimated
maximum height of 5 m (where
required); and (iii) install
interlocking concete pavers
(where required)
11. Socio-economic, Culture and Health
Generation of Almost Minor Medium Local  Prioritise local companies and Almost Moderate High
employment and certain (Positive) residents and local workers certain (Positive)
business business
opportunities owners  Provide just and fair
compensation to workers
Expatriates /
foreign
workers
Reduced Almost Minor Medium Local  Implement environmental Possible Minor Low
amenity due to certain residents and management measures
traffic business
owners  Develop grievance management
procedure and address
Workers and complaints of stakeholders
customers of
retail and  Appoint Community Laiason
commercial Officer (or similar) to coordinate /
establishments address complaints
Community Health and Safety
Plan

 Develop and implement Traffic
Management Plan
Increased Almost Moderate High Construction  Consider the potential risk of Plant Possible Moderate Medium
occupational certain workforce and general layout, logistics (delivery
health and safety site visitors of MSW and flue gas residue,
risk bottom ash) and other operation
activities to workers
Plan (OHSP)
Conflict between Possible Moderate Medium Local  Include cultural sensitivity and Unlikely Minor Low
local residents residents respect in Workers Induction
and workers Workers and Program
customers of  Ensure provision of adequate
industrial and service utilities and infrastructure
commercial for wokers’ use to avoid
facilties competition with local residents
surrounding and workers
the site
Workers on-  Consult with the relevant service
site providers for utility planning and
management
Poor labour and Possible Moderate Medium Construction  Ensure that workforce Unlikely Minor Low
working workforce accommodation meet local and
conditions international requirements
 Provide transportation services
 Provide health benefits

 Ensure that sanitary facilities, rest
area, kitchen and dining area are
provided at the work place
8. Environmental Management and
Monitoring Program
8.1 Introduction
The framework Environmental Management and Monitoring Program (EMMP) forms part of this
EIA report to provide a mechanism for the development and implementation of mitigation
measures against potential adverse environmental impacts from the Project construction and
operational activities. It also incorporates actions necessary for the monitoring, reporting and
auditing of the Project’s environmental performance in line with DM standard requirements and
relevant international standards such as the IFC Performance Standards, Equator Principles
(EP) and the IFC World Bank General and Industry-specific Environmental Health and Safety
(EHS) Guidelines.
This framework EMMP is a guideance document to be referred to when developing the more
comprehensive and site-specific Construction and Operation Environmental Management Plans
(C- and O-EMP), which are stand-alone documents that may be needed to be submitted to DM-
EPSS post EIA.
8.2 Objectives
The EMMP provides the framework to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of mitigation
measures in order to eliminate or minimise adverse environmental impacts of the Project to
acceptable levels.
Specific objectives of this EMMP are to:

 Provide guidance for the development of the Construction and Operational EMPs (when
required by DM-EPSS).
 Outline mitigation measures and management procedures to be implemented in order to

guide Project design, construction and operation in accordance with the requirements of
relevant environmental legislation, policy and guidelines.
 Provide a mechanism for monitoring and reporting of the various environmental
undertakings of the Project, which will include routine liaison with DM-EPSS and other
regulatory authorities.
 Define roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of parties and individuals, ensuring that
all parties and individuals involved in the Project understand and adhere to the
environmental management requirements relevant to their line of work.
 Set the requirements for environmental induction and training programs.
 Facilitate continuous improvement of the Project’s overall environmental performance
through a regular review of specific EMPs and audit of the Project’s compliance to the
requirements.
8.3 Implementation
This framework EMMP should be employed as a guideline for the design, construction and
operation of the Project. Specific components of this EMMP will be finalised as separate
management plans for each stage of the construction and operation phases of the Project.
Specific management measures will also be incorporated, where relevant, in the Contractors’
work method statements.
Managers and supervisors are responsible for providing assurance that their work unit complies
with the requirements in this framework EMMP as translated to Construction and Operation
EMPs. This can be done via conducting regular inspections, monitoring and audits of the Project
management system and / or specific EMPs.
Audits can be undertaken as regular internal or end of phase ‘milestone’ checks against
regulatory guidelines by internal staff or independent external auditors. A documented auditable
trail should be established for verification purposes.
8.4 Environmental Management Plans

CEMP and OEMP will be developed prior to the construction and operation phases of the
Project to ensure environmental and social aspects are managed. Further details on the CEMP
and OEMP requirements are provided in the following sub-sections.
8.4.1 Construction Environmental Management Plan
The work- and project-specific CEMP will be developed, where required, to prior to construction
and will comprise the following items as a minimum:
 Introduction – Introduce the Project and the CEMP including the objectives and
structure.
 Overview of the Project Development – Provide an overview of the Project including
any changes / updates since completion of this EIA Report. The overview should include
details of sensitive receptors, project phases, information on temporary construction-
phase utilities, laydown areas, offices and other ancillary facilities.
 Environmental Management – Provide company policy statement on environment,
occupational health and safety, labour and working condition and community.
 Risk and Impacts Identification – Detailed information on the construction methods to
be employed, including workforce, schedule and equipment as well as summary of key
environmental impacts with the construction activities
 Management Programs – The measures to be implemented to mitigate the key impacts
of the project – this will include environmental, labour and community concerns.
 Organizational Capacity and Competency – List of which personnel / companies will
be responsible for each aspect of the environmental management / mitigation. Training
requirements should also be included.
 Incident/Emergency Preparedness and Response – Provide the emergency response
plan for key potential emergencies. This should include the protocol, required training,
drills, responsible personnel and appropriate contact numbers.
 Stakeholder Engagement – Outline of stakeholder engagement activities during the
construction phase.
 External Communication and Grievance Mechanism – Develop grievance mechanism
procedure for the workers (including supply chain) and community as well as external
communication channels.
 Ongoing Reporting to Affected Communities – Outline performance and compliance
reporting to regulatory authorities and other stakeholders (i.e. surrounding communities).
Details on how the monitoring (and other environmental data) will be managed and
reported on.
 Monitoring and Review – A detailed environmental performance monitoring programme
based on the construction impacts and areas. The monitoring plan should include the
exact locations, duration, frequency, method and comparison criteria for each component
to be monitored.
8.4.2 Operation Environmental Management Plan
A site-specific OEMP will be developed, where required, prior to commissioning and will contain
only applicable project components as stipulated in the approved EIA. The OEMP will comprise
of the following items as a minimum:
 Introduction – Introduce the Project and the OEMP including the objectives and
structure.
 Overview of the Project Operation – Provide an overview of the Project operation
including any changes / updates since completion of this EIA Report. The overview
should include details of sensitive receptors, project components, offices and other
ancillary facilities, waste handling and storage and other operation and maintenance
activities.
 Environmental Management – Provide company policy statement on environment,
occupational health and safety, labour and working condition and community.
 Risk and Impacts Identification – Detailed information on the operation methods to be
undertaken, including workforce, schedule and equipment as well as summary of key
environmental impacts relative to the operation activities.
 Management Programs – The measures to be implemented to mitigate the key impacts

associated with the project operation – this will include environmental, labour and
community concerns.
 Organizational Capacity and Competency – List of which personnel / companies will

be responsible for each aspect of the environmental management / mitigation. Training
requirements should also be included.
 Incident/Emergency Preparedness and Response – Provide the emergency response

plan for key potential emergencies. This should include the protocol, required training,
drills, responsible personnel and appropriate contact numbers.
 Stakeholder Engagement – Outline ongoing stakeholder engagement activities during
the operation phase.
 External Communication and Grievance Mechanism – Develop grievance mechanism
procedure for the workers (including supply chain) and community as well as external
communication channels.
 Ongoing Reporting to Affected Communities – Outline performance and compliance
reporting to regulatory authorities and other stakeholders (i.e. surrounding communities).
Details on how the monitoring (and other environmental data) will be managed and
reported on.
 Monitoring and Review – A detailed environmental performance monitoring programme
based on the operation impacts and areas. The monitoring plan should include the exact
locations, duration, frequency, method and comparison criteria for each component to be
monitored.
8.4.3 Summary of Impacts and Management Requirements
The following matrix (Table 8-1) provide a summary of the proposed environmental
management measures associated with the Project. These management plans will be included
in the CEMP or OEMP.
Table 8-1 Impact management plan
Item Activity / Project phase Environmental Potential impact Options for prevention / mitigation / enhancement Responsible entity Management / Control Plan to be prepared 1
aspect likely to
be affected
Pre-Construction Phase
P1 Social acceptability People Public resistance due to development Conduct stakeholder engagement activities. Project Owner Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Construction Phase2
C1 Site development (clearing, Geomorphology Change in surface landform (negligible No mitigation measure required. HZI and BESIX None
civil works and earthmoving) impact)
Subcontractors
C2 Excavation works Subsurface gas Migration of subsurface gas from nearby Design management strategies for gas management HZI and BESIX Contingency Plan for Potential Gaseous
migration landfill or sludge disposal area Conditions
Subcontractors
C3 Excavation works Contaminated Possibility of leachate-impact subsurface Excavated soil management plan HZI and BESIX Excavated Materials Management Plan
soils soil conditions
Subcontractors
C4 Site development (clearing, Soil Soil erosion Loose vegetation should be vegetated, paved or HZI and BESIX Erosion Control Plan, Excavated Materials
civil works and earthmoving) covered / stabilised. Control Plan (Earthworks and Fill)
Subcontractors
Installation of slope protection measures (where
required).
Immediate re-vegetation (where appropriate).
C5 Site development (clearing, Flora and fauna Clearing of vegetation Revegetation around the Project site once construction HZI and BESIX Biodiversity Management Plan
civil works and earthmoving) is done (where appropriate).
Subcontractors
Limit clearing activities to designated construction
areas.
No introduction of exotic or invasive alien species
during revegetation.
C6 Site development (clearing, Air quality Dust resuspension from earthmoving Water sprinkling (wetting). HZI and BESIX Dust Management Plan
civil works and earthmoving) activities and vehicle movement
Public health Subcontractors Air Quality Monitoring Plan
C7 Site development (clearing, Cultural Accidental discovery of resources with Develop and implement chance find procedure. HZI and BESIX Chance Find Procedure
civil works and earthmoving) resources cultural significance
Subcontractors
C8 Transport of construction Public safety Safe to public safety due to additional Develop and implement traffic management plan. HZI and BESIX Traffic Management Plan
materials, waste and workers vehicles on the road
Develop and implement emergency response plan. Subcontractors Emergency Response Plan
C9 Transport of construction Worker safety Exposure of workers to unsafe working Develop and implement traffic management plan. HZI and BESIX Occupational Health and Safety Plan
materials, waste and workers conditions (i.e. injury and fatality)
Develop and implement emergency response plan. Subcontractors Traffic Management Plan
Emergency Response Plan
C10 Transport of construction Public amenity Impair visual amenity at surrounding areas Implement traffic management measures. HZI and BESIX Traffic Management Plan
materials, waste and especially tourist attractions near the
Subcontractors
workers. Project site (i.e. Desert Palm Resort)
C11 Noise from machinery / Fauna species Disturbance of fauna species due to noise Implement noise control measures HZI and BESIX Noise Control Plan
equipment operation and impact (low impact)
Subcontractors Biodiversity Management Plan
movement of vehicle
aspect likely to
be affected
C12 Nosie from equipment / plant Public health Noise pollution impacts on residents / users Provide engineering measures on equipment (i.e. HZI and BESIX Noise Control Plan
/ vehicles of facilities surrounding the site mufflers, enclosures) to attenuate noise generation.
Subcontractors Community Health and Safety Plan
C13 Nosie from equipment / plant Worker health Noise pollution impacts on employees and Provide engineering measures on equipment (i.e. HZI and BESIX Noise Control Plan
/ vehicles workers of HZI, BESIX and subcontractors mufflers, enclosures) to attenuate noise generation.
Subcontractors Occupational Health and Safety Plan
Provision of appropriate personal protective equipment
(PPE) such as hearing protection to those working in
noisey areas.
Limit exposure of workers to 8 hours per day at
construction areas with noise level greater than 85
dBA.
C14 Dewatering activities Soil and Soil and groundwater contamination due to Develop and implement dewatering effluent control HZI and BESIX Dewatering Effluent Control Plan
groundwater discharge of surface runoffs plan.
Subcontractors
quality
C15 Water distribution to the Public health Additional load to the existing road traffic Develop and implement traffic management plan. HZI and BESIX Traffic Management Plan
Project site network
Manage delivery schedule, minimise delivery of water Subcontractors
supply during peak traffic hours.
C16 Water use / consumption at Public services Water competition with other users / Implement wate conservation measures. HZI and BESIX Water Conservation Plan
the Project site customers of DEWA
Re-use water (use for dust suppression), if applicable. Subcontractors
Coordinate with DEWA to ensure availability for
connection to an existing water supply and distribution
network.
C17 Laydown areas, construction Public amenity Impair visual amenity at surrounding areas Implement proper housekeeping. HZI and BESIX None
activities
Use hoarding or barriers. Subcontractors
Regular site inspections.
C18 Air emission from plant / Air quality Air pollution from particulate matter, carbon Built-in management measures (i.e. FGT system) HZI and BESIX Air Quality Control Plan
equipment operation monoxide, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen
Subcontractors
oxides emission
C19 Increased dust levels Air quality Impact visual amenity at surrounding areas Develop and implement dust management plan. HZI and BESIX Dust Control Plan
Subcontractors
C20 Energy / fuel consumption Energy High energy consumption depleting Optimise energy efficiency. HZI and BESIX Energy Efficiency Plan
resources resources
Subcontractors
C21 Fuel and oil storage on site Soil and Potential spill from delivery and onsite Develop and implement spill prevention and HZI and BESIX Soil and Groundwater Control Plan
during construction groundwater storage of fuel causing soil and contingency plan.
Subcontractors Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan
quality groundwater degradation
Appropriate storage and handling of fuel and raw
materials in accordance with MSDS.
C22 Generation of hazardous and Soil and Soil and groundwater contamination due to Develop and implement waste management plan HZI and BESIX Waste Management Plan
non-hazardous waste groundwater improper disposal of waste
Subcontractors Soil and Groundwater Control Plan
quality
aspect likely to
be affected
C23 Generation of hazardous and Public and Exposure of public and workers to vectors Develop and implement waste management plan. HZI and BESIX Waste Management Plan
non-hazardous waste worker health and contaminants
Develop and implement occupational health and safety Subcontractors Occupational Health and Safety Plan
and safety
plan.
Community Health and Safety Plan
C24 General construction Worker health Working injuries, chronic conditions or Develop and implement occupational health and safety HZI and BESIX Occupational Health and Safety Plan
activities (e.g. working from and safety fatality due to accidents plan.
Subcontractors
heights, workin in confined
Provision of appropriate PPEs to workers.
spaces, significant lifting,
carrying or repetitive motions,
etc.)
C25 Use of large equipment in Worker health Working injuries, chronic conditions or Ensure that workers are knowledgeable and have HZI and BESIX Occupational Health and Safety Plan
operations and safety fatality due to accidents extensive experience in using large equipment.
Subcontractors
Develop and implement occupational health and safety
plan.
C26 Irregular inspection and Worker health Electric shock and electrocution Develop and implement occupational health and safety HZI and BESIX Occupational Health and Safety Plan
maintenance of electrical and safety plan.
Subcontractors
equipment
C27 Construction activities during Worker health Heat and sun-induced illnesses due to Implement engineering controls and ventilation. HZI and BESIX Occupational Health and Safety Plan
summer months and safety workers long work hours in areas with
Restrict work hours during summer time (i.e. 05:30 to Subcontractors Human Resources Plan (i.e. working hours)
exposure to sunlight and / or excessive
12:30 and 16:00 to 19:00 or as dictated by the Local
heat
Authorities).
Monitor weather forecasts for outdoor work to provide
advance warning of extreme weather and scheduling
work accordingly.
Provide appropriate PPEs to workers (i.e. protective
clothing).
Provide temporary shelters for use as rest areas.
Provide easy access to hydration (i.e. drinking water or
electrolyte).
C28 Delayed construction Worker health Lack fluctuations in working hours based Overtime payments and working hours should be HZI and BESIX Human Resources Plan (i.e. working hours and
activities and safety on work demand which may cause clearly explained to the workers. overtime payment)
Subcontractors
excessive overtime (i.e. no payment of
Communicate the delay down the chain of command.
overtime or layoffs)
Maintain a well-informed, multidisciplinary and
competent project management team.
Operation Phase3
O1 Air emissions during Air quality Particulate matter pollution in ambient air Built-in management measures to mitigate emission of Operator Air Control Plan
operation (SOx, NOx, PM10, particulate matter (e.g. flue gas treatment (FGT)
Operation Manual
PM2.5, etc.) system, bag house, etc.)
O2 Air emissions during Public health Impacts on respiratory health of residents Built-in management measures to mitigate emission of Operator Air Control Plan
operation (SOx, NOx, PM10, and other users of surrounding facilities as particulate matter (e.g. flue gas treatment (FGT)
Operation Manual
PM2.5, etc.) well as workers system, bag house, etc.)
Occupational Health and Safety Plan
aspect likely to
be affected
O3 Ancillary activities – vehicle Air quality Air pollution from particulate matter, carbon Operators should implement manufacturer Operator Air Quality Control Plan
and equipment use monoxide, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen recommended engine maintenance program.
oxides emission
Replace vehicles with newer, more efficient
alternatives.
Converting high-use vehicles to cleaner fuels, where
feasible.
Installing and maintaining emissions control devices
(i.e. catalytic converters).
Implement regular vehicle maintenance and repair
program.
O4 Ancillary activities – vehicle Public health Impacts on respiratory health of residents Sealed road, if applicable. Operator Air Quality Control Plan
and equipment use and other users of surrounding facilities as
Dust suppression (i.e. wetting) for unconsolidated Occupational Health and Safety Plan
well as workers
areas.
O5 Waste spill during Public health Impact on public health from exposure to Develop and implement traffic management plan. DM-WMD registered Traffic Management Plan
transportation of waste from vectors waste haulers
Do not transport waste during peak hours. Spill Management Plan
sources (i.e residential areas)
to the Project site Ensure that trucks and other equipment are in proper Occupational Health and Safety Plan
condition.
Select vehicles and containers that minimise air/odour
emissions.
O6 Movement of vehicles and Worker/visitor Impact on safety of employees and visitors Develop and implement internal traffic management Operator Traffic Management Plan
equipment inside the Project health and of the site plan (i.e. speed limit, etc.).
site (i.e. internal traffic) safety
Provide adequate traffic signage and signallers on-
site.
Identify pedestrian-only areas where vehicles are
completely not allowed.
Identify vehicle-only areas, especially in areas of
limited space or traffic is heavy.
O7 Unloading of municipal solid Worker/visitor Accidents and injuries during transfer of Develop traffic management systems and appoint DM-WMD registered Traffic Management Plan
waste / refuse to waste health and waste involving trucks and other moving traffic controllers. waste haulers
storage areas then to boiler safety equipment
Provide (for internal employees) and required (for Operator
hall Pest Management Plan
Exposure to chemicals, pathogens and waste haulers) suitable PPEs.
vectors
Provide refuse collection vehicles with audible
reversing alarms and visible reversing lights.
Design collection/transfer routes to minimise/eliminate
crossing traffic that is going in the opposite direction.
Restrict access to waste storage areas such that only
trained personnel with PPEs are permitted in high-risk
areas.
Use automated system to transfer waste to the boiler
hall (i.e. conveyor system).
Control and characterise incoming waste.
aspect likely to
be affected
Implement washing programs for waste collection
vehicles and for company-owned waste collection and
transfer containers.
Provide adequate personnel facilities, including
washing areas and areas to change clothes.
Ventilate enclosed processing areas.
Prohibit eating, smoking and drinking except in
designated areas.
Integrate pest control approaches to control vermin.
Maintain good housekeeping
Provide prompt medical attention to cuts and bruises.
An on-site health facility / clinic and a medical
practitioner should provided on-site.
O8 Waste storage areas Worker / visitor / Odourous emissions fron the waste storage Use enclosed waste handling and storage areas. Operator Incorporate health and safety measures in
community areas plant design
Use odour-neutralising spray where necessary.
health and
safety Implement good housekeeping procedures.
Use enclosed/covered waste storage areas.
Locate waste storage facilities away from sensitive
receptors (i.e. administration area, accommodation
area, community)
O9 Noise and vibration including Worker / visitor / Annoyance and hearing impairment Include noise and vibration considerations during Operator Noise Management Plan
traffic, loading equipment, community design.
Traffic Management Plan
and plant operation health
Maintain site roads in good condition to reduce noise
Grievance Mechanism
and vibration from vehicle movements.
Use acoustic screens around fixed / mobile plant and
equipment. Community Health and Safety Plan
Select equipment that has low noise emission levels.
Use buildings to contain inherently noise fixed plant
and consider use of sound-insulating materials.
Install vibration isolation for mechanical equipment.
Relocate noise sources to less sensitive areas.
Develop mechanism to record and respond to
complaints.
O10 Ash (incinerated bottom ash Soil and Potential spill of ash to the ground causing Built-in management measures (IBA maturation area Operator Spill Management Plan
[IBA] and flue gas treatment groundwater soil contamination at the Project site and FGT residue silo (refer to Section 4.7.7))
Soil and Groundwater Control Plan
[FGT] residue) handling and quality
Develop and implement spill management plan
disposal
O11 Ash (IBA and FGT residue) – Public health Risk to public safety due to additional Develop and implement traffic management plan. DM Waste Traffic Management Plan
transportation from the vehicles on the road Management
Develop and implement emergency response plan. Emergency Response Plan
Project site to disposal area Department
aspect likely to
be affected
O12 Ash (IBA and FGT residue) – Soil and Potential spill of ash to the ground causing Develop and implement traffic management plan. DM Waste Spill Management Plan
transportation from the groundwater soil contamination at public areas (i.e. road Management
Develop and implement spill management plan. Emergency Response Plan
Project site to disposal area quality from Project site to disposal area) Department
Develop and implement emergency response plan. Community Health and Safety Plan
O13 Final disposal of ash (IBA Air quality, Potential environmental and social issues To be considered in separate EIA by DM-WMD (when DM Waste To be considered in separate EIA by DM-WMD
and FGT residue) water quality, required) Management (when required)
soil and Department
groundwater,
occupational
and public
health impacts
O14 Installation and operation of Public amenity Impact visual amenity at surrounding areas Façade and buildings: (i) the colours and similar Operator None required as the impact is negligible
new infrastructure cladding harmonized with the existing facilities, (ii)
maintenance of exterior facades.
Landscaping features: (i) plant tree buffers around the
facility, (ii) use excavated soil to construct mounded
berm (where required), and (iii) install interlocking
concrete pavers (where required).
Risks on labour and working conditions during all phases fo the Project
LWC1 Job hiring Labour and Potential discrimination due to hiring, Implement strict compliance with UAE Labour Law. Project Owner Human Resources Management Plan
working compensation and promotion of workers
Develop and implement non-discrimination and equal HZI and BESIX Grievance Mechanism Procedure
condition not based on the job requirements and
opportunity policy (to address racial discrimination,
skills Subcontractors
disability, gender discrimination, harassment, migrant
workers), which should also be implemented by
subcontractors and supply chain workers.
Develop and implement an anti-harassment policy.
Review recruitment practices to ensure they are not
based on irrelevant personal characteristics.
Define objective work requirements.
Keep up-to-date records on recruitment, training and
promotion.
LWC2 Job hiring Labour and Potential hiring of children / young workers Implement strict compliance with UAE Labour Law. Project Owner Human Resources Management Plan
working
Develop and implement a policy against employing, HZI and BESIX
condition
using or benefiting from child labour, which should also
Subcontractors
be implemented by subcontractors and supply chain
workers.
Develop and implement procedure in verifying the age
of workers at the time of hiring.
Develop reporting mechanism [i.e. where child labour
is discovered, remove the child from hazardous
condition (but do not remove from work as it may
cause financial harm) and report to authorities].
If young workers are hired (i.e. on-the-job training),
ensure that they are not exposed to hazardous job
conditions and parents / guardians are informed of the
job description.
aspect likely to
be affected
LWC3 Job hiring Labour and Forced labour or harassment (includes Implement strict compliance with UAE Labour Law. Project Owner Human Resources Management Plan
working requirements of monetary deposits,
Freedom of employment should be clearly defined in HZI and BESIX Grievance Mechanism Procedure
condition limitations on freedom of movement,
the contract.
lengthy worker notice periods, substantial Subcontractors
and inappropriate fines, loss or delays in Provide training on workers’ rights.
wages)
Conduct monitoring or audition to ensure that there is
no forced labour.
If forced labour are discovered, report it to authorities.
Re-establish procedures to prevent forced labour.
Develop and implement anti-forced labour and
harassment polic, which should also be implemented
by subcontractors and supply chain workers.
LWC4 Working condition Labour and Problems / conflict between workers arising Implement strict compliance with UAE Labour Law. Project Owner Human Resources Management Plan
working at the construction site
Develop and implement anti-harassment, anti- HZI and BESIX Grievance Management Procedure
condition
discrimination policy.
Subcontractors
Develop and implement grievance mechanism for the
workers to freely communicate any instances of
abuse, discrimination, harassment, etc.
Develop and implement disciplinary actions.
Develop and implement workers’ Code of Conduct
LWC5 Working condition Worker health Worker illnesses due to lack of access to Provide clean and separate areas for eating, changing HZI and BESIX Human Resources Management Plan
and safety separate and clean areas for eating, clothes, rest and sanitation.
Subcontractors Grievance Management Procedure
changing clothes, rest area and sanitation
Regular housekeeping.
facilities at the Project site
Ensure routine monitoring of workers health and
wellbeing.
LWC6 Transportation of worker to Worker living Accident or use of inappropriate vehicle Provide appropriate transportation services to workers. HZI and BESIX Human Resources Management Plan
and from the Project site condition (i.e. truck)
If transportation services is not provided, include Subcontractors
transporation allowance in their wages.
LWC7 Provision of labour Worker living Illnesses and health hazards due to poor Provide appropriate housing accommodation to HZI and BESIX Human Resources Management Plan
accommodation condition living conditions workers, which address the basic services: minimum
Subcontractors Grievance Management Procedure
space, sufficient supply of water, adequate sewage
and garbage disposal systems, appropriate protection
against heat and other environmental stressors, fire,
disease-carrying animals, adequate sanitary and
washing facilities, ventilation, cooking and storage
facilities, natural and artificial lighting and basic
medical services. Labour accommodation should be in
line with local and international guidelines.
If accommodation services is not provided, include
accommodation allowance in their wages.
1 – To be included in the CEMP / OEMP where required by DM-EPSS
2 – Management plans will be prepared prior to start of construction
3 – Management plans will be prepared prior to commissioning
8.5 Monitoring and Record Management
Environmental monitoring will be required throughout the Project lifecycle and should be
developed according to the following objectives:
 Facilitate consistent implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.
 Assess whether the mitigation measures in place are adequate and identify any
requirement for additional measures to confirm that impacts are minimised, where
possible, and reduced to acceptable level.
 Assess Project’s compliance to the relevant local and international environmental and
social regulatory requirements / standards.
Ultimately, the program will facilitate continuous improvement of the Project’s overall
environmental performance. The environmental monitoring plan is provided in Section 8.6. An
Environmental Monitoring Program Register should be maintained to facilitate a well-
documented and accurate assessment of the Project’s overall environmental performance. The
register should include, but not be limited to, the following information / documents:
 Daily site inspection checklist
 Environmental monitoring results (e.g. air, noise, soil and groundwater) and compliance
status with environmental standards specified by Federal Law and/or DM as well as
international requirements
 Audit reports
 Incident reports including corrective actions
 Non-compliance reports including corrective actions

 Complaint register and management reports.
The documents listed above shall prove useful in providing compliance evidence during
environmental audits.
8.6 Environmental Monitoring Plan

The formulation of an environmental monitoring plan will provide assurances that the
responsible entity will immediately address any adverse impact on the environment aspects
during the construction and operation phases of the Project.
The proposed monitoring plan for the project construction phase is presented in Table 8-2. It
includes information on the parameter to be monitored, facility, frequency and procedure.
Generally, the sampling and analytical methods that will be employed for the monitoring
activities, as may be required will conform to existing local guidelines and acceptable procedure
of relevant authorities (e.g. Dubai Municipality).
Table 8-2 Environmental monitoring plan – Construction Phase
Key Potential impacts Parameters to be Sampling and measurement plan Reporting Schedule Trigger level for corrective Actions to be taken in Responsibility
environmental monitored actions the event that trigger
aspects Method Frequency and duration Location Equipment & level is exceeded
Schedule of
Calibration
Air quality Dust emission  PM10 (24-hour) Title 40, CFR, Chapter Monthly site monitoring:  One location High volume  Monthly internal  UAE Federal ambient air The activities carried  Project Company
 TSP (24-hour) 1, subchapter C, sampler or reporting by quality standard [PM10: out on the
Appendix J to Part 50  One measurement on weekday  Monitoring equivalent contractor to EPC 150 µg/m3 (24-hour); construction site and
Reference Method for station is TSP: 230 µg/m3 (24- in the vicinity of the
 One measurement on weekend subject to  Quarterly reporting
the Determination of day (when construction is carried hour) monitoring location
Particulate Matter as change and will of project shall be reviewed
out) be located performance to DM-  Visible dust emission
PM10 in the (field record sheet) to
Atmosphere On each of the following event, the where ED (when required) determine if
construction  Community complaints
following will be undertaken: exceedances are
activities are  Annual reporting to
associated with the
 PM10 sampling for period of 24- undertaken Project lenders
(when required) Project construction
hour
activities on site.
 TSP sampling for a period of 24-
 If exceedances is
hour
associated with the
Project, cease the
Noise Noise generation  LAeq ISO 1996-1:2003, Monthly site monitoring:  One location Sound Level Meter  Monthly internal  Federal allowable limits  Project Company
construction activity
 LA10 Acoustics – and Sound reporting by for residential areas with
Description,  One measurement on weekday  Monitoring Calibrator (Type 1 contractor to EPC some workshops and
causing the
 LA50 measurement and during daytime station is or above) commercial business or
exceedance and
assessment of subject to  Quarterly reporting identify / implement
 LA90  One measurement on weekday change and will of project
residential areas near
appropriate
environmental noise – highways:
 LAmax during night-time (if construction be located performance to DM- corrective actions
Part 1: Basic work is carried out)
 LAmin where ED (when required) – Daytime: 50 to 60 dBA
quantities and  If the exceedance is
assessment  One measurement on weekend construction
 Annual reporting to – Night time: 40 to 50 not associated with
procedures during daytime (if construction is activities are dBA
Project lenders the Project
carried out) undertaken
(when required)  Industrial areas (heavy construction
 One measurement on weekend industry): activities, actions
during night-time (if construction are not required
– Daytime: 60 to 70 dBA
is carried out)
– Night time: 50 to 60
dBA
 Community complaints
Dewatering Water  pH Sampling and  As per requirement specified in  From Grab sample  Monthly internal  DM Effluent Standards  Contaminated  Project Company
effluent contamination  Salinity laboratory testing by the Environmental Permit / No dewatering tank collected in a reporting by for Marine Water dewatering effluent
DAC approved Objection Certificate to discharge to assess sample container contractor to EPC Discharge (if discharged shall not be used for
 Turbidity laboratory groundwater quality prior to made of material in marine environment) irrigation or dust
 Suspended discharge which complies with  Quarterly reporting suppression
solids  In the event that frequency is not APHA of project
indicated in the permit / certificate, recommendation (or performance to DM-  Offsite disposal via
 Nitrate- sampling and testing will be ED Dubai Municipality
equivalent) followed
Nitrogen undertaken on a semi-annual or approved waste
by laboratory testing  Annual reporting to
 Sulphides quarterly basis, where dewatering contractors should
activities is undertaken YSI 6920 V2 Multi- Project lenders be considered
 BOD5 Parameter (when required)
 COD  Dewatering quality will only be Intelligent Logger
monitored if the effluent is being (or similar)
 Phosphate-
used for irrigation or dust
Phosphorus
suppression
 Ammonia
 Metals (Cu,
Pb, Cd, Ni, Co,
Zn)
 Faecal coliform
Key Potential impacts Parameters to be Sampling and measurement plan Reporting Schedule Trigger level for corrective Actions to be taken in Responsibility
environmental monitored actions the event that trigger
aspects Method Frequency and duration Location Equipment & level is exceeded
Schedule of
Calibration
Worker and Exposure of  Morbidity / Records on fatality /  Daily occupational health and  Construction Not applicable  Monthly internal  High rate of fatality /  Investigation will be  Project Company
public workers and Mortality rates mortality / health and safety inspections at the Project site reporting by morbidity / health and undertaken if fatality
public to health of workers safety incident rates of site contractor to EPC safety incidents due to / morbidity / health
and safety risks workers and people in  Project sensitive project construction and safety incidents
 Compliance  Annual health and safety audits receptors  Annual reporting to
with the surrounding areas activities are caused by
Project lenders project construction
Occupational Records of workers / (when required)  Community complaints
Health and activities
community complaints
Safety  If Project
Requirements construction
of Dubai activities caused the
Municipality fatality / morbidity /
 Number of health and safety
complaints incidents, cease
received from construction activity
the community and implement
on public appropriate
health and corrective action /
safety measure
 If incident is not
associated with the
Project construction
activities, actions
are not required
Labour and Exposure of  Work and Interview with workers  Weekly inspection at the Project  Construction / Not applicable  Monthly internal Non-compliance with the  Corrective action  Project Company
working workers to labour living sites / and management (i.e. site (i.e. included in weekly Project site reporting by following: measures will be
condition rights issues conditions HR, Finance, Labour environmental site inspection) contractor to EPC implemented
Accommodation  Labour  Federal (UAE) and local
 Worker and  Semi-annual / annual inspection accommodation  Annual reporting to (Dubai) Labour Law
management Supervisor)
of management-worker site Project lenders
relationship Review of Employer’s relationship and labour (when required)  Federal and local
(i.e. HR and systems and accommodation site guidelines on Health and
Finance documents (i.e. Safety in Workplace /
procedures timekeeping and construction site
and payment)  Federal and local
implementation
Site visit and guidelines on Labour
process)
inspection of Accommodation
construction site and  Non-compliance with IFC
labour accommodation / EBRD Workers’
accommodation: process
and standards
 IFC Performance
Standard on Labour and
Working Condition
 Complaints from workers
The proposed monitoring plan during the operation phase is detailed in Table 8-3. It includes
information on the parameter, facility, frequency and procedure. The sampling and analytical
methods that will be employed for the monitoring activities will conform to the existing local
guidelines and acceptable procedure of DM-ED.
The Project Company is not free from responsibilities or obligations with respect to ambient air
(dust), odour and noise emissions. DM’s guidance document “Guidance on the Environmental
Clearance (EC) Requirements for Development and Infrastructure Projects in the Emirate of
Dubai” sets out the system under which any suspected or observed environmental violations will
be investigated and the subsequent actions that will be taken on behalf of all parties involved.
Any investigation into suspected or observed environmental violations will take into account the
existing conditions at the Project site including the surrounding area and current baseline data
as follows, and the pre-operation baseline data yet to be gathered at the time of issuing this EIA
document:
 Existing air emission sources. Ambient air quality at the Project site are most likely to
be influenced by the DEWA Power Station located southwest of the site with stationary
sources of emission, various industrial facility to the immediate southeast of the Project
site and combustion emissions from vehicles using the surrounding road infrastructure.
Baseline ambient air quality monitoring results undertaken by GHD (refer to Section
5.3.1) showed exceedance of PM10 against the UAE Cabinet Decree No. 12 of 2006 at
station AAQM2. Further, ambient air quality monitoring carried out by Dubai Municipality
for the year 2017 at Emirates Hill, Mushrif and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Road
showed PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances.
 Existing odour sources. A review of the existing environment indicates that a number of
potential odour sources currently surrounds the proposed WMC. This includes Tadweer
landfill, Al Aweer STP, Al Serkal/envirol grease trap waste recycling plant, China asphalt
mixing plant and Emirates beton readymix LLC. Baseline odour monitoring results (refer
to Section 5.3.2) showed exceedance against the limits specified in Annex 5 of the DM-
ED technical guideline entitled “Guidance on the EC Requirements for Development and
Infrastructure Projects in the Emirate of Dubai” at odour monitoring (OM) locations Od2
and Od3.
 Existing noise sources. Existing noise sources close to the Project site that has the
potential to cause noise exceedances include vehicle movement on the road surrounding
the site as well as existing industrial facilities. Noise exceedances were recorded at
NQM1 during the baseline noise monitoring (refer to Section 5.4.1).
Any investigation will take into consideration the Project Company’s duties under the
noise/dust/odour management plan. The management plan will take account of Good Industry
Practice, the Operating Procedures, the O&M Manual, and good community communication to
mitigate and control noise so as to avoid a nuisance being caused. The Project Company is not
free from responsibilities or obligations with respect to groundwater. If the quarterly report
reveals exceedances with respect to proposed standard (Dutch Guidelines 2000), an
investigation will be undertaken to determine whether the exceedances are attributable to the
Project taking account of existing conditions at the Project site including the surrounding area
and the current baseline data as follows and the pre-operation baseline data:
 Existing activities surrounding the site. A number of activities surrounding the Project
site that have the potential to contribute to groundwater contamination include the un-
engineered Tadweer dumpsite, the Al Aweer STP and several industrial and storage
facilities. Baseline groundwater sampling and analysis showed exceedances against the
Dutch Intervention Values (refer to Section 5.5.2).
Table 8-3 Environmental monitoring plan – Operation Phase
Key Potential Parameters to be Sampling and measurement plan Reporting Schedule Reference Guideline Responsibility
environmental impacts monitored
aspects Method Frequency and Location Equipment &
duration Schedule of
Calibration
Air quality 2 Stack  Water (H2O)  Continuously via  CEMS  WtE plant stacks Continuous  The CEMS shall be  UAE Cabinet Decree No. 12 of 2006  Operator
emissions  Oxygen (O2) Continuous (there are 5 Emissions linked to the DM Air
Environmental proposed stacks) Monitoring Monitoring Network  IED 2010/75/EU including the exceedance
 Hydrogen chloride Monitoring System System central server upon allowances as stated in IED 2010/75/EU1
(HCl) (CEMS) at every (CEMS) Project commissioning
 Sulphur dioxide (SO2) stack
 Nitrogen oxide (NOx)
 Carbon monoxide
(CO)
 Ammonia (NH3)
 Total Organic Carbon
(TOC)
 Dust
Air quality Stack  Hydrogen fluoride (HF)  Sampling and  Quarterly  WtE plant stacks TBC  Included in Quarterly  IED 2010/75/EU including the exceedance  Operator
emissions  Dioxin & Furans laboratory analysis (there are 5 Environmental allowances as stated in IED 2010/75/EU
proposed stacks) Performance Report
 Heavy metals (EPR) to be submitted
 PM10 to DM-ED
 PM2.5 Environmental Control
Section (ECS)
Air quality Fugitive dust  PM10  Fixed and  Continuous  One (1) location Fixed and  Monitoring stations  Operator3
emissions  PM2.5 continuous (refer to Figure 8-1 continuous shall be commissioned
monitoring system for proposed monitoring and linked to the DM Air
locations) to be equipment Monitoring Network
approved by DM- central server
EPSS
Odour Odour  Hydrogen Sulphide  Fixed and  Continuous  Two (2) locations Fixed and  Monitoring stations  Annex 5 of the DM-ED technical guideline  Operator3
emissions (H2S) continuous (refer to Figure 8-1 continuous shall be commissioned entitled “Guidance on the Environmental
 Ammonia (NH3) monitoring system for proposed monitoring and linked to the DM Air Clearance (EC) Requirements for
locations) to be equipment Monitoring Network Development and Infrastructure Projects in
 Mercaptans approved by DM- central server the Emirate of Dubai”
 Dimethyl sulphide EPSS
 Dimethyl disulphide
Noise Noise  LAeq  Fixed and  Continuous  Four (4) locations Fixed and  Monitoring stations  UAE Cabinet Decree No. 12 of 2006  Operator3
generation  LAmin continuous (refer to Figure 8-1 continuous shall be commissioned
monitoring system for proposed monitoring and linked to the DM Air
 LAmax locations) to be equipment Monitoring Network
 Ln approved by DM- central server
EPSS
Groundwater Groundwater  As per Dutch Target  Sampling and  Quarterly  One (1) location TBC  Groundwater  Dutch Target and Intervention Values, 2000  Operator
contamination and Intervention laboratory analysis (refer to Figure 8-1 Monitoring Report shall (the New Dutch List) 2
Values, 2000 (the New for proposed be submitted as part of
Dutch List) locations) to be the EPR to be
approved by DM- submitted to DM-ED
ED Natural
Resources
Key Potential Parameters to be Sampling and measurement plan Reporting Schedule Reference Guideline Responsibility
environmental impacts monitored
aspects Method Frequency and Location Equipment &
duration Schedule of
Calibration
Conservation ECS on a quarterly
Section (NRCS) basis
Worker and Exposure of  Morbidity / Mortality  Health records on  Daily  Project site Not  Annual reporting to  Technical guidelines issued by Federal  Operator
public health workers and rates fatality / mortality / occupational applicable Project Lenders (when (UAE) and the Emirate of Dubai (i.e. DM
public to health and safety health and  Project sensitive required) Public Health and Safety Department)
 Compliance with receptors
health and Occupational Health incident rates of safety
safety risks and Safety workers and people inspections
Requirements of Dubai in the surrounding
areas  Annual health
Municipality and safety
audits
Labour and Exposure of  Work and living sites / Interview with workers  Annual  Project site Not  Annual reporting to  Federal (UAE) and local (Dubai) Labour  Operator
working workers to conditions and management (i.e. inspection of applicable Project Lenders (when Law
condition labour rights HR, Finance, Labour management-  Labour required)
 Worker and accommodation site  Federal and local guidelines on Health and
issues management Accommodation worker
Supervisor) relationship Safety in Workplace / construction site
relationship (i.e. HR
and Finance Review of Employer’s
and labour  Federal and local guidelines on Labour
procedures and accommodation Accommodation
systems and
implementation site
documents (i.e.  Non-compliance with IFC / EBRD Workers’
process) timekeeping and accommodation: process and standards
payment)
 IFC Performance Standard on Labour and
Site visit and Working Condition
inspection of
construction site and  Complaints from workers
labour
accommodation
1
As discussed and agreed with DM-EPSS, it is accepted that compliance with IED 2010/75/EU will satisfy compliance of UAE Cabinet Decree No. 12 of 2006 without the need for duplicating tests to cover specific time averaging, temperature and O2 values specific to the
latter
2 In the event of exceedances against the proposed standard, an investigation will be undertaken to determine whether the exceedances are associated with the Project.
3 Sponsors (through EPC) will procure the initial monitoring systems and the integration into the DM monitoring network. The equipment will be handed over to DM at the Commercial Operation Date (ie completion of the Project).
Figure 8-1 Proposed monitoring stations – Construction and Operation Phases
8.7 Organisation Structure
The Project is owned by DM. Under contract with the Project Owner, HZI, BESIX and Itochu
have formed a partnership to build, operate and transfer (BOT) the WtE plant over a 35-year
period. The contract is shared between a Special Project Vehicle (SPV) and Engineering,
Procurement and Construction (EPC) partnership and Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
partnership. The organization structure for the Project is provided in Figure 8-2.
Figure 8-2 Project Structure
The EPC contractor and technology provider during the construction phase is shown in Figure
8-3. As the EPC contractors, HZI and BESIX are the responsible entities in ensuring that the
construction of the Project are undertaken in accordance with the requirements of this
framework EMMP.
The implementation of this EMMP during the construction phase will be in accordance with the
organizational structure shown in Figure 8-4. It is likely that a number of main contractors and
sub-contractors will be engaged for the construction of different Project components.
EPC Contractor/Technology Provider/Full EPC wrap:
Civil Works EPC Process Works EPC:

 Site Infratructure  Combustion and
 Site Preparation / Soil Steam Production
Improvement  Flue Gas Treatment
 Main Cvil &  Water Steam Cycle
Underground Works
 Electrical & Control
 Building Steel Systems
Structure
 Mechanical &
 Building Services Electrical Installation
 Water Treatment
Plan
Figure 8-3 EPC Contractor/Technology Provider
Figure 8-4 Preliminary organization structure – construction phase
The organization structure to be adopted during the operation phase is provided in Figure 8-5.
The contract between the Project Owner and the Prime Contractors includes build, operate and
transfer (BOT) after 35 years. DM will be responsible for waste acquisition and energy sales.
DM will be the main contact point in stakeholder engagement activities during the operation
phase.
Figure 8-5 Preliminary organization structure – operation phase
8.8 Responsibilities
As the Primec Contractor, HZI and BESIX have the overall responsibility of ensuring that
adequate environmental management measures are continuously implemented throughout the
Project development and operation. However, the construction and operation of the Project will
involve a number of parties and individuals, which will have direct and indirect contribution to,
and consequently influence on the overall environmental performance of the Project. In order to
facilitate effective implementation of this EMMP, specific duties and responsibilities are
delegated as outlined in Table 8-4.
Table 8-4 Roles and Responsibilities in the Implementation of EMMP during
the Construction Phase
Party Responsibilities
Project Owner:  During the construction and operation phases, DM will be the main
Dubai contact point for the stakeholder engagement activities.
Municipality
 During the operation phase, DM will be responsible for:
– Waste acquisition;
– Waste management [i.e. collection and disposal of incinerated
bottom ash (IBA) and flue gas treatment (FGT) residue]; and
– Energy sales.
EPC  Monitor relevant subcontractors’ compliance with the environmental

Contractor: management and monitoring requirements of this framework EMMP.
HZI and
 Monitor subcontractors’ compliance with environmental instructions.
BESIX
This can be done by incorporating environmental or social contractual
clauses in work instructions, service contracts and lease agreements.
 Require evidence or documentation within the CEMP and OEMP that
subcontractors including their supervisory and management staff are
competent and committed to their responsibilities in accordance with
this EMMP.
 Allocate appropriate and adequate resources to allow for the effective

implementation of the environmental management and monitoring
requirements of this EMMP.
 Conduct periodic reviews of the Project’s environmental performance.
 Report to Dubai Municipality Environment Department (DM-ED) any
major environmental incidents that may have significant impact on the
surrounding environment.
 Undertake corrective actions, where required, in order to safeguard the
environment and public health and safety.
 According to the Project scope and when required, appoint a DM-
accredited third party consultant to conduct periodic environmental site
audits to check compliance with the CEMP or OEMP, and submit report
to DM-EPSS.
Party Responsibilities
 Appoint dedicated Project environmental personnel (or engage a third

party environment consultant) that manage construction activities on
site.
 Support the Project Owner in addressing / investigating the complaints
of the external stakeholders (i.e. surrounding communities).
Subcontractors  Be aware of and understand the environmental management and

monitoring requirements of this framework EMMP as may be relevant to
their scope of work.
 Carry out all works in a manner that will have the least impact on the
environment and surrounding community.
 Establish an Environmental Management Team (typically integrated into
Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Management Team) and
designate competent personnel to oversee the day-to-day
environmental undertakings on-site.
 Undertake internal audits to monitor personnel adherence to these
requirements. Where necessary, work method statement should be
developed incorporating appropriate environmental controls.
 Provide training and provide records to demonstrate that all site workers
are competent to undertake their designated works. This should include
environmental training for personnel and subcontractors.
 Develop environmental safeguards and precautions and provide
evidence of implementation throughout the construction. Regular site
inspections, monitoring and audits should be undertaken and
documented through formal periodic reports.
 Report to the Prime Contractor all environmental incidents as soon as

practicable.
 Undertake corrective actions, where required, in order to safeguard the
environment and public health and safety.
HSE  Perform environmental and social (i.e. workers) monitoring activities and
Department or regular site inspections to assess compliance against this EIA and
Environment Project-specific CEMP and OEMP.
Consultant
 Investigate and report environmental incidents and non-conformances
(where
to the Prime Contractor along with the required corrective actions.
required by
DM-ED)  Process environmental monitoring data and consolidate subcontractors’
monthly environmental monitoring reports to be submitted to DM-EPSS
(where required).
 Communicate with DM-EPSS and other subcontractors on environment
matters (where required).
8.9 Resources
The Prime Contractor will allow for and provide appropriate resources to facilitate the effective
implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures proposed in this EIA.
Examples of resources include:
 Competent and experienced personnel appointed to manage environmental issues.
 Provision of environmental training.

 Adequate time and budget allocated for personnel to manage environmental issues (e.g.
environmental monitoring, training).
 Provision of suitable documentation including environmental monitoring records, incident
reports and corrective action plans.
 Purchase of appropriate devices and equipment for pollution control and monitoring.
8.10 Induction and Training

The Prime Contractor will ensure that all entities involved in the construction and operation of
the Project receive adequate induction and orientation. Environmental induction and trainings
will be carried out to create awareness, delegate responsibilities and seek commitment among
the personnel involved in the Project.
During the operation phase, WtE plant personnel will be provided with appropriate types or
levels of training commensurate to the nature of their work. Training methods will be selected
based on their job description, experience and qualifications. The EHS Manager shall keep
records of trainings to be conducted.
Induction and trainings should be developed to provide all relevant entities a clear
understanding of the following:
 The requirements and importance of complying with environmental standards,
regulations, laws and policies.
 The environmental aspects of their activities and the benefits of improved personal
environmental performance.
 Specific roles and responsibilities in implementing environmental management measures

and monitoring.
 The environmental management and monitoring programs developed for the Project /
relevant to their line / scope of work.
 The potential consequences of non-compliance with the environmental management and
monitoring activities.
9. Conclusions and General
Recommendations
It is anticipated that minor environmental impacts will be generated on geology, soil and
groundwater, biodiversity (terrestrial ecology), water and energy resources, socio-economics
and culture. The environmental and social impacts considered in the EIA for the construction
and operational phases of the proposed Project are summarised below.
9.1 Construction Phase

Key environmental considerations during the construction phase are discussed below while
proposed mitigation measures and and monitoring program is detailed in Table 9-1.
Increase dust levels

Construction activities such as earthworks, grinding and stockpiling have inherent risk of
producing elevated dust concentrtations, particularly in the Middle East where the surface
comprises sand and dust material. Elevated dust emissions can cause irritation to the eyes and
throat for both human and animal receptors, in addition to increasing the likelihood of respiratory
diseases such as asthma. Significant irreversible long-term adverse impact on air quality at
nearby air sensitive receptors is unlikely given that the construction works are relatively short-
term in nature and that ambient conditions in Dubai are often characterised by elevated levels of
airborne particulate matter. Ambient air monitoring undertaken at the Project site indicated PM10
levels are not compliant with DM guidelines in AAQM2 station.
Increase in noise levels

Increase in noise levels could result in detrimental impacts such as sleep disturbance and
potential minor hearing loss for nearby sensitive receivers and workers within the construction
site. The results showed that daytime average measurement were compliant with the guidelines
while nighttime measurement at one station exceeded the World Bank limit of 45 dBA.
Health and Safety

Activities associated with the construction of the WtE plant may potentially affect site personnel
and residents living close to the Project site. The construction of the project will generate
increased air and noise emissions, increased vehicle traffic and alter visual landscape in the
Project site. Air and noise emissions are likely to be temporary, reversible and localised.
Increased vehicle traffic and associated air and noise emissions are also likely to be temporary
and reversible. On the other hand, changes to visual impact are considered to be permanent
and irreversible; however, these changes are consistent with the existing industrial landscape in
the Project site. In view of the duration and scale of the construction, air and noise emissions,
traffic impact and changes in aesthetics are not anticipated to result in any significant
disturbances or adverse health impacts onsite and offsite receptors.
Table 9-1 Key considerations - construction phase
Key Proposed mitigation measures Monitoring methodology

considerations
Increase dust Prepare a detailed dust control plan as part of the CEMP, which would include the following Dust monitoring (TSP and PM10) at
levels measues as a minimum: monthly intervals at one location
 Site layout: locate the dust generating activities, haulage routes, stockpiles and dusty near the air sensitive receivers of the
materials away from the sensitive receivers as far as possible (taking the predominant wind Project site.
direction into consideration).
 Surfacing and/or compaction of site access roads to minimise dust generated by vehicle
movement on-site.
 Application of water for dust suppression on stockpiles and haulage roads and during dust
generating activities.
 Erection of hoarding.
 Limit the traffic speed on site.
Increase in noise Prepare a detailed noise control plan as part of the CEMP, which would include the following Noise monitoring to be performed on
levels measures as a minimum: a monthly basis (to be undertaken
 Erection of hoarding / noise barrier along the site boundary and/or areas where activities during both weekdays and weekends
emitting high noise levels are performed. and dring daytime and night time) at
one location near the noise sensitive
 For construction works carried out adjacent to NSRs and particularly at N1, which is near a
residential area, erection of noise barriers made of sound absorbent materials is required. receptor of the Project site.
 Construction work programme (i.e. timings) and method to be sequenced so as to minimize

noise emissions impacts, particularly during night time.
 Deployment of quiet equipment.
Health and safety Prepare a detailed Occupational Health and Safety Plan, which would include the following  Implement air quality monitoring
measures as a minimum: program methodology
 Implement air quality control measures.  Implement noise monitoring

program methodology
 Implement noise control measues.
Key Proposed mitigation measures Monitoring methodology
considerations
 Implement traffic control measures.  Implement traffic monitoring
program
 Implement Environmental Health and Safety Management System (EHSMS)
 Maintain communication records
 Provision of personal protective equipment (PPE). and track actions taken to resolve
 Undertake regular health and safety inspections. health and safety issues.
9.2 Operation Phase
Key environmental and social aspects considered during the operation of the project are
discussed below. Summary of management measures and monitoring program for each
environmental aspect considered is provided in Table 9-2.
Ambient Air
The predicted incremental results from air dispersion modelling of the proposed operations of
the WMC indicates the Project is not anticipated to exceed relevant air quality criteria for NO2,
SO2, CO, TSP, PM10, PM2.5, HCl, HF, NH3, TCDD and Hg provided that:
 The emission concentration guarantees listed in IED, Annex VI, Part 3 (Tables 1.1, 1.3
and Section 1.4 and 1.5) (European Union 2010) and set out in Section 6.3.2.1 are met.
 The stack parameters and emission rates used in this assessment are adhered to.
 Throughputs of IBA remain at the assumed rate (282,300 tpa).
Although the model predictions indicate exceedances of 1-hour incremental Cd for the NSW
AMMAAP criteria, this is only a guideline, and the European Commission annual criteria is
considered more appropriate. Predicted annual Cd concentrations comply with the European
Commission criteria. Further, the modelled emission rate reflects the regulatory maximum of
0.05 mg/Nm3 (sum of Cd and Tl), and it is considered unlikely that the emission rate for Cd in
reality would reach this level.
Odour
A quantitative assessment of potential odour impacts from the operation of the WtE plant has
been conducted, based on measured meteorological data from the Dubai International Airport
for the year 2015 and AERMOD plume dispersion modelling. The intention of this assessment
was to demonstrate odour concentrations for the WMC during upset conditions. Nominal
conditions (flow rate of 0.1 m/s) were modelled as a baseline. Results for the worst case
scenario (flow rate of 1.2 m/s) are considered highly conservative with results for the upset
conditions with a flow rate of 0.6 m/s considered to be more representative of realistic
conditions.
The results of the dispersion modelling indicate that when negative pressure is maintained,
predicted odour concentrations reaching the defined sensitive receptors will be undetectable to
the majority of the population. If negative pressure is lost and a flow rate of 0.6 m/s is achieved,
predicted odour concentrations at 7 out of 14 sensitive receptors should be undetectable.
Predicted odour concentrations at some sensitive receptors north of the WtE plant site may
experience odour concentrations of up to 5.6 OU. If worst case conditions prevailed resulting in
a flow rate of 1.2 m/s during a loss of negative pressure, predicted odour concentrations at 2 out
of 14 sensitive receptors should be undetectable. Predicted odour concentrations at some
sensitive receptors may experience odour concentrations of up to 11.1 OU.
Noise
Operational noise modelling was undertaken to predict the potential noise impact due to the
operation of the Project. Based on the point receiver noise levels along the site boundary, the
Project is not anticipated to exceed the boundary noise limit. The highest value was 64.2 dBA
on the southern boundary, which is significantly below the limit of 70 dBA.
A cumulative assessment was conducted at nearby sensitive receptors. Results showed that
the predicted impacts due to the operation of the plant for both daytime and night time periods
are negligible (based on IEMA and IoA noise impact assessment criteria), with cumulative noise
impact levels of 56.6 dBA at day time and 49.8 dBA during night-time.
Waste Management
The benefits of the operation of the Project with respect to waste include the reduction of waste
disposed to landfills. The WtE plant can utilise typical municipal solid waste (MSW), refuse-
derived fuel (RDF) from a materials recovery facility as well as commercial and industrial (C&I)
wastes that may otherwise be disposed of in a landfill.
Operational waste generated by the Project (i.e. bottom ash and flue gas treatment residue) will
form additional loads to the existing waste infrastructure and utilities; however, the reduction of
MSW, RDF and C&I wastes also reduce the load on landfill facilities in the Dubai Emirate.
Impacts of operational wastes, if not properly managed, may lead to soil and groundwater
contamination, dispersion of waste in and around the project site, odour from putrescible waste
storage tanks, hazards to fauna and to health and safety of workers.
Socio-Economy
The Project is anticipated to provide long-term employment opportunities to local Emiratis and
migrant workers and reduce Dubai’s reliance on imported energy supply; therefore providing a
very high significant economic benefit for the UAE nations and local economy.
Health and Safety

Workers, the community and surrounding land users may be exposed to health and safety risks
if the project is not properly operated. Health and safety risks associated with the Project
operation include exposure to air emissions, noise, heat, electrical hazards, among others.
The majority of the predicted incremental GLCs for the pollutants assessed are below the
adopted assessment criteria, based on the stack characteristics and emission rates assumed
for the Project. Therefore, these modelled air concentration should not result in an adverse
effect to human health for the sensitive receptors via the inhalation exposure pathway.
Table 9-2 Key considerations – operation phase
Key Enhancement / Mitigation Measures Monitoring Methodology

considerations
Air emission  Use of flue gas treatment (FGT) system, which include particle separation, dry flue  Continuous stack monitoring using CEMS of H2O,
gas cleaning and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) to control emission of O2, HCl, SO2, NOx, CO, NH3, TOC and dust
air pollutants and comply with IED/2010/75/EU
 Quarterly monitoring of HF, dioxins & furans heavy
 Transport equipment and vehicles operated and maintained to manufacturer’s metals, PM10 and PM2.5
specifications
 Fixed and continuous dust monitoring (PM10 and
PM 2.5) at one location
Increased Implement the following engineering measures:  Fixed and continuous noise monitoring stations at
noise levels four locations
 Provide built-in insulation walls
 Locate buildings close to the Project’s boundary to provide shielding
 Enclose plant / equipment considered causing major source of noise
 Select quiet equipment
Waste  Mange waste deliverables and unloading areas  Daily visual inspection of waste storage facilities
management  Maintenance of waste bunkers and receiving areas  Maintain waste registers
 Establish a comprehensive waste management system  Odour monitoring for H2S, NH3, mercaptans,
dimethyl sulphide and dimethyl disulphide at two
 Provide suitable waste storage facilities locations
 Train workers on the waste management requirements
Socio-  Priority given to local workforce and local companies  Labour monitoring
economic  Just and fair compensation to workers in line with UAE Labour law  Review of employer’s systems (i.e. timekeeping
benefits and payment)
 Regular monitoring to ensure that rights of workers are protected
Health and  Develop and implement occupational health and safety plan  Daily occupational health and safety inspections
safety risks  Develop and implement community health, safety and security plan  Annual health and safety audits (internal)
Key Enhancement / Mitigation Measures Monitoring Methodology
considerations
 Implement environmental management measures (i.e. air pollution control, noise  Implement environmental monitoring programs
control, traffic control, waste management)
10. Statement of Commitment
The Project Company29 are committed to undertake the following:
1. Comply with “Federal Law No. 24 of 1999 for the Protection and Development of the
Environment” and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
2. Adhere to all permitting regulations and procedures required by the Dubai Municipality
noting that the EC is not substitute for other regulatory permits. The issuance of EC does
not exempt the Project Developer and Operator from securing other government
approvals, and preclude other agencies/departments from enforcing their rules and
regulations. Necessary permits will be obtained from the Public Health and Safety
Department with regard to the occupational health and safety of the workers.
3. Prior to the commencement of the Project’s operations another round of baseline
sampling covering the relevant environmental parameters for air, noise, groundwater and
soil shall be executed. The Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) report will be submitted
to DM-EPSS 30 days prior to start of operations. This sampling will assist to further
develop the existing baseline data pre-operation.
4. Seek approval from the DM-EPSS for any modifications on the Project, which may
include, but not limited to, increase in capacity, change in technology (i.e. incinerator and
pollution control design), and change in stack specifications.
5. Adhere to environmental monitoring program presented in Section 8.6 of this EIA Report.
6. Submit an Environmental Performance Report (EPR) to the Environmental Control
Section (ECS) during operation on a quarterly basis. It will include sampling and
laboratory analysis of HF, dioxin and furans, heavy metals, PM10 and PM2.5, in
accordance with the European Regulations/Industrial Emission Directive (IED
2010/75/EU) as set out in Section 8.6.2 (Table 8-3). Groundwater Monitoring Report of
quarterly groundwater sampling shall also be submitted as part of the EPR.
7. Comply with European Regulations/Industrial Emission Directive (IED 2010/75/EU) for air
emissions limits including technical provisions and exceedance allowances as specified
in IED for waste incineration plants.
8. Comply with Dutch Guidelines (2000) as per Section 3.5.5 for groundwater quality;
subject to investigation to determine if Project Company is responsible for contamination.
9. The Project Company will be held liable to immediately implement appropriate

measures/corrective actions, settle environmental disputes, and bear all responsibilities
and cost of any environmental pollution/damages caused by Project Company during the
Project’s operation. The Project Company will also accept a penalties as per published
environmental laws and legislations in the UAE and the Emirate of Dubai.
29 Represented by Hitachi Zosen Innova (HZI), N.V. Besix SA (BESIX) and Itochu
11. References
Abdalla, JA and Al-Homoud, AS. 2004. Seismic hazard assessment of United Arab Emirates
and its surroundings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 8(6), pp. 817-837.
Abu Dhabi Municipality (ADM) Town Planning Sector. 2012. Seismic Hazard Assessment Maps.
Retrieved on 05 March 2016 from ADM:
https://sdi.abudhabi.ae/Sites/SDI/Content/AR/PDFs/stakeholders-adm,property%3Dpdf.pdf.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (1998). Toxicological Profile for
Sulfur Dioxide. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Al Futtaim Element Technology 2017. Test Report GHD – DM Waste to Energy – Odour. Dubai,
2017.
Al Mehairi JM. 1995. Some aspects of environmental problems caused by transport in Dubai: a
geographical perspective. Transactions on the Built Environment. Vol 16. WIT Press. ISSN
1743-3509.
Al Senafi, F. and Anis, A. (2015). Shamals and climate variability in the Northern
Arabian/Persian Gulf from 1973 to 2012. Int. J. Climatol., 35: 4509–4528. doi:10.1002/joc.4302
Alba, N., Gasso, S., Lacorte, T., and Baldasano, J.M. (1997). Characterization of municipal solid
waste incineration residues from facilities with different air pollution control systems. Journal of
the Air & Waste Management Association, 47:11, 1170-1179.
Ali A. (1994). Wind Meteorology of the Summer Shamal in the Arabian Gulf Region. Master’s
thesis, Boston University, Boston, MA.
ATSDR (1999). Toxicological Profile for Mercury, Atlanta, Georgia, USA: US Department of
Health and Human Services, March.
ATSDR (2004) Toxicological Profile for Ammonia, Atlanta, Georgia, USA: US Department of
Health and Human Services, September.
Bartlett KS. (2004). Dust Storm Forecasting For Al Udeid Ab, Qatar: An Empirical Analysis.
Master’s thesis, Air University, Islamabad.
Bogaert Architecture and CREW (Cremonesi Workshop). (2018). Solid Waste to Energy Plant,
Concept Design, Architectural Report, DWE-CRW-ARCH-RPT-02991-REV 00 (30 April 2018).
Prepared by Six Construct fur Dubai Municipality (Dubai, UAE). Barlow M, Wheeler M, Lyon B,
Cullen H. (2005). Modulation of daily precipitation over Southwest Asia by the Madden Julian
Oscillation. Mon. Weather Rev. 133(12): 3579–3594
BS 5228.2. (2009). Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open
sites: Part 2 Vibration. British Standard.
BS 5228.2. (2009). Code of practice for noise and vibration on construction and open sites -
Part 2: Vibration. British Standard.
BS 6472. (2008). Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings Part 1:
Vibration sources other than blasting . British Standard.
BS 7385.2. (1993). Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings: Part 2 – Guide to
damage levels from ground borne vibration. British Standard.
Buchholz, B.A. and Landsberger, S. (1995). Leaching dynamics studies of municipal solid waste
incinerator ash. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 45:8, 579-590.
Caltrans (2013). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. California

Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis Environmental Engineering
Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Palaeontology Office. Accessed on 11 November 2018 from
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf
Cenek, P., Sutherland, A., & McIver, I. (2012). Ground vibration from road construction. May
2012. New Zealand Transport Agency research report 485. Opus International Consultants Ltd,
Central Laboratories. GREENBeing Consulting Engineers.
CEPA (1999). National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Particulate Matter, Part 1: Science
Assessment Document. Section 8 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).
Crook J. (2009). Climate Analysis and Long Range Forecasting of Dust Stroms in Iraq. Master’s
thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA
Chichester, D.L. and Landsberger, S. (1996). Determination of the leaching dynamics of metals
from municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash using a column test. Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, 46:7, 643-649.
Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration, Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. (2000). Waste
incineration and public health. (p. 364). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
DEWA. (2016). DEWA Sustainability Report 2016. Available online. Retrieved 15 May 2018
from https://www.dewa.gov.ae/en/customer/sustainability/conserve-now/sustainability-reports
DEWA. (2015). DEWA Annual Statistics 2013 ,2014, 2015 and 2016. Available online.
Retrieved 18 May 2017 from [https://www.dewa.gov.ae/en/about-dewa/about-us/dewa-
publications/annual-statistics]
DED (2017). Dubai Economic Report. The Department of Economic Development (DED) 13223
Dubai, UAE. Retrieved on 27 August 2018 from
www.dubaided.ae/StudiesAndResearchDocument/DubaiEconomicReport_EN_2017.pdf
DED (2016). Dubai Economic Development. Dubai Economic Profile 2016.
Retrieved 05 March 2016 from http://www.dubaided.gov.ae/StudiesandResearchDocumentsinA
rabic/DubaiEconomicProfile201 6.pdf
DED (2015). Dubai Economic Development. Dubai Economic Profile 2015.
Retrieved on 05 March 2016 from http://www.dubaided.ae/StudiesAndResearchDocument/Dub
aiEconomicProfile2015.pdf.
DIN 4150.3. (1999). Structural Vibration – Part 3: Effects of vibration on structures. German
Standard.
DSC (2018). Climate and Meteorology. Dubai Statistics Center. Retrieved from
https://www.dsc.gov.ae/en-us/Themes/Pages/Climate-and-Environment.aspx?Theme=35 on 19
April 2018.
DSC (2016). Climate and Environment. Dubai Statistics Center. Available online.
Retrieved on 18 May 2017. https://www.dsc.gov.ae/en-us/Themes/Pages/Climate-and-
Environment.aspx?Theme=35&year=2016#DSC_Tab1
DSC (2016). Population and Vita Statistics: No. of estimated population by sector and
community – Emirate of Dubai (2016). Retrieved on 25 April 2018 from
https://www.dsc.gov.ae/en-us/Themes/Pages/Population-and-Vital-Statistics.aspx?Theme=42
Dubai Culture (2017). Live our Heritage. Government of Dubai. Retrieved on 25 April 2018 from
http://www.dubaiculture.gov.ae/en/Live-Our-Heritage/Pages/Traditional-Architecture-
Museum.aspx
Dubai Tourism (2018). Jumeirah Archaeological Site. Retrieved on 25 April 2018 from
https://www.visitdubai.com/en/pois/jumeirah-archaeological-site
DM Planning Department (2012). Dubai 2020 Urban Masterplan. Retrieved on 25 April 2018
from https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4TMxq8nEOhcJ:https://login.d
m.gov.ae/wps/portal/businessinner%3Furile%3Dwcm:path:/DMContentEnglish/Home/Business/
Planning%2Band%2BConstruction/Dubai%2B2020%2BUrban%2BMaster%2Bplan1%26mappin
g%3Dbusinessinner+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ae
EPA (2017). What are Sensitive Receptors. Region 1: EPA New England. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 28 August 2018 from
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/sensitivereceptors.html
ERWDA (2005). C. A. D. S. B. I. a. T. C. Drew, “The Terrestrial Mammals, Reptiles and
Amphibians of the UAE - Species List and Status Report,”.
European Union, 2010. Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of
24 November 2010 on Industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control).
European Parliament.
Federal Competitiveness and Statistics Authority (FCSA) (2018). Annual Average of Inhalable
Particulate Matter Concentration (PM10) by Station. Retrieved on 13 December 2018 from
http://data.bayanat.ae/en_GB/dataset?groups=air-quality
Fisher, A. (2014). Beware, the UAE is running out of water resources. Khaleej Times website
[online]. Retrieved on 17 November 2014 from Khaleej Times: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-
article-
display1.asp?xfile=data/nationgeneral/2013/December/nationgeneral_December143.xml&sectio
n=nationgeneral
G. a. B. B. Brown, (2004). Interpretation Manual of Major Terrestrial Natural and Semi-natural

Habitat Types of Abu Dhabi Emirate.,” ERWDA Internal Research Report.
GHD, 2017. Sharjah Multifuel Waste-to-Energy Facility Air Quality Assessment. Perth. Page 16.
Government.ae (2018). Emiratisation. Retrieved on 29 August 2018 from
https://www.government.ae/en/information-and-services/jobs/vision-2021-and-
emiratisation/emiratisation-
Government of Canada. Toluene—Priority Substances List Assessment Report Nº 4; Canadian
Environmental Protection Act; Canada Communication Group: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1992; p.
26. Cited by Barberes G.A. et.al (2018). Geosciences: Groundwater Natural Contamination by
Toluene in Beja and Faro Districts, Portugal. Retrieved on 23 September 2018 from
www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences
Gulf News Energy. (2017, January 10). UAE Energy Plan for 2050 to achieve balance between
energy production and consumption. Retrieved from
http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/energy/uae-energy-plan-for-2050-to-achieve-
balancebetween-energy-production-and-consumption-1.1959893
Hitachi Zosen Inova Besix, 50057151-0.4: Noise Impact Assessment - Dubai Waste to Energy
BOT GS003, 2018.
HSDB (2014) Hazardous Substance Databank, National Library of Medicine's, TOXNET
System (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov).
Hitachi Zosen Inova 2018. Design Waste Bunker Dimensions. Document number 50071810
and 50071808. Hitachi Zosen Inova, 2018.
Hitachi Zosen Inova AG 2018. Dubai WtE Management of Waste during Peak Waste Delivery
Conditions. Hitachi Zosen Inova Besix, October, 2018.
HZI and Besix (2018a). Technical Process Description for Dubai Waste to Energy Project.
Report prepared by Hitachi Zosen Inova and Besix for Dubai Municipality.
HZI and Besix (2018b). Management of Waste during Peak Waste Delivery Conditions. Report
prepared by Hitachi Zosen Inova and Besix for Dubai Municipality.
IFC. (2007). Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines - General EHS Guidelines:
Environmental - Noise Management. World Bank Group.
IFC, 2007. The World Bank Manual Operational Policies. Environmental Assessment. Page 2.
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), ISO1996-1-3 ‘Description and
Measurement of Environmental Noise’, 2003.
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), ISO9613-2 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of
Sound During Propagation Outdoors’, 1996.
ISWA (2015). Bottom Ash from WtE plants: Metal Recovery and Utilization. Prepared by
Ramboll for International Solic Waste Association (ISWA). Retrieved on 29 August 2018 from
https://www.iswa.org/index.php?eID=tx_iswaknowledgebase_download...4592
IUCN (2018). “The IUCN Redlist of Threatened Species”. International Union for
Conservation of Nature.
Katestone Scientific 1995. The Evaluation of peak-to-mean ratios for odour assessments.
Katestone Scientific, Brisbane, 1995.
Katestone Scientific 1998. Report from Katestone Scientific to Environmental Protection
Authority of NSW, Peak to Mean Ratios for Odour Assessments. Katestone Scientific, Brisbane,
1998.
Khaleej Times. (2016, March 22). 550 litres of water used per day by a UAE resident. Retrieved
March 05, 2017, from Khaleej Times: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/550-litres-of-water-used-per-
day-by-a-uae-resident
Longhurst 2007. Principles of Landfill Odour Emission and Control – Understanding prioritising
and controlling emissions. AWE International, March 2007. From
https://www.aweimagazine.com/article/principles-of-landfill-odour-emission-and-control- 478,
Accessed 12 November 2018.
M. Jongbloed (2003). “The Comprehensive Guide to the Wild Flowers of the United Arab
Emirates.” ERWDA.
MOEI (2017). Vice President unveils UAE energy strategy for next three decades. Ministry of
Energy & Industry (MOEI). 20 January 2017. Retrieved on 30 September 2018 from
https://www.moei.gov.ae/en/media-centre/news/10/1/2017
Ministry of Energy. (2015). UAE State of Energy Report 2015. United Arab Emirates Ministry of
Energy.
Ministry of Environment and Water. (2015). State of Environment Report United Arab Emirates
2015. Retrieved from http://www.moew.gov.ae
Ministry of Environment and Water, UAE Federal Law No. (24) of 1999 for the Protection and
Development of the Environment, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: Ministry of Environment
and Water, 1999.
Mott MacDonald (2013). Strategic Integrated Plan for Solid Waste Master Plan. Prepared by
Mott MacDonald for Dubai Municipality Waste Management Department.
Mott MacDonald. (May 2012). The Leeds Railway Station (Southern Entrance) Order
Environmental Statement: Noise and Vibration Technical Appendix - Report 296480RPT020.
Croydon, Surrey CR0 2EE United Kingdom: Mott MacDonald.
Nakheel. (2018). Al Warsan Bird Sanctuary. Retrieved on 24 April 2018 from

https://www.nakheel.com/en/environment/al-warsan-bird-sanctuary
National Centre of Meteorology, 2018. Climate Data Dubai Int’l Airport. From:
http://www.ncm.ae/#!/Radar_UAE_Merge/26, accessed 26 June 2018.
NSW DEC, 2005. Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New
South Wales. Sydney, Updated version December 2017.
NSW EPA (2012). Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Sites Impacted by
Hazardous Ground Gases. State of NSW and Environment Protection Authority 59 Goulburn
Street, Sydney PO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232. ISBN 978 1 74293 930 8 EPA
2012/0932 November 2012. Retrieved on 28 October 2018 from www.environment.nsw.gov.au
Ontario, Canada. Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria – Sorted by Contaminant Name.
Retrieved on 10 February 2019 from https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontarios-ambient-air-quality-
criteria-sorted-contaminant-name
PEL 2015. Energy from Waste Facility – Odour Assessment, the Next Generation. Pacific
Environment Limited, February 2015.
Prince, R.C.; Walters, C.C. Biodegradation of oil hydrocarbons and its implications for source
identification. In Standard Handbook Oil Spill Environmental Forensics; Stout, S.A., Wang, Z.,
Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 869–916. ISBN 9780128096598. Cited
by Barberes G.A. et.al (2018). Geosciences: Groundwater Natural Contamination by Toluene in
Beja and Faro Districts, Portugal. Retrieved on 23 September 2018 from
Pro-Acoustics GmbH, “Noise impact assessment” for Dubai Waste to Energy BOT GS003,
Rev0.4 ed., 2018.
R. Perry (2008). Terrestrial Environment of Abu Dhabi., Environment Agency of Abu Dhabi.
R. P. Aspinall S. (2011). “Birds of the United of the United Arab Emirates,” Bloomsbury
Publishing, London.
Rao PG, Al-Sulaiti MH, Al-Mulla AH. (2003). Summer Shamals over the Arabian Gulf. Weather
58: 471–478.
Roads and Traffic Authority NSW. (2001). Environmental Noise Management Manual. Retrieved
from RTA: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/environment/downloads/noiseindex_dl1.html
ScienceDirect (2016). Thermal Treatments of Waste. Waste to Energy (WtE plant). Prepared by
Michele Giugliano, Eliseo Ranzi for Science Direct. Retrieved on 29 August 2018 from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/flue-gas
Shahid, S. and Abdelfattah, M. 2008. Soils of Abu Dhabi Emirate. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259174728_Soils_of_Abu_Dhabi_Emirate
South Australia EPA (2015). Environmental Info (Salinity). Retrieved on 23 September 2018
from https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/water_quality/threats/salinity
Strategy& (2015). Energy efficiency in the UAE: Aiming for sustainability. By Per-Ola Karlsson,
Christopher Decker, Jad Moussali. Published on 04 June 2015. Retrieved on 27 August 2018
from https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/reports/energy-efficiency-in-uae
SWA 2013, Guidance on the Interpretation of Workplace Exposure Standards for Airbrne
Contaminants. Appendix B. Creative Commons, April 2013.
Tarawaneh, Bashar and Matraji, Mounir. 2014. Ground improvement using rapid impact
compaction: case study in Dubai. DOI: 10.14256/JCE.1083.2014.
THe Animal Files (2014). Data Deficient.
https://www.theanimalfiles.com/glossary/data_deficient.html
Thoppil PG, Hogan PJ. (2010). Persian Gulf response to a wintertime Shamal wind event.
Deep-Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 57(8): 946–955.
Time Out Dubai. 2016. Small earthquake felt in UAE. Retrieved from
http://www.timeoutdubai.com/aroundtown/news/72981-small-earthquake-felt-in-uae
Tynan, A. (1973). Ground vibrations: damaging effects to buildings. Vermont - Victoria.
Australia: Microform reproduction. Original published: Vermont, Vic. : Australian Road Research
Board.
U. B. C. www.uaebirding.com. (undated)
UAE. (1999). English Translation of Federal Law No. (24) of 1999 for the Protection and
Development of the Environment. UAE Official Gzette Issue No. 340.
UAE Interact, (2015). UAE Aims to Increase Contribution of Non-Oil GDO to 80%. Posted
on 10 October 2015. Retrieved on July 2016 from UAE Interact: http://www.uaeinteract.com/doc
s/UAE_aims_to_increase_contribution_of_non- oil_GDP_to_80/71582.htm
UAE Interact, 2014. 5.5 magnitude earthquake hits South Iran, 300 km from Abu Dhabi.
Retrieved on 05 March 2017 from UAE Interact: http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-
international/1395268248471.html
UAE MoE. (2016). UAE State of Energy Report 2016. UAE Ministry of Energy.
UAE MoEW. (2014). UAE State of Green Economy Report 2014. Ministry of Environment and
Water. Retrieved from: http://www.moccae.gov.ae/assets/e3bd136a/uae-state-of-green-
economyreport-2014.aspx
UAE MoEW. (2006). UAE Ministry of Environment and Water - Minister Decree No. 12.
Emirates: UAE MEW. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from
https://www.ead.ae/Tacsoft/FileManager/Laws/Regulation%20concerning%20Protection%20o
f%20Air%20from%20Pollution-Arabic.pdf WHO. (1999). Guidelines for community noise.
Geneva: World Health Organization.
United States Energy Information Administration (USESIA). (2015). Greenhouse gas inventory
data. Detailed data by party. Retrieved from
http://unfccc.int/di/DetailedByParty/Event.do?event=go
USEPA (1995) Toxicological Review of Mercury, USEPA Integrated Risk Information System
Database (IRIS), June.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (Accessed October 4, 2018). https://www.epa.gov/pm-
pollution.
Vinceti, M., Vivoli, R., Malagoli, C., Bergomi, M., Teggi, S., & Ghermandi, G. (2005). Health risk
assessment of municipal solid waste incineration. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment,
Vol. 82, 687-695.
Walters K. (1990). The Persian Gulf Region, a climatological study. Technical report, United
States Air Force, Asheville, NC
World Health Organization. 2016a. Annual Mean Concentrations of Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) in Urban Areas (μg/m3 ), 2014. (Online). Available:
http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/oap_exposure/atlas.html [accessed 5
March 2017]
World Health Organization. 2016b. Ambient (outdoor) Air Pollution Database, by Country and
City. (Online). Available: http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/l
[accessed 5 March 2017]
World Health Organization. 2017. WHO Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database (update
2016) (online). Available: http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/
[accessed 5 March 2017]
World Health Organization. (2010). Preventing disease through healthy environments --
Exposure to cadmium: A major public health concern. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
WHO (2009). Assessment of Combined Exposures to Multiple Chemicals: Report of a
WHO/IPCS International Workshop. Prepared by International Programme on Chemical Safety
(IPCS), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
and International Labour Organization (ILO). ISBN 978 92 4 156383 3. Retrieved on 28 October
2018 from
apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44113/9789241563833_eng.pdf?sequence=1
WHO Europe. (2009). Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. Denmark. Europe.: World Health
Organisation.
WHO. (2006). WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide
and sulphur dioxide Global update 2005. Summary of risk assessment
(WHO/SDE/PHE/OEH/06.02). Retrieved on 13 January 2019 from
whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf
World Health Organization. (2005). Air Quality Guidelines: Global Update. Copenhagen,
Denmark: World Health Organization.
Wilkerson W. (1991). Dust and sand forecasting in Iraq and adjoining countries. Technical
report, Air Weather Service, Scott Air Force Base, IL
World Bank. (2015). CO2 emissions (metric tonnes per capita). Retrieved from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
Yang, H.-H. e. (2016, VOL. 66, NO. 8). Fine particulate speciation profile and emission factor of
municipal solid waste incinerator established by dilution sampling method. Journal of the Air &
Waste Management Association, 807–814.
Zaghloul, Hassan. 2008. Calibration of deterministic parameters: Reassessment of Offshore
Platforms in the Arabian Gulf. Boca Raton. USA.
Zogorski, J.S.; Carter, J.M.; Ivahnenko, T.; Lapham, W.W.; Moran, M.J.; Rowe, B.L.; Squillace,
P.J.; Toccalino, P.L. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Volatile Organic Compounds in the
Nation’s Ground Water and Drinking-Water Supply Wells; U.S. Department of the Interior:
Washington, DC, USA; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2006; p. 101. Cited by
Barberes G.A. et.al (2018). Geosciences: Groundwater Natural Contamination by Toluene in
Beja and Faro Districts, Portugal. Retrieved on 23 September 2018 from
www.ghd.com

HZI, Besix and Itochu: Dubai Waste Management Center Environmental Impact Assessment Rev 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HZI, Besix and Itochu: Dubai Waste Management Center Environmental Impact Assessment Rev 6

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

HZI, Besix and Itochu: Dubai Waste Management Center Environmental Impact Assessment Rev 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al

HZI, Besix and Itochu

Project Fact Sheet

Project Information Description

Project Proponent Dubai Municipality

SPV and EPC HZI, Besix and Itochu

Project Name Dubai Waste Management Center (Waste-to-Energy Plant)

Project According to DM-ED Technical Guideline No. 2 (March 2019), the

Under definition provided in Equator Principle 1 (2013), the Project is

Design Capacity 5,666 tpd MSW at full capacity

Project Location Al Warsan 2, Dubai, UAE

Total Area 506,096.14 m2 (based on the Affection Plan)

Production Average output of 193 MW at full capacity at 27°C ambient temperature

Design Standards European Regulations/Industrial Emission Directive (Directive

Manpower Peak of construction: Over 2000 workers

Project Schedule Detailed engineering is expected to be completed in Q2 2020. A three-

 In line with 2050 Energy Strategy (MOEI, 2017) in diversifying energy

Figure 5 Schematic Diagram

Buildings Functional Description

Primary Supporting Facilities

Guardhouse Trucks entry and exit

 Automatic vehicle identification:

Weighing software and complete PC with mouse, printer and screen

Checkpoint Staff and visitors entry & exit

Accommodation To accommodate 120 people

Primary Technical Buildings

2) Waste Bunker Dimensions of waste bunker 1 (2 lines):

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Proposed  Optimise energy efficiency Mitigation measure is not required as

Air Quality Assessment

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Dust generated during construction, if Air quality criteria including Ministerial

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Cd comply with the European

Proposed  All construction and maintenance Built-in (WtE plant design)

Proposed  Visual dust monitoring  Stack emissions monitoring of

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Residual No significant residual impact is No significant residual impact is

 China state asphalt mixing plant

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Proposed  Not required as potential impact is  Fixed and continuous monitoring of

Residual No significance residual impact is Residual impact is not anticipated as

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Impact Construction noise is anticipated due An impact assessment was performed

Proposed  Appropriate site layout (locate Implement engineering measures:

Residual No significant residual impact is No significant residual impact is

Soil and Groundwater

Soil and Groundwater Assessment

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Proposed  Implement erosion and sediment  Appropriate design of on-site

Proposed  Daily visual site inspection of  Regular inspection of waste

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Residual No significant residual impact is No significant residual impact is

Biodiversity (Terrestrial Ecology)

EIA Construction Phase Operation Phase

Impact Vegetation clearing is an unavoidable No significant impact on flora and

Proposed  Manage size of land disturbance for  Implement appropriate wheel

Proposed  Visual observation on the presence  Visual observation on the presence