Mumbai Eastern Waterfront: Issues in port redevelopment plan
Real Estate

Mumbai Eastern Waterfront: Issues in port redevelopment plan

Documenting his research and technical conversations, strategic planner Ashish Puntambekar, who has been involved in the Mumbai Eastern Waterfront project, writes in this exclusive article that rising ocean levels, old industrial plants, topography, and other factors are potential issue...

Documenting his research and technical conversations, strategic planner Ashish Puntambekar, who has been involved in the Mumbai Eastern Waterfront project, writes in this exclusive article that rising ocean levels, old industrial plants, topography, and other factors are potential issues in the Port Trust’s plan for redevelopment. I have scanned through Mumbai port’s development plans. This includes both HCP’s plan for approximately 500 hectare and as well as the revised 2020 plan that restricts the redevelopment to only 253 hectare, out of the Port Trust’s 810 hectare. I am a strategic planner and not an urban designer, so there is a difference in view given my cross-industry experience spanning energy, marine infrastructure, urban infrastructure and defence. Given this difference in approach, I see the following macro issues with all the plans developed for the port until now : Rising ocean levels. None of the current and proposed plans for the Eastern Waterfront take serious note of the fact that ocean levels in the MMR will rise by up to 0.5 m, as global temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius over the next 30 - 50 years. So it is possible that some of the area in the Mumbai port area may be subjected to flooding and there is no engineering scheme within the current plans to handle this. There may also be some settlement due to the large scale construction activity planned at the site. Even the HCP designers who prepared the masterplan for the Mumbai port had earlier designed a riverfront in Ahmedabad, very different from a seafront, which is extremely dynamic. Old industrial plants. The Eastern Waterfront houses very old industrial plants with bad safety records. These plants include RCF, BPCL, HPCL and Tata Power. The following three tables (plant expansion histories) show how the concerned companies have expanded capacities in very crowded areas and ignored safety norms to create a hazardous situation in the Chembur–Mahul belt on the eastern seaboard of Mumbai.Table 1. RCF Trombay expansion history Fertiliser plants (Trombay I–V) expansion scheduleYear Cumulative Capacity (MTPA ) Remarks1965 2.07 Ammonia, nitrophosphate, sulphuric and nitric acid plants1966 2.22 Methanol revamp1968 - 1975 2.41 Ammonium and sodium fertilisers, methyl amines, nitric and phosphoric acids 1979 4.36 Ammonium nitrate, phosphate & nitric acids1981 6.26 Ammonia and ureaAmmonia storage in Mahul: 3,600 tonneSource1, Source2, Source3That is the case with BPCL also, as can be seen from the following table.   Table 2. BPCL Refinery Mahul expansion history Refinery expansion scheduleYear Capacity (MTPA) Remarks1955 2.2 Refinery set up by Burmah Shell 1985 6.0 Successive de-bottlenecking of capacity 2005 12.0 Major refinery modernisation plan executedLPG tanks storage capacity at Mahul site: 5,000 tonne (3 days production assumed at 6% of the barrel) SourceTable 3. HPCL Refinery Mahul expansion history HPCL Refinery , Expansion ScheduleYear Capacity (MTPA) Remarks1954 1.25 Simple fuel refinery set up by ESSO India1969 2.50 Refinery capacity doubled1983 3.50 Refinery capacity de-bottlenecking 1985 5.50 Major augmentation ( 1 CDU + 1 VDU ) added2009 6.50 Further expansion with augmentation of units2010 n/a1.45 MTPA fluidised catalytic cracker addedLPG tanks storage capacity at Mahul site : 5,000 tonne (3 days production assumed at 6% of the barrel)Source The data shows that government agencies allowed RCF , BPCL, HPCL and Tata Power to expand and at the same time they allowed developers and the general public to establish residence in areas within the exclusion zones mandated by law, in violation of all environmental regulations. Of the four plants in the area, RCF is perhaps the most dangerous given the chemicals and fertilisers that are produced there. We are however focusing on the refineries for now. (Additionally, read the boxed item at the end of this article about a disaster in a BP plant in Texas, USA.) Area required to produce 24.76 million tonnes of chemicals. By modern Continuous Process Plant (CPP) planning standards, a 30 MTPA facility would require around 3,000 hectare (7,500 acre) ballpark and Mumbai’s Industrials at 24.76 MTPA would require around 2500 hectare to abide by all Safety standards apart from maintaining a considerable distance from the population. In the case of Mumbai, these plants have been squeezed into one-eighth of the required area even as they expanded their capacities and populations moved closer. Wind direction data and topography in Mumbai. Wind direction and topography of the land have a very major role to play in the estimation of casualty numbers due to an industrial disaster involving the large Industrial facilities in the Mahul-Trombay area. According to Mumbai Port Trust, the direction of wind in Mumbai is predominantly from the northwest. The following table makes this quite clear: In addition, there is a big hill behind the Mahul plants that acts as a barrier and separates the industrial area from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre with its three experimental nuclear reactors on the other side. In the absence of a barrier, any gas leaking from the RCF, BPCL or HPCL facilities at Mahul would have been blown out over the bay. But this will not happen as the tall hill behind the plants serves as a huge barrier and reflects the wind towards the populated areas of Shastri Nagar, Antop Hill and Wadala. This project now increases the risk of hazard in the area. Discussions with senior chemical engineers and safety experts I have held extensive discussions with some of India’ s best chemical engineers and safety experts and they are unanimous that the industries in Chembur and Mahul need to be moved out of the city in order to prevent an industrial accident in the area. The entire Eastern Waterfront therefore needs to be redeveloped and not just the Mumbai Port. Making it happen: A planner’s view of the Eastern Waterfront My experience of the past 25 years working on Large development projects and with other planning and execution experts, tells me that Mumbai’s Entire Waterfront needs to be looked at as a whole and not in parts, for the following reasons : It is easier for the financial centre to be built free of legal and other troubles because as a $4.18 billion project, it will be seen as one-tenths of a much larger $45 billion Eastern Waterfront plan. Therefore, there is wisdom in increasing the size of the cake so that there is enough business for everyone. This will also lead to broader support for the project as it will create 300,000 new jobs for young people in the city. Focusing on just the port area and ignoring 67-year-old Industrial plants with bad safety records could result in avoidable accidents which might stall the entire Mumbai Port redevelopment project if the accident is large. Already there have been fires in the refineries that, by the grace of god, did not spread. Also, a large accident will have implications for the financials (project IRRs) and business outlook for the financial centre project. All efforts therefore need to be made to mitigate this large risk. The current plans for the entire area need to be modified for rising ocean levels. At present we estimate that the sea level will rise by 0.5 m in the Mumbai port area over the next 30–50 years. In addition, there could be some settlement due to the heavy construction that will happen along the eastern waterfront. To mitigate this risk due to rising ocean levels and settlement, there is a need to raise the land area along the waterfront by almost 3-5 m to secure the area from floods for the next 100 years. Also the plan includes bringing in Hydraulic Engineers and Water Experts from the Netherlands and New Orleans, USA, which are the two places most at risk from rising ocean levels. Risk mitigation strategy: Project of national importance To mitigate the risk to the development projects proposed along the Eastern Waterfront, it is essential to have this project branded as a project of national importance. Branding the Eastern Waterfront as a project of national importance is supported by the following : 1. Project will bring to India several new construction technologies that have never been deployed before in the country. 2. Project will create nearly 300,000 new jobs across Maharashtra and India. 3. At 1.5 times the size of the Three Gorges Dam in China, this $45 billion project will see investment and technology come in from the US, Europe, Korea and Japan. 4. The project will create skills sets and capability within Indian companies to handle very large projects and build iconic structures. 5. This project is one of the largest environmental improvement projects ever planned in India as it will improve industrial safety and the environment in Mumbai. 6. The project is also the largest Urban Equity Withdrawal project in the country as the cash released from it will be used to improve the standard of education and healthcare in rural Maharashtra and it will become a model for the rest of the country. 7. The project will also feature a 2,000 MW offshore wind farm built as a hybrid project in collaboration with govt. companies. This large hybrid project experiment needs to be looked at from a national lens for nationwide rollout. Once the project is branded as a Project of National Importance and moved for oversight by the PMO, a lot of things will become much easier. Central government / PMO will enable faster communication between all stakeholders / large landowners along the waterfront and the following organisations will begin communicating with each other and the state government. Mumbai Port Mazagon Docks RCF BPCL HPCL Tata Power Increased communication velocity and oversight from the PMO will be able to secure commitments from the industrials within 6–12 months, to move out of the city. The actual de-commissioning of the plants could then be completed in 3-4 years. It is to be noted that by leasing their land for 90 years, these industrials will be able to raise substantial money that could help pay for their re location. THE TEXAS CITY REFINERY EXPLOSION CASE On 23 March 2005, a fire and explosion occurred in Texas City, Texas, at BP's Texas City Refinery━the third largest oil refinery in the United States. The plant had an input capacity of 437,000 bbl per day (21.85 MTPA), more than the two refineries in Mahul put together. The explosion occurred in an isomerisation unit at the site. According to a report issued after the accident, actions taken or not taken led to overfilling the raffinate splitter with liquid, overheating of the liquid, and the subsequent over pressurisation and pressure relief. As a result, large volumes of hydrocarbon flowed to the blowdown drum and stack and overwhelmed it. The overfilling resulted in liquids carrying over out of the top of the flare stack, flowing down the stack, accumulating on the ground, and causing a vapour cloud. The investigating team found that this vapour cloud was ignited by a contractor's unattended pickup truck which was parked nearby with its engine running. The report also identified numerous other failings in equipment, risk management, staff management, working culture at the site, maintenance and inspection, and general health and safety assessments. It was also discovered that a critical alarm meant to warn about the quantity of liquid in the knock out drum and flare stack unit was disabled. The refinery had been in operation since 1934 (that is, 71 years old in 2005) and had its maintenance neglected for several years. Consulting firm Telos had examined conditions at the plant and released a report in January 2005, reporting of broken alarms, thinned pipe, chunks of concrete falling, bolts dropping 60ft and staff being overcome with fumes, and the report's co-author stated we have never seen a site where the notion 'I could die today' was so real. Resultantly, 15 workers were killed and 170 more injured. BP was charged with criminal violations of federal environmental laws, and has been subjected to lawsuits from the victims' families. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) slapped BP with a then-record fine for hundreds of safety violations, and subsequently imposed an even larger fine after claiming that BP had failed to implement specified safety measures and replace critical equipment following the disaster. Author: Ashish Puntambekar is the initiator of the Construct India Mission, which has received official sponsorship from the union commerce ministry. He has been a strategic planner especially in energy and infrastructure domains at Reliance Industries, an expert at international banks and journals, and the lead designer for the Defence Industrial Corridor. This was the second and concluding part of the article series by Puntambekar that deconstructed the ambitious Mumbai Eastern Waterfront project. Read his earlier article here.

Related Stories

Gold Stories

Hi There!

Now get regular updates from CW Magazine on WhatsApp!

Click on link below, message us with a simple hi, and SAVE our number

You will have subscribed to our Construction News on Whatsapp! Enjoy

+91 81086 03000

Join us Telegram