PT TANJUNG ENIM LESTARI PULP AND PAPER (PT TEL)
SOUTH SUMATRA, INDONESIA

COMMENTS ON THE OFFICIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) DOCUMENTS, JUNE 1997


DOWN TO EARTH, DECEMBER 1998


Contents

Flaws in the Environmental Impact procedure
Flawed Technology
Flawed Pollution Controls
Waste Treatment and Disposal
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Community Impacts
Water Demands
Forest Impacts
Summary of Impacts recognised in the Report



Flaws in the Environmental Impact procedure

  1. This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) only applies to the PT TEL pulp plant. The authorities treat the PT MHP pulp plantation and the PT TEL factory as two separate entities, although the former was set up to supply the latter and both companies are subsidiaries of the Barito Pacific Group. It is not known if an EIA was ever performed for the feeder plantation.

  2. Under Indonesian law, an EIA report (dokumen ANDAL) and an Environmental Management Plan (Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan, RPL) must be submitted to an EIA Commission for approval prior to the development taking place for all schemes likely to have significant environmental impacts. PT TEL began evicting local residents from their land and plantations and clearing the site for the factory in 1995, long before the EIA hearing took place.

  3. This EIA was not independent. It was commissioned by the company and carried out by Indonesian consultants, many of whom worked for state universities. As state employees, consultants and Commission members were dependent on a government renowned for corruption and cronyism. The national environmental NGO WALHI was allowed to present its case to the EIA commission, but was not a full team member.

  4. The EIA commission can impose conditions on the company’s environmental Management Plan after reading the EIA report and hearing additional evidence. Some final conditions were issued several months after the June 1997 EIA hearing, but these have not been released to NGOs.

  5. According to Indonesian NGOs, this district was zoned for agriculture, not for industrial development. The EIA states that the Gunung Megang district lies within Development Zone II which is agricultural; whereas Rambang Dangku is in Development Zone V which includes the Pertamina oil storage facility at Prabumulih. The PT TEL site lies on the border of these two districts. It is possible that local planning procedures have been by-passed, under direction from central government.

  6. The EIA plays down the local community’s opposition to the pulp plant and plantation and their devastating effect on local farmers’ and rubber tappers’ livelihoods. No mention is made of the community’s many delegations and letters to the local and central government; accusations of corruption by the local government in compensation claims; or incidence of intimidation of landholders by the military and armed police.

  7. According to Indonesian regulations (PP51 1993-AMDAL), local communities have the right to contribute to an EIA. Their rights and responsibilities to environmental management and protection were strengthened by a new (1997) Environment Law. The Muara Enim community was not able to participate in the EIA for PT TEL due to the lack of transparency by the government and the company about the nature of the scheme and any impacts on local communities’ livelihoods and environment (other than the promise of possible employment).

  8. The June 1997 EIA considers the environmental and socio-economic impacts at the pre-construction, construction and operational stages for the PT TEL development. There are also (as separate volumes) a Management Plan, executive summary and supplementary documentation. The EIA is long, but highly repetitious and not very thorough. Some sections contradict others (e.g. on health risks and on water pollution) and information on emissions is missing in places. Many recommendations in the Management Plan for measures to counteract negative social and environmental impacts and enhance positive effects identified in the EIA are vague and inappropriate.

  9. The final recommendations section of the EIA is particularly weak, consisting of broad suggestions with no specific targets, time limits, monitoring schedules, controls or sanctions. These are also largely absent from the Management Plan. It is cause for serious concern that there are no procedures for feedback between monitoring, action or evaluation; no indication of measures to be taken by the company if targets are not met or if pollution levels exceed legal limits; and no emergency planning for serious environmental or social incidents.

  10. The EIA reveals threats to people’s health from air and water pollution, the surrounding environment and the local community’s livelihoods. The PT TEL development scored negative or neutral on almost all the environmental criteria used. Most of the socio-economic effects (except for health and potential social conflict) were considered potentially beneficial, but for newcomers to the area rather than the existing community. Despite this, the development is still going ahead.

  11. The source of much of the data on plant construction and management included in the EIA is listed as Sandwell Ltd, Vancouver (Canada) in the Bibliography. Sandwell recommended to the FAO in 1967 that countries including Indonesia should “clear-cut the jungle and plant tree species adapted to pulp requirements”. The same company were also consultants for the infamous Indorayon pulp plant in North Sumatra: the focus of land disputes; large-scale water and air pollution incidents; and social unrest.

Back to top



Flawed Technology

  1. The EIA describes the PT TEL plant as a ‘hardwood bleached kraft pulp’ factory. PT TEL still intends to use chlorine as a bleaching agent. The EIA states “that bleaching will use 50-100% chlorine dioxide in the first phase, although the plant will be able to produce ECF pulp if required”(pII.4). Diagrams of the plant’s operations show inputs for chlorine and chlorine dioxide.

  2. Environmentalists are primarily concerned about the release and bioaccumulation of highly toxic organochlorines, particularly dioxins, from paper pulp plants. These are associated with the use of free chlorine (and, to a lesser extent, chlorine dioxide) to bleach the pulp. Between 1994 and 1998, the Indonesian environment minister, Sarwono Kusumaatmadja, pressed new pulp developments to install so-called ‘elemental chlorine free’ (ECF) technology which uses chlorine dioxide.

  3. PT TEL claims that its plant will use the most advanced technology. ‘Totally effluent free’ production is not yet in operation even in ‘the North’. However, over 50 new plants in Europe and North America use ‘totally chlorine-free’ technology (TCF) (Source: Sonnenfeld, 1998). This employs only ozone, hydrogen peroxide or oxygen as bleaching agents. Apart from eliminating the risk of dioxin production, TCF technology has the advantage of allowing a closed cycle of operations so emissions of other pollutants are greatly reduced. In a new pulp plant it is no more expensive to install TCF technology than the more polluting ECF version.

Back to top



Flawed pollution controls

  1. Waste emissions before and after treatment are to be measured against Indonesian government standards, not those imposed in Scandinavia or North America which are generally higher.

  2. The EIA will not make it possible to prove any future impacts the pulp plant actually has, since it does not provide sufficient accurate base-line data. Of greatest concern is the lack of a detailed baseline study on community health, thus making it impossible to detect any effects of pollution on the local population. Furthermore, the EIA was not based on complete, recent data. The last study (February 1996) was incomplete: no figures for the acidity or oxygen levels of the water are presented although these are key indicators of environmental pollution. The most recent complete study was in November 1994 – over two years before the EIA report was presented.

  3. The EIA contains no information on soil types. This is a crucial omission since soils vary greatly in their ability to absorb and retain water and pollutants, hence the impact of effluents on the soil and groundwater cannot be estimated.

  4. The company acknowledges in the EIA that there is a serious health risk to the community from air and water pollution. Rather than improving waste treatment methods and pollution monitoring, PT TEL plans to establish a clinic once the plant is operational. According to the Management Plan, this is primarily intended for PT TEL workers and their families, but the surrounding community may also use it.

Back to top



Waste treatment and disposal

  1. The plant design has not made the most of opportunities to incorporate waste management processes which recycle or re-use effluent streams. Instead the plant relies largely on stacks equipped with scrubbers and end pipe treatment of sludge, finally disposing wastes into the atmosphere, landfill sites and the River Lematang.

  2. The maximum efficiency of the waste treatment plants is only 65-99%. So considerable amounts of pollutants will enter the environment given the massive throughput of the factory (production = 450,000 tonnes of pulp/year).

  3. The EIA states that emissions of air and water pollution will be within Indonesian legal limits. These are lower than those prevailing in most Northern nations and independent monitoring and regulatory procedures are very weak in Indonesia. Furthermore, the proposed emissions for some effluents are at, or close to, the maximum permitted levels. Pollution levels will be over Indonesian legal limits unless the plant’s waste treatment processes operate constantly at maximum efficiency.

  4. Some of the solid waste produced by the paper pulp process will be recycled within the plant. For example, waste wood, bark, undigested wood fibre and dried sludge from the waste water treatment unit will be used as fuel in the power boiler. Nevertheless, every day the power boiler and unit producing caustic soda plus other units will generate 50 tonnes of ash, grit and dregs which will be disposed in a landfill site.

  5. The landfill waste will be a sludge of organic and inorganic matter with relatively high concentrations of cadmium, chrome, copper, manganese, nickel and zinc – all of which are toxic above trace levels.

  6. Amounts of effluent entering the R. Lematang from pulp plant’s waste treatment unit are estimated by PT TEL at 70,000 m3/day (i.e. over 25 million m3/year). There will be large, open storage, settling and aeration tanks for liquid waste treatment. The area allocated to waste treatment is 225ha, most of which is for the waste lagoon. This is in addition to the landfill site mentioned above.

  7. The rainfall in this part of Indonesia is high (3,000mm per year) and there have been serious pollution incidents in other pulp plants and mining operations where waste lagoons have overflowed or collapsed due to sudden massive inflows.

  8. This area is low lying and prone to flooding in the wet season when the River Lematang overflows. In these conditions the liquid waste cannot be discharged into the river and waste lagoons on site may even be flooded. (Traditional houses are built on piles which raise the floor two metres above ground level.)

  9. The EIA contradicts itself over the risk of ground water contamination from the landfill site. Without stating distances from settlements or water courses, the report blandly states “the possibility of seepage is not very great and anyhow the ground water around the landfill site is not used” (pV.28). Elsewhere it comments that the landfill site is far from habitation so there is little risk of pollution of villagers’ wells (pIV.14). This overlooks the low-lying, swampy nature of the area and the corrosive nature of the sludge. If any material from the landfill site seeped into the surrounding soil it could contaminate all local water supplies since the water table is generally high and ground water drains into the R. Lematang and its tributaries. These dangers are only acknowledged later in the report (pV.46)

Back to top



Air pollution

  1. The air quality in this part of South Sumatra is generally good at present. Recorded levels of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and nitrogen oxides were well below 1.0 microgrammes per cubic metre of air (1m/m3), even though the 1994 data was collected only two weeks after forest fires had smothered the area in thick smoke.

  2. Waste gases will be discharged into the air through 50-100m chimneys from the lime kiln and recovery and power boilers. Although these are fitted with electrostatic precipitators to reduce particulate pollution, considerable amounts of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide will be produced by PT TEL. At best the waste gas treatment efficiency is only 65-99%. The EIA states that that 15kg of sulphur compounds will be released for every tonne of throughput (pII.26). Presuming this refers to tonnes of pulp produced, this is equivalent to 6,750 tonnes of sulphur for an annual production of 450,000 tonnes of pulp. In other words, over 18 tonnes of sulphurous gases released daily into the atmosphere. Similar calculations show an expected annual output of over 3,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxides which are harmful to human health in concentrations above 1ppm (1.8mg/m3).

  3. These emissions are close to or exceed the legal limits, even with pollution control measures operating optimally. The most serious air pollution problems are expected to be within 3 km of the plant due to emissions of NOx and sulphurous gases. This area includes about six villages, each with 2-3,000 inhabitants. Much depends on the weather, but the health, homes and crops of people living as far as 10km from the PT TEL factory could be severely affected by acid rain and noxious gases (see pollution distribution maps in the EIA). It is odd that the EIA (p V.34) states that no hydrogen sulphide will be detectable under normal conditions. This gas, which smells of rotten eggs and is dangerous to human health, is detectable at concentrations of only 5m/m3. Emissions from the plant will be 2,000 fold above this (10 mg/m3). People in the villages nearest to the plant will probably be living with this stench for months at a time.

  4. Environmental groups – especially those in ‘the North’ – pay much attention to the risks from dioxins associated with industries which use chlorine compounds (see above). In areas affected by Indonesia’s paper pulp plants other aspects of air pollution deserve more immediate attention – such as dust and sulphur emissions. Respiratory problems are already more common in this area than some others. Air pollution from the similar Indorayon pulp plant in North Sumatra has been a serious problem over the past decade.

Back to top



Water pollution

  1. The water quality of the River Lematang is good at present, although the river is usually muddy in the rainy season. Both the 1994 and 1996 data sets were collected in the rainy season (October-April) so there is no baseline data about the state of the river in the dry season before the pulp mill operations began. The 1996 water quality data may have been influenced by land clearance on the PT TEL site. The use of heavy equipment to clear vegetation and level the ground affected local drainage patterns and increased soil erosion.

  2. The EIA states that the PT TEL plant will have a potentially serious negative effect on the quality of water in the R. Lematang, especially in the dry season and if the waste treatment plant is not operating at maximum efficiency. Although the EIA considers that the waste treatment system will normally prevent serious water pollution problems, it predicts a general decline in aquatic plants and animals and in species which feed on them.

  3. The 70,000 m3 of effluent which will be discharged daily into the River Lematang will contain substantial amounts of suspended solids and chemicals including chloroform, phenols, sulphides and organo-chlorides (TSS = 64mg/l; AOX = 19.4mg/l). This waste contains 5.5 tonnes of solids, amounting to 2,000 tonnes per year. It will make the river water more turbid and reduce the amount of oxygen for aquatic life (BOD = 34 mg/l ; COD = 350mg/l). Some of the waste will eventually decompose; the rest will remain dissolved or sink to form a sediment.

  4. The tens of thousands of people living downstream of PT TEL’s waste outlet are at risk from water pollution since they use the river water for drinking, cooking, washing, transport, fishing and agriculture. The study shows that 90% of the local population use the river as their source of drinking water during the dry season as the wells run dry. Even in the wet season, 60% of the community depends on the river for drinking water. It also provides a livelihood for hundreds of fisher families. Its only comments are that the ‘negative perceptions’ of villagers living near the intake and outlet pipes for the plant could be a problem.

  5. The EIA shows that huge variations in the levels of acidity of PT TEL’s waste water will be tolerated. The ‘acceptable’ range of pH 6-9 is a thousand fold difference. This is of concern since even slight changes in the pH levels of river water can be very damaging to aquatic insect larvae and hence affect fish populations.

  6. The ‘permitted’ temperature change of 2 degrees Celsius caused by the waste waster may also contribute to deoxygenation of the river and fish kills. As Indonesia lies on the Equator, the air temperature only varies a few degrees between day and night and between seasons; water temperatures are generally very stable.

  7. The PT TEL plant could be a significant source of highly toxic, persistent organo-chlorines, including dioxins and furans. These chemicals are not present in the R. Lematang now. Widely differing figures for the outputs of organo-chlorines are presented at various points in the EIA report: from 19.4mg/l (pII.27) to 0.08 m/l (pV43). The EIA states that the amounts released will be within Indonesian legal limits (except if the waste treatment unit does not operate at 100% efficiency), but elsewhere outlines the potential damage to fish populations (pV.48) and human health (pV.60).

  8. There is no mention of whether or how the chloroform, phenolics and sulphur compounds mentioned as effluent components are to be treated or what concentrations are expected (EIA II.28). These substances make the water taste bad if present at concentrations of only microgrammes per litre and phenols and their derivatives are dangerous to human health.

  9. The EIA and the Management Plan do not refer to any academic studies of the impacts of pulp industry effluents on fresh-water systems. There have been serious water pollution incidents at other paper pulp plants in Indonesia e.g. Indah Kiat, Indorayon and Riau Andalan plants.

  10. When the EIA report was presented, the company assured the Commission that pollution from the plant would be minimal due to the waste treatment unit. However PT TEL could not explain why, in that case, its water intake would be still be upstream of the waste outlet pipe for the site.

Back to top



Community impacts

  1. The introduction to the EIA report clearly shows that the purpose of this and other paper pulp plants is to increase Indonesia’s export revenues, rather than to benefit the local community.

  2. The EIA lists land use change as one of the most important impacts of the PT TEL development (see introduction), but makes little reference to the substantial numbers of local people who will be affected by the PT TEL development. It does not even include population figures for the six villages closest to the site location: Banuayu, Muara Niru, Gerinam, Tebat Agung, Kasih Dewa and Dalam. The EIA acknowledges that 900 families (4,500 people) from these villages will lose some or all of their rubber plantations. However, it does not address the issue that thirty villages with a total population around 45,000 lie alongside the river downstream of the waste outlet.

  3. Almost all the land taken for the PT TEL site was rubber plantations bought or inherited by local people. It was not ‘state land’ or communally held customary land as is common in the area. The landowners had official letters signed by the village head as proof of ownership. The EIA contains no details on patterns of land ownership.

  4. The local people live by farming, rubber tapping, fishing and trading. The EIA presents no data on occupations or incomes in the local community comparable with the pages of environmental data. The one brief mention of incomes from rubber tapping shows that people were making Rp40,000-80,000 per week. This is lower than the farmers’ own estimates but, even so, represents a reasonable income given that the daily minimum wage for factory workers at that time was around Rp3,000.

  5. Once their farmland and rubber plantations have been taken for the PT TEL site (and if fishing is affected by water pollution and water deficits), they have no other source of income. The only suggestions in the Management Plan to prevent these people from becoming destitute - that they are involved in managing the site’s buffer zone and encouraged to sell agricultural produce in the PT TEL complex - are inappropriate and inadequate. Indeed, the buffer zone was created by displacing local farmers.

  6. Although at least 450 families will lose all their plantations and another 450 will have less land, EIA does not include this as a negative impact of PT TEL. This makes a nonsense of company and government reassurances that the paper pulp will bring prosperity to the area.

  7. An attitude survey carried out for the EIA showed that two-thirds of the villagers nearest the development thought the PT TEL development would bring little or no benefits to their household or community. The main opportunities were seen in terms of increased employment potential, but these expectations are unlikely to be realised..

  8. The pulp plant will need a workforce of 730 people once it is operational and 1,929 during the construction phase. PT TEL says it will give priority to ‘suitable local employees’, but the locals do not have the educational background and skills required at the pulp mill and are unlikely to benefit directly from PT TEL’s long-term employment prospects. All the project management for the construction phase are foreigners (33). Workers from other areas will also be brought in for construction work. Once the construction phase is finished, unskilled labourers will be competing with the local community for jobs.

  9. The EIA promotes the development paradigm which dominated during Suharto’s ‘New Order’. The introduction of urbanised industrial society into rural communities considered to have a positive, modernising influence (see pV.53), even when this entails the destruction of existing, sustainable livelihoods and their replacement by a service economy (including prostitution) – as has occurred in the vicinity of PT TEL.

  10. The EIA and Management Plan state that a ‘town site’ covering 125 ha is to be constructed with its own power plant, electricity and water supply, schools, places of worship and sports facilities. The environmental and social impacts of this new settlement which will contain around 300 housing units are not discussed. Domestic rubbish will be dumped near the landfill site for the factory’s solid waste until the local council removes it. There is no mention of any sewage treatment plant. Piped water for the townsite and factory will be drawn from the R. Lematang and treated at two villages outside the PT TEL site.

  11. The plant requires the construction of 7km of surfaced road and 5km of railway to supply raw materials and transport the product. The EIA briefly mentions an access road from the plantation to the plant (some 20-30km) plus a flyover to cross the main road and railway (pV.31). These will create more noise and dust for local inhabitants, during the construction phase and once the plant is operational. The plant will operate 24 hours a day, with 25 trucks per hour delivering logs.

  12. The Management Plan only refers to the problems of land-use change from the company’s perspective: compensation disputes and local landowners who refuse to give up their property. It does however, acknowledge that the process of land procurement has led to conflicts and antagonism towards the company and local government.

  13. Most of the measures for dealing with social problems are ‘discussion and direction’. The company makes it clear that it is relying on the authorities to settle any disputes. There appear to be no other mechanisms to deal seriously with complaints from the community. The prospects of justice for the community are slim. Even in the post-Suharto era, Indonesian land law allows the state to control land ‘in the national interest’ and the military play a prominent role in all aspects of everyday life.

Back to top



Water demands

  1. The amount of water in the River Lematang varies considerably. Flow rates and water levels show marked seasonal variation. In the dry season the river may only be 1 metre deep, but in rainy season it may reach 10 metres or more.

  2. The PT TEL plant, like most paper pulp plants, has a substantial water demand. The plant will take in 86,850m3/day from the River Lematang, but only return 70,130m3/day. The rest will be lost to the atmosphere as steam or contained in sludge to be dumped. The total demand from the plant and town site is estimated at 1m3/s.

  3. The EIA states that water consumption by the factory and ‘town site’ will reduce the quantity and quality of water available to villages like Banuayu and Muara Niru (pop. 3,000 each). The water deficit should only be noticeable in the dry season (6% flow reduction), but will be more serious in drought years when the river almost runs dry. It will also compound the effects of water pollution. These communities rely on river water for all their domestic needs, including washing and toilets.

  4. The Management Plan states that only these two villages will be provided with clean water. Whether this will be free and supply sufficient quantities to meet all domestic needs is not mentioned.

  5. The EIA’s prediction that dumping 70,000 m3 of waste into the river daily will not affect flow rates is optimistic. The effluent will add 5.5 tonnes of insoluble solids daily, much of which will sink to the riverbed. Some scouring will occur, especially in the wet season, but the long-term effects of adding 2,000 tonnes of sediment annually to the river should not be ignored.

Back to top



Forest impacts

  1. The EIA and Management Plan do not refer to the impact of the PT TEL development on local forests. The EIA describes PT TEL as a US$1 billion operation to produce ‘hardwood bleached kraft pulp’. The site covers 1,250ha, only 110 ha of which is for the factory building. Some 500ha are intended to be a buffer zone. This land is a mixture of small-scale rubber plantations, productive fields, secondary forest and scrubland.

  2. The feeder plantations for PT TEL are controlled by PT Musi Hutan Persada (MHP), another Barito Pacific subsidiary. The total concession for this ‘industrial tree plantation’ (HTI) covers 300,000 ha in several locations at Benakat and Subanjeriji, 20-30 km from the pulp plant site. Between 1991 and 1997, 155,000 hectares had been planted – mainly with Acacia mangium. Some mature rainforest was destroyed to establish these plantations. PT MHP illegally cleared 1,000 ha of the Benakat community forest. The remaining 2,000ha was only saved after protests from the community and NGOs to the authorities.

  3. Although the EIA states that the PT TEL plant will use plantation timber as feedstock, this pulp factory will still rely on natural forests for some of its raw materials. Initial levels of pulp production at the PT TEL plant (450,000 tonnes per year) require nearly 2 million m3 of wood per year: 4.3m3 of timber for every tonne of pulp produced. The EIA estimates plantation production at 180m3/ha, so each year 10,750ha of plantation will have to be cleared to feed the pulp mill. On this basis, only 96,750ha of plantation could supply the plant on a continuous 9 year cycle (8 years growth + 1 year replanting).

  4. However, until the plantations are sufficiently mature, PT MHP will have to rely on timber felled from natural forests. Also, pulp production is intended to increase to 1 million tonnes early in the next decade. Furthermore, disease, drought and forest fires can seriously affect plantation productivity, raising questions about company assurances that plantations can meet all the pulp plant’s timber demands.

  5. Pulp plantations differ from natural forests in many ways. As they contain a very limited number of species, they are susceptible to disease. Plantation owners commonly burn land to clear it after removing any valuable timber. This contributes to forest fires and the annual smoke ‘haze’ which affect Sumatra before the rainy season. The forest fires were bad in 1991 and 1994 when visibility was only 5 metres because of the smoke.

  6. Indonesia’s worst forest fires for decades occurred in late 1997. The Minister of Forestry issued a list of 176 logging, plantation and transmigration sites implicated in starting fires according to satellite data. One of these was PT Musi Hutan Persada, the feeder plantation for the PT TEL development. The company was found guilty of illegally burning to clear land by a provincial court in a case brought against several companies by local NGOs in 1998.

  7. The construction of the PT TEL pulp factory will cause the loss of an additional 725 hectares of natural and semi-natural habitat. The EIA acknowledges that this will result in losses of biodiversity and the amount of wildlife. The presence of the factory, town site and increased road and rail traffic will cause further disturbance. Birds and mammals are expected to move to other areas. However, the expansion of palm oil plantations, settlements and industrial developments like PT TEL are making high quality lowland riparian habitats increasingly scarce. This is expected to increase pressure on the following protected species: jungle fowl (Gallus gallus); kingfisher (Halcyon smyrensis); sunbird (Nectarinia calcosetha); fantail (Rhipidura albicolis); mousedeer (Tragulus javanicus); marbled cat (Felis marmorata); muntjak deer (Muntiacus muntjak); and sunbear (Helarctos malayanus) .

  8. The ‘green belt’ which the company promotes as contribution to conservation and a haven for wildlife is not bare land, but secondary forest interspersed with rubber plantations and fruit trees. Local landowners and villagers are being displaced to create it.



Back to top



SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS RECOGNISED IN THE OFFICIAL EIA AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

(Taken from EIA Report II.4 onwards and Management Plan summary II.25 onward)

NOTE
The EIA Report and Management plan consider the impact of the pulp plant in 3 stages: pre-construction, construction and operational. Each category is further divided into effects on the factory site and on the surrounding area. After listing the possible impacts in each category, the EIA then evaluates each impact as positive or negative qualified by the descriptor ‘not important’, ‘fairly important’ or ‘important’
(shown in bold/brackets e.g. –ve NOT imp).


Pre-construction ( planned July 94 – July 96)

Construction phase (planned Oct 96 – Feb 98)

NOTES:
1. Blockage of natural drainage by earthmoving during site clearance resulted in the flooding of local rubber plantations, loss of income and damage to homes in late 1997.
2. The EIA predictions of social conflict over employment were realised in 1998.


Operational phase (planned Jan/Feb 2000)

NOTES
1. Conflicting figures for amounts of sedimentation are presented in the EIA. On pII.27 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) output is estimated at 5.5 tonnes/day or 64mg/l. On pV.27, TSS levels in the river are only expected to rise from 43.7-173 mg/ml to 44.1 – 175.4 mg/ml.
2. Despite acknowledging the serious negative impact which the pulp plant could have on the aquatic life of the R. Lematang, the Management Plan simply states that “if the quality control measures outlined are fully and are functioning properly implemented, the aquatic fauna will be alright.” There are no procedures for routine monitoring or emergencies.
3. The EIA and Management Plan contain estimates of the physical, chemical and biological parameters of the liquid waste (BOD, COD, temperature and pH) plus gaseous emissions (dust/TSP,TRS/H2S, NO2, SO2) which it claims will be within Indonesian permitted levels (see also EIA pII.24, II.26, II.27;V.24).
4. The names of the gases hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide are mixed up on ppV.57-59 and the diagram showing the maximum concentrations of sulphur dioxide at varying distance from the PT TEL plant has not units (presumed to be m/m3).
5. Different, much lower legally permitted Indonesian limits for hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide are cited in the Management Plan (pIII.17).


Off-site impacts during construction and operations (to be tackled with local government)



LC Down to Earth, UK, December 1998.
Contact dtecampaign@gn.apc.org for more information. (All original documents in Bahasa Indonesia only)


   Back to Campaigns    DTE Homepage    Newsletter    Links