DR. LENIN DHANISETTY v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MOEF AND CC

additional 1x800 MW and after conducting public hearing and also after considering the project by the Expert Appraisal Committee and getting recommendation from the Expert Appraisal Committee, the 1^st respondent had granted the impugned Environmental Clearance (EC) which is under challenge on the following grounds:-

(i) There was violation of Terms of Reference (ToR) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) dated 26.09.2012 evidenced by Annexure-B in carrying out the impact assessment study by the 3^rdrespondent/APPDCL.

(ii) The project proponent had relied on the testing report of imported coal used for Stage-I for proving the radioactivity of the coal to be used for the expansion. As per Condition No.41 of the Terms of Reference (ToR), the project proponent had to conduct the radioactivity and heavy metal content of coal to be used for the proposed plant disclosing its source to be examined and tested independently and the same had to be produced along with the Environment Impact Assessment Report. But the project proponent was relying on the result of the tests conducted for radioactivity by Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the analysis of the heavy metals was attached as annexure to the Draft EIA Report which will go to show that source from where the coal has to be obtained is not specially mentioned.

(iii) No proper impact assessment was conducted regarding the impact of the project on marine ecology as required under Clause 22 of the Terms of Reference (ToR). They have not properly conducted marine impact assessment and the necessary

3

data regarding the flora and founa along the coastal area of Nellore District have not been mentioned.

(iv) In fact, the coastal area of Nellore District is known to be a prime feeding and nesting grounds for Olive Ridley Turtles which is evidenced from the study conducted by the Tree foundation, a non-profitable organization which was engaged with the Andhra Pradesh Government in conservation of Turtles have reported that along the coastline of Nellore District, three endangered species of sea turtles viz., Olive Ridley, Juvenile Hawksbill and Green Sea Turtles are found and the off-shore waters were used by these turtles as migratory routes en-route to beaches for mass nesting by Olive Ridley Turtles. They have also enclosed latest report of 2014-2015, in which they have identified large number of nesting grounds of Olive Ridley Turtles in several villages along the coastline of Nellore District. But this fact has not been mentioned in the report.

(v) The treated effluent that is likely to be discharged from the power plant will have great impact on this marine life. There was no proper impact assessment study regarding the salination of ground water in that area and details given by them were not proper which is evidenced from the recent monitoring test of the MoEF&CC evidenced by Annexure-C.

(vi) There is no proper Ambient Air Quality test conducted and the number of power plants and other industries were not specifically mentioned and they omitted certain power plants including the power plant of the 3^rdrespondent themselves and the Ambient Air Quality report submitted is not proper and that is not

4

reflecting the real state of affairs which is evidenced from the documents produced by the appellant.

(vii) The issue raised in the public hearing and also the socio- economic conditions of the local people etc. were not properly assessed and nothing has been mentioned regarding the same in the EIA Report produced by the 3^rdrespondent. No impact assessment study on Mercury emission was conducted.

(viii) The Expert Appraisal Committee has not been considered the objections raised by the public in the public hearing and they have not considered about the non-compliance of the conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC) imposed while granting the clearance for Stage-I of the 3^rdrespondent project.

(ix) They have not considered about the additional extent of land required for the purpose and probable rehabitation and resettlement measures to be adopted when such additional land are to be acquired.

(x) The impact of the expansion on the heritage temples was not properly considered.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied on the decision reported in Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India W.P. (Civil) No. 9340/2009 and the Judgment of the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in

Appeal No. 07 of 2011 (Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha & Ors. Vs. The Ministry of Environment & Forests & Ors.) in support of their case.

4. So, they filed this appeal seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Quash the Environmental Clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests vide its letter No.J-13012/25/2012-IA.II (T) dated July 02, 2015 (Annex.II) to Andhra Pradesh Power Development

5

Corporation Limited (APPDCL) for its Stage-II expansion of the power plant for increasing the capacity of power generation by 1x800 M Watt Nelaturu Village, Muthukuru Mandal, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh

(ii) Direct the respondent No.1 (Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change) to take necessary action against the project proponent for presenting false and incorrect data in EIA report.

(iii) Direct the respondent company (project proponent) to undertake a comprehensive Cumulative Impact Assessment Study of the Stage-II project in strict compliance with the laws

(iv) Direct the respondent company (project proponent) to address all questions and issues raised during the course of the Public Hearing and by way of representations

(v) Direct the respondent company (project proponent) to comply with the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance for Stage-I before any expansion under Stage-II is requested for by the respondent company

(vi) Pass any such order or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. The 3^rdrespondent filed reply denying the allegations made in the appeal memorandum. They have mentioned about the necessity for power generation for which Stage-I of the power plant was started as coal based unit. Though, that Environmental Clearance (EC) granted was challenged by some of the local people by filing O.A. No.49/2014 & 55/2015, both were dismissed by the National Green Tribunal. The coal that is likely to be imported is from Indonesia/Australia and the same was analyzed by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in respect of radioactive elements and other metals and the report was produced along with the EIA Report and the very same coal is being used by the SDSTPS (Stage-I) and that is proposed to be used for Stage - II as well. So, since the coal that is being used and intended to be used were the same, the radioactive test conducted is perfectly legal and in terms of the Terms of Reference (ToR) issued. The Impact Assessment Study was conducted by the National Institute of Oceanography, Visakhapatnam which is an accredited agency for conducting the same and they have mentioned that

6

there were no major notified breeding grounds or Arribada Sites (a Spanish word, denoting about the arrival of turtles during the breeding season of Olive Ridley Turtles) near Krishnapatnam coast. However, the Hawksbill sea turtles and Green turtles are widely reported along the coast of Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary and they are not having the breeding nest at Krishnapatnam in Nellore District. It was not declared as the notified breeding site by any of the notifications of the Wildlife Sanctuary or Wildlife Institute of India. The Ambient Air Quality etc. was properly conducted and there is no necessity for acquisition of any other land as they intended to expand the same within the land available which was acquired during the Stage-I clearance of the land. Proper corporate social responsibility projects were envisaged and necessary project has been provided for that purpose. So none of the grounds mentioned are not available for the purpose of setting aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) as sought for. So, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

st 6. The 1 respondent has filed reply statement contending that the appeal is not maintainable. The Environmental Clearance (EC) for expansion of the 3^rdrespondent project from Stage-I to Stage-II enhancing the capacity by 1x800 MW was granted for imported coal by the impugned Environmental Clearance (EC), after considering all the necessary requirements. The Terms of Reference (ToR) was issued after considering the nature of the project and after getting the Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Environmental Management Plan, public hearing was conducted on 18.09.2014 by Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) and the same was forwarded to the Ministry.

7

The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC for Thermal Plant) had appraised the proposal in detail in its 24^thMeeting held on 29-30^thApril, 2015 and recommended the project and after appraising the same, the same was granted by the 1^strespondent with specific, special and general conditions. The proposed expansion is based on 100% imported coal and they are importing coal from Indonesia/Australia for the existing power plant and the same is proposed to be used for the expanded power plant as well. The Environmental Impact Assessment Report prepared by the National Institute of Oceanography, Regional Centre, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh concluded that the area is devoid of mangrove vegetation but presence of seaweeds and sand dune vegetations were recorded. There were no records of the presence of coral reefs and no endangered species were observed in the biological samples. During the revised CRZ clearance, M/s. WAPCOS has conducted hydrographic, bathymetry and return water dispersion modelling studies and that was accorded by the MoEF&C on 03.09.2013. They have considered all the possible impacts and it is on that basis, the clearance was granted and also the existence of two power plants namely, M/s. NCC & M/s. Thermal Powertech and SDSTPS. They have mentioned that the proposed power plant by M/s. Coastal Andhra Power Ltd (CAPL) (a subsidiary of Reliance Power Ltd) is falling within 10 Km radius, the same has not been considered because Central Electricity Authority vide their letter dated 17.06.2011 have furnished the report based on the combined visit by members from the MoP, CEA and APGENCO to the extent that they have completely stopped the work. The same has been appraised to the Environmental Appraisal Committee, MoEF&CC during the 144^thEAC meeting held on 17.06.2011. Even after three years, the status of the project remains the

8

same. As regards, Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPPs) available on the website of the Ministry of Power, the same was handed over to the Reliance Power Ltd on 29.01.2008 and the developer has stopped the work at site, citing new regulation of coal pricing in Indonesia and they issued termination notice to the CAPL which is subject matter of the litigation before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. So, they are not proposing to start the project. So, it cannot be said that those two units were in existence and non-inclusion of those two units while conducting Ambient Air Quality test has no substance and according to them all necessary precautions have been taken for the purpose of granting the Environmental Clearance (EC) and there is no illegality committed and the same does not require any interference. So, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there was no proper radioactivity test conducted in respect of coal to be used in the project. They have not specified the source of coal so as to ascertain the amount of Mercury and also the radioactive materials available as has been held by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Appeal No.07 of 2011 (Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha & Ors. Vs. The Ministry of Environment & Forests & Ors.) Even in the test report produced, the source of coal was not mentioned. Further, the Cluster EIA Report in respect of Ambient Air Quality was not properly mentioned and some of the industries were omitted and as such the Ambient Air Quality report submitted will not reflect the real Ambient Air Quality in that area. No proper impact assessment on marine ecology was conducted. They have

9

not mentioned about the MW Meenakshi Thermal Power Plant and MW Simhapuri Thermal Power Plant. They have also not mentioned about the non-compliance of the conditions imposed while granting the Environmental Clearance (EC) for Stage-I of the said power plant. They have also not mentioned about the necessity for further extent of land which has to be acquired. The marine ecology has not been properly considered as according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it was affecting the Olive Ridley Turtles and their nesting ground and the learned counsel argued that study conducted by the NGO namely, Tree Foundation in that area during 2014-2015 will go to show that there exists large scale Olive Ridley Turtles in the coastal area of Nellore District and this area is being used for laying their eggs but that aspect has not been projected in that EIA Report. The objection raised in the public hearing was not properly appraised and impact of the power plant will affect the livelihood of the local community which has also not been considered. So according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Environmental Clearance (EC) for the Stage-II namely, expansion of the 3^rdrespondent project is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) argued that they have considered all the aspects in the right perspective and necessary details were obtained and only thereafter, the proposal was recommended by the Expert Appraisal Committee and the Ministry has issued the clearance which is under challenge.

10

10. The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rdrespondent argued that they were using the imported coal for their Stage-I operation of the power plant and they have mentioned that they intended to use the same coal for the expansion unit as well. The test report produced is in respect of the coal that is being used for their operation of the existing unit. Further, it is not a turtle habitat declared either by the Forest Department or by the Wildlife Institute as contended. The marine impact assessment was conducted by the accredited unit and that has properly assessed the aspects and submitted the report. The Ambient Air Quality etc. were properly done and there is no illegality in granting the Environmental Clearance (EC).

11. The points that arise for consideration are:-

(i) Whether the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted is liable to be set aside for any of the reasons stated by the appellant in the appeal memorandum?

(ii) Even if the Environmental Clearance (EC) has to be sustained, whether any further conditions will have to be imposed?

Points:-

12. Admittedly, the 3^rdrespondent was running the thermal power plant having a capacity of 2x800 MW under the name and style of Sri Damodharam Sanjeevaiah Thermal Plant located in Nelaturu Village, Muthukuru Mandal, near Krishnapatnam, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. They have applied for expansion of the same per additional capacity of 1x800 MW and Terms of Reference (ToR) dated 26.09.2012 was issued evidenced by Annexure-B and thereafter, the impact

11

assessment report was prepared by the experts accredited by the MoEF&CC and thereafter, public hearing was conducted and the minutes of the public hearing was forwarded to the MoEF&CC and the same was referred to the Expert Appraisal Committee and the Expert Appraisal Committee recommended the project and accordingly, the MoEF&CC has granted the clearance which is under challenge.

13. They have no case that no proper public hearing was conducted. The only grievance was that the objection projected in the public hearing was not properly appraised by the Expert Appraisal Committee but that appears to be incorrect as the same has been addressed. As regards the radioactivity test is concerned, it was mentioned that the source of coal was not mentioned as it may have some effect on the quality of the coal which will have impact on assessment.

14. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.07 of 2011 (Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha & Ors. Vs. The Ministry of Environment & Forests & Ors.) dated 20.09.2011 wherein the Tribunal had disposed of the appeal which reads as follows:-

"Conclusion:

10. Taking all the above into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal requires to be disposed of with the following directions keeping in view the principles of sustainable development and precautionary principle.

a) The first respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests is directed to look into the matter as to long term impacts caused by nuclear radiation from the thermal power projects, by instituting a scientific long term study involving Bhabha Atomic Research Agency or any such other recognized scientific institution dealing with nuclear radiation with reference to the coal ash generated by thermal power project (Respondent No. 3) particularly the cumulative effect of a number of thermal power project located in the area on human habitation and environment and ecology. The study shall also take into consideration the health profile of the

12

residents within the area in which the pollutants are expected to spread from the thermal power project.

b) The Ministry of Environment and Forests shall direct the proponent to synchronize the commissioning of the project with that of the Sewage Wastewater Treatment plant, treated water from which is proposed to be used for the operation of the project. Until, there is such synchronization, no Consent to Operate shall be issued by the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board and the Board shall monitor the mitigating measures suggested in the Environmental Clearance.

c) The Ministry of Environment and Forests shall include in the Terms of Reference of all the future projects asking the proponent to furnish details of possible nuclear radioactivity levels of the coal proposed to be used for the thermal power plant.

d) The Ministry of Environment and Forests shall get the national standards prescribed, if not already available, from the Department of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order, as to permissible levels of nuclear radiation in residential, industrial and ecologically sensitive areas of the country.

e) If any of these directions are not carried out, the appellant is at liberty to take appropriate steps as required under the law. With the above directions, the Appeal stands disposed of."

15. That was also the case where the specific source of the coal to be used has not been mentioned and certain directions were given by the Tribunal as to how this will have to be done. In this case, the imported coal that is being used, is being imported from Indonesia/Australia for the Stage-I operation of the 3^rdrespondent unit and they have specifically mentioned that they intend to use the same coal for the Stage-II expanded unit as well. They have also produced the agreement between the supplier and the 3^rdrespondent regarding the sale of the coal and they have also mentioned that they are intending to purchase the same coal from the same supplier for the Stage-II as well. So, there is no change in the quality of the coal to be used.

13

16. Further, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre had conducted the radioactivity report of coal to be used which is the organization which is directed to analyze the subject matter in the decision in the Appeal No.07 of 2011 relied on by the counsel appearing for the appellant.

17. So under such circumstances, there is no merit in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that there was no proper impact assessment of coal to be used by the 3^rdrespondent conducted and on that ground, the same is liable to be set aside.

18. As regard the Ambient Air Quality is concerned, the 3^rdrespondent had conducted the Ambient Air Quality through a recognized agency and submitted the report along with their impact assessment report. One of the contention that has been raised was that they have not mentioned about the power plant, M/s. NCC & M/s. Thermal Power Tech & SDSTPS and also the proposed unit of M/s. Reliance Power Limited and other thermal power plants so as to ascertain as to whether the Ambient Air Quality cluster study conducted by the project proponent is proper or not.

19. It may be mentioned here that in the reply affidavit filed by the MoEF&CC who had issued the clearance, it is clearly mentioned that as regards M/s. Coastal Andhra Power Limited (CAPL) is concerned, the Central Electricity Authority vide their letter dated 17.06.2011 had furnished the report based on the combined visits of members from MoP, CEA, APGENCO to the extent that they have completely stopped the work and this was appraised by the committee of MoEF&CC during 144^thmeeting held on 17.06.2011. Even after three years, no further

14

work has been done by them. So, there is no possibility of that project being coming up and non consideration of the same will not have any effect. As regards Ultra Mega Power Plant is concerned, it is seen from the website of the Ministry of Power that M/s. Krishnapatnam UMPP was handed over to the Reliance Power Limited on 29.01.2018 and the developer had stopped the work at site, citing new regulation of coal pricing in Indonesia and lead producer namely, AP Southern Power Distribution Company has issued termination notice to the CAPL and that was under challenge before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. So that project will also not come into the effect. Non- mentioning about the existence of these two power plants in the Cluster EIA report regarding the Ambient Air Quality has no impact, because they are not proceeding with their project and as such it can only be taken that such project is not in existence at the time when the study was conducted. All other industries were mentioned and its impact was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee. So, under such circumstances, that ground is also not available for setting aside the clearance.

20. As regards, the objections raised in the public hearing is concerned, the same has been discussed by the Expert Appraisal Committee. Further, since it was informed that there is no necessity for further land acquisition and they are going to implement the Stage-II expansion within the land already acquired, there is no question of any further impact of excess land to be acquired and its impact on the local fishermen or other community people and also consider about any

15

resettlement or rehabitation of persons to be affected on account of the project by acquiring more land.

21. As regards, the marine environment impact is concerned, the 3^rd respondent had conducted the impact assessment study and produced the comprehensive marine environmental impact study report conducted by the National Institute of Oceanography, Visakhapatnam where it was specifically mentioned that there is no Olive Ridley Turtles observed in the coastal area where the proposed project is to be established. It was not declared as a breeding ground or nesting place of turtles in Krishnapatnam area where the project is proposed to be established. Further, it is only an expansion of the existing unit and there was no impact caused on account of the functioning of the existing thermal power plant on marine ecology as such.

22. Further, the report said to have been relied on by the appellant namely, Tree Foundation only gives the general idea about the occasional citing of Olive Ridley Turtles in Nellore Coastal area, but they have not specifically mentioned about the regular citing of such things in Krishnapatnam area, where the project is situated. So under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no proper marine impact assessment conducted.

23. The report of the authorized agency will go to show that they have conducted a detailed study on all these aspects of this project on marine ecology and found that there is no greater impact of this project on marine ecology. So under such circumstances, the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that there was no proper marine ecology impact assessment done has no merit.

16

24. There is some merit in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that while site inspection was conducted by the Regional Office which was produced along with the written submission as Annexure-1, certain non-compliance were noticed regarding the conditions imposed for establishment of Stage-I of the power plant which reads as follows:-

"Government of India Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034.

MONITORING REPORT

PART - I

DATA SHEET

F.No. EP/12.1/548/AP

1 Project Type Thermal and CRZ River valley / Mining / Industry / Thermal /

Nuclear/ Other Specify

4 Locations

17

Code/fax numbers)

6 Salient features:

a. Salient features of the Covered in the EIA/EMP report project

b. of the environmental Submitted to MoEF &CC during project management plans appraisal.

7 Project area details Plant site:-

1250 acres(As per EC)

1486 acres (As per the project authorities)

8 Break up of project affected population with enumeration of those losing houses / dwelling units only, agricultural land only, both dwelling units and agricultural land and landless labourers / artisans a SC,ST/Adivasis Plant facilities:-

One Hamlet by name "Nakkalamitta" falling in the Power plant area was proposed for R&R with 88 families (as per EC). But at the time of actually b Others effecting the R&R facilities by the R&R administrator from the District

Administration/Govt of AP at R&R colony in Muthukur 109 eligible families are rehabilitated. The following support facilities and packages are provided by the project proponent.

R & R Package Features

1) Financial Support:

a) Paid wages for 625 days

b) Subsistence Allowance for 240 days

c) Income Generation Scheme

d) Transportation Charges

18

11 The status of clear NA

felling in non- forest area (such as

submergence area of reservoir, approach road), if any, with quantitative

information

12 Status of construction:

19

13 Reasons for the : Details not made available. project is yet to start.

14 Date of site visit:

20

PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT

Plant facilities:-

MoEF&CC vide F.No. J-13011/20/2007-IA-II (T) dated 17.7.2007, 3.5.2012 and 10.6.2013 accorded environmental clearance for setting up of 2x

800 MW Thermal Power Project at Krishnapatnam, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, Ministry vide letter dated 3.5.2012 permitted the change of ash pond location to the new site which is about 1.7km distance from the plant site. Thereafter, Ministry vide letter dated 10.6.2013 extended the validity period of the environmental clearance till 16.7.2017. Out of the 2x800 MW, presently the unit I (1x800 MW) is on trial operations at partial load and its planned for commissioning on 30.11.2014. The unit II is expected to be commissioned by 31.3.2015. The plant and ash pond photographs are at Annex I.

CRZ facilities:-

MoEF&CC vide F.No.11-12/2008 -IA-Ill dated 29.5.2008 accorded environmental clearance for construction of seawater intake facilities and discharge of wastewater facilities into Bay of Bengal. Subsequently, Ministry vide letter no.11-43/2012-IA.III dated 3.9.2013 amended the EC dated 29.5.2008 for change in configuration of intake and outfall facilities. The CRZ facilities are expected to be completed by proponent by 31.3.2015. The aforesaid facilities were monitored on 11.11.2014 along with the officers namely Shri M.V.V.Satyanarayana, Chief Engineer, Shri Y Koteswara Rao, Superintending Engineer and Shri V. Bhakthavatsala Reddy, Executive Engineer.

Detailed point wise compliance status is given below in Part II and Part Ill.

PART II

COMPLIANCE STATUS IN BRIEF

21

PART II

COMPLIANCE STATUS IN BRIEF

Subject: Construction of seawater intake facilities and discharge of

wastewater facilities into Bay of Bengal by M/s A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited (APPDCL), Hyderabad

Reference: F.No. 11-28/2008-IA-III dated 29.5.2008 and F.No.11-

43/2012-IA.III dated 3.9.2013

S. No. Conditions Compliance status

As per the EC letter No. 11-28/2008-IA-III dated 29.5.2008 A. Specific Conditions

I. NOC from APPCB be obtained Complied

ii. No damage to the mangroves & coastal ecosystems. No mangroves

iii. Implementation of all the measures as per letter dated Complied 6-5-2008

iv. Effluent disposal shall meet the APPCB standards Agreed upon

V. No hindrance to the movement of the local Complied communities

vi. Continuous marine quality monitoring programme be Not complied taken up.

vii. No displacement of people, houses or fishing activity Complied

viii. No adverse impact on the drainage of the area Complied

ix. Labour camp be kept outside the Coastal Regulation Complied Zone area.

X. Emergency display boards at critical be provided Not complied

xi. No disturbance to the movement of fishing vessels Complied

xii. No interference to the fishermen due to jetty Noietty construction

xiii. Relocation of the fishermen community with all Complied facilities.

xiv. Marine ecology monitoring be done regularly No jetty during jetty construction

xv. Regular monitoring of air quality be done in the Not complied settlement areas

xvi. Sewage treatment in the port area No port area

xvii. Regular updation of the Disaster Management plan Not complied

xviii. No withdrawal of ground water in CRZ area Partly complied

xix. Project commissioned after requisite water & Complied electricity supply

xx. Specific arrangements for rain water harvesting be Not complied made

xxi. Facilities constructed be in conformity with the CRZ Complied

22

notification.

xxii. Land reclamation be carried out to the extent essential No land reclamation

xxiii. Green buffer zone be provided all around the project Not complied area

xxiv. No product other that those shall be stored in the CRZ Complied area.

B. General Conditions:

i. Facilities constructed be in conformity with the Complied existing rules and regulations

ii. Aooropriate community and welfare measures be taken Complied up

iii. Appropriate fire-fighting system be installed Complied

iv. Separate Environment Management Cell be set up Complied

V. Funds earmarked for EMP shall be kept in a separate Complied account

vi. Full cooperation to the Scientist / Officers from the Agreed Ministry

vii. Any deviation or alternation in the project, fresh Agreed upon reference be

Made

S. No. Conditions Compliance status

viii. Ministry may revoke the clearance Agreed upon

ix. Ministry may stipulate any other additional conditions Agreed upon

X. Copy of the clearance to be marked to Panchayat Reportedly complied

xi. SPCB shall display clearance letter at designated places Reportedly complied

xii. Paper Advertisement shall be given about EC Complied

xiii. Date of financial closure be informed to the concerned Refer part 111 authorities

xiv. Forest clearance be obtained No forest land

xv. Movement of vehicles in the ITZ be restricted Complied

xvi. Any appeal against this Environmental Clearance lies Agreed upon with NGT

As per the EC amendment letter no.11-43/2012-IA.III dated 3.9.2013

6. Special conditions:-

i. Conditions stipulated by APCZMA be strictly complied Being complied

ii. Screens and trash bars be provided Complied

iii. Monitoring of the receiving body at the discharge point Agreed upon be done.

iv. No construction works in the CRZ area other than Complied those

permitted

V. No mangroves or other ecological important areas be Complied destroyed

vi. Provision of adequate funds in the EMP of the project. Complied

vii. No disturbance to the fishing/fisherman communities Complied

viii. Conditions as stipulated in the earlier clearance shall Refer part Ill remain unchanged

7. General Conditions:-

i. Facilities constructed be in conformity with the Complied existing rules and regulations

ii. Any deviation or alternation in the project, fresh Agreed upon reference be made

iii. Ministry may revoke the clearance Agreed upon

iv. Ministry may stipulate any other additional conditions Agreed upon

V. Full cooperation to the Scientist/ Officers from the Agreed Ministry

8. The above stipulations would be enforced Refer part 111

9. Any other clearances required shall be obtained Complied

10. Paper advertisement about EC shall be given Complied

11. Any aooeal against this Environmental Clearance lies Agreed upon with NGT

12. Copy of the clearance to be marked to Panchayat Reportedly complied

13. Uploading of six monthly compliance report on the Not complied website

23

PART Ill

DETAILED COMPLIANCE STATUS

Subject: 2x 800 MW Thermal Power Project at Krishnapatnam, Nellore,

Andhra Pradesh by M/s Andhra Pradesh Power Development Company Limited

Reference: F.No. J-13011/20/2007-IA-II (T) dated 17.7.2007, 3.5.2012 and 10.6.2013

24

25

26

27

PART Ill

DETAILED COMPLIANCE STATUS

Subject: Construction of seawater intake facilities and discharge of wastewater facilities into Bay of Bengal by Mis AP. Power Generation Corporation Limited (APPDCL), Hyderabad

Reference: F.No. 11-28/2008-IA-III dated 29.5.2008 and F.No.11- 43/2012-IAIII dated 3.9.2013

S. No. Conditions Compliance status As per the EC letter No. 11-28/2008-IA-III dated 29.5.2008 A. Specific Conditions

i. No objection certificate from Consent for Establishment was obtained the Andhra Pradesh State from APPCB vide letter no.159/PCB/CFE/RO-NLR/HO/2007 dated 1.10.2007 and vide letter dated 19.11.2012 CFE was extended with a validity up to Pollution Control Board shall 31.3.2015.

be obtained before initiating the

project.

ii. The project shall be No mangroves/other sensitive coastal implemented in such a manner ecosystem is present in the area. that there is no damage

whatsoever to the

mangroves/other sensitive

coastal ecosystems. If any

damage to mangroves is

anticipated/envisaged as a

result of project activities then

the clearance shall stand

cancelled and the

proponents shall seek fresh

approval from the Ministry.

iii. The project proponent shall APPDCL vide letter dated 06.05.2008 implement all the measures that addressed to the Ministry confirmed that have been proposed by them in the fly ash generated at 2X800 MW

the clarification letter dated 6- Thermal power station at Krishnapatnam 5-2008 provided to the shall not be dumped in the Sea and shall be Ministry. utilized or dumped in the Ash pond

designated.

iv. The effluent to be disposed of PAs agreed that the blow down water shall meet the standards standards disposed in the sea will be within prescribed by Andhra Pradesh the standards prescribed by Andhra Pollution Control Pradesh Pollution Control Board Board

V. The pipelines both intake and No hindrance is caused to the movement of outlet shall not cause any local communities including fishermen. hindrance to the movement of

the local communities

including the fishermen.

28

29

30

xxiv. No product other that those No product is stored in CRZ area. permissible in the Coastal

Regional Zone Notification,

1991 shall be stored in the

Coastal Regulation Zone area.

B. General Conditions:

i. Construction of the proposed PAs informed that the structures structures shall be undertaken undertaken are confirming to central/local meticulously confirming to the rules & regulations. existing Central/local rules and

regulations. All the construction

designs/drawings relating to the

proposed construction activities

must have approvals of the

concerned State Government

Department/Agencies.

ii. The project authorities shall During the construction phase community take appropriate community development and welfare measures for the development and welfare villagers in the vicinity of the project site, measures for the villagers in the including drinking water facilities are vicinity of the project site undertaken by the contractor. The including drinking water activities will be continued under the CSR facilities. A separate fund shall activities of the main project for which a be allocated for this purpose. separate fund is allocated for this purpose. Further, it was informed that APPDCL has

incurred an expenditure of Rs.6.08 crores

under the CSR activities.

iii. To meet any emergency Fire fighting system is provided. situation, appropriate fire

fighting system shall be

installed. Appropriate

arrangements for uninterrupted

power supply to the

environment protection

equipment and continuous

water supply for the fire fighting

system shall be made.

iv. A separate Environment A separate environment management cell Management Cell with suitably with qualified staff has already been set up qualified staff to carry out to report to the Chief Executive of the various environment related company.

functions shall be set up under

the charge of a senior executive

who will report directly to the

Chief Executive of the Company.

v. The funds earmarked for Funds provision as shown in point No.9 of environment protection measures Part - I has been made. shall be maintained in a separate

account and thee shall be no

diversion of these funds for any

other purpose. A year wise

expenditure on environmental

safeguards shall be reported to

this Ministry Regular Office at

Bangalore.

vi. Full support shall be extended to It was submitted that the condition is the officers of this Ministry's "Noted" and assured to abide by the Regional Office at Bangalore and condition.

the officers of the Central and

State Pollution Control Board by

the project proponents during

their inspection for monitoring

purposes, by furnishing full

details and action plans including

the action taken reports in respect

of mitigative measures and other

environmental protection

activities.

31

32

xvi. Any appeal against this Noted environmental clearance shall lie with the National Environment Appellate Authority, if preferred, within a period of 30 days as prescribed under section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Act,

1997.

As per the EC amendment letter No.11-43/2012-IA.III dated 03.09.2013

6. Special Conditions:-

i. All conditions stipulated by Andhra Being complied. Details are at Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Annex II.

Authority shall be strictly complied with.

ii. Screens and trash bars shall be Screens & trash tracks are installed provided to avoid entry of fishes and well before the entry point of water fish larve in to the system. Shall provide into the system. Proposed budget for separate budgetary provision for fish barrier system is 46 Crores. maintenance of system proposed for

prevention of entry of marine line

into the intake system.

iii. Periodical monitoring of the receiving PAs informed that the out fall works body at the discharge point shall be are to be completed in full shape. done and report be submitted along The report on periodic samples with the six monthly monitoring reports. collected at outfall will be reported by the Environment

Monitoring Cell on completion of all

facilities.

iv. No construction works other that those No construction work other than permitted in Coastal Regulation Zone permitted is taken up in CRZ area. Notification shall be carried out in

Coastal regulation Zone area.

V. No mangroves or other No mangroves or ecologically ecological important areas are existing in the important areas shall be destroyed. project area.

vi. the project proponent shall provide Fund provision as shown in point adequate funds in the Environmental no.9 of Part - I has been made. Management Plan of the project.

vii. It shall be ensured that the PAs informed that there will be no fishing/fisherman communities not be disturbance to the fishermen/fishing disturbed during operation of the activities during the operation of the project. project.

viii. All other conditions as stipulated in the PAs informed that conditions like earlier clearance shall remain providing Jetty system which is unchanged and shall be strictly modified later are to be removed as adhered by the proponent. they no longer applicable.

Removal of such non-applicable

condition is to be sought from

MOEF separately at a later date.

7. General Conditions:-

i. The Construction of the structure should Construction carried out as per be undertaken as per the plans approved approved plans. by the concerned local authorities/local

administrati

on, meticulously confirming to the

existing local and Central rules and

regulations including the provisions of

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification

2011 and the approved Coastal Zone

Management plan of Andhra Pradesh.

33

34

13. the proponent shall upload the status of PAs are not uploading the status of compliance of the stipulated clearance compliance of the EC conditions, conditions, including results of monitored data in their company monitored data on their website and website. Monitored criteria shall update the same periodically. It pollutants levels from stack and shall simultaneously be sent to the ambient air has not been displayed Regional office of MoEF, the respective in the company website and main Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB. gate of the power plant. The criteria pollutant levels namely;

SPM, RSPM, So2, NOx(Ambient levels

as well as stack emissions) or critical

sectoral parameters, indicated for the

project shall be monitored and

displayed at a convenient location near

the main gate

of the company in the public domain.

Comments and End note:-

1. Chronology of events: Project proponent has requested the Regional Office of the MoEF&CC for the certified compliance report vide letter dated 23.9.2014. The site inspection was done on 11.11.2014. The information sought during the site visit was submitted by the project proponent vide letter dated 18.11.2014.

2. Status of implementation of stipulated conditions:- It is inferred from above that the project proponent is not complying the following stipulated conditions of the Environmental Clearance:-

A. W.r. to the letter. No. J-13011/20/2007-IA-II (T) dated 17.7.07, 3.5.12 and 10.6.13:-

i. Rain water harvesting system has not been adopted (Condition no.xii)

ii. No groundwater monitoring including heavy metal is undertaken around the ash dyke and the project area (Condition no.xiv)

iii. Noise level was not monitored by the PAs during the construction activities & trial operations of Unit I and no records have been maintained. Further, no protective device has been provided to the people working in the high noise area during the site visit (Condition no.xv)

iv. Out of the 170 ha green belt area, green belt development has been undertaken only in 72.84 ha. Plantation work and its survival rate in the 72.84 ha area is not satisfactory. Further, the green belt of adequate width and density is not provided all around the plant boundary and ash dyke as per the EC condition (Condition no.xxii & xxviii)

v. Six monthly compliance reports in hard and soft copies along

35

with the monitored data are not being regularly submitted to the MoEF&CC, RO (Condition no.xxvi)

vi. Monitored criteria pollutants levels from stack and ambient air has not been displayed in the company website and main gate of the power plant (Condition no.xxvii)

vii. Name change of EC from M/s Andhra Pradesh Power Development Company Limited to Mis Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station has not been obtained. Further, the land requirement of the project has been increased to 1496 acres instead of 1250 acres as mentioned in the EC dated 17.7.2007. (Paragraph no.6)

viii. Public Liability Insurance has not been obtained (Paragraph no.7)

B. W.r. to the letter. ·No. 11-28/2008-IA-III dated 29.5.08 and letter no. 11-43/2012-IA.III dated 3.9.13:-

i. No post-project marine quality environmental monitoring is carried out (specific condition no. vi)

ii. There is no display boards kept at critical locations containing emergency related information as per the EC condition (specific condition no. x)

iii. Monitoring of air quality at the CRZ facilities area has not been carried out (specific condition no. xv)

iv. Piezometers at appropriate locations have not been installed (specific condition no. xviii)

v. Green buffer zones has not been provided as stipulated in the EC condition (specific condition no. xviii)

vi. Public Liability Insurance has not been obtained (paragraph no.8)

vii. Not uploading the status of compliance of the EC conditions, monitored data in their company website. Monitored criteria pollutants levels from stack and ambient air has not been displayed in the company website and main gate of the power plant (paragraph no.13)

viii. Not submitted the single six monthly compliance report so far to the MoEF&CC RO (paragraph no.14)

ix. Not submitted the Environmental Statement to the MoEF&CC RO and also not uploaded on their company website (paragraph no.15)

3. Housekeeping: It requires improvement

4. Review w.r.to MoEF O.M. dated 30.5.2012: The above mentioned project was prepared after site visit for the proposed expansion and implementation of stipulation was reviewed as on

11.11.2014.

5. Court cases: Project proponent informed that there is no court case pertaining to environment against them.

6. With regard to issuance of show cause/closure notices:-

Project proponent has informed that no show cause/closure notices were issued by the SPCB."

25. It is seen from the reply statement submitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) that this has been considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee while considering the expansion and certain directions have been given in this regard. However, it is not mentioned as to what is the action taken by the MoEF&CC for non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the 3^rd

36

respondent unit in respect of the conditions imposed for its Stage-I power plant having a capacity of 2x800 MW. So under such circumstances, we feel that a direction can be given to the MoEF&CC, Regional Office, Bangalore to take appropriate action against the 3^rdrespondent for not complying with the conditions in accordance with law and also a direction can be given to the 3^rdrespondent to comply with the directions and implement the same in its letter and spirit.

26. So, the appeal is disposed of as follows:-

(i) There is no ground made out for setting aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for the expansion of Stage-II of power plant of the 3^rdrespondent and as such there is no need to set aside the same as prayed for by the appellant.

(ii)The 3^rdrespondent is directed to comply with the conditions imposed by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for granting the Environmental Clearance (EC) for its Stage-I project and also for the present project in its letter and spirit.

(iii) The MoEF&CC, Regional Office, Bangalore is directed to conduct inspection of the unit and ascertain as to whether the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) for both stages (i.e., Stage I & II) have been strictly complied with by the 3^rdrespondent and if it is not done, then they are directed to take appropriate action against the 3^rdrespondent in accordance with law.

(iv) The MoEF&CC is directed to comply with the directions issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal,

37

New Delhi in Appeal No.07 of 2011 (Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha & Ors. Vs. The Ministry of Environment & Forests & Ors.) dated, 20.09.2011 while issuing Terms of Reference (ToR) in respect of thermal power plant in its letter and spirit.

(v) Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the appeal.

27. With the above observations and directions, this appeal is disposed of.

.....................................J.M.

(Justice K. Ramakrishnan)

.................................E.M.

(Shri. Saibal Dasgupta)

Appeal No.105/2016,

st

21 January, 2021. Mn.

38