Monday, December 13, 2010


                                                      Prof..T.Shivaji Rao,
                             Director,centre for environmental studies,
                                    Gitam university,Visakhapatnam . [ good review [a review by Orissa writer]     [polavaram Data]         
In a significant development, the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) by its order dated December 19, 2007 has quashed the environmental clearance granted by the ministry of Environment and Forests to the Polavaram Multipurpose project.,%20technisch%20angefragt.pdf
[ Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of MOEF ,1994]
{ Environmental Impact Assessment  Notification of MOEF ,2006]
Final Environmental Clearence by MOEF under Forest Conservation Act,1980,[ 28,July,2010 ]
contains conditions stipulated by Ministry of Tribal Affairs prohibiting Displacement of any tribals also
     Why MOEF must Withdraw Environmental Clearences illgally given to polavaram Dam project 
Change in Scope of the project,as defined by the Asian Development Bank as seen under item No;7
 [see item 7 on page-2, 15 percent change in cost is  considered to effect a change in the  scope of project which needs fresh Environmental appraisal by Union Ministry of Environment]
Old Generation of Government Experts proposed a Barrage or a Concrete Dam but not a risky Earth- Rockfill Dam at Polavaram  for Diverting Godavari Surplus waters into Krishna  river SEE
 [study  pages 66 to 70 of Chapter VII  in the above web site on Godavari Water Diversion  into krishna basin by a b arrage and  detailed and reasoned answer provided to ISSUE VI by Bachawat Tribunal during 1979-1980 as Maharashtra and Karnataka were agitating for more of krishna water  by diversion of Godavari flood waters into krishna river basin ]  [Dr.K.L.Rao's warning on defective design of polavaram Dam highlighting that it will not work dated 3-4-1983]
[ Polavaram Dam  would have been cancelled if  Mrs.Indira Gandhi,ex-Prime Minister were to be alive]

According to rules and regulations under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 of the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests[MOEF] no state Government or industrialist who propose to start irrigation and power projects or industries at a given location cannot commence work on the project without obtaining the required statutory site clearances for the site for its establishment and Environmental clearance for commencement of works on the projects.
In the case of Polavaram project the clearance for the hydro-power plant of the Polavaram project has not yet been granted by the Central Electricity Authority. The Environmental clearance for Polavaram dam project has been obtained from the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests[MOEF]on the basis of furnishing wrong information by the A.P.State Government on the spillway peak flood of 36 lakh cusecs[1980] which was subsequently increased unilaterally by CWC to 50 lakh cusecs in September 2006 by violating the spirit of the Bachawat Tribunal Award. But the conditional Environmental clearance was already taken in October, 2005.

Environmental Appraisal Committee[EAC] of  MOEF violated Environmental norms for Polavaram Project
While giving environmental clearance the Environmental Appraisal Committee members of the Union Government have never applied their mind
1) to raise questions about the problems of submersion in Orissa and Chattisgarh due to Back-Water effects likely to be caused by construction of Polavaram Dam

2) Whether the project proponents have chosen to pay compensation as the first option or construct embankments as the second option under the Bachawat Tribunal Award to prevent submersion of lands in the areas likely to be submerged in Orissa and Chattisgarh.
3) whether the spillway design flood estimates are comparable with those used for similar irrigation projects in the neighbouring catchments of Narmada river for Sardar Sarover Dam or Hirakud Dam in Mahanadi basin
4) to examine the Dam break analysis report prepared by the experts of the National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee (June 1999) to find out the magnitude of Inflow Design Flood estimated for the Polavaram  project
5) whether the 500 year return flood used for spillway design is in conformity with either the CWC guidelines or the relevant specifications of the Indian Standards Institution.[ISI],if not,what risks are involved?
6) Whether there are Risk Analysis reports as well as the Disaster Management reports as per EIA requirements of the MoEF for making a proper assessment of the damaging impacts and the cost benefit analysis,based on the Emergency Action Plans[EAP] and Environmental Management Plans[EMP].
7) whether most of the villages to be irrigated under the proposed project are already covered by other existing and proposed irrigation projects including tube well and tank irrigation schemes
8) whether the data and information on Rehabilitation & Resettlement Schemes provided in the EIA report is correct and adequate for all the three basin states for granting environmental clearance as per rules.
9) Whether all the questions under the EIA have been answered with complete data
10)Whether Public Hearing was held in not only A.P.state but also in Orissa and Chattisgarh states as per rules and regulations under the EIA Notification,1994 of the Union Monistry of Environment & Forests?

ORISSA HIGH COURT ORDERS [March,2006]  High Court Prohibits Submergence of Lands in Orissa
In March 2006 when the Orissa High Court considered a writ petition from Orissa Political leaders against the Polavaram dam the High Court ordered that Polavaram dam construction should not cause any submersion of lands, forests, villages and without displacement of the tribals in Orissa. The Central Water Commission instead of considering modifications to the proposed Polavaram dam by chaning into safe multiple barrages project for achieving the same economic goals has chosen to tender wrong and dangerous advise  has misguided the AP State Government to avoid submersion of lands in Orissa and Chattisgarh by constructing embankments upto 15m high for 30km in Orissa and for another 30km in Chattisgarh along the banks of Sabari and Sileru rivers and thereby promoted man made disasters in Orissa and Chattisgarh. 
Since the Central Water Commission does not have much expertise in the field investigations, designs, construction, operation and maintenance of embankment dams as flood protection works, they are not in a position to understand that they cannot be considered flood proof. CWC has never learnt about the very frequent failure of embankment structures in states like Assam, UP, Bihar, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh.
That is why Orissa and Chattisgarh refused to accept the proposal of AP Stte government to construct embankment dams as flood protection works because they know that even in Andhra Pradesh the embankment works never prevented Godavari floods from inundating Bhadrachalam and Rajahmundry even the October 209 floods flooded for 10 days the temple town of Alampur on the Krishna river banks. Even today there is no environmental clearance for the embankments project for Polavaram..The Planning Commission  leaernt hard lessons about the futility of  Embankments as flood protection works and virtually  banned their construction for various reasons cited bvy experts for their failure on several river banks in india.     [ see Annexure -2]
 Tribal Affairs Ministry gives illegal sanction for Polavaram project :

Union Ministry for Tribal Affairs sanctioned clearance for Polavarama project even though there is no  Environmental clearance for the proposed embankments project to be implemeted in Orissa and Chattisgarh  after holding public hearings and obtaining the consent of the concerned state Governments.  The Tribal Affairs Ministry failed to implement the guidelines furnished under the National Tribal policy [see web site below]to find out the actual tribal population that will be effected due to the backwater afflux under different magnitudes of peak floods that will impinge Polavaram dam project.  The Ministry has not raised the relevant question whether in view of large scale displacement of tribals of more than one lakh if alternative proposals were considered for minimising the displacment of tribals and if so whether the barrage proposals originally made by Sir Arthor Cotton, Dr.A.N.Khosla, Mr.Gulhati, Mr.A.C.Mitra and Dr.K.L.Rao were critically examined after holding a public debate on these alternative proposals.which will be in tune with  the National Policy on Trbals. .Thus the Union Ministry of Tribal  Affairs violated the guidelines of the National Policy on Tribals and made illegal sanction for the Polavaram dam project .       [study article 8.6 in depth,applicable to projects]
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) gives illegal permission to Polavaram dam:
The Union Ministry of Water Resources and the Central Water Commission have sent the Embankments project report of the Polavaram dam the Ministry of Environment and Forests in January 2009 for obtaining Environmental clearance and this report was placed before the Environmental Appraisal Committee for sanction in February 2009.  Due to the unbearable political pressure exerted by the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh over the then Union Minister for Water Resources, the Technical Advisory committee members who should have waited for the arrival of the Environmental Clearance for the embankments project were hastened to take an improper decision and hence blindly gave clearance for the Polavaram project.
 Planning Commission also gave an illegal permission on 25-2-2009  for the Polavaram dam:
The Planning Commission should have considered in depth the cost benefit analysis of the project by taking into consideration whether the actual lands available for irrigation under the project have been alrady covered by the other irrigation projects like lift irrigation schemes, medium dams like Yeleru and bore well irrigation and tank irrigation projects.  They should have considered whether this inter state project hs obtained the consents of the upper states like Orissa and Chatisgarh without whose cooperation the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement of tribals in the areas likely to be submerged due to the backwater effects of the dam  cannot  be resolved satisfactorly .  They should have also enquired whether public hearings haveebeen conducted on the Environmental backlashes of the project for enlisting the support of the tribals and other weaker sections whose cooperation is required for the success of the completion of the project works. Without verifying whether the project has undergone scientific, technical and environmental scrutiny under various guidelines rules and regulations  the Planning Commission has chosen to give illegal permission for the Polavaram dam project. 
 Union Ministry of Environment and Forests must revoke the clearances given to Polavaram dam:
Hence the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests must open its eyes to the fact that even their first Environmental clearance of October 2005 was based upon the wrong information of 36 lakh cusecs spillway design flood as against the Central Water Commission revised Probable Maximum Flood of 50 lakh cusecs. As per the conditions of the EIA Notification 1994 of MoEF, even today the Environmental clearance already given must be revoked to ensure that the AP State Government opens its eyes to implement the suggestion of the Union Ministry of Environment to obtain the consent of Orissa and Chattisgarh for the project by making necessary modifications perhaps by replacing the killer dam with multiple barrages as suggested by Shri.T.Hanumantha Rao the former Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh .
    ANNEXURE -1:

Saturday, 04 September 2010:;
From: Himanshu Thakkar
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People,
c/o 86-D, AD block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi,,
Ph: 27484655/ 9968242798

To: Shri Jairam Ramesh
Union Minister of State for Env and Forests (IC), New Delhi

Respected Sir,

I have just seen your letter dated Aug 18, 2010 to Orissa Chief Minister on the aboves subject, uploaded yesterday on MEF website.
1.     Your letter says that the Forest Clearance has been given to the Polavaram Project on July 28, 2010 is subject to the condition, "... no submergence and displacement of people including STs take place in Orissa and Chhattisgarh...". However, this condition is in complete contradiction with the environment clearance given by your ministry on Oct 25, 2005, which says in para 2, "Total 1,93,35 persons are likely to be affected by this project, out of that 1,75,275 persons in Andhra Pradesh and 6,316 persons from Orissa and 11,766 are from Chhattisgarh."
2.       It is clear the condition of no submergence and displacement on Orissa and Chhattisgarh, 1]stated in your letter,JULY,2008. 2]in the Tribal Development Ministry's condition, and 3]in the forest clearance letter is in complete contradiction with the environment clearance given by you. One of them have to be cancelled due to this contradiction, we would like to know, which one would be cancelled. 
3.     This condition of no submergence or displacement in Orissa or Chhattisgarh is based on the proposal to construct embankments along the respective rivers in Orissa and Chhattisgarh. However, the proposal to construct these embankments was not part of the project that was given clearance by your ministry on Oct 25, 2005.
4.      This change in scope of the project came to light when the project went for CWC clearance (given on 23.01.2009 following flawed in principle forest clearance given by your ministry on Dec 26, 2008).   
6.      The issue came up for discussion in the meeting of EAC of River Valley committee on Feb 16-17, 2009. Prior to this EAC meeting, we had sent a detailed letter on 13.02.2009 to the EAC, explaining the implications of the proposal, lack of EIA or public consultation process, how this changes the scope of the project and so on, the same is attached.
It is clear from details of this letter that hundred of ha of land would be required in Orissa & Chhattisgarh for the building of embankments, for mining of materials for embankments, for leaving land on the banks of the river on both sides, for building approach road, for building cross drainage channels and so on.
A very large portion of this land would be forest land and it would also imply displacement of the people and their livelihoods.
 This itself is sufficient ground to show that MOTA condition, Orissa HC condition, your condition and FC condition of no submergence and displacement in Orissa and Chhattisgarh is impossible to adhere to, and this should again be sufficient ground to cancel both the preliminary and final FC given by your minister
3. After the EAC meeting of Feb 16-17 2009, the EAC decision was, "The EAC therefore directed the project proponent to initiate suitable action requesting the appropriate authorities in Orissa & Chhattisgarh for conducting public hearings in the respective states of Chhattisgarh & Orissa in respect of embankment proposal and report back to the committee." 
This decision of the EAC implies that the project needs fresh clearance for this component and since project without this component would violate the various legal norms and conditions the project also cannot go ahead without that.
 However, the project is yet to take these steps and if it were to take these steps it would violate your conditions of no submergence and displacement in Orissa and Chhattisgarh. It is clear that your condition of no submergence and displacement in Orissa and Chhattisgarh is impossible to adhere to and hence the FC of the project has to be cancelled

4. Here we would like to add that the EAC decision in Feb 16-17 2009 meeting was flawed since it is clear that the proposal to build embankments in Orissa and Chhattisgarh was changing the scope of the project cleared earlier. So EAC should also have asked that the earlier EC be cancelled till this decision is followed. 

5. The Forest clearance given by your ministry, incidentally, has a condition, namely no (x), which says, "The project authority shall maintain flow of water in the down-stream course of river equal to the normal flow of water existing in pre-dam condition". I am at a loss to understand if this condition is to be adhered to how can the dam be built or operated at all? It seems there has not been sufficient application of mind while according the final FC dated 28.7.2010, which is sufficient reason for its cancellation. 

These objections to the final FC and narration of the contradictions in your letter actually gives an opportunity to revisit the project  and look for better options in achieving the irrigation and water supply in project areas.
Hope you will take necessary steps in that direction after canceling the flawed Environment clearance of Oct 25, 2005 (which was also quashed by NEAA in Dec 2007) and the forest clearances of Dec 26, 2008 and July 28, 2010

Letter on Sept 26 2010 Subsequently, on Sept 26, 2010, a second letter was sent to Shri Ramesh, with copies of resolutions of following seven gram sabhas:
1. Village Kotarugommu (Gram Panchayat: Jodiguppa, Mandal: Vara Ramachandra Puram, Division: Bhadrachalam); 2. Village Pochavaram (GP: Tummineru, M: Vara Ramachandra Puram, Division: Bhadrachalam; 3. Village Gommukoyagudem (GP: Gommukottagudem, M: Bhadrachalam, D: Bhadrachalam); 4. Village Pusugudem (GP: Kondrajupeta, M: Kunavaram, D: Bhadrachalam); 5. Village Regulapadu (GP: Regulapadu, M: Kunavaram, D: Bhadrachalam); 6. Village Venkatayapalem (GP: Venkatayapalem, M: Kunavaram, D: Bhadrachalam); 7. Village Mulagala Gudem (Polavaram Mandal, W Godavari district)

All the gram sabha resolutions said that the Forest Rights of these villages to be submerged by the Polavaram dam in Andhra Pradesh has not yet been settled as required under the Forest Rights Act and hence the Forest Clearance given was illegal and must be cancelled.
These resolutions of the Gram Sabhas have also been sent to the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. It’s based on the recommendations of this committee, set up under the Forest Conservation Act (1980) that the ministry accords forest clearance to the projects.

Attached with this second letter to the minister was a letter from Gramya Resource Centre for Women, dated Sept 20, 2010, addressed to the FAC and it included the first two of the Gram Sabha resolutions listed above. The Gramya President Dr V Rukmini Rao stated in the letter, “These are only indicative of the overall violations in the area. Due to the flood situation in Bhadrachalam region, the communities could not send all their resolutions but are in the process of gathering and forwarding the same to you. The State Government has misrepresented facts and therefore we request you to immediately cancel the permission to go ahead with the Polavaram dam. As in the case of Niyamgiri Hills, we request you to immediately form and send a fact finding committee who can assess the ground situation and report the reality back to the Ministry.”We have not received any response from the ministry to either of these letters, nor have we seen any action by the Ministry in this regard.
 The MoEF has clearly violated all the norms in according environment & forest clearances to the Polavaram Dam. It is not clear what is the driving the ministry towards these violations.

The letter has evoked quite a lot of interest in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. The Orissa government has woken up to the reality of how the project will adversely affect the people of the state. But the Orissa and Chhattisgarh state governments have not previously used the various opportunities to raise their voice against the project.  Now the Orissa government has also filed a suit against the clearances to the project.                                                                   
For more detailed information on this topic see the following websites. (kindly ignore some of the reputations) 
1.     Dr.Sreeramakrishnaiah’s reasons for opposing dam and remedies – Indira Gandhi orders for review of projects from Environmental angle – Lalpur dam details and its modification – Run-off  the river projects – traditional experts proposed barrages – AP Engineers replaced safe concrete dam with earth-cum-rockfill dam in 1978 – conditional agreement with Karnataka – Maharashtra supports Karnataka but Orissa disagrees – AP State has to submit Polavaram project within 3 months after the agreement – Dr.KL Rao warns about under design of Polavaram in 1983 – Chronological order of events – MoEF should not put up EIA without public hearing before EAC in October 2005 – MoEF notice to AP State – MoEF desires AP State to consult upper states to give consent for Polavaram – Annexure-I:Lalpur dam case study – Annexure-2: Embankments failed in Assam – reasons for failure – Deforestation accelerates floods – Planning Commission wants ban on promoting embankments – Annexure-3: underestimation of Inflow Design Flood – incremental increases of flood upto 2ft. – Annexure-4: CWC permits underestimates of peak flood – Annexure-5: Government admits wrong design for Polavaram dam – Annexure-6: Why barrages do not cause disaster while dams cause flash floods resulting in disaster – Annexure-7: Reasons for Sriramakrishnaiah for opposing Polavaram dam and suggested remedial schemes for the dam. 
 2 -5
2 -5
2. Hanumantha Rao’s article in Telugu on reasons for promoting barrages scheme to overcome objections to the dam project.
 3.  T.Hanumantha Rao proposal for barrages to overcome objections to the dam – potential for failure of dams – risk analysis due to dam failure killing 45 lakhs people – comparative costs and reduced submersion – additional irrigation in Khammam – replies to doubts by Governsment experts about barrages – sketches of barrages
 4.  Hydraulic safety of dam – flood increases due to climate change – inundation touches 195ft to 200ft due to backwater afflux – NEAA cancels clearance – old experts proposed barrages – AP rejoinder reply to MoEF notice on Polavaram dam.
 5.  MoEF notice copy dt.1-11-2010 against Polavaram dam to AP Government – Non availability of water for Hydro-power plant – Design standards conditions to judge hazard potential comparing PMF values from dams in neighbouring catchments – Horsetooth Dam websites on dam safety – AP State Engineers mislead Government on agriculture lands – CWC rights on wrong agreements without considering high floods in Orissa – CWC errs on peak flood by considering the prosject as a barrage – alternate canal bed elevations by CWC and NWDA – Khosla and Gulhati report extracts – comparison of design flood of Polavaram with Sardar Sarovar and Srisailam floods – dam storage transformed into floods due to dambreak – CEA not cleared the project – AP State rejects alternate alignments and gives wrong reasons to keep canal bed at a higher level so that the height of the dam increased – EIA omits reports on items 10 to 13 of schedule-II – CWC guidelines on safety violated – EAC ignored several critical parameters while giving clearance – colour pictures of embankment failures at Alampur, Bhadrachalam etc., - Dr.Sreeramakrishnaiah objections to Polavaram project with alternatives.

6.  Why dams fail – websites on dam bursts with animations – NWDA websites on cost benefit ratio and inadequate agriculture lands for Polavaram – design flood for storage as per Indian Standard Institute standards – classification dams and their design standards – wrong data to estimate cost-benefit ratio – animations of dam failures in India and abroad – Chinese example of flood routing through a drum resulting in dam burst due to a cyclone of more than 16 hours – case studies of dam bursts in China in 1975 – dam burst cases in India – colour pictures of embankment failures at Alampur, Bhadrachalm etc. – embankment failures in Assam – Sreeramakrishnaiah objections to Polavaram project and alternatives.
 7.  TAC clearance 20-1-2009 – Orissa annual report for 2008-2009 on irrigation – AP back water estimates upto 182ft. MSL at Motu – Orissa High Court Judgement 20076 – MOTA clearance dt.17-4-2007 – Forest clearance for Polavaram in December 2008 – chronological table of events upto 24-11-10- Environmental clearance letter dated 25-10-2005 – MoEF letter dated 20-1-2009 requiring fresh appraisal of Polavaram dam due to embankments project – MoEF letter to AP State to get consent for embankments project dt.14-5-2009 – TAC  clearance dt.21-1-2009 – NGO complaint – CEA monitoring index on power plant.
 8.  Notice of MoEF to AP State against continuing works on Polavaram without public hearing in Orissa – dam failures prepared by IIT – Indira Gandhi note to review projects from Environmental angle – discussions on peak floods and backwater levels – incremental flood depth upto 2ft. downstream of the dam – EIA notification  2006 see EIA notification for 1994 under separate website – Design standards – arguments for and against the dam by experts from the book published by Biksham – Himamshu Thakkar letter to MoEF to cancel either Environmental clearance of October 2005 or Forest clearance of 28-7-2010 – letters from MoEF to AP State on TAC and embankment projects – TAC objections to embankments projects raised by Dr.BP Das – Tribal villages that rejected Polavaram dam – MoEF clearance for Forests – Environmental clearance letter dt.25-10-2005 – MoEF letter dt.20-1-2009 on embankments project – MoEF letter on Forest clearance to Orissa – objections of NGO’s against embankments project.





31- 35 



46-50 (All articles in telugu are included in one website)
(5 telugu articles)
1 మారిన గరిష్ట వరద ప్రమాణాలతో పోలవరం ప్రోజెక్ట్ నివేదికలను మార్చాలి .
2 పోలవరం ప్రోజెక్ట్ రూపకల్పన ప్రమాదాలపుట్ట
3 ప్రాణాలుతీసే పోలవరం డాం బదులు  భద్రమైన  బారేజీలు నిర్మించాలి
4 పోలవరంపై మీడియాను, ప్రజలను మోసం చేస్తున్నదెవరు ?
5 పోలవరంపై ప్రభుత్వాధికారుల ఘోర తప్పిదాలు   
6   అధికారులు అడ్డుకుంటున్న పోలవరం ప్రోజెక్టును రైతులే సాధించాలి
7 దక్షిణాది రాష్ట్రాలలో నీరు, ఆహారం, కరువుల నివారణకు గోదావరి   
    జలాలే శరణ్యం 
8  జలయజ్ఞం సాగునీటి పథకం దక్షయజ్ఞంగా మారకుండా రాయలసీమ
   సాగునీటికి  కేంద్రం రూపొందించిన ప్రోజెక్టులు 
9  రాష్ట్రేతరుల కృష్ణాజలచౌర్యంతో సీమ రైతులను రక్షించే ప్రోజెక్టులే 
10 భద్రమైన పోలవరాన్ని ప్రాణాంతక     ప్రోజెక్టుగా మార్చవద్దు  
11 కావేరి  ట్రిబ్యునల్ తీర్పు ఆంధ్ర రైతులకు అరిష్టదాయకం 
12 ప్రమాదకర భారీ జలాశయం కాక భద్రమైన బారేజీవంటి పోలవరం 
     ప్రోజెక్టు కావాలి 
13 రాయలసీమ రైతుల ప్రాణరక్షణకు గోదావరి జలాల తరలింపే శరణ్యం 
14  పులిచింతల ప్రోజెక్టు --- కృష్ణా డెల్టారైతుల కామధేనువు 
15 కృష్ణా జలాల పంపిణీ సమస్యలు - పరిష్కారాలు
16  మరాఠీలు  దక్షిణాంధ్ర జలయజ్ఞాన్ని దక్షయజ్ఞంగా మారుస్తున్నారా?
17 పోలవరం ప్రోజెక్టుకు అధికారుల అడ్డంకులను నివారించే శక్తి ప్రజల 
     చేతుల్లోనే వుంది. 
18 భద్రాది రాముడితో పాటు 50 లక్షల ప్రజల ప్రాణాలు తీసే పోలవరం
19 పోలవరంపై నిర్మాణంలో ఆలస్యానికి కారణాలు 
20 పోలవరం తప్పు డిజైన్లతో డాం బ్రద్దలై 50 లక్షల ప్రజలు జలసమాధి 
      కావలసిందేనా ?
21  పోలవరంపై ఒరిస్సా ప్రభుత్వపు అభ్యంతరాలు - పరిష్కారాలు 
22   భద్రత పాటించని  ప్రాణాంతక పోలవరం 



NOTIFICATION ,the 27th January, 1994
(As amended on 04/05/1994, 10/04/1997, 27/1/2000 and 13/12/2000)
{ Environmental Impact Assessment  Notification of MOEF ,2006]

1)    S.O. 60 (E) Whereas a notification under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 inviting objections from the public within sixty days from the date of publication of the said notification, against the intention of the Central Government to impose restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and modernization of any activity or new projects being undertaken in any part of India unless environmental clearance has been accorded by the Central Government or the State Government in accordance with the procedure specified in that notification was published as SO No. 80(E) dated 28th January, 1993;
And whereas all objections received have been duly considered;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986,
the Central Government hereby directs that on and from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, expansion or modernization of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one, or new project listed in Schedule I to this notification, shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded environmental clearance by the Central Government in accordance with the procedure hereinafter specified in this notification;

2) Requirements and procedure for seeking environmental clearance of projects:
I (a)   Any person who desires to undertake any new project in any part of India or the expansion or modernization of any existing industry or project listed in the Schedule-I shall submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.
The application shall be made in the proforma specified in Schedule-II of this notification and shall be accompanied by a project report which shall, inter alia, include an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, an Environment Management Plan and details of public hearing as specified in Schedule-IV prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests from time to time.
Provided that for pipeline projects, Environmental Impact Assessment report will not be required.
Provided further, that for pipeline and highway projects, public hearing shall be conducted in each district through which the pipeline or highway passes through.
(b)    Cases rejected due to submission of insufficient or inadequate data and Plans may be reviewed as and when submitted with complete data and Plans. Submission of incomplete data or plans for the second time would itself be a sufficient reason for the Impact assessment Agency to reject the case summarily.
II In case of the following site specific projects:
(a) mining;
(b) pit-head thermal power stations;
(c) hydro-power, major irrigation projects and/or their combination including flood control;
(d) ports and harbours (excluding minor ports);
(e) prospecting and exploration of major minerals in areas above 500 hectares;
The project authorities will intimate the location of the project site to the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests while initiating any investigation and surveys. The Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests will convey a decision regarding suitability or otherwise of the proposed site within a maximum period of thirty days. The said site clearance shall be granted for a sanctioned capacity and shall be valid for a period of five years for commencing the construction, operation or mining.
III (a)   The reports submitted with the application shall be evaluated and assessed by the Impact Assessment Agency, and if deemed necessary it may consult a committee of Experts, having a composition as specified in Schedule-III of this Notification. The Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) would be the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Committee of Experts mentioned above shall be constituted by the Impact Assessment Agency or such other body under the Central Government authorised by the Impact Assessment Agency in this regard.
(b)   The said Committee of Experts shall have full right of entry and inspection of the site or, as the case may be, factory premises at any time prior to, during or after the commencement of the operations relating to the project.
(c)    The Impact Assessment Agency shall prepare a set of recommendations based on technical assessment of documents and data, furnished by the project authorities, supplemented by data collected during visits to sites or factories if undertaken, and details of public hearing.
The assessment shall be completed within a period of ninety days from receipt of the requisite documents and data from the project authorities and completion of public hearing and decision conveyed within thirty days thereafter.
The clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years for commencement of the construction or operation of the project.
(d)  No construction work, preliminary or otherwise, relating to the setting up of the project may be undertaken till the environmental and site clearance is obtained.

IV.   In order to enable the Impact Assessment Agency to monitor effectively the implementation of the recommendations and conditions subject to which the environmental clearance has been given, the project authorities concerned shall submit a half yearly report to the Impact Assessment Agency. Subject to the public interest, the Impact Assessment Agency shall make compliance reports publicly available.

V. If no comments from the Impact Assessment Agency are received within the time limit, the project would be deemed to have been approved as proposed by project authorities.

3)   Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to:
(a) any item falling under entry Nos. 3, 18 and 20 of the Schedule-I to be located or proposed to be located in the areas covered by the Notifications S.O. No.102 (E) dated 1st February, 1989, S.O. 114 (E) dated 20th February, 1991; S.O. No. 416 (E) dated 20th June, 1991 and S.O. No.319 (E) dated 7th May, 1992.
 (b) any item falling under entry Nos.1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10,13,14, 16,17,19,21,25,27 of Schedule-I if the investment is less than Rs.100 crores for new projects and less than Rs. 50 crores for expansion/modernization projects.
(c) any item reserved for Small Scale Industrial Sector with investment less than Rs. 1 crore.
(d) defence related road construction projects in border areas.
(e)any item falling under entry No . 8 of Schedule-I ,if that product is covered by the notification G.S.R.1037(E)dated 5th December 1989.
(f) Modernization projects in irrigation sector if additional command area is less than 10,000 hectares or project cost is less than Rs. 100 crores.

4) Conditions for revoking Environmental clearance:   Concealing factual data or submission of false, misleading data/reports, decisions or recommendations would lead to the project being rejected. Approval, if granted earlier on the basis of false data, would also be revoked. Misleading and wrong information will cover the following:

• False information
• False data
• Engineered reports
• Concealing of factual data
• False recommendations or decisions

(See paras 1 and 2)
1. Nuclear Power and related projects such as Heavy Water Plants, nuclear fuel complex, Rare Earths.
2 River Valley projects including hydel power, major Irrigation and their combination including flood control.
3. Ports, Harbours, Airports (except minor ports and harbours).
4. Petroleum Refineries including crude and product pipelines.
5. Chemical Fertilizers (Nitrogenous and Phosphatic other than single superphosphate).
6. Pesticides (Technical).
7. Petrochemical complexes (Both Olefinic and Aromatic) and Petro-chemical intermediates such as DMT, Caprolactam, LAB etc. and production of basic plastics such as LLDPE, HDPE, PP, PVC.
8. Bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals.
9. Exploration for oil and gas and their production, transportation and storage.
10. Synthetic Rubber.
11. Asbestos and Asbestos products.
12. Hydrocyanic acid and its derivatives.
13(a) Primary metallurgical industries (such as production of Iron and Steel, Aluminium, Copper, Zinc, Lead and Ferro Alloys).
(b) Electric arc furnaces (Mini Steel Plants).
14. Chlor alkali industry.
15. Integrated paint complex including manufacture of resins and basic raw materials required in the manufacture of paints.
16. Viscose Staple fibre and filament yarn.
17. Storage batteries integrated with manufacture of oxides of lead and lead antimony alloys.
18. All tourism projects between 200m—500 metres of High Water Line and at locations with an elevation of more than 1000 metres with investment of more than Rs.5 crores.
19. Thermal Power Plants.
20. Mining projects (major minerals) with leases more than 5 hectares.
21. Highway Projects except projects relating to improvement work including widening and strengthening of roads with marginal land acquisition along the existing alignments provided it does not pass through ecologically sensitive areas such as National Parks, Sanctuaries, Tiger Reserves, Reserve Forests
22. Tarred Roads in the Himalayas and or Forest areas.
23. Distilleries.
24. Raw Skins and Hides
25. Pulp, paper and newsprint.
26. Dyes.
27. Cement.
28. Foundries (individual)
29. Electroplating
30. Meta amino phenol
[See Sub-para I (a) of para 2]
APPLICATION FORM(for making EIA reports for projects)
1.(a) Name and Address of the project proposed:
(b) Location of the project:
Name of the Place:
District, Tehsil:
Nearest Airport/Railway Station:
(c) Alternate sites examined and the reasons for selecting the proposed site:
(d) Does the site conform to stipulated land use as per local land use plan:
2. Objectives of the project:
3.(a) Land Requirement:
Agriculture Land:
Forest land and Density of vegetation.
Other (specify):
(b)(i) Land use in the Catchment within 10 kms radius of the proposed site:
(ii) Topography of the area indicating gradient, aspects and altitude:
(iii) Erodibility classification of the proposed land:
(c) Pollution sources existing in 10 km radius and their impact on quality of air, water and land:
(d) Distance of the nearest National Park/Sanctuary/Biosphere Reserve/Monuments/heritage site/Reserve Forest:
(e) Rehabilitation plan for quarries/borrow areas:
(f) Green belt plan:
 (g) Compensatory afforestation plan:
4.Climate and Air Quality:
(a) Windrose at site:
(b) Max/Min/Mean annual temperature:
(c) Frequency of inversion:
(d) Frequency of cyclones/tornadoes/cloud burst:
(e) Ambient air quality data:
(f) Nature & concentration of emission of SPM, Gas (CO, CO2, NOx, CHn etc.) from the project:
5. Water balance:
(a) Water balance at site:
(b) Lean season water availability;
Water Requirement:
(c) Source to be tapped with competing users (River, Lake, Ground, Public supply):
(d) Water quality:
(e) Changes observed in quality and quantity of groundwater in the last years and present charging and extraction details:
(f) (i) Quantum of waste water to be released with treatment details:
(ii) Quantum of quality of water in the receiving body before and after disposal of solid wastes:
(iii) Quantum of waste water to be released on land and type of land:
(g)(i) Details of reservoir water quality with necessary Catchment Treatment Plan:
(ii) Command Area Development Plan:
6. Solid wastes:
(a) Nature and quantity of solid wastes generated
(b) Solid waste disposal method:
7. Noise and Vibrations:
(a) Sources of Noise and Vibrations:
(b) Ambient noise level:
(c) Noise and Vibration control measures proposed:
(d) Subsidence problem, if any, with control measures:
8. Power requirement indicating source of supply: Complete environmental details to be furnished separately, if captive power unit proposed:
9. Peak labour force to be deployed giving details of:
• Endemic health problems in the area due to waste water/air/soil borne diseases:
• Health care system existing and proposed:
10. (a)Number of villages and population to be displaced:
(b)Rehabilitation Master Plan:
11. Risk Assessment Report and Disaster Management Plan:
Report prepared as per guidelines issued by the Central Government in the MOEF from time to time:
12. (a)Environmental Impact Assessment
(b) Environment Management Plan:
(c) Detailed Feasibility Report:
(d) Duly filled in questionnaire
13. Details of Environmental Management Cell:
I hereby give an undertaking that the data and information given above are due to the best of my knowledge and belief and I am aware that if any part of the data/information submitted is found to be false or misleading at any stage, the project be rejected and the clearance given, if any, to the project is likely to be revoked at our risk and cost.
Signature of the applicant
With name and full address
Given under the seal of
Date: Organisation on behalf of
Place: Whom the applicant is signing
In respect to item for which data are not required or is not available as per the declaration of project proponent, the project would be considered on that basis.
[See sub-para III (a) of Para 2]
1. The Committees will consist of experts in the following disciplines:
(i) Eco-system Management
(ii) Air/Water Pollution Control
(iii) Water Resource Management
(iv) Flora/Fauna conservation and management
(v) Land Use Planning
(vi) Social Sciences/Rehabilitation
(vii) Project Appraisal
(viii) Ecology
(ix) Environmental Health
(x) Subject Area Specialists
(xi) Representatives of NGOs/persons concerned with environmental issues.
2. The Chairman will be an outstanding and experienced ecologist or environmentalist or technical professional with wide managerial experience in the relevant development sector.
3. The representative of Impact Assessment Agency will act as a Member-Secretary.
4. Chairman and Members will serve in their individual capacities except those specifically nominated as representatives.
5. The Membership of a Committee shall not exceed 15.
(See Sub-para 1 of para 2)
(1) Process of Public Hearing: - Whoever apply for environmental clearance of projects, shall submit to the concerned State Pollution Control Board twenty sets of the following documents namely: -
(i) An executive summary containing the salient features of the project both in English as well as local language along with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).However ,for pipeline project,Environmental Impact Assessment report will not be required.But Environmental Management Plan including risk mitigation measures is required.
(ii) Form XIII prescribed under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 where discharge of sewage, trade effluents, treatment of water in any form, is required.
(iii) Form I prescribed under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Under Territory Rules, 1983 where discharge of emissions are involved in any process, operation or industry.
(iv) Any other information or document, which is necessary in the opinion of the Board for their final disposal of the application.
(2) Notice of Public Hearing: -
(i) The State Pollution Control Board shall cause a notice for environmental public hearing which shall be published in at least two newspapers widely circulated in the region around the project, one of which shall be in the vernacular language of the locality concerned. State Pollution Control Board shall mention the date, time and place of public hearing. Suggestions, views, comments and objections of the public shall be invited within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification.
(ii) All persons including bona fide residents, environmental groups and others located at the project site/sites of displacement/sites likely to be affected can participate in the public hearing. They can also make oral/written suggestions to the State Pollution Control Board.
Explanation: - For the purpose of the paragraph person means: -
(a) any person who is likely to be affected by the grant of environmental clearance;
 (b) any person who owns or has control over the project with respect to which an application has been submitted for environmental clearance;
(c) any association of persons whether incorporated or not like to be affected by the project and/or functioning in the filed of environment;
(d) any local authority within any part of whose local limits is within the neighbourhood, wherein the project is proposed to be located.
(3) Composition of public hearing panel: - The composition of Public Hearing Panel may consist of the following, namely: -
(i) Representative of State Pollution Control Board;
(ii) District Collector or his nominee;
(iii) Representative of State Government dealing with the subject;
(iv) Representative of Department of the State Government dealing with Environment;
(v) Not more than three representatives of the local bodies such as Municipalities or panchayats;
(vi) Not more than three senior citizens of the area nominated by the District Collector.
(4) Access to the Executive Summary and Environmental Impact Assessment report :- The concerned persons shall be provided access to the Executive Summary of the project at the following places, namely:-
(i) District Collector Office;
(ii) District Industry Centre;
(iii) In the Office of the Chief Executive Officers of Zila Praishad or Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation/Local body as the case may be;
(iv) In the head office of the concerned State Pollution Control Board and its concerned Regional Office.
(v) In the concerned Department of the State Government dealing with the subject of environment.
5. Time period for completion of public hearing:
The public hearing shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of complete documents as required under paragraph 1”
Foot NOTE: The Principal Notification was published vide number S.O. 60 (E) dated 27th January 1994 and subsequently amended vide numbers S.O. 356(E) dated 4th May, 1994, S.O. 318 (E) dated 10th April, 1997, S.O. 73 (E) dated 27th January, 2000 ,
S. O. 1119 (E) dated 13th December, 2000, S.O 737(E)dated the 1st August,2001 and S .O 632(E)dated 13th June ,2002
Annex II
List of Environmentally Sensitive Places
• Religious and historic places
• Archaeological monuments/sites
• Scenic areas
• Hill resorts/mountains/ hills
• Beach resorts
• Health resorts
• Coastal areas rich in corals, mangroves, breeding grounds of specific species
• Estuaries rich in mangroves, breeding ground of specific species Gulf areas
• Biosphere reserves
• National park and wildlife sanctuaries
• Natural lakes, swamps Seismic zones tribal Settlements
• Areas of scientific and geological interests
• Defense installations, specially those of security importance and sensitive to pollution
• Border areas (international)
• Airport
• Tiger reserves/elephant reserve/turtle nestling grounds
• Habitat for migratory birds
• Lakes, reservoirs, dams
• Streams/rivers/estuary/seas
• Railway lines
• Highways
• Urban agglomeration

About Me

My photo
Born in 1932 at Mudinepalli, near Gudivada, Krishna Dist. Andhra Pradesh, received Bachelors degree in Civil Engg., from Viswesaraiah Engineering College, Banglore (1956) and Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering from Rice university, Houston, Texas, (USA) (1962), Ph.D (Hony). Former Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and principal of College of Engineering, Andhra university.Formerly Hony.Professor in Andhra University,Manonmanian Sundarnar University,JNT University. Fellow of the Institution of Engineers,India Recipient of the University Grants Commissions National Award "Swami Pranavananda Award on Ecology and Environmental Sciences" for the year 1991. Recipient of Sivananda Eminent Citizen Award for 2002 by Sanathana Dharma Charitable Trust, Andhra Pradesh state. Presently Working as Director, centre for Environmental Studies, GITAM University,