Ulubelu 3&4 Revised ESIA Report - Volume II · Ulubelu 3&4 Revised ESIA Report - Volume II 265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011 F:\PROJECTS\265718 PGE Geothermal ESIAs\(2) Ulubelu\Reports\Submitted

$Page 1: Ulubelu 3&4 Revised ESIA Report - Volume II · Ulubelu 3&4 Revised ESIA Report - Volume II 265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011 F:\PROJECTS\265718 PGE Geothermal ESIAs\(2) Ulubelu\Reports\Submitted$
Ulubelu 3&4 RevisedESIA Report - Volume II

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

March 2011Pertamina Geothermal Energy

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb370910

Typewritten Text

E2558 v2 REV


265718 RGE GEV 07 G

F:\PROJECTS\265718 PGE Geothermal ESIAs\(2) Ulubelu\Reports\Submitted Draft\Addressing Comments\Ulubelu 3&4

23 March 2011

Ulubelu 3&4 Revised ESIA Report - Volume II

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

March 2011

Pertamina Geothermal Energy

Mott MacDonald, Victory House, Trafalgar Place, Brighton BN1 4FY, United Kingdom T +44(0) 1273 365 000 F +44(0) 1273 365 100, W www.mottmac.com

Menara Cakrawala 15th floor, Jalan MH. Thamrin No. 09 - Jakarta 10340, Indonesia



Mott MacDonald, Victory House, Trafalgar Place, Brighton BN1 4FY, United Kingdom T +44(0) 1273 365 000 F +44(0) 1273 365 100, W www.mottmac.com

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 16/08/10 V. Hovland B. Cornet D. Boyland First Draft

B 08/09/10 V. Hovland B. Cornet D. Boyland Draft following first round of comments

C 27/09/10 B. Cornet M. O’Brien D. Boyland Final report for Disclosure

D 30/11/10 B. Cornet D. Boyland D. Boyland Draft Revised report for Disclosure

E 09/02/11 T. Streather B. Cornet M. O’Brien

D. Boyland I. Scott Revised Draft ESIA

F 25/02/11 H. White M. O’Brien T. Ellis

D. Boyland D. Boyland Revised ESIA

G 23/03/11 M. O’Brien D. Boyland D. Boyland Revised ESIA addressing Secretariat comments

Issue and revision record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011 F:\PROJECTS\265718 PGE Geothermal ESIAs\(2) Ulubelu\Reports\Submitted Draft\Addressing Comments\Ulubelu 3&4 Revised ESIA Vol II Final Rev B.doc


Chapter Title Page

Glossary and Units i

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Overview __________________________________________________________________________ 1

1.2 Purpose of this Document _____________________________________________________________ 3

1.3 Project Categorisation ________________________________________________________________ 3

1.4 World Bank Environmental and Social Operational Policies ___________________________________ 4

1.5 Structure of the Report________________________________________________________________ 5

2. Project Description 6

2.1 Overview __________________________________________________________________________ 6

2.2 Process Overview ___________________________________________________________________ 6

2.3 Project Proponents___________________________________________________________________ 8

2.4 Site Location _______________________________________________________________________ 9

2.5 Project Definition ___________________________________________________________________ 10

2.6 Schedule _________________________________________________________________________ 19

2.7 Associated Projects _________________________________________________________________ 19

2.8 Activities Outside the Project Scope ____________________________________________________ 19

2.9 Unit 5 Extension____________________________________________________________________ 20

3. Need for Project and Analysis of Alternatives 21 3.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 21

3.2 Need for the Project _________________________________________________________________ 21

3.3 Assessment of Alternative Site Locations ________________________________________________ 22

3.4 Assessment of Alternative Generating Technologies _______________________________________ 23

3.5 Design Alternatives _________________________________________________________________ 27

4. Legislation and Planning 28 4.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 28

4.2 Indonesia _________________________________________________________________________ 28

4.3 World Bank and International Requirements ______________________________________________ 37

5. Scope of the Assessment 42 5.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 42

5.2 Summary of Outcomes of Scoping Stage ________________________________________________ 42

5.3 Baseline Data Collection Methodology __________________________________________________ 45

5.4 Impact Assessment Methodology ______________________________________________________ 46

5.5 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts_____________________________________________________ 48

5.6 Appendices _______________________________________________________________________ 48

6. ESIA Consultation 49 6.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 49

6.2 Scope of ESIA Consultation and Disclosure Activities ______________________________________ 49

6.3 Chronology of ESIA Consultation and Disclosure Activities __________________________________ 50

Content



6.4 Indonesian AMDAL Consultation _______________________________________________________ 50

6.5 Land Acquisition Consultation _________________________________________________________ 51

6.6 International ESIA Consultation and Disclosure ___________________________________________ 52

6.7 Draft ESIA Consultation and Disclosure _________________________________________________ 57

6.8 Ongoing Project Consultation and Disclosure _____________________________________________ 60

6.9 Grievance Mechanism _______________________________________________________________ 61

7. Environmental and Social Baseline 64 7.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 64

7.2 Social Baseline_____________________________________________________________________ 64

7.3 Environmental Baseline ______________________________________________________________ 81

8. Social Impact Assessment 123 8.1 Overview ________________________________________________________________________ 123

8.2 Methodology______________________________________________________________________ 124

8.3 Employment Generation ____________________________________________________________ 125

8.4 Impacts on the Well-being of Workers on Site and in Camps ________________________________ 128

8.5 Impacts on Community Health, Safety, Security and Well-being _____________________________ 133

8.6 Land Acquisition___________________________________________________________________ 140

8.7 Community Investment _____________________________________________________________ 142

9. Environmental Impact Assessment 146 9.1 Overview ________________________________________________________________________ 146

9.2 Water Quality and Hydrology _________________________________________________________ 147

9.3 Groundwater _____________________________________________________________________ 159

9.4 Noise ___________________________________________________________________________ 166

9.5 Ecology _________________________________________________________________________ 185

9.6 Air______________________________________________________________________________ 192

9.7 Climate Change ___________________________________________________________________ 210

9.8 Waste___________________________________________________________________________ 214

9.9 Geology and Erosion _______________________________________________________________ 219

9.10 Land Contamination________________________________________________________________ 225

9.11 Traffic ___________________________________________________________________________ 233

9.12 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ____________________________________________________ 237



Tables

Table 1.1: World Bank Project Categories _________________________________________________________ 4 Table 2.1: Main Project Components ____________________________________________________________ 18 Table 2.2: Activities Outside the Project Scope ____________________________________________________ 20 Table 3.1: Existing and Future Generation Mix_____________________________________________________ 22 Table 3.2: Analysis of Alternative Generating Technologies __________________________________________ 25 Table 3.3: Comparison of Environmental Aspects of Design Options ___________________________________ 27 Table 5.1: Summary of Impacts and Significance___________________________________________________ 42 Table 6.1: Disclosure and Consultation Activities Undertaken as Part of the Land Acquisition Process _________ 51 Table 6.2: Inception (Scoping) ESIA Stakeholder Interviews (March 22nd - 23rd 2010) ______________________ 52 Table 6.3: Main ESIA Site Visit Stakeholder Interviews ______________________________________________ 53 Table 6.4: ESIA Inception (Scoping) Consultation and Disclosure Event Stakeholder Participants ____________ 54 Table 6.5: Draft ESIA Consultation and Disclosure Event Stakeholder Participants and Comments ___________ 58 Table 6.6: Ongoing Information Disclosure, Consultation and Community Engagement Schedule_____________ 60 Table 6.7: Grievance Classification Criteria _______________________________________________________ 63 Table 7.1: Ulubelu Project Area Demographic Data. ________________________________________________ 66 Table 7.2: Distribution of Mosques and Islamic Activity Groups________________________________________ 67 Table 7.3: Industrial processing of agricultural products: _____________________________________________ 69 Table 7.4: Agricultural land use in Tanggamus District_______________________________________________ 70 Table 7.5: Land use in Ulubelu sub-district________________________________________________________ 71 Table 7.6: Plantation crops and yields in Ulubelu sub-district _________________________________________ 71 Table 7.7: Project area main crop yields and prices. ________________________________________________ 72 Table 7.8: Livestock numbers in Project Area _____________________________________________________ 72 Table 7.9: Comparison of national and regional health indicators ______________________________________ 73 Table 7.10: Local access to healthcare ___________________________________________________________ 73 Table 7.11: Contraception methods used by households______________________________________________ 74 Table 7.12: Numbers of pupils __________________________________________________________________ 74 Table 7.13: Numbers of teachers ________________________________________________________________ 75 Table 7.14: Ulubelu Land Acquisition Summary_____________________________________________________ 78 Table 7.15: Hydrology Baseline Monitoring Results – 2003 & 2008* _____________________________________ 82 Table 7.16: Baseline Water Quality – 2003 ________________________________________________________ 85 Table 7.17: Baseline Water Quality – 2004 ________________________________________________________ 87 Table 7.18 Baseline Water Quality – 2008 to 2009 __________________________________________________ 89 Table 7.19: Baseline Water Quality – Quarter 3, 2009 ________________________________________________ 91 Table 7.20: Water Chemistry of Hotsprings in Ulubelu Prospect ________________________________________ 94 Table 7.21: Well Water Quality Monitoring Results – 2004 ____________________________________________ 98 Table 7.22: Well Water Quality Monitoring Results – 2004 to 2010 _____________________________________ 100 Table 7.23: Ulubelu stratigraphic column _________________________________________________________ 102 Table 7.24: Baseline Noise Measurements (2008-2009) _____________________________________________ 105 Table 7.25: Baseline Noise Measurements (2010)__________________________________________________ 105 Table 7.26: List of Fish Species Recorded ________________________________________________________ 107 Table 7.27: List of Zoobenthos Species Recorded__________________________________________________ 107 Table 7.28: List of Plant Species________________________________________________________________ 109 Table 7.29: List of Reptiles & Amphibians ________________________________________________________ 110 Table 7.30: List of Bird Species Recorded ________________________________________________________ 111 Table 7.31: Air Quality Monitoring Methodology ____________________________________________________ 113 Table 7.32: Air Quality Monitoring Results - 2003 __________________________________________________ 114 Table 7.33: Air Quality Monitoring Results – 2004 __________________________________________________ 114 Table 7.34: Air Quality Monitoring Results – RKL / RPL______________________________________________ 115



Table 7.35: Background Air Pollutant Concentrations _______________________________________________ 116 Table 7.36: Baseline Traffic Flows - 1996_________________________________________________________ 121 Table 8.1: Sensitivity Criteria: Socio-economic____________________________________________________ 124 Table 8.2: Magnitude Criteria: Socio-economic ___________________________________________________ 125 Table 8.3: Expected approximate employment generation overview – Construction (PGE and contractor staff) _ 126 Table 8.4: Expected approximate employment generation overview (PGE and contractor staff) _____________ 126 Table 8.5: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Employment Generation ________________________ 128 Table 8.6: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Well-being of Workers on Site and in Camps ________ 132 Table 8.7: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Community Health, Safety, Security and Well-being___ 138 Table 8.8: Land Price Comparison at Ulubelu for Units 3 and 4 (2006 to 2009) __________________________ 140 Table 8.9: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Land Acquisition ______________________________ 142 Table 8.10: PGE 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Budget (Rupiah) ________________________________ 142 Table 8.11: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Community Investment _________________________ 145 Table 9.1: Sensitivity Criteria: Water Quality and Hydrology _________________________________________ 148 Table 9.2: Magnitage Criteria: Water Quality and Hydrology _________________________________________ 148 Table 9.3: Significance Criteria: Water Quality and Hydrology________________________________________ 149 Table 9.4: Summary of potential impacts and residual risks: Water Quality and Hydrology _________________ 156 Table 9.5: Summary of potential impacts and residual risks: Groundwater ______________________________ 164 Table 9.6: Sensitivity Criteria: Noise ____________________________________________________________ 168 Table 9.7: Magnitude Criteria: Construction Noise _________________________________________________ 169 Table 9.8: Magnitude Criteria: Operational Noise from the Project ____________________________________ 170 Table 9.9: Predicted Construction Noise Impacts at Project Site ______________________________________ 171 Table 9.10: Predicted Operational Noise Sources at Project Site ______________________________________ 175 Table 9.11: Summary of Operational Impact ______________________________________________________ 176 Table 9.12: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Noise _______________________________________ 181 Table 9.13: Predicted Cumulative Noise Impacts (Construction) _______________________________________ 183 Table 9.14: Predicted Cumulative Noise Impacts (Operation) _________________________________________ 184 Table 9.15: Summary of Potential Impacts and Residual Risks: Ecology ________________________________ 191 Table 9.16: Generic Dust Emitting Activities_______________________________________________________ 193 Table 9.17: Receptors Sensitivity _______________________________________________________________ 194 Table 9.18: Ambient Air Quality Guidelines, Limits and Standards used in the Assessment__________________ 196 Table 9.19: Sensitive Dust Receptors____________________________________________________________ 197 Table 9.20: Dust Generating Project Activities _____________________________________________________ 197 Table 9.21: Air Quality Impacts from Vehicles during Mobilisation (µg/m3) _______________________________ 198 Table 9.22: Maximum 24h Pollutant Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors (µg/m3) _______________________ 200 Table 9-23: Summary of Potential Air Quality Impacts and Residual Risks _______________________________ 207 Table 9.24: Planned New Power Generation Capacity in Sumatra _____________________________________ 211 Table 9.25: Project Specific CO2 Emissions _______________________________________________________ 212 Table 9.26: Alternative Plant CO2 Emissions ______________________________________________________ 212 Table 9.27: Summary of and Residual Impacts: Climate Change ______________________________________ 213 Table 9.28: Construction Waste Streams _________________________________________________________ 214 Table 9.29: Sediment analysis of drilling mud _____________________________________________________ 216 Table 9.30: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Waste_______________________________________ 218 Table 9.31: Sensitivity Criteria: Geological Features ________________________________________________ 220 Table 9.32: Criteria for Assessing Magnitude of Potential Impacts on Geology and Erosion _________________ 220 Table 9.33: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Geology and Erosion ___________________________ 224 Table 9.34: Sensitivity Criteria: Land Contamination ________________________________________________ 226 Table 9.35: Magnitude Criteria: Land Contamination ________________________________________________ 226 Table 9.36: Potential Land Contamination Sources and Associated Impacts _____________________________ 227



Table 9.37: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Land Contamination____________________________ 231 Table 9.38: Sensitivity Ratings: Traffic ___________________________________________________________ 233 Table 9.39: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Traffic_______________________________________ 236 Table 9.40: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ________________ 238

Figures

Figure 2.1: Geothermal Power Plant Process Summary _______________________________________________ 6

Figure 2.2: Project Location _____________________________________________________________________ 9

Figure 2.3: Project Component Scope ____________________________________________________________ 11

Figure 2.4: Project Area Features _______________________________________________________________ 12

Figure 2.5: 3D Project Terrain Context ___________________________________________________________ 13

Figure 4.1: AMDAL Process Overview____________________________________________________________ 33

Figure 5.1: Significance Matrix__________________________________________________________________ 47

Figure 6.1: ESIA Inception (Scoping) Stakeholder Interview with Village Leader ___________________________ 53

Figure 6.2: Main ESIA visit stakeholder interviews with project affected household close to cluster D___________ 55

Figure 6.3: Main ESIA Site Visit Consultation and Disclosure Event Presentation __________________________ 56

Figure 6.4: Main ESIA Site Visit Consultation and Disclosure Event Break Out Discussion ___________________ 56

Figure 6.5: Pagar Alam Mosque Consultation Period Advertisement Location _____________________________ 57

Figure 6.6: Consultation advert Posted on the Mosque_______________________________________________ 57

Figure 6.7: Draft ESIA Public Consultation and Disclosure Event _______________________________________ 59

Figure 7.1: Indonesia Population Pyramids ________________________________________________________ 65

Figure 7.2: River flow measurements from site visit in June 2010_______________________________________ 83

Figure 7.3: Map of local villages and wells_________________________________________________________ 97

Figure 7.4: Geology of area surrounding Ulubelu __________________________________________________ 101

Figure 7.5: Stratigraphy of area surrounding Ulubelu _______________________________________________ 102

Figure 7.6: 1996 Traffic Survey Location _________________________________________________________ 121

Figure 8.1: Worker camp at Ulubelu, Cluster B, March 2010__________________________________________ 129

Figure 8.2: Community water distribution point installed by PGE ______________________________________ 143

Figure 8.3: Schools in Pagar Alam (top) and Muara Dua (bottom) Villages upgraded by PGE _______________ 143

Figure 9.1: Natural H2S Emissions from Fumarole in Southern Sumatra ________________________________ 188


i


AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome AMDAL Environmental Impact Assessment ANDAL ESIA Report BAL Basic Agrarian Law BAPEDAL Environmental Impact Management Agency (or EIMA) BAPEDALDA Regional Environmental Impact Management Agency BKSDA Local Wildlife Protection Office BLH Environment Agency at Provincial and Regency Levels BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BPLH Environmental Management Agency CAS Chemical Abstracts Service CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CHS Community Health & Safety CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora CLO Community Liaison Officer CMS Conservation of Migratory Species of Animal Wildlife COD Chemical Oxygen Demand EA Environmental Assessment EHS Environmental, Health and Safety EIMA Environmental Impact Management Agency (or BAPEDAL) EMA Environmental Management Act ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan GDP Gross Domestic Product HGV Heavy Good Vehicles HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HSE Health, Safety and Environment IFC International Finance Corporations ILO International Labour Organisation IUP Mining Activity Permit IUPL Electricity Supply Business Permit JAMSOSTEK Social Security System JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency KA-ANDAL Terms of Reference of ESIA Report KSPSI Confederation of All Indonesian Workers' Union LU Land Use MDG Millennium Development Goal MENKES Decree of. Minister of Health Regulation MENLH Ministry of Environment MKLH Decree of Ministry of Environment MML Mott MacDonald Limited MPN Most probable number MT Magneto-telluric MW Mega Watt NA Not Available or Applicable NCG Non Condensable Gas ND Not Detected NER Net Enrolment Rate

Glossary and Units


ii


NGOs Non-governmental Organisations NW North West OHS Occupational Health & Safety OP Indigenous Peoples OP Operational Policy PCDP Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan PE Decree of Ministry of Mines and Energy Persero Corporation managed by the State or Region PGE Pertamina Geothermal Energy PLN Indonesian State Electricity Company PLTP Thermal Power Plants PNOC Philippines National Oil Company PP Government Regulations PPE Personal Protective Equipment PT Company Limited RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands RI Republic of Indonesia RKL Environmental Management Plan RPL Environmental Monitoring Plan RUKN Local Electricity Plan SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SE South East SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan SPPGE Serikat Perkerja Pertamina Geothermal Energy SMK3LL HSE System Management SW South West TEM Transient Electro-Magnetic TSS Total Suspended Solids TWA Time Weighted Average UBL Ulubelu UK United Kingdom UKL Environmental Efforts UN United Nations UPL Environmental Monitoring Effort US United States USEPA States Environmental Protection Agency UU Acts UUPA Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles WALHI Indonesian Forum for Environment WB World Bank WHO World Health Organisation WMP Waste Management Plan (WMP) WPS Water Pumping Stations WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant


iii


Units A Ampere (electrical current) bar bar = 105 Pa (pressure) cal calorie (energy) C degree Centigrade (temperature) dB decibel (sound pressure) dS/m electrical conductivity g gramme hr hour (time) Hz Hertz (frequency) K degree Kelvin (temperature) kg kilogram (mass) J Joule (energy) l litre m metre (length) mg/m3 Milligram per cubic meter µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter ppm parts per million ppb parts per billion Pa Pascal (pressure) s second (time) t tonne = 103 kg (mass) V Volt (electrical potential) W Watt (power)

Prefix Symbols and Multiples Symbols

G - giga = x 109

M - mega = x 106

k - kilo = x 103

h - hecto = x 102

da - deca = x 10

d - deci = x 10-1

c - centi = x 10-2

m - milli = x 10-3

- micro = x 10-6

n - nano = x 10-9

p - pico = x 10-12

CO -Carbon Monoxide

CO2 -Carbon Dioxide

H2S -Hydrogen Sulphide

Hg -Mercury

NH3 -Ammonia

NOx -Nitrogen Oxides

NO2 -Nitrogen Dioxide

Nm3 -Normal cubic metre

O2 -Oxygen

O3 -Ozone

PM10 -Particulate Matter with a mean diameter less than 10µm

PM2.5 -Particulate Matter with a mean diameter less than 2.5µm

pH -A scale of relative acidity/alkalinity

SO2 -Sulphur Dioxide

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

1


1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Indonesian Context

Indonesia’s energy demand is increasing with expanding economy at a pace of about 6% a year, leading to a need for further power generation capacity. To meet growing electricity demand, Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), the Indonesian State Electricity Company, has mainly pursued a coal-dominated power generation program, although concerns over environmental issues and fuel security have arisen. The Indonesian Government has continued to promote renewable energy and drawn up energy development strategies to utilise renewable energy. In the National Energy Blueprint issued by the Government, energy from geothermal sources will be boosted to 9,500 MW by 2025.

Indonesia is located on the ‘ring of fire’ where two active volcano belts meet and where there are many tectonic fractures. It is estimated to hold about 40% of the world’s geothermal reserves, approximating 27,000MW. The geothermal resources are mostly spread within Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi and Eastern Island volcanic zone.

As a result of constraints such as policy and economics, less than 4% of the country’s estimated total geothermal potential has been developed. Therefore, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) is scaling-up the development of resources under the control of state-owned enterprises.

1.1.2 Project Background

Pertamina Geothermal Energy (PGE), a subsidiary of the Indonesian national oil company PT Pertamina (Persero), was established in 2006 as mandated by the GoI to develop 15 Geothermal Business Working Areas in Indonesia.

PGE applied for a grant from the Government of the Netherlands that has been provided through the World Bank. The purpose of the grant was to contribute to the cost of initial development of three of PGE’s geothermal power projects. This work includes the preparation of international-quality Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) for each of the three projects.

This Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) is prepared for the second phase of the development of the Ulubelu geothermal field located in South Sumatra, Indonesia. The first phase financed by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) includes: The upstream comprising of well drillings and steamfield above-ground system (SAGS) under

development by PGE; and The downstream comprising of two 55 MW generation units (Units 1&2) and a 20-km 150kV

transmission line linking the units to the nearest substation.

The second phase, which is being considered for financing by the World Bank, consists of the development by PGE of the upstream comprising of well drillings, SAGS, power plant which includes two 55 MW generation units (Units 3&4), and a 500-meter 150kV transmission line linking the two units to the nearest substation. Hereafter, this second phase is referred to as “the Project”.

Under Indonesian legislation, ESIA as a planning tool is known as Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (AMDAL). Due to the size of the Project, a full AMDAL process is required under Indonesian legislation resulting in the production of an Environmental Statement (known as an ANDAL report), an Environmental

1. Introduction

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

2


Management Plan (RKL) and Environmental Monitoring Plan (RPL). The AMDAL for the purpose of permitting and compliance with Indonesian legislation was undertaken and completed on behalf of PGE by a local university consultancy, Universitas Lampung (the Local AMDAL Consultants) and approval from the Head of the Environment Agency of Lampung Province was issued on October 20, 2010. As part of the AMDAL process, PGE carried out public consultation and disclosure which, although focused on the exploration activities, has included discussion of the whole project.

As far as the overall Ulubelu Development is concerned, a total of four AMDALs have been undertaken: The Project’s AMDAL process discussed above. An AMDAL process undertaken by PGE in 2003 for the steam field development to support the PLN

Power Plant (Units 1&2). The AMDAL has been approved by the Indonesian authorities. It covers the Units 1&2 well clusters although it also covers some of the Units 3&4 clusters as project separation had not been precisely defined at the time of preparation. Periodic monitoring of environmental and social parameters is undertaken as part of the AMDAL process (environmental management and monitoring plans or RKL / RPL).

A separate AMDAL process has been completed in 2004 by PLN specifically for the development of the power plant Units 1&2.

An AMDAL process was completed in 2004 by PLN to specifically address the development of the transmission infrastructure to connect the PLN power plant to the main electricity transmission grid thereby satisfying national permitting requirements.

PGE has consulted with the Environment Agency of Lampung Province on the environmental assessment requirements for the construction of the 500m transmission link from Units 3&4 to the PLN substation. It has been concluded that a UKL/UPL will be required to address the 500m transmission link and PGE will be undertaking this study in the near future.

PGE has appointed Mott MacDonald Limited (MML) to assist them in completing a full ESIA to international standards for the Project, in compliance with World Bank procedures and guidelines. This ESIA report is the second of MML’s deliverables for this Project, following issue of the Ulubelu Units 3&4 ESIA Inception Report (the Inception Report, 2010).

The scope of the ESIA is the steam field (addressing specifically the wells that are being developed for the Project), the water pumping stations, access roads built for the Project and power plant Units 3&4. Power plant Units 1&2 (and specific wellpads for this development) do no form part of the Project but have been considered only where cumulative impacts are expected.

A draft ESIA report was posted on the World Bank Infoshop website (http://publications.worldbank.org) and the PGE website (www.pgeindonesia.com) on October 7th 2010 for a 120 day consultation period. Following disclosure of the draft ESIA, the final “Feasibility Study for Ulubelu Geothermal Power Project” commissioned by PGE was completed on the 15th October 2010 by technical consultants AECOM. In addition, subsequent to disclosure, further specific details of the Ulubelu Units 1&2 Power Plant were developed by PLN allowing refinement of the assessment of cumulative impacts. This revised ESIA has been produced to update the draft ESIA to account for further data becoming available. A number of minor changes have been made to the text as part of the natural evolution of the ESIA process.

http://www.pgeindonesia.com/�

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

3


A document change register has been produced as part of this revised ESIA to enable identification of changes between the two documents (draft and revised ESIA) and to provide further background and explanation of these changes. The change register is set out in Volume III, Appendix G. The major changes are: The description of the Project has been updated to clarification on Project component scope. Additional explanation is provided on the chronology of Project consultation activities. Additional

consultation activities undertaken in October 2010 have been summarised and included. The assessment of air emissions has been updated to reflect specific information received from PLN on

Units 1&2 and site specific meteorological data. The Environment and Social Management Plans are presented in a separate volume, Volume IV. This

provides clear actions and identifies those organisations and institutions responsible for implementing or monitoring the actions.

1.2 Purpose of this Document This document presents the results of the ESIA process (as revised) undertaken by MML, which builds upon the various ANDAL and RKL/RPL reports produced by the Local AMDAL Consultants. As such, a number of the objectives are common:

Define the environmental and social baseline to: determine the current status of compliance with guidelines and standards to establish the maximum

acceptable additional impact from the Project; provide a baseline to compare against during the development of the Project;

Identify environmental and social impacts and assess their significance; Establish the mitigation measures and a monitoring programme that will be required to ensure

development of the Project without significant adverse impacts; Inform the community about the Project.

In addition, this ESIA aims to:

Meet international (World Bank) standards for ESIA; Assess compliance with World Bank Operational Policies, standards and guidelines; Carry out and report public consultation and disclosure (beyond that undertaken as part of the AMDAL

process); Establish further mitigation measures, management and monitoring requirements in a formal

Environmental and Social Management (and Monitoring) Plan (ESMP) and PGE’s institutional strengthening requirements in order to meet the requirements of the ESMP.

1.3 Project Categorisation

Following the World Bank's Operational Policy 4.01, Environmental Assessment, one of ten Safeguard Policies, the World Bank undertakes environmental screening of each proposed project to determine the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment needed. The Bank classifies proposed projects into one of four categories, depending on the type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project, as well as the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental impacts. This section provides a proposed categorisation based on the findings of this report. The different categories are listed in Table 1.1.

The Project has the potential to cause adverse impacts on the community and on sensitive receptors such as water biota, impacts which, in the case of noise, air quality and water quality, extend beyond the Project boundaries. Although the majority are temporary and / or can be mitigated, in view of the need to

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

4


adequately assess the impacts and strongly implement adequate mitigation measures, the Project has been classified as Category A.

Table 1.1: World Bank Project Categories

Category Description

Category A A Category A project is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works. The EA for a Category A project examines the project's potential negative and positive environmental impacts, compares them with those of feasible alternatives (including the "without project" scenario), and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance. For a Category A project, the borrower is responsible for preparing a report, normally an Environmental Impact Assessment (or a suitably comprehensive regional or sectoral EA).

Category B A Category B project has potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas - including wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats - which are less adverse than those of Category A projects. These impacts are site-specific; few if any of them are irreversible; and in most cases mitigatory measures can be designed more readily than for Category A projects. The scope of EA for a Category B project may vary from project to project, but it is narrower than that of Category A assessment. Like Category A, a Category B environmental assessment examines the project's potential negative and positive environmental impacts and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance. The findings and results of EA for Category B projects are described in the project documentation (Project Appraisal Document and Project Information Document).

Category C A Category C project is likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts. Beyond screening, no further EA action is required.

Category D No longer in use

Category FI A Category F or FI project involves investment of Bank funds through a financial intermediary, in subprojects that may result in adverse environmental impacts.

Source: World Bank Website

1.4 World Bank Environmental and Social Operational Policies

Developers seeking financing from the World Bank are required to comply with the applicable bank environmental and social operational policies. A summary of the key objectives of operational policies that are considered relevant to the Project (and hence “triggered”) are provided below:

Operational Policy 4.01 – Environmental Assessment: provides the framework for World Bank environmental safeguard policies and describes project screening and categorisation to determine level of environmental assessment required. For category A and B projects the policy requires public consultation and disclosure to be undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment process. Finally the policy sets out requirement to comply and report on the implementation of any environmental management plans (i.e. mitigation measures, monitoring programme etc).

Operational Policy 4.12 – Involuntary Resettlement – The World Bank aims to avoid involuntary resettlement where possible; however, where necessary the policy sets out requirements that affected people must participate in resettlement planning as well as be provided compensation that improves or at least restores incomes and standards of living subsequent to displacement.

In accordance with World Bank categorisation, the geothermal project is considered to be a Category A project, and as such requires a full ESIA in accordance with Operational Policy 4.01. In addition, land acquisition is required to facilitate the project development. Although PGE undertakes this on a ‘willing buyer - willing seller’ principle, it can request expropriation as a last resort and therefore World Bank Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement is also triggered. To comply, a Land Acquisition and

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

5


Resettlement Policy Framework has been developed for the Project that defines the procedures to be followed in the case of expropriation.

The Ulubelu Units 3&4 ESIA Inception Report (the Inception Report) concluded that other than Operational Policies 4.01 and 4.12, no other World Bank operational policies are triggered by the project. Full justification for this is elaborated within relevant sections of this ESIA report.

1.5 Structure of the Report

The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment is comprised of four volumes organised as follows:

Volume I: Non Technical Summary Volume II: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (present volume)

Section 1 – Introduction; Section 2 – Project Description; Section 3 – Need for the Project and Analysis of Alternatives Section 4 – Legislation; Section 5 – Scope of the Assessment Section 6 – ESIA Consultation; Section 7 – Environmental and Social Baseline; Section 8 – Social Impact Assessment; Section 9 – Environmental Impact Assessment;

Volume III: Appendices/Supporting Documents Volume IV: Environmental and Social Management Plan

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

6


2.1 Overview

This section aims to provide a description of the project which includes a summary of geothermal power generation process which is the subject of this ESIA. The section is structured as follows: Identification of geothermal power generation process; Identification of project proponents; Description of the Project location; Definition of the Project including:

Project component scope overview; Status of Project components; Details of access road building and site clearance; Details of steamfield drilling; Details of well production testing; Description of steam production and corresponding pipelines; Description of power plant and transmission link; Description of reinjection wells and corresponding pipelines; Summary of Project components;

Identification of Project schedule; and Identification of any associated projects or activities outside the Project scope.

2.2 Process Overview

PGE is developing a geothermal project in the Ulubelu area of Sumatra, Indonesia. Figure 2.1 presents a high level summary of the overall geothermal power plant process.

Figure 2.1: Geothermal Power Plant Process Summary

Source: PGE, Ulubelu Feasibility Study and Primary Data

2. Project Description

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

7


To utilise geothermal energy, production wells are drilled down into the heated water contained within the Earth's crust - the geothermal reservoir. Once these geothermal reservoirs are tapped into, the heated water and steam rise to the surface where the steam is separated and used to power steam turbines, which then generate mechanical energy that can be harnessed as electricity. Brine and condensate are returned via reinjection wells back to the geothermal reservoir.

The development of a geothermal resource can be separated into the following phases:

Phase 1: Literature collection of all existing available data. Summary report from literature and conclusions. Site visit of senior Geologist and project manager. GPS location mapping of areas and hot springs.

Phase 2: Water sampling from springs and gas sampling from shallow holes. Collection of water samples and evaluation for each site. CO2, Radon and Chemical report. Assessment of results from water and gas sampling. Evaluation of sites and prioritisation of fields.

Phase 3: Geophysical resistivity survey using Transient-Electromagnetic (TEM) or Schlumberger methods. Option for developer to use Magneto-telluric (MT) and Seismic monitoring for fractures or faults. Identifying the up-flow zone of the geothermal fluid in field evaluation.

Phase 4: Shallow hole drilling to monitor the temperature gradient. Geothermal gradient mapping in area based on shallow holes. Confirmation of findings of geochemical – and geophysical anomalies. Assessment of geothermal gradient mapping and depth forecasting. Fracture and fault mapping based on 3D modelling for each area.

Phase 5: Drilling of first test production well. Geophysical monitoring and logging during production well drilling. Testing of first test production well-yield, temperature and depth. Monitoring the chemistry of the fluid from the test well drilling. Assessment of well testing and monitoring.

Phase 6: Operation strategy for power plant design. Reservoir Response Evaluation and capacity assessment. Drill production and reinjection wells. Monitoring and testing of the capacities of production wells.

Phase 7: Power plant operation planning. Design of geothermal process for power plant. Design of reinjection system for power plant.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

8


Phase 8: (a) Tendering for a firm quotation for the power plant. (b) Tendering for a firm quotation for the steam gathering system. Agreements for (a) and (b). Agreements for grid connections.

Phase 9: Testing and commissioning. Operation phase.

During operation, the main process activities include: Steam production where steam is extracted, processed and also subsequently reinjected; Power plant, where the extracted steam is used to generate electricity; and evacuation of electricity via

a transmission line.

The Project involves the development of a steam field including four clusters of production wells and two clusters of reinjection wells. The steam produced will power a geothermal power station of two 55MW units referred to as Ulubelu Units 3&4 (Project total power output therefore being 110MW). The development of the above represents the project component scope and therefore is the focus of this ESIA.

With respect to development of the geothermal resource, the Project is currently in site clearance and drilling (Phase 6) with phases 1 to 5 complete although the progress status differs between wellpad clusters (for example, land for some clusters has only recently been acquired and is in the process of being prepared for drilling whereas land acquisition, clearance and drilling for other clusters is complete). Phases 1 to 5 are thus partially completed and the project is reaching Phase 6.

PLN is developing two other 55MW units (Units 1&2) on the same geothermal field although this project will be supplied with steam from two separate wellpad clusters. Units 1&2 and Units 3&4 will share three wellpad clusters albeit via dedicated production and reinjection wells for each power plant. Together, the total steam field development and Units 1&2 and 3&4 are referred to as the overall Ulubelu Development although it is split into two distinct development projects.

2.3 Project Proponents

Besides PGE, who is developing the Project, key proponents are: The World Bank; Drilling contractors (PT Energi Tata Pesada and PT Pertamina Drilling Service Indonesia, PT

Binakarindo Yacoagung); Other contractors associated with drilling (catering, H2S safety etc.); EPC contractor for the power plant and potential other contractors for civil works and field steam

superstructure (not yet appointed); PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), which is developing Units 1&2 and will also be responsible for the

main transmission line from Unit 1&2 to the nearest substation.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

9


2.4 Site Location

2.4.1 Overview

The Project is located 80km west of Bandar Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia. The Project is located in proximity to the villages of Datarajan, Gunung Tiga, Karang Rejo, Pagar Alam, and Muara Dua. The Project area is located in the Tanggamus district which was separated by law in 1997 from the territory of the South Lampung District. The area is a cultivated (rice and plantations) undulating basin surrounded in the Western, Northern and Eastern sides by mountainous areas. The Project site is bordered by an area of watershed protection forest (Hutan Lindung) in the North (Gunung Rindingan) and South, especially on the elevated areas with steep slopes. A sand quarry is located in Datarajan. A regional map showing the project location is shown in Figure 2.2.

2.4.2 Study Area

The study area is the area over which the impacts of the Project are likely to be felt. This varies with the environmental or social aspect considered and it is therefore defined within each individual aspect assessment chapter.

Figure 2.2: Project Location

Source: National Coordinating Agency for Surveys and Mapping

Project Location

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

10


2.5 Project Definition

2.5.1 Project Component Scope Overview

Section 2.1 above provided an overview of the geothermal process. This subsection provides an overview of specific project components of this process which are relevant to this Project. The following subsections define these components in further detail.

Project components are presented in Figure 2.3 and features within the Project area are presented in Figure 2.4. Figure 2.5 illustrates the Project terrain context.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

11


Figure 2.3: Project Component Scope

Legend:

Source: Mott MacDonald

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

12


Figure 2.4: Project Area Features

Legend:


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

13


Figure 2.5: 3D Project Terrain Context

Legend:

Source: Digital Elevation Model file from World Geo-Data; processing Mott MacDonald

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

14


2.5.2 Status of Project Components

The Project consists of six clusters (groups of wells) and one power plant of two units (Units 3&4). Each cluster will comprise one to six wells specific to the Project. Four of the clusters (B, E G, and H) will be used for steam production and two (A and F) for condensate and brine reinjection. Access roads to all clusters have been completed and drilling has at least started at Clusters A, B, E and F. Drilling is currently being started at Cluster G and Cluster H. It should be noted that, of all the wells on wellpad B, only one well (referenced as UBL 15 or B4) has been developed to provide steam to Units 3&4. In addition, two wells on Cluster A and two wells on Cluster F are dedicated to Units 3&4 for reinjection. Other wells exist on both Cluster A and Cluster F dedicated to Units 1&2 for reinjection although these wells are outside the project finance scope. The steamfield above-ground system (SAGS) will consist of a separator station serving Clusters B and G and two other separators located on Clusters E and H. Steam pipelines will run from the separators to the power plant and brine pipelines will run from the separators to the reinjection Clusters A and F. For clusters without separators, two phase pipelines will connect the cluster to the separator station. Condensate pipelines will connect the power plant to the reinjection Clusters A and F.

PLN has indicated that the point in its system at which PGE is to deliver the power is the switchyard at Units 1&2. Therefore, power from Units 3&4 will be sent to the PLN Units 1&2 switchyard via a dedicated 500m transmission link. PGE will be responsible for the acquisition of land and construction of this 500 m transmission link under the terms of a joint agreement between PT PLN (Persero) and PGE signed on the 31st December 2010 (see Appendix H, Volume III). Hence the 500m transmission link from PGE Units 3&4 to PLN Units 1&2 is included in the Project Component Scope.

2.5.3 Access Road Building and Site Clearance

The first step of the physical development is to open access roads if required. Roads have been built to access the site office and Clusters B, E, F, G and H.

The next step of the physical development is land clearing and levelling. The platform cleared to allow deployment of the drilling rig, offices, workers compound and supporting facilities is approximately up to 4 hectares and is later referred to as the well pad or cluster. Top soil excavated has been reused on site and additional fill material brought in as required. If there is a surplus of excavated material, alternative disposal options will be sought.

2.5.4 Drilling

Drilling activities are undertaken by contractors, using directional drilling. Following initial piling, a rotating bit drills down to a maximum depth of about 2,400m and to a horizontal displacement of up to 900m. “Muds”, a mixture of water, bentonite and emulsifiers, are injected through the pipes to the drill-bit to cool it and remove cuttings. A cleanwater pond lined with geo-textile membrane (synthetic liner) is provided at each wellpad with water supplied from water pumping stations.

The Project includes three Water Pumping Stations (WPS) located downstream of Cluster G in Mekarsari Sub Village – Muara Dua (WPS-2), south of Cluster E on the Ulubelu river -Sub Village Air Lingkar - Karangrejo (WPS-3), and between Gunung Tiga and Datarajan, after the junction of the Ulubelu and Asam Rivers (WPS 1). Water needs are met by pumping from a local stream into a holding pond at each water pump station with onward piping to the cleanwater ponds at each cluster location as and when required.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

15


Muds and cuttings then ascend along the drill pipe. Cuttings are separated and dried / stored in a cuttings house (semi-enclosed building) located on each wellpad. At Ulubelu, these dry cuttings are then used to level / hard surface the clusters once drilling activities are complete.

Drilling muds are sent to a series of cooling / settling ponds located at each wellpad, the last stage including activated carbon filters. The cleaned muds are then pumped back and recycled. Similar to the clean water pond, settling ponds are lined with geo-textile membrane (synthetic liner). Without complications, drilling of a well takes 1.5 to 2 months.

Following initial Project development, it is possible that additional wells will be required to support the operation of Ulubelu Units 3&4 to make up for progressive loss of productivity of the existing wells. The need for new wells is reduced due to brine and condensate reinjection. In the event of additional drilling, impacts and required mitigation measures are expected to be the same as for the construction phase. Should new well pads be required over and above those considered within this revised ESIA or should these wells significantly differ from the ones currently drilled, PGE would produce a supplemental ESIA. In addition, should any further development be identified such as new wells, it is likely that the mitigation and management measures needed would not differ much from those elaborated in this ESIA.

2.5.5 Production Well Testing

A well completion test is undertaken as the final stage of the drilling activity. Before moving the drilling rig to a new location, a pressure measurement is taken while injecting water into the well, along with temperature and pressure measurements conducted to obtain injectivity and transmitivity of the well. A typical well completion test lasts less than 48 hours.

Horizontal well testing is then undertaken to provide more accurate information on flow output, brine and steam characteristics. This involves the temporary installation of pipes and a steam/gas separator adjacent to the well being tested and a rock muffler. The horizontal testing procedure lasts 6 to 12 weeks. Vertical well testing is not undertaken.

Wells are later converted, if suitable, into production wells. Unsuitable wells can be used for reinjection or are abandoned.

2.5.6 Steam Production and Pipelines

A mixture of steam, gases and water (brine) is extracted from the production wells and sent to the separators via two phase pipelines. Due to reduced pressure, part of the brine flashes to steam. According to the primary data, separators will either be located at the Clusters E and H, and at a site receiving fluid from Clusters B and G that will be located at least 900m from the power plant.

Production clusters will be connected to the separators, scrubbers and the power plant by insulated steel pipes. Two phase pipes carrying steam and brine will be used from Clusters B and G to a common separator, while Clusters E and H will have on-site separators, with a steam pipe to the power plant. These pipes are laid on concrete foundations with gliding rails for free movement in axial direction for expansion of the pipeline at startup of the power plant. Rupture discs will be located on the steam pipelines immediately downstream of the separators.

Condensation build-up in the steam pipelines is collected in condensate pots and discharged regularly (every few minutes) through several release valves (steam traps). The flashed fluid is collected in an open drain to transfer it to a thermal pond on the power plant site from where it can be reinjected. To provide

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

16


this “scrubbing” action in the steam pipeline, it is proposed that the power plant is located at least 900m from any separator. At the power plant the steam flows through scrubbers for a final clean before delivery to the turbine.

Where possible, pipelines will be routed along other corridors such as roads. The outside pipe temperature is estimated about 35ºC. The proposed routing of the pipes is shown in Figure 2.3.

It is recommended in the feasibility study that a primary separation pressure of around 8 bara and turbine inlet pressure of 7 bara be selected as the base case development for Ulubelu Units 3&4, based on wells data to date and requirements to minimise the risk of silica deposition in the pipes. The separation pressure of 8 bara enables flashing of steam for the power plant production while accounting for a reasonable pressure loss in the pipes. The steam is then piped to the power plant via a scrubbing pipeline system, drying the steam before entering the turbine inlet.

Steam quality is defined in terms of temperature, pressure, non-condensable gases and total dissolved solids. In order to control steam pressure with varying power plant load, and in case of a power plant trip, steam is released to the atmosphere via a rock muffler (steam venting system) to control noise.

Depending on the results of the production well tests, some if not all the wells may be determined as non-artesian (i.e. brine and steam from the reservoir will not flow upward through a well without some form of stimulation). Stimulation operations typically involve injection of air at high pressure to lower the water level in the well. Upon sudden termination of the injection, the well will eject water and start to flash steam to promote ongoing flow. During periods of power plant maintenance or trip, it is not desirable to fully shut down non-artesian production wells as well stimulation is required to restart production, which has time and cost implications, as well as other environmental impacts including energy use. During such periods, these wells may be maintained in production with significantly reduced flow rates with steam directly venting to atmosphere.

2.5.7 Power Plant and Transmission Link

Following successful completion of a sufficient number of wells and confirmation of capacity, construction of the power plant will proceed. In addition to similar phases of access opening and site preparation, building the power plant involves earthworks, foundation for buildings and significant work on the superstructure, including delivery of heavy equipment to the site (turbines, generator and transformers).

The steam is used in a conventional steam turbine, coupled to a generator. The Ulubelu Units 3&4 Project will include one power plant with two steam turbine units (2 x 55MW units). Steam at the back of each turbine goes through a condenser (heat exchanger which causes the steam to condense). The water from the condenser is cooled in conventional forced draft wet cooling towers. The condensate is returned to the steam field for reinjection.

Power from Ulubelu Units 3&4 will be sent to the grid (existing by the time of commissioning) at the PLN Units 1&2 switchyard via a dedicated 500m line. PGE will be responsible for the construction of the 500m transmission link and will acquire land for the tower bases and any area required to ensure the safe operation of the transmission line through a fair negotiated settlement as per its willing buyer / willing-seller process. In addition, compensation will be provided by PGE to secure the transmission line Right of Way.

The transmission link is a component of the Project and is therefore considered within this revised ESIA. The effects and impacts are within the scope of the assessments presented in Sections 8 and 9. A summary of the specific effects of the transmission link is included within Appendix F, Volume III.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

17


2.5.8 Reinjection Wells and Pipelines

Brine from the separators can be reinjected directly in a “hot” reinjection well (150ºC). Each separator will be connected to four dedicated wells at Clusters A and F for brine reinjection. Condensate from the power plant is reinjected through a ‘cold’ (40ºC) reinjection well(s). Condensate flow is significantly less than brine flow.

Reinjection pipelines, similar to production pipelines, will be routed along existing corridors such as roads. In order to minimise risk of pollution, all pipelines will be tested to pressures higher than maximum operating pressures and will not fail under normal operation and during seismic events within design criteria. Damage from external sources, such as large trucks, is very unlikely and pipeline sections close to road curves are protected with safety barriers.

If a reinjection pipeline did fail the brine will be diverted via an emergency dump valve to a large emergency brine dump flash tank. The brine and condensate reinjection pipelines will be located above ground (except for where they cross beneath roads) to allow early identification of leaks and corrective action in the event that one occurs. The residual amount of spillage would depend on the location of the pipe failure with the worst case being if the failure is near the reinjection wellpad and drains the entire brine pipeline volume.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

18


2.5.9 Summary of Project Components

Table 2.1 summarises the currently identified Project components that form the focus of this ESIA for Ulubelu Units 3&4. The Feasibility Study concluded that for the Unit 3&4 power plant (110MWe net) a total of 16 production wells will be required. In addition, the total number of reinjection wells would be 4 large diameter wells for brine reinjection and a separate additional well would be needed for condensate reinjection. Although not currently identified in entirety, the three production wellpads (Clusters E, G and H) shown in Table 2.1 below will eventually accommodate up to six production wells each. A further reinjection well will also be required beyond those currently identified in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Main Project Components

Easting Northing Component

WSG 84 Projection

Area

(m2)

Land

Acquired

Drilled/

Built

Power Plant Units 3&4 452945 9413488 81,982.04 Yes No

Well A3 (UBL-18) 453184 9411106 Yes Wellpad Cluster A (a) (Reinjection) Well A4 (UBL-22) 453188 9411100

22,236.00 Yes Yes

Wellpad Cluster B (a) (Production)

Well B4 (UBL-15) 451995 9413499 52,144.00 (b) Yes Yes

Well E1 (UBL-10) 454291 9412758 Yes Wellpad Cluster E (Production) Well E2 (UBL-20) 454295 9412762

47,046.55 (b) Yes Yes

Well F2 (UBL-19) 454996 9412413 Yes Wellpad Cluster F (a) (Reinjection) Well F3 (UBL-21) 454998 9412406

31,115.68 (b) Yes Yes

Well G1 (UBL-23) 452477 9414224 Yes

Well G2 (UBL-24) 452477 9414217 No

Well G3 (UBL-25) 452481 9414210 No

Well G4 (UBL-26) 452482 9414204 No

Wellpad Cluster G (Production)

Well G5 (UBL-27) 452481 9414197

38,933.31 (b) Yes

No

Well H1 (UBL-28) 453128 9412412 No

Well H2 (UBL-29) 453130 9412405 No

Well H3 (UBL-30) 453133 9412399 No

Wellpad Cluster H (Production)

Well H4 (UBL-31) 453135 9412392

56,442.38 (b) (f) Yes

No

Water Pumping Station 1 455207 9409056 260.00 Yes Yes

Water Pumping Station 2 452690 9413615 2,224.13 Yes Yes

Water Pumping Station 3 454322 9411387 9,345.33 (c) Yes Yes

500m Plant Connection to PLN Grid (Switchyard Unit 1&2)

(d) (d) 2,150 No No

Production Pipeline Corridors (e) (e) 5,253.63 Yes No

Notes: (a) Area information is for entire wellpad although only specific wells identified are dedicated to Units 3&4.

(b) Includes area of road access.

(c) Includes land acquired for the water supply pipeline corridor.

(d) Exact routing not currently known. The transmission link will include at least three transmission towers each with a 20m

x 20m footprint and a line corridor width of 40m. The small area required for the tower bases and any area required to

ensure the safe operation of the transmission line will be acquired by PGE through a fair negotiated settlement. In addition,

compensation will be provided by PGE to secure the transmission line Right of Way.

(e) Routes between wellpads and power plant as indicated on Figure 2.3.

(f) Area acquired for Cluster H includes brine and condensate pipeline corridors to reinjection Clusters A and F.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

19


2.6 Schedule

Although development of the steam field, including Phases 1 to 3 identified above, has been going on since the mid 1990s, Project activities relevant to this assessment started in 2006 with land acquisition for Cluster B. Site preparation, detailed design, mobilisation, civil works and drilling have taken place since. Drilling was ongoing at Clusters A and F at the time of the June 2010 site visit.

Based on the schedule in the Feasibility Study report, the drilling works will include the drilling and testing of approximately 16 production wells (two production wells for Ulubelu Units 3&4 have already been drilled as of July 2010) and 4 brine reinjection wells and 1 condensate reinjection well. The drilling phase will continue at the beginning of 2011 on well pads already constructed by PGE including the newly constructed well pads (G and H). Meanwhile, drilling and testing of all new wells is expected to be complete in the third quarter of 2012. The total drilling phase is expected to take 18 months.

Construction of the steamfield above ground system (SAGS) and development of the Ulubelu Units 3&4 power plant is expected to take 2.5 years. Plant commissioning would be carried out in the first and second quarter of 2014 with Unit 3 and Unit 4 entering commercial operation in mid and late 2014 respectively.

2.7 Associated Projects

Associated projects are items of infrastructure that are required to enable or support the Project but do not form part of the Project or are not proposed by the Project proponents. There are no associated projects.

2.8 Activities Outside the Project Scope

Also located on the Ulubelu geothermal field, the geothermal Unit 1&2 power project is being separately developed by PLN (with financing from JICA) and it is anticipated that this plant will enter into commercial operation in 2012. PGE is also involved in this project as it is responsible for the drilling of production and reinjection wells to support Units 1&2 (development of Cluster C, Cluster D and some dedicated wells on Cluster A, Cluster B and Cluster F). The development of power plant Units 1&2 and corresponding well development is outside the project financing scope of the World Bank.

However, although the PLN and PGE power plants are separate developments, they will be located near each other, roughly in the centre of the clusters. In addition, some wellpad clusters will accommodate dedicated wells for one power plant or the other. There are no proposals for interconnection in the Ulubelu steamfield between respective projects. Therefore, although the Unit 1&2 development is not the focus of this ESIA, Units 1&2 has been considered where cumulative impacts are expected.

Independently from the Project under consideration in this ESIA, PLN will build a 150kV transmission line to connect Units 1&2 to the South Sumatra transmission grid. This connection will occur at the Batu Tegi hydro power plant located about 20km away. The transmission line is not considered to be a linked project as there is no interdependence relationship given that PLN is developing this connection in any case to support the development of Units 1&2. The development of the 20km transmission line was decided prior to Units 3&4 going ahead with the preparation of the AMDAL in 2004 for the transmission line and construction is underway with an expected completion date of June 2011 before Units 3&4 are built. The construction and operation of Units 3&4 cause no additional environmental or social impacts in the 20km transmission line corridor.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

20


Table 2.2 summarises the currently identified Unit 1&2 power plant components that are outside the scope of this ESIA other than where cumulative impacts are expected.

Table 2.2: Activities Outside the Project Scope

Easting Northing Component

WSG 84 Projection

Area

(m2)

Land

Acquired

Drilled/

Built

Power Plant Units 1&2 (a) 452575 9413125 NA Yes No

Well A1 (UBL-01) 453183 9411121 Yes Wellpad Cluster A (b)

Well A2 (UBL-09) 453184 9411114 22,236.00 Yes

Yes

Well B1 (UBL-02 451995 9413496 Yes

Well B2 (UBL-03) 451989 9413509 Yes

Well B3 (UBL-04) 451992 9413504 Yes Wellpad Cluster B (b)

Well B5 (UBL-16) 451945 9413499

52,144.00 (c) Yes

Yes

Well C1 (UBL-05) 452457 9412847 Yes

Well C2 (UBL-06) 452457 9412854 Yes

Well C3 (UBL-07) 452457 9412834 Yes Wellpad Cluster C

Well C4 (UBL-08) 452457 9412852

31,126.00 Yes

Yes

Well D1 (UBL-14) 453879 9413630 Yes

Well D2 (UBL-11) 453880 9413637 Yes

Well D3 (UBL-12) 453880 9413644 Yes Wellpad Cluster D

Well D4 (UBL-13) 453880 9413651

86,276.30 (c) Yes

Yes

Wellpad Cluster F (b) Well F1 (UBL-17) 454993 9412419 31,115.68 (c) Yes Yes

Notes: (a) The site was being prepared for construction during the visit of the Project team in June 2010, but the exact size of the

affected area is not known by PGE.

(b) Area information is for entire wellpad although only specific wells identified are dedicated to Units 1&2.

(c) Includes area of road access

2.9 Unit 5 Extension

PGE is considering the possibility of further exploiting the geothermal resources at Ulubelu with the addition of a fifth power generation unit, Unit 5. The Project AMDAL currently considers the development of Units 3, 4 and 5 for national permitting purposes. However, it is unclear whether there will be sufficient geothermal resources, and this uncertainty may prove too big a risk for such a scheme to go ahead. Given that World Bank financing is only being sought for the development of Units 3&4 coupled with the uncertainty over geothermal resource sufficiency, development of Unit 5 has not been considered in this ESIA.

Notwithstanding, should the development of Unit 5 be realised, the impacts of construction and operation can be expected to be similar to those identified for Units 3&4, and the same mitigation and monitoring measures would apply. However, in case there are additional potential impacts, PGE would be expected to prepare a supplemental ESIA to identify appropriate mitigation. As a minimum, the supplemental ESIA would include use of the air dispersion model to assess the cumulative impacts of atmospheric emissions from five generating units constituting the overall Ulubelu development on ambient air quality. In addition, the management and monitoring plans elaborated in this ESIA for the construction and operation of the current Project would be revised to incorporate any further development.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

21


3.1 Overview

This section provides a brief background on the need for the project in the region as well as an assessment of alternatives. The assessment of alternative sites, technologies and configurations has taken account of various criteria including the timing of the Project, the Project requirements, existing infrastructure, land use planning and the potential environmental impact. This section provides a summary of the design decisions made to date with reference to the above stated criteria.

3.2 Need for the Project

As a whole, Indonesia has been experiencing rapid growth in all segments of the energy sector for several years. Recently the national power supply has been described to be in ‘dire straits’ with power shortages in 250 regions, including Sumatra1, resulting in frequent blackouts. Energy locally is required to support the infrastructure developments that Sumatra needs to grow its economy2. The following points highlight the national and regional needs for development of additional energy sources with the objective of the Project being to: Contribute to national energy requirements for sustainable development; Contribute to regional energy requirements of Sumatra; Contribute to a diverse energy base to secure energy requirements for Sumatra; Provide continuous, reliable, high efficiency and low cost energy; Provide economic and social benefits on both a national and regional level; Provide employment opportunities to the community residing in the region and nearby; Contribute to the local economy, social and technical infrastructure; and Increase the diversity of energy resources.

The State Power Producer (PLN) has published a 10 year generation expansion plan to meet the predicted increase in demand from 2010-2019 (Lampiran RPTL 2010-2019). Current peak demand in Sumatra is 3,361MW and PLN have forecasted peak demand to grow by 9.3% per annum up to 2019. The existing system capacity margin is currently only 11% which has led to shortfalls in generation capacity resulting in blackouts on Sumatra. It is clear when comparing peak demand and the firm capacity, 3,361 MW and 3,913 MW respectively that there is a significant need for additional capacity to meet both short term and long term increases in power demand. PLN has estimated that an additional installed capacity of 8,947 MW is required in Sumatra in order to meet increasing demand. The predicted energy demand growth is on top of existing electricity supply shortages and it is expected that this shortage will continue in the short-run, at least until current planned power plant investments become operative, provided there are no delays in the implementation of the larger plants.

Currently coal fired power plants provide the majority of base load requirements in the area, however in future this is planned to be boosted by the expansion of a number of geothermal power plants.

_________________________

1 National power supply in dire straits, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 07/27/2010

2 Governors want speedy Sumatera development, The Jakarta Post, Bandar Lampung | Sat, 07/24/2010

3. Need for Project and Analysis of Alternatives

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

22


Table 3.1: Existing and Future Generation Mix

Generator Type Existing Firm Capacity (MW)

Future Planned Firm Capacity (MW)

Hydro & Mini – hydro 995 1,143

Geothermal 10 2,625

Diesel 222 0

Coal 943 3,528

Gas 1,743 1,651

Total System Capacity 3,913 8,947

Source: Feasibility Study for Ulubelu Geothermal Power Project, Final Report, 15th October 2010.

Given the existing shortages and predicted growth in energy demand the need for new energy generation facilities to be established and commissioned over the next few years is high. In particular geothermal provides an alternative solution to current dependence on coal to supply the majority of baseload demand.

Indonesia has more than 40 percent of the world’s geothermal reserves although in terms of developing its potential it is well behind other countries with geothermal resource such as the Philippines. In addition development of geothermal power projects offers the potential for Indonesia to meet its stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent over the next decade.3

3.3 Assessment of Alternative Site Locations

Search for potential geothermal prospects is carried out through geological mapping, geochemical sampling of springs and streams along with geophysical surveying such as resistivity (MT/TEM), gravity and mapping of magnetic anomalies. Shallow gradient wells (50-100 m) are used to map the extent of the thermal anomaly and slim holes may be drilled down to 500-1000 m depth to investigate temperatures at depth and for rock alteration studies prior to location and drilling of production and re-injection wells. The first slim wells along with the MT/TEM surveys can be used for volumetric assessment of a potential geothermal system which is then further improved through drilling of production wells. The volumetric assessment is used to predict the probability of possible power potential and sustainability of a geothermal system over a certain length of time, usually 25, 50 or 100 years. Monitoring wells are used to monitor and predict drop in temperature and pressure of the system with time and the performance of individual wells contributes to this also.

The general location of well pads and power station in geothermal developments is initially constrained by the overall geothermal resource. However the physical footprints of the power station, well pads, and access roads required are small in comparison to the overall exploitation area. The use of directional drilling of wells to reach the geothermal resource allows for the development of well pad clusters which can be sensitively located away from important receptors. Site selection process starts with a review of the topography of the area for selecting the location for well pads and power plant and determining routes for the process, reinjection pipes and gathering system. The selection of well pads to date has avoided dwellings and taken into consideration existing land use. In addition wells have been sited to avoid steep slopes and minimise removal of trees.

Following initial Project Development, any additional make-up wells required for the project will be drilled within existing well pads where possible. In the unlikely event that further wellpad development is required

_________________________

3 Indonesia Seeks to Tap Its Huge Geothermal Reserves, The New York Times, July 26, 2010

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

23


during the life of the project, site selection will take into account the presence of sensitive receptors (dwellings, land acquisition requirements, springs etc.). Despite recommendations in the Feasibility Study to exploit a potentially more prolific part of the reservoir in the northern area, PGE is not taking that option on the grounds of site access, difficulty (steep slopes) and sensitivity (forest).

The preferred site of the Units 3&4 Power Plant has been identified as close as possible to the PLN power plant Units 1&2, and the PLN substation thus reducing the length of transmission link required. In addition the site layout has to take into consideration the existing well pad locations and the terrain and natural elevation of the site to achieve the most efficient steam field collection system to the power plant. The layout chosen has aimed to maximise the natural elevation and eliminate the need for pumps within the system, which is instead powered by natural gravity and pressure within the system.

3.4 Assessment of Alternative Generating Technologies

The assessment of need for further base load electricity generation presented in Section 3.2 shows that in the short term there is expected to be a shortfall in generation. It should be noted that the gap between demand and installed generating capacity also does not take into account the need to maintain a certain reserve on the system. The current reserve of 11% is not a comfortable situation for reliable operation of the system given the poor availability of other plants (either due to age of plants or interruptions in fuel supply). Typically, utilities will look to have a margin of 20% or more4. The ability of different generating technologies to meet system requirements and also provide high availability and reliability are important considerations in generation planning. In particular, the Project is expected to provide reliable baseload power, which cannot be achieved by all alternatives.

By the nature of the organisation, PGE would have limited options in terms of developing an alternative electricity generation project. At its creation, PGE was specifically tasked with developing geothermal resources and would be unlikely to compete with PLN for other types of state-owned electricity generating plant, and would also be unlikely to compete on the Independent Power Producers (IPP) market. This has however been conservatively ignored in this chapter and the analysis of alternative is based on the assumption that PGE could potentially develop any other power project. Alternative solutions available to meet predicted demand include: Renewable energy (e.g. wind turbines, solar (both thermal and photovoltaic) panels, hydroelectric

power); Alternative thermal generation technology (coal, gas).

Compared to solar renewable options, geothermal offers significantly reduced land take requirements: for example a geothermal plant requires (per MW) 5% of the area needed for solar thermal plant5. This is an important consideration in Sumatra where agricultural activities remain one of the key sources of the economy. Compared to both wind and solar, geothermal offers the advantage of stable, continuous generation without the risks and storage issues related to intermittent electricity production. Wind and solar electricity generation options have therefore been screened out for the purpose of the detailed assessment of alternatives presented in Table 3.2.

An alternative renewable option would be the development of a hydro plant. It is considered that most economically advantageous resources for both hydro and geothermal would be developed as part of the

_________________________

4 PLN has a system capacity margin of 25%

5 DiPippo, R., 2007 2nd ed. Geothermal Power Plants: Principles, Applications, Case Studies and Environmental Impact, Butterworth-Heinemann Title.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

24


current power generation expansion plan for Sumatra (9,000MW), and that developing another hydro project as an alternative to the current Project would not be easily achieved.

The most likely alternatives in the absence of the Project would therefore be a gas or coal fired power plant. For base-load operation, i.e. plants which are operated continuously at more or less stable load, thermal generation is considered the most efficient way to generate electricity from a new plant, and given Sumatra’s available coal reserves, coal would be the most likely fuel source (the majority of gas is currently exported). In addition, the greater flexibility of gas turbines tends to make them more economically advantageous as load following plants rather than base load.

The current Project using geothermal generation has been compared with the most likely alternative, a new coal fired power plant, in Table 3.2. The comparison focuses on environmental and social parameters, although main technical and economic parameters have been taken into account.

The “no project” alternative would result in the continued development of the PLN Units 1&2 power plant and no development of the Unit 3&4 power plant. The need for the project in terms of meeting Sumatra’s growing energy demand as well as meeting Indonesia’s target of increasing its renewables capacity has already been demonstrated in the previous sections. Hence the no project alternative would result in a negative impact on meeting Indonesia’s energy and renewables targets. From an environmental and social perspective, the project is located within a rural agricultural setting, and as such no pristine habitat is being affected by the project. Indeed, many of the impacts associated with Project development are already realised by the existing development of the Units 1&2 power plant. The area locally is poor and it is unlikely that other large development projects will move into the area in future. Therefore, a ‘no project’ alternative would not result in some of the benefits being brought by the project (such as PGE community investment plans, potential rural electrification, and some job opportunities). However, the Project does have the potential to result in various environmental impacts without the correct mitigation measures being implemented. Overall it is believed that mitigation measures are available to limit predicted impacts (including cumulative) and subject to their implementation; the ‘no project’ alternative would result in a loss of potentially beneficial opportunities being realised within in the project area. The “no project” alternative would also not capitalise on the existing geothermal resource in the Ulubelu area thus resulting in an only partial exploitation.

This comparative review illustrates the benefits of geothermal generation over coal for this project. In addition, the choice of geothermal generation meets several national objectives: Greater baseload generation mix; Semi- renewable resource exploiting Indonesia’s large geothermal reserves; Contributing to the goal to achieve over 2,000 MW of geothermal energy in next 10 years; Displacing use of coal and gas nationally, increasing availability for export; Supporting objective to achieve 26% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020; Reduction in overall environmental impacts over alternatives such as coal, oil or gas thermal power

plants; The project takes advantage of a known geothermal resource with an existing power plant development

thereby capitalising on its exploitation.

A geothermal generation plant is considered to be the most appropriate solution for achieving the objectives of this project as well as the overall power generation expansion plan for Indonesia.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

25


Table 3.2: Analysis of Alternative Generating Technologies

Parameter Geothermal Coal Comparison

Water requirements and effluent discharges

Minimal water requirements (<20,000 t/yr) and discharges, essentially during construction. Brine and condensate is reinjected.

As a minimum, water is required during operation for demin water top-up, cooling water system, ash transport and other chemical plants such as flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) if installed. Significant quantities (>150Mt/yr) are required if once-through cooling is adopted.

Effluents include outfall of cooling system, ash transport, wastewater regeneration, acid wash water from the boilers and surface runoff from coal yard and ash lagoon.

Geothermal has significant benefits in terms of water requirements and discharges.

Noise During construction, drilling activities can cause significant noise levels. Impact depends largely on site location.

During operation, key sources are associated with the power house.

No drilling but potentially more significant civil works can generate noise.

Similar sources of noise are present in a coal plant, but other items contribute to the overall noise levels, such as coal reclaimer, coal mill, stack and air emissions abatement technologies if present.

Very location dependent. A geothermal plant would be quieter due to the lower amount of noisy equipment required.

Ecology Relatively small footprint and indirect impacts. Potentially similar footprint although potentially more significant impacts on marine / river ecology from cooling system.

In absolute, geothermal has lower impacts. Limitations in the choice of sites may results in impacts on more sensitive ecology.

Emissions to Air

The only significant pollutant gases are H2S and CO2. CO2 is not a local pollutant and climate change impacts are discussed below.

Depending on the coal type, coal tends to generate significant quantities of NOx, SOx, particulates and CO2, as well as smaller quantities of HF, HCl and metals.

State of the art abatement technologies (flue gas desulphurisation, selective catalytic reduction, electrostatic precipitators) are unlikely to be economically feasible for a plant of 110MW size.

The issue of cost and availability of abatement technologies applies equally, although more pollutants need to be controlled for coal. Depending on site and dispersion, both options can cause pollution but, all other parameters being equal, control of air emissions would be less costly for a geothermal plant.

Energy Efficiency

Not directly comparable as steam is already available to a geothermal plant and is considered semi-renewable.

Significant losses in converting chemical energy from the fuel into steam. Highest energy efficiencies (>40%) would be obtained by supercritical coal fired plant, which would only be feasible for units bigger than the unit size considered (110MW).

Comparing only the steam conversion to electricity, both power plants would be comparable, but the coal plant would have significantly higher auxiliary load (own power consumption).

Geothermal is considered a better option in terms of use of energy.

Climate change

CO2 intensity has been estimated at 102kg/MWh. CO2 intensity has been estimated at 1,099 kg/MWh. Geothermal is significantly better in terms of GHGs emissions.

Raw Material As steam is reinjected, use of raw materials would be In addition to large quantities of coal (>500,000t/yr), Geothermal is largely the preferred option with regard

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

26


Parameter Geothermal Coal Comparison

Use minimal, with potentially some chemicals for acid wells treatment, descaling, cleaning etc.

the plant would require large quantities of water treatment chemicals and makeup water for the steam cycle as well as raw materials for the FGD (seawater or limestone) and the SCR (ammonia).

to raw materials use.

Waste Solid waste during construction would include cuttings and excess soil (150,000t).

Solid waste during operation would be minimal, comprising essentially cooling towers sludge and domestic waste.

Outside drilling materials, excavated materials would be larger for a coal plant on a comparable site.

Furnace Bottom ash will require specialist disposal. Fly ash would be produced in significant quantities (20,000t/yr6).

Wet FGD processes produce gypsum slurry as a waste product. (However, this can be sold on as wallboard material).

Particulate material if removed from the flue gas will include pollutants such as PAH, dioxin, heavy metals, traces elements and chlorides.

Sludge that will require specialist disposal arising from oil separators, water treatment works, cooling water system.

Coal fired generation has a significantly larger impact in terms of waste production.

Footprint The total footprint, including the wells, is estimated at 35 Ha.

The total footprint, including the coal stockpile and ash disposal areas is estimated at 95 Ha.

In the case of Ulubelu, coal fired generation has a significantly larger project footprint. However, this comparison is very dependent on the nature of the geothermal field being developed. In reality, the footprint for the geothermal plant may be more and comparative to an equivalent sized coal plant.

_________________________

6 Based on MML coal experience in Indonesia, scaled for a 110MW plant.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

27


3.5 Design Alternatives

Geothermal resources vary widely from one location to another, depending on the temperature and depth of the resource, the rock chemistry and the abundance of groundwater. The configurations listed in this chapter give an indication of possible installations in the regions mentioned herein and are not conclusive. The type of geothermal resource determines the method of its utilization as well as consideration of cost. Factors influencing the cost include steam supply pressure, transmission of steam to the power plant, corrosive nature of the geothermal fluids etc. Energy demand and price are also a deciding factor when choosing an economically viable power plant configuration. It is common to employ a phased construction e.g. starting first phase with a single flash power plant, then adding another flash process or a binary cycle.

The Project will consist of 2x55MW single flash steam plants. The single flash steam plant is the most commonly installed configuration in the geothermal power industry and is often the first power plant installed at a newly developed liquid dominated geothermal field. Single flash plants account for about 32% of all geothermal plants and constitute over 42% of the total installed geothermal power capacity in the world. Other plant configurations include double flash, binary, combined flash binary and even hybrid solar geothermal systems that are being developed. As stated above new fields are generally initially exploited using single flash configuration given the potential uncertainty of how the resource will react. From an environmental perspective the different configurations do not introduce any significant advantages or disadvantages over other configuration types.

The following table provides a brief comparison of technology options chosen for the Project and identifies the advantages/disadvantages provided from an environmental perspective.

Table 3.3: Comparison of Environmental Aspects of Design Options

Type of System Chosen Design Option Other Possible Alternatives Environmental Impact

Steam control and venting system

Scrubber pressure control

None -

Turbine constant steam pressure

Variable steam vent to rock muffler

None -

Brine and steam condensate injection System

Re-injection of fluid from separators to geothermal reservoir

None

Brine temperature to be reinjected is 160°C at 6,2 bara.

Brine temperature to be reinjected is 160°C at 6,2 bara.

Not possible to dump brine to environment due to chemical and thermal pollution.

Steam condensate from turbines

Cooling tower condensation

Air cooling is possible, requires more space, energy and is more expensive.

Chemical buildup in circulation water for cooling water for condensation.

Thermal Cycle Options Single flash condensing steam plant

Binary plant in combination with single flash plant increases plant output.

Higher cost and complexity for higher (MW) production for same well flow.

Binary plant would increase plant output at later stages and increase the efficiency of the power plant.

Drilling and well location Directional drilling with many wells at same well pad.

Vertical drilling Vertical drilling requires greater number of well pads. In most cases one well per pad. More land and pipeline requirements and disturbance at surface.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

28


4.1 Overview

The following sub-sections provide an overview of the legislative structure and ESIA process in Indonesia as well as a list of key environmental legislation applicable to geothermal power projects. It also provides an overview of World Bank and other relevant international requirements including identification of applicable World Bank Operational Policies as well as applicable World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines.

4.2 Indonesia

4.2.1 Overview

This summary of relevant Indonesia legislation is structured as follows: Legislative structure in Indonesia; Central and Regional / Local Governments’ Authority; Overarching Indonesia environmental legislation and governmental authority; Geothermal environmental planning process; AMDAL (national ESIA) process; Additional ESIA legislation relevant to the development of the Project.

Specific quantitative environmental standards where they exist relating to geothermal development in Indonesia are presented in Appendix A, Volume III.

4.2.2 Indonesian Legislative Structure

Indonesia is a republic based upon the 1945 Constitution, as amended, or the Constitution of the Proclamation. According to Law No. 10 of 2004 Regarding Establishment of Laws and Regulations, the types and hierarchy of legislation are as follows: 1945 Constitution; Law/Statute/Act/Government Regulation as a Replacement of Law; Government Regulation (to implement the Law); Presidential Regulation; and Regional Regulation (Peraturan Daerah or Perda).

Although it is not stipulated in the hierarchy of legislation explained above, in governance practice, Ministers or the heads of executive departments can also issue regulations or guidelines to implement Laws, Government Regulations and Presidential Decrees. These are: Ministerial Decrees; Ministerial Instructions; and Circular Letters (which do not have the weight of a regulation).

In addition to Perda, which must be approved by both local parliament and local government, local technical regulations may also be proposed by the provincial governor or Regent (Bupati) / Mayor (Walikota) to implement Perda as follows: Governor/Regent/Mayor Decisions; Governor/Regent/Mayor Instructions; and Circular Letters (which do not have the weight of a regulation).

4. Legislation and Planning

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

29


4.2.3 Central and Regional / Local Governments’ Authority

Based on Presidential Regulation No. 9 of 2005 Regarding Position, Task, Function, Composition and Work of the State Minister of the Republic of Indonesia (as amended), the Minister for the Environment (MOE) acts as a coordinating and policy formulating body, and is responsible for preparing drafts of environmental legislation to be adopted by the executive branch. The MOE also issues the guidelines to determine ambient air quality and effluent quality standards for industry, as well as other technical guidance, which are adopted by sectoral (technical) agencies to implement pollution control. Sectoral departments, such as the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, are responsible for environmental management within their technical jurisdictions, while the local governments are mandated by government regulations to manage environmental concerns within their regional jurisdiction, as part of an integrated national environmental management program.

The national environmental impact management agency, BAPEDAL (Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan), established in 1990 by Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1990 Regarding BAPEDAL, was dissolved at the Central Government level in 2002. BAPEDAL’s tasks and functions were merged into the MOE. BAPEDAL offices continue to exist at the provincial, regency, and municipality levels (Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan Daerah or BAPEDALDA).

Other environmental, health and safety institutions relevant to the Project include the following: Ministry of Health (Departemen Kesehatan) - drinking water quality, sanitation; Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (Departemen Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral) - issuing

permits, monitoring mining activities, and enforcing relevant regulations; Ministry of Law and Human Rights (Departemen Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia) - environmental

legislation and codification; Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration (Departemen Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi) - working

environment, occupational health;

4.2.4 Overarching Indonesian Environmental Legislation

The introduction of Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management provides the overarching framework for Indonesian environmental legislation. Law No. 32/2009 is intended to strengthen the authority of the MOE and other provincial agencies to enforce environmental regulations. It is also intended to clarify ambiguities over levels of authority introduced with regional autonomy.

According to Law No. 32 of 2009, the MOE might get involved at all government levels (i.e. at the National Government, Provincial Government or Regency/City Government levels) in case of a violation of enforcement of various environmental protection and management regulations. Currently, the implementation regulations of Law No. 32 of 2009 and the laws on decentralisation are being prepared by the Government.

Law No. 32 of 2009 has a number of provisions/stipulations that must be followed by a business or project with the potential to impact the environment, including geothermal projects: The AMDAL or UKL/UPL will be presented to the AMDAL Appraisal Commission (Komisi Penilai

AMDAL) for approval. (Article 29). The AMDAL document will be evaluated by the AMDAL Appraisal Commission established by the Minister, Governor, or Regent/Mayor based on their authority which is primarily the area the project covers, e.g. If it covers two provinces then it would be the Environmental Minister.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

30


Every business or project that requires an AMDAL or UKL/UPL must have an Environmental Permit issued by the Minister, Governor or Regent/Mayor. (Article 36)

The government shall motivate parties responsible for business and/or activity to conduct environmental audit in the framework of enhancing environmental performance. (Article 48)

The Minister shall require environmental audits for certain businesses and/or activities which pose a high level of risk to the environment; and/or parties responsible for businesses and/or activities which fail to comply with the legislation. (Article 49). It should be noted that this is at the ministerial level.

The Minister may supervise the compliance of parties if the government considers serious violations to have occurred. (Article 71).

Investigators within government institutions in charge of environmental protection and management are authorized to act to investigate environmental crimes. (Article 94).

Law No. 32 of 2004 Regarding Regional Autonomy (as amended) implemented by Government Regulation No. 38 of 2007 Regarding Distribution of Power among the Central Government, the Provincial Government and the Regency / Municipal Government results in the regional government retaining powers over environmental issues including issuing permits for development activities. The regional government of Minahasa District is therefore responsible for the environmental permitting of the project.

4.2.5 Geothermal Environmental Planning Process

Geothermal development is specifically addressed in Indonesia by Law No. 27 of 2003 Regarding Geothermal Energy as implemented by Government Regulation No. 59 of 2007 on Geothermal Business Activities. One of the objectives of the legislation is to encourage development of geothermal resources to meet the national energy demand.

The introduction of the Law No 27 of 2003 states the following: Geothermal is a large scale potential resource for renewable energy, controlled by the state and is one

of many energy sources in the national energy diversity, supporting sustainable national development in improving people's welfare;

The utilisation of geothermal energy is relatively environmentally friendly, mainly because it doesn't contribute to greenhouse gases, so development should be encouraged.

Responsibilities identified under Law 27 of 2003 include the following: District's authority in geothermal mining management:

to develop laws and regulations in the sector of geothermal mining to be applied in the district; to provide guidance and conduct monitoring towards mining activities in the district; to grant permits and to supervise geothermal mining activities in the district; to manage geological information on geothermal potential in the district; to prepare inventory list and balance sheet of geothermal reserves in the district; to encourage community empowerment in or around the Working Area of geothermal mining activity

in the district; District's authority as described above shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of applied

legislations and regulations.

Under Law No.27 of 2003, areas that can not be included in the Working area include: Public cemetery, holy/sacred places, public places, public facilities and infrastructure, natural reserves,

cultural heritage, and land owned by indigenous people; National defence property and structure, and the area surrounding it; and Historical structure/building and state symbols.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

31


While these are clauses are not specifically included in Government Regulation No. 59 of 2007, they have been replaced by statements aimed to ensure that projects do not adversely impact public utilities, holy/sacred places and cultural heritage.

It is stipulated in Government Regulation No. 59 of 2007 that the process of geothermal business activities is as follows: Preliminary Survey; Exploration; Feasibility Study; Exploitation, and Utilisation.

Under transitional provision of Government Regulation No. 59 of 2007, all geothermal permits for power generation and other geothermal business issued prior to the enactment of the Regulation remain valid until the permits expire and are to be renewed in accordance with the corresponding provisions. However, if the permit for a Working Area has been issued but not exploited before October 21st, 2010, then the transitional provisions do not apply and the new regulations are in force.

Central government authorities’ role in managing geothermal business activities is mainly in the policy sectors including development of legislation on geothermal activities, national policies, and permit issuance and operation monitoring of inter-province Geothermal business operation. Provincial government authorities’ role includes development of provincial level legislation, policies and permit issuance and operation monitoring of inter-district geothermal business operation. Finally, district government authorities’ role includes development of local regulation, local permit issuance and operational monitoring, as well as community empowerment around the geothermal business location.

Government Regulation No. 59 of 2007 states that Ministers, Governors, and Head of District must provide guidance and monitor geothermal business related activities including: Technical, financial, planning, reporting, scheduling, and resource management of exploration activities; Technical, financial, planning, reporting, production, reserves, and resource management of exploitation

activities; Financial; Data management of resources and reserves, injection wells, production wells, reservoirs characteristic,

and production; Conservation of mining materials; Worker health and safety; Environmental management, including the development and implementation of AMDAL as well as

environmental monitoring and management efforts, and reclamation plan; Human resource capacity building; Developing and capacity building on geothermal business technologies; Other activities related to public interests such as ensuring minimum radius of drilling location to public

utilities, compensation settlements for damages caused, and securing public facilities, cultural heritage, and holy/sacred places; and

Application of good economic and technical principles.

The implementation of Government Regulation No. 59 of 2007 must be synergized with Law No. 30/2009 Regarding Electricity to ensure that an integrated system of up and down stream business and utilisation of geothermal energy produced is considered.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

32


The Decree of the Minister of Energy and Mineral resources No. 1457 K/28/MEM/2000 on the Technical Guidance for Environmental Management in the Mining and Energy Sector provides for the technical norms and guidelines applied to the environmental management of mining and energy production and exploitation sites.

Given that a large number of geothermal wells may be located in forested areas, protection forests and natural reserves, Law No. 41 of 1999 Regarding Forestry stipulates that no open mining is allowed within the protection forest areas, defined as national parks and various types of reserves for nature conservation, wildlife and hunting. The use of forest region for mining can only be done through the permit from The Minister of Forestry.

4.2.6 AMDAL (National ESIA) Process

In Indonesia, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) as a planning tool is known as Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (AMDAL). AMDALs are undertaken at the planning stage of a project to provide input: to the regional spatial planning; to help the authorities decide on project feasibility; to provide input to the project’s detailed design and plan; to provide input to the environment management and monitoring plan; for consultation with the impacted community and project stakeholders.

MOE Decree No. 11 of 2006 on Activities Requiring AMDAL requires geothermal power generation projects greater than 55MW and transmission lines greater than 150kV to follow the AMDAL process. Projects under this threshold are only required to prepare environmental management and monitoring plans known as UKL (Upaya Pengelolaan Lingkungan) and UPL (Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan). Given that the Project is to be 100MW in size, it is required to prepare a full AMDAL.

The overall Ulubelu development has been separated into four different stages for the purposes of AMDAL processes, comprising the initial Ulubelu steam field development (2003), the PLN Units 1&2 power plant (2004), the PLN 20km transmission line to Batu Tegi (2004) and the PGE Units 3&4 power plant and remaining steam field (2010). The AMDAL process for Units 3&4 and remaining steamfield has been completed, and approval from the Head of the Environment Agency of Lampung Province was issued on October 20th 2010. PGE has consulted with the Environment Agency of Lampung Province on the environmental assessment requirements for the construction of the 500m transmission link from Units 3&4 to the PLN substation. It has been concluded that a UKL/UPL will be required to address the 500m transmission link and PGE will be undertaking this study in the near future.

Supporting regulations for the implementation of AMDAL or UKL / UPL has been established and enacted: Law No. 32 of 2009 Regarding Environmental Protection and Management; Head of BAPEDAL Decree No. 8 of 2000 on Guidelines for Public Disclosure and Public Consultation in

AMDAL; Head of BAPEDAL Decree No. 9 of 2000 on Minimum Standard of AMDAL Terms of Reference. MOE Decree No. 86 of 2002 Regarding Guidance on the Preparation of UKL / UPL; MOE Decree No.11 of 2006 on Activities Requiring AMDAL; MOE Decree No.5 of 2008 on AMDAL Evaluator Working Guidelines; MOE Decree No.24 of 2009 Regarding Guidelines in Evaluating AMDAL Document; MOE Decree No. 7 of 2010 Regarding Competence Certification in developing AMDAL document and

Requirements for Institution Providing Training for AMDAL Researcher.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

33


The process of AMDAL and UKL /UPL in Indonesia is illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: AMDAL Process Overview

In addition to the above mentioned regulations on AMDAL and UKL/UPL, specific regulations relating to project activities and impacts, i.e. water resource management and conservation, air pollution, toxic waste, land use, etc., will be applicable and are listed in Section 4.2.7.

Specific quantitative environmental standards where they exist relating to geothermal development in Indonesia are presented in Appendix A, Volume III.

The AMDAL for the Project has been completed and approved by the Environment Agency of Lampung Province on October 20th 2010.

The separate AMDAL process for elements of the steamfields was completed earlier.

PGE has consulted with the Environment Agency of Lampung Province on the environmental assessment requirements for the construction of the 500m transmission link from Units 3&4 to the PLN substation. It has been concluded that a UKL/UPL will be required to address the 500m transmission link and PGE will be undertaking this study in the near future.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

34


4.2.7 Additional ESIA legislation relevant to the development of the Project

4.2.7.1 Overview

The following sub-sections present additional Indonesian legislation relevant to the ESIA of the Project which has not been previously mentioned above. A short description of the relevance of the legislation is also provided. The section is structured as follows: Presentation of relevant Indonesian Laws; Presentation of relevant Government Regulations; Presentation of relevant Environmental Management Agency (BAPEDAL) Decrees. Presentation of relevant Ministry of Environment Decrees. Presentation of other Ministerial Decrees / Circular Letters.

4.2.7.2 Indonesian Laws Law No. 11 of 1967 regarding Mining Principles; is used to consider relevant mining activities. Law No. 1 of 1970 regarding Work Safety; is relevant to the protection of the workforce. Law No. 5 of 1990 regarding Conservation of Natural Resources and Ecosystems; is used as one of

references in reviewing existing environment conditions and impact analysis. Law No. 23 of 1992 regarding Health; is used for reference in studying conditions and general

requirements of public health. Law No. 24 of 1992 regarding Spatial Planning; is used for consideration in assessing land use aspects

and regional planning. Law No. 5 of 1992 regarding Items of Cultural Property; relevant to protection of cultural heritage. Law No. 5 of 1994 regarding Ratification of UN Conservation on Biodiversity; as a basis for biological

diversity review. Law No. 41 of 1999 Regarding Forestry; stipulates that no open mining is allowed within the protection

forest areas. Law No. 13 of 2003 regarding Manpower; employment related to the project must fulfil the terms

specified in this law. Law No. 7 of 2004 regarding Water Resources; the Project will use water for its activities which will

come from local sources. Law No. 17 of 2004 regarding ratification of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change; the Project activities have the potential to emit greenhouse gases although represents a significant reduction compared with other alternative thermal power generation.

Law No. 30 of 2007 regarding Energy; sets out renewable energy policy including geothermal. Law No. 14 of 2008 regarding Undisclosed Public Information; AMDAL documents are undisclosed

public information. Law No. 22 of 2009 regarding Traffic and Road; covering vehicles and road traffic.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

35


4.2.7.3 Government Regulations (PP) PP No. 35 of 1991 regarding Rivers; relevant to siting of Project objects in vicinity of rivers. PP No. 10 of 1993 regarding the implementation of National Law No. 5 of 1992; relevant to the

protection of cultural heritage. PP No. 7 of 1999 regarding Preservation of Flora and Fauna Types; as a consideration for ecological

assessment. PP No. 18 of 1999 regarding Management of Toxic and Hazardous Wastes; the Project has the

potential to produce hazardous and toxic waste (classified as B3) so consideration for management of such wastes is required.

PP No. 27 of 1999 regarding Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment (AMDAL); as a reference for Indonesian ESIA practices.

PP No. 41 of 1999 regarding Air Pollution Control; relevant to the control of emissions and includes ambient air quality criteria but does not include ambient criteria for hydrogen sulphide (H2S) concentrations.

PP No. 85 of 1999 amending PP No. 18 of 1999 regarding Management of Toxic and Hazardous Wastes; amends aforementioned regulation.

PP No. 25 of 2000 regarding Government Authority and Provincial Authority as Autonomy Regions; as a reference in formulating environmental management and monitoring plan, especially in relation to local institutions.

PP No. 74 of 2001 regarding the Management of Hazardous and Toxic Material; provides requirements on the Project for transportation, storage and use of materials considered hazardous and toxic (B3).

PP No. 82 of 2001 regarding Management of Water Quality and Water Pollution Control; provides requirements on water quality management, water pollution control and wastewater disposal of relevance to the project.

PP No. 38 of 2007 regarding the Sharing of Responsibilities between Central, Provincial and Regency Governments; clarifies the role of central, regional and local government authorities in environmental sector.

PP No. 43 of 2008 regarding Ground Water; provides requirements on ground water protection. PP No. 15 of 2010 regarding Implementation of Spatial Planning; concerning change of land use in

spatial planning processes

4.2.7.4 Decree of Environmental Management Agency (BAPEDAL) BAPEDAL Decree No. 56 of 1994 regarding Guidelines for Significant Impacts Measurements; as a

reference in evaluating significant and magnitude of impacts. BAPEDAL Decree No. KEP-01/Bapedal/09/1995 regarding Technical Procedures and Requirements on

Storages and Collections of Hazardous and Toxic (B3) Wastes; as a reference in evaluating ESMP. BAPEDAL Decree No. KEP-02/Bapedal/09/1995 regarding Hazardous and Toxic (B3) Wastes Manifest;

as a reference in evaluating B3 wastes management and ESMP. BAPEDAL Decree No. KEP-03/Bapedal/09/1995 regarding Technical Requirements on Hazardous and

Toxic (B3) Wastes Management; as a reference in preparing ESMP. BAPEDAL Decree No. KEP-05/Bapedal/09/1995 regarding Symbols and Labelling of B3 Waste; as a

reference in preparing ESMP. BAPEDAL Decree No. KEP-299/ Bapedal/11/ 1996 regarding Technical Guidelines on Social Aspects

Review for AMDAL Formulation; as a reference in reviewing socio-economic and culture of project sites.

BAPEDAL Decree No. 08 year 2000 regarding Public Involvement in Information Disclosure of AMDAL Processes; as a reference for purposes of public consultations as part of the AMDAL process.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

36


4.2.7.5 Decree of Ministry of Environment MOE Decree No.48 of 1996 regarding Noise Standard; relevant to noise impact assessment. MOE Decree No.50 of 1996 regarding Odour Standard; includes odour standard. See Appendix A,

Volume III for more information on application of this standard. MOE Decree No. 112 of 2003 regarding Quality Standard of Wastewater for Business and Domestic;

domestic wastewater discharges from the Project must comply with this standard. MOE Regulation No.21 of 2008, regarding Air Emissions from Thermal Power Plants; includes H2S

emission standards for geothermal power plant of relevance to the air quality assessment. MOE Regulation No.04 of 2007 regarding Wastewater Quality Standard for Oil and Gas and

Geothermal Activities; provides quantitative wastewater discharge standards relevant to the Project. MOE Regulation No.08 of 2009 regarding wastewater standards for thermal power generation plants;

provides quantitative wastewater discharge standards relevant to the Project. MOE Regulation No.18 of 2009 regarding Licensing Procedures for Management of Hazardous and

Toxic Wastes; as a reference in preparing ESMP.

4.2.7.6 Other Ministerial Decrees / Circular Letters Decree of Ministry of Mines and Energy No. 02.P/20/M/PE/1990 regarding Exploration and Exploitation

of Safety Work on Geothermal Resources; determines type of well production testing in relation to proximity to local communities.

Decree of Ministry of Health Regulation No. 416/MENKES/PER/IX/1990 regarding Requirements for Monitoring of Water Quality; as a reference in preparing ESMP.

Presidential Decree No. 32 of 1990 regarding Management of Protected Areas; as reference for hydrology and ecology assessments of Project features in relation to rivers.

Joint Ministerial Decree of Public Works and Mines and Energy No. 04/1991 and 0076.K/101/M.PE/1991 respectively regarding Utilization of Water or Water Sources for Mining Activities, including Oil and Gas and Geothermal Businesses; as a reference in reviewing hydrological parameters and water quality as well formulation of environmental impacts management plan.

Minister of Public Work Regulation No. 63 of 1993 regarding Line Border Rivers, Regional Benefits River, River Region and Former River courses; as a reference in preparing ESMP.

Decree of Ministry of Mines and Energy No. 555.K/26/M.PE/1995 regarding Occupational Health and Safety in General Mining Activities; as a reference in reviewing and formulating H&S aspects.

Ministry of Manpower Letter No. SE-01/MEN/1997 regarding Ambient Threshold Limit of Chemical Factor in Working Environment; provides occupational H2S exposure limits.

Ministry of Manpower Decree No. KEP51/MEN/1999 regarding Physical Factor in Working Environment; provides occupational noise limits.

Presidential Regulation 65 of 2006: Revision to Perpres 36/2005 regarding Land Acquisition for Public Purposes; relevant to Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework (see Appendix C, Volume III).

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

37


4.3 World Bank and International Requirements

4.3.1 International Conventions and Agreements

The following international environmental agreements and conventions have been ratified by Indonesia and are applicable to this Project, where relevant these will be discussed in further detail within relevant chapters: Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat – RAMSAR –

ratified 1992 (three RAMSAR sites 656,510 ha); Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Animal Wildlife (CMS); Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – 1978

(accession); Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage – 1989 (accession); Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – ratified 1995; International Tropical Timber Agreement (1994); ILO Fundamental Human Rights Conventions – member since 1944: Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (Conventions 87/98) – ratified 1998/1957; Elimination of Forced and Compulsory Labour (Conventions 29/105) – ratified 1950/1999; Elimination of Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (Conventions 100/111) –

ratified 1958/1999; Abolition of Child Labour (Conventions 138/182) – ratified 1999/2000; Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention (Convention 169) – Indonesia has not ratified this latest

convention; Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their

Disposal – 1993 (accession); United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – 1994; and Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - 2004.

4.3.2 World Bank Operational Policies

4.3.2.1 Overview

Developers seeking financing from the World Bank are required to comply with the applicable bank environmental and social safeguards operational policies. A summary of the key objectives of relevant safeguards policies are provided below:

Operational Policy 4.01 – Environmental Assessment: provides framework for World Bank environmental safeguard policies and describes project screening and categorisation to determine level of environmental assessment required. For category A and B projects the policy requires public consultation and disclosure to be undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment process. If indigenous people are found to be affected, in addition to consultation, it is necessary to prepare a plan to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on such groups and ensure that they have access to project benefits to the extent that they wish to. Finally the policy sets out requirement to comply and report on implementation of any environmental management plans (i.e. mitigation measures, monitoring programme etc).

Operational Policy 4.04 – Natural Habitats – outlines the World Bank policy on biodiversity conservation taking into account ecosystem services and natural resource management and use by project affected people. Projects must assess potential impacts on biodiversity and the policy strictly limits circumstances

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

38


under which conversion or degradation of natural habitats can occur as well as prohibiting projects which are likely to result in significant loss of critical natural habitats.

Operational Policy 4.09 - Pest Management - Rural development and health sector projects have to avoid using harmful pesticides. Other pesticides can be used, but only as an element of an Integrated Pest Management Plan that emphasises environmental and biological controls. The policy encourages the use of Integrated pest Management in the whole of the sectors concerned.

Operational Policy 4.10 – Indigenous Peoples – recognises that indigenous peoples may be exposed to different types of risks and impacts from development projects. The policy requires projects to identify whether indigenous peoples are affected by the project and if so to undertake specific consultation activities and to avoid or mitigate impacts on this potentially vulnerable group.

Operational Policy 4.11 – Physical Cultural Resources – policy sets out World Bank requirement to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts resulting from project developments on cultural resources

Operational Policy 4.12 – Involuntary Resettlement – World Bank aims to avoid involuntary resettlement where possible. Where necessary or acquisition of land or other assets is necessary, the policy sets out requirements for participation in resettlement planning, mandates compensation for assets at replacement cost, and expects the borrower to see that incomes and standards of living of affected persons are improved or at least restored to what they were prior to displacement.

Operational Policy 4.36 – Forests – this policy recognises the need to reduce deforestation and promote sustainable forest conservation and management in reducing poverty.

Operational Policy 4.37 - Safety on Dams – this policy requires that experienced and competent professionals design and supervise construction, and that the borrower adopts and implements dam safety measures through the project cycle. It recommends, where appropriate, that Bank staff discuss with the borrowers any measures necessary to strengthen the institutional, legislative, and regulatory frameworks for dam safety programs in those countries. For large dams, the borrower must engage an independent Dam Safety Panel.

Operational Policy / Bank Procedure 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways - may affect the relations between the World Bank and its borrowers, and between riparian states. Therefore, the Bank attaches great importance to the riparian’s making appropriate agreements or arrangements for the entire waterway, or parts thereof, and stands ready to assist in this regard. A borrower must notify other riparian’s of planned projects that could affect water quality or quantity, sufficiently far in advance to allow them to review the plans and raise any concerns or objections.

Operational Policy / Bank Procedure 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas – similarly, such projects may affect the relations between the Bank and its borrowers, and between the claimants to the disputed area. Therefore, the Bank will only finance projects in disputed areas when either there is no objection from the other claimant to the disputed area, or when the special circumstances of the case support Bank financing, notwithstanding the objection.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

39


4.3.2.2 Applicable Policies

As explained below, two of the safeguards policies are actually “triggered” for the Project (Operational Policy 4.01 and 4.12) based on the site visits and assessments undertaken during preparation of this ESIA: Operational Policy 4.01 is triggered and the Project falls into Category A, which implies a full

assessment to be carried out. It is the basis of this ESIA. Operational Policy 4.04 is not triggered. Although the Project area is located in close proximity to

Protection Forest (Hutan Lindung), the PGE sites and activities are all located outside the Hutan Lindung. PGE has consulted with the Forestry Ministry before choosing the wells, roads and plant locations. Furthermore, the location permission (Ijin Lokasi) has been received by PGE from the Regency Tanggamus. The receipt of this permission from the Regency Tanggamus rather than the Ministry of Forestry confirms that the project is not located in a Hutan Lindung area because, the awarding authority for Ijin Lokasi is dependent on whether the project is located in or outside designated forest areas. This correspondence confirmation Ijin Lokasi is presented in Appendix I, Volume III. Further confirmation is evident from the Spatial Plan for the Province of Lampung (dated 27th May 2010)7. Appendix IV of the Spatial Plan presents the landuse plan for the Lampung Province. This is presented in Appendix K of Volume III with the location of the Project identified. The location of the Project is outside the Hutan Lindung on the Spatial Plan. The approximate 500m buffer between the closest Project site to the Hutang Lindung is considered sufficient to ensure that noise and other disturbance from Project activities do not directly impact the Hutan Lindung. The potential impacts of H2S emissions are negligible. This is further discussed in the ecology section and other relevant sections within the ESIA such as air quality. The Project sites earmarked for geothermal field development consists of highly modified habitats of low conservation value, with paddy fields, plantations, vegetable crops, herbs and spices. No natural habitat or protection forest is affected by the Project.

Operational Policy 4.09 is not triggered as the Project will not use or promote the use of pesticides. Operational Policy 4.10 is not triggered. No Indigenous People or ethnic minority have been identified

by PGE or the Local AMDAL Consultants or MML as part of the various assessments, surveys and consultation events carried out.

Operational Policy 4.11 is not triggered. Although several religious buildings and a site of spiritual significance have been identified in the study area (see Section 7.3.12), their location is known to PGE and there are no Project activity in their vicinity which could directly impact them. Indirect impacts are negligible. In addition, a chance-find procedure will be put in place to ensure that any archaeological / cultural discovery during drilling or excavation would be appropriately reported to the relevant authorities and that actions would be taken to protect such find and allow archaeologists to carry out excavations if relevant (see ESMP, Volume IV).

Operational Policy 4.12 is triggered. No involuntary resettlement has taken place to date or is expected as part of the Project development. However, land acquisition is required to facilitate the Project’s development. Although PGE undertakes this on a “willing buyer - willing seller” principle, it can request expropriation as a last resort and therefore World Bank OP 4.12 is triggered. To comply, a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework has been developed for the Project that defines the procedures to be followed in the case of expropriation (see Volume III).

Operational Policy 4.36 is not triggered. The Project is not financing or affecting forest management or financing plantations. Moreover, as explained above, there is a minimum 500m buffer between Project activities and the Hutan Lindung. Secondary forest clearance will be minimal as most of the Project

_________________________

7 Regulation of Lampung Province No. 1 of 2010 regarding spatial plan area for Lampung Province from 2009 to 2029.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

40


footprint is on highly modified habitats of low conservation value, with paddy fields and village gardens with a mix of fruit and timber trees, vegetable crops, herbs and spices. The option of directional drilling allows for wells to be concentrated in clusters thus minimising the land take. Due to its location, small footprint and negligible indirect impacts, the Project is not considered to affect the health and quality of a forest, nor does it affect the rights and welfare of people dependant upon forests.

Operational Policy 4.37 is not triggered as the Project does not involve the construction of any dam. Operational Policies 7.50 and 7.60 are not triggered as the Project is not located in or near any

international waterway or disputed area.

4.3.3 IFC Performance Standards

In addition to the above World Bank Operational Policies, reference will also be made to the following IFC Performance Standards (PS) where relevant: IFC PS1 – Social and Environmental Assessment and Management System; IFC PS2 – Labour and Working Conditions; IFC PS3 – Pollution Prevention and Abatement; IFC PS4 – Community Health, Safety and Security; IFC PS5 – Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement; IFC PS6 – Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resources Management; IFC PS7 – Indigenous Peoples; IFC PS8 – Cultural Heritage.

Performance Standard 1 establishes the importance of: (i) integrated assessment to identify the social and environmental impacts, risks, and opportunities of projects; (ii) effective community engagement through disclosure of project-related information and consultation with local communities on matters that directly affect them; and (iii) the Borrower’s management of social and environmental performance throughout the life of the project. PS2 through 8 establish requirements to avoid, reduce, mitigate or compensate for impacts on people and the environment, and to improve conditions where appropriate. While all relevant social and environmental risks and potential impacts should be considered as part of the assessment, PS2 through 8 describe potential social and environmental impacts that require particular attention in emerging economies and in sensitive and critical natural and human environments. Where social or environmental impacts are anticipated, the Borrower is required to manage them through a Social and Environmental Management System consistent with PS1. An ESMP elaborated for the Project is presented in Volume IV.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

41


4.3.4 World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines

IFC Performance Standard 3 and World Bank OP 4.01 specify the use of the World Bank Group Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines (known as the "EHS Guidelines"). These guidelines were developed as part of a two and a half year review process that ended in 2007.

The revised World Bank Group EHS Guidelines are a set of general and industry specific examples of international good practice. The General EHS Guidelines contain information on crosscutting issues applicable to projects in all industry sectors. They provide guidance on performance levels and measurements considered to be achievable at reasonable cost by new or existing projects with the use of existing technologies and practices. Projects are expected to comply with the levels and measures identified in the EHS Guidelines where host country requirements are less stringent or do not exist.

The General EHS Guidelines cover four areas of international good practice, these are: Environmental; Occupational Health & Safety (OHS); Community Health & Safety (CHS); and Construction and Decommissioning.

The General EHS Guidelines are supported by a series of sector specific guidelines. The following Industry Sector guidelines are relevant to this Project: EHS Guidelines for Geothermal Power Generation; and EHS Guidelines for Power Transmission and Distribution (to cover the 500m transmission link

connection to the PLN substation).

Sector specific guidelines are addressed where relevant in individual chapters, however a summary of relevant generic international guidelines are provided in Volume III.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

42


5.1 Overview

Following an initial site visit and a first round of consultation, the Inception Report reviewed the available data and assessments undertaken by the Local AMDAL Consultant and provided a gap analysis and a scoping assessment. The key additional requirements identified when reviewing the ANDAL reports against applicable international standards and guidelines were:

Updated non-technical summary; Further baseline data collection and analysis of the data obtained; Updated impact assessment and modelling for air and noise; Updated impact assessment and evaluation of significance using robust criteria (sensitivity, magnitude

and significance) for all assessment topics as they are covered within the AMDAL; Consolidation, review and update of mitigation measures to produce Environmental and Social

Management Plan (ESMP); Updated social impact assessment including expanded social baseline data collection; and Robust consideration of cumulative impacts.

This section presents the key findings of the scoping stage and the general methodology followed to produce the present ESIA to international standard.

5.2 Summary of Outcomes of Scoping Stage

Conclusions of the Inception Report are summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Summary of Impacts and Significance

Impact Significance Assumptions

+ = beneficial

- = adverse

Neg

ligib

le

Lo

w

Mo

der

ate

Maj

or

Cri

tica

l

Construction Phase Impacts

5.3.1 Employment generation + + Subject to training and opportunities being provided to locals

5.3.2 Labour Management and Occupational Health and Safety Risks

- Subject to strict implementation of H&S procedures and provision of adequate equipment

5.3.3 Risks to Community Health, Safety and Security

- Subject to strict implementation of ESMP, grievance mechanism and emergency response and preparedness plans

5.3.4 Land Acquisition + Subject to willing buyer/seller and no expropriation taking place

5.3.5 Community Investment + Subject to implementation of appropriate community investment plan (or Corporate Social Responsibility)

5.3.6 Provision of Electricity and Contribution to Energy Security +

Subject to provision of permanent energy supply to nearby villages

5.3.7 Risk of Social Conflict and Negative Perceptions towards the Project

- - Subject to use of PCDP and consultation and disclosure activities

5.3.8 Temporary Population Increase - - Subject to adequate assessment of worker needs against the capacity of the local community and

5. Scope of the Assessment

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

43



+ = beneficial

- = adverse

Neg

ligib

le

Lo

w

Mo

der

ate

Maj

or

Cri

tica

l

provision of additional services where needed

5.4.1 Water Resources and Hydrology - Subject to adequate design and mitigation measures for water storage and recycling

Land clearing earth works -

Subject to best practice measures and mitigation being employed

Drilling - - Subject to adequate implementation and management of settling ponds and integrity of the lining

5.4.2 Effluent Discharges and Water Quality

Well Tests - Subject to bulk of the outflow being reinjected into the reservoir with minimal to no surface water discharges

5.4.3 Groundwater - Subject to deep set surface casing of wells and suitable best practice measures being followed

Land clearing /construct

- Due to distance of receptors and partial screening from terrain and vegetation

Drilling - Result of diesel generators operating continuously, mitigation measures to be proposed in ESIA

Traffic noise - Result of increased traffic in relatively rural area

Well tests - Result of potentially high noise levels but over short duration

5.4.4 Noise

Emergency conditions

- Result of unforeseen and infrequent high noise levels of very limited duration.

Terrestrial - Subject to confirmation that no protected species are found within area of degraded forest

5.4.5 Ecology Direct

Aquatic - - Subject to confirmation of existing data on aquatic diversity and suitable best practice measures being followed

Terrestrial - Subject to confirmation that no protected species are found within area and suitable best practice measures being followed 5.4.5 Ecology

Indirect

Aquatic - Subject to adequate implementation and management of settling ponds and suitable best practice measures being followed

Construction dust - Subject to best practice dust suppression measures being in place

Construction exhaust -

Result of local and temporary nature of emissions, as well as the distance to the nearest receptors

Traffic – emissions to air

- - Subject to suitable best practice measures being followed

Well tests – emissions to air

- - Subject to review of air quality assessment undertaken and suitable best practice mitigation being employed

5.4.6 Air

Fugitive uncontrolled emissions

- Subject to suitable best practice mitigation being employed

5.4.7 Climate Change To be assessed in ESIA based on information in feasibility study.

5.4.8 Waste - - Subject to suitable best practice mitigation being employed

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

44



+ = beneficial

- = adverse

Neg

ligib

le

Lo

w

Mo

der

ate

Maj

or

Cri

tica

l

5.4.9 Geology and Erosion - - Subject to best practice measures and mitigation being employed

5.4.10 Land contamination - - Subject to best practice measures and mitigation being employed

5.4.11 Archaeology - Subject to implementation of chance find procedures

Traffic movements

- Subject to adequate planning of vehicle routes and timings, as well as traffic management staff

5.4.12 Transport Infrastructure damage

+ Subject to upgrade of roads and bridges, and reinstatement of any damaged infrastructure

Operational Phase Impacts

5.3.1 Employment generation + Result of specialist skills required, some jobs maybe available but not many

5.3.2 Labour Management and Occupational Health and Safety Risks - -

Subject to strict implementation of H&S procedures and provision of adequate equipment

5.3.3 Risks to Community Health, Safety and Security - -

Subject to strict implementation of ESMP, grievance mechanism and emergency response and preparedness plans

5.3.6 Contribution to Energy Security + Subject to semi/permanent electrification of nearby villages

5.4.1 Water Resources and Hydrology - Subject to water storage and efficiency and suitable best practice measures

Normal operation - Subject to correct design and suitable best practice measures 5.4.2 Effluent

Discharges and Water Quality Abnormal

operation -

Subject to correct design and suitable best practice measures

5.4.3 Groundwater - Subject to monitoring and development of appropriate waste disposal

Steam field and plant.

- Subject to confirmation of additional noise monitoring and accuracy of noise model

5.4.4 Noise Staff movements and maintenance - Result of limited movements required

Aquatic - Subject to adequate design and mitigation measures being in place 5.4.5 Ecology

Terrestrial - Impacts being largely contained within the site

Steam field and plant.

- - Subject to review of modelling undertaken and suitable best practice mitigation being employed

Staff movements and maintenance - Result of limited movements required 5.4.6 Air

Uncontrolled emissions -

Subject to suitable best practice measures being followed

5.4.7 Climate change To be assessed based on final feasibility study

5.4.8 Waste - - Subject to suitable waste disposal measures and practices

5.4.10 Land contamination - - Subject to proper handling and storage of chemicals

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

45



+ = beneficial

- = adverse

Neg

ligib

le

Lo

w

Mo

der

ate

Maj

or

Cri

tica

l

Decommissioning Phase Impacts

5.3.2 Labour Management and Occupational Health and Safety Risks -

Subject to the application of an appropriate retrenchment plan

5.3.3 Risks to Community Health, Safety and Security - Subject to landscaping and correct sealing of wells

5.4.3 Groundwater - Subject to reinstatement of site sealing up of the geothermal wells

5.4.4 Noise - Result of limited duration and noise compared to operation

5.4.6 Air - Result of limited duration and emissions compared to operation

The ESIA has sought to identify and address the occurrence and potential significance of environmental and social impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project and also address where relevant abnormal and emergency operations. Where the assessment in the national AMDAL process was deemed appropriate the recommendations and requirements have been noted and incorporated into this ESIA without further assessment.

5.3 Baseline Data Collection Methodology

The primary source of information for baseline assessment has been the several surveys undertaken by the Local AMDAL Consultant as part of the initial steamfield AMDAL, Units 1&2 AMDAL, Units 3&4 AMDAL and following monitoring as part of the associated environmental management and monitoring plans (RKL / RPL). Together, nine documents were obtained prior to issuance of this ESIA: Initial steamfield ANDAL report (2003); Units 1&2 ANDAL report (2004); Units 3&4 KA ANDAL (terms of reference, 2009); July 2008 Monitoring Report; October 2008 Monitoring Report; January 2009 Monitoring Report; April 2009 Monitoring Report; October 2009 Monitoring Report; and January 2010 Monitoring Report.

Further information has been retrieved from the internet, publicly available sources and consultation with local authorities and statistics bureau. This information has been completed further by dedicated surveys during the site visit and interviews with PGE personnel and members of the community.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

46


5.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

5.4.1 Overview

An environmental or social impact can be either beneficial or adverse and is assessed by comparing the quality of the existing environment with the predicted quality of the environment once the project is in place.

Sections 8 and 9 identify impacts and mitigation measures for each social and environmental aspect considered relating to the following phases of the Project (as relevant): Exploration, drilling and construction (relating to the exploration of the geothermal resource, drilling of

geothermal wells and construction of the SAGS and power plant); Operation (relating to the operation of the steamfield and power plant); Decommissioning (relating to the post operation of the power plant).

The significance of an impact is described based on sensitivity and magnitude. Where possible, impact magnitude and sensitivity are described with reference to legal requirements, accepted scientific standards or accepted impact assessment practice and/or social acceptability. Where no known published ‘standard’ criteria exist for determining the magnitude of effects, established professional criteria and best practice techniques are used. The sensitivity and magnitude are combined to give an assessment of significance. Individual chapter methodologies are presented in each corresponding section which also defines the criteria used to establish significance of the impact.

5.4.2 Sensitivity

Sensitivity of receptors is site specific and criteria should be developed from baseline information gathered. The sensitivity of a receptor is determined based on review of the population (proximity / numbers / vulnerability), presence of biological features of the site and the surrounding area, soil, agricultural suitability, geology and geomorphology, proximity of aquifers and watercourses, existing air quality, presence of any archaeological and historic heritage, landscape etc.

Sensitivity relates to the value, importance and tolerance of an environmental resource or receptor and should take into account stakeholders views and public acceptability where possible. The following categorisation has been used to describe sensitivity: high, medium, low, and negligible.

5.4.3 Magnitude

The magnitude of impacts is firstly identified to be either adverse or beneficial. Secondly, beneficial and adverse impacts are further described as major, moderate, minor or negligible based on consideration of the following parameters: Duration of the impact; Spatial extent of the impact; Reversibility; Likelihood; and Legal standards and established professional criteria.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

47


5.4.4 Assigning Significance

The significance of an impact can be described by the interaction of magnitude and sensitivity as depicted in the significance matrix shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Significance Matrix MAGNITUDE

Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Hig

h

Critical Major Moderate Negligible

Med

ium

Major Major Moderate Negligible

Lo

w Moderate Moderate Low Negligible

SE

NS

ITIV

ITY

Neg

ligib

le Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

The following provides a guide to the terminology used to define significance of impacts, however it should be noted that each chapter of the ESIA develops topic specific criteria:

Negligible: No detectable impact – i.e. effects are within the range of normal natural variations in the system. No mitigation is required.

Low: Short time scale of the activity or event. Area over which the activity or event may occur is <5 % of the area occupied by the resource of concern. Impacts a specific group of localised receptors / population only. Activity does not exceed statutory limits. No mitigation is required.

Moderate: Time scale of the activity or event is 5-10% of the regeneration time of the resource of concern or a critical sensitive period. Area over which the activity or event may occur is 5-10% of the area occupied by the resource of concern. Affects a portion of a population and impact may bring about a change in abundance and/or distribution over one or more generations, but does not threaten the integrity of that population or any population dependent on it. Affects users of natural resources, but only in the short term, or resources used by a minority of local people (<10%). Some mitigation will help minimise impacts.

Major: Time scale of the activity or event is >10% of the regeneration time of the resource of concern or a critical sensitive period. Area over which the activity or event may occur is >10% of the area occupied by the resource of concern. Causes a decline in abundance/distribution of an entire

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

48


population or species, beyond which natural recruitment would not return that population or species, or any population or species dependant upon it, to its former level within several generations without mitigation. Users of natural subsistence or commercial resources (on which more than 10% of local people depend) are affected to the degree that their well being is affected over a long term, if mitigation not applied. Activity occasionally exceeds statutory/regulatory limits, and mitigation is required.

Critical: Event or activity is considered significant and may not be amenable to mitigation. Affects an entire population or species to cause a decline in abundance and/or change in distribution beyond which natural recruitment would not return that population or species, or any population or species dependent upon it, to its former level. May affect a subsistence or commercial resource (on which more than 10% of local people depend) use to the degree that the activity is no longer viable. Activity regularly exceeds statutory/regulatory limits, and changes to project design may be required.

The methodology sections within each of the ESIA environmental and social chapters (Sections 8 and 9) describe how the significance criteria for individual topics have been derived based on assessment of receptor sensitivity and magnitude of the impact.

Where feasible the following hierarchy of mitigation measures has been applied: technology/design, careful choice of location, materials and best practice. MML has also reviewed available mitigation options consistent with best practice and current and future innovations, over and above legislative requirements, but based on cost benefit principles. A great number of potential impacts can either be avoided or reduced through mitigation; however some residual environmental impacts may be unavoidable. Each chapter of the ESIA has assessed whether residual impacts, either beneficial or adverse, remain after mitigation.

5.5 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts

In order to determine the full combined effect of the development, potential impacts, during construction and operational phases have been assessed where relevant. The assessment of impacts includes a discussion of any cumulative and transboundary impacts identified outside the scope of PGE’s development. This is mostly relevant to combined impacts from the PLN Unit 1&2 development and the separate PGE Unit 3&4 development.

5.6 Appendices

In order to maintain the accessibility of the document to a wider audience, detailed methodology, model description, inputs and quantitative results for the air quality assessment has been included in a separate appendix (see Appendix D, Volume III). Furthermore, quantitative standards have been presented in Appendix A, Volume III.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

49


6.1 Overview

This section describes the ESIA public consultation and disclosure activities that have been undertaken by PGE as of November 2010. Consultation has been open and meaningful and issues raised by consultees to date have been used to inform the production of this ESIA. The draft ESIA has been available for the purposes of ongoing disclosure to project affected communities / interested stakeholders whilst it has also been posted on the World Bank Infoshop and PGE websites for a comment period of 120 days, which commenced on 7th October 2010). This revised version will also be disclosed at the same location.

Consultation activities undertaken have been guided by the Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan (PCDP) that should be read alongside this chapter and was produced at the outset of the ESIA process – the PCDP is presented in ESIA Volume III. The PCDP specifies ongoing stakeholder and community engagement activities to be undertaken by PGE beyond the ESIA process and throughout the lifecycle of the Project (remainder of construction and operational phases).

6.2 Scope of ESIA Consultation and Disclosure Activities

The objective of the stakeholder engagement activities undertaken as part of the ESIA process is to meet the relevant requirements of the World Bank in relation to consultation and disclosure requirements which are outlined in the PCDP (see Volume III). In summary this means consulting project-affected persons (PAPs) and groups, and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) about the project's environmental and social aspects and taking their views into account. Consultation must be initiated as early as possible and for Category A projects - such as this Project – stakeholder groups must be consulted at least twice: Shortly after environmental scoping and before the terms of reference for the ESIA are finalised (as

described in Section 6.6 below); and Once a draft ESIA report is prepared (see Section 6.7 below).

A full list of stakeholders that have been engaged at various stages of the project is presented in the Stakeholder Identification and Analysis section of the PCDP. The remainder of this chapter outlines: AMDAL and Land Acquisition consultation and disclosure activities (summarised below in Section 6.4

and Section 6.5 respectively); ESIA inception (Scoping) and draft ESIA consultation and disclosure activities (summarised below in

Section 6.6.2 and 6.6.3 respectively); and Summary of issues raised in the AMDAL and ESIA consultation activities.

These consultation activities have been owned and driven by PGE and the process has been a ‘two-way’ engagement whereby PGE have reached out to stakeholders and at the same time taken on board and responded to their views and concerns. ESIA and AMDAL consultation results have been fed back to the technical ESIA specialists to ensure that issues of concern to stakeholders have been included in the scope of the assessment, and addressed appropriately in the ESIA report.

6. ESIA Consultation

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

50


6.3 Chronology of ESIA Consultation and Disclosure Activities

The consultation activities discussed in the following sub-sections occurred in this order:

Local AMDAL Consultations (see Section 6.4): Socialisations (consultation) on the Steamfield Development on 13th September 2003; Socialisations (consultation) on the PLN Units 1&2 power plant on July / September 2004; Socialisations (consultation) on the PGE Units 3&4 power plant on 11th January 2010;

Various consultations related to land acquisition were undertaken between March 2008 and October 2010 for Cluster H and for the site of Units 3&4 in November 2010 (see Section 6.5).

Further consultation over and above the AMDAL socialisations and land acquisition has been undertaken as part of the international ESIA to satisfy consultation and disclosure requirements of the World Bank (see Sections 6.6 and 6.7): International ESIA Inception (Scoping) Site Visit Stakeholder Interviews between 22nd – 23rd March,

2010; International ESIA Main Site Visit Stakeholder Interviews between 13th – 15th June, 2010; International ESIA Main Site Visit Public Consultation and Disclosure Meeting on 14th June, 2010; Disclosure of the Draft ESIA for 120-day period commencing 7th October 2010; and Draft ESIA Consultation and Disclosure Event on 26th October 2010.

PGE's plans for ongoing stakeholder engagement beyond the ESIA stage and throughout the lifetime of the project are discussed at the end of this section (see Section 6.8).

6.4 Indonesian AMDAL Consultation

The Steamfield Development ANDAL report (2003) summarises the initial Socialisation (consultation) on the steamfield development carried out by PGE on 13th September 2003. PLN (power plant) Units 1&2 ANDAL report (2004) discussed the socialization carried out for the PLN Units 1&2 for which the socialisation events were held on 8th July, 31st July and 17th September 2004. Socialisation was carried out in accordance with the Indonesian Government’s regulations (overview presented in Section 4.2 above). These events revealed general local support and no opposition to the Project.

In 2010, PGE carried out socialisation for the AMDAL on the PGE Units 3&4 (and additional clusters beyond those addressed within the original Steamfield AMDAL) which included a public meeting on 11th January 2010. Adverts for this meeting were placed in newspapers, the ‘Lampung Post’ and ‘Media Indonesia’ on 21st and 31st December 2009 to inform people of the consultations and to encourage people’s participation. The process was aimed at gaining inputs from members of the community on the likely costs and benefits for local people. Stakeholders involved in the consultations included social/community leaders, district staff and village (Pekon) heads from villages in the Project area. At the village level, further consultation was carried out with members and leaders from the local community being involved.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

51


6.5 Land Acquisition Consultation

One of PGE’s core land acquisition principles is:

“Land acquisition for development shall involve public participation commencing from the planning stage of development through to execution and the post-acquisition of land stage – all negotiations with the land owners are carried out collectively in a public location, and in the presence of village heads and community leaders, in an open and consultative manner without any coercion and with sufficient time for consideration of offers .”

In practice this means (in accordance with Indonesian Law) disclosing information about the project from the outset, and undertaking consultation with local community leaders and the land holders over local prevalent market prices and entitlements to compensation.

As summarised in Table 2.1, all of the land required for the project has been acquired except for the 500m transmission link connection to the PLN substation. Land for Clusters A to H, the road network used for transport, the power plants and the interconnection pipes have been acquired in twelve acquisition efforts. The first acquisitions, Clusters A and B, were completed when PGE was a division of Pertamina; the remaining purchases were carried out by PGE as a separate entity, the last of which was concluded in October, 2010. The recorded land acquisition consultation activities undertaken by PGE are summarised in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1: Disclosure and Consultation Activities Undertaken as Part of the Land Acquisition Process

Village Date Details of deliberations and land acquisition

Muara Dua (Unknown dater) 2008

Cluster C socialization on land acquisition plan

Muara Dua March 4, 2008

Cluster C land and crop negotiations; Negotiate the price of land, the community agreed to paddy fields Rp. 20,000, - and crops Rp.12.500

Muara Dua & Pagar Alam

(Unknown date) 2008

Cluster D and Roads socialization on land acquisition plan

Pagar Alam (Unknown date) 2008

Cluster E and Roads socialization on land acquisition plan

Pagar Alam & Air Abang

May 11, 2009 Cluster F socialization on land acquisition plan

Muara Dua May 11, 2009 Cluster G socialization on land acquisition plan

Muara Dua February 24, 2010

Cluster H socialization on land acquisition plan; Inform the community that the location of H will be located in Paddy fields; Communities agreed if their land would be released to the location of H and the entrance of location H.

Muara Dua March 12, 2010

Cluster H: Negotiate the price of land, the community agreed to paddy fields Rp. 20,000, - and crops Rp.12.500

Muara Dua May 7, 2010 Cluster H socialization on land acquisition plan (injection route from Cluster H to Cluster A). Communities agreed if their land would be released to the location of Injection pipeline

Muara Dua May 20, 2010 Cluster H and Injection Route : Negotiate the price of land (injection route from Cluster H to Cluster A)., the community agreed to paddy fields Rp. 20,000, - and crops Rp.12.500.

Source: PGE Land Acquisition Team

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

52


Although no details have been provided of previous consultation activities, the agreement and payments made for land and crops provide clear evidence that this was negotiated on a willing buyer – willing seller basis.

Additional consultation will be required for the 500m transmission link connection to the PLN substation at Units 1&2. This activity will be guided by the PGE Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework that has been produced (see ESIA Volume III, Appendix C). It outlines the methods PGE uses for disclosing information to and consulting with PAPs affected by land acquisition impacts.

6.6 International ESIA Consultation and Disclosure

6.6.1 Overview

The international ESIA team undertook two site visits during the ESIA process in order to inform the inception (scoping) processes, to assist PGE in disclosing the inception (scoping) findings to local communities and NGOs and to support PGE in gathering comments used to inform the preparation of the full ESIA. These visits and the activities undertaken and stakeholder comments are discussed below.

6.6.2 ESIA Inception (Scoping) Site Visit Consultation (March 2010)

In order to undertake scoping by gathering information to inform Inception (Scoping) Report a number of stakeholders were interviewed in the assessment area during the inception (Scoping) site visit between 22nd – 23rd March 2010, as outlined in Table 6.2 below.

Table 6.2: Inception (Scoping) ESIA Stakeholder Interviews (March 22nd - 23rd 2010)

Village Stakeholders interviewed Summary of Issues Raised by stakeholders

Muara Dua Village Head Effectiveness of previous PGE disclosure; employment, infrastructure (road construction) and land acquisition benefits; adverse noise, water pollution and erosion impacts

Pagar Alam Village Head Effectiveness of previous PGE disclosure and need for ongoing engagement; employment, and land acquisition benefits; community investment desires; fears over potential for emergency incident

Gunung Tiga Village Head Desire for more substantive / regular consultation; community investment and improvements to (road) access benefits; adverse noise / vibration impacts from traffic; community investment desires

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

53


Figure 6.1: ESIA Inception (Scoping) Stakeholder Interview with Village Leader


6.6.3 Main ESIA Site Visit Consultation and Disclosure

In order to collect baseline information and identify and investigate actual, perceived and potential impacts, the International ESIA team undertook a second round of interviews with Project Affected Peoples (PAPs) and stakeholders in the assessment area during the main ESIA site visit in 13th – 15th June 2010, as outlined in Table 6.3 below.

Table 6.3: Main ESIA Site Visit Stakeholder Interviews

Village Stakeholders interviewed Summary of Issues raised by stakeholders

Main ESIA Stakeholder interviews : June 13th – 15th 2010

Cluster B Closest farming family Baseline information on: agricultural activities and community facilities; noise and water pollution impacts; PGE community investment (mosque construction)

Cluster B Drilling rig contractor (local) workers

Recruitment process, terms and working conditions; previous accidents; baseline information on local culture.

Muara Dua Farmer whose land was acquired

Land acquisition process; agricultural yields and activities.

Runggang Closest household Community owned micro-hydro project; water pollution and health impacts.

Cluster G Tenant farmers Effectiveness of PGE disclosure; tenant farming system; benefits from access road.

Karang Rejo Headmaster / teachers of SDN1 elementary school

Baseline information on education facilities and issues; education investment priorities.

In order to disclose project information and the initial Inception Report (Scoping) findings, and to seek feedback from stakeholders in order to prepare the draft ESIA, PGE and the ESIA team hosted a consultation and disclosure event in Karang Rejo SDN elementary school on 14th June 2010. A list of stakeholder participants and the key issues that they raised is presented in Table 6.4 below.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

54


Table 6.4: ESIA Inception (Scoping) Consultation and Disclosure Event Stakeholder Participants

No. Name Gender (M/F)

Stakeholder group / organisation

Summary of issues raised by stakeholders and PGE response

Panel

Benjamin Cornet M MML (ESIA Consultant Team Environmental Scientist)

Tom Streather M MML (ESIA Consultant Team Social Scientist)

Omar Bjarki Smárason

M EFLA (ESIA Consultant Team Geologist)

Bagus. Bramantio

M PGE (Business development Staff, Head Office Jakarta)

Anshoruddin M PGE (Human Relation / General Affair, Site)

Hendrik Sinaaga M PGE (Health & Safety Engineer, Site)

. Tito A M PGE (Environmental Engineer, Site)

Saparuddin M PGE ( Security Coordinator, Site)

Stakeholders

1 Suroyo. SE M Ulubelu Sub-District Head Employment benefits; need for investment in police services.

PGE response: this will be considered in PGEs CSR budget allocation

2 Sukirman M Muara Dua Village Head Discharges to water from drilling activities

PGE response: the broken settling ponds infrastructure have now been fixed.

3 M. Solikim M Karang Rejo Village Head (candidate)

Road maintenance needed.


4 Husin Malik M Pagar Alam Village Head Employment and access road benefits; need investment in mosques and schools


5 Mustofa M Datarajan Village Head Noise impacts and road maintenance; request for community investment in mosques.


6 Faisal M Gunung Tiga Village Head Gratitude at consultation process; odour impacts

7 Arhamudin M Muara Dua Farmer Pollution of crops from production testing

PGE response: there will be no more vertical testing

8 Subhan M Karang Rejo Community member

Road maintenance needed.


9 Sukiman M Pagar Alam Villager -

10 Susyanto M Voluntary community leader / farmer

Fears of flow reduction from water abstraction

PGE response: The water pump station is in a different place from the river next to cluster G so flow would not be affected.

11 A. Panal F PKK (Women’s Empowerment and Family Welfare NGO Association)

-

12 Maryati F Teacher SDN, Karang Rejo Request for investment in education.


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

55




Summary of issues raised by stakeholders and PGE response

13 Kasidah F Teacher SDN, Karang Rejo Request for investment in school IT equipment.


14 Pitonah F Teacher SDN, Karang Rejo No specific comments

15 Kartmi F Teacher SDN, Karang Rejo No specific comments

16 Tugimin M Teacher SDN, Karang Rejo No specific comments

Figure 6.2: Main ESIA visit stakeholder interviews with project affected household close to cluster D


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

56


Figure 6.3: Main ESIA Site Visit Consultation and Disclosure Event Presentation


Figure 6.4: Main ESIA Site Visit Consultation and Disclosure Event Break Out Discussion


After the event notices were put up around the local community inviting people to comment further in writing or over the telephone as illustrated in Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6. Contact details were included of a member of the ESIA team and PGE staff to submit comments to over a two week period. No additional comments were received.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

57


Figure 6.5: Pagar Alam Mosque Consultation Period

Advertisement Location

Figure 6.6: Consultation advert Posted on the Mosque

Source: PGE Source: PGE

6.7 Draft ESIA Consultation and Disclosure

6.7.1 Disclosure of Draft ESIA

The draft ESIA was posted on the World Bank Infoshop and PGE websites on 7th October, 2010 for a 120 day consultation period. During this period interested and/or affected stakeholders have the opportunity to comment before the ESIA is finalised and prior to the meeting at which the Bank's Executive Directors will decide whether to approve the project. No stakeholder comments were received by the World Bank.

The non technical summary document (Volume I) and the ESIA main volume (Volume II) were translated into Bahasa Indonesia and were made available in the PGE site office and in the Village Head (Kepala Desa) offices during the 120 days period to enable local community members to review the draft ESIA and submit comments. No comments were received by PGE.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

58


6.7.2 Draft ESIA Consultation and Disclosure Event

On the 26th October 2010 PGE hosted a consultation event in the project affected communities to present the draft ESIA. The event was advertised in advance in the local press. At the event the draft ESIA was presented and verbally summarised with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation. The draft ESIA was presented and verbally summarised. Stakeholder comments from this consultation have been fed back to the ESIA specialists to address outstanding issues.

The key issues raised by participants and the responses provided by PGE during the meeting are presented in Table 6.5 below.

Table 6.5: Draft ESIA Consultation and Disclosure Event Stakeholder Participants and Comments



Summary of issues raised and PGE response

1 Suroyo M Ulubelu Sub-district head

Stakeholder: Raised the importance of using the designated waste disposal site as opposed to the roadside; queried the Project’s impacts on groundwater reserves; and expressed disappointment at PGE’s lack of assistance in helping to deal with the land slide in village (natural disaster not caused by the Project).

Response (PGE): waste was sorted and disposed of appropriately; that no groundwater is used by the project; and, by apologising for the lack of assistance which was initially promised by the contractor who then withdrew their offer.

2 Zulman M Head of local Police

Stakeholder: Enquired about: the AMDAL status; about the risks of emergencies similar to the Lapindo incidents; is the release of H2S harmful to the environment; and, what is the Project’s impact on the police road infrastructure?

Response (PGE): the Andal report is being finalised but the Andal for PLN Units 1&2 is available; that PGE uses modern technology to avoid serious incidents like Lapindo; H2S is harmful at a certain level but that PGE uses mitigation technology to reduce risks; and, that PGE is working to repair the road to Ngarip community investment in Police infrastructure is being determined by management in Jakarta.

3 Suwito M Sub-district Military Commander

Stakeholder: Noted that the AMDAL states that the environmental impacts are low and enquired how any change in findings would be communicated to the community; and, asked about the preparation of an emergency response plan?

Response (PGE): explained the process and findings of the RPL/RKL monitoring will be reported on; and that an emergency response plan is being developed in consultation with the local government.

4 Mustofa M Datarajan Kepala Desa (village head)

Stakeholder: Inquired about indirect socio-economic benefits such as employment of coffee drying technology; and, complained about obstructions to villagers’ movement due to construction traffic and road damage.

Response (PGE): responded by stating that CSR request must be formally submitted and discussed and that PGE is undertaking a programme to widen local roads.

5 Dahimi M Muara Dua Villager Stakeholder: There are rice fields which use the water from Cangka Tengah River and concerns on waste pollution into Cangka Tengah River due to the drilling in Cluster G and the solution towards this have been raised.

Response (PGE): cooperation with the drilling contractors in the Cluster G will prevent the pollution towards Cangka Tengah River.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

59




Summary of issues raised and PGE response

6 Megawati F PKK Pagar Alam (Women’s Empowerment and Family Welfare NGO Association)

Stakeholder: Request for opportunities for women to visit other Geothermal sites to learn more.

Response (PGE): thanked PKK for it’s request and ask that they submit formally to PGE management.

7 Faisal M Gunung Tiga Kepala Desa (village head)

Response: Request for more assistance to children through investment in education.

Response (PGE): explained their current CSR education activities and requested that further requests are formally submitted to PGE management through the Kepala Desa’s office.

8 Tono M Muara Dua Villager Stakeholder: Drew attention to problems of the damaged road between Muara Dua and Ngarip and the communities’ hopes that PGE will repair it.

Response (PGE): the damaged road was not damaged by the Project but that the structural team will repair it soon.

9 Sukirman M Gunung Tiga Kepala Desa (village head)

Stakeholder: With the anticipation of drilling activity at Cluster G, it was hoped that pollution mitigation measures are enforced; that the broken roads are repaired before the rice wet harvest season begins; and, he requested information about the use of security personnel from the police station?

Response (PGE): mitigation measures will help prevent pollution and the road will be fixed.

A photograph of the consultation event is presented in Figure 6.7 below.

Figure 6.7: Draft ESIA Public Consultation and Disclosure Event

Source: PGE

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

60


6.8 Ongoing Project Consultation and Disclosure

6.8.1 Community Liaison during Drilling, Construction and Operation

The PGE Public Relations Officer (PRO) who is based on site has overall responsibility for managing consultation and disclosure for the Project. This includes the construction and operation phases. In addition, the contractor will be required (through contract clauses) to identify a Community Liaison Officer (CLO) 8 to work in conjunction with the PGE PRO. One PRO per site is considered sufficient.

The PRO should organise meetings with stakeholders (except for media), especially the local group leaders (for example, there are women’s groups, youth groups, village elders, religious leaders) and the elected and appointed local authorities to provide a regular opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns stakeholders may have. The PRO will pass media requests to and interact regularly with PGE’s Corporate Secretary. The PRO is the main point of contact for stakeholders. In order to ensure that someone is always available to receive stakeholder concerns, the PRO will appoint a deputy to assume their role in the event that the PRO is not available.

The PRO (with assistance from the CLO) will also be responsible for logging grievances according to the grievance mechanism detailed below. The definition of a complaint or grievance in the context of this ESIA and additional requirements over and above the provisions of the existing procedure are discussed in more detail in Section 6.8 below. The Project Manager and the PRO will work to close out grievances in a timely and satisfactory manner.

The PRO will be responsible for producing annual summaries that provide details related to community investment activities and the use of the grievance mechanism. These will be submitted to the Corporate Secretary for inclusion in the Project’s Annual Reports.

For the first four years of operation, an annual open day will be organised to allow local villagers to see the facilities functioning up close to improve local understanding of the technology.

The funding for the corporate investment activities will be approved by PGE’s Board and be managed by the Corporate Secretary. The schedule of ongoing consultation and disclosure activities is summarised in Table 6.6 below.

Table 6.6: Ongoing Information Disclosure, Consultation and Community Engagement Schedule

Activity Timing Responsibility

Media communications As requested or when press releases deemed relevant

Corporate Secretary / Public Relations Officer

Stakeholder meetings during drilling and operation

Within the first three months and proactively as needed thereafter

Public Relations Officer

Community investment activities Annually

Annual reports Annually

Open days during operation Annually for at least the first four years

Project Manager, Corporate Secretary, Public Relations Officer

_________________________ 8 This is not a stand alone role rather CLO duties are assigned to an existing member of staff. For the purpose of this document this

member of staff is called the CLO.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

61


6.9 Grievance Mechanism

6.9.1 Overview

A grievance can be defined as an actual or perceived problem that might give grounds for complaint. The sections below consider types of grievances, confidentiality and anonymity, and the Project’s grievance resolution process.

6.9.2 Current PGE Practice

At present PGE does not have a formally documented community grievance mechanism and resolution process. Grievances raised by community members, representatives or groups are not currently recorded by PGE, therefore no list of grievances and their associated resolutions has been provided for the purposes of this ESIA. PGE has stated however, that through the AMDAL consultation processes, it has been explained to the local communities that grievances can be submitted to the site manager. If grievances are not resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction they can then contact PGE’s Headquarters. It is not clear if contact details have been provided to the local communities.

Although there is currently no formal grievance process, evidence of grievance resolution can be found in PGE’s Corporate Social Responsibility activities (discussed in detail in Section 8.7) whereby PGE have invested in road infrastructure in response to community complaints regarding road surfaces being broken up by Project traffic (whether substantiated or not).

PGE has agreed to develop a community grievance mechanism for the project (all phases) and disclose this to the local community, as specified in the PCDP presented in ESIA Volume III and in the subsections below. PGE’s Project Manager with support from the Public Relations Officer has overall responsibility to manage grievance issues related to the Project.

6.9.3 Grievance Mechanism

PGE will work proactively towards preventing grievances through the implementation of impact mitigation measures and community liaison activities that anticipate and address potential issues before they become grievances. This will be the responsibility of the Project Manager and the PRO. The Corporate Secretary will be available to provide advice and will need to be sent reports summarising grievances throughout the remainder of the drilling, construction and the operation phases.

6.9.4 Type of Grievances

Potential impacts and effects that are most likely to give rise to grievances for this Project are related to: Construction, drilling and steam venting noise; Presence of a construction labour force and the effects on neighbouring villages, local services and

infrastructure; Water resources and water pollution; Community health and safety, for instance in relation to impacts of increased traffic on nearby residents;

and Damage to surrounding natural environment, including crops.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

62


Anyone will be able to submit a grievance to the Project if they believe a practice is having a detrimental impact on the community, the environment, or on their quality of life. They may also submit comments and suggestions. Grievances could include: Negative impacts on a person or a community (e.g. financial loss, physical harm, nuisance); Dangers to health and safety or the environment; Failure of PGE its sub-contractors and their workers or drivers to comply with standards or legal

obligations; Harassment of any nature; Criminal activity; Improper conduct or unethical behaviour; Financial malpractice or impropriety or fraud; and Attempts to conceal any of the above.

Grievances during construction will be investigated by PGE to review the validity and responsibility. The PRO or Corporate Secretary will explain in writing (or orally, where literacy is an issue) the manner in which the review was carried out, the results of the review, any changes to activities that will be undertaken to address the grievance or how the issue is being managed to meet appropriate environmental and social management systems and requirements.

6.9.5 Confidentiality and Anonymity

The Project will aim to protect a person’s confidentiality when requested and will guarantee anonymity in annual reporting. Individuals will be asked permission to disclose their identity. Investigations will be undertaken in a manner that is respectful of the aggrieved party and the principle of confidentiality. The aggrieved party will need to recognise that there may be situations when disclosure of identity is required and the Project will identify these situations to see whether the aggrieved party wishes to continue with the investigation and resolution activities.

6.9.6 Grievance Resolution

With implementation of the formal grievance mechanism, PGE will log grievances and the logging system will be formalised. A comments sheet will be produced by PGE’s Corporate Secretary for those wanting to make a complaint or comment, in addition to the route of writing to PGE, directly or through the village leader. Should any member of PGE’s staff receive an informal or formal verbal complaint, it must be written down and passed to the PLO for recording and follow up. PGE’s corporate procedure for grievances will be included in appropriate project communication materials such as the non-technical summary. In the first instance, grievances will be directed to the PRO (in some cases this may be via the contractors CLO) who will classify grievances according to Table 6.7.

The PRO will log the receipt of a comment, formally acknowledge it, track progress on its investigation and resolution, and respond in writing with feedback to the aggrieved party. The contractors CLO will initiate the investigation and ensure its speedy conclusion aiming to provide a response with 10 working days, unless there are exceptional circumstances. If the Project receives a large number of unsubstantiated grievances, the process will be reviewed to define instances when no response is needed.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

63


Table 6.7: Grievance Classification Criteria

Grievance Classification

Risk Level Validity Response

Low No or low Unsubstantiated PRO will conduct investigation, document findings and provide a response

Medium Possible risk and likely a one off event

Possible substantiation

PRO and an appropriate investigation team (including contractors CLO) will conduct investigation. The Project/Site Manager may decide to stop work during the investigation to allow the corrective preventive actions to be determined. The PRO will provide a response.

High Probable risk and could reoccur

Probable substantiation

PRO will organise a Major Investigation Team including PGE for prompt investigation and resolution. Work will be stopped in the affected area. The PRO will provide a response.

PGE may hire an independent national consultant to investigate grievances if required, or to monitor environmental and social indicators during the operational phase; this independent company/consultant would play an important role in investigating the validity and responsibility for the grievance effect. Project staff, and outside authorities as appropriate, will also contribute to the investigation. The PRO and contractor’s CLO will collaborate to identify an appropriate investigation team with the correct skills to review the issue raised and to decide whether it is Project related or whether it is more appropriately addressed by a relevant authority outside the Project. The investigation will also aim to identify whether the incident leading to the grievance is a singular occurrence or likely to reoccur. Identifying and implementing activities, procedures, equipment and training to address and prevent reoccurrence will be part of the investigation activities. In some cases it will be appropriate for the PRO and contractors CLO to follow up at a later date to see if the person or organisation is satisfied with the resolution or remedial actions.

The PRO will summarise grievances to report on project performance bi-annually during drilling and annually during operation removing identification information to protect the confidentiality of the complainant and guaranteeing anonymity.

PGE Project Public Relations Representative: Mr, Anshoruddin

Address : Pekon Karang Rejo, Ulubelu District Tanggamus, Lampung Province - Indonesia

Tel : +62 21 39833316

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

64


7.1 Overview

This section establishes the existing environmental and social baseline that will be affected by the Project. This includes identification of sensitive receptors as well as a description of the physical environment and socio-economic context in the study area.

This baseline assessment is based on the following sources of data:

Data provided by PGE; Data from the studies undertaken by the local environmental consultants, Universitas Lampung

including the various AMDALs; Publicly available data; and Data retrieved by Mott MacDonald specifically for this assessment, such as initial and main site visit

observations and interview / public consultation findings.

Due to the duration of the whole Project development, some of the baseline data collected is already affected by Project activities. This is discussed where relevant in the following sections. Further discussion on the quality and reliability of data from the AMDAL process has been discussed in MML’s inception report.

7.2 Social Baseline

7.2.1 Overview

The social baseline for the ESIA describes the existing social context for the Project across the following aspects: Demography; Ethnicity and religion; Poverty, deprivation and vulnerable groups; Gender equality; Economic environment and livelihoods; Project employment and public relations; Natural resources, land use and agriculture; Access to healthcare; Access to education; Access to electricity; Governance arrangements; Equity and social conflict; Land acquisition; and Sensitive Potentially Project Affected Persons (Social Receptors)

7. Environmental and Social Baseline

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

65


7.2.2 Demography

Indonesia is the fourth most populated country in the world, with a population of approximately 227.3 million and a growth rate of approximately 1.2 % per year9. The population is young and in 2010, 27.4 percent of people are below 15 years of age, 66.8 percent are 15-65 years of age and 5.9 percent were over 65. However, the population is ageing and between 2000 and 2010 Indonesia experienced a 3.5 percent decrease in under-15 year olds. This population trend is projected to continue with a further 3.9% reduction in under-15 year olds expected between 2010 and 2020, as illustrated by the population pyramids presented in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1: Indonesia Population Pyramids

Source: US Census Bureau, International Database (IDB)

The national ratio of men to women is estimated to be 1 to 1 (2010)10 which is comparable to global ratio of 50.5 percent male to 49.5 percent female11. Circular migration from rural to urban areas for economic reasons has become common in Indonesia in recent times, with people switching locations either on a day-to-day or on a more seasonal basis12. This kind of migration is often part of a livelihood diversification strategy to increase household income levels.

Ulubelu is one of 28 sub-districts within the Tanggamus District, the total population of which was 871,263 people in 2008. Ulubelu is one of the largest sub-districts in the regency with a population of 37,534 in 2009 as illustrated in Table 7.1. The assessment area consists of five villages (locations illustrated in Figure 2.3), the total population of which is 8,719, with an average population density of 64 people/km² 13. In every village, there are more females than males with the population being split into approximately 40% males and 60% females, this is due to patterns of circular migration as described above. Populations of villages in the Ulubelu assessment area are shown in Table 7.1.

_________________________

9 World Bank Website: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/INDONESIAEXTN/0,,menuPK:287097~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:226309,00.html retrieved 21 April 2010

10 CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html retrieved 22 April 2010

11 Geohive http://www.xist.org/earth/pop_gender.aspx retrieved 23 April 2010

12 http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/987435/human-migration-as-discussed-in-Indonesia; http://countrystudies.us/indonesia/34.htm

13 PT PLN Environmental Management Plan (RKL) 2004 Ch 1, p 5

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

66


Table 7.1: Ulubelu Project Area Demographic Data.

Population

Village Area (km²) Male Female Total

Population Density (/km²)

Datarajan 20.8 1,130 1,696 2,826 135.87

Gunung Tiga 34 757 1,136 1,893 55.68

Karang Rejo 46 850 1,274 2,124 46.17

Pagar Alam 27.5 502 754 1,256 45.67

Muara Dua 16 248 372 620 38.75

Total / average 144.3 3,487 5,232 8,719 64.428

Sub-district 344.28 15,014 22,520 37,534 109.02

Source: Ulubelu Sub-district Census 2009

There is a high turnover of workers both entering and leaving the area to seek employment opportunities. In-migration into the area usually increases prior to the coffee harvest and decreases at the end of the harvest season. However net out-migration has resulted in the overall population of the area decreasing compared with 15 years ago. This was largely contributed to by a Ministerial Decree which altered the boundaries of watershed protection areas leading to the displacement 3,985 families living and working in the new watershed protection forest areas. Their relocation was assisted through a government sponsored transmigration programme. In addition to this there is much cyclical and seasonal migration and 63 percent of family heads and 43 percent of family members migrate at some stage of their lives, mostly for reasons of work or trade. Out migration of young people from the area to the city in search of work is a cause for concern in the local economy 14.

The people who are considered to have the highest sensitivity to project impacts as determined through consideration of the socio-economic vulnerability of individuals or social groups – that is, their capacity to cope with impacts that affect their access to or control over socio-economic resources that ultimately affects their well-being, poverty levels and health and safety – will include those living in the closest proximity to the Project sites. This includes the inhabitants of Muara Dua and Pagar Alam. Nearby households that are impoverished with low income and asset levels and/or weak social networks, will be among the most highly sensitive and vulnerable people as they are less likely to be able to cope with adverse impacts or capitalise on benefits.

7.2.3 Ethnicity and Religion

Due to Indonesia’s historical importance as a centre for regional trade as well as influences from a long period of colonialism, the country today is culturally, ethnically and linguistically diverse, with around 500 languages and dialects being spoken,15 however the national and practically universally spoken language is Bahasa Indonesian. The largest ethnic group of Indonesians are the Javanese, making up 42 percent of the population, who are also politically dominant. The Sundanese, ethnic Malays, and Madurese are the largest non-Javanese groups. Indonesia has the world’s largest population of Muslims consisting of approximately 88 percent of the population16. The Government of Indonesia officially recognises 5 other religions: Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism, although this list does not

_________________________

14 AMDAL Ulubelu Units 1 & 2, 2004

15 Rough Guide website http://www.roughguides.com/website/travel/Destination/content/default.aspx?titleid=67&xid=idh137702368_0233 retrieved 26 April 2010

16 Suryodiningrat, Meidyatama (2006-10-02). "Who Are Indonesians?". The Jakarta Post

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

67


include Judaism which is also practiced or Animism which is often practiced in conjunction with other religions.

The population in the assessment area is made up principally of four main ethnic groups: Sundanese (vast majority), Javanese, Semendo and Lampung17. There are no ethnic minorities concentrated into a single village neither is there any ethnic differentiation by village. There are no ethnic minorities or indigenous peoples who are not participating equally in civic and community life therefore the project does not trigger the World Bank Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10)..

The predominant religion in the Project region is Islam, with 99.9 percent of the population being Muslim (Ulubelu sub-district 2009 census data). There are no places of worship for other religions in any of the villages and the distribution of Mosques and Islamic Activity Groups is presented in Table 7.2. As part of their community investment programme, PGE contributed to the construction of the Mosque in the Mekarsari sub-village (of Muara Dua) in 2007. This Mosque serves about 22 families.

Table 7.2: Distribution of Mosques and Islamic Activity Groups

Villages Mosque Islamic activity group

Small mosque

Grup Mawalan Pengajian Anak-anak

Pangajian Remaja

Majelis Ta’lim

Total

Datarajan 5 7 4 1 5 11 33

Gunung Tiga 2 2 6 5 2 3 20

Karang Rejo 2 5 2 2 1 2 14

Pagar Alam 4 1 5 1 1 1 13

Muara Dua 2 1 2 2 1 1 9

Total 15 16 19 11 10 18 89

Sub-district 63 91 58 43 33 67

Source: Ulubelu Sub-district census 2009

7.2.4 Poverty, Deprivation and Vulnerable Groups

Poverty levels in Indonesia decreased to pre-Asian crisis (1997) levels in 2004 but began to rise again in 2005, at which point 21.4 % of the population was living on less than $1.25 a day (at 2005 international prices) rising even further to 29.4 % by 200718. Indonesia has recently become a middle-income country according to World Bank classification however the percentage of its population living on less than US$2 (40% in 2007) a day is closer to lower-income countries in the region19.

Local poverty levels decreased slightly in the assessment area between 1978 and 1993, partly as a result of the opening of roads and local economic development20. Although improved transportation is of benefit to some producers, those below the poverty line and undertaking subsistence farming have less ability to take advantage of investments in infrastructure. Of those living below the poverty line, 60% own land of an

_________________________


18 WB http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY retrieved 22 April 2010

19 WB http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/INDONESIAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21158507~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:226309,00.html retrieved 22 April 2010

20 Ulubelu units 1 & 2 ANDAL, 2004

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

68


area of less than one hectare and 40% own no land at all21. These people are among those most sensitive to project effects as they are likely to be more vulnerable to adverse impacts and least able to capitalise on the positive impacts of the Project.

7.2.5 Gender Equality

Progress toward Millennium Development Goal 3 on gender equality and women's empowerment has been mixed in Indonesia. The country faces gender gaps in employment and labour force participation, as well as in access to productive resources (land, property, and financial services) and human capital (education and health).22 These inequalities are particularly apparent in poor rural areas such as the Project area that experience gender inequality in access to education and health services not reaching rural women and girls.

Analysis of gender inequality in the assessment area is difficult due to a lack of sex-disaggregated data. However consultation with school teachers revealed that at elementary level at least, female enrolment rates mirror those of men. Consultation with the Kepala Desa of Muara Dua revealed the majority of marriages in the area are arranged whereby men provide a dowry of cash or goods in competition for the women and the women make a joint decision with their family about who to marry. In comparison the other villages in the region, Muara Dua has a high number of divorced women. Divorced women and widows (especially those who are single parents) could potentially be more vulnerable to adverse project impacts and benefit more from opportunities, especially if they have fewer financial resources and family support structures.

7.2.6 Economic Environment and Livelihoods

Indonesia is a member of the G-20 major economies and has a developing market economy which is heavily regulated by the government. There are more than 164 state-owned enterprises run by the government, which also regulates the prices of many basic commodities, such as rice, electricity and fuel. Domestic consumption is one of the major driving forces behind the country’s economic growth, which slowed significantly during 2007-08. However, like India and China, Indonesia recorded higher growth than the other G20 members during the global financial crisis, which had only a moderate impact on the economy. Economic activity is forecast to quicken in 2010 and GDP growth is forecast to rise to 5.5 % by the end of the year and to approximately 6.0 % by the end of 2011. Despite economic achievements over recent years, the major challenges facing the Indonesian economy are increasing investment in infrastructure (such as power generation facilities) and generating enough jobs23.

These socio-economic challenges are also felt at the local level in the communities of the assessment area where there is a demand for employment and economic diversification away from agricultural activities Most of the local villagers (60-65 percent of family heads and 20 percent of family members) currently make their living in small scale commercial agriculture24 and agricultural processing has created a number of small businesses, the most numerous of which is coffee milling (117) as illustrated by Table 7.3 below (agricultural activities are discussed in more detail in Section 7.2.8 below).

_________________________

21 Ulubelu Units 1 & 2 ANDAL, 2004 22 ADB Gender Country Assessment, 2006: Source: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Country-Gender-Assessments/cga-

ino.pdf 23 ADB Website: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/ADO/2010/INO.pdf, retrieved 22 April 2010 24 Ch 3 Final Draft of Feasibility Study Report on Ulubelu and Lumut Balai Geothermal Power Project in Republic of Indonesia 2004

(60% of heads of family quoted in Draft Feasibility Study, 65% in PT PLN Environmental Management Plan (RKL) 2004 Ch 1, p 5)

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

69


Table 7.3: Industrial processing of agricultural products:

Village Rice milling Coffee Milling Sugar production Screen / basket weaving Total

Datarajan 2 35 4 - 41

Gunung Tiga 1 17 2 4 24

Karang Rejo 4 21 3 4 32

Pagar Alam 1 29 1 3 34

Muara Dua 2 15 1 7 25

Total 10 117 11 18 156

Sub-district 28 446 36 32 542


Most other villagers are employed in transportation services, industry, craftsmanship and trading/selling. The remainder are employed as teachers and paramedics, although these jobs account for a small percentage of the population (4 percent of family heads and 3 percent of family members)25.

7.2.7 Project Employment and Labour Relations

Existing PGE and sub-contractor staff working on the drilling and construction activities are amongst the people most sensitive to social impacts because they are affected by the way in which the project is managed including employment terms and conditions as well as occupational health and safety management.

As of August 2010, PGE has 46 employees working on the Project, approximately 40 percent of whom are from the local area. Some of these employees are directly employed by PGE whereas other are sub-contractors. PGE has three categories of employees: ‘Permanent employees’ (5 working on project); ‘Non-permanent’ (directly contracted) employees (1 working on project); and ‘Outsourced employees’ (employed by sub-contractors – 40 working on project).

In addition to these PGE works, drilling Contractors have approximately 150 people working on the project (50 people per shift, 3 shifts per day) of which 50 percent are local people.

PGE does not have a formally documented staff grievance mechanism. However, staff can send documented grievances in an email or letter to the head of human resources in Jakarta and permanent employees also have the opportunity to voice grievances at their staff appraisal which is held every six months.

Permanent and non-permanent staff receive 100% subsidised medical insurance and are cared for by Pertamina’s subsidiary hospital company. Indonesian law has a system called JAMSOSTEK26 which specifies a legal requirement for employers to provide death and accident insurance.

Staff leave allocation is cyclical (to promote long-term employment; every 1st and 2nd year of employment staff receive 12 days leave per year but every third year they are entitled to 26 days leave. The working

_________________________ 25 PT PLN Environmental Management Plan (RKL) 2004 Ch 1, p 5 26 Which is the social security system which develops accident, health care, death and provident fund schemes for employees and is

based on the Employees’ Social Security Act in 1992 (Law No.3, 1992) .

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

70


week is 40 hours (eight hours per day). PGE is currently developing a policy for an ‘on-off’ system to ensure that site staff do not work too long shifts.

Trade Unions are legal in Indonesia with one of the largest being the Confederation of All Indonesian Workers' Union (KSPSI). PGE has recently established an internal trade union called SPPGE (Serikat Pekerja Pertamina Geothermal Energy). All staff are entitled to join and the majority of staff are members. Following pressure from SPPGE, in 2010 PGE management signed an agreement with workers defining the rights, roles and responsibilities of both workers and management.

PGE does not have any non-discrimination or equal opportunities policies. PGE does not have a retrenchment plan but Pertamina has a redundancy policy which is utilised in the event of staff being laid off.

In terms of managing occupational health, safety environment and quality issues (OHS) PGE has an Integrated Management System of OHSAS and ISO (18,001, 14,001, 9,001) certification for their existing Kamojang site but not for new operations such as those in Ulubelu. PGE has a general Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan but not a site specific one for Ulubelu, although the drilling contractor has one that has been developed with local government bodies. Accident logging and HSE monitoring reports are sent from the Project to PGE’s Headquarters on a weekly basis.

Potential employees are also important people who could potentially be affected by the project. Consultation activities show that there is a strong desire and high expectations for jobs to be generated by the project. Consultation responses indicate that there is a perception that employment opportunities generated by the Project are not evenly distributed across the villages.

7.2.8 Natural Resources, Land Use and Agriculture

Indonesia’s key natural resources are petroleum, tin, natural gas, nickel, timber, bauxite, copper, fertile soils, coal, gold, silver and, important for national energy security in times of rising oil prices, geothermal energy. Eleven percent of Indonesia’s land is arable, cultivated for crops such as maize, wheat and rice that are replanted after each harvest. Seven percent is made up of permanent crops, such as citrus, coffee, and rubber that are not replanted after each harvest including land under fruit and nut trees, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber.27.

As shown by Table 7.4 below, 25 percent of land in the Tanggamus District is used for agriculture and the main use is for coffee plantations (approximately 60%) with the second highest amount of land being used for coconut tree farming (at around 20 percent)28.

Table 7.4: Agricultural land use in Tanggamus District

Crop Hectare Percentage

Robusta coffee 51,814 61.8

Arabica coffee 100 0.1

Pepper 8,305 9.9

Clove 910 1.1

Rubber 54 0.1

_________________________

27 CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html retrieved 28 April 2010

28 Ch 3 Final Draft of Feasibility Study Report on Ulubelu and Lumut Balai Geothermal Power Project in Republic of Indonesia 2004

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

71


Crop Hectare Percentage

Coconut 17,294 20.6

Tobacco 63 0.1

Vanilla 60 0.1

Cinnamon 554 0.7

Kapok 97 0.1

Hybrid coconut 751 0.9

Cocoa 3,774 4.5

Total planted area 83,776 100% (25% of Regency total)

Total regency area 340,158

Source: Final Draft of Feasibility Study Report on Ulubelu and Lumut Balai Geothermal Power Project in Republic of Indonesia, 2004

In the Ulubelu sub-district, approximately 25% of the land is used for agricultural plantations, whereas approximately 10% is used as rice fields which are much smaller in size, as illustrated by Table 7.5 below. Approximately 50 percent of land is used for ‘other’ purposes, included settlements and forested areas.

Table 7.5: Land use in Ulubelu sub-district

Land use Area Km2 Percentage

Rice field 45 10.81

Hillside 25.28 6.07

Grass 26.40 6.34

Plantation 104.95 25.21

Dyke 0.20 0.05

Others 214.54 51.53

Total 416.37 100


Of the plantation crops, coffee is by far the most prevalent and has the greatest yields consisting of over 99% of the total area and produce as shown in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6: Plantation crops and yields in Ulubelu sub-district

Plantation crop Area (Ha) Production (Tonne)

Cayenne pepper 5 2

Ginger 0.2 0.1

Coffee 7,880 12,760

Tumeric 0.1 0.1

Pepper 5 1

Galangal 0.2 1.2

Total 7,890.5 12,764.4


In the Project area, approximately 70% of people own their own land (land owners) and 30 percent work on the land of others (tenant farmers), based on rental or commission systems (‘maro’ or ‘mertelu’) on mainly coffee farms (80 percent) as well as rice paddies (20 percent). Most land owners own between 1 and 2 hectares of land each and land is leased for the price of 50% of produce harvested. Despite coffee being the crop covering the greatest land area and the greatest source of income for most farmers, peppercorn

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

72


and cocoa (planted in amongst the coffee crops) are the most profitable for farmers, as shown by Table 7.7 below. Road improvements were cited by farmers consulted during the ESIA site visit as the main benefit of the project as it enables them to get their produce to market a great deal more easily. Chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides are the main inputs purchased from local markets. The wealthier landowners use mechanised farming techniques with equipment such as tractors.

Table 7.7: Project area main crop yields and prices.

Crop Yield interval Yield Amount t / ha / yr Price Rp / Kg

Coffee Annual 1 12,000

Peppers Annual 1 18,000-20,000

Cocoa Bi-annual 1 15,000 – 20,000

Rice Bi-annual 2 5,000

Source: Interview with farmer during Main ESIA Site Visit, June 2010

Almost every household in the assessment area rears poultry for subsistence and in some cases commercial provision of eggs and the larger settlement of Datarajan and Karang Rejo having a number of Buffalo as demonstrated by Table 7.8.

Table 7.8: Livestock numbers in Project Area

Villages Buffalo Goat Chicken Duck Total

Datarajan 12 365 609 80 1,066

Gunung Tiga - 97 482 - 579

Karang Rejo 15 264 659 118 1,056

Pagar Alam - 79 381 - 460

Muara Dua - 64 622 - 686

Total: 27 869 2,753 198 3,847

Sub-district 58 3,210 8,000 509 11,777


The nearby forested areas contain Islamic cemeteries; however these areas not expected to be affected by the project.

7.2.9 Access to Healthcare

Indonesia developed a national health care system in the early 1980's in an attempt to bring progressive orientations and systems to mobilize all potential resources to increase health service coverage, community involvement, and inter-sectoral collaboration. In an effort to reduce infant and mother mortality and reduce the number of pregnancies, a development plan formed an integrated service post called “Posyandu”.

Access to healthcare in Indonesia is improving. The life expectancy of Indonesians at birth is 71 years and the infant mortality rate is 31 per 1,000 live births29. Progress has been made in decreasing child mortality rates in recent years and the MDG target of 23 per 1,000 live births by 2015 looks like a realistic

_________________________

29 World Bank http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/INDONESIAEXTN/0,,menuPK:287097~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:226309,00.html data from 2008 (except HIV rate – 2007), page retrieved 21 April 2010

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

73


prospect30. The prevalence of HIV in 2007 was 0.2 percent amongst 15-49 year olds31 which is very low compared to rates seen in other parts of the developing world. Major health problems in Indonesia include under-nutrition in children and infectious diseases (the effects of which are exacerbated by malnutrition) such as tuberculosis and malaria32.

From Table 7.9 it is clear that the people in the Project’s district have poorer health than those in the region and Indonesia as a whole, with a lower life expectancy (by 2.5 years compared to the statistics) and a significantly higher percentage of people with health complaints and problems (by 11% compared to the statistics).

Table 7.9: Comparison of national and regional health indicators

Table Heading Left Tanggamus District Lampung Province Indonesia

Life expectancy 68.2 68.8 70.7*

People with health complaints/problems 44.2 36 33.2

Source: Lampung Statistic Website data: 2007 (*National Statistic Bureau Website: 2008)

The most common human diseases in the Ulubelu sub-district are respiratory infections or ‘ISPA’ – a problem common throughout this part of Indonesia due to the humid climate (20 percent) and diarrhoea or ‘diare’ which is commonly linked to bad sanitation33 (19 percent). PGE have invested in community sanitation infrastructure and implemented education programmes on road safety, disease and good sanitation for the benefit of local residents.

Access to health care in the assessment area is presented in Table 7.10. There are no hospitals, maternity house services or doctors practicing in the villages. However, a daily health service is currently provided by a Society Health Centre (Puskesmas) in the nearby town of Ngarip and free Sub-Public Health Centres (Puskesmas Pembantu) can be found in Karang Rejo and Datarajan villages. There is a midwife program in the study area commissioned by the Department of Health, which provides four midwives to serve the local communities.

Table 7.10: Local access to healthcare

Villages Sub-public health centre Nurse Midwife Distance to closest public health facility (km)

Datarajan 1 1 1 6

Gunung Tiga - - 1 5

Karang Rejo 1 1 1 5

Pagar Alam - - 1 4

Muara Dua - - - 1

Total / ave 2 2 4 4.2

Sub-district 4 9 14 -


_________________________

30 WHO Indonesia Mini Profile 2007 http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Country_Health_System_Profile_5-indonesia.pdf retrieved 26

31 World Bank http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/INDONESIAEXTN/0,,menuPK:287097~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:226309,00.html data from 2008 (except HIV rate – 2007), page retrieved 21 April 2010

32 WHO Indonesia Mini Profile 2007 http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Country_Health_System_Profile_5-indonesia.pdf retrieved 26 April 2010


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

74


There are no family planning clinics in area in the assessment area; census data on number of households who practice various contraception methods is presented in Table 7.11 below.

Table 7.11: Contraception methods used by households

Villages IUD Pill Condom Injection MOP MOW Implant Total

Datarajan 90 150 - 180 9 3 168 600

Gunung Tiga 52 86 - 104 5 2 97 346

Karang Rejo 68 113 - 135 7 2 126 451

Pagar Alam 30 50 - 60 3 1 56 200

Muara Dua 15 25 - 30 1 - 28 99

Total 255 424 0 509 25 8 475 1,696

Sub-district 971 1,618 - 1,942 97 32 1,812 6,472


Note: IUD – Intrauterine Device; MOP – Vasectomy; MOW – Tubectomy

7.2.10 Access to Education

Most Indonesians generally have good access to education and the national literacy rate is 91% for those under 15 years of age34. However, junior secondary education enrolment numbers show considerable variation between rural and urban areas, and among poverty quintiles. For 2002, the net enrolment rate35 (NER) in rural areas was 54.1%, significantly lower than in urban areas at 71.9%. The NER of the poorest quintile (49.9 percent) is almost two thirds of that of the richest quintile (72.3 percent).

There are 15 elementary schools in the assessment area and one private junior secondary school and one private senior secondary school in Datarajan Village. The numbers of pupils and teachers in each of the villages are presented in Table 7.12 and Table 7.13 respectively.

Table 7.12: Numbers of pupils

Villages Elementary school

pupils Junior secondary

school pupils Senior secondary

school pupils Total

Datarajan 549 507 30 1,086

Gunung Tiga 267 - - 267

Karang Rejo 375 - - 375

Pagar Alam 165 - - 165

Muara Dua 120 - - 120

Total 1,476 507 30 2,013

Sub-district 4,367 201 336 4,904


_________________________ 34 WHO Indonesia Mini Profile 2007 http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Country_Health_System_Profile_5-indonesia.pdf retrieved 26

April 2010 35 NER: the ratio of children of official school age - based on the International Standard Classification of Education 1997 - who are

enrolled in a school of the corresponding official school age. Definition from NationMaster website http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sch_enr_sec_net-education-school-enrollment-secondary-net#definition retrieved 26 April 2010

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

75


Table 7.13: Numbers of teachers

Villages Elementary school

teachers Junior secondary school teachers

Senior secondary school teachers

Total

Datarajan 59 17 17 93

Gunung Tiga 14 - - 14

Karang Rejo 33 - - 33

Pagar Alam 11 - - 11

Muara Dua 11 - - 11

Total 128 17 17 162

Sub-district 335 88 45 468


In Indonesia children are legally required to attend school between the ages of 7 and 16, however in reality many start at 5 years old. Villagers are not charged for school tuition fees but there is an administration fee of 100,000 Rp per year (fees vary between provinces). In the assessment area, the number of students per class increased from an average of 10 in 2001 to 15 in 2004, a rise of 50% in just three years. Pressure on schools has been decreasing since 2004, however, due to the national family planning programme which has resulted in reduced enrolment rates. There are no fees for students and funding comes from the Lampung Provincial Government. Consultation with the Muara Dua School headmaster revealed that funding priorities are library and computer facilities.

Forty-one percent of family heads and 38 percent of family members are educated to primary level (2004 data). Every village has residents who successfully complete college, however Karang Rejo village has the highest number of college graduates compared to other villages36.

PGE has recently made significant inputs into education, including investment in school buildings and teachers’ salaries, provision of scholarships, school uniforms and bags. The road improvements also benefited students in Muara Dua as previously it was a lot harder for them to get to school using a dirt track.

7.2.11 Access to Electricity

Indonesia has a 57 percent rate of electrification meaning that 90 million people still do not have access to electricity. Of those who do not have access to electricity, 90 percent are poor and many live in rural areas. This low rate of electrification is particularly evident in the assessment area where the vast majority of households do not have access to electricity.37

In the absence of governmental electrification services, some local community members have assumed personal responsibility for electrification of their homes. One example is a group of households living closest to Cluster D38 who have installed and managed their own micro-hydro power scheme. Sharing the cost between three neighbouring households, they installed the turbine and distribute the resultant electricity between them for domestic usage.

_________________________ 36 Ulubelu Units 1 & 2 ANDAL, 2004 37 The World Bank website:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/INDONESIAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20506301~menuPK:287102~pagePK:1497618~piPK:217854~theSitePK:226309,00.html

38 Located in a 15 year old settlement called Airlingkar Atlas (approximately 50 households) spanning between clusters D and E and being split between the jurisdiction of Muara Dua Village (in the north) and Pagar Alam Village (in the south),

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

76


7.2.12 Governance Arrangements

Below the level of national government, Indonesia’s administrative territories are divided into provinces (Provinsi); regencies or districts (Kabupaten); sub-districts (Kecamatan) and villages (Pekon – term specific to Lampung Province). Provinces, regencies/districts and cities have their own local governments. Each village has a village head (Kepala Desa) who is directly elected into the role and is generally seen as the key representative of villages.

In addition to the Kepala Desa and the other official governmental administrative bodies and representatives, there are a range of quasi-governmental bodies and civil society organisations in the assessment area that play a key role in community governance and civic life. Key actors include but are not limited to: Community committees – non-governmental elected bodies that liaise with the Kepala Desa to

represent the interests of local residents; Gapokan – the formal farmers trade association that represents the interests of local farmers; PKK (‘Pendidikan Kesejahteraan Keluarga’, literally ‘Women’s Empowerment and Family Welfare’ NGO

Association) - the National Women's Movement that represents the interests of women and families; and

Religious organisations including: Grup Mawalan, Pengajian Anak-anak, Pangajian Remaja, Majelis Ta’lim.

The non-governmental bodies work closely with the Kepala Desa offices and there is generally a harmonious relationship between the different bodies, with few political tensions apparent. The bodies are relatively organised with limited capacity and opportunities for engagement to enable them to represent the interests of their respective interest groups. No powerful or potentially disruptive interest groups who are opposed to the project were identified during the ESIA process.

However, the AMDAL and other ‘socialisation’ (consultative) processes in Indonesia traditionally exclude the non-governmental community stakeholders, and solely focus their engagement activities upon the Kepala Desa and more centralised governmental bodies. Although the civil society bodies consulted as part of the ESIA process were all supportive of the project, they expressed appreciation with more intensified engagement that enabled them to voice their concerns.

This presents a challenge to PGE to ensure that this continues, i.e. appropriate information about the project is disclosed at key stages to an appropriately representative range of stakeholders (as opposed to only official government bodies), and consider the concerns and interests of stakeholders in project operations and forward planning throughout the lifecycle of the Project. To meet this challenge, the public consultation and disclosure activities undertaken as part of this ESIA process, were designed to initiate a process of ongoing stakeholder engagement by PGE, as planned for in the PCDP (see Volume III).

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

77


7.2.13 Equity and Social Conflict

Indonesia’s Gini coefficient score - a statistical measure used to calculate the income or consumption inequality within a society - decreased from 39.4 in 2005 to 37.6 in 200739, indicating a reduction in national income inequality in this period. Despite this, there is a historical culture of protest in Indonesia and demonstrations are frequently used to give voice to citizens’ issues of concern and social justice.

Mirroring the relatively harmonious relationships between governmental and civil society bodies, there is generally a strong sense of community between neighbours and relatives in the assessment area. Neighbours and relatives tend to rely on each other for hospitality, investigating sources of employment, social gatherings and loans. There are relatively few incidences of conflict between newcomers and local residents40.

Consultation with the village leader in Muara Dua revealed concerns that the project may have resulted in social conflict due to the failure of expected employment opportunities generated by the Project to materialise. There is a perception amongst some villagers that the jobs go to those from other villages, which is a potential source of conflict between settlements. This presents a considerable challenge to PGE in ensuring that Project recruitment and information disclosure processes are transparent, based on merit and with equal opportunities for all villagers.

7.2.14 Land Acquisition

No involuntary resettlement has taken place to date or is expected as part of the Project development. However, land acquisition is required to facilitate Project development. Although PGE undertakes this on a willing buyer-willing seller principle, it can request expropriation as a last resort and therefore World Bank OP 4.12 is triggered. To comply, a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework has been developed for the Project that defines the procedures to be followed in the case of expropriation (see Volume III).

A description of land acquisition already undertaken for the project is provided in the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework. This note is summarised in this section which details the negotiated settlements (‘under the principle of ‘willing buyer – willing seller’) undertaken to date. As a subsidiary of Pertamina (the state oil company), PGE reserves the legal right to expropriate land in the public interest (under the principle of ‘eminent domain’) as a last resort, however expropriation has not occurred as of December 2010 and it is not expected to take place for the remainder of the Project.

PGE has already acquired land for Clusters A to H, power Units 3&4 and the road network used for transport and interconnection pipes through 12 acquisition efforts starting in 1997. The first acquisitions, Clusters A and B, were completed when PGE was a division of Pertamina; the remaining purchases were carried out by PGE as a separate entity, the last of which was concluded in December, 2010. To date, PGE has acquired a total of 46.44 ha in Ulubelu. Neither the roads nor the earthworks restrict the villagers’ access to housing or agricultural plots. PGE road improvements have significantly improved communication within the project area and between the local villages and other parts of the kecamatan.

Table 7.14 summarises the land acquisition activities to date for the whole Ulubelu development. _________________________ 39 World Bank http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home retrieved 22 April 2010 40 Ulubelu Units 1 & 2 ANDAL, 2004

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

78


Table 7.14: Ulubelu Land Acquisition Summary

Component Project Scope?

Area (m²) No. of Owners

Date Acquired

NJOP (Rp/m2)

Price Paid

(Rp/m2)(e)

Power Plant Units 1&2 (a) No NA NA NA NA NA

Water Pumping Station 1 Yes 260.00 1 May 13, 1997 NA 5,000

Well A1 (UBL-01) No

Well A2 (UBL-09) No

Well A3 (UBL-18) Yes

Wellpad Cluster A (Reinjection)

Well A4 (UBL-22) Yes

22,236.00 6 August 31,

2006 3,500

7,000 or 8,000

Well B1 (UBL-02) No

Well B2 (UBL-03) No

Well B3 (UBL-04) No

Well B4 (UBL-15) Yes

Wellpad Cluster B (Production)

Well B5 (UBL-16) No

52,144.00 (b)

37

August 31, 2006 and

September 2009

3,500

7,000 or 8,000 (2006)

and 12,500 or

20,000 (2009)

Well C1 (UBL-05) No

Well C2 (UBL-06) No

Well C3 (UBL-07) No Wellpad Cluster C

Well C4 (UBL-08) No

31,126.00 6 March 27,

2008 2,450 to

3,500 12,500 or

20,000

Well D1 (UBL-14) No

Well D2 (UBL-11) No

Well D3 (UBL-12) No Wellpad Cluster D

Well D4 (UBL-13) No

86,276.30 (b)

27

June 27, 2008 and

November 5, 2008

2,450 to 3,500

11,500 or 17,500

Well E1 (UBL-10) Yes Wellpad Cluster E (Production) Well E2 (UBL-20) Yes

47,046.55 (b)

16 November 5,

2008 2,450 to

3,500 11,500 or

17,500

Water Pumping Station 3 Yes 9,345.33

(c) 16

January 9, 2009

3,500 to 7,150

11,500 or 17,500

Production Pipeline Corridors Yes 5,253.63 15 January 9,

2009 3,500 to

7,150 12,500 or

20,000

Water Pumping Station 2 Yes 2,224.13 2 July, 2009 3,500 to

7,150 11,500 or

17,500

Well F1 (UBL-17) No

Well F2 (UBL-19) Yes Wellpad Cluster F (Reinjection)

Well F3 (UBL-21) Yes

31,115.68 (b)

9 September,

2009 3,500 to

7,150 12,500

Well G1 (UBL-23) Yes




Wellpad Cluster G (Production)


38,933.31 (b)

15 September,

2009 3,500 to

7,150 12,500 or

20,000

Well H1 (UBL-28) Yes



Wellpad Cluster H (Production)


56,442.38 (b) (d)

29 September 6,

2010 3,500 to

7,150 12,500 or

20,000

Power Plant Units 3&4 Yes 81,982.04 20 December 16, 2010

3,500 to 7,150

12,500 or 20,000

Source: PGE Land Acquisition Team

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

79


Notes: (a) The site was being prepared for construction during the visit of the ESIA team in June 2010, but the exact size of the

affected area and number of affected people is not known by PGE.

(b) Includes area of road access.

(c) Includes land acquired for the water supply pipeline corridor.

(d) Area acquired for Cluster H includes brine and condensate pipeline corridors to reinjection Clusters A and F.

(e) When two price amounts are presented, the first refers to the price for plantation (kebun) and the second for paddy land

(sawah).

The land for the 500m transmission link to the PLN substation is yet to be purchased. When this acquisition is undertaken, it will be carried out in accordance with PGEs Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework (presented in ESIA Volume III), which provides guidelines to enable adherence to WB OP 4.12 if expropriation is considered necessary as a last resort.

Money is either handed over in cash or paid directly into bank accounts according to the preference of the seller. Most people choose the option to receive cash in hand. Payment is made within one week of signing agreements. Most people use the money to purchase more land and farming equipment. A Farmer consulted as part of the ESIA process who sold his land for cluster C (not part of the Project but considered a relevant example as acquisition of land from Cluster C was part of PGE’s development of the overall Ulubelu Development) explained that he was able to purchase three times as much land as he previously owned and was very pleased with the outcome. Most people want to have their land purchased and there have been no grievances. In at least two instances when negotiations failed (owners either did not want to sell or would not accept PE’s final offer), PGE moved the location of the platform.

In summary and conclusion, those receiving compensation payments from PGE for land have been provided with sufficient capital to replace their assets with money to spare, often put toward housing, a positive outcome which was confirmed through World Bank Safeguards Team Mission and Mott MacDonald consultation with project affected persons.

There have been no lingering controversies regarding any of the land acquired to date, and those who failed to negotiate with PGE are reported as generally expressing regret at losing the sale. The amounts paid by PGE are a direct result of negotiations between themselves and the landowners, therefore they can be seen as being fair and competitive across the time period.

The alignment of the transmission link will be established in conjunction with the design of Units 3&4 and land will be acquired for the tower footprints according to PGE’s standard land acquisition procedures.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

80


7.2.15 Sensitive Potentially Project Affected Persons (Social Receptors)

Sensitive potentially project affected persons (social receptors) in the social impact assessment are those people who are considered to be vulnerable and likely to have less means to absorb adverse impacts and socio-economic shocks/risks or changes to their access to or control over socio-economic resources that ultimately affects their well-being, poverty levels and health, safety and security. At the same time, sensitive or vulnerable people may be less able to make the most of potential beneficial effects of a project, for example illiteracy may restrict the opportunity of people to apply for jobs. The sensitive potentially project affected people identified in the socioeconomic baseline can be summarised as follows: Those villagers living and farmers / land owners working closest to the construction sites, especially the

most vulnerable (impoverished, landless, elderly, children, disabled, female-headed households, etc); Farmers who require road access to markets; Existing employees and job seekers; Those whose land has and will be acquired; Users of social and community facilities (e.g. health, education) and services; and Agricultural and domestic users of water resources downstream from project areas that could potentially

be affected through water pollution or reduction in flow/groundwater levels.

The sensitivity of these people is discussed further in the social impact assessment in Section 8.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

81


7.3 Environmental Baseline

7.3.1 Overview

The environmental baseline for the ESIA describes the existing environmental context for the Project across the following aspects: Water quality and hydrology; Groundwater; Noise; Ecology; Air; Waste; Geology and erosion; Land contamination; Traffic; Archaeology and cultural heritage; Climate change.

7.3.2 Water Quality and Hydrology

7.3.2.1 Introduction and Data Sources

This section describes the hydrology and water quality in the area around Ulubelu.

There is no continuous surface water quality or flow monitoring in the vicinity of the project. Specific water quality and flow monitoring has been undertaken by the Local AMDAL Consultants as part of: The steam field ANDAL report – 2003; The Units 1&2 (PLN) ANDAL report - 2004; The Units 3&4 (PGE) ANDAL report (data taken from the ANDAL ToR) - 2009; and Ongoing quarterly monitoring as part of the above RKL/RPL 2008 - 2010.

From 1996 to 2009 surface water quality samples have been collected from over 26 different locations on the major rivers in the project area, although not all locations were sampled on each occasion. The data covers water quality including, temperature, total dissolved solids (TDS), Total suspended solids (TSS), pH, metals and major ions and on some occasions microbiology sampling. The sampling is believed to have followed Indonesian standards set in APHA: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 21st Edition 2005, and in particular the 2008 to 2010 results are presented with a list of the relevant test methods used. The data provides an adequate baseline against which to monitor and assess impacts on water quality. However, the data has limitations as the exact location and date of water sampling is not always known. There are still significant data gaps in the river flow data especially concerning seasonal variations and this will be discussed further in Section 9.2.

7.3.2.2 Baseline Hydrology

The study area included the Ulubelu river system and the Ngarip river system. Instantaneous measurements of flow parameters were undertaken as part of the steam field AMDAL process in 2003 and completed with interviews of the local population, with additional sets of flow measurements taken in 2008 and 2010.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

82


Although anecdotal evidence suggests that flooding of the study area has never occurred, the steamfield ANDAL report suggests that both rivers often cause flooding in downstream areas, particularly in the area of Wonosobo (a village at the downstream end of the Ulubelu River). The Ulubelu River system land use is characterised by community plantations, forests, and settlements. The Ulubelu River is the main river of the river system; it flows from north to south and it comprises the Ulubelu Stream, the Lingkar Stream, the Apakbeso stream and some tributary of the Ulubelu stream. The Ngarip system comprises the Ngarip stream and tributary streams.

The 2003 steamfield ANDAL report mentions that the river located in the vicinity of the power plant site for Unit 1&2 (which is located close to the site for Units 3&4) is the main water resource for people living in the area. It doesn’t flood in the rainy season and water remains in the dry season. The main contributor to the Ulubelu Stream is the Lingkar stream. The project is located in Sub Ulubelu stream system, which spreads along the north and east of the project, downward to the south into the Semangka Strait. Flow monitoring results are reported in Table 7.15.

Table 7.15: Hydrology Baseline Monitoring Results – 2003 & 2008*

Stream Name Discharge

Way Belu 3.78 m3/s

Way Asam 0.92 m3/s

Way Apak Beso 1.84 m3/s

Way Ngarip 2.57 m3/s

Way Lingkar 1.28 m3/s

Sungai Mekar Sari (upstream) 0.29 m3/s

Sungai Mekar Sari (downstream) 0.11 m3/s

Note: * Exact location on river and date flow measurement taken is unknown. This is a cause for concern given the highly

seasonal and location variable flow in these rivers.

A further site visit carried out by Mott MacDonald in June 2010 provides estimated flow for a number of rivers. The main rivers and the results of this site visit are presented in Figure 7.2 below.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

83


Figure 7.2: River flow measurements from site visit in June 2010


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

84


7.3.2.3 Baseline Water Quality

Water quality data was collected as part of the RKL/RPL process. Samples were taken from the local rivers (Ranoan & Maasem) both upstream and downstream from the Project site. The range of locations sampled provides a good overview of the quality of important water features in the Project area. Parameters monitored included (but not limited to depending on period of measurement): Physical parameters:

Temperature Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Conductivity (mg/l) Turbidity (Ntu)

Chemical parameters: pH Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Nitrate NO3 Ammonia NH3 Arsenic Cobalt Barium Boron Selenium Cadmium

Chromium (VI) Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Zinc Chloride Cyanide Fluoride Nitrite Sulphate Free Chlorine Hydrogen sulphide (H2S)

Microbiology Faecal coliforms Total coliforms

Results of analysis of river water chemistry conditions at the location of the study are presented in Table 7.16 to Table 7.19. In addition to the Indonesian standard for Class I (drinking water) and Class II (recreational and irrigation) the tables below provide a comparison against World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality 2008.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

85


Table 7.16: Baseline Water Quality – 2003

No. Parameter A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 Indonesia Standards

PP 82/2001

WHO Guidelines

2008

(Location reference key at bottom of table) Class I Class II

PHYSICAL

1 Temperature (0C) 28.10 27.90 28.70 29.00 28.50 Ambient water temp.

+/-3°C Ambient water temp.

+/-3°C NA

2 Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 85.00 69.00 84.00 96.00 112.00 1000 1000 NA

3 Suspended Solids (mg/l) 0.081 0.096 0.053 0.064 0.026 50 50 NA

4 Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l 8.15 7.502 10.301 3.995 5.96 NA NA NA

CHEMICAL

1 pH 7.03 6.97 6.96 6.99 6.70 6-9 6-9 NA

2 DO (mg/l) 3.2 3.0 2.7 3.2 2.6 6 4 NA

3 Iron (mg/l) 1.605 0.753 1.132 1.513 16.8 0.3 NA NA

4 Manganese (mg/l) 0.487 0.337 0.508 0.088 1.287 1 NA 0.4 (C)

5 Zinc (mg/l) 0.092 0.037 0.021 0.040 0.154 0.05 0.05 [3]

6 Arsenic (mg/l) ND 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.05 1 0.01 (P)

7 Barium (mg/l) 1.38 0.33 0.22 0.050 0.018 1 NA 0.7

8 Mercury (mg/l) ND ND ND ND ND 0.001 0.002 0.006 c

9 Chromium (mg/l) 0.010 0.018 0.021 0.015 0.013 0.05 0.05 0.05 (P)

10 Cadmium (mg/l) 0.002 0.089 0.114 0.208 0.133 0.01 0.01 0.003

11 Lead (mg/l) 0.758 0.265 0.625 0.167 0.179 0.03 0.03 0.01

12 Oil & Grease (mg/l) 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.03 1 NA NA

13 Chloride (mg/l) 0.034 0.034 0.0099 0.0198 0.025 1 NA [250]

14 Sulphate (mg/l) 144 184 120 176 96 400 NA [500]

15 Ammonia (N-NH3) (mg/l) 0.096 0.0160 1.162 0.033 0.499 0.5 NA NA

16 Nitrate (N-NO3) (mg/l) 7.42 7.64 7.68 7.24 7.94 10 10 50**

17 Nitrite (N-NO2) (mg/l) 0.24 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.06 3**

18 BOD (mg/l) 90 70 30 60 110 2 3 NA

19 COD (mg/l) 125 170 90 150 210 10 25 NA

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

86


No. Parameter A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 Indonesia Standards

PP 82/2001

WHO Guidelines

2008


20 Fluoride (mg/l) 0.0009 0.0016 0.0023 0.008 0.0007 0.5 1.5 1.5

21 Total Phenol (mg/l) 0.0007 0.001 0.0008 0.0009 0.001 0.001 0.001 NA

22 Magnesium (mg/l) 5.960 12.726 14.861 3.680 4.701 NA NA NA

23 Calcium (mg/l) 3.260 3.001 4.121 1.598 2.384 NA NA NA

24 Sulphide (mg/l) ND 0.001 0.009 0.02 0.03 0.002 0.002 [500]

25 Cyanide (mg/l) 0.01 0.06 0.03 ND 0.8 0.02 0.02 0.07

26 Selenium (mg/l) ND ND 0.001 0.001 ND 0.01 0.05 0.01

Source: PGE steamfield AMDAL, 2003

Note:

Bold = Breach of standard / guideline value

NA = Not Available

ND = Not Detected

** = short term exposure limit

C= concentrations of the substance at or below the health-based guideline value may affect the appearance, taste or odour of the water, leading to consumer complaints.

P = Provisional guideline values, as there is evidence of a hazard, but the available information on health effects is limited.

c= for inorganic mercury

Location Reference:

A1: Upstream Ulubelu Stream

A2: Downstream Ulubelu Stream

A3: Apakbeso Stream

A4: Lingkar Stream

A5: Asam Stream.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

87


Table 7.17: Baseline Water Quality – 2004

No. Parameter AW1 AW2 AW3 AW4 AW5 AW6 AW7 Indonesia Standards

PP 82/2001

WHO Guidelines

2008


PHYSICAL

1 Temperature (°C) 28 27.7 27.8 27.8 27.7 27.8 28.5 Ambient water temp. +/-3°C

Ambient water temp. +/-3°C

NA

2 TDS (mg/l) 47 46 239 97 98 259 39.8 1000 1000 NA

3 TSS (mg/l) 44 37 72 38 53 23 49.5 50 50 NA

4 Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) 77.6 76.7 39 161 161.1 433 87.4 NA NA NA

5 Turbidity (NTU) 2.45 2.84 4.86 2.23 3.02 5.05 2.61 NA NA NA

CHEMICAL

6 pH 7.33 7.32 4.11 7.03 7.16 4.06 6.34 6-9 6-9 NA

7 DO (mg/l) 1.7 1.8 1.9 4 3.6 3.8 2.7 6 4 NA

8 Iron (Fe) (mg/l) ND ND 0.24 0.001 0.025 0.27 0.02 0.3 NA NA

9 Manganese (Mn) (mg/l) 0.008 0.001 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.05 1 NA 0.4(C)

10 Copper (Cu) (mg/l) 0.01 0.012 0.009 0.021 0.013 0.017 0.006 0.02 0.02 2

11 Zinc (Zn) (mg/l) 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 <0.001 0.02 0.023 0.05 0.05 [3]

12 Arsenic (As) (mg/l) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.05 1 0.01(P)

13 Barium (Ba) (mg/l) 0.02 0.05 0.087 0.54 0.04 0.24 0.05 1 NA 0.7

14 Mercury (Hg) (mg/l) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.001 0.002 0.006c

15 Chromium (Cr) (mg/l) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.002 <0.001 0.05 0.05 0.05(P)

16 Cadmium (Cd) (mg/l) 0.002 <0.001 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 0.004 <0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003

17 Lead (Pb) (mg/l) ND ND 0.008 ND ND ND 0.002 0.03 0.03 0.01

18 Hardness (CaCO3) (mg/l) 1.199 0.799 1.198 1.798 1.798 1.198 2.101 NA NA NA

19 Oil & Grease (mg/l) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.02 1 NA NA

20 Chloride (Cl) (mg/l) 5.04 3.92 4.48 4.48 4.48 4.48 8.07 1 NA [250]-

21 Sulphate (SO4) (mg/l) 4.08 3.17 23.8 2.56 3.02 2.83 14.22 400 NA [500]

22 Ammonia (N-NH3) (mg/l) 0.039 0.043 0.091 0.076 0.074 0.082 0.003 0.5 NA [250]

23 Ammonium (NH4) (mg/l) 0.052 0.071 ND ND ND ND 0.032 NA NA NA

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

88


No. Parameter AW1 AW2 AW3 AW4 AW5 AW6 AW7 Indonesia Standards

PP 82/2001

WHO Guidelines

2008


24 Nitrates (N-NO3) (mg/l) 0.12 0.142 0.148 0.136 0.115 0.064 0.115 10 10 50**

25 Nitrite (N-NO2) (mg/l) 0.03 0.02 ttd 0.003 0.03 0.005 0.04 0.06 0.06 3**

26 BOD (mg/l) 4 11 14 7 10 11 8 2 3 NA

27 COD (mg/l) 6.8 20.8 42.4 22.2 26.8 26.4 13.3 10 25 NA

28 Fluoride (F) (mg/l) 0.12 0.01 0.3 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.5 1.5 1.5

29 Total phenol (mg/l) 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.001 NA NA

30 Potassium (K) (mg/l) 2.01 2.02 6.4 0.67 0.23 0.35 3.01 NA NA NA

31 Magnesium (Mg) (mg/l) 0.24 0.029 0.014 0.029 0.034 0.038 0.34 NA NA NA

32 Calcium (Ca) (mg/l) 0.48 0.32 0.48 0.72 0.72 0.48 0.18 NA NA NA

33 Sulphide (S-H2S) (mg/l) 0.0004 0.0009 ND ND 0.0006 ND <0.001 0.002 0.002 [500]

34 Cyanide (CN) (mg/l) 0.001 ND 0.0002 0.0003 0.002 0.001 <0.001 0.02 0.02 0.07

35 Selenium (Se) (mg/l) ND ND <0.001 ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.01 0.05 0.01

Source: PLN Unit 1&2 AMDAL, 2004

Description:


NA = Not Available

ND = Not Detected

** = short term exposure limit

C= concentrations of the substance at or below the health-based guideline value may affect the appearance, taste or odour of the water, leading to consumer complaints.

P = Provisional guideline values, as there is evidence of a hazard, but the available information on health effects is limited.

c = for inorganic mercury

Location Reference:

AW1 = Ulubelu Stream in Pekon Muara Dua before crossing Pekon Muara Dua settlement

AW2 = Ulubelu Stream in Pekon Muara Dua after crossing Pekon Muara Dua settlement

AW3 – Asam River border of Pekon Karang Rejo and Pekon Pager Alam (before PLTP)

AW4 = Ulubelu River before meeting with Asam River

AW5 = Ulubelu River after meeting with the Asam River

AW6 = Water channel that crosses PLTP area and flows into the estuary of Ulubelu River

AW7 = Ulubelu River after crossing PLTP area (at Gunung Tiga Pekon)

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

89


Table 7.18 Baseline Water Quality – 2008 to 2009

AS-1 AS-2

Jun-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Apr-09 Jun-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Apr-09

Indonesia Standards

PP 82/2001

No. Parameter Units


PHYSICAL

1 Temperature oC 20.9 24.1 28.0 22 24.7 24.1 28.0 23 Ambient water temp. +/-3°C


2 TDS* mg/l 66.0 95.0 106.0 72.0 64.0 8.8 116.0 100 1000 1000

3 TSS* mg/l 54.8 17.6 12.8 6.0 126.0 33.0 35.2 2.0 50 50

4 Turbidity NTU 24.4 19.6 18.6 12.8 22.5 16.7 14.8 <0.3 NA NA

CHEMISTRY

5 pH - 6.8 6.51 7.49 6.55 5.82 6.18 7.27 6.41 6-9 6-9

6 BOD* mg/l 5.03 4.36 7.26 4.96 7.74 21.11 4.01 4.96 2 3

7 COD* mg/l 8.0 8.08 16.0 8.08 12.8 44.44 8.0 9.70 10 25

8 DO mg/l 9.88 8.68 5.2 6.60 6.53 7.75 4.7 7.8 6 4

9 Total phosphate (P) mg/l 0.112 0.490 0.086 0.095 0.112 0.103 0.092 0.083 0.2 0.2

10 Nitrate (N-NO3) mg/l 0.12 0.015 0.12 0.008 0.25 0.027 0.14 0.28 10 10

11 Ammonia (N-NH3) mg/l 0.032 0.154 0.039 0.021 0.057 0.087 0.053 0.011 0.5 NA

12 Arsenic (As) mg/l <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.05 1

13 Cobalt (Co) mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.2 0.2

14 Barium (Ba) mg/l <0.002 0.006 0.012 0.009 <0.023 0.008 0.024 0.010 1 NA

15 Boron (B) mg/l <0.005 0.036 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 1 1

16 Selenium (Se) mg/l <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.01 0.05

17 Cadmium (Cd) mg/l <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.01 0.01

18 Chromium 6 (Cr6+) mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.05 0.05

19 Copper (Cu) mg/l <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 0.02 0.02

20 Iron (Fe) mg/l 0.115 0.099 1.58 0.149 0.038 0.245 0.184 0.052 0.3 NA

21 Lead (Pb) mg/l <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 0.029 <0.006 0.03 0.03

22 Manganese (Mn) mg/l <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.028 0.025 <0.007 <0.007 1 NA

23 Mercury (Hg) mg/l <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.001 0.002

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

90


AS-1 AS-2

Jun-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Apr-09 Jun-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Apr-09

Indonesia Standards

PP 82/2001

No. Parameter Units


24 Zinc (Zn) mg/l <0.009 0.032 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 0.033 <0.009 <0.009 0.05 0.05

25 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 2.0 1.50 1.0 <0.5 6.8 2.0 2.0 <0.5 1 NA

26 Cyanide (CN) mg/l 0.004 0.002 0.003 <0.001 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.02 0.02

27 Fluoride (F) mg/l <0.01 0.25 0.24 0.10 0.17 0.30 0.26 <0.01 0.5 1.5

28 Nitrite (NO2-N) mg/l 0.012 0.005 <0.005 0.005 0.013 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.06 0.06

29 Sulphate (SO4) mg/l 14.40 17.40 10.10 16.1 35.10 17.30 10.40 14.4 400 NA

30 Free Chlorine (Cl2) mg/l <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 0.03 0.03

31 Sulphide (H2S) mg/l <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.007 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.004 0.002 0.002

32 Oils and Greases mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 1

33 Detergent (MBAS) mg/l 1.19 0.135 0.189 0.144 0.993 0.235 0.137 0.100 0.2 0.2

34 Phenol mg/l 0.032 0.002 0.005 0.011 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.008 0.001 0.001

MICROBIOLOGY

35 E.Coli MPN/100 ml 27 70 90 30 23 90 110 33 100 1000

36 Coliform MPN/100 ml 350 220 500 500 300 240 900 500 1000 5000

Source: RKL/RPL Ulubelu Monitoring Steam Field, 2009

Description:

NA = Not Available

* = Above the permitted value


Location Reference:

AS-1 = Sungai Mekar Sari (Up Stream)

AS-2 = Sungai Mekar Sari (Down Stream)

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

91


Table 7.19: Baseline Water Quality – Quarter 3, 2009

ASR1 ASR2

(Location reference key at bottom of table)

Indonesia Standards

PP 82/2001

No. Parameter Units

Aug-Nov 2009 Aug-Nov 2009 Class I Class II

PHYSICAL

1 Temperature oC 28.0 28.0 Ambient water temp. +/-3°C


2 TDS mg/l 90.0 132.0 1000 1000

3 TSS mg/l 42.8 14.4 50 50

CHEMISTRY

4 pH - 6.88 7.40 6-9 6-9

5 BOD mg/l 7.65 16.0 2 3

6 COD mg/l 14.5 30.7 10 25

7 DO mg/l 4.30 3.95 6 4

8 Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l <1 <1 NA NA

9 Nitrate (NO3-N) mg/l 1.34 0.46 10 10

10 Ammonia (NH3-N) mg/l 0.049 0.018 0.5 NA

11 Arsenic (As) mg/l <0.005 <0.005 0.05 1

12 Barium (Ba) mg/l 0.014 0.007 1 NA

13 Selenium (Se) mg/l <0.004 <0.004 0.01 0.05

14 Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.009 0.009 0.01 0.01

15 Chromium 6 (Cr6+) mg/l <0.001 <0.001 0.05 0.05

16 Iron (Fe) mg/l 0.431 0.285 0.3 NA

17 Lead (Pb) mg/l <0.006 <0.006 0.03 0.03

18 Manganese (Mn) mg/l <0.007 <0.007 1 NA

19 Calcium (Ca) mg/l 0.301 0.444 NA NA

20 Magnesium (Mg) mg/l 0.175 0.412 NA NA

21 Mercury (Hg) mg/l <0.0005 <0.0005 0.001 0.002

22 Zinc (Zn) mg/l 0.011 0.030 0.05 0.05

23 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 1.50 2.40 1 NA

24 Cyanide (CN) mg/l 0.003 0.004 0.02 0.02

25 Fluoride (F) mg/l 0.07 <0.01 0.5 1.5

26 Nitrite (NO2-N) mg/l 0.012 0.005 0.06 0.06

27 Sulphate (SO4) mg/l 51.2 8.90 400 NA

28 Sulphide (H2S) mg/l 0.010 <0.002 0.002 0.002

29 Oils and Greases mg/l <1 <1 1 1

30 Phenol Total mg/l 0.007 0.009 0.001 0.001

Source: RKL/RPL Ulubelu Monitoring Steam Field, 2009

Description:

NA = Not Available


Location Reference:

AS-1 = Way Muara Dua

AS-2 = Air Lingkar (locally known as Way Kemis)

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

92


Results in 2003 showed relatively low total suspended solid (TSS) levels at all stations. In 2004, the TSS levels exceeded the Indonesia standard at AW3 and AW5 (72 and 53mg/L respectively). In June 2008, the TSS levels exceeded the Indonesian standard at AS-1 and AS-2 (54.8mg/l and 126.0 mg/l respectively) but were below standard on the subsequent sampling visits. These high levels of suspended solids are likely to be related to both natural increases due to soil loaded runoff entering the river during heavy rainfall, as well as anthropogenic pollution of the river, such as sewage discharge or river use by cattle.

2003 data shows that surface water is mainly neutral, however, data from 2004 and 2008 show some low pH values and acidic waters. Such acidity is common for volcanic rock formation areas, with the discharge of acidic-sulphate hot springs in some areas. Higher pH readings are found in later monitoring rounds and this may be a seasonal variation, where in wet periods river chemistry is dominated by rainfall; while in drier periods chemistry is dominated by flow from hot springs (see Table 7.20). The influence of volcanic rock formations is also shown in relatively high levels of metals shown in the 2003 data.

Dissolved oxygen values are consistently low (from 1.7 mg/l to 4.0 mg/l) in the 2003 and 2004 measurements. These values are below the minimum requirement of DO, namely 4mg/l for Class II waters. Current values are too low to support many aquatic species (such as fish). These low DO concentrations are likely to be linked to the high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). BOD and COD values are consistently high across almost all monitoring locations and during all monitoring campaigns. This is potentially an indication of anthropogenic pollution of the river, such as sewage discharge or river use by cattle. This conclusion is supported by microbiology evidence discussed below.

High levels of chloride in 2004, 2008 and 2009, ammonia and nitrite in 2003 indicate pollution from human sources, such as fertilisers, pesticides, washing / cleaning products and sewage discharge. Ammonia levels could also indicate potential pollution from sewage as discussed above.

Monitoring of coliforms was only undertaken as part of the four rounds of monitoring between June 2008 and April 2009. Some levels of E. Coli approach or are in excess of the Indonesian Class I standard in 2008. As reported in the steamfield ANDAL report, these conditions indicate that the surface waters in the study area are possibly used by residents as a place of domestic wastewater discharge (faeces).

Overall, water quality is relatively poor due to natural contamination of ground/surface water from volcanic rocks and highly mineralised water from the deep aquifer, and due to anthropogenic discharges from sanitation / cattle waste and pollution through the use of fertilisers and pesticides.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

93


7.3.3 Groundwater


This section describes the groundwater quality in the area around Ulubelu, as influenced by the hydrogeology.

A number of studies have been carried out in the local area and some data is available on the local geology. Useful information on the geology can be found in: ‘Ulubelu Geothermal Prospect Resource Assessment Report, October 2002 by PNOC EDC and

Pertamina; Feasibility Study for Ulubelu Geothermal Power Project, October 2010 by AECOM; The steamfield AMDAL, 2003.

This data has been combined to produce a conceptual model of the geology and hydrogeology in the region as presented below.

There is no regular groundwater quality or level monitoring in the vicinity of the project. Specific groundwater quality monitoring has been undertaken by the Local Consultants as part of: The steamfield AMDAL, 2003. Ongoing quarterly monitoring as part of the steamfield RKL/RPL, 2008 - 2010.

The studies are believed to have followed Indonesian monitoring standards, which specify test procedures set in APHA: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 21st Edition 2005, and in particular the 2008 to 2010 results are presented with a list of the relevant test method used. This additional groundwater quality information provides a good representation of the groundwater quality in the area especially with the supplementary infomation now available.

The adequacy of the data has been discussed in the Inception Report and it was concluded that further data was required to provide a better understanding of the groundwater flow and level fluctuation. Very little additional groundwater level data has been collected since the inception report and the data available is limited to field visit observations in 2004 from the ANDAL reports, and further data is still required in this area. This will need to be addressed as part of the ESMP (see Volume IV).

7.3.3.2 Groundwater quality

Sampling of naturally occurring outflows of geothermal waters was undertaken in 1977, 1978, 1991 and 2002. The combined surveys cover 37 sites, but not all of these were covered in each sampling round. The determinants include major ions and some minor and trace ions. A selection of these results is presented in Table 7.20 and the springs have been sorted into three classes as shown. The natural geothermal outflows can be rich in sulphates (up to 3,420 mg/l) and other minerals (up to 3.0 mg/l of fluoride). The results also suggest that the waters have potential for scaling due to the presence of silica.


94


Table 7.20: Water Chemistry of Hotsprings in Ulubelu Prospect

Water Chemistry (ppm)

Sample

Code

Temp.

(C)

Elev.

(m)

pH Li Na K Ca Mg SiO2 B Cl HCO3 SO4

Anion

Balance

Cation

Balance

Ion

Balance

Chloride-Bicarbonate Springs

Way Panas 98 200 7.91 2.26 487 46 12 1.1 2 28 754 82 77 24.19 23.4 1.66

Way Belu 98 - 8.05 1.76 396 35 19 0.75 147 21 595 121 59 19.51 19.69 -0.45

Way Ngarip 100 200 7.8 2.68 539 64 13 0.1 250 30 893 73 70 27.12 26.15 1.81

Way Panas 99 200 7.8 1.59 402 35 24 0.51 171 12 590 111 50 19.03 20.41 -3.52

WP-1 102 150 8 2.13 391 40 40 0.19 164 28 482 135 26 15.96 21.32 -14.38

WP-2 102 150 8.4 2.74 467 47 23 0.03 187 39 867 74 33 25.65 23.4 4.59

WP-3 100 150 7.8 2.36 400 44 34 0.21 175 32 553 98 31 17.4 21.31 -10.09

NR-1 100 200 8.65 - 560 68 25 0.01 274 38 808 74 21 23.79 28.19 -8.47

NR-1A 100 200 8.45 - 565 66 25 0.02 271 37 815 74 23 24.02 28.32 -8.21

Chloride-Sulfat Springs

Way Napalgili 99 200 7 2 479 37 15 0 195 16 799 30 61 23.66 23 1.43

Way Ngarip 99 200 7 2.3 543 56 17 0 277 19 853 25 66 25.15 26.44 -2.5

WP-02 94 140 8.67 2.23 492 46 17 0.1 195 21 755 36 62 22.55 23.99 -3.08

WP-03 80 140 8.18 2.07 446 42 24 0.68 187 21 704 58 59 21.45 22.48 -2.34

Acid-Sulfat Springs

Kawah Asam 98 734 1.8 0.01 3 3 2 0.84 65 0 5 0 2770 57.85 0.39 98.66

Kawah Belerang 97 778 1.8 0.01 7 6 13 5.57 255 - 3 0 3420 71.33 1.71 95.31

UB-1 98 715 1.2 0 29 51 9 25.28 103 0 7 0 431 9.17 4.3 36.19

UB-2 96 700 1.9 0 16 25 10 1.17 72 0 7 0 221 4.8 2.21 36.89

UB-3 90 715 1.2 0.01 6 7 28 6.25 172 0 7 0 495 10.51 2.97 55.91

UBL-01 94 700 2.66 0.03 5 2 4 1.54 94 0 2 0 343 7.21 0.68 82.84

UBL-02 80 715 3.24 0.03 6 2 5 1.66 57 0 1 0 67 1.43 0.84 26.01

Datakroya 86 740 4 8 2 7 2 63 0 2 0 121 2.58 1.06 41.78

Kawah Belu 95 740 5 - 13 6 10 7 426 - 3 0 178 3.79 1.86 34.2


95


Water Chemistry (ppm)

Sample

Code

Temp.

(C)

Elev.

(m)

pH Li Na K Ca Mg SiO2 B Cl HCO3 SO4

Anion

Balance

Cation

Balance

Ion

Balance

Meteoric Water

WP-3A 32 140 7.7 0.01 36 43 11 1.97 89 0 14 61 5 1.49 3.65 -41.94

UBL1, 625m 201 4.1 1.76 406 51 5 2.57 248 31 609 0 180 20.43 19.48 2.38

UBL-1,1160 230 6.4 2.85 579 78 1 1.36 255 64 1028 0 110 30.46 27.34 5.4

UBL-1, 1100m 230 4.8 3.81 559 102 2 0.23 409 - 1159 0 693 46.19 27.1 26.05

Source ‘Feasibility study report on Ulubelu and Lumut Balai Geothermal Power Project in the Republic of Indonesia’ by Japan Consulting Institute in March 2004

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

96


The geological map in Figure 7.4 below includes the location of the main hot springs. However, there are also a number of shallow wells and springs from the shallow aquifer which are used for domestic or irrigation purposes. A number of these wells have been identified during the main ESIA site visit and during ongoing monitoring as part of the RKL/RPL implementation. A full water features survey has not be completed in the area but it is likely that the main wells have now been identified and where possible sampled for water quality.

In 2004, monitoring was undertaken at two wells in the area, one in Pekon Karang Rejo and the other in Pekon Gunung Tiga (close to UBL 1). The results are presented in Table 7.21. The data covered water quality including temperature TDS, TSS, Turbidity, metals and major ions. In addition, further monitoring has been undertaken periodically since 2008 as part of the RKL / RPL implementation. This data was collected from wells in Mekar Sari (community well, Muara Dua extension), Muara Dua Village (near to cluster C and H), Lingkar (close to Lingkar river) and Tanjung Indah (south of Cluster C). These villages and wells are shown in Figure 7.3.

Groundwater quality data for wells in the area is presented in Table 7.22. It can be seen that general water quality is relatively poor with low pH and dissolved oxygen (DO) and high biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) when compared to the Indonesian water quality standard. Concentrations of copper and zinc are also high in some wells being above the Indonesian water quality standard. The absence of high sulphates and low fluorides in shallow wells are a further confirmation of the conceptual model of low hydraulic connection between the geothermal reservoir and the shallow aquifer where it is being used, and suggest that groundwater level in the shallow aquifer is controlled mainly by rainfall. The high BOD and COD suggest that the wells may contain pollution load derived from domestic waste, suggesting that either the wells are poorly sealed at the surface or that groundwater interacts with the rivers in this area.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

97


Figure 7.3: Map of local villages and wells


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

98


Table 7.21: Well Water Quality Monitoring Results – 2004

No Parameter Unit Karang Rejo @ 0.5m Karang Rejo @ 4m Gunung Tiga Village (near UBL 1)

Indonesian Standard Class I

WHO Guidelines 2008

PHYSICAL

1 Colour TCU - - - 15 -

2 Odour - - - - Odourless -

3 Taste - - - - Tasteless -

4 Temperature °C 28 28 28 Dev ± 3oC -

5 Turbidity NTU 5 -

6 Dissolved Residual TDS mg/l 49 131 42 1000 -

7 TSS mg/l 21 27 32 50 -

8 Conductivity us/cm 82.4 218 69.3 - -

CHEMICAL

9 pH - 6.06 5.53 6.16 6.5 - 8.5 -

10 DO mg/l 3.9 3.8 3.7 6 -

11 Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l 0.849 4.195 0.849 500 -

12 Barium (Ba) mg/l 0.06 0.06 ttd 0.7 0.7

13 Sodium (Na) mg/l - - - 200 -

14 Iron (Fe) mg/l ttd ttd ttd 0.3 -

15 Manganese (Mn) mg/l ttd 0.001 ttd 0.1 0.4 (C)

16 Copper (Cu) mg/l ttd 0.025 0.021 0.02 2

17 Zinc (Zn) mg/l 0.003 0.02 0.002 0.05 3

18 Chromium (Cr) mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.03 0.05

19 Cadmium (Cd) mg/l ttd <0.001 <0.001 0.01 0.003

20 Lead (Pb) mg/l ttd ttd ttd 0.03 0.01

21 Arsenic (As) mg/l ttd ttd ttd 0.05 0.01

22 Boron (B) mg/l - - - 1 -

23 Mercury (Hg) mg/l ttd ttd ttd 0.001 0.006

24 Nickel (Ni) mg/l - - - 0.02 -

25 Selenium (Se) mg/l ttd <0.001 ttd 0.01 0.01

26 Fluoride (F) mg/l 0.02 0.2 0.04 0.5 1.5

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

99


No Parameter Unit Karang Rejo @ 0.5m Karang Rejo @ 4m Gunung Tiga Village (near UBL 1)

Indonesian Standard Class I

WHO Guidelines 2008

27 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 7.28 28 5.04 600 250

28 Chloride (Cl2) mg/l - - - 5 -

29 Ammonia (N-NH3) mg/l 0.022 0.025 0.018 0.5 250

30 Nitrates (N-NO3) mg/l 4.86 3.11 5.46 10 50

31 Nitrite (N-NO2) mg/l 0.003 0.007 0.008 0.06 3

32 Cyanide (CN) mg/l ttd ttd ttd 0.02 0.07

33 Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) mg/l - - - 0.002 -

34 Permanganate (KMnO4) mg/l - - -

35 Sulphate (SO4) mg/l 1.07 17.3 4.06 400 500

36 BOD mg/l 6 68 9 2 -

37 COD mg/l 16 150.04 26.04 10 -

MICROBIOLOGY

38 E. Coli MPN/100ml - - - 0 -

39 Coliform MPN/100ml - - - 1000 -

Source: PLN Units 1&2 AMDAL, 2004

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

100


Table 7.22: Well Water Quality Monitoring Results – 2004 to 2010

LingkarTanjung

Indah

Karang Rejo @ 0.5m

Karang Rejo @ 4m

Gurung Tiga Village (near UBL 1)

Jun-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Apr-09Nov-09 to Jan-2010 Jun-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Apr-09

Nov-09 to Jan-2010

Nov-09 to Jan-2010 2004 2004 2004

PHYSICAL1 Colour TCU 2.7 2.7 2.7 < 0.8 0.8 2.7 4.5 6.3 < 1 2.7 8.1 SNI 06-6989.24-2005 - - - 15 -2 Odour - Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Organoleptik - - - Odourless -3 Taste - Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless Organoleptik - - - Tasteless -4 Temperature oC 22.5 22.5 28 21 26 23.5 25.5 28 22 25 25 SNI 06-6989.23-2005 28 28 28 Dev ± 3oC -5 Turbidity NTU 1.2 2.2 2.2 <0.3 0.7 3.2 3.2 5.1 < 0.3 2.4 5.8 SNI 06-6989.25-2005 5 -6 Dissolved Residual TDS mg/l 99 96 158 124 420 108 34 247 60 136 72 SNI 06-6989.27-2005 49 131 42 1000 -7 TSS mg/l 21 27 32 50 -8 Conductivity uS/cm 82.4 218 69.3 - -

CHEMICAL9 pH - 5.6 6 7.15 5.31 5.65 5.79 5.03 7.07 4.98 5.9 5.58 SNI 06-6989.11-2004 6.06 5.53 6.16 6.5 - 8.5 -

10 DO mg/l 3.9 3.8 3.7 6 -11 Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 17 <1 <1 Titrimetrik 0.849 4.195 0.849 500 -12 Barium (Ba) mg/l 0.014 0.034 0.008 0.028 - 0.128 0.005 0.015 0.008 - - APHA 3120-B 0.06 0.06 ttd 0.7 0.713 Sodium (Na) mg/l 98.41 111.8 51.64 26.9 - 45.1 88.1 31.79 27.4 - - APHA 3120-B - - - 200 -14 Sodium (Na) mg/l 0.103 <0.009 0.09 0.48 - 0.058 0.789 0.158 0.04 - - APHA 3111-B - - - 0.3 -15 Iron (Fe) mg/l <0.007 0.048 0.047 <0.007 0.015 0.187 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.068 0.032 APHA 3111-B ttd ttd ttd 0.3 -16 Manganese (Mn) mg/l <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.007 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.007 <0.007 APHA 3111-B ttd 0.001 ttd 0.1 0.4(C)17 Copper (Cu) mg/l <0.009 0.042 <0.009 <0.009 <0.006 <0.009 0.144 <0.009 <0.009 0.32 0.014 APHA 3111-B ttd 0.025 0.021 0.02 218 Zinc (Zn) mg/l <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 0.097 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 0.125 0.135 APHA 3111-B 0.003 0.02 0.002 0.05 319 Chromium (Cr) mg/l <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.001 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.001 <0.001 APHA 3114-B <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 0.0520 Cadmium (Cd) mg/l <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.007 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.007 <0.007 APHA 3120-B ttd <0.001 <0.001 0.01 0.00321 Lead (Pb) mg/l <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 ttd ttd ttd 0.03 0.0122 Arsenic (As) mg/l <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 APHA 3120-B ttd ttd ttd 0.05 0.0123 Boron (B) mg/l <0.005 0.125 <0.001 <0.005 - <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 - - APHA 3120-B - - - 1 -24 Mercury (Hg) mg/l <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0008 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 APHA 3112-B ttd ttd ttd 0.001 0.00625 Nickel (Ni) mg/l <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 APHA 3120-B - - - 0.02 -26 Selenium (Se) mg/l <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 APHA 3120-B ttd <0.001 ttd 0.01 0.0127 Fluoride (F) mg/l <0.01 0.13 0.2 0.42 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.22 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 APHA 4500-F-D 0.02 0.2 0.04 0.5 1.528 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 5.9 14.2 2.4 10.3 2 3.9 2.9 1.5 5.9 2 2 APHA 4500-Cl- B 7.28 28 5.04 600 25029 Chlorine (Cl2) mg/l <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 - <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 - - APHA 4500-Cl2 B - - - 5 -30 Ammonia (NH3-N) mg/l 0.067 0.23 0.035 0.012 - 0.126 0.02 0.044 0.022 - - APHA 4500-NH3- F 0.022 0.025 0.018 0.5 25031 Nitrate (NO3-N) mg/l 1.34 0.61 0.7 1.1 1.01 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.5 1.12 1.49 APHA 4500-NO3-E 4.86 3.11 5.46 10 5032 Nitrite (NO2-N) mg/l 0.011 0.033 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 0.014 0.006 <0.005 0.005 0.007 <0.005 APHA 4500-NO2-B 0.003 0.007 0.008 0.06 333 Cyanide (CN) mg/l <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 APHA 4500-CN-D ttd ttd ttd 0.02 0.0734 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) mg/l <0.002 <0.002 0.004 <0.002 - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 - - APHA 4500-S2-F - - - 0.002 -35 Permanganate (KMnO4) mg/l 2.5 4.3 2.8 - - -

36 Sulphate (SO4) mg/l 4.1 9.1 5.9 9.3 42.4 4.7 4.5 1.3 6 52.1 9.7 APHA 4500-SO42- E 1.07 17.3 4.06 400 500

37 BOD mg/l 6 68 9 2 -38 COD mg/l 16 150.04 26.04 10 -

MICROBIOLOGI39 E.Coli MPN/100 ml 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APHA 9221 - - - 0 -40 Coliform MPN/100 ml 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APHA 9221 - - - 1000 -

No Parameter Unit

WHO Guidelines

2008

Results

Community well Mekar Sari Well in Muara Dua Village

Test Method

Indonesian Standard 1st

Class

Source: Primary Data

Description: ttd: not detected; - Not analyzed

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

101


7.3.3.3 Baseline Hydrogeology

The local geology of the Ulubelu area is illustrated in Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5. Figures are taken from the AMDAL for PLN Units 1&2 (2004) although are believed to originate from ‘Feasibility study report on Ulubelu and Lumut Balai Geothermal Power Project in the Republic of Indonesia’ by Japan Consulting Institute in March 2004 and ‘Ulubelu geothermal prospect resource assessment report 2002’ by PNOC EDC and PERTAMINA respectively.

The map and geological sequence show that the regional geology is dominated by Recent Volcanics (Holocene to Pleistocene) which are largely basic to intermediate volcanic rocks (andesites and pyroclastics) overlain in places by alluvial deposits (such as clay, gravel, sand, silts and volcanic debris). The volcanics are divided into Tertiary and Quaternary ages. A summary of the surface stratigraphy and lithology of the area is presented in Table 7.23.

Figure 7.4: Geology of area surrounding Ulubelu

Source: PLN Units 1&2 AMDAL (2004)

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

102


Figure 7.5: Stratigraphy of area surrounding Ulubelu


Table 7.23: Ulubelu stratigraphic column

Volcanic Units Lithology Age (mya)

Duduk Volcanics Prophyritic dacite rocks 0.43

Tanggamus Volcanics Andesite lava and pyroclastic rocks <1.41

Rendingan Volcanics Andesite Lava, andesitic tuff and andesite breccia 1.41

Korupan Volcanics Andesite lava and rhyolitic tuff 1.49

Kabawok Volcanics Pyroclastic rocks and andesite lava 1.75

Kukusan Volcanics Basaltic andesite lava 3.94

Sula Volcanics Andesite lava and prophyritic pumice 4.5

Source: Feasibility Study for Ulubelu Geothermal Power Project, AECOM 2010

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

103


The geological map (Pertamina, 1996) shows geological structures such as faults. Faulting in the area includes dip-slip (normal faults) and strike-slip faults (shear fault). The dominant fault direction is northwest-southeast, in addition, there are also faults trending southwest to northeast.

Generally groundwater flow in deep and heavily altered volcanic lavas is dominated by fracture flow, whereas flow in the alluvium takes place through the pore spaces. This simple model is more complex in reality since successive volcanic eruptions have buried earlier surfaces possibly including layers of alluvium or marine deposits, with pyroclastics or lavas.

The geology and hydrogeology of the geothermal reservoir has been investigated and reported by PGE in relation to the energy potential and production well design. Boreholes UBL1 to 3 are trial boreholes which are up to 1194 m deep. The boreholes passed through a zone of clays but there were some highly permeable zones at depth. Field observations reported in the Steamfield ANDAL report (2003) indicated that the surface material (superficial material) at the planned project site is dominated by silty sand, stained reddish brown.

The unconfined shallow aquifer in the study area is used by the local community as a domestic and irrigation water supply. The unconfined nature of the aquifer means the groundwater is controlled by the local environmental situation, such as topography, climate (especially rainfall) and land use, and is vulnerable to contamination. Groundwater depth is usually between 12 to 20 meters in the dry season and between 4 to 8 meters in the rainy season. The shallow groundwater in the study area is a relatively small resource of only local importance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

104


7.3.4 Noise

7.3.4.1 Introduction and Data Source

Periodic monitoring of environmental and social parameters is undertaken as part of the various AMDAL processes (environmental management and monitoring plans or RKL / RPL). Several short-term attended baseline noise monitoring surveys were carried out by the Local AMDAL Consultants in free-field conditions. The most recent baseline noise monitoring was performed in 2008, 2009 and 2010 at several locations, including drilling locations, and the villages of Muara Dua, Pedukuhan Mekarsari, Pekon Muara Dua, Kampung Muara Dua, and Dusun Tanjung Indah. These locations are considered representative of the wider Project location. Each study and analysis followed Indonesian standards set out in MOE Decree No. 48 of 1996.

The number of monitoring locations included in the study enables satisfactory representation of the ambient noise climate in the local area to be achieved. The results indicate some variation in noise level between receptors; locations near wells experience elevated conditions for example. The noise monitoring surveys present ambient conditions over a limited period of time and the noise levels are considered to be relatively high for a rural environment. Notwithstanding, the data available is considered sufficient to inform the ESIA although further noise monitoring is committed as part of the ESMP.

The location is rural in character and the surrounding terrain is undulating. The prevailing acoustic environment in the general area is dominated by natural sound sources. The principal sources are related to wind generated effects and to fauna, in particular birds and insects. Ambient noise conditions are likely to increase during periods of inclement weather, owing to the area’s geography. Road / off-road traffic from motorcycles, in addition to agricultural and domestic activities, are the primary anthropogenic sources of sound in the local area.

As part of the general effort to identify sensitive receptors, the villages particularly sensitive to noise are deemed to be: Datarajan; Kebun Rejo; Runggang; Karang Rejo; Pagar Alam; Gunung Tiga; Mekarsari; Muara Dua; Isolated House near Cluster F, and, Two Houses near Cluster B.

The receptors specified above were chosen due to the presence of residential dwellings, religious buildings, health facilities and schools.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

105


7.3.4.2 Baseline Noise

The study area is characterised by relatively high levels of ambient noise, however, this may be considered typical of a rural environment with existing transportation infrastructure. Monitoring results for 2008-2009 relevant to the Project are summarised Table 7.24.

Table 7.24: Baseline Noise Measurements (2008-2009)

World Bank Guidance (2007) dB(A)

No Site Minimum dB(A)

Maximum dB(A)

National standard MOE Decree No. 48 of 1996 dB(A)

Day Night

1 Entrance to drilling location 74 79 55 55 45

2 Residential property to the south of Cluster B (Pedukuhan Mekarsari, Pekon Muara Dua)

40 51 55 55 45

The results presented in Table 7.24 above indicate elevated noise levels at location 1. There is no explanation in the steam field ANDAL report (2003) as to why such exceedances occur in a rural environment and laboratory certificates do not provide any indication of specific conditions affecting the results. It is expected that location 1 was influenced by well drilling activities during some of the surveys. The measured noise levels at location 1 currently typically exceed the World Bank Group daytime and night-time guideline values.

The monitoring results for 2010 are summarised in Table 7.25 below.

Table 7.25: Baseline Noise Measurements (2010)

World Bank Guidance (2007) dB(A)

No Site (Cluster B) Minimum dB(A)

Maximum dB(A)


Day Night

1 Dusun Mekar Sari 48.7 56.3 55 55 45

2 Pintu Gerbang 70.0 73.7 55 55 45

3 Dusun Tanjung Indah 49.7 55.7 55 55 45

The measured noise levels in 2010 also demonstrate some variability in local noise conditions. As is detailed in Table 7.25, the pre-existing maximum measured noise levels are above the Indonesian standards at monitoring locations 1 to 3. Non-compliance with Indonesian standards at this site is not considered to be of material significance as it is likely to represent typical road traffic noise levels in the local area. Although not directly comparable to the 2008-2009 data reported in the Units 1&2 ANDAL report (2004), the monitoring results are in line with expected baseline noise levels for a rural environment with some development such as Ulubelu.

As can be seen from Table 7.25, the measured noise conditions currently exceed the World Bank Group daytime and night-time guideline values at each of the receptors included in the survey.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

106


7.3.5 Ecology


Use was made of data collected as part of the various AMDAL processes, RKL, and Japanese reports (Final Draft Feasibility Study Report on Ulueblu & Lumut Balai Geothermal Power Project, Japan Consulting Institute, March 2004), along with observations made during a field visit to the Project site on 13 and 14 May 2010, together with the HSE officer of PGE based at the Project site. Birds were identified using MacKinnon and Phillipps (1993).

7.3.5.2 Baseline Ecology

Within the Project area, the following components of ecology and habitats are described: Aquatic habitats; Fish and benthos; Terrestrial habitats; Birds.

Aquatic habitats

A series of smaller and larger streams run through the Project area, the largest being the Way Belu (or Kalibelu), which is about 5-10 metres wide along much of its course, often with a rocky bottom. The waters of these streams generally have a muddy brown colour, especially after rainfall, an indication of significant erosion from the surrounding slopes. Despite rainfall during the MML 13-14 May 2010 field survey, most of the streams are shallow (<1 m depth, with rocks visible in most places), and it is unlikely that these could sustain larger fish species, or maintain a significant flow all year round. Aquatic vegetation is absent, although remnant emergent wetland species occur (see valley bottoms).

Fish and Benthos

Local boys were observed angling in the Way Belu, and reportedly they catch striped snakehead Channa striata (gabus), common carp Cyprinus carpio (ikan mas) and common barb Puntius binotatus (benter), along with introduced tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus and o. niloticus). Several farmers were observed fishing with coarse baskets in a pond and taking out a variety of small fish, including Rasbora spilotaenia and Trichogaster trichopterus.

The AMDAL’s list ‘zoobenthos’, but upon review this list largely includes phytoplankton. The remaining species listed under zoobenthos are mainly identified to genus level only. A total of 23 plankton and 8 benthos species were also listed.

Table 7.26 and Table 7.27 presents species of fish and zoobenthos respectively as derived from the various AMDAL processes and corresponding RKL/RPL reports.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

107


Table 7.26: List of Fish Species Recorded

# Species Local name

1 Barbichthys laevis Wader padi

2 Channa striata Gabus

3 Cyprinus carpio Mas

4 Mastacembelus notophthalmus Sili

5 Oreochromis mossambicus Mujair

6 Oreochromis niloticus Nila

7 Puntius sp. Piye

8 Puntius binotatus Benter

9 Rasbora spilotaenia Wader biasa

10 Trichogaster trichopterus Sepat

Table 7.27: List of Zoobenthos Species Recorded

Species Taxonomic group Common name

1 Lymnaea sp. Mollusc Pond snails

2 Melanoides tuberculatum Mollusc Malaysian trumpet snail

3 Mitra sp. Mollusc Aquatic snail

4 Corbicula ovalina Mollusc Freshwater mussel

5 Tubifex sp. Annelida Worm

6 Lumbriculus sp. Oligochaete Worm

7 Parathelphusa sp. Crustaceae Freshwater crab

Terrestrial Habitats

The various AMDAL processes and RKL/RPL monitoring periods reports that 10 mammals species including 4 primate species. The AMDAL’s also mention the occurrence of 30 ‘forest’ species and lists 39 species (see Table 7.28), including tenam Shorea leprosula, a large dipterocarp of primary forests. It also reports the occurrence of 2 primates, 8 reptiles, 2 amphibians (see Table 7.29).

Important is the occurrence of the two endangered primates, the endemic leaf monkey Presbytis melalophos and the siamang Symphalangus syndactylus. The list of plant species (see Table 7.28) has been expanded to 51 species, including an additional 12 species identified during the MML field visit of 13-14 May 2010.

Few observations were made of reptiles and amphibians during the 13-14 May field survey, and only the common many-lined sun skink Mabuya multifasciatus, spectacled toad Bufo melanosticus and cricket frog Rana limnocharis were observed.

Most of the flat valley bottoms have been converted to rice paddies, served by small on-farm irrigation channels and interspersed with trees that are mainly planted by the local farmers. In the past there would have been numerous small wetlands, but these have been obliterated by the conversion to rice paddies. Along the Way Belu rice paddies occur right up to the banks and the only natural vegetation seen was that of grasses (Leersia hexandra) sprouting on exposed midstream mudflats, and some stands of swamp sugarcane Saccharum spontaneum. In pools along rice paddies remnant wetland species such as Ludwigia hyssopifolia and Limnocharis flava are found. Close to cluster F, some secondary scrub with

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

108


small trees (including Trema orientalis and Vernonia arborescens, but also introduced ornamental African trumpet tree) was observed.

Although appearing green and covered with tree vegetation, all smaller hills have in most cases been converted to mixed plantations. A few shade trees such as kapok Ceiba pentandra, dadap Erythrina variegata and sengon Paraserianthes (Albizia) falcataria, have been either left or planted, but the canopy cover is vary sparse. The dense understorey consists of a mixture of coffee shrubs (dominant in all areas), along with cocoa, guava (jambu batu), betel nut (pinang), banana, and interspersed with pepper and vanilla. The tops of some smaller hills are covered with low secondary forest (e.g. south of Cluster F), where the vegetation is dominated by only a few tree species (unidentified from distance). The vegetation around the fumarole site (‘manifest’) near Cluster F, is low and shrubby, dominated by secondary shrubs and small trees such as Eugenia spicata, Ficus deltoides, Macaranga gigantea, Melastoma malabathricum and Schefflera sp., along with ferns such as Dicranopteris linearis, Pteridium aquilinum and Stenochlaena palustris.

Forests in the assessment area are mostly limited to areas of higher altitude and steep slopes adjacent to the project site to the north. Much of this forest is designated as Hutan Lindung (protection forest) for the management of water systems, flood prevention, soil erosion and soil fertility. These forests are adversely affected by illegal activities, mainly encroachment for agriculture and logging, as well as soil erosion. The Project is not expected to have any impact on the forested areas.

PGE has further confirmed that project activities are located outside the Hutan Lindung through obtaining the Ijin Lokasi (location permission) for the Project from the Regency Tanggamus rather than the Ministry of Forestry. This confirms that the project is not located in a Hutan Lindung area because, the awarding authority for Ijin Lokasi is dependent on whether the project is located in or outside designated forest areas. A 500m buffer has been allowed between the nearest PGE activities and the Hutan Lindung boundary.

Remnant lowland forest occurs in small patches on top of the tallest hills and some of the steepest slopes. However, even the accessible steep slopes of the tall hills in much of the Ulubelu area often have an understorey in which coffee has been planted.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

109


Table 7.28: List of Plant Species

# Species Family Local name ANDAL Obs. #

1 Adina minutiflora Rubiaceae Lasi +

2 Ageratum conyzoides ** Asteraceae Bandotan +

3 Alstonia scholaris Apocynaceae Pulai +

4 Altingia excelsa Hamamelidaceae Rasamala +

5 Amomum coccineum * Zingiberaceae Tepus +

6 Calamus sp. * Arecaceae Rotan + +

7 Castanopsis sp. Fagaceae Pasang babi +

8 Ceiba pentandra Bombaceae kapok +

9 Chromolaena odorata1 * Asteraceae Kirinyuh +

10 Cyathea arborea Cyathaceae Paku tiang +

11 Dehaasia caesia Lauraceae Medang kuning +

12 Dicranopteris linearis Gleicheniaceae pakis +

13 Dillenia sp. Dilleniaceae Simpur +

14 Dyera costulata Apocynaceae Jelutung +

15 Erythrina variegata Leguminosae Dadap + +

16 Eugenia densiflora Myrtaceae Jambu hutan +

17 Eugenia spicata Myrtaceae Jambu +

18 Ficus deltoides Moraceae Ahe +

19 Ficus glomerata Moraceae Ahe +

20 Ficus hispidum Moraceae Luwingan +

21 Ficus toxicaria Moraceae Semantung +

22 Imperata cylindrica ** Poaceae Alang-alang +

23 Korthalsia sp. Arecaceae Rotan +

24 Lantana camara 2 * Verbenaceae Saliara +

25 Laportea peltata Urticaceae Kemadu Besar +

26 Leersia hexandra Poaceae ? +

27 Limnocharis flava Limnocharitaceae ? +

28 Ludwigia hyssopifolia Onagracae ? +

29 Macaranga conifera Euphorbiaceae Ndelenge +

30 Macaranga gigantean Euphorbiaceae ? +

31 Macaranga tanarius * Euphorbiaceae Mara +

32 Mallotus angulata Euphorbiaceae Walik angin +

33 Mallotus cochinchinensis Euphorbiaceae Walik angin +

34 Melastoma malabathricum * Melastomaceae Harendong + +

35 Melothria leucocarpa Cucurbitaceae Waluhan +

36 Paraserianthes (Albizia) falcataria Fabaceae sengon +

37 Piper aduncum Piperaceae Sesirih +

38 Pometia pinnata Sapindaceae Kungkil +

39 Pteridium aquilinum Hypolepidaceae pakis +

40 Quercus sp. Fagaceae Kashi +

41 Saccharum spontaneum Poaceae ? +

42 Schefflera sp. Araliaceae Ramo goling + +

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

110


# Species Family Local name ANDAL Obs. #

43 Schima wallichii Theaceae Puspa +

44 Scolopia rhinanthera Flacourtiaceae Rukem hutan +

45 Shorea leprosula Dipterocarpaceae Tenam +

46 Smilax sp. Smilaceae Asem-asem +

47 Stenochlaena palustris Blechnaceae pakis +

48 Toona sureni Meliaceae Serian +

49 Trema orientalis Ulmaceae Anggrung + +

50 Vatica lowii Dipterocarpaceae Sapat +

51 Vernonia arborescens * Asteraceae Anggrung + +

Notes: * = Secondary forest species

** = Herbaceous weed

# = observed during 13-14 May 2010 field visit

1 = Invasive exotic from North America;

2 = invasive exotic from Central America

Table 7.29: List of Reptiles & Amphibians

# Species Local name

Snakes

1 Ankistrodon rhodostoma Tanah

2 Bungarus fasciatus Belang

3 Natrix sp. Sawah

4 Python reticularis Sanca

Lizards

1 Calotes jubatus Bungalon

2 Gekko gecko Tokeh

3 Draco volans Hap hap

4 Mabuya multifasciatus Kadal

Amphibians

1 Bufo melanosticus Kodok

2 Rana limnocharis Katak

Birds

During the field visit on 13-14 May only 12 bird species were recorded (Table 7.30) of which 8 had already been recorded in the various AMDAL processes. In total, 30 bird species had been recorded, including 3 protected bird species through the AMDAL processes.

There was a general lack of larger birds including birds of prey (only one black eagle observed). Remarkably, no pigeons or doves were observed, even along roadsides and in spite of being recorded in through the AMDALs. Recreational hunting by the local community is probably the cause of this paucity, as four young men were observed with air rifles hunting for birds during the course of the MML field survey in May 2010, indicating that it is a popular past-time and that there is local access to air rifles. Smaller birds are less easy targets and seem to be present in larger numbers, including various flowerpeckers and tailorbirds.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

111


Table 7.30: List of Bird Species Recorded

# Species Local name Common name RKL Obs ***

1 Aplonis panayensis* ? Asian Glossy Starling +

2 Centropus sinensis Bubut besar Greater coucal +

3 Collocalia esculenta Walet sapi Glossy swiftlet +

4 Collocalia fuciphaga Walet sarang putih Edible-nest swiftlet + +

5 Copsychus malabaricus ## Burung kendali White-rumped shama +

6 Copsychus saularis Kucica Magpie robin + +

7 Dicaeum concolor Cabe gunung Plain flowerpecker + +

8 Dicaecum sanguinolentum Bentet coklat? Blood breasted flowerpecker +

9 Prionochilus percussus ? Crimson breasted flowerpecker +

10 Geopelia striata Unkal Zebra dove +

11 Hirundo rustica Layang-layang Asia Barn swallow +

12 Hirundo tahitica Layang-layang biasa Pacific swallow +

13 Ictinaetus malayensis # ? Black eagle + +

14 Lanius cristatus Bentet Brown shrike + +

15 Lanius schach ? gunung (incomplete) Long-tailed shrike +

16 Cacomantis merulinus ? Plaintive cuckoo +

17 Lonchura leucogastroides Bondol jawa Javan munia +

18 Macropygia unchall Cabe hutan Barred cuckoo-dove +

19 Muscicapa dauurica latirostris Perenjak coklat Asian brown flycatcher +

20 Orthotomus ruficeps ? Ashy tailorbird +

21 Orthotomus sepium Cicenen kelabu Olive backed tailorbird +

22 Orthotomus sutorius Cinenen biasa Common tailorbird +

23 Dendrocopus (Picoides) canicapillus

Bubik Grey-capped woodpecker +

24 Prinia familaris ? (wrong in ANDAL) Bar-winged prinia +

25 Prinia polychroa Perenjak sayap-garis Brown prinia +

26 Pycnonotus aurigaster Kutilang Sooty-headed bulbul + +

27 Pycnonotus goiavier Teracuk Yellow-vented bulbul +

28 Pycononotus melanicterus Percampeor Black-crested bulbul + +

29 Stachyris melanothorax ** Kucica hutan Crescent chested babbler +

30 Todirhamphus (Halcyon) chloris ? Collared kingfisher + +

31 Nectarina jugularis ? Olive-backed sunbird +

32 Treron vernans Tepus pip perak Pink-necked green-pigeon +

33 Zosterops montanus Burung kacamata Mountain white-eye +

Notes: * = Local name in ANDAL is that of a pigeon; recorded as A. minor, but this species does not occur on Sumatra, and is

most likely the very similar A. panayensis;

** = Endemic to Java & Bali (occurrence in project area = highly unlikely);

# = locals name in ANDAL is Bubut besar, which is the name for coucal;

## = name in ANDAL corrupted to Cypsychus balasiensis.

*** = observed by ESIA team

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

112


Summary

The baseline ecological survey carried out for the AMDAL process identified a variety of species in the Project area, indicating the presence of relatively rich, but often highly modified ecosystems. This was confirmed during the 13-14 May 2010 survey by MML. Several endangered / protected species have been reported through the AMDAL processes, namely two endangered primates, the endemic leaf monkey Presbytis melalophos and the siamang Symphalangus syndactylus. Both species are CITES listed and fully protected by Indonesian law. Vulnerability of the species will be discussed in the impact assessment section.

The Project area is located close to a Hutan Lindung boundary (closest point approximately 500m). Hutan Lindung, or protection forest, is required to remain in forest cover for the maintenance of life support systems and the management of water systems, flood prevention, soil erosion and soil fertility (RI Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry). The Ijin Lokasi (location permission) for the Project from the Regency Tanggamus confirms that the project is located outside the Hutan Lindung area.

The nearest infrastructure to the Hutan Lindung is Cluster G (at least 500m south of the boundary – see Figure 2.3). The entire project infrastructure is situated at a lower altitude and downstream of the protection forest. It is not considered likely that any of the ecological features that comprise the Hutan Lindung will be affected by the project.

Beyond the Project area, satellite imagery shows that some of the forest within the Hutan Lindung boundary has been replaced by coffee and other crops. This may be the result of encroachment or may be a legacy of recent changes to the boundary of the Hutan Lindung principally to encourage reforestation of zones important for protection of watersheds. In any event, the plantations within the Hutan Lindung pre-date the Project and are outside the area of land used by the Project.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

113


7.3.6 Air


There is no continuous air quality monitoring in the vicinity of the Project. Specific air quality monitoring has been undertaken by the Local Consultants as part of: The steam field AMDAL (2003); The Units 1&2 (PLN) AMDAL (2004); The Units 3&4 (PGE) AMDAL (data taken from the AMDAL ToR, 2009); Ongoing quarterly monitoring as part of the above AMDALs’ RPL/RKL (2009 – 2010).

In 2003, monitoring was undertaken at 10 locations across the study area, essentially the villages affected by the Project. The data cover dust (assumed to be Total Suspended Particles TSP), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2). In addition, monitoring data is available for seven locations in the study area from the Units 1&2 AMDAL carried out for PLN (2004). These data cover the above pollutants (save CO2), and hydrocarbons (HC), ozone (O3), as well as lead (Pb). Whereas the monitoring duration of the 2003 campaign is unknown, the PLN Units 1&2 AMDAL (2004) reports that monitoring was carried out for 24 hour periods.

Further monitoring has been undertaken periodically since 2008 as part of the RKL/RPL implementation. This covered three locations near Clusters B, C and D for NO2, SO2, particles with a mean diameter below 10μm (PM10), H2S, CO and NH3. Although Clusters C and D are not part of the Project, ambient air quality monitoring results have been included as they are representative of the wider airshed.

Monitoring methods used in the 2009 monitoring campaigns are presented in Table 7.31.

Table 7.31: Air Quality Monitoring Methodology

Pollutant Method Equipment

SO2 Pararosaniline Spectrophotometer

NOX Saltzman Spectrophotometer

CO Potassium Iodine Spectrophotometer

TSP Gravimetric High volume sampler

H2S Mercurythiocyanate Spectrophotometer

NH3 Nessler Spectrophotometer

The pollutants considered within the steamfield AMDAL (2003) and associated RKL/RPL monitoring together with the number of sample points provides a good representation of air quality in the area, especially with the supplementary information from the PLN Units 1&2 AMDAL (2004). Specific issues lead some of the data to be discarded, as discussed on a case by case basis below.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

114


7.3.6.2 Baseline Air Quality

The study area is characterised by generally good air quality, typical of rural environments. Main anthropogenic pollution sources are road traffic and domestic sources such as cooking (including oil burning) and waste burning. The area is however subject to natural emissions of pollutants such as hydrogen sulphide (H2S), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particles due to volcanic activities: fumaroles, hot springs, eruptions. Monitoring results are summarised in Table 7.32 to Table 7.34.

Table 7.32: Air Quality Monitoring Results - 2003

No. Monitoring Stations Parameters (µg/m3)

NO2 SO2 CO Dust NH3 H2S

2 Datarajan 7.9 251.3 33.9 169.5 222.9 0.7

3 Kebun Rejo 0.2 341.3 18.9 ND 198.7 0.7

4 Karang Rejo 1.7 16.7 84.5 168.9 112.5 0.7

5 UBL III, Karang Rejo 2.2 16.7 84.5 166.9 112.5 0.7

6 Kr. Rejo Plantation 3.2 275.5 16.8 168.3 174.6 0.7

7 Pagar Alam 2.2 16.8 17.0 169.5 136.4 0.7

8 UBL IV ND ND ND ND ND ND

9 Gunung Tiga 2.2 146.6 126.7 168.9 104.6 0.7

10 Datarajan / Terbasan ND ND ND ND ND ND

1 hour 400 900 30,000 NA NA NA National Standard (Government Regulation No. 41 of 1999) 24 hour 150 365 NA 150 * NA NA

National standard (MOE Decree No. 50 of 1996) **

Not Specified

NA NA NA NA 1,360 28

Source: Steamfield AMDAL (2003)

Notes: * = Particulate Matter (PM10)

** = See Appendix A, Volume III regarding applicability

Table 7.33: Air Quality Monitoring Results – 2004

No. Monitoring Stations Parameters (µg/m3)


1 Road Bridge , near sign Gunung Tiga 6.5 4.5 9.2 61.0 6.4 0.9

2 Near Assembly Station Gunung Tiga Village 7.3 5.6 9.2 122.4 1.8 1.9

3 Proposed Site Units 1&2 8.0 5.6 9.2 61.2 2.8 1.9

4 Kampung Sawah, Pekon Karang Rejo 8.0 4.5 9.2 182.9 17.4 4.7

5 Near Jembatan Way, Ulubelu 6.5 5.6 9.1 61.0 0.9 1.9

6 Settlement Pekon Pagar Alam Village, After Way Asam 5.1 5.6 9.1 60.7 5.5 1.9

7 Settlement Pekon Muara Dua, Near Primary school 8.6 12.1 9.1 60.7 8.2 3.7



Not Specified NA NA NA NA 1,360 28




265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

115


Table 7.34: Air Quality Monitoring Results – RKL / RPL

Parameters (µg/m3) Monitoring Station

Monitoring report


(July 08) 38.0 3.5 78.3 60.0 208.8 13.9

(Aug-Sep-Oct 08) 98.5 4.1 104.5 70.0 208.8 13.9

(Nov-Dec 08 - Jan09) 123.8 55.6 205.5 90.0 904.9 20.9 Cluster C

(Feb-Mar-Apr09) 85.5 14.8 200.8 45.3 765.7 16.7

S. of Cluster C (Nov-Dec 09 - Jan 10) 1.7 0.6 76.0 30.9 119.8 0.4

(July 08) 29.0 2.3 60.6 42.3 < 7.0 <13.9

(Aug-Sep-Oct 08) 82.3 6.4 90.7 50.3 7.0 <13.9

(Nov-Dec 08 - Jan09) 115.4 25.4 180.8 60.5 730.9 13.9 Cluster D

(Feb-Mar-Apr09) 80.3 16.5 190.8 45.3 835.3 20.9

(July 08) 32.0 2.5 72.4 52.4 139.2 <13.9

(Aug-Sep-Oct 08) 76.0 2.2 82.4 53.4 139.2 <13.9

(Nov-Dec 08 - Jan09) 145.8 51.8 172.5 63.5 1009.3 23.7

(Feb-Mar-Apr09) 75.6 12.3 175.8 43.4 487.3 13.9

Muara Dua, S. of Cluster B

(Nov-Dec 09 - Jan 10) 2.2 0.6 94.7 31.3 22.1 0.1

Cluster B's Gate

(Nov-Dec 09 - Jan 10) 58.4 2.1 400.3 62.9 37.9 0.3



Not Specified

NA NA NA NA 1,360 28

Source: RKL/RPL monitoring – 2008, 2009, 2010



Levels of H2S are recorded in the Project area due to the presence of fumaroles and steam vents which represent natural sources of H2S release to atmosphere. Although natural levels of H2S exist, the levels recorded are low in the Ulubelu area (2003 data are almost identical at all locations, which seem to indicate a monitoring or reporting error). A value of 4.7µg/m3 measured in 2004 has been used as a conservative assumption for background in the dispersion modelling assessment as this is the highest monitoring result prior to commencement of major drilling activity by PGE. Monitoring close to the clusters undertaken more recently following the commencement of drilling activities (as part of the RKL/RPL) show increases in concentrations. The data also shows a high variability between monitoring sites and periods. Given this, it is not considered to be a true reflection of prevailing background H2S conditions in the area, hence the value of 4.7µg/m3 has been adopted in the air quality assessment.

High SO2 concentrations were observed in 2003. Although reported at several locations, the high values are not consistent with 2004 data. The elevated SO2 concentrations are explained in the 2003 ANDAL report as being due to a local hot spring’s activities. This shows that air quality can be significantly influenced by gaseous releases associated with fumaroles and steam vents. Monitoring close to the clusters, which was undertaken as part of the RKL/RPL, shows increases in concentrations, peaking in the November 2008 to January 2009 reporting period without causing any exceedence of the Indonesian standard.

Low CO concentrations were reported in 2003 and 2004. More recent monitoring data from the RKL/RPL reports show CO concentrations increasing, potentially affected by Project activities, but well within

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

116


standards. Given the large margin between observed concentrations and standards and the limited sources of CO associated with the Project’s operation, this background data does not influence the conclusions of the assessment.

NO2 results are consistently low across the study area. The maximum measured concentration between 2003 and 2004 (8.6 µg/m3) has been retained. As for other pollutants, influence of Project activities, in particular vehicles and diesel generators, are likely to affect the RKL/RPL monitoring results although without causing an exceedence.

NH3 results show a significantly higher 2003 measurements than those for the 2004. The 2003 values are consistent across the different monitoring stations and do not present any obvious sign of error. Monitoring as part of the RKL/RPL shows increases in concentrations, up to over 1 mg/m3. This is numerically still below the Indonesian standard, although no direct comparison should be done as sampling was for 1 hour and the standard applies to daily averages.

Dust levels reported in 2003 are almost identical at all locations, which could indicate a problem with the measurements, unless the area was uniformly affected by volcanic ash. 2004 levels vary with location, which is consistent with the short-range characteristic of anthropogenic dust emission sources. Direct comparison with standards is however difficult as the Indonesian standard is a daily average, while the reported monitoring period is hourly. Results indicate generally within the study area, there is no major issue with regard to dust is experienced. The maximum observed value, 183µg/m3 at Karang Rejo has been considered as a background value when identifying potential impacts in the assessment.

Low levels of ozone were reported in the 2004 results.

Other pollutants are not considered to be relevant to this assessment as they are not emitted in any significant quantity by the Project or in the construction phase.

The values selected as background concentrations for consideration within the air quality assessment as appropriate are summarised in Table 7.35.

Table 7.35: Background Air Pollutant Concentrations

Pollutant Concentration (µg/m3)

H2S 4.7

SO2 16.7

NO2 8.6

CO 126.7

NH3 222.9

TSP 183

The main sensitive receptors are the villages near to the power plant and production/reinjection clusters): Datarajan; Kebun Rejo; Karang Rejo; Pagar Alam; Runggang; Gunung Tiga; and Muara Dua.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

117


The locations of the villages relative to the Project components are presented in Figure 2.4.

Air quality impacts have been also considered at the various agricultural (i.e. non-residential) areas, in order to assess impacts on people working in the nearby fields. In addition, consideration has been given to occupational health receptors within the various Project sites. Further details of receptors assessed in the dispersion modelling are presented in Volume III.

7.3.7 Climate Change

There is a wide range of information and data available of the global climate and changes attributable to human activity. This global context does not provide an appropriate baseline against which to assess the effects of the Project.

7.3.8 Waste

There is no information on baseline waste treatment and disposal in the AMDALs. It is understood from the site visits that organic wastes are collected by the villagers for feeding the livestock, and other general wastes such as paper are burned on site. There is no hazardous waste treatment facility in the area and PGE contractors store hazardous oils and scraps onsite before sending them to a licensed Hazardous Waste Service Company.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

118


7.3.9 Geology and Erosion


Numerous studies on the Ulubelu geology have been undertaken in the past. Studies of the basic geology and geothermal prospects have historically been undertaken by Pertamina and local consultants as well as scientific researchers. This work includes detailed geological mapping of the Ulubelu area and geological structures at surface. Sampling has been undertaken of geothermal water and steam for geochemical analysis and geothermometers and reservoir characteristics as well as geophysical measurements such as MT and gravity. Studies form previously drilled holes (18 wells), stratigraphy, fluid chemistry and well logging data all have contributed to the conceptual model of the Ulubelu geothermal field and its nature.

Previous studies have been summarized in a number of reports and feasibility studies, for example: Ulubelu geothermal prospect resource assessment report 2002; Feasibility study report on Ulubelu and Lumut Balai geothermal power project in Republic of Indonesia.

2004; Ulubelu AMDALs (Steam field - 2003, PLN Unit 1&2 - 2004 and ongoing RKL/RPL monitoring); AECOM Feasibility study for the Ulubelu Geothermal Power Project, 2010.

Previous work on the Ulubelu field along with ongoing drilling and monitoring will further contribute to the model and increase the understanding of the field.

7.3.9.2 Baseline Geology and Erosion

The Ulubelu geothermal project area lies near the southern end of the Sumatra Fault Zone that has a NW-SE trend along the whole island of Sumatra. Numerous volcanoes are situated on this fault zone that has the same trend as the Sunda trench.

The Ulubelu geothermal field is situated in a volcano-tectonic depression, or graben, from 300 m to 1600 m above sea level although the prime area is situated about 700-1100 m above sea level. It lies between Mt. Rendingan and Mt. Kabawok in the southern part of the Sumatra Fault Zone. Normal faults on the east, west and south sides of the depression mark the boundaries of the graben and a lineament near the southern slopes of Mt. Rendingan may mark its northern limits.

The Ulubelu geothermal area is situated inside a caldera of evolved Strato-volcanoes that has been volcanically active through Plio-Pleistocene, or for the past 15 million years. At least four major strato-volcanoes and five minor volcanic centres are thought to have contributed to the formation of this area. The rocks types are basaltic andesites, andesites, dacites lavas and associated tephra (ash and pumice) deposits. Occasional lavas are found at G Kurupan (PNOC and Pertamina, 2002).

The South Sumatra basin was formed in three major tectonic phases as summarized in the report by Japan Consulting Institute (2004) as follows: late Paleocene to early Miocene extension forming north trending grabens which were filled with

Eocene to early Miocene deposits; A period of relatively little volcanic activity with late normal faulting from early Miocene to early Pliocene;

and Compression of basement, basin inversion, and reversal of normal faults in the Plocene to Recent

forming an anticline (Suhendan, 1984). Reactivation has occurred in some of the normal faults that formed the depositional basins in South Sumatra and some have been reversed during Miocene to Plio-

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

119


Pleistocene compression and basin inversion (Sudarmono et al., 1997; Zeliff et al., 1985; Moulds, 1989).

The Plio-Plestocene rocks are underlain by the Old Andesite Formation of early Miocene age. This is a submarine deposit consisting of basalt and andesite, intercalated by sedimentary formation including limestone, claystone and volcanic breccias. The Kotaagung granodiorite, which has been dated of Miocene age (15.6 Ma) has intruded the formation.

Volcanic activity in the area seems to occur periodically and two main pulses of activity have occurred since the main pulse associated with the Old Andesite formation. The first eruptive period or pulse that produced the Sula Volcanics, Ringdingan Volcanics and Duduk Volcanics occurred about 4 to 5 million years ago. After a dormant period of about 2 million years the second eruptive period occurred producing the Kabawok Volcanics, Tanggamus and Rendingan Volcanics that are the youngest dated rocks in the area.

Three types of tectonic features or structures have been identified in the Ulubelu geothermal area. These area: a) faults and lineaments; b) calderas or volcano-tectonic depressions; and 3) arcute structures. The tectonic structures that have been considered the optimum prime drilling targets are the NW-SE and NE-SW structures.

Geologically the area is associated with resurgent volcanism within the Ulubelu Caldera. G. Rindingan and G Duduk are the most likely heat sources for the geothermal system, along with the volcanic centres.

The area has been studied and documented with a number of wells drilled into the geothermal field recording a highest temperature of around 280°C.

The subsurface lithology and alteration has been documented from existing wells and indicates temperature dependence hydrothermal alteration zoning with depth. A silicified zone partly caps the geothermal system and the mineral epidote is present, normally forming deep in geothermal systems at stability field above 260°C but found at much lower temperature in some holes indicating cooling in some part of the system. In the central part of the system epidote from drill cuttings appears to be thermodynamically stable and reflecting reservoir temperature in equilibrium with alteration minerals.

Geochemical data from wells and surface manifestations provides a good picture of the system and the processes impacting the fluid upflow. Comparison of geochemical samples from deep wells and at surface, gives indication of upflow of the fluid, characterized by acid-sulphate waters and fumaroles at surface while chlorine rich hot-springs indicate outflow of the system, mostly found in the southern part of the field at lower elevation while the upflow is suggested to be located in the northern part of the system (close to UBl 11 and 12). The water chemistry indicates that most part of the deep system is with homogeneous fluid chemistry and geothermometers indicate parental fluid with temperature from 290°C to 320°C.

A number of geophysical studies gives a better picture of the sub-surface environment (faults, thermal alteration and fluid) and can identify hydrothermal environment from physical parameters such as low resistivity zones caused by thermal alteration of the primary rock. Geophysical studies (MT) indicate geothermal upflow in the northern part of the area and provide a good set of data contributing to the conceptual model of the system.

Temperature reversals were observed in wells UBL 6, 7, 8 commonly indication outflow of the system.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

120


In summary, the Ulubelu geothermal field is located with in a graben structure with the dominating faults being NW-SE. The main upflow is likely related to the volcanic centre of G. Rendingan in the north of the field and the outflow to the south-southeast of the system. Based on geochemical and well data the parental fluid is believed to be around 300°C and the system being mostly liquid dominated.

The volcanic terrain such as the one found in the vicinity of Ulubelu is ideal for growing a variety of crops. The soil is generally rich in nutrients, but soil fertility is reduced once stripped of its original natural vegetation and used for intensive agriculture. Any disturbance and removal of vegetation or top soil is likely to cause erosion and landslides where the slopes are steep.

Soil samples were collected as part of the Steamfield AMDAL process (2003) and parameters analysed to provide indication of soil structure to inform foundation design requirements as well as erosion potential. The ANDAL report concludes that based on main soil type slopes exceeding 10° are prone to instability. The information provided on soil conditions and erosion potential is given as an indication only and the ANDAL report specifically identifies that further data is required to inform civil works.

The ANDAL report provides a characterisation of the erosion potential in the area, which is estimated at 13 tons per hectare per year in the steep slopes locations. The area is prone to landslides, although these are localised and tend to occur in areas already opened.

Indonesia is located on one of the most geologically active areas in the world and almost 10% of the world’s earthquakes take place in and around Indonesian territory (Ritsema, 1954). The island of Sumatra is the result of complicated tectonic events and is very active seismically, especially along the Great Sumatran Fault. The active faults in the Ulubelu area are normal faults and strike-slip faults with northwest-southeast and southeast-northwest trend. The manifestation of these faults can be observed at surface by number of features such as hot-springs and other surface geothermal activity. Ulubelu is within a high potential seismic zone and has slopes (5-30°) rich in silt to clay that can be affected by earthquakes and cause potential hazard. The information provided through the AMDAL process focuses mainly on decreased slope stability due to rain or constructions.

7.3.10 Land Contamination

No data is provided on existing land contamination except for baseline data for groundwater. As the locations of the clusters and power plant are green fields, it is expected that only low levels of contamination would be present although, as for groundwater, soil quality is influenced by volcanic rock formations. Soil analysis should be carried out as part of the civil works preparation to ensure the soils are safe for handling / disposal and to provide PGE with a historical baseline and to evaluate the effects of utilization of the geothermal system on the surface manifestation or environment.

7.3.11 Traffic

The Project site is located about 90km from Bandar Lampung. The majority of the road is of good quality. Improvement works have been carried out in the past few years and the road is fully hard-covered. The last stretch of road however, from Mount Megang to the Ulubelu area is characterised by a very steep and sometimes damaged road, making access on a rainy day difficult. Transportation of heavy equipment undertaken to date has essentially been carried out on dry days.

The road from Lampung is divided in the steam field ANDAL report (2003) in three segments. A traffic count survey was carried out back in 1996 on each of the segment. The results are summarised in Table 7.36.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

121


Table 7.36: Baseline Traffic Flows - 1996

Road Link Average Hourly Daytime Flow

Motorbikes Other Vehicles Total

Bandar Lampung Airport - Talang Padang 126 213 339

Talang Padang - Gunung Megang 32 24 56

Gunung Megang - Ulubelu area NA NA 42

Figure 7.6: 1996 Traffic Survey Location

Source: Steamfield AMDAL (2003)

No further survey was reported in either the steamfield (2003) or the PLN Units 1&2 (2004) AMDALs. These figures are clearly out of date and predate the road upgrades (which were ongoing at the time of the steamfield AMDAL process in 2003), so traffic flows today are likely to be significantly higher than those presented above. The table shows however very low levels of traffic, representative of a rural area with poor infrastructure. Although congestion is reported at times of market, the access to site is considered to be free flowing and limited by the road state rather than traffic volumes. This is supported by observations during the site visit and further monitoring of road conditions and traffic fluidity as part of the only RKL/RPL monitoring. The ongoing monitoring reports PGE’s installation of signs and mirrors as well as repairs to the road following damage by heavy equipment. The January 2010 report indicates damages to some parts of the road, which appeared to have been repaired at the time of MML’s June site visit, and also explains how traffic volumes have increased due to positive socio-economic impacts of the roads opened / improved by PGE. Traffic remains free flowing.

Monitoring Location Ulubelu Site

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

122


7.3.12 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

No archaeological features and cultural heritage features have been observed within the project footprint area. Based on MML’s site walk-overs and discussions with PGE site staff and local community members, there are no important / sensitive cultural heritage features in the wider study area. Sites of lesser significance have been identified as follows within the wider study area: The mosques in each of the sub-district, which are not heritage buildings and whose cultural value is

mostly limited to their function. None of the mosques are located in areas directly affected by the Project, the closest being over 300m from Cluster B.

A “mystical hill”, Bukit Duduk, which was identified during consultation in Gunung Tiga, where it is believed that a religious leader is buried. The existence and location of the site has been communicated to PGE and avoided by construction activities.

The sites have no archaeological importance. As only relatively minor sites of cultural value have been identified within the study area and as there is no Project activity in their vicinity which could directly or indirectly impact them, it is concluded that OP 4.11 is not triggered by the project.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

123


8.1 Overview

This social impact assessment involves the processes of analysing managing and monitoring the intended and unintended socioeconomic consequences, both positive and negative, of the Project interventions, and any socioeconomic change processes invoked by those interventions. The assessment adopts the concept of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) which considers social impacts as changes to one or more of the following: People’s way of life – how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis; Their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities; Their culture – their shared beliefs, customs, values and language use; Their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and quality of the food

they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources;

Their health and wellbeing – whereby health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity; perceptions of safety; and

Their personal and community property rights – access issues; how people are economically affected and experience personal disadvantage or advantage.

The scope of the issues and potential impacts assessed in the social assessment - first defined in the Inception Report produced by MML in June 2010 and subsequently developed through the ESIA process - has been guided by the relevant World Bank Operational and Safeguard Policies (see Section 4.3), the World Bank Social Analysis Sourcebook (2003), the findings of the ANDAL documents, concerns expressed by stakeholders consulted as part of the AMDAL and ESIA consultation processes (see Section 6) as well as additional issues identified by MML during site visit observations and interviews with project personnel. In summary, the issues addressed include impacts on, or related to: Employment generation; Wellbeing of workers (on-site and in camps); Community health, safety, security and wellbeing; Land Acquisition and involuntary resettlement; and Community Investment

Operational Policies relevant to the social impact assessment, 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) and 4.11 (Physical Cultural Resources) are not triggered. Operational Policy 4.10 is not triggered because no Indigenous People or ethnic minorities have been identified by PGE or the Local Consultants or MML as part of the various assessments, surveys and consultation events carried out. Operational Policy 4.11 is not triggered because although several religious buildings have been identified in the study area (see Section 7.2.3), their location is known to PGE and there are no Project activities in their vicinity which could directly impact them. Indirect impacts are negligible. In addition, a chance finds procedure will be put in place to ensure that any archaeological / cultural discovery during drilling or excavation would be appropriately reported to the relevant authorities and that actions would be taken to protect such finds and allow archaeologists to carry out excavations if relevant (see ESMP, Volume IV).

Operational Policy 4.12 is triggered because PGE, as a last resort (although highly improbable) can request land to be acquired via expropriation. To comply, a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework has been developed for the Project that defines the procedures to be followed in case of expropriation (see Appendix C, Volume III).

8. Social Impact Assessment

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

124


8.2 Methodology

8.2.1 Overview

Social impacts have been identified and assigned significance using the overarching framework presented in Section 5.4. The social impact specific criteria used when comparing of the sensitivity of potentially project affected persons (social receptors) with the magnitude of impacts, in order to assign significance to impacts, are presented below.

8.2.2 Spatial Scope of Assessment

The social baseline covers the villages of Datarajan, Gunung Tiga, Karang Rejo, Pagar Alam, and Muara Dua in the subdistrict of Ulubelu. The effects of employment generation and some Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities such as road maintenance during both the construction and operation phases have the potential to impact people within this defined area for the social baseline.

Some of the community health and safety risks, such as spread of disease could, if unmitigated, affect people across all of the villages in the baseline study area. Other community health and safety impacts however, such as risks associated with pipeline rupture, traffic accidents or hazardous waste on project sites are limited in spatial scope to Project sites and roads used by site traffic.

Project impacts associated with land acquisition and worker health and safety are likely to be felt in discrete locations including all of the Project sites, workers’ accommodation camps, access roads and pipelines.

8.2.3 Sensitivity of Potentially Project Affected Persons (Social Receptors)

The social baseline identified a number of sensitive potentially project affected persons, defined in Section 7.2 as individuals, households or social groups who are considered to be vulnerable, and likely to have less means to absorb adverse impacts and socio-economic shocks/risks or changes to their access to, or control over, socio-economic resources that ultimately affects their well-being, poverty levels and their health, safety and security. Table 8.1 below provides the qualitative criteria used to determine for the different categories of sensitivity.

Table 8.1: Sensitivity Criteria: Socio-economic

Sensitivity

High Already vulnerable person(s) with very little capacity and means to absorb changes.

Medium Non vulnerable person(s) with limited capacity and means to absorb changes.

Low Non vulnerable person(s) with plentiful capacity and means to absorb changes.

Negligible Vulnerable or non-vulnerable person(s) not required to absorb any changes.

8.2.4 Magnitude of Social Impacts

There are no legal standards or professionally established criteria for determination of the magnitude of social impacts. This social assessment conceptualises the magnitude of a social impact as the extent to which a person(s) gains or loses access to, or control over, socioeconomic resources resulting in a positive or negative affect on their wellbeing. Socio-economic resources include: income, finance, employment and other livelihood streams including subsistence agriculture; land, property and other private and communal

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

125


assets; essential services such as potable water, power, healthcare and education; safety and security; and, cultural and leisure facilities and practices. Well-being refers to the financial, physical and emotional conditions of a person(s). The qualitative criteria used to categorise the magnitude of social impacts is presented in Table 8.2 below.

Table 8.2: Magnitude Criteria: Socio-economic

Magnitude

Major An impact that either affects the wellbeing of groups of many people within a widespread area, or

continues beyond the project life and is effectively permanent, requiring considerable intervention to

return to the socio-economic baseline.

Moderate An impact that will either affect the wellbeing of a group of people beyond the site boundary into the

local community, or continue beyond the project life so that the socio-economic baseline is re-

established within a year or so, perhaps with some intervention.

Minor An impact that will affect the wellbeing of a small number of people and, or occurs exceptionally, mostly

within or adjacent to the site boundary, and does not extend to beyond the life of the project so that the

socio-economic baseline returns naturally or with limited intervention within a few months.

Negligible An impact that is localised to a specific location within the project site and is temporary or unlikely to

occur with no detectable affect on the wellbeing of people so that the socio-economic baseline remains

consistent.

8.2.5 Assigning Significance and Mitigation / Benefit Enhancement Measures

By comparing the sensitivity of potentially project affected persons with the magnitude of predicted impacts significance has been assigned to adverse and beneficial impacts both before the application of mitigation and after. Impacts have been ascribed one of five levels of significance which can be summarised as follows: Critical: high sensitivity - major magnitude; Major: medium sensitivity - major/moderate magnitude; Moderate: low sensitivity - moderate/minor magnitude; Low: low sensitivity - minor magnitude; Negligible: negligible sensitivity - negligible magnitude.

The objective of the mitigation measures and benefit enhancement measures is to reduce the significance of adverse impacts and to increase the significance of beneficial impacts respectively.

8.3 Employment Generation

8.3.1 Exploration, Drilling and Construction Phase

As of November 2010 the Project has employed approximately 200 staff (project staff refers to people hired by PGE (‘permanent’, ‘non-permanent’ and ‘outsourced’, as listed in Section 7.2.7) as well as sub-contractor staff employed on exploration and drilling activities) of which approximately 45% are from the local area, with the remainder being migrants from other areas in Indonesia including some skilled workers from Java. ESIA consultation activities have revealed that to date, local people have mainly benefited from employment in low-skilled jobs such as garbage collection, drivers, and cleaners of workers’ camps etc.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

126


With the development of Units 3&4, this work may mean that similar levels of staff may be retained for a longer period before the completion of the construction phase. It is possible that existing staff will be used for the continuation of the drilling activities, whilst new staff such as construction workers, catering staff and site managers will be required for the construction of the power plant. It is expected that upon completion, the Exploration, Drilling and Construction Phase of the project will have employed over 1,000 people.. Anticipated additional employment benefits for this phase of the project are summarised in Table 8.3 with numbers peaking at approximately 550 employees.

Table 8.3: Expected approximate employment generation overview – Construction (PGE and contractor staff)

Project phase Contract duration Non-local (skilled) Local (unskilled) Total

>1 year 15 45 60 Exploration / drilling

<1 year - 150 150

>1 year 60 550 peak 610 Power plant construction

<1 year 10 250 260

Source: PGE

Although the exploration, drilling and construction activities of the project may generate up to 1,000 jobs (approximately) in total throughout the phase, the periods of employment will not all run concurrently. For example, the drilling will be carried out on a cluster by cluster basis and the power plant construction is unlikely to commence until all the clusters have been drilled. Employment during the construction period is therefore phased.

Short–term employment generation in this phase has the potential to contribute to a reduction in local income poverty - especially if potentially vulnerable local people are employed such as impoverished landless tenant farmers - and provide skill development opportunities for local agricultural and manual workers. Without mitigation to promote local employment benefits, this is considered to be a beneficial impact of moderate significance.

8.3.2 Operational Phase

Employment generated in the drilling/construction phase will be of a temporary nature and it is unlikely that many of the workers taken on by PGE will be required for the operational phase of the Project. Once operational, the project is expected to generate approximately 350 jobs. The majority of these jobs will be permanent or longer term posts for the operation and maintenance of the power plant. As well as maintaining or improving the well-being of the staff employed, the creation of these jobs will contribute to the development of specialist skills and experience in geothermal power generation and engineering amongst the Indonesian labour force. The overall employment benefits anticipated from the project are quantified in Table 8.4 below.

Table 8.4: Expected approximate employment generation overview (PGE and contractor staff)

Project phase Contract duration Non-local (skilled) Local (unskilled) Total

>1 year 85 250 335 Operational

<1 year - 15 15

Source: PGE

The employment generation from the operational phase of the project prior to benefit enhancement measures (as discussed below) is considered to be beneficial impact of moderate significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

127


8.3.3 Mitigation / Benefit Enhancement Measures

The generation of local employment, in particular permanent employment, and skills development has the potential to be one of the key benefits the project will provide to the local communities. The cooperation and support of the local community is essential to the success of the project due to the symbiotic relationship between the PGE and the local communities, however problems have arisen in the past with regard to the perceived unfairness of PGE’s recruitment policies.

In order to maximise the employment benefits to local communities, and to manage expectations and avoid social conflict that might arise in relation to perceived inequity of recruitment approaches, PGE will adopt the following measures: Disclosure of a PGE Recruitment Policy that specifically includes a requirement to prioritise local

employment equitably between villages taking into account available skills. The requirement will be reflected in the contractor’s employment policy also. This policy will consider local literacy levels and will be disclosed in Site Office and Kepala Desa offices of local villages.

Use of village employment committee meetings whereby the leaders and other representatives from each village are represented to ensure transparency and equal opportunity (subject to appropriately qualified candidates). Village committee members would then assume responsibility for grass roots disclosure of information within their communities (see point below).

Provision of a description of the types of employment opportunities to be provided to local people from the construction and operational phases of the project including skills levels, indicative timeframes of recruitment and likely duration of contracts. Publication of the need for staff and labourers should be done at least one month prior to recruitment commencing for any phase. This will allow prospective employees to make an informed decision when applying for work, so that they may consider their other commitments, such as labour inputs to harvesting seasons in order to avoid the risk of short-term employment resulting in neglect of farming activities which may have a negative effect on their livelihoods.

Local employment to be prioritised and where possible, contractors will provide additional specialised training to the local workforce in skills required by contractor (i.e. administrator, driving etc).

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

128


8.3.4 Summary and Assessment of Residual Impacts

The residual significance of benefits, especially for local communities, is expected to increase, as summarised in Table 8.5 below.

Table 8.5: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Employment Generation

Phase

Activity Impact Impact Significance

Mitigation / benefit enhancement Measures

Residual Significance

Exploration, drilling and construction

Recruitment Generation of approximately 1,080 mainly temporary low-skilled jobs phased throughout the whole of construction period.

Beneficial impact of moderate significance

Disclosure of a published recruitment policy, prioritisation of local employment;

Use of village employment committees;

Local employment to be prioritised, contractor to provide additional specialised training to local workforce in skills required by contractor.


Operational Recruitment Generation of approximately 350 mainly long-term jobs


As above Beneficial impact of moderate significance

8.4 Impacts on the Well-being of Workers on Site and in Camps

8.4.1 Exploration, Drilling and Construction Phase

Site preparation, drilling and construction activities and the use of construction temporary worker accommodation pose potential risks to the health, safety, security and therefore well-being of construction workers if not managed appropriately. Generic community health and safety issues associated with the use of temporary accommodation sites include those relating to sanitation, disease, cultural alienation and fire. Similarly, there are generic potentially negative occupational health and safety impacts related to personal accident or injury on any construction site. There are also potential adverse impacts on workers related to their terms of engagement and relationship with their employer. All of these potential impacts are discussed and assessed below.

As of August 2010, there are currently two construction workers’ accommodation camps located at Cluster E and Cluster B accommodating approximately 250 to 300 staff. Pertamina Drilling Services Indonesia (PDSI) as the as Integrated Project Management (IPM) / Main Drilling Contractor manages the contractors on site and in the construction camps on behalf of PGE. There are 12 drilling contractors in total the largest being Haliburton (cementing) and Slumberger (drilling).

Site visit observations of the camp at Cluster B reveal that the rooms had air-conditioning, there was a rest area and a canteen and the contractors bought TV and satellite dish to improve the welfare of workers. There were sufficient numbers of showers and toilets. No cultural tensions or conflicts were identified or observed between workers living in the camps and host communities. In conclusion, the camp appeared

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

129


largely to satisfy the needs of the workers living there (potential impacts on local communities are discussed in Section 8.5 below).

Figure 8.1: Worker camp at Ulubelu, Cluster B, March 2010

Source: MML site visit observations

PDSI do not use a written grievance log but grievances have been made verbally to PDSI management in relation to the quality of food provided. This was resolved by adjusting the menu to the preferences of workers. PDSI staff are also able to submit grievances directly to PGE either verbally or in writing at the PGE site office.

PGE notes the need for slight improvements to occupational health and safety management on site with site housekeeping identified as a specific area for attention. Despite this, interviews with the PDSI HSE Manager at Cluster A revealed that the project in Ulubelu had gone 640 days without any lost time accidents. Health and safety inductions are provided before entering site and good use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was observed. There is doctor on site 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The site emergency preparedness and response plan includes use of a siren and a muster point and is managed by PDSI.

One potential occupational health and safety risk is exposure to hydrogen sulphide (H2S). H2S is a colourless gas. At high concentrations H2S (which are more likely to occur in confined spaces) can lead to respiratory failure and death. Workers on site and living in the workers’ accommodation camps will potentially be exposed to H2S resulting from emissions during well testing, (discussed in more detail in the air quality assessment presented in Appendix D, Volume III). PGE employs a H2S monitoring company during drilling operations. The air quality assessment concludes that there will be no breaches of the Ministry of Manpower’s occupational exposure limit and occupational impacts from H2S emissions are therefore concluded to be negligible. See ESIA Volume III, Appendix D – Air Quality Assessment for further details.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

130


In conclusion, on the whole PGE has appropriate labour management policies, procedures and welfare safeguard measures in place to protect workers’ health and safety and physical and emotional well-being. Key weaknesses include monitoring of contractor’s OHS (especially with regards to H2S) and labour management practices (for example terms and conditions of employment, non discrimination and equal opportunities policies, etc.), the absence of a formalised staff grievance policy that is disclosed to workers, or measures to minimise risks of HIV/AIDS infections. The unmitigated impact on the well-being of workers during the Exploration, Drilling and Construction Phase is considered to be an adverse impact of low significance.

8.4.2 Operational Phase

The extent of risks to PGE staff that will be operating the facility can be mitigated through appropriate labour and OHS management, that is the continued development and implementation of PGE’s existing policies and procedures (further discussed in Section 8.4.4 below) and where necessary, monitoring of sub-contractors. Once the plant is operational workers will be exposed to small amounts of H2S, however during normal operation, predicted ambient concentrations of H2S are below the exposure standards set for the protection of occupational health, as is the case with the drilling phase discussed in 8.4.1 above. This is discussed further in the air quality assessment (see Section 9.6).

The unmitigated impact on the well-being of workers during the Operational Phase is considered to be an adverse impact of low significance.

8.4.3 Post Operation and Decommissioning Phase

The project is expected to enter the post operational phase after 30 years of operation and this will result in the retrenchment of staff. Unmitigated retrenchment is considered to be an adverse impact of low significance.

8.4.4 Mitigation / Benefit Enhancement Measures

The following specific measures and/or the development of labour policies and procedures will be employed by PGE to ensure that the well-being of both PGE and sub-contractor workers are protected in accordance with national law, International Labour Organisation (ILO) core labour standards and international best practice, as exemplified by the IFC EHS Guidelines for Geothermal Power Development: Working conditions and management of worker relationships:

Development, formalisation and disclosure of staff grievance polices and mechanisms for complaints about unfair treatment or unsafe living or working conditions without reprisal;

Development of a retrenchment plan in accordance with Indonesian Law to be used in the post operation/ decommissioning phase or any other periods whereby the need to lay off members of stay is anticipated.

Protecting the workforce and occupational health and safety: Include clauses for contractors in line with PGE’s labour management procedures and welfare

safeguard measures (as embodied within the existing PGE SMK3LL); Review (in consultation with workers’ representatives) and upgrade the sanitation facilities in the

workers’ camps and on site; Undertake an OHS assessment and audit and develop and implement OHS management plans (for

all phases of the project) in accordance with Indonesian Work Safety Act (Law No.1, 1970), the Health Act (Law No. 23, 1992) and international best practice. Special attention should be paid to mitigating the effects of H2S, for example through use of early warning continuous monitoring systems where needed;

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

131


Provision of facility emergency response teams, and workers in locations with high risk of exposure with personal H2S monitors, self-contained breathing apparatus and emergency oxygen supplies, and training in their safe and effective use;

Provide workers with a fact sheet or other readily available information about the chemical composition of H2S with an explanation of potential implications for human health and safety.

Malaria risk awareness and prevention briefings, provision of mosquito nets, regular fumigation of campsite, provision of anti malarial medication where necessary, maintain campsite free of stagnant pools (use of larvicides if necessary / appropriate); and

HIV / AIDS awareness and prevention briefings undertaken in a culturally sensitive manner.

These mitigation measures and the anticipated significance of residual impacts after the application of these measures are summarised below.


The residual adverse impacts on workers living within the camps and working on site are expected to become negligible as summarised in Table 8.6 overleaf.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

132


Table 8.6: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Well-being of Workers on Site and in Camps

Phase Activity Impact Impact Significance

Mitigation / benefit enhancement Measures Residual Significance


Working / living on site / in camps

Deterioration in well-being of workers through poor health and safety and other labour management relations and management practices

Adverse impact of low significance

Include clauses for contractors in line with PGE’s labour management

procedures and welfare safeguard measures (as embodied within the

existing PGE SMK3LL);

Development of staff grievance polices and procedures and disclosure to

new and existing workers

Review / upgrade workers’ accommodation facilities, especially if new

facilities are required

Workers to receive brochure which raises HIV / AIDS awareness

OHS audit of contractor activities (with special attention to H2S exposure)

and development and implementation of OHS policies for contractors and

monitoring programmes.

Malaria risk awareness and prevention briefings, provision of mosquito

nets, regular fumigation of campsite, provision of anti malarial medication

where necessary, maintain campsite free of stagnant pools (use of

larvicides if necessary / appropriate)

Negligible

Operational Working on site

As above Adverse impact of low significance

The relevant measures above, and

Development and implementation of OHS Management and Monitoring

Plans (with special attention to H2S exposure) for power plant operations

(as embodied within the existing PGE SMK3LL).

Negligible

Post operation/ decommissioning phase

Retrenchment Loss of employment and reduction in income security of workers


Development of retrenchment plan based on that of PT Pertamina and

Indonesian Law Negligible

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

133


8.5 Impacts on Community Health, Safety, Security and Well-being

8.5.1 Exploration, drilling and construction phase

From investigation of the exploration, drilling and construction activities to date, MML has identified that the following impacts have already occurred, possibly affecting the health, safety, and security and well-being of local communities. Some are claims made by the public during the ESIA consultation process, others are reported by PGE, and others were identified through observation by MML whilst on site undertaking site visits: Unconfirmed destruction of a rice paddy: in February 2010, an incident of erosion occurred which was

attributed to Cluster G and as a result, a rice paddy was destroyed; evidence is inconclusive as to whether this was a natural process or a project induced impact.

Temporary noise impacts: consultation has revealed that noise impacts from production testing is considered to be a nuisance in the village of Muara Dua, which is near Cluster A. Muara Dua is also adjacent to the site acquired for development as Cluster H, so it is likely that this nuisance will continue and that effects will be amplified due to the proximity of the cluster to the village. There has also been noise disturbance from the road near to Pagar Alam village which the villagers have become accustomed to according to the consultation carried out during MML’s site visit. Noise impacts are assessed in detail and mitigated in section 9.4.

Water pollution and reduction in flow: One example is at Cluster B; where a chemical spill from cement batching resulted in skin irritations

to farmers and local people using the water courses. Furthermore, in April 2010 there was a landslide following heavy rains which resulted in one of the earthen sides of settling pond number three collapsing and drilling muds spilling onto crops and into local water courses. Crop compensation was paid by PGE to farmers adjacent to the settling pond. To mitigate this from happening again, stone walls with iron meshes are now used as the wall for the settling pond in this area.

Another example is at Cluster F; MML witnessed that the settling ponds were silted up and the water filters were broken resulting in the discharge of drilling muds into the river. This river is used by a family of elderly farmers (coffee, coconut and livestock) who have resided on this land (which they have owned for 20 years) that is immediately adjacent the downslope edge of Cluster F. This family uses this river as their main source of water for washing and cooking. The family is very concerned and would like to know what PGE is planning to do to prevent the ongoing pollution of water resources. They are also suffering noise impacts from the drilling activities at night. This household, despite being immediately adjacent to the project site has never been invited to any consultation events and never had any information disclosed to them about the project by PGE or the contractors.

Views were expressed at the ESIA Main Site Visit consultation event that the Tengah River has been drying out during the dry season as a result of water abstraction for drilling. Water resource impacts are assessed in detail and mitigated in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.

Agricultural impacts: in addition to the adverse impacts on agriculture resulting from water pollution, a farmer from Muara Dua reported in the ESIA Main Site Visit consultation event that the well column cleaning had polluted crops with white residue and debris. PGE explained that compensation was paid for this damage.

Health impacts related to increased incidence of malaria: in Pagar Alam this has been associated with the standing water resulting from the Project and could particularly be damaging to vulnerable people such as the elderly, expectant mothers and children and impoverished with poor access to health care facilities.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

134


Health impacts related local air quality impacts: hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is released during drilling through the horizontal production well testing activities. The air quality modelling predicts that the WHO guideline for ambient H2S guideline would not be exceeded at sensitive receptors. In addition, the Ministry of Manpower occupational limit for ambient H2S concentrations is not predicted to be exceeded within any agricultural area surrounding the project (discussed in more detail in ESIA Volume III Appendix D).

Traffic impacts from heavy construction traffic: resulting in noise, safety risks to pedestrians and degradation of roads and drainage infrastructure. The Kepala Desa of Dajataran village observes that the current road width of 5-6 m is not sufficient for the heavy load vehicles currently using the road, especially at bends where trucks are getting stuck in the drainage ditches and damaging them. This is a particular risk for elementary school children who use these access roads to walk to school. Traffic impacts are assessed in detail and mitigated in Section 9.11.

At the Cluster B worker camp there is health and safety signage warning of hazards, however there is no fencing, security or lighting to prevent unauthorised personnel from entering the drill site or the accommodation camp. This could potentially pose risks to community members, especially children.

At the time of the June site visit, PGE’s EHS Manager told MML that there is no formally documented Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan. However, agreement has been reached with local government bodies and emergency services for raising an alarm in the community in the event of an emergency to gather people at pre-defined meeting points. This plan has been communicated to community members at the AMDAL socialisation events where people were told that the Kepala Desa house is the central meeting point in the event of evacuation. PGE is currently targeting March 2011 for the completion and implementation of a formal documented Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan.

A potentially beneficial impact of the temporary increase in population from construction workers may be a higher demand for locally produced food and services, which could create benefits for local farmers who will be able to sell more of their product for cash, enabling them to purchase goods and services for themselves. A number of warung (stalls) have already been set up outside the Units 1&2 construction site and several houses near Clusters C and G have opened small stores in their homes.

In addition to continued noise, air quality and traffic impacts expected from the construction of the power plant units, as discussed in Section 9.8, a potentially significant impact that could affect community well-being relates to waste. Approximately 150-250,000 m3 of excavated materials are expected to be produced and if not disposed of or re-used appropriately this could create visual, dust and water pollution (if heavy rains wash the material into local water courses) impacts on the local community. However, it is thought that much of this waste will be re-used in the project and that which isn’t will be disposed of at officially designated locations.

The unmitigated impact on the community, health, safety, security and well-being of local communities during the Exploration, Drilling and Construction Phase is considered to be an adverse impact of moderate significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

135


8.5.2 Operational phase

Potentially significant community health, safety and security impacts related to the operational phase relate to the following: Discharge of condensate and brine from pipeline failure into the water cycle could have a detrimental

effect on drinking and irrigation water supplies. Baseline hydrogen sulphide (H2S) concentrations include the operation of PLN Units 1&2. Air quality

modelling indicates that, abatement of H2S emissions is required for both PLN and PGE projects in order to minimise impacts on local communities. However, the assessment is based on conservative technical parameters in absence of detailed information on certain characteristics of the geothermal reservoir. Hence a precautionary approach has been undertaken in line with international ESIA practice to determine an appropriate level of mitigation. The results of the air quality assessment are presented and discussed in ESIA Volume III Appendix D with a level of mitigation required. The air quality assessment concludes that impacts on agriculture are negligible without need for further mitigation.

If steam pipes rupture this could result in scalding for any passing people, however the risk of this happening is considered low.

Generic community health and safety risks associated with any operational geothermal power plant related to members of the public entering potential dangerous or unauthorized areas of the project site.

These risks are considered possible to mitigate through appropriate environmental and social management planning and design features. However, if unmitigated, impacts on the community, health, safety, security and well-being of local communities during the Operational Phase is considered to be an adverse impact of moderate significance.

8.5.3 Post Operation and Decommissioning Phase

At the end of the Project life cycle the power plant and steam pipeline infrastructure will need to be dismantled and removed. If not done appropriately, this could pose community health and safety risks including exposure to hazardous materials, contaminated land, pits and steam venting. Unmitigated impacts on the community, health, safety, security and well-being of local communities during the Post-Operation and Decommissioning Phase are considered to be a potentially adverse impact of moderate significance.

8.5.4 Mitigation Measures / Benefit Enhancement

PGE does not have a formally documented community grievance mechanism and resolution process and grievances are not recorded (also see Section 6.9.2). However, PGE states that through the AMDAL consultation processes, it has been explained to the local communities that grievances can be submitted to the site manager. If they are not resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction they can then contact PGE’s Headquarters directly, although it is not clear if contact details have been provided to the local communities. PGE will develop a community grievance mechanism for the project (all phases) and disclose this to the local community, as specified in Section 6.9 and the Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan presented in ESIA Volume III.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

136


In addition to the above, PGE will undertake the following to avoid and mitigate impacts on community health, safety and security: Measures to restrict public access to Project sites:

Ensure fencing of appropriate height is in place around site perimeter; Hiring security staff responsible for control of access to site and performing appropriate due

diligence of companies, individuals and training on community liaison; Registry/identification system for staff and visitors upon entrance to site; and Ensure appropriate signage around site perimeter, especially in areas of high security and

hazardous installations. Avoidance of vertical testing in favour of horizontal testing. Vertical well testing has in the past been the

subject of community complaints regarding risks to the community and agriculture and so is no longer carried out by PGE on any of their sites;

The design of the plant and steam field will aim to minimise the risk of discharge of condensate and brine and measures will be put in place to ensure no discharge occurs prior to treatment to relevant standards (see ground water quality Section 9.2).

In order to minimise risk of steam pipeline rupture, all pipelines will be tested to pressures higher than maximum operating pressures and will not fail under normal operation and during seismic events within design criteria. Damage from external sources, such as large trucks is very unlikely and pipeline sections close to road curves are protected with safety barriers. Rupture would result in a pressure loss that will be identified by power plant staff with corrective action immediately implemented. Such measures could include the immediate diversion of the steam from the ruptured pipeline to the production cluster rock mufflers.

Promoting road safety: Road safety plans and maximum speed limits for site and access routes; Contractor programme to monitor and enforce safety plans, accident reporting and statistics,

establish penalties for violations; Maintenance of site and access roads under PGE’s responsibility to reduce erosion/degradation of

drainage channels; and Traffic safety awareness raising sessions for children in schools.

Mitigation of H2S impacts on community health through: Technical measures to abate H2S emissions by 60% from the Project once operational to avoid

significant air quality impacts at residential receptors; Development of an emergency preparedness and response plan to be enacted in the event of

abnormal operation; Ongoing monitoring of ambient H2S through an extensive monitoring programme in local

communities; and Ongoing monitoring of health impacts (discussed further in Volume IV, ESMP).

Public health mitigation: Reducing malarial incidence through maintaining good construction site drainage, minimising

standing water within Project areas, managing storage / settlement ponds to control mosquitoes through the use of larvicides if appropriate.

Community water resource management: Regular audits of activities and equipment that could result in water pollution and immediate

remediation in cases where risks or adverse impacts are identified, for example de-silting of settling ponds and replacement of filters to prevent overflow in heavy rain.

Use of water resources should be monitored and if groundwater or flows are found to be reduced or disrupted by the Project, either due to site works or the use of water in worker camps, action will need to be taken to conserve water and install new water supplies.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

137


Raising community awareness on health and safety issues related to steam pipelines – information campaigns for residents living close to steam pipes.

Potential adverse effects in the form of cultural conflict risks between the host community and the migrant labour force and risks to community health and safety from construction activities are likely to be exacerbated by lack of information or misunderstanding about the Project in the eyes of the local community. Regular and timely disclosure of relevant information is required at key stages of the project as discussed below and specified in the PCDP (see Volume III).

These mitigation measures and the anticipated significance of residual impacts after the application of these measures are below.


The residual adverse impacts on the community health, safety, security and well-being of local people are expected to become less significant, as summarised in Table 8.7 overleaf.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

138


Table 8.7: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Community Health, Safety, Security and Well-being



Activities within site and worker camp boundaries

Risk to community health, safety and well-being from site activities and workers

Mitigation of environmental impacts such as noise, and dust and excavation waste;

Appropriate fencing / signage around site perimeter;

Reducing malarial incidence through maintenance of good construction site drainage,

minimising standing water within Project areas, managing storage / settlement ponds

to control mosquitoes through the use of larvicides if appropriate;

Site security personnel (appropriately vetted and trained);

Site registry/identification system;

Development/disclosure of emergency preparedness and response plan (all of the

above continued through the operational phase); and

Develop and disclose community grievance mechanisms as outlined in the PCDP

presented in ESIA Volume III.

Horizontal testing Risks to safety of community members and damage to crops from debris; health risks due to H2S exposure.

Avoid vertical testing in favour of horizontal testing where possible

Use of rock muffler to mitigate noise emissions during horizontal well testing.

Heavy load and other vehicles driving through communities

Road safety risks and damage to road infrastructure and drainage systems

Road safety plans / maximum speed limits for site and access routes;

Contractor programme to monitor and enforce safety plans, accident reporting and

statistics, establish penalties for violations;

Maintenance of site and access roads under PGE’s responsibility to reduce

erosion/degradation of drainage channels; and

Traffic safety sessions for children.


Water extraction and settling ponds management

Pollution of or shortages in community water

Adverse impact of moderate significance

Audits of water infrastructure, maintenance and activities and monitoring of

groundwater table and surface flows (continued through the operational phase);

Reducing malarial incidence – see above;


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

139




Operational Activities within site boundaries and steam pipelines, potential for abnormal operation

Risk to community health and safety within including health impacts as a result of H2S exposure

Adverse impact of moderate significance

Continuation of relevant activities above, and

Health and safety awareness sessions for communities about risks related to

tampering with steam pipes

Technical measures to abate H2S emissions from the power plant once operational;

Development of an emergency preparedness and response plan to be enacted in the

event of abnormal operation; and

Ongoing monitoring of ambient H2S concentrations and health impacts.

Adverse impact of low significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

140


8.6 Land Acquisition

8.6.1 Impacts of Land Acquisition

No involuntary resettlement has taken place to date or is expected as part of the Project development. However, land acquisition is required to facilitate the Project’s development. Although PGE undertakes this on a willing buyer-willing seller principle, it can request expropriation as a last resort and therefore World Bank OP 4.12 is triggered. To comply, a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework has been developed for the Project that defines the procedures to be followed in the case of expropriation (see Volume III).

Land acquisition impacts are primarily applicable to the exploration, drilling and construction phase however, due particularly to the tendency for the production capacity of wells to diminish over time as well as the fact that production capacity of wells even when first drilled is not guaranteed, land acquisition impacts may arise throughout the project’s temporal scope. All land required for the development of Clusters A to H as well as for the water pumping station and the pipes connecting the clusters to the plant has been purchased by PGE on a willing buyer-willing seller principle. This is discussed in the baseline Section 7.2.14. Small parcels for the 500m transmission line from the power plant to the PLN substation also need to be identified and acquired. The acquisition of this land will result in impacts upon the project affected persons (PAPs) who will lose productive agricultural land but who will receive compensation above market rates. No PAPs residences or businesses are expected to be displaced and all acquisition is expected to be undertaken through negotiated settlement based on the principle of ‘willing buyer – willing seller’.

Baseline Section 7.2.14 highlighted that the land acquired to date had been a benefit to the sellers who were able to purchase more land than they had previously and invest additional funds in their business and families. A farmer from Muara Dua Village who was consulted as part of the ESIA process stated his perception that the benefits of the land acquisition process were reducing because the price has not increased with inflation and rising market value prices, rather it has been pegged to NJOP which is not an accurate reflection of market prices. In 2006 he said that he received a very good price for his land and was able to purchase three times as much land, now he says that the starting price being offered in negotiations is only enough for replacement land. However, this opinion is refuted by data provided by PGE on prices paid in relation NJOP and market values as illustrated in Table 8.7 below which shows that in 2009 the price offered was more than 3 times the NJOP Value.

Table 8.8: Land Price Comparison at Ulubelu for Units 3 and 4 (2006 to 2009)

Price Comparisons (Rp/m2) Location Year

NJOP Value Market Value PGE Value

2006 3,000 4,500 7-8,000

2008 6,000 4,500 11,500 to 20,000 Ulubelu Units 3 & 4

2009 3,500 up to 7,150 5000 – 6000 11,500 to 20,000

Source: PGE Land Acquisition Team.

Future land acquisition will be undertaken according to the same approach and the principle of willing buyer – willing seller’ with expropriation only being used as a last resort; this is expected to be a beneficial impact of low significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

141


8.6.2 Mitigation and Benefit Enhancement Measures

A separate Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework has been developed for the Project (see Appendix C, Volume III), which is also intended to become guidelines to inform all of PGE’s future projects. The Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework provides a means by which to ensure compliance with both national laws and regulations and international best practice as exemplified by World Bank Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement. The Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework is designed for compliance with current Indonesian law (as of January 2011) and will require revision to ensure compliance with the new Land Acquisition in the Public Interest regulation which is expected to be passed in the near future. The Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework describes PGE’s current practice of acquiring land through negotiated settlement guided by the principle of ‘willing buyer – willing seller’ as well as defining the procedures to be followed in the unlikely case that expropriation is used as a last resort.

To facilitate monitoring of compliance with this policy framework by external agencies such as project financiers (e.g. the World Bank), PGE will prepare, maintain and provide the following documentation as evidence of the negotiated settlement land acquisition process: Initial site description and land acquisition plan; Schedule of survey, socialisation activities and inventory; Land acquisition report — submitted for corporate agreement; Minutes of negotiation; Summary compensation data — land and other assets; Payment date; and Date of transfer of revised certificates to owners.

In unlikely cases where expropriation (‘eminent domain’) is pursued as a last resort, PGE will prepare a Resettlement Action Plan or Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan, in compliance with World Bank OP 4.12, which will include the following additional documentation: Description of the discussions and negotiations that have taken place prior to initiating the expropriation

process and the circumstances that led to the decision to expropriate; Any anticipated outcomes that are expected to be different than the outcomes from the standard

negotiated settlement land acquisition process; Clear indication of any changes in administrative procedures, assignment of responsibility to individuals,

or compensation rates or measures that will result from expropriation; Official monitoring reports with regard to the payment of compensation for land, buildings, plants, and

other objects thereon, the release of title to land and grievances; and Reports on all activities, for example reports on socio-economic and asset census, additional

consultation, etc.

Once new law on Land Acquisition in the Public Interest is finalised and enacted in Indonesia, PGE will revise this Policy Framework to ensure legal compliance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

142



The residual benefits are expected to remain the same, as summarised in Table 8.9 below.

Table 8.9: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Land Acquisition





Land acquisition

Payment of cash compensation for acquired land, assets and crops

Beneficial impact of negligible to low significance

Following the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework which specifies procedures to be followed in the case that expropriation is pursued as a last resort.

Beneficial impact of low significance

8.7 Community Investment

The actions of PGE in terms of investment in community development have the potential for significant beneficial impacts on the well-being of local populations. PT Pertamina has a corporate CSR programme which has the following objectives: To establish harmonious relationship and conducive atmospheres to support company’s activities; To contribute to addressing social problems; To increase the integrated company’s values and cultures into the company’s business strategy; and To build the company’s image and reputation.

In 2009 PGE spent 1,373,764,000 Rp. on community investment activities in relation to the Ulubelu Project, the budget lines are presented in Table 8.10 below.

Table 8.10: PGE 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Budget (Rupiah)

Education Health Infrastructure Environment Income generating activities

Sponsorship Total

1,187,991,000 - 101,773,000 - 46,000,000 38,000,000 1,373,764,000

Source: PT Pertamina Corporate Social Responsibility, 1 April 2010 PPT.

PGE submit annual recommendations to Pertamina head office for CSR investments in larger projects, whereas PGE has its own budget for smaller investments. To date, PGE’s community investment activities in the area include the following: Water infrastructure: 10 water tank distribution points to store river water were installed in Muara Dua to

cater for water needs of all the community; previously villagers were required to extract river water from the source and carry it to their houses.

Road infrastructure: improvement of the normally government maintained road between Muara Dua and Djataran and construction of the site access road connecting the village to larger towns in the sub-district and beyond (whilst ensuring no new roads are constructed in the watershed protection forest area).

Education facilities: upgrades of four schools in Karang Rejo, Pagar Alam, Muara Dua, Datarajan Villages. Investment in the school of Gunung Tiga is planned for 2010.

Religious facilities: contribution to the construction of the Mosque in the Mekarsari sub-village (of Muara Dua) in 2007. This Mosque serves approximately 22 families.

Sponsorship and assistance to local authorities for billboards and media advertisement

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

143


Electricity provision: during the drilling phase electricity was provided free of charge to local households from one of the contractors (ETP) who have Gensets in the accommodation camp; this is only temporary.

For the remainder of 2010 and 2011, PGE’s community investment budget includes the following activities: Education: investment in school renovation totalling 250,000,000 Rp. and in scholarships, school

supplies and teacher education totalling 300,000,000 Rp; Agricultural assistance: investment in provision of fertilizer totalling 100,000,000 Rp; and Community infrastructure: investment of 3,500,000,000 Rp. in road maintenance and upgrades;

600,000,000 Rp. in renovation of four Mosques (Karang Rejo, Gunung Tiga, Nurul Huda and Nur Falah); and, 30,000,000 Rp. to be invested in installation of clean-water distribution points.

Figure 8.2: Community water distribution point installed

by PGE

Figure 8.3: Schools in Pagar Alam (top) and Muara Dua

(bottom) Villages upgraded by PGE

Source: MML main ESIA site visit observations Source: PGE

The investment in water and improvements to road infrastructure particularly is expected to have significant benefits for community and household well-being. The presence of a local water supply saves significant amounts of time in the collection of drinking water from rivers and time spent travelling to river to wash themselves and clothes. This has gender equality benefits as it is women who perform these activities and whose time is often most constrained by domestic chores, child rearing and agricultural and other economic activities.

Road improvements were regularly cited by consultees as another significant time saving benefit as access to markets by vehicles is made available or improved, facilitating trade in agricultural produce and access to important health, education and other social services and facilities that are not available in the

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

144


villages. Access to markets enables farmers and other artisans an opportunity to generate income and grow their businesses. At the Main ESIA Site Visit Consultation Event, the Head of Ulubelu District stated the site access road built by PGE has resulted in economic development for the Ulubelu Sub-District and the wider area.

The community investment undertaken by PGE to date and that planned in the future is considered to be a beneficial impact of moderate significance.

8.7.1 Mitigation and Benefit Enhancement Measures

To maximise the benefits and cost effectiveness of investment in achieving community development objectives, budgetary decision making should be underpinned by appropriate consultation with key community stakeholders to ensure that it is targeted toward local plans and priorities whilst at the same time considering equity.

PGE are considering inclusion of the following key priorities in their CSR programme, which were identified through consultation undertaken to inform the ESIA and the AMDAL process: Community sports facilities; Healthcare services especially mother and baby programmes; Water supply to the mosque in Pagar Alam; Maintenance funds for mosques and schools; Local police facilities (because at present police have only one office to cover three districts). Seeds so the community can implement reforestation initiatives to stop erosion; and A dam on the Churup Puly River to serve community irrigation needs for rice farming.

A further potential beneficial impact for the local communities would be the provision of street lamps and village electrification. PGE will assess the viability of rural electrification schemes as a key community investment activity in a consultative manner with local communities. Obvious community benefits of electrification would include: Better road safety; Education benefits resulting from lighting after dark; Agricultural benefits from the use of more sophisticated agricultural techniques using modern

machinery; Health benefits from better sanitation and storage of perishable foods; and Recreational benefits from evening activities, telecommunications and entertainments technology.

Investment in such areas must give consideration to whether to provide electricity free of charge either for public areas or for villagers. It may be best to provide infrastructure only, with a graduated pricing scheme for electricity, so that within a given period of time, villagers are paying the market price for electricity either personally or through taxation for public areas. This measure would minimise dependency and mitigate the shock that would otherwise occur in the future if free electricity is no longer provided.

In 2009 PGE did not provide any CSR investment in healthcare. PGE will consider the provision of free mosquito nets to families with children under 5 years old (one net per child).

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

145


At present community investment budgets are derived following formal requests from Kepala Desa offices some of whom commented during the ESIA consultation activities that they had not received responses. It is recommended that the transparency of the process is improved and PGE become more proactive in development of participatory community investment plans. Specific steps in doing this could include: Holding a meeting with all villages (Kepala Desa and Key stakeholders) to disclose information about

the budgets available and to determine common and strategic investment priorities; Agree budget allocations between types of investment (education, health, Mosques, etc.) and between

different project affected villages – with justification of why some villages receive more than others, for example those that suffer most project impacts;

Include local villagers in the plans for delivery of activities - they may work on a voluntary basis in order to maximise the impact of funding allocations;

Disclose plan to local communities to avoid conflict between communities that results from misconceptions about inequitable investment allocations.


If future community investment is more targeted towards local needs and planned in a participatory and transparent manner, with technical and economic consideration of the feasibility of a rural electrification scheme, then the residual benefits are expected to become more significant, as summarised in Table 8.11 below.

Table 8.11: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Community Investment




Starting immediately continuing through all phases

Community investment

Community development

Beneficial impact of low to moderate significance

Development of participatory community investment planning

Feasibility study into rural electrification


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

146


9.1 Overview

Environmental impacts expected to occur as a result of the Project and its associated activities have been considered and assessed for the site preparation and construction, operation and decommissioning phases and where relevant consideration has been given to impacts arising from abnormal or emergency operating conditions and cumulative impacts.

The results of the impact assessment process are based on the detailed assessments presented in the following chapters (and where relevant technical appendices to this document), field work carried out by MML’s EIA team in March and June 2010 and consultation activities with local communities and PGE. The following impact assessments have been undertaken: Water Quality and Hydrology; Groundwater; Noise; Ecology; Air; Climate Change; Waste; Geology and Erosion; Land Contamination; Traffic; Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.

Each of the technical sections has elaborated the generic significance criteria philosophy previously presented in Section 5.4 with bespoke identification of magnitude and sensitivity relevant to each discipline. Negligible impacts where they are identified are neither beneficial nor adverse.

Key mitigation and management requirements are identified in each sub-section. These are further elaborated within the ESMP (see Volume IV) identifying timescales and responsibilities for implementation.

9. Environmental Impact Assessment

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

147


9.2 Water Quality and Hydrology

9.2.1 Introduction

The objectives of this section are to estimate and assess the potential for the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project, to change the flow and quality of water courses in the project area and the impact this may have on local use of surface water in the area. Following a review of the available data from the Local AMDAL Consultants, this assessment builds on the findings of the AMDALs. Further assessment has been undertaken to ensure that the conclusions are based on the current understanding and in line with Indonesian effluent discharge and water quality standards along with best practice and World Bank guidance including the World Bank Group EHS guidelines.

9.2.2 Spatial Scope Assessment

9.2.2.1 Construction

A number of rivers run through the construction area and overall constitutes the Ulubelu river system. Impacts on water quality and hydrology arising from construction site activities are limited to river flows downstream of the construction sites. The assessment has considered the impacts of the construction phase on the Ulubelu River (including tributaries) and the Lingkar River (including tributaries) to their confluence (thereafter the Belu river). The assessment also considers the impacts of the construction phase on the Belu river to its confluence with Asam River at Gunung Tiga.

9.2.2.2 Operation

In the operational phase, impacts have been assessed along the same reaches of the rivers described in the construction phase.

9.2.3 Methodology

The actual footprint of the scheme is relatively small and the major potential impacts are related to the construction phase. The assessment approach included: Site walkover with flow assessments; Discussion of water availability, water use and water quality issues with residents; Review of baseline monitoring data; Review of current construction method at drilling clusters; Discussions with staff on existing operations and ongoing construction; Review of proposed construction plan in relation to water resources and water quality issues.

The assessment of surface water and groundwater resources were coordinated as springs which discharge from groundwater are a feature of the area and are of importance for local users.

The environmental assessment has been carried out using UK WebTAG principles (UK Department for Transport, 2003) but makes allowance for project specific requirements. Although WebTAG was designed for use in transport assessments, the process of classifying value and importance of features is considered useful to this assessment. Table 9.1 shows the criteria for assessing the importance or value of water features.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

148


Table 9.1: Sensitivity Criteria: Water Quality and Hydrology

Sensitivity Definition (considers duration of the impact, spatial extent, reversibility and ability to comply with legislation)

High Surface water body of international or national environmental importance with little or no capacity to absorb proposed changes or minimal opportunities for mitigation.

Receptor at high risk of flooding

Receptor used for regional water supply

Groundwater located within a protection zone close to spring discharge point or groundwater source

Medium Surface water body of international or national environmental importance with some capacity to absorb proposed changes.

Groundwater located close to spring discharge point or groundwater source

Water body important for fisheries

Receptor used for local village water supply

Low Surface water body of regional environmental importance with some capacity to absorb proposed changes

Receptor used for water supply to individual dwellings

Groundwater located within the total catchment area for a groundwater source

Soil and agricultural land use may be affected by flooding/change in hydrological conditions (e.g. arable farming/citrus)

Negligible Soil and agricultural land use not sensitive to some change in hydrological regime (e.g. grazing) Source: UK Department for Transport (2003) WebTAG Guidance – The Water Environment Sub-Objective. Variation from WebTag to allow for project specific requirements

The potential impacts of the Project on the water environment were identified by understanding the physical activities proposed, the evaluation of water feature sensitivity on or near the study area, and the consideration of sources of potential impacts from the development including: Exploration drilling and construction; Operation; and Decommissioning.

The magnitude of each potential impact was then determined using the criteria shown in Table 9.2. Each impact was assessed qualitatively using published literature, including the World Bank Procedure 4.01 and by using professional judgement.

Table 9.2: Magnitage Criteria: Water Quality and Hydrology

Magnitude (positive or adverse)

Definition (considers duration of the impact, spatial extent, reversibility and ability to comply with legislation)

Major Fundamental change to the specific environmental conditions assessed, resulting in long term or permanent change, typically widespread in nature (regional, national and international). Would require significant intervention to return to baseline; exceed national standards and limits.

Moderate Detectable change to the specific environmental conditions assessed, resulting in non-fundamental temporary or permanent change.

Minor Detectable but minor change to the specific environmental conditions assessed.

Negligible No perceptible change to the specific environmental conditions assessed.

The magnitude of impact and value of water environment attribute “scores” are combined to determine the likely significance of potential effects (see Table 9.3). If the impact is negative then the effect is adverse; if the impact is positive then the effect is beneficial. Professional judgement was used to vary the predicted effect where appropriate for example where an impact of major magnitude on a highly sensitive receptor may not be of critical significance if it is considered unlikely to occur.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

149


Table 9.3: Significance Criteria: Water Quality and Hydrology

Sensitivity (importance of attribute) Magnitude of Impact

High Medium Low Negligible

Major Critical Major Moderate Negligible

Moderate Major Major Moderate Negligible

Minor Moderate Moderate Low Negligible

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Note: Effects are beneficial/adverse or insignificant

9.2.4 Assessment of Impacts

9.2.4.1 Exploration, Drilling and Construction Stage

This phase includes all works up to commissioning of production or re-injection wells and power plant. The activities include drilling and testing plus all construction works associated with site access, working and storage areas, facilities for water supply for drilling and subsequent disposal of waste water, and completion of all associated connecting production / reinjection pipelines.

Negative impacts include: Impacts on water resources including water required for any aspect of construction; Potential erosion caused by vegetation clearance or land levelling and site works leading to increased

sediment load in water courses; Changes to natural runoff paths (largely overland flow but in some cases stream diversion); and Pollution of surface or groundwater either accidental or due to inappropriate disposal of waste water

from construction activities.

Water resources

The impact of abstraction is on downstream users and ecological requirements. Most domestic water use is based on wells but there is also use of local water bodies for domestic use and for watering crops and livestock, and therefore the rivers are assessed to be of medium sensitivity to changes in flow. The impact is related to the proportion of the available flow that is to be abstracted and this varies seasonally, the critical time is the low flow season and during droughts. Without any mitigation and abstractions coinciding with low flow periods, the magnitude has been assessed to be potentially moderate as long term or permanent changes could occur. It has therefore been assessed that water abstraction activities have the potential to cause an adverse impact of major significance without mitigation.

The clearance of vegetation for any construction activities immediately increases the risk of erosion and generation of significant sediment load. Any interruption to natural drainage paths, especially to divert a water course is undesirable and poses both a threat to the workings, if adequate diversion capacity is not provided, and may also have localised ecological impacts. The rivers are assessed to be of medium sensitivity as they are used for local village supply, and the magnitude of impact is assessed to be major as long term or permanent changes could occur. Therefore, it has been assessed that activities during the construction phase have the potential to have an adverse impact of major significance without mitigation.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

150


Water quality

Main impacts from drilling activities, as identified in the World Bank Group’s EHS Guidelines for Geothermal Power Generation, are related to use of oil-based drilling fluids.

“Muds”, a mixture of water, bentonite and emulsifiers, are injected during the drilling to support the well, cool the drill bit and remove cuttings. The drilling waste stream is separated: the cuttings are dried in a cuttings house, and the muds flow through a series of cooling / settling ponds after which they can be recycled for further drilling. Any failure of the settling pond system has the potential to cause pollution of adjacent surface water courses which is of particular concern with oil-based muds as they are likely to contain oil-related contaminants. Should a failure occur the impact on the local water body would be adverse with the significance depending on the relative magnitude of the spill compared to the flow in the water body and the length of time for the pollutants to be flushed downstream. The receiving rivers are of medium sensitivity (as they are used for local village supply) and the magnitude of impact is moderate as oil contamination from oil based drilling muds can cause long term or permanent changes, depending on the size of the spill and the river flowrate at the time. It has been assessed that these waste treatment activities during the construction phase have the potential to have an adverse impact of major significance without mitigation.

Poor storage of chemicals and fuels required on site for use in construction could result in spills and potential run off into local water courses. The magnitude of potential change in river water quality is assessed to be moderate, because the impact would cause a significant change in water chemistry but would be short lived and the impact localised. This could impact on water use close to the site for both local residents and site workers resident on site. The watercourses are classified as medium sensitivity. The impact of this risk is therefore assessed to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

There is a potential for discharge of brine to surface water during the production well tests. Even though the discharge from the pressure test might be short lasting the impact of the discharge on the water environment as a result of high temperature and water chemistry could be substantial. During horizontal well production tests, the response of the geothermal reservoir itself will be monitored during steam and brine production from the new wells for an extended period. Insufficient management of the brines during this period could result in discharges to the surface water, causing a moderate magnitude with medium sensitivity receptors. Such impacts are considered to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

9.2.4.2 Operation Phase

Water Resources

During the operation phase, there will be no abstraction from surface waters to meet the steam field and power plant needs other than possibly for an initial charge of water required for the cooling circuit. It is planned that most of the steam field and power plant water needs will be met from a well located at the power plant site. It is therefore anticipated that surface water resources will cease to be required to support operations. There is a need for some “new” water for cooling tower operation that will be met through reusing the steam condensate. The impact associated with a possible one off surface water extraction for the initial charge of the cooling circuit is related to the proportion of the available flow that is to be abstracted and this varies seasonally. The impact of this risk is assessed to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

151


Water Quality

Brine and condensate would be discharged to surface waters if development of reinjection clusters was not included in the Project design. This eventuality would lead to an ongoing effluent discharge to local water courses. Given the medium sensitivity and magnitude of moderate (depending on the chemistry of the brine and condensate relative to the chemistry of the surface water bodies), the Project without reinjection is assessed as having adverse impact of major significance.

In the event of a failure of the brine reinjection system or failure of brine pipeline, brine will be stored in the short term in the thermal pond until such time as it can be re-injected. Should a failure occur in the pipeline or storage system or the reinjection be unavailable for a prolonged period, there is a possibility of brine being discharged to surface water courses. The potential impact on the local water body would be adverse with the significance depending on the relative magnitude of the spill compared to the flow in the water body and the length of time for the pollutants to be flushed downstream. It has been assessed that these activities during abnormal operational have the potential to have an adverse impact of major significance without mitigation.

Cooling towers will be drained on a periodic basis (once every 3 years based typically). Effluent discharges to surface water from cooling towers being drained during the operational phase could have an adverse impact of major significance without mitigation.

Poor storage of chemicals and fuels required on site for use in the power plant could result in spills and the potential to run off into local watercourses. The magnitude of potential change in river water quality is assessed to be moderate, because the impact would cause a significant change in water chemistry but would be short lived and the impact localised. This could impact on water abstraction from the river close to the site for both local residents and site workers resident on site. The surface water is classified as medium sensitivity. The impact of this risk is therefore assessed to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

9.2.4.3 Decommissioning and Post-operation

Project decommissioning will require sealing up of the geothermal wells and the removal of the power plant. Well decommissioning is considered to be of adverse impact of moderate significance without mitigation being lesser than the construction phase as outlined in earlier sections.

9.2.5 Mitigation Measures


Water Resources

Water needs for drilling and construction phase will be met by pumping from a local water course into a holding pond, and using the two installed water pumping stations (there are three locations for pumping but only two pumps installed at one given time). Through use of holding ponds it is possible to manage abstraction such that abstraction during low flow periods of the river is avoided.

At the drilling clusters, following treatment in lined settling ponds, drilling water is recycled, in line with the World Bank Groups EHS Guidelines recommendations. This significantly reduces the abstracted quantity of water.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

152


The baseline flow measurements are very limited and therefore it is necessary to take a precautionary approach. The current practice of abstraction into storage ponds is a sensible mitigation measure as it gives some flexibility about the rate of abstraction and when pumping occurs. Some complaints have been made from local residents that the Cangkar Tengah River has become dry in the dry season although it is reported that this approach has been successfully employed for the construction of the existing deep wells in the steam field. A more careful application of the abstraction using WSP1 to WPS 3 will reduce the impacts of the abstraction. The residual impacts are assessed to be of adverse low significance subject to the above mitigation being appropriately followed.

The project construction activities are on a reasonably small scale. It should be possible, through close supervision and good engineering practice, to ensure that, while the works are ongoing, sediment generated is retained within the working area.

Mitigation measures consistent with the World Bank Group EHS guidelines include: Bunding off the working area to avoid any sediment from the workings entering local water courses; Minimising vegetation clearance; and Avoiding, if at all possible, any temporary or permanent diversion of water courses or natural flow paths;

if necessary ensure that diversion works are of adequate capacity.

The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) will be expected to effectively control these risks. The residual impacts are assessed to be of negligible significance subject to the above best practice mitigation measures being followed.

Water Quality

Main impacts from drilling activities, as identified in the World Bank Group’s EHS Guidelines for Geothermal Power Generation, are related to oil-based drilling fluids. These are avoided thanks to use of water-based drilling muds, which is the standard practice observed at PGE sites. Furthermore, the drilling muds will be recycled via a series of mud treatment / settlement ponds located at each well cluster. The ponds will be designed of adequate capacity will water filtration to safely manage the quantities of wastewater / drilling fluids arising.

Potential pollution from a failure of the muds treatment ponds has been reported during the early construction of the wells. Some complaints have been received that ponds near to cluster F had been silting up and the water filters broken so that water based drilling mud was discharged to the local watercourse. However, the impact of these activities can be effectively mitigated by adequate provision of storage capacity and good maintenance of these storage ponds. Where ponds are constructed on or near slopes of high gradient, all cuts of slopes will be stabilised with appropriate walls or other structures to ensure slope stability and to prevent mudflows or landslides. The storage ponds will have impermeable lining such as HDPE or similar geomembrane of appropriate thickness bonded together to ensure water tightness. The lining will be regularly checked for rips and tears and the ponds will be monitored and cleared of silt periodically to maintain the integrity of the treatment and drainage system. The residual impacts are assessed to be adverse low significance subject to the above mitigation measures being followed.

In the unlikely case of an overflow, effluent will be passed through the settling tanks and the active carbon filter prior to discharge. Furthermore, if an overflow event was to occur, the impacted water course will be monitored upstream, immediate downstream location from overflow, prior to nearest downstream community and after confluences with other tributaries to determine the extent of impact. If required, an alternative water supply will be provided to downstream communities if their water supply is adversely

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

153


affected by an overflow event. With these mitigation measures the impact is assessed to be adverse low significance.

Pollution impacts on surface water quality from the storage of chemicals and fuels and resultant spills, will be effectively mitigated by the use of good storage practice. This includes all chemicals and fuels being stored in designated areas with impermeable surfaces and adequate bunding to prevent accidental contamination. The designated storage areas will be located away from surface waters and suitable spill kits will be provided within the storage areas and near any fuelling or loading points. The ESMP will be expected to effectively control these risks. The residual impacts are assessed to be of adverse low significance subject to the above mitigation being followed.

In unlikely event of a well blowout, drains should be in place to route any geothermal effluents to the settling ponds. Should the ponds overflow, PGE will ensure that the community is warned and that alternative source of clean water is provided if a sensitive watercourse is affected.

Well test water will be reinjected through reinjection wells. However, there may be a need to store well test water until reinjection wells are available. With mitigation through the use of lined ponds at the well clusters to store brine before future reinjection, there will be no releases into surface water courses. As there will be no discharges to surface water courses, residual impact significance is negligible.

It is unlikely that there will be a net surplus requiring discharge to surface water under normal testing for a number of reasons including: The presence of lost circulation zones suggests high injectivity rates are possible; The earlier production test on the wells will give an indication of rates of injection; Injectivity can be enhanced by hydrofracturing if this appears necessary; and The test flow rate could be reduced (as a least desirable option).

With proper mitigation through the use of the re-injection wells and storage ponds, the residual impact from the discharge of reservoir test water is considered to be of negligible significance.


Water Resources

Steam for the power plant will be supplied by the geothermal wells with steam condensate subsequently reinjected back to the geothermal reservoir. Some of the steam condensate will be used as required for cooling circuit make-up. Other water needs beyond steam supply for the steam field and power plant water operations will be met from a groundwater well on the power plant site. It is therefore anticipated that surface water resources will cease to be required to support operations other than possibly for an initial charge of water required for the cooling circuit. If surface water is used for the initial charge of the cooling circuit or in the unlikely event that there is another requirement for abstraction from surface waters during operation, the abstraction rate will be slow to maintain a basic ecological flow rate.

Measures described in the Exploration and Drilling stage will be maintained throughout all operation phase abstractions. The residual impact of this risk is assessed to be of negligible significance.

Water Quality

Brine and condensate is to be reinjected back through deep wells in Clusters A and F down gradient of the steam production wells. There should be no ongoing effluent discharge to local water courses. Through

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

154


the use of reinjection, the residual impact associated with operational discharges of brine and condensate is assessed as having negligible significance.

The impact of any potential failure of the brine pipeline within the Project area can be effectively managed through good design (as described in Section 2.5.8), regular monitoring and development of appropriate responses including the creation of a brine management plan.

As critical failure of the pipeline is extremely unlikely and with a brine management plan in place, the residual impacts can be assessed be of adverse low significance. In addition, such measures will ensure that the pipeline routing in close proximity to (or crossing of) rivers complies within relevant Indonesian legislation including Presidential Decree No. 32 of 1990 and Government Regulation No. 35 of 1991 which seek to protect the water quality of rivers through managing activities on or near river banks.

In the event of a failure of the reinjection system, brine will be stored in the short term in the thermal pond until such time as it can be re-injected. The storage pond will be lined and of sufficient size to allow for storage and required treatment (including cooling) to be carried out for the potential duration of the reinjection failure. The quantity of brine for storage is reduced by diverting via an emergency dump to a flash silencer where typically 15% of the brine flashes to atmosphere. The operational management of the plant will have a large influence on the occurrence and magnitude of potential impacts. A brine management plan will be drafted allowing for proper assessment and mitigation of environmental risks. With adequate design and regular monitoring, it will be possible to achieve adverse impacts of low significance.

Storage of chemicals and fuels required on site for use in the power plant will follow the same mitigation measures as outlined for construction. The ESMP will be expected to effectively control these risks. The residual impacts are assessed to be of adverse low significance subject to the above mitigation being followed.

Cooling towers will be drained on a periodic basis (typically every 3 years). The water will be reinjected back to the geothermal reservoir through the reinjection wells. Given proper mitigation measures, effluent discharges during the operational phase are expected to be of negligible significance.


Project decommissioning will require sealing up of the geothermal wells and the removal of the power plant. Impacts from decommissioning are therefore assessed to be the same as those of construction and the same mitigation measures should be applied. Well decommissioning is considered to be of adverse impact of low significance being similar to the construction phase and subject to best practice methods being applied.


Table 9.4 contains a summary of the potential impacts on surface water courses and a discussion on the residual impacts and risks.

The majority of the impacts will be mitigated by the use of best practice and close monitoring of performance against the KPIs identified in the ESMP (see Volume IV).

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

155


9.2.7 Cumulative Impacts and Transboundary Issues

All of the identified impacts on surface water bodies are assessed as negligible or adverse low significance with the identified mitigation. PGE is also responsible for the development of wellpads to serve the separate PLN Units 1&2 development. The measures contained within the ESMP elaborated for the Project are relevant to the wider wellpad development and therefore the ESMP is appropriate to cover the wider operations for the overall Ulubelu Development.

The operation of the PLN Units 1&2 power plant is expected to follow a similar operational philosophy with respect to water management as for PGE Units 3&4. Under these circumstances no cumulative adverse impacts of significance are anticipated.

No transboundary impacts are expected due to the site location.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

156


Table 9.4: Summary of potential impacts and residual risks: Water Quality and Hydrology

Phase Activity Impact Sensitivity Score

Magnitude Score

Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Residual Significance

Abstraction during dry season significantly reduces available resource

Less water available for human and ecological needs

Low Moderate Adverse major

Prior to any new river abstractions, identify any local users downstream as far as Karang Rejo.

Choose abstraction flow rate and timing to minimise impacts on water course and to ensure minimal stream flow maintained.

Where this cannot be achieved, before drilling construction, PGE to construct new water supply pipeline from alternative source to ensure community water supply unaffected.

Use ponds to store water for drilling.

Recycle “muds” to minimise need for “new” water.

Adverse Low

Vegetation clearance and earth moving including diversion of water course

Damage to ecology

Need to maintain a flow path

Medium Moderate Adverse major

To be avoided if possible

Provide adequate diversion capacity

Profile new channel to match old channel

Negligible

Vegetation clearance, earth moving

Erosion and increased sediment load reaching local water courses

Medium Major Adverse major

Good construction practice to prevent erosion and sediment reaching watercourses, including bunding of working areas.

Minimise vegetation clearance.

Re-vegetate as soon as possible on completion of works.

Negligible

Exploration, drilling and construction phase

Temporary waste water settling pond overspill

Pollution of watercourse by “Muds”


Size temporary facilities appropriately and have contingency.

Design adequate capacity of treatment ponds / water filters to safely manage quantities of waste water arising.

Use of water based drilling muds as opposed to oil-based drilling muds.

Recycling of drilling muds.

Design adequate capacity of treatment ponds / water filters to safely manage quantities of waste water arising.

Storage ponds to have impermeable lining such as HDPE or similar geomembrane of appropriate thickness bonded together to ensure water-tightness

Regularly checked for rips and tears.

Ponds monitored and cleared of silt periodically to maintain integrity of treatment and drainage system.

Adverse low

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

157



Magnitude Score

Impact Significance


Spills from poor storage of fuels and chemicals

Chemicals or fuel entering local water course used for domestic or irrigation supply


Development of relevant procedures to avoid and minimise risk of spills, including:

All chemicals and fuels are to be stored in designated sites with impermeable surface and adequate bunding to prevent accidental contamination.

Storage areas to be located away from surface waters.

Suitable spill kits to be provided within storage areas and near any fuelling / loading areas.

Adverse low

Well Testing Discharge of well brines to surface water


Ensure settling ponds have adequate storage capacity.

Reinjection of water through reinjection wells

Negligible

Water abstraction to supply water needs of initial charge of cooling circuit

Less water available for human and ecological needs

Low Moderate Adverse moderate

Choose abstraction rate and timing to minimise impacts on water course and to ensure minimal stream flow maintained.

Record quantity of water abstracted and timing of abstractions.

Negligible


Chemicals or fuel entering local water course used for domestic or irrigation supply


Best practice as for construction Adverse low

Failure of brine reinjection system

Discharge of well brine and condensate to surface water


Minimise risk of brine / condensate discharge through implementation of reinjection system and provision of adequate sized lined storage ponds / system shut down in case of reinjection failure.

Develop brine management plan to minimise risk of brine discharges.

In the event of emergency discharge of brine / condensate to surface waters, treatment will be undertaken prior to discharge of effluent to comply with Indonesian discharge geothermal effluent standard.

Adverse low

Operation

Draining down of cooling tower

Discharge of effluent to surface water

Medium Major Adverse moderate

Water to be reinjected into wells. Negligible

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

158



Magnitude Score

Impact Significance


Failure of brine pipeline

Discharge of brine to surface water


Creation of a brine management plan.

Good design.

In the event of pipeline failure, brine will be diverted via an emergency dump valve to a large emergency brine dump flash tank.

Employ best practice.

Adverse low

Decommissioning Infill of wells As those seen in construction

Negligible Negligible Adverse moderate

Application of same mitigation measures as for construction Adverse low

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

159


9.3 Groundwater

9.3.1 Introduction

The objectives of this section are to estimate and assess the potential for the construction, operation and decommissioning to change the flow and quality of groundwater in the Project area and the impact this may have on local use of groundwater. Following a review of the available data from the Local AMDAL Consultant and the Inception Report, this assessment builds on the findings of the various AMDAL processes. Further assessment is provided to ensure that the conclusions are based on the current understanding and in line with best practice and World Bank guidance.



Impacts on groundwater quality and levels can be widespread down hydraulic gradient for construction activities. The assessment has considered the impacts from the construction phase on shallow groundwater in the areas in and between the villages of Muara Dua Baru (Merkarsari), Runggang, Wijmulyo, Muara Dua, Pagar Alam and Gunung Tiga.

9.3.2.2 Operation

In the operational phase, impacts have been assessed within the same area as described in the construction phase.

9.3.3 Methodology

The actual invasive footprint of the scheme is relatively small and the major potential impacts are related to the construction phase. The assessment approach included: Site walkover to identify potential community wells in the area; Discussion of groundwater availability, groundwater use and groundwater quality issues with residents; Review of baseline monitoring data; Review of current construction method at drilling clusters; Discussions with staff on existing operations and ongoing construction; and Review proposed construction plan in relation to groundwater use and groundwater quality issues.

The assessment of surface water and groundwater resources were coordinated since springs are a feature of the area and are of importance for local users.

In line with the World Bank Procedure 4.01 the sensitivity and magnitude of potential impacts has been assessed using the criteria set out previously for the assessment on surface water quality and hydrology in Section 9.2.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

160




During the exploration, drilling and construction stage there are no major excavations or large deep structures below the water table planned. Therefore no perceptible change to the groundwater flow or level is expected and the magnitude is negligible. Groundwater is used locally by residents for both domestic and irrigation purposes and is of medium sensitivity to changes in level and flow. It is assessed that the construction has the potential to have a negligible significance, and will not be considered further.

Changes in rock formations caused by drilling, flow testing and hydrofracturing of the new wells, will reroute existing pathways within the groundwater reservoir and may create new pathways to the surface. If uncontrolled, blowouts may occur (uncontrolled discharge of deep aquifer water) and could also lead to new pathways between the deep thermal aquifer and the shallow aquifer that would allow for the transfer of deep aquifer mineralised water to the shallow aquifer. The magnitude of potential change to water quality would be localised but would be irreversible, and given the proximity of local well supplies, the magnitude is assessed to be moderate. These changes could potentially reduce shallow aquifer water quality in areas where groundwater is currently used for domestic and irrigation purposes. The groundwater supplies are considered to be of medium sensitivity. The impact of this risk is assessed to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

Shallow groundwater is unlikely to be greatly affected by the planned reinjection of drilling waters back to the geothermal reservoir. The impact of this activity is therefore assessed to be of negligible significance.

Poor storage of chemicals and fuels required on site for construction could result in spills and percolation to the shallow aquifer. The magnitude of potential change in groundwater quality is assessed to be moderate, because the impact would cause a significant change in water chemistry but would be short lived and the impact highly localised. This could impact on water abstraction close to the site for both local residents and site workers resident on site. The groundwater is classified as medium sensitivity. The impact of this risk is therefore assessed to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

During construction some areas of the land have been levelled, removing top soil and the underlying strata, in order to install the well pads and power plant. This has the potential to change the flow of groundwater in the local area and could lead to a change in groundwater levels. The magnitude of the impact is assessed to be moderate as the changes in flow would be localised. The sensitivity of the change is assessed to be minor, with changes affecting only small areas. The impact of this risk to groundwater is assessed to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.

Land clearance also has the potential to increase the risk of landslides, as vegetation is removed for the construction of roads, buildings and other infrastructure. Landslides could impact groundwater quality in the short term. The magnitude of the impact is assessed to be moderate as any change in groundwater chemistry would be short lived, and the significance of the change medium, as impacts would be localised. The impact is therefore assessed to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

161



A well within the power plant site will be utilised to meet the water requirements of the plant. It is unknown at this stage if the well will tap into the shallow aquifer water supply or the deep aquifer water supply. Water requirements from this well are assumed to be between 20 and 30 m3/day. A worst case scenario has therefore been assumed whereby 20 to 30 m3/day will be drawn from the shallow aquifer. This is a small quantity compared to the likely recharge in an unconfined aquifer in a high rainfall region and is likely to have a highly localised affect on groundwater levels (radius of influence likely to be in the order of a few hundred metres). There is a risk that there may be a reduction in groundwater levels in local domestic or irrigation wells located close to the power plant. The local wells may be shallow and have been assessed as of medium sensitivity to potential changes in groundwater levels. The magnitude of change to groundwater quantity is assessed to be minor. This risk is assessed to have adverse impacts of moderate significance without mitigation.

Poor storage of chemicals and fuels along with leaks of geothermal fluids or well workover chemicals, have the potential to affect groundwater quality. The potential significance of this will depend upon groundwater flow direction and the location of potential receptors (such as wells, springs or streams) in the immediate vicinity and hydraulically down-gradient. As groundwater flow direction is unknown at this stage a worst case of impact on a community well is assumed. The sensitivity is classified as medium and the magnitude of impact is major. Overall this risk is assessed to have adverse impacts of major significance without mitigation.

Geothermal fluids are likely to produce scale within the surface piping and plant. The wells will be treated when necessary with chemicals in-situ to prevent build up of scale. Further to this the cooling tower will require periodic cleaning due to a build up of solids. The cooling tower sludge will be pumped out of the tower basin to a sludge drying pit at the power plant site. After the sludge has dried it would be disposed of, along with scale and other clean down solids, in local landfills operated by third parties and licensed by the Ministry of Environment. The magnitude of the impact is likely to be minor because the scale will consist of minerals that already exist in the groundwater. It is assessed that the disposal of scale by third party licensed by the Ministry of Environment has the potential for adverse impacts of low significance without mitigation.

Replacement of geothermal wells in the operational phase will be of the same or reduced impacts as for new wells and is not considered further.


Project decommissioning will require sealing up of the geothermal wells and the removal of the power plant. Well decommissioning is considered to be of adverse impact of moderate significance without mitigation being lesser than the construction phase as outlined in earlier sections.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

162




Changes in rock formations caused by drilling, flow testing and hydrofracturing of the new wells will be controlled in part by the well design. The well design includes a deep set surface casing to prevent blow outs (the uncontrolled discharge of deep aquifer water/steam into the upper aquifer or to the surface). This design has been developed for use in existing geothermal fields and exploration wells and has been implemented effectively. This design will continue to be utilised for this project. Groundwater quality monitoring will continue to be carried out in the areas of drilling to ensure water quality is not adversely affected. The residual impacts of well construction after mitigation are therefore assessed to have adverse impacts of low significance.

Potential pollution impacts on groundwater quality from the storage of chemicals and fuels and resultant spills will be effectively mitigated by the use of good storage practice such as:

All chemicals and fuels are to be stored in designated sites with adequate bunding to prevent accidental contamination.

Suitable spill kits to be provided within storage areas and near any fuelling / loading areas.

Findings from the March 2010 site visit identified various issues with storage and handling of fuels, chemicals and wastes. Since the Project will be a major high profile development, implementation of the ESMP will be expected to effectively control these risks. The residual impacts are assessed to be of adverse low significance subject to the above mitigation being followed.

The impact of potential changes in groundwater flow and yield caused by levelling of land will depend upon the location of the land levelling and the relative positions of local wells. Impacts may not occur at all. Additional water level (from representative community wells) and spring flow monitoring will be carried out as part of the ESMP. If water levels are found to have dropped in local wells then mitigation will be carried out. Mitigation could include deepening of the affected wells or provision of an alternative water supply. Mitigation would reduce the residual impacts to adverse impacts of low significance.

Increased potential for landslides, caused by the clearance and levelling of land will be mitigated by the use of best practice construction methods, such as ensuring slope angles are kept to a minimum, stabilising slopes where necessary, ensuring suitable under drainage is in place and reseeding of land when possible to help stabilisation. The residual impacts are assessed to be of adverse low significance subject to the above mitigation being followed.


The impact assessment of groundwater abstraction for operational use in the power plant is limited by the lack of information currently available on the groundwater flow direction and levels. As these impacts will only be apparent during the operational phase, additional groundwater level monitoring will be carried out as part of the ESMP. The plan would include more complete water feature inventory work and selected groundwater level and quality monitoring off-site, to be integrated with similar monitoring data from ground investigation on-site undertaken as part of the FEED and detailed design studies.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

163


The ESMP will include some annual monitoring of groundwater levels, in order to increase the understanding of groundwater flow to receptors. This information can then be used to assess the potential impact of reducing groundwater levels due to abstraction from the well within the power plant.

If an impact is found on local wells then a number of mitigation options may be applied. These include: Consideration of a surface water source for use in the power plant; Deepening of local village wells to ensure water availability; and Provision of an alternative water supply for residents’ dependant upon affected supplies.

If an appropriate alternative source is found, or other mitigation measure put into place, then the residual impacts can be assessed to be of negligible significance.

Potential pollution impacts on groundwater quality from the storage of chemicals and fuels and resultant spills, will be effectively mitigated by the use of good storage practice. This includes all chemicals and fuels being stored in designated areas with impervious surface, adequate bunding to prevent accidental contamination and with drains and interceptors. Suitable spill kits will be provided within the storage areas and near any fuelling or loading points. The ESMP will be expected to effectively control these risks. With monitoring and action plans in place, the residual impact is assessed to be of adverse impacts of low significance.

9.3.5.3 Decommissioning and Post-Operation Phase

Project decommissioning includes risks to groundwater. The application of best practice construction measures as identified in Section 9.3.5.1 for the construction phase will reduce these risks to negligible significance.


Table 9.5 contains a summary of the potential impacts on groundwater and a discussion of the residual impacts and risks.

The majority of the impacts will be managed through the implementation of the ESMP (see Volume IV).

9.3.7 Cumulative Impacts and Trans-boundary Issues

All of the identified impacts on groundwater are assessed as negligible or adverse low significance with the identified mitigation. PGE is also responsible for the development of wellpads to serve the separate PLN Units 1&2 development. The measures contained within the ESMP elaborated for the Project are relevant to the wider wellpad development and therefore the ESMP is appropriate to cover the wider operations for the overall Ulubelu Development.

The operation of the PLN Units 1&2 power plant is expected to follow a similar operational philosophy with respect to groundwater management as for PGE Units 3&4. Under these circumstances no cumulative adverse impacts of significance are anticipated.


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

164


Table 9.5: Summary of potential impacts and residual risks: Groundwater


Magnitude Score

Impact Significance


Construction of wells and potential hydrofracturing creating new pathways between the deep and shallow aquifer

Introduction of highly mineralised water from deep aquifer into the shallow groundwater used for domestic or irrigation supply


Good well design with deep casing as used and applied previously in this area.

Groundwater quality monitoring to confirm water quality not affected. If water levels are found to have been affected then provision of alternative water supplies may be considered

Adverse low


Chemicals or fuel entering local wells used for domestic or irrigation supply


Development of best practice measures to avoid and minimise risk of spills

Designated sites for chemical and fuel storage to prevent accidental contamination.

Suitable spill kits to be provided within storage areas and near any fuelling/ loading areas.

Adverse low

Land levelling Changes in groundwater flow and level due to the levelling of land below groundwater table

Minor Moderate Adverse moderate

Additional water levels monitoring for the ESMP used to ensure that water levels in local wells are not affected by the land levelling and that sufficient water is available for use. If water levels are found to have dropped in local wells then deepening of the affected wells may be considered.

Adverse low


Vegetation clearance and road construction increasing risk of landslides

Decrease in local groundwater levels

Minor Moderate Adverse moderate

Best practice construction methods, such as ensuring slope angles are keep to a minimum, stabilising slopes where necessary and reseeding of land when possible to help stabilisation.

Adverse low

Water abstraction from shallow groundwater to supply water needs of power plant

Reduced groundwater levels and potential drying of local wells used for domestic and irrigation supply

Medium Minor Adverse moderate

Investigation into water levels and flow during construction phase.

Investigate new source of water for plant if risk is found to be high

Deepen wells affected by reduced water levels

Provide alternative water supply to residents if affected by reduced water levels

Negligible Operation


Chemicals or fuel entering local wells used for domestic or irrigation supply


As above for construction. Adverse low

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

165



Magnitude Score

Impact Significance


Disposal of scale and other operational waste to local landfill

Potential leaching of minerals into shallow groundwater used for domestic or irrigation supply

Low Low Adverse low Management measures for disposal of any hazardous waste (as determined through toxicity testing) by third party licensed by Ministry of Environment according to regulations.

Negligible

Decommissioning Infill of wells / dismantling of Power Plant

Same as for Exploration, drilling and construction phase

Medium Minor Adverse moderate

Same as for Exploration, drilling and construction phase.

Negligible

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

166


9.4 Noise

9.4.1 Introduction

This assessment investigates the potential for noise impacts on the surrounding environment as a result of the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project. A noise impact assessment was carried out as part the AMDAL process by the Local AMDAL Consultants. This elaborates the noise assessment in more detail using acoustic modelling in order to satisfy the requirements of international standards including World Bank procedures and guidelines. The likelihood of cumulative impacts with the nearby PLN Power Plant (Units 1&2) which is currently under development has also been investigated.

Noise impacts will arise through a number of sources during each phase of the Project, potentially generating levels in excess of prevailing conditions or statutory limits at adjacent sensitive receptors. The assessment methodology encompasses a number of stages including baseline noise monitoring, prediction of the likely noise impacts using advanced acoustic modelling, analysis of predicted impacts in the context of appropriate national and international guidance, and identification of appropriate mitigation measures, as necessary.

Vibration levels during all phases of the Project are expected to be well within the necessary range for protection against cosmetic or structural damage based on the transmission distances involved and have therefore not been assessed.

A glossary of acoustic terms is presented in Appendix E of Volume III.



Although impacts on noise arising from emissions from Project construction site activities are unlikely to occur more than 500 metres from the location in which they are carried out, the assessment has considered the impacts of the construction phase on noise sensitive receptors / project affected people including the villages of Karang Rejo, Runggang and Muara Dua even through they are further than 500m from the main plant site due to their proximity to well construction activities.

9.4.2.2 Operation

Noise sensitive receptors have been identified for the operational phase, these primarily comprise of the local villages within 500m of the main plant site or wells. This allows specific assessment of the closest noise sensitive receptors, and hence the most affected locations, to be considered.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

167


9.4.3 Methodology

9.4.3.1 Standards and Guidelines

National and international guidance have been used in determining the potential impact of the Project. These regulations offer direction that is intended to prevent or reduce impacts at a local level, by suggesting suitable noise levels at the external façade of a building, or alternatively, inside the structure.

The relevant Indonesian national standard for the control of environmental noise, applicable to the Project is the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Decree No. 48 of 1996 regarding Noise Standard. The limit values from MOE Decree No. 48 of 1996 in respect of various receptors are presented in Appendix A.

The World Bank Group has developed a thorough programme of pollution prevention and management techniques in order to ensure that projects funded by the organisation are environmentally and socially responsible. The World Bank Group General EHS Guidelines are relevant to the Project and associated noise guidelines are presented in Appendix A of Volume III.

In addition to the above standards and guidelines, specific direction in relation to noise measurement and acoustic modelling is also detailed in the following internationally used standards: British Standard 5228-1 (2009): Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on construction and

open sites. Noise; ISO 1996 (2003): Acoustics -- Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise -

Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures; ISO 1996 (2007): Acoustics -- Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise -

Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels; and, ISO 9613 (1996): Acoustics -- Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors - Part 2: General

method of calculation.

British Standard 5228 (BS 5228) provides guidance on a range of aspects relating to construction noise, including details of typical noise levels associated with various activities, a methodology to predict construction noise at distant locations, and an indication of the types of measures and procedures that can be used to reduce construction noise. This document forms the basis for the majority of construction works assessments throughout the United Kingdom and is widely recognised internationally. It has been used in this assessment.

The impacts of increased public road network activity have not been quantitatively assessed due to the absence of predicted traffic movements, road type, average speed data and traffic flow composition. A qualitative assessment of road traffic noise has been carried out instead.

Baseline noise measurements have been made in compliance with ISO 1996. Operational noise emissions from the Project have been modelled using the ISO 9613 algorithm. Both of these are recognised international standards.

9.4.3.2 Overview of Significance Criteria

This section describes the impact assessment methodology used in the evaluation of noise effects from the Project. The purpose of an assessment of this kind is to determine the potential significance of impacts, which may be beneficial or adverse, based on pre-existing conditions, and develop appropriate mitigation measures as necessary.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

168


The significance of impact is established using the concepts of magnitude and sensitivity. A variety of methods may be used in determining the impact significance of the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the Project. In the absence of a single method and a recognised definition of what constitutes a significant impact, the Project will be evaluated in accordance with the significance matrix of Section 5.4 with further noise specific definition of receptor sensitivity and impact magnitude provided below.


Construction work is transient in nature and generally includes both stationary and moving sources of noise. Stationary sources include construction plant positioned at a given location on a temporary basis while moving sources normally comprise mobile plant and vehicles. Heavy plant such as trucks, excavators, and piling rigs typically generate the highest levels of noise. Their emissions are not attenuated as effectively by atmospheric effects and ground absorption as for smaller construction plant.

Sensitive receptors considered in this assessment were identified during a site visit and from surveying maps of the local area. It has been established that the primary sensitive receptors in the local area are residential in nature. The nearest sensitive receptors are considered to be located approximately 10m from one of the Project sites.

The first stage of the construction noise assessment involves the identification of activities that have the potential to generate high levels of noise. It is necessary to consider the contribution of all noise sources involved in a particular construction activity in order to accurately predict the likely impact.

The second stage of the assessment involves identifying and ranking the nearest sensitive receptors to planned construction areas in terms of sensitivity. The predicted impact will depend primarily on the distance from source to receiver, however, the degree and nature of incorporated mitigation measures, meteorological effects and local terrain is also of importance. The sensitivity criteria relating to noise impacts are detailed in Table 9.6.

Table 9.6: Sensitivity Criteria: Noise

Sensitivity Receptor

High Residential areas, health facilities, schools, places of worship, designated environmental areas, nature area, high value visual amenity areas, graveyards

Medium Offices, recreational areas, isolated residences, footpaths/cycle paths, agricultural land

Low Scrub land, public open space, minor roads, commercial areas

Negligible Derelict land

For the purposes of this assessment, all sensitive receptors in the wider area are considered to be of high sensitivity. The third stage of the construction noise assessment involves the calculation of noise at the nearest sensitive receptors and the assessment of its magnitude.

The predicted level of noise received at a sensitive receptor and the duration of exposure have been considered in establishing magnitude criteria designed to protect the local environment from potential disturbance due to construction activity. The magnitude criteria have been derived from guidance provided by the WHO and other applicable bodies. The magnitude criteria used in the assessment of construction noise impact is presented in Table 9.7.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

169


Table 9.7: Magnitude Criteria: Construction Noise

Magnitude of Change

Definition Duration Construction Noise at Receptor dB(A)

Months >65

Weeks >70

Major A significant change in conditions

Days > 75

Months 60 – 65

Weeks 65 – 70

Moderate A material but non-significant change in conditions

Days 70 – 75

Months 55– 60

Weeks 60 – 65

Minor A perceptible but restricted change in conditions

Days 65 – 70

Months < 55

Weeks < 60

Negligible A potentially perceptible but non-significant change in conditions

Days < 65

It is considered that the magnitude criteria detailed in Table 9.7 represents a compromise between practical limitations and the necessity to maintain an acceptable local noise climate during construction.

Following on from the sensitivity criteria and magnitude criteria presented in Table 9.6 and Table 9.7 respectively, the construction phase of the Project has been evaluated in accordance with the significance matrix of Section 5.4.

9.4.3.4 Operational Stage

Geothermal power plants have the potential to generate significant levels of noise during operation. A typical geothermal power plant contains a number of stationary sources of noise distributed over an appreciable area, such as separators, scrubbers, turbines and fans. In addition to noise generated through the operation of standard plant, high levels of noise may also be generated under emergency conditions due to the activation of plant items such as safety valves. Such equipment operates very infrequently and over short periods of time. Emergency plant operation is therefore not considered in this assessment.

The noise produced by a modern operational plant is normally steady in nature and typically increases with higher load. The potential for noise impact is expected to be greater during night-time due to reduced ambient noise levels. It can therefore be deduced that the likely impact of the operational phase of the Project is a bivariate function as a minimum.

As is the case with construction noise assessment, the principal sensitive receptors in the local area are residential in nature and some are located at a distance of approximately 10m from the boundary of some of the Project sites. Others are located further afield.

The first stage of the operational noise assessment involves identifying and ranking the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site in terms of sensitivity. The sensitivity criteria relating to operational noise impacts are the same as that of the construction phase and are specified in Table 9.6. For the purposes of the operational noise assessment, all sensitive receptors in the wider area are considered to be of high sensitivity.

The second stage of the operational assessment involves the prediction of noise at the nearest sensitive receptors and the assessment of its magnitude. The predicted impact is primarily a function of the

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

170


distance from source to receiver, however like the construction phase, the effectiveness of incorporated mitigation measures; meteorological effects and local terrain are also determining factors.

The magnitude criteria for operational impacts have been from guidance provided by the WHO and other applicable bodies. The operational magnitude criteria are a function of the difference in noise level between the operational Project scenario and baseline conditions. The magnitude criteria used in the assessment of operational noise impacts are outlined in Table 9.8.

Table 9.8: Magnitude Criteria: Operational Noise from the Project

Magnitude of Change

Description Change in Noise Level dB(A)

Major Equivalent to more than a subjective doubling of noise conditions ≥ 10

Moderate Up to a subjective doubling of noise conditions 5 to < 10

Minor A perceptible but restricted change in conditions 3 to < 5

Negligible A potentially perceptible but non-significant change in conditions 0 to < 3

The impact significance of the operational phase of the Project has been assessed using the significance matrix detailed in Section 5.4 based on the sensitivity criteria and magnitude criteria presented in Table 9.6 and Table 9.8, respectively.

9.4.3.5 Decommissioning Stage

The potential noise impacts associated with Project decommissioning are similar in nature albeit shorter duration to those of the construction phase. As such, the sensitivity criteria and magnitude criteria presented in Table 9.6 and Table 9.7.respectively, in addition to the significance matrix of Section 5.4, apply to the assessment of the decommissioning phase of the Project.



Overview

Four broad types of noise impacts have been identified during the exploration, drilling and construction stage: Noise generation from the land clearing, earthworks and other construction and drilling activities; Noise generation from equipment and waste transportation; Noise emissions from horizontal well tests; and Noise generation as a result of emergency conditions.

Construction Phase Impact Assessment Results

For the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that work undertaken on site during land clearing, construction and drilling activities have high noise emission potential and that such work is likely to occur close to the site boundary.

In conjunction with our knowledge of the construction stage, specifically in terms of phasing, equipment to be used and techniques to be employed at site, MML has made a worst-case assessment of noise impacts by assuming for example that all plant items relevant to a particular phase of development (e.g. site

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

171


compound construction) will be operating simultaneously at the nearest location to noise sensitive receptors.

Typical source noise data for land clearing and construction plant have been obtained from BS 522841 in addition to a study commissioned by the UK’s Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). By using sound pressure level data at a distance of 10m from the plant and making assumptions with respect to the arrangement of plant likely to be operating, a number of aggregate noise levels have been developed for each construction activity. Worst case noise levels have been used in the assessment, i.e. selection of plant that will emit higher noise levels than may actually be the case during the works.

The assumptions specified above allow for all calculations to be performed in accordance with the guidance of BS 5228. Construction noise levels have been calculated at the nearest sensitive receptors to each activity. The prediction model assumes a stationary operating environment and soft ground cover due to the rural nature of the area. The prediction method takes account of the following effects: Plant noise levels resulting from operation at full power; Distance attenuation; Power on-times of equipment operating at full power; and Screening and/or attenuation.

The predicted impacts of major land clearing, earthworks and other construction and drilling activities for the power plant and nearest cluster to each village are summarised in Table 9.9. The indicative noise levels are considered to be conservative in nature, as it is assumed that plant items are in use for 100% of a typical working day and positioned at the edge of the Project site. Partial line of sight view between construction activity areas and sensitive receptors has been assumed owing to site topography.

Table 9.9: Predicted Construction Noise Impacts at Project Site

Site Receptor

Un

its

3&4

Gen

eral

C

on

stru

ctio

n d

B(A

)

Tre

e F

ellin

g d

B(A

)

Sit

e C

om

po

un

d

Co

nst

ruct

ion

dB

(A)

Ho

rizo

nta

l Wel

l Tes

ts

dB

(A)

Fo

un

dat

ion

C

on

stru

ctio

n d

B(A

)

Exc

avat

ion

dB

(A)

Ste

elw

ork

Ere

ctio

n

dB

(A)

Dri

llin

g d

B(A

)

Duration of Activity Months Days Weeks Months Weeks Days Days Months

Cluster A Karang Rejo 26 52 50 44 54 48 45 43

Cluster B Two Houses (a) 41 89 87 81 91 85 81 80

Cluster E Runggang 36 67 64 59 69 63 59 58

Cluster F Isolated House (b) 26 79 77 71 81 75 72 70

Cluster G Muara Dua 50 51 48 43 53 47 43 42

Cluster H Muara Dua 39 51 48 43 53 47 43 42

Note: (a) Located approximately 10m to the West of Cluster B

(b) Located approximately 57m to the Southwest of Cluster F

_________________________

41 British Standard (BS) 5228: 2009, Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

172


The calculated values outlined in Table 9.9 indicate individual noise levels ranging from 26 dB(A) through to 91 dB(A) for each activity.

Development of Clusters A, G and H results in negligible magnitude impacts and therefore are of overall negligible significance. In addition, with the exception of drilling activities (24 hours per day operation), other construction activities are limited to daytime only and therefore comply with the Indonesian standards and World Bank Group daytime guidelines presented in Appendix A (Volume III). In addition, drilling activities comply with the World Bank Group night-time noise standard at all three cluster locations.

Comparing the predictions with both the Indonesian standards and World Bank Group daytime guidelines presented in Appendix A (Volume III) indicates that the maximum noise levels predicted from Clusters B, E and F exceed relevant national and international daytime standards and guidelines. Through application of the sensitivity and magnitude criteria presented in Table 9.6 and Table 9.7 and taking into account the duration of exposure and likelihood of simultaneous working, the results in Clusters B, E and F results in a range of impact magnitudes and overall are predicted to cause impacts of adverse critical significance without mitigation.

Land Clearing, Earthworks, Construction and Drilling Activity Noise

Land clearing, earthworks and other construction and drilling activity can result in temporary effects in respect of noise. Such noise is of a transient nature and therefore its potential effects are assessed differently to that of a permanent noise source. A range of factors determine its acceptability in addition to the actual noise levels produced by plant items. These include the location of work positions, hours of work, baseline conditions, noise screening, the nature of work being carried out, and the attitude of the receptor and site operator.

Land clearing, earthworks and other construction and drilling activity generally warrants less stringent noise controls than that of a permanent operational development. Strict noise control measures can also be difficult to impose due to the transient nature of the works and may also hinder site progress.

The type of equipment used varies in sound power level, with heavy plant items such as rigs and excavators being the most significant sources of noise. Such equipment typically have greater low frequency noise content (20Hz to 200Hz) to their emissions, meaning that noise is generally not attenuated as effectively by atmospheric effects and ground absorption. This has the effect of low frequency noise being more audible at greater distances.

Land clearing, construction and drilling activities generally include both moving and static sources of noise. The moving sources normally comprise mobile felling, construction and drilling plant in addition to the use of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). The static sources typically comprise plant temporarily located at specific locations.

The primary noise issue associated with the land clearing, construction and drilling activities is loss of amenity and/or nuisance caused by, for example, noise transmission to the inside of dwellings. There is no specific criterion in Indonesia for felling or construction noise and as such international standards may be applied. Such standards typically recommend that the daytime noise levels outside the nearest occupied room in a dwelling should not exceed 70dB(A) in a rural area over the course of a normal working day.

Land clearing, construction and drilling activity noise is not considered to be of significant concern to ecological receptors mainly due to its temporary nature. This is further discussed in Section 9.5.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

173


Drilling

Following MML’s initial consultation with the affected communities, drilling noise has caused some nuisance during cluster developments especially for receptors closest to construction activities. This is potentially caused by diesel generators operating continuously with enclosures open rather than the drilling itself. Hence, with enclosures open, no mitigation is provided by the noise enclosure.

These observations are consistent with the above assessment results which identify unmitigated critical adverse significant impacts for drilling activities from three of the Clusters.

Traffic Noise Emissions

Land clearing, construction and drilling activities will require associated construction traffic, comprising HGVs and other diesel-powered vehicles. This will result in noise emissions related to combustion engines, tyre movements and vehicle load movements.

Construction traffic is expected to be limited to bringing in equipment (for example well casings), fuel and chemical supply, waste disposal and staff movements outside the mobilisation and demobilisation periods associated with drilling and temporary accommodation.

Due to the remote location of the Project, construction traffic passes through some of the villages. New houses have also been built along the road improved by PGE. The relatively poor state of the roads increases noise levels and duration. As infrastructure development is perceived as one of the main benefits from the Project, ESIA inception consultation undertaken in March 2010 found that locals had a certain tolerance to construction traffic but some complaints have however arisen.

Noise from construction/mobilisation traffic is difficult to predict with accuracy as it depends on numerous parameters including vehicle type, speed, road condition, screening, weather, gradient etc. In addition, nuisance is very much related to (subjective) perception. Based on the concerns voiced by some of the residents, impacts are considered to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.

Noise from Horizontal Well Production Tests

Horizontal well production tests provide in depth information on the well’s performance and the reservoir by the setting of temporary separator and pipe works. Noise emissions associated have an approximate duration of 6 to 12 weeks. Given the duration of these tests, the assessment carried out in Table 9.9 indicates that the potential impacts of horizontal well tests are considered to be of adverse critical significance without mitigation at the two houses 10m to the West of Cluster B, the isolated house 57m to the Southwest of Cluster F, and Muara Dua, respectively. The noise impact at all other receptors is predicted to be of negligible significance.

The community leaders have however voiced concern relating to noise from the horizontal well production tests, which have been louder than warned by PGE. This shows that nuisance can occur despite the short duration of the tests. It is also possible that the issue was caused by venting outside of a rock muffler, which has been noticed during the main ESIA site visit. Such issue should be addressed by full implementation of the mitigation measures already in place as well as additional measures if required. This is discussed in Section 9.4.5.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

174


Noise Emissions during Emergency Conditions

Emergency conditions may result in high noise levels for a short duration of time, similar to that generated during horizontal well production tests. The potential noise impacts of emergency conditions are significant due to high venting pressure levels. Such activities will be very limited in occurrence and will only take place under emergency conditions typically over a period of hours. The resulting impact is therefore expected to be of adverse critical significance without mitigation at the two houses 10m to the West of Cluster B, the isolated house 57m to the Southwest of Cluster F, and Muara Dua, respectively. The impact at all other receptors is predicted to be of negligible significance.

The potential for such emissions shall be minimised though adoption and implementation of appropriate risk assessments and management plans.

9.4.4.2 Operation Stage

Overview

The potential for adverse noise impacts exist during the operational phase of the Project. Operation of the Project will include noise emissions associated with: Steam fields; Power plant; Staff movements; Maintenance; and Uncontrolled emissions.

The predicted results have been compared against all relevant national and international standards in addition to the minimum baseline conditions at the Project site.

Potential Sources of Impact

Production of steam suitable for use in the power plant requires operations at each of the clusters which can, on a continuous or intermittent basis result in the generation of noise. The operational emission source, nature, description and noise levels produced are summarised in Table 9.10.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

175


Table 9.10: Predicted Operational Noise Sources at Project Site

Source Nature Description Sound Power Level dB(A)

Comment

Rock mufflers Intermittent In order to control steam pressure with varying power plant load, and in case of a power plant trip, steam is released to the atmosphere.

95 Release is via a rock muffler to control noise. Occasional short duration noise occurs when turbine load drops suddenly or trips.

Non Condensable Gas Extraction System

Continuous The gas removal system will extract non-condensable gases from the main gas cooler section and discharge the gas into the cooling tower plume above the fan level.

95

Separator Continuous Separates brine from steam at the agreed locations.

90

Condensate blow-down

Intermittent Condensate build-up in the pipes is vented through several valves. This results in partial flashing of the condensate at atmospheric pressure.

88

Scrubber Continuous Dries the steam upstream of the power plant.

85

Silencer and atmospheric cooler

Occasional In case of a limit to the reinjection capacity, hot brine can be flashed at atmospheric pressure (thus reducing the amount of brine)

95 Release is via a silencer to control noise.

Steam turbines Continuous Converts steam pressure into mechanical energy (movement of the rotor)

98

Generator Continuous Converts the rotor mechanical energy to electricity

98

Transformer Continuous Converts electricity to required voltage for export.

85

Power Plant Cooling Towers

Continuous Induced draft resulting in noise from fans.

90

Pumps Continuous Used to move fluids. Can result in fluid borne and structure borne noise

87

Ancillary Fans Continuous Provides a flow of air or gas. Can result in noise through rotational fan speed, turbulence of airflow and structure borne noise for example

88

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

176


Modelling of Noise Emissions

The predicted noise levels have been calculated through the use of advanced acoustic modelling software using the ISO 9613 algorithms. Anticipated steady-state noise levels from the Project have been modelled under maximum operational load conditions, based on a continuous daytime and night-time operating scenario.

It is assumed that modern, quieter technology will be used and that any building structures will be of a design that affords good acoustic performance. It is also assumed that adequate noise control measures will be employed where necessary. Plant items exhibiting high levels of noise are assumed to be located in the best practicable positions in terms of noise attenuation and it is considered that equipment housed in buildings will operate with all doors in the closed position.

All buildings containing industrial plant are considered to be reverberant enclosures and as such a reverberant sound field is predicted to develop during Project operation. Façade sound power levels have been assigned based on the equipment and processes found in each building. Building façades and roofs have been modelled as noise radiating area sources whilst the remaining noise sources have mainly been modelled as a collection of point sources.

The received noise level at a given sensitive receptor has been estimated on the basis of sound attenuation resulting from geometrical divergence, atmospheric absorption, ground conditions and barrier effects. The model has used standard temperature and humidity gradients under neutral weather conditions.

Major plant items have been modelled based on a modern, low-noise design.

Modelled Results

The operational phase modelling results have been compared with national legislation in addition to World Bank Group guidelines. An evaluation of predicted noise with guideline values is outlined in Table 9.11.

Table 9.11: Summary of Operational Impact

Receptor Predicted Project Contribution dB(A)

World Bank Guidance dB(A) (Night-time)


Runggang 38.5 45.0 55.0

Datarajan 14.6 45.0 55.0

Kebun Rejo 32.8 45.0 55.0

Karang Rejo 22.5 45.0 55.0

Pagar Alam 25.5 45.0 55.0

Gunung Tiga 17.8 45.0 55.0

Muara Dua 35.3 45.0 55.0

Two Houses (a) 39.8 45.0 55.0

Runggang Village 35.3 45.0 55.0

Isolated House (b) 39.7 45.0 55.0



265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

177


The predicted results outlined in Table 9.11 indicate individual noise levels ranging from 14.6 dB(A) at Datarajan to 39.8 dB(A) at the two houses closest to Cluster B. The predicted values are assessed as being below the respective daytime and night-time national and international standards and guidelines. On comparison with the magnitude criteria presented in Table 9.8, the results indicate that the predicted levels do not exceed the lowest threshold value increase of 3 dB with respect to minimum LAeq or LA90 baseline conditions.

When the corrected predicted received noise from the plant is added to the lowest recorded baseline noise level over the course of the 2008-10 measurements, which was established as being 40dB(A) at Cluster B, the cumulative noise level is assessed as being 42.9 dB(A) which corresponds to a 2.9 dB(A) increase in baseline noise levels.

This is below the World Bank Group General EHS Guideline daytime and night-time guideline values. It is therefore considered that the potential for noise nuisance from operational activities is low, and the impact is likely to be of negligible significance. Mitigation measures have been developed to ensure that notable impacts do not occur and are detailed in Section 9.4.5.2.

Operational Traffic

There will be miscellaneous noise emissions associated with the weekly operation of the Project. Noise from road traffic movement, (example staff movements and maintenance fleet) is expected to have an impact of negligible significance due to a very limited number of vehicle movements per week.

9.4.4.3 Decommissioning and Post-operation Stage

A decommissioning plan has not been developed at the present time. The potential decommissioning traffic impacts are likely to be similar to those of the construction phase. However, a lesser impact is anticipated from decommissioning traffic movements due to reduced traffic volumes and a shorter duration of work. Based on the findings of the construction traffic noise assessment, it is likely that the received noise levels for decommissioning traffic movements will be of adverse low significance without mitigation.

The decommissioning phase receptors are considered to be identical to that of the construction phase, as detailed in Section 9.4.4.1. Decommissioning activities are likely to be quieter (no drilling, limited earthworks) than the construction activities, and more limited in time. Magnitude has therefore been reduced consequently. Notwithstanding, the noise levels are rated as being of adverse major significance without mitigation at Clusters B, E and F. Noise levels at the other clusters (A, G and H) are rated as being of negligible significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

178




The following mitigation measures will be employed for the control of noise impacts during the exploration, drilling and construction phase of the Project. These are considered to be in line with the World Bank Group General EHS Guidelines. These measures are also incorporated into the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) elaborated for the Project. General noise control techniques to be implemented via the ESMP include: Limiting vehicle speeds on the site; Ensuring that the engines of all vehicles and plant on site are not left running unnecessarily; Using only properly maintained and modern vehicle / construction fleet; Positioning plant as far from the edge of the site as possible, especially generators operate

continuously during drilling; Machines and plant that may be in intermittent use should be shut down between work periods or

throttled to a minimum; Material stockpiles and other structures should be effectively utilised, where practicable, to screen

sensitive receptors from noise from on-site construction activities; Plant with directional noise features should be positioned so as to minimise the potential for noise

disturbance; and Hours of general construction activity (excluding specific drilling activities) should be restricted to avoid

sensitive periods of the day and also to avoid night working.

For the purposes of well production tests, vertical well testing and well column clearing will be avoided. Horizontal well production tests will be carefully planned with forewarning of the local community. Rock mufflers will be used to mitigate noise emissions during horizontal well production testing.

Non-engineering related mitigation measures to be adopted include informing the nearest sensitive receptors of changes to the construction programme that may result in increased noise levels and implementation of a community grievance mechanism to manage noise complaints should they occur.

Regular noise monitoring will be carried out by PGE using sound level meters. Noise meters will be of Type 1 or 2 and calibrated (in a laboratory as well as with a calibrator before and after every monitoring exercise). Results of the monitoring will be included in a site logbook. Corrective action should be taken if noise levels as a result of construction activities results in breaches of relevant Indonesian and World Bank standards and guidelines at residential receptors.

At those clusters where critical adverse significance noise effects are identified without mitigation (Clusters B, E and F), a temporary acoustic screen / barrier will be erected for the duration of the construction activity in order to minimise the transmission of sound. Noise barriers of no less than 10 kg/m2 surface density will be put in place at properties ensuring that the noise source is entirely hidden from the receptor. This mitigation can also be considered in the event that the aforementioned noise monitoring identifies breaches of relevant Indonesian and World Bank standards and guidelines at receptor locations.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

179



The following mitigation measures (in line with the World Bank Group General EHS guidelines) will be used for the control of noise impacts during the operational phase of the Project. These measures are incorporated into the ESMP. General noise control techniques to be implemented where practicable during the operational phase of the Project include: Ancillary plant should be of low noise design and employ sound attenuation techniques where required; Treating buildings with acoustic absorption materials, where necessary; Hours of general maintenance activity restricted to avoid sensitive periods of the day (e.g. religious

event) and also to avoid night working; Closing plant building doors at all times (wherever practicable).

Plant specific control techniques to be implemented where practicable include: Steam turbines and associated plant – the use of acoustic enclosures (steam turbines), inlet and

exhaust silencers, duct mounted attenuators, acoustic louvers and vibration isolation systems should be employed. Acoustic barriers should be used where appropriate;

Generators and transformers - sound attenuation techniques such as insulation, enclosures, three-sided pens, low speed fans and low noise trims should be used where necessary; and,

Turbine Hall and other work areas - noise should not exceed the upper exposure action values specified in the contract.

Quarterly noise monitoring will be carried out by PGE using sound level meters. Noise meters will be of Type 1 or 2 and calibrated (in a laboratory as well as with a calibrator before and after every monitoring exercise). Results of the monitoring will be included in a site logbook. Corrective action should be taken if noise levels as a result of operational activities results in breaches of relevant Indonesian and World Bank standards at residential receptors. This will include the installation of noise barriers of no less than 10 kg/m2 surface density to be put in place at properties ensuring that the noise source is entirely hidden from the receptor.


The potential noise impacts of the decommissioning phase of the Project are similar to that of the construction phase albeit for a shorter duration. Accordingly, the mitigation measures presented in Section 9.4.5.1 also apply to decommissioning activities.

9.4.6 Assessment of Residual Impacts


The mitigation measures will restrict the times at which noise will occur and the level of noise generated during the exploration, drilling and construction stage of the Project. The measures will minimise noise disturbance to the occupiers of nearby properties as far as is reasonably practical.

For Clusters B, E and F, taking into account that noisiest activities occur within the centre of the wellpad developments (such as well drilling) and the installation of acoustic screening between construction activities and the most sensitive receptors, it is possible to reduce impacts to being of adverse moderate significance therefore no breaches of guidelines are predicted. It is possible that for limited duration periods, impact significance will increase to adverse major or even critical significance but this is likely to

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

180


only be temporary during brief high intensity activities. In the event of such works being undertaken, PGE should notify and forewarn local residents accordingly.

It is expected that basic mitigation measures will allow for a reduction in noise from road traffic to adverse low significance.


The mitigation measures for the operation stage of the Project will restrict the times during which short-term high noise level events occur and the noise generated during the running of the plant. The measures will help alleviate the potential for noise disturbance as much as is reasonably practicable.

The predicted increase in noise level after implementation of basic mitigation is expected to be of negligible significance at the most sensitive receptor. The predicted impacts are such that additional mitigation measures are unlikely to be required. However, should noise levels be monitored in excess of Indonesian standards and World Bank guidelines, PGE will install noise barriers to ensure compliance.

Road traffic noise emissions associated with the weekly operation of the Project will result in an impact of negligible significance due to the anticipated limited number of vehicle movements each week. Mitigation for this stage of the Project is not required.


The residual noise impacts of the decommissioning phase of the Project are similar to those predicted during the exploration, drilling and construction stage although the magnitude is less due to the shorter duration. As such, a likely reduction in impact to adverse low significance is predicted for general decommissioning work.

As traffic flows are over a shorter duration and with basis mitigation, it is expected that impacts will be of adverse low significance.

The pre-mitigation impact and the post-mitigation residual impact of each stage of the Project are detailed in Table 9.12.


181


Table 9.12: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Noise


Magnitude Score

Impact Significance


Increased site noise during construction stage

Temporary nuisance to nearby residential receptors

High Major Adverse critical:

Cluster B, Cluster E and Cluster F receptors.

Negligible: all other cluster receptors

Restricting working hours.

Use of well maintained plant.

Appropriate positioning of plant.

Use of material stockpiles for screening.

Turning off plant when not in use.

Briefing workers on quiet work practices.

Use of appropriate construction methods.

Use of sound reduction equipment / installation of acoustic screening / barriers.

Advising villagers in advance of particularly noisy work.

Adverse moderate with potential for limited periods of adverse major / critical:

Clusters B, E and F.

Negligible for all other cluster receptors

Exploration, Drilling and Construction

Increased road traffic noise during construction stage


High Minor Adverse moderate


Appropriate speed limits.

Adequately maintain vehicles.

Turning off engines when not in use.

Adverse low

Increased site noise during operation stage

Permanent nuisance to nearby residential receptors

High Negligible Negligible Use of low noise plant.

Use of sound reduction equipment where necessary.

Closing plant building doors at all times.

Performing general plant maintenance during daytime only.

Following international guidance on workplace noise levels.

Negligible Operation

Increased road traffic noise during operation stage

Permanent nuisance to nearby residential receptors

High Negligible Negligible Appropriate speed limits.

Turning off engines when not in use.

Negligible


182



Magnitude Score

Impact Significance


Increased site noise during decommissioning stage


High Major Adverse major:

Clusters B, E and F

Negligible: all other cluster receptors


Use of well maintained plant.

Appropriate positioning of plant.

Use of material stockpiles for screening.

Turning off plant when not in use.

Briefing workers on quiet work practices.

Use of appropriate construction methods.

Use of sound reduction equipment / installation of acoustic screening / barriers.

Advising villagers in advance of particularly noisy work.

Adverse low:

Clusters B, E and F

Adverse negligible: all other cluster receptors

Decommissioning

Increased road traffic noise during decommissioning stage

Temporary High Minor Adverse low Restricting working hours. Adverse low

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

183



9.4.7.1 Overview

The predicted cumulative and trans-boundary impacts of the Project are considered to comprise the likely cumulative impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of PGE Units 3&4, PLN Units 1&2 and the nearest Clusters. Given the spread of the Project, the scope for combined impacts exist during each stage however they are likely to be localised. The likelihood of cumulative impacts occurring has been examined on the basis of maximum predicted noise levels and the proximity of sensitive receptors to Project areas.

No transboundary impact from the Project activities is expected.


Runggang is the most likely sensitive receptor to be affected by potential combined effects given its proximity to Units 3&4, Units 1&2 and Clusters D, G and E. The predicted impacts of Table 9.13 assume simultaneous working at all sites, a scenario that is very unlikely to occur in practice given the phased construction programme. Furthermore, it is assumed that plant items are in use for 100% of a typical working day and positioned at the edge of the Project site. Partial line of sight view between construction activity areas and sensitive receptors has been assumed owing to site topography. The remaining areas of the Project are separated by greater distances and are therefore unlikely to form a cumulative impact.

Table 9.13: Predicted Cumulative Noise Impacts (Construction)

Receptor Units 1&2, Units 3&4 and Cluster D General

Construction dB(A)

Cluster G General Construction dB(A)

Cluster E General Construction dB(A)

Cumulative Noise Level dB(A)

Runggang 70 47 49 70

The predicted values detailed in Table 9.13 indicate individual noise levels ranging from 47 dB(A) through to 70 dB(A) for each element of construction and a theoretical combined noise level of 70 dB(A).

Comparing these predictions with both the Indonesian standards and World Bank Group daytime guidelines presented in Appendix A (Volume III) indicates that the maximum noise levels predicted at Runggang exceed relevant national and international standards and guidelines. Through application of the sensitivity and magnitude criteria presented in Table 9.6 and Table 9.7 and taking into account the duration of exposure and likelihood of simultaneous working, the results in Table 9.13 indicate that received noise levels at potentially the most affected receptor of Runggang is rated as being of adverse major significance without mitigation.

Following the implementation of basic mitigation measures as outlined within this assessment, the overall impact is predicted to be of adverse moderate significance. The cumulative impact of each Project phase is however likely to be of negligible significance with mitigation especially taking into account that construction phases of PLN Units 1&2 and PGE Units 3&4 do not overlap or coincide.

The cumulative impact of noise from road traffic is considered to be of adverse low significance with basic mitigation measures.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

184



The cumulative operational stage modelling results have been compared with national and international standards and guidelines at each sensitive receptor considered in Table 9.14.

Table 9.14: Predicted Cumulative Noise Impacts (Operation)

Receptor Units 1&2, Units 3&4 and Cluster Contribution dB(A)

World Bank Guidance dB(A) National standard MOE Decree No. 48 of 1996 dB(A)

Runggang 39.8 45.0 55.0

Datarajan 17.4 45.0 55.0

Kebun Rejo 35.9 45.0 55.0

Karang Rejo 25.1 45.0 55.0

Pagar Alam 27.9 45.0 55.0

Gunung Tiga 20.4 45.0 55.0

Muara Dua 38.7 45.0 55.0

Two Houses (a) 37.1 45.0 55.0

Isolated House (b) 39.9 45.0 55.0



The predicted results indicate cumulative noise levels ranging from 17.4 dB(A) at Datarajan to 39.9 dB(A) at the isolated house near Cluster F. These are assessed as being below the respective daytime and night-time national and international standards and guidelines. On comparison with the magnitude criteria presented in Table 9.8, the results indicate that the predicted levels do not exceed the lowest threshold value increase of 3 dB with respect to minimum LAeq or LA90 baseline conditions.

When the corrected predicted received noise from the plant is added to the lowest recorded baseline noise level over the course of the 2008-10 measurements, which was established as being 40 dB(A) at Clusters B and D, the cumulative noise level is assessed as being 43.0 dB(A) which corresponds to below a 3.0 dB(A) increase in baseline noise levels.

This is below the World Bank Group daytime and night-time guideline values. It is therefore considered that the potential for noise nuisance from operational activities is low, and the impact is likely to be of negligible significance. Mitigation measures have been developed to ensure that notable impacts do not occur and are detailed in Section 9.4.5.

The cumulative road traffic noise emissions are predicted to result in an impact of negligible significance due to the limited number of vehicle movements each week.


The residual noise impacts of the decommissioning phase of the Project are similar to those predicted during the exploration, drilling and construction stage although the magnitude is less due to the shorter duration. As such, a likely reduction in impact to adverse low significance is predicted for general decommissioning work. As traffic flows are over a shorter duration and with basis mitigation, it is expected that impacts will be of adverse low significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

185


9.5 Ecology

9.5.1 Introduction

The assessment of likely impacts on ecology as a result of the Project is based on the AMDALs, RKL/RPL monitoring reports, feasibility study, discussions with PGE and a site visit to the area by MML ecologists on 13-14 May 2010.



The impacts on the majority of habitats and ecological receptors are considered to be within the boundary of proposed scheme and surrounding area to 250m. Areas of high ecological value, which includes the Hutan Lindung, are assessed within 2km of the Project sites. The scheme has the potential to impact aquatic habitats beyond 250m where rivers could carry pollutants downstream. The assessment has therefore considered the impacts of the Project on the River Belu (including tributaries) downstream to its confluence with the Asam River at Gunung Tiga.

9.5.2.2 Operation

During operation, indirect impacts from atmospheric H2S emissions have been assessed within the air quality assessment on a 15 km by 15km area around the project sites.

9.5.3 Methodology

Information on ecology is presented in the AMDALs, monitoring reports (produced for PGE from 2008-2009) and the Feasibility Study for Ulubelu Geothermal Power Project (Aecom, August 2010). Whereas the assessment from the steamfield AMDAL is directly applicable to the Project, data from the PLN AMDAL cover the Units 1&2 location, but not Units 3 & 4, which are currently being considered. As the proposed locations are however close to each other (approximately 500m), data from the Units 1&2 AMDAL have nonetheless been taken into account in this assessment. The main assessment comes from the field / site visit of 13-14 May 2010, during which all proposed and existing well clusters, the proposed power plant location, water pumping stations and the 500m power line alignment were observed, as were the local community gardens and rice fields, and remaining patches of scrub and forest. Discussions were held on-site with PGE who accompanied the MML team throughout.

As set out in Section 4.3.2.2, the Project is not considered to trigger World Bank policies OP 4.04 (Natural Habitats) and OP 4.36 (Forests). The Project area is not located on forest land and retains a minimum 500m buffer from the protection forest (Hutan Lindung). In addition, the Project is not financing or affecting forest management or financing plantations.

Assessment terminology follows that given in Section 5.4, with species and habitats being assigned a particular sensitivity (negligible to high), and impacts of site activities being assigned a particular magnitude (negligible to major).

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

186




Impacts on ecological receptors during the Project development phase will include direct impacts from the Project footprint and indirect impacts associated with environmental impacts: Direct Impacts:

Physical impact from land clearing and water abstraction activities resulting in death, injury and loss of habitat; and

Spread of alien plant species; Indirect impacts:

Noise, water quality, air quality, ground contamination etc.; Increased hunting and disturbance to wildlife; and Erosion and landslides.

Direct Impacts

During construction of the Project, most of the area to be cleared consists of coffee plantations, areas of secondary scrub used for shifting cultivation. Therefore direct impacts on wild flora and fauna will be minimal. The Project area is outside the Watershed Protection Forest (Hutan Lindung) with at least a 500m buffer zone from the nearest proposed development infrastructure. Some endangered species have historically been recorded in the wider regional area (e.g. siamang and leaf monkey, listed in the AMDALs) and it is possible that they may have utilised patches of disturbed forest closer to the Project site. Given the large forest areas in the wider region, it is not considered that the Project area has any particular value and effects on this area from the Project are not likely to be significant. Road improvements in the Project area do not add to increased habitat fragmentation, as only a few short additional sections are required for the Project, and these do not result in fragment or the formation of barriers. The Project avoids undisturbed forest fragments over 1 hectare in size therefore avoiding any areas which may be considered as natural forest.

Plantation within the watershed protection forest area is understood to predate PGE’s development of the area and possibly originates from the recent realignment of the Hutan Lindung boundaries. While the access road has improved access to some of the settlements, it is not believed to have caused any expansion of cultivated areas into the watershed protection forest, especially due to the minimum 500m separation distance and the difficult access to the Protection Forest through steep slopes.

Overall the direct impact of the project on terrestrial ecological receptors is considered to be of adverse low significance without mitigation.

The flow of the Way (Kali) Belu is recorded at 3.8 m³/s, but this is only an average figure, and at times (e.g. dry season) it will be much lower, and water intake from the WPS then may have a significant impact on stream ecology. However, the main water abstraction is limited to initial well development during which 5 to 8000 m³ is required per well. Once the clean water pond at the well cluster has been filled, additional water is minimal as water is largely recycled. From the impacts on water quality and quantity it can be inferred that aquatic biota may be impacted during the well start-up phase, but for a limited time only. The weirs built to pond water and allow the WPS to operate more effectively, do create a barrier within the river. However these weirs are small and should only be required during the construction phase and therefore should be removed and natural flow reinstated once construction is completed. The impacts are likely to be short term. No information is available as to whether migratory fish are present within the river and as a precaution, the weirs should be opened periodically to allow some connection both upstream and

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

187


downstream. Based on the AMDALs and MML observations, impacts on aquatic ecology are likely to be of adverse low significance without mitigation.

Indirect Impacts

Dust generated by construction activities and construction traffic can cause soiling of the vegetation. As discussed in the air quality assessment (see Section 9.6), impacts are expected to be limited in space and time. Also, vegetation in the vicinity largely consists of crops and secondary scrub with low ecological value. The damage to the nearby vegetation is considered to be of adverse low significance without mitigation.

Some activities will generate high short term noise levels (e.g. piling) and others will results in lower but continuous noise emissions (e.g. generators). Noise during construction has the potential to cause displacement through disturbance however the magnitude of this effect will be dependent on the sensitivity of the species present. This impact is considered negligible to low adverse significance for less sensitive species such as certain birds and reptiles, and sensitive species such as primates are not found in the direct vicinity of the Project site. Impacts are likely to be reversible for most species, and after construction remaining suitable habitat no longer affected by noise is likely to be re-colonised within 1 to 2 seasons. Overall, unmitigated impacts from construction noise are considered to be of temporary low adverse significance.

An increase in suspended sediments will affect fish and other gill breathing species, and impact water transparency. Submerged plants do not occur in the streams of the Project site, or in the first few downstream kilometres, and are therefore not affected. Apart from streams, natural wetlands also do not occur in the direct Project area as they have been converted by local communities, mainly for rice paddies. Sedimentation in streams may temporarily smother benthic organisms, and remove potential breeding sites of some organisms (e.g. fish or snails requiring rocky or pebbly substrate for the adherence of eggs), but these impacts will be of limited duration, as stream velocities are high and river bottoms largely consist of rocks.

The drilling sites are equipped with drains which lead to the settling ponds via a sump. The main impacts during drilling are therefore associated with discharges from the ponds. Sediments discharges are minimised via a series of settling ponds and drains aimed at reducing the water velocity to enhance deposition prior to discharge. The impacts of chemicals released from drill mud settling ponds or from accidental spillage will largely be on aquatic biota in downstream areas (streams and associated wetlands), and terrestrial wildlife using these streams (e.g. drinking). The magnitude of the impact depends on many factors, such as which chemicals are released, in which form (e.g. solubility) and concentrations, and at what time of year (associated with water levels in the receiving waters). In all, impacts are expected to have a adverse moderate significance without mitigation.


During operation, only indirect impacts are anticipated, associated with the physico-chemical environment such as air quality, water quality and noise.

During operations, emissions of H2S are not expected to affect nearby rice paddies and agricultural production. Evidence of H2S impacts on vegetation has been observed around natural fumaroles occurring within Southern Sumatra. Such a fumarole within primary forest is presented in Figure 9.1. Figure 9.1 demonstrates that there is clear impact on vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the ground level H2S emission (fumarole) but that effects diminish with distance. This is supported by the results to the air

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

188


quality assessment presented in Appendix D, Volume III where dispersion modelling has been used to determine the impact of H2S emissions on the adjacent agriculture and nearby Hutan Lindung. H2S concentrations within the Hutan Lindung and surrounding agricultural areas are predicted to be below the standard adopted for the protection of vegetation and therefore impacts are concluded to be of negligible significance.

Figure 9.1: Natural H2S Emissions from Fumarole in Southern Sumatra

Source: MML site visit observations

As the Project will source operational water requirements from groundwater wells, there will be no impact on aquatic ecology through water abstraction.

In the event of an uncontrolled discharge in the unlikely event of abnormal operation (such as failure of the brine storage system during a period when reinjection wells are unavailable) possible impacts on water quality and quantity, and the degree to which aquatic biota are impacted will depend on how much the water quality is altered. Species may decline or disappear altogether, temporarily disappear or migrate up- or downstream. Temperature changes due to operations will impact all organisms, depending on how much higher this is than tolerance levels (± 3ºC for most taxons) and how long this temperature stress lasts. Chemical stress depends again on type (H2S, pH, salinity, etc.), concentration and duration, and in which combination (e.g. combination of high temperature and high salinity is more lethal than either alone). Provided suitable design and mitigation measures are in place (see Section 9.6), impacts are expected to be of adverse low significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

189


Indirect impacts from noise and disturbance may be greater, for example, if improved roads and increased traffic affect migration routes of terrestrial mammals, or access is improved for cultivation to expand into forests or to engage in hunting. As discussed above, the road built by PGE has improved roads but not created new access to existing settlements and plantations (which pre-date the Project). During the ESIA field visit it was confirmed that no significant natural forest remnants are fragmented by road improvements. Overall impacts are likely to be of low adverse significance without mitigation.


Impacts on ecological receptors during the decommissioning and post-operation phase are likely to be limited, as the wells are likely to have a life expectancy of at least 15-20 years. Given the rate of development, in the sense of community and agricultural expansion occurring in the area at present, it is unlikely that that there will be significant positive changes in the ecological conditions in the future in the Project area. The only impacts that may then be expected are indirect impacts on rivers and streams, possibly through temporary increases in sediment levels due to demolition/levelling activities, and temporary release of small amounts of pollutants such as oil and grease. These impacts are therefore expected to be of adverse low significance without mitigation.


Indirect impacts on ecology through emissions of noise and air quality or through discharges of effluent is mitigated in a large extent through the mitigation measure identified within the hydrology, noise and air quality impact sections of this ESIA (see Sections 9.2, 9.4 and 9.6 respectively).

Incidental ecological mortality during construction will be minimised by undertaking pre-clearance surveys for endangered species, breeding birds, burrowing mammals, reptiles and amphibians on six monthly basis throughout construction. Furthermore no construction activities will take place within 500m of the watershed protection forest boundary or outside defined Project boundaries. The prescribed construction boundary limit shall be clearly demarcated. PGE will implement disciplinary action for non compliance. Disciplinary action for violation to be specified in all new construction contracts and a record of violations where observed and disciplinary action imposed on contractors will be maintained. Minimising the potential impacts on aquatic flora and fauna will be implemented by opening weirs built to facilitate water abstraction at the WPS. These weirs should be opened regularly where possible and contractors will record the quantity of water abstracted and the timing of abstractions.

During construction there is the potential to disturb and cause the spread of alien invasive plant species, notably Lantana camara. Where alien invasive plant species are identification within development boundary a non-native species management plan will be developed and materials contaminated by invasive plant material e.g. seeds, roots etc. will be appropriately treated. Any re-vegetation programme during construction will only use native species. Monitoring for alien invasive plant species will be undertaken on a six monthly basis throughout construction.

Human access to ecological resources needs to be managed; hunting, cultivation and deforestation by PGE and contractor staff members will be prohibited. Members of staff will receive a brochure which identifies the prohibition of hunting and deforestation. Staff will sign an acknowledging receipt and understanding of the brochure, and contractors will be required to implement measures to prevent hunting. Contractors will instruct all personnel with regards to the prohibition and clearly advise of disciplinary action associated with non compliance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

190



No significant ecological impact is to be expected from the Project, and impacts are of negligible significance, certainly in relation to the significant and large scale conversion of habitats (forests, wetlands) and hunting that has occurred in the past by local communities.

From the findings of the above assessment, it is concluded that World Bank OP 4.04 is not triggered. Although the Ulubelu area is bordered by a Protection Forest (Hutan Lindung), PGE sites and activities are located outside the Hutan Lindung. PGE has consulted with the Forest Ministry and obtained mapping co-ordinates of the Hutan Lindung before choosing the wells, roads and plant locations. PGE has ensured that no activity would take place within 500m of the Protection Forest’s boundary. Although forest is present in the vicinity of some of the clusters, this is not pristine forest and secondary forest species are common. Coffee plantations are located amongst secondary forest but these are understood to pre-date PGE’s development of the area and may be a legacy from changes to the watershed protection forests boundary. Based on the results to the air quality assessment (see Appendix D, Volume III) and taking into account its conservative approach, it is concluded that effects on the watershed protection forest will be of negligible significance. The 500m buffer is considered sufficient to ensure that Project activities do not directly impact the Hutan Lindung and that other indirect impacts (noise) are negligible.

It is also concluded that OP 4.36 is not triggered. As explained above, PGE has ensured that a 500m buffer is left between Project activities and Protection Forest. Secondary forest clearance on the site has been / will be minimal as most of the Project footprint is on vacant land or coffee plantations, and the option of directional drilling allows for wells to be concentrated in clusters, thus minimising the land take. The policy is targeted at sustainable forest management, including for plantation and commercial harvesting. The project is not supporting either of those activities, or forest management in general, nor will it indirectly cause any changes in the quality of forest management. Due to its location, small footprint and minor indirect effects, the Project is not considered to affect the health and quality of a forest, nor does it affect the rights and welfare of people depending upon forests.


The PLN Units 1&2 development and the PGE Units 3&4 development, run-off from roads and construction sites, accidental seepage of oil and grease may on occasion have an impact of adverse moderate significance without mitigation on the health of the streams in the area and their biota. This may especially be the case when water levels are low, such as during the dry period (musim kemarau), when modulating effects of dilution may be small. Following the implementation of basic mitigation measures as outlined within this assessment, the overall impact is predicted to be of adverse low significance with mitigation especially taking into account that construction phases of PLN Units 1&2 and PGE Units 3&4 do not overlap or coincide.

Due to the localised nature of the predicted impacts on ecology, transboundary impacts are not expected.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

191


Table 9.15: Summary of Potential Impacts and Residual Risks: Ecology


Magnitude Score

Impact Significance


Vegetation clearance, earthworks, and spoil disposal

Exploration, drilling and construction of well clusters and other Project infrastructure including 500m electricity transmission link to PLN substation

Change in terrestrial biodiversity

Low Minor Adverse low- Pre-clearance surveys for endangered species and breeding birds, burrowing mammals, reptiles and amphibians

Negligible

Vegetation clearance, earthworks, and spoil disposal during construction

Spread of alien invasive plant species

Low Minor Adverse low Use of native species as part of any re-vegetation programme during construction.

Identification of non-native plant species and their extent within development boundary: Treatment of materials contaminated by invasive plant material e.g. seeds, roots etc

Where necessary based on above findings, development of non-native species management plan.

Negligible

Construction

Sediment discharges from well clusters, discharges of drilling fluids, chemical spills

Impacts on aquatic ecology

Medium Minor Adverse Moderate

Mitigation measures as identified for Water Quality and Hydrology (see Table 9.4).

Negligible

Construction & Operation

Construction and operation of weirs for abstraction

Impacts on aquatic ecology

Low Low Adverse low Weirs built to facilitate water abstraction at the WPS should be opened regularly where possible.

Negligible

Construction & Operation

Introduction of staff to area

Hunting, cultivation and deforestation

Low Minor Adverse low Prohibit hunting, cultivation and deforestation by PGE and contractor staff members.

Contractor to instruct all personnel with regards to the prohibition and clearly advise of disciplinary action associated with non compliance.

Negligible

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

192


9.6 Air

9.6.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an assessment of the potential air quality impacts of the project during the exploration, drilling and construction stage and the operation stage. Following a review of the available data from the Local Consultants in the Inception Report this assessment builds where appropriate on the findings of the RKL/RPL, while further assessment, including dispersion modelling, has been carried out to ensure that the conclusions are based on a robust assessment in line with World Bank guidelines. Full details of the dispersion modelling undertaken as part of the assessment are provided in Volume III Appendix D.



Impacts on air quality arising from emissions from construction site activities are unlikely to occur more than 200 metres from the location in which they are carried out. However, the assessment has considered the impacts from the construction phase on identified local residential receptors including those at Muara Dua Baru and Runggang even though they are further than 200m from the construction site of the main plant.

Emissions from well testing have been assessed over a wider study area of 15 kilometres by 15 kilometres around the project sites.

9.6.2.2 Operation

In the operational phase, receptors have also been identified at the local villages, as well as assessing impacts over a wider study area of 15 kilometres by 15 kilometres around the project sites. This allows specific assessment of the closest residential and occupational areas, as well as consideration of the effects of the Project over the wider airshed.

9.6.3 Methodology


Overview

Five main types of air quality impacts have been identified during exploration, drilling and construction stage: Dust generation from the road opening, land clearing, earthworks and other construction and drilling

activities (referred to as ‘construction dust’); Combustion relations emissions from on site plant and vehicles (referred to as ‘on site plant and vehicle

exhaust emissions’); Dust generation and exhaust emissions from off site vehicles (referred to as ‘off site vehicle emissions’); Particulate and gaseous emissions from well testing (referred to as ‘well testing emissions’); and Fugitive and uncontrolled emissions from volatile compounds, chemical spills etc (referred to as ‘fugitive

and well blowout emissions’).

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

193


Construction Dust

Construction activities can result in temporary effects from dust. ‘Dust’ is a generic term which usually refers to particulate matter in the size range 1-75 microns in diameter. Emissions of construction dust are associated with the movement and handling of minerals and are therefore predominantly composed of the larger fraction of this range which does not penetrate far into the respiratory system. Particles such as PM10 (defined as airborne particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less) which have a greater potential for health effects normally represent a smaller fraction of construction emissions. Therefore the primary air quality issue associated with construction phase dust emissions is loss of amenity and/or nuisance caused by, for example, soiling of buildings, vegetation and washing and reduced visibility. In addition, due to the volcanic nature of the study area, there is a potential for naturally occurring deposited dust to cause corrosion. Dust deposition is expressed in terms of mass per unit area per unit time, e.g. mg.m-2.day-1. There is no specific criterion in Indonesia. The usefulness of numerical criteria to determine effects from construction dust is limited as the perception of loss of amenity or nuisance is affected by a wide range of factors such as character of the locality and sensitivity of receptors. Because of this, the assessment methodology proposed for this assessment is based on a qualitative / risk-based approach.

The first stage of the assessment has involved the identification of specific construction activities which have the potential to cause dust emissions, and the degree of that potential, in accordance with the generic activities presented in Table 9.16.

Table 9.16: Generic Dust Emitting Activities

Stage Description Potential Dust Emitting Activities

Dust Emission Potential

Setup and enabling works Rerouting of utilities Excavation works Medium-high

Roads and Infrastructure Installation of new roads as required. Installation of infrastructure below road level.

Excavation works.

Transport of materials.

Resuspension of dust on unsurfaced roads.

Medium

Site clearance and ground works Vegetation clearing, levelling, foundations support, import / export of soil / rocks.

Earthmoving. Excavation. Demolition. Crushing. Transport of materials. Resuspension of dust on unsurfaced roads.

Medium - High

Foundations For power plant mainly. Piledriving. Excavation. Earthmoving. Transport of materials.

High

Construction of new buildings Concrete buildings, delivery of heavy equipment, use of raw materials and waste generation.

Transport of materials. Storage of materials. Preparation of materials (cutting etc.). Resuspension of dust on unsurfaced roads.

Low-Medium

Landscaping Landscaping of wellpads and power plant site..

Earthworks. Storage of materials.

Low-Medium

In the second stage of the assessment, all sensitive receptors with the potential to be significantly affected by construction dust emissions have been identified. The distances from source that construction dust effects are felt are dependent on the extent and nature of mitigation measures, prevailing wind conditions and the presence of natural screening by, for example, vegetation or existing physical screening such as boundary walls on a site. However, research indicates that that effects from construction activities that

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

194


generate dust are generally limited to within 150-200 metres of the source. Therefore, all receptors within 200 metres of the construction site boundary have been identified, and their sensitivity to effects determined in accordance with Table 9.17.

Table 9.17: Receptors Sensitivity

Sensitivity

High Medium Low

Health facilities Schools Farms / agriculture

Food processing Residential areas Light and heavy industry

Food retailers Outdoor storage

Offices On-site workers

The final stage of the assessment has been to identify other local factors which may affect dust emissions such as natural screening.

On the basis of the above, impact significance from construction dust have been assigned in accordance with the overall ESIA significance criteria presented in Section 5.4.

On Site Construction Plant and Vehicle Exhaust Emissions

Air quality impacts from construction plant exhaust emissions have been screened out in the Inception Report. The main ESIA site visit has however identified receptors much closer to the sites than shown in the maps provided. Impacts are therefore discussed qualitatively in this assessment, with reference to the exhaust emissions monitoring from the RPL / RKL.

Off Site Vehicle Emissions

Mobilisation, drilling and construction will require associated construction traffic, comprising contractors’ vehicles and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). This will result in emissions of nitrogen oxides, fine particles and other combustion related pollutants. In addition, movement of heavy vehicles on non asphalt roads and soil carry over from site can cause dust resuspension. The ANDAL has included a quantitative assessment of air quality impacts from vehicles during the mobilisation phase which is reported and discussed in this report, completed by a semi-quantitative assessment of resuspension impacts.

Well Testing Emissions

Horizontal tests involve establishing temporary separator and pipe works to provide detailed information on the well’s performance and on the reservoir. Following a review of the RKL/RPL assessment it was concluded that the modelling exercise was not sufficiently robust. This report therefore provides a revised dispersion study based on internationally recognised model and methodology. As the tests are only expected to last for 6 to 12 weeks and are not expected to be conducted simultaneously at adjacent wells, the modelling has focused on one well, chosen at Cluster B, due to its proximity to receptors. A full description of the dispersion modelling for well testing emissions is presented in Volume III Technical Appendix D.

In accordance with Decree of Mining and Energy No 02.P/20/M/PE/1990 regarding exploration and exploitation of safety work on geothermal resources, no vertical well testing will be undertaken if wells are located in close proximity to settlements and do not cause disruption to the environment.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

195


Fugitive and Well Blowout Emissions

Fugitive emissions other than H2S releases have been screened out at Inception Report stage. Potential impacts from fugitive emissions of H2S and well blowout emissions have been assessed qualitatively.


Normal Operation

Under normal operating conditions, the main sources of air pollution are the releases to the atmosphere of Non-Condensable Gases (NCGs) from the geothermal reservoir via the power plant. NCGs are mainly composed of CO2, which has no direct impact on local air quality and is assessed in Section 9.7 (climate change), but also include local pollutants. These can include a variety of gases but based on chemistry data reviewed in the Inception Report, all but H2S are emitted in negligible quantities.

Following consultation with the Technical Feasibility Consultant, potentially significant sources of H2S emissions are: Cooling towers: NCGs are extracted from the steam downstream of the turbine in the condenser and

are released in the cooling towers to improve their dispersion. Rock Muffler: a steam venting facility will be located downstream of the separators to release steam

during start up and shut down, but also to control the pressure in the system with varying power plant load and wells output. During normal operation, a minimal steam flow will be maintained to keep piping and rock muffler warm.

No other significant H2S emission sources are present during normal operation.

The first phase of the assessment consists in locating the various emission sources described here, and estimating the discharge parameters: gas flow, pollutant flow, physical dimensions of the source, temperature etc. This has been undertaken through detailed review of the Technical Feasibility Study and further discussions with PGE and the Feasibility consultant.

Secondly, air quality impacts have been predicted using an advanced dispersion model. AERMOD, which is recognised by the World Bank Group General EHS Guidelines (amongst others including the US EPA) as an appropriate tool for air quality assessments of projects of this nature (assessment of point source emissions) located within areas of complex terrain. Full details of the dispersion modelling are presented in Volume III Appendix D. It should be noted that the Technical Feasibility consultant has acknowledged that the NCG and H2S figures presented within the Feasibility study are conservative, and have been provided due to the limited well test data available at the time of the Feasibility Study. The use of these figures to support this air quality assessment is considered to be the most robust approach given the uncertainty over future well test data results and reported results and conclusions presented in this assessment are considered to be conservative.

It is recognised that the adjacent site will be occupied by a similar geothermal plant (PLN Units 1 & 2) which is due to commence operation prior to Units 3&4. As the power plant Units 1&2 is not an associated project according to World Bank classification, it is assumed that Units 1 & 2 will form the baseline upon which Units 3 & 4 will be assessed.

Further dispersion modelling has then assessed the additional pollutant concentrations during normal operation of Units 3&4, which includes the cooling towers and the rock mufflers. The model was used to

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

196


predict changes in ground level H2S concentrations at key receptor locations for comparison against the relevant guidelines, standards and limits summarised in Table 9.18. Volume III Technical Appendix D presents the specific criteria used to assign significance to the predicted ground level H2S concentrations.

The calculated H2S concentration at the cooling tower exit for Units 3&4 is 21mg/Nm3, which is in accordance with the Indonesian limit of 35mg/Nm3 set by Ministry of Environment under Regulation No. 21 of 2008 regarding Air Emissions from Thermal Power Plants.

Table 9.18: Ambient Air Quality Guidelines, Limits and Standards used in the Assessment

Source Type Averaging Period

Pollutant and Value Purpose

WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2002

Guideline 24 Hour H2S – 150 µg/m3 For the protection of

public health

Alberta Environment, 2004 Guideline Annual H2S – 140 µg/m3 For protection of

vegetation

Ministry of Manpower Letter No. SE-01/MEN/1997

Limit 8 Hour H2S - 10 ppm / 14,000 µg/m3 For the protection of occupational health

Note: Details of the origin of the guidelines, limits and standards adopted are presented in Volume III

Upset Conditions

It is possible that, during a ‘trip’ of the power plant, total steam flow could be re-directed to the on site rock muffler. This operating scenario is considered to represent a lower air quality impact than normal operation as emissions would be far hotter and faster if passed through the rock muffler rather than the power plant, and would therefore disperse better, resulting in lower ground level concentrations. It would also be a very short term event. Consideration of this scenario has therefore not been provided in the modelling scenarios.


These emissions have been screened out in the Inception Report.



Dust Emissions

The nearest dust sensitive receptors to the Unit 3&4 power plant are found at Runggang Village, located over 600 metres away and are therefore unlikely to be affected. Receptors in the vicinity of the Clusters have been identified in Table 9.19. As can be seen in the Table, there are Receptors within 200 metres of only Clusters B, E and F. As several wells have already been drilled at these clusters, it is assumed that the majority of site preparation activities have already taken place and the assessment focuses on remaining works.

Activities with a potential to raise dust have been identified in Table 9.20.

At Cluster D, the terrain and vegetation provide a significant degree of screening. Even if activities of medium to high dust rising potential occur, the impact on the current receptors of medium sensitivity would

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

197


be of negligible magnitude. Following the sensitivity matrix laid out in 5.4, the impact would be of negligible significance.

At Cluster F, although the isolated house is located close to the well pad border, it is further away from actual Project activities, and some degree of screening is provided by trees. Activities with a high dust rising potential would occur for relatively short periods, which minimises the potential for nuisance. Unmitigated impacts of moderate magnitude could be experienced for short periods. Mitigation measures aimed at minimising dust episodes are however part of standard operating procedures. As such, magnitude is expected to be minor and the impact of low adverse significance.

Similarly at Cluster B, dust episodes are expected to be few and of short duration due to the nature of the activities, but the close proximity to receptors increases the potential for nuisance. It is however expected that standard mitigation measures would easily reduce dust transport and that impact’s magnitude would be minor, resulting to in an impact of low adverse significance.

Pipe laying activities have a relatively low potential for dust generation as pipes would be above ground, and would be of short duration. As such their impact on dust nuisance is considered negligible.

The magnitude of impacts from dust emissions during construction on on-site workers is higher than residential receptors due to their closer proximity to emission sources. However, their sensitivity is lower. Overall dust impacts on on-site workers are concluded to be of moderate adverse significance without mitigation.

Table 9.19: Sensitive Dust Receptors

Site Receptors Distance from

Cluster boundary Type Sensitivity Screening

Cluster A Karang Rejo Village 300m Residential, school,

mosque Medium Terrain

Cluster B Two houses 10m Residential Medium None

Cluster E Runggang Village 80m Residential Medium Terrain

Cluster F Isolated house 25m Residential Medium Trees

Cluster G Muara Dua village

extension 350m Residential, mosque Medium Terrain,

trees

Cluster H Muara Dua village 350m Residential, school,

mosque Medium Trees

Power plant Runggang Village 600m Residential Medium Terrain,

trees

Steam Pipes

Muara Dua village extension, Runggang

Village 10-100m Residential Medium None

Table 9.20: Dust Generating Project Activities

Activity Dust raising Potential Duration

Drilling Low 6 weeks / well

Piling Medium to High 1-2 weeks / well

Materials storage Medium < 8 months / cluster

Materials handling Medium Ad hoc

Maintenance / ongoing earthworks Medium Ad hoc

Pipes route clearing Low < 10 months

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

198


The above conclusions vary slightly from the Inception Report. This is due to the identification of further dwellings in close proximity to Clusters B, (E) and F.

On Site Construction Plant and Vehicle Exhaust Emissions

Construction work requires the use of a range of site plant, such as excavators, piling equipment and cranes as well as on site generators and hand tools. Each of these plant items has an energy demand and therefore leads to emissions either directly (i.e. from the exhaust gas of the plant) or indirectly (for example, emission associated with electricity production). Electricity needs on the Project sites are met through on-site generation.

Given the local and temporary nature of site plant, as well as the distance to the nearest receptors, effects of plant emissions on local air quality at all sites apart from Cluster B are considered to be of negligible significance.

At Cluster B however, houses are located almost at the site boundary, not far from the generators. The RKL / RPL include periodic monitoring of emissions from the generators and the results show low emission levels. Nonetheless, as the generators are there as long as there are activities, the impact could be of minor magnitude. Furthermore, the generation sets are close to the workers’ accommodation. We recommend that the generators are located away from the receptors, i.e. away from the site entrance. In the current layout, impacts are expected to be of low adverse significance.

Off Site Vehicle Emissions

Mobilisation, drilling and construction will require associated construction traffic, comprising contractors’ vehicles and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and other diesel-powered vehicles. This will result in emissions of nitrogen oxides, fine particles and other combustion related pollutants. In addition, movement of heavy vehicles on non asphalt roads and soil carry over from site can cause dust resuspension. The various AMDALs have included a quantitative assessment of air quality impacts from vehicles during the mobilisation phase. The results are reported in Table 9.21.

Table 9.21: Air Quality Impacts from Vehicles during Mobilisation (µg/m3)

Pollutant Contribution Resulting Concentration (2) (at

operation)

24h Indonesian Standard (3)

Dust 1 1.3 106 230

NO2 1.1 11.4 150

SO2 2.7 6.8 365

CO 229.4 628.9 10,000

Source: Ulubelu steam field ANDAL

1. Understood to be TSP

2. Background concentrations in AMDALs differ from those established in the present report. This does not affect the

conclusions.

3. Government Regulation No. 41 of 1999

There is a lack of information in the ANDAL on full assumptions and domain of applicability of the results which prevents any direct conclusion. Given the level of construction traffic, it is however expected that air quality impacts would be negligible, which is in line with the above results.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

199


It is however believed that the ANDAL assessment does not account for dust resuspension. Based on observed site conditions, dust resuspension can be an issue, especially on the tracks opened by PGE for site access. Although the PGE-built roads were further from inhabited areas, they have enabled people to build new houses. Even existing roads are not always clean and hard-surfaced, so heavy vehicle movements can cause dust nuisance.

Outside initial mobilisation and demobilisation of the drilling platforms and temporary accommodations, construction traffic is expected to be limited to fuel and chemical supply, waste disposal and staff movements. As discussed in the traffic assessment (Section 9.11), construction vehicles will essentially use main roads which will minimise disturbance to local residents. Project related traffic volumes are still unknown at this stage but are expected to be small. Based on the initial consultation, gaseous / dust emissions associated with construction traffic to date have not caused a problem.

Provided adequate mitigation measures are in place, emissions of combustion related pollutants on the local road network during the construction phase are expected to be of negligible to low adverse significance in terms of the effect on local air quality. There is a greater potential for impacts from dust resuspension, however these can also be mitigated and the overall impact is expected to be of adverse low significance. Further mitigation measures, such as spraying roads if dry conditions cause dust resuspension can be implemented. Residual impacts are discussed below.

Horizontal Well Testing Emissions

Dispersion modelling carried out to assess potential air quality impacts from H2S emissions during horizontal well testing is presented in Volume III Appendix D. The results in show that horizontal well testing is not predicted to result in exceedences of the WHO guideline at the identified receptors. The impact of process contributions from the Project are concluded to be of negligible to moderate adverse significance at worst at residential receptors. As concentrations at all receptors remain well below the WHO guideline (less than 75%), given the temporary nature of the emissions and given the conservative approach to the assessment, overall significance at residential receptors within the airshed is considered to be of negligible to adverse low significance using professional judgement.

Furthermore, the model results show that horizontal well testing is not predicted to result in exceedences of the Ministry of Manpower’s occupational exposure limit either at on-site receptors or off-site receptors. Impacts of horizontal well testing on occupational receptors are therefore concluded to be of negligible significance. Nevertheless, mitigation measures have been proposed in line with best practice to ensure that elevated concentrations on a micro scale (such as the trapping of H2S within confined spaces) and/or very short term abnormal operating or meteorological conditions do not lead to concentrations above the limit.

It should be noted that all of the predicted concentrations upon which these conclusions are based are likely to be very conservative as, by taking the maximum predicted results from three meteorological years, it has been assumed that horizontal well testing emissions would coincide with the worst meteorological conditions for dispersion. As the duration of the tests is very short (6 to 12 weeks), the likelihood of this occurring is very low and actual concentrations experienced are likely to be far lower.

Fugitive and Uncontrolled Emissions

Other than construction dust, fugitive and accidental emissions may occur during chemicals handling or in case of a spill. Some pollutants can also be released from the settling ponds. Due to the separation

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

200


distance between project components and off-site receptors these would be of negligible significance and have not been considered further.

Although none has been reported to date at the Project site, well blowouts may occur during well drilling although the risk is reduced through the employment of a blowout preventer. The main impacts are on workers’ health and safety due to uncontrolled releases of H2S. In light of the modelled results for the well testing scenario below (which would be very similar to a well blowout scenario although for a shorter duration) impacts are concluded to be of moderate adverse significance for residential receptors and negligible significance for on site workers, if no mitigation measures are applied.


The results for the sensitive receptors and the predicted significance of the results are presented in Table 9.22. Ambient H2S pollutant concentrations at some receptors in Muara Dua Baru, Runggang, Wijimulyo and Dikun are above the WHO 24h guideline.

Table 9.22: Maximum 24h Pollutant Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors (µg/m3)

Name Baseline

Units 3&4 Contribution

PEC Sensitivity Change as

% of Guideline

Significance

Muara Dua Baru 1 146 3 149 Medium 2 Negligible

Muara Dua Baru 2 168 11 178 High 7 Negligible


Muara Dua Baru 4 148 4 152 Medium 3 Negligible





Runggang 1 102 89 191 Low 59 Critical

Runggang 2 114 141 258 Medium 94 Critical



Runggang 5 67 59 126 Negligible 39 Negligible

Strip S of Runggang 1 26 4 30 Negligible 3 Negligible









S of Cluster E 1 19 9 28 Negligible 6 Negligible

S of Cluster E 2 19 9 28 Negligible 6 Negligible

Muara Dua S 1 53 10 64 Negligible 7 Negligible



265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

201


Name Baseline

Units 3&4 Contribution

PEC Sensitivity Change as

% of Guideline

Significance

Muara Dua N 1 47 1 48 Negligible 1 Negligible



Wijimulyo 1 54 22 76 Negligible 15 Negligible

Wijimulyo 3 135 23 158 Medium 15 Major



Wijimulyo 6 98 3 101 Low 2 Negligible

Wijimulyo 7 125 7 132 Medium 5 Negligible

Wijimulyo 8 152 58 209 High 39 Critical

Marsum 1 16 5 22 Negligible 3 Negligible

Marsum 2 18 3 22 Negligible 2 Negligible

Dikun 1 94 74 168 Low 49 Critical

Dikun 2 97 119 218 Low 79 Critical

Wijimulyo 4 111 2 113 Low 1 Negligible

NW of Runggang 2 168 190 358 High 127 Critical

NW of Runggang 1 242 147 389 High 98 Critical

Impacts at the identified receptors range between negligible to critical adverse significance using the significance criteria adopted for this assessment.

The Baseline assessment showed that a number of receptors will experience concentrations above the WHO air quality standards due to emissions from Units 1&2. The increase in ambient H2S concentrations above the Baseline, caused by emissions from Units 3&4, is small at most discrete receptors. However, some are predicted to experience up to ‘critical adverse’ significance impacts either because the Project increases concentrations in areas that are already sensitive in the Baseline or because it causes new exceedences that were not otherwise present; both of these are symptoms of elevated Baseline concentrations. These are generally limited to receptors located close to Units 3&4.

However, the modelling also showed that for a number of the receptors considered, impacts are limited to a relatively small number of days where pollutant concentrations are predicted to be in excess of the relevant guideline values. Nonetheless for some receptors, the impacts are significant, and the areas of exceedence across the study increase with the introduction of Units 3&4 over the Baseline case. In this respect, the following Sections consider the potential effect of installing abatement technologies in order to reduce the mass emissions of H2S and limit the impacts at receptors.

The assessment has found that occupational health exposure to H2S was within the limits identified at all locations and no significant impacts were identified.

While exceedences of the standards for the protection of vegetation were identified within a very small area, these were not found within the Hutan Lindung or agricultural areas and only occurred in a very small area near to the plant. As the adopted guideline would not be exceeded within the Hutan Lindung or surrounding agricultural areas, effects are concluded to be of negligible significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

202




The following mitigation measures for controlling air quality impacts have been developed for incorporation into the ESMP (Volume IV) and will be implemented during exploration, drilling and construction activities. Measures have been separated into those for protecting occupational receptors and those for protecting residential receptors:

Occupational Receptor Measures

Provide personal protective equipment, such as dust masks where dust levels are likely to be excessive;

Maintain H2S levels below the limits defined by Ministry of Manpower Letter No. SE-01/MEN/1997 regarding Ambient Threshold Limit of Chemical Factor in Working Environment;

Provision of facility emergency response teams, and workers in locations with high risk of exposure with personal H2S monitors, self-contained breathing apparatus and emergency oxygen supplies, and training in their safe and effective use;

Provision of adequate ventilation of occupied buildings to avoid accumulation of H2S;

Provide workers with a fact sheet or other readily available information about the chemical composition of H2S with an explanation of potential implications for human health and safety.

Residential Receptor Measures

Locate activities and rock / earth stockpiles away from receptors;

Minimise amounts of material handling and avoid double handling;

Providing easily cleaned hard-standing for vehicles. During dry periods, spraying surfaces with water, in particular site access roads;

Sealing or re-vegetate completed earthworks as soon as reasonably practicable after completion;

Ensuring all vehicles carrying loose or potentially dusty material to or from the site are fully sheeted;

Use of modern (less than 5 years old) vehicle / construction fleet to minimise emissions;

Ensuring that the engines of all vehicles and plant on site are not left running unnecessarily;

Use of modern (less than 5 years old) vehicle / construction fleet to minimise emissions

In addition to the above, regular (bi-weekly) visual monitoring of dust episodes, soiling of vegetation, dust resuspension on the roads and dust clouds etc. will be carried out by PGE by way of monitoring contractor activities. Any violations identified through the visual monitoring should be included in a site logbook. In case of any of the above being observed, the measures identified previously should be reinforced.

As described above, H2S releases during well testing represent a potential risk to health and safety of local residential receptors and workers on and off-site, concluded to be moderate adverse at worst. To reduce the impact of H2S emissions, a rock muffler will be used to elevate the point of discharge.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

203


A site emergency response plan will be put in place (as part of the requirements of PGE’s SMK3LL) for drilling activities at each cluster location to control the effects of well blowout, in the unlikely event that it occurs.


The following mitigation measures for controlling air quality impacts have been developed for incorporation into the ESMP (Volume IV) and will be implemented during the operation stage. Measures have been separated into those for protecting occupational receptors and those for residential receptors.

Occupational Health Measures

Measures for the protection of workers against elevated H2S concentrations shall be the same as those presented for the exploration, drilling and construction Stage above. In addition, the installation of a continuous H2S monitoring and warning system within the Power Plant site during normal operation is required to ensure compliance with the Ministry of Manpower occupational exposure limit. Although the dispersion modelling presented has not predicted that the occupational exposure limit will be exceeded, the monitoring is required to ensure that elevated concentrations on a micro scale (such as the trapping of H2S within confined spaces) and/or very short term abnormal operating or meteorological conditions do not lead to concentrations above the standard.

The number and location of on site H2S monitors shall be determined based on an assessment of specific individual plant and building locations prone to H2S emissions and occupational exposure once detailed design information is finalised. The monitoring should be designed and implemented by accredited professionals (accredited professionals may include nationally or internationally Certified Industrial Hygienists, Registered Occupational Hygienists, or Certified Safety Professionals or their equivalent). In addition, workers in locations with high risk of exposure on the power plant site shall be provided with personal H2S monitors, self-contained breathing apparatus and emergency oxygen supplies, and training in their safe and effective use.

Measures that will be considered as part of the FEED and subsequent detailed design by the EPC Contractor to eliminate, to the degree feasible, the existence and adverse character of confined spaces which could result in elevated H2S concentrations are detailed below. In addition, management measures that will be adopted within a site OHS management plan as part of the requirements of PGE’s SMK3LL are also listed: Permit-required confined spaces should be provided with permanent safety measures for venting,

monitoring, and rescue operations, to the extent possible. The area adjoining an access to a confined space should provide ample room for emergency and rescue operations.

Access hatches should accommodate 90% of the worker population with adjustments for tools and protective clothing. The most current ISO standards will be consulted for design specifications;

Prior to entry into a permit-required confined space: Process or feed lines into the space should be disconnected or drained, and blanked and locked-out.

Mechanical equipment in the space will be disconnected, de-energized, locked-out, and braced, as appropriate.

The atmosphere within the confined space will be tested to assure the oxygen content is between 19.5 percent and 23 percent.

If the atmospheric conditions are not met, the confined space will be ventilated until the target safe atmosphere is achieved, or entry is only to be undertaken with appropriate and additional PPE.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

204


Safety precautions will include Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), life lines, and safety watch workers stationed outside the confined space, with rescue and first aid equipment readily available;

Before workers are required to enter a permit-required confined space, adequate and appropriate training in confined space hazard control, atmospheric testing, use of the necessary PPE, as well as the serviceability and integrity of the PPE will be verified. Further, adequate and appropriate rescue and / or recovery plans and equipment will be in place before the worker enters the confined space.

Residential Receptors - Requirement for Monitoring

There is some uncertainty in the existing ambient concentrations of H2S around the Project site which would provide an indication of the exposure of the local receptors existing pollutant concentrations.

It is recommended that monitoring of H2S is undertaken at the project site before commissioning so that the baseline can be more firmly determined. Such monitoring should start ahead of commissioning Units 1&2 to provide a better picture of the original baseline, and special attention should be paid to the period of operation of the PLN plant in isolation as this would not only indicate the baseline for Units 3&4 but also provide further indication of the level of impact of a plant with similar characteristics.

Monitoring of ambient pollutant concentrations at an existing operating plant would also be beneficial in addressing the potential contribution that geothermal plants might have on local pollutant concentrations. Such monitoring would need to include recording of the relative position of the monitoring station compared to the release points, wind speed and direction as well as power plant operating regime.

In both cases, given the nature of the potential health effects of elevated H2S concentrations, monitoring should take place in multiple locations both on-site and at locations representing receptors, and over multiple occasions to account for variability of meteorological conditions. This will ensure that the data collected is robust and increase confidence in any assessment of the Project. Data from the ambient monitoring survey will be combined with that from a health data collection programme witch will run alongside it. Details of the H2S monitoring programme, health data collection programme and Emergency Response Plan are presented in Volume IV (ESMP).

To supplement ambient monitoring, monthly H2S monitoring of the steam line serving the Power Plant (data from which can be used as a proxy for calculating H2S emissions) is also required during commissioning and for the first 6 months of operation. If a stable H2S content is achieved and surrogate calculations for cooling tower emissions comply with the emission limit, the monitoring frequency can be decreased to quarterly. This additional monitoring is necessary to capture potential short term fluctuations in H2S content which could result in exceedences of the WHO 24 hour guideline.

Additional meteorological data collection will also be undertaken in conjunction with the ambient H2S monitoring (i.e. for the same duration) in order to fully understand the local conditions and to ensure that the siting of the station is representative of the area and is not unduly influenced by any local features such as structures or significant terrain profile changes. This would increase confidence in the local conditions for use in subsequent dispersion modelling and monitoring of H2S.

In the event that ambient air quality monitoring or air emissions monitoring provide results that are significantly different to those upon which this assessment is based, further modelling will be undertaken by PGE.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

205


Residential Receptors - Technical Mitigations

The World Bank Group EHS Guidelines indicate that one type of recommended method of reducing emissions associated with geothermal plants include use of abatement systems to remove H2S emissions from non-condensable gases.

The Feasibility Study has indicated that high capture rates can be achieved for cooling tower emissions using abatement technology. The abatement plant can be sized according to the level of H2S abatement required, capturing the relevant proportion of the non-condensable gases. It is anticipated that the final technical solution will be determined by the Technical Consultant through the final design of the project. Following consultation with the Technical Feasibility Consultant, partial H2S abatement of up to 80% has been modelled.

Additional dispersion modelling has been carried out in order to investigate the reductions in ground level concentrations which could be achieved by implementing the mitigation principals described above. These are reported in the following subsection.

9.6.5.3 Decommissioning and Post-Operation

Although impacts from decommissioning and post-operation are expected to be low, it is important that these activities are carried out following best practice. It is therefore required that a management plan is developed and implemented at decommissioning phase. In addition to mitigation measures similar to those proposed for the construction phase, wells will need to be appropriately sealed to ensure that no accidental releases occur in the future. This may also involve a follow-up programme to assess wells’ integrity at regular intervals.


This section focuses on impacts at key discrete receptors identified above as experiencing critical or major adverse impacts or being close to the 24-hour WHO guideline value in the absence of mitigation measures.

In accordance with the significance criteria set out in Section 5.4, and the requirements of the World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (upon which the significance criteria are based), measures have been focussed upon which are likely to remove exceedences of the WHO guideline caused by the project.

A number of scenarios were assessed using dispersion modelling to establish the effect of abatement measures based on percentage reductions of H2S from both Units 3&4 and Units 1&2 at locations representing receptors and details of these results are presented in Volume III Appendix D.

As previously described, the dispersion modelling presented in this assessment is based on conservative well test results for NCG and H2S content. Provisions have been made for revised modelling to be undertaken at a later date when further data are available. The abatement commitments presented here are therefore based on the most robust data currently available.

The dispersion modelling shows that abatement of H2S emissions from Units 3&4 only would not be effective enough to avoid significant impacts at the discrete receptors. Abatement is also required at Units 1&2. A joint agreement has been signed between PGE and PLN on 31st December 2010 which states that:

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

206


“In relation to the treatment on H2S gas in the Ulubelu geothermal field, PT. PLN (Persero) and PGE agreed to conduct more detailed study based on new data that have been made available from the Ulubelu geothermal field. If the content of H2S gas turns out to actually exceed the threshold limit that is set by the Government of Indonesia standard and WHO standard, then PT. PLN (Persero) and PGE agree to implement measures to reduce H2S content and to monitor, in accordance with the ownership of their respective assets.” (See Appendix H, Volume III).

By employing 60% abatement at Units1&2 and Units 3&4, predicted concentrations at the residential receptors considered are all below the WHO guideline value, except for one which is predicted to exceed the guideline value for two days in the worst case metrological year. Given the conservatism in the model, it is considered that 60% abatement at both plants is an appropriate level to avoid significant impacts on receptors in the airshed. Therefore, the design of Units 3&4 will incorporate abatement technology to achieve 60% H2S removal from the cooling tower emissions. PLN will also need to comply based on its Joint Agreement with PGE and its commitment to the GoI. Compliance by PLN and PGE will be jointly monitored, as per the Joint Agreement, and its results reported to the GoI and the World Bank.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

207


9.6.7 Summary

Results summary are presented in Table 9-23.

Table 9-23: Summary of Potential Air Quality Impacts and Residual Risks

Phase Activity Impact Receptors Receptor

Sensitivity Impact

Magnitude Impact

Significance Mitigation Measures Residual

Significance

On-site occupational receptors

Low Major Adverse moderate

As below, plus, PPE for minimising dust exposure.

Negligible Site clearing, earthworks and construction activities

Dust emissions

Residential receptors and off-site

occupational receptors

Medium Negligible

Minor

Negligible adverse to moderate

Dust suppression and control measures, visual monitoring.

Negligible to adverse low


Low Minor Adverse low Negligible

On Site Plant and vehicles

NOX, PM10, SO2

emissions



Low Negligible Negligible

Located generators away from on-site receptors.

Low emission vehicles and equipment, no idling vehicles Negligible

Off-Site Vehicle emissions

NOX, PM10, SO2

emissions



Low Minor Adverse low As above. Negligible



No vertical well testing. Use of rock mufflers to elevate emission source. H2S Contractor to implement H2S response plan.

Negligible

Well testing H2S and

particulate emissions Residential receptors

and off-site occupational

receptors

High Negligible Negligible to

adverse moderate

No vertical well testing. Use of rock mufflers to elevate emission source.



Low Negligible Negligible Site H2S response plan by drilling contractor and H2S contractor (complying with PGE SMK3LL),

Negligible

Exploration, drilling and construction and decommissioning

Well blowout H2S and

particulate emissions



High Minor Adverse moderate

Site H2S response plan by drilling contractor and H2S contractor (complying with PGE SMK3LL),


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

208


Phase Activity Impact Receptors Receptor

Sensitivity Impact

Magnitude Impact

Significance Mitigation Measures Residual

Significance



Personal H2S monitors, suitable on site ventilation, information on H2S, maintain levels below occupational limit, on site H2S monitoring system, confined space procedures.

Negligible



High Negligible to Major

Negligible to adverse critical

Negligible

Operation Cooling Tower & Rock Muffler emissions

H2S emissions

Hutan Lindung and agriculture


60% H2S Capture.

Periodic monitoring of H2S emissions.

Ambient monitoring of H2S concentrations. Health data collection. Emergency response plan.

Negligible

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

209



Cumulative impacts from simultaneous construction activities at the well pads for Units 1&2 have been incorporate in the present assessment. No cumulative impacts are expected due to power plant construction given the distances and different schedules. Cumulative impacts from simultaneous operation of the power plants have been included in the model.


265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

210


9.7 Climate Change

9.7.1 Introduction

One of the drivers for the Project is the production of electricity without the resource depletion and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with combustion of fossil fuels. The Project will nonetheless lead to releases of greenhouse gases. During construction, carbon dioxide (CO2) will be released from combustion sources such as the diesel generators and the construction plant engines. During tests, but mostly during operation, CO2 and methane (CH4) will be released as non-condensable gases.


Emissions of greenhouse gases have been assessed from the main source of emissions in the project - the release of gases from the cooling towers. The impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases are global. The nature of these emissions mean the specific impacts of any one project cannot be easily assigned. Typically, the performance of projects is indirectly assessed by comparing the emission intensity from energy production to other sources, in order to bring the collective regional or global emissions associated with power generation down, and this has been done in the assessment.

9.7.3 Methodology

The key issues pertaining to the impacts of the Project on climate change is the amount of GHGs emitted by the Project, and the emissions avoided through production of electricity using a less carbon-intensive source as compared to other alternatives. It is therefore important, first of all, to establish the boundaries of the assessment and the alternative electricity generation means that would be developed in the absence of the Project.

The boundaries of the assessment have been selected as covering controlled and uncontrolled releases of GHGs at the different emission points identified in the air quality section during plant operation. In the context of the ESIA, the aim of this assessment is not to provide a full carbon footprint assessment, but to compare Project emissions and emissions avoided. Although further emissions would result from site clearance and construction activities (use of fossil fuel for vehicles / plant / generators, energy requirement for concrete and other materials production, carbon sink reduction from land clearing etc.), these are likely to represent a small fraction of the total lifetime emissions from the Project. Pre-operation emissions have therefore not been included in this assessment. Alternative energy developments would also have construction related emissions, likely to be more substantial than for the current Project. The exclusion of construction phase emissions from the comparison with alternatives can therefore be considered conservative. Reduction of such emissions is nonetheless addressed through the mitigation identified for air quality which includes measures to reduce combustion related emissions (see Volume IV, ESMP).

In the case of fossil fuel-based generation, emissions from transportation of the fuel during the operational phase are also incurred, which is not the case with geothermal energy. These emissions have, conservatively, not been included in the comparison. The other key aspect is to define the alternative means of electricity production to compare Project emissions to. First, it is established in the AECOM Feasibility Study that there is significant electricity demand increase in the region and the Project can therefore truly be considered as displacing another mode of future electricity generation. Planned new power plants in Sumatra are summarised in Table 9.24.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

211


Table 9.24: Planned New Power Generation Capacity in Sumatra

Generator Type Capacity (MW)

Hydro and mini hydro 1,143

Geothermal 2,625

Diesel 0

Coal 3,528

Gas 1,651

Source: AECOM Feasibility Study for Ulubelu Geothermal Project, 2010

According to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Guidelines for Quantifying GHG Reductions from Grid-Connected Electricity Projects, options for comparison include the “most likely” alternative, the “most conservative” and a capacity-weighted blend of alternatives. The most conservative alternative would be a hydro plant. It is considered that most economically advantageous resources for both hydro and geothermal would be developed as part of the current plan for Sumatra, and that developing another hydro project as an alternative to the current Project would not be easily achieved. The most likely alternative in the absence of the Project would therefore be to increase the requested capacity of one of the proposed gas or coal fired power plants. Given that the Project is expected to operate at base load, such capacity would most likely be provided by a coal fired plant as gas and diesel plant would more likely provide peaking power (more economic). The present assessment, in line with the Feasibility Study, focuses on a coal plant as an alternative to the Project, but a capacity weighted blend of generation modes, based on planned additional has been used as a sensitivity analysis

Project emissions estimates follow the methodology presented in the Inception Report and the Feasibility Study, based on predicted steam flow and relative GHG content of the gases released. Where variations are observed, these have been discussed. Alternative generation emission estimates follow the World Bank Greenhouse Gas Assessment Handbook 1998 as per the Feasibility Study, with updated emission factors from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s website.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

212



9.7.4.1 Project Emissions

The Project’s steam requirements to produce the required 110MW net have been modelled in the Feasibility Study. Steam NCG content and NGC composition were estimated based on wells UBL 2, 3 and 5 test results, corrected for the proposed separator operating pressure of 6kscg. A summary of assumptions and calculations is provided below:

Table 9.25: Project Specific CO2 Emissions

Parameter Value Unit

Steam flow 238 kg/s

Steam NCG content 1.5 %

NCG CO2 content 92.1 %

NCG CH4 content 0.1 %

CO2 emissions 3.29 kg/s

CH4 emissions 0.0036 kg/s

CH4 Global Warming Potential 23

Equivalent Max CO2 emissions 3.37 kg/s

Plant Capacity Factor 90 %

Annual CO2 emissions 95,651 tCO2/year

Source: Feasibility Study for Ulubelu Geothermal Project, Chemical Data Wells Ulubelu

The difference with the Feasibility Study results comes from the inclusion of methane emissions.

9.7.4.2 Alternative Plant Emissions

As discussed above, for comparison the alternative plant that could generate an equivalent base load is a coal fired power plant, and construction and fuel supply / processing emissions are not taken into account.

Table 9.26: Alternative Plant CO2 Emissions

Parameter Value Unit

Gross Capacity 119 MW

Plant Capacity Factor 90 %

Annual Electricity Production 938.2 GWh/yr

Plant Conversion Efficiency 31 %

3026 GWh/yr Annual Plant Fuel Consumption

10,895 TJ/yr

CO2 emission factor 94.6 tCO2 / TJ

Annual CO2 emissions 1,030,684 tCO2/yr

Source: Feasibility Study for Ulubelu Geothermal Project, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

The above result varies slightly from the feasibility study due to rounding differences and selection of a different emission factor.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

213


9.7.4.3 GHG Displacement

As a result of the above calculations, the total amount of CO2 avoided by implementing geothermal energy in place of coal is 935,033 tonnes of CO2 per year, or saving approximately 996.6 kg of CO2 per MWh of electricity. This is considered a beneficial impact of major significance.

Sensitivity analysis has been carried out to compare the Project GHGs emissions with an average alternative reflecting the proposed energy mix given in Table 9.24. Such an alternative would generate about 575kg of CO2 per MWh. At 102kg/MWh, project emissions would be less than a third of that alternative, which doesn’t affect the above conclusion.


Given the beneficial impact of major significance, no further mitigation measures are identified.


Residual impacts are consistent with the impact assessment as there is no further mitigation identified.

Table 9.27: Summary of and Residual Impacts: Climate Change

Phase Activity Impact Sensitivity

Score

Magnitude

Score

Impact

Significance

Mitigation

Measures

Residual

Significance

Operation Power generation

GHG displacement

High Moderate Major Beneficial

None Major Beneficial


Climate change impacts are, by nature, transboundary and cumulative. Impacts of GHGs emissions add up throughout the lifetime of the gas emitted and contribute to climate change. There is therefore no geographical limitation to the cumulative emitters. As it is not realistic to assess impacts of the Project with all other GHGs emitters worldwide during the lifetime of the Project, this section only considers cumulative impacts associated with Units 1&2 operation in line with other disciplines.

In the absence of detailed information on Units 1&2, it is assumed that the PLN plant would be similar to the PGE one. The assessment carried out above remains valid (demand is sufficient and the cumulative development of Units 1&2 and Units 3&4 would not significantly affect the energy mix) and it can be concluded that the cumulative impacts are double (in terms of carbon displacement) or equal (in terms of CO2 per unit of output), resulting in a beneficial impact of major significance.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

214


9.8 Waste

9.8.1 Introduction

This section outlines the key sources of waste, types and waste management for the Project. It is anticipated that the Project will principally generate waste related to the exploration, construction and drilling phase.


The assessment has considered waste storage and disposal; the study area consists therefore of all Project activities locations including any disposal area for surplus soil.

9.8.3 Methodology

After identifying and, where possible, quantifying the potential sources of waste, the assessment focuses on measures to reduce, reuse and recycle as well as the solutions available for waste disposal. The impact assessment methodology described in Section 5.4 has been applied to this assessment.



The potential waste streams and associated environmental impacts have been listed in Table 9.28.

Table 9.28: Construction Waste Streams

Waste stream Potential impact

Drilling muds and cuttings Use of oil based drilling muds resulting in increased potential for contamination of surface water bodies, ecological impacts, contamination of ground and groundwater.

Spent oil and lubricants Potential contamination of surface water bodies resulting in ecological impacts, contamination of ground and groundwater.

General construction waste (packaging, containers etc.) some of which may be contaminated with substances classified as special waste

Possible hazard to human health and ecological receptors. Requires licensed third party landfill space.

Domestic waste (e.g. food waste from the Plant’s canteen, paper from administration buildings, cardboard, lightweight packaging e.g. glass/plastic drink and food bottles etc)

Poses a possible hazard to human health and ecological receptors. Requires licensed third party landfill space.

Any contaminated soils discovered during the site preparation phase

Poses a hazard to human health and ecological receptors. Disposal of any hazardous waste (as determined through toxicity testing) done by third party licensed by Ministry of Environment according to regulations or in-situ remediation.

Inert spoil and other excavation materials Requires licensed third party landfill space if not re-used on site or externally.

Timber Use of valuable natural resources. Requires licensed third party landfill space if not reused or recycled.

Metal Use of valuable natural resources. Requires licensed third party landfill space if not reused or recycled.

Concrete batching residue Potential contamination of surface water bodies resulting in ecological impacts, contamination of ground and groundwater

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

215


Excavation materials from access road, well pads and power plant site will potentially represent the largest volume of waste. Although largely reused on site whenever possible for backfill, levelling and landscaping, the Feasibility Study identified a surplus of 150,000 to 250,000 m3. This is considered too large a volume for landfilling and alternative solutions will be required. PGE will liaise with the community at an early stage to identify all opportunities for re-use of the materials and to determine the best locations for disposal in that eventuality.

In addition to hardening (see recommendations under the geology and erosion Section 9.9) and further landscaping on existing well pads (including the ones for the slim holes drilled during exploration), good quality soil and rocks could be reused for community benefit projects, such as road improvements or flood protection. Such re-use should surplus material be identified will be explored under PGE’s CSR programme.

The excavation waste would be mostly inert, but sedimentation could occur from rainwater. There is therefore a risk for pollution of streams used by the community, which would result in adverse impacts of moderate to major significance. The disposal site(s) and methodology will be such as to prevent any risk of landslide, and include control measures such as drains and settling basins to avoid surface water pollution from sediments. Siting will also be away from sensitive water features. Provided these measures are implemented, sensitivity of receptors would be low and impact magnitude minor, resulting in an impact of low adverse significance.

Dried drilling muds and cuttings would be the next largest volume of waste. The muds would be classified as hazardous waste if oil based drilling muds is used. The project will instead use water based drilling muds which are recycled within each cluster for ongoing drilling operations. This significantly reduces the quantity of hazardous waste to be disposed of.

As discussed in the water quality section, no oil-based drilling fluid is used on site and muds and cuttings would therefore be relatively clean. The muds may however be classified as hazardous waste if any pollutant has been picked up from the well bottom, are stored in the settling ponds and can cause subsequent pollution to surface water (in particular in terms of suspended particles if the filters/decantation systems are not maintained). As can be seen in Table 9.29, which presents results of analysis of the mud carried out in 2010 by the Local AMDAL Consultant, muds show high levels of pollutants such as barium, zinc, lead and mercury. In addition, the muds reduce the buffering capacity of the settling ponds during wells testing.

The muds will be either reinjected into total loss wells where these are available or will go to contained storage with subsequent treatment dependent on relevant waste category. The waste category for the muds will be determined through toxicity testing by PGE. Should the toxicity tests indicate classification as hazardous waste, the muds will be removed from site and disposed of in a licence landfill as per the requirements of relevant Indonesian legislation, for example Government Regulation No. 18 of 1999 regarding Management of Toxic and Hazardous Wastes (as amended).

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

216


Table 9.29: Sediment analysis of drilling mud

Result No Parameter Analysed Unit

975 (S-1) 976 (S-2)

Government Regulation No. 18 of 1999 (as amended by No. 85 of 1999)

1 Barium (Ba) mg/l 379.5 29.3 100

2 Iron (Fe) mg/l 608.5 628.7 -

3 Silver (Ag) mg/l 1.84 3.12 5,0

4 Zinc (Zn) mg/l 81.5 51.9 50,0

5 Boron (B) mg/l 16.7 15.0 500,0

6 Chromium Total (Cr) mg/l 0.86 5.40 5,0

7 Copper (Cu) mg/l 14.1 10.3 10,0

8 Lead (Pb) mg/l 14.6 13.6 5,0

9 Arsenic (As) mg/l 2.70 4.20 5,0

10 Mercury (Hg) mg/l 1.39 2.32 0,2

11 Selenium (Se) mg/l <0.004 <0.004 1,0 S-1 = Cutting Sludge S-2 = Kolam Sludge

Drill cuttings are stored in a “cuttings house” on each wellpad which provides an impervious surface, rain protection and drain /oil interceptor. This facility needs to be adequately managed to avoid overfill and clogging of the interceptor that was noticed in MML’s March 2010 site visit. Following toxicity tests on the cuttings quality, to determine whether they contain any pollutant that could percolate and contaminate the ground water, the option of spreading the cuttings on the wells pad for hardening the surface can be investigated. To date, toxicity tests on cuttings at existing clusters by PGE indicate low toxicity and therefore re-use on site is the likely disposal route.

All the wastes identified above will be minimised, sorted, reused and recycled wherever possible. There may be the opportunity of further community benefit through waste reuse where possible. Special care will be given to food waste, which will be kept separate in enclosed areas to avoid pest and odour, or composted / disposed of rapidly.

Wastes from the construction phase have the potential to result in impacts of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.


Once the steam fields and power plant are operational, there will be few significant sources of solid waste generated and the additional burden on waste disposal facilities within the local area should be minimal. The steamfield and power plant may produce scales within the wells themselves and within surface piping and plant. The disposal of this and other plant waste may have an impact on groundwater if disposed of to ground in landfills and, following analysis, may need to be treated as hazardous waste. However, the magnitude of any impact is likely to be low because the scale will consist of minerals that already exist in groundwater.

The majority of waste materials generated during the operation phase will be associated with the maintenance works of the Plant equipment, including scrap metals, sludge from the cooling towers (estimated in the ANDAL to represent less than 100kg per year), spent oils and cleaning products, and general waste streams generated from the administration buildings.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

217


As for construction, all the wastes will be minimised, sorted, reused and recycled wherever possible. Hazardous waste will continue to be stored in appropriate facilities and disposed of off-site by a licensed contractor. Wastes from the operational phase are expected to have impacts of adverse low significance without mitigation.


A number of standard mitigation measures will be followed by PGE during construction and operation as discussed above. These include: Appropriate storage of general waste and regular disposal to licensed third party landfill; Storage of muds in lined ponds and of cuttings in dedicated houses; and Disposal of hazardous waste by a licensed contractor.

Further measures have been included for implementation as part of the ESMP (see Volume IV): Segregation and monitoring of waste streams in view of minimising, reusing and recycling waste; Liaison with the community to identify reuse and recycle options; Identification of appropriate site(s) for excavation material disposal, away from sensitive surface or

ground water features; Implementation of measures to avoid silt run off to surface water from excavated material; Regular removal of muds from the settling ponds and toxicity testing of the muds to determine whether

they are classified as hazardous waste thus requiring safe disposal by a third party licensed by the Ministry of Environment according to Indonesian regulations;

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) will be developed and adopted by PGE and its contractors covering as a minimum the waste streams identified in Table 9.28 in particular drilling muds and cuttings. Waste Management Plans (WMPs) are important tools to ensure compliance with regulatory controls. An outline of the key requirement/ issues to be addressed in the WMP is provided in the ESMP (see Volume IV); and

Toxicity analysis of operational waste (such as sludge) in view of recycling /on-site disposal if possible.


Following implementation of the above mitigation, residual impacts associated with waste in both construction and operation phases is considered to be of adverse low significance.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts are summarised in Table 9.30.


All of the identified impacts associated with waste are assessed as negligible or adverse low significance with the identified mitigation. PGE is also responsible for the development of wellpad clusters to serve the separate PLN Units 1&2 development. The measures contained within the ESMP (see Volume IV) elaborated for the Project are relevant to the wider wellpad development and therefore the ESMP is appropriate to cover the wider operations for the overall Ulubelu Development.

The construction and operation of the PLN Units 1&2 power plant is expected to lead to similar excavation arisings as for PGE Units 3&4 power plant site. Excavated material is likely to be reused by PLN for landscaping purposes. Re-use within the community of any residual excavation waste arising from both PLN and PGE construction activities needs to be addressed jointly under complimentary CSR programmes.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

218


It is not anticipated that wastes will be exported outside of the South Sumatra area.

Table 9.30: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Waste



Exploration, Drilling and Construction Stage

Drilling muds;

scrap metals , waste oils, plastics, consumables

Contamination of groundwater and streams

Adverse low-moderate

Adverse low

Operation Office wastes, waste oils, waste chemicals, consumables associated with maintenance.

Contamination of groundwater and streams

Adverse low

Implement Waste Management Plan (WMP) which identifies measures for minimisation of waste and safe disposal of construction wastes (refer to ESMP, Volume IV).

Appropriate facilities/containers for segregation and temporary storage of general wastes on site and establishment of regular disposal to landfill or recycling where possible.

Use of water based drill muds and recycling of drill muds. Storage of muds in lined ponds and of cuttings in dedicated houses.

Regular removal of muds from the settling ponds for re-injection into total loss wells where available or storage and subsequent treatment of the muds as relevant waste category as determined by Indonesia regulation.

Disposal of hazardous waste by third party licensed by MOE. Segregation of waste streams for reusing and recycling. Identify reuse and recycle options of non hazardous waste with local community;

Identification of appropriate site(s) for excavation material disposal, away from sensitive surface / ground water features.

Adverse low

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

219


9.9 Geology and Erosion

9.9.1 Introduction

Utilisation of geothermal energy is directly linked to the location of the deep geothermal resource and the geological sub-surface structures controlling the fluid flow to the surface. Therefore the locations of well pads are based on the availability of the resource. To some extent drilling can be targeted and reached by directional drilling with multiple wells at each pad to minimize the surface impact but the overall flexibility of the site location is limited.

This section assesses the impacts on surface and sub-surface geology, slope stability and erosion and changes in the morphology of the area due to the Project at different phases of development and addresses the main potential risk for physical changes at the surface. Utilisation of the geothermal resource can impact the surface manifestation of the geothermal system, such as hot springs and steam vents. Other potential threats to the project are natural hazards, such as volcanic eruptions or earthquakes.



Increased erosion and well blow-outs would remain within Project sites boundaries. Decreased slope stability has been assessed within an area within 200m of the site boundaries. Increased surface water run-off would affect water quality and is the spatial scope of assessment is as per Water Quality and Hydrology covered within Section 9.2.2.

9.9.2.2 Operation

The spatial scope of assessment is limited to the consideration of the Ulubelu geothermal reservoir.

9.9.3 Methodology

The major impact on surface geology occurs during the construction phase while the impacts on the geothermal reservoir are in the operation phase. The method used to approach each criterion was carried out using best practice and professional judgement.

The methodology used to assess the impact on surface geology (e.g. slope stability and erosion) included: Site visit to locate potential sites that could be subjected to erosion and decreased slope stability at

some point in the project; Pre-construction comparison; Completed well pads used for comparison; Review of data from AMDALs and the on-going monitoring studies of the Ulubelu field (RKL/RPL),

Feasibility Study (2010), and previous studies as well as direct observations; and Discussion with construction staff about the project and improvements.

The approach taken to monitor the project’s impact on soil, slope stability and erosion are direct observation at site and comparison with the pre-construction environment. This is done with regular monitoring visits and field inspections, as well as observation of all areas that are impacted by soil or water movement at surface and detailed monitoring of the changes in these areas.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

220


For long term impact on the geothermal reservoir and its surface manifestation, the following approach was taken: Site visit to estimate the surface activity; Review of existing data; Comparison with other geothermal systems; and Data gathering on possible natural hazards.

Changes in geothermal surface activity are assessed through direct observation and monitoring. Areas with hot springs and steam activity have to be monitored though all phases of the project to estimate the impact of the project on the natural geothermal activity. This should also be monitored and compared with reservoir pressure to estimate the connection between these two factors.

In the absence of standard methods for assessment of impacts on geology, site specific criteria for the assessment of sensitivity were developed. Table 9.31 shows the criteria for the assessment.

Table 9.31: Sensitivity Criteria: Geological Features

Sensitivity Definition (considers duration of the impact, spatial extent, reversibility and ability of comply with legislation)

High Geological features of the area are of international or national status.

Moderate Geological features of national or international importance with low capability to tolerate civil work or other physical changes caused by the project.

Areas of geothermal surface activity.

Tourist attractions.

Low Geological features of regional environmental importance with some capacity to absorb proposed changes.

Soil and agricultural land use may be affected by excavation and construction of well pads.

Negligible No important geological features present

Soil and agricultural land use not sensitive to some change due to the project.

The potential impacts on surface and sub-surface geology were identified by analysing the Project, the evaluation of land feature sensitivity on or near the study area, and the consideration of sources of potential impacts from the development including: Exploration drilling and construction; Operation; and Decommissioning.

The magnitude of each potential impact was then determined using the criteria shown in Table 9.32.

Table 9.32: Criteria for Assessing Magnitude of Potential Impacts on Geology and Erosion



Major Fundamental change to the specific environmental conditions assessed, resulting in long term or permanent change, typically widespread in nature (regional, national and international). Would require significant intervention to return to baseline; exceed national standards and limits.

Moderate Detectable change to the specific environmental conditions assessed, resulting in non-fundamental temporary or permanent change.

Minor Detectable but minor change to the specific environmental conditions assessed.

Negligible No perceptible change to the specific environmental conditions assessed.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

221


The magnitude of impact and value of the geological feature attribute “scores” are combined to determine the likely significance of potential effects. If the impact is negative then the effect is adverse; if the impact is positive then the effect is beneficial. Professional judgement was used to vary the predicted effect where appropriate for example where an impact of major magnitude on a highly sensitive receptor may not be of critical significance if it is considered unlikely to occur.



During the construction phase of the Project, there is the potential for large volumes of soil to be excavated for levelling of well pads, roads and other constructions. The main impact from this part of the construction can be divided into four items: (i) increased soil erosion; (ii) changes in surface water run-off; (iii) decreased slope stability; and (iv) well blowouts.

Increased erosion

Due to removal of topsoil and vegetation the surface is more easily eroded, especially during the rainy season. Land clearance will include removal of topsoil and vegetation that enhances soil erosion. In this phase the most significant impact is to the surface environment. Creation of well pad sand settling ponds, levelling of ground for constructions and road works, redirection of water for construction are all key activities of this phase of the project.

This phase primarily consists of four production well clusters with up to six production wells each and two planned reinjection well clusters. Wellpads have a typical footprint of 4 to 5 hectares. There will also be the power plant site of approximately 8 hectares.

As the land is relatively “hilly”, soil cuts can be quite high and the slopes are prone to soil erosion and landslides when surface water runs down the hill where surface and banks are not properly supported, maintained and constructed to withstand erosion.

Landslides and mudflows pose little risk on and around most of the well pads at Ulubelu, except locally where the banks can fall into ditches and block the drainage system if the walls remain unsupported. The exception from this is well pad G, where the slope above the well pad is steep and a significant quantity of material has been used for the construction of the well pad and associated water ponds. The steep banks could impose the risk of landslides and the drill pad as a whole could slide down into the river course should it get saturated in water and if an earthquake coincided.

Generally, the impact is assessed to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation with respect to geology and erosion.

Increased surface water run-off

Surface soil compaction and less percolation of water into the ground and increased surface runoff can cause flooding and enhanced erosion. This can cause water to fill drilling ponds and increase sedimentary transport that can affect vegetation and water quality.

Some of the well clusters (for example Cluster G) are located on steep slopes where water runoff can cause problems during heavy rain storms in the rainy season if the drainage system is not maintained

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

222


properly. Without surface runoff being diverted past well pads and water ponds to minimize risk of soil saturation and surface erosion, the impact is assessed to be of adverse moderate significance.

Decreased slope stability

Decreased slope stability due to slope cuttings is a well known problem when cuttings are made into slopes and not supported, resulting in landslides or mudflows. This is apparent in places where new well pads have been levelled and steep slopes above the pad have been “cut” without any support to the wall such as around Cluster G which is cut into the slope and has the highest banks. This danger increases if the soil gets saturated with water in the rainy season or where gravel or other permeable layers form a part of the cut wall. The impact of this is considered of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.

Well blowouts

Although none has been reported to date at the Project site, well blowouts may occur during well drilling although the risk is reduced through the employment of a blowout preventer. The main impacts are on workers’ health and safety, as well as uncontrolled releases of gases and geothermal fluids. A site emergency response plan will be put in place as at existing drilling sites. Site design will include drains to ensure escaped geothermal fluids are contained within the site and routed to the sedimentation ponds.


Long term / intensive use of the geothermal resource will lead to lowering of reservoir pressure with time. This will eventually lead to changes in surface activity of thermal springs. Hot springs may dry up and be replaced by increased steam vent activity, mud pools and acid ground alteration due to mixing of geothermal gases like H2S and CO2 with the shallow oxygen rich ground water. Compulsory re-injection of used brine will reduce the risk of this or at least delay the process. . Most effects, including land subsiding, would however remain unnoticed at the surface and the impact is considered of adverse low significance.

Some have feared that utilization of the geothermal reservoir could increase the risk of earthquakes and possibly also eruptions. The Ulubelu area is surrounded by active volcanoes but it is unlikely, however, that tapping of steam some kilometres away from these volcanoes will trigger off an eruption although it may accelerate an eruption that is likely to occur anyway. This impact is of adverse low significance. Re-injection of cooler brine can lead to slight contraction of the rock that is being injected and could lead to micro earthquakes, but is unlikely to trigger off larger earthquakes. This impact is considered to be of adverse low significance.

Large volumetric removal of fluid from a geothermal system can cause subsidence of land in the geothermal system both due to decreased reservoir pressure in the system and drying out of layers rich in clays such as montmorillonite that swell when saturated with water. This has not been discussed in previous AMDALs but is a well-known impact from long term intensive utilisation of the reservoir.

9.9.4.3 Decommissioning and Post Operation

Decommissioning of the power plant will allow the pressure in the geothermal reservoir to rise again. It is generally considered that it may take a geothermal reservoir a similar length of time to retain its original pressure as the number of years as the utilisation lasted. Steam vent activity is likely to increase in the beginning as the pressure increases and ground water level will eventually rise to its original level bringing

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

223


back the hot springs that may have been lost during the operational phase. This can be considered a beneficial impact of low significance.



Mitigation measures for the exploration, drilling and construction stage aim to minimize the impact on unspoiled areas and to stabilize the soil and banks at the construction site. The main mitigation measurements specific to geology are listed below. Other mitigation has already been referenced in other discipline impact assessments (for example ecology) which are complimentary to the mitigation of erosion risk.

Increased erosion and surface water run-off

All water channels and redirection of water should be kept to minimum and all drains will be concrete or of other material that is resistant to flowing water to prevent erosion of earth banks. All areas that are disturbed will be covered or re-vegetated to avoid water soil interaction.


All cuts of slopes should be stabilized with appropriate walls or other structures to ensure slope stability and prevent mudflows or landslides.


During the operational stage any previous issues addressed in the construction phase will be monitored and repaired if erosion, landslides or other soil movement is observed. Other mitigation measures specific to the operations phase include direct observation and mapping of surface geothermal activity to be able to detect changes in surface activity and to estimate the changes that the Project has on the geothermal activity. This will be achieved through monitoring of hot springs, mud pools and steam vents as well as fluid chemistry and steam fraction and well pressure.


Post operational measures all aim to restore the site to its previous condition. This can be done by using soil material to level out any construction sites such as well pads to minimize the visual effects and re-vegetate the area.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

224



Following implementation of the above mitigation, residual impacts associated with geology and erosion in both construction and operation phases is considered to be of adverse low significance.

Table 9.33: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Geology and Erosion



Soil excavation for well pads, roads and power plant

Increased erosion

Adverse moderate

Cover of vulnerable soil with erosion resistant material and re-vegetation

Adverse low



Adverse moderate

Support walls with retain walls or other appropriate structures

Adverse low

Exploration, Drilling and Construction Stage


Increased surface runoff

Adverse moderate

Make water channels to direct water and minimise bank erosion.

Adverse low

Long term use of the reservoir

Decreased reservoir pressure

Adverse low Adverse low Operation Phase

Utilisation of geothermal reservoir

Seismic and volcanic hazard

Adverse low

Direct observation and mapping of surface activity and comparison with pre-construction environment

Adverse Low

Decommissioning Phase

Decommissioning of the power plant

Pressure in the geothermal reservoir to rise and return to original pressure.

Beneficial low - Beneficial low


All of the identified impacts on geology and erosion are assessed as adverse low significance with the identified mitigation. PGE is also responsible for the development of wellpads to serve the separate PLN Units 1&2 development. The measures contained within the ESMP elaborated for the Project are relevant to the wider wellpad development and therefore the ESMP is appropriate to cover the wider operations for the overall Ulubelu Development.

The operation of the PLN Units 1&2 power plant is expected to results in similar geology and erosion risks as for PGE Units 3&4. No cumulative adverse impacts of significance are anticipated beyond those identified in this assessment for the Project.

No transboundary impacts are expected although it is noted that sediment transport from well pads if unmitigated and possible landslides can have impact on downstream water and land quality beyond the study area.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

225


9.10 Land Contamination

9.10.1 Introduction

Land contamination is a problem when hazardous substances are at a concentration and a location where they have, or are reasonably likely to have, an adverse effect on human health and the environment. Land contamination is a greater problem in environments where food is grown or in close proximity to buildings, people, water bodies or important habitats.

Contamination is not always limited to a specific site. Hazardous substances may seep through the soil into groundwater, or be carried to nearby land and waterways in rainwater and attached to dust.

The objectives of this section are to estimate and assess the sources for potential land contamination and to evaluate the possible impacts as a result of the Project’s various development phases. It is expected that the potential for land contamination will be maximum during the drilling and construction phases.


Land contamination is more likely to occur at the construction / drilling sites or power plant site, and be contained there. Land contamination can also affect ground water and the assessment has therefore considered the impacts on shallow groundwater in the areas in and between the villages of Runggang, Muara Dua Baru, Wijimulyo, Muara Dua, Pagar Alam and Karang Rejo.

9.10.3 Methodology

The actual footprint of the scheme is relatively small and the major potential impacts are related to the construction phase. The assessment approach included: Field survey and assessment of conditions at the sites; Review of baseline soil characteristics and monitoring data; Review of existing construction methodology; Review of proposed construction plan in relation to adjacent land use.

In the absence of standards for permissible levels of contaminants in the soil, a site specific criterion for the assessment of sensitivity and magnitude of potential impacts is used. Table 9.34 shows the criteria for assessing the importance or value of soil features.

Soil, like surface and groundwater are of the same importance when evaluating the possible impacts of contamination from a cluster or power plant site, since both soil and water are transport media for contaminants. Because of this close connection between the soil and water environment the same criteria can be used when assessing the significance of impacts or sensitivity of the receptor.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

226


Table 9.34: Sensitivity Criteria: Land Contamination

Sensitivity Definition

High Soil connected to water body of international or national environmental importance, soil with little or no capacity to absorb proposed changes or minimal opportunities for mitigation

Receptor at high risk of flooding

Receptor connected to regional water supply

Soil located within a protection zone close to spring discharge point or groundwater source

Medium Soil connected to water body of international or national environmental importance, soil with some capacity to absorb proposed changes

Soil located close to spring discharge point or groundwater source

Soil connected to water body important for fisheries

Soil connected to receptor used for local village water supply

Low Soil connected to surface water body of regional environmental importance, soil with some capacity to absorb proposed changes

Soil connected to receptor used for water supply to individual dwellings

Soil connected to groundwater located within the total catchment area for a groundwater source

Soil and agricultural land use may be affected by flooding/change in soil or hydrological conditions (e.g. arable farming/citrus)

Negligible Soil and agricultural land use not sensitive to some change in soil or hydrological regime (e.g. grazing)

The potential impacts of the Project on land contamination were identified by analysing the physical activities proposed, the evaluation of land feature sensitivity on or near the study area, and the consideration of sources of potential impacts from the development including: Exploration drilling and construction; Operation; and Decommissioning.

The magnitude of each potential impact was then determined using the criteria shown in Table 9.35. Each impact was assessed qualitatively using published literature, including the World Bank Operational Policy 4.01 and by using professional judgement.

Table 9.35: Magnitude Criteria: Land Contamination



Major Fundamental change to the specific environmental conditions assessed, resulting in long term or permanent change, typically widespread in nature (regional, national and

international). Would require significant intervention to return to baseline; exceed national standards and limits.

Moderate Detectable change to the specific environmental conditions assessed, resulting in non-fundamental temporary or permanent change

Minor Detectable but minor change to the specific environmental conditions assessed

Negligible No perceptible change to the specific environmental conditions assessed

The magnitude of impact and value of soil/water environment attribute “scores” are combined to determine the likely significance of potential effects, using the significance matrix in Section 5.4. If the impact is negative then the effect is adverse; if the impact is positive then the effect is beneficial. Professional judgement was used to vary the predicted effect where appropriate for example where an impact of major magnitude on a highly sensitive receptor may not be of critical significance if it is considered unlikely to occur.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

227



9.10.4.1 Overview

Main types of potential land contaminants have been identified during the exploration, drilling and construction stage: Drilling mud and cuttings, waste (spill); Oil and lubricants in stock or in equipment, hazardous material (spill); Spent oil and lubricants, hazardous waste (spill); Other chemicals in stock (herbicide, acid and bases, solvents), hazardous material (spill); Any previous contaminated soils discovered during the site preparation; General solid waste from Project stored at site (leachate); and Brine and condensate (spill) (operation phase).

The spill of any of the above mentioned potential pollutants or improper storage may result in direct contamination of soils, which may need immediate response and cleanup operations to avoid environmental impacts. Contamination of soil may also lead to delayed impacts by the transport of pollutants to other recipients, such as groundwater or surface water. This is especially important for the potential contaminants classified as hazardous material which can pose serious impacts to human health and the environment. In this case no spill is acceptable without immediate cleanup. Spill of waste such as drilling mud and cuttings needs to be handled the same way for precautionary measures, except for minor quantities. Since regulations do not quantify limits or acceptable levels for contaminants in soil each case of spill of hazardous material must be evaluated in accordance with the operational permit and in consultation with the Lampung Province BAPEDALDA. Internationally recognised guidelines can be used as a reference, such as the Dutch Guidelines for Contamination Assessment of Soil.


The potential land contamination sources and possible environmental impacts are listed in Table 9.36. All of the direct impacts associated with land contamination are likely to have secondary impacts on water and groundwater quality, ecology and local communities.

Table 9.36: Potential Land Contamination Sources and Associated Impacts

Sources of potential impacts Potential impact

Drilling mud (spill) Contamination of surface soil bodies as a result of excessive rain flooding of settling ponds.

Cuttings Contamination of surface soil bodies as a result of improper handling, or storage of contaminated cuttings.

Oil and lubricants in stock or in equipments ,hazardous material (spill)

Contamination of surface soil bodies as a result of improper handling, storage or accident.

Spent oil and lubricants, hazardous waste (spill) Contamination of surface soil bodies as a result of improper handling, storage or accident.

Other chemicals in stock, hazard material (spill) Contamination of surface soil bodies as a result of improper handling, storage or accident.

Any previous contaminated soils discovered during the site preparation phase

Contamination of surface soil bodies as a result of mixing.

General solid domestic waste and construction waste from Project stored at site (leachate)

Contamination of surface soil bodies as a result of improper handling, or storage.

Brine and condensate (spill) ( operation phase) Contamination of surface soil bodies as a result of improper handling, storage or accident.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

228


Rain flooding of settling ponds and a spill of contaminated mud to soil at site or to cultivated fields is a possibility if maintenance of ponds and structures is poor and monitoring is lacking. The magnitude of potential change in soil quality is assessed to be moderate, because the impact would cause a significant change in soil chemistry, but the impact would be highly localised. This could impact the later use of the soil on site, but more immediately impact the cultivated field soil. The soil is classified as medium sensitivity. The impact of flooding of contaminated mud is therefore assessed to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

Poor handling or storage of possible contaminated cuttings can cause a percolation of contaminated leachate to soil on the Project site. The magnitude of potential change in soil quality is assessed to be moderate, because the impact would cause a potentially significant change in soil chemistry, but the impact would be highly localised. This could impact later use of soil or contaminants could be transported to other sensitive recipients. The soil is classified as medium sensitive. The impact of leachate from cuttings is therefore assessed to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

Poor handling or storage of oils, lubricants in stock or poor maintenance of equipments containing these media, spent oil and lubricants or chemicals can cause contamination by a spill to soil on the Project site. The magnitude of potential change in soil quality is assessed to be moderate, because the impact would cause a potentially significant change in soil chemistry. Oils and chemicals can easily travel to other recipients such as groundwater, but the impact would be highly localised and contamination would degrade over time. This could impact later use of soil or contaminants could be transported to other sensitive recipients. In addition, it could impact later use of groundwater for water supply to the Project. The soil is classified as medium sensitive. The impact of a spill of these products is therefore assessed to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

Poor handling or storage of any waste can cause contamination by percolation of leachate or spill to soil on the project site. The magnitude of potential change in soil quality is assessed to be minor, because the impact would cause some limited change in soil chemistry, but the impact would be highly localised and amount of contaminants low and contamination would degrade over time. The soil is classified as medium sensitive. The impact of leachate from waste is therefore assessed to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.


The main sources of potential impacts to land through the operation phase are oils, lubricants and other chemicals in stock for the operation of the power plant and waste, in addition to contaminated water from processes.

Poor handling or storage of oils, lubricants in stock, spent oil and lubricants or chemicals can cause contamination by a spill to soil on the power plant site. The magnitude of potential change in soil quality is assessed to be moderate, because the impact would cause a potentially significant change in soil chemistry, oils and chemicals can easily travel to other recipients such as ground water, but the impact would be highly localised and contamination would degrade over time. This could impact later use of soil. The soil is classified as medium sensitive. The impact of a spill of these products and waste is therefore assessed to be of adverse major significance without mitigation.

Poor handling or storage of any waste can cause contamination by percolation of leachate or spill to soil on the power plant site. The magnitude of potential change in soil quality is assessed to be minor, because the impact would cause some change in soil chemistry, but the impact would be highly localised and amount of contaminants low and contamination would degrade over time. The soil is classified as medium sensitive. The impacts of leachate from waste are therefore assessed to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

229


Spilling of brine or condensate can cause contamination to soil on the power plant site or along the route to the reinjection wellpads if brine reinjection fails for a prolonged period or the reinjection pipeline ruptures. The magnitude of potential change in soil quality is assessed to be minor, because the impact would cause some change in soil chemistry, but the impact would be highly localised and amount of contaminants low and contamination in soil would degrade over time. Key impacts of such discharges are discussed in the water quality and hydrology and groundwater impact assessment sections (see Section 9.2 and 9.3). The soil is classified as medium sensitive. The impacts of a spill from brine or condensate are therefore assessed to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.


At the decommissioning and post-operation stage use of oils, lubricants and chemicals will be very little or none. However, the demolition of structures and power plant equipment may introduce some sources of contaminants that can threaten soil at the site.

The major sources of potential contaminants are accumulated stock of oils, lubricants and chemicals and which can also be contained in spent equipment. Many types of equipment on site may contain harmful chemicals such as thermometers containing mercury, mercury tilt and float switches etc. Spilling of hazardous chemicals in the demolition process can cause contamination to soil on the power plant site. The magnitude of potential change in soil quality is assessed to be minor, because the impact would cause some change in soil chemistry, but the impact would be highly localised and amount of contaminants low. The soil is classified as medium sensitive. The impacts of a spill from hazardous waste are therefore assessed to be of adverse moderate significance without mitigation.


All hazardous material will be managed in compliance with Government Regulation No. 18 of 1999 regarding Management of Toxic and Hazardous Wastes (as amended by Government Regulation No. 85 of 1999) and BAPEDAL Decree No. KEP-01 to 05 of 1995 regarding hazardous waste management, storage and collection.


Drilling mud and cuttings waste represent the largest volume of the waste with a potential to contaminate land depending on toxicity. Water based drilling muds will be employed as opposed to oil based drilling muds thereby reducing contamination potential. The drilling mud is drained to lined settling ponds where it is stored and reused throughout the construction stage or until disposed of following drilling either through reinjection into a total loss well or to a licensed landfill. The cuttings are stored in a cutting house until toxicity testing is undertaken to determine disposal options which based on results to date (indicating low toxicity) is likely to include reuse on site.

Poor handling or storage of possible contaminated cuttings can cause a percolation of contaminated leachate to soil on the project site. A dedicated cuttings house with impervious floors and drainage is inherent in the well cluster design.

Poor handling or storage of oils, lubricants in stock or poor maintenance of equipments containing these media, spent oil and lubricants or chemicals can cause contamination by a spill to soil on the project site. These risks will be effectively mitigated through the use of appropriate facilities/containers for segregation of waste and temporary storage of chemicals / fuel on site. In addition, the construction contracts will include a requirement for contractor training on the storage, transport and use of chemicals or fuels on site.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

230


Further mitigation to prevent land contamination is achieved through the development of a Waste Management Plan (a framework of which is included in the ESMP, Volume IV).

Brine arising through well production testing will be stored in concrete lined storage ponds at each cluster location until future reinjection. In addition, a brine management plan will be elaborated to further minimise the risk of brine discharges.

The residual impacts of construction phase impacts are assessed to be of adverse low significance subject to above measures being followed.


Appropriate facilities and containers allowing the segregation and permanent storage of chemicals or fuel on the power plant site will be included within the Project design. Temporary storage facilities will be available for maintenance periods. In addition, further mitigation is identified under hydrology management and waste management within the ESMP (Volume IV) which further reduces the risk of land contamination during operation (such as provision of spill kits). Internal training of PGE staff in the use of storage and containment facilities will be included as part of normal operational practice.

The risk of brine and condensate discharges in the rare case of reinjection failure is reduced through the implementation of a reinjection system, through provision of adequately sized concrete storage ponds (maintained at cluster locations from the construction stage) and through system shut down systems.

The operational impacts are assessed to be of adverse low significance subject to above measures being followed.


The potential land contamination impacts of the decommissioning phase of the Project are similar to that of the construction phase albeit for a shorter duration. Accordingly, mitigation measures for construction will also apply to decommissioning activities. The impacts are assessed to be of adverse low significance subject to above measures being followed.


All of the identified impacts on land contamination are assessed as adverse low significance with the identified mitigation. PGE is also responsible for the development of wellpads to serve the separate PLN Units 1&2 development. The measures contained within the ESMP elaborated for the Project are relevant to the wider wellpad development and therefore the ESMP is appropriate to cover the wider operations for the overall Ulubelu Development.

The construction of the PLN Units 1&2 power plant could possible lead to cumulative impacts through the excavation of contaminated soil. However, given that both power plant sites are greenfield, the potential for existing mitigation is low. In addition, it is expected that PLN will implement similar mitigation to those identified by PGE thereby minimising the risk of land contamination. Overall cumulative impacts are therefore assessed to be of adverse low significance.

Trans-boundary effects are not expected excluding the risk of flooding of mud settling ponds in heavy rain mentioned before.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

231



Table 9.37 contains a summary of the potential impacts on land and the residual risks.

Table 9.37: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Land Contamination



Settling ponds for drilling mud, event of flooding spill

Change in soil chemistry and consequent restriction of use, risk to humans

Adverse major

Well designed and maintained ponds, monitoring and trained and responsible staff, spill response plan

Adverse low

Leachate from contaminated cuttings


Adverse major

Use of water based drill muds and recycling of drill muds.

Storage of muds in lined ponds and of cuttings in dedicated houses.

Regular removal of muds from the settling ponds for re-injection into total loss wells where available or storage and subsequent treatment of the muds as relevant waste category as determined by Indonesia regulation;

Adverse low

Spills of oils, lubricants, spent oils and lubricants or chemicals


Adverse major

Appropriate facilities / containers for segregation and temporary storage of chemicals / fuel on site.

Training of Contractor employees by Contractor.

Adverse low


Handling of waste, spill of leachate


Adverse moderate

Management plan, well designed storage and well maintained, labelling, monitoring and trained and responsible staff, spill response plan

Adverse low

Spills of oils, lubricants, spent oils and lubricants or chemicals


Adverse major

Appropriate facilities / containers for segregation and permanent storage of chemicals / fuel on site. Temporary storage facilities available for maintenance periods.

Internal training of PGE operational shift staff / maintenance staff.

Spill response plan

Adverse low

Handling of waste, spill of leachate


Adverse moderate

Suitable sized storage and well maintained, labelling, monitoring and trained and responsible staff, Develop spill response plans.

Adverse low

Operation phase

Spill of brine and condensate


Adverse Low Implementation of re-injection system.

Provision of adequately sized concrete storage ponds.

Develop Brine Management

Adverse low

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

232




Plan to minimise risk of brine discharges.

In the event of emergency discharge of brine / condensate to land, treatment will be undertaken prior to discharge of effluent to comply with Indonesian discharge geothermal effluent standard.

Decommissioning and post-operation

Demolition work, hazardous waste


Adverse low Similar mitigation as for construction to include:

Appropriate facilities / containers for segregation and temporary storage of chemicals / fuel on site

Appropriate disposal of hazardous waste, monitoring, spill response plan

Adverse low

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

233


9.11 Traffic

9.11.1 Introduction

During the ESIA inception phase the need for a detailed traffic impact assessment was ruled out given the initial assessment of low traffic volumes around the project site and limited traffic volumes generated. However this section provides a qualitative assessment of potential impacts that may require some additional mitigation.


The traffic assessment has considered transport of equipment from the port of Panjang and on to Bandar Lampung, as well as local impacts on traffic flows on the Talang Padang – Gunung Megang – Ulubelu roads.

9.11.3 Methodology

The impact assessment considered the potential impacts of construction and operational movements by road only. The assessment has been undertaken through a desk-top study including review of the semi-quantitative assessments carried out for the various AMDAL processes, establishment of baseline using existing traffic and transportation information, available information on likely construction vehicle types and a prediction of impacts.

A review of baseline information for the local area has revealed a number of receptors sensitive to the potential operational, safety and environmental impacts of staff and truck movements. Receptors sensitive to operational and safety impacts, together with consideration of the possible effects, are identified in Table 9.38.

Table 9.38: Sensitivity Ratings: Traffic

Potential Impact Medium Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Negligible Sensitivity

Safety - Pedestrians/ motorcyclists/ non motorised vehicles in villages along route to project site

-

Temporary exposure to increased traffic flows on main road network during construction

- - Main users of Bandar Lampung Road to Talang Padang

Temporary exposure to increased traffic flows on local road network during construction

- Main users of local roads in villages surrounding project area.

Main users of Talang Padang to Gunung Megang road

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

234



9.11.4.1 Exploration, Drilling and Construction

Key impacts associated with the site preparation and construction phase relate to: Duration of works - construction is anticipated to last over a period of 36 months with varying

intensity of activity, from resuming wells drilling for Units 3&4 in the first quarter 2011 to planned commissioning in the first and second quarter 2014;

Number of personnel movements - movements connected with those that are employed directly or indirectly with the construction phase;

Construction fleet movements - in particular connected with the delivery of equipment to site; Truck movements at different phases of the development (foundation and excavation works, delivery

of construction materials, fuel deliveries, water supply, solid waste disposal); Community health and safety; and Infrastructure wear and tear.

Heavy equipment to be used on site will be imported from Java through the port of Panjang. The route to be followed by HGVs during mobilisation / demobilisation and construction phase has been identified in the feasibility study. From the Panjang Port, construction traffic follows the following itinerary:

Panjang Port – Bandar Lampung – Tanjung Karang – Gedong Tataan – Pringsewu – Talang Padang – Pulau Panggung – Gunung Megang – Datarajan – Site

The itinerary is illustrated in Figure 7.6. It includes traffic around a busy city (Link 1 - Bandar Lampung), a long stretch along local roads to Pulau Pangung (Link 2) and the last part across steep hills to the site (Link 3).

The steam field AMDAL includes a short discussion of Project impacts on traffic flows, estimating that construction / mobilisation activities will cause an increase in vehicle flows by about 10 vehicles/hour. Although no baseline traffic flows are available, this is expected to be a minor fraction of the existing flow along Links 1 and 2 and would have a negligible impact. However, this potentially represents a doubling in traffic flows along Link 3, and from mostly HGVs although the total flow (20 vehicles/hour) remains very small and is not considered likely to cause disruption to traffic in the area. It should be noted however that power plant construction may require, at some points, larger construction traffic flows. Mitigation measures (on route, mode of transport, time etc.) have been suggested to further reduce the risk of impacting other users.

Impacts are however expected in relation to the road quality (narrow road, very steep and damaged). Disturbance can arise as a result of large vehicles blocking the road, either because of their low speed or because they need to manoeuvre. This should not be an issue on Links 1 and 2 (where the impact, if it arises would be more significant), as the area is relatively flat and the infrastructure well developed, with several alternative routes available. On the last stretch of road however (Link 3), very slow speed, manoeuvres (the feasibility study reported the need for additional traction when transporting the heaviest pieces of equipment such as turbines and generators) and road blocking could occur. Although the impact on the community is reduced by the fact that the large majority of the traffic is from motorcycles which can easily overtake / avoid obstacles, appropriate mitigations should be put in place, such as adequate planning of vehicle, route and timing, as well as traffic management staff on duty during key equipment transport. Overall, impacts on traffic congestion are considered of adverse low significance without mitigation.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

235


It is considered that construction traffic flows will have an effect of moderate adverse significance without mitigation with respect to road safety as the proposed routing to the site does pass by residential receptors as well as a school where vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclist) are likely to be found. Significant traffic, in particular of HGVs, is relatively new in the area and, although it was reported during the initial site visit consultation that children are taught to be careful when crossing the road, extra care is required when crossing the villages.

The other type of impact is the effect on the infrastructure. Given the nature of the road from Talang Padang, heavy equipment could damage the road, especially in steep areas where additional traction equipment may be used. The impact can be of adverse moderate significance if unmitigated. Given that the government is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the roads, mitigation cannot be provided by PGE. Through CSR, PGE will consider the possibility of road improvements in the Project area which may deliver beneficial social impacts through the Project being realised.

In addition, PGE, to allow transport of such equipment, has/will undertake upgrade and widening work on the roads and bridges. PGE has also hard surfaced previous tracks to access Clusters B, G, E and F. Although this has potential negative impacts, this improves the area’s infrastructure and is perceived as a positive impact by the community. Long term impacts on infrastructure are therefore considered of beneficial low significance.

It is proposed that road capacity is assessed by the EPC contractor prior to large equipment being delivered to site as well as monitoring road conditions to ensure reinstatement of damage occurring as a result of construction works.

9.11.4.2 Operation

During the operational phase, there will be occasional traffic movement in connection with maintenance of the power plant however these are considered to be insignificant.

9.11.5 Mitigation

Key mitigation will be provided through the implementation of a traffic management plan (TMP) by the EPC Contractor that sets out timing of construction traffic activities, measures to notify local communities, speed restrictions, signalling and safety requirements.

In addition, PGE will provide road safety education sessions for children in all schools along the road to the Project sites from Karang Rejo village.


Impacts associated with construction traffic overall are expected to result in impacts of low adverse significance subject to implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above.

The overall impact of operational traffic generated by the Project and associated infrastructure is expected to be insignificant in terms of staff movements and maintenance activities required. Significance is therefore assessed as negligible.

The impacts of traffic movements associated with the decommissioning of the power plant are assumed to be no greater than those associated with construction. Similar mitigation measures will be put into place.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

236


Table 9.39 summarises the residual impacts associated with traffic.

Table 9.39: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Traffic



Traffic associated with steam field / power plant development

Increase in traffic resulting in delays on local traffic network

Adverse low Develop Traffic Management Plan (TMP)

Assessment of access road capacity and review of route selection

Adverse low


Increase risks associated with road safety

Adverse moderate

Development and implementation by EPC contractor of Traffic Management Plan (TMP)

Provision of educational sessions for children in all schools along the road to the Project sites from Karang Rejo village

Adverse low

Construction


Physical effects (wear and tear) of construction traffic (including abnormal loads) on local road infrastructure.

Adverse moderate

Traffic Management Plan

Re-instatement to original state as part of CSR

Beneficial low

Operation Traffic associated with staff movements and maintenance

None anticipated Negligible - Negligible


Cumulative impacts during construction with the development of PLN Units 1&2 are not anticipated to be significant due to the fact that key periods of construction (i.e. Units 1&2 and Units 3&4 respective power plant) do not coincide temporarily. Operational traffic volumes for both projects are minimal.

There are no transboundary issues.

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

237


9.12 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

9.12.1 Introduction

During the ESIA Inception phase, the need for a detailed archaeological and cultural heritage assessment was scoped out given the greenfield location of the Project. It was also determined that given the low risk of direct impacts and negligible risk of indirect impacts, the Project would not trigger World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.11 on Cultural Heritage. Notwithstanding, to support this conclusion, this section provides a qualitative assessment of potential impacts.


The assessment considers direct impacts in the footprint of the Project as well as indirect impacts on known local features in a radius extending to approximately 1km from the nearest Project site.

9.12.3 Methodology

As the majority of the development is on greenfield locations, the assessment consists mainly of a desktop review of known archaeological and cultural heritage features and a qualitative assessment of risks from the Project. No impacts are expected from the operation or decommissioning phases.


The main potential impacts on archaeological and cultural heritage features are generally as a result of direct impacts from site clearing and construction activities.

No sensitive features have been identified in the Project footprint through either site walkover or via the AMDALs. PGE carries out consultation on the Project and as part of the land acquisition process. Known features to the community would therefore be identified and the location of the clusters / power plant / access roads would therefore avoid them. To date, no archaeological or cultural heritage feature has been identified within the Project footprint area via the consultation activities undertaken to date. A sacred hill is located at least 100m from Project activities. PGE carries out consultation on the Project and as part of the land acquisition process. Known features would therefore be identified and location of the clusters/power plant/access roads would therefore avoid them. Should such case occur, a safety distance, for example 50m, should be respected (in particular for the roads) and the layout should ensure that access to such places is not severed.

A “mystical hill”, Bukit Duduk, which was identified during consultation in Gunung Tiga, where it is believed that a religious leader is buried. The existence and location of the site has been communicated to PGE and avoided by construction activities.

Sites of lesser significance have been identified as follows within the wider study area including mosques in each of the sub-district, which are not heritage buildings and whose cultural value is mostly limited to their function. None of the mosques are located in areas directly affected by the Project, the closest being over 300m from Cluster B. Indirect impacts have been addressed within the noise and air quality assessment sections.

The mosques are considered to be of low sensitivity as the buildings value lies with its function rather than the historical value. Provided safety distance is respected and that key staff such as truck drivers are aware of the location of any cultural / archaeological features, indirect impacts are expected to be of

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

238


negligible significance. Given the inclusion of mosque improvements in PGE’s community programme, the overall Project has the potential to have a beneficial low impact. Given the negligible significance of indirect impacts and low risk of direct impacts, it is not considered that the Project would trigger World Bank’s OP 4.11.


Mitigation measures to protect existing features include ongoing discussion with the community to identify any sensitive feature, provision / signalling of a safety zone around such features and communication of the above with the Project team. Proposed enhancements to mosques and other cultural features as part of the PGE CSR programme will increase benefits from the Project.

As unknown features / objects could be encountered during works, in particular earthworks, a chance finds procedure will be in place to stop works and will require investigation by an archaeologist in case of such findings. The chance find procedure is elaborated as part of the Project ESMP and follows the recommendations of the World Bank’s Physical Cultural Resources Policy Guidebook. In particular, the procedure includes: Definition of cultural resources / archaeological features; Ownership of the artefact; Recognition; Procedure upon discovery:

Conditions and requirements for work stoppage Fencing and protection of the find Internal reporting Expert analysis Instructions for moveable finds.

Following internal reporting, the first notification will be to the Preservation of Archaeological Heritage Office (Balai Pelestarian Peninggalan Purbakala) and Archaeology Office (Balai Arkeologi) at provincial level. These agencies fall under the Archaeology Research and Development Centre and Directorate of Archaeology, which are at national level.


With the mitigation and benefit enhancement measures identified, residual benefits are expected to be of negligible significance, as summarised in Table 9.40 below.

Table 9.40: Summary of Potential and Residual Impacts: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage




Mosques development / improvement works

Increased access to spiritual site benefits


Inclusion of mosque improvements within PGE’s CSR programme


Starting immediately continuing through all phases Construction Potential discovery of

archaeological sites Negligible Establish chance find

procedure Negligible

Operational Policy 4.11 is not triggered. Although several mosques and a site of spiritual significance have been identified in the study area, the sites have no archaeological importance. As only relatively minor sites of cultural value have been identified within the study area and as there is no Project activity in their vicinity which could directly or indirectly impact them, it is concluded that OP 4.11 is not triggered by the

265718/RGE/GEV/07/G 23 March 2011

239


project. A chance-find procedure will be put in place to ensure that any archaeological / cultural discovery during drilling or excavation would be appropriately reported to the relevant authorities and that actions would be taken to protect such find and allow archaeologists to carry out excavations if relevant.