Locals Demand Evacuation Plan for Collapse of Thailand's Largest Dam by Phairath Khampha 27 January 2002 Residents of Thailand's Kanchanaburi province and activists urged the government to draw up an evacuation plan in preparation for the possible collapse of the Srinakarin Dam, Thailand's largest earth dam built for the production of hydropower. They also called for an investigating team made up of representatives from various sectors to collect information and study all the possible risks of the dam and disclose their findings to the public. They called for the team to use reknowned international consulting engineering firms with experience in dam safety, hydropower and design of earth dams in fault and seismically active areas. Despite EGAT's assurances, dam and geological experts in Thailand demanded clear proof of the dam's safety. "We don't believe the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), since it always says there is no problem and lets us live with fear," said Pinant Chotirosserani, vice chairman of the province's Environmental Protection Club. Pinant said the province's residents had known about the possibility of the dam breaking up for years since it was the largest earth dam in the country and located on an active geological fault. A report from EGAT's engineering division issued in 2001 states that said the dam had shifted about 16.5 centimetres from its original location and that if no measures were taken to stop the shifting the dam might collapse within 10 years. Meanwhile the dam's director Sophon Khuandhamma denied any risk, adding that the dam could last for longer than 9,400 years if properly maintained, not that operation and maintenance of government infrastructure is of high priority among government officials in Thailand. His words bemused Chainarong Setthachua, director of the Thai chapter of the Southeast Asia River Network, who said that the oldest dam in the world was less than 200 years old and no longer functioning, hence how could one know if the dam was going to last more than 9,000 years. He added that most dams in Thailand had fallen apart, with huge cracks showing, in just a matter of decades since their completion because of poor operation and maintenance and because construction quality was poor owing to the rampant corruption associated with such projects. EGAT's deputy governor Chalermchai Rattanalak said the Srinakarin Dam was designed to accommodate about 70 centimetres of horizontal movement and 150 centimetres of vertical movement. He did add, however, that since 1980, when the dam began operating, it had already shift 40 centimetres horizontally and 59 centimetres vertically, but that as far as he was concerned this was not a matter to be concerned about. Both Chainarong and Pinant were reluctant to believe the EGAT experts, saying they had to protect their credibility by hiding any risk. Chainarong wants a neutral committee such as the National Safety Centre to investigate the dam and to train people how to evacuate the site if the dam fails. He said that international engineering consultnts with expertise in dam safety, seismic issues, large earth dams and hydropower should be retained to assess the situation and prepare recommendations. He has already started to prepare a short-list of such consultants and would welcome any such engineering firms to indicate their willingness to participate in this necessary task. He referred to a 1985 paper by Peerawat Pumthong of the Asian Institute of Technology, which said the dam was threatened by three factors, an active geological fault that passes near the dam, earthquakes and mudslides. Experts demand clear proof Geologists asked EGAT to allay fears by showing evidence that the dam was not a danger, suggested neutral inspection team that would retain international dam safety experts. Leading geologists urged the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand to show solid evidence to support its claim that the Srinakarin Dam was safe. Prinya Nutalaya, a former geologist with the Asian Institute of Technology, one of the world's foremost technology and science universities, and Punya Charusiri, from Chulalongkorn University, said geologists are better qualified than engineers to clarify the doubts raised over the security of this 21-year-old dam when it cam to assessing geological aspects of the issue. "The person who said this dam is safe and would not collapse is not a geologist, but a bureaucrat. How could he know about geology?" asked Prinya who used to study the geological faults and seismic action in Thailand's western region. Prinya referred to EGAT's deputy governor Chalermchai Rattanarak, who insisted that the dam was safe since it was not located on the Si Sawat Fault. Both Prinya and Punya said they could not accept Chalermchai's words. "Tell the public the truth and not distorted information," Prinya said. The geologists also demanded that a neutral committee retain and international engineering consulting firm with expertise and experience in dam safety to inspect the security of the dam, which they insisted was located across the Si Sawat Fault. "The dam runs many risks, and not just from earthquakes, considering its size and position. If anything untoward happened it would cause a public disaster," said Prinya, adding that many countries had set up neutral bodies to monitor risks associated with their dams, but not Thailand. Although he believed the dam probably was safe, Chula's Punya said that EGAT should do more to prove that this was the case. "I believe the dam is stable, but that does not mean that the Si Sawat Fault is no longer seismically active. Nobody knows that, since it runs under a reservoir," said Punya, who once received financial support from the Thai Research Fund to study geological faults and earthquakes in Thailand. He asked that EGAT release all the information that the public wanted to know. "Just saying that it is 100 per cent safe is not enough," Punya said. The geologists said they did not want to cause panic among the public but wanted EGAT to disclose all the facts related to the dam so as to allay anxiety and confusion. "EGAT should tell the public why the total construction cost for the dam was much more than stated in the proposal as a result of this very issue and why it had to lay out a large sum in graft when geological and geotechnical issues became prominent during design and construction," Prinya said. Construction began on the dam in 1973 with a purposed budget of 1.8 billion baht. However, when the construction was finished in 1980 the total cost had increased to about 4.4 billion baht. EGAT's Chalermchai admitted some of the additional budget had been used to strengthen the foundation of the dam, but not by much, and most had gone on compensating Si Sawat residents who had had to be relocated.