• Emissions within limits despite higher ash generation: CEA 
• Experts warn of sulphur and mercury risks, citing visible health symptoms

Contradictions have emerged between environmental advocates and State authorities over the potential of an ecological and public health crisis surrounding the Lakvijaya Coal Power Plant in Norochcholai due to the use of substandard coal supplies.

When asked by The Sunday Morning whether any assessment had been carried out on the environmental impact of the substandard coal, Central Environmental Authority (CEA) Director General Kapila Rajapaksha maintained that there was currently no evidence of environmental discharge exceeding safety limits.

While acknowledging that the amount of ash generated was indeed high, he insisted that the plant’s mitigation systems remained effective.

“The absorption capacity is double the current load being generated,” Rajapaksha said, asserting that pollutants had not been released into the environment. He added that the CEA continued to monitor stack emissions and ambient air quality through established systems.

According to reports received by the CEA a week ago, tests for sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides indicated that levels were within ambient air quality standards and had not increased to a harmful level, he said. 

Rajapaksha further noted that the North Western Provincial Environmental Authority was the primary oversight body and was working closely with the power plant to monitor the situation.

However, environmentalists remain sceptical of these assurances, pointing to visible physical discomfort – including eye irritation among residents near the plant – as a possible indicator of ongoing sulphur pollution.

Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) Chairman Hemantha Withanage raised concerns over the high ash and chemical content in the current coal stocks. Describing coal as “the world’s dirtiest energy source,” he said that while public discourse often focused on carbon dioxide, the more immediate danger lay in sulphur and mercury emissions.

According to Withanage, the standard allowable ash content for coal in Sri Lanka is typically around 11%, whereas the current batch contains between 21% and 25%. He warned that this excessive ash load could overwhelm the plant’s Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP), leading to the release of fine particulate matter into the atmosphere.

He also highlighted the long-term risks of mercury exposure, claiming that its effects were already evident in the region: “Mercury accumulates in human hair and nails. Several years ago, following the establishment of the Norochcholai power plant, we tested people who consume fish from the Puttalam Lagoon, particularly women, and found high levels. Therefore, the current situation is very dangerous and should be taken seriously.”

He explained that mercury evaporated at high temperatures during combustion and could enter the food chain.

Withanage further criticised the decision to continue using the coal on the basis that payments had already been made, describing the justification as “a foolish argument”.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment stated that appropriate action would be taken if any adverse environmental impact was detected. Deputy Minister Anton Jayakody said that the primary concern related to the sulphur content of the coal. “If an environmental impact arises from this, appropriate measures will be taken. It needs to be discussed with the CEA,” he said.

According to a report by the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), submitted to the parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee on Infrastructure and Strategic Development, the current coal supply has significantly worsened environmental performance compared to the previous supplier.

Emissions have risen sharply, with sulphur dioxide increasing by up to 452% and nitrogen-based pollutants also recording significant spikes. This is largely due to the need to burn more coal to generate the same level of electricity.

Solid waste has also increased considerably, with fly ash output more than doubling, raising both environmental and operational concerns. The report attributes these impacts to lower fuel efficiency, noting that the plant now requires more coal per unit of electricity, resulting in higher emissions and increased waste generation.