|
|
 |
  |
| Sunday, 3 October 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Norochcholai Coal Power Plant : Is it environment friendly? By Hemantha Withanage, Executive Director, Centre for Environmental justice The proposed coal power plant at Norochcholai which was subjected to strong criticism around 1998-2001 period has again come to the arena. The Minister of Power and Energy has announced that the government will construct this 300 MW power plant which is the first stage of a 900 MW coal power plant also at Norochcholai, despite the opposition the proposal still generates. The Minister has also stated that the government will receive money
from the Japanese Bank for International Corporation (JBIC) for this
construction. The Japanese Government has a very bad image in Sri Lanka
for providing loans for a number of controversial projects. Among them
Samanalawewa Hydropower project, Kirinda Fishery Harbour, Southern
Transport Development Project which is known as Colombo-Matara Expressway,
Proposed Upper Kotmale Hydropower Project are very crucial. The Japanese Government which is believed to be a champion in environmental protection is earning the dislike of Sri Lankans, by funding projects causing major environmental problems, especially after hosting the Kyoto Conference. The last two regimes abandoned the (Norochcholai) project due to unresolved social, environmental as well as technical issues. If the present government is going to construct this plant, they need to have answers and solutions for those issues, which will affect a large number of people in Norochcholai and places as far away, as the fly ash can be carried to long distances with the heavy blowing of the south west monsoon. Danger President Chandrika Kumaratunga stopped the construction of the Norochcholai Coal Power Plant in 2001 after studying the various protests by the people and the Rev. Bishop of Chilaw and after discussion with the Bishop on the threat to the Holy Shrine in Talawila. This was given wide publicity during the last Presidential elections. Fertile According to engineering analysis, using 2640 tons of coal a day would result in nearly 180 tons of fly ash and 40 tons of bottom ash daily which will be major environmental problems. Dumping of ash is a major activity in this power plant where the land is very fertile, but the fresh water layer only about 5 feet deep. Removal of the dunes to raise the ground level of the plant will affect agricultural activity due to the depletion of fresh water. The cooling water drawn from the sea at an average temperature of 28 Degrees Fahrenheit will be discharged back to the sea at a higher temperature of 35 Degrees Fahrenheit and at the rate of 45m per second when 3x300 MW plants are in operation. This would mean that millions of gallons will be sucked in and returned to the sea at a higher temperature chasing the marine life away while harming the breeding. Nearly 5000 families engaged in the fishing industry will be deprived of their livelihood. Presently the biggest fish producing area - around 25,000 metric tons annually - will be subjected to security restrictions due to the 4.2 km conveyor belt constructed into the sea with support structures and heavy movements of barges and coal carriers with the capacity of 60,000 MT affecting specially the beach seine fishing operations. A former development planning officer attached to the Development Planning Unit of UNDP, who was directly involved in the preparation of the Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) for Puttalam District and a key campaigner against the site of the power plant pointed out that dumping of bottom ash in the land fillings and the seepage to the water table will cause severe hardships to agriculture, in addition to the sulphur composition in the fly ash settling on the crop and daily watering of the farmland. More than 6000 families directly engage in chili, onion and other vegetables and tobacco cultivation, National Salterns at Palavi and Puttalam, which has a total extent of around 1200 acres will also suffer as a result of coal dust and fly ash contaminating the salt production. The officer says even the live stocks in the Puttalam electorate and beyond will be affected. The 300 MW plant will require 2640 MT of coal daily. A minimum of six months stock will be (2640 mt x 30 x 6) 475,200 MT. One meter high storage facility will require over 100 acres-land or a 2m high facility, 50 acres. Suppressing the coal dust using sprinkles will be practically impossible. Even if it is possible the requirement of water, if taken from the ground water resource will starve the agriculture crops and dry up even the drinking water wells and also cause seepage of seawater. Desalination of seawater for this purpose will add to the cost of production of power. Losses The letter of comment on EIAR, sent by Mrs. S. E. Yasarathne, Deputy Director General of the Central Environmental Authority, dated 4 March 1998 addressed to the Director, Coast Conservation Department states that about 10 km of the proposed transmission line passes through the Puttalam lagoon and surrounding prawn farms. The number of towers to be constructed within this segment, extent of lagoon bottom used for construction of foundations of such towers, the relative productive capacity of the areas lost have not been addressed in the report. Hence the effect of such construction on the lagoon ecology/fishery will have to be included in the report. The letter also states that the basis for compensation for loss of productivity in agricultural lands, property losses due to construction of the transmission line and in providing access to it have not been presented in the report. It further states, as the ground water level of the study area is only 1-4 m below the surface, precautionary action would have to be taken to avoid contamination of fresh water by possible seawater seepage during the construction phase, as ground water is the only source of water available for human consumption and irrigation in the peninsula. Therefore adequacy of the mitigation measures suggested in the report will have to be evaluated seriously. The Central Environmental Authority is also worried about the extraction on sand, discharge of warm cooling water and air pollution control. Crucial Professor H. B. Kotagama, Head, Department of Agriculture Economics states in a letter dated 12 February 1998, addressed to the Director Coast Conservation, one of the projects approving agency, that the report does not contain an economic feasibility analysis either of conventional nature or an environmental cost benefit analysis. He further states that since the project is 900MW in total it is therefore appropriate to conduct the EIA for 900 MW than 300MW. He also states that the compensation package for resettlement is crucial and the EIA has not given much information on willingness to accept a settlement package by settlers. Comments for the EIA sent by Dr. D. S. Jayakody, Director General of the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency dated 4th March 1998 states "generally it can be concluded that the bulk of the coastal resources are exploited by small-scale fishermen in the area. As such any adverse effect comes as a result of the thermal power plant which will affect the day-to-day life of large number of small-scale fishermen living in the area". He further states that the construction of a 4.2 km long jetty may result in coastal erosion at least to a certain extent and as a result the sandy beaches in this area and the adjacent waters can be ecologically disturbed and this may cause adverse impacts on sea turtle nesting. Damage He also states that this can affect the flying fishery in which 200-300 boats are operated in the peak season. Stressing on the possible damage to the beach seine fishery he states that "report says that the small increase in temperature above ambient at 100m down stream distance from the outfall will not be detrimental to the fauna and flora. It must be emphasised that this report does not provide sufficient site-specific data on the ecology of the marine environment. This is not good enough for a project of this magnitude as this project will have an adverse effect on the unique characters of the area ecologically." Impossible Mr. A. Wickramanayake, Chief of the Master Diverse in his letter dated 4th September 2001 states that it is impossible to construct a 4.2 kilometre long conveyer belt in this area and it will be time consuming and very costly, which will add to the unit price of the electricity. The conveyer will have to be supported by over 200 columns. The construction of these may take many years as the monsoon weather conditions will hamper the construction in the sea. He also states that it is not an easy task to maintain the belt on roller bearings due to corrosion and that the total investment will be at risk if there is any terrorist attack. Eminent scientist, Dr. Janaka Rathnasiri, in his comments to the EIA dated 25th April 1998 states that "according to the CEB report, the fixed operational and maintenance cost for combined cycle gas turbine plant is much less than that for a coal power plant (USD cts. 35 kW Mon vs USD cts. 76 kW mon). In addition, the following cost associated with operations that are unnecessary with a CCGT plant would be also add to the savings on O & M costs, a) Cost of recovering coal dust from stockpiles, handling and transport, b) Cost of treating waste water containing coal dust, c) Cost of closely monitoring SO2 and TSP levels including calibration of the equipment, d) Cost of disposing fly ash and bottom ash and e) Cost of Fresh water for the steam turbines. Professor D. C. H. Senarath of the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Moratuwa, in his comment dated 18th February 1998 states that "de-watering during the construction of foundations could not only influence the yield of agricultural wells during construction but also cause intrusion of sea water leading to deterioration of the quality of well water." He also states as regard the possibility of contamination of groundwater by leachates from the coal stockpile area and the ash dump area, the possibility of cracks developing in the bunded areas have to be given due consideration. Questions My comments dated May 7, 1998 for the EIA, states that according to the National Environmental Act (NEA) if a project which (at least part of the project) lies within their jurisdiction, EIA should be prepared under the NEA. The project lies within the jurisdiction of the North Western Provincial statute, NEA and the Coast Conservation Act. However part of the project (part of the transmission line clearly located within the Jurisdiction of the NEA. Therefore we urged that this EIA approval should be considered under the NEA. Our comments has further raised a number of environmental, social and technical questions together with the clearing of the vast coconut land to erect the transmission towers and lines of 220 kv for over 100 km. However the final decision of the Court of Appeal application 318/98, EFL. Vs. CEA and others on June 28, 2001, is a very important milestone. The counsel for the third respondent, Ceylon Electricity Board, stated, that his instructions are that the Cabinet of Ministers have directed the 3rd Respondent not to proceed with the present scheme and look for an alternative site and also not to locate this coal power plant at Norochcholai. Further, Counsel for the 4th Respondent i.e. Chief Minister of the North Western Provincial Council stated that in the event the said power plant is to be located at Norochcholai the 4th Respondent would go through the provisions of the NEA Environmental Ipact Assessment. The case was moved to be withdrawn on this basis. Therefore the present move of the Government of Sri Lanka and the Ceylon Electricity Board is a breach of this court decision. Sasakawa Laureates meet in Beijing : World in focus Though unsustainable development, urbanisation, climate change and water scarcity threatens to plague today's world - there is still hope, say top environmentalists of the world, who gathered at Beijing at the 20th anniversary celebrations of the United Nations Environment Programme Sasakawa Prize to discuss and present views on energy, water, air and land. The environmentalists included Professor Mario Molina of the USA, who won a Nobel Prize for solving the riddle of the Antarctic ozone hole, alternative technology guru and peoples advocate Dr. Ashok Khosla of India and Australian Ian Kiernan whose vision is no less than Cleaning Up The World, traded insights with the legal architects of many of the world's multilateral environmental agreements, Dr. Wolfgang Burhenne of Austria and Dr. Francoise Burhenne-Guilmin of Belgium, campaigner against the illegal trafficking of wildlife Dener Giovannini of Brazil, and China's own tireless champion of the environment Minister of the State Environment Protection Administration (SEPA), Xie Zhenhua. Dener Giovannini and Xie Zhenhua are the co-winners of the prize for 2003. Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director, UNEP thanking the Nippon Foundation of Japan for its generous support enabling UNEP to celebrate and reward outstanding environmental services expected significant new insights into our environmental future to emerge from the exchange between laureates. "Of course, the challenges we face are profound. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that, thanks to the work of people such as the UNEP Sasakawa Laureates, we are making progress," he said. Papers presented at the panel discussions focused on the pressures on the environment through social and economic development. Resource management measures was a highlight of the discussions. Proper legal, technical and fiscal measures will help mitigate the effects of environment degradation, argued Surendra Shresthra and Mylvakanam Iyngararasan in their paper. World population has more than doubled over the last half century, from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.5 in 2004. Though life expectancy is increased through advances in public health, vaccines, antibiotics and food production due to the disparity in their distribution proverty remains the major challenge for the 21st Century. While social and economic increases the pressure on environment, the poor are the most vulnerable to natural disasters resulting from environment change. Dr. Ashok Khosla speaking on water scarcity said that in the next few decades water will be one cause which is likely to present major conflict between communities. The difference between how much rain and snow falls on the land and how much water is available for productive use is largely a matter of how well the 'natural' ecosystems are functioning, he said. The solutions lie in bringing back the trees and regenerating the aquifers, installation of local, small water harvesting structures, full-cost pricing, very careful, judicious use of subsidies, water conserving technologies and responsive management systems, he said. Ian Kiernan, focusing on wastewater management said that since 1950 global water use has more than trebled. Over the next 20 years, humans will uses 40 percent more water than we do now. While the natural supply of freshwater might appear to be replenished by rain, our current use of water is far outstripping their rate of replacement. Today's population consumes about half of the available water supplies. However, the problem is how this water is used - it is as much an issue of water governance caused by mismanagement as it is of supply. The trick is in finding ways to do more with less water, he pointed out. Lord Clinton Davis, President of the Sasakawa Prize selection committee speaking on air pollution, noted that in the case of air pollution issues, which are transboundary, the developed countries should take responsibility and bear the bulk of the burden, on a 'polluter pay' basis. Flightless New Zealand icon claws back from brink An imaginative plan and a dose of national guilt could save New Zealand's flightless icon, the once abundant kiwi, from extinction. New Zealanders have proudly named themselves after the kiwi since at least the turn of last century, although they underrate the feisty, unique bird and tend to think of it as slow and lacking in character. The kiwi should have already disappeared, like many native New Zealand species did after humans and other mammals arrived. The population has plummeted to an estimated 60,000 from five million in 1920, as settlers cleared kiwis' forest habitat, and introduced predators that ate the young birds. "Given that trajectory, within 20 years they'd be gone, functionally extinct," says Paul Jansen, government conservation worker and coordinator of the Kiwi Recovery Program. Creating pest-free havens on small islands to house 'insurance' populations of the five kiwi species was the first step. About 5 percent, or 123,550 acres, of the total kiwi habitat is now under protection, including five offshore islands and unfenced 'mainland' islands. The first specimens of kiwis, part of the ratite family which includes the Australian emu and the cassowary, were such oddities that biologists pictured them standing upright like humans, instead of hunched over with their beaks raking the ground. Kiwis vary widely in size, from a small domestic fowl to up to 18 inches tall. Named by the Maori for their eerie nocturnal call, they can outrun a human and attack predators with their clawed, three-toed feet, even flattening juvenile kiwis that wander into their territory. Kiwi eggs are safe because they are too large for rats and stoats to get their jaws around, but predators kill about 95 percent of young birds. However, after nine months - when they weigh about 2.2 lb - most kiwis can fight off anything but a dog, and generally live for another 40 years. Elephant dung help crackdown culprits Using elephant dung and skin samples, researchers said they were able to make a map of elephant DNA that could help track down ivory poachers. They are already using their new method to track smuggled ivory seized in Singapore in 2002, the researchers, in the United States and Tanzania, said. "We are able to monitor where the ivory is coming from," said Samuel Wasser of the University of Washington in Seattle, who led the study. The key was the ability to sample elephant scat. Wasser and colleagues extracted and analysed DNA from elephant droppings and skin samples collected from 16 African countries. They used a new statistical method to make a 'map' of elephant genetic variation, so that a new sample taken from a piece of ivory can quickly be traced to its origin. This is especially important as forests are opened for logging and the forest elephants, a subspecies separate from savanna elephants, fall prey to poachers for the first time, Wasser said. The African elephant population was more than halved by poachers between 1979 and 1987, from 1.3 million to 600,000 animals. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or CITES banned the ivory trade in 1989. Save the Elephants, an international charity, said 50 tons of ivory destined for China were seized between 1998 and 2002. - Reuters |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
