National Green Tribunal
Heritage Estate Apartment Owners ... vs Ministry Of Environment, Forest And ... on 28 June, 2021
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.01:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 57 of 2017 (SZ) &
I.A. No. 102 of 2020 (SZ)
In the Matter of:
Heritage Estate Apartment Owners Association,
Having its registered office at
Club House, 1st Floor, Heritage Estate,
Doddaballapura Main Road,
Yelahanka, Bangalore- 560 064
....Applicant
Versus
Union of India and others. ... Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 28th June, 2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant: Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde
For Respondent(s): Ms. Ojas Siva Kumar represented
M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R1 and R6
Mr. Darpan K.M. through Mr. H.S.K.
Vasanth for R2, R5 and R9
Ms. J. Tanya represented
Mr. Ajay Nandalike for R3
Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R4
Mr. T.V. Sekar for R8
Mr P.V. S. Giridhar & Sai for R10
1
ORDER
Judgement pronounced in Open Court through Video Conference, and the application is disposed of with directions vide separate judgment. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.
.................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .............................E.M. ( Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No. 57/2017, 28th June , 2021. Sr. 2 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Original Application No. 57 of 2017 (SZ) (Through Video Conference) IN THE MATTER OF Heritage Estate Apartment Owners Association, Having its registered office at Club House, 1st Floor, Heritage Estate, Doddaballapura Main Road, Yelahanka, Bangalore- 560 064 ....Applicant Versus
1. Ministry of Environment & Forest, Union of India, through Secretary, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110 003
2. State of Karnataka Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore- 560 001
3. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) Through its Chairman & Managing Director No. 82, Shakthi Bhawan, Race Course Road, Bangalore- 560 001
4. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Department of Ecology and Environment, Through its Member Secretary, Room No. 709, 7th Floor, M.S. Building, Bangalore- 560 001
5. Secretary Forest, Envrionment and Ecology Department, Govt of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore- 560 001
6. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Through its Chairman "Parisara Bhawan", No. 49, 4th & 5th Floor, 3 Church Street, Bangalore- 560 001
7. Lake Development Authority Through its Chief Executive Officer "Parisara Bhawan", 2nd Floor, Church Street, Bangalore- 560 001
8. Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Corporation Building, NR Square Bangalore- 560 002
9. Chairman Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board (BWSSB) Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bangalore- 560 009
10. GAIL (India) Limited, Through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Having its Registered office at No. 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant: Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde For Respondent(s): Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R1 and R6 Mr. Darpan K.M. through Mr. H.S.K. Vasanth for R2, R5 and R9 Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ajay Nandalike for R3 Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R4 Mr. T.V. Sekar for R8 Mr Giridhar & Sai for R10 Judgment Reserved on: 7th June, 2021.
Judgment Pronounced on: 28th June, 2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No 4 JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the violation of conditions of the environmental clearance granted for the proposed gas based power plant at Yelahanka to the 3rd respondent and its impact on environment. It is alleged in the application that the present application has been filed seeking to declare the environmental clearance dated 01.09.2015 as per proceedings no. SEIAA 20 IND 2014 issued by the 4 th respondent as void, since it has been granted by the 4 th respondent without jurisdiction, without conducting public hearing and in complete violation of mandates of EIA Notification, 2006.
2. The apartment complex in which the applicant is a resident is situated in survey nos. 78, 79 and 49 of Puttenahalli Village on the Doddaballapura main road which is located 15-20 metres away from the proposed gas based power plant. The 3 rd respondent had filed annexure-2 formal application for environment clearance wherein they have wilfully omitted to mention about the Puttenahalli Lake which is declared as a Conservatory Reserve (Bird Reserve) and located within 500 metres from the proposed project. They are expected to mention these aspects in EIA Notification, 2006 which was produced as annexure-A3. They have commenced the pre-
construction activity after obtaining the environment clearance 5 and the proposed gas based power plant is coming up in the close vicinity of densely populated area with numerous apartment complexes. The impugned environment clearance obtained by 3rd respondent issued by the 4th respondent was produced as annexure-A4. No public hearing was conducted and Terms of Reference was issued on 19.01.2015 for conducting Environment Impact Assessment Study. Since the project is located within the notified industrial area public consultation was exempted. The Environment Impact Assessment Study was conducted and the report was prepared by M/s Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd.D-36, Noda, Gautam budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301 and the report was submitted by the project proponent on 23.07.2015. The MoEF vide their office memorandum no. J-11013/36/2014-IA-I dated 04.04.2016 submitted that category of projects and activities mentioned in the annexure to the memorandum required public consulation in the process of Environment Impact Assessment and Environment Clearance irrespective of its location in or outside a notified industrial area/estate/region and that notification was produced as annexure-A5. So under such circumstances, the exemption from the public hearing should not have been granted for such project. Further, as per EIA Notification, 2006 any project or activity specified in category „B‟ will be treated as Category A if located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of
(i) protected areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 6 1972, (ii) Critically polluted areas notified by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time, (iii) Notified Eco- sensitive areas, (iv) inter-state boundaries and international boundaries.
3. According to the applicant, the proposed project location boundary is 500 metres from Puttenahalli Lake which was declared by the Government of Karnataka as "Puttenahalli Lake Bird Conservation Reserve" protected under Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 due to its ecological, faunal, floral and geomorphologic importance for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wildlife therein as per G.O (MS) dated 29.04.2015 evidenced by annexure-A8. So this project falls under Category A and SEIAA will not have jurisdiction to entertain the same and as such the clearance granted is without jurisdiction. They also started the preparation work by clearing the thick vegetation that is present in the DG plant premises by obtaining permission from the Tree Officer, Yelahanka Zone, BBMP (8th respondent) as per permission order no. 532 dated 01.03.2016 and permission order no. 61 (2016-2017) dated 17.05.2016. As per the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 which was amended in the year 2014, the Tree Officer has to conduct a public hearing inviting objections if the number of trees to be felled is more than 50 as per Section 8(3) of the said Act. But in this case, though permission was granted for 98 trees, no such public hearing was conducted as 7 such the permission granted is illegal. The removal of the green cover has affected the nesting nightingales, parrots and other migratory birds and species. They have produced the permission granted as annexure-A6 and photographs showing the removal of trees as annexure-A7. They have not obtained permission from the Ministry of Defence as Yelahanka Air Force Station, CRPF and the BSF are situated within 7 kms from the project site. The sound emission that is likely to be produced is much more than the permissible limit which will affect the health of the people. The 3rd respondent has shifted the gas based power plant originally proposed to be located at Bidadi to Yelahanka for reasons unknown to the public. The consultants have not conducted any proper investigation before preparing the report but they have relied on the particulars given by the project proponent for preparing the report. If they had visited the area and conducted independent enquiry then lot of things which were against the project proponent would have been brought to their notice. The treated water from the project area is let out to the Hebbal and Jakkur lakes. No permission has been obtained from the BWSSB for supply of treated water and discharge of the same into the lake which is against the Karnataka Lake Conservation Act, 2014. The discharge of treated water is likely to affect the water quality in the lakes and that will in fact affect the aquatic life in the lakes. The environmental impact of putting a pipeline from outer ring road till the 8 proposed plant by GAIL has not been assessed and they have not taken steps for that purpose. It will have great impact on environment and those things have not been properly assessed while granting the clearance. Further, there are violations committed by the 3rd respondent in carrying out project as well which has caused great impact on environment. So, the applicant filed this application seeking following reliefs:
A. Issue an order or direction, directing the respondent no. 3 (KPCL) not to put up any kind of power generation plant in the site, and to restore the Green cover that was removed for the construction activity in the project site and order restitution of environment in and around project site.
B. Issue an order or direction to respondents for restitution of environment and to ensure protection of Bio diversity of the Putternahalli and Yelahanka Lakes and to ensure protection of life and property of the residents residing near the vicinity of the proposed power plant at yelahanka;
C. Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon‟ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
4. Though, it was alleged in the application that application was filed to declare environment clearance as void but such a prayer was deleted from the prayer portion while it was presented before the Tribunal.
5. The 3rd respondent has filed a reply affidavit contending as follows:
The application is not maintainable as they are not entitled to challenge indirectly the environment clearance granted as that has become final. The grounds raised in the application will not fall within the purview of Section 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and as such there was no substantial question of environment made out for inviting the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to try the same. Without setting 9 aside the environment clearance, the prayer for closure of the unit on account of proposed environmental norms is not maintainable and the application is filed beyond limitation as environment clearance was granted on 01.09.2015 and the application was filed on 29.01.2017 and this is beyond the time limit provide under Section 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Earlier there was a diesel plant commissioned in the year 1993 at this place. Since, it was not environment friendly when compared to present gas plant, they have changed the same. The plant was constructed in the year 2008 and they were residing there without any demur about any pollution caused on account of the diesel plant that was in existence. The construction of the applicant‟s apartment itself is against the environmental laws and without obtaining necessary environment clearances. The Karnataka Power Corporation limited is a State of Karnataka undertaking involving generation of electric power in the State. They are having Hydro-electric stations, Thermal Power Plants (coal based and gas based), windmills and Solar PV plants. They are also having 34 dams and 24 power stations across the State of Karnataka with power production capacities ranging from 0.35MW to 800MW and having power station capacity up to 1720 MW on account of the fast growing necessity of Bangalore, power supply is a necessity for which they will have to rely on the supply from other States. So it was necessary for the State to have its own power generation 10 plant and that was how this was envisaged and being a gas power plant it will be more eco-friendly as well. Thermal power plants having less than 500MW are classified as Category B1 projects under the EIA Notification, 2006 and environment clearance will have to be granted by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Accordingly they made the application to the Karnataka, SEIAA and after obtaining necessary Terms of Reference, EIA report was prepared and after evaluating the same, the environment clearance was granted. The clarification sought for by the State Expert Appraisal Committee was answered and only after satisfaction, the project was recommended by the Committee and later it was approved by SEIAA and environment clearance was granted. Thereafter, they obtained necessary consent to establish from Pollution Control Board. They also obtained No Objection Certificate from various departments including Department of Fisheries, Airport Authority, Health and Welfare Department, Ministry of Defence etc. Letter of award was issued to EPC contractor Bharat Heavy Engineering Limited (BHEL) on 03.11.2015. After obtaining statutory clearances required for the project, civil foundation works of major portion of the work has been completed. The water required for the project is to be supplied by 9th respondent from the tertiary treated sewage water treatment plant at Jakkur. The 9th respondent has initiated the erection work of treatment plant at Jakkur and 50% of the 11 civil work of the same has been completed. They have also began the pipe laying for this purpose from Jakkur and Yelahanka plant to the gas power plant and more than 35% of the work has been completed. 3rd respondent obtained necessary permissions from various Departments for this purpose as well. They will provide all necessary pollution control mechanism and the apprehension raised by the applicant are only imaginary and without any basis. The applicant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed, so they prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. The 4th respondent filed counter contending as follows:
The application is not maintainable. They have granted environment clearance after complying with all the formalities. The proposal for the project was duly considered by the State Level Impact Assessment Authority in accordance will law and on the basis of the recommendations by them, the same has been granted by the 4th respondent as per para 7(i)(III)(i) of the Notification No. S.O 1533(E) dated 14.09.2006. All projects/activities located within industrial estates/parks are exempted from the process of public consultation. The project of 3rd respondent is admittedly within the industrial estate and as such, it is exempted from the requirement of public hearing. Further the proposed project site is located within the industrial area, it was considered as suitable site for establishment of the industry. The office memorandum relied on by the applicant, namely, 04-04-2016 was issued 12 subsequent to the environment clearance issued to the project of the 3rd rpondent and as such that is not applicable to the present case. Further the Puutenahalli Lake Bird Conservation Reserve was notified as per Notification No. FEE 389 FWL 2014 dated 29.04.2015 and this was published on 10.09.2015 after the issuance of the environment clearance to the 3 rd respondent on 01.09.2015. So, the conditions mentioned in this regard are not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, the environment clearance granted by this respondent is appealable to this Tribunal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. But they have not filed any appeal and as such they cannot challenge the issuance of the clearance indirectly by filing such an application. The project proponent has obtained all necessary permissions from the Departments and only after satisfaction with the same, the project was approved and environment clearance was granted. The applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed, so they prayed for dismissal of the application.
7. The 5th respondent has filed statement of objections wherein they have mentioned that Putthenhalli Lake situated in Attur Village, Yelahanka Hobli was declared as Putthenahallli Lake Birds Conservation Reserve on 29.04.2015 as it was an ecological, fauna, floral and gemorphological importance and for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wildlife therein or in its environment and to protect the important habitats like fresh water swamps, along with 13 important species of birds like Darters, painted storks, black- crowned, Night Herons, purple Herons, Pond Herons, Egrets, Asian Open-bill storks, Eurasian Spoonbills, Spot-billed Pelican, Little Grebe, Little Cormorant, Spot-billed Ducks, Purple Moorhen and other water-birds. The Avifauna of this lake also includes some of the endangered and migratory birds from the northern Himalayas and Siberia, many species which are listed under threatened category of IUCN. Apart from this the Putthernahalli Lake also supports species like Acacia auriculiformis, Acacia niloctica, ALbizia species, Anthocephalus Chinensis Kadamaba, Lagerstroemia Floserginae, Muntingia calabura, Pithecellobum dulce, santalum album and clumps of Bamboo Dendrocalamus strictus, Bougainvillea, ilea, species, Pongamina glabra, Phoenix sylvertrics, Santalum album and Iantana, Reedbeds of Typha grow in several large patches within the tank. It is also alleged in the statement of objections that Putthernahalli Lake ensured high level of ground water table and also provide large open space with greenery around the lake shore the marshy area Of the inlet part of the lake where attracts different species of migrating birds. The adjacent Boundary area of this lake has experienced a very fast speed of urbanisation and phenomenal growth of population within the past few decades which has given rise to development of many housing colonies without matching growth in infrastructure like protected water supply system, sewage system the effluent solid waste 14 collection and disposal. Due to this process of urbanisation, lake has become receptacle of sludge, sewage and other waste water disposed from these human settlements. The untreated domestic waste from areas not having sewage system in the surrounding areas is causing great threat to the lake. With a view to develop and rejuvenate this lake, the Government of Karnataka has awarded administrative approval for Rs 12.56 crores for a period of three years starting from the year 2015- 2016 to 2-017-2018 and the technical approval has been obtained from Karnataka Lake Development Authority and the rejuvenation and development works were broadly classified into core and non core activities. The core activities includes de-watering de-weeding and de-silting construction of walkway embankment construction of waste water diversion arrangements and non core activities includes public utility facilities like information centres, toilet blocks, Gazebos, bird observation hide, landscaping etc. Around 477.64 lakhs were spent for various development activities in Puttenahalli Lake for improving the wildlife habitat. The natural gas based combined cycle power plant (370 MW) (power project) is setup approximately within 1000 metres from Puttenahalli lake. However, this power plant is downstream side of the Puttenahalli Lake and any waste water discharge will not enter the lake and other allegations are not related to the wildlife wing of Forest Department.
8. The 6th respondent filed counter contending as follows: 15
The environment clearance was granted prior to the publication of the notifying of Putthenhalli Lake as Puttenhalli Lake Bird Conservation Reserve by G.O. dated 29.04.2015 but the environment clearance was granted on 09.01.2015 and environment clearance was not challenged by the applicant. They denied the allegations regarding the alleged noise pollution said to have been generated. The Board has stipulated to provide noise pollution control measures to curb the noise generating from the project area. They also stipulated conditions to satisfy the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well. On the basis of the newspaper report published in "The Hindu.Com" dated 28.09.2016, the Board has issued two letters dated
09.08.2016 and 20.12.2016 denying their proposal and Board has not given any permission to discharge the treated waste water to Yelahanka Lake. None of the relief claimed related to this respondent. So they prayed for record their contentions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
9. The 7th respondent has filed counter contending as follows:
Protection of water bodes is the need of the hour in order to avoid depletion of ground water and also the irrigation and drinking purpose, apart from protecting the aquatic life. In order to protect the water bodies Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Authority Act, 2014 was passed and Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Authority was 16 constituted which came into existence from 05.03.2016. They are having jurisdiction over all lakes in Karnataka, which are located within the Municipal Corporation and the Bangalore Development Authority or any other water bodies or lakes notified by the Government from time to time. At present, they are in management of Agara Lake, Hebbal Lake, Nagawara Lake and Vengaiahnakere Lake and that is being maintained by them. They also discussed various provisions of the said Act and also Authorities which are expected to come under the Act. It was further contended that Bengaluru Water and Sewerage Board sought permission of the said respondent to lay 450mm dia pipe line for the project supply 15 MLD Tertiary treated water required for 2 x 350 MW combined Cycle based power plant at Yelahanka from Jakkur sewage treatment plant, Bengaluru. It was placed before the Executive Committee of the Authority for approval and the Committee in its meeting held on 17.04.2017 resolved that BBMP will obtain a revised proposal from BWSSB and to submit the same for approval by the 7th respondent-authority. But such revised report has not been submitted to them. They have restricted the statutory functions and powers to exercise regulatory control over all the lakes within their jurisdiction including prevention and removal of encroachments and protect lakes against any act which is prohibited in the lakes. They have not committed any violations and no relief has been 17 claimed against them as well. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
10. The 8th respondent had filed the written submission contending denying the allegations that 8th respondent had colluded with 3rd respondent to avoid public hearing while granting permission to cut trees is not correct. Only certain type of trees require permission before cutting and number of trees cutting of which required permission is less than the number provided which mandates public hearing and as such there is no necessity of public hearing in this case. Further, 3rd respondent had already taken steps for re-planting by planting 1000 trees saplings within the premises in order to develop a significant green cover. So, as such there was no merit in the allegations made against the Board.
11. 10th respondent filed counter contending as follows:
The 10th respondent is a Central Government undertaking and a Maharatna company under the administrative Control of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, which is engaged in the main activity of procurement, distribution and supply of natural gas including re-gasified Liquefied Natural gas (RLNG) and various other petroleum products such as Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) etc. for the usage of the industrial and domestic consumers. The Environment Clearance granted in favour of 3rd respondent has not been challenged before any forum and so the present application is barred as it was filed only on 21.05.2107, 18 whereas the environment clearance was granted as early as on 01.09.2015. The 3rd respondent unit is a State Government owned Public Sector undertaking dealing with generation of power, and they were originally operating diesel power plant in the project land between 1993 to 2013 and they decided to implement a natural gas fired combined cycle power plant by abandoning the existing DG plant to increase the efficiency and to reduce atmospheric sulphur dioxide and suspended particulate matter emitting from DG sets which was stopped in the year 2013 and now they proposed to put up gas power plant after complying with the conditions. The State Expert Appraisal Committee has considered all the aspects and recommended the project and on that basis, SEIAA had issued the environment clearance. The 3rd respondent obtained all necessary permissions from various Departments and also obtained consent to establish from the Pollution Control Board as well. The 3rd respondent had approached the 10 respondent for gas transport and gas supply agreement and they agreed to supply the same to their project and they signed the respective agreements on 24.06.2017. They will be supplying the gas through pipeline to be laid down by them.
length of the pipeline will be approximately 10 to 12 km depending up feasibility of pipeline route. They have conducted the preliminary route survey from tap off location at SV3B/Hebbel flyover junction to Yelahanka. It will be natural gas/RLNG gas. No secondary fuel will be used as a standby or 19 as an emergency fuel. All precautionary provisions have been provided and only after complying with the requirements, supply will be made by them. They almost reiterated the conditions raised by 3rd respondent regarding other allegations made. The risk of gas leakage and consequential disasters etc are imaginary and all necessary steps will be taken to safeguard all these aspects while supplying the gas to them. There is no necessity for prior environment clearance for their project. No environmental degradation will be caused on account of drawing pipeline for supplying of gas. They prayed for dismissal of the application.
12. Heard, Shri Abdul Azeem kalebudde for the applicant. Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for respondents 1 and 6, Ms. Darpan K.M. through Mr. H.S.K. Vasanth for respondents 2, 5 and 9, Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ajay Nandalike for 3rd respondent, Mr. Vasanth H.K. for 4th respondent, Mr. T.V. Sekar for 8th respondent and Mr. P.V. Giridhar and Mr Sai for 10th respondent.
13. The Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the SEIAA itself is not having jurisdiction to grant environment clearance for the project. Further, 3rd respondent had suppressed the material facts regarding the existence of vulnerable eco-sensitive zone Puttenahalli lake in the application submitted by them for environment clearance and when the draft notification for declaring that lake as eco- sensitive zone or was under consideration and Putthenahalli 20 Lake which was later declared as Puttenhalli Lake Bird Conservation Reserve and that is very near to project area. This fact was suppressed by the project proponent. Further, there was no public hearing was conducted and as such there was no possibility for the people to bring to the notice of the Authority regarding the same. The Authorities ought to have taken note of the fact that the procedure for declaring Puttenhalli Lake Bird Conservation Reserve as a protected area under Section 36(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was in progress and as such they could not have permitted the project to come in this area. Further, there are residential houses within the area and also on account of the operations of the unit there are lot of sound pollution happening and there is no sound pollution control mechanism provided to abate the sound pollution. Further, no permission was obtained to discharge treated water into the lake as well. 10th respondent has also not obtained necessary clearances or permission for laying the pipeline and these aspects are not considered by the authorities while granting clearance. Further, this is likely to affecting the biodiversity of vulnerable lakes both Puttenhalli and Yelahanka lake. Further, the report submitted by the Joint Committee will go to show that further study will have to be conducted and certain recommendations were also given, which will go to show that these aspects have not been properly considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee before recommending the project. So, according to the Learned Counsel, apprehension of the 21 applicant has become genuine and allowing the project to operate will be detrimental to the environment.
14. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the project proponent, namely, 3rd respondent argued that the applicant, in an indirect way, cannot challenge the validity of the environment clearance which ought to have been challenged by filing an appeal, which they have not done and an appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, which is under consideration before this Tribunal in Appeal No. 14 of 2020. Barring those allegations, there is nothing mentioned in the application regarding the substantial question of environment arising on account of the waste dumped by the 3rd respondent in proceeding with the project for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to go into the issue. Further, the work of the project has started in the year 2015 but the application itself was filed only in the year 2017 beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Apart from that the Committee report will go to show that there was no violation of any conditions and whatever recommendations made by them will be carried out by them, as 3rd respondent is committed to protect environment. Further, they may be permitted to conduct the study involving Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. They also filed written submission, wherein they have mentioned that if any difficulty in carrying out the recommendations and if any modification is required, their 22 right to approach Pollution Control Board for appropriate modification may be left open. They have further stated that they have provided all necessary pollution control mechanism and the sound pollution that is alleged or found is only temporary in nature which is caused due to use of certain machineries, which are required for the purpose of construction and installation purposes and once it has started its operation, this will be within control. The environmental plan prepared by them takes care of these things and whatever suggestions and recommendations made by the expert body while preparing the same will be strictly complied with by them. None of the grounds alleged by the applicant are now available and some of the recommendations made by the Committee could not be carried out due to the present lockdown and Covid situation. As soon as the same is lifted, they will conduct the studies and carry out the same. Further, no adverse impact on wet land was found by the Joint Committee as well and the power plant is required for providing electricity supply to the people of Karnataka and the present technology applied is more environmental friendly and it will not cause any pollution as alleged by the applicant.
15. The Learned Counsel for 10th respondent submitted that they have entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent for supply of natural gas, which is intended to be used as fuel for which they are taking steps for laying pipes in accordance with law. Since the applicant has not challenged the environment 23 clearance within limitation period provided they are not entitled to indirectly challenge the same by filing this application. Any delay in process will not cause much financial loss to the 10th respondent and great injustice will be caused to the public for whose benefit this project has been envisaged.
16. The Learned Counsel appearing for State of Karnataka as well as State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority submitted that all necessary formalities have been complied with before assessing and recommending the project and issuing environment clearance and those aspects need not be considered in this application.
17. The points that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether there were any violations of conditions resulting in damage to the environment caused on account of the implementation of the 3rd respondent-unit? ii. Whether there is any necessity to totally prohibit the 3rd respondent from establishing the project as claimed by the applicant?
iii. Whether, the applicant is entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed in the application.
iv. if for, reason this Tribunal found that there is necessity for any conditions to be imposed then what are the nature of conditions to be imposed applying the precautionary principle?
v. Whether 3rd respondent is liable to pay any environmental compensation?
24 vi. Relief and costs?
Points
18. It is an admitted fact that 3rd respondent proposed to establish a gas based power plant for which they have applied for environment clearance with Karnataka State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and obtained environment clearance evidenced by anneure-A4 dated 01.09.2015. Most of the grounds alleged by the applicant are grounds against the validly of environment clearance granted, which they cannot agitate in an indirect manner by filing an original application under section 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Further, they have not filed an appeal in time. The Puttenhalli Lake conservation Trust had filed a writ petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed against which Appeal was filed by them before the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the appeal was disposed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court with certain directions on the basis of that they filed an appeal before this Tribunal as Appeal No. 14 of 2020 along with application to condone the delay as directed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. So, question regarding the validity of the environment clearance etc can be considered only in the appeal filed by a third party and not in this application.
19. After appeal before the Hon‟ble Apex Court was allowed, the applicant herein filed I.A. No. 60/2020 before this Tribunal to amend the prayer by converting the application as appeal and also add additional grounds for setting aside the environment 25 clearance and this Tribunal by order dated 19.08.2020 dismissed this application stating that they cannot convert application to appeal after lapse of time for filing an appeal and also after period of 6 years of granting the environment clearance and also on the same grounds they attempted to challenge the environment clearance in this application itself but since they felt that it was barred by limitation and it cannot be agitated, they deleted that prayer. On the same day after considering the pleadings, this Tribunal had appointed a joint Committee comprising of 1) senior officer from Regional office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Bangalore, 2) senior officer from State Environmental Impact Authority, Karnataka, 3) senior officer from Principal Conservator of Forests, Head of Forest Post (HOFP) to be deputed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forests, 4) Senior Scientist from Central Pollution Control Board, Regional office, Bangalore to go into the question as to whether there was any possibility of environmental degradation likely to be caused on account of establishment of 3rd respondent unit in the disputed area and whether there were any violations committed by 3rd respondent in carrying out the construction activities against the terms and conditions of environment clearance or consent to establish granted by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and whether there is any impact on livelihood on account of activities of 3rd respondent unit on alleged Yelahanka lake and 26 Puutenahalli Lake Bird Conservation Reserve and if there is any violation found, ascertain the environmental compensation and also suggest the remedial measures for restoration of damage, if any, caused. The Integrated regional office of MoEF&CC, Bangalore was designated as the nodal agency for coordination and also for providing necessary logistic for this purpose.
20. The applicant, thereafter, filed I.A. No. 102/2020 for injunction, restraining the 3rd respondent from proceeding with the construction and commencing of the power project and hearing on that application was postponed, awaiting the report of the Joint Committee.
21. The applicant also filed I.A. No. 177/2020 for the purpose of designating a nodal agency, as no nodal agency was provided when the committee was constituted and they wanted State Environmental Assessment Authority to be appointed as nodal agency but we declined that prayer and appointed Integrated Regional office of MoEF, Bangalore as nodal agency and disposed of that application.
22. The Joint Committee had submitted its report dated nil, e-filed on 12.01.2021 and received on 22.01.2021 which reads as follows:
REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE IN THE MATTER OF O.A. NO. 57 OF 2017 (HERITAGE ESTATE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION) SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI, AS PER ORDERS DATED 19.08.2020.
1.0 PREAMBLE In the Original Application No. 57 of 2017(SZ), filed by Heritage Estate Apartment Owners Association Vs. UOI & Ors, the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai issued an order on 19.08.2020 with the following directions: 27
"13. However, considering the circumstances, in order to ascertain the possible impact of the work that is being done by the 3rd respondent on environment, we feel it appropriate to appoint a joint committee comprising of 1) Senior officer from Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Bangalore, 2) Senior officer from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Karnataka
3) Senior officer from Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of Forest Force (HoFF) to be deputed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forest and 4) a Senior Scientist from Central 6 Pollution Control Board, Regional Office , Bangalore to go in to the question as to whether there was any possibility of any environmental degradation likely to be caused on account of the establishment of the 3rd respondent unit in the disputed area and whether there were any violations committed by the 3rd respondent in carrying out the construction activities against the terms and conditions of the environment clearance or the consent to establish granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, is there any impact on livelihood on account of the activities of the 3rd respondent unit on the Yelahanahalli Lake and Bird Sanctuary and if there is any violation found assess the environment compensation and also suggest the remedial measure for restoration of damage, if any caused."
Further, vide Order dated 18.09.2020, Hon'ble NGT appointed the Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change (MoEF & CC), Bangalore as the nodal agency for co-ordination and for providing all necessary logistics for the committee constituted by' this Tribunal as per order dated 19.08.2020 in the above matter.
In compliance of above mentioned order, the Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Bangalore, vide letter No. F.NO. EP/12.07/NGT/53/KAR dated 18/09/2020 has requested the concerned Department Authorities to nominate senior officials for the Committee to complete the task as directed by the Hon‟ble NGT.
2.0 Inspection of the Joint Committee On receipt of the nominations visited to M/S KPCL, Yelahanaka was made on 21.10.2020 by the Joint Committee. Following Members have attended:
1. Shri Subhash Malkhede, IFS, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Dept of Forests, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka
2. Shri Kiran Kumar B S. Scientific Officer, Grade-I State Enviornment Impact Assessment Authority, Dept of Forests, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka
3. Shri Vivek, K, Senior Environmental Engineer/Scientist, D, CPCB, Bangalore.
4. Shri E. Thirunavukkarasu, Scientist „E‟ Integrated Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change.
The officials of M/s KPCL present during the day of inspection were:
1. Shri C. Venugopala, Technical Director.
2. Shri. Chinna Somaiah, Chief Engineer (Civil Design)
3. Shri. Krishna Murhtys, Chief Engineer (Thermal Design) (Additional charge)
4. Shri. C. M Divakar, Chief Engineer (Civil) 28
5. Shri K. SHankarappa, Superintending Engineer (M)
6. SHri Pulakeshi, Executive Engineer (M)
3.0 About M/s KPCL, Yelanhanka Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (KPCL) is a state owned Public Limited Corporation and is in the business of generation of electric power. KPCL has a total installed capacity of about 6500 MW consisting of Hydro-Electric stations. Thermal Power Plants (TPP) windmills and Solar PV plants.
KPCL owns & has been operating a 128 MW DG based power plant located at Yelahanka near Bangalore which runs on fuels such as Diesel/LSHS/LSFO. The plant has not been utilized optimally due to high cost of power generation and non- availability of continuous supply of LSHS fuel. The generation from DG plant had stopped since August, 2013 on high product cost and its pollution potential.
Considering the proximity to the GAIL pipeline network, KPCL planned try implement a natural gas fired combined cycle power plant of 1x350+20%MW capacity by abandoning the existing DG plant to increase the efficiency and to reduce atmospheric sulphur dioxide & suspended particulate matter emission from the DG plants.
Government of Karnataka vide its order no. EN.28 PPC 2014 dated 27.07.2014 has accorded approval for establishing first block ref gas based Combined Cycle Power Plant of 35O+2o% X(W capacity at Yelahanka with RLNG as the fuel. The main plant equipment consists of Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) and auxiliaries, Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) and auxiliaries including main stack, Steam Turbine Generator (STG) and auxiliaries, and gas forwarding station including gas booster station.
On 20th December 2014. M/s KPCL approached Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Karnataka seeking prior environmental clearance for establishment of a 350-k2O% MW capacity Gas based Combined Cycle Power Plant. Since the proposed power generation capacity of the project is <soo MW, as per the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2oo6 and its amendments, the project proponents required prior environmental clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Accordingly, the proposal was considered by State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and Terms of References (ToR) were issued on 9'h January 201a for conducting EIA studies. Consequently, EIA studies were undertaken through M/s MANTEC Consultants Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi and report was submitted by the proponent on 23rd July 2019. As the project is coming up within a notified industrial area, the SEAC has exempted the public consultation. Based on the SEAC meeting held on 5th-6th August 2O1S and SEIAA meeting held on 29'h August 2Ois. Environmental clearance was granted to the project proponent for the establishment of a 350-£20% MW‟ capacity Gas based Combined Cycle Power Plant vide its letter No. SEIAA 20 IND 2014 dated 01.09.2015 over a plot area of 26.4 ha out of 120 acres of land available within the premises of Yelahanka Diesel Power Plant. Consent to establish was granted by the KSPCB vide Lr. NO. KSPCB/CFE/CEO/KPCL/2015-16/ HI 33 dated o2.11.2015 Water Requirement/ Source: The total raw water requirement of the plant is around 14400M3/day (approximately 6oo M3/h). Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vide letter No. 29 BWSSB/CE (NI & NW)/TA/323/2014-15 dated o2.02.zo15 has permitted 22 MLD tertiary treated water for the project including initial allotment of around i2-15 MLD «›f tertiary treated water from Jakkur STP which is approximately 6 to 8 km away from the Plant. Storage tanks of 114000M3 have been provided to store the tertiary treated water drawn from the sewage treatment plant.
Fire Protection System: Fire protection system of the plant consists of hydrant system for different areas of the plant, high velocity water spray protection system for transformers & turbine lube oil tanks, medium velocity water sprays system for cable galleries, portable extinguishers and hand appliances for extinguishing small fires in different areas of the plant, carbon dioxide flooding system for GTG and the local electrical containers / control cubicles room and mobile fire tender. Adequate number of Heat rise detectors and smoke detectors have been provided at strategic locations.
4.0 DISCUSSION WITH PETITIONERS During the visit of Joint Committee, representative of„ petitioner's association including Shri. Uttang, Shri Upadhyay, Shri Arunkumar, Shri Siddarth Patil, Shri R.K. Menon, Shri Balasundaram, Mrs Archana and Mrs Aarthi Patiar met the Committee and requested for an opportunity to be heard by the Joint Committee. Though it was not part of the ToRs given by the Hon'b1e NGT, the Committee decided to hear them on humanitarian ground. They expressed that often there is loud whistle like noise from the activity and noise from cooling tower, was found to be around go dB (A). They have alleged that KPCL has deliberately hidden the existence of nearby habitations in the application submitted for obtaining EC. The representative's views are that there is sufficient area available and KPCL might have planned the installation of power plant leaving maximum distance from the existing residences. Further, stated that since the public hearing was exempted, they could not get chance to convey their views, the lighting provided at the site is intense and disruptive to residents at night. Further, there was a fire accident in the plant in October, 2020 which has scared them and there is fear that it may reoccur endangering the lives. The Committee noted that M/s KPCL, Forest, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka, KSPCB have submitted reply on the above issues before the Hon'ble NGT. As regards the fire accident, the Joint Committee has not gone into details as it is not covered under the ToRs given by the Hon'ble Tribunal and it is also learnt that in O.A No. 229/2O2o, suo moto cognizance taken by the Hon'b1e Tribunal has constituted another Committee to look into the fire incident happened in KCPL and submission of report.
5.0 Deliberations of the Committee It was noted during the visit of the Joint Committee that the establishment of the plant has almost been over and trail run has been started few weeks ago and there was a fire accident in the Gast Turbine Generator area and hence the trail run was stopped. Hon‟ble NGT in the order dated 19.08.2020 directed the Joint Committee to look into the following:
a) whether there was any possibility of any environmental degradation likely to be caused on account of the establishment of the 3rd respondent unit in the disputed area
b) whether there were any violations committed by the 3rd respondent in carrying out the construction activities against the terms and conditions of the environment clearance or the 30 consent to establish granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
c) is there any impact on livelihood on account of the activities of the 3rd respondent unit on the Yelahanahalli Lake and Bird Sanctuary and
d) if there is any violation found assess the environment compensation and also suggest the remedial measure for restoration of damage, if any caused.
In order to deliberate on the above given Terms of References (ToR), the Committee, after inspection of the plant, had discussion with the officials of KPCL and also examined various documents like EIA, EMP, On Site Emergency Plan, various permissions obtained, compliance of EC and Consent orders. Based on the above, each ToR has been deliberated in detail and following are the observations/comments:
5.1 Whether there was any possibility of any environmental degradation likely to be caused on account of the establishment of the 3rd respondent unit in the disputed area The likely pollutions from a power plant are air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution and thermal Pollution. 5.1.1Air Pollution A Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP), using natural gas, is much more environmentally compatible as compared to coal-
based power plant of similar capacity. In the absence of coal handling, ash handling and ash disposal areas, fugitive dust emissions and release of pollutants in stack emissions would be significantly lower. As re-gasified LNG is proposed to be used as the only fuel at this plant, particulate matter emissions will be eliminated.
Further, as Sulphur content in the natural gas is very low (less than 24 ppm, w/w) SO2 emission form the combustion of fuel will also be negligible. Dry Low NOx(DLN) Burners, consisting of two-stage premixed combustor are provided to control NOx emission below 25 ppm level which is well within the limits Of 75 PPm as notified under the E (P) Rules, 1986. A stack height of 6o m [against 45m suggested by regulatory agencies] has been provided to release the exhaust gases to atmosphere to avoid local dispersion. Continuous On -- line stack emission monitoring equipment has been provided for monitoring of exhaust emission which is to be connected to the servers of KSPCB and CPCB for their monitoring.
It is reported that water sprinkling was carried out regularly during construction of the project for ie dust suppression. The reports of Ambient Air Quality monitoring carried out through third party laboratories during construction phase were examined and observed that the particulate matter which is the main source of dust pollution was within the permissible limit. 5.1.2 Noise Pollution The major sources of noise pollution in the power plant are air inlet & exhaust gas streams, steam turbine generator, other rotating equipment, combustion induced noises, flow induced noises, steam safety valves. The inlet air and exhaust gas streams have been provided with silencers for noise reduction. The steam turbine generator is housed in a closed building thereby reducing the transmission of noise to the outside environment. Action has been initiated to install the acoustic enclosure to Gas Booster Compressor (GBC) as part of efforts to bring down the noise levels.
31 The noise level monitoring carried out by the KPCL trough third party during construction period revealed that the noise levels were within the permissible limit. However, actual impact on ambient noise levels during the normal operations of all the heavy equipment will envisage a correct picture on noise generation at the plant boundaries with respect to prescribed limits. KPCL need to finalise %e noise monitoring locations in consultation with the KSPCB, especially noise level shall be monitored along the boundary on northern side where the habitation is located.
The loud whistle noise often generated Yom the turbine house and the noise« generated from cooling tower need to be examined and appropriate Control measure shall be provided in consultation with KSPCB, if warranted, prior to the commencement of commercial operation of the plant. As per the EC "green belt consisting of 3 tiers of plantation of native species around plant and at least 100 m width shall be raised. Wherever 100m width is not feasible a 50 m width shall be raised. Tree density shall not be less than 2500 per ha with survival rate not less than 70%. Heavy foliage indigenous tree species such as Mahgoni, Honge, Neem, Akashmallige, Kadamba, Ficus, Ashoka etc shall be planted. The plantation area shall not be less than 33% of the total project areas." As per the records, at present green belt deve1oprnent has been carried out in an area of about six acres. On the Northern side where the habitation is existing, the KPCL has carried out plantation in about 50m width and mamy places along the boundary it is yet to be carried out. KPCL has reported that an area or approximately 9 acres (approx 33% of total land area) has been identified for plantation and green belt development in a phased manner. KPCL shall carryout minimum 5o m width of Green belt consisting of 3 tiers of plantations with tall tree variety along the compound wall to further decrease the impact of sound level below the specified norms. Priority in green belt development shall be given on the sides where the habitation is located. Since raising tall tree cover take couple of years, KPCL shall explore installation of suitable additional measures to control the noise level at source including measures to install barriers between the source and the habitation prior to the commencement of operation.
5.1.3 Water Pollution The sources of water pollution from the power plant are cooling tower blow down, HRSG blow down. effluent from DM plant „water treatment (WT) plant. .All the blow down water and effluent will be led to the guard pond for pH correction and also dilution if required with water drawn from the tertiary water storage tank to the standards as stipulated by Pollution Control Board. The water collected in the guard pond will be used for plant cleaning, gardening. freighting etc. The effluents are proposed to be treated through a 5.5 MLD Zero Liquid Discharge Plant comprising of main components like HRSCC (High Rate Solid Contract Clarifier), HRO Plant (High Rate Solid Contract Clarifier), HRO plant (Hight Recovery Reserve osmosis plant) and Evaporator Crystallizer and sludge generated is proposed to be disposed through TSDF facility . KSPCB has not given any permission to discharge the treated wastewater outside the premises/ to the Yelahanka Lake. The ZLD plant is under installation and hence a mobile R.O plant for the treatment ref effluent has been provided. The treated water 32 from the mobile R.O is reused in the plant, while the rejects are sent to a CETP, as reported 5.1.4 Thermal Pollution The combined cycle power plant envisages installation of unfired heat recovery steam generators to utilize the heat content of the exhaust gas from the gas turbines. Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) has been installed to recover heat from the gas turbine exhaust gas which will reduce the temperature of the exhaust gas to the lowest possible value, thereby reducing the thermal heat discharge into the atmosphere.
5.1.5 Solid Waste The activity is likely to generate hazardous wastes such as cotton waste, used spent oil etc. and KPCL shall obtain Authorisation from KSPCB for disposal of these hazardous waste.
It is noted that the EIA Report has been prepared by the consultant based on the Terms of References given by the SEAC, Karnataka and all aspects of the area surrounding the project including the biodiversity of Puttenahalli lake has been considered while making the EIA report. The EIA report has suggested EMP for mitigating all likely pollution problems anticipated from the plant and KPCL has installed abatement measures. KPCL shall ensure proper operation of abatement measures as per the EMP. Proper implementation of EMP, DMP and the suggestions given above may mitigate the likely environmental degradation from the operation of the plant. As per the documents / monitoring reports on air, water and noise submitted by the KPCL, the construction phase has not caused any environmental degradation. However, the high noise level generated intermittently from the trial operation as reported by the petitioner need to be examined and appropriate control measures shall be provided in consultation with KSPCB, if warranted, prior to the commencement of commercial operation of the plant.
5.2Whether there were any violation committed by the 3rd respondent in carrying out the construction activities against the terms and conditions of the environment clearance or the consent to establish granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.
The .Joint Committee examined the compliance status of EC conditions and consent order andobserved that no violations have been committed by the 3rd Respondent. At present green belt developed in an area of six acres and it is planned to carry nut in a phased manner in another three acres to reach 33 %. However, the distance between boundary wall to plant is less than 5om, hence, as per the EC, a linear plantation try form a green belt all along the boundary is not possible. The officers of KPCL assured that once the construction is complete, there would be large vacant spaces between a building which shall be planted using shade bearing, flowering tree species. Piezometers are to be installed for monitoring Groundwater prior to the commencement of operation. During the operation phase of the project, KPCL has to carry out regular mock drills on the safety aspect and regular health check-up of the people living in the villages within a radius of io km from the plant, as per the EC. 33 5.3 Is these any impact on livelihood on account of the activities of the 3rd respondent unit on the Yelahanahalli Lake and Bird Sanctuary.
Puttenahalli Lake is a 10-hectare water body which is to the South-West side of the plant and Yelahanka Lake is to the Eastern side of the plant. It is reported in the EIA report that these lakes were once outside the Bangalore city and were breeding centres for darters, painted storks, black-crowned night herons, purple herons, pond herons, egrets, Asian open bill storks, Eurasian spoonbills, spot-billed pelicans, little grebes, little cormorants, spot-billed ducks, purple moorhens and common sandpipers, due to large scale urbanization and release of untreated urban domestic waste, the bird population visiting these lakes has dwindled and now only local species like night herons, purple herons, pond herons, egrets are seen extensively. The major air pollutant expected from the project will be Nox emissions. As Dry Low Nox burners are installed to reduce the formation of Nox , EIA predicts the maximum concenrtration of Nox to be 1ug/m3 within 1 km from the project site and incremental concentration of Nox at the Jarakabande reserve Forest during March-May 2015 has been computed as 11ug/m3 thus the long- term incremental ground level concentration of Nox in the surrounding environment due to plant operation will be very low. Thus, impact of the emissions on terrestrial ecosystems is likely to be insignificant.
The Effluents are proposed to be treated treated through Zero Liquid Discharge Plant and reused. KSPCB has not given any permission to discharge the treated wastewater outside the premises/ to the Yelahanka Lake. Thus, possibility of causing pollution by the effluent to the lake is eliminated As per the recommendation of EIA, KPCL shall, in consultation with Fisheries Department, release about 5o,ooo fish lings of "Dodda Gende (Major Carps)"
and other local variety every year to Puttenahalli and Yelahanka Lakes to maintain a healthy fish population. And studies shall be conducted regarding the Impact of the Plant on the Fish population in the above lakes once in every two years for a period of io years after the commissioning of the Plant. In the event of any adverse effects due to the establishment of the plant, necessary mitigate measures shall be taken.
It is to be mentioned that a storm-water drain is flowing across their property over the Yelahanka Lake Wet land (between the Puttenahalli Lake and Yelahanka Lake) carrying sewage from Puttenahalli lake downstream towards the Yelahanka Lake in the east. It was gathered that sewage spill from this storm-water drain flooded the property of M/s KPCL in the past and hence the area surrounding nala is not being used optimally. To tackle the situation, KPCL has concretized the drain (Fig. 1, 2 and 3) In addition, it appears that factor like laying of roads along sides of the Yelahanka lake in oo12-13 might have brought about alteration in the supply of required quantity of water to the wetland and lead to debilitating the ecosystem. It is submitted that the Puttenhalli lake Bird Conservation 34 Reserve has a conservation Reserve Management Committee formed under the provisions of Sec. 36B of the wildlife (Protection) Act 1 72. The committee is supposed to suggest measures to Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka measures to be taken to preserve wetland as suitable habitat for both residential and migratory birds visiting the Puttenahalli Lake and adjoining landscape. Concretizing drains carrying water from Puttenahalli lake flowing to Yelahanka lake through a wetland was undesirable. However, no new structures, changing of existingwetland by removing or adding to existing flora and fauna should be done without the consultation of Chief Wildlife Warden.
In-order to protect and conserve the wetland, KPCL shall undertake study on restoration of the wetland and implement restoration measures in consultation with Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka. 5.4 If there is any violation found assesses the environment compensation and also suggest the remedial measures for restoration of damage, if any caused. No such violations which invites compensation or remedial measures has been noticed by the Joint Committee.
6.Other Observations: As regards the safety and onsite emergency preparedness, it is noted that KPCL has carried out On site emergency management plan and submitted to SEAC/SEIAA< Karnataka while obtaining EC. The Joint Committee has not gone in detail as it is not covered under the ToRs given by the Hon‟ble Tribunal and also it is learnt that Hon‟ble Tribunal has constituted another Committee in O.A. No. 229/2020 to look into the fire incident happened in KCPL and submission of report.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS After detailed deliberations, the joint Committee had made the following conclusion and recommendations. As per the documents/monitoring reports on air, water and noise submitted by the KPCL, the construction phase has not caused any environmental degradation. However, following are suggested for better environmental Management. KPCL need to finalize the noise monitoring locations in consultation with the KSPCB, especially noise level shall be monitored along the boundary on northern side where the habitation is located.
The loud whistle noise often generated from the turbine house and the noise generated from cooling towers need to be examined and appropriate control measures shall be provided in consultation with KSPCB, if warranted, prior to the commencement of commercial operation of the plant. KPCKL shall carry out minimum 50m width of green belt consisting of 3 tier of plantations with tall tree variety along the compound wall at all possible places to further decrease the impact of sound levels below the specified norms. Priority in green belt development shall be given on the sides where the habitation is located. Since raising tall tree cover will take couple of years, KPCL shall explore installation of suitable additional measures to control the noise level at source including measures to install barriers between the source and the habitation prior to the commencement of operation. In order to protect and conserve the wetland, KPCL shall undertake study on restoration of the wetland and implement restoration measures in consolation with Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka. 35 KPCL shall ensure that the ZLD plant proposed for effluent shall be installed and commissioned prior to the commencement of commercial operation of the plant KPCL shall ensure proper operation of pollution abatement measures as per the Environmental Management Plant (EMP) and safety measures as per on-site Emergency plan.
23. The committee had examined the history of the project and obtaining of environment clearance etc. During the discussion with applicant the committee found that the main allegation was regarding sound pollution created on account of operation of certain machineries in the premises of 3rd respondent. They also mentioned about the fire incident occurred within the premises but the committee did not go into that aspect since there was another case registered by this Tribunal by OA No 229/2020 suo motu on the basis of the newspaper report and that committee is considering those aspects independently. The committee had considered the possible pollution of air, sound, water and thermal pollution in para 5 of the report and it was found that ambient air quality in that area is within the permissible limit and the source of pollution was only dust pollution which does not exceed the limit.
24. As regards the noise pollution is concerned, the committee found that the loud whistle noise often generated from thermal house and the noise generated from cooling tower needs to be examined and appropriate control mechanism will have to be provided but it was mentioned in the report that the noise level monitored by KPCL through 3rd party during construction revealed that it was within the limit but the Committee opined that the impact of ambient noise level during the operation of 36 all the heavy equipments only will reveal the correct picture on the noise pollution at the plant boundary with respect to prescribed limits. They have suggested that they will have to finalise noise monitoring locations in consultation with Karnataka Pollution Control Board, especially noise level shall be monitored along the boundary on northern side where habitation is located. At present there is no noise pollution found. They were also directed to carry out the development of the green belt on the sides where habitations are located, so as to control the noise level.
25. As regards the water pollution is concerned, it was mentioned that Karnataka Pollution Control Board has not given any permission to discharge the treated waste water outside the premises to Yelanka lake and they proposed to have zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) plant and as such treated water from mobile RO will be reused and the rejects will be sent to common sewage treatment plant.
26. As regards the thermal pollution is concerned, they have mentioned that the necessary precautions have been taken. It is mentioned in the report that the EIA report prepared by the consultant had undertaken all the possible pollution and measures have been provided to mitigate the same and they will have to carry out those aspects strictly. As regards the temporary possibility of noise pollution intermeddle happened during the trail operation as complained by the applicant, needs to be examined by Pollution Control Board and 37 appropriate control mechanism will have to be provided as suggested by the Karnataka Pollution Control Board prior to the commencement of its commercial operation. The committee also found that there were no violations committed by the 3rd respondent and as regards the green belt is concerned they have given certain suggestions, as providing green belt between the boundary and the plant area will be difficult and they will have to do the same wherever vacant space is available after the construction is complete in order to meet the area of green belt to be developed. As regards possibility of pollution to the lake is concerned they have ruled out the possibility as no permission was granted to discharge the waste water generated into the lake. Ultimately the committee has made the following conclusions and recommendations:
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS After detailed deliberations, the joint Committee had made the following conclusion and recommendations.
As per the documents/monitoring reports on air, water and noise submitted by the KPCL, the construction phase has not caused any environmental degradation. However, following are suggested for better environmental Management. KPCL need to finalize the noise monitoring locations in consultation with the KSPCB, especially noise level shall be monitored along the boundary on northern side where the habitation is located.
The loud whistle noise often generated from the turbine house and the noise generated from cooling towers need to be examined and appropriate control measures shall be provided in consultation with KSPCB, if warranted, prior to the commencement of commercial operation of the plant. KPCKL shall carry out minimum 50m width of green belt consisting of 3 tier of plantations with tall tree variety along the compound wall at all possible places to further decrease the impact of sound levels below the specified norms. Priority in green belt development shall be given on the sides where the habitation is located. Since raising tall tree cover will take couple of years, KPCL shall explore installation of suitable additional measures to control the noise level at source including measures to install barriers between the source and the habitation prior to the commencement of operation. In order to protect and conserve the wetland, KPCL shall undertake study on restoration of the wetland and implement 38 restoration measures in consolation with Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka. KPCL shall ensure that the ZLD plant proposed for effluent shall be installed and commissioned prior to the commencement of commercial operation of the plant KPCL shall ensure proper operation of pollution abatement measures as per the Environmental Management Plant (EMP) and safety measures as per on-site Emergency plan.
27. So it is clear from this, at present there are no violations committed and there was no need to impose environmental compensation or remedial measures to restore the damage caused to the environment. So under such circumstances, we feel that the applicant is not entitled to any other reliefs claimed in the application in view of the joint committee report. However, 3rd respondent is duty bound to carry out the recommendations made by the joint committee so as to avoid possible or probable pollution that is likely to be caused as well on account of the operation of the 3rd respondent unit after the construction is completed and also during the construction and installation period to avoid possible complaints of pollution from the inhabitants nearby. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent submitted that they may be permitted to conduct the studies as directed by the committee involving a scientist from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. The Committee had suggested that they will have to undertake the study on restoration of wet land and implement restoration measures in consultation with Department of Forests, Ecology, Government of Karnataka.
28. As regards the wet land is concerned, it is the Forest Department who are competent to provide the methodology as 39 to how this can be restored as well as protected. However, as an additional measure along with all officer to be deputed by the Forest Department for this purpose who should not be below the rank of Chief Conservator of forests, a scientist from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore can also be included in respect of studies to be conducted in respect of matters where certain recommendations have been made and the 3rd respondent is directed to carry out those recommendations in its letter and spirit. Pollution Control Board should also consider further condition if any to be imposed to control the possible pollution that is likely to be caused in account of their operation of unit at the time when they are issuing consent to operate so that the apprehension of the applicant regarding possible pollution can be redressed. We are not going into the validity of the environment clearance granted in this case as it can be considered in the appeal filed apart the same by the third party. So the Tribunal feels that the application can be disposed of as follows:
i. The applicant is not entitled to get any other reliefs claimed in the application, in view of the report submitted by the Committee.
ii. The 3rd respondent is directed to strictly comply with the recommendations made by the joint committee to avoid present or future possible pollution that is apprehended by the applicant.
40 iii. The 3rd respondent is directed to provide necessary pollution control mechanism in order to curb the possible pollution that is likely to be caused during the construction process in consultation with Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to avoid possible sound pollution or other pollution, which is apprehended by the applicant. iv. As regard the wet land maintenance and restoration is concerned, the 3rd respondent is directed to conduct a study in coordination with the Officer not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forests to be deputed by Forest Department along with a scientist from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and the 3rd respondent is directed to carry out those recommendations in its letter and spirit so as to protect the environment and the wet land ecology available in that area.
v. The Pollution Control Board is also directed to incorporate all necessary pollution control mechanisms to curb possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of operation of 3rd respondent-unit and other necessary conditions on precautionary principle at the time of their commencement including air, water, noise and thermal pollution, while issuing the consent to operate. The 3rd respondent is directed to strictly comply with those conditions as well.
vi. The Pollution Control Board is directed to conduct periodical monitoring during the construction process of 41 the 3rd respondent-unit so as to ascertain, as to whether all pollution control mechanisms are being strictly adhered to and the pollution norms are strictly followed and if there is any violation found, they are directed to take appropriate action against 3rd respondent in accordance with law.
vii. As regards the validity of environment clearance is concerned, this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion in this application and that will be considered by the Tribunal while considering the Appeal No. 14 of 2020 filed by Puttenhalli Lake conservation Trust against the environment clearance which is pending before this Tribunal.
29. The points are answered accordingly.
30. In the result application is disposed of as follows:
i) The applicant is not entitled to get any other reliefs claimed in the application, in view of the report submitted by the Committee.
ii) The 3rd respondent is directed to strictly comply with the recommendations made by the joint committee to avoid present or future possible pollution that is apprehended by the applicant.
iii) The 3rd respondent is directed to provide necessary pollution control mechanisms in order to curb the possible pollution that is likely to be caused during the construction process in consultation with Karnataka State Pollution 42 Control Board to avoid possible sound pollution or other pollution, which is apprehended by the applicant.
iv) As regard the wet land maintenance and restoration is concerned, the 3rd respondent is directed to conduct a study in coordination with the Officer not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forests to be deputed by Forest Department along with a scientist from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and the 3rd respondent is directed to carry out those recommendations in its letter and spirit so as to protect the environment and the wet land ecology available in that area.
v) The Pollution Control Board is also directed to incorporate all necessary pollution control mechanisms to curb possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of operation of 3rd respondent-unit and other necessary conditions on Precautionary Principle at the time of their commencement including air, water, noise and thermal pollution, while issuing the consent to operate. The 3rd respondent is directed to strictly comply with those conditions as well.
vi) The Pollution Control Board is directed to conduct periodical monitoring during the construction process of the 3rd respondent-unit so as to ascertain, as to whether all pollution control mechanisms are being strictly adhered to and the pollution norms are strictly followed and if there is any violation found, they are directed to take appropriate action against 3rd respondent in accordance with law. 43
vii) As regards the validity of environment clearance is concerned, this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion in this application and that will be considered by the Tribunal while considering the Appeal No. 14 of 2020 filed by Puttenhalli Lake conservation Trust against the environment clearance which is pending before this Tribunal.
viii) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs in the application.
31. The registry is directed to communicate this order to the Pollution Control Board, Chief Conservator of Forests, Scientist from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore for their information and compliance of the direction.
32. With the above directions and observations, the application is disposed of.
.................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .............................E.M. (Shri. Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No57/2017, 28th June , 2021. AM.
44