Cement Energy and Environment

development. It said the Pune Municipal Corporation will recycle the water it draws from Khadakwasla dam and reduce distribution losses to 15 per cent from current level of 40 per cent. What's more, the supply norms for Pune may need to be reduced from 300 litres to 125- 200 litres per person a day. Lavasa acknowledges in its red herring prospectus, filed at the time of initial public offer, that water scarcity may be problem for the township . Their contract with state water resources department states that under extraordinary circumstances Lavasa has to release water from the two check dams built at Dasve and Gadle, which comprise about 27.5 per cent of Lavasa's water supply. In April <and May every year, the Warasgaon dam nearly dries up before the monsoons begin. Not just Pune, Lavasa, too, cou ld be reeling under severe water shortage. Lavasa spokesperson Ashwin Shetty refused to comment, saying the matter is sub.judice. MoEF is, meanwhile, working out the penalty amount and the restoration fund LCL will have to pay. EIA reports raise alarm (High levels of cadmium, cobalt and chromium found in soil} Lavasa's environment impact reports reveal the city may not be a green retreat. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) of Lavasa by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) at Nagpur shows presence of heavy metals in high concentrations in the area's soil. NEERI has not assessed the impact of such contamination on the environment, including water sources . Lavasa had obtained environmental clearance from the Maharashtra government on the basis of this report. The presence of heavy metals in the soil and water was confirmed a second time by NEERI in its environmental monitoring report of 2008. The two reports confirm presence of lead in the river and groundwater. The 2008 report shows the concentration· of lead in surface water .at 0.2mg per litre, which is four times higher than what Indian drinking water standards permit. "Such concentration in soil is found only in mining waste which is very hazardous," says K M Nair, scientist at the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Landuse Planning at Bengaluru. If the data ·is true, it would be unwise to go ahead with development in the area without thoroughly assessing soil characteristics and their impacts, he adds. The Union environment ministry's report, following the site visit in January this year, observes the EIA report "was not adequate for assessing the project of this magnitude located in the eco-sensitive Western Ghats". The ministry's expert appraisal committee said air, water and soil monitoring should have been done in .a 10 km radius of the project. It also highlighted the problems of soil and water contamination in the two NEERI reports. _After_ protesting that the environment ministry did not have jurisdiction over Lavasa, when Lavasa Corporation Limited , submitted a fresh EIA report to the ministry in February 2011, it presented a fresh set of data. The 2011 EIA report, also prepared by NEERI, says lead was not detectable in surface water at all locations and in a few places it was far less than what previous reports say. The concentration of heavy metals in the soil is lower in this report. NEERI scientists were summoned by MoEF officials to explain the inconsistencies in the two EIA reports . Vishwambar Choudhari of the National Alliance for People's Movements says NEERI, as the project's EIA consultants, should have advised Lavasa to obtain clearance from the Centre. When NEERI was questioned, tile ·scientist involved in conducting Lavasa EIA, D S Ramteke, blamed the developer for not applying for mandatory clearance from the Centre. "It is not our mandate to offer advice in this regard. We are not a regulatory body, and Lavasa should have asked MoEF," says Ramteke. Choudhari raised doubts over the fresh data in the 2011 EIA. The latest EIA report was not mentioned when ministry officials and experts visited Lavasa in January, though the studies were purported to have been carried out in the summer of 2009. Discrepancies in the reports: • Iron concentration in soil report was 24.7% in the 2004 EIA; it was 3% in the 2011 EIA • The pH value of surface water is above 7 (alkaline) in ·all samples in the 2011 report though the soil ·samples are shown acidic in the same report • Cadmium concentration in the soil is 93 mg/kg in the 2004 report; this figure is ·44mg/kg in the 2011 report • Chromium level in soil was 743 mg/kg in the 2004 report; this figure is 147 mg/kg in the 2011 report 44