National Green Tribunal
Human Rights Forum Through ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No. 5 (Court No. 1)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SPECIAL BENCH
(By Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 41/2017(SZ)
Human Rights Forum Through
S. Jeevan Kumar and Ors. Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 11.04.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. A. Yogeshwaran, Advocate
Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. T. Sai Krishnan, Advocate for R-3.
Mr. Y. Ramarao & Mr. B. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Advocates for R4
ORDER
Introductory
1. This Appeal has been preferred against Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 15.03.2017 for 4x270 MW (1080 MW) coal based Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (BTPS) at Villages Ramanujavaram, Eddulabayyaram & Seetharampuram, Mandals Manuguru & Pinapaka, District Bhadradri Khothagudem (Erstwhile Khammam dist.), Telangana 1 by M/s Telangana State Power Generation Corporation (TSGENCO) Ltd.
(the project proponent - PP).
2. The impugned order states that EC has been granted in response to the online application dated 08.04.2016 followed by additional documents on 11.11.2016 and 29.12.2016. Terms of References were issued on 23.06.2015 for preparation of EIA/EMP studies and public consultation. Land requirement has been minimized.
3. The impugned order further mentions:
"3. ...There are no forest lands, grazing lands, community lands, community lands within the project site. Land acquisition is completed and is in possession by TSGENCO. In addition, 30 acres of land, outside the project area is required for RoW for laying of raw water pipeline corridor (9km) and 326.17 acres of land for railway line corridor (22 km).
4. There are no National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, any other protected areas and Eco-Sensitive Zones, etc within 10 km radius of the project. Authenticated map showing project location and Kinnerasani WLS and its Eco-sensitive zone by DFO Wildlife Management, Paloncha is furnished. There are no Schedule-I flora and fauna species found in the project area. However, one reptile species and 10 avifaunal species (Schedule-I fauna) are found in the study area. Nearest Railway station is Manuguru and is located at 15 km. SH-12/NH-221 is at 37 km. River Godavari is at 0.8 km East. Project is 800 m away from the HFL of Godavari river. Elevation of the plant site varies between 65.5-75 m above MSL. HFL of Godavari is at 63.5 above MSL. Kondayyagudem Reserve Forest is located at 1.8 km South, RF near Venkataraopeta (4.6 km, NNW), Janapet RF (5.5 km, WNW), Subbampet RF (6.7 km, NE), Kalvanagaram RF (7.9 km, W), Cherla RF (8.2 kin, NE). Singareni Opencast Coal Mine is at 7 km near Manuguru.
5. Sub-critical boilers will be installed which will be coal fired. Boiler is designed for 50% domestic coal and 50% imported coal. Coal will be fired in a high pressure boiler to produce steam at about 155 kg/cm2 at 5400C temperature. Annual Coal requirement is 4.2 MTPA of G-9/0-10 grade domestic coal which will be sourced from M/s Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). Initially, it was planned to source 50% domestic coal and 50% imported coal. However, M/s SCCL has agreed to supply 100% domestic coal. An MoU is made between M/s TSGENCO and M/s SCCL on 4.4.2016. Expected GCV of the domestic coal is 4600-4900 kcal/kg, moisture:
12%, Ash: 27.5%, Sulphur: <0.5%, Fixed Carbon: 23-25%, Volatile matter: 25-30%, etc. Station Heat Rate of plant is 2300 kcal/Kwh at PLF-85%. Coal transportation will be done by rail route only.2
6. Total water requirement for proposed project is 3, 291 m3/hr and will be sourced from Godavari River. Intake water structure will be set up at a distance of 8.6 km along with pipeline to transport water to the plant site. As the River Godavari is perennial, allocation has been made by Govt. of Telangana for drawing 1.4 TMC/annum of water throughout the year vide their letter dated 7.1.2015. The proposed withdrawal is estimated to be around 20% flow during lean season from the daily discharge data of CWC at Perur and Bhadrachalam Gauge and discharge stations.
7. Baseline Environmental Studies were conducted during pre-
monsoon i.e. from March to May, 2015. The pre-dominant wind direction is South during study period. AAQ monitoring has been carried out at 10 locations. Results indicated that the values of different air quality parameters such as PM10: 31-53.7 µg/m3, PM2.5: 14.1-26.5 µg/m3, SO2: 7.9-12.7 µg/m3, NOx: 10.1-17.4 µg/m3, CO: 133-382 µg/m3, 03: 2.1-6.8 ag/m3 and Hg: BDL. AAQ is within the NAAQ Standards. Five groundwater samples have been analysed in the study area. pH: 7.3-7.6, Total Hardness: 192-620 mg/1 (Within limit of 600 mg/1 except Pinapaka Village), Chlorides:
30-425 mg/1 (Within permissible limits except plant location and Pinapaka village), Fluoride: 0.2-1.8 mg/1 (Within the permissible limits except at proposed plant site and Manuguru village). Heavy metals are within the limits. Surface water samples were analysed from six locations. pH: 6.9-7.7; DO: 5.7-6.2 mg/1 and BOD: <3 mg/1 except 1S mg/1 at Elchireddipalle Cheruvu. COD at Godavari River downstream, Talperu river and Elchireddipalle Cheruvu are 20 mg/1, 20 mg/1 and 60 mg/1 respectively. Noise levels are in the range of 42.7-50.1 dBA for daytime and 36.1-43.1 dBA for nighttime. Cumulative air quality impact is predicted for both the proposed power plant and the Manuguru Opencast Mine located within 10 km radius. The maximum incremental ground level concentration is predicted for PM is 1.83 µg/m3 and the total resultant concentration is 55.53 pg/m3 which is within limits. RCC Bi-flu Stack height of 275 m will be set up for dispersion of pollutants. ESP (99.9% efficiency), dust suppression system at coal handling points, ETP and STP are the major pollution control measures which have been proposed in the plant.
8. Intake water system will be provided with infiltration galleries and designed with maximum recycle/reuse of water. Only a small quantity will be drawn as make up water. Closed cooling system with cooling towers and clarified water as make-up will be utilised.
The optimum COC of 5 has been arrived after evaluating several factors such as chemical dosage, scaling, fouling, etc. Zero discharge will be adopted and no plant effluent will be discharged into any open nallas and rivers. Two seasonal nallas are passing through proposed project, i.e. one through power house block and another through the ash pond area. Nalla passing through ash pond areas will suitably diverted without affecting its natural drainage pattern. Irrigation and CAD dept., Govt. of Telangana has accorded the permission for its diversion vide letter dated 30.12.2016. However, nalla passing through power house block will not be diverted.
39. Total ash generation is 3603.138 TPD (Dry flyash: 2882.5 TPD & Bottom ash: 720.62 TPD). Flyash will be utilised for brick manufacturing, road development and cemi..nt manufacturing. Letter of Intent from various Cement manufacturing industries has been furnished. Bottom ash will be used for brick manufacturing, construction of embankments, filling of low lying areas, etc. M/s SCCL has agreed to use bottom ash in mine stowing and given a Letter of Intent (Lol) to use bottom ash. All the buildings in the project and residential complexes of TSGENCO will be constructed by using flyash bricks. Balance amount of bottom ash, if any, will be stored in the ash pond. Ash water recovery system is proposed to recover decanted water and shall be reused in the plant. Air cooled condenser (ACC) is not envisaged as dry cooling system will result in reduction of plant output by 6-7%. Peizometers will be set up at 6 locations around the ash pond for monitoring groundwater quality. Sludge from oil storage tank with quantity of 0.5 TPA is generated and will be sold to Authorised Recyclers.
10. Risk assessment and failure scenarios of pool fire for LDO (2x500 KL) and HFO (2x2000 KL) tanks have been predicted and risk mitigation measures have been proposed. On-site emergency plan has been prepared.
11. Livelihood of 655 families in three villages (Ramanujavarm, Sitararnapuram and Edullabayyaram) will be affected. R&R package of total Rs. 17,38,00,000/- (Seventeen Crore Thirty Eight Lakhs) along with SC/ST development plan has been awarded by the District Collector. About 346 local people will get direct employment in the plant based on their qualification.
12. Greenbelt will be developed in 304.4 acres which is about 33% of the total acquired area. A 100 m wide greenbelt, consisting of at least 3 tiers around plant boundary will be developed as greenbelt and green cover as per CPCB/MoEF&CC, New Delhi guidelines. Local and native species will be planted with a density of 2500 trees per hectare. Total no. of 3,07,875 saplings will be planted and nurtured in 304.4 acres in five years.
13. Public Hearing has been conducted by Telangana Slate Pollution Control Board on 17.3.2016 in the premises of proposed Bhadradri Themal Power Station, Seeetharampuram village, Uppaka Gram Panchayat, Pinapaka Mandal, in erstwhile Khammam District (Now Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist.). Timebound Action plan along with financial allocation has been prepared and will be implemented for addressing the issues raised by the public during the hearing.
14. Estimated Project cost is Rs.7,290.60 Crores, Budget earmarked for implementation of Environment Management Plan is Rs.388 Crores (Capital expenditure) and Rs.15.25 Crores (Recurring expenditure). A detailed CSR study has been conducted by the Centre for Management and Social Research (CMSR), Hyderabad. CSR activities with the budget of Rs.29.04 Crores will be implemented in 18 villages.
15. The proposal was considered in the 60th EAC, 63rd EAC and 2nd Re-constituted EAC meetings held on 27.07.2016, 29-30.08.2016 and 20.01.2017. Based on the site visit reports made by Regional 4 Office, Chennai on 09.01.2016 and Sub-committee during 17- 19.08.2016 and information, clarifications, documents submitted and presentations made by you before the Re-constituted expert Appraisal Committee (Thermal Power) in its 2nd Meeting held on 20.01.2017, the Ministry hereby accords environmental clearance to the above project under the provisions of EIA Notification dated September 14, 2006 and subsequent amendments therein subject to compliance of the following Specific and General conditions:
A. Specific Conditions:
(i) As per the Revised Tariff Policy notified by Ministry of Power vide dated 28.01.20I6, project proponent shall explore the use of treated sewage water from the Sewage Treatment Plant of Municipality/ local bodies/ similar organization located within 50 km radius of the proposed power project to minimize the water drawl from River Godavari.
(ii) A legal undertaking shall be given that Project Proponent owns the EIA/EMP and other documents submitted for appraisal.
(iii) Feasibility study of Merry Go Round (MGR) System for coal transportation shall be explored and submitted to the Ministry. In any case, Coal transportation shall be through rail only.
(iv) Explore alternate technologies so that water consumption is further reduced. As recommended by the NIH, Kakinada, appropriate lining shall be done for ash pond area to safeguard groundwater quality and reduce leaching impact towards proposed township.
(v) Fly ash transportation shall be done through tarpaulin covered trucks only.
(vi) Cycle of Concentration (COC) of 6.5 shall be achieved by setting up of RO for treating cooling tower blow-down water.
(vii) The project proponent will submit to the Ministry a copy of the impact assessment carried out by Ministry of Irrigation of Govt. of Telangana regarding possible downstream impact of withdrawal of 1.5 TMC of water per year from the Godavari.
(viii) The Environmental Clearance is subject to the Hon'ble NGT Southern Zone Order dated 11.07.2016 & final orders in the application no.206 of 2015 (SZ) and the final orders of the Hon'ble Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manuguru, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist., Telangana in the matter of SR No.646/2016 (CC no.43/20.17).
(ix) MoEF&CC Notification S.O. 3305(E) dated 7.12.2015 shall be implemented with respect to specific water consumption, zero liquid discharge and revised emission standards. The PM, S02, NOx and Hg emissions shall not exceed 30 mg/Nm3, 100 mg/Nm3, 100 mg/Nm3 and 0.03 mg/Nm3 respectively. The specific water consumption shall not exceed 2.5 m3/MWh and zero wastewater discharge shall be achieved.5
(x) MoEF&CC Notification G.S.R 02(E) dated 2.1.2014 regarding use of raw or blended or beneficiated or washed coal with ash content not exceeding 34% shall be complied with, as applicable.
(xi) MoEF&CC Notifications on flyash utilization S.O. 763(E) dated 14.09.1999, S.O. 979(E) dated 27.08.2003, S.O. 2804(E) dated 3.11.2009, S.O. 254(E) dated 25.01.2016 and subsequent amendments shall be complied with.
(xii) As proposed, all the buildings in the project and residential complexes of TSGENCO shall be constructed by using flyash based bricks. Bottom/flyash ash shall be used for construction of embankments, and civil construction works for lift irrigation schemes in consultation with irrigation department. Remaining quantity of bottom ash shall be used for stowing in underground mines of M/s SCCL.
(xiii) Separate Environmental Clearance may be obtained for the proposed Township as applicable under EIA Notification 2006.
(xiv) As proposed, Afforestation shall be carried out in the barren lands within 10 km radius of the project. A dedicated nursery shall be developed for this ,7urpose.
Plantation shall be carried out within the RoW of water pipeline and along the railway corridor,
(xv) Location of intake water system shall be finalised in consultation with reputed national institute to minimize the impact on downstream ecology of the river. As proposed, infiltration galleries to be provided. Bank erosion protection measures shall be carried out near the intake water structure and the report shall be submitted to the Ministry and its Regional Office in this regard.
(xvi) Vision document specifying prospective plan for the site shall be formulated and submitted to the Regional Office of the Ministry within six months.
(xvii) Harnessing solar power within the premises of the plant particularly at available roof tops shall be carried out and status of implementation including actual generation of solar power shall be submitted along with half yearly monitoring report.
(xviii) A long term study of radio activity and heavy metals contents on coal to be used shall be carried out through a reputed institute and results thereof analyzed every two year and reported along with monitoring reports. Thereafter mechanism for an in-built continuous monitoring for radio activity and heavy metals in coal and fly ash (including bottom ash) shall be put in place.
(xix) Online continuous monitoring system for stack emission, ambient air arid effluent shall be installed. (xx) High Efficiency Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs) shall be installed to ensure that particulate emission does not exceed 30 mg/Nm3 or as would be notified by the Ministry, whichever is stringent. Adequate dust extraction system such as cyclones/bag filters and water spray system in dusty areas such as in coal handling and ash handling points, transfer areas and other vulnerable dusty areas 6 shall be provided along with an environment friendly sludge disposal system.
(xxi) Adequate dust extraction system such as cyclones/ bag filters and water spray system in dusty areas such as in coal handling and ash handling points, transfer areas and other vulnerable dusty areas shall be provided. (xxii) Monitoring of surface water quantity and quality shall also be regularly conducted and records maintained. The monitored data shall be submitted to the Ministry regularly. Further, monitoring points shall be located between the plant and drainage in the direction of flow of ground water and records maintained. Monitoring for heavy metals in ground water shall also be undertaken and results/findings submitted along with half yearly monitoring report.
(xxiii) A well designed rain water harvesting system shall be put in place within six months, which shall comprise of rain water collection from the built up and open area in the plant premises and detailed record kept of the quantity of water harvested every year and its use.
(xxiv) No water bodies including natural drainage system in the area shall be disturbed due to activities associated with the setting up/operation of the power plant except the nalla passing through ash pond proposed for diversion without affecting the natural drainage.
(xxv) Additional soil for leveling of the proposed site shall be generated within the sites (to the extent possible) so that natural drainage system of the area is protected and improved.
(xxvi) Fly ash shall be collected in dry form and storage facility (silos) shall be provided. Mercury and other heavy metals (As, Hg, Cr, Pb etc.) shall be monitored in the bottom ash. No ash shall be disposed off in low lying area.
(xxvii) No mine void filling will be undertaken as an option for ash utilization without adequate lining of mine with suitable media such that no leachate shall take place at any point of time. In case, the option of mine void filling is to be adopted, prior detailed study of soil characteristics of the mine area shall be undertaken from an institute of repute and adequate clay lining shall be ascertained by the State Pollution Control Board and implementation done in close co-ordination with the State Pollution Control Board. (xxviii) Fugitive emission of fly ash (dry or wet) shall be controlled such that no agricultural or non-agricultural land is affected. Damage to any land shall be mitigated and suitable compensation provided in consultation with the local Panchayat.
(xxix) Green Belt consisting of three tiers of plantations of native species all around plant and at least 50 m width shall be raised. Wherever 50 m width is not feasible a 20 m width shall be raised and adequate justification shall be submitted to the Ministry. Tree density shall not be less than 2500 per ha with survival rate not less than 80%. (xxx) Green belt shall also be developed around the Ash Pond over and above the Green Belt around the plant boundary.
7(xxxi) The project proponent shall formulate a well laid Corporate Environment Policy and identify and designate responsible officers at all levels of its hierarchy for ensuring adherence to the policy and compliance with the conditions stipulated in this clearance letter and other applicable environmental laws and regulations.
(xxxii) CSR schemes identified based on need based assessment shall be implemented in consultation with the village Panchayat and the District Administration starting from the development of project itself. As part of CSR prior identification of local employable youth and eventual employment in the project after imparting relevant training shall be also undertaken. Company shall provide separate budget for community development activities and income generating programmes.
(xxxiii) For proper and periodic monitoring of CSR activities, a CSR committee or a Social Audit committee or a suitable credible external agency shall be appointed. CSR activities shall also be evaluated by an independent external agency. This evaluation shall be both concurrent and final.
General Conditions:
xxx .................................xxx......................................xxx"
Grounds of appeal in brief
4. Objection of the appellant is that there is no independent and objective assessment of environmental issues in a comprehensive manner. EIA study was completed prior to the initiation of the project.
Public consultation is ineffective. Various critical issues have not been appraised. The project uses old technology instead of super critical technology. Illegal constructions have been raised after grant of ToR and before grant of EC which led to filing of OA No. 206/2015, Human Rights Forum vs. Union of India & Ors. which was disposed of on11.07.2016.
The Tribunal held that it was not possible to demolish the project already set up but the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) will first consider whether impact assessment was possible after construction having already taken place. To comply with this direction, the EAC formed a Sub-Committee to visit the project site. The Sub-Committee gave its report dated 18.08.2016 that it was possible to appraise the project 8 inspite of earlier constructions which was less than 2% of the project.
According to the appellant, decision of the Sub-Committee that project can be appraised inspite of illegal construction is erroneous. Hydro-
Geological Impact Assessment study was not completed prior to the construction which rendered assessment of the impact futile. The project does not have fuel linkage before construction. The coal transportation route has not been finalized. Impact of coal transportation on air quality has not been considered. There is no study on social economic impact.
The site selection criteria have not been followed. There is a wildlife sanctuary at a distance of 10.8 kms. The project is on both sides of the highway and on prime agricultural lands. It is surrounded by forest.
Baseline study was not conducted. There is no evidence of coal characteristics and its radioactivity and there is no study of impact on ash pond. There is no study of forest and wildlife and VOCs which may be discharged. There is also no study of health impact or impact on Godavari River. There is no proposal to install Fuel Gas Desulphurization (FGD).
Proceedings before the Tribunal and stand of the respondents
5. The appeal was filed on 10.04.2017 and came up for hearing on 16.05.2017. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents, including the MoEF&CC, State PCB and the PP- Respondent No. 4, TSPGCL. Replies have been filed by the PP and the State PCB. MoEF&CC has produced the record.
6. Stand of the PP is that EC has been granted after due consideration. Use of Super Critical Technology is only advisory, as clarified by the Ministry of Power vide letter dated 13.11.2009. The project in question serves public interest of making electric power 9 available in Telangana which has great deficit of such power and has to purchase the same from other States. The project in question is to be established with the assistance of BHEL by use of sub critical technology which is neither outdated nor prohibited. The project was proposed in the year 2015 but was deferred for EIA study. Baseline EIA study was conducted taking data for March to May 2015, avoiding the monsoon period. The same was in terms of TORs by an accredited agency - M/s.
Vimta Labs Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. EAC has accepted the EIA study. All the requirements of TORs have been duly complied with in the EIA/EMP report. Clarifications sought by the EAC have been provided by the PP.
Construction raised prior to grant of EC was insignificant and this aspect has already held by this Tribunal in its earlier order and directions carried out by the Sub-Committee constituted in pursuance of order of this Tribunal. Earlier construction is only 1.85% of the total project.
Crucial aspects of EIA studies have been mentioned as follows:
"xxx ...............................xxx..........................................xxx
(a) Hydrogeological Impact assessment study: There are two natural streams flowing through the proposed sites. One is flowing in the ash pond area (Block II) and the other in Block I area. It is planned to divert the same, and has been clearly depicted in Figure 2.2 of EIA/EMP re port. Hen ce, the natural streams are not b eing disturbed but rather suitably diverted. The issue of location of the intake point and the downstream impact was not considered since the allocation from the Irrigation department was received. It may also be noted that there was no proposal to construct a dam across the River Godavari. It was planned to locate an intake well and a pump house in consultation with the Irrigation Department for drawl of water. These aspects were presented before the EAC and the Ministry had put a condition in the clearance to submit a copy to the Ministry regarding the study done by the Irrigation Department.
(b)Fuel Linkage: The Government of India fuel linkage policy was kept in abeyance by the new government and a new set of policy guidelines have recently been announced. Being a Government of Telangana Project, it was planned to source coal from Singareni Collieries based on the fuel linkage policy guidelines announced by the Government of India. Thus, the fuel linkage 10 was signed on 4th April 2016. The SCCL open cast coal mine is at an aerial distance of 7.0 km from the site. The power plant is designed to fire 50% indigenous and 50% imported coal. But, subsequently, SCCL has agreed to supply 100 % indigenous coal of G9/G10 grade from their cost plus mines. Accordingly, the MoU was entered with them and proposal of using imported coal is dropped.
(c) Transportation route of coal to the project site: The transportation route for the indigenous coal will be from the SCCL mines to the power plant by rail only. The railway wagons will be covered with tarpaulins to minimize fugitive dust emission. The existing railway network will be utilized.
This was mentioned in Para 2.5.5 of the MDraft EIA report. The nearest Railway station is Manuguru at 15 Km. For finalizing the railway line routing from Manuguru railway station to plant, the consultancy work was awarded to M/ s. RITES, Secunerabad. The work is in progress.
(d) Socio-economic impact assessment study: A detailed Socio- economic impact assessment study was carried out by M/s. Centre for Management and Social Research (CMSR), Hyderabad and enclosed as Annexure XVI in the draft EIA report. Based on need based assessment in 18 villages, a budget of Rs. 29.04 crores was estimated to implement various developmental activities.
29. Further, with respect to the contention made in para 21, and also paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 86 27 the answering respondent herein respectfully puts forth that the hydro- geological impact assessment study was taken up by M/s. Deltaic Regional Centre, National Institute of Hydrology, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, GOI, Kakinada and inception report on Hydrological Studies as furnished by them was incorporated in the Draft EIA/EMP report and was submitted to Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB) on 03.02.2016 to conduct the public hearing.
The Public hearing was conducted near the project site on17.03.2016 by TSPCB under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Khammam. About two thousand seven hundred (2700) members from the surrounding villages have attended the public hearing and all the people who have attended the hearing have Ole heartily welcomed the project.
The final report on Hydrogeological studies carried out as per the conditions enunciated in the TOR, was submitted by the above referred agency on 07th April 2016 and the same was incorporated in the final EIA/EMP report. Thereafter, the final EIA/EMP report was uploaded on the web portal of MOEF 86 CC, GOI, New Delhi on 08.04.2016 for grant of environmental clearance for the project. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the Hydro-geological impact assessment study was not completed even after the grant of the Environmental Clearance for the 11 proposed project is not correct. The said assessment study was completed well in advance. Since the proposed project is coming up for the mass benefit of the society at large, it is to be observed whether all the conditions and requirements have been fulfilled or not. There may be minor delays/latches here and there, but such delays and latches are not intentional and surely not at the cost of our environment, on the contrary it has been done in the interest of public for sustainable development and to overcome acute power shortage. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that all the terms and conditions have been duly complied with utmost care, precautions and on a prioritized mode, prior to the grant of the Environmental Clearance. It is to be remembered that like the Appellants the answering Respondent herein are also part and parcel of the same society. Therefore, the Respondent has taken all precautions with regard to safeguarding the environment. The answering Respondent herein have always borne in mind that the project is coming up for the benefit of the common man, and its fruits would be shared equally by all.
30. The answering project proponent further respectfully submits that the Government of Telangana has allocated for drawl of 1.4 TMC of water from Godavari river for utilization in the power generation of the proposed project vide GO Ms No. 03 dated 07.01.2015 after considering the downstream users. ANNEXURE - R5: A Copy of the said GO Ms No. 03 dated 07.01.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - R5:
31. It is strongly asserted that it is not a pre-requirement for identifying the location of the intake water as per the approved TOR by MOEF 86 CC. However, the intake water structure proposed on Godavari river is located at a distance of 8.6 KM away from the project site. Suitable locations of the intake water structure will be finalized during the engineering of the project and the construction work would be taken up accordingly. It is also pertinent to mention that no dam is being constructed across River Godavari which would have necessitated an independent study on the downstream impacts.
32. With respect to the averments made in para 28, 29 and 30 the answering project proponent herein most respectfully puts forth that no waste water will be discharged into the nearby water bodies as the effluent treatment plant is designed with the "Zero discharge concept". The water balance as reflected in the Draft EIA report clearly reads -
"It is to be noted that during normal course of operation, there will be no discharge of effluents. However, during monsoon, when the requirement for horticulture/plantation/dust suppression/make up to BAHP etc reduces and evaporation losses are minimal some quantity of effluent shall be discharged into natural water course after necessary treatment" (fable 4.10, Page C4-22of the Draft EIA report). However, during the rainy season only surplus treated waste 12 water if any will be discharged duly maintaining the parameters of the treated water as fixed by TSPCB/CPCB/MOEF &CC. This is the normal practice and it is to be borne in mind that during the monsoon, rivers experience maximum flow, which also helps in diluting the treated waste water.
33. With respect to the averments made in para 33, 34, 35 and 36 the answering respondent herein most respectfully puts forth that indigenous coal from SCCL would be utilized in the proposed project. However, blending of coal with imported coal is done to reduce the ash content. Thus for a worst scenario consideration, the EIA used the option of 50% of indigenous coal and 50% imported coal. This results in ash content of less than 34%, as reflected in page 2 5.5 of the Draft EIA report. However, M/s SCCL has agreed to supply required G-9/G-10 grade coal for the proposed project from Cost Plus Mines. Accordingly, MOU was entered into on 04.04.2016. As M/s SCCL has agreed to supply the required quality and quantity of coal for the proposed project, hence, the proposal of importing coal from other countries have been dropped. The sole intention of the Appellants herein is to stop the proposed project. It is to be borne in mind that the understanding had already been reached into prior to the commencement of the minor construction activities, and the said fact had been incorporated in the draft EIA report. Accordingly, signing of the Agreement on 04.04,2016 being a formality was complied with. Therefore, the EAC has rightly applied mind and thereby has granted the Environmental Clearance to the Project Proponent herein.
ANNEXURE - R6 A Copy of the MOU as entered into on 04.04.2016 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - R6
34. With respect to the averments made in para 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 the answering respondent herein strongly disputes the same. It is most respectfully put forth that the details of transportation of coal from the SCCL coal mines to the proposed project site through rail network was very much furnished in the EIA report. The nearest railway station to the project site is Manuguru railway station, which is located at a distance of 15 KM approximately. Railway line from Manuguru station to the above plant will be laid parallel to the road leading from Manuguru to Eturunagaram. As the coal is proposed to be transported through the rail network hence there will not be much impact on the ambient air quality. Prior to transportation of coal in railway wagons they are moistened or soaked at the loading point and are then covered with tarpaulins. This is a common practice as it minimizes fugitive dust emission. Further, it is most respectfully submitted that the details regarding coal linkage, source, transportation route etc could be furnished only when the fuel supply agreements etc have been signed by the respective parties. This has taken place only in the month of 13 April 2016. This is the only reason why the same was not furnished in the Draft EIA report or was not answered in response to the queries made by public during the Public hearing session. It is to be borne in mind that the understanding had already been reached into prior to the commencement of the minor construction activities, and the said fact had been incorporated in the draft EIA report. Accordingly, signing of the Agreement on 04.04,2016 being a formality was complied with. Therefore, the EAC did apply mind, and was satisfied with the documentary evidence which have been produced by the Proposed proponent regarding the status of fuel linkages, studies being done by the Railway consultant etc during the presentation of the Final EIA report. Hence, the attempt of the Appellants herein to belittle EAC is extremely wrong.
35. With respect to the averments made in para 42, 43, and 44 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submit that the socio-economic impact assessment study was carried out by M/s Centre for Management and Social Research (CMSR), Hyderabad and the detailed report along with the recommendations and budgetary plan for carrying out various developmental works in the surrounding villages of the project site was furnished in the month of December, 2015 and the same was incorporated in the draft EIA report of February, 2016 submitted to the TSPCB for conducting public hearing. It is strongly asserted that preparation of socio- economic impact report has nothing to do with the civil construction works taken up for the project. It is not correct to link the start of construction with the completion of studies. The Project Proponent had to start the construction activities under compelling reasons, in order to comply with the tight schedule of commissioning the proposed project within a period of twenty-four (24) months. Socio economic impact report is the study of the living condition i.e., education, health, status of infrastructure availability such as drinking water, roads, sanitation, training facilities and rehabilitation of physically handicapped people in the surrounding villages. The core issue is whether the report was presented in the Draft EIA Report or not; and it should not be in anyway linked with the start of construction activities. It is also pertinent to mention here that the details of R & R proceedings were also furnished in the Draft EIA report. The people are very much aware about the R & R plan and the socio- economic study report. It is really very strange that the Appellants do not acknowledge the information which have been provided but rather are harping on the start of construction activity. Their sole motive is to stop the proposed project.
36. With respect to the averments made in para 45, and 46 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the baseline study is the major component of the EIA study. As per MOEF & CC guidelines, no baseline study should be conducted during the monsoon season. Hence, the baseline studies were initiated in the summer season i.e., 14 March to May 2015. Subsequently, the finalization of Draft EIA was done and paper notification was given on 12th Feb, 2016, for conducting the public hearing. The Ministry of Power gave exemption for using sub-critical units on 25.02.2016 and the public hearing was completed on 17.03.2016. The baseline study from March, 2015 to May 2015 itself took three (3) months, and further a period of June, 2015 to January, 2016 (8) months for finalization of the draft EIA report before it was submitted to the Telangana State Pollution Control Board for conducting the Public Hearing. Therefore, the answering Respondent herein strongly asserts that the EIA report was not completed within (seventy five) 75 days, as has been averred by the Appellants herein. The Appellants are making misleading statements. Their sole intention is to hamper the progress of the proposed project. The pertinent issue is the time taken by the Project Proponent from the date of issue of receipt of TOR to the date on which the Draft EIA report was finalized and submitted to the Telangana State Pollution Control Board for conducting public hearing. Hence, the chronology of the events was presented to the EAC during the appraisal process, and the EAC after due application of mind, and after meticulously viewing every pros and cons, was satisfied with the same.
37. With respect to the averments made in para 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the project construction works had commenced only from the 4th week of September, 2015, after completion of EIA studies and preparation of draft EIA/EMP report. The works carried out in the project site are negligible as they cover only 1.85% of the total project area and also below the ground level. The works carried out are leveling and grading for preparation of the area for certain portion, excavation for laying certain foundations in boiler structure, ESPs, 111/ TG building, chimney and cooling towers only. Only some foundations for boiler & ESP structures for Units I to IV, TG building for Unit I 86 II, earthwork excavation and tying reinforcement for chimney I & II were carried out and they are below the ground level only. No structures were erected in position by the time the stay order was issued, by the Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence, the contention of the Appellants that voluminous construction activities were carried out before issue of the stay order is not at all correct, and the same is strongly denied and disputed by the answering project proponent. The sub-committee of MOEF & CC has also visited the site and the works which have been carried out in the site since the end of September, 2015 to 12th December, 2015 were noted and it was certified in their report. Further, the issue which has been raised by one of the members of the sub- committee on the quantum of construction work carried out etc, as has been averred by the Appellants herein, at present is also not at all relevant; since the same has been well taken care off after meticulous perusal and discussion. Further, the submissions of the project proponent herein regarding the urgency of implementation of the project have been also taken 15 into account. It is also pertinent to mention here that the EAC did take stock of the extent of construction activities which have been undertaken by the project proponent and the fact that during site levelling and foundation work, no natural drains were disturbed either in the area proposed for ash pond or in the Block II. The EAC had recorded -
"Site report concluded by the majority of the Members that the activities undertaken by the PP are minute fraction of the project area and will not form any impediment for the appraisal of EIA. Accordingly, the PP was asked to complete the EM and hold a public hearing." Further, it is also significant to mention here that one of the member of the sub- committee whose report has been quoted by the Appellants herein, he also has not said anything that the natural streams have been diverted or destroyed. It is strongly asserted that the report furnished by Dr. M.T. Karuppaih, Scientist - C, Regional Office, MOEF & CC, Chennai after his site visit on 09.01.2016 was an exaggerated one. It was far away from truth and the same was also presented before the Hon'ble Green Tribunal at the time of arguments which were made after issue of the stay order, and the Hon'ble Tribunal has rightly taken care of the issue. The answering Respondent herein further submits that any news item published in any newspaper cannot be taken as the basis.
38. With respect to the averments made in para 53 and 54 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the EAC did consider all the relevant issues in light of the interim judgment of Ole the Hon'ble Green Tribunal and the submission of the Project Proponent. The following are the key issues:
(a)The issue of start of construction activity before the grant of TOR is well known to the Hon'ble Green Tribunal.
(b)The conduct of baseline study for summer season was already brought before the EAC and was mentioned in the Draft EIA report.
(c) The socio-impact assessment report was included in the draft EIA report.
(d) The Sub-Committee report of MOEF 86 CC has listed the areas, extent of construction activities undertaken. It is pertinent to mention here that no activity in the ash pond area or the destruction of nalas have been done by the Project Proponent or the same would have been reflected in the subcommittee report or the subsequent Inspection report filed by the Regional Office MOEF 86 CC. Thus, the construction activity had neither led to irreparable damage to the site nor it has hampered the hydrogeological study.
39. The answering Respondent herein respectfully submits that all the issues have been considered, deliberated and 16 discussed by the EAC with proper application of mind and independence and thereafter it came to the conclusion that it can proceed with the Appraisal of the proposed Project in spite of the minor constructions which have been carried out within the Proposed Project. It is strongly asserted that the EAC had complied with the Judgment and directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 11.07.2016 and thereafter it rightly came to the conclusion that it can proceed with the proposed project. Hence, the contention of the Appellant that as per the EIA Notification, 2006, the EAC was required to initiate the whole EIA process of the proposed project de novo, is wrong and is strongly denied and disputed by the answering respondent herein.
40. With respect to the averments made in para 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the site selection criteria of MOEF & CC has been kept in abeyance in the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal Judgment of Nagarjuna Power Plant, Sompeta. This fact is very well known to the Appellants herein, but still they are willfully withholding the facts, not only to mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal but also to obstruct the progress of the proposed project in every possible manner. Further, the MOEF 86 CC has been directed by the Hon'ble Green Tribunal to issue fresh set of siting guidelines considering the current prevalent issues and technological developments. Further, it is submitted that as per the conditions as enunciated in the TOR a minimum of 500 m distance of plant boundary is to be kept from the HFL of river systems/streams, whereas the boundary of the proposed project is 800 m away from the HFL of the Godavari river. ANNEXURE - R7 - A copy of the said direction of the Hon'ble Green Tribunal to issue fresh set of siting guidelines to MOEF & CC dated 23rd May, 2012 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R7 -.
41. The answering Respondent herein further humbly submits that the Appellants are not having any idea about the siting criteria guidelines regarding selection of site for establishing any coal based thermal power plant.
(A) As per the MOEF 86 CC guidelines, the project should not fall within 10 km radius of any National Park, sanctuary, elephant, tiger reserve, migratory routes/wildlife corridor. If it falls within the 10 km radius of any wild life sanctuary/ Eco- sensitive zone, then prior approval of the National Wild Board, GOI has to be obtained. Hence, for the knowledge of the Appellants herein it is asserted that the proposed project falls at 10.8 Km away from the boundary of Kinnerasani Eco Sensitive Zone. Further, the project is not located within forest land.
ANNEXURE - R8 - The Eco sensitive zone map of Kinnerasani Wild Life Sanctuary duly authenticated by the Divisional Forest Officer, Paloncha is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - R8.
17(B) Further, it is respectfully submitted that as per the conditions specified in the standard TOR, the project boundary should be 500 m away from the nearest National Highway. But the existing road from Manuguru to Eturunaaram is not a National Highway.
(C ) Further, it is respec tf ully sub mitte d th at 87% of th e land acquired for the proposed project is Government land and 13% is private land and the land is a single crop land.
(D) It is strongly asserted that the land acquired for the project is not a forest land. Major portion of the land is Government land.
Hence, in view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that all the conditions as stipulated by MOEF & CC for selection of site were duly complied with by the project proponent, and MOEF & CC after thorough appraisal, after meticulous application of mind and with due independence have rightly granted Environmental Clearance to the proposed project of the Project proponent.
42. With respect to the averments made in para 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that there is no deliberate fait- accompli by the Project Proponent. The entire Project planning has to be understood in totality. The desire of the new Government was to ramp up the power generation with the help of BHEL in the shortest possible duration of time. Normally any coal based power plant will take 36-38 months to commission. In the present proposed project BHEL has agreed to supply the equipment and commission the plant with in a period of twenty-four (24) months as the equipment are readily available with them. However, for enabling BHEL to complete the project within the agreed time it was incumbent upon the answering Respondent to provide the land and other necessary permissions. Therefore, keeping in mind all these aspects, the answering Respondent wanted to implement the project using the sub-critical technology. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Govt. of Telangana vide Letter No. 482/2016 dated 21.11.2016 addressed to the Secretary to Government, GOI, Ministry of Power, New Delhi, has given the justification for adoption of Sub-Critical Technology at Bhadradri Thermal Power Station, Manguru (M), Bhadradri Kothagudem (Dist).
ANNEXURE -R9: A copy of the Letter No. 482/2016 dated 21.11.2016 addressed to the Secretary to Government, GOI, Ministry of Power, New Delhi, by the Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Govt. of Telangana is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE -R9.
43. It is respectfully submitted that based on the justification furnished by the Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Govt. of Telangana; the Under Secretary to Government, GOI, Ministry of Power, vide his letter dated 18 27.12.2016 has given 'No Objection' for establishing the proposed thermal power plant with sub-critical technology.
ANNEXURE -R2 Copy of the Letter dated 27.12.2016 of the Under Secretary to Government, GOI, Ministry of Power is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE -R2.
It is to be noted that the Order relating to the use of the super-critical technology, was only an official memo passed by the MOP it wa s n o t a r u l e o r r e g u la tio n . T h e r e af te r , th a t v e r y C e n tr al Government, keeping in view the said earlier memo had formulated the subsequent memo/decision and thereby by exercising power under the Statute had itself granted the Environmental clearance. Hence, the Appellants cannot agitate any of his rights in the well considered decision based on the facts and circumstances and the well considered reports submitted by the various Statutory Authorities. Hence, the said contention is untenable and cannot be entertained and the same is baseless one.
44. The answering Respondent most respectfully would like to place forth that the Super-critical units have higher efficiency which will result in lower specific fuel consumption and lower emission norms. MOEF & CC had promulgated new emission standards to be implemented by the projects which are being commissioned after 2017. This necessitates installation of high efficiency ESPs, Flue gas desulphurization system and Selective Catalyst Reduction units at an additional cost even for super-critical units also commissioned post 2017. Hence, it is pertinent to mention here that even with sub- critical technology implementation, TSGENCO will comply with the new emission norms by implementing the Flue gas treatment system at an additional cost. Therefore, the proposed power project will be complying with the new emission norms, and the use of sub-critical technology will not have any adverse impact on environment.
45. The answering Respondent most respectfully submits that the issue of exploring super critical technology option was not opted for, as the only major constraint was in terms of completing the project within a period of twenty-four (24) months. MOEF & CC had asked the answering Respondent to explore the feasibility of switching to super-critical units. TSGENCO had clearly mentioned in its note dated 21.11.2016 that the equipment is available with BHEL and they have committed to complete the commissioning of the project within twenty-four (24) months. The EAC was satisfied with the need for implementation of the project and with the exemption granted by MOP for this project. Further, it is noteworthy to mention here that TSGENCO had agreed to comply with the new emission norms. All these factors are to be and should be viewed holistically with respect to the proposed project as it is coming up for the benefit of the common man.
4 6 . It i s r e s p e c tf u l l y s u b m i t t e d th a t th e r e i s n o d e l ib e r a te presentation and willful presentation of sub-critical technology usage for the proposed project and it is not being done fait accompli. The entire issue must be viewed in terms of the time required for completion of the power plant and the 19 power demand especially for the irrigation purposes which the Government was keen to provide and support in order to provide the power for the lift irrigation projects. Considering the above commitments of the Government, the project proponent also looked at the option of using the equipment already available with BHEL and thereby approached the Ministry of Power for grant of exemption as a special case. Accordingly Ministry of Power had granted exemption. Further, the answering Respondent herein is avoiding repetition of the averments that have been already attended to in the preceding paragraphs.
47. With respect to the averments made in para 80, 81, 82 and 83 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that while preparing the EIA/EMP Report, the Consultant had collected certain data from the secondary sources etc, and those references have not been mentioned in the EIA/EMP report. MOEF & CC had taken note of the same and had asked the project proponent to give a legal undertaking that the project proponent owns the EIA/EMP report and also the other documents which have been submitted for appraisal. Further, it is humbly submitted that in the EIA report had the environmental consultant given the references properly then the same would have put at rest this issue.
48. With respect to the averments made in para 84, 85, 86 and 87 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the same has already been dealt with in detail in the preceding paras, hence the Project Proponent is avoiding repetition of the same. However, it is submitted that the Form - I was submitted to MOEF & CC, GOI on 03.02.2015 in which the proposed terms of reference was clearly mentioned. Thereafter, vide Letter No. CE/C/T/SE/C/TCD-I/EE/C/TCD-II/F. Manuguru/D. No. 16/2015, dated 16.04.2015 the project proponent herein had attended to all the clarifications that were sought for by the EAC in its 32nd meeting. Further, the EIA studies were carried out from March, 2015 to May 2015 based on the proposed terms of reference as were mentioned in the Form No.-I submitted to MOEF & CC, GOI vide Letter dated 03.02.2015 and also standard terms of reference of MOEF & CC, GOI.
49. With respect to the averments made in para 88, and 89 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the typical coal quality and radioactivity test report of coal sample was 01, furnished in the EIA report under ANNEXURE IX and X of EIA/EMP report. It is pertinent to mention here that since the exact details of the mine from which coal will be sourced was not available at the time of completion of the Draft EIA report, hence, the same could not be furnished. The Appellant herein had himself stated that the coal linkage was signed on 04.04.2016, hence this data will be presented to the Ministry during the submission of compliance reports.
Further, it is humbly submitted that the impact of ash pond on ground water has been clearly discussed in the Hydrogeological studies report furnished by M/s Deltaic Regional Centre, NIH, GOI, Kakinada. The same has been 20 incorporated in the EIA/ EMP report as A N N E X U R E X I I, a n d as p e r th e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s g i v e n b y consultant, it is proposed to provide HDPE film lining in the ash pond to control the leaching effect.
50. With respect to the averments made in para 90 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the study covers 10 Km radius from the project boundary as per the Standard Terms of Reference. The air quality modeling exercise was conducted and the overall ambient air quality is well within the limits post project. The comparison is with the existing ambient air quality standards. The existing environmental setting is considered to adjudge the baseline environmental conditions, which are described in the EIA/EMP report with respect to climate, hydrological aspects, atmospheric conditions, water quality, soil quality, ecology, land use and socio economic profiles of people within the study area. With the implementation of the flue gas treatment system in compliance with the new emission standards, it is opined that the incremental concentrations will be further less than as reflected in the EIA report. Hence, the contention of the Appellants that the project proponent has not under taken any impact on the forests lying in 10 Km radius is not correct. The same is strongly denied and disputed by the answering respondent herein. The figure 3.6.1 given in the EIA report shows locations of the Ambient Air Quality monitoring carried out within 10 Km radius in which the forest area is also covered. Further, it is strongly asserted that there is no need to carry out the studies to assess the impact on the Kinnerasani wild life Sanctuary as it is located beyond 10 Km radius of the proposed project boundary. There would not be any significant impact on the wildlife sanctuary or on the forests.
51. With respect to the averments made in para 91 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the issue of volatile organic compounds can only be studied during the operation of the power plant. At this point of time, the emissions of VOCs can be done only by using the emission factors from the literature but this again will not be true since such study would depend on what type of coals have been used for developing the emission factors. To be r eal is ti c , th e b e s t m e th o d is to m e as u r e th e s am e d u r in g th e operation of the power plant. The answering respondent herein humbly hopes that the learned scientists of Human Rights Forum i.e., the appellants herein would appreciate the said fact and would not simply state that the project proponent has failed to study the impact of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
52. With respect to the averments made in para 92 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the Appellants herein are coming up with all sorts of faults and lacunas on the part of the answering project proponent herein. The same is strongly d e n i e d a n d d i s p u t e d . I t i s humbly submitted that a study on assessment of 21 occupational health and endemic diseases of environmental origin in and around 10 Km radius of the proposed project site of Bhadradri Thermal Power Station, Manuguru (M), B h a d r a d r i K o t h a g u d e m D i s t w i t h a n a c t i o n p l a n t o m i t i g a t e occ up ati on a l heal th and e nd em ic d ise ase s w as c arri ed o ut by Dr. J.P.Dheeraj Naik and his team and the said report has been incorporated in the EIA/EMP report as ANNEXURE
-XXIII.
53. With respect to the averments made in para 93 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the Appellants herein have repeated the averments again and again, simply to give a big look to their Appeal. Such prac tice should be stopped. It is humbly submitted that the issue related to Hydro-geological impact assessment study has already been dealt with in para 26, 27, 28 of our counter and the answering Respondent herein is avoiding repetition of the same. However, it is again reiterated that:-
A. Impact of surface water withdrawl from Godavari river has been carried out by M/s Deltaic Regional Centre, NIH, GOI, Kakinada and the same has been incorporated in the EIA/EMP report as ANNEXURE XII.
B. I t i s h u m b l y s u b m i t t e d t h a t i t i s n o t p r e - r e q u i r e m e n t f o r id en tif y ing th e l oc ati on of th e i n tak e w ater sy s t e m as p e r the approved TOR by MOEF & CC. However, the intake water structure is proposed from Godavari river which is located at a distance of 8.6 Km away from the proposed project site. Suitable location of the intake water structure will be finalized during the engineering of the pr oje c t as pe r th e ap p ro v al of th e con ce rne d d ep ar t men t an d construction work will be taken up accordingly.
C. No waste water will be discharged into the nearby water bodies as the effluent treatment plant is designed with the "Zero discharge concept". The water balance as reflected in the Draft EIA report clearly reads - it is to be noted that during normal course of operation, there will be no disc h arge of eff l uents. Ho wev er, d urin g monso o n , whe n the requirement for horticulture/plantation/dust suppression/ make up to BAHP etc reduces and evaporation losses are minimal some quantity of effluent shall be discharged into natural water course af ter necessary treatment" (table 4.10, Page C4-22 of the Draft EIA report). However, during the rainy season only surplus treated waste water if any will be discharged duly maintaining the parameters of the treated wastewater as fixed by TSPCB/CPCB/MoEF &CC. This is the normal practice and it is to be borne in mind that during the monsoon, rivers experience maximum flow, which also helps in diluting the treated waste water.
54. With respect to the averments made in para 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98 the answering respondent herein most respectfully 22 submits that the issue of sand mining and the impact due to the same is not under the purview of the answering Respondent herein. This is p u r e l y u n d e r th e p r e v ie w o f Ir r ig a ti o n D e p ar tm e n t an d th e Directorate of Mines and Geology. The Directorate of Mines and Geology is taking action against such illegal sand mining activities. The Appellants herein have not made the Irrigation Department and the Directorate of Mines and Geology as a party respondent herein, and any allegation in respect to the particular field needs to be entertained by the particular department. Hence, due to non-joinder of concerned parties, the said allegations cannot be entertained.
55. With respect to the averments made in para 99, and 100 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the Appellants herein are making every possible attempt to stop the progress of the proposed project. The answering Respondent most respectfully like to again reiterate that the supercritical units h ave higher efficiency which will result in lower specif ic f uel c o n s u m p ti o n an d l o w e r e m i s s i o n n o r m s . M O E F & C C h ad promulgated new emission standards to be implemented by the projects which are being commissioned after 2017 and even for super critical units. Further, while granting EC for the proposed project MOEF & CC, GOI has directed the Project proponent to implement certain standards with respect to specific water consumption, zero liquid discharge and new emission standards under condition No. 15(A)(ix). TSGENCO is committed to implement new environmental standards as directed by MOEF & CC, GOI vide it s Ga ze tte N ot if i c at i o n dat ed 0 7.1 2 . 20 15. T hi s n ec es sit at es installation of high efficiency ESPs, Flue gas desulphurization system and Selective Catalyst Reduction units at an additional cost. TSGENCO has already interacted with BHEL regarding finalizing the additional control equipment to be installed for complying with the new emission norms. Hence, it is pertinent to mention here that even with sub-critical technology implementation, TSGENCO will comply with the new emission norms by implementing the Flue gas treatment system at an additional cost. Merely not showing the location of the equipment on the l ayou t do es no t e n ti tle the Appellants herein to belittle MOEF & CC and also the EAC and or to raise questions on their veracity, uprightness, and reliability. The layout clearly shows the space left for implementing the FGD as required by the current guidelines of MoEF & CC. Hence the con tention of the Appellants th at it is a clear c ase of lack of application of mind on the part of MOEF & CC and the EAC, is strongly denied by the answering respondent herein. It is stalwartly asserted that the proposed power project will be complying with the new emission norms. All these factors are to be and should be viewed holistically with respect towards the proposed project as it is coming up for the benefit of the common man. However, by taking all precautions in respect of environment the using of Sub-critical technology will not have significant impact on the environment.
23ANNEXURE R10: A copy of the Gazette Notification dated 07.12.2015, by which TSGENCO is committed to implement new environmental standards as directed by MOEF & CC, GOI is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R10.
56. With respect to the averments made in para 101 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that the public hearing was conducted as per the procedure laid down in SO 1533 Notification issued by MOEF & CC. Innumerable copies of the executive summary in English and Telugu was distributed on the day of public hearing. The presentation of the details of the project was made in telugu. It is pertinent to note here that about 3000 people attended the public hearing and about 27 of them expressed their views on various aspects of the project. Details of those studies which are being looked after by the respective government department have already been explained in the preceding paras, hence such reports couldn't be provided before the public at large. However, the draft EIA/ EMP report submitted to TSPCB for conducting public hearing vide letter dated 03.02.2016 covered all the environmental impacts of the proposed project within 10 Km radius of project boundary. All the people who have attended the public hearing have welcomed the project. Hence, the mandatory procedure, in respect of public hearing under the SO 1533 Notification issued by the MOEF & CC has been duly complied with.
57. With respect to the averments made in para 102, 103 and 104 the answering respondent herein at the cost of repetition submit that the sole intention of the Appellants are to malign the Respondent and thereby prevent the progress of the proposed project. The Project proponent herein strongly denies and dispute the averment that the public hearing for the project was done in a malafide manner in violation of the law. It is pertinent to note here that about 3000 people attended the public hearing and about 27 of them expressed their views on different aspects of the project. The public hearing was conducted in a peaceful atmosphere.
ANNEXURE - R 11: Photographs of the Panoramic view of the public hearing meeting showing the general public attending the meeting are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - R
11. Further, it is respectfully submitted that the allegation of the Appellant that the Project proponent has confined the forum member in house arrest and has prevented the public from attending the public hearing is all a blatant lie, and the same is denied. The Appellant has not supported such allegation by material or evidence, and the said allegation is made only for the purpose of maligning the Officers/Authorities who conducted the public hearing. Therefore, such allegation is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, the answering respondent herein strongly asserts that it is a Government organization and its sole intention is to work in the interest of the state and the people at large. Besides this it carries no other intention or interest.
2458. With respect to the contention made in para 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that, it is a fact that the Appellant Organization i.e., Human Rights Forum has made false statements about sub-critical technology by campaigning in the surrounding villages to prejudice the people about the proposed project. It is strongly asserted that the subcritical coal based thermal power plants are not the prohibited plants in the country as 95% of the installed capacity in the country is with subcritical technology only. There are about 32 power plants based on subcritical technology being implemented under XIII plan. Hence, the subcritical technology is neither outdated nor prohibited as alleged by the Appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that the power plants with supercritical technology have been only started in the country before 8 (eight) years from now. The sole aim of the Appellant Organization, in the name of protecting human rights is only to scuttle the projects that are being taken up by the Telengana Government. Through campaigning the forum is not only trying its level best to pollute the minds of the people about subcritical technology, but besides this it has been also campaigning against the proposed 5X800 MW Supercritical Thermal Power plant projec t of TSG ENCO which is comin g up in Veerlap al am (V ), Dameracherla (M), Nalgonda Dist. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Appellant herein neither favours sub-critical technology nor it favors super-critical technology. Its sole aim is to prevent progress in the name of protecting human rights.
ANNEXURE - R12 : News paper clippings dated 8th November, 2015 and 28th December, 2015 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - R12.
59. Further, it is humbly submitted that the CMD of the Project proponent in his address to the public has not made blatant false statements against the Appellant Organization. It is strongly denied and disputed, by the answering Respondent herein. The CMD has rather brought into light the fact that the Human Rights Forum had filed petition before the Hon'ble Green Tribunal, and is carrying out false propaganda against sub- critical technology. Therefore, such statement of the CMD does not amount to blatant false statement. The technology of the power plants has been evolving over a period of time. In India, we have 200/210 MW sets manufactured by BHEL and implemented in various NTPC and other State Electricity Board projects. Currently the technology for supercritical Boilers is available and the Government of India has taken a decision to ensure that the new projects will be based on supercritical technology because of the efficiency and also other factors. However, in the present proposed project the Ministry of Power has given a special permission to TSGENCO for implementing the sub-critical units based on the detailed note submitted by the project proponent herein. Further, it is humbly submitted that the project proponent have already spent about Rs.1020 crores on the proposed project, Therefore, its finances have been tied up and the key equipments are ready, and it is all ready to make a breakthrough with the project. Further, again it is reiterated that no person or 25 organization was prevented from attending the public hearing. It was free and open for all, as everyone was invited to attend the same. Therefore, such false and baseless allegation based on no evidence is not sustainable in the eye of law.
60. With respect to the contention made in para 110, and 111 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits that all the questions which have been raised in the public hearing have been attended to, and further the EIA/EMP report submitted to TSPCB /MOEF & CC also contains all the details regarding environmental impact along with the proposed mitigation measures.
61. With respect to the contention made in para 112, 113, 114 and 115 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits, that the EAC and MOEF & CC have duly applied their minds on all the issues pertaining to the proposed project and thereafter they have rightly come to the conclusion that the EAC can proceed with the appraisal of the proposed project. The EAC has verified all the submissions / issuesrelated to the proposed project which evident from the minutes of 2 nd EAC meeting dated 20.01.2017.
Relevant extract from the same is reproduced as follows:
(2.4.6) Committee af ter detail ed del ib eratio n s , discussio ns an d considering all the facts presented by the PP including Complaints r e c e i v e d f r o m C i v i l A c t i o n Groups, recommended for grant of Environmental Clearance subject to the following specific conditions:
However, the Appellants are viewing the said meeting minutes in a negative manner. They are unable to understand or grasp the simple meaning of the words 'deliberations', 'discussions' and considering all the facts. These clearly go to show that there have been prolonged detailed discussions, deliberations among the members. Had there not been any discussion then they would not have recommended the project for grant of Environmental Clearance. Further, it is to be taken into note that the EAC had recommended the project for grant of Environmental Clearance subject to fulfillment of certain specific and general conditions. As because there have been discussions, and owing to this, the shortfalls have come to light, which finally culminated towards incorporating the word 'subject'. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the EAC is not a one man show. The EAC did discuss and deliberate on all the issues which have been reflected in the minutes of meeting. Further the issues that were raised during the public hearing besides all other relevant issues related to the proposed project have also been broadly discussed, thereafter the project was recommended for grant of Environmental C l e ar a n c e . It i s s t al w ar tl y as s e r t e d that th e e n ti r e procedure demonstrates transparency and finally it has evolved into the culmination of a decision based on the materials submitted by the concerned statutory authorities and after application of mind on merits 26 under the facts and special circumstances prevailed in respect of the proposed project.
62. With respect to the contention made in para 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120 the answering respondent herein most respectfully submits, that the Appellants herein are coming up with all sorts of allegations. On the one hand, they have not stopped themselves against criticizing MOEF & CC and the EAC about non-application of mind, and again on the other end they have also resorted to blatant accusations about the project site. They themselves without any basis have arrived at a conclusion that the proposed project is located in a heavy polluted area. They have resorted to various judgments but are completely silent about the Judgment of the Hon'ble Green Tribunal dated 23rd May 2012 in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company vrs Sompeta Power Project; hence they are attempting to mislead the Tribunal.
63. It is hum bly submitted th at the Ap pellan ts he r e in have extensively quoted some excerpts from the HSBC Global Research Report 2011 on 'scoring the climate change risk'; but they have forgotten to quote the MOEF & CC Notifications issued in December 2016. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government of India is working on reducing the carbon emissions. We should consider this as p e c t b as e d o n th e to t al e n e r g y d e m a n d an d th e v ar i o u s technologies to generate and supply energy to our country. The mention of renewable energy has limitations in terms of availability of storage technologies etc. Hence, the country requires a mix of thermal, nuclear and renewable technologies etc. The Ministry has laid down stringent emission norms like incorporating flue gas treatment systems etc. Currently carbon capture technologies for coal based power plants are still in R&D stage. The answering respondent herein humbly asserts that - it would have been really appreciable if the appellant would have rather brought out the significant market technologies for carbon capture which are commercially available in the market rather than making baseless allegations."
7. The State PCB has also filed its report dated 31.01.2022 giving present status as follows:
"Present status of M/s Bhadradri Thermal Power Plant at Ramanujavaram, Bhadradri Kothagudem District is submitted as below:
1. M/s Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (BTPS) is a Unit of Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited and it is a Thermal Power Plant of capacity 1080 MW (4x270 MW) located in Ramanujavaram, Edullabayyaram & Seetharampuram Villages of Manuguru & Pinapaka Mandals, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
2. The industry obtained TOR from MoEF & CC, Govt. of India vide order dated 23rd June 2015 for conduct of 27 Public Hearing. Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure -- I.
3. As per the TOR dated 23.06.2015 and request of the industry, the Regional Office, TSPCB has conducted Environmental Public Hearing for the Thermal Power Plant on 17.03.2016 and forwarded the minutes to the MoEF & CC, New Delhi on 29.03.2016. Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure - II.
4. The MEF & CC, New Delhi has issued Environmental Clearance vide order dated 15.03.2017 for establishment of Thermal Power Plant of capacity 1080 MW (4x270 MW). Copy of the EC is enclosed as Annexure III.
5. The industry obtained Consent For Establishment (CFE) from T.S. Pollution Control Board vide order dated 30.03.2017 for establishment of Thermal Power Plant of capacity 1080 MW (4x270 MW). Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure - IV.
6. The industry has obtained latest CFO vide order dated 14.10.2021 with validity period upto 31.05.2026 for 810 MW (3 x 270 MW). Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure - V."
Consideration of rival contentions and finding
8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the issue. It is not disputed that the project in question is meant to serve public interest of making power available in power deficient State of Telangana.
9. A reference to earlier judgment of this Tribunal dated 11.07.2016 shows that following issues were framed for consideration:
"1)Whether the third respondent - project proponent must be directed for restoration of the area, by demolishing of the construction put up by them in furtherance of the proposed project and consequently not to permit the EAC to proceed with the appraisal of the project till restoration?
(2) Whether the third respondent - project proponent should be made liable under ''Polluter Pays'' principle?
(3) Whether suitable action must be directed to be taken against the officers of the project proponent for violating Air Act and Water Act, apart from EIA Notification, 2006 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986?"28
10. Findings on the said issues and operative part of the order are reproduced below:
"Issue No. 1 and 2:
36. Applying the above said principles to the facts and circumstances, of the present case, we have to keep in mind that the project proponent in this case is none other than a governmental organisation. As it is seen on record that the purpose of the project is to provide electricity particularly to the farmers for irrigation purposes and there is indisputable evidence to show that the newly formed State is starving for power and there has been large number of suicides committed by the farmers for crop losses. In such circumstances, whether it will serve any purpose in directing the third respondent which is otherwise a governmental organisation to pay any amount on ''polluter pays'' concept even though it remains a fact that at this point of time on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is not for this Tribunal to decide as to whether it is possible for EAC to make a proper appraisal. After all it is for the EAC which has to appraise on a spot inspection to find out as to whether an impact assessment in appropriate manner is possible or not. There is always a check and balance viz., that when once the EAC decides that by virtue of the activities carried on by the third respondent - project proponent before obtaining EC the EAC is unable to carry on proper impact assessment and that correct baseline data are unable to be procured because of the conduct of the third respondent, it will be always open to the EAC to recommend to the regulatory authority about the same and the regulatory authority can always pass appropriate orders, including rejection of the proposal. Therefore, the legal check is always available even at this point of time for the EAC to decide. But before EAC makes such a decision, we are of the considered view that it may not be an appropriate case where the third respondent, being a governmental agency, must be directed to pay on the ''polluter pays'' which is only again an amount to be paid from the State exchequer viz., money of the common man. The position will be totally different if the project proponent is a private individual. Further, it is not the case of the applicant anywhere that by virtue of the conduct of the third respondent in carrying on such activities any environmental disaster has taken place. It is always open to the regulatory authority not to grant the EC or grant the EC with additional conditions to remediate the damage caused, if any depending on the outcome of spot inspection and appraisal by the EAC.
37. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that at this stage, it is not possible for this Tribunal to direct demolition of the entire structure stated to have been put up by the third respondent - project proponent and invoke 29 ''polluter pays'' principle against the third respondent except to issue certain directions to the EAC to proceed with the appraisal and decide at the first instance as to whether the appraisal is possible in an appropriate manner because of the conduct of the third respondent in proceeding to carry out certain activities. In the event of EAC deciding that by virtue of the activities of the third respondent carried on before obtaining EC, an impediment has been created, resulting in the inability of carrying on the appraisal, the EAC shall recommend that fact to the regulatory authority which shall be entitled to pass appropriate orders accordingly. Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
38. Issue No.3: In so far as it relates to this issue, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that appropriate penal action must be taken against the officers concerned who are responsible for undertaking such construction activities before obtaining EC in accordance with Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. ......"
Operative part of the order:
39. Accordingly the application stands partly allowed with the following directions:
(1) It is not possible to direct the third respondent - project proponent to demolish the structures already put up.
However, the first respondent shall through EAC proceed with the appraisal in which event EAC shall take a preliminary decision as to whether proper impact assessment is possible by virtue of the activities already carried out by the third respondent.
(2) In the event EAC deciding against the project proponent, the same shall be communicated to the regulatory authority viz., the first respondent which shall pass appropriate orders. Both are to be decided expeditiously by the first respondent in any event, within a period of eight weeks from today.
(3) In the event of EAC deciding that the appraisal can be carried on, inspite of the activities carried out by the third respondent, the EAC shall proceed further and complete the process and issue appropriate recommendations to the regulatory authority which shall pass appropriate orders accordingly.
(4) Till such orders are passed by the regulatory authority, the third respondent shall maintain status quo in respect of the construction, making it clear that no activity shall be proceeded with till the orders are passed by the regulatory authority.
(5) The plea of invoking ''polluter pays'' principle is negatived.
(6) The authorities competent, including the second respondent shall initiate appropriate penal action against 30 the officials of the third respondent for the violation of EIA Notification, 2006 and Water Act and Air Act and such action shall be initiated within four weeks from today and the prosecution shall be expeditiously completed."
11. In pursuance of above, the EAC was reconstituted and a Sub-
Committee was also constituted which undertook visit to the site and gave its report, as already mentioned. It was found that appraisal could still be conducted as construction raised was insignificant. Appraisal was accordingly conducted in the light of the data which was found relevant and adequate. Hydro Geological Study was conducted by M/s Deltaic Regional Centre, NIH, GOI, Kakinada. EIA/EMP reports were duly appraised by the EAC. Issues of siting, coal linkage, coal transportation, drawal of water and impact of coal on environment were duly appraised, as already mentioned in the detail in reply of the PP, quoted above, particularly the highlighted parts. All the points raised by the appellant stand duly addressed in the appraisal conducted before granting EC.
There are 'Specific' and 'General' conditions imposed which have to be complied by the PP and monitored in the manner laid down.
12. Beyond repeating the grounds of appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant is unable to show how the impugned EC is in any manner defective or how the environment has been compromised or may be adversely affected on the accepted norms of sustainable development.
The project is for benefit of people to fulfil basic need for energy in energy deficient State. The project is already functional. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP 31 K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sudhir Agarwal, JM Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM April 11, 2022 Appeal No. 41/2017(SZ) DV 32