on Athirappilly HE Project -163...

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Presentation

on

Athirappilly HE Project -163 MW

beforebefore

Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel

(WGEEP)

Chalakudy, Thrissur – 29th January 2011

Athirappilly HE Project – 163 MW

�Proposed project is located in Chalakudy river basin in Thrissur District, Kerala

State

Athirappilly HEP Athirappilly HEP ––LocationLocation

State

�Cascade Scheme with 94 % utilization of tail race

discharges and spills from existing upstream reservoirs

�Projects up stream

� Sholayar Hydro Electric Project (54MW)

� Poringalkuthu Hydro Electric Project (48MW)

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDAthirappilly HE Project – 163 MW

An overview

Athirappilly

project

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

Poringal

Reservoir

Kan

nan

ku

zh

y th

od

u

Adit

Charpa Poringal Power Houses

Poringal dam

Tunnel

Dam

Reservoir

Dam toe Power House

Vertical shaft

Surge

Power House


Kannankuzhy thodu

LAY OUT PLAN

Reservoir

Kan

nan

ku

zh

y th

od

u

Power House(2X80) MW

Athirappilly Falls

To Chalakudy

Chalakudy River

Surge

AditTunnel

Dam toe PH

Replacement Road

Athirappilly Reservoir

To Sholayar

Pokalappara Colony

SH 21

Dam


• The upstream most project is Sholayar which is operation since 1966.

• The Sholayar project utilizes the water resources of Sholayar River a tributary of Chalakudy River

• The tail water of Sholayar after generation flows to downstream • The tail water of Sholayar after generation flows to downstream Poringalkuthu reservoir.

• The Poringalkuthu project is in operation for more than 50 years it is in the main river itself.


• The tail water of Poringalkuthu discharges to Chalakudy River.

• The proposed Athirappilly HE project is located downstream of Sholayar and Poringalkuthu projects.


Location of project w.r.t falls & river diversion (weir) Location of project w.r.t falls & river diversion (weir) schemescheme

ATHIRAPPILLY CATCHMENT

AREA

KANNANKUZHI THODU

PORINGAL POWER HOUSETHODU

TUNNEL LINE

6070 M *1820* M

SHOLAYAR

RELEASE

PORINGAL RESERVOIR

2525* M

ATHIRAPPILLY

RESERVOIR

PROPOSED REPLACEMENT

ROAD

HOUSE

ANAKAYAM RIVER

SURGE

DAM TOE P.H

WEIR 13 Km

along road

MAIN POWER HOUSE

1460*

M PROPOSED DAM

ATHIRAPPILLYWATER FALLS

* Along the river course


Schematic ChartSchematic Chart

Kerala Sholayar

348MCM from TN Sholayar & own catchment

Kerala Sholayar54 MW

Poringalkuthu & Poringalkuthu LBE

48 MW

Athirappilly 163MW

(Proposed)

Inflow from own catchment

Inflow from own catchment 72MCM

Spill & Tailrace 348MCM

Spill & Tailrace 1097MCM

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

Poringal

Reservoir

Kan

nan

ku

zh

y th

od

u

Adit

Charpa Poringal Power Houses

Poringal dam

Tunnel

Dam

Reservoir

Dam toe Power House

Vertical shaft

Surge

Power House


Kannankuzhy thodu

LAY OUT PLAN

Reservoir

Kan

nan

ku

zh

y th

od

u

Power House(2X80) MW

Athirappilly Falls

To Chalakudy

Chalakudy River

Surge

AditTunnel

Dam toe PH

Replacement Road

Athirappilly Reservoir

To Sholayar

Pokalappara Colony

SH 21

Dam


• The diversion structure of this project is about 3 Km downstream of tail water confluence of Poringalkuthu.

• The live storage of this impoundment is about 5.5 Million Cubic Meter.

• Water from this is diverted through an under ground water conductor system to a power house located on the left bank of Kannankuzy thodu.system to a power house located on the left bank of Kannankuzy thodu.

• The installed capacity of this plant is 2 X 80 MW.

• The tail water of this plant releases to Chalakudy River through Kannakuzhy thodu.


• If the entire water is diverted to the power house, a dry stretch will be formed between the diversion structure and tail race confluence at Kannankuzhy.

• MoE&F has stipulated to maintain a certain amount of flow in • MoE&F has stipulated to maintain a certain amount of flow in the river by releasing from the reservoir in order to avoid the formation of a dry stretch.


• Utilizing this release, it is proposed to install a power station with 2 X 1.5 MW capacity to generate power in the immediate downstream of the diversion structure.

• The water available in the Athirappilly reservoir is released to the River through the above two plants viz.2 x 80 MW & 2 x 1.5 the River through the above two plants viz.2 x 80 MW & 2 x 1.5 MW

• Hence after confluence of Kannankuzhy,the entire water will be available for downstream users.


� Dam height - 23 M

� Tunnel length - 4689 M

� Storage capacity(Gross) - 8.44 MCM

Salient FeaturesSalient Features

� Storage capacity(Gross) - 8.44 MCM

� Main Powerhouse - 2x80 MW

� Dam Toe Powerhouse - 2x1.5 MW

� Gross Head - 160 M

� Water Required - 2.80 MCM/MU


� Total forest area to be diverted – 138.60 Ha� Area for temporary use & return – 13.20 Ha� Permanent forest area diversion – 125.40 Ha� Total Submergence area at FRL – 104.40 Ha

Salient FeaturesSalient Features

� Total Submergence area at FRL – 104.40 Ha� Forest plantations - 36.80 Ha� Natural forest - 28.40 Ha� River bed portion - 39.20 Ha

� Forest area at 4M below FRL� Area at 4M below FRL - 81.00 Ha� Clearance of natural � forest & plantations - 41.80 Ha


• 90% dependable energy is arrived as 233 Million units.

• The 233 Million Units of generation is from the net inflow available downstream of Poringalkuthu after taking in to account all diversions.

• Central Electricity Authority has accorded TEC for the project.• Central Electricity Authority has accorded TEC for the project.


� Techno Economic Clearance granted in May 1996

(vide ref. No.2/KEL/9/96-PAC/4736-45 dated 3/05/1996)

� Forest Clearance granted

Project ClearancesProject Clearances

� Forest Clearance granted– Stage-I in December 1997

(vide ref. No. 8-12/97-FC dated 22/12/1997)

– Stage-II in December 1999(vide ref. No. 8-12/97-FC dated 16/12/1999)

� Environmental Clearance granted

(vide ref. No. J-11016/36/83-IA dated 20/01/1998)


� Rapid EIA by TBGRI, Trivandrum (1996)

� R&R Plan by TBGRI, Trivandrum (1996)

Environmental Clearance was granted Environmental Clearance was granted based on:based on:

� Catchment Area Treatment Plan by CESS/Kerala Forest Department (1996)

� Field visit by Expert Committee members on 21/08/1997

Prof. P.G. Sastry, Prof. K. Paliwal & Dr. S. Bhowmik


Findings of Dr.P.Kannan, Reg.Dy.Dir (WLP) and

Dr. R. Sukumar, Scientist – deputed by MoE&F

Environmental Clearance was granted based on:Environmental Clearance was granted based on:

�Dr.P. Kannan – Project area not under Tiger Reserve, Project does not affect elephant migratory route (letter no. 7-135/WSR/97 dated 14/10/1997)

�Dr. R. Sukumar – No impact on elephant population, no obstruction to elephant movement (letter dated 11 /11/ 1997)


�OP No. 1774 of 2001 filed by Sri. A.P. Usman

�OP No. 3581 of 2001 by Sri. S.P. Ravi & Others

�OP No. 7713 of 2001 by Sri. Dharmarajan

Public Interest LitigationsPublic Interest Litigations

�OP No. 7713 of 2001 by Sri. Dharmarajan

On the grounds that

�Complaining that Board has dispensed with essential criterion of tender – financial package

�Public hearing was not conducted


Common Judgment dated 17/10/2001 allowed OPs in part� Directed to comply with EIA notification 1994 as amended by notification of 1997 in so far as

it relates to public hearing and to send up to the authorities concerned the report on public hearing

� Directed Central Government to reconsider the question of grant of environmental clearance

Directed State Government to examine issues relating to financial package


� Directed State Government to examine issues relating to financial package

� Directed the Board to optimise generation and minimize T&D loss

� Finalisation of contract and starting of work – stayed till fresh decision is taken by Government of India on environmental clearance and by Government of Kerala on financial package

Pursuant to the Judgment, MoE&F suspended the Environmental Pursuant to the Judgment, MoE&F suspended the Environmental Clearance till public hearing report is submitted Clearance till public hearing report is submitted (ref. No. J.12011/11/2001(ref. No. J.12011/11/2001--IAIA--I dated 19/11/2001)I dated 19/11/2001)


� Notified Public hearing to be held on 6/02/02

� CEIA study entrusted with WAPCOS (Jan 2002)

� Another PIL (OP 2846/2002) was filed for further EIA should be complied before public

Compliance of Judgment dated Compliance of Judgment dated 17/10/200117/10/2001

� Another PIL (OP 2846/2002) was filed for further EIA should be complied before public hearing

� Judgment dated 28/ 01 / 2002 in the above OP –EIA not mandatory before EPH.

� Public hearing was held on 6 / 02 / 2002 by KSPCB after circulating Rapid EIA and Project Summary prepared by TBGRI


� KSPCB submitted the report on Public hearing(Letter No.PCB/TSR/CE/59/2001 dated 4/03/2002)

� Studies and reports as requested by MoE&F were undertaken by KSEB and submitted

Compliance of Judgment dated Compliance of Judgment dated 17/10/200117/10/2001

� Studies and reports as requested by CWC were undertaken by KSEB and submitted

� The project was considered by Expert Committee for River Valley and Hydro Electric Projects on 10.1.2005

� The committee noted that issues raised in the public hearing have been clarified in the CEIA and recommended withdrawal of suspension of environmental clearance

� Environmental Clearance granted

(vide ref. No. J-12011/6/97-IA-I(Vol.II) dated

10/02/2005)

Project ClearancesProject Clearances

�Techno Economic Clearance granted in March 2005

(vide ref. No.2/KEL/9/89-PAC/331-55 dated 31 / 03 / 2005)

�Forest & Environmental Clearances granted

Public Interest Litigations

�OP No. 9542 of 2005 filed by Ms. Geetha

� OP No. 11254 of 2005 by Sri.P.M.Pushpangadan

� OP No. 26073 of 2005 by Sri. C.Madhusoodhan

Complaining that Board has conducted public hearing (on 6. 2 . 2002) without circulating the EIA report prepared by WAPCOS (based on the amendment in EIA notification dated 13.6.2002)

Public Interest Litigations

Common Judgment pronounced on 23/03/2006 stated

�…The Electricity Board in these two counter affidavits hastaken pains to show us that the project as envisaged nowcould not have any adverse environmental impact and as suchit is not necessary to interfere with the environmentalclearance now granted. …….. we are disposing ofthese writ petitions solely on the ground ofthese writ petitions solely on the ground ofnon-compliance with the amended notificationwhich applies to the present case going by theratio of Ext .P3 judgment

�Electricity Board is bound to apply for environmental clearanceby the 1st respondent afresh after publishing theEnvironmental Impact Assessment report stated to have beengot prepared by the KSEB and conducting a public hearingafter publication of the report.

The quashing of environmental clearance was only on procedural groundsThe quashing of environmental clearance was only on procedural grounds

Compliance of Judgment dated 23/03/2006

� Public hearing was held on 15 / 06 / 2006 by KSPCB after circulating CEIA and Executive Summary prepared by WAPCOS

� EAC meeting held on August’ 2006 directs KSEB to address in detail all issues raised in public Hearing

� Fresh Application for Environmental clearance submitted on 06.11.2006

� KSEB submits comprehensive reply to all the issues raised in the public hearing

� State Forest Dept submits report of all species

Process of third Env. clearance

� EAC meeting held on Nov’2006 reviews the report of public hearing including reports and replies furnished by KSEB

� EAC recommends Environmental clearance subject to submission of data on 7 identified locations downstreamsubmission of data on 7 identified locations downstream

� KSEB in association of WAPCOS submits its report on the issues cited by EAC - January 2007


� EAC meeting held on February 2007 decides to supersede the decision of EAC meeting held in 11/2006 based on a reference from PMO

� Deputes a five member EAC team to visit the site

Process of third Env. clearanceProcess of third Env. clearance

� Deputes a five member EAC team to visit the site�Prof P.G.Sastry ( Chairman) , Prof S.P.S. Kushwaha , Prof S.Chanda, Dr R.K.Khanna (CWC) and Dr S. Bhowmik ( Member Secretary)

� Site visit under taken from 11.4.2007 to 14.4.2007

Process of third Env. clearance

� EAC team based on the findings from the site visit and a public hearing submits its report to MoE&F

� EAC meeting held on May 2007 considers the project proposal � EAC meeting held on May 2007 considers the project proposal including report of site visit

� EAC recommends Environmental Clearance

� MoE&F issues Environmental clearance vide letter dated 18.7.2007

Conditions of Environmental Clearance -July 2007

� Catchment Area Treatment plan as proposed should be completed in three years

� Main Power House shall be operated only during 7pm to 11 pm from 1st February to 31st May. Rest of the time it should be shut down

� At any point of time KSEB should release a minimum flow of 7.65 m3/sec over Athirappilly falls

No tribal families should be displaced. The package proposed for improving the quality of life of the 18 � No tribal families should be displaced. The package proposed for improving the quality of life of the 18 tribal families located on the left bank of river should be followed in toto

� KSEB should provide employment opportunity during the construction period of the HEP to the two tribal settlements @one employed person per family.

� Existing school and hostel meant for the tribal families should be provided with better amenities

Conditions of Environmental Clearance, July 2007

� A Primary health centre with proper medical facilities and medicines be established by KSEB.

� Financial sanction has to be obtained by the irrigation department for repaid and maintenance of leakages in the low level sluices and two irrigation canals to prevent leakage of waterof water

� Action plan for restoration of RET species as suggested in CEIA report to be implemented

� Long term ecological monitoring for a period of 10 years

� Restoration of construction areas

� Bio-diversity study should cover the lower plants

Conditions of Environmental Clearance, July 2007

� A surveillance centre should be opened and periodical checking should be done for detection of Malaria and other water borne diseases

� Six monthly monitoring reports to be submitted

� Financial commitment from KSEB regarding CAT PlanFinancial commitment from KSEB regarding CAT Plan

� Revenue from tree felling to be utilized for compensatory afforestation

� Multi - disciplinary committee should be constituted to oversee effective implementation of suggested safeguards - funded by KSEB

� Mobile squad headed by Forest Range Officer and funded by KSEB

Compliance of Conditions of Environmental Clearance -July 2007

� Multi-disciplinary committee consisting of representative of NGO constituted to oversee effective implementation of suggested safeguards - funded by KSEB

� Action plan for restoration of RET species as suggested in CEIA report initiated in association with TBGRI, Palode association with TBGRI, Palode

� Long term ecological monitoring for a period of 10 years - Terms of Reference approved by KSE Board and sent to MoE&F

� Terms of Reference yet to be approved by MoE&F

Efforts to implement the project and yet more obstructions..

� Based on direction of GoK, KSE Board invites

fresh tenders for implementation

�OP filed by M/s HCC & BHEL consortium against fresh �OP filed by M/s HCC & BHEL consortium against fresh tender

�Two PIL’s also filed against the decision of GoI & GoK to implement the project


�OP No. 30801 of 2007 filed by Ms Geetha

�OP No. 31022 of 2007 by Sri. Madhusudhanan


On the grounds that� Environmental clearance is vitiated by non-application of mind

� Project not economically viable

� Assess the exact T&D losses scientifically

�MoE&F respondent to the above PIL

Obstructions…

� Single Bench decides to cancel the decision of KSEB and directs to award the work of implementation of the project to M/s HCC & BHEL consortium with escalation clause– Feb 2008

� Writ Appeal filed by GoK and KSE Board before Hon; High Court of Kerala

� Honourable High Court decides to hear the PIL’s first.

� The two PILs and writ appeals are under consideration

Show cause notice from MoE&F

�MoE&F issues show cause notice to KSE Board on 4.1.2010

�KSE Board files reply to the show cause notice on 19.1.2010

�MoE&F decides to place the proposal and reply furnished by KSE Board before EAC on 21.2.2010


�MoE&F stays the implementation of the project till appraised by EAC- 21.2.2010

�Issues cited in the show cause notice

�Impact on tribal due to modern development of dam

�Impact on bio-diversity


�EAC meeting held on March’2010- Considers reply furnished by KSEB

�KSEB presents the proposal before EAC

�EAC directs KSEB to furnish replies to the objections raised �EAC directs KSEB to furnish replies to the objections raised by various stake holders

�KSEB furnishes reply

�EAC meeting held on 22.4.2010 considers the reply furnished by KSEB & reserves its decision


�MoE&F reconstitutes the EAC

�Newly constituted EAC considers the proposal afresh on 17.7.2010

�EAC had concluded on 17.7.2010 “ After critically examining all the issues based on the reports, facts and discussions and issues based on the reports, facts and discussions and deliberations held among the EAC members, the committee considered that the clarifications provided were found satisfactory”.

EAC meeting on 17.7.2010 decides…

�The authenticity of the reports prepared by KFRI received by EAC members from a scientist be confirmed from the Director, KFRI with respect to the period of study, area, funding agency and year of publication. of publication.

�KSEB shall furnish the clarifications with respect to the representation received by the Hon. Minister for Environment & Forests.

�CWC may be requested to confirm the hydrological data submitted by the KSEB.

CWC reviews the water availability…

�CWC receives representation’s from NGO’s

�Clarifications and study reports submitted by KSE Board critically examined by CWCexamined by CWC

�CWC re-confirms the hydrological data submitted by the KSEB in December 2010 to MoE&F.


� Opponents of the project are citing alternative sources of energy� Increase in Coal and Naphtha based generation power plants

� Highly polluting fuel� Will increase rather than decrease climate change problems� Will increase rather than decrease climate change problems

� Density of population high� Transportation of fuel exorbitantly high� Interstate transmission corridor over loaded


In view of the fact that:

� Demand for cheaper and cleaner power is increasing� Kerala has no other source of power than hydel� Demand for water for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes is increasing

PRAYERPRAYER

� Demand for water for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes is increasing� Storage of water has to be increased to meet summer requirements� More than 57% of Kerala’s hydel potential remains to be harnessed� Kerala had no major hydel capacity addition during last several years� Prime Minister had announced ambitious plan for capacity addition of 100,000 MW – thermal and

50,000 MW – hydel by 2012� All environmental, social, technical and financial aspects have been completely studied and

addressed� Board has already incurred huge amount for this Project� Delay in implementation increases the cost of Project


WGEEP may be pleased to recommend for implementation of Athirappilly Hydro Electric Project,

PRAYERPRAYER

Athirappilly Hydro Electric Project, clearance which was already issued as early as in July 2007

on Athirappilly HE Project -163...

Documents

Transcript of on Athirappilly HE Project -163...