comparison of environmental aspects of geothermal ... - Orkustofnun

Mwawughanga 418
Report 17
It is worth noting that the establishment of the
first phase of the electric power plant was not
subjected to the EIA process. However, the
installation of the additional 30MWe turbine
generator in 2000 had an EIA undertaken
according to the new EIA Act of 2000. This
resulted, among other things, in the
implementation of a systematic monitoring
system of the impacts of the power station.
4.3 Comparisons and contrasts of impacts
of Olkaria 1 and Nesjavellir electric
power projects
After critically looking at the impacts of the two
power plants and mitigation measures, it is clear
that there is a lot of similarity in the two projects
especially in the impacts. However, there are
differences as well, as discussed below.
FIGURE 4: Location of Nesjavellir power plant
and lakeshore springs affected by the plant
4.3.1 Implementation in relation to regulations
The Olkaria 1 power station was constructed long before enactment of the Environmental Management
and Co-ordination Act, part of which requires EIA before implementation. It was also undertaken when
the financiers were not strict on environmental impacts and did not make EIA mandatory. As such, no
EIA was conducted and management practices were guided by the memorandum of understanding
between Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and KenGen and KenGen’s own initiative to undertake suitable
environmental practices. The enactment of the Environmental Act in 1999 ensures that any developments
thereafter have to be subjected to the new requirements. It is probably out of awareness by the new law
that a local community has been raising claims for compensation. In the case of Nesjavellir, the first phase
of the electric power station was not subjected to an EIA, however, the upgrading of the power station
from 60 to 90 MWe required the undertaking of EIA according to the Environmental Impact Assessment
Act no. 106/2000. This has made environmental management easier, more systematic, and clear.
4.3.2 Location and effects on management
The locations of the power stations are in distinctly different settings. The location of Olkaria 1 within
a national park poses restrictions and implementation of mitigation measures. Only animals and plants
indigenous to the park can be used in rehabilitation or conservation efforts. This presents a major
challenge in that some of the species are slow growing compared to the exotics. Local Acacia spp and
star grass are used in rehabilitation activities (Kubo, 2001). The tree seedlings are raised in the project
tree nursery. Any unwanted species introduced into the park due to KenGen’s activities have to be
removed. These restrictions also mean that future development will largely be controlled by decisions of
the KWS due mainly to increase in negative visual impacts. In contrast, the management of Nesjavellir
has the discretion to choose what to use in their rehabilitation processes because the power plant is not
located in as sensitive an environment and further, the land belongs to the power company. The company
has had an annual re-vegetation programme of areas between 150 and 400 m above sea level since 1989
using tree and grass species of their choice. A total of 225,000 tree seedlings have been planted and 240
tonnes of fertilizers used in grassing the area (Thorsteinsson, 2002). Expansion will not be restricted as
long as it is within the company’s boundaries and the law.