Green Hydrogen, Environmental Clearance and the Constitutional Duty to Protect the Environment

Exempting “Green Hydrogen Ammonia Plants” from prior environment clearance amounts to committing breach of Article 48A of the Constitution. Revisit the exemption

To
Shri Bhupender Yadav
Minister
Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MEFCC)

Dear Shri Bupendra Yadav,

All industrial projects that have an impact on the environment need to be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with the Environment (Protection) Act and need to be cleared under that Act. Article 48A of the Constitution mandates that the State should not only conserve the environment but also improve it.

I find that your Ministry has been routinely granting exemptions from prior environment clearance for certain categories of industry, on the false premise that they style themselves as “green” and that such an exemption is necessary for “ease of doing business“. 

Since all indutrial units should be subject to environmental impact appraisal, such assessment and statutory clearance should necessarily be prior to the unit commencing operations, as post-facto environmental clearance will defeat its purpose.  In my view, by resorting to such ill-advised exemptions, your Ministry is deliberately committing a breach of the Constitutional mandate under Article 48A. 
For example, according to the information provided to the Parliament (https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/266/AU2549_kjL4je.pdf?source=pqars), your Ministry has exempted “standalone plants producing Green Hydrogen/Green Ammonia by way of electrolysis of water using renewable energy.. from the requirement of prior Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006″

Please take the example of Green Ammonia Production Facility in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India, with an annual production capacity of 1 million metric tons of ammonia (NH3), “using renewable energy-powered hydrogen production“.  The unit has already started operating, without facing environment impact assessment under the Environment (Protection) Act.

At the same location, there used to be a conventional fertiliser manufacturing unit for which the government at that time had accorded environment clearance three decades ago. That clearance has since lapsed.

The unit based on electrolysys of water deploys alkaline electrolysers, cryogenic air separation units, large-bore hydrogen pipelines and a new 20-inch cross-country liquid ammonia pipeline to the port. It is located in a water-scarce region, but electrolysys is water-intensive. 

It uses a desalination plant but desalination in itself has environmental implications. “For every litre of potable water produced, about 1.5 litres of liquid polluted with chlorine and copper are created. This wastewater (“concentrate”) is twice as saline as ocean water. If not properly diluted and dispersed, it may form a dense plume of toxic brine which can degrade coastal and marine ecosystems unless treated. Increased salinity and temperature can cause a decrease in the dissolved oxygen content and contribute to the formation of “dead zones”, where very few marine animals can live (https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/five-things-know-about-desalination)  

The unit is within 2.8 km from the Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary and its impact extends over the eco-sensitive zone notified around it by your Ministry.

While the above unit ostensibly uses “renewable” energy, since the source is not co-located, it necessarily has to rely on back-up grid supplies which derive electricity largely from coal.

While production of hydrogen from water through electrolysis is termed “green“, electrolysis in certainly not green and, additionally, there are other segments of the process which are not at all green.

I understand that the promoter of the unit, knowing the mind of your Ministry, has even gone to the extent of seeking exemption from public consultation, whereas the local traditional fishing community are apprehensive about the likely impact of the project on their fishing activity. Exempting the unit from public consultation, in my view, is anti-democratic and it violates the principle of participative decision making that lies at the core of our Constitution. 

The ammonia that is manufactured by the unit is far too expensive for domestic use and, propped up by huge subsidies from both the State and the Centre, it is expected to be exported to other countries. 

The unit does not bring any significant employment opportunities for the local people and the State government, for reasons best known to it, is reluctant to enforce a State law that mandates the unit to train and give 75% of its jobs to local people.

In other words, this is a unit that hugely benefits from State largesse in many ways, not beneficial to Indian farmers, not beneficial to local    unemployed youth. Still, your Ministry, by falsely calling it “green” has literally expempted it from the operation of the Environment (Protection) Act, as post-facto clearance is meaningless.

If promoting “ease of doing business” is the overarching mission of your Ministry, why have a separate Ministry for conserving the environment, at the cost of the tax-payer?

I hope you and your colleagues in the Ministry read every word of this letter carefully and ponder over the Constitutional mandate your Ministry has. 

MEFCC cannot afford to be a mere rubber-stamp Ministry!

Regards,

Yours sincerely,

E A S Sarma

Former Secretary to the Government of India

Visakhapatnam