Post on 22-Mar-2020
transcript
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 1 of 27
WET SEASON FIELD REPORT
ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND HEALTH
IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESHIA)
OF
BANNER ENERGY 300MW COMBINED CYCLE
POWER PLANT AND LPG STORAGE DEPOT
AT IKOT ABASI
BY
SEFAL ENGINEERING & ENERGY SERVICES
LIMITED
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 2 of 27
OCTOBER, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 General 4
1.2 Objectives of the Study 4
2.0 METHODOLOGY 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Climate/Meteorology 5
2.3 Topography 6
2.4 Air Quality/Noise 6
2.5 Surface Water 6
2.6 Hydrobiology 7
2.6.1 Phytoplankton 8
2.6.2 Zooplankton 9
2.6.3 Benthos 9
2.7 Fisheries 9
2.8 Sediment 10
2.9 Soil Studies 11
2.10 Vegetation/Wildlife 11
2.10.1 Vegetation Description 12
2.10.2 Floristic composition 12
2.10.3 Structure 12
2.10.4 Life form 12
2.11 Wild life 15
2.12 Socio-economic Assessment 16
2.13 Health characteristics 21
2.14 Quality control/Assurance 21
2.15 Field Observations 22
2.15.1 Viability of Banner Energy Power Plant Project 22
3.0 HSE 23
4.0 Conclusion 24
Appendix 25
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 3 of 27
STUDY TEAM
SEFAL PROJECT TEAM
S/N NAME DESIGNATION
1. Engr. Segun Faleke Managing Consultant
2. Engr. P. S. Okonkwo Overall Project Management
3. Mr. Igbo Kingsley Water Physicochemistry/Team Leader
4. Dr. Victor Ebong Socio-Economics/Health
5. Mr. Ogunbiyi Esan Air Quality/Noise & Meteorology
6. Dr. Edache B. Ochekwu Vegetation/Wild life studies
7. Mr. Richard Stanislaus Soil studies
8. Mr. Kingdom Owupele Hydrobiology
9. Surv Bimbo Oyediran Geomatics
10. Mr. Ezeobi Chidiebere Air Quality
Banner Energy Representative
11.
Federal Ministry of Environment
Representative
12. Mr. B.A. Odunlami Regulator
Akwa Ibom State Ministry of
Environment Representative
13. Engr. Enobong Imose Regulator
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 4 of 27
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The prevailing erratic and inadequate power supply prompted Nigerian Federal Government to
embark on power reform by enacting the National Electric Power policy and the Electric Power
Sector Reform Act of 2005 (EPSRA) in order to tackle Nigeria’s epileptic power supply. Nigeria’s
per capita electricity consumption is currently amongst the lowest in the world with peak generation
supplied by Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) of about 4,000MW in December, 2011.
This reform program by the Federal Government opened up the power sector for all serious private
investors’ participation.
Banner Energy Limited, one of the biggest indigenous industry players in the power sector in Nigeria,
has concluded arrangements to promote the development of a 300MW combined cycle power plant to
be injected into the National grid. The project will be achieved through Public Private Partnership
(PPP). The proposed power plant project will be located at Ikpetim community in Ikot-Abasi Local
Government Area of Akwa Ibom state.
Banner Energy Limited, on behalf of the Technical partners and financiers intends to carry out
Environmental Social & Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA) study of the proposed project. Banner
Energy Limited contracted SEFAL Engineering & Energy Services Limited for the ESHIA study.
The first (Wet) season field data gathering for the Environmental Social & Health Impact Assessment
(ESHIA) of the proposed project was carried out on the 22nd
– 24th October, 2015. The sampling
covered environmental components such as soil, sediment, air quality, noise, vegetation/wildlife,
surface-water, ground water, socio-economics and health studies.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The fieldwork is aimed at gathering baseline data which will be used:
to determine the baseline ecological conditions of the study areas;
to determine the environmental sensitivities prevalent in the area;
to identify, evaluate, and predict the impact of the project on the ecological,
socio-economic and cultural settings with adequate interfacing and project
interaction;
to identify health hazards that may result from the different phases of the project
and evaluate local population exposure to these hazards.
to develop control strategies with a view to mitigating and ameliorating
significant impacts that the projects would have on the totality of measurable
environmental characteristics;
to develop a cost effective Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the
impacts identified.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 5 of 27
Plate 1: Surveyor taking coordinates
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
The methodologies adopted for the sampling of various environmental components during the
field exercise were in line with the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) guidelines and
standards as stated in Part VIII - D (2) of the Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the
Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN 2002) and FEPA sectoral guideline for EIA in
Nigeria.
The detailed methodologies for data acquisition for each environmental component are
discussed in sections below:
2.2 Climate/Meteorology
Meteorological information namely wind speed, wind direction, humidity and temperature
were acquired during the fieldwork from eight locations within the study area and two (2)
control stations. The measurements of the various meteorological parameters were carried out
using Extech Instrument 45160 weather monitor.
2.3 Topography
The topography represents the features of the study area such as the position of rivers, valleys
and roads as well as the general landscape. The location maps were studied by team members
to ensure the accurate identification of sampling stations across the study area based on co-
ordinates provided.
The study area was traversed using a vehicle/foot on land and a boat in the creek. The
distribution and pattern of the physical features defining the terrain in the project area was
used as common approach to landscape description and assessment. Physiographic or land
system approach was used to identify the units forming the terrain.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 6 of 27
2.4 Air Quality/Noise
Air quality measurements were taken using highly sensitive digital gas monitor – Industrial
scientific Ibrid MX6 multigas meters. Total of eight air quality stations and two (2) controls
were established in the field. Noise measurements were also taken at the same stations. The
results are shown in the Appendix 2.
Table 1: List of Field Measurement Equipment.
Equipment Parameters measured
Water In-situ
OAKTON TDS5 Acorn series Temperature, TDS
Hanna Combo Meter PH, Electrical conductivity
YSI 550A meter Dissolved oxygen, salinity
Hanna Turbidimeter Turbidity
PRESTO-TEK meter PH, TDS
Air Quality/Noise/Meteorology
Industrial scientific Ibrid MX6 Multigas SO2, NO2, NO, CO, CO2, H2S
Industrial scientific Ibrid MX6 Multigas NH3, CH4, VOC
Extech Instrument 407730 Noise
Extech Instrument 45160 Ambient temperature, Relative
humidity, pressure, wind speed
Met one instrument Aerosol mass monitor Suspended particulate matter
2.5 Surface Water
Surface water sampling was carried out at eight (8) stations and two control stations along the
river. Ground water samples were collected for characterization from three ground water
sources (two from Ikpetim community and one from Uta Ewa community). Water samples
were collected separately for Physico-chemistry, Microbiology, Total Hydrocarbon (THC),
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Heavy Metals analysis.
In-situ measurements were also carried-out for fast-changing parameters including
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, conductivity, turbidity and Total Dissolved
Solid.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 7 of 27
Plate 2: Insitu measurement
Water samples for heavy metals and total hydrocarbons were fixed with 2mls of 5M HNO3
(Nitric acid) and H2SO4 (Sulphuric acid) respectively. Samples for microbiology, BOD, THC,
heavy metals and Physico-chemistry were transported to Anal Concept Limited (SEFAL
reference laboratory) in ice-packed coolers.
Plate 3: Well at Ikpetim community
2.6 Hydro biology
Hydrobiology sample stations were predetermined using an existing map of the study area
however, actual sampling considered accessibility and the hydrodynamics of the
creeks/streams and river sampled. A total of thirty samples from ten sampling stations were
collected, including control stations. Sample types collected included phytoplankton,
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 8 of 27
zooplankton and benthos. The surface water sampled stations and their coordinates recorded
with a hand-held GPS are given in Table 2.
Plate 4: Zooplankton sampling
TABLE 2: COORDINATES FOR SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT
STATIONS EASTING NORTHING
SW/SED 1 007 32 477 04 32 414
SW/SED 2 007 32 190 04 32 624
SW/SED 3 007 31 960 04 32 789
SW/SED 4 007 31 783 04 33 152
SW/SED 5 007 32 396 04 33 700
SW/SED 6 007 32 462 04 33 806
SW/SED 7 007 32 322 04 33 605
SW/SED 8 007 32 114 04 33 415
SW/SED Co 1 007 32 959 04 32 684
SW/SED Co 2 007 32 676 04 34 117
Table 3: Summary of Biophysical samples collected for Wet season
Environmental Media Number of stations
Air Quality/Noise 10 stations
Surface water/Sediment 10 stations
Soil/Vegetation 10 stations
Ground water 3
2.6.1 Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton samples were collected using the direct method with a 1 litre open mouth
plastic container and fixed appropriately using 5% formaldehyde-water mixture from all the
surface water stations.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 9 of 27
2.6.2 Zooplankton
Samples of zooplankton were collected by sieving 50 litres of water through 45um plankton
net and the filtrate poured into a plastic container and fixed immediately with a 5%
formaldehyde-water mixture. Zooplankton samples were collected from the same stations as
the surface water.
Plate 5: ESHIA team in the field for data gathering
2.6.3 Benthos
Benthos samples were collected with an Eckman grab, sieved through a 0.5mm mesh size net and the
debris emptied into a plastic container. The samples were immediately preserved with 5%
formaldehyde-water mixture.
2.7 Fisheries
The fishes examined during the study were mainly from the Imo River around the study area. Fishing
activities are carried out in the river and the associated tributaries and were generally done from dug-
out canoes.
The type of fishing gears used depends on where the fishing is to be carried out, the season and the
type or size of fish to be caught. The commonly used fishing gears were cast net, long lines, fish traps,
gill nets, cast nets, fishing stakes, fences and fish baskets. Eleven (11) fish species were identified
during the study. In terms of species richness, the families Cichlidae were dominant (Plate 6).
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 10 of 27
Plate 6: Species (Tilapia) of fish caught in the project area
Plate 7: Fishermen at Uta-Ewa
2.8 Sediment
Sediment samples were collected from same stations where surface water samples were
collected.
Bottom sediments were sampled using the Eckman Grab (0.0225 m2). These samples were
obtained from bank-root biotype and from the bottom sediments. The content of the grab was
emptied into a bucket and sub-sampled for physico-chemical and hydrocarbon analyses.
The samples will be analyzed for the relevant parameters as stated in the scope of work.
Samples for macrobenthic fauna, were sieved through a 0.5mm mesh and transferred into
500ml wide-mouth plastic containers. Benthic organisms were preserved in 500ml plastic
containers using 40ml of 10% formalin. The organisms will be identified and enumerated in
the laboratory using identification tools and keys.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 11 of 27
2.9 Soil Studies
The soil of the proposed study area was sampled along transects marked out in alternating
pattern within the proposed project location.
A hand-held Dutch type Soil Auger was used to collect representative soil sample.
Plate 8: Soil Sample Collection
Soil samples were collected from ten (10) sampling stations within the study area. At each
sampling station, composite soil samples were collected bulked and thoroughly mixed for
homogenization in a plastic bag. Soil samples for physical and nutrient elements analysis
were sub sampled into polyethylene bags that had been appropriately labeled with an indelible
in on masking tape to indicate sample location and soil depth level, time and date of
collection. Soil samples for microbial characteristics were sub sampled into sterilized bottles,
while samples for hydrocarbon contents were collected into aluminium foils, wrapped up and
labeled appropriately.
Depths of soil sampling at every station along each transect were 0 - 15cm (surface soil level)
and 15 - 30cm (subsurface soil level) - the depths at which most chemical and nutrient
elements are most readily available for plants absorption. A total of ten sampling stations
were established and sampled. In all, twenty soil samples (top soil, and sub soil) were
collected. Physical attributes of the sampled soils such as colour and structure were noted
using the Munsell Soil Colour Chart with reference to the combination in the Munsell system
of time, values and hue and documented in the field note book. Each of the sampling station
was geo-referenced (Table 4).
2.10 Vegetation/Wildlife
Sampling points were predetermined with the aid of a Gamine handheld global positioning system
(GPS) to establish representative co-ordinates for random sampling of the prospect area along 100m
perpendicular transects. Eight transects were determined in the study area. The vegetation
physiognomy and structural stratification were assessed visually at each sampling location.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 12 of 27
TABLE 4: COORDINATES FOR SOIL/VEGETATION SAMPLING LOCATIONS
STATIONS NORTHING EASTING
SS/VEG 1 04 33 178 007 32 599
SS/VEG 2 04 33 122 007 32 527
SS/VEG 3 04 33 200 007 32 547
SS/VEG 4 04 33 264 007 32 541
SS/VEG 5 04 33 299 007 32 525
SS/VEG 6 04 33 180 007 32 482
SS/VEG 7 04 33 255 007 32 506
SS/VEG 8 04 33 254 007 32 449
SS/VEG Co 1 04 33 354 007 32 526
SS/VEG Co 2 04 33 073 007 32 614
2.10.1 VEGETATION DESCRIPTION, STRUCTURE AND FLORISTIC COMPOSITION
Vegetation type is that of perturbed tropical rainforest (undergoing secondary regrowth) and a
mangrove swamp forest. The plant life is chiefly dominated by Elias guineensis and mangrove palms.
Grasses, ferns, legumes and shrubs also occur in relative abundance.
2.10.2 FLORISTIC COMPOSITION
The plants species investigated include: Manihot species, Eliaseguineensis, Digitariahorizontalis,
Mimosa pudica, Shranka species, Discorea species, Gnetumafricanum,Urenalobata Linn,Aspilia
africana (Pers.) C.D. Adams., Ipomoea involucrata P. Beauv. Icana sp., Ageratum conyzoides Linn.
Eleusine indica Gaertn,,Mangifera indica, Musa paradisiaca L,Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M. King
and Robinson,, Tithoinia diversifolia, Centrosema pubescens, Vernonia cinerea (Linn.) Less. Cnestis
ferruginea DC. Sidaacuta Linnetc.
2.10.3 STRUCTURE
This is a clear luxuriant vegetation profile within the rainforest and mangrove swamp zone. The
profile shows the structure of the forest to consist of two canopies basically. Tall trees (15m to 20m in
height) with crown (7m to 12m wide) characterize the first canopy layer.
The second canopy layer was characterized by species standing 3m to 10m high. Canopy to canopy
contact was obvious within the layer that light penetration to the floor was reduced greatly. Shrubs,
sedges and grasses dominate this layer. The diameter of the breast height (DBH) is between 20cm and
50cm for the first layer and this decreases down the canopy.
2.10.4 LIFE FORM
From the Raunkaerian life Form description, phanerophytes constitute the dominant life form about
70% were represented by woody trees. Chamaephytes were represented by herbaceous species, shrubs
and grasses constituted about 25% while epiphytic ferns were about 5%.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 13 of 27
Plate 9: Showing Elias guineensis (covered with epiphytic ferns), shrubs and grasses.
Plate 10:Distinct canopy formation found in 70% of all transect.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 14 of 27
Plate11; Chromoleanaodorata, dominant species of the euphorbaece family found in the study area
Plate 12:Manihot species, a plant of economic importance found in Ikpetim community.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 15 of 27
2.11 Wildlife Studies
Wildlife refers to all forms of non-domesticated animal species including vertebrate, invertebrate and
even fungi. They can be found in all ecosystems.
2.11.1 METHODOLOGY
Wild life assessment was by direct sighting and through structured interviews with the community guides
from the area. Animal activities indicated by their droppings, burrows and spur marks around sampling
points were taken for indirect evidence of their presence as well as listening for characteristic sounds/calls
of wildlife. The conservation status of the fauna was crosschecked with the IUCN standards and listings.
Additionally, desk review was carried out to synthesize documented information on characteristic wildlife
of the study area. The fauna in the site have largely been hunted, displaced and persecuted by human
activities that most are near extinct or very rare where still extant.
Plate 13: Crab found in the mangrove swamp of the study area.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 16 of 27
Plate 14: Ant pictured within the study area
2.11.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The proposed power plant project location falls within the tropical rainforest and mangrove swamp
forest ecological zone. The study area has been disturbed for farming, hunting and the water body
provides sea food for the inhabitants. Though, some surrounding vegetation maintains a natural
vegetation and the plants in the habitat are free from necrosis, chlorosis and are not stunted. Big
animals are gone into the densely populated vegetation were trees are much. However, monkeys were
occasionally sighted in the course of the field study. The biodiversity of the study area has not been
badly damaged.
2.12 Socio-economic Assessment
Socioeconomic study was carried out as part of environmental impact assessment study of the
proposed construction of LPG storage terminal and a-300MW Combined Cycle Power Plant (an
Independent Power Plant Project) by BANNER ENERGY to be located at Ikpetim Community in
Ikpa Ibekwe Clan in Ikot Abasi Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State. This study is aimed at
generating information that will be utilized in developing the EIA document for the proposed project.
The data collected included the population size and profile of the area, economic fortunes, lifestyle
and values of the people as well as infrastructural facilities in the project area.
2.12.1: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The socio economic status was assessed to determine the baseline conditions of the communities in
the project area.
Study Design and Strategy.
The study was designed to obtain relevant primary and secondary socio-economic data. The study
strategy adopted in doing this comprised:
Conducting literature searches and reviews.
Designing and pretesting a household questionnaire for use in the study.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 17 of 27
Determining the target population and sample size for administering the household
questionnaire.
Conducting field visits to the study area.
Conducting Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with stakeholders and In-depth Interviews
(IDIs) with key informants in the project area.
Collating and analyzing the data obtained from all the sources.
Preparing a detailed report on the study.
Questionnaire Design
Such data was obtained with structured questionnaires, focus group discussions/ interviews and direct
observation in such areas as:
Acquisition and evaluation of socio-cultural and political settings – Settlement pattern and housing
structures, population and population distribution, land tenure system, political structures and
institutions, religion , culture and belief system.
Demographic variables: Respondent’s personal characteristics such as age, education level, marital
status, gender distribution and household size.
Economic environment: Occupation and employment, income distribution and saving mode and
natural resource use pattern.
Community infrastructures and transportation system- Schools, health facilities, electricity & portable
water supply, road networks, etc
The sources of information included community leaders, community associations including women
and youth groups and records of events.
Data Collection & Analysis
Households were used as sample population units while simple random sampling technique was
adopted in the selection of respondents within the project area for the study. A total of 110 structured
questionnaires were administered in the host community and one other nearby community while 88 of
them were retrieved and used for the study. All respondents were 19 years old and above.
Age and sex distribution of respondents to the questionnaire is presented in Table 5. The ratio of male
respondents to female respondents is 64.77%: 35.23%. Most respondents were between 30 years and
59 years. The response pattern is in line with the traditional practice that expects males more than
females to respond to household and communal questions.
However, focus group discussions and personal in-depth interview was used to augment data from the
questionnaires. The study made use of descriptive statistics in the analysis of data generated from the
field.
Table 5: Age and Sex Distribution of Respondents to the Questionnaire.
Age (years)
Male Female Total
No. (%)
18-29 8 7 15 17.05
30-39 14 10 24 27.27
40-49 10 8 18 20.45
50-59 15 3 18 20.45
60-69 9 3 12 13.64
70 and above 1 - 1 1.14
Total 57 31 88 100
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 18 of 27
Questionnaires were distributed through focal points and covered all strata of the communities. A
wide spectrum of the community members were interviewed while focal group discussions were also
conducted to ensure that every view was considered and documented.
2.12.2: CONSULTATIONS
Taking into consideration the cosmopolitan nature of the project area, a wide range of consultations
were carried out in order to ensure adequate representations. Specifically, those consulted were
classified into three strata namely – public, institutional and private individuals. Public consultation
was conducted in government establishments such as hospital, water board, security agencies, schools
and those communities to be affected by the proposed power plant project. Institutions consulted
included Ikpa Ibekwe Traditional Ruler’s Council, Youth and Women Organizations while individual
belonging to different social and/ or economic groups were also consulted, all in cooperation of the
regulators (representatives of the Federal and State Ministries of Environment) and Banner Energy
Limited as the project proponent.
Plate.15: Consultation at the Palace of Village Head of Ikpetim, Eteidung Akpan Etokafia
Plate.16: Consultation at the Palace of the Clan Head, Ikpa Ibekwe, HRM Etebom Akpan A. Uwa
Unio II
The consultation was aimed at eliciting local participation in the proposed power plant project and to
assess the key roles that will be played by the various stakeholders in project implementation process.
The following expectations were however raised in the project communities during the consultation
meetings:
Employment opportunities to be given to indigenes of the project communities during the
construction work and project operational phase especially in the skilled areas.
Provision of infrastructures and social amenities in the project communities especially
portable water and electricity supply which has raised a major concern in the area following
the closure of Alscon Company that supplied light to the host Communities.
Proper documentation of the ancestral/sacred sites for necessary action.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 19 of 27
Environmental management plan to be put in place for incidences at the course of their
operations.
Traditional Institutions and organizations in the host Communities to be well catered for.
Appropriate memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be put in place between the project
communities and the project proponent.
The outcome of the consultations will be included as basis for impact assessment and mitigation
measures including the environmental management plan (EMP).
The team promised further consultations as the project implementation phases continues through
stakeholders’ engagement, noting that consultation is a continuous process. (See attendance list
attached)
2.12.3: MAJOR FINDINGS
Settlement Pattern and Housing Structures
Settlement in the project communities were generally dense, nucleated and linear (i.e thickly
populated in isolated groups along road sides and coastal areas). Few farms were often located near
the settlements. In the study area, about 90% of the community members lived in their own houses,
while only 10% lived in rented accommodation.
Plate 17: Nucleated and linear settlement along coastal area and road side
The housing structures included modern bungalows (block walls with zinc roof), semi-modern
bungalows (cemented/non cemented mud walls with zinc roof) and traditional compound houses
(thatch walls and roofs). The major cooking fuels in these houses remain fuel wood, kerosene and gas
in few privileged houses.
Political Structure and Institutions
Two levels of political institutions were identified in terms of power structure and governance in the
study area and these include formal governmental and traditional administration. At the formal
governmental level, the communities are under the jurisdiction of the Ikot Abasi Local Government
Council Chairman.
Traditional administration in the area is hierarchical with the Paramount Ruler heading the Local
Government Council-of-Chiefs, clan and village heads. The Paramount Ruler reports to the Local
Government Authorities which is under the State Government while the Clan Head is in charge of the
Clan Council and report to the Paramount Ruler.
Each of the communities is headed by the Village Head who co-ordinate the activities of individual
families, Community Based Organizations (CBOs) - Youths and Women Associations which help in
the development of the communities.
The traditional institutions provide leadership at the local level by dispensing justice and upholding
the cultural heritage of their communities. In all the communities sampled, the political structure and
governance remain same.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 20 of 27
Religion, Culture and belief System
The predominant religion in the study area is Christianity. Many people interviewed described
themselves as Christians both from orthodox and Pentecostal churches. Focus group discussion with
a cross- section of the respondents and other key informants as well as transect walks reveals the
preponderance of churches of various denominations.
Despite the influence of Christianity, cultural and traditional festivals associated with fishing, and
other rituals are still celebrated in the communities. Due to strong historical attachment of the people
to their duties, articles of sacrifices were observed around the study area.
Occupation/Livelihood
The traditional occupation of the people in all the sampled communities is fishing, farming, trading,
lumbering, marine and land transportation with few artisans. Both the indigenes and non-indigenes are
involved in the commercial life of the respective communities.
Plate. 18: Occupation of the people (a) Fishing (b) Boat making (c) Marine transport
However, most of the respondents claimed to be engaged in multiple occupations to cushion the effect
of economic hardship experienced by them.
Social Infrastructures and transportation system
Sampled communities have some existing social infrastructures at different status and levels of
functionality. Table 6 shows the checklist of the available infrastructures in the project area:
Table 6: Checklist of Community Infrastructures in the Study Area
Project
Communiities
Community Infrastructures
Nur./Pri.
School
Sec.
School
Hosp/
PHC
Electricity Portable
water
Market Police
Sta/Post
Tarred
Road
Ikpetim x x x x x
Uta Ewa x x x x
Major source of drinking water in the project area is boreholes which are privately provided as the
rain water and the rivers/stream are polluted by the activities of the existing Companies in the area.
Focus group discussions indicated that the project communities have been in darkness for more than
six months following the closure of the Alscon Company that provided electricity to this area. There
is only one government hospital in the area and complemented by privately owned clinics which tends
to increase their medical expenses.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 21 of 27
2.13 Health Characteristics
The HIA team, assisted by a local guide moved round the communities observing the quality of health
services in the health facilities serving the communities and the environmental health conditions in the
communities. HIA questionnaires were also distributed and administered at the consultation meetings
of the ESHIA team with the communities and to household heads that were not present during the
meetings.
The two communities have health centers that serve their primary health needs, though the services
were often not provided on a regular basis. The health center in Ikpetim community is located in a
temporary accommodation and it is poorly staffed. It provides mainly immunization services and out-
patient treatment of some minor ailments. This encouraged the patronage of traditional medicine
practitioners like masseurs and Traditional Birth Attendants (TBA), who are especially cherished by
most members of the communities.
The major illness reported by residents includes malaria and typhoid fever, cough, catarrh and
stooling. Household refuse is mainly disposed in the bushes behind living houses. Some houses are
not built with toilet facilities, hence disposes their sewage in the river and bushes.
Perceptions and concerns of residents obtained during the field trip are listed below. Residents of the
communities were generally receptive of the proposed project.
Concerns
Their lands will be lost permanently to the IPP.
There will be environmental hazards, especially accidents during construction and the
discharge of chemicals and fumes into the environment.
Residents of the communities will not be integrated into the project on its completion.
The company could use the project as a guise to do other things without the
knowledge and consent of the communities.
Livelihoods will be eroded as the river and wetlands will be impacted.
The movement and freedom of residents to exploit and use resources will be
restricted.
Compensation for damages is often paid late and is also too small.
2.14 QUALITY CONTROL/ASSURANCE
QC/QA programmes employed covered all aspects of the field sample collection, in-situ
measurements, preservation and handling and report preparation. The quality assurance programme
was in accordance with recommendation by DPR (1991 and 2002) and FEPA (1991).
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 22 of 27
2.15 FIELD OBSERVATIONS
2.15.1 VIABILITY OF BANNER ENERGY POWER PLANT PROJECT
The Banner Energy Power Plant project is viable due to the following:
Good road transport network (Tarred and untarred roads).
Proximity to Imo River for marine transportation.
Nearness to source of gas supply (NGC).
Nearness to PHCN transmission line to the National grid ease of evacuation of generated
power.
Nearness to water for plant cooling
Availability of land for the project
Hospitality of the host communities.
Plate 19: Access to water transportation (Imo River)
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 23 of 27
3.0 HSE
HSE awareness was sustained during the field data gathering exercise. Plate 20 shows tool box
meeting in progress.
Plate 20: EIA consultants in a toolbox meeting
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 24 of 27
4.0 CONCLUSION
The fieldwork for the Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment of Banner
Energy 300MW Combined Cycle Power Plant and LPG Storage Depot was successfully
completed with zero Lost Time Injury (LTI) and a record of 100% biophysical samples
collected for laboratory analysis. The two host communities to the project were met at the
course of socioeconomics and health assessment. Their concerns were documented. The
biophysical samples collected are considered sufficiently representative of the environment
studied.
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 25 of 27
APPENDIX 1
INSITU RESULTS DATE: 22
nd- 24
th October, 2015
PROJECT: ESHIA FOR BANNER ENERGY CCPP AND LPG STORAGE DEPOT
SEASON: WET SEASON
S/
N
SAMPLE
CODE
DATE/TIM
E
PH TEM
P (Oc)
TDS
(mg/l)
SALINIT
Y (mg/l)
DO
(mg/l
)
CONDUCTIVIT
Y
(Us/cm)
TURBIDIT
Y (Ntu)
SURFACE
WATER
1. BEL SW1 24/10/15
0949Hrs
6.7
0
26.40 3980 1950.0 7.00 5810 5.00
2. BEL SW2 24/10/15
0955Hrs
6.6
0
26.20 1400 650.0 8.00 2790 5.20
3. BEL SW3 24/10/15
1008Hrs
6.5
0
26.20 1646 870.0 10.00 3110 5.00
4. BEL SW4 24/10/15
1015Hrs
6.6
0
26.20 1200 550.0 7.00 2700 5.40
5. BEL SW5 24/10/15
1030Hrs
6.5
0
26.20 1248 610.0 4.60 1690 5.60
6. BEL SW6 24/10/15
1040Hrs
6.3
0
26.30 1237 605.0 4.00 1680 5.00
7. BEL SW7 24/10/15
1110Hrs
6.0
0
26.70 1470 705.0 4.30 1980 5.60
8. BEL SW8 24/10/15
1123Hrs
6.2
0
26.80 2040 1100.0 6.60 3400 5.40
9. BEL SW
Control 1
24/10/15
0934Hrs
6.4
0
26.90 4600 2100.0 5.00 6050 5.00
10 BEL SW
Control 2
24/10/15
1052Hrs
6.3
0
26.30 527 180.0 4.60 730 4.00
GROUND
WATER
1.0 BEL
GW1(Well)
(Ikpetim)
05/10/12
1615Hrs
5.7
0
25.90 264.0
0
20.00 4.20 360.00 7.60
2.0 BEL
GW2(BH)
05/10/12
1625Hrs
5.1
0
27.00 47.00 10.00 5.00 50.00 2.00
3.0 BEL GW
Control(BH
)
(Uta-Ewa)
06/10/12
0930Hrs
5.2
0
27.50 174.0
0
250.00 5.00 1340 4.00
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 26 of 27
APPENDIX 2
DATE: 22nd
- 24th
October, 2015
PROJECT: ESHIA FOR BANNER ENERGY CCPP AND LPG STORAGE DEPOT
SEASON: WET SEASON AIR QUALITY/NOISE RESULT
S/N SAMPLING
POINT/CODE
DATE/TIME H2S
ppm
CO
ppm
NO2
ppm
CH4
ppm
SO2
ppm
NH3
ppm
VOC
ppm
SPM
Ppm
Noise
d(B)
1. BEL AQ 1 22/10/15
1358Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 20.0 43.50
2. BEL AQ 2 22/10/15
1422Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 20.0 40.30
3. BEL AQ 3 22/10/15
1450Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 10.0 39.30
4. BEL AQ 4
22/10/15
1505Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 8.0 37.30
5. BEL AQ 5
22/10/15
1537Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 8.0 42.10
6. BEL AQ
Control 1
22/10/15
1554Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.0 42.30
7. BEL AQ 6 23/10/15
09261Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.0 42.00
8. BEL AQ 7 23/10/15
0949Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 5.0 41.00
9. BEL AQ 8 23/10/15
1008Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.0 42.50
10. BEL AQ
Control 2
23/10/15
1112Hrs
<0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 5.0 39.00
Field Report
Field Report for ESHIA of Banner Energy 300MW CCPP and LPG Storage Depot 27 of 27
APPENDIX 3
DATE: 22nd
-24th
October, 2015
PROJECT: ESHIA FOR BANNER ENERGY CCPP AND LPG STORAGE DEPOT
SEASON: WET SEASON
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
S/N SAMPLING
POINT/CODE
DATE/TIME TEMP OC
RELATIVE
HUMIDITY
(%)
WS
(m/s)
WD PRESSURE
mmHg
1. BEL AQ 1 22/10/15
1359Hrs
28.70 88.80 0.60 NW 101.20
2. BEL AQ 2 22/10/15
1422Hrs
30.00 82.30 0.50 NE 101.00
3. BEL AQ 3 22/10/15
1450Hrs
29.50 89.00 0.60 NW 101.30
4. BEL AQ 4
22/10/15
1505Hrs
30.60 84.00 0.60 NW 101.00
5. BEL AQ 5
22/10/15
1537Hrs
29.90 85.20 0.70 NE 101.20
6. BEL AQ Control 1 22/10/15
1554Hrs
29.50 86.50 0.60 NW 101.00
7. BEL AQ 6 23/10/15
09261Hrs
29.20 85.00 0.50 NE 100.90
8. BEL AQ 7 23/10/15
0949Hrs
29.90 83.00 0.60 NE 101.10
9. BEL AQ 8 23/10/15
1008Hrs
31.50 86.00 0.70 NW 101.30
10. BEL AQ Control 2 23/10/15
1112Hrs
30.40 85.00 0.60 NE 101.20