Sustainable Energy Access in Eastern Indonesia—Power Generation Sector Project (RRP INO 49203) Environmental Impact Assessment Project Number: 49203-002 March 2018 INO: Sustainable Energy Access in Eastern Indonesia─Power Generation Sector Project Kaltim Peaker 2 Core Subproject Annexes Part 1 Prepared by Fichtner for the Asian Development Bank. This environmental impact assessment is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
Transcript
Sustainable Energy Access in Eastern Indonesia—Power Generation Sector Project (RRP INO 49203)
Environmental Impact Assessment
Project Number: 49203-002 March 2018
INO: Sustainable Energy Access in Eastern
Indonesia─Power Generation Sector Project
Kaltim Peaker 2 Core Subproject
Annexes Part 1
Prepared by Fichtner for the Asian Development Bank.
This environmental impact assessment is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation
of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian
Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any
3. Discussed PLN Social Safeguard Institutional Arrangements
KALTIM PEAKER 2
12 Coordination Meeting
19-10-16
PLN UIP/ Sector Office East Kalimantan
- PLN Pusat
- PLN UIP
- PLN Sector
- PPTA Team
1. Introductions and orientation; agreed on work program for due diligence
2. Details on Land Acquisition Compensation in the 1990s explained/described and documents provided
3. Presented PLN CSR programs and procedures
13 Consultative meeting/ interview
19-10-16
BPN Local Office Tenggarong – Kutai Kartanegara
- PLN Pusat Staff:
- PLN UIP
- BPN (Land Agency) Local Office
- PPTA Team
1. Details on Land Acquisition Compensation of Desa Tanjung Batu, Kecamatan Tenggarong Seberang, Kab Kutai Kartanegara, East Kalimantan Province
2. Representative of BPN Local Office confirmed all documents of land acquisition process in the 1990s onward are recorded by their office as part of the ‘Warkah’
3. Land acquisition in Desa Tanjung Batu followed regulation for land acquisition before year 2000, i.e.:
- Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs No. 15 Year 1975, concerning Regulations for Land Acquisition;
- Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia Number 55 Year 1993 regarding Land Procurement for the Implementation of Construction in the Interest of Public (17 June 1993)
14 Consultative meeting/ FGD
19/20-10-16
Home of AH leader in RT5, Tanjung
- PLN Pusat
- PLN UIP
- Head of RT5 with wife (AH)
- 10 other AHs
- Provided profile of the AH community
- Described land acquisition process carried out around 1994.
- PPTA Team - Unsatisfied with compensation since value of compensation received was not sufficient to buy new same size agriculture/ farmland
- Compensation for trees/crops were in accordance with their expectation
- People now do not have land for farming, instead borrowing land owned by PLN.
- One of the area bought by PLN also cover cemetery, so they have to relocate their family grave to other location (TPU Tanjung Batu Atas). Compensation for relocation were Rp 40,000 for children’s graves, and Rp 70,000 for adult graves.
- Overall expressed support about the project but to provide more support to affected communities
15 Consultative meeting/ FGD
20-10-16
Home of leader in Bukit Raja
- PLN Pusat
- PLN UIP
- 11 HHs of Bukit Raja
- PPTA Team
- Participants have heard about the project, but still lack full information.
- They accept the project and are excited about it. They highly expect to be involved in the project in accordance with their skills, not only during the construction period, but also during the operational period.
- They also expect that PLN will provide assistance to them, to improve their knowledge and skills during construction period so they can work in PLN – hoping that like PT CFK who recruited 50% of their workers from villages around CFK.
- They expect PLN to support them by providing desa road improvement, street lightning, and improvement of culverts in front of Masjid Al Mukminun (due to flooding).
Minutes of Coordination Meeting for Preparation of Environmental Documents and
Environmental Permit for Gas Pipeline PK52 Badak Export Manifold - Electrical
Center Tanjung Batu
1 | 3
TRANSLATION
Minutes of Meeting
Date/Time 9 August 2016 / 09.00 -
Venue PT PLN (Persero) UIP Kalimantan Timur
Attachment -
Attendance List
PLN Pusat DlVK3L, UIP Kaltim, Wilayah Kaltimra (attached)
1. MEETING AGENDA
Coordination Meeting for Preparation of Environmental Documents and Environmental Permit for Gas Pipeline PK52 Badak Export Manifold - Electrical Center Tanjung Batu 2. BACKGROUND
Nota Dinas Kepala Satuan GBM Nomor : .......... tanggal .......... Perihal ................... and
Faks KDIVK3L nomor 2474.FAC/STH.03.01/DIVK3L/2016 Tanggal 8 Agustus 2016 re
abovementioned agenda
3. DISCUSSION NOTES
1. PLN will build a Gas Pipe Line Badak Export Manifold (BEM) - Electricity Centre Tanjung Batu of 55 km which is located at 2 Government areas (Kutai Regency and Municipality of Samarinda). The pipeline will use the existing pipelines ROW of VICO and Pertamina EP.
2. Based on the results of the feasibility study, the current condition of the existing ROW is land owned by the Government, but in some areas land is used for illegal settlements and estates by local residents, and the pipe line passes several small mineral and oil mines, a road and rice fields.
3. PLN Region Kaltimra reports: a. PLN and the Institute of Research, Development and Innovation of the
Research Institute for Development of Dipterocarp Forest Ecosystems are preparing a cooperation agreement for the construction of the Badak Gas Export Manifold - Electrical Centre Tanjung Batu.
b. A PPLB agreement is in the process of signature (PLN, VICO and Pertamina) c. PLN needs to immediately prepare a security cooperation agreement between
PLN, Pertamina and VICO supervised by DIVK3L (MS K3). d. The gas pipeline is expected to be operational by October 2017.
4. DIVK3L states that: a. Due to the pipeline passing through two Regional Government areas, the
approval authority is with the Provincial Environmental Environment Agency (BLH), involving two District BLHs.
b. Information related to environmental documents for the existing pipe lines owned by Pertamina and VICO has to be taken into consideration.
c. PLN UIP Kalbagtim shall immediately coordinate with BLH related to preparation of environmental documents for the existing pipeline.
5. The starting point of the BEM pipeline (PK52 - tap connection pipe) is located in a Forest Research area, so an agreement between PLN and the Research Center is required.
6. The original plan for land acquisition along the 3 km in oil palm plantations is abandoned considering required time and the high cost, so the pipeline will be rerouted following the path of the existing Pipeline belonging to VICO.
2 | 3
7. Documents prepared for the construction of the pipeline a. Feasibility study b. Front End Engineering Design (FEED) c. Financial Study d. Bid Document e. Joint Land Use Agreement (PPLB) f. Collaboration agreement with DIPEROKARTA
The Regional PLN Office Kaltimra is in the process of preparing a. A cooperation agreement with the Research Institute b. Construction Site Permit from the Provincial BKPMD c. Clarification whether a declaration of compliance with the Spatial Plan is still
required needs to be sought. 8. PLN UIP Kalbagtim explains:
a. There has been no assignment yet for construction supervision and preparation of environmental documents from the PLN Head Office
b. PLN UIP Kalbagtim will submit the budget related to the gas pipeline construction after the assignment by PLN Head Office.
c. PLN UIP Kalbagtim requests directives to follow up on the results of the meeting with the Local Government Development Security Escort Team (Tim TP4D) of the Kaltim the High Court dated July 28, 2016 at the Novotel, Balikpapan (minutes attached).
9. DIVK3L appoints PLN UIP Kalbagtim as responsible for the preparation of environmental documents and licensing of the construction of the Gas Pipeline BEM - Tanjung Batu. The letter of appointment will be presented by August 18, 2016.
10. PLN Kaltimra PLN will coordinate with PLN UIP Kalbagtim related to follow-up on the licensing process for construction of the Gas Pipeline BEM - Tanjung Batu.
11. The division of responsibilities for the scope of environmental management between the UIP and the Regional Office will be discussed separately and will be accommodated in a decision letter from the PLN Management.
4. FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES Activities In charge Time
1. Further coordinatin meeting with SGBM, PLN E, DIVKRKAL, DIVPRKAL, DIVORKAL, DIVDAS, Wilayah Kaltimra, UIP Kalbagtim about appointment of project management for construction and security arrangements for construction and operation of the gas pipeline.
DIVK3L 16 August 2016
2. Appointment letter for preparation of environmental documents for the gas pipeline BEM – Tanjung Batu
DIVK3L 18 August 2016
3. Coordination with VICO and Pertamina related to existing environmental documents
UIP Kalbagtim
22 August 2016
4. Coordination with the Provincial Environmental Agency related to preparation fo environmental documents for the BEM – Tanjung Batu gas pipeline and site visit
UIP Kalbagtim
Tentative 4th week of August 2016
5. NEXT MEETING
Date 16 August 2016 Agenda Further coordinatin meeting with SGBM, PLN E, DIVKRKAL,
DIVPRKAL, DIVORKAL, DIVDAS, Wilayah Kaltimra, UIP Kalbagtim about appointment of project management for construction and security arrangements for construction and operation of the gas pipeline.
3 | 3
Signed,
DIVK3L PLN WILAYAH KALTIMRA PLN UIP KALBAGTIM
KOESPRAPTINI RIA RACHMANSYAH A.W. NICO SAROINSONG
Translation: W. Clauss
Minutes of Wrap-up Meeting of the site visit of the Kaltim-2 Peaker by the
PPTA consultant
1 | 2
Minutes of Meeting
Date 10 August 2016 Place Meeting room of Sektor Pembangkitan Mahakam PLTGU Tanjung
Batu office Attachments - Attendance List -
Attendance List - 1. AGENDA
Discussion of results of the site visit of the Kaltim-2 Peaker by the PPTA consultant
2. BACKGROUND
Letter from DIVUL 0372.FAX/KLH.01.01/DIVK3L/2016 about field visit of the PPTA
consultant to the PLTMG Kaltim-2 Peaker
3. DISCUSSION NOTES
1. Secondary data obtained during the visit:
Feasibility Study PLTMG Kaltim-2 Peaker
Amdal document for the PLTMG Kaltim Peaking 2x50 MW (2010)
Land certificate for the Tanjung Batu complex
Planning data for the gas pipeline
MoM of PLN meeting about the gas pipeline
Environmental management report for the Tanjung Batu PLTG
2. The land area being used by PLN for the existing power plants and related facilities
amonts to ± 18 ha of the total 160 ha (170 ha according to the certificate). There are
no settlers or buildings not related to the PLN infrastructure. No socio-cultural
impact of the new power plant is expected.
3. There are several local people utilizing land for agricultural purposes on the land
owned by PLN but these are far away from the site to be used for the Kaltim-2
Peaker. These people have signed an agreement with PLN stating that they will use
the land for annual crops only and will vacate the land in case it is needed by PLN
in the future.
4. The team inspected existing installations comprising gas supply and storage
facilities, water intake and cooling water outlet, jetty, planned access point of the
new gas pipe, and the site for the new power plant.
5. A dead irrawaddy dolphin was found in the river near the complex 2 years ago but
in all likelihood it originated from an upstream area.
A reported sighting of a crocodile near the complex was not confirmed by the PLN
staff working on the site, some of whom have worked ther for about ten years.
2 | 2
6. The planned new gas supply pipeline will be built to secure supply for all power
plants in the complex, not only the new Kaltim-2 Peaker. Therfore, the pipeline may
not necessarily be categorized as an associated facility of the new plant.
7. There is a swamp area adjacent to the plot of land to be used for the construction of
the new power plant. Confirmation has to be sought as to whether the area will be
affected by the construction activities. The consultant suggests that the Amdal
consultant (Sucofindo) should pay attention to this issue.
4. FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES
-
5. NEXT MEETING
-
Approved by
PPTA Consultant Sektor Pembangkitan Mahakam
UIP Kalimantan Bagian Timur
PLN Pusat DIVK3L
W. Clauss Hengki DL Hilmah Alawiah Imam Muttaqien
Translation: W. Clauss
Date : 15 March 2017
Time/venue : 1.30 pm – 4.00 pm/PLN East Kalimantan Region, Balikpapan
Participants :
Imam Muttaqien – K3L Division, PLN Pusat
Wisnu – PLN East Kalimantan Region
Ms. Ermin Sri Wulandari – K3L Division, PLN East Kalimantan Region
Ms. Hilmah – PLN UIP Kalbagtim
Ms. Karina Rizki – PLN UIP Kalbagtim
Dr. Werner Miller – FICHTNER International Environmental Specialist
Ms. Rahayu Ningtyas – FICHTNER National Environmental Specialist
Summary of meeting:
TANJUNG BATU POWER PLANTS consist of 3 power plants:
1. PLTGU Tanjung Batu i.e. gas turbine combine cycle 60 MW (2x20 MW GT (gas turbine)
and 1x20 MW ST (steam turbine) dual fuel i.e. gas and HSD (high speed diesel). Start
operation since 1997. However, gas supply decline hence since 2013 the power plant runs
by using HSD;
2. PLTGU Kaltim Peaker 1 (operation since 17 March 2014 for unit 1, and 18 April 2014 for
0 19.04.2017 Draft Report for incorporation into the Draft ESIA Sousa Miller 1 22.06.2017 Draft Final Report for incorporation into the Draft Final ESIA Sousa Miller 2 15.08.2017 Draft Final Report Updated (modification of Tables 3-1 and 3-2) Sousa Zajac 3 12.10.2017 Final Report (modification of Table 4-3) Sousa Zajac 4 21.02.2018 Final after comments Sousa Johnson
www.fichtner.de Please contact: Sofia Sousa Extension: 726 E-mail: [email protected]
I
Disclaimer The content of this document is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of Fichtner's client and other agreed recipients. It may only be made available in whole or in part to third parties with Fichtner’s written consent and on a non-reliance basis. Fichtner is not liable to third parties for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided therein.
II
Table of Contents Disclaimer I
Table of Contents II
List of tables I
List of figures I
List of abbreviations and acronyms III
1. Scope of the Report 1-1
2. Project Site 2-1
3. Air Emissions and Air Quality Legislation 3-3
3.1 Air Emission Limits 3-3
3.2 Air Quality Standards 3-5
4. Baseline Data 4-1
4.1 Receptors data 4-1
4.2 Meteorological Data 4-4
4.3 Terrain data 4-4
4.4 Kaltim 2 Data 4-6
4.4.1 Configuration 4-6
4.4.2 Stack and Emission Data 4-7
4.5 Data for other sources 4-9
4.5.1 Tjangu Batu Gas Turbine Combined Cycle - 60 MW 4-9
4.5.2 Kaltim 1 Gas Fired Power Plant - 100 MW 4-11
4.6 Background Air Quality Data 4-12
4.6.1 Quality of the data 4-14
5. Air Dispersion Calculation 5-1
5.1 Air Quality Model 5-1
5.2 Calculation Area 5-1
5.3 Calculation Scenarios 5-3
5.4 Determination of the stack height 5-3
5.4.1 GIIP stack height 5-4
5.4.2 GIIP model runs - SO2 5-5
5.4.3 Conclusion - Stack height for Kaltim 2 5-7
5.5 ADC Results 5-8
III
5.5.1 CO - 1 hour AQS 5-8
5.5.2 CO - 24 hours AQS 5-13
5.5.3 SO2 - 1 hour AQS 5-17
5.5.4 SO2 - 10 minutes AQS 5-21
5.5.5 SO2 - 24 hours AQS 5-23
5.5.6 SO2 - Annual AQS 5-27
5.5.7 NO2 - 1 hour AQS 5-31
5.5.8 NO2 - 24 hours AQS 5-35
5.5.9 NO2 - Annual AQS 5-39
5.5.10 PM10 - 24 hr AQS 5-43
5.5.11 PM10 - Annual AQS 5-47
5.5.12 TSP - 24 hr AQS 5-51
5.5.13 TSP - Annual AQS 5-55
6. Summary of the study and results 6-1
6.1 CO 6-2
6.2 SO2 6-2
6.3 NO2 6-2
6.4 PM10 and TSP 6-3
7. Conclusion 7-1
8. References 8-1
I
List of tables Table 3-1: Indonesian emission limits for emissions to air from stationary sources (Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 21 of 2008) ...................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2: Adapted Indonesian emission limits for emissions to air from stationary sources (adapted from Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 21 of 2008) ................... 3-4 Table 3-3: IFC emission guidelines for facilities larger than 50 MW with combustion turbines and combustion engines (IFC, 2008) .................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-4: National Ambient Air Quality Standards and WHO Guidelines .............. 3-6 Table 4-1: Location of the stacks of the Kaltim 2 Peaker PP ..................................... 4-7 Table 4-2: Concentration of the pollutants emitted by the Kaltim 2 Peaker PP ........ 4-7 Table 4-3: Other characteristics of the stacks and the flue gas from the Kaltim 2 Peaker PP 4-8 Table 4-4: Location of the stacks of the Tjangu Batu PP ........................................... 4-9 Table 4-5: Concentration of the pollutants emitted by the Tjangu Batu PP ............... 4-9 Table 4-6: Other characteristics of the stacks and the flue gas from the Tjangu Batu Plant 4-10 Table 4-7: Location of the stacks of the Kaltim 1 Peaker PP ................................... 4-11 Table 4-8: Concentration of the pollutants emitted by the Kaltim 1 PP .................. 4-11 Table 4-9: Other characteristics of the stacks and the flue gas from the Kaltim 1 Peaker PP 4-12 Table 4-10: Multiplying factor to convert 24 hour concentrations to 1 hr concentrations (adapted from EPA, 1992) ................................................................................................ 4-13 Table 4-11: Multiplying factors for point sources to convert 1 hour concentrations to other averaging periods (*OME, 2008, and **EPA, 1992) .............................................. 4-13 Table 4-12: Air Quality measured and calculated results in the project area (adapted from data directly received) .............................................................................................. 4-14 Table 5-1: Maximum simulated SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards (26 m and 50 m Kaltim 2 stack height) .................................................. 5-7 Table 5-2: Maximum simulated 1 hr CO concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards ............................................................................................................... 5-10 Table 5-3: Maximum simulated 24 hr CO concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards ............................................................................................................... 5-14 Table 5-4: Maximum simulated 1 hr SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards ............................................................................................................... 5-18 Table 5-5: Maximum calculated 10 minutes SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards .................................................................................................... 5-22 Table 5-6: Maximum simulated 24 hours SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards .......................................................................................................... 5-24 Table 5-7: Maximum simulated annual SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards .......................................................................................................... 5-28 Table 5-8: Maximum simulated 1 hr NO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards ............................................................................................................... 5-32 Table 5-9: Maximum simulated 24 hours NO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards .................................................................................................... 5-36 Table 5-10: Maximum simulated annual NO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards .......................................................................................................... 5-40 Table 5-11: Maximum simulated 24 hr PM10 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards .......................................................................................................... 5-44
II
Table 5-12: Maximum simulated annual PM10 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards .......................................................................................................... 5-48 Table 5-13: Maximum simulated 24 hr TSP concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards ............................................................................................................... 5-52 Table 5-14: Maximum simulated annual TSP concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards .......................................................................................................... 5-56
I
List of figures Figure 2-1: Location of the Power Plants Complex and the future Kaltim 2 Peaker (source of the topographic maps: URL 1 and Client) ......................................................... 2-2 Figure 4-1: Location of the sensitive receptors (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) (R = Receptor) .................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Closer view of the location of the sensitive receptors R1 to R5 (R = Receptor) 4-3 Figure 4-3: Windrose for the year 2016 as simulated with the model WRF (wind blowing from) (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) ........................................ 4-4 Figure 4-4: Landscape surrounding the project site (Fichtner, Feb. 2017) ................. 4-5 Figure 4-5: 3D representation of the terrain of the project area (for visualization purposes, the “z” axis is shown with an augmentation of 200%) ....................................... 4-6 Figure 5-1: Assessment area and the grids used in the calculation ............................. 5-2 Figure 5-2: Stacks of the Kaltim 1 Peaker (Fichtner, Feb. 2017) ................................ 5-4 Figure 5-3: GIIP stack height (IFC, 2007) .......................................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-4: Maximum simulated 1 hr CO concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-11 Figure 5-5: Maximum simulated 1 hr CO concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-12 Figure 5-6: Maximum simulated 24 hr CO concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-7: Maximum simulated 24 hr CO concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-8: Maximum simulated 1 hr SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-19 Figure 5-9: Maximum simulated 1 hr SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-20 Figure 5-10: Maximum simulated 24 hr SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-25 Figure 5-11: Maximum simulated 24 hr SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ................................................................................................. 5-26 Figure 5-12: Maximum simulated annual SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-29 Figure 5-13: Maximum simulated annual SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-30 Figure 5-14: Maximum simulated 1 hr NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-33 Figure 5-15: Maximum simulated 1 hr NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-34 Figure 5-16: Maximum simulated 24 hr NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-37 Figure 5-17: Maximum simulated 24 hr NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-38 Figure 5-18: Maximum simulated annual NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-41 Figure 5-19: Maximum simulated annual NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-42 Figure 5-20: Maximum simulated 24 hr PM10 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-45
II
Figure 5-21: Maximum simulated 24 hr PM10 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-46 Figure 5-22: Maximum simulated annual PM10 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-49 Figure 5-23: Maximum simulated annual PM10 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-50 Figure 5-24: Maximum simulated 24 hr TSP concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-53 Figure 5-25: Maximum simulated 24 hr TSP concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-54 Figure 5-26: Maximum simulated annual TSP concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) .................................................... 5-57 Figure 5-27: Maximum simulated annual TSP concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5 ....................................................................................... 5-58
III
List of abbreviations and acronyms AQS = Air Quality Standard(s) CO = Carbon Monoxide DEM = Digital Elevation Model ECD = European Council Directive(s) ELV = Emission Limit Values GIIP = Good International Industry Practice HSD = High Speed Diesel IFC = International Finance Corporation masl = meters above sea level NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard(s) NG = Natural Gas NO2 = Nitrogen Dioxide PM = Particulate Matter PT.PLN = Perusahaan Listrik Negara; English: State Electricity Company PP = Power Plant SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide TSP = Total Suspended Particulates U.S. EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency WB = World Bank WHO = World Health Organization WRF = Weather Research and Forecasting (Model)
1-1
1. Scope of the Report PT.PLN (Persero) intends to develop a new Dual Fuel Power Plant - “Kaltim 2 Peaker” - in Tanjung Batu Village, Tenggarong Seberang District, Kutai Kartanegara regency, East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. The Kaltim 2 Plant is planned to be fired with Natural Gas (NG) using high-speed diesel (HSD) as back-up fuel in case of reduced or interrupted Natural Gas supply. The net power capacities of the plant will be approximately 100 MW. Presently, it is still open whether the plant will be operated with engines or with turbines. Fichtner is providing Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA) on the basis of a sector loan directly to PLN in connection with the development of power generation capacity in Eastern Indonesia. The present report presents the Air Dispersion Calculation performed for the Kaltim 2 Plant. The objective of the study is to assess the contribution of the air emissions of the Plant to the air quality in the area, and to indicate whether the national and international air quality standards are expected to be fulfilled or not. The assessment ultimately leads to the determination of the conditions required to fulfill these standards. The criteria pollutants CO, SO2, NO2, TSP and PM10 are subject of analysis in this context. The Air Dispersion Calculation is performed using the dispersion modeling software BREEZE AERMOD (version 7.12 from January 2017), based on a U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) Regulatory Model.
2-1
2. Project Site
The Kaltim 2 PP will be located in the Tanjung Batu Power Plant Complex at the bank of the Mahakam river, about 25 km from the province capital Samarinda (Figure 2-1). The new plant will be built at the southernmost corner of the existing compound. The site coordinates are approximately: Northing: 9957531.00 m S; Easting: 505763.00 m E; Zone: 50 M (WGS 84). The existing Power Plants Complex where Kaltim 2 will be built includes presently: Tjangu Batu PP - Gas Turbine Combined Cycle, 60 MW (2 x 20 MW GT
and 20 MW ST), dual fuel, operation since 1997. Since 2013 the power plant has been run on HSD.
Kaltim 1 - Gas Turbine Kaltim Peaker 1, 2 x 50 MW (unit 1 is operating since 17 March 2014, and unit 2 since 18 April 2014), dual fuel. To date, both units run on HSD.
Although the present study focus on the impacts of the Kaltim 2 PP on the air quality, it is necessary to consider as well the emissions of the existing neighboring plants for a complete analysis. The village of Tanjung Batu is located in the direct vicinity of the project site (Figure 2-1).
2-2
Figure 2-1: Location of the Power Plants Complex and the future Kaltim 2 Peaker (source of the topographic maps: URL 1 and Client)
Tanjung Batu PP
Kaltim 1 PP
Kaltim 2 PP
Tanjung Batu Village
3-3
3. Air Emissions and Air Quality Legislation In order to protect human health, vegetation and/or properties from the negative effects of air pollution, limits are imposed to: the concentrations of the pollutants that are emitted from various sources
- air emission limits; and to the concentrations of the pollutants that are present in the atmosphere -
air quality standards. In several countries these limits (or standards) are defined in the national laws/regulations, but there are also internationally accepted values like the ones from the World Bank Group Guidelines or the European Union Directives. The air emission limits represent the maximum concentrations that are allowed in the flue gas coming out of the source (a stack, in this case) and are given in mg of pollutant per normal m3 of dry flue gas (mg/Nm3). The N stands for “Normal conditions”: temperature of 0°C and atmospheric pressure of 101.3 kPa. The air quality standards (AQS) state the maximum concentrations that are allowed in the ambient air, in this case, in the airshed surrounding the power plant. The standards are presented in μg of pollutant per m3 of ambient (exterior) air (μg/m3). For gaseous pollutants, the results of the air quality monitoring shall be standardized at a temperature of 293 K (20°C) and an atmospheric pressure of 101.3 kPa. This chapter presents the national and international standards for air emissions and for air quality that are applicable to the project.
3.1 Air Emission Limits
The national emission limits for stationary sources, including thermal power plants, were issued on 1 December 2008 and replaced the earlier 1995 standards. The regulations include limits for the emissions of sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides (as nitrogen dioxide) and particulate matter for existing, in development and new power plants. Fuel types covered by the decree include coal, oil and natural gas. Power plants must meet these emission standards 95% of the time over 3 months (URL 3). Table 3-1 shows the national emission limit values applicable for turbines and for engines. Because these values consider “standard” conditions (temperature of the flue gas of 25 °C), Table 3-2 shows the values adapted to meet the “normal” conditions (0°C). A correction for the percentage of O2 is also undertaken.
ELV: Emission Limit Values | NE: Non-existent * Attachment II B | ** Attachment IV B
Table 3-1: Indonesian emission limits for emissions to air from stationary sources (Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 21 of 2008)
Pollutant Adapted ELV [mg/m3]
for new turbines * Adapted ELV [mg/m3]
for new engines ** Oil Gas Oil Gas
CO NE NE 219 203 SO2 709 164 243 61 NO2 491 349 405 130 TSP 109 33 49 12 Dry gas, excess O2 content 15% 15% 15% 15%
Temperature flue gas 0°C 0°C 0°C 0°C
ELV: Emission Limit Values | NE: Non-existent * Adapted from Attachment II B | ** Adapted from Attachment IV B
Table 3-2: Adapted Indonesian emission limits for emissions to air from stationary sources (adapted from Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 21 of 2008)
The International Finance Corporation (IFC, World Bank Group) defined guidelines for the emissions of facilities producing more than 50 MWth using combustion engines and combustion turbines (Table 3-3).
3-5
Pollutant
ELV [mg/Nm3] for combustion engines; facilities > 50 MWth
ELV [mg/Nm3] for combustion turbines; facilities > 50 MWth
Natural Gas
Liquid fuels < 300 MWth Natural Gas Other fuels
CO NE NE NE NE
SO2 NE 0.5 - 2%S/1,170 NE 0.5 - 1 % S
NO2 400 (dual fuel)
400 - 2,000 (dual fuel) 51 152
TSP NE 30 - 50 NE 30 - 50 Dry gas, excess O2 content
15% 15% 15% 15%
Temperature flue gas 0°C 0°C 0°C 0°C
NE: Non-existent Table 3-3: IFC emission guidelines for facilities larger than 50 MW with
combustion turbines and combustion engines (IFC, 2008)
The specifications for Kaltim 2 demand the compliance with the national emission limit values. This scenario is assumed in the present study.
3.2 Air Quality Standards
The Air Quality Standards are defined according to the different levels of danger that the pollutants pose depending on the exposition period. This way, the standards are defined for different time frames, allowing the protection against the short term acute impacts, the medium term impacts and the long term impacts. IFC states that emissions from projects shall not result in pollutant concentrations in the ambient air that reach or exceed the relevant ambient air quality guidelines and standards by applying the national legislated standards or, in their absence, the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines or other internationally recognized sources like the U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) or the European Council Directives (ECD). The IFC recommends, in addition, that the emissions from a single project should not contribute with more than 25% of the applicable ambient air quality standards to allow additional, future sustainable development in the same airshed. This implies that even when a ground level concentration (GLC) of a certain pollutant respects the air quality standard, it shall be evaluated whether it is below or above 25% of that standard. This is also assessed in the present study. Table 3-3 presents the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS, established by the 1999 Government Decree No. 41) and the guidelines defined by WHO (2005) that are applicable to the project. The WHO provides interim targets (IT) in recognition of the need for a staged approach to achieve the recommended guidelines (GL).
3-6
It is evident from the table that the national standards are generally less restrictive than the IT and GL defined by the WHO.
Pollutant Averaging period
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³] * Indonesia NAAQS ** WHO
IT = Interim target; IT are provided in recognition of the need for a staged approach to achieve the recommended guidelines | GL = Guideline * 20°C and 101.3 kPa ** ADB, 2006
Table 3-4: National Ambient Air Quality Standards and WHO Guidelines
4-1
4. Baseline Data
4.1 Receptors data
The air quality standards considered in this study are defined for protection of human health. Given this, the study will focus particularly on the analysis of the air quality effects in areas where human presence exists, namely the neighboring settlements (up to 10 km away), school, staff housings and farm house. Nine locations have been selected as representative of these areas: R1 = Direct vicinity of the site, village of Tanjung Batu.
Easting = 506344.00 m E Northing = 9957915.00 m S
R2 = Direct vicinity of the site, school Easting = 505919.02 m E Northing = 9957236.36 m S
R3 = Direct vicinity of the site, staff housing 1 Easting = 506188.00 m E Northing = 9957028.00 m S
R4 = Direct vicinity of the site, staff housing 2 Easting = 505857.00 m E Northing = 9956675.00 m S
R5 = Direct vicinity of the site, farm house Easting = 504998.00 m E Northing = 9957039.00 m S
R6 = 6.5 km northeast from the site Easting = 511757.10 m E Northing = 9960498.33 m S
R7 = 5.5 km southeast from the site Easting = 511238.00 m E Northing = 9955657.00 m S
R8 = 8.5 km southwest from the site, village of Tenggarong Easting = 498329.00 m E Northing = 9953837.00 m S
R9 = 6.5 km northwest from the site Easting = 500219.00 m E Northing = 9961091.00 m S
The location of the listed receptors (R) is shown in Figure 4-1 and in Figure 4-2.
4-2
Figure 4-1: Location of the sensitive receptors (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM) (R = Receptor)
R1
R6
R7
R8
R9
R2- R5
4-3
Figure 4-2: Closer view of the location of the sensitive receptors R1 to R5 (R = Receptor)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Kaltim 2
4-4
4.2 Meteorological Data
To conduct the Air Dispersion Calculation, recent meteorological data from a monitoring station located nearby the project site (station WRLS in Temindung) have been analyzed. The data available presented a very low level of coverage (more than 46% missing data). The next available meteorological station is located 100 km away from the project site and cannot therefore be considered representative. Given this, a simulation of meteorological data with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model has been undertaken for the year 2016. The WRF model is a next-generation mesoscale numerical weather prediction system designed for both atmospheric research and operational forecasting needs (URL 5). Figure 4-3 presents the windrose for the simulated year 2016. It shows that the prevailing winds blow from northwest (NW), north (N), and northeast (NE), while most of the receptors are located to the northeast (NE) and south (S) of the plant (Figure 4-1). The windrose also indicates that the more frequent wind speed is around 3 m/sec, which is equivalent, in the Beaufort scale, to the level “light breeze”.
Figure 4-3: Windrose for the year 2016 as simulated with the model WRF (wind blowing from) (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
4.3 Terrain data
The project site is surrounded by small hills with heights up to ca. 70 masl (Figure 4-4). To account for the different heights above sea level of the sensitive receptors and the plants, DEM (digital elevation model) data were acquired. These allow a 3D representation of the terrain of the assessment area and a
4-5
more accurate simulation of the pollutants’ distribution. Figure 4-5 shows the 3D representation of the area’s terrain.
Figure 4-4: Landscape surrounding the project site (Fichtner, Feb. 2017)
4-6
Figure 4-5: 3D representation of the terrain of the project area (for visualization
purposes, the “z” axis is shown with an augmentation of 200%)
4.4 Kaltim 2 Data
4.4.1 Configuration
The Kaltim 2 Peaker PP will have dual fuel firing capability with the primary fuel being Natural Gas (NG). The back-up fuel will be High-Speed Diesel (HSD). The Plant is planned to be operated in peaking mode supplying electric power to the local grid, primarily during times of high demand. This generally occurs typically daily over a 5 hours period between 17:00 and 22:00. Based on the Feasibility Study and the technical part of the bid invitation documentation produced by PT.PLN, the current planning status involves the option to use three different technical concepts, that is: heavy-duty gas turbines, aero derivative gas turbines or gas engines. Each solution will involve its own plant configuration, electrical infrastructures and automation concepts. No solution has been decided upon yet. It is expected that the Kaltim 2 Peaker Plant will adopt the same configuration and technology as the existing Kaltim 1 Peaker Plant, which to date has been running on HSD only. This will be assumed for this Air Dispersion Calculation. This means that the following configuration is assumed: 2 groups of dual-fuel turbines fired with HSD only:
Each group will have a capacity of 50 MW; 2 stacks (one per group).
4-7
4.4.2 Stack and Emission Data
It is assumed that the Power Plant will operate 2 groups of dual-fuel turbines, each one associated to one stack. The location of the stacks is shown in Table 4-1.
Easting [m] Northing [m]
WGS 84, Zone 50 M
Stack 1 505690 9957415
Stack 2 505690 9957445
Table 4-1: Location of the stacks of the Kaltim 2 Peaker PP
The pollutant’s concentrations in the flue gas are presented in Table 4-2 based on data available for Kaltim 1 Peaker and a combustion calculation.
Parameter Value for HSD
ELV [mg/Nm3] for oil ** Source *
Nat. Inter. Concentration CO [mg/Nm³] dry, 15% O2 52.9 NE NE Available data for
Concentration PM10 [mg/Nm³] dry, 15% O2 26.8 NE NE
* It is assumed that the same technology and configuration of Kaltim 1 will be adopted for Kaltim 2 ** At 0°C, 1 atm, and 15% O2; for turbines, facilities producing > 50 MWth
Table 4-2: Concentration of the pollutants emitted by the Kaltim 2 Peaker PP
Fichtner was given access to emission data for the existing Kaltim 1 Peaker. Because it is assumed that the same technology and configuration of this plant will be adopted for Kaltim 2, the same emission data are as well applicable. Data which were not made available have been estimated based on available technology and on a combustion calculation. As a basis for the combustion calculation, HSD with 1.2% of sulfur (S) has been assumed to be used. The characteristics of the HSD have been consulted in the Feasibility Study for the Kupang 1 Peaker Plant, to be built in the Nusa Tenggara Timur Province (see respective ADC Report). It is assumed that the same HSD type will be used throughout the country.
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
4-8
The pollutants concentrations are below the national and the international emission limit values applicable, except in what regards the maximum amount of S in the fuel (international standard). The concentration of SO2 is very close to the national limit value. Other characteristics of the stacks and the flue gas can be consulted in Table 4-3 below.
Parameter Value for HSD Source **
Number of stacks 2 Satellite pictures and site visit
Height of stacks [m] 26 *** Assumed height of the Kaltim 1 stacks
Diameter of stacks (inner) [m] 5.52 Based on Combustion Calculation
Flue gas exit temperature [K] 835.15 Based on available technology
Flue gas exit velocity [m/s] 13.3 Available data for Kaltim 1 Actual* flue gas exit flow [m3/s] per stack 317.35 Based on a Combustion Calculation
Emission rate CO [g/s] per stack 6.2 Based on available data for Kaltim 1
Emission rate SO2 [g/s] per stack 81.3 Based on a Combustion Calculation
Emission rate NO2 [g/s] per stack 3.9
Based on available data for Kaltim 1 Emission rate TSP [g/s] per stack 3.1
Emission rate PM10 [g/s] per stack 2.8
* Actual means at the actual conditions of temperature, pressure, moisture and O2 content of the flue gas | ** It is assumed that the same technology and configuration of Kaltim 1 will be adopted for Kaltim 2 | *** See Section 5.4 of this Report
Table 4-3: Other characteristics of the stacks and the flue gas from the Kaltim 2 Peaker PP
In order to allow a comparison of the results with the air quality standards, the following percentage based on Ehrlich, C., et al (2007) is applied to the TSP emission rates: The PM10 portion from combustion amounts to more than 90% of the
total PM (particulate matter)/TSP emitted.
4-9
4.5 Data for other sources
4.5.1 Tjangu Batu Gas Turbine Combined Cycle - 60 MW
The Tjangu Batu PP is located in the same complex as the future Kaltim 2 Peaker and the existing Kaltim 1 Peaker. From the site visit and analysis of satellite imagery, it is known that the plant operates with two stacks, each one associated with one 30 MW turbine, whose location is shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Location of the stacks of the Tjangu Batu PP
Fichtner had access to emission data for this plant for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. It is known that the plant operates exclusively with HSD since 2013, and that in the second semester of 2015 only one turbine was operating. HSD with 1.2% of sulfur (S) has been assumed to be used. The characteristics of the HSD have been consulted in the Feasibility Study for the Kupang 1 Peaker Plant, to be built in the Nusa Tenggara Timur Province (see respective ADC Report). It is assumed that the same HSD type will be used throughout the country. Several other data needed for the ADC had to be reasonably assumed and estimated by Fichtner’s team (Tables 4-5 and 4-6).
Parameter Value for HSD
ELV [mg/Nm3] for oil * Source
Nat. Inter. Concentration CO [mg/Nm³] dry, 15% O2 389.0 NE NE
Concentration PM10 [mg/Nm³] dry, 15% O2 21.1 NE NE
* At 0°C, 1 atm, and 15% O2; for turbines, facilities producing > 50 MWth
Table 4-5: Concentration of the pollutants emitted by the Tjangu Batu PP
Easting [mm] Northing [mm]
WGS 84, Zone 50 M
Stack 1 505717 9957809
Stack 2 505717 9957838
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
4-10
Parameter Value for HSD Source
Number of stacks 2 Satellite pictures and site visit
Height of stacks [m] 80 Diameter of stacks (inner) [m] 4.16 Based on Combustion Calculation
Flue gas exit temperature [K] 835.15 Estimated based on available
technology Flue gas exit velocity [m/s] 14.0 Available data for Tjangu Batu
Actual* flue gas exit flow [m3/s] per stack 190.41 Based on Combustion Calculation
Emission rate CO [g/s] per stack 27.3
Based on available data for Tjangu Batu
Emission rate SO2 [g/s] per stack 2.4
Emission rate NO2 [g/s] per stack 21.5
Emission rate TSP [g/s] per stack 1.5
Emission rate PM10 [g/s] per stack 1.35
* Actual means at the actual conditions of temperature, pressure, moisture and O2 content of the flue gas |
Table 4-6: Other characteristics of the stacks and the flue gas from the Tjangu Batu Plant
The emission data show that the national emission limit values are respected, but that the international ones regarding the amount of sulfur (S) in the fuel and the concentration of emitted NO2 are not. The emissions of SO2 are clearly lower than those of Kaltim 1. In order to allow a comparison of the results with the air quality standards, the following percentage based on Ehrlich, C., et al (2007) is applied to the TSP emission rates: The PM10 portion from combustion amounts to more than 90% of the
total PM (particulate matter)/TSP emitted.
4-11
4.5.2 Kaltim 1 Gas Fired Power Plant - 100 MW
As described previously, it is assumed that the same technology and configuration of Kaltim 1 will be adopted for Kaltim 2. The PP description made under Section 4.4 is therefore applicable.
Easting [m] Northing [m]
WGS 84, Zone 50 M
Stack 1 505690 9957499
Stack 2 505690 9957541
Table 4-7: Location of the stacks of the Kaltim 1 Peaker PP
The pollutant’s concentrations in the flue gas are presented in Table 4-8 based on data available for the Kaltim 1 Peaker and a combustion calculation.
Parameter Value for HSD
ELV [mg/Nm3] for oil * Source
Nat. Inter. Concentration CO [mg/Nm³] dry, 15% O2 48.5 NE NE Available data for
Concentration PM10 [mg/Nm³] dry, 15% O2 24.52 NE NE
* * At 0°C, 1 atm, and 15% O2; for turbines, facilities producing > 50 MWth
Table 4-8: Concentration of the pollutants emitted by the Kaltim 1 PP
Fichtner had access to emission data for this plant for the year 2016. Data which were not made available have been estimated based on available technology and on a combustion calculation. As a basis for the combustion calculation, HSD with 1.2% of sulfur (S) has been assumed to be used. The characteristics of the HSD have been consulted in the Feasibility Study for the Kupang 1 Peaker Plant, to be built in the Nusa Tenggara Timur Province (see respective ADC Report). It is assumed that the same HSD type will be used throughout the country. The pollutants concentrations are below the national and the international emission limit values applicable, except for the amount of S in the fuel (international standard).
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
4-12
Other characteristics of the stacks and the flue gas can be consulted in Table 4-9 below.
Parameter Value for HSD Source **
Number of stacks 2 Satellite pictures and site visit
Height of stacks [m] 26 Diameter of stacks (inner) [m] 5.52 Based on a Combustion Calculation
Flue gas exit temperature [K] 835.15 Based on available technology
Flue gas exit velocity [m/s] 13.3 Available data for Kaltim 1
Actual* flue gas exit flow [m3/s] per stack 317.35 Based on a Combustion Calculation
Emission rate CO [g/s] per stack 5.7 Based on available data for Kaltim 1
Emission rate SO2 [g/s] per stack 81.3 Based on a Combustion Calculation
Emission rate NO2 [g/s] per stack 3.6
Based on available data for Kaltim 1 Emission rate TSP [g/s] per stack 3.2
Emission rate PM10 [g/s] per stack 2.9
* Actual means at the actual conditions of temperature, pressure, moisture and O2 content of the flue gas
Table 4-9: Other characteristics of the stacks and the flue gas from the Kaltim 1 Peaker PP
In order to allow a comparison of the results with the air quality standards, the following percentage based on Ehrlich, C., et al (2007) is applied to the TSP emission rates: The PM10 portion from combustion amounts to more than 90% of the
total PM (particulate matter)/TSP emitted.
4.6 Background Air Quality Data
Air quality measurements are regularly undertaken in the area for purposes of reporting to the authorities. The measurements are made once per semester in 3 locations: In front of the existing Plant’s Office; At the housing complex of the existing Plant workers; At Tanjung Batu Village. The summarized results are shown in Table 4-12 as averages for the period 2014-2016 and for all locations. The measured concentrations correspond to 24-hour averages for all pollutants. However, the air quality standards are
4-13
defined as well for other averaging periods, namely 10 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours, and 1 year. Therefore, it is necessary to convert the 24-hour measurement results into the other averaging periods, so that the background concentrations can be added to the modeled results. Based on EPA, 1992, the following multiplying factor may be applied to the 24 hr averages to convert them into 1 hr averages: Multiplying Factor - to convert 24 hr to 1 hr
2.5
Table 4-10: Multiplying factor to convert 24 hour concentrations to 1 hr concentrations (adapted from EPA, 1992)
After converting the 24 hr measurements to 1 hr concentrations using the above conversion factor, it is possible to convert these into other averaging periods as shown in Table 4-11.
Averaging period Multiplying Factors - to convert 1 hr to other averaging periods
10 mins 1.65 *
8 hours 0.7 **
Annual 0.08 **
Table 4-11: Multiplying factors for point sources to convert 1 hour concentrations to other averaging periods (*OME, 2008, and **EPA, 1992)
* Measured results; all other values are calculated using the factors shown in Tables 4-11and 4-10
Table 4-12: Air Quality measured and calculated results in the project area (adapted from data directly received)
Table 4-12 shows that the measured and calculated concentrations are all well below the national and WHO standards.
4.6.1 Quality of the data
The Consultant had no access to a description of the quality assurance and control procedures undertaken during the collection of the air quality data shown. There is therefore no guarantee that the data collection has been made according to reference techniques and methods. Given this, the data is used in this report only for illustrative purposes.
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-1
5. Air Dispersion Calculation
5.1 Air Quality Model
The Air Dispersion Calculation was performed using the dispersion modeling software BREEZE AERMOD, version 7.12 (January 2017), which predicts pollutant concentrations from continuous point, flare, area, line, volume and open pit sources. This steady-state plume model is a US-EPA Regulatory Model. The simulations performed with BREEZE AERMOD for each of the pollutants TSP, PM10, CO, SO2 and NO2 result in worst case scenarios, that is, the software outputs the maximum concentrations expected to be found in the area due to the operation of the plants.
5.2 Calculation Area
A radius of 10 km around the center of emission has been considered as the calculation area. The first 1000 m of the grid have an increment of 50 m - this composes the Grid 1. The remaining assessment area is built with a 500 m increment - this composes the Grid 2 (Figure 5-1).
5-2
Receptors Stacks of the Plants Figure 5-1: Assessment area and the grids used in the calculation
● ┼
GRID 2
GRID 1
5-3
5.3 Calculation Scenarios
The Kaltim 2 Peaker is planned to burn Natural Gas as main fuel, and rely on HSD only as a back-up fuel. However, it is known that the neighboring Kaltim 1 Peaker has been operating almost exclusively with HSD since the beginning of operation, and that the Tanjung Batu PP since 2013 as well. Given this, it is reasonable to assume that there is a high probability that also Kaltim 2 will operate with HSD, at least in a worst case scenario. Kaltim 2 Peaker is planned to operate only during peak demand periods. However, in a worst case scenario, the plant may operate continuously for 24 hours per day. For these reasons, the present Air Dispersion Calculation will simulate worst case scenarios where the Kaltim 2 Peaker will run on a continuous basis with HSD. The same will be assumed for the neighboring plants Tajung Batu and Kaltim Peaker 1. For the power plant complex altogether 3 scenarios are simulated: one where only Kaltim 2 is operating (Scenario A), one where the existing plants are operating (baseline scenario, or
Scenario B); and one where all plants are operating (future scenario, or Scenario C).
5.4 Determination of the stack height
One of the objectives of the ADC is determining the height that the stacks of the plant shall have so that the national and international air quality standards (AQS) are fulfilled at the next receptor points in every scenario. As previously stated, it is expected that the Kaltim 2 Peaker will have the same configuration as the existing Kaltim 1 Peaker. The existing plant has however relatively low stacks (26 meters). These stacks are only a few meters above the turbine hall roof, which may hinder a good dispersion of the air pollutants emitted (Figure 5-2).
5-4
Figure 5-2: Stacks of the Kaltim 1 Peaker (Fichtner, Feb. 2017)
In order to evaluate whether the stack height is appropriate and can be used for Kaltim 2, the Good International Industry Practice (GIIP) stack height is calculated (only because in this case there is enough information regarding the dimensions of nearby structures).
5.4.1 GIIP stack height
According to the U.S. EPA (IFC, 2007), the GIIP is determined as follows (see also Figure 5-3):
GIIP stack height = H + 1.5 L
where: H is the height of the nearby obstacles above the base of the stack L is the lesser dimension, height or projected width of the nearby
obstacle Projected width = (lenght2 + width2)0.5 Nearby obstacle = obstacle within/touching a radius of 5L but less than
800 m
5-5
Figure 5-3: GIIP stack height (IFC, 2007)
For the case of Kaltim 2, the following values are determined: Nearby obstacle = turbine hall
Height = h = 20 m Length = l = 85 m Width = w = 38 m Projected width = (852 + 382)0.5 = 93 m Located at the same base elevation as the stack h = H
L = 20 m (the lesser dimension of the turbine hall is in this case the height)
GIIP stack height = H + 1.5L = 20 + 1.5 × 20 = 50 m The calculation above shows that 50 meters is the GIIP stack height for Kaltim 2. This is almost the double of the height of the existing Kaltim 1.
5.4.2 GIIP model runs - SO2
In order to determine whether a GIIP stack height for Kaltim 2 would be beneficial for the project, a simulation of the 1 hour, 24 hours, and annual SO2 ground level concentrations (GLC) has been undertaken. A calculation of the 10 minutes SO2 GLC is presented as well (based on the multiplication factor shown previously in Table 4-11). In a first model run, it is considered that Kaltim 2 would have a stack height of 26 meters; in a second model run, a stack height of 50 meters is assumed
5-6
for this plant. In both runs, the existing plants Kaltim 1 and Tanjngu Batu maintain their configuration. The results are presented in Table 5-1 below for the simulation of the sole contribution of Kaltim 2 (Scenario A), the sole contribution of the existing plants (Scenario B), and the cumulative contribution of the three plants (Scenario C).
Kaltim 2 stack height = 26 meters
Time period Areas
SO2 maximum modeled/calculated
GLC [μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
1 hr Point with max. conc. 2110 900 -
10 min Point with max. conc. 3482 - 500
24 hr Point with max. conc. 88.5 365 125 (IT1) 50 (IT2) 20 (GL)
1 yr Point with max. conc 2.16 60 -
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
1 hr Point with max. conc. 1250 900 -
10 min Point with max. conc. 2063 - 500
24 hr Point with max. conc. 286 365 125 (IT1) 50 (IT2) 20 (GL)
1 yr Point with max. conc. 5.78 60 -
SCENARIO C - All plants
1 hr Point with max. conc. 2370 900 -
10 min Point with max. conc. 3911 - 500
24 hr Point with max. conc. 286 365 125 (IT1) 50 (IT2) 20 (GL)
1 yr Point with max. conc. 7.49 60 -
Kaltim 2 GIIP stack height = 50 meters SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
1 hr Point with max. conc. 82 900 -
10 min Point with max. conc. 135 - 500
24 hr Point with max. conc. 21.2 365 125 (IT1) 50 (IT2) 20 (GL)
1 yr Point with max. conc. 1.83 60 -
5-7
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
1 hr Point with max. conc. 1250 900 -
10 min Point with max. conc. 2063 - 500
24 hr Point with max. conc. 286 365 125 (IT1) 50 (IT2) 20 (GL)
1 yr Point with max. conc. 5.78 60 -
SCENARIO C - All plants
1 hr Point with max. conc. 1250 900 -
10 min Point with max. conc. 2063 - 500
24 hr Point with max. conc. 286 365 125 (IT1) 50 (IT2) 20 (GL)
1 yr Point with max. conc. 6.02 60 -
Table 5-1: Maximum simulated SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards (26 m and 50 m Kaltim 2 stack height)
The results show that, when considering the sole impact of Kaltim 2 (Scenario A), there is a considerably large difference in the GLCs of SO2 when the stack height is raised from 26 to 50 meters. As a result, the national and the international air quality standards can be respected when designing a 50 meter high stack (except for the stringent WHO Guideline1), which is not the case if the stack has 26 meters. The GLCs generated as a result of the sole contribution of the existing plants (Scenario B) are in both model runs very high. Most of the applicable AQS are not fulfilled. These GLCs influence the cumulative impact of the three plants strongly (Scenario C). It is important to verify that the cumulative effects do not change when the stack height of Kaltim 2 is raised.
5.4.3 Conclusion - Stack height for Kaltim 2
The exercise presented in this Section showed that considering a GIIP stack height for Kaltim 2 would allow this plant to fulfill the applicable AQS. However, the cumulative effect would continue to be very high, no matter how high the stacks of Kaltim 2 are. This means that the construction of a GIIP stack in Kaltim 2 would not bring a significant advantage to the site, where the GLCs would continue to be non-fulfilled. Given the above, this ADC considers a stack height of 26 meters for Kaltim 2 - this is the worse case scenario and also the one which has a higher 1 The WHO provides interim targets (IT) in recognition of the need for a staged approach to achieve the recommended and stricter guidelines (GL).
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-8
probability of occurrence. It shall be however noted that, according to the IFC General EHS Guidelines, a GIIP stack height shall always be considered for every project, independently of its size, nature, or impacts.
5.5 ADC Results
This Section contains the results of the simulations performed with BREEZE AERMOD for each of the pollutants TSP, CO, PM10, SO2 and NO2 for all the different averaging periods for which the standards are defined. The results are shown for three different scenarios: one where only Kaltim 2 is operating (Scenario A), one where the existing plants are operating (baseline scenario, or
Scenario B), and one where all plants are operating (future scenario, or Scenario C). The results are presented in the form of: Tables showing the maximum simulated ground level concentrations
(GLC) in the assessment area (including the point of maximum concentration and the sensitive receptors). The respective comparison with the Air Quality Standards is made. The tables show in addition the percentage of the AQS which the maximum GLC represent.
Plot maps of the maximum simulated GLC as direct outputs from the model software.
It is important to note that the results shown represent maximum GLC. The maximum GLC are expected in different times and locations for each scenario. This implies that there is not a direct correlation between the maximum GLCs simulated for the three scenarios.
5.5.1 CO - 1 hour AQS
The WHO defined no AQS for CO. The comparison of the model results with the NAAQS (Indonesian standard) shows that this is expected to be respected throughout the entire assessment area (Table 5-1). Scenario B shows that, when considering only the baseline conditions (existing plants operating), the air quality standard for 1 hr CO is respected; the same is valid for Scenario A (if Kaltim 2 would be built separately). The results of Scenario C show that the cumulative impacts will not be significant in the area. The results also show that the maximum increment in the CO hourly mean as a result from the operation of Kaltim 2 is less than 25% of the AQS, which goes in line with the IFC recommendation. This means that a future sustainable development in the direct vicinity of the project is possible, when considering the CO 1 hr concentrations.
5-9
Time period Areas
CO maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
1 hour
Point with max. conc.
161 30,000 - - -
% of the AQS 0.5% - - -
R1 25.6 30,000 - - -
R2 26.9 30,000 - - -
R3 12.9 30,000 - - -
R4 5.8 30,000 - - -
R5 24.9 30,000 - - -
R6 3.3 30,000 - - -
R7 5.4 30,000 - - -
R8 2.5 30,000 - - -
R9 2.7 30,000 - - -
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
1 hour
Point with max. conc. 95.3 30,000 - - -
R1 25.6 30,000 - - -
R2 28.1 30,000 - - -
R3 20.6 30,000 - - -
R4 16.6 30,000 - - -
R5 28.4 30,000 - - -
R6 20.0 30,000 - - -
R7 29.1 30,000 - - -
R8 18.4 30,000 - - -
R9 17.4 30,000 - - -
SCENARIO C - All plants
1 hour
Point with max. conc. 181 30,000 - - -
R1 25.6 30,000 - - -
R2 58.7 30,000 - - -
R3 28.7 30,000 - - -
R4 18.8 30,000 - - -
R5 30.8 30,000 - - -
R6 23.3 30,000 - - -
R7 34.5 30,000 - - -
R8 20.9 30,000 - - -
5-10
Time period Areas
CO maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
R9 20.3 30,000 - - -
Table 5-2: Maximum simulated 1 hr CO concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
The concentration plots (Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5) show that the absolute cumulative maximum of 181 μg/m³ is found within the power plant’s area.
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-11
Figure 5-4: Maximum simulated 1 hr CO concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-12
Figure 5-5: Maximum simulated 1 hr CO concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-13
5.5.2 CO - 24 hours AQS
The WHO defined no AQS for CO. The results show that the national 24 hr AQS for CO is expected to be respected in the entire assessment area (Table 5-3). Scenario B shows that, when considering only the baseline conditions (existing plants operating), the air quality standard for 24 hr CO is respected; the same is valid for Scenario A (if Kaltim 2 would be built separately). The results of Scenario C show that the cumulative impacts will not be significant in the area. They also show that the Kaltim 2 Peaker will not contribute significantly for the cumulative 24 hr CO concentrations, as the maximum values are the same in scenarios B and C (see note in the beginning of section 5.5). Similarly to the results for the 1 hr concentrations, the maximum increment in the CO 24 hr mean as a result of Kaltim 2’s operation represents less than 25% of the AQS, fulfilling therefore the IFC recommendation.
Time period Areas
CO maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
24 hours
Point with max. conc.
6.7 10,000 - - -
% of the AQS 0.07% - - -
R1 0.7 10,000 - - -
R2 2.0 10,000 - - -
R3 0.9 10,000 - - -
R4 0.7 10,000 - - -
R5 1.2 10,000 - - -
R6 0.2 10,000 - - -
R7 0.4 10,000 - - -
R8 0.2 10,000 - - -
R9 0.2 10,000 - - -
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
24 hours
Point with max. conc. 21.8 10,000 - - -
R1 5.2 10,000 - - -
R2 4.7 10,000 - - -
R3 3.9 10,000 - - -
R4 4.6 10,000 - - -
R5 9.7 10,000 - - -
5-14
Time period Areas
CO maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
R6 1.2 10,000 - - -
R7 2.2 10,000 - - -
R8 1.3 10,000 - - -
R9 1.1 10,000 - - -
SCENARIO C - All plants
24 hours
Point with max. conc. 21.8 10,000 - - -
R1 5.4 10,000 - - -
R2 5.1 10,000 - - -
R3 4.4 10,000 - - -
R4 5.3 10,000 - - -
R5 10.4 10,000 - - -
R6 1.5 10,000 - - -
R7 2.6 10,000 - - -
R8 1.5 10,000 - - -
R9 1.2 10,000 - - -
Table 5-3: Maximum simulated 24 hr CO concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
The maximum 24 hr concentration plots (Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7) show that the absolute cumulative maximum of 21.8 μg/m³ is found within the power plant’s area.
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-15
Figure 5-6: Maximum simulated 24 hr CO concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-16
Figure 5-7: Maximum simulated 24 hr CO concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5 Stack
5-17
5.5.3 SO2 - 1 hour AQS
The WHO defined no 1 hour AQS for SO2. The results for the simulation of the maximum 1 hr SO2 concentrations (Table 5-4) show that the NAQQS is not expected to be fulfilled at the point of maximum concentration in any of the scenarios. This forecast has been previously discussed in this Report (Section 5.4). Notwithstanding, the NAAQS is expected to be fulfilled at the receptors in all scenarios.
Time period Areas
SO2 maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
1 hour
Point with max. conc.
2110 900 - - -
% of the AQS 234% - - -
R1 157.7 900 - - -
R2 537.1 900 - - -
R3 210.5 900 - - -
R4 86.2 900 - - -
R5 130.3 900 - - -
R6 44.6 900 - - -
R7 71.3 900 - - -
R8 32.0 900 - - -
R9 34.4 900 - - -
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
1 hour
Point with max. conc. 1250 900 - - -
R1 335.8 900 - - -
R2 353.2 900 - - -
R3 168.6 900 - - -
R4 76.4 900 - - -
R5 326.1 900 - - -
R6 45.1 900 - - -
R7 72.8 900 - - -
R8 34.9 900 - - -
R9 36.6 900 - - -
SCENARIO C - All plants
1 hour Point with 2370 900 - - -
5-18
Time period Areas
SO2 maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL max. conc.
R1 334.0 900 - - -
R2 769.5 900 - - -
R3 374.8 900 - - -
R4 162.5 900 - - -
R5 326.5 900 - - -
R6 89.7 900 - - -
R7 144.1 900 - - -
R8 66.9 900 - - -
R9 71.0 900 - - -
Table 5-4: Maximum simulated 1 hr SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
The maximum 1 hr cumulative concentration plots of SO2 in the area (Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9) indicate that the absolute maximum is expected within the power plant site. The receptor R2, corresponding to a school, is expected to be affected by the highest concentrations among all receptors (769.5 μg/m³), even though these are below the NAAQS (900 μg/m³).
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-19
Figure 5-8: Maximum simulated 1 hr SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-20
Figure 5-9: Maximum simulated 1 hr SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-21
5.5.4 SO2 - 10 minutes AQS
Table 5-5 shows the calculated 10 minute averages of SO2. The calculation was made by multiplying the 1 hr averages with the factor shown previously in Table 4-11. There is no national AQS for 10 minutes averages. The results indicate that the WHO 10 minutes guideline is not expected to be fulfilled in the entire area. For all scenarios, the absolute maximum GLC is expected to be 4 to 8 times above this value. The values at the receptors are expected to exceed the WHO GL in receptors R1 (village of Tanjung Batu) in all scenarios, R2 (village of Tanjung Batu) in Scenarios B and C, R3 (staff housing 1) in Scenario C, and R5 (farm house) in Scenarios B and C. The above shows that the cumulative impacts on the short-term SO2 GLCs are significant. As shown in Section 5.4, these impacts are strongly influenced by the two existing plants.
Time period Areas
SO2 maximum calculated
GLC [μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
10 mins
Point with max. conc.
3481.5 - - - 500
% of the AQS - - - 696%
R1 260.2 - - - 500
R2 886.2 - - - 500
R3 347.3 - - - 500
R4 142.2 - - - 500
R5 215.0 - - - 500
R6 73.6 - - - 500
R7 117.6 - - - 500
R8 52.8 - - - 500
R9 56.8 - - - 500
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
10 mins
Point with max. conc. 2062.5 - - - 500
R1 554.1 - - - 500
R2 582.8 - - - 500
R3 278.2 - - - 500
R4 126.1 - - - 500
R5 538.1 - - - 500
5-22
R6 74.4 - - - 500
R7 120.1 - - - 500
R8 57.6 - - - 500
R9 60.4 - - - 500
SCENARIO C - All plants
10 mins
Point with max. conc. 3910.5 - - - 500
R1 551.1 - - - 500
R2 1269.7 - - - 500
R3 618.4 - - - 500
R4 268.1 - - - 500
R5 538.7 - - - 500
R6 148.0 - - - 500
R7 237.8 - - - 500
R8 110.4 - - - 500
R9 117.2 - - - 500
Table 5-5: Maximum calculated 10 minutes SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-23
5.5.5 SO2 - 24 hours AQS
The results for the maximum 24 hr SO2 concentrations show that only the WHO Interim Target 1 (IT 1), Interim Target 2 (IT 2) and Guideline (GL) are expected not to be fulfilled in the point of maximum concentration and at some receptors. The NAAQS is expected to be respected in all scenarios throughout the entire assessment area. Similarly to what was verified for the other SO2 averaging periods, the results for the 24 hr maximum GLC show that there is a preponderant influence of the existing power plants for the cumulative effects (a comparison of the results of Scenarios B and C sustains this affirmation). It can be noted that, in what regards the cumulative impacts (Scenario C), even though the national standard is respected, the absolute maximum GLC is very close to it. The WHO standards are not expected to be fulfilled when considering the future Scenario C. Still regarding cumulative impacts, the stringent WHO GL of 20 μg/m³ is expected to be exceeded at receptors R1 (village of Tanjung Batu), R2 (school), R3 (staff housing) and R5 (farm house). At receptor R5, also the IT 2 is expected to be non-fulfilled.
Time period Areas
SO2 maximum simulated GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
24 hours
Point with max. conc.
88.5 365 125 50 20
% of the AQS 24% 71% 177% 442%
R1 8.9 365 125 50 20
R2 26.5 365 125 50 20
R3 12.5 365 125 50 20
R4 8.7 365 125 50 20
R5 15.2 365 125 50 20
R6 2.9 365 125 50 20
R7 4.9 365 125 50 20
R8 2.7 365 125 50 20
R9 2.2 365 125 50 20
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
24 hours
Point with max. conc. 285.8 365 125 50 20
R1 29.7 365 125 50 20
5-24
Time period Areas
SO2 maximum simulated GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
R2 26.8 365 125 50 20
R3 13.3 365 125 50 20
R4 8.8 365 125 50 20
R5 47.2 365 125 50 20
R6 3.0 365 125 50 20
R7 5.0 365 125 50 20
R8 2.7 365 125 50 20
R9 2.3 365 125 50 20
SCENARIO C - All plants
24 hours
Point with max. conc. 285.8 365 125 50 20
R1 32.3 365 125 50 20
R2 39.3 365 125 50 20
R3 22.5 365 125 50 20
R4 17.5 365 125 50 20
R5 62.2 365 125 50 20
R6 5.8 365 125 50 20
R7 9.9 365 125 50 20
R8 5.4 365 125 50 20
R9 4.6 365 125 50 20
Table 5-6: Maximum simulated 24 hours SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
The absolute maximum concentrations are expected to be found within the power plants complex (Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11).
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-25
Figure 5-10: Maximum simulated 24 hr SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-26
Figure 5-11: Maximum simulated 24 hr SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-27
5.5.6 SO2 - Annual AQS
There is no annual SO2 standard defined by the WHO. The simulation shows that the annual concentrations of SO2 are expected to be very low throughout the entire assessment area (the maximum as resulting from Kaltim 2’s operation represents merely 3.7% of the national annual standard) (Table 5-7).
Time period Areas
SO2 maximum simulated GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
1 year
Point with max. conc.
2.2 60 - - -
% of the AQS 3.7% - - -
R1 0.6 60 - - -
R2 1.3 60 - - -
R3 0.8 60 - - -
R4 0.9 60 - - -
R5 1.3 60 - - -
R6 0.4 60 - - -
R7 0.5 60 - - -
R8 0.3 60 - - -
R9 0.3 60 - - -
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
1 year
Point with max. conc. 5.8 60 - - -
R1 0.8 60 - - -
R2 1.7 60 - - -
R3 0.9 60 - - -
R4 0.9 60 - - -
R5 1.9 60 - - -
R6 0.4 60 - - -
R7 0.6 60 - - -
R8 0.4 60 - - -
R9 0.3 60 - - -
SCENARIO C - All plants
1 year
Point with max. conc. 7.5 60 - - -
R1 1.4 60 - - -
R2 3.0 60 - - -
5-28
Time period Areas
SO2 maximum simulated GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
R3 1.7 60 - - -
R4 1.8 60 - - -
R5 3.2 60 - - -
R6 0.8 60 - - -
R7 1.1 60 - - -
R8 0.7 60 - - -
R9 0.6 60 - - -
Table 5-7: Maximum simulated annual SO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
The concentration plots show that the maximum concentration is expected within the power plants complex (Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13).
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-29
Figure 5-12: Maximum simulated annual SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-30
Figure 5-13: Maximum simulated annual SO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-31
5.5.7 NO2 - 1 hour AQS
Table 5-8 shows that the maximum modeled 1 hr NO2 GLCs are expected to be below the national and the international AQS throughout the entire assessment area. The results show, however, that the effect of Kaltim is expected to represent more than 25% of the WHO GL (i.e., 47%), which goes against the IFC recommendation for a future sustainable development in the area.
Table 5-8: Maximum simulated 1 hr NO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15 show the maximum cumulative concentration plots.
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-33
Figure 5-14: Maximum simulated 1 hr NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-34
Figure 5-15: Maximum simulated 1 hr NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-35
5.5.8 NO2 - 24 hours AQS
There is no WHO standard for 24 hr NO2 GLC. The results for the maximum 24 hr NO2 GLC show that the NAAQS is expected to be fulfilled in the area (Table 5-9). The cumulative impact is therefore for this pollutant not significant. The maximum GLC as a result of the operation of Kaltim 2 represent less than 25% of the NAAQS, which allows respecting the IFC recommendation for a future sustainable development in the direct vicinity of the plant.
Time period Areas
NO2 maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
24 hours
Point with max. conc.
3.9 150 - - -
% of the AQS 2.6% - - -
R1 0.4 150 - - -
R2 1.2 150 - - -
R3 0.6 150 - - -
R4 0.4 150 - - -
R5 0.7 150 - - -
R6 0.1 150 - - -
R7 0.2 150 - - -
R8 0.1 150 - - -
R9 0.1 150 - - -
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
24 hours
Point with max. conc. 12.7 150 - - -
R1 3.5 150 - - -
R2 3.3 150 - - -
R3 2.7 150 - - -
R4 3.3 150 - - -
R5 6.5 150 - - -
R6 0.9 150 - - -
R7 1.5 150 - - -
R8 0.9 150 - - -
R9 0.8 150 - - -
SCENARIO C - All plants
24 Point with 12.7 150 - - -
5-36
Time period Areas
NO2 maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL hours max. conc.
R1 3.6 150 - - -
R2 3.5 150 - - -
R3 3.1 150 - - -
R4 3.6 150 - - -
R5 7.0 150 - - -
R6 1.0 150 - - -
R7 1.7 150 - - -
R8 1.1 150 - - -
R9 0.9 150 - - -
Table 5-9: Maximum simulated 24 hours NO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
Figures 5-16 and 5-17 show the maximum GLC plots.
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-37
Figure 5-16: Maximum simulated 24 hr NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-38
Figure 5-17: Maximum simulated 24 hr NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-39
5.5.9 NO2 - Annual AQS
The predicted annual NO2 values in the project area are very low. The comparison with the applicable air quality standards (Table 5-10) reveals that none of them is expected to be exceeded. The maximum increment in the NO2 annual mean represents far less than 25% of the WHO and the national AQS.
Time period Areas
NO2 maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
1 year
Point with max. conc.
0.09 100 - - 40
% of the AQS 0.09% - - 0.2%
R1 0.03 100 - - 40
R2 0.06 100 - - 40
R3 0.04 100 - - 40
R4 0.04 100 - - 40
R5 0.06 100 - - 40
R6 0.02 100 - - 40
R7 0.02 100 - - 40
R8 0.02 100 - - 40
R9 0.01 100 - - 40
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
1 year
Point with max. conc. 0.7 100 - - 40
R1 0.3 100 - - 40
R2 0.4 100 - - 40
R3 0.3 100 - - 40
R4 0.3 100 - - 40
R5 0.5 100 - - 40
R6 0.1 100 - - 40
R7 0.2 100 - - 40
R8 0.1 100 - - 40
R9 0.1 100 - - 40
SCENARIO C - All plants
1 year Point with max. conc.
0.8 100 - - 40
R1 0.3 100 - - 40
5-40
Time period Areas
NO2 maximum modeled GLC
[μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 GL
R2 0.4 100 - - 40
R3 0.3 100 - - 40
R4 0.4 100 - - 40
R5 0.6 100 - - 40
R6 0.1 100 - - 40
R7 0.2 100 - - 40
R8 0.1 100 - - 40
R9 0.1 100 - - 40
Table 5-10: Maximum simulated annual NO2 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
Figures 5-18 and 5-19 show the maximum GLC plots.
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-41
Figure 5-18: Maximum simulated annual NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-42
Figure 5-19: Maximum simulated annual NO2 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-43
5.5.10 PM10 - 24 hr AQS
The results of the simulation of the maximum 24 hr PM10 concentrations indicate that the national and the WHO standards are expected to be in total compliance in the area (Table 5-11). The maximum GLCs represent less than 25% of each of the standards, which fulfills the IFC recommendation for a future sustainable development in the area.
Time period Areas
PM10 maximum
simulated GLC [μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 IT 3 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
24 hours
Point with max. conc.
3.2 150 150 100 75 50
% of the AQS 2.1% 2.1% 3.2% 4.3% 6.4%
R1 0.3 150 150 100 75 50
R2 0.9 150 150 100 75 50
R3 0.4 150 150 100 75 50
R4 0.3 150 150 100 75 50
R5 0.5 150 150 100 75 50
R6 0.1 150 150 100 75 50
R7 0.2 150 150 100 75 50
R8 0.1 150 150 100 75 50
R9 0.1 150 150 100 75 50
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
24 hours
Point with max. conc. 10.2 150 150 100 75 50
R1 1.2 150 150 100 75 50
R2 1.0 150 150 100 75 50
R3 0.5 150 150 100 75 50
R4 0.5 150 150 100 75 50
R5 1.9 150 150 100 75 50
R6 0.3 150 150 100 75 50
R7 0.2 150 150 100 75 50
R8 0.1 150 150 100 75 50
R9 0.1 150 150 100 75 50
SCENARIO C - All plants
24 hours
Point with max. conc. 10.2 150 150 100 75 50
R1 1.3 150 150 100 75 50
5-44
Time period Areas
PM10 maximum
simulated GLC [μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 IT 3 GL
R2 1.4 150 150 100 75 50
R3 0.8 150 150 100 75 50
R4 0.8 150 150 100 75 50
R5 2.5 150 150 100 75 50
R6 0.3 150 150 100 75 50
R7 0.4 150 150 100 75 50
R8 0.2 150 150 100 75 50
R9 0.2 150 150 100 75 50
Table 5-11: Maximum simulated 24 hr PM10 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
The maximum concentrations are expected within the power plants complex area (Figure 5-20 and Figure 5-21).
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-45
Figure 5-20: Maximum simulated 24 hr PM10 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-46
Figure 5-21: Maximum simulated 24 hr PM10 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-47
5.5.11 PM10 - Annual AQS
The analysis of the results allows the conclusion that the expected annual mean values of PM10 are insignificant all over the assessment area (Table 5-12 and Figures 5-22 and 5-23).
Time period Areas
PM10 maximum
simulated GLC [μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 IT 3 GL
SCENARIO A - Only Kaltim 2
1 year
Point with max. conc.
0.1 - 70 50 30 20
% of the AQS 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5%
R1 0.02 - 70 50 30 20
R2 0.05 - 70 50 30 20
R3 0.03 - 70 50 30 20
R4 0.03 - 70 50 30 20
R5 0.05 - 70 50 30 20
R6 0.01 - 70 50 30 20
R7 0.02 - 70 50 30 20
R8 0.01 - 70 50 30 20
R9 0.01 - 70 50 30 20
SCENARIO B - Only existing plants
1 year
Point with max. conc. 0.2 - 70 50 30 20
R1 0.05 - 70 50 30 20
R2 0.08 - 70 50 30 20
R3 0.05 - 70 50 30 20
R4 0.05 - 70 50 30 20
R5 0.1 - 70 50 30 20
R6 0.02 - 70 50 30 20
R7 0.03 - 70 50 30 20
R8 0.02 - 70 50 30 20
R9 0.02 - 70 50 30 20
SCENARIO C - All plants
1 year
Point with max. conc. 0.3 - 70 50 30 20
R1 0.07 - 70 50 30 20
R2 0.1 - 70 50 30 20
R3 0.08 - 70 50 30 20
R4 0.08 - 70 50 30 20
5-48
Time period Areas
PM10 maximum
simulated GLC [μg/m³]
Air Quality Standards [μg/m³]
NAAQS WHO
IT 1 IT 2 IT 3 GL
R5 0.1 - 70 50 30 20
R6 0.05 - 70 50 30 20
R7 0.04 - 70 50 30 20
R8 0.03 - 70 50 30 20
R9 0.03 - 70 50 30 20
Table 5-12: Maximum simulated annual PM10 concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-49
Figure 5-22: Maximum simulated annual PM10 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-50
Figure 5-23: Maximum simulated annual PM10 concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
5-51
5.5.12 TSP - 24 hr AQS
There is no international AQS for Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). The results of the simulation (Table 5-13) show that the 24 hr NAAQS is expected to be respected throughout the whole assessment area, just like what was verified for PM10.
Table 5-13: Maximum simulated 24 hr TSP concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
Figures 5-24 and 5-25 show the maximum simulated GLC plots.
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-53
Figure 5-24: Maximum simulated 24 hr TSP concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-54
Figure 5-25: Maximum simulated 24 hr TSP concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3 R4
R5
Stack
5-55
5.5.13 TSP - Annual AQS
Just like what was concluded for PM10, the annual TSP averages in the project area are expected to be insignificant (Table 5-14 and Figures 5-26 and 5-27).
Table 5-14: Maximum simulated annual TSP concentrations and comparison with the air quality standards
Standard is not exceeded Standard is exceeded
5-57
Figure 5-26: Maximum simulated annual TSP concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants (source of the satellite image: Google Earth TM)
R6
R7
R8
R9
R1
R2- R5
5-58
Figure 5-27: Maximum simulated annual TSP concentrations - cumulative effects - all plants - detail of receptors 1 to 5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Stack
6-1
6. Summary of the study and results In order to assess the impact on air quality derived from the activity of the future Kaltim 2 Peaker Power Plant, an Air Dispersion Calculation was performed using the internationally recognized modeling software BREEZE AERMOD. The expected ambient air concentrations of CO, NO2, SO2, TSP and PM10 were modeled. The comparison with national and international air quality standards allowed understanding the contribution of the Power Plant for the degradation of the airshed in the area where it will be installed. The air quality standards considered in this study are the ones defined by the Government of Indonesia (NAAQS, established by the 1999 Government Decree No. 41) and the WHO (World Health Organization). It has in addition been assessed whether the emissions from the project contribute with more than 25% of the applicable ambient air quality standards (with the view to determine if the Power Plant project would allow additional, future sustainable development in the same airshed, as recommended by IFC). The existing Power Plants Complex where Kaltim 2 will be built includes presently: Tjangu Batu PP - Gas Turbine Combined Cycle, 60 MW. Kaltim 1 - Gas Turbine Kaltim Peaker 1, 2 x 50 MW, dual fuel. Emission data for the Kaltim 1 and Tjangu Batu Power Plants, which have been running recently on HSD only, were made available to Fichtner. Based on these data, on a combustion calculation and on technology assumptions, the input data for the ADC could be compiled. Given the history of fuel availability and usage at site, worst case scenarios have been simulated where the Kaltim 2 Peaker would run on a continuous basis with HSD. The same was assumed for the neighboring plants Tjangu Batu and Kaltim Peaker 1. A GIIP stack height for Kaltim 2 of 50 meters has been calculated which would allow this plant to fulfill the applicable national and international AQS for SO2. However, the influence of the two existing plants is decisive in the GLCs of this pollutant in the area, and the cumulative effect would continue to be very high, no matter how high the stacks of Kaltim 2 would be. This ADC considered the worst case scenario, i.e., that Kaltim 2 will be built as a copy of Kaltim 1, inclusive with a stack height of 26 meters. Some sensitive receptors were identified in the area: neighboring settlements (up to 10 km away), school, staff housings and farm house. The following sub-chapters summarize the results of the study for each pollutant.
6-2
6.1 CO
The concentration of CO in the flue gas of all power plants has been determined based on air emissions monitoring data available. The simulation of the 1 hour and 24 hours GLCs shows that these are expected to be very low in all scenarios. All international and national air quality standards are foreseen to be fulfilled in the area. Both the maximum 1 hr and 24 hr GLCs derived from the operation of Kaltim 2 represent less than 25% of all applicable air quality standards. The results also point to the fact that the Kaltim 2 Peaker will not contribute significantly for the cumulative CO concentrations in the area, which in their turn will not be significant.
6.2 SO2
Using as a basis the amount of sulfur in the HSD (1.2%), combustion calculations were undertaken for Kaltim 1 and Kaltim 2 to determine the concentration of SO2 in the flue gas. This parameter is for both power plants below, but very close to, the national emission limit value; however, the amount of S in the fuel exceeds the international standard. For Tjangu Batu, SO2 monitoring data were available. The measured concentration of SO2 in the flue gas is clearly lower than that of the other two plants. The results for the simulation of the maximum GLC of SO2 show that, with exception of the annual GLCs, exceedances to the national and/or the international AQS are expected in the area. Such exceedances are caused mainly due to the cumulative effects of the operation of the three power plants (Scenario C). However, also when considering the operation of Kaltim 2 alone (Scenario A) such exceedances are expected. This is due to the fact that this plant is expected to be a copy of Kaltim 1, i.e., it shall include, among other characteristics, a stack height which is inferior to the GIIP stack height. As shown in detail in Section 5.4 of this Report, raising the stack height of Kaltim 2 to respect the GIIP would improve the performance of this plant, but would not decisively influence the cumulative effects of the power plants complex.
6.3 NO2
The concentration of NO2 in the flue gas of the three power plants was compiled based on actual monitoring data. Such concentration respects the national and international ELVs for Kaltim 1 and 2, but the international ELV is exceeded in the case of Tjangu Batu.
6-3
The ADC shows that the maximum modeled NO2 GLCs are expected to comply with the NAAQS and the WHO GL throughout the entire assessment area for all scenarios. The effect of Kaltim 2 in the 1 hr GLC of NO2 is expected to represent 47% of the WHO GL, which goes against the IFC recommendation for a future sustainable development in the area.
6.4 PM10 and TSP
The concentration of PM10 and TSP in the flue gas of the three power plants was compiled based on actual monitoring data. Such concentration respects the national and international ELVs. The 24 hr and annual maximum concentrations of PM10 and TSP are expected to be kept well below all applicable AQS in the entire assessment area for all scenarios.
7-1
7. Conclusion The ADC assumed worse case scenarios, where both Kaltim 1 and Kaltim 2 Peaker Plants would run continuously with HSD only. With the power plants’ configuration and emissions assumed in this ADC, a full compliance with the NAAQS and the WHO air quality guidelines for SO2 cannot be achieved. Raising the stack height of Kaltim 2 to comply with GIIP would not bring up expected benefits regarding compliance with the SO2 AQS in the area due to the decisive negative impact of the existing plants. It is therefore, recommended to run the power plant on natural gas. As a final note, it shall be mentioned that no sufficient planning data exists for Kaltim 2 and therefore this ADC has been undertaken based on some assumptions, monitoring data available for the existing plants (whose quality control procedures are unknown), data from available technology and reasonable engineering estimations.
8-1
8. References URL 1: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html URL 2: http://www.lavalontouristinfo.com/lavalon/timor.htm URL 3: http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/documents/82545/9423/Indonesia URL 4: http://hukum.unsrat.ac.id/lh/menlh2008_21_1.pdf URL 5: http://www.wrf-model.org/index.php ADB, 2006: Country Synthesis Report on Urban Air Quality Management - Indonesia, Asian Development Bank and the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Center, 2006 Ehrlich, C., et al (2007): PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0—Emissions from
industrial plants—Results from measurement programmes in Germany, Atmospheric Environment No. 41 (2007). IFC, 2007: Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines - General EHS
Guidelines: Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality, International Finance Corporation, April 2007 IFC, 2008: Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Thermal
Power Plants, International Finance Corporation, December 2008 OME, 2008: Methodology for modeling assessments of contaminants with
10-minute average standards and guidelines under O. Reg. 419/05, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Canada, April 2008 WHO, 2005: Air quality guidelines - global update 2005, World Health Organization, Genève, Switzerland, 2005
M142123/01 HTK/DNK
2018-03-01 Page 2
S
:\m
\pro
j\142
\m14
2123
\m142
12
3_
01
_be
r_1e.D
OC
X:0
1.
03. 2
01
8
Table of contents
1 Introduction 3
2 References 4
3 Site description 5
4 Nomenclature and reference levels 5
5 Acoustic requirements and Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs) 6
6 Operating scenarios 7
7 Sound sources and sound transmission paths 8
7.1 General remarks 8
7.2 Input data and assumptions 9
8 3D acoustic calculation model – general remarks and calculation
procedure 12
8.1 Characteristics of acoustic sound emission 12
8.2 Characteristics of noise at points-of-interest (POI) 12
8.3 Sound propagation effects – meteorology 12
8.4 Calculation of the noise at the POIs 13
9 3D acoustic calculation model – model set-up 14
9.1 General remarks 14
9.2 Co-ordinates, topography and geometry 15
9.3 Sound sources 15
10 Model calculations and results – state as is (current state) 16
10.1 Operating scenarios 16
10.2 Results – state as is (current state) 16
11 Tentative noise control concept 17
11.1 General remarks 17
12 Noise control measures proposed 18
13 Model calculations and results – state with additional noise
control (future state) 19
13.1 Operating scenarios 19
13.2 Results – state with additional noise control (future state) 19
14 Uncertainty 20
Appendix A Site and layout plans
Appendix B Sound field contour plots
M142123/01 HTK/DNK
2018-03-01 Page 3
S
:\m
\pro
j\142
\m14
2123
\m142
12
3_
01
_be
r_1e.D
OC
X:0
1.
03. 2
01
8
1 Introduction
PT.PLN (Persero) intends to develop "Kaltim 2 Peaker" power plant (Kaltim 2) that
will be located in a power plants complex in the Tenggarong Seberang District, in the
East Kalimantan Province in Indonesia. Kaltim 2 will be a gas turbine power plant of
approximately 2 x 50 MW nominal output that will be operated in peaking mode, i.e. it
will supply electric power to the local grid, primarily during times of high demand.
In an earlier phase, a first tentative assessment of the acoustic impact of Kaltim 2 and
of the two neighbouring power plants has been made within the context of an
environmental study for the project. For this purpose, the noise study in [1] has been
prepared. It was based on the estimated sound emissions of the acoustically relevant
components of all three power plants and has determined the acoustic effect on the
surrounding areas for the three plants. A digital 3D acoustic model for sound
propagation calculations has been established and used to predict and simulate the
sound field around the three power plants, i.e. the sound pressure levels in their
surroundings.
In [1] the power plants have been modeled in their state / state of planning at the time
of the preparation of [1] and based on the information available at that time to
determine the initial state for the project. Accordingly, no measures to reduce the
sound emissions from any of the plants have been taken into account in this phase.
In the current phase of the project, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is in the
process of developing a compliant Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for ADB
loan approval. As the results from [1] show that the calculated sound levels are not
fully compliant with the acoustical requirements targeted for, a noise control feasibility
study is to be prepared in the present study. The objective is to determine a tentative
noise control concept for the three power stations that is suitable to achieve an
acceptable degree of compliance with the acoustic requirements.
In a subsequent step, a final noise control concept that is optimized in terms of costs,
impact, maintenance etc. can be developed based on the results from the present
study.
M142123/01 HTK/DNK
2018-03-01 Page 4
S
:\m
\pro
j\142
\m14
2123
\m142
12
3_
01
_be
r_1e.D
OC
X:0
1.
03. 2
01
8
2 References
[1] Müller-BBM GmbH: Fichtner GmbH & Co. KG. Kaltim 2 Peaker Power Plant
East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Noise study – Calculation of the sound pressure
field in the surroundings of the plant. Report No. M135767/01. 2017-09-05.
[2] Vijay Joshi: Some observations on noise at Kaltim. E-mail from Mr. Joshi to
The results relate only to the investigated subjects.
M142123/01 HTK/DNK
2018-03-01 Appendix A, Page 1
S
:\m
\pro
j\142
\m14
2123
\m142
12
3_
01
_be
r_1e.D
OC
X:0
1.
03. 2
01
8
Appendix A
Site and layout plans
M142123/01 HTK/DNK
2018-03-01 Appendix A, Page 2
S
:\m
\pro
j\142
\m14
2123
\m142
12
3_
01
_be
r_1e.D
OC
X:0
1.
03. 2
01
8
Figure A 1. Satellite view of the area around the power plant complex: locations of plants Tanjung
Batu and Kaltim 1, planned location of Kaltim 2 and points-of-interest (POIs) [1].
M142123/01 HTK/DNK
2018-03-01 Appendix A, Page 3
S
:\m
\pro
j\142
\m14
2123
\m142
12
3_
01
_be
r_1e.D
OC
X:0
1.
03. 2
01
8
Figure A 2. Satellite view of the area around power plant Kaltim 1 and planned plant Kaltim 2 with
overlay showing the planned locations of plant Kaltim 2 and a layout with some of the equipment to
be installed [1].
M142123/01 HTK/DNK
2018-03-01 Appendix B, Page 1
S
:\m
\pro
j\142
\m14
2123
\m142
12
3_
01
_be
r_1e.D
OC
X:0
1.
03. 2
01
8
Appendix B
Sound field contour plots
POI 5
POI 4
POI 2
POI 3
POI 1
60 dB(A)
70 dB(A)
65 dB(A)
55 dB(A)
45 dB(A)
50 dB(A)
Tanjung Batu
Kaltim 1
Kaltim 2
504400
504400
504500
504500
504600
504600
504700
504700
504800
504800
504900
504900
505000
505000
505100
505100
505200
505200
505300
505300
505400
505400
505500
505500
505600
505600
505700
505700
505800
505800
505900
505900
506000
506000
506100
506100
506200
506200
506300
506300
506400
506400
506500
506500
506600
506600
506700
506700
506800
506800
506900
506900
507000
507000
507100
507100
507200
507200
507300
507300
507400
507400
507500
507500
99
56
40
0
99
56
40
0
99
56
50
0
99
56
50
0
99
56
60
0
99
56
60
0
99
56
70
0
99
56
70
0
99
56
80
0
99
56
80
0
99
56
90
0
99
56
90
0
99
57
00
0
99
57
00
0
99
57
10
0
99
57
10
0
99
57
20
0
99
57
20
0
99
57
30
0
99
57
30
0
99
57
40
0
99
57
40
0
99
57
50
0
99
57
50
0
99
57
60
0
99
57
60
0
99
57
70
0
99
57
70
0
99
57
80
0
99
57
80
0
99
57
90
0
99
57
90
0
99
58
00
0
99
58
00
0
99
58
10
0
99
58
10
0
99
58
20
0
99
58
20
0
99
58
30
0
99
58
30
0
99
58
40
0
99
58
40
0
Figure B 1. A-wtd sound pressure levels LA(LT) at 1.5 m above ground Scenario 1-1-0 (Tanjung + Kaltim 1 operational, all units, state as is).M142123/01 HTK2018-03-01 Appendix B, Page 2
Maßstab 1 : 8500
\\s-muc-fs01\AlleFirmen\M\Proj\142\M142123\CadnaA\M142123_01_BER_1D_03.cna - Variante: Tanjung Batu + Kaltim 1
POI 5
POI 4
POI 2
POI 3
POI 1
60 dB(A)
70 dB(A)
65 dB(A)
55 dB(A)
50 dB(A)
Tanjung Batu
Kaltim 1
Kaltim 2
504400
504400
504500
504500
504600
504600
504700
504700
504800
504800
504900
504900
505000
505000
505100
505100
505200
505200
505300
505300
505400
505400
505500
505500
505600
505600
505700
505700
505800
505800
505900
505900
506000
506000
506100
506100
506200
506200
506300
506300
506400
506400
506500
506500
506600
506600
506700
506700
506800
506800
506900
506900
507000
507000
507100
507100
507200
507200
507300
507300
507400
507400
507500
507500
99
56
40
0
99
56
40
0
99
56
50
0
99
56
50
0
99
56
60
0
99
56
60
0
99
56
70
0
99
56
70
0
99
56
80
0
99
56
80
0
99
56
90
0
99
56
90
0
99
57
00
0
99
57
00
0
99
57
10
0
99
57
10
0
99
57
20
0
99
57
20
0
99
57
30
0
99
57
30
0
99
57
40
0
99
57
40
0
99
57
50
0
99
57
50
0
99
57
60
0
99
57
60
0
99
57
70
0
99
57
70
0
99
57
80
0
99
57
80
0
99
57
90
0
99
57
90
0
99
58
00
0
99
58
00
0
99
58
10
0
99
58
10
0
99
58
20
0
99
58
20
0
99
58
30
0
99
58
30
0
99
58
40
0
99
58
40
0
Figure B 2. A-wtd sound pressure levels LA(LT) at 1.5 m above ground Scenario 1-1-1 (Tanjung + Kaltim 1 + Kaltim 2 operational, all units, state as is).M142123/01 HTK2018-03-01 Appendix B, Page 3
Maßstab 1 : 8500
\\s-muc-fs01\AlleFirmen\M\Proj\142\M142123\CadnaA\M142123_01_BER_1D_03.cna - Variante: full operation
POI 5
POI 4
POI 2
POI 3
POI 1
60 dB(A)
70 dB(A)
65 dB(A)
55 dB(A)
50 dB(A)
Tanjung Batu
Kaltim 1
Kaltim 2
504400
504400
504500
504500
504600
504600
504700
504700
504800
504800
504900
504900
505000
505000
505100
505100
505200
505200
505300
505300
505400
505400
505500
505500
505600
505600
505700
505700
505800
505800
505900
505900
506000
506000
506100
506100
506200
506200
506300
506300
506400
506400
506500
506500
506600
506600
506700
506700
506800
506800
506900
506900
507000
507000
507100
507100
507200
507200
507300
507300
507400
507400
507500
507500
99
56
40
0
99
56
40
0
99
56
50
0
99
56
50
0
99
56
60
0
99
56
60
0
99
56
70
0
99
56
70
0
99
56
80
0
99
56
80
0
99
56
90
0
99
56
90
0
99
57
00
0
99
57
00
0
99
57
10
0
99
57
10
0
99
57
20
0
99
57
20
0
99
57
30
0
99
57
30
0
99
57
40
0
99
57
40
0
99
57
50
0
99
57
50
0
99
57
60
0
99
57
60
0
99
57
70
0
99
57
70
0
99
57
80
0
99
57
80
0
99
57
90
0
99
57
90
0
99
58
00
0
99
58
00
0
99
58
10
0
99
58
10
0
99
58
20
0
99
58
20
0
99
58
30
0
99
58
30
0
99
58
40
0
99
58
40
0
Figure B 3. A-wtd sound pressure levels LA(LT) at 1.5 m above ground Scenario 2-2-2 (Tanjung + Kaltim 1 + Kaltim 2 operational, all units, with noise control).M142123/01 HTK2018-03-01 Appendix B, Page 4
Maßstab 1 : 8500
\\s-muc-fs01\AlleFirmen\M\Proj\142\M142123\CadnaA\M142123_01_BER_1D_03.cna - Variante: full operation_SIL
