Daijiworld Media Network - Udupi (SP)

Udupi, Sep 6: The analysis report of the department of chemical engineering of National Institute of Technology Karnataka (NITK) at Suratkal, which conducted tests on the samples of rainwater collected during the rain received in various parts of the district during the first week of August which had left behind white residue, has concluded that it was in fact, 'ash rain'. This test was conducted at the request of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.

This information was revealed by psychiatrist, Dr P V Bhandary, and former journalist and RTI activist, Rajaram Tallur, at a press conference held here on Wednesday September 5. The report was obtained by them by applying under Right to Information Act.

In the sample of rainwater collected by the above board, 71.43 percent of the weight comprised of ash, 12.51 percent was made up of fixed carbon, 10.92 percent volatile chemicals, and 5.09 percent dampness.

"We have witnessed the man-made disasters in Kerala and Kodagu. In the backdrop of these catastrophes, people should be alert to activities which destroy environment. People should wake up to the dangers posed by the high content of ash in the rain here. This has exposed the risk posed to environment by industries located around us," warned Dr P V Bhandary.

He added that being a doctor, he cannot overlook the adverse affects on the health of human beings, vegetation and animals. He wanted the pollution control board and district administration to sit up and take notice of the seriousness of this incident.

"We have seen the trail of tragedy left behind by Endosulfan misuse in the undivided Dakshina Kannada district. The government has washed its hand off this issue by announcing a package. The government many a time faces shortage of funds for implementing these packages. I wish that in the matter of fly ash, this tragic incident does not repeat itself. People need right to live, and not a development which does not allow them to lead a healthy life," he analyzed.

Tallur observed that if the people of the district do not speak up even after ash got deposited on them, it will tantamount to failing to discharge their own responsibilities. He warned that a public-interest litigation will be filed if the district administration, pollution control board, and department of environment do not take emergent steps to assure to the citizens about their safety. "We do not want to point fingers at any specific reason for this phenomenon. But is the responsibility of the district administration to find out those who are responsible for this happening and to make sure that such instances do not recur," Tallur stated.

Both Tallur and Bhandary said that they have prepared a questionnaire with seven questions for the environment pollution control board and the district administration, and urged them to issue clarification to the general public through the media.

1. What steps the environment pollution control board has taken after finding that the rain received in the district contained ash.

2. Quoting sources in the pollution board, a class within the media had misled the people by claiming that the rain contained silica and not ash. Are the district administration and managements of these media not bound to find out who did this and why?

3. Has the district administration received the NITK report? If so, what steps have so far been taken?

4. When clarification about this rain was sought under RTI, the environment control board had clarified in writing that they do not have any standard procedure to conduct tests on such rains. Is it not the duty and responsibility of the board and district administration to be prepared with such precautionary measures particularly when a mega thermal power generation plant is functioning near the district headquarters?

5. Has a detailed study about cancer, skin allergy, allergy of the lungs etc occurring within the area polluted by the thermal power plant been done? If not, this should be done. Otherwise, it should be conducted and a report should be provided to the people by the district administration.

6. Are the machinery meant to keep check on pollution in the thermal power plant been functioning properly? Are the readings being submitted by the generation unit to the department matching with actuals? When did the environment pollution control board conduct cross verification? Has inspection about this been conducted? These things should be informed to the public by the board. Because, as per the terms of licence issued by the board, inspections of this kind have been mandated.

7.As per one of the conditions in the environment pollution control permission to UPCL, the corporation has to immediately inform the board if accidentally pollutants in excess of permitted quantity reaches the environment. Has such an information been received by the board?