Mostafa Kamal MajumderIt must have been in the year 1989 when a write-up of this author was published in the weekly Dhaka Courier on acid rain in the northern part of the country. The raindrops looked yellow, and curious people collected some rainwater in bottles. An activist friend who was close to the weekly at that time felt the headline should be yellow rain or coloured rain, not acid raid. Anyway experts who agreed to be on record said the acidification of the clouds that brought the rain was due to emissions from coal fired power stations outside Bangladesh – India or China. But blowing of emissions from Chinese coal-fired industries was less likely because the Himalayan mountain range was a big barrier to the circulation of cloud from above the China mainland to the Bangladesh sky. The experts thus opined that the coal fired power stations from our neighbouring country was to blame for the acid rain, as there was no such power plant in the country then.This unforeseen event that signaled a disaster in the making was however not followed up with adequate scientific studies for which we in Bangladesh do have a general apathy. We all are interested in the present, care the least about the past, and bother less about what is coming next, although the present is always determined in the contest of the past and the future is based on the past and the present. Who knows how many more times there were acidic precipitations in this part of the earth, which is also burdened with world’s biggest environmental disaster of arsenic poisoning of aquifers, the main source of drinking water, and gradual disappearance of Sundri trees, the main plant species of the Sunderbans, the World heritage site for mankind. Slightly acidic rains are difficult to identify for bare eyes.
The cry of environmentalists not to build the proposed 1,320 MW coal-fired power station at Ramphal, 10 kilometres north of the Sunderbans forests, should be viewed from this context. World’s largest mangrove forests in one patch, the Sunderbans has already been under severe stress due to deterioration of environmental conditions. Studies so far conducted on the top-dying disease of the Sundri trees, dominant plant species, of the forest have taken note of increased salinity in the water of the mangrove vegetation. The reason mentioned by most of the studies is drastic fall in the dry season flow of fresh water from rivers branching out of the Ganges to the Southwest region which go dry during the winter. The Ganges flow falls drastically during season because of scores of interventions at upstream including the one near the border at Farakka. Some researchers have suggested that acidic precipitation – accelerated by sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide from polluting industries in neighbouring countries – might have also contributed to the top-dying of the Sundri trees in large numbers. Now with a coal-fired power plant ready to be installed soon just in its vicinity, round the year blowing of acidic emissions towards the forest would be a reality.
It is gathered that the proposed power plant would burn 4.75 million tonnes of coal annually and generate some 3 lakh tonnes of ash and 5 lakh tonnes of sludge or effluent. It would also emit carbon dioxide, some other toxic gases and airborne particles, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a USA-based group. The project would use deep tube wells for water to wash the coal — extracting around 25,000 cubic metres of groundwater every day — which will push the ground water level down, threatening the availability of drinking water. Withdrawal of such huge quantity of water is almost sure to exacerbate the problem of arsenic contamination of groundwater of the area by dissolving the arseno-pyrites through the process of aeration. In the arsenic afflicted areas of West Bengal the use of deep tube wells for getting safe water compounded the problem as arsenic contamination percolated to the deep aquifers too. Water, at the rate of 9,150 cubic metre per hour, will be drawn also from the Passur river for operating the project, and 5,150 cubic metre per hour will be discharged into the same river. The impact of this withdrawal and discharge has reportedly not been studied. The Passur river water will also be polluted by the huge amount of wastes and effluents to be discharged. The effluents would contain hazardous arsenic, mercury, cadmium and chromium, say experts.
According to a report published in a Dhaka daily the 142 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 85 tonnes of nitrous oxide, to be emitted daily from the plant, would increase the concentration these harmful gases in the air near the Sundarbans, an ‘critical ecological zone.’ The EIA report reportedly says so much emission will be destructive for the whole environment of the Sunderbans region. Proponents of the project however say that on a 24 hour basis 53.4 microgram of SO2 per cubic metre would not exceed the 80 microgram per cubic metre, which is an allowable limit set by the Ministry of Environment and Forests for residential and rural areas. But the mangrove forest is not a residential area. The emission standards set for ecologically sensitive area like the Sunderbans is a much lower 30 microgram per cubic metre for both SO2 and NO2.
It has been reported that construction work including land filling by dredging, sand lifting, site clearance will have impact on open water fish habitats and fish diversity, polluting rivers Passur and Shela and inter-tidal areas due to oil and chemical spillage. The EIA report expresses concern that if navigational spillages, noise, speed, lighting, and waste disposal rules are not properly maintained they may impact the Sunderbans ecosystems.
Early this month the Department of Environment (DoE) has given the EIA on the project green signal imposing some conditions to protect the World Heritage Site. The final environmental clearance for the project would be given after implementation of the project “only if proper mitigation measures suggested to check pollution are taken,” Md Shahjahan, director general of the DoE has been quoted to have said. The PDB claims that it will use supercritical technology and ensure “proper mitigation measures” to cut emission of hazardous gases including carbon dioxide, fine particles and fly ash, and properly dispose the wastes and effluents. Another government body, the Centre for Environmental and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), has prepared the EIA for the PDB.
“We are aware of the environmental concerns and … have given the approval after getting a clear picture of the project, suggesting adequate mitigation measures and putting a number of strict conditions,” Shahjahan said. The DoE would follow the plant’s activities, including emission of toxic gases, through an online monitoring system, he has been quoted to have said. The Ramsar Convention Secretariat in a letter in 2011 expressed concerns and inquired with the environment and forest ministry about the power plant, an anchorage at Akram Point, and construction plan for a ship yard and silo in the forest area. Bangladesh is a party to the Ramsar Convention. Experts, environmental groups and independent researchers, who have been demanding that the power plant project be shifted to somewhere else far away from the Sundarbans, did reject the EIA at a public hearing held on April 12 last. Academics, environmentalists and activists see many inconsistencies in the EIA and vow to resist the project. Ambiguities in the EIA and the government’s desperation to implement the project are also mentioned as causes of public concern. Some activists from the Khulna University alleged that the joint venture project has been dumped on Bangladesh as the people of West Bengal vehemently opposed the installation of such a plant.
The sincerity of DoE chief Shahjahan as against his compulsions for being a government officer to give the project a go ahead is clearly understood. His department would remain on record for suggesting the mitigation measures and fulfilling a set of conditions without which they would not grant final approval of environmental clearance. But the already threatened sensitive ecological zone cannot take more burdens of threat. There is definitely the need for generation of electricity for increasing production to improve the quality of life, but not at the cost of the resources that shape the coastal ecosystem supporting life and livelihoods of millions of people and billions of flora and fauna including Sundri, Goran, Keora trees; spotted deer and Royal Bengal Tiger. It’s therefore natural for environmentalists to complain that the DoE has validated the EIA report and has given conditional environmental clearance which is aimed at helping the government to set up the plant. The simple question is whether a coal-fired plant suit the fringe of the Sunderbans. If it doesn’t, not a billion of conditions can make it suitable. Conversely, if the coal-fired power station is so much technologically tuned to be fine at the ecologically critical zone what is the need for suggesting the ‘mitigation measures’ and setting the conditions failing which final approval of green clearance can be stayed. The DoE would not have the power either to halt the predicted damages after the plant is installed and starts operation, nor to restore the forest to its present state. Even the site chosen for the proposed plant is said to be in an area encroached from the Sunderbans over the years. By giving green clearance to set up the plant is not the official environmental watchdog helping the process of degrading an area that accounts for 50 percent of Bangladesh’s forests?
(A renowned journalist, Mostafa Kamal Majumder is the editor of Greenwatch Dhaka)
