Mr. Upendra Tripathy, IAS
Chairman
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
Public Utility Building
Bangalore 560001
June 17, 2002
RE: Conditional Clearances for Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project issued by KSPCB and MoEF
Dear Mr. Tripathy,
We write in relation to the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP). As you may be aware, the BMICP was accorded a No Objection Certificate 'from the water and air pollution control point of view' by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) on 01 August 2000 (vide Order No. KSPCB/CFE/DEO-2/AEO-2/2000-2001/208) and the expressway component of this project was accorded conditional environmental clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi on 08 August 2001 (Order No. J-21012/39/2000-IA-III). I wish to enquire as to the stage of compliance with the conditions listed in both these clearances.
In view of the recent statement by Mr. Ashok Kheny, Managing Director of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd (NICE) that the project will start 'in a month' (Times of India, June 12, 2002 – copy enclosed), it is imperative that all conditions stipulated by the MoEF and the KSPCB are at the minimum satisfied in order to ensure the public interest.
We would appreciate it greatly if you could please answer the compliance questions listed in the table below. The exact clause that each question refers to has also been provided for ease of reference. Any reference to 'project proponent' or 'project authorities' in the wording of the conditions is taken to mean Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. (NICE), and any reference to 'the Board' is taken to mean the KSPCB.
The
KSPCB clearance (No. KSPCB/CFE/DEO-2/AEO-2/2000-2001/208) states: |
Compliance
Questions: |
'The Project authorities shall not undertake change of location of townships without the prior clearance from this Board' [Clause 2 of Preamble] |
Considering
that MoEF in its environmental clearance has not cleared the townships,
and that per conditions 1 and 2 of the KSPCB NOC it implies that the MoEF
should have reviewed the project keeping the townships impacts in view,
has KSPCB prepared any alternative plan to clear the townships? This also
becomes very relevant considering Mr. Kheny’s view 'environmental clearance'
is not necessary for the townships. |
'During
the construction phase of the expressway and other facilities the project
proponent should submit construction plan and related Environmental Management
Plan on a year by year basis and obtain approval from Board. The details
are to be submitted to the Board by January/February for the forthcoming
April-March period.' [Clause 5 of Preamble] |
In
view of Mr. Kheny’s aforementioned press statement that construction is
due to start in less than a month, has this condition been complied with?
|
'The
project authorities shall apply and obtain individual clearances from
the Board for the industries coming up in industrial layout.' [Clause
6 of Preamble] |
In
view of the MoEF’s condition clearing only the expressway, has the KSPCB
initiated necessary action per the EIA Notification keeping in view the
development of individual industries? |
'The
details of water supply in-take in Cauvery River near Mahadevapura and
pipeline layout details to the townships shall be submitted to the Board
and approval should be taken.' [Clause 7 of Preamble] |
Have
these details been submitted to the KSPCB? If so, has approval been given by the KSPCB? |
'The
water requirement during the construction phase of the expressway as well
as the townships to be met by treating the secondary treated water released
from BWSSB sources. The copy of agreement letter shall be furnished.'
[Clause 1 of the “Water Pollution Control” conditions] |
Per
the MOU between BWSSB and NICE, vide clause 4 (a), 'BWSSB agrees to supply
secondary treated water to an extent of 85 MLD' at applicable rates (clause
6), provided that 'all accessories shall be constructed by the ‘company’
as per the BWSSB’s approval and norms' (clause 5) and based on 'approvals'
and 'concurrences obtained' from the KSPCB (clause 9). In view of this
MOU, has NICE initiated requisite action? |
' The project proponent shall furnish water balance details including withdrawal and return water to Vrishabhavathi River' [Clause 2 of the 'Water Pollution Control' conditions] |
Has this information been supplied? Considering that several downstream farmers depend on the Vrishabhavathi for cultivation, have the implications of this decision been communicate to them by KSPCB or the project proponent? |
'For industrial purposes, utilization in parks and horticultural uses in the townships as well as growth of roadside trees along the expressway, the project authorities shall use tertiary treated water after subjecting the waste water generated in the townships to the prescribed standards.' [Clause 3 of the 'Water Pollution Control' conditions] 'All the tertiary treatment units shall be totally impervious with solid impervious material on both sides and bottom. The proponents should submit detailed plans, structures indicating the premises. The ETP (Effluent Treatment Plant) units shall be operated scientifically and continuously.' [Clause 5 of 'Water Pollution Control' conditions] |
Has
a site for the Tertiary Treatment Plant been located by NICE for the project?
Have these detailed plans been submitted to the KSPCB? If so would we
be able to obtain/review details of the same? |
'For
each of the townships details related to water supply, waste water reuse/disposal
and storm water management including rain water harvesting shall be submitted
to the Board based on detailed planning of each township. Particular attention
should be given to avoid possible development of slum areas.' [Clause
7 of “Water Pollution Control” conditions] |
Have
these details been submitted to the KSPCB? Have these details been shared
with affected local Panchayats and Nagarpalikas? Would a copy be available
for review? |
'Computational
details of Runoff estimates to tanks including methodology, equations
and design parameters as pertinent shall be furnished' [Clause 8 of the
“Water Pollution Control” conditions] |
Has
this information been furnished, and is the same been shared with the
affected local Panchayats? Keeping in view the objections of the Tamil
Nadu Government to desiltation of tanks in the Cauvery Basin under the
World Bank funded 'Jalasamvardhane' project, has clarification been sought
from the Cauvery Water Tribunal on the implications of BMICP on tanks
in this region? This particularly keeping in view Clause 2 of the General
Conditions. |
'The
project authorities shall carry out EIA studies for 400MW power project
and obtain clearance from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board as per
statutory requirements.' [Clause 1 of “Air Pollution Control” conditions] |
Has
the EIA study been carried out? If so, could we access a copy of the EIA? |
'The
contingency planning to handle accidents should include inventory of strategic
areas and downstream water use locations from river crossings. This should
include appropriate models to predict the short term impacts and take
immediate mitigative measures' [Clause 3 of 'General conditions'] |
Keeping in view latest concerns on disaster management, and also specific provisions in this regard in the Environment Protection Act and Factories Act, has this condition been complied with? Are copies of this available for public review as required? |
'Suitable
land compensation for land losers and job opportunities should be provided
to the local people.' [Clause 5(ii) of 'General' conditions] |
What
is the qualitative definition of 'suitable'? In this regard, could it
also be clarified how the estimated jobs created during execution of the
project is 10,000 jobs, Clause 5 (v) of the NOC, when the Executive Summary
of the REIA submitted by NICE estimates 700 jobs per month (p 13, Section
16 – i)? |
'Please note that this is only a consent issued to you, for work commencement and to proceed with the formalities. This does not give any right to commission the project. For this purpose a separate consent of the Board is to be obtained for the discharge of liquid effluents and the atmospheric emission. An application for the same has to be made 45 days in advance to your commissioning the project by remitting the prescribed fees. Issuance of the consent for the commissioning of the project will be considered only after verification of action taken and compliance.' [Clause 7 of “General' conditions] |
Has
the KSPCB been informed of start date within the required 45 days? This
is especially important in light of Mr. Ashok Kheny’s comment that the
project will 'start in a month' as reported in the Times of India June
12, 2002. |
The
MoEF clearance (No. J-21012/39/2000-IA-III) states: |
Compliance
Questions: |
'All the conditions stipulated by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
vide their letter No. KSPCB/CFE/DEO-2/AEO-2/2000-2001/208' [Clause (i)
of “Specific Conditions”] |
Have
all the conditions stipulated been met? |
'The solid wastes generated will be disposed in identified areas for which prior approval of the State Pollution Control Board shall be obtained.' [Clause (viii) of 'Specific Conditions'] |
Has
the KSPCB granted this approval? |
We will be grateful for your earliest response in this regard.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Leo
F. Saldanha Nagini
Prasad
Coordinator
Campaigns Coordinator
Cc.: Dr. S. K. Aggarwal, Addl. Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Govt. of India