One More Attempt to Dilute or Rollback SO2 Emission Norms for Coal-based Power Plants

An Office Memorandum (OM) dated 24 Sep 2024 by the NITI Aayog has surfaced recently, which is essentially the Minutes of the Second Stakeholders Meeting (MoM) held in Aug 2024 to discuss the report “Analysis of Historical Ambient Air Quality Data Across India for Developing a Decision Support System by CSIR-NEERI”. This is one more attempt to question, and push for dilution of the SO2 emission norms for coal-based power plants. Hence this needs to be looked at in detail.

 

Stack emissions from a coal-based power plant in central India. Image for representational purpose only. Photo: Shripad Dharmadhikary

What the Minutes Say, and Some Comments

1. The Minutes record the key Conclusions and Recommendations of the study carried out by NEERI and also presented by it in the meeting.
2. NEERI representative said the study “aimed to assess the necessity and effectiveness of the current FGD regulations considering the specific context of India’s reliance on low-Sulphur coal.” Thus, intent of study is clearly to question the extant norms.
3. One implication of this stated aim is that the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), when working out and notifying the said regulations, did not consider this or other India specific contexts.
4. The meeting does not record MoEFCC’s or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)’s views on this though both agencies were represented in the meeting. Its not clear if their comments were not recorded or they did not make any comments.
5. Key findings of the NEERI study presented include 
   

   “The data do not suggest that SO2 emissions from coal base power plants is adversely impacting the ambient air quality”, and

   “Sulphur or sulphate ions present in ambient air Particulate Matter (PM) is very low. The SO2 emitted from TPP is so low and not able to contribute significantly to ground level particulate matter.”

   Hence
   

   “In respect of SO2, only the ambient air quality standards need to be met”

   This is implying perhaps that there is no need for the emission standards for SO2. 
6. Again, views of MoEFCC which in the first place specified the emission standards are missing.
7. While one needs to see the actual details in the NEERI study, it appears that these findings are in contradiction to an earlier study by IIT Delhi of June 2022 which states that
   
   

   

   Cover of the IIT Delhi Report

    “… implementation of FGD in TPPs can result in significant decreases (up to 55%) in SO2 concentrations that are mostly confined in the immediate surrounding areas of the TPP and up to a maximum distance of 60-80 km from the location of the TPP … significant decreases (up to 30%) in the surface concentrations of sulfate (SO4) aerosols can be expected at locations which could be as far as 200 Km from the location of the TPP”, and

    “Our results suggest that while the maximum contribution to sulfur dioxide (SO2) surface mass concentration over Delhi NCR for the December month came from the energy sector emissions (~63%), maximum contribution to sulfate (SO4) aerosol surface mass concentration over Delhi NCR for the same month came from the transportation sector emissions (~33%) followed by the energy sector emissions (26%).”

   
   Thus, this IIT Delhi study clearly indicates that SO2 emissions from TPPs can significantly contribute to both, SO2 concentrations in ambient air and also to sulphate aerosols concentrations, and do so upto significant distances. It also presents evidence to show that use of FGD can significantly reduce these impacts of SO2 emissions. Of course, whether this contribution (of SO2 from TPPs to ambient air pollution), combined with other sources can lead to ambient air concentrations of these pollutants exceeding safe limits is an important, related but separate question. Its not clear whether the NEERI study has dealt with this or not.
8. Another highlight of the NEERI study is “Major pollutant emitted from Indian TPP is particulate matter, which is exceeding the emission regulations… Therefore PM control should be the focus area.” Undoubtedly, PM control definitely needs to be focused.
9. Among the key recommendations of NEERI study noted in the MoM is that new orders for installation of FGDs should be stopped. 
10. Ironically, the MoEFCC Standards do not at any place specify or mandate installation of FGD in power plants. MoEFCC has notified only the norms for limits on SO2 emissions; the method of achieving this is not specified and if the TPP can ensure these limits without FGD, it is free to do so. 
11. It appears (though not fully clear) that the NEERI study is asking for doing away with the emissions norms themselves (and certainly recommending to avoid FGD installations). 

 Some odd issues

1.  For the Minutes of a stakeholder meeting, where 25 stakeholders from 8 organisations participated, it is odd that NO comments by any of the stakeholders except 2 have been recorded or noted. 
2. In particular, the views of representatives of the MoEFCC – the very Ministry which has notified the norms – are not recorded. Views of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) are also not recorded. It is not clear whether they made any comments which are not recorded, or whether they chose to stay silent. Either way, this is inexplicable. 
3. Interestingly, the Chairperson, Central Electricity Authority (CEA) presented views which are recorded. 
4. The MoM, dated 24 Sept 2024 seem to have surfaced only after a month or so, and that too, seem to have been accessible to only some select stakeholders. 
5. Further, the NEERI study, for which the meeting had been convened, is also not available in the public domain. 

In Conclusion 

Given the importance of the issue – whether to continue or do away with the SO2 norms for coal based power plants – it is critical that the processes related to this be done in a transparent and open manner. Thus, among other things: 

• The NEERI report draft should be made publicly accessible so that members of the public and others apart from a very narrow set of invited stakeholders can comment on the same.
• The minutes of the stakeholder meetings conducted by NITI Aayog should be revised to include the comments of all participating stakeholders, and should also be made publicly accessible.
• MoEFCC’s comments and response to this issue are critical since it is the nodal ministry responsible for the Notification setting the standards. It is imperative that it puts out the thinking (and evidence) on which the standards have been based, and also its response to the issues now being raised by NEERI report and other stakeholders. This is important also because otherwise an impression is being created that the MoEFCC had not considered all these points when it notified the norms.
• Lastly, rather than push for dilution or roll back of the norms, it would be much better if all the Ministries, official agencies and others worked together to ensure faster and better implementation so that we can achieve the health benefits of controlling these emissions. This is all the more important  considering that coal based electricity is going to remain a significant part of the total electricity generation in the country for the next couple of decades at least. 

Ministry Removes Environmental Safeguards For Change in Coal Source for Power Plants: Move Aimed at Helping Private Coal Miners?

 

On 11 Nov 2020, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) brought out an Office Memorandum (OM) that allows thermal power plants to change the source of their coal without having to get their Environment Clearance (EC) amended. It is a highly retrograde dilution of environmental safeguards, and seems especially brought in to enable ease of marketing for the private players who have put in winning bids for coal mines in the recently concluded commercial coal mining auctions.

A coal stockpile at a coal mine. Representative picture. Photo by: Author

Coal Quality Influences Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts of a thermal power plant (TPP) depend significantly on the quality of coal used. Hence, when a TPP is accorded environmental clearance (EC), safeguard measures prescribed have to consider the characteristic parameters of the coal to be used. These parameters include the ash content (which can influence ash re-use and disposal, particulate matter emissions, water use), sulphur content (impacting SO2 and particulate emissions), mercury content etc. This is the reason why environmental regulations till now prescribed that the source of coal had to be specified during the environment impact assessment (EIA), and in case the source of coal was changed after the EC was granted, the project needed to seek an amendment to the EC and its conditions (safeguards) in case it was deemed necessary.

Naturally, this involves time and effort, but is necessary for ensuring environmental safety. But project prompters have found this bothersome, as they do with anything that is deemed important to protect the environment.

The OM of the MOEFCC now removes this requirement. And MoEFCC has not been shy of stating the reason upfront.

Untenable Rationale

The OM says:

“The Ministry has been receiving several proposals regarding change in coal sources…the linkage period granted through short-term linkage and e-auctions vary from 3 months to 1 years, making Project Proponents to approach the Ministry for granting amendment in EC each time…”

The OM adds that the Ministry of Power has also issued an advisory to TPPs using imported coal to shift to domestic coal under the Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative. Further, the OM describes the process of getting the EC amended in case of coal source change, and says that “The whole process would approximately take about 2-3 months.”

Looking at all these difficulties, the OM says,

“In order to simply the procedure for change in coal source and encourage thermal power plants to use domestic coal, the Ministry has decided the following procedure…All thermal power plants…can change the coal source…without seeking amendment in the EC…”

This raises some very important questions. For one, a 2-3 months’ time frame for getting the EC amended is hardly such a long time. The plant can well make the application a few months in advance so that when time comes to make the shift to a new coal source, the EC amendment is in hand. After all, a new source would be under discussion / negotiation well before the time of availability of the earlier one ends.

Second, consider the argument that the coal linkages are given for shorter periods and hence project proponents are made to approach the Ministry every now and then. This is a problem with the management and regulation of the coal sector, and the solutions to that must be found in reforms and changes in the coal sector. One cannot address a deficiency in the coal sector by amending and doing away with environmental safeguards.

Last but not the least, the reason that this is also being done to “encourage thermal power plants to use domestic coal” is totally untenable.  For a plant to shift from an imported coal source to domestic is a onetime process, so the EC amendment would be needed only once.  It’s likely that the process of just making this shift – identifying the source, the negotiations etc. - would itself take several months. So getting the EC amended can just be included as one more part of making this shift. It shows utter disregard for the environment and skewed priorities of this Government that an initiative to promote self-reliance needs to come at the cost of removing environmental safeguards. Or maybe the atmanirbhar Bharat initiative is deliberately being used as a cover to remove environmental safeguards.

Indeed, the entire amendment OM is justified on the basis of the problems of the coal sector and the inconveniences caused to the project power plants. The easy solution is to “simplify”, or remove, the environmental regulation.

Specious Justification

The Ministry must have realised that this change would come under criticism so has tried to provide some justification for the amendment. The OM states that:

“The various environmental impacts due to change in coal source viz. increased ash quantity and its management, increased emissions, and impacts of transportation have already been addressed and adequate mitigation measure have been stipulated by the Ministry vide Notifications dated 7.12.2015, 28.6.2018 and 21.5.2020.”

That the impacts of change in coal source have already been addressed by the said notifications is an utterly laughable assertion. Virtually none of these provisions have been implemented.

Take the case of the notification dated 7.12.2015. It mandates limits on emissions on SO2, NOx, PM and Mercury. It also puts limits on the water consumption, mandates zero waste water discharge for all new plants, and requires all inland plants to switch to circulating cooling. The deadline for all this was Dec 2017.

After virtually no effort at implementation, the industry, with the support of Ministry of Power, pushed MoEFCC into postponing the deadline for achieving SO2 norms to 2022. Even here, only a handful of TPPs are on track for meeting the deadline. Now, the Ministry of Power has brought in a new proposal that will exempt many plants from the norms, and require meeting of the norms in 10-15 years. The mandated norms for NOx emissions were also not implemented. In fact, the industry has successfully pushed for their dilution in 2020. Similar dilution of the water use norms was done in 2018. There is no centralised system of monitoring the compliance of these norms (except for SO2 limits, in the form of Flue Gas Desulphurisation or FGD installation). Information obtained by Manthan Adhyayan Kendra (of which this author is a member) in 2019 revealed significant non-compliance of water use norms.

Regulations have always required  (since 1999, but especially since 2009) for TPPs to achieve 100% utilisation of the fly ash they generate. These norms have been consistently, blatantly and extensively violated. The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) which brings out ash utilisation reports every six months notes this with monotonous regularity (See page 19 of the latest available 2018-19 report). Due to this, ash has emerged as one of the most serious source of pollution in areas around TPPs, contaminating air, water, land and soil, impacting people’s health, agriculture and other livelihoods. 

Interestingly, imported coal mostly has much less ash content than Indian coal; which means that shifting to domestic coal will result in much higher ash generation. Managing this will be an additional load and to expect that TPPs which are not able to manage even existing ash generation will take care of the additional load, requires a stretch of imagination. Knowing this fully, the OM creates a loop hole – while it prescribes that “additional ash pond  is not allowed due to increase in the ash content in the raw coal”, but then immediately also says that “in case of exceptional circumstances, project proponents may approach the Ministry for seeking permission to use an emergency ash pond…”.

Fly ash dumped in open fields near water source. Representative picture. Photo by: Author

Creating Ease of Business at Cost of Environment

Looking at all the above, it is clear that the sole aim of the OM is to remove “inconveniences” for thermal power plants, and for the private miners who will for the first time enter the coal sector in India as independent market suppliers of coal. This OM is in fact a part of several relaxations in environmental regulations that have been brought in the recent months, which are aimed at ease of sale, transport, use and marketing of coal at the expense of environmental protection. On 21 May 2020, the Ministry withdrew the requirement that supply, use or transport of coal beyond a certain distance from the mine could only be done with ash content of below a certain percentage (34%). The May 21, 2020 notification now permits “Use of coal by Thermal Power Plants, without stipulations as regards ash content or distance”.  

On 20 Oct 2020, the MOEFCC  issued a clarification which effectively means that TPPs/ coal mines can continue to use trucks to transport coal almost indefinitely, without any limit. In theory the MoEFCC requires coal transport to be done by rail and/or conveyors as road transport can be highly polluting as well as a safety risk for local communities.

Given all this, it is clear that the recent OM is one more link in the continuing saga of MoEFCC’s blatant abdication of its responsibility of protecting the environment.

 

Thermal Power Plants Continue Flouting Environmental Regulations: The Case of Shifting to Closed Cycle Cooling Systems

Official documents[1] show that as of Nov 2019, four years after the standards were notified as legally binding and two years after the deadline to implement them had passed, 13 thermal power plants continued to be in clear violation of the standards requiring all non-coastal power plants to shift to closed cycle cooling. And that they had little intention of complying.

 

Regulations in 2015 Bring Hope

In Dec 2015, the MoEFCC notified regulations which for the first time placed limits on the emissions of SO2, NOx and Mercury from thermal power plants (TPP), as well as on the amount of water they could use. The standards for emission of particulate matter were made more stringent. These regulations also required new TPPs (installed after  1 Jan 2017)  to maintain zero waste water discharge and required all TPPs who used open cycle cooling, also called once through cooling, to shift to a closed cycle, cooling tower based cooling system.

These regulations, though they did not fully address the pollution problems from TPPs, were an important step in the right direction and were welcomed with great hope. The Notification required all power plants to meet the norms by Dec 2017.

Violations Galore

Unfortunately, almost none of the norms have been followed. Not only that, power plants have tried to evade implementation of these norms with all kinds of excuses, have tried to delay, dilute and simply ignore the norms. The Ministry of Power (MoP) has often stood by the TPPs in this.

The latest evidence of this comes in relation to the norms that require all TPPs to shift to a closed cycle cooling system.

What Is Closed Cycle Cooling

In thermal power plants, a large percentage of the energy obtained by burning fuel is lost as waste heat.  In coal based plant this can be as high as 65%. This heat needs to be removed from the steam that drives the power plant to ensure efficient operation of the plant and in most cases is done with the help of water.  An open cycle cooling system is where the TPP takes in water from a source like a river or a lake, uses it to cool the steam and releases the water back into the water source. This water is now at temperature higher than the water source as it has absorbed the heat from the TPP. This process needs massive amounts of water to be drawn, which can have significant impact, even though it is retuned back. Discharge of heated water too has several adverse impacts.

To cut down on the withdrawals, a closed cycle system is used. In this case, water that has absorbed the heat of the TPP is not released back to the source, but is itself cooled in the cooling towers. In cooling towers, part of the hot water evaporates and this helps in cooling it down. The cooled water is sent back to the TPP to cool the steam once again. This leads to much lesser withdrawals but more water is “used” due to evaporation in the cooling towers.

Each system has its advantages and disadvantages.

Total Non-compliance

Official documents obtained by Sunil Dahiya, Analyst, CREA under RTI and made available to us show that as late as Nov 2019, that is four years after the notification and two years after the expiry of the deadline to meet the norms,  49 units of 13 power plants with a capacity of 12,144 MW were still operating on open cycle cooling, in complete violation of the law of the land, as contained in the MoEFCC notification.

The names and capacities of the violators are given below. It should be mentioned that not all units from each of these plants are based on open cycle cooling. Unitwise details are not being given here.

Thermal Power Stations with Once Through Cooling System

Sr.No.	Developer	Name of Plant	State	Capacity (MW)
1	UPRVUNL	Anpara TPS	Uttar Pradesh	1630
2	NTPC	Farakka STPS	Bengal	1600
3	CSPGCL	Korba West TPS	Chhatisgarh	840
4	RRVUNL	Kota TPS	Rajasthan	850
5	UPRVUNL	Obra TPS	Uttar Pradesh	1094
6	UPRVUNL	Parichha TPS	Uttar Pradesh	220
7	NTPC	Rihand TPS	Uttar Pradesh	1000
8	PSEB	Ropar	Punjab	420
9	MPPGCL	Sanjay Gandhi TPS	Madhya Pradesh	1340
10	GSECL	Sikka Rep TPS	Gujarat	120
11	NTPC	Singrauli STPS	Uttar Pradesh	2000
12	Tenughat VN Ltd	Tenughat TPS	Jharkhand	420
13	GSECL	Ukai TPS	Gujarat	610
	TOTAL			12144

Source: Letter No. 30-5/1/2019/ St. Th dated 21^st Nov 2019, written by R.K. Das, Under Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India, to Nidhi Khare, Jt. Secretary, MoEFCC, Government of India. (Obtained by Sunil Dahiya, Analyst, CREA under RTI)

Ministry of Power Justifies Violation, Requests Exemption

What is even more of concern is that the Ministry of Power (MoP)  is effectively justifying these violations, condoning them, and has appealed to the MoEFCC to exempt these power plants from the norms. The letter quoted above is a letter from the MoP where it has sought the exemption, and  has given several reasons to justify the same. These include technical non-feasibility  due to lack of space and layout restrictions, and that such shift to closed cycle cooling will lead to “decrease in unit efficiency,  higher emissions and  increase in water consumption”.  They also argue that these units are old and “reducing in numbers”.

This entire set of reasoning is specious. We won’t get into a detailed discussion of these reasons here as it would take lot of space.  Here, it is sufficient to mention that the significance of these arguments is quite overstated by MoP;  that there are numerous benefits of shifting to closed cycle cooling that are not mentioned; and that there are serious impacts of continuing with the open cycle cooling that are also not factored in by MoP.

As in any choice, there is always a trade-offs, and so there is between open and closed cycle cooling. It should be noted that the advantages of closed cycle were significant enough that the Government of India notified that all new non-coastal TPPs commissioned after 1 June 1999 would be based on closed cycle cooling[2]. In 2015, the MoEFCC notification required that any remaining TPP still operating on open cycle should shift to cooling tower based closed cycle cooling. This decision of MoEFCC in 2015 was taken after considering all the factors that MoP is bringing up now. So MoP is just bringing up old justifications which were considered and found not significant.

To elaborate, when these norms were put out as draft notification, the MoP and others had been given a chance to give their comments and they had had detailed discussions with the MoEFCC. Even after the norms were notified, the MoP raised these very same points (related to shift to cooling towers) in June 2016, along with points related to some other norms in the notification. (Documents accessed under RTI). It is noteworthy that the MoEFCC did accept some of the feedback from MoP and changed some norms related to coastal power plants. But for all others, MoEFCC squarely rejected MoPs arguments and the notification stayed as it is. A legally binding regulation.

Yet, it is amazing that the power plants have chosen to ignore it totally. Clearly, they can do this only because they seem to have the backing of the MoP. MoP’s actions also indicate a condoning of the blatant non-compliance and violation of the law of the land. Moreover, by taking up again and again the same arguments with the MoEFCC, the MoP makes it appear that such norms – notified by another arm of the government after due consultations and considerations – are something that need not be taken seriously, that can continue to be evaded, debated and are essentially negotiable. Imagine if an ordinary citizen did this.

In fact, MoP has been playing this role in many of the other norms notified in the same notification too: the SO2 norms, the NOx norms, the specific water consumption norms. We will highlight these in a subsequent blog.

This is a clear indication that the ministry of power considers itself superior to the ministry of environment in the unsaid hierarchy that prevails in the system. The complete lack of any action against the non-compliance, and the total silence and acceptance of these actions by the MoEFCC only indicates that MoEFCC is willing to accept this secondary position and abdicate its responsibilities and duties.

 

---

[1] Documents obtained by Sunil Dahiya, Analyst, CREA under RTI and made available to us.

[2] EPA Notification [GSR 7, dated Dec. 22, 1998] Amending the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986.