Official PDF , 666 pages

of 666/666

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    30-Dec-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    362
  • download

    27

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Official PDF , 666 pages

  • A3 41E-235 VOL. 4

    ELECTRICITY GENERATING AUrHORITY OF THAILAND

    FINAL REPORT

    FO*R

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTOF

    RATCHABURT POWER PLANT -PROJECT

    VOLUME I: MAIN REPORT

    PREPARED BY

    FACULTY Or ENVIRONMENT ANDRESOURCE STUDIES

    MAIIIDOL UNIVERSIT'Y

    March 99fl

    EGAT - INVESTMENT PROGRAM SUPPORT PROJECT

    (WORLD BANK PARTIAL CREDIT GUARANTEE)

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

  • A s t44

    ELECTRICITY GENERATING AUTHORITY OF THAILAND

    FINAL REPORT

    FOR

    EN VIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTOF

    RATCHABURI POWER PLANT PROJECT

    VOLUME 1: MAIN REPORT

    PREPARED BY

    FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT ANDRESOURCE STUDIES

    MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY

    March 1996

  • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF RATCHABURIPOWER PLANT PROJECT

    THE REPORT SET COMPRISES

    1. VOLUME 1: MAIN REPORTEnvironmental Impact Assessment, Recommended Guidelines forEnvironmental Impact Mitigation Measures and MonitoringPrograms of Ratchaburi Power Plant Project

    2. VOLUME 2: APPENDICES A-IQuestionnaires, Tables and Other Supplementary Data/Information

    3. SUMMARY REPORT (in English)

    4. SUMMARY REPORT (in Thai)

  • This Main Report was improved as requested by Office

    of Environmental Policy and Planning. It did not include the

    additional details submitted by Consultant/EGAT as requested by

    the Committee of Experts.

    All additional details are included in the Summary

    Report (Thai version).

  • C-

    @7-0D

    -a

    C3

    --2

    C-,Cp

    (reaa

    aZx

    *~ ~ ~~~~g

  • Co C' "'~~~~ C 0) r- 7C' WC

    ~~~~ r~~~~~~~~~ C'J '7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ES ~~~~~~~~~ - '7 '7 C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ES ~~~~~~~~~~~C C- S '7 C,*C~

    -:~~~~~-i~~~~ 'C' F C' -. C''q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C ' i r1 r ) CC- F C" F S ES '7 ESI(

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 C' '77cm C E -7F .m FC F 'F F ' ' T1

    0 ES - 7 "E7 C' 1- 0 "ES "ES C'-) F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 C'

    (F ~~~~ IC" ES C- ES F )~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~.-~ C'(. ))C' h ~~~~~~~ '-4 ~~~~C- ;4 )) 7E ESF' ;:I-

    mC'CT) 0 -;; (E C)

    ~~ C' F C' 0~~~~O) C' 77 CD co) ~ ) -*-t :

    'q 7 F yN" ' ( ;C F '7 F

    - (ES '~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~-4 "1F 7 F ' - ;zATh~~~~~~~~~~~ $ \ ES F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ v 1C' 7- C- --; _ Tp '7 A

    - ~~ ~ ~~~~~~C- 1''7 1' '7C C- ' F C '(S ' )

    'P C- ~ ~ ~ ~ C' ~~~ (C' 7-~~C C-_ C' C' TM)C (E'C 7 F C' 'P C C '7 S Z E F C' 7

    - C- -:z ;IS x;c ) C' C' 3s C' '7 C' C- ~lp A ~~~~~~~~~~~ - ES~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- C' v-) _'7 a -fr ;; C' -

    ME '7 mI 'a7 v- C- '7 jzI (C:; Cs n) CES ( C'S ES

    C' ~~~~~ 7- C' C' C' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C- C=F ) G ES 7'C' F C' C' ~~~~~~~~~~~~- C'"ES F (~~~~~~~~C; E (C f C;3 r ) 6~

    C' '7 ~~~~~~ C' lC' F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ F F F F~~)C 1-I )7 C- C'

    F E C' F r P F (T

    t '7cm C' 1- C '4CZ C=C' F ES~~~~~~~ES -" -. '7 -' ES '-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E:, F7C'? F ~~~~~~~~~ES ES C' F E~~~~~~~~~~~~~S o -'

    S 4F M' C C ' E 0 :i C'ES )'

    C'-) ES F ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~C- '7 '7 -IS ES '7 C' Co ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~(ES C- C'7 AZ~ -;z (EfS

    CD (F ) - FC C' -7 C-

    )) IF (11' ;3 C P ~ FC' ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~'7 ;C' p C C- '7

    -v tf- a~~E C- '7 C- C- C-')C'Z 7 3 (ESC -

  • .' CT CT i~ '~ ~] 'C" '7 7 C-- CZ -uJ' P1(F ~~- )~~-' cT CID C- ;- S C 3 I C - - -

    CT ~~~ CT ~~~~13 ~ CT '7 13 CT CTz( SCT 1 13 ~~ CT cT S C 1 T ) 'i -C S ~1

    2- 13GT 1 ~ ~ S - T 3*~ S T C'7 -. s13iC ) (F o ~ : cT CT 13 1 7'7 ~~~~(F CT~~ 4tC ;s (-- 7 3 C- *C( 3 62 (- 13 CT 3 '7 CT

    13 (F ~~~~~~~~~~.1 z 13 V3 j '7 '7 b" CT CC' C-(113 CT (~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~S cT1-v1 C.:( ru CT3 CT 5C_ V-'C

    r.7 U ) (- T C fCT I( (-. C )~ 1C (-- X?. 13.

    CT >~~~~~~ :)2 ~ ~ ~~~ " -* - ;]~; 03 IS 1 CT a AT '7 CT(FCT (/~~~~~ 1~~~ CT ~~CT '7 7 CT - 1 CT: 23 'A (S (S 13CT CT CT 113 13 ~~) CT CT -~~ (S ~ (CT It C_

    13:3 C- liS ~ 4 ZT -3 Cr' ( ) 1 .'-. C

    cT- C) )) 13 ;T C -' CT ' 1;T C 'SCT It- TC-

    13 o' C' = r' C-- CT ~ y CT 1 CT (F '- CT (

    C, .O C- ( T T T T CT CT CTz C- C CT~ iF '7 IC-ISCT 3 CT 1 7rC -,;: C - 13 1 13 CT, r (F C , -; : 'C - O 1CT C (S _ 'C - s 13 1 7'C ;4~ C -, C - 1 3 1 -i c 17 CT L13 ~ C.~ T ~ ~ .'' CCT (S (F-- Z;~ ((S ' ; 7 CZ T CT ( M

    CT C 'H 13 CT 3113 -1 v3 C7" -'iZ I C (S 3(S C( C-1 C

    2)CT -H CT CT C- CT 3~ C- 11 - C- IC, 3 "' M )s 11 CZ ) CT CTC'3 13 T3 C, CT ''2 F CT 2g ; 2 (s CT A(S 'C C- '(s C- a 13 Cr- 1

    'C C 7 a CT C- PT '7 m3 CS = (S C= )3 13 CZ g- :z 13 C CT

    ;3 13~ 13.1 C C T- ((S3 c ~ - (S".~ -) -- CTcm -CrLi 3 .-~~~ ~~3T CT 5- 13 "r CT T L CT cm 1 ' C ~ r CT-1 ~

    CT ~~ CT CT ~~~ CT -~~ 13 ~~ Cr" CT 13 13 ~~~~~J'C' 13 v3 CT '7 ~CT SPC C- CT I'(S CT ~~~- CC' (S"'CT )~~~~~ 113 Y" ~ CT CT 2 CT -i G"( -. -!" Li )) = CT

    )~~r 'H 3 13 3 CT CT -~~~~~~~ Cr" 13~~ 13 13 3: 13 -. CT :i C" Ct- Cr '7 *Fr CT~ ' (F ?13 CT C Z) C r' C '7 Cs (; cm C- 13 CT CT CT 4'3 nz (V~ T 7 C- T l C r1 c 3 1 CT 32 3 't3 - )Cr- ' ; 1 (1 CT CT a3 3 -'

    0 z aC~ it,C -' 1 I;; C- 3 T3 (F a 3s 23 2C) CT '13 13 -- SC C T - = ) 3 '7 CT -'- 3 ;- -. (S - -

    cCiCT 5= I 2-2 i 3~ ~ ) '7 to E- c- -,,- it' co CT 13 I- 13 -) oo 1rRC 17 ! -' ;q '7 CT 'C CT '7 r- ~] (-- G3 (S '- 2 IC 13

    CT7 C" C- CT 13 '7 'CT 43f 1(S ;2. C T TC mT 1 C ( I13 C 13 7 CT-:i IT - 1 C T CT C 13CTa C C TC ~3-~C 3 1 ~TC"C

    Cr" 'CT 13 CT IF 3 Ct" CT'~~~~~~~ 3 ~ ~ C" (S r-~~~ CT (S CT 13~ciF CT 3 Cr" 13 3 13 ~~~~~~~~~~~~'*' 13~~ i~ T (s C" CT 13

    1 ~CT C- CT iCT r ' 4Cr 3 7 iCT 13 r;T 13 r CT CT CT ti-C' (F - cr -,;: CT

    4CT ~i 4)3 ' CT P- rS CTCT GS CT 3 C-

    CT -"7 -' 7-, ;, '7 -~ -" ( CT CT 3 CT44 1" 7 13 '7 Ca CT, 13 ''(F 4T C C T C CT s-( CT-CT 7Z CT 1-1C 3 3 'T 'T C F L. C" 1 3 4S13 ' C

    a'-; ( (S 41 S- ZI z3 aT 4 7 13 CT-1 5 C CT '7C, 13 '- 4C - ; . 3 3;: A;- 'C'- CT - (s 41T ~32 1

    C- y'- ( 7 'V-,:T -7 13M Q3 Jr-Cc C CT 44 CT (F -CT CT-C13 CT T .1 -~ C T'1CZ;13 -'CT-T13 1 3: 13 'CT "Ct(S 4) C' r S CT C C C- 3 ' S 4 7 "'7i: CT ;I

    CC'* 'C' CC 1 13 ( (F -" *(i -;: 11 C 13 sC "

  • C-,

    _" C C"ac- ( 4cC-

    c-

    c7 _Q c -7

    '7~~~~~~'

    r C C -

    r ^ r m(7 C- e C< ; C ;7 C_ " =i C- t i {

    M CZ ~ '7 C- -7

    r t1: =: - -_ -;i

    ui (o " C= ' C" '7

    rz c p - ) : I ;

    Cr c- (1, 7 " : tS C C" M 2 m F s C''7p C"1 c; _

    S q ) CY7) *- 0 _t

    .) (E ?CZ " -' s s C r " ;:t_w

    - ' (: r7 ( , .,

    - C- C- C

    s g > e F r r < ^ tg :-

    : n 17 r^

    a C- '7 cm

    C;

    '7 '7 11 7 -

    W Is* '7 C" r- Cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~' a.7 ^ c ''4

    p ^u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(; ~ S-5vW" fi -" C G; 7 C"r ^ S a C r s # ;T oz co~~~~~~~

    Cn r (

  • (L nLOBL-L,ULO al, wLo L4 noa)

    20U0WL LLUCLULrT ,OLDULraMcU:ellnGDCIIO]:eru

    1LnlLOflef9LU

    rhunnmocuoa sCCUOLfnlUILO? SLUosIoeealGIAeu

    BUJOUI_S,nOUIll012BL[LMfflSLU SLUoswjceQLGlea

    UC LOztnn4LLOCUILG11CGrnGlUILO S IU0514101Du

    fteeIcGioianusuenU-LSOICSLunLOILS

  • tU1J ?F)a. i

    .WI -4 n m . ^ vU f

    \ tr s s u y 4 I .

    'lou t4lJlPl.....2l ;..

    4i L. , -. , v ._ . ., .

    LL~~~~J~~Jflh1114~~~~~1. . Li vf,~WLfl 25 36 t-H nl u L('1) ......ll1.p T..l. ...... iT;ilJ4l110lY41101 LCUpz111 lll ................................. ............... ... ... ..... w. .

    ........................................................................................... I.....................................................

    u4l..o.nmu .... .. ..... 5iinlnu ....... t. lu.'.'.!..'..'.'.'...'.. ... ........ ?.5.3.... ... nqu ... .:.lu. '.:.i.'.3.i.'..

    ,......................................................................................................

    . ...... ... ... ...... ... ......... ... ............ ......... ............ ... ..

    .......................................... ..........

    (l0)...._. __....... .. _(() 1 !'1! , ,,1 LU iJ ll! 1 )

    (&)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~._.. ........ .,. .. . ............ ....

    lun~,ntunnltlc'Ul- !ilU4;lqu

  • 2WUnfBLBUCLU nIDLRQUgQ

    (CUBUL-uSgI rv^pmn sW X )................

    Z7 /

    .... ........... ...> .....................

    . fi~~~~~~~~~~C'uc fl W -L2o1P 2c

    .................... .................... ,............. ......... BL......

    mnoou GUCLOWe

    OROFTBLI3 ~~~~~~~~~~ULFUClL]r~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ........................... ............. ................ ....-..Q 8C0C'

    ta ')R?TL q 0LUF UiMAu ,_

    QQQnBLC S~~~~~~~LUtU2LnL12P

    [email protected]!ULnULal-ElISlrLUuL,nLf2m-mbLitBbL rSn2L9OCVOC

    h fLQL JOSl5LUnlniLI2-CnIc GpQUGMI BUlWUI -pOUll UBLp LL4Pl1LUU 1It Shf2L5

    LAfl Wu roj1 fTQtLoCilOBnUc-fLUULM:LSWf5lUCLOu L 5WL,fULO_pni RoLun Um LuLAt

    s Loiaow Lem urnsu721enne cll o12w ns uoognpasnnnncooesnseonu

    89S nIwLL4uo unc

    fnLL2SLULOC&LUoGesfnsoi?onu

  • DDOYECT PERSONNFL

    Percentage of Wor

    Name Signature Responsibility in Comparison

    with the Overall El

    Project Management

    1. Pradit Charoenthaithawee Project Advisor

    2. Debhanom Muangman i ' / Project Director

    3. Rungjarat Hutacharoen f Deputy project Director 20

    4. Laddawan Thong-Nop ',3:W '' Project Manager 40

    5. Suchart Nawagawong ,. / - Assistant Project Manager 15

    6. Sukhum Poothong . Assistant Project Manager . 15

    7. Tharee Wattanasombat (AJ . Project Assistant 5

    8. Salakjit Sirinanant ' S , z Project Assistant 5Total= 100

    Editorial Board

    1. Rungjarat Hutacharoen ,. V 25

    2. Laddawan Thong-Nop r. , r' y 25

    3. Ilyas Baker 30

    4. Suchart Nawagawong 8 . 10

    5. Sukhum Poothong , 10

    Total = 100

  • Percentage of Worl

    Name Signature Responsibility in Comparison

    with the Overall Ek

    Air Resources/ Meteorology

    I. Sudhin Yoosook < . } Team Leader 7.5

    2. Krisana Teankaprasit . , Senior Scientist 2.5

    Surface Water Hydrology/ Water Resources Management and

    Water Uses/ Flood Control and Drainage

    3. Virat Khao-upatum k ( V Team Leader 64. Kampanad Bhaktikul l3L. i l tkf 64: - Irrigation Engineer & 6

    Environmentalist

    Surface Water Quality

    5. Usanee Uyasatian 1 Team Leader 8

    Aquatic Resources and Fisheries

    6. Suchart Upathum Team Coordinators 1.6

    7. Vithoon Viyanant Team Coordinators 1.6

    8. Boonserm Poolsanguan /.w" Researchers 1.6

    9. Pornsawan Visoottiviseth P, Wr&s C1H2 " 1 e Researchers 1.6

    10. Preecha Klingesorn Researchers 1.6

    Socio-Economics

    11. Orathai Rauyajin .T p>,,eam Leader 2

    12. Ilyas Baker Environmental Sociologist 2

    13. Vanawipha Pasandhanatorn Socio-Economist 2

    14. Thawatchai Boonchote | Environmental Social 2

    Scientist

  • Percentage of Woi

    N\ame Signature FResponsibil;ty? in Comparison

    with the Overall El

    Public Health/ Public Safety /

    15. Piya Leimsombat 4 ' T eam Leader 1.2

    16. Naowarat Charoenca l' Y Health! Sanntation Expert 1.05

    17. Nipapan Kungsakulniti Health/ Sanitation Expert 0.75

    Occupational Health and safety/Public Safety

    18. Chalermchai Chaikitiporn Team Leader 3

    19. Chompusakdi Pulket = Industrial Hygiene 0.5

    Assessment Expert 0.5

    20. Vittaya Yoosook Industrial Hyhiene

    Assessment Expert 0.5

    21. Wichai Pruktharatikul \AprJi Jk Safety Expert

    22. Pramuk Osiri _ Occupational Health Expert 0.5

    Groundwater Hydrology / Quality

    23. Vimonrat Kasemsupaya Team Leader 1.6

    24. Oranuj Lorphensri ( 7/< Hydrogeologist 2.4

    Environmental Noise

    25. Luepol Punnakanta .- ( i ".see Team Leader 4

    Soil and Land Quality

    26. Sunan Kunaporn m / t 1 Scientist 3.2

    27. Suchart Nawagawong jg -.. - -pj Environmentalist 0.8.. ~~~~~~~~ U Enirnenals

  • 1 | Percentage of Wor:Name Signature Responsibility in Comparison

    with the Overall El.

    Forest and Wildlife

    28. Warren Y. Brockelman V2;. . j '. Team Leader 4

    Landuse and Agriculture )

    29. Sumalee Thepsuwan Team Leader 5

    Sanitation and Waste Handling

    30. Piya Leimsonbat Handling Team Leader 2.5

    31. Suvit Chumnumsiriwat - Environmental engineer/ 2.5

    Sanitation

    Geology and Mineral Resources , ,

    32. Pongpit Piyapongsa ,A'yt'v" Team Leader 1.05

    33. Suchart Nawagawong - . Environmentalist 0.9

    34. Gintana laoruechupong --

  • Percentage of Wor}

    Name Signature Responsibility in Comparison

    with the Overall El.

    Industry

    38. Sukhum Poothong Team Leader 2.1

    39. Krisanarack Teeraraj ci'5.' Industrial Expert 0.9

    Power and Tranmission Line

    40. Supachai Paiboon | i- Team Leader 3.2

    41. Sukhum Poothong I . / ri Environmentalist 1.8Aesthetics/ Tourism/ Recreation and Archaeology

    42. Laddawan Thong-Nop 7

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Page

    LIST OF FIGURES vLIST OF TABLES vi

    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION1.1 General Background 1-11.2 Objectives of ELA Study 1-31.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures Adopted

    by the Consultant 1-41.4 Review of Site Evaluation Study 1-8

    CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION2.1 Introduction 2-12.2 Site Location )-I2.3 Electricity Generating Complex ,-12.4 Fuel Supply 2-1-2.5 Water Supply and Treatment 2-172.6 Envirornental Discharge 2-23)2.7 Hazardous Materials Containment 2-402.8 Construction and Operation Staff 2-422.9 Construction Material and Plant Equipment Weights 2-432.10 Fire Protection 2-432.1 1 Emergency Plan 2-472.12 Project Schedule 2-49

    3. CHAPTER 3: EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSPHYSICAL RESOURCES

    3.1 Surface Water Hydrology 3-13.2 Surface Water Quality 3-153.3 Groundwater Resources 3-433.4 Soil and Land Quality 3-533.5 Geomorphology 3-683.6 Mineral Resources 3-873.7 Air Resources 3-913.8 Environmental Noise 3-1223.9 Seismology 3-133

    ECOLOGYAND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES3.10 Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 3-1463.11 Forest and Wildlife 3-155

    i

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

    Page

    HUMAN U.SE VALUIES3.12 Land Use 3-167313 Agriculture 3-1923.14 Housing 3-2193. 15 Transportation 3-2253.16 Power/ Transmission System 3-2403.17 Industry 3-2493.18 Water Management and Water Use 3-2533.19 Flood Control and Drainage System 3-262

    QUALITY OF LIFE VALUES3.20 Socio-Economics 3-2723.21 Archaeology 3-2993.22 Tourism/ Recreation and Aesthetics 3-3133.23 Public Health 3-323.24 Sanitation and Waste Handling 3-3593.25 Occupational Health and Safety 3-3653.26 Public Safety 3-371

    4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTPIHYSICAL RESOURCES

    4 1 Surface Water Hydrology 4-14.2 Surface Water Quality 4-24.3 Groundwater Resources 4-114.4 Soil and Land Quality 4-194.5 Geomorphology 4-204.6 Mineral Resources 4-214.7 Air Resources 4-224.8 Environmental Noise 4-434.9 Seismology 4-47

    ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES4.10 Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 4-494.11 Forest and Wildlife 4-51

    HUMAN USE VALUES4.12 Land Use 4-544.13 Agriculture 4-564.14 Housing 4-584.15 Transportation 4-604.16 Power and Transmission Line 4-62

    ii

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

    Page

    4.17 Industry 4-634.18 Water Management and Water Use 4-654.19 Flood Control and Drainage System 4-664.20 Socio-Economics 4-674.21 Archaeology 4-754.22 Tourism! Recreation and Aesthetics 4-76

    QUALITY OF LIFE VALUES4.23 Public Health 4-774.24 Sanitation and Waste Handling 4-784.25 Occupational Health and Safety 4-804.26 Public Safety 4-84

    5. RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES

    PHYSICAL RESOURCES5.1 Surface Water Hydrology 5-15.2 Surface Water Quality 5-25.3 Groundwater Resources 5-35.4 Soil and Land Quality 5-45.5 Geomorphology 5-55.6 Mineral Resources 5-55.7 Air Resources 5-65.8 Environmental Noise 5-85.9 Seismology 5-9

    ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES5.10 Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 5-105.11 Forest and Wildlife 5-113

    HUMAN ULSE VALUES5.12 Land Use 5-145.13 Agriculture 5-155.14 Housing 5-165.15 Transportation 5-175.16 Power and Transmission Line 5-185.17 Water Management and Water Use 5-195.18 Flood Control and Drainage System 5-20

    QUALITY OF LIFE VALUES5.19 Socio-Economics 5-215.20 Archaeology 5-275.21 Tourism/ Recreation and Aesthetics 5-285.22 Public Health 5-295.23 Sanitation and Waste Handling 5-305.24 Occupational Health and Safety 5-335.25 public Safety 5-60

    iii

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

    Page

    6. ENVXIONMEINTAL MONITO4ING PROGRAMPHYSICAL RESOURCES

    6.1 Surface Water Hydrology 6-16.2 Surface Water Quality 6-26.3 Groundwater Resources 6-46.4 Soil and Land Quality 6-56.5 Air Resources 6-66.6 Environmental Noise 6-9

    ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES6.7 Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries 6-106.8 Forest and Wildlife 6-11

    HUMAN USE VALUES6.9 Transportation 6-126. 1..0' 'Power and T ransmission Line 6-146.11 Water Management and Water Use 6-156.12 Flood Control and Drainage System 6-16

    QUALITY OFLIFE VALUES6.13 Socio-Economics 6-176.14 Public Health 6-226.15 Sanitation and Waste Handling 6-236.16 Occupational Health and Safety 6-246.17 Public Safety 6-27

    iv

  • L11 Or FiGUS

    Figure Title Page

    1-1 LOCATION OF CANDIDATE SITES 1-82-1 LOCATION OF RATCHABURI POWER PLANT PROJECT 2-22-2 SITE LOCATION RATCHABURI POWER PLANT PROJECT 2-32-3 LOCATION OF RATCHABURI POWER PLANT 2-42-4 SITE ARRANGEMENT 2-52-5 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THERMAL UNIT 2-72-6 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF COMBINED CYCLE BLOCK 2-102-7 THE NEW DELIVERY PORT TO THE PLANT SITE 2-152-8 THE PIPELINE TO THE ONSITE FOR USE AS THE PRIMvARY

    PLANT WATER SUPPLY SOURCE 2-182-9 PRELIMINARY WATER MASS BALANCE-STATION 2-202-10 SERVICE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM 2-212-11 CYCLE MAKEUP TREATMENT SYSTEM 2-2 2-12 CONDENSATE POLISHING SYSTEM 2-242-13 AQC WET LIMESTONE SCRUBBERS 2-292-14 PIPING AND INSTRUMENT DIAGRAM SANITARY

    DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT 2-342-15 PIPING AND INSTRUMENT DIAGRAM SANITARY

    DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT 2-352-16 PIPING AND INSTRUMENT DIAGRAM CHEMICAL WASTE

    COLLECTION AND TREATMENT 2-362-17 PIPING AND INSTRUMENT DIAGRAM WASTEWATER

    COLLECTION AND TREATMENT 2-382-18 PIPING AND INSTRUMENT DIAGRAM WASTEWATER

    COLLECTION AND TREATMENT 2-392-19 TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE 2-512-20 TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE 2-523.1-1 PREVAILING WIND AND MONSOON TROUGH 3-33.1-2 ISOHYTAL MAP OF AVERAGE ANNUAL RAINFALL 3-43.1-3 MEAN MONTHLY RAINFALL IN MM. AT VARIOUS

    STATIONS 3-53.1-4 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA AT AMPHOE MUANG,

    KANCHANABURI 3-73.1-5 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA AT AMPHOE

    THONG PHA PHUM, KANCHANABURI 3-83.1-6 MEAN MONTHLY EVAPOTRANSPIRATION,

    AMPHOE MUANG, KANCHANABURI 3-93.1-7 LOCATION OF STREAMFLOW GAUGING STATIONS

    WITEHN THE MAE KLONG RIVER BASIN 3-113.1-8 COMPARISION OF MEAN MONTHLY FLOW AT

    BAN WANG KHANAI (K. 11) 3-143.2-1 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS 3-173.2-2 RAW WATER SAMPLING OF MAE KLONG RIVER 3-293.3-1 MONITORED WELL LOCATIONS 3-493.4-1 DETAIL RECONNAISSANCE SOIL MAP OF

    THE STUDY AREA 3-663.4-2 POTENTIAL LANDUSE MAP OF THE STUDY AREA 3-67

    v

  • LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)

    Figure Title Page

    3.5-1 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAP OF THE CHAO PHRAYADELTA 3-69

    3.5-2 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAP OF THE STUDY AREA 3-703.5-3 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAP OF THE STUDY AREA 3-713.5-4 CROSS-SECTION AT THE STUDY AREA 3-723.5-5 CROSS-SECTION AT THE STUDY AREA 3-733.6-1 MINERAL RESOURCES IN RATCHABURI PROVINCE 3-883.7-1 AIR QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS 3-933.7-2 WIND ROSE OF DON MUANG STATION 3-1103.7-3 WIND ROSE OF BANGKOK METROPOLIS STATION 3-1113.7-4 WIND ROSE OF KANCHANABURI STATION 3-1123.7-5 WIND ROSE OF HUA HIN STATION 3-1133.7-6 ANNUAL WIND ROSE AT BANGKOK METROPOLIS, 1 991 3-1173.8-1 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MEASUREMENT STATIONS 3-1283.8-2 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FLUCTUATION IN

    RESIDEN'T1AL AREA DURING A DAY 3-1293.8-3 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FLUCTUATION IN THE AREA

    CLOSE TO THE MAIN ROAD DURING A DAY 3-1293.8-4 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FLUCTUATION AT

    COMMUNITY CENTER DURING A DAY 3-1293.8-5 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FLUCTUATION AT

    SWINE FARM DURING A DAY 3-1303.8-6 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FLUCTUATION AT

    CHICKEN FARM DURING A DAY 3-1303.8-7 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FLUCTUATION AT DUCK

    FARM DURING A DAY 3-1313.8-8 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FLUCTUATION AT

    CATTLE FARM DURING A DAY 3-1313.8-9 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE FLUCTUATION AT

    PADDY FIELD OR OPEN SPACE DURING A DAY 3-1323.9-1 SEISMIC SOURCE ZONE OF BURMA-THAILAND-INDIA 3-1343.9-2 MAJOR FAULTS IN THE TENASSERRIM RANGES AND

    NORTHERN THAILAND 3-1363.9-3 THE MAGNITUDE-FREQUENCY RELATION OF

    SRINAGARIND AND KHAO LAEM EARTHQUAKES 3-1403.9-4 THE FORESHOCK-AFTERSHOCK PATTERN OF

    SRINAGARIND EARTHQUAKE 3-1413.9-5 THE SWARM TYPE OF KHAO LAEM EARTHQUAKES 3-1413.9-6 THE EARTHQUAKE TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS 3-1453.10-1 MAP OF PROJECT SITE AND THE COLLECTION

    STATIONS 3-1473.11-1 LOCATION OF HABITATS IN THE PROJECT SITE 3-1663.12-1 LOCATION OF TAMRONS WHEUNERE TERVIEWS

    WERE CARRIED OUT 3-1703.12-2 LANDUSE MAP OF THE STUDY AREA 3-1713.12-3 IRRIGATION AREA IN RATCHABURI PROVINCE 3-1833.12-4 IRRIGATION AREA IN SAMUT SONGKRAM PROVINCE 3-1843.12-5 LAND TYPES OF RATCHABURI PROVINCE 3-185

    vi

  • LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)

    Figure Title Page

    3.13-1 RICE MARLKETING NETWORK OF RATCHABURIPROVINCE 3-200

    3.15-1 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK 3-2353.15-2 LOCATION OF RAILWAY STATIONS 3-2363.15-3 R1VER,CANAL NAVIGATION LOCKS IN

    THE PROJECT AREA 3-2373.15-4 RIVER AND CANAL NETWORK IN CENTRAL REGION 3-2383.15-5 TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS 3-2393.17-1 MAP SHOWING RELATED INDUSTRIES WITH PROPOSED

    POWER PLANT PROJECT AND TRANSPORTATIONNETWORK WITHIN A 15 KM. RADIUS OF SITE 3-252

    3.18-1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WATER USED INMAE KLONG BASIN 3-258

    3.19-1 MOMENTARY FLOOD PEAK " WANG KHANAI "(K. I 1) 3-2703.19-2 DRAINAGE CONDITION AT THE PROJECT SITE 3-2713.20-1 MAP 1: ADJACENT COMMUNITIES 3-2963.20-2 MAP 2 SENSITIVE RECEPTOR COMMUNITIES 3-2973.20-3 MAP 3: PERIPHERAL COMMUNITIES 3-2983.21-1 THE MAIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES DURING

    Hii Pi-REIS TORIC PER UU 0D 'I-3013.22-1 TOURIST ATTRACTIONS AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

    OF RATCHABURI PROVINCE 3-3163.22-2 TOURIST ATTRACTIONS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

    WITHIN 10,15 KMS. FROM THE PROJECT SITE 3-3253.23-1 VITAL CHART OF RATCHABURI PROVINCE

    BY DISTRICTS, 1992 3-3553.23-2 MORBIDITY RATES OF DISEASES UNDER SURVEILLANCE

    RATCHABURI PROVINCE. 1992 3-3563.23-3 NUMBER OF CASES AND MORBIDITY RATE (PER 100,000)

    OF FOODBORNE AND WATERBORNE DISEASES,RATCHABURI, 1988-1992 3-357

    3.23-4 NUMBER OF CASES AND MORBIDITY RATE (PER 100,000)OF COMMUNICABLE RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES,RATCHABURI 1988-1992 3-358

    4.2-1 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS OF EGAT 4-104.3-1 PUMPING TEST OF WELL AT BAN LAT PATAK 4-164.3-2 LITHOLOGIC LOG OF WELL AT BAN LAT PATAK 4-174.7-1 PREDICTED MAX.GLC OF SO2 1-H AVERAGE IN AFFECTED

    AREA CAUSED BY NORMAL OPERATION OF THE RPPP 4-374.7-2 PREDICTED MAX.GLC OF S0 2 24-H AVERAGE IN AFFECTED

    AREA CAUSED BY NORMAL OPERATION OF THE RPPP 4-38

    vii

  • LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)

    Figure Title Page

    4.7-3 PREDICTED MAX.GLC OF SO2 ANN,TTAI AVERAGE INAFFECTED AREA CAUSED BY NORMAL OPERATIONOF THE RPPP 4-39

    4.7-4 PREDICTED MAX.GLC OF N02 1-H AVERAGE INAFFECTED AREA CAUSED BY NORMAL OPERATIONOF THE RPPP 4-40

    4.7-5 ISOPLETHS OF MAXIMUM GLC OF S02 WITHIN THE AREADURING ABNORMAL OPERATION NO. 1 OF THE RPPP 4-42/1

    4.7-6 ISOPLETHS OF MAXIMUM GLC OF S02 WITHIN THE AREADURING ABNORMAL OPERATION NO.2 OF THE RPPP 4-42/2

    4.8-1 NOISE LEVEL OF COMBINED CYCLE UNITS OFKANORM POWER PLANT IN CLEARING PIPE PROCESS 4-46

    4.15-1 THE SOURCE OF LIME USES IN THE PROCESS OF FGD 4-61/2

    viii

  • LIST OF TABLES

    Table Title Page

    1-1 LIST OF PROJECTS IN THE MEDIUM-TERM PLAN i-21-2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/VALUES ARRANGED

    BY U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS SYSTEM OF TIERSOR LEVELS 1-5

    1-3 NUMERICAL SUMMARY OF RESULTS OFSITE EVALUATION ,TOTAL AND BY PARAMETER 1-14

    1-4 VISUAL SUMMARY OF RESULT OF SITE EVALUATION,BY PARAMETER 1-15

    2-1 RATCHABURI POWER PLANT PROJECTCOMBUSTION TURBINE 220 MW (GE-9 FA) 2-25

    2-2 RATCHABURI POWER PLANT PROJECTTHERMAL POWER UNIT 700 MW 2-26

    3.2-1 WATER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAE KLONG RIVERAT RATCHABURI, FEBRUARY 6,1994 3-18

    3.2-2 WATER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAE KLONG RIVERAT RATCHABURI, APRIL 3,1994 3-20

    3.2-3 WATER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAE KLONG RIVERAT I\TC'..fl1iui Z.7 L2vI1 199 -22

    3.2-4 SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS OFTHE MAE KLONG RIVER AT RATCHABURI DURINGTHE THREE SAMPLING PERIODS IN 1994 3-27

    3.2-5 WATER CHARACTERISTICS AT SIRILUK BRIDGE,RATCHABURI 3-30

    3.2-6 PROFILE OF COLIFORM BACTERIA,MAY 1989 3-313.2-7 RAW WATER QUALITY AT THE INTAKE OF RATCHABURI

    MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS AND ITS VICINITY 3-323.2-8 TOTAL COLIFORM READINGS AT RATCHABURI

    PROVINCE 3-363.2-9 POPULATION IN RATCHABURI MUNICIPALITY AND

    LAK MUANG SANITARY DISTRICT AND THEIR BODLOADINGS IN 1991-1993 3-37

    3.2-10 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY OF WATER QUALITYFOR DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY, FISHERIESENHANCEMENT AND IRRIGATION 3-38

    3.2-11 ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY OF WATER FORCOOLING WATER 3-40

    3.3-1 RANGE OF SPECIFIC CAPACITY FOR EACH AQUIFER 3-443.3-2 DETAILS OF TUBE WELLS IN THE VICINITY OF

    THE PROJECT AREA 3-463.3-3 DETAILS OF WATER QUALITY FOR STATION 1

    (BAN KHOK KHAM) 3-48

    ix

  • LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

    Table Title Page

    3.3-4 DETAILS OF WATER QUALITY FOR STATION 2(BAN LANG AND BAN KHOK 01) 3-51

    3.3-5 DETAILS OF WATER QUALITY FOR STATION 3(BAN CHAO NUA) 3-52

    3.4-1 PROFILE FEATURES,SERIES,CLASSIFICATION,LANDFORM AND PARENT MATERIAL OF THESTUDY AREA 3-63

    3.5-1 CROSS-SECTION RECORDING FORM OFGEOMORPHOLOGICAL UNIT Section A-B 3-78

    3.5-2 CROSS-SECTION RECORDING FORM OFGEOMORPHOLOGICAL UNIT Section C-D 3-81

    3.5-3 CROSS-SECTION RECORDING FORM OFGEOMORPHOLOGICAL UNIT section E-F 3-83

    3.6-1 MINERAL RESOURCES IN PATCHABURT PROVLNCE 3=873.7-1 EMISSION FACTORS FOR NATURAL GAS AND OIL

    FIRED POWER PLANTS 3-953.7-2 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR

    MONITORING AIR POLLUTANTS 3-963.7-3 THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD

    FOR THE PRIMARY CONCERNED POLLUTANTS 3-973.7-4 LOCATION OF THE METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

    IN THE REGION 3-973.7-5 RESULTS OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENT AT SAMPLING

    SITE-1 "BAN BANG-KRADO" 3-1003.7-6 RESULTS OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENT AT SAMPLING

    SITE-2 "BAN CHAO-NUA" 3-1013.7-7 RESULTS OF AIR QUALITY MEASUIREMENT AT SAMPLING

    SITE-3 "BAN DON MOT-TANOI" 3-1023.7-8 RESULTS OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENT AT SAMPLING

    SITE-4 "BAN KLONG-KAE" 3-1033.7-9 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA 1956-1985 3-1063.7-10 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR THE PERIOD 1956-1985 3-1073.7-11 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR THE PERIOD 1956-1985 3-1083.7-12 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR THE PERIOD 1956-1985 3-1093.7-13 ANNUAL WIND ROSE AT BANGKOK METROPOLIS

    STATION DURING THE YEAR 1991 3-1163.7-14 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED,

    DIRECTION AND STABILITY DATA AT BANGKOKMETROPOLIS STATION 1991 3= 118

    3.7-15 MEAN MAXIMUM MIXING HEIGHT FOR PERIOD1971-1980 3-121

    3.8-1 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (dBA) FROM EXITING NOISESOURCES AROUND THE PROJECT PLANT SITE AREA 3-125

    x

  • LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

    Table Title Page

    3.8-2 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE LEVEL OF THE AREA AROUNDTHE PROJECT PLANT SITE 3-126

    3.9-1 NUMBER OF RECORDED EARTHQUAKES OCCURRIiNGIN THAILAND DURING 1965-JUNE 1993 3-138

    3.9-2 MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF EARTHQUAKESOCCURRING IN THAILAND DURING 1965-JUNE 1993 3-139

    3.9-3 MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE OF EARTHQUAKEINTENSITIES 3-143

    3.11-1 LIST OF SPECIES OF SHRUBS AND TREES ALONG A 500 M.LENGTH OF THE LAM RANGE SALA STREAM,ON SOUTHBANK, EAST OF BAN KHOK 01 3-158

    3.11-2 GROUND PLANTS FOUNT) GROWING IN OPEN FIELDAND MARSH ON WAT PHIKUN THONG SITE DURINGDRY SEASON 3-159

    3.11-3 LIST OF BIRDS SEEN DURING VISIT TO THE PROJECT SITEIN BOTH DRY AND RAINY SEASON 3-161

    3.12-1 MAJOR TYPES OF LAND USE IN THE STUDY AREA 3-1723.12-2 NUMBER OF FACRTEco BY Al,AbHOE IN 1992 3-1733.12-3 NUMBER OF'FACTORIES AND DENSITY IN EACH

    ANPHOE IN 1992 3-1733.12-4 NUMBER OF MAJOR FACTORIES BY AMPHOE IN 1992 3-1743.12-5 NUJMBER OF RICE MILLS AND ENTERPRISES IN 1992 3-1753.12-6 NUMBER OF EDUCATIONAL PLACES BY DEPENDENT

    OFFICES IN EACH AMPHOE IN 1993 3-1763.12-7 ENLTMER OF TEMPLES AND RELIGIOUS PLACES BY

    AMPHOE IN 1993 3-1773.12-8 NUMBER OF HOSPITALS,PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

    AND PRIVATE CLINICS IN EACH AMPHOE IN 1993 3-1773.12-9 NUMBER OF BANKS IN EACH A\MPHOE IN 1993 3-1783.12-10 AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS BY AMPHOE IN 1993 3-1793.12-11 REASONS FOR USING LAND FOR RICE GROWING IN

    THE STUDY AREA 3-1863.12-12 RICE FIELD LANDUSE PATTERN IN THE STUDY AREA 3-1863.12-13 IRRIGATED AREA IN EACH AMPHOE INCLUDED IN

    THE STUDY AREA 3-1873.12-14 REASONS FOR GROWING FRUIT TREES ON THE

    FARMERS LAND 3-1883.12-15 FRESHWATER FISHERIES AREA, PRODUCTION AND

    NUMBER OF FARMERS IN 1993 3-1893.12-16 FISHERY PRODUCTION BY TYPE AND AREA IN 1993 3-1903.12-17 LAND UTILIZATION AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL IN THE

    STUDY AREA 3-191

    xi

  • LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

    Table Title Page

    3.13-1 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AND AGRICULTURALOUST TCTCT TeLT' CN 1993 I3-19

    3.13-2 NUMBER OF FARMERS AND FISHERY PRODUCTIONIN 1993 3-194

    3.13-3 PLANTED AREA OF MAJOR CROPS IN EACH AMPHOEIN 1993 3-195

    3.13-4 CHARACTERISTICS OF RICE FARMING IN THESTUDY AREA 3-198

    3.13-5 INCOME FROM RICE FARMING 3-2023.13-6 PROBLEMS OF RICE FARMING 3-2033.13-7 RICE FARMERS' INTENDED USE OF THEIR LAND IN

    THE NEXT 5 YEARS 3-2033.13-8 YIELD AND COST OF PRODUCTION OF FRUIT TREES IN

    THE STUDY AREA IN 1990-1993 3-2053.13-9 FRUIT TT ROP SI AND TREi E r CRrOP TR5DUCT1N TN

    RATCHABURI PROVINCE CROP YEAR 1990/91 3-2063.13-10 INCOME FROM FRUIT TREE AND TREE CROP FARMING 3-2083.13-11 PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED

    DAMAGE TO THEIR FRUIT TREES IN THE LASTFIVE YEARS 3-209

    3.13-12 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION,COST AND INCOME INTHE STUDY AREA IN 1993 3-211

    3.13-13 CHARACTERISTICS OF VEGETABLE GROWING INTHE STUDY AREA 3-212

    3.13-14 NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK BY TYPE IN THE STUDY AREA 3-2153.13-15 FRESHWATER FISHERIES AREA,PRODUCTION AND

    NUMBER OF FARMERS IN 1993 3-2163.13-16 PRODUCTION OF FRESH WATER FAUNA OF

    RATCHABURI PROVINCE IN 1993 3-2173.13-17 COST OF MACROBRACIUM FARMING 3-2183.14-1 DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS,

    AND APPROXIMATE HOUSING AND POPULATIONDENSITIES WITHIN 15 KM. RADIUS FROM WATPHIKUN THONG SITE(1993) 3-222

    3.14-2 POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS WITHIN 15 KM.RADIUS FROM THE SITE 3-223

    3.14-3 POPULATION AND HOUSING DISTRIBUTION OF THECOMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE,MAY 1994 3-224

    3.15-1 TA ArIC VOLUME RECOr 1989-1993 3-2293.15-2 FIELD TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA RECORDED

    ( ST STATION) 3-230

    xii

  • LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

    Table Title Page

    3.15-3 FIELD TRAFFIC VOLUM DATA RECORDED(2 nd STATION) 3X-231

    3. 15-4 FIELD TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA RECORDED(3td STATION) 3-232

    3.15-5 NO. OF TRAINSTONS OF FREIGHT AND NO. OFPASSENGERS USING RATCHABURI RAILWAY STATION 3-23 3

    3.15-6 INLAND WATER TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS ATBANGNOKKVACK IRRIGATION LOCK 3-234

    3.15-7 INLAND WATER TRANSPORTATION STATISTICSAT BANYANG IRRIGATION LOCK 3-234

    3.16-1 EGATS EXISTING INSTALLED GENERATING CAPACITYAS OF JULY 1988 3-244

    3.16-2 EXISTING INSTALLED TRANSMiSSION LINES ANDSUBSTATIONS 3-246

    3,16-3 TOTAL EGAT GENERATION REQUIRENENT 3-2473.18-1 IRIGATION DEMAND OF MAE KLONG IRRIGATION

    PROJECT (MCM.) 3-2593.18-2 SIMULATION RESULTS OF THE MiAE KLONG

    RIVER BASIN 3-2603.19-1 MOMENTARY FLOOD PEAK " WANG KHANAI" (K. 1 1) 3-2653.19-2 ANNUAL FLOOD PEAK DOWNSTREAM OF

    VAJTRALONGKORN DAM (K. I 1) BEFORE OPERATIONOF UPSTREAM RESERVOIRS - 3-266

    3.19-3 ANNUAL FLOOD PEAK DOWNSTREAM OFVAJIRALONGKORN DAM (K. I 1) AFTER OPERATIONOF UPSTREAM RESERVOIRS 3-267

    3.19-4 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (MOMENTARY PEAK BASIS)BEFORE OPERATION OF UPSTREAM RESERVOIRS 3-268

    3.19-5 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (MOMENTARY PEAK BASIS)AFTER OPERATION OF UPSTREAM RESERVOIRS 3-269

    3.21-1 REGISTERED ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLACES INRATCHABURI 3-3 11

    3.21-2 ARCHEOLOGICAL OR RELIGIOUS PLACES WITHINABOUT 1.5 KM. FROM THE VILLAGE 3-312

    3.22-1 FAMOUS TOURIST ATTRACTIONS WITHIN ABOUT 1.5 KM.FROM THE VILLAGE 3-326

    3.22-2 FREQUENCY OF VACATION TIME OR SIGHT SEEING ASTOURIST 3-326

    3.22-3 VISITING/VACATION PLACES 3-3263.22-4 RECREATION PLACES WANTED 3-3273.22-5 PREFERRED DISTANCE OF RECREATION PLACE FROM

    VILLAGE 3-327

    xiii

  • LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

    Table Title Page

    3.23-1 VITAL STATISTICS OF RATCHABURI PROVINCEBY DISTRICTS 3-333

    3.23-2 DEATH AND MORTALITY RATE (/100,000 POP) OFRATCHABURI PROVINCE AND TWELVE LEADING CAUSESOF DEATH 3-334

    3.23-3 TOP TEN DISEASES OF OUT-PATIENTS, RATCHABURIPROVINCE 3-335

    3.23-4 TOP TEN DISEASES OF IN-PATIENTS, RATCHABURIPROVINCE 3-336

    3.23-5 MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY RATES OF DISEASESUNDER SURVEILLANCE,RATCHABURI PROVINCE, 1992 3-337

    3.23-6 NUMBER OF CASES AND MORBIDITY RATE (PER 100,000)OF FOODBORNE AND WATERBORNE DISEASES,YEAR1988-1992 3-340

    3.23-7 NUMBER OF CASES AND MORBIDITY RATE (PER L00,000)OF COMMUNICABLE RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES,RATCHABURI PROVINCE 1988-1992 3-341

    3.23-8 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FACILITIES IN RATCHABURIPROVINCE 3-342

    3.23-9 PRIVATE HEALTH SERVICE FACILITIES, RATCHABURIPROVINCE 3-343

    3.23-10 RATIO OF PEOPLE TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC HEALTHPERSONNEL IN RATCHABURI PROVINCE 3-344

    3.23-11 NUMBER OF CASES OF DISEASES UNDERSURVEILLANCE IN RATCHABURI PROVINCE BYDISTRICT, 1993 3-345

    3.23-12 NUMBER OF CASES OF DISEASES UNDER SURVEILLANCE(DISEASES OF RESPIRATORY SYSTEM) IN THE AREAAROUND WAT PHIKUN THONG SITE, 1993 3-346

    3.23-13 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SUBJECTS INTAMBOL LOOMDIN 3-347

    3.23-14 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRE STUDY SUBJECTS IN4 TAMBOLS AROUND THE PROJECT AREA 3-348

    3.23-15 FREQUENCY AND MONTHLY OCCURENCE OFRESPIRATORY ILLNESSES REPORTED AMONG STUDYSUBJECTS IN TAMBOL LOOMDIN (N= 184) 3-349

    3.23-16 FREQUENCY AND MONTHLY OCCURENCE OFRESPIRATORY ILLNESSES REPORTED AMONG STUDYSUBJECTS IN 4 TAMBOLS AROUND THE PROJECT AREA(N = 742) 3-350

    xiv

  • LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

    Table Title Page

    3.23-17 PREVALENCE OF RELATED RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMSREPORTED A\MONG STUDY SUBJECTS IN TAMBOLLOOMDIN (N = 184) 3-351

    3.23-18 PREVALENCE OF RELATED RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMSREPORTED AMONG STUDY SUBJECTS IN 4 TAMBOLSAROUND THE PROJECT AREA (N = 184) 3-353

    3.24-1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION CONDITIONSOF RATCHABURI (1992) 3-361

    3.24-2 AVAILABILITY OF CLEAN DRINKING WATER AND WATERSUPPLY SYSTEM IN RATCHABURI 3-362

    3.24-3 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS :POTABLE WATER AND RIVERWATER IN RATCHABURI 3-363

    3.24-4 FOOD SANITATION CONTROL RATCHABURI PROVINCE 3-3643.26-1 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF DEAD AND INJURED

    PERSONS FROM TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN RATCHABURIPROVINCE (1991 TO JANUARY 1994) 3-373

    3.26-2 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICVOLUMES PER HOUR AND MEAN NOISE LEVEL BY TYPESOF VEHICLES (OBSERVED AT 200 METERS FROMINTERSECTION HIGHWAY NO.4 AND ROAD TOWAT PHIKUIN THONG) MAY 1994 3-374

    3.26-3 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFICVOLUMES PER HOUR AND MEAN NOISE LEVEL AT THEROADSIDE TO WAT PHIKUN THONG SITE, MAY 1994 3-375

    3.26-4 TRAFFIC VOLUME RECORDS IN PROJECT AREA(HIGHWAY ROUTE NO.4, STATION 93 KM + 580)DURING 1991-1993 3-376

    4.2-1 SURFACE WATER QUALITY OF THE MAE KLONG RIVERAND ITS TRIBUTARIES 4-8

    4.3-1 RELATION BETWEEN TIME AND DRAWDOWN AT ONSITE WELL AND 1,000 M. FROM ON SITE WELL(WELL DISCHARGE OF 822 CU.M/D) 4-12

    4.3-2 RELATION BETWEEN TIME AND DRAWDOWN AT ONSITE WELL WITH VARIOUS WELL DISCHARGES 4-14

    4.3-3 RELATION BETWEEN TIME AND DRAWDOWN AT 1,000 M.FROM ON SITE WELL WITH VARIOUS WELL DISCHARGES4-15

    4.7-1 NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF THE SENSITIVE RECEPTORSWITHIN THE IMPACTED AREA 4-26

    4.7-2 SOURCE DATA FOR DISPERSION MODELING IN CASEOF THERMAL POWER UNIT 4-28

    xv

  • LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

    Table Title Page

    4.7-3 SOURCE DATA FOR DISPERSION MODFL ING LN CASEOF COMBINED CYCLE UNIT 4-29

    4.7-4 BACKGROUND LEVELS OF SO2 ,NO2 AND 03 WITHINTHE IMPACTED AREA AROUND THE RPPP 4-32

    4.7-5 COMPARISONS OF SO2 AND NO2 CONCENTRATIONSTO THE REFERENCE THAI AMBIENT AIR QUALITYSTANDARDS 4-34

    4.7-6 CONCENTRATIONS OF SO2 GAS EXPECTED ATDISCRETE SENSITVE RECEPTORS 4-35

    4.7-7 CONCENTRATIONS OF NO2 GAS EXPECTED ATDISCRETE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 4-41

    4.7-8 PREDICTED MAXIMUM GLC OF SO2 IN AFFECTED AREADURING ABNORMAL OPERATION NO.1 OF RPPP 4-36

    4.8-1 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL AT VARIOUS DISTANCESFROM THE CONSTRUCTION AREA 4-43

    4.14-1 COMPARISON OF HOUSING DENSITY TRENDS BETWEENWITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIOS IN THEAREAS STUDIED 4-59

    4.15-1 COMPARISON OF ROAD CAPACITY AND TRAFFICVOLUME OF HIGHWAY ON WITH AND WITHOUTPROJECT 4-61/1

    5.19-1 POTENTIAL CONCERNS OF COMMUNITIES WHICH ARELIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE POWER PLANT 5-23

    5.23-1 THE ANALYSIS OF REFUSE SAMPLES FROMTHE TWO PERIODS OF OPERATION 5-32

    5.24-1 PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS 5-385.24-2 MINIMUM ILLUMINATION INTENSITIES IN LUX 5-396.5-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SCHEDULE FOR

    THE ONE YEAR PERIOD BEFORE THE RPPP START-UP 6-6

    xvi

  • CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

    1.1 General Background

    1.1.1 Electricity Power Demand in Thailand

    Future DemandAccording to documentation supplied by EGAT the demand for

    power in Thailand is estimated to increase as follows: from 8,045 MW in 1991to 13,075 MW at the end of 1996, a growth rate of 10.20 per cent ; to 19,000MW at the end of 2000 , a growth rate of 7.76 per cent ; and to 25,515 MW by2006, a growth rate of 6.07 per cent.

    Present StatusEGAT' s total installed capacity as of Septempber 1993 was

    12,178 MW . Of this capacity, approximately 2,429 MW is hydroelectric

    (20 %) ; 6,101 MW is conventional fossil fueled thermal units ( 50.1 %) ; 3,424

    MW is combined cycle combustion t-urbine (28.1%) and 224 MW is simple

    cycle combustion turbine (1.8 %) .

    Future Supplv

    A power development plan (PDP) has been prepared covering the

    period 1992-2006 . A generating reserve margin of not less than 15 per cent has

    been adopted thus projected installed capacity is 16,198 MW in 1996 , 22,579

    MW in 2001 and 30,951 MW in 2006.

    The PDP has been divided into 3 periods: short term , medium

    term and long termn . The short term plan covers the period of the Seventh

    National Economic and Social Development Plan 1992-96 . After some existing

    plants have been decommissioned the power generation capability at the end of

    1996 will be 15,642 MW which is sufficient to support the peak demand of

    13,075 MW at that time.

    During the medium term plan period, or up to the year 2001, 26

    new projects are expected to be commissioned, totalling 15,075 MW . These

    consist of 1 hydroelectric project (500 MW) , 18 thermal power plant projects

    (12,257 MW) and 6 transmission system projects . The full list of projects is

    presented in table 1-1

    l-l

  • TABLE 1-1 LIST OF PROJ ECTS IN THE MEDIUM-TERM PLAN

    Name of Project Capacity Proposed

    (MW) Commissioning Date

    Hydroelectric Projects1. Lam Takhong Units 1-2 2X5J0 January 1999

    Thermal Power Plant Projects1. Sai Noi Gas Turbine Units 1-2 2X122 May 95-Jun 952. Nong Chok Gas Turbine Units 1-4 4X122 May 95- Aug 953. Wang Noi Combined Cycle Block 1 1X651 Mar 96- Apr 974. Wang Noi Combined Cycle Block 2 1X651 Jul 96- Jul 975. South Bangkok Combined Cycle Block 2 1X623 Oct 96- Aug 986. Wang Noi Combined Cycle Block 3 IX600 Nov 97- Aug 987. IPP 1,000 Jan 98- Jan 00

    8. Ratchaburi Combined Cycle Block 1 IX600 Jul 98- Jul 999. Ratchaburi Combined Cycle Block 2 lX600 Sep 98- Sep 9910. Ratchaburi Combined Cycle Block 3 IX600 Nov 98- Nov 9911. Mae Kham FBC 1X300 November 199812. Ratchaburi Thermal Unit I 1X700 April 199913. Krabi/Surat Thani Thermal Unit 1 1X300 April 199914. IPP 1,400 July 199915. Ratchaburi Thermal Unit 2 IX700 August 199916. IPP _1,400 October 199917. Ratchaburi Thermal Unit 3 IX700 October 200018. Ratchaburi Thermal Unit 4 IX700 February 2001

    Transmission Projects1. EGAT-TNB Stage II Interconnection 300 April 19972. Transmission System Expansion No.9 - 1997 -1998

    (1993-1997)3. Power Supply for Greater Bangkok Area - 1997-2000

    4. Transmission System Expansion No. 10 - 1999-2000

    (1995-1999)

    5. 115 kV Chiang Mai 2-Mae Hong Son - March 2000

    6. 500 kV Transmission Systems to receive December 2000Power from Miscellaneous System 1992-1996

    mns.io I ' i Eastern dlIU WYestem

    Areas and Construction Work

    Total Generation Capacity 13,057

    1-2

  • As can be seen from this table the list includes 7 projects located

    in Ratchaburi province. These constitute a large base load thermal power

    station . known as the Ratchaburi Power Plant Project, which consists of four

    700 MW thermal units and three 600 MW combined cycle blocks aiving a total

    installed capacity of 4.600 MW.

    1.1.2 Request for Mahidol University to Conduct an EIA

    In December 1993 EGAT requested Mahidol University to

    conduct a site evaluation study for four potential site locations and an

    environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the Lower Central Combined Cycle

    Project at the preferred site to determine its environmental impacts and to

    propose mitigation measures and a comprehensive monitoring plan . During the

    course of studies, the project wvas modified and expanded to include

    conventional oil/gas-fired power plants. When the site evaluation was

    completed in March 1994 and the Consultant concluded that the preferred site

    was Wat Phikun Thong in Changwat Ratchaburi the project was renamed"Ratchaburi Power Plant Project". On completion. the EIA will be submitted tothe Office of Environmental Policy and Plannin2 . Ministrv of Science,

    Technology and Energy for review.

    1.2 Objctives of the EIA study

    i) To define the study area which would be directly and indirectly

    affected bv the development of the proposed project.

    ii) To describe the existing chsracteristics and quality of all

    environmental resources and values of the study area.

    iii) To characterize the physical, biological and socio-economic aspects

    that would affect project design, project costs and project benefits.

    iv) T o indentify the principle changes of the environment that may be

    reasonably expected as a result of the project development.

    v) To predict the short and long term environmental impacts of the

    proposed project, including duration and magnitude of the predicted impacts..

    vi) To recommend guideline for short and long term measures to prevent

    or mitigate the adverse effects and/or maximize the positive results of the

    proposed project upon the local and regional environmental resources .

    vii) To recommend appropriate guidelines for an environmental

    monitoring program with the relevant cost estimate for the proposed project.

    1-3

  • viii) To examine the enviromnentally acceptable design alternative and

    generating capacity of the project, based on the environrnental supports,

    constraints, and/or limitations (eg. air quality, water supply, land use , waste

    disposal, cooling system, high voltage transmission system routing etc.).

    1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures Adoptedby the Consultant

    New projects which are likely to significantly alter the existing naturaland built environments are required by law to submit an environmental impactstatement for review by the NEB. This is to be "prepared in sufficient scope anddetail to enable the NEB to evaluate the overall worth of the project in terms ofeconomic benefits versus possible impairments to precious environmentalresources or values" (Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental ImpactEvaluations, NEB, April 1979, P.2)

    In order to assist project proponents and their consultants to prepare sucha document NEB has prepared a set of guidelines in the form of a manualentitled "Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Irnpact Evaluations". TheConsultant has studied this manual and incorporated these guidelines into thepreparation of the EIS. A key component of the NEB guidelines is the provision

    of a table listing, (after the practice of the U.S. Corps of Engineers) in four tiersor levels, the environmental resources/values (ERNV) to be studied. These fourtiers or levels are:

    (1) Physical Resources(2) Ecological Resources(3) Human Use Values(4) Quality of Life Values

    The full list is presented in table 1-2. While most large scale projects arelikely to affect the full range of ER/V presented in the NEB guidelines some arelikely to be more significant than others depending on the nature of the project.For this reason, whilst the Consultant studied the full range of ER/V, these werearranged in ts..s ofu -. ueS or s.udy. These priorities refiect the specialcharacteristics of the Ratchaburi Power plant and are priorities which wereagreed upon by EGAThefore the EIA conmnenced. These have already beenpresented in section 1.2.2 of the Interim Report.

    1-4

  • TABLE 1-2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/ VALUES ARRANGED BYU.S CORPS OF ENGINEERS SYSTEM OF TIERS OR LEV'EL

    Classification Environmental Resource or Value (ERNV)LEVELI: PHYSICAL RESOURCES

    Water Resources Surface water

    Hydrology

    Quality

    Groundwater

    HydrologyQuality

    Air Resources Air Resources

    Meteorology (Climate)Quality (Smog, Noise, Radiation, Odor)

    Land Resources Soil

    Erosion/ SedimentationsFertility

    Mineral Resources Geology! Seismoloyv

    LEVEL 2: ECOLOGICAL RESOURCESAquatic Resources Fisheries

    Aquatic BiologyTerrestrial Resources Forests ( Vegetative Cover)

    Terrestrial wildlifeEndangered (Rare) Species Endangered (Rare) Species

    i-5

  • In carrying out the ELA study the following steps were followed:

    1. Description of environmental setting. This provided the base-

    line infornation against which prediction and asessment was conducted and

    also provided vital input inforrnation for the preparation of the EnvironmentalImpact Statement. The description of the existing environmental setting

    encompasses the environment resources/values (EN/V) suggested by the

    Guidelines for Preparation of Impact Evaluations" (ONEB, 1979). The

    description of the environmental setting was based on secondary and primary

    sources of information such as literature review, site visits, field surveys,

    interviews etc.2. Impact prediction and assessment. This step included the

    development of both "without project" and "with project" scenarios. With

    regards to the former, the purpose is to project current conditions into the future

    based on historical trends or taking into consideration the discontinuance of

    historical trends (for example, as a result of policies or developments other than

    that which is the subject of the EA). The "with project" scenario was

    developed with reference to the full technical description of the proposedpower plant, incorporating project increments. Prediction and assessment of the

    impact of the project increments on the ER/V were accomplished using an array

    of established quantitative and qualitative techniques, including mathematical

    modeling. The assessment addresses issues of impact magnitude and duration

    and covers both the plant's construction and operation periods.

    3. Development of recommendations with regard to the mostsuitable number of thermal plant units and/or combined cycle units and hence

    ultimate installed capacity. This was based on identification of the optimum

    balance between economic development and environmental protection.

    4. Development of an impact management plan incorporating

    short-term and long-term measures to mitigate adverse impacts and enhance

    beneficial impacts. This will encompass the full project cycle.

    5. Development of an environmental monitoring program for the

    proposed project including a cost estimate.

    6. Writing up of the EIS.

    1-6

  • 1.4 Review of Site Evaluation Study

    During the first phase of EIA four candidate sites were evaluated todetermine the preferred site for the electricity generating plant. The four siteswere Ban Khung Krathin and Wat Phikun Thong in Ratchaburi Province andBan Kum Tok and Ban Bang Kao in Petchaburi Province (see Fig l- )

    1.4.1 Objectives of Site Evaluation StudyThe site evaluation study had the following objectives:(1) To identify a suitable methodology and range of factors

    for conducting a new site evaluation study(2) To conduct an independent evaluation of the four

    condidate sites using the methodology and factors identified.

    (3) To recommend a preferred site for the Lower CentralCombined Cycle Project.

    1.4.2 Methodology for Site EvaluationThe methodology used is a formn of weighted-ranking

    technique widely used in environmental impact studies. The steps were asfollows:

    (1) All parameters used for evaluating the candidate siteswere classified according to 3 levels of priority established by EGAT.

    (2) Weights were allocated to each of the priority levels asfollows: Ist Priority (50), 2 nd Priority (30), 3rd Priority (20)

    (3) These weights of 50, 30 and 20 were then divided upamongst the parameters contained in each level of priority. This involved the

    subjective judgement of the Consultant. Parameters considered to be the most

    significant for the site evaluation were given higher weights. In some cases

    parameters were weighted equally. The sum total of parameter weights of courseequalled 50 for priority class 1, 30 for priority class 2 and 20 for priority class 3.

    1-7

  • :m _,"phoe van Ph.9 CllilNG II,N*"HOLk, _.PI-.,. B.AT.k-(

    M4ANGWIV7 SAB Khi K

    6- B-g Th. A

    'A 8-

    13 II., T--- 3

    B- R.

    la.. Kh.k Kh,.. s- L.k S..g 11, sr

    A.Ph-g

    WAT PIIIKU Til KI -1

    Amp,, . Pa. Ph.- I'l A,,

    N.1pl.,, Ch,, H.i

    P.. U.1 T-

    B.. Kh?-g Th

    AT,.RATCFJABLtR I B.R T. N A A

    -A np a, D loon balk , Kil.

    ?h

    -13,,aD

    u,

    A MUT SONGKFiRAM

    0

    n P

    ie.t

    1.4.d

    Wf

    Kh.

    J01%, * BAN KUNI TOKI--

    Kh- S.,

    rS.11'. 'i al"h P.$ TI.I.

    Ok

    VAT.

    vK.I.

    0 LEGENI)

    BAri A KAO

    f CANDIDATESITES

    L ... 5 I O

    A

    S..d

    ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACT ASSESSM ENT OF

    WER CENTILAL COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT

    FIGURE 1-1 LOCATION OF CANDIDA'

  • Thus

    GROUP I: ISt Prionity (50)

    - Climatology and Air Quality, 10- Surface Water Hydrology and Water Resoruces, 8

    - Surface Water Quality, 8

    - Aquatic Ecology/Fisheries, 8

    - Socio-Economics, 8- Public Health/Public Safety(Occupational Health and Safety), 8

    GROUP Il: 2 nd Priority (30)

    - Ground Water Hydrology/Quality, 4- Environmental Noise, 4

    - Soil/Land Quality, 4- Terrestrial Resources, 4- Land Use/Agriculture, 5

    - SanitationAWaste Handling, 5- Water Supply, 4

    GROUP Ill: 3 rd Priority (20)

    - Geology/Mineral Resouices, 3- Transportation, 3

    - Housing, 3- Industry, 3- Aesthetics/Toun'sm/Archaeology,. 3- Seismology, 1- Transmission Line, 4

    (4) Each parameter was then disaggregated into

    component factors which were used to consider each site's suitability for the

    proposed project. The weight for the parameter was divided up amongst the

    factors indicating their relative importance in the site evaluation e.g. The Air

    Quality paramneter got a weight of 10 in step 3 and 3 factors were identified for

    the site evaluation: (a) The Predicted Maximum Project Concentration, (b) The

    Existing Ambient Air Quality at the Proposed Site and in the Surrounding

    Areas, (c) and the Existing Sources of Air Pollution at the Proposed Project

    Sites and in the Surrounding Areas. The 10 was divided up amongst the 3

    factors as follows a = 5, b = 3, c = 2.

    All the factors used for the site selection and the weights

    distributed to them are presented in table 1-3.

    1-9

  • (5) Each alternative site was then considered for eachfactor and raw score values of 0-4 assigned according to degree of suitability,

    with 0 = very unsuitable, 1 = unsuitable, 2 = neutral, 3 = suitable and 4 = very

    suitable.

    (6) Raw scores for each alternative site were thenmultplied by the weight allocated to that particular factor being considered.

    Then the weighted score for each site was summed to give a sub-total for each

    site according to the parameter considered . The total score (all parameters) for

    each site was then calculated . The site with the highest score is the preferred

    site.

    1.4.3 Summary of Site Evalation Study Results

    1.4.3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCESFor the Physical Resources group of values Wat Phikun

    Thoung geinerally scored high in terms of suitability. A low score of 1 howeverwas given for the "flooding and drainage conditions" factor of the Soil/Land

    Quality parameter as it was assessed that the site would incur extra grading costs

    to elevate it above its currently flooded state. A low score of 1 was also givenfor the "existing noise source" and "noise characteristics" factors of the

    Environmental Noise parameter due to the predominantly rural setting of the

    proposed site. Ban Kung Khrathin also generally received high scores in terms

    of suitability. But a low score of 1 was given for the "shrink and swell" factor of

    the SoillLand Quality Parameter due to the fact that the soil in the area has high

    montmorillorite clays. Low scores of 1 were also given for the "noise

    characteristics" and the "noise affected group" factors of the Environmental

    Noise parameter as the site is at present a relatively quiet area and has a high

    population concentration within the vicinity of the site.

    Ban Kuin Tok received somewhat mixed results overall.The lowest score was received for the Surface Water Quality parameter because

    "treated plant effluents and cooling tower blowdown would be discharged to

    Petchaburi River which is about 6 km from the lower mouth and the site has a

    very low flow.... thus making flushing difficult." The highest score it received

    was for the Air Quality parameter due to the existing ambient air quality being

    higher than at other sites and due to the absence of sources of air pollution at

    present.

    1-10

  • Ban Ban Kao's results were also somewhat mixed with

    particularly low results for the Groundwater Hydrology/Quality parameter due

    its coastal location which would render ground water resources subject to salt

    water intrusion.

    1.4.3.2 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

    Considering Ecological Resources Wat Phikun Thongconsistently scored high in terms of suitability. It received no low scores,thus

    indicating its suitablity from the perspective of all factors.

    Ban Kung Kratin also generally received high scores

    showing its suitability but it did receive a score of 1 for the "tree density" factor

    due to the high density of fruit trees in the vicinity of the site.

    Ban Kum Tok received a high score for both the Aquatic

    Resources and Fisheries parameter and the Forestry, Vegetation and Wildlife

    parameter. Ban Bang Kao's results were also good overall but not as good as

    Ban Kum Tok's.

    1.4.3.3 HUMAIN USE VALUESRegarding Human Use Values, Wat Phikun Thong had a

    mixed result receiving high scores for some parameters: Transportation,

    Transmission Line, Industry and Water Supply and low scores for others: Land

    Use and Agriculture; and Housing. The Housing parameter received a low score

    as the existing housing density was considered to be high and thus increasing the

    housing stock to accomodate power station staff was considered more likely to

    have a potentially negative effect. As population density was also high in the

    study area of Wat Phikun Thong its increase due to the introduction of project

    housing was seen as likely to adversely affect people's privacy or other social

    values.

    Regarding the Land Use and Agriculture Parameter, Wat

    Phikun Thong scored low due to

    (a) its relative proximity to residential areas

    (b) the fact that the area is mostly rice fields of moderate

    fertility(c) the likelihood of the land use changing to

    a higher value product (shrimp) in the near future.

    1-11

  • Ban Kung Krathin was deemed to be highly unsuitable forall factors which comprised the Land Use and Agriculture parameter. The siteis very dose to a number of residential areas; it is used intensively for mixedorchard cultivation and there is significant intercropping. Productivity isuncertain too.

    Ban Khung Khrathin also had low scores for the Housingparameter due to high population and housing density. But for the "distance tomunicipal area" factor it did receive a high score because it was only 4.5 km tothe nearest municipal area. Low scores were also received for the aestheticimpact of the transmission line and for the 40% (estimated) probability ofhumans receiving the electrical effect of the transmission lineA score of 0 was also given to Ban Khung Khratin because of the site'sproximity to a major source of pollution e.g. textile factory.

    Both Ban Kum Tok and Ban Bang Kao received mixedresults for this group of values.

    1.4.3.4 QUALITY OF LIFE VALUESWith regards to Quality of Life Values, the Wat Phikun

    Thong site generally received a high score for all parameters and factors. Theexception was the waste handling factor due to the fact that there are no wastehandling facilitics at the site and the "population concentration" factor as it hadthe highest population concentration within a 1-2 km. grid from the sitecompared to all other sites.

    Ban Khung Krathin was also generally deemed suitableand had a score similar to that of Wat Phikun Thong.

    Both Ban Kum Tok and Ban Bang Kao had mixed resultsfor this group of values. Ban Bang Kao received a particularly high score duein the main to the low population concentration near the proposed project siteand due to the fact that the idea of an electricity generating project at that sitewas rated highly by both villages and local government officials

    1.4.3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSWat Phikun Thong received the highest overall score and

    is thus the preferred site. The results show, however, that overall, the sites donot differ greatly in terms of suitability. Of the total points scored Wat PhikunThong receive 28.8 per cent, Ban Khung Krathin 25.8 per cent, Ban Kum Tok23.6 per cent and Ban Bang Kao 23.1 per cent. Where Wat Pikhun Thong

    1-12

  • received a low score for certain parameters or factors it frequently occurred thatthe other sites also received low scores for the same parameters or factors.

    It should be borne in mind that the site selection studylargely used secondary data and was essentially an attempt to establish therelative rather than absolute suitability of the 4 sites to receive the proposed

    project. It was not an attempt to assess the impact of the project at the 4 sites.

    It is therefore suggested that the EIA pay particularattention to those factors which received low scores so that a fuller

    understanding of the issue may be obtained and if necessary the mostappropriate mitigation measures be recommended.

    At this point in time the factor which gives the most causefor concern is the relatively high population concentration in the study area.Although the site evaluation study showed no evidence of a negative attitudetowards the project, this cannot be taken as conclusive due to the limitation ofthe survey work undertaken. Clearly the EIA will need to focus on the risks tothe population within the study area from the emission of potentially harmfulgases. Stack height will play a particularly important role in anymitigation measures designed to reduce healh ri3sks to locals associated withthe project. This issue should therefore be thoroughly investigated.

    The local population surely have a right to know ofEGAT's intention to build an electricity generating plant at that site and a rightto be fully informed of project details.. It is recommended therefore that EGAT

    hold one or more public meeting to inform the public of the project as soon aspossible. The communication process should be open and participatory. Apublic relations compaign which is designed to provide minimal and onlypositive information should be eschewed in favour of a comprehensive andhonest presentation of the facts, including risks, as in the long run this is morelikely to foster a sense of trust and cooperation. Initial survey findings suggestthat local people are highly aware of both the positive and negative effects ofindustries/technologies- many of them had heard of the problems associatedwith EGATs power generating plants at Mae Moh and had first handexperience of the damaging effects of water pollution caused by a local textilefactory. But evidence suggests that locals do not reject such technologiesoutright, rather they wish problems to be resolved so that they can enjoy thebenefits associated with the technologies.

    1-13

  • TABLE 1-1 NUMERICAL SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SITE EVALUATION, TOTAL AND BY PARAMETER

    Parameter Allocated Site I Site 2 Site 3 Site 4weight Wat Phikun Thong Ban Khung Krathin Ban Kun Tok Bang Bang Kao

    Weight score Weight score Weight score Weight score1. AirQuality 10 31.25 26.25 35.00 25.002. Surface Water Quantity/ Hydrology 8 30.00 30.00 20.00 20.003. Surface Water Quality 8 24.00 24.00 9.00 21.004. Aquatic Resources and Fisheries 8 24.50 24.50 24.50 22.005. Socio-Economics 8 18.50 17.00 18.50 30.006. Public Health 3 . 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.007. Public safety 2 7.50 4.00 4.50 3.008. Occupational Health and safety 3 9.00 9.00 6.00 4.509. Groundwater Hydrology/ Quality 4 14.00 14.50 4.50 0.0010. Environmental Noise 4 9.00 8.00 10.50 8.25I J. Soil and Land Quality 4 11.50 10.00 8.75 9.0012. Fo]rest and Wildlife 4 11.70 11.70 14.60 9.7013. Landuse and Agriculture 5 5.00 0.00 12.00 20.0014. Sanitation and Waste Handling 5 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00lS. Water Supply 4 '16.00 16.00 4.00 12.0016. Geology and Mineral Resources 3 8.50 8.50 10.00 10.2517. Transportation 3 10.00 6.20 5.30 3.1018. Housing 3 3.00 5.00 7.00 8. 0019. Industry 3 12.00 0.00 12.00 3.0020. Aesthetics! Tourism! Recreation 3 10.00 8.50 5.00 4.00

    and Archaeology21. Seismology 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.0022. Power and Transmission Linic 4 13.40 9.00 7.00 2.00

    Total 100 288.85 258.65 236.15 231.80

  • TABLE 1-4VISUAL SUMMARY OF RESULT OF SITE EVALUATION, BY PARAMETER

    Parameters Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

    Wat Plikun Thong Ban Khung Krathin Ban kum tok Ban B kao

    1. Surface Water Quantity/Hydrology

    2. Surface water Quality _W_6 _ _

    3. Groundwvater Quality/Hydrology ._ _ _

    4. Soil and Land Qualitv

    5. Geology and Mineral Resources

    6. Air Quality .___L

    7. Environmental Noise

    8. Seismology

    9. Aquatic Resources and Fisheries

    10. Forestry/Vegetation and Wildlife

    11. Land Use and Agriculture

    12. Housing___

    13. Transportation l___l

    14. Transmission Line

    15. Industry v____

    16.Water Supply llll_

    17. Socio-Economics

    18. Public safety v____

    19. PublicHealth ____l

    20. Sanitation and Waste Handling

    21. Occupational Health and safety

    22. Aesthetics/TourisrnJRecreation

    and Archaeology ____.___ .___ _ _____

    KEY1

    U 80-100 % of highest possible score for parameter260-79 % of highest possible score for parameter

    40-59 % of highest possible score for parameter

    21-39 % of highest possible score for parameter

    2 0-20 % of highest possible score for parameter

    'It must be noted that these are relative rather than absolute indicators of each site's suitabilitvunder existing conditions. Moreover, they are not meant to suggest static conditions. Theapplication of mitigation measure could lead the result for some parameters to be reversed, e.g.sanitation and waste handling etc.

    2 The highest possible score for each parameter is calculated by multiplying the allocatedweight for each parameters by 4 (4 being used to indicate "very suitable") .

    1-15

  • CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

    2.1 Introduction

    The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) , a govemrnmentowned utility, proposes to construct new electricity generating units at the WatPhikun Thong site, located approximately 7 km. northeast of Ratchabuni Province.The new electricity generating units will be known as the Ratchaburi Power PlantProject. The project will incorporate both thermal units and combined cycle units.The thermal units will burn low sulfur residual fuel oil and/or natural gas and thecombined cycle units will burn natural gas as the primary fuel or distillate oil as theback-up fuel.

    2.2 Site Location

    The site is located in Ratchaburi province as shown in Figure 2-1,2-2 and 2-3. The existing land use consists of rice production and fish ponds. Thesite is located about 5 km. north of the Mae Klong River. A paved road on the westside of the site will be used for local access to the plant. Tne area of thc site isapproximately 2,000 rai. The overall plant site arrangement is indicated in Figure2-4.

    2.3 Electricity Generating Complex

    The development of the project consists of four 700 MW (nominal)supercritical, conventional heavy oil fired units and three 600 MW (nominal)combined cycle blocks, for a total site development of 4,600 MW. Eachconventional thermal unit consists of a single furnace boiler and a single steamturbine. Each combined cycle block consists of two combustion gas turbinegenerators, two heat recovery steam generators (HRSGS) and one steam turbinegenerator. The plant perfornance and operating characteristics are briefly describedin the following subsections.

    2-1

  • ULAI10sl ltAlillISOCOO l; i CHANGWT RATCI-IABUIRI zl; ,,l 5 -I'b;lt, ,-. I-liTIDI'rS701L7017. 493661'

    I- "' n :50o CliANGl 6R O W A r tT RWIEAT Cl994U. .

    . .. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .

  • 1,7 -2':14, -0 1--\-t; Kh '--g T.. -\,CHANGWA

    0T

    ZTn-q Amp.eiSai N.i -- iNz-,

    z zg

    g '8 S- Kh-q T. S-9- L.ln, %P /"6- c-;TU., N.

    6- 0-; T. Cn-A

    -- ZAmsjo Bag b.a7ho.q-

    b- L-c 6, KM-

    T

    -106 a T.. K-

    Xo12\ --- AmphB.nq Ya,

    S.. N-g 5iWID g, K--.

    V I.x 1 .4 --,j _GWA'6- T- Ch-

    S-- T- C.--fmph

    S 10 CHANGWAT-NA

    Am

    S.I. D...

    4 MV,

    BANGKOKvv-o V Rb

    pNV I f- T- K-

    KN.gY.H_ A.0hoe -am h!anKS. .9 K.-

    ko - -Alh-PrY., B- 0- K

    .-7

    f3 ph Ph.

    Ki..

    W;T,ul Swoq 4., a-C.AN

    9

    Y., -a- Y. n -i u

    + MI

    O.. Kh'.. L.I, S-9Amphoe jEh&n:B. D- Khl.N IE

    --U B.a Ng.. AmRhoe an PhaWKlq,-T, hLn, 9,_u .. , -7ch.,5- D N.,.- C.. K,.I.

    At;- TIPL U 4,40-KLA 3 P. Ni -- g TgM. 9 Kl 6). NG N-,

    A BU:R IB.. P-4"

    Kh- D..K-,S.. K

    6-g SiKh-M... R.

    -J, A- fN 13'3D ------ B., 7-T16. G.-

    A17 ANIA144t.

    n no.tho ',p "e13U- Oo, -. 1

    Si, . B. 10.1.it

    g Khi-g b.-q S.--gCI- P-- FIGURE 2-2 SITE LOCATION

    RATCRABURI POWER PLANT PROJECTHANGWAT SAMUT SONGKHRAM

    -,iimIn ijr.-n i Pt 7

  • FIGURE 2-3 LOCATION OF RATCHBUR! POWER PLANT

    2-4

  • * t t | l | :Y RBE;DdER~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * IN,....O 30.3,.31

    I0',BLOCK ,RE.CON ED IECYCEL

    I AIN,RTUEIHAYTKSFOt.IAR

    3 SMWATSOUXHSR TENSFORMERSCOO LTWNG ER

    _ 10 : '' - |{ i /

    . ,V.nE98^crYRGExssATGR HLILDING~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IN O BILIN

    3C14SJICAL TIECOSHT7 E3.fl -ISEAC?CIE ATELOIN WA360K PUMIP MtECEES HAERECoVEN Z 05Y 30TF AC I

    H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S KENMPEHNALESTOI6.TgE STORGEN

    I sI0 166ICE33ET FIRE WTER. S eTOtR RT.NT

    rs _, _- . _ . . _ _ . . ~ : i: II STI FlEE36INTRRL.IZE)HGLTEE00.C

    I j IST RTME O i|TEEBUILDINGON~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    II EUTLIAnRO3I BASIN

    *I-~~~~~ / - / -II IIOEOHOESE HAINTENOT2CE BUILDING~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-AEHU5lANM11 BILIN

    36. 1AW TEK RESEHNIOR

    S , n -i iSi -:l ,, 0 0- '}'i a .-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,c VS.r01

    iNo U MEL OIL SE O'!E TANK IS OSJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FELOCL UN NOETA0REA

    i ! , . - . J ------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~- '-' -- Ie

    :0 --TLRNOLLNI.OENOL1LosEINOsE

    TI1344 ItO CCESS HEATIT F-CIY P.ARKINQ

    :1SSIIS.LATCE BUILDINGZ5, CONT7ROL EDLEING,

    I . SUE SEci-j|Y FENCE.3I AT WATER O.SCfHAROE CT -'E1 ATER PyNP i l\CTLR;SI 9C1SOISONErACTVNPTi1 ._IGTEURE24ATMENT FRNSTU

    il

    3I E_S lE -IC1OR1IERAT -- -.;UI*11THL c CSCOL'3 V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~35 66C.3COPY`ER PAD

    1SOTOROPEONTE GAIN

    30FIlE ITER PUMITHOUSE*,,, -/ 0 STOUN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5k SURST.NTJOOSCONTOOURL.SY SUI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ 413.034Th EATER HOLDING TEND~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' TR LIN I~~~~ ... 14 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IRN1'6ATTON WATER PONE1 K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AllF1

    3`ER.ET ASHPIOND

    6 O603ILNTE'30 tI

    W5 LEORTISIIAGELNEE3 - .

    04 3310 IIE'EHINC STATiON~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p A IETRNGSITO

    SI WOTENEISCIIOROR LINE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P ANFL.~~~~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IJL - . ,* -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~59

    NULRO NECYCLE AREA

    4'&~~~~~~~~~~'!A 43~~~~~~~~~~~. LIESTOIE PREP ANREA'04-.. .3333 *3~~~~~~~~5~~ '3'3*13***W~~~~~'~~fl * 1 j7 ~~~~

    - 31 F3IDFO)TIROU RLECSOICAL 0CL41.C33E37L: L UL1.C:

    Q~~~Q ~~L ~~~ ~ ~ I...3 H4:t~~~~~~~3~~ 33 3' .~~~~~* ,5 TOO BG000ECCT VRECG0S3N3J ARESa"RDUC IR~CEIG RE

    'V' 1 ,,~~~, ~ ~ '\ / , .O~~~ 34 EMIER El' YSLURRY STOERET?li

  • 2.3.1 Thermal Units

    The overall plant performance and operating characteristics aresummarized as follows:

    Number of Units 4

    Design Capacity, MW Turbine Output 700

    Net Plant Heat Rate, KJ/KWh 9,767

    Fuel Consumption, (Heavy Oil), Mlt/d 3.5

    (Natural Gas, MMCFD) 165

    Main Steam ProductionQuantity, kg/h 2,165,000Pressure, bar absolute 241.3Temperature, OC 538

    Reheat Steam ProductionQuantity, kg/h 1,845,000Pressure, bar absolute 43.3Temperatuire, OC 566

    Boiler Efficiency, percent 86.9

    Turbine Speed, rpm 3,000

    Cooling System Cooling Tower (mechanical draft)

    The thermal plant generating complex will consist of the plant

    buildings, structures, and equipment required for the conversion of chemical

    energy stored in the fuel oil or natural gas to electrical energy. The major

    power conversion equipment for the thermal units will include the turbine

    generator, steam generator, and condensated and boiler feed water systems.

    The processes and equipment descriptions are briefly described in the the

    following subsection. The schematic diagram of a thermal unit is shown in

    Figure 2-5.

    2.3.1.1 Turbine Generator

    The turbine will be a single shaft, 3,000 rpm, tandem

    compound, four-flow, single reheat, condensing turbine with 850 mm last-stage

    blading. The generator KVA rating will be rated 906,706 KVA with 0.85

    power factor.

    2-6

  • - ,

    z E~~~~~~~- -~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    - o~~~~~~~~Q- OR sf)~~~~~~~~~~~~2

    _ 2. - A~~

    -4.

    z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

    7-

  • 2.3.1.2 Steam Generation

    The steam generator will be a balanced draftI superriticalpressure unit capable of burning No.6 fuel oil and/or natural gas. The unit consistsof fuel oil and natural gas firing equipment, the boiler and associated equipment,wind boxes, bumers, ductwork, piping and valves.The steam generator systemreceives fuel from the fuel oil pump, combustion air from the forced draft fans,feedwater from the turbine driven boiler feed pump, and cold reheat steam from thehigh-pressure turbine exhaust. The boiler uses these inputs to produce steam at therequired operating conditions for main steam flow to the high-pressure turbine andfor hot reheat steam flow to the intermediate-pressure turbine. The combustionprocess also produces flue gas which is routed through pollution control equipmentto the chimney system.

    2.3.2 Combined Cycle Block

    The overall plant performance and operating characteristics aresummarized as follows:

    Number of Units 3 BlocksDesign Capacity, MW 600Net Plant Heat Rate (LVH), KJ/kWh 6,885Natural Gas Consumption, MMCFD 120

    (Diesel, MltId) 2.3High-Pressure Steam (Each HRSG)

    Flow, t/h 261.6Pressure, bar (a) 119.3Temperature, OC 540

    Reheat Steam (Each HRSG)

    Flow,, tih 280.9Pressure, bar (a) 9.3Temperature, OC 538

    Low-Pressure Steam (Each HRSG)

    Flow, t/h 44.2Pressure, bar (a) 4.4Temperature, C 279

    2-8

  • Exhaust Gas

    Flow entering HRSG, t/n 2,085

    Temperature entering HRSG, OC 606

    Temperature leaving HRSG, OC 103

    Cooling System Cooling Tower (mechanical draft)

    Each combined cycle block consists of two combustion turbine

    generators/heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) and one steam turbine

    generator. The processes and equipment descriptions are briefly described in

    the following subsection. The schematic diagram of the combined cycle block

    is shown in Figure 2-6.

    2.3.2.1 Combustion Turbine GeneratorThe combustion turbines will be single shaft 3,000 rpm,

    axial flow, heavy-duty type with single stage, self-cleaning inlet air filters.

    Each combustion turbine will be capable of continuous operation when fired

    with natural gas or distillate oil at site rating conditions of 27.8 oC dry-bulb

    temperature, 75 percent relative humidity.

    2.3.2.2 Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG)The heat recovery steam generators will be outdoor,

    horizontal type designed to transfer heat from the exhaust gases of the

    combustion turbines to the feed water and steam systems. The heat recovery

    steam generators and accessory equipment will be designed for safe and reliable

    operation from startup to the maximum capability of each combustion turbine

    and meet the maximum steam requirements of the steam turbine generator

    2.3.2.3 Steam Turbine Generator

    The turbine will be a single shaft 3,000 rpm, tandem

    compound, two flow, single reheat, condensing turbine.

    2-9

  • {q2)a8lNE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TAMIRBNRE0CVERY BOILER LEAERATOR

    ** < g g 9 T % E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SR

    FUEL - F_ fPtGas Turbine 2 [email protected] | a > LP

    Steam Trbine set 2HP EV T|a

  • 2.3.3 Transmission Systems and Auxiliarv Power

    The generator output will be fed through a step-up transformer toa 500 kV and 230 KV substation located west of the central generating complex

    on the plant site. Tne substation will be connected to several new 500 kV and

    230 kV lines.

    During normal operation of the unit, auxiliary power to operate

    electrical equipment will be supplied from one full-capacity main auxiliarytransformer which receives power from the generator. The main auxiliary

    transformer steps up the generator voltages to 7200 volts and distributes the

    power through switchgear and feeder breakers to the auxiliary loads. During

    unit startup , power will be provided from the 230 kV substation to the auxiliary

    loads through two 1-1/2 capacity (150 percent) reserve auxiliarv transformers

    connected to an overhead transmission line.

    2.3.4 Heat Rejection Systems

    Heat rejection will be accomplished by circulating water from the

    basin of the cooling tower through the condenser and closed cooling w ater heat

    exchangers. The major components of the cooling system include the

    condenser, cooling tower, circulating water pumps, and closed cooling water

    heat exchangers. These components are discussed in the following subsections.

    2.3.4.1 CondenserThe turbine generator will be provided with a two-pass

    condenser to condense low-pressure exhaust steam. Condenser tube material

    will be stainless steel . A condenser cleaning system which circulates sponge

    rubber cleaning balls through the condenser tubes will be provided to maintain

    effective heat transfer.

    2.3.4.2 Cooling Tower and Circulating Water Pumps

    A rectangular, concrete, mechanical draft, counterflow

    tower will be provided for rejection of heat from the plant circulating water to

    the atmosphere. Heated water from the condenser and the closed cooling water

    heat exchangers will be routed to the tower through the circulating water piping

    for cooling. The cooled circulating water will collect in the cooling tower basin

    and flow to the circulating water pump intake structure. Three 33 percent

    2-11

  • capacity, vertical, wet pit, circulating water pumps will supply cooling water to

    the condenser to tne auxiliary cooling water heat exchangers.

    2.3.4.3 Closed Cooling Water Heat Exchangers

    Heat rejected from various plant equipment such as heatexchangers which serve tube oil coolers, air compressor coolers, water chillers,

    etc., will be transferred to the circulating water by two closed cooling water

    heat exchangers. The heat exchangers will be full-capacity, plate type designed

    for single-pass operation. Water will be supplied to the heat exchanger by

    branch piping from the circulating water supply piping to the condenser. After

    passing through the heat exchangers, the cooling water will be reintroduced into

    the circulating water system downstream of the condenser.

    2.3.4.4 Cooling Tower Performance DataThe cooling tower will be of retangular concrete

    construction, multiple cell, counterflow, induced mechanical draft type.

    0 Circulating water flow rate, liter/ min

    -Thermal unit 1,314,300- Combined cycle unit 754,800

    0 Design inlet water temperature, Oc 40

    0 Design outlet water temperature, Oc 33.3

    0 Design inlet air wet-bulb temperature, Oc 28.90 Drift loss. % 0.005

    2.4 Fuel Supply

    The thermal fired, steam electric generating facilities of the Lower

    Central Thermal Units Project are proposed to be installed in four units at 700

    MW nominal capacity each starting in April 1999. These units will be capable

    of burning either natural gas or residual oil (either 1 percent or 2 percent sulfur).

    The timing of the three 600 MW blocks of combined cycle capacity is starting

    from July 1998. Current plans are for the combined cvcle units to have the

    capability to burn either natural gas or distillate oil (0.25 percent sulfur).

    2-12

  • 2.4.1 Project Fuel Requirements

    Each 700 MW Thermal generating unit in projected to consume fuel

    at a rate of approximately 7,000 MButuh. EGAT currently has a firm gas

    CO-fLItrtuMent with PTT for Myanmar gas from the nortMem Gulf of Martabanregion. This gas has a heating value of roughly 25,780 Btu per standard cubic

    meter (730 Btu per standard cubic foot). Texaco natural gas reserves in the

    southern region of the Gulf of Martaban have a heating value of roughly 35,3 15

    Btu per standard cubic meter (1,000 Btu per standard cubic foot). The fuel

    requirement for one 700 MW unit is approximately 1,900 million cubic meters per

    year (67,200 million cubic feet per year) assuming the committed PTT reserves

    from the northern Gulf of Martaban . This is equivalent to 47.5 billion cubic meter

    (1,680 billion cubic feet over the 25 year life of a unit ). To fuel the four thermal

    units (2,800 MW) with natural gas would require 7,600 million cubic meters per

    year (268,800 million cubic feet per year).

    EGAT's current commitment from PTT for firm gas is sufficient to

    fuel one 700 MW thermal unit. Further comnitments are possible. However, the

    thermal units not fired with natural gas will use residual oil. One 700 MW unit

    will consume 8.25 million barrels of residual (No.6) fuel oil per vear. Full

    development of four units (2,800 MW) would increse fuel requirements to almost

    33 million barrels of residual oil per year. The residual fuel oil will be delivered

    through port facilities on the Gulf of Thailand with dedicated pipeline linkage to

    the Wat Phikun Thong Site.

    The fuel requirements for the initial three unit installation (1,800

    MW) -of combined cycle electrical generating capacity are projected at

    approximately 2,850 million cubic meters of natural gas per year at standard

    conditions. This fuel requirement is equivalent to about 70 billion cubic meters of

    natural gas over the 25 years economic life of the project. Pipeline delivery

    capacity requirements are in the order of 7.8 million cubic meters per day.

    Alternatively,should the facility be fueled with distillate (No.2) fuel oil in stead of

    natural gas,annual requirements for the three unit combined cycle station may

    range upwards to 18 million barrels per year.

    2-13

  • 2.4.2 Natural Gas

    Sources of natural gas for Ratchaburi Power Plant are the

    developing production regions located in the Gulf of Martaban, Union of

    Myamnar. Estimates of natural gas reserves and production are 5,700 billion

    cubic feet and 525 cubic feet per day , respectively. Natural gas piplines will be

    extended from production wells across peninsular Myanmar and enter Thailand

    at the border point (Kanchanaburi Province), then continue to the Ratchaburi

    Power Plant area.

    The natural gas composition and calorific value are as follows:Component % Mole

    N2 24.65

    C0 2 4.40C1 69.98

    C2 0.83C3 0.17

    IC4 0.02

    NC4 0.03

    IC5 0.01

    Gross Calorific Value 730 BTU/CF

    2.4.3 Fuel Oil

    The primary source for the delivery of the residual (No.6) fuel oil

    will be via a dedicated pipeline from the fuel oil terminal located on the coast.

    The fuel oil terminal will receive fuel from an ocean going tanker and will

    provide short-term storage. Fuel oil will then be pumped to the site via the

    dedicated underground pipeline and stored in the fuel oil storage tanks.

    Alternative pipelines from the new fuel oil delivery port to plant site are (Figure

    2-7)

    1 - Mae Klong River Mouth, Ban Bang Ja Kang, Samut Songkram

    Province.

    - Gulf of Thailand, Ban Pak Tha Lae, Petchaburi Province.

    - Gulf of Thailand, Ban Bang Kaew, Petchaburi Province.

    All these altenatives will be studied and performed environmental

    irnpact assessment for fuel oil transport system.

    2-14

  • >1hU5-~~~~~~~~ 0

    FIGURE 2-7 TILE NEW DELIVERY PORT TO TIHE PLANT SITE

    2- 15

  • The properties of the heavy fuel oil (No.6) and distillate oil (No.2)

    are as follows:(1) Heavy Fuel Oil (No.6)

    - Specific gravity 0.929

    - Pour point, OF 62

    - Viscosity, cst. 122 OF 124

    - Water sediment, % volume 0.2

    - Calorific value, BTU/bb 18,551

    - Ash, % weight 0.02

    - Sulfur, % weight 2(2) Distillate Oil (No.2)

    - Specific gravity 0.836

    - Pour point, OC -5- Viscosity, cst. 38 C 2.9- Water sediment, % volume 0 - 0.1

    - Calorific value, kJ/kg. 43,180- Sulfur, % weight 0.25

    2.4.4 Fuel Delivery Port

    No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oil will be transported by deep draft tanker

    ocean vessels from regional refining centers within Thailand and from other

    ports of Southeast Asia, Australia, and the Middle East to a new port and

    terminal facility developed for the project. The most practical location for this

    port in terms of technical port development and ocean regime conditions is the

    coastal headlands area near Ban Bang Kaeo or Ban Pak Thale,approximately

    latitude 130 07' north and longitude 1000 04' east. At this location , the natural

    ocean floor is at depths which are appropiate for deep draft vessels to make their

    nearest approach to the coastline without endangering environmentally sensitive

    areas near Laem Phak Bia to the south.

    The port and associated terminal facilities will be developed in

    stages to match the fuel delivery requirements and in-service schedule dates of

    the individual generating units. The initial facilities will accommodate the

    receipt of up to 20 million barrels of No.2 and No. 6 fuel oil per year. The port

    will be designed to accommodate tankers with the following dimensions:

    * Dead weight--55,000 tons

    . Overall length--230 meters

    . Loaded draft--12.5 meters

    2-16

  • The port will include the conventional pier placed offshore in

    sufficient water depth to berth the tankers of the stated dimensions. The pier

    will be of sufficient length to accommodate up to four vessels simultaneously

    and will be connected to shore side facilities by a trestle structure carrying an

    access roau and the fuel oii transport pipelines.

    The fuel oil will be unloaded from the vessels via fuel oil

    unloading arms. The oil will pass through strainers where solid fuel

    contamination will be removed. The fuel oil will be stored in separate fuel oil

    storage tanks designated for either No.2 fuel oil or No.6 fuel oil. The fuel oil

    will then be pumped via a dedicated underground pipeline running westerly to

    intercept the Southern Railway at a point near Petchaburi, then north , parallel

    to the railway right-of-way to the Wat Phikun Thong site northeast of

    Ratchaburi.

    2.5 Water Supply and Treatment

    2.5.1 Water Supply

    The water mass balance for the Ratchaburi Power Plant Project is

    presented in Figure 2-6. The water mass balance shows the estimated average

    and peak flows for the 4,600 MW site, including four 700 MW thermal units

    and three 600 MW combined cycle blocks. The balances summarize all water

    supply, water treatment, waste collection and treatment, and waste water

    disposal streams. The flow rates represent operation at peak and at annual

    average conditions at 100 percent load. The stream flow quantities are in liters

    per minute.

    The raw water supply will be provided from the Mae Klong River

    via a pipeline to the on site raw water reservoir for use as the primary plant

    water supply source (Figure 2-8). The water will be pretreated and will serve as

    the supply source for all plant needs, including cooling water makeup, potable

    water, general service water and demineralized water. In addition, collected site

    rainfall runoff will be routed to the raw water reservoir to reduce the amount of

    river water required.

    The anticipated water requirements are summarized as follows.

    2-17

  • Ouantitv (Mf. Cu.m/vear)

    = Cooli