Who’s telling the truth on coal pollution — GSPCB or IIT Bombay?

Consider this, when IIT-B was conducting the study in Dec 2019, JSW was stopped from handling coal and was handling Limestone instead. Only Adani was handling coal at MPT. Even the author of the report complained. Prof Virendra Sethi of IIT-B said in February 2018 that due to the shutdown, the objective will not be met since the sampling will not include the impact of expected sources. But interestingly, IIT-B relied on the CAAQMS (Air quality measurement equipment) which was installed by JSW inside their premises to measure coal pollution. There is no indication whether IITB tested and calibrated JSW’s equipment before using it for their tests.

Interestingly, the report shows a graph titled time series measurements of PM10 and PM 2.4 measured on Nov 17-18 at the JSW site. It shows that between 10.30 pm and 9.30 am, the levels of PM 2.5 and PM 10 rise above 100. The pollution levels peaks at around 4.45 am at around 900 microgram/cum. Interestingly, the report does not say anything about the increase in pollution level at night.

For 14 days in the summer month (May 1 to 14, 2018), IITB conducted a 24-hour sampling at just three locations, MPT Guest House, Fish Market and Mongor Hill where they found that the level of pollution in the morning was higher than that in the afternoon and evening. IITB also conducted a “loop study” wherein measurements of ambient air were collected from 7 locations in the morning (6 am-10 pm), afternoon (12 pm – 3 pm) and evening (5 pm to 10 pm) over a period of 5 days. Here too, pollution levels were found to be higher in the morning than in the evening. 

Interestingly, the report states that during the look study, “it was observed that there were biomass burning for water heating and cooking activities during mornings in this location which may be the likely cause for the increased concentration”. This statement is critical since it absolves MPT as the primary sources of pollution. Unfortunately the report does not clarify whether the observation is anecdotal (the researches saw people heating water using wood) or empirical (whether a house to house survey was conducted). It is unclear how IITB observed the biomass burning. The statement is vaguely similar to MPT’s 2017 EIA report where it was suggesting that coal sediments from the settling tank can be made into cakes and distributed to the locals.

Sankalp Amonkar, a Congress leader and former resident of Sada, informed that everyone has power and gas connection and no one uses wood as fuel. Herald confirmed with three other residents and all claimed that no one uses firewood to heat water and cook food.

Anyone who lives in Vasco knows how the terrain of Vasco affects the local wind pattern in the area. According to the report, the wind blows entirely in the North Westerly direction in the months of April and May. Interestingly, in the same sentence, the report claims that the wind direction is from “port to city”, even though the city is on the south eastern side of the port. The report relies on this finding to simulate the dispersion of the pollution from the port. Obviously the report concludes that the particles do not travel very far in the eastern and southern directions.

Interestingly, the wind patterns shown in the EIA report for port expansion which was prepared by MPT in 2018 shows that more than 30% of the wind blows in the North Easterly direction during March, April and May months. MPT’s findings therefore contradict that of IIT-B. 

Further, the simulation study done by IIT-B is inadequate. They have used AERMOD which is a type of commonly used dispersion model. However, the model’s accuracy is accurate when the terrain is flat. But when the terrain is uneven, AERMAP model has to be used which helps analyse the physical relationship between terrain features and the behaviour of the winds.

The report shows an estimate of the quantity of pollution released in the air. The annual and hourly emission of particulate matter reported at 0.048 ton/year and 0.01 pound per hour. However, a closer look reveals that these calculations are based on the assumption that 90% of the coal handling area is enclosed/controlled, which is quite an exaggerated figure.

“The most of the coal stacks are not covered. The sprinklers rarely operate. The fact that GSPCB has found high pollution levels in the past prove that the suppression protocols are ineffective”, said Adv Savio Correia from Vasco. 

If we assume that the control factor is 50% instead of 90% used in the report, the annual quantity of emissions is 0.24 tonnes/year or 24 kgs per year. The hourly quantity jumps to 0.05 lb/hr.

The report lists as one of its future work the “Chemical Analyses of all the PM samples collected from Vasco da Gama will be carried out”. In other words, IITB prematurely released the report without conducting a chemical analysis of the samples. 

The chemical analysis determines the elements, ions (sulphates, nitrates ammonia etc) and carbon fractions (organic compounds) in the particulate matter. This is used to determine whether the source of pollution is from burning of fossil fuels, coal dust, burning of wood, etc.

In July 2017, the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) in its annual report 2016-17, released on Monday, World Environment Day, pointed out that MPT is most polluted compared to other towns and even mining areas. As per the ambient air quality monitoring data installed at various locations, the parameters PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns diametre) and PM2.5 were much above the permissible limit at MPT-Vasco. The PM10, which needs to be 60pg/m3 is as high as 126.2pg/m3. Similarly, the PM2.5 is 55.7pg/m3 that is above the permissible limit of 40pg/m3.

Interestingly, particulate matter was found to be more or less consistently high in MPT with highest AAQM (air ambient quality monitoring) levels at Berth 5A-6A (JSW) – where MPT has proposed increase in coal handling facility and Berth 7 (AMPTPL).

The parameters were high from mid-October (2016) to the beginning of March (2017). “The study initiated for compliance status of the Board issued consent conditions and establish the AAQM trends in and around MPT indicated that AAQM standard for monitoring as per Environment Protection Rules 1968 as amended were exceeding, in violation of the standards,” the report stated.

The report states that most of the locations monitored within MPT showed more than 45 per cent exceeding on the days of monitoring, especially PM10 and in November (2016) exceeding almost 80 per cent.

“The highest impact observed was at a residential location in Khariwada and in Vasco near municipality and to a lesser degree at lower jetty,” the report added.

The Board stated that the activities like stocking and loading and unloading of coal, coke, woodchips, bauxite, ore dumps, truck movement and train and ship emission as possible contributors for pollution.

GSPCB’s report contradicts the claims in IIT-Bs report. By all indications, GSPCB’s report is comprehensive in its data collection and analysis unlike that of IIT-B. 

IIT-Bs Virendra Sethi stated that “Just the port activities do not explain the levels of PM observed in GSPCB historic dataset”. What Sethi failed to notice is that MPT did not give IITB any ambient air quality data from 2014 year onwards, when coal operations at MPT took off. The period of ambient air quality monitoring data of MPT Vasco extends from September 2001 to March 2006 and April 2011 to March 2012, whereas that of MPT Mormugao extends from Oct 2003 to March 2012. “How did the IITB conduct a study with data which is more than 6 years old?,” questions Savio Correia. 

In December 2014, The Board officials’ had inspected Adani’s berth and had prima facie found that it has been operating by violating conditions contained in Consent to Operate granted on January 8, 2014. The exercise follows a judgment by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in February 2012 directing the Board to monitor the pollution at MPT from time to time to protect the environment and issue directions in accordance with the law. The inspection carried out on December 23 found that stockpiles of coal lying at the premises have not been covered with tarpaulin while coal dispatched through trucks using dozers cause dust pollution. The team had also observed that sprinklers and dry fogging systems were not operating, and continuous ambient air quality monitoring system was not installed under the Water Act and Air Act.

“In 2012, MPT was operating iron ore. Why did GSPCB give IITB data of a period when MPT was largely handling ore and not coal? The fact that IITB did not have data from 2014 to 2018 onwards, that is the time when the berths were operating beyond the permitted capacity, forces me to conclude that this report is entirely false and misleading”, said Correia. 

The IIT-B’s report is just a draft. It is not a final report. The study has not even been peer reviewed. Yet GSPCB jumped the gun an took a decision to withdrew their show cause notices to the coal handlers in MPT.

“Can a government organisation take any decision, let alone a decision which impacts the health of the people, based on a draft report?”, questions Correia. Virendra Sethi, the Professor of Centre for Environment Science and Engineering IIT-B, was requested by MPT to send them a copy of the interim report. He clearly states in his Email dated February 8, 2019 that the report is a draft report. Sethi had sent the report to GSPCB who forwarded it to MPT.

“This raises several questions the most important of which is why did GSPCB take the hasty decision based on a mere draft report?”, says Correia. 

Information obtained from IITB under RTI dated Jan 8, 2018 shows that the college conducted source apportionment studies only in Maharashtra. The RTI reply clearly states that “there is no information in our office, IIT Bombay has not taken any consultancy project for Mormugao port, Goa in the recent past.”

Usually the study team lists the probable sources of pollution and through a process of elimination narrowing down the primary sources. This report, however, does not identify or make any mention of vehicular traffic, coal pollution by trains, dust pollution etc, as sources of pollution. “It looks according to IIT-B like cooking is the primary any only major source of pollution in Vasco”, says Correia. 

But the most glaring example of bias is the last statement in the section “Summary and Conclusion”. It states, “the source apportionment exercise to be carried out is imported to understand the mix of other sources in the wider Vasco da Gama area and not just the contribution from the port area”. Savio Correia says this statement sounds like it’s made by an advocate of the coal handling companies. “It sounds like IIT B is defending the port. I would expect a statement like the port is one of the many sources of pollution. The report also says the exercise is to be carried out, which means it’s not been done. This report is a back spot on the image of IIT-B”, says Correia.