Richard Ness : Trial Log : Court Hearing #10 on 2 December 2005

• The Witness had been assigned as the Mine Inspector for PTNMR. The Witness was also former member of AMDAL technical team and the member of PT Newmont Minahasa Raya (PTNMR) mines closure.
• Witness went to Buyat Bay on a working visit to carry out a mines inspection. Such inspection is a routine monitoring. The focus of the inspection was the technical aspect, including the monitoring the monitoring on the waste management.
• During the inspection the Mine Inspector did not find anything violating the regulations that may result into the closing of PTNMR operation. The Witness stated that Witness may closed down the operation of a mine company temporarily if he found any matters indicating harm to the environment.
• Other than routine monitoring, Witness also went to Buyat Bay in relation to the mines closure. Witness stated that there were no major problems found. A mine closure permit would not be grant to a mine company if a problem occurred, including the problem of the surrounding environmental.
• The Witness stated that the tailings concentration is not really different with the natural rocks in the mountain.
• The Witness stated that the gold mines activity is a very specific activity. This is because each area had its own characteristic. The concentration of arsenic and mercury, particularly for PTNMR mines area, were previously high.
• The Witness stated that DEMR had given a written warning to PTNMR in relation to the tailing management system. The warning was written in Mining Book and in 1 (one) letter sent to PTNMR (Letter No. B.1906/28-04/DPT/2000 dated 19 August 2000). The warning was given because there were several metals parameter exceeding the standard quality i.e. cyanide, mercury and arsenic. The Witness stated that the category of the warning was ‘order’. [According to Witness] There were no notes in the Mining Book with regard to itchiness suffered by the people of Buyat Pante.
• The Witness stated that the basis for standard quality of the metals before 2000 is KepMen No.51/MENLH/10/995 on the Standard Quality of Liquid Waste of the Industrial Activity. (KepMen 51/1995) and after 2000, the basis is the Letter of Minister of the Environment No. B-1456 dated 11 July 2000.
• The Witness stated that Kepmen 51/1995 Attachment C is the standard of quality for all metal parameter with no standard yet. At the end of the hearing, Witness admitted that KepMen 51/1995 did not regulate or include the standard quality of heavy metal for tailing. Witness also stated that there is no standard quality for heavy metal before 11 July 2000.
• The Witness stated that after the warnings in the mining book and Letter No. 1906/28-04/DPT/2000 dated 19 August 2000 dated 19 August 2000, DEMR had never give any warnings related to the issues written in the mining book or in the letter.
• The Witness stated that the communication partner of the Mines Inspection officer is the Kepala Teknik Tambang, a party that operates the activity in the field.
• The Witness stated that the AMDAL approval means that the operation is proper to be carried out, particularly the environmental aspect.
• The Witness’ duty was to evaluate RKL/RPL submitted by PTNMR since 1985 until now.
• The Witness stated that he had never conducted any inspections in connection to the health complaints at Buyat Pantai.
• The Witness stated that what is being examined was the monthly average of the detoxification performance as reported in RKL/RPL. The monthly averages come from the daily outcomes of the detoxification performance.

• The Accused accepted that the recommendation in the mining book was refered to Kepala Teknik Tambang in the location and that such recommendation were then performed.
• The Accused accepted that there was no standard for tailings before July 2000, the Accused accepted Witness’ statements that the evaluation carried out by the Witness show there were no damaging impacts to the environment resulted from the tailings disposal.
• The Accused rejected the application of KepMen 51/1995 Attachment C for tailings because it doesn’t make any sense to apply [the standard quality used for other industries] such as sugar or soap for tailings.

• The Witness is a staff of Asdep at the environmental impact review unit. One of the Witness’ duties is to evaluate the performance report of RKL/RPL.
• The Witness stated that the evaluation toward the RKL/RPL’s performance show that several tailings’ effluent of PTNMR (at the year of 2000, 2001, 2002) were exceeding the environmental standard quality. The basis for such standard quality was KepMen 51/1995 Attachment C valid for the period before 11 July 2000 and for the period after, was the Letter of Minister of the Environment No.B-1456 dated 11 July 2000, which requires the standard of As (Arsenic), Cu (Cuprum) and Hg (Mercury) must follow the standard quality.
• The Witness stated that KepMen 51/1995 Attachment C is a blanket’ regulation.
• The Witness stated that KepMen 51/1995 Attachment C valid for industrial waste.
• The Witness stated the purpose of ERA Study was to determine whether the waste that had been disposed is actually safe and how is the environmental impact or with other word the ERA Study is to see whether STP is suitable in Indonesia or not.
• The Witness stated that the ERA Study had been performed but the Ministry of the Environment rejected it. However, the Witness then corrected his statement and stated that he actually did not know whether the ERA Study had been approved or not.
• The Witness stated that the parameter evaluation of standard quality was carried out daily. The Witness could not refer the basis for such daily evaluation. [The Defense Team] showed the RKL/RPL to the Witness and stated that the standard used to calculate the tailings concentration is the monthly average the Witness statement was in contradiction with Witoro Soelarno, who stated that the evaluation was carried out monthly], however the Witness remain to his opinion that the tailings concentration should not exceed the standard quality for each times.
• The Witness stated that the evaluation result was submitted to a deputy, his supervisor, and periodically every 6 months.
• However, afterward the Witness admitted that the evaluation result of 2000 was carried out on 2004 (confirmed by Witness’ letter to Deputy VII dated 19 August 2004 which attached the evaluation result of year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 20004). The Witness also admitted that the results were addressed to Deputy VII (seated by Masnellyarti Hilman) who is not his supervisor according to the procedural hierarchy and a person who should not receive the evaluation result of PTNMR RKL/RPL.
• The Witness stated that at that time Masnellyarti Hilman established a team handling PTNMR and requested the evaluation result of RKL/RPL, so the Witness gave the evaluation result to Masnellyarti Hilman.
• The Witness admitted that he made errors on quoting the effluent result exceeding the standard quality reported in the RKL/RPL, as written in the indictment.
• The Witness admitted that KepMen 51/1995 Attachment C does not regulate the tailings parameter.
• There were no single mine companies in Indonesia that apply KepMen 51/1995 as a standard.
• There were no warnings to PTNMR with regard to the effluent evaluation result which exceeding the standard quality. The letter of Deputy IV No. 533/Deputi LH/2002 dated 22 March 2002 in nature was a recommendation not a warning.

• The Accused stated that the Witness did not carry out the analysis of evaluation until the year of 2004.
• The Accused rejected the evaluation result as above the standard quality of seawater.
• The Accused rejected the evaluation result using daily standard.
• The Accused rejected the application of KepMen 51/1995 Attachment C for tailings.
• The Witness stated that the permit of the Minister of the Environment No. B-1456 dated 11 July 2000 is a request of PTNMR [in order] to obey the Law No. 23 of 1997, and it was not mentioned [as a basis] in the evaluation result of the previous year.
• The Witness concluded that the parameter used is based on the permit of the Minister of the Environment No. B-1456 dated 11 July. This means the STP is valid/ legal during the relevant period.