Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Proposed Project of: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
REPLY TO THE QUERIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON 28/04/2017 AT 10.30 AM AT TILAK MAIDAN VASCO-GOA. ANNEXURE - I Preliminary objection by Public:
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 1.0 Dinesh Dias 1.1 He seeks to know from MPT as The present project is an independent to whether the dredging of the activity. However, the EIA has taken channel for which Public into account all possible impacts Hearing was held yesterday envisaged in a major Port such as the overlaps with the proposal for MPT. dredging as sought for at today’s public hearing. 1.2 He seeks to know as to why The dredging area considered in the further dredging is required as dredging project does not include the per today’s proposal if area to be dredged for this project. This yesterday’s dredging project dredging work is the responsibility of covers everything. the PPP operator. 1.3 MPT’s representation states as The images were wrongly interpreted. follows: He displayed two images on the screen for public viewing which showed the dredging sought to be done as per yesterdays public hearing and the dredging sought to be done in today’s public hearing. 1.4 Mr. Dias states that the maps The proposal for deepening of shown to the public today and to Navigational Channel (Yesterday’s the maps in the EIA reports are proposal) only includes the Western totally different. He stated that in turning circle. The present proposal for yesterdays proposal the EIA modernization of Berths 8, 9 & Barge
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public report states that both turning Berths includes the deepening of circles will be deepened. Eastern turning circle which will be used by the Ships visiting the said Berths. 1.5 MPT representative stated that Already answered. only one turning circle is being deepened. 1.6 He stated that as per yesterday’s Please refer 1.4. proposal, only one circle has been deepened. 1.7 Mr. Dias seeks a clarification as No remarks. to whether the second turning circle will be deepened as per today’s proposal. MPT representative stated that the MPT will be deepening the entry path for ship upto the Berth 1.8 He displayed two images As stated earlier, the Eastern turning showing two turning circles.He circle is a part of a separate project, to seeks to know why the entire be carried out by a different agency proposal for dredging was not and at a different period of time. being done in one phase and why one proposal for comprehensive dredging was not moved. 1.9 MPT representative stated that No remarks. the projects are different and independent of each other. 1.9 Mr. Dias stated that there are No remarks. differences in Form I of yesterday’s project and today’s project. Before embarking to take a dig at these forms, he sought to know the identity of PP’s.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 1.10 MPT representatives introduced No remarks. themselves as follows: Shri SudinPrabhudessai, Executive Engineer Shri D.D. Ambe, Executive Engineer. They also confirmed that form I of both Yesterday’s project and today’s project were prepared by MPT. 1.11 He states that in yesterdays The first project is purely a dredging proposal Form I, at point 9.4 project whereas the second project MPT has stated that there are no involves redevelopment and similar projects in close mechanisation of berths where proximity of the site also in dredging is a small element. Therefore today’s Form I i.e. today’s there is no similarity between these proposal it is stated that there are projects. no similar projectsin close proximity of the site. He questioned as to how this could be said as both projects, yesterdays and today’s proposals are next to each other and both involved dredging. MPT’s representative stated that they stand by the statement made in Form I. 1.12 He referred to Form I submitted The first project is to be done purely in in respect of yesterday’s public water area whereas the second project hearing proposal where it is is a land based project with a very stated that there is no densely small element of dredging. The replies populated area within 15 Kms of have been accordingly given. the project site while in today’s proposal it is stated that there is a densely populated area within 15 kms.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 1.13 He stated that this cannot be said Both sites are not the same. to be correct as both sites are the same. 1.14 The MPT representative stated No remarks. that they stand by the information as mentioned in Form I. 1.15 Mr. Dias states that the MPT This is not true representatives are giving false and wrong answers and this cannot be permitted as MPT is a public undertaking. 1.16 He then refers to the EIA All clarifications shall be given. notification which states that public are entitled to seek a clarification from the Project Proponent. He demands that the Chief Engineer must be present for today’s hearing. 1.17 He stated that public No remarks. undertakings are accountable to people. 1.18 He states that as per yesterdays No remarks. Form I, Goa’s Airport is not mentioned while in today’s Form –I it is stated that Administrative Offices of Military installation are located within the 15 km radius of the site. He said it was just administrative office but Defence Asset are in the area. 1.19 He says hospitals and schools No remarks. that were shown as being in proximity of the project site in yesterday’s form I are not shown in today’s Form I.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 1.20 With regards to water resources, Please refer 1.11 tourism, fisheries, etc. These were partially shown yesterday while today it is out rightly denied by not making any mention of the same. 1.21 He stated that in Form I of Coal handling at Berths 10 & 11 was today’s project, it is stated that totally stopped to comply with the there are no pollution related directions of GSPCB. Therefore there issues pertaining to MPT. are no pollution related issues at the However, he stated that the fact present. that Berth No. 10 & 11 was shut by PCB and numerous directions issued by PCB, clearly indicates pollution and that the MPT has lied in Form I. MPT representative did not clarify on this aspect. 1.22 He refers to Form I page 1 of The maximum reclamation will be 6.4 today’s project. He stated that for hectares. In the EIA report the Berth it MPT seeks to reclaim 6.4 area which will be on piles, and hence hectors of land. However, as per does not need reclamation, was also its Executive summary at page 1 inadvertently included in the said of the project, it is stated that inflated area. All such unintentional reclamation is sought to be for discrepancies (due to oversight) will be approximately 11.4 hectares and corrected “and/or” clarified in the Final the same is also stated in the EIA EIA. report at page 1-2.He sought to know the correct figure. 1.23 MPT representative stated that No remarks. the figure of 11.4 hectares includes extension of berths. 1.24 He stated that all documents This is not true. submitted by MPT are not correct and are full of errors. He seeks to know from consultant WAPCOS the extent of area sought to be reclaimed by MPT
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public into its project. WAPCOS stated as only 6.4 hectares. 1.25 He stated thatMoEF has been No wrong information has been given kept in the dark by this wrong information. 1.26 He stated that the Executive The capital dredging volume will be summary at page 1, MPT has between 2.5 to 3.0 million cum. stated that 2.44 Mm3 will be capital dredging. 1.27 He stated that at page 6.2 of the The capital dredging volume will be EIA report it is stated that capital between 2.5 to 3.0 million cum dredging of 3.71 Mm3 will be dredged. 1.28 He states that as per Form I that Only general details are given in Form if any wrong information is 1. Any mistakes or typo errors in draft submitted than the entire project EIA report will be rectified before is liable to be cancelled, is what finalisation. the PP has undertaken and since the information is wrong the EAC should scrap the project.
1.29 He seeks to know whether MPT No wrong submissions have been representatives are authorised to made make wrong submissions to the public hearing. 1.30 He requests WAPCOS to inform No remarks. if all three EIA reports are done by WAPCOS. The representative agrees. 1.31 He refers that in today’s EIA In case of 5A & 6A, coking coal is report, it is stated that fire on handled where there is hardly any coal stacks is a very common incidence of auto ignition of coal. occurrence, however, that has not been mentioned in the EIA report of South West Port expansion of Berth 5A-6A.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 1.32 He stated that WAPCOS is No remarks. required to clarify all these discrepancies. 1.33 He refers to page 2.14 of today’s Fully covered Coal stacking shed has proposal i.e. point no. 2.6.6. This been stipulated, if/when coal is refers to covered coal stack handled, in the present project. yards. He states that a fully covered dome should be used for stacking of coal but this recommendation is not there in the EIA report of South West Port expansion of Berth 5A-A. 1.34 He states that this is a No remarks. irresponsible act of the consultant WAPCOS. He requests Chairman to ensure that their recommendations i.e. storing of coal stack in a covered dome are mentioned in the report of SWP. 1.35 He stated that at page 6.4 of This proposed project is a brown field yesterdays report point 6.7 Under project restricted to the old active Port Environmental (Bio Diversity ) Basin area, 5 to 7 km away from enhancement measures Sancoale, Dona-Paula, Chicalim, Sancoale and Grande Island and Dolphin are Grande island. However, all necessary mentioned in the report while in information relevant to the Study Area todays EIA report there is no will be included in the revised EIA. mention of the same. 1.36 In yesterdays EIA report, MPT No remarks. has been directed to take steps for biodiversity conservation while todays report is silent.hestatescthat Vedanta and SWP are not paying green cess though they are polluting the state 1.37 In yesterdays EIA report, it is This is not true. Please see 1.35. There mentioned that sea weed will be will be no impact whatsoever on
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public destroyed and that dredging will seaweeds and other biodiversity cause destruction of marine located in the said places. ecosystem however, todays report is silent on this issues. 1.38 The report prescribes that Periodic monitoring of the status of all seasonal assessment has to be important environmental parameters done on the impact of dredging will be carried out to assess the impact on fishermen. He states that this of dredging. Besides, the Port and assessment has not been done. Terminal Operators undertake regular monitoring of chemical and biological parameters to assess the impacts, if any, of ongoing operational activities of the Port. 1.39 He states that at page 3.95 of As stated earlier, this project will not todays EIA report, Window Pane have any adverse impact on window Oysters are not mentioned; a fish pane oysters located in Chicalim Bay. species found in Goa’s water as However, any missing but relevant it is a protected species. baseline data compiled from the Study Area will be included in the Final EIA. 1.40 He states that fishermen Data was obtained from the official population is under estimated. records of the Department of No mention is made of the Planning, Statistics and Evaluation fishermen from Tiswadi. (DPSE)and Directorate of Fisheries, State Government of Goa 1.41 All this indicates that the EIA This is not true. report have been done to suppress information and cheat the people of Goa and MoEF. 1.42 He opposes the grant of approval This is not true. for this proposed project of the Project Proponent. He also said that the undertaking given in Form I is violated and the project should be rejected. 1.43 MPT is a continuous defaulter as This is not true. far as the coal pollution is concerned.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public
2.0 John Fernandes, Benaulim 2.1 He stated that holding of three No remarks. consecutive public hearing amounts to torturing the public. 2.2 He stated that the public hearing No remarks. is in violation of democratic process. 2.3 He stated that there is a collusion No remarks. with the State and the Project Proponent.
2.4 He stated that the public hearing No remarks. is not valid. 2.5 He sought to know from the No remarks. MPT as to why Jindal was allowed to make a presentation on 26/04/2017. 2.6 MPT replied saying that JSW are No remarks. their terminal operators. 2.7 He states that MPT had signed a No remarks. concession agreement with JSW in line with Central Government policy. 2.8 He stated that whatever is leased No remarks. to JSW is under the jurisdiction of the Port. 2.9 He stated that JSW refused to the No remarks. answer the questions of the public on the first day of the public hearing i.e. 26/04/2017. 2.10 He said that the Consultants of True. WAPCOS is a NABET Jindal and MPT are same i.e. accredited and highly experienced WAPCOS Consultant under the jurisdiction of Govt. of India. 2.11 He states that the EIA report of This is not true. both MPT and JSW are filled
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public with errors and these are done deliberately. 2.12 He stated that WAPCOS has Payments made to WAPCOS are in been paid for consultancy order and effected after complying illegally out of public funds. with all financial regulations. 2.13 He stated that WAPCOS has no WAPCOS is a NABET accredited and credibility. highly experienced Consultant under the jurisdiction of Govt. of India 2.14 He seeks to know from the No remarks. Chairman as to whether the process of the EIA Notification to permit the public to seek information and queries which are required to be answered by the Project Proponent has been followed. 2.15 Chairman replied that whatever No remarks. was submitted by the public and by the Project Proponent has been recorded. Further, he stated that he has not directed Jindal not to answer the queries of the public. 2.16 He stated that Jindal has been No remarks. told not to answer to the queries of the public which is in violation of the EIA report. 2.17 He seeks that action be taken No false information is given against WAPCOS for submitting false information. 2.18 He stated that the three No remarks. corporates namely, Adani, Agrawal and Jindal are destroyers in Goa by importing coal from Australia and not by using Indian Coal.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 2.19 He stated that MPT, Adani and No remarks. JSW are only interested in profit and are destroying Goa and India and its people and environment. 2.20 He stated that there is no mention This is not part of the ToR issued by of the word global warming in the EAC of MOEF & CC. the EIA report. 2.21 He seeks a clarification on this EIA report is made to cover all Form I from the MPT. MPT environmental aspects related to the representative states that the EIA project report is prepared on the basis of TOR framed by MoEF. He seeks to know the basic model on the basis of which the EIA report is prepared. 2.22 He states that the EIA report is All these aspects are covered. silent on the impact of the proposed project on the environment i.e. Air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution. 2.23 He said that MPT is only Not true. Environmental concerns are interested in a system for given the highest priority in all transportation of coal and not in activities undertaken at the Port. saving Goa’s environment or her people. 2.24 He stated that carrying out of Dredging was carried out with the 60% of dredging of MPT without approval and under the EC granted by approval is outrageous. MPT did the MOEF & CC. Dredging was not care about following rules stopped when approval was and regulations. He requests withdrawn. WAPCOS is a NABET MPT to state as to whether this accredited consultant. hearing objections of the public he was convinced that the report submitted by WPACOS is full of holes and are not scientific or objective.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 2.25 MPT representative submitted No remarks. that he stands by the report of WAPCOS. 2.26 He stated that the WAPCOS No remarks. report is a cut and paste job. 2.27 He states that MPT has never Public Hearing has been organised for consulted or interacted with the interaction with the public. Also, MPT local people and traditional has been engaged in several fishermen. constructive dialogues with local “citizens/fishermen” 2.28 He states that the EIA report is Latest available official census data based on 2011census data. He has been used wherever applicable. seeks to know from MPT representative whether any field study was done or any interaction carried out with the people. 2.29 He seeks to know if MPT has a No remarks. social expert who took part in preparing the report. 2.30 MPT representative clarified that No remarks. the expert is not here. 2.31 He says MPT is only interested No remarks. in dredging of the channel. 2.32 He accuses the MPT and its No remarks. consultant of plagiarism. He seeks to know the educational qualification of the Consultant of MPT. 2.33 He stated that the EIA report Any deficiency will be incorporated in does not have any reference. Final EIA. 2.34 He demanded that there should No remarks. be a review of Consultants by the Regulators. He also says that this demand should be accepted by MPT who is a Government of India undertaking and should do a review of its consultant.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 2.35 He stated that tribals have thrown No remarks. out Vedanta from their forests and have also got afavourable order from supreme court. 2.36 He demands that the proposal be This is not true. scrapped as it will cause a serious impact on Goa’s future. He stated that if these proposals are allowed then Goa will be a coal hub. 2.37 He stated that decision on this No remarks. matter should be taken by the people and not by unqualified scientists. 2.38 He stated that Vedanta is No remarks. utilising dirty money to process these projects.
2.39 The Collector requested the --- speaker to complete his submissions within 5 minutes. 2.40 He objects to the curtailment of No remarks. his right to speak only when he began to expose Vedanta 2.41 He opposes the proposal of the No remarks. Project Proponent. 3.0 Sebastian Rodrigues, BITS Pilani 3.1 He seeks to place on record a No remarks. news item published in the Economic Times in September 2016. 3.2 Vedanta has signed a concession This is true agreement for 1140 crores for re- development of Berth no 8, 9 & Barge Berth at MPT. Construction is expected to be completed in 5 years.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 3.3 Nitin Gadkari has also made a No remarks. statement in support of the project and also the Chief Minister of Goa. 3.4 There is no mention made of this No remarks. document or facts in the EIA report regarding today’s proposed project. He seeks a clarification from MPT, who states that they agree that they agree that such agreement has been signed. 3.5 With respect to the issue of The EIA Study has covered the entire fishing he states that many Study Area as prescribed in the EIA fishing areas along Zuari coast Notification of 2006. All necessary and on Tiswadi side that are information that has been inadvertently within its study area are not excluded from the present EIA will be mentioned in the study. Many furnished in the Final EIA. important fish breeding sites are also ignored. He seeks a clarification on this from MPT. MPT submits that they stands by whatever is stated in the draft EIA report. MPT clarifies that if required corrections can be made in the EIA report. 3.6 60,000 tons of sand are to be No remarks. obtained from Karwar and Pernem for construction activity as per the EIA report. He seeks a clarification from MPT as to whether any study is being on the impact on environment due to the extraction of this huge excavation of sand from the 2 areas. MPT states that it stands by whatever is stated in the EIA report.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 3.7 He requests MPT to review the No remarks. EIA report and particularly the issue regarding huge amount of sand excavation. 3.9 EIA report has not mention of There will be no adverse impact on how fisheries in Goa will be fishing activities due to this project protected. 3.10 He opposes grant of approval for No remarks. the proposed project of the Project Proponent. 4.0 SavioCorreia, Mangor Hill, Vasco da Gama. 4.1 The purpose of public hearing is No remarks. to give the citizens of Vasco an opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the Project Proponent as otherwise the Project Proponent/MPT never interacts with the people. 4.2 He requests the Officials of MPT No remarks. present to convey the concerns/objections of the public of Vasco to the Chairman of MPT. 4.3 He refers to form I of today’s No remarks. project under public hearing . 4.4 In Form I sr. No. 17, it is stated Not true. This is an independent that today’s project is not a part project. of an interlinked project. However, he states it is interlinked with another upcoming project of MPT i.e. “Modernisation and Expansion of Port Infrastructure for fishing, Coastal, Multipurpose Cargo Berth and Liquid/ General Cargo”.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 4.5 The Proposal of today is for This is true. redevelopment of berth no 8,9 and Barge Berth. 4.6 He questioned MPT that if Berth Alternate arrangements for handling 8 is redeveloped then will POL POL will be made. transport stop? 4.7 MPT officials stated that POL No remarks. will stop at Berth 8 but will continue to be transported at another location. 4.8 MPT official stated that liquid No remarks. cargo will continue at Berth 8 till alternate arrangements are made. 4.9 He questions as to whether the In the long run, POL is proposed to be new POL Berth will be another handled at Vasco bay project of MPT. He states that as the MPT official is refusing to answer a direct question as to after re-development of berth 8, where POL will be handled. He states its obvious that the MPT is now proposing “Redevelopment of Vasco Bay” at which point POL will now be handled. 4.10 He questions MPT officials as to Yes whether the MPT was aware of re-development of Vasco Bay at time of submission of the application Form I for re- development of Berth 8, 9 and Barge Berth. 4.11 MPT submits that it is still in No remarks. process of finding an alternative location for POL handling after re-development of Berth 8 and that a MOU has been signed for re-development of Vasco Bay in
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public December 2016. 4.12 He stated that MPT has proposal No remarks. of a new master plan obtained by him under RTI. He questions if any further master plan is prepared. MPT official states that it could be possible. MPT officials states that the Master Plan done in2016 is revised in 2017. 4.13 He question as to whether the No remarks. plan for shifting POL from Berth 8 to Vasco Bay still exists. MPT official confirmed this. 4.14 He stated that 02/02/2017, the This is true MPT has submitted an application for EC to MoEF and as of now EAC is framing TOR. The proposal is for modernization and expansion of port infrastructure for liquid cargo, cruise shipping, fishing, etc. Proposed Project is scheduled to be constructed with Vasco Bay. 4.15 He stated that as per project Berths 8, 9 and barge berths are to be details submitted to MoEF, it is leased stated that existing of Berth no 8, 9 and Barge Berth is leased to a port operator. 4.16 Further, it is stated that MPT This is true proposes; 1) Construction of fishing jetty, 2) Construction of Berth for liquid cargo. 4.17 He also states that one POL This is true Berth is proposed at Vasco Bay.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 4.18 He stated that there is a direct Vasco bay development is an link between todays project for independent project deepening of berth no 8, 9 and Barge Berth with the proposal for development of Vasco Bay and this has been concealed in Form I and draft EIA report. 4.19 He requests MPT to state the EIA Consultant for Vasco Bay name of the consultant who will development is Ultra Tech be incharge of the project for Environmental Consultancy and development of Vasco Bay. Laboratories, Pune. 4.20 He refers to a chapter in the EIA No remarks. report i.e. reclamation works. 4.21 He stated that in Form I sr. No. No remarks. 1.1 of todays project states that answer is “NO”. 4.22 He states that MPT has submitted As stipulated in the EIA Notification, one Form I online and 2006, the Executive Summary of the subsequently amended Form I to EIA report has been submitted to all MoEF without informing the concerned local bodies (within the public. study area) and the draft EIA report has been uploaded on relevant web sites. 4.23 He stated that MPT undertakes All necessary statutory approvals are projects without permission of taken for all ongoing activities of local authorities and Government MPT. initiates no action. However, if common man builds a house without permission the Government immediately takes action. 4.24 He objects to the act of MPT Please refer 4.22. submitting one online Form I and subsequently submitting an amended Form I without informing to the public.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 4.25 He states it is clear that MPT has The said errors were inadvertently submitted a false Form I to made in the Form – I which was MoEF. It amounts to submitting submitted online. However, in the hard a false undertaking and amounts copy submitted to MoEF& CC to perjury. thereafter (on through letter dated 30.11.2015), all the necessary information was provided. As per the ToR granted by the EAC through letter dated 16.02.2016 it is clear that in its meeting held on 21st and 22nd December 2015, the correct information given vide the said hard copy of Form – I has been used. As such, there is no question of submission of false information. 4.26 It is a gross violation of the Please refer 4.25. undertaking in Form I by MPT and these requires the application for EC to be rejected. 4.27 He stated that as per Form I Please refer 4.25. submitted by MPT it is stated that there is no dredging involved. 4.28 Chairman stated that the Form I Please refer 4.25. available with the GSPCB is not the same as the Form uploaded on MoEF website. 4.29 He refers to serial no 22 of Form Please refer 4.25. I, it is stated that there is no reclamation. 4.30 He demands that an FIR be filed This does not arise in view of against Officials of MPT for explanation at 4.25. filing of a false Form I. 4.31 He refers to EIA report page 2.19 No remarks. regarding water demand. It states that raw water will be required for landscape and dust
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public suppression. 4.32 He seeks to know the source of All necessary information on MPT’s raw water from MPT officials. water resources and their utilisation MPT officials stated that raw will be included in the Final EIA. water will be obtained from wells. He states that he does not remember the quantity of water required. 4.33 Mr. Correiaproduced a document Please see 4.32 obtained by him under RTI from MPT. He stated that the RTI reply says that well water was being used for domestic and garden purpose and a quantity of 81,30,000 litres. MPT officials states that it stands by the information submitted under RTI. 4.34 Mr. Correia states that it is seen No remarks. that MPT officials are lying before the Addl. Collector and can be prosecuted for this. 4.35 He seeks a clarification from the Please see 4.32 EIA Consultant regarding source of raw water, who states the information was supplied to him by MPT. 4.36 He stated that it appears that The treated water used for dust MPT is not using raw water. EIA suppression will be sourced only from report states that 16,00,000 litres MPT Sewage Treatment Plants. The of fresh water will be used for discrepancy in this regard in paragraph landscaping and dust 2.13 of the draft EIA report will be suppression. This is fresh water corrected in the Final EIA. from PWD as stated in the EIA. 4.37 7 lakhs litres. of water will be Not relevant to the present project. used by JSW and 16 lakhs litres However, the reply at 4.36 may also be will be used by MPT. People of referred.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public Goa will die from thirst, Goan locals and Vasco locals do not have sufficient drinking water. 4.38 He requested MPT to clarify as No remarks. to whether they informed the EIA Consultant as to from where ground water is being extracted. 4.39 The EIA Consultant states that Please see 4.36 MPT has not informed him as to the same and that MPT has two Sewage treatment plant and they obtain treated sewage effluent from these two plants. He says he will give the details in writing. 4.40 Mr. Correia states that EIA Please see 4.32 and 4.36 Consultant should state details of STP’s and Treated Effluent generated in the EIA report, since treated effluent is considered as a natural resource. 4.41 MPT representative states that Please see 4.32 and 4.36 the capacity of STP at the MPT Colony at Headland Sada is upgraded to 800 KLD while STP at MPT Hospital is 200 KLD. However, Mr. Correia stated that STP at Headland Sadais 1200 KLD as per RTI reply, hence the MPT officials are unaware of details of their own assets. 4.42 MPT representative states that No remarks. they do not have all documents with them as such unable to answer the queries of the public. 4.43 Mr. Correia requested the No remarks. Chairman to intimate the EAC as to the fact that queries of the
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public public could not be answered by MPT representatives. 4.44 He requested to MPT to state the It is estimated at 2.7 million CU. M total quantity of dredging that will be done. 4.45 MPT stated that it will be 2.44 Corrected as at 4.44 million cubic meter. 4.46 He requested the MPT to provide Apprx. 400 mtrs. the distance from the dredging spot to Rumdawada hill. 4.47 MPT submits that the distance is As the dredging is taking place more 400 mtrs. MPT further states that than 400m from the shore line, there is it will clarify in writing whether no possibility whatsoever of any it is stated in the EIA report as to "erosion/landslide" occurring on the whether fact of houses on steep land due to the same. hill located 400 mtrs from the point of geomorphological changes caused by dredging is considered. 4.48 He stated that EIA report states In depth studies on this aspect are to coal stack yard will be covered be carried out by the Railways and that most of the coal will travel byrail wagons. He requested MPT to clarify as to whether any study has been done on transit of coal from Port to its destination and whether this is stated in the EIA report. 4.49 MPT stated that this may not be Already answered. specifically mention in the EIA report. He stated that this is mentioned at page 2.22 of EIA report. 4.50 MPT officials stated that Already answered. covering of wagons will be of tarpaulin as per directives of GSPCB.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 4.51 Mr. Correia requested that wagon This comes under the purview of rakes carrying coal should be Indian Railways. covered with metal or fibre glass covers as per world class practices. 4.52 MPT states that responsibility for Already answered. covering of wagons is of Railways. He states that responsibility for covering the rail wagons with coal spilled during transit shall be on the consignee i.e. in this case, of Vedanta. 4.53 Mr. Correia demanded that MPT The present method of covering rakes use first class technology for with tarpaulins is being carried out all pollution control. MPT states over Indian Railway network. that a formal reply will be given However, the MPT is willing to have a to the public on the pollution dialogue with the railway authorities control measures to be adopted with respect to the implementation of during transportation by rail. the suggestions made. 4.54 He questioned the MPT as to the Additional rakes on account of this number of rakes that will travel project will materialise only if the per day from the Port after the doubling of rail track is undertaken by project starts. MPT officials railways. Otherwise coal movement states that additional five rakes of may not happen. coal will travel per day. 4.55 He states other cargo mainly iron No remarks. ore will come to the port by barges through Mandovi and Zuari. No coal/iron ore from Karnataka will come to the port. There are 59 wagons for rack. 4.56 Mr. Correia sought to know The railways will have to look into this whether any study has done on aspect and provide solutions the traffic congestion that will occur due to increase in number of rakes of this projects and other MPT current and expansion
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public projects. 4.57 He stated that an increase in No remarks. number of rakes will cause congestion at railway crossings in Goa. 4.58 He questioned as to whether road Doubling of tracks is a railway project overbridges will be financed by to be financed and implemented by MPT. The representative of Indian Railways. MPT states that traffic congestion will reduce only after double tracking of the railway. Mr. Correia states that this statement of MPT proves that doubling of Railway track is also interlinked with this project. MPT states that all concerns of the public will be conveyed to the higher-ups. 4.59 He states that the transit of coal All wagons carrying bulk material will wagons pass through Western be covered. Ghats which is a protected area. He requested to MPT to ensure that such rail wagons are covered with fibreglass/metal covers. 4.60 He questioned MPT whether it This is controlled by Railways has any control over the empty coal wagonsthat returned to the Port. 4.61 He questioned if any measures The wagons are completely emptied at are taken to ensure precaution on the respective destination by "wagon pollution due to parasitic load of tippler" mechanism. No residual cargo left over coal in the wagons that remains in the rail wagons ready for also causes pollution. return journey. Many a times the said wagons carry different return cargo like steel coils, granite etc. 4.62 He demands that Continuous No remarks Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public stations be set up along the railway tracks from which wagons carrying coal travel from the Port to Karnataka. He stated that these structures station should be monitored by GSPCB and funded by MPT. MPT states that land along the tracks belongs to the Railways hence the proposal will be studied by MPT. 4.63 Mr. Correia stated that the This is not true MPT’s compliance with environment standards is pathetic. 4.64 State Government has admitted No remarks. before the State Assembly that air quality is being polluted by MPT. 4.65 He states that the GSPCB is a Public Hearing is being held as precarious position whereas one mandated under the approved ToR side MPT is not complying with environmental measures currently on the other side, GSPCB has to conduct a public hearing for expansion of MPT. 4.66 GSPCB states that MPT is No remarks. violating AAQ norms. 4.67 Mr. Correia requested Mr. Varde No remarks. MPT’s Environmental Consultant to advise MPT to control air pollution. 4.68 The State Government has No remarks. replied to the Assembly that it would be conducting a study to determine the extent of air pollution by coal handling units.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 4.69 GSPCB officials stated that the No remarks. study is still under process. He states that the study may start by October and the study should be funded by the PP. 4.70 Mr. Correia demands that no No remarks. further expansion of MPT and coal handling units should be permitted till the source apportionment study is done by GSPCB. 4.71 With regard to disaster No remarks. management he refers to a statement in the EIA report that states that fire in a bulk coal stock pile is a common occurrences is a spontaneous occurrences. Coal dust explosionhas a tendency to explode when it is in the air. 4.72 He requested the MPT to clarify Smouldering occurs only in case of with respect to the fact that on thermal coal which is carefully the North Western site of the monitored and attended to, for proposed project site, Adani’s necessary control. coal stack pile exists. MPT representative admitted existence of Adani’s coal stockpile adjacent to the project site and ammonia tank about 200meters from the project site boundary. 4.73 He requested MPT to clarify as Spraying of water is done to control to whether any steps are taken to the smouldering control coal combustion of Adani’s coal stack pile as stated in the EIA report. 4.74 He states that unless MPT puts Disaster management steps are already all disaster management steps in put in place. place the project should not be
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public allowed to continue. 4.75 Mr. Correia states that it appears This is not true that MPT’s only goal is more coal. 4.76 He submits his complete disgust This is not true with the manner in which the EIA study has been done and states that it conceals several material environmental facts and it is a fraud.
4.77 He submits his total objection to No remarks. the grant of any approval to the project of MPT.
5.0 Avinash Tavares, Fatorda. 5.1 He questions the rationale of No remarks. showing of presentation by the Project Proponent as it was shown at a speed of 1 slide per 2 seconds.people ate not able to read the text shown in the slides. 5.2 The Chairman agrees that the No remarks. slide movement was fast. 5.3 He questions the GSPCB official No remarks. whether the fact that GSPCB has issued directions to MPT and other coal handling units would result in GSPCB having a conflict of interest in conducting the present public hearings and whether the PP will use to scrap, the hearing incase it goes against them . GSPCB Official agreed that directions were issued to MPT on receipt of complaints regarding coal pollution.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 5.4 He seeks clarification from Details are given in the Draft EIA. WAPCOS as to whether sensors for air, water and soil quality are placed at locations between 5 km to 10km of the project site. 5.5 He seeks clarification from The nature of the present project will WAPCOS whether he is aware have no impact whatsoever on the that there are lakes in the study status of lakes located on the land. area and in Vasco and whether However, the necessary baseline any surface water quality was information on lakes present in the done on these lakes (within 5 km Study Area will be furnished in the radius). Final EIA. 5.6 PP states that it is not necessary Please refer 5.5 to do study in the lakes as there is no impact of the proposed project on the lakes. He states he will give a detailed written reply on the question. 5.7 AvinashTavares stated that 16 Pollution tends to be higher during March to 20 May was the time summer because the bulk cargo looses during which AAQM was done moisture due to high solar radiation by the consultant at the site and winds often blow from WSW to radius (i.e. during summer ENE which may carry the dry dust months). He questioned as to towards the East. Any control exerted whether he is aware that by the natural phenomenon of rise of pollution levels are lowest in warm air is countered by the influence summer as air rises. The of moisture loss and effective wind Consultant stated that he felt direction. summer was the best season to do the monitoring as monitoring could be done at any month except monsoon. 5.8 He questioned the Consultant as No remarks. to from where the wind patterns were obtained? Consultant states that he obtained the data from a single stationAvinash Tavares ask whether the local topography
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public can affect wind pattern. Consultant agreed 5.9 Avinash Tavares stated that it No remarks. appears that study were done only during summer and only considering a wind direction from single source which is inadequate. 5.10 AvinashTavares questioned the No remarks. consultant as to whether he was paid once or twice by MPT for the study he has done. Consultant states he was paid separately by JSW for expansion of 5A and 6A and separately by MPT for the proposed project. 5.11 Avinash Tavares questioned as to Refer 5.12 whether the consultant had taken separate data for both studies or used only one set of data. 5.12 Avinash Tavares points out that Out of six stations monitored for the data in both EIA Report(Berths present project two stations were 5A/6A and Berth 8,9and 9A) are common for both the projects. (i.e. the same. Consultant states that Berths 5A/6A and Berth 8, 9 and 9A) the data is from common stations. 5.13 Avinash Tavares requested the Data was collected during the same consultant to state if data was period. As stated above the locations of collected at exactly same time four monitoring stations were different. and location. 5.14 Avinash Tavares Consultant ------stated that he would submit a reply in writing. 5.15 Avinash Tavares stated with AAQ was monitored for one season regard to AAQM data in the EIA and compared with 24 hourly report, he questions as to whether standards. data is compared to annual
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public average or daily average. Consultant submitted that he has compared with annual average but that the consultant states that he will submit a clarification in writing. 5.16 Average of poisonous emissions As stated above the AAQ was shown in EIA is compared monitored for one season and therefore wrongly by the consultant to a not compared with annual average. daily average and not annual average.He demanded explanation of each toxic gas (SO2,PM10,PM2.5 and NOX etc.) 5.17 Chairman directed the consultant The PP has taken note of all queries to take note of all the queries of raised by the public. the public and submit a detailed reply. 5.18 Indian Standards is higher than In India the statutory standards WHO standards and hence prescribed by the MOEF & CC and Indian standards need to be CPCB are followed. revised. WHO has set 2 tiers i.e. tier 1 and tier 2. India is still stuck in the higher tire target. Goans are forced to breathe polluted air and live as second class citizens. 5.19 Consultant is questioned as to There are no standardsprescribed for what standards thesurface water most of the elements found in marine samples have been compared waters.Water environment has been with. thoroughly studied in the EIA Report. Please refer Chapter 3 (Environmental Baseline Status), Lead concentration in the Port water is in the range on 3.5- 5.5 ppm. The extent of alleged lead content is unfounded. 5.20 He pointed out that EIA Lead In case of most of the trace elements, levels in water are recorded no standard limits have been specified
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public without stating permissible (for their content in marine water) limits. GSPCB officials after under the relevant statutory provisions going through the water readings of the Environment (Protection) Act, indicate that the parameters of 1986 and the Water (Prevention and lead in water are harmful. Control of Pollution) Act 1974. 5.21 GSPCB officials stated that there This is not true. are specific standards for drinking water. Samples are taken for purpose of baseline study data. Samples are taken to consider the impact of the project.Avinash Tavares raised the objection that safety standards are not mentioned since levels were already unsafe and expansion would be disastrous. 5.22 He seeks to know the criteria for The samplings sites selected for the selection of sites for testing. said purposes are appropriate as the Consultant stated that sites are nature of the envisaged project will not selected as per the project impact cause any adverse impact on soils and area.Avinash Tavares objected to ground water sources beyond a radial the testing sites as unsatisfactory distance of 1 km from the project site. and Arbitrary. No reading was taken on sea side of MPT. 5.23 He requested the consultant to Noise levels were monitored at 7 submit as to whether noise locations considering the proposed pollution affects marine life and project site and incorporated in EIA whether site was selected report. The levels of noise in the keeping this in mind. And while proposed activity are not likely to noise pollution levels were not affect the marine life to any significant measured on north side of MPT. extent. Moreover, this being a brown field project the subject of selection of project site does not arise. 5.24 Consultant stated that he would Please refer 5.23. give a reply in writing. 5.25 He requested the consultant to Sediment data from 10 Nos. of state as to whether he is aware locations have been collected, analysed
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public that the soil is contaminated with and given in EIA report. Results do not heavy metals .Consultant said he give any evidence of contamination of will give reply in writing. soils due to heavy metals as the observed levels are found naturally. 5.26 Avinash Tavares stated that No local medical evidence is available Impact of coal is to directly link coal handling and underestimated.Hequoted WHO incidents of diseases such as cancer, study which states that there is digestive problems, respiratory no safe value for coal. Coal disorders, etc. Similarly, there is no pollution gives rise to severe data to support the view that coal respiratory, cardiovascular handling and other Port activities have diseases, adverse pregnancy caused any unusual health problems to outcome and birth defects. He the citizens of the locality. There are seeks a written answer on this no official records which express any from the Consultant about fears on this issue. whether they are aware of the Health effects of Coal Dust Pollution. 5.27 He requests the MPT to submit The details of sprinkling /atomising specification of sprinklers used mechanism to be utilised in the for dust suppression. MPT proposed project will be as per the officials submitted that sprinklers recommendation of experts in the are specifically designed for use concerned field. for sprinkling of water on coal stacks. 5.28 MPT officials stated it would Necessary information on the submit in writing as to the sprinkling /atomising mechanism to be specifications of sprinklers. used in the proposed project will be provided in the Final EIA. 5.29 He stated that MPT sprinklers are This is not correct. Presently, the ineffective as the size of operating terminal is provided with drouplets have to be smaller or AQUADYNE water fogging system, in equal to size of dust the hoppers (which receive the particles.MPT uses generics unloaded material from the ship), at the sprinklers coal is hydrophilic Junction towers and in the cargo and does not easily get wet when conveyors. Since the said system is questioned MPT officials state based on the Fogging technology, the that it does not have a coal water droplets are formed to match the
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public expert. MPT uses sprinklers that stipulated size and type, to effectively have not been vetted by a coal control the finest fugitive emissions. In expert. the stack yard area the coal cargo is normally under full tarpauline cover, and opened only at the time of stacking and reclaiming. At this time, the water sprinkling is carried out at appropriate spots to control fugitive dust. 5.30 He requests MPT to state Presently at the operating terminals no whether they use coal wetting wetting agents are used. As far as the agent, MPT official states that all present project is concerned, please this information will be in DPR. refer 5.27 and 5.28. Mr. Tavares states that this information is not made available to the public. 5.31 He states that sprinklers have to Please refer 5.27 and 5.28. be of a particular dropletsize as it is material for effective wetting of coal. 5.32 As there is no information This is not true. available with MPT and in absence of a coal expert, if renders all the coal dust suppression methods unreliable. 5.33 He requested MPT to state if any The names of the experts involved in marine geologist in the team but the EIA study are provided in the EIA whose name is not mentioned in report. the report. 5.34 EIA consultant is requested to Please refer 5.33. name all the experts who worked on this EIA but is not stated in the report. Why did they not signed the report? 5.35 Consultant stated that he wanted Please refer 5.33. to submit this in writing. 5.36 He further sought to know if, Not required as per the ToR. there is any study is done on sand
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public banks and whether they are aware of amount of fresh water coming out of the river during the monsoon 5.37 Did WAPCOS study the amount Details of fishing community and their of fish caught by Vasco activities in the study area, are given in fisherman at Khariwada and EIA: Chapter 3 (Environmental Baina and is it a part of the socio Baseline Status), which is based on economic impact study. information obtained officially from the Directorate of Fisheries, Govt. of Goa. 5.38 MPT refers to page 97 of the EIA EIA study has been conducted as report, table no. 3.36 and states stipulated in the ToR. this data is in the report.AvinashTavares asked whether a single year data of 2015 is sufficient for baseline data. 5.39 Avinash Tavares asked whether a Said study was not part of approved ground level concentration of ToR. coal dust slides was done along with data at various levels of wind. 5.40 Consultant stated he will submit Refer reply at 5.39. the same in writing. 5.41 Was a noise level propagation This study is not envisaged in the modelling done at the site and if approved ToR. it was done, under which standards was it done? 5.42 Do you have an oil spill Already answered. contingency plan and is it mentioned in the report. MPT representatives state that this is mentioned at 5.3.3 of the report. 5.43 Will the increase in number of There is likely possibility of increasing ships due to re-development and the number of ships calling MPT. deepening will lead to tar balls Deepening of channel will not lead to
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public increase. increase in tar balls. 5.44 Has a 3D simulation model of CWPRS is a reputed research dredging done? Was the study organisation under the Govt. of India doneas a common study or and their studies are reliable.Already separate for all three EIA reports answered. .Whether it is done separately for exercise of deepening of channel and separately for re- development of Berth. 5.45 MPT submits a combined study The study to identify safe marine was done. This is objected to by ground for safe disposal of dredged Avinash Tavares with allegation spoils was done through the CWPRS. of Double billing and corruption This was an independent study apart MPT officials then say that from the separate EIA Studies separate studies were done. undertaken for different projects. 5.46 Avinash Tavares stated that As this is a proposed project, no study done cannot be used seems dredging has been undertaken. in reality as depths are totally different as the site was already dredged and simulation was done on pre dredged topography. 5.47 Avinash Tavares asked whether EIA study was carried out as per Hydro study taken for one full approved ToR by WAPCOS. season or is it done for one day? However, Hydro study was not part of approved ToR issued by EAC of MoEF& CC. 5.48 MPT official stated that EIA Please refer to 5.47. study is done for one season. MPT official states that hydro study is taken for one full season however, data in EIA report states otherwise. 5.49 He sought details regarding Please refer to 5.45. modelling at dumping site. MPT officials states that only 1 study is done for modelling of dumping site of dredge material and also
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public for dredging activity itself. 5.50 Mr Avinash said that EIA report The trend of sedimentation is very well shows a simulation modelling of stabilized after simulation of one a part of extraction of proposed month dredging, therefore, one month dredged materials (2500 units) simulation period is adopted. over a period of 1 month. But if dredging is actually done sediments will be dumped at the selected site over a period of four months. 5.51 The question is whether the study The study is adequate. CWPRS is a is adequate. MPT states that they reputed research organisation under the will reply in writing. Govt. of India and their studies are reliable. 5.52 Mr. Avinash questioned why did A fresh Spoil Disposal Site has been MPT reject the dumping site as identified taking in to account the stated in the EIA report and increase in the quantity of dredged selected 2 more new dumping spoils to be generated. site. MPT replied that the current dump site is filled hence 2 new dump sites had been selected and dumpimg was done at the two new sites 5.53 Mr. Avinashobjected to EIA This is not true. The dumping grounds report that the two sites are have been chosen such that all the therefore existing sites and were dumped material would flow along the not new as stated in report that northerly sea currents and would not MPT was illegally dumping in a interfere either with the port structures site without any study.He stated or with the shores. No significant CWPRS took fees to point to a morphological changes are expected site already used by MPT and did due to the dumping of dredged not do any study. material at designated grounds. 5.54 MPT refer to page 5.5 for the Already answered. site. 5.55 MPT doesn’t not have The material is disposed at the Spoil permission for dumping of Ground identified by CWPRS and dredged material (i.e 60% done which lies within the Port’s active
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public that was illegal) at the site. basin area. The EC was earlier granted to the said activity. No illegality is involved. 5.56 MPT should also state the About 7 million cum was disposed quantity of dredged material offgenerated from Capital dredging dumped at the and the material is not toxic. site.AvinashTavares asked whether the material was toxic and MPT said No. 5.57 Avinash Tavares The dredged material is proposed to be questionedwhether the dumping dumped at the new dumping site site identified in the EIA report is new or old. MPT officials states that it should be identified as spoilt ground 1 and spoilt ground 2.they did not confirm that sites were new and unused 5.58 Mr. Avinash requested to know The dredged materials consist of soft the nature of the material silt clayey material which would dumped. MPT officials states mostly remain in suspended condition that the material dumped is clay and the dumping grounds have been however there is no study to say chosen such that all the dumped that it is completely useless. This material would flow along the is a criminal waste of a resource northerly sea currents and would not as it is done without study. interfere either with the port structures or with the shores. As per CWPRS the dredged material mostly consists of soft silt and clay and is not suitable for beach nourishment as it would flow away along with the currents and would not remain stable on the beach like normal sand. 5.59 Mr Avinash questioned as to There is no threat to the fishermen due whether making buoys are put to the Spoil Disposal Ground. It has for the dumping ground for been marked on the map by indicating warning fisherman or whether it the Lat/Long figures. Location of has been marked on the map. dumping ground can also be established through VHF contact to
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public Port’s signal station. 5.60 He questioned the direction in Already answered. which the dredging is done. MPT officials states that capital dredging depends on navigation issues like ship movement. Four dredgers were used at a time. 5.61 EIA report does not make Tyres, scrap materials such as mention of hard rock, tyres, scrap “Anchors/Chains”, etc., which may material, concrete that exist in have been accidentally fallen from the the dredged material. ships or parts of sunken ships may also be recovered along with the dredged material. This, however, happens rarely and the recovered quantities are insignificant. 5.62 This material is being dumped at This is not true. dump site which is causing pollution. 5.63 MPT officials say these materials Scrap metal items including tyres are are of negligible quantity and are normally separated from the dredged not dumped at the dumping spoils and disposed appropriately after site.Avinash Tavares objected to bringing the same to the shore, and not these statement stating MPT dumped in the Spoil Ground. should have stated this in EIA. 5.64 MPT states it will give a Please refer 5.63. clarification in writing. 5.65 Mr. Avinash questioned as to Already answered. whether the turning circle is dredged. MPT official replied says that it is partly dredged. 5.66 He seeks to know the meaning of Reclamation material will be brought back filling and reclamation as from licensed quarries. Further well as the area in which the information on the subject matter will same is going to be done. He be provided in the Final EIA. further seeks to know as to whether the back filling material is toxic or not. Avinash Tavares
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public asked were are the “approved quarries” mentioned in EIA.MPT did not answer.Avinash Tavares asked the additional collector and GSPCB Official if there are any approved queries in Verna and Cortalim as stated in EIA. The official said no permission is given .MPT stated they will give in writing. Avinash Tavares asked where will they get material for reclamation as all hills are fragile and eco sensitive. MPT has no answer. Avinash Tavares asked if EIA is conducted about the site were the materials will be brought. MPT stated they will give in writing. 5.67 He seeks to know whether an All studies mandated in the ToR have EZA study is done on the Band been carried out. Construction. He states that with regard to covering of coal, it is not able to be ascertained whether the structure that are proposed to be constructed will be efficient in controlling dust pollution. Has a study on effect of sediment implant that will go upstream been done? 5.68 Avinash Tavares questioned why All studies mandated in the ToR have Deep water study not been done been carried out. below 7 meter. 5.69 He accused WAPCOS of having WAPCOS are appointed by MPT for Conflict of interest since they are preparation of EIA report based on the being paid by MPT and therefore ToR issued by EAC of MoEF& CC. they cannot be objective in the WAPCOS is a NABET accredited and study highly experienced Consultant under
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public the jurisdiction of Govt. of India. 5.70 MPT has not done an This is not true. independent study in the matter and WAPCOS used data from MPTB which is fabricated. 5.71 WAPCOS report is tailor made Please refer 5.69. for benefit of MPT and there is a gross conflict of interest. 5.72 He Quoted Para 4.3.5 where it is All hazardous materials whether in stated that escapement of bulks Containers or otherwise are handled as such as Iron Bulk cargo, per the prescribed safety precautions. Container cargo during Necessary details will be included in unloading is not expected the final EIA report. because any serious impact as they are non toxic .He asked MPT whether they agree that all the bulk cargo contains in containers cargo such as Mercury Bulks etc are non toxic.MPT said they stand by the report and will give responds in writing. 5.73 Avinash Tavares stated Ballast This is not true.Ballast water water guidelines are guidelines are communicated to all contradictory since ships can visiting vessels by the MPT and the release ballast water with same are enforced strictly. permission as per Port Trust Rules while EIAreports says ballast water release won’t be allowed . 5.74 Demands that MPT should The ballast water management plan is implement the ballast waste implemented as prescribed in the water management plan and not relevant Rules applicable to Shipping violate environmental guidelines Activity. as by not following them, the marine environment is under threat.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 5.75 MPT should be declared as The Mormugao Taluka including MPT emission control area (EIA) as Complex area is already declared as the vicinity is eco-sensitive and the Air Emission Control area under sulphur emission needs to be the Air Act 1981. controlled. 5.76 MPT has no knowledge of This is not true. WAPCOS are marine ecology of the appointed by MPT for preparation of vicinity.Opposes grant of EIA report based on the ToR issued by approval for project proponent’s EAC of MoEF& CC. WAPCOS is a projects as the studies of baseline NABET accredited and highly data is flawed and there are experienced Consultant under the several discrepancies in the jurisdiction of Govt. of India. report. 5.77 He submitted copies of This is not true. Loaded coal rakes are photographs depicting how the fully covered. coal is transported through rail wagons without following any norms thereby causing coal pollution. He further pointed out that this is a regular feature where the wagons are not covered properly, overloaded and door kept open right from the point of origin as a result of which the coal is spilled all along the railway tracks and the same is blown into and inside peoples houses. 5.78 MPT during the Public Hearing As per the Town and Country Planning of first project commented that Regulations, construction is not the colonies of houses alongside permissible on the steep hill slopes in have illegally mushroomed but question. The responsibility of not produced any report to show identifying and taking suitable action that those houses are illegal and against such illegalities lies with the that because of illegality if any TCP Dept. and the MMC. In any case catastrophe occurs would that by such constructions are prone to itself mean that they would have landslides during heavy rains and to find themselves. storms in the monsoon season. The
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public same is the case with illegal settlements along the beaches of Khariwada and Baina, which are prone to flooding and collapse during high tides coupled with stormy sea waves. No threat is imposed on these due to any activity of the Port. 5.79 He sought to know that if The subject matter comes within the tomorrow landslides take place purview of the District Authority and will the collector / District the Emergency Services deployed Magistrate first consider the under the same as per the State legality of the structure to which Disaster Management Plan. MPT can the Chairman intervened and said provide the necessary help if required that if in case of any as per the decision of the District contingency, as per the Disaster Administration. management that we look at saving lives of people and not delve into nitty-gritty’s of checking the legality of the structure. 5.80 He also sought to know whether Disaster management plans are in as Disaster management Plan is place and mock drills are conducted. prepared and Mock drills are conducted in case any catastrophe or if disaster takes place? 5.81 MPT replied that they have This has been laid down in the disaster evacuation plan in place but if management plan any disaster occurs what steps MPT is going to take was questioned. 5.82 He further stated that the state is Disaster Management Plan deals with not prepared to manage the all types of emergencies. Disaster which might occur due to chemical leakages or chemical disasters as the micro methodology study has not been undertaken.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 5.83 He also sought to know if MPT Refer 5.82. has siren warning systems outside Sada area to which MPT replied that they have siren systems and it can be heard all around Sada village. However, Avinash stated that till date nobody has heard of any such siren. 5.84 He sought to know whether MPT The Port has the necessary emergency is advertising the various response system in case of any such measures taken by them than the eventuality. Besides each of such offsite plan, onsite plan, installations has independent safety emergency management plan etc. and emergency response mechanism. If had to be in public domain. All required, the Fire and Emergency these plans should be made Department of the State Govt., the known to all the people most Coast Guard as well as the Indian importantly schools, hospitals, Navy can be requested for assisting the etc. as they are highly vulnerable Port in emergency relief operations. population and likely to be affected if any such disaster occurs and they are also the ones who carry along the message in the long run as also informed parents and elders. 5.85 He pointed out that there is The said matter pertains to GSPCB. disaster management plan uploaded on GSPCB website, on chemical disaster.
6.0 ZarinaDacunha 6.1 She stated that you are custodian No remarks. for people of Goa and show concern for people of Goa and not for MPT, Adani and Jindal. 6.2 She stated that no No remarks. Scientist/experts were available
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public who could answer to the questions raised by the public. She stated that how can we rely on EIA report.
7.0 Swati Kerkar, Keri Ponda. 7.1 GSPCB is a namesake Board. No remarks. 7.2 MPT has to explain what it has Coal dust pollution is monitored and done to control coal dust controlled by several steps narrated in pollution all these years. the EIA Report. 7.3 GSPCB has to explain what it The said matter pertains to GSPCB. has done to control pollution due to coal handling till date. 7.4 GSPCB is a public funded body No remarks. but is not working for the people. 7.5 GSPCB official states that all The said matter pertains to GSPCB. AAQ monitoring has indicated exceeding levels of coal pollution and as such Board has directed the coal handling units to reduce coal handling units reduce coal handling by 25%. 7.6 She states that all coal handling No remarks. has to be shut down immediately. She demanded an immediate site inspection by the GSPCB officials to see the extent of coal pollution. 7.7 GSPCB states that the public The said matter pertains to GSPCB. views expressed will be part of the competent authority for necessary action.
8.0 Fr. Michael (Advocate) 8.1 In a public hearing no public can No remarks. be stopped from specifying and being forced to write their
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public names.
9.0 Udhav Pol 9.1 Adani and Jindal have no consent This is not true. to operate, hence GSPCB must stop their operation immediately. 9.2 Scientist of MPT could not reply This is not true. to the public queries and produced false information and documents. 9.3 He stated it is the duty of the No remarks. Collector to stop the operation of coal handling immediately. 9.4 MPT has illegally done 65% This is not true. Dredging was carried dredging without permission, it is out after approval. a criminal act and MPT officials have to be prosecuted.
10.0 Cyril Fernandes (On behalf of Human Rights Monitoring Society) 10.1 a) MPT officials were directed ---- to introduce : 1) Shri. SudinPrabhudesai, EE, MPT 2) Shri. D.D. Ambe, EE, MPT 3) Shri. Arun Kumar, WAPCOS 4) Dr. S.K. Tyagi, WAPCOS 10.2 He sought to know which of the EIA report prepared by WAPCOS who officials were involved in is NABET accredited agency. preparation of EIA report. It was answered in the negative. 10.3 MPT officials stated that EIA Statement given is self-explanatory. report is a draft report and all suggestions from the public will be incorporated in the final report.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 10.4 GSPCB official stated that the All necessary steps are taken according final report is sent directly to to the procedure prescribed in the EIA EAC and does not come back to Notification of 2006. the public. He objected to this and requested that replies given by MPT to his queries must be provided to him, he demanded. 10.5 He informed the GSPCB official No remarks. that public of Vasco is so upset and have participated for 3 consecutive days because GSPCB is not functioning. GSPCB has failed to protect the people of Goa, he accused. 10.6 People are forced to go to NGT No remarks. because GSPCB is found wanting. 10.7 GSPCB came into force because No remarks. PCB informed the High Court during the Zuari matter that it did not have any mechanism to monitor pollution. 10.8 GSPCB does not act against big No remarks. companies and only targets small business. 10.9 As GSPCB fails to protect the No remarks. environment, the people have to fight for themselves, coming on the streets he stated. 10.10 If the Board does not function it No remarks. should be wound up, he demanded. 10.11 The information that has been No remarks. highlighted by the public to the Board today is not with the Board since the last 25 years.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 10.12 He began his power point No remarks. presentation against the proposed re-development of berth no. 8,9, barge berth at MPT Goa. 10.13 He seeks the presence of the Officials of MPT attending the EPH are Chairman of MPT to consider the authorised by Chairman/MPT. queries of the local people, since the attending officials are found incompetent to reply to public questioning. 10.14 MPT started in 1888 by the No remarks. Portuguese with the help of Britishers. 10.15 MormugaoPort was also built by There is no expansion in the the Portuguese. It is protected geographical area under the jurisdiction area and is on the border of the of the Mormugao Port. This is clearly project area. identified and depicted through a map in the relevant Notification issued by the Government. 10.16 MPT started with 3 berths and These are the facts since inception of subsequently has now on date got Mormugao Port. 11 (eleven) berths. 10.17 Fisherman of Vasco have been This matter is irrelevant with respect to residing in Vasco for thousands project. of years. They are plying their traditional occupation. 10.18 MPT has been encroaching into This is not correct. areas occupied by traditional fishermen. 10.19 Population of 50000 in Vasco is There is no land or other property not mentioned in the EIA. acquisition in the proposed project and socio economic status of the study area has been analyzed based on secondary data. Census book of Goa (Primary Census 2011) was used to identify the settlements in the study area and demographic profile of the population.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 10.20 The historical fort is in close The present project has no bearing vicinity of MPT is also not whatsoever on the said entity. mentioned in the EIA report. However, a mention of the same will be made in the final EIA. 10.21 All material imported by the This is not correct. MPT is toxic/hazardous. 10.22 28 petroleum storage tanks are All such installations will be located in close proximity of the appropriately listed and described. port which is not mentioned in the EIA report. 10.23 Coal handling started 10 years This is not true. Even before the back. There are 2 dedicated existing Berths 6 & 7 became terminals at 6 & 7. operational, coal handling was done at the MPT. 10.24 MPT is seeking to increase coal MPT adopts all measures to suppress handling by 400%. coal dust. 400% increase in coal is not envisaged 10.25 MPT proposes to handle 100 MT This is not true. The mainstay of the per annum of cargo where its Redevelopment project is to serve the designed capacity is40 MMTA export needs of Goan iron ore. Other as per present port infrastructure. general cargo including containers will also form an important part of the envisaged facility. The existing coal Berth No.7 is presently operating at about 40% of its capacity. As such even when the redeveloped berth becomes operational for coal, the increase in coal traffic will be limited and proportional to the evacuation capacity. 10.26 MPT plans to acquire the Baina There are no plans for any port bay, he stated and showed the development at Baina. slide towards the same. 10.27 MPT plans to acquire the Vasco Vasco bay comes within the bay, he stated. jurisdiction of the MPT 10.28 MPT’s solution for the existing A fishing jetty is proposed at Vasco fisherman after the expansion is bay, and for this the ToR for EIA
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public to rehabilate the fishing fleet. studies has been approved by the EAC This is not specified as to where of MOEF & CC. the fisherman will be relocated and therefore such wild promises cannot be accepted. 10.29 MPT is Goan guests and you No remarks. cannot encroach on our rights.
10.30 All your Baina development has Please refer 10.26 no benefit to locals as per MPT’s own admission in the EIA report. 10.31 MPT is planning to develop This is not true. No displacement of Vasco bay and displace the local local fishermen is involved in the fisherman violating the right to present as well as future projects of life of these locals. MPT. 10.32 MPT fails to inform in the EIA The present project has no bearing report that defence installations whatsoever on the said entities. are located in close vicinity of However, a mention of the same will the MPT. be made in the final EIA. 10.33 He seeks a clarification as to The present project is notexpected to whether WAPCOS is aware that have any adverse impact on the Chicalim Bay is located within 5 Chicalim Bay, which is more than 5 Km of the study area and if so Km away from the proposed project why it does not figure in the EIA site. However, necessary information Report? on the same will be provided in the final EIA. 10.34 As the WAPCOS consultants This is not true. Please refer 10.33. refuse to answer, he states that it can be concluded that they do not know about the existence of the Chicalim Bay. It is the womb of Marine Biodiversity. 10.35 Chicalim Villagers seek to No remarks. ensure that Bay is declared as EIA. 10.36 Window Pane Oysters are The NIO Report on Chicalim bay nature’s gift to Goa. draws no conclusion about any adverse
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public Dr.BabanIngole’s report was impact on the same. The said report did upheld before the NGT and as not figure in any matter before the such MPT is before the local NGT. fishermens. He showed a video of Dr.BabanIngole, a NIO Scientist who has done a lot of research on windowpane oysters and other biodiversity of the Bay. 10.37 Dredging by the MPT will This is not true. Please refer 10.33. destroy Chicalim Bay and the clams that exist there. It is natural breeding ground of many endangered species. 10.38 MPT has failed to disclose as to Please refer 10.33. existence of Chicalim Bay in close vicinity of MPT for which the consultants, WAPCOS are to be blamed. 10.39 He objects MPT to destroy Goan This is not true. Biodiversity & Ecology. 10.40 First Human footprint in Goa No remarks. was found in Chicalim Bay and is 15,000 years old. 10.41 Chicalim Villagers have No remarks. documented birds and insects which are not mentioned in the EIA Report. 10.42 MPT expansion and dredging This is not true. plan will destroy fish which will affect Goan Fisherman and food supply. 10.43 The study area of MPT proposed This is not correct. The ST community Project has 10% tribals which are is around 5% of the population as not mentioned in the EIA nor in indicated in the EIA report. the social impact of the project on the tribals mentioned.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 10.44 The Corals of Grande island are The present project is notexpected to not mentioned in the EIA Report have any adverse impact on the Corals and if MPT’s project is allowed of Grande island, which is more than 7 to go ahead, then the corals will Km away from the proposed project be destroyed. site. However, necessary information on the same will be provided in the final EIA. 10.45 Adani has been accused of No remarks. harming the Great Coral reef in Australia and coral in Goa will be destroyed. If this mining project is approved by Australian Government according to the local Australian inhabitants. 10.46 EIA is silent on existence of The present project has no bearing World Heritage sites within 15 whatsoever on the said entities. km range of site area. The Old However, a mention of the same will Goa churches are a World be made in the final EIA. Heritage Site within 15 kms of project site. 10.47 The Heritage Anglican Church The present project has no bearing next to MPT in Administrative whatsoever on the said entity. Building is not mentioned in the However, a mention of the same will EIA report. be made in the final EIA. 10.48 EIA Notification and EIA No EIA guidelines have been violated. guidelines have been violated by The present project has no bearing failing to mention that protected whatsoever on the said entities. sites, Ammonia Storage Tanks, However, a mention of the same will endangered species, defence be made in the final EIA. Installations establishments, hospitals, such as Ammonia Storage Tank, schools, fall within the study Phosphoric acid tanks, etc have area, primary and secondary ones independent safety arrangements and in Form I. emergency response mechanisms. 10.49 Dr. Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary, The present project has no bearing Fort Aguada, Reis Magos Fort whatsoever on the said entities. and Jail, GMC, Mangueshi and However, a mention of the same will Mardol Temples, NIO have not be made in the final EIA. been mentioned in the EIA report
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public inspite of falling within the study area. 10.50 The phosphoric acid tanks, Please refer 10.48. Ammonia Storage Tanks and Coal study are huge fire hazards close to project site and have not been mentioned in the EIA Report. 10.51 MPT is only concerned about This is not true. officials of the Port and not the people of Vasco. 10.52 EIA report fails to mention the This is not true. Demographic profile of fact that thousands of people live the study areabased on Official Census in close vicinity of MPT. 2011,is given in the EIA report. 10.53 MPT has split its business into 4 This is not true. EIA Report for each parts by separating Berths 5A project has been prepared based on the &6A dredging and Berth 8A respective approved ToRs. &9A and the issue of doubling of Rail tracks. All the 4 projects are not mentioned in the EIA report. They are all interlinked to one another, he stated. 10.54 MPT does not care for its This is not true. workers. 10.55 MPT does not care for the Goa This is not true. State Pollution Control Board and its directions. 10.56 Biggest threat to MPT is from The Port has the necessary emergency the large oil storage tanks. These response system in case of any such hazards are not mentioned in the eventuality. Besides each of such EIA Report. 1,70,000 KL of installations has independent safety and petroleum is stored in the storage emergency response mechanism. If tanks, he stated. required, the Fire and Emergency Department of the State Govt., the Coast Guard as well as the Indian Navy can be requested for assissting the Port in emergency relief operations.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 10.57 MPT is only worried about profit This is not true. and increasing profit of MPT and the Private companies and does not care about Goans and its people and ecology. 10.58 MPT has no proper Disaster This is not true. Management Plan. 10.59 MPT must blacklist the persons No remarks. responsible for preparing this fraud EIA Report as preparation of this report is a crime. 10.60 Baseline data is missing. Manual This is not true.EIA study was carried on Ports and Harbours has been out as per approved ToR. violated while preparing the EIA Report. The study area has to be 15 km as per the manual and not 10 kms. 10.61 EIA report has no modelling tests This is not true. The EIA Report is as conducted and the draft EIA per the approved ToR Report has to be rejected. The report has to be re-done. 10.62 Project from Project Proponent No remarks. must be rejected and the MoEF must initiate an inquiry and Order a fresh study. 10.63 He refers to the report ofreport of No remarks. working group for Port sector for the 12the Five year Plan 2012 to 2017 of the Ministry of Shipping, GoI for its 12th 5 years plan (dated 2011) 10.64 The Project Proponent is being No remarks. done for Vedanta. 10.65 Adani will use Berth no. 8, 9 & No remarks. 9A and they are already operating Berth no. 7 on which they have a 30 years lease. Adani
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public will take our Berth no. 8 & 9 from Vedanta who will initially use it. It is back door entry for Adani and Vedanta in only a musk, he stated. 10.66 The Chairman of MPT is part of No remarks. the Working Group. 10.67 He asks MPT if any port dredged Vishakapatnam port is dredged toabout upto 19 mtrs MPT replies that no -18.5m. Kamaraj port has undertaken other major port has dredged dredging work to deepen to about upto 19 meters. Hence MPT is -18.00m. Jaigarh port is dredged to the first port in the country to do about -22m andGangavaram port is so. He questioned MPT the need also dredged to about -19.00m to go to this depth and sought reasons fpr the same. 10.68 An agency was appointed to EIA study has to be conducted only study Ram SethuProject. NIO through NABET accredited EIA had conducted EIA of Ram Sethu Consultant. Project then why did MPT not appoint NIO to do this EIA Project. 10.69 He demands an Expert No remarks. Committee to study the cumulative effect of allof MPT’s proposed expansion projects. He further claims that members and Scientists on the Committee should be appointed by the affected local fisherman and impacted stake holders, he demanded. 10.70 Doubling of Hospetto Vasco This is not true. The project on railway line section is part of Doubling of Hospet to Vasco railway MPTs Business Plan. EIA should line is an independent project of the have reflected on this. This is an Indian Railway. The present project has interlinked projects and its no direct connection with the said cumulative impact need to be project. studied, he demanded. He
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public pointed out that double tracking is passing through National Reserve Forest. 10.71 He pointed out that MPT is MPT has been promoting cruise signatory to the 12th Five Year tourism in a big way. There is a Plan of the working group for dedicated cruise berth at MPT. A cruise Port sector. He said this plan has terminal building has also been recently identified MPT for promoting constructed. MPT handled a record 39 cruise tourism. However, against cruise vessels during FY 2016-17. 50 this plan MPT is promoting vessels are expected during the year FY importing Hazardous Coal for 2017-18. In the next 5 years, this questionable reasons. MPT had number will increase to 100. agreed that they should promote Cruise Tourism, however now they are promoting Coal. 10.72 The Report of the Working group No remarks. lists out Air Pollution as a serious problem and a state that Fossil fuel is a major source of Air Pollution yet MPT is promoting dirty and dusty cargo in form of Coal. The 12th Plan has pointed to the hazardous cargo like coal and planned to reduce its import and phase out movement of such Hazardous Cargo. He pointed out that this plan has identified Mormugao Port as one such Port which has to phase out coal handling on top priority. It is shown in the said 12th Plan that Mormugao Port has to shift the handling of Coal to an alternative site. He requested MPT to follow the 12th Five year Plan of the Shipping Ministry and shift coal handling to Jaigad Port which MPT is planning to
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public develop. Till such time, he demanded that MPT must stop handling of coal to avoid pollution and avoid hazardous activity at Mormugao Port. 10.73 The working group has planned No remarks. shifting of Hazardous material from existing Ports to alternate sights away from heavily populated areas. 10.74 MPT should dedicate one berth MPT has already planned the for fishermen and their activity. construction of a modern Fishing Jetty at Vasco Bay with all amenities for the benefit of local fishermen. 10.75 As far as the Working Group No remarks. recommendation, Mormugoa is directed to shift and should atleast shift Hazardous Cargo i.e. Coal to Jaigad. 10.76 These facts find no mention in EIA is based on the approved ToR. the EIA Report. 10.77 The Goa Government and Goa No remarks. State Pollution Control Board should object to granting of permissions for the proposed project of MPT. 10.78 He states that the citizens of Goa No remarks. have full faith in EAC and MoEF. And therefore the Citizens have overwhelmingly participated in this public hearing. He however pointed out to press reports wherein the Goa Chief Minister has accused MoEF officials of corruption and of passing project by accepting bribes. He sought clarifications
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public from MoEF on the serious accusations of the Chief Minister of Goa. 10.79 Chief Minister of Goa has No remarks. accused MoEF of taking bribes for grant of Environmental Clearances in Goa. 10.80 He relies on news reports that No remarks. show that Nitin Gadkari& Environment Minister have broken rules to help MPT. He showed slides containing news report on suspicious role of Central Ministers Nitin Gadkari and Prakash Javdekar in pushing these projects to benefit predetermined individuals. Press reports showed Shipping MinisterNitinGadkari waiving of Public Hearing in these projects. 10.81 It is due to efforts of Khariwada No remarks. fisherman that MPT was stopped from illegally dredging the Channel. MPT has to restore the sea bed to its original condition, he demanded. 10.82 He fully opposes the project of No remarks. the MPT grant of approval 10.83 He and Human Rights Society No remarks. demand that MoEF should order a CBI inquiry into the role of Central Ministers Nitin Gadkari and Prakash Javdekar. 10.84 He gave written submission The EIA study has included all towards objecting the project. He necessary data as mandated by the said besides insufficient approved ToR. Any deficiency in the information on environmentally same will be clarified and rectified in
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public sensitive issues, he has listed out the Final EIA report. With respect to birds, fishes, mammals etc. the comment concerning the double coming within schedule I & IV tracking of Railway line, please refer of the Wildlife Protection Act, 10.70. 1972 which the PP has failed to mention existing within the study area. Further comparing with an EIA study on the Mopa Airport, he pointed out in the same submissions that the PP has not provided area of consultancy and role played by such consultants with regard to this project. On page 15 of his additional submissions he pointed out the failure of PP to publish the wind rose charts. At pages 17 to 19, he claimed that the double tracking of Hospet Vasco railway line is also interlinked to this project. He claimed that this double tracking is taking place through National Reserve Forests of the Western Ghats, which is not mentioned in this EIA report. Similarly, he charged that four laning of certain Highways and interlinking of others is also linked to this project. He provided more details at page 20 of his submissions quoting and reproducing newspaper reports. He also accused the PP of doing a cut paste job in this EIA report from an earlier report and produced two such examples at pages 21 to 22 of his
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public submissions. On page 12 of the said submission he showed that the TOR compliance report is required to be prepared and submitted in this effect. The very same page was also shown to PP and they were asked if this has been done by them in the EIA.
10.85 The consultant replied stating Please refer 10.84. that they have taken note of the same and that they would comply with the same. 10.86 Mr. Cyril charged that this As provided in the EIA Notification, compliance of TOR is not there 2006 the draft EIA has to be brought in in the EIA and that’s why it was the public domain and based on which pointed out by him so that the the Public Hearing shall be conducted EIA study which is incomplete by the State Pollution Control Board. should and cannot be considered The Final EIA is prepared taking into at all. He pointed out to the TOR account the suggestions/comments at sr. no. (ix), whereby the made by the public during the PH impact of dredging was to be proceedings. As such any deficiency of done by NIO. He sought to know the draft EIA will be attended to and if the NIO has been assigned the included in the Final EIA. This will task. MPT replied that they have include the incorporation of the NIO already asked NIO to carry out report on Biodiversity Management the task and that their report is Plan. awaited. 10.87 He charged that entire EIA report This is not true. is full of falsities and before completing the study, prematurely they have come to us by jumping the fence and hence the EIA has to reject the EIA report and direct the PP to prepare a fresh EIA through NIO and only than have the public hearing.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public
11.0 Custodio D’Souza, Khariwada. 11.1 He demanded that the MPT MPT officials were present. officials be present for the hearing. 11.2 4 officials of MPT are present. ---- 11.3 He stated that the area from berth There is no permanent change in the No. 11 to Hindu cemetery was a original beach profile. The NIO in their beach. interim Shoreline Monitoring Report, have also endorsed this view. The beach is degraded due to the illegal but pucca‘shanties/slums’ that have proliferated all over the Western side of the beach and hence the beach dunes have been covered and degraded. 11.4 MPT officials states that they Please refer 11.3. agree that it was a beach. 11.5 He questioned them as to what is Please refer 11.3. the position of the area on the beach now. 11.6 MPT officials states that the area This is not true. None of the Port from Berth no. 11 to Hindu Projects/Activities have affected the cemetery is a beach and a fishing beach as confirmed by the said NIO jetty exists there. He stated that study. Please refer 11.3. he was born in 1975. As per his knowledge there is no beach due to dredging. Berth no. 11 was constructed and the beach was destroyed. 11.7 He requests the Chairman to No remarks. conduct an inspection to conform the position. 11.8 He seeks to know what MPT is This is explained in the EIA report. doing with berth no. 8 & 9. 11.9 MPT officials stated that they No remarks. have signed an agreement with Goa Sea Port Ltd., with Central
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public government. He states that job of MPT is to get an EC. 11.10 He seeks to know why Jindal The first project is a proposed by M/s. came for the first hearing. SWPL (Jindal) 11.11 MPT officials states that JSW Please refer 11.10. came for the first public hearing of 5A and 6A. 11.12 He states that there is an Please refer 10.74. Association of BainaRaponkar and Old Cross Fishing Society. He questioned that if fisherman made a request to MPT to allocate a berth to the fisherman, would MPT allot a berth to them. 11.13 He states that fishermen are king No remarks. of the sea and asks if he asks for a berth will they be allotted a berth.’ 11.14 MPT officials stated that they No remarks. Also refer 10.74. cannot answer the query raised as the Public hearing is not regarding the issue raised by the speakers. 11.15 He sought to know when the Reply furnished. tender for Berth no. 8 and 9 was issued by MPT 11.16 MPT replied as follows: As replied. RFQ was issued in December 2015 by newspaper advertisement on 01/12/2015. Board approved granting of the tender to Sterlite PortLimited and concession agreement was signed in 23rdSeptember, 2016. He requested the Chairman to withdraw their application and
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public to scrap the project. He requested MPT to inform as to which newspapers RFQ was issued. MPT stated that it was issued in Economic Times (all India),Business Time, Indian Trade Journal, Port Website. 11.17 He questioned if it published on Published in important All India local Goan newspapers. Dailies. 11.18 MPT replied that it was not done No remarks. 11.19 He questioned if MPT has no No remarks. money to publish in local newspapers 11.20 MPT officials stated that he did No remarks. not read papers. 11.21 He states that as per law MPT This is not true. should have published on local Goan newspapers, so as to ensure that Goan people could be aware. 11.22 He states that if MPT has put the No remarks. issue regarding berth no. 8 & 9 on local papers Goa’s people and fisherman would come to know about it and would have also bid. 11.23 He stated that MPT gives all its No remarks. berths to outsiders and not to Goans. By not publishing it on Goan newspaper, Goans have been deprived from bidding for the berth. 11.24 The MPT has intentionally This is not true. published the notice in papers that Goan do not read. 11.25 He reiterates his demand for No remarks. grant of a berth to local Goan fisherman.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 11.26 He states that on the ground the No remarks. project should be re-tendered as it has not come on local newspapers and public hearing be re-held. 11.27 He request MPT to clarify as to No remarks. whether they would re-tender the project. 11.28 MPT officials refused to answer. No remarks. 11.29 Chairman states that if MPT No remarks. wants it can withdraw the project or re-tender it, but they are refusing to answer. 11.30 MPT officials stated that the As replied. Also the tendering process project cannot be retendered as a has been conducted by following due concession agreement has been norms and hence, retendering is not signed. necessary 11.31 He states that as Goans and No remarks. fisherman cannot get a berth no. 8 or 9 than this project should be scrapped.
12.0 Alexindro Pacheco- Sada 12.1 He stated that Chairman has No remarks. looted the public by holding three public hearings. 12.2 He opposes the three public No remarks. hearings 12.3 He stated that there is severe coal This is not true. pollution in Sada and large number of children are falling sick. 12.4 He stated that coal pollution No remarks. cannot be seen by GSPCB and the State Government. 12.5 He stated that when the vessels No remarks. ‘Quing’ was about to sink
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public GSPCB officials want to enter the area to verify the same but workers of WISL where arrested and terminated this was not noted by the GSPCB. 12.6 He stated that GSPCB has not No remarks. been able to control pollution or penalised coal handling companies.
12.7 Coal pollution is also being cause This is not true. The coal cargo is fully due to coal transportation. covered during transportation. 12.8 He stated that the Collector, The public hearing is held for the GSPCB and Project Proponent benefit of the public so that their views should think of the people who suggestions and comments on the attended todays public hearing. proposed project are known to make the necessary improvements to mitigate adverse impacts. During the public hearing all facilities were provided so that a maximum number of people could attend and ample time was given to hear their views. 12.9 He stated that if the coal No remarks. pollution in Vasco is not stopped people of Vasco will agitate.
13.0 SiddharthKarapurkar, Margao 13.1 He stated that the all three The three projects are separate projects projects are one. Until and unless with distinct commercial criteria and the dredging is done, the other conceived at different periods over the projects cannot surge ahead. past 4 years. It is only coincidental that the Public Hearings for all these projects were scheduled simultaneously. 13.2 He stated how come nothing is The Project proponent for the proposed mentioned about Vedanta who is project is MPT. the beneficiary of the project in
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public the EIA. 13.3 Vedanta is a dubious company. No remarks. In the ‘Shah Commission Report’ even Vedanta is one of the defaulter in the mining scam. If scamsters are permitted to continue unabatedly by giving them berths than how would we be able to recover? 13.4 The question is to the MPT were No remarks. partners in crime for the said illegal mining export of Vedanta. 13.5 He stated that the fishermen A modern fishing Jetty/Berth is community is not given the proposed for the benefit of fishermen, berths but the looters like at Vasco bay. Vedanta is given preference. 13.6 He stated that the guidance No remarks. manual has to be referred for preparing the EIA, MPT replied saying that it was followed. 13.7 He stated that in the guidance The said Guidance Manual is prepared manual the connectivity of to serve as a tool to facilitate the task of railways and road were required EIA study. It is not mandatory to to be studied and mentioned. He "consider/ implement" all suggestions pointed out that the same is not given in the same in terms of the mentioned. MPT replied that provisions of the EIA Notification, what is mentioned in EIA is 2006. correct and that they stand by it. 13.8 He stated that the Baina houses This is not relevant to the proposed are to be demolished on account project. of the construction of the bridge and that is also not mentioned in the EIA report. By the applying the CRZ law, the demolition of fishermen houses are planned out only to poster the benefits of coal transportation.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 13.9 He stated that MPT has accepted As replied. that the act of illegally i.e. of dredging, he questioned as to who has given permission to dump the dredged material? MPT replied saying that the dumping is in the jurisdiction of the Port area. The said Spoil Ground is identified scientifically and delineated by the CWPRS. MPT again stated that EC was already there at the time of dredging. 13.10 He stated that many years back a Already replied. However, it is to be German merchant ship had noted that the subject is not relevant to wrecked & sank. At the time of the present project. dredging where the remains of the wrecked ship which contains lot of wealth are was questioned. MPT replied that they cannot give reply to wild allegations but stated that the ship wreck is at the place where it stood earlier. 13.11 He stated that the in Form 1 it is Doubling of tracks is a railway project mentioned that no forest to be financed and implemented by clearance & wild life clearances Indian Railways. are required. He stated that upon receipt of more material the rail doubling would have to be done which is going to pass through western Ghats for which forest clearance are required. The representative of MPT replied that it is beyond the project site. 13.12 The objector stated that this is With respect to guidance manual please not in sync with guidance see 13.7. manual. He stated that GSPCB has directed to reduce 25%
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public handling of coal. If cigarette smoking in public places is banned than due to coal handling he prayed for putting up boards that “Breadth in Vasco is injurious to health”.
14.0 RupeshShinkre, Curtorim 14.1 He stated that Environment The said errors were inadvertently sensitivity in form 1 the answer made in the Form – I which was given there in is “NO”. He stated submitted online. However, in the hard that in the Form I of yesterdays copy submitted to MoEF& CC project that is deepening of thereafter (through letter dated channel it is mentioned as ‘Yes” 30.11.2015), all the necessary the PP said that point raised by information was provided. According Mr. Shinkre is noted. to the ToR granted by the EAC through letter dated 16.02.2016, it is clear that in its meeting held on 21st and 22nd December 2015, the correct information given vide the said hard copy of Form – I has been used. As such, there is no question of submission of false information. 14.2 He stated that likewise in Sr. Please refer 14.1. No.4 of Form I, on environmental sensitivity the answer given is ‘NO’ but in yesterdays form 1 the reply given is “YES”. 14.3 He stated that similarly in point Please refer 14.1. no. 8 of the very same form 1 of environmental sensitivity, the answer given is “NO” but in yesterdays form 1 the reply given is “YES”. 14.4 He stated that he disputed the The population figures are taken from population figures as mentioned the official Census data for Goa (2011).
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public being as just 28000 because this However any discrepancy will be is the electoral roll population of rectified in the final EIA report. only Mormugao Constituency. 14.5 He stated that in point no. 9 & 10 Please refer 14.1. of the very same form 1, there are raised contradictions in yesterdays and today’s from 1. 14.6 He stated that as per the Please refer 14.1. undertaking it says that if any of the information provided is false then the project needs to be rejected and when both the project have given dramatically opposite answers only one of the project should survive and not both. 14.7 He stated that as per serial no. Please refer 14.1. 8.3 of form 1 the answer given is “Yes’’ but in yesterdays form 1 the reply given is “NO”. The questioned as to whether if any earthquake happens is not going to affect yesterdays project. 14.8 He stated and questioned why As replied. However, also note that the Vedanta has not approached for Project proponent of the proposed the EC. project is MPT. MPT clarified that as per concession agreement signed, the MPT was required to obtain the EC. Mr. Shinkre wanted to know as to why two different yard sticks. MPT representative clarified that the South West Port and Vedanta concession have been signed at two different occasions. 14.9 He stated that how come form I The contents of the Form – I sent by varies of the PP with that of post are correct and the same have been
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public South West Port. MPT referred by the EAC in its meeting held representative replied that they on 21st and 22nd December 2015. No stand by what is mentioned in the litigation is pending with respect to the form 1 is correct and stand by it. proposed project. MPT said that there are no litigations pending in so far the present project concerned. 14.10 He stated that MPT’s basic Please refer 14.1. information is very big, same organisation cannot have two form 1’s. From yesterdays project to today’s project there is a big variance. 14.11 He stated that Para 2.8.1 of the As replied. EIA was read out by the objector and referred to figure 2.4. Mr. Shinkre stated that he had downloaded the report from GSPCB website. MPT representative stated that it is figure 2.3. 14.12 He stated that Dredging of this No remarks. project and that of deepening is having common boundary is what the MPT representative admitted. Trapezoidal channel is what would be done by MPT. In berth 8, 9, 9A what would be the shape of the channel. In MD 7 the depth is 14.3 mtr. and after dredging would result in 19.5 mtr. 14.13 Mr. Shinkre quoted Newtons first All the projects are independent law of motion. He stated that if projects and shall be executed by the depths of the turning circle is different agencies. The present project increased to a depth of 19.5 mtrs includes the dredging of the Eastern only then the vessels would be turning circle from 14.0m to 19.5m able to come inside berth 8, 9, below CD. Even without the execution
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 9A. And if that is the case all of the ‘Deepening of the Channel’ three projects are one and are project the proposed modernised Berths interdependent on each other. 8, 9 and Barge Berths can cater to the requirement of vessels below cape-size. 14.14 He questioned as to how the As replied. Also refer 14.13. vessels are going to come inside Channel? The representative of MPT replied that dredging would be done by them. 14.15 He sought to know if the PP is The base of the channel will be stable going to only dredge this area after attaining equilibrium. and touch the channel boundary and if the base of the Channel going to be stable. The representative of MPT replied that they have applied for two different projects. 14.16 He stated that until and unless The example given is not comparable you do capital dredging, no to the present matter. Please refer further dredging in Berth No. 8, 14.15. 9 and 9A is possible. He gave the example about a footpath leading to a house and one planning to make a place to makeover buses around his house. 14.17 He sought to know whether they Dredging of the channel can be can assure that dredging of the independently carried out by taking due channel independently carried care to maintain the required side out without the other dredging slopes for stability. Also refer 14.13. aspect being cleared how will the channel be stable and how will be the trapezoidal shape be maintained. 14.18 All the three projects are thus As already explained in previous paras one including the railway project statement made is not correct. and the PP has been trying to fool the people. He referred to para 1.2 of the EIA report where
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public the doubling project of the railway is mentioned and yet they say that the project is independent. 14.19 He pointed out to dust control All necessary dust control measures are measures at different cargo undertaken in the operating Port handling was questioned as to terminals. As mentioned in the EIA, all what steps have been undertaken necessary dust control measures are by them. How can habitual also contemplated in the present offenders be allowed to increase project. As such, said question does not their capacity handling? arise. 14.20 He stated that the vision of the The said direction is not relevant to the State of Goa and that of MPT is proposed project. not synchronising as the GSPCB has directed to reduce coal handling by 25% and in this Public Hearing we are talking of increase. He questioned how this is possible? 14.21 He sought to know what is berth Berths 5 & 6 were renamed as Berths 5 & 6 and what is berth 5A &6A 5A & 6A after their renovation. ? The representative of MPT clarified that it is the same berth i.e. 5A and 6A which should be written accordingly. 14.22 The representative of MPT The said Business Plan (2007) has been admitted that the table 2.3 modified as per the present mentioned in the EIA report is requirements. No displacement of the extract from the MPT fishermen is therefore envisaged. business plan of 2007. Shinkre stated if the Business Plan is taken into account than even the Khariwada fishermen who reside here would be displaced. 14.23 He stated that in Chennai and This is not true. The Coal handling has Vellore, the imports of Coal is been shifted from Chennai to Ennore, stopped and they are diverting which is close to Chennai Port. In any the same hazards via Goa. case the issue is not relevant to the
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public present project. 14.24 He questioned whether the While planning the proposed project all fishermen inputs have been taken necessary inputs have been taken into whilst studying the modelling consideration. pattern? The representative of MPT had no answer. 14.25 Why should in the first place we No remarks. import coal. Has any impact of climate change been studied ? If pH contents of water changes than water can form into acidic or alkaline. He read out the report from Times of India which spoke about ice melting in the Antarctica regions which is going to affect the salinity of the soil. 14.26 He stated that if we go on getting No remarks. coal for power generation than the emission level of burning are going to take a toll both on environment and lives of the people. 14.27 In 18th Century, two countries No remarks. made strides in Industrialisation i.e UK and America. Instead f investing in Lithium which is clear energy should we go back to the 18th Century? Under precautionary principle, WAPCOS had to do any in depth study without which the PP cannot go ahead. 14.28 He stated that the Hon’ble No remarks. Supreme Court is stressing upon the public health when they had passed the judgement banning sale of BS3 Engine and should
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public we permit such import of Coal ? 14.29 He stated that the Railways spill This is not true, as all coal carrying over 300 kgs of coal dust upon wagons are covered with tarpaulin as each wagon when it travels a per requirement. distance of 600 kms and this coal is going to travel 400 kms. 14.30 He stated that Union Ministry of No remarks. Shipping connived with MPT to carryout dredging. 14.31 He stated that it has been proved This is not true. beyond doubt that all the three projects are one. 14.32 He said that they need dredging No remarks. but what is it the MPT should be dredged out.
15.0 Edwin Mascarenhas, Chicalim Vasco. 15.1 He stated that PP is a person who No remarks. puts forward a proposition or proposal. 15.2 He questioned whether as the As replied. Concession Agreement can be given? The representative of MPT replied that the Concession Agreement is not a part of the EIA. 15.3 He stated that a Concessionaire is No remarks. a person or firm that operates a business within a premises belonging to another (granter) under concession usually as the only seller of certain goods or services. 15.4 Referring to EIA Report para 2.6, As replied. he sought to know the 950m mentioned is what area or length? The representative
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public replied it is length. 1145.36 Crores is the cost of the project as stated by MPT. 15.5 He pointed out to Form I which 1050m is the maximum length makes a mention of 1050 meters available for construction. sought for clarification. The representative of MPT clarified that Berthing face is 950 is the quay length and pointed to figure 2.3 of the EIA report which gives proper insight. 15.6 He stated that the construction As replied. plan, the method of working and the bar chart had to be given but the representative of MPT stated that it is not part of the EIA report. 15.7 He questioned as to who is going As replied. to execute this work. Whether MPT or somebody else. The representative of MPT replied that Concessionaire is going to invest in the complete project. 15.8 He stated that once the project is The Concession Agreement stipulates handed over, what would be the that the obligation of obtaining EC is responsibility of MPT if in case that of MPT. It is mandatory for the of any disaster. The Concessionaire to adhere to all the representative of MPT clarified stipulated conditions in the EC. Further that the Concessionaire would Consent to Operate has to be obtained have to do the entire work and from GSPCB by the Concessionaire. before commencing any activity the commissionaire would have to take Consent to Operate. He also stated that their responsibility continues even after handing over the area to concessionaire. 15.9 As per para 1.6 of Form I, As replied.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public Demolition works: It is mentioned as “Old Iron Ore handling equipments like conveyor system, ship loaders, stackers, declaimer will be demolished. He asked as to who would be doing the demolition? The representative of MPT stated that MPT would be demolishing it on their own, as it is to be done by them and not by the Concessionaire. 15.10 He stated that the demolition Demolition work involves the removal work is a part of the EIA than of old and defunct machinery. As such how can the demolition be done it is not part of the proposed project before the grant of EC? The which incurs modernisation of the said representative of MPT replied Berths. that cost of demolition is not a part of the project. 15.11 He questioned as to who The MPT owns the said facility and authorised the MPT to carry out removal of defunct machinery from the the demolition? MPT reiterated same does not need any authorisation that cost of demolition is not part from a third party. of the project and that open land had to be handed over to the Concessionaire. 15.12 He questioned as what is the As replied. mode of disposal of the demolished material? The representative of MPT replied that it through the process of tendering. 15.13 The objector placed on record a Please refer 15.11. photograph where demolitions which have already been done even prior to receipt of EC, which is criminal waste of money.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 15.14 He referred to para 4.2.5 of As replied. which he states that 11.40 lakhs m3 of earth is required for reclamation. He sought to know where it is available and where it is going to be used? The representative of MPT replied that 3 lakh cubic meter land which is said to be available is incorrect, but it is just about 30,000 cubic meter. Reclamations would be done on area of 64,000 sq. mtrs between the existing Dolphins the Quay area. Reclamation would be done in the barge berth area and in between the service road and the berth area. 15.15 He questioned whether any As replied. dredged material would be used for reclamation? The representative of MPT replied that it is not suitable for reclamation. 15.16 He pointed out to para 2.9 which As replied. says that 11.40 million cubic meter and in para 4.2.5 of the EIA report, it is mentioned as 11.40 lakhs cubic meter. Which is correct ? The representative of MPT replied that all what they require is only about 4 lakh meter cube to reclaim an area of 64,000 sq. mtr.
15.17 He referred to Annexure I of EIA As replied. which is pertaining to TOR wherein at point (vi) it is
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public mentioned as 6,40,000m2 and not 64,000. He sought to know what is the correct position?The representative of MPT replied that if it is mentioned as 6,40,000 at Sr. No. (xii), it is mentioned as 16 acres, which is equivalent to 64,000. MPT reiterated that it is 64,000 sq.mtr and 4,00,000mtr cube of soil required for reclamation at berth. 15.18 The objector wanted to know As replied. what is the length and breadth as well as the depth from service road and berth no.9 as well as that at the place of barge unloading. The representative of MPT replied that they do not have information of land but that the reclamation would be restricted to 64,000sq. mtrs. 15.19 He pointed out to para 4.2.5(a) As replied. How did MPT arrived at this figure that only 110 trucks would be added on the roads for this project? The representative of MPT stated that he doesn’t have the study at hand but he stands by what is written in the EIA.
15.20 The objector pointed out to Dredgers will be used only for figure 4.2 of the EIA report dredging involving the deepening of which speaks of various types of turning circle and the adjoining area machineries. He asked as to abutting the Berths. Hence, one time whether this is the only use of the dredgers for Capital dredging machinery that would be used to involving a short period will not cause execute the project worth 1140 any significant impact on the ambient crores? The representative of air. More information is given in the
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public MPT replied that they go by draft EIA Report and if required the what is mentioned in the EIA same will be updated in the Final EIA study. The Objector stated that Report. dredgers too would be used that will be consume huge quantity of diesel and generate fumes in the atmosphere. 15.21 He stated that the piling rigs are The specifications of the required also not mentioned in the list of piling rigs will be decided by the machinery. The representative of technically competent contractor MPT stated that piling rigs would appointed by the Concessionaire for be functioning on D. G. Sets. The execution of the works. objector wanted to know which model of piling rigs would MPT be using? The representative of MPT replied that they would submit clarifications in writing. 15.22 He questioned as to any All such construction equipment and additional equipment would be their functioning is a common required? The representative of requirement in all civil construction MPT did not reply. The objector sites located mostly in the midst of stated that to execute a project of settlement areas. The environmental 1140 crores a large amount of impact of the same is temporary and fuel is required and perhaps they restricted only to the period of may want dewatering pumps, construction activity. All necessary barges, launches, dozers, motor mitigation measures to control the same graders, compactors, mobile are listed in the EIA. cranes, transit mixers, truck trailers, for handling outside material, cement bulkers to bring in cement from the factory, etc. All these equipment create Air and Noise Pollution which are left out. The representative of MPT replied that this is part of construction equipment and that he agrees with it. 15.23 He referred to para 8 of Form I The Port has the necessary emergency
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public and stated that he is amazed that response system in case of any such the answer given there in as eventuality. Besides each of such ‘NO’, because a large amount of installations has independent safety and POL items would be stored at the emergency response mechanism. If site. The construction chemicals, required, the Fire and Emergency tyre, conveyor belts also would Department of the State Govt., the be stored. The place where the Coast Guard as well as the Indian Navy fire tender and safety equipments can be requested for assisting the Port are stored needs to be shown, in emergency relief operations. which the PP has lost sight of in the EIA. 15.24 He referred to Sr. No. 1.7 of the MPT has sufficient number of vacant Form I and questioned as to why quarters which can be provided for the MPT should provide accommodation of the workers. temporary sites after obtaining the EC to facilitate the Concessionaire? The representative of MPT stated that they would be providing only land and not to supply workers which is temporary in nature. Shri Edwin stated that the labour camp is not seen anywhere in the plan provided in the EIA report. 15.25 Edwin Mascarenhas referred to As replied. GoG, Circular dated 22/09/2008 GA-11013/41/2006-IA .II (I) which states when EC is granted for Projects the bare minimum needs like medical facilities like toilets, proper roof over the head etc., has to be provided. The representative of MPT clarified that they have their own quarters which are vacant and if the concessionaire makes a request they may consider putting up labourers in these quarters. The
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public MPT further clarified that labour camps cannot be put up near the construction area. 15.26 He once again referred to Form I, Earth will be brought from licensed sr. no. 9.2 where the answer quarries, which will have the necessary given is ‘NO’ on the aspects of clearances and hence their own lead to after-use of the site, environmental management and which could have an impact on mitigation plans to “take/mitigate” the environment. He stated that prevent the cited impacts. when earth is brought from quarries from Verna and Cortalim, there would be an impact at those sites. The representative of MPT stated that they would clarify in writing. The objector stated that it is going to have impact on land collapsing down in monsoons, run-off going in nearby paddy fields, water bodies etc making the same redundant for future use. 15.27 Edwin Mascarenhas stated that The maximum reclamation will be 6.4 the MPT is going to create an hectares. In the EIA report the Berth additional land mass of 64000 area which will be on piles, and hence sq.mtrs which according to him does not need reclamation, was also was 1,14,000sq.mtrs. He sought inadvertently included in the said to know the impacts due to the inflated area. All such unintentional addition of the huge land mass. discrepancies (due to oversight) will be The representative of MPT corrected “and/or” clarified in the Final replied to say that some impacts EIA. could be there after reclamation and the exact details would be given in writing. 15.28 He questioned whether any study The land reclamation is taking place has been done on the shore line ? well within the existing active Port The representative of MPT Basin and alongside Berths which replied that it is a part of the havebeen in operation for several
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public dredging project, but the objector decades. The earlier reclamations done stated that the project discussed for building the Berths in question as today from the one which was well as Berths 5, 6 and 7 have not discussed yesterday is different. caused any significant accretion or He stated that effects post erosion either on the nearest shore land reclamation of land mass is (including Khariwada beach) abutting different from dredging and the the Vasco Bay or at the Shore land study on reclamation cannot be abutting the Estuary mouth towards the equated to the current project. West of the breakwater. The Shoreline The representative of MPT Change Study commissioned in July replied that they would give in 2016 through NIO is applicable to the writing. The objector stated that entire Study Area with a radius of 10 the silence of the PP speaks that km from the boundaries of the Port the said study isn’t done & hence basin as a whole. In the Interim Report the entire EIA is flawed which of this study submitted after 11 months cannot be accepted. WAPCOS of observations of dynamics of beach stated that they have taken note profiles it has been determined that the of the observations and they shorelines in the said area have not would give clarifications in shown any trend of sustained erosion. writing. 15.29 When questioned about the The area under the jurisdiction of MPT jurisdiction of MPT along the is Gazetted vide Notification No. shoreline, the representative of GSR488(E) dated 24.05.2000. The MPT replied that over water boundaries of the same are mentioned area, towards east upto west by in the said Notification. some latitude and longitude, which is not known off hand by him. Besides that Port is having administrative control over the shore area.
15.30 He sought to know as to what is All land records are being maintained the jurisdiction and what is the by the Estate Section of the MPT and area of land holding of MPT record of rights for areas surveyed are from 1883? He sought to know available. Also refer 15.29. what is the title document of the land that MPT holds. The representative of MPT replied
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public that they possess 546 acres of land but the history of how the land came to be in their possession is not known to him. 15.31 He questioned as to how the The project is within the Port concession agreement could be operational area. MPT is a major Port inked out when they themselves covered under the Major Port Trust don’t know how they own the Act, 1963. The port limits have also land. He stated that “one cannot been defined by the Central create a better title on a third Government and all land earmarked for party than one actually has”. He the project is port property. Refer 15.29 charged that MPT is not the owner of the land and that they don’t own it and he challenged them to show the ownership documents. MPT replied that the question asked is not part of the project which is under discussion. Thereafter, MPT stated that as per the policy of the Government of India, the concessions are executed. The objector stated that this is very much part of the project as the project is going to be established on a portion of the 546 acres. 15.32 The objector wanted to know the As replied. policy based on which the concessions are created? MPT replied that these are executed based on land policy guidelines issued by Ministry of Shipping, Government of India which is in public domain and is also available on the MPT website and 65 acres is the area earmarked for the current project.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 15.33 The objector wanted to know as As replied. to whether any permission have been taken from the local Government Authorities. MPT replied that only after EC is granted then all other permissions are required to be obtained by the Concessionaire. 15.34 The objector stated that nowhere The project is located within the in the EIA report it is mentioned operational area of the Port. This area about the requirements of comes within the purview of the Major permissions that are to be Port Trusts Act, 1963. obtained from local bodies such as Revenue Department, Planning and Development Authority from Mormugao Municipal Council from the Health Department and Fisheries Department. 15.35 He questioned whether any As replied. permissions been obtained for the project which exists or for earlier developments carried out by them. MPT replied that they have to obtain the EC and all further permissions have to be applied by the concessionaire. 15.36 He stated that MPT is the PP. Necessary approvals as required under They are required to take all the the law will be obtained. necessary permissions and he referred to an order issued by Department of Urban Development. Official Gazette, Series II No. 9 dated 30/05/2013. Order no. 4/2/2010/PG /MOR Part/547. He said order of the Urban Development states that in case of construction in Port
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public operational area, MPT need not obtain prior permission before the execution of any works and that both i.e. Municipality and PDA should be kept informed of the works to be taken up. The State Government has reviewed the above decision and has rescinded the letter with immediate effect. Hence, the MPT was required to submit layout / building plans of the area allotted to MPT along with a master plan for future development to the statutory authorities and not to undertake constructions without approval from the concerned Authority.
15.37 The objector stated that if the No remarks. permissions are not granted by the local Authorities than the entire EIA study would fall flat. He asked if he knows about this order. MPT replied that they have taken note of the observations. The objector charged that MPT has wasted money and have acted criminally by demolishing the ship loader without obtaining any permissions as well as the EC. 15.38 He asked as to whether MPT MPT is aware. Necessary approvals as knew of this order. Since MPT required will be obtained. was not giving any answers, the Objector stated that their silence speaks of the fact they do not have any permissions from the
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public local body and that the entire EIA report has to be rejected. He called upon the Chairman to inform the Collector of South Goa to initiate criminal action on all their acts by way of which they flawed the laws.
16.0 Abhijit Prabhudessai 16.1 He questioned whether the No remarks. concession agreement was signed on 15/04/2016. MPT states that the agreement was signed in September 2016 and the letter of intent was in March 2016. He read out the press release of Vedanta 16.2 If the award is already granted No remarks. than how come MPT is come for the EC. MPT replied that it is as per the concession agreement. EIA report is prepared in September – October 2016. He charged that MPT is concealing facts with gross lies in para 1.2 of EIA report. 16.3 He questioned as to why is MPT No remarks. doing EIA for Vedanta what would be the legal representations MPT replied that it is as per the tender and concession agreement. What contractual system is used, MPT replied that GOI has come with model concession agreement. As per the agreement MPT is doing EIA up till the EC is given.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public 16.4 It is specifically permitted in the No remarks. model concessional agreement.MPT replied that model concession agreement does not make a mention of the same but it has to be worked out by the concessionaire. 16.5 Abhijit charged that the MPT This is not true. EC is the responsibility taking the responsibility of EC is of MPT as per the Concession not provided in the model agreement. concessional agreement and the MPT has suo moto done the same only to dole out benefit to Vedanta. 16.6 He stated that all the three The three projects are separate projects projects are not independent but with distinct commercial criteria and just one project and infact part of conceived at different periods over the a single project. The POL berth past 4 years. It is only coincidental that is to be moved at Berth 10 which the Public Hearings for all these is the part of the same project. projects were scheduled The existing facility has to be simultaneously. relocated before the present project starts. When asked where liquid cargo would be shifted, MPT replied that it would be at Vasco bay. Objector stated that this would result in displacement of fishermen. 16.7 Is dredging going to be done No remarks. MPT said yes 16.8 If other projects of dredging is No remarks. not carried out than would you be able to bring cape size vessels in berth 8, 9, and barge berth. MPT replied as definitely not. 16.9 Objector stated that all the three This is not true. All the projects are projects are one because berth 8, independent projects and shall be 9 and 9A would not be serve its executed by different agencies. The
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public purpose unless the deepening present project includes the dredging of project takes shape. the Eastern turning circle from 14.0m to 19.5m below CD. Even without the execution of the ‘Deepening of the Channel’ project the proposed modernised Berths 8, 9 and Barge Berths can cater to the requirement of vessels below cape-size. 16.10 There are number of projects that The business plan was prepared in are in the pipeline as mentioned 2008 and is outdated. in MPT business plan final report March 2007 which shows projects that would take over Vasco bay including the Eastern bay demarcated for coal and similarly the Baina bay and the 3rd area which is at the west of the breakwater where 3 lakhs sq. mtr of open sea as sought to be reclaimed. Thus would result in complete relocation of fishing community. All these projects are thus telling us that they are one single project. 16.11 Has MPT ever announced All future Plans, relevant Reports and expansion of coal handling MPT Feasibility Studies commissioned by replied saying that Business Plan the MPT are in public domain and the was in public domain. The question of any "hidden plans" does not increase of traffic due to coal or arise. Being a Government Entity, as a any other cargo is in the public Trust, all projects of MPT are domain i.e. MPT website. conceived and executed with due Government approvals. 16.12 Have you asked the people that No remarks. the expansion of coal handling would be done. MPT replied that before obtaining EC and to have a public hearing is to bring to their knowledge about coal
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public handling. 16.13 Abhijit said that as per 73rd& 74th This is not true. Please refer 16.11. amendments of the Constitution. MPT has flawed the same by not involving the people in the decision making process. MPT had also done their best to conceal in seeing to it that the public doesn’t take. 16.14 He pointed out to the 12th five No remarks. year plan of 2012-17 for which working groups for post sector recommended under section 15.11 page 354 that all dirty and hazardous cargo be moved away from port cities and every port trust to prepare an action plan to phasing out dirty cargo . He pointed out to a clear nexus & collusion among the people, Government officials & 3 Corporation which is headed by Mr/ Nitin Gadkari. Mr. Gadkari inaugurated illegal dredging in January, 2016. This illegal dredging was carried out to destroy environment and marine life so that the EIA study will not neglect the true nature. How can the EIA study show any signs when there is already destruction done? 16.15 Mr. Abhijit state that why this No remarks. was done in a hidden manner. Coal expansion cannot be done in Vasco city. Due to greed of these three corporations so as to save the freight charges the MPT
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public is used as a corridor and make money by this corporates. Sacrificing science, transparency fishermen and all the people living in the areas along side river and charged the Ministry for shipping for this nexus of adopting corrupt means and processes to bulldoze the projects called for inquiry of highest level and called for inquiry into assets of Gadkari and Chairman of MPT. 16.16 A fundamental law in the No remarks. process. Has study taken into account that dredging have already been done? MPT replied to say TOR was approved in Feb 2016 and thereafter EIA study has been commenced. As regard Capital Dredging project it was continued till 31/05/2016. The EIA study of this project and the capital dredging was coinciding. 16.17 Can MPT or WAPCOS show No remarks. over location that dredging was being done when the present EIA study was carried out for berth 8,9, and 9A. MPT replied that it has not been mentioned. 16.18 The TOR also stipulates that all No remarks. previous projects be mentioned and their compliance is there in the EIA study or not. WAPCOS replied the concerns have been taken note of and they would be addressing the same. He stated that the MPT has done works
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public without permissions in the past and these facts are concealed so that catastrophic scale of environmental impact is not available for all to see. 16.19 The dredging and dumping No remarks. should have been done by NIO. MPT replied saying that they have already approached them in the report is yet to be submitted by the EIA. 16.20 He questioned as to why the NIO The firmed up NIO bio diversity study report is not a part & parcel management report will be of the EIA? MPT replied that no incorporated in the final EIA report. report is received from NIO as yet. He stated that there was a hurry to push the project and asked them why it was so? MPT did not reply to the same. 16.21 The Ministry of Environment & No remarks. Forests has failed to consider the judgment given by NGT in appeal no. 10/16, where the Ministry was directed by the NGT to consider whether the deepening project of MPT could be seen in isolation with the berth expansion project. 16.22 GSPCB was called upon to No remarks. examine if the hearing of three projects would be held in one go. 16.23 EIA reports are not provided to EIA reports were provided as per the the Panchayats of Siridao, guidance and directions of the GSPCB. Sancoale, Chicolna, Chicalim, Taleigao, Curca-Bambolim, Agassaim, Goa Velha and Corporation of Panaj, Odxel and hence this public hearing would
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public stand to get vitiated as they are within the study area. 16.24 The form I is not available in the For the purpose of Pubic Hearing the Panchayats as well as GSPCB procedure prescribed in the EIA Website Without this it was not Notification, 2006, has been possible to review the TOR was meticulously followed. Besides the said properly framed or not. PH proceedings are conducted by the State Pollution Control Boards. 16.25 The concession agreement is No remarks. illegal because the MPT itself is not having proper title. Agreement is with Vedanta and it is very clear for handling Coal and other commodities. 16.26 The recent Sonshi dust pollution No remarks. is an outcome of the Vedanta handling the mines by not caring for the law of the land. It is from my personal observation as they do not even care what the directives of the District Magistrate. 16.27 This company is alleged to be No remarks. mentioned in the 35,000 Crore mining Scam. the company is one of the biggest perpetrator of the crime. 16.28 Vedanta is the British Company.I No remarks. am clear on the morals of the constitutional background, the Colonial company cannot be given our land to be looted and polluted. 16.29 Have you referred to guidance No remarks. manual anywhere in the EIA report? WAPCOS replied saying that EIA report is prepared based
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public on the TOR and the guidelines considered and whatever concerns raised by Abhijit would be taken note of. 16.30 Abhijit contradicted saying that The said Guidance Manual is only to there is not a single reference in guide and facilitate the preparation of EIA of guidance manual which is EIA Report. It is not mandatory to the most important document. follow all the stipulations of the same. Whilst preparing EIA study, they It is however necessary to follow all the are prepared for different sectors prescriptions of the EIA Notification of highlighting for the type of 2006 and the same have been complied activity. with meticulously. Baseline data on ground water, soils, marine water, sediments, terrestrial and marine ecology, socioeconomic aspects, noise levels, etc.,are presented in Chapter-3 of EIA report. 16.31 The guidance manual is The present project is not expected to completely ignored, he referred have any adverse impact on forest and to Para of1-9 of guidance manual wild life ecosystems, which are at least and stated that nothing has been about 7 Km away from the proposed given in the EIA Report. The project site. However, necessary manual also stipulates about information on the same will be clearances to be required under provided in the final EIA. Forest and wildlife Act and GCZMA but nothing is contained in the report. 16.32 Para 2.1 of the guidelines manual The EIA study has been conducted in gives a list of essential maps to accordance with ToR issued by the be provided including EAC of MoEF& CC. The relevant Hydrographic chart.Para2-2 ‘Hydrographic/Bathymetric’data stipulates that Bathymetric data available with the MPT were referred to be provided which is not to while planning the Capital dredging provided.Para2.3 speaks about requirement of this project. If deemed connectivity of road,rail etc and necessary said data will be incorporated put an embargo to carry out a in the Final EIA report. study but the fundamentals of the impact and carrying capacity of
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public the road and rail infrastructure has not been prepared it but all. 16.33 The double tracking of the Doubling of tracks is a railway project railways is part of the new to be financed and implemented by infrastructure for port Indian Railways. connectivity and MPT is intentionally concealing this fact to cheat Goa and Goans .The Catastrophic impact as being concealed .In the EIA report at Para 1.2 States the doubling of railway tracks is progressing well from Vasco and Hospital. The MPT has not incorporated anything on this aspect. The same consultant has stated that South Western Railway is connected and needs to be expedited in another EIA study. 16.34 Alternatives were required to be No remarks. studied as per the Chapter 3 of guidance manual. Numerous alternatives exist which includes port on East Coast which are better equipped and having better infrastructure. 16.35 The only reason why this project Ports are meant to provide vital is forced is to reduce freight services of import and export of charges for the Corporate. commodities and bulk cargoes essential in “national/public” interest. 16.36 Para1.1 of the guidance manual Primary data on ground water, soils, provides that the PP should marine water, sediments, noise levels, collect primary base line data etc.,arepresented in Chapter-3 of EIA from the project. The baseline report. data of primary nature is not collected little which is collected is inadequate and incomplete. 16.37 Para 4.2.2 of guidance manual Please refer 16.30.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public relates to topography, the contour maps,land use,classification etc has to be prepared as per the Annexure II which is not followed. The Contour maps shown in the EIA is highly inadequate as it cannot be read. It does not cover necessary areas of Sada. 16.38 Para 4.2.4 of the guidance Please refer 16.30. manual regarding Geology baseline data should be provided on Rock types,Rock Textures and Structure Geological conditions,Geographical and Morphological details,Regional Tectonic setting (fractures,faults,folds,warping ) in the coastal area. No such details are furnished which are fundamental because of the dredging involved. 16.39 Para4.1.4.relates to soil of the Please refer 16.30. guidance manual which states that in the approved areas of the proposed port,it is also necessary to ascertain geotechnical properties of soil upto depth of 10 mts below proposed dredged depths. This is also not being done by the PP without which impact cannot be assessed. 16.40 Para4.3 of the guidance manual Please refer 16.30. relates to Water Environment and under Annexure IV to provide water quality standards. The EIA Report puts to consider this including the designated best
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public use. None of this considered as the shell fish in the Chicalim Bay etc. If brought out in the report that the PP would not have chance to get the project said through. 16.41 Para 4.4.1 of the guidance Please refer 16.30. manual relates to coastal hydrology and require collection of Oceanography data is given in Annexure VI. As such data has been collected, the location of port and the dredging can make varied charges has to be done by way of modelling is not came out at all by the project proponent. 16.42 Para 4.2.2. of the manual Please refer 16.30. required baseline data for bed sediment contamination. This date too is notthere in the report. 16.43 Para 4.4.3 of the guidance Please refer 16.30. requires water sampling at point I d ,point 5 d and point 9d. This also has not been done. 16.44 Para 4.4.5of the manual requires Please refer 16.30. baseline environmental data on biological sectors including destruction pattern, community section, population dynamic and species composition. Land and coastal and marine habitat are different and field surveys differ in three cases. The EIA report have not considered all these aspects. Land, field and coastal structures study are not carried out. 16.45 Para 4.5.1 deals with marine and The necessary information including
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public coastal ecology location of port primary data on Marine waters and can effect water sediments collected from 10 contamination.This relationship representative sampling stations is not considered in the report earmarked in the study area have been hence impact is not understood. presented in the EIA report. 16.46 Para 4.5.2 of the manual says As per the stipulations of the ToR the that the secondary data has to be baseline data on ground water, soils, collected within 15 Km by any marine water, sediments, terrestrial and University by Botanical Society marine ecology, socioeconomic of India, Zoological Society of aspects, noise levels, etc., in the study India Etc and they should carried area, have been presented in Chapter-3 out studies as per the wild life of EIA report. Act. This statement is missing in the report. 16.47 Para 4.6 of guidance manual Please refer 16.46. relates to Air data.Areas of habitant land have to be taken into account. Specific importance has to be adhered to areas in close proximity of the projects .Schools, Hospitals,recreational species have to be studied .But this too is missing in the EIA. 16.48 Socio economics and cultural This public hearing proceedings are Environment has not been specifically conducted to inform the followed. The local people have affected members of the public about to be informed about the projects the nature of the project and obtain and there has been no their suggestions/objections/comments. understanding on the impact. 16.49 Para 4.10 of the manual All Impacts anticipated with respect to transportation of construction the proposed project activities have material would add on to the been covered in the EIA report. Any stress on public utilities. No deficiency in the same will be clarified baseline data on roads, railways and rectified in the Final EIA report. and water supply drainages etc yet to be assessed for e.g. approached road to Dabolim Airport is considered as coal
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public corridor.MPT has lacked to comply and hence the impact is not understood. Failure to comply tothe guidance manual renders the study useless and hence it is to be discarded. 16.50 The objector referring to Form I The necessary “clarifications/ questioned who had written the additions” will be made in the Final same.MPT replied that they have EIA. prepared the same. The actual Form I has 22 points but the correct Form I has just got five points.MPT states that the discrepancy is noted. 16.51 Abhijit stated that TOR are TOR has been issued by the Competent completely inadequate as the Authority (EAC of MOEF & CC). Form I itself is incomplete. The Details of the structure on piles will be EAC and M OEF were charged given in the Final EIA. Construction on by him for wilful negligence. He piles by itself contributes to reduced pointed out to the reclamation impact in the intertidal area and hence area of 64,000 Sqmts and that the impact assessment predictions and another 50000 which is to be pile mitigation measures suggested in the foundation .He questioned as to EIA are adequate. where the pile structure is finding a mentioned.MPT stated that the length has been mentioned.Abhijit stated that the pile structure is not finding mention in EIA report and MPT admitted that it is indeed right. 16.52 Sr.No.1.17 of Form I was No remarks referred by him to be stated that both during construction upto completion the rail and see traffic would be increased.
16.53 Sr.No.1.18 of Form I was Double tracking of railways and referred and he stated that PP has construction of highway are
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public concealed the fact of double independent projects to be carried out tracking of railways and by independent Authorities, such as the construction of Highways. Indian Railways and the NHAI. Hence, the question of concealing facts does not arise. 16.54 Sr.No.1.22,1.23&1.24 of Form I This is not true. The Guidance Manual was referred and he stated that refers to contemplated Greenfield the guidance manual (new) Port projects where the entire contemplates Rail and Road infrastructure required for building a Network but the PP has fresh Port is considered. The present concealed this by giving activity is a brown field project, deceiving replies. contemplating modernization of old existing Berths of MPT Port, which is one of the oldest Ports in the Country. As such it already has the necessary Rail and Road connectivity. 16.55 Sr.1.30 he stated that genetic As stated earlier, this project will not diversity, the window pane have any adverse impact on window oysters are not taken into pane oysters located in Chicalim Bay. account. However, any missing but relevant baseline data compiled from the Study Area will be included in the Final EIA. 16.56 Sr.No.3.1,3.2, 3.3 &3.4 of Form I The said errors were inadvertently line objection stated that answers made in the Form – I which was are false .In spite of dealing with submitted online. However, in the hard Hazardous Cargo, they have copy submitted to MoEF& CC replied as no in the Form I. thereafter (on through letter dated 30.11.2015), all the necessary information was provided. As per the ToR granted by the EAC through letter dated 16.02.2016 it is clear that in its meeting held on 21st and 22nd December 2015, the correct information given vide the said hard copy of Form – I has been used. As such, there is no question of submission of false information. 16.57 He pointed out to Sr No.7.3 of Please refer 16.56.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public Form I whereby PP admits about pollution and by no means can this not be integrated as the impact is irreversible. 16.58 He pointed out to Sr.No.7.1 of Please refer 16.56. Form I whereby in spite of Hazardous Cargo being handled and the ill effects of dust pollution, the answer given is no. 16.59 He pointed out to 7.4 of Form I Please refer 16.56. as the consequential activities upon completion like maintenance dredging,lane stress on Roads,Water etc are considered at all. 16.60 He pointed out to 7.1 of Form I Please refer 16.56. he stated that the answer given as “NO” is contradictory to the statement that long term build up of pollutants would be seen. 16.61 He pointed out to Sr.No.8.1 of Please refer 16.56. Form I the answer given as No is full of falsity as the PP himself has stated that coal has high potential of catching fire. 16.62 He pointed out to Sr.No.8.2 the Please refer 16.56. answer should have been ‘yes’ because the possibility of vessel affecting sunk or truck accident or rail accidents cannot be ruled out and the risk has been concealed from the EAC. 16.63 He pointed out to SrNo.9.1 of Please refer 16.56. Form I the answers are all “No” but the answers should have been “Yes” because of large amount of water required, the doubling
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public of Railways and Construction of Roads is not considered. 16.64 Similarly at 9.4 the answers This is a proposed brown field project given is ”No” which is false in public domain and hence the because it has mislead the EAC question of misleading the EAC does and the MOEF completely not arise. Also Please refer 16.56. because this Berth 8,9&9A would be dealing with Hazardous Cargo. 16.65 He Pointed out Environmental The present project is notexpected to Sensitivity whereby the historical have any adverse impact on the and World Heritage should not historical/World Heritage sites, Corals have been ignored. Ecological of Grande island, etc., which are more areas to be protected like Grand than 7 Km away from the proposed Island,Chicalim Bay, migration project site. However, necessary paths of the whales are to be information on the same will be protected. The Carambolim provided in the final EIA. wetland has great international protection. The answers given in the environmental sensitivity saying “No” is big lie. 16.66 Routes or facilities used by the No remarks. public saying as “No” is incorrect as the Pilgrimage routes like the Old Goa Church is left out. 16.67 The aspect of population and No remarks. areas occupied by sensitive manmade land uses is not properly arranged by the MPT as it is false to say NO. 16.68 He pointed out that Sr.No.10 of Please refer 16.65. the environmental sensitivity chapter. Here the answer given as ‘No’ is false because the Khariwada fish landing site is ignored.There is Scarcity of water,no forest cover in the area
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public as all such aspects which are conveniently ignored. 16.69 As regards Sr. No.11 on the The said direction is not relevant to the environmental sensitivity he proposed project. stated that pollution levels have exceeded and the GSPCB has issued directives to reduce Coal handling by 25% than how can the answers be given as “NO” as what he pointed out. 16.70 Abhijit placed on record a copy This is not true. MPT has not received of letter sent by MoEF whereby such a letter. GSPCB have been directed to have common hearing for all three projects. 16.71 He pointed out to the Bathymetry The necessary data required to plan the charts mentioned in EIA reports dredging activity proposed in the as it has to compared with project have been studied. historical bathymetry charts. The changes that have occurred over the period of years have not been studied. 16.72 He asked MPT as to how they As replied. keep records of the seabed.MPT replied that they themselves prepare the Bathymetry charts pre-dredging and post –dredging by using Eco- Sounder. 16.73 Has any report be prepared by No such study is required for the GCZMA.MPT replied as “yes”. present project. Abhijit stated that “Site Scan Sonar” was required to be used. The study of GCZMA has stated that the instrument is imperatively needed.MPT preparing its own Bathymetry charts is unacceptable as this has to be done by Independent
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public expert. 16.74 On the aspect of sediment Suitable modelling studies have been transport, he stated that without conducted by CWPRS, for sediment carrying out the modelling study transport aspects of sedimentation, a plain and mere submission is erosion and dispersion considering the made just off- hand . This area is waves, currents, type of material, river prone to soil erosion etc. Large discharges, bathymetry, etc. scale activity done earlier should have been neglected in the project. 16.75 As regards the topography in the Please refer 16.54. EIA report, he called upon to compare the same as per the guidance manual. 16.76 The ground water quality study The EIA study was carried out as per carried out is highly inadequate. approved ToR and study of aquifers There is no mention of aquifer. below the sea is not part of the said Without understanding the fact, ToR. In any case the maximum depth the current study has no to be dredged is 19.80m and there is no meaning. After dredging that has evidence of aquifers at this depth been carried out in the past there according to the geotechnical reports is an impact of ground water as Springs have dried up. 16.77 He pointed out to the subject of Ambient Air Quality has been soil quality and Ambient Air monitored for 12 consecutive weeks at Quality which were not in sync 6 locations considering the proposed with the guidance manual. project location and prevailing wind direction recorded at Mormugao station of IMD. All the 12 parameters suggested by MoEF& CC vide notification dt. 16.11.2009, have been monitored. 16.78 He asked as to how many days As replied. was the marine ecological Surveycarried out by Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology of AnnamalaiUniversity.MPT
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public replied saying that they were there for one week. 16.79 Abhijit stated that when dredging No remarks. was being undertaken and due to turbidity the study carried out by the said Department are illegal. He stated that the results are all fraudulent. He further stated that one week is completely inadequate to carry out such astudy.He wanted stringent action as against the agency who has prepared a fraudulent study. 16.80 He stated that the study has The required data on Goan Fisheries is failed to record the species incorporated in Chapter-3 of EIA available like window pane report. Data on fisheries have been oystershump back whales,killer collected from the Marine Fisheries whales etc. The turtle nesting at Census 2010,published by the Ministry Baina Beach are also ignored. of Agriculture, Govt. of India, through That no study is done on CMFRI. fisheries viz-a-viz the guidance manual. The fish stock is getting depleted and there are studies to these effect but no mention is made in EIA Report. Whatever little data is made available is highly inadequate.Similarly marine ecological data is also inadequate. The fishermen from the study area is left out and the numbers given are in accurate. 16.81 Abhijit stated that there are 700 The EIA study has reported all floral &800 species of the floral and faunal species that are commonly species,but the same is miniscule found in abundance in the study area. as what is mentioned in the EIA. 16.82 The fauna list is incomplete Please refer 16.81. because Leopard and Pengolin is not finding a mention. Many
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public vulnerable species like Wild Dog,etc. are listed as list concern.Wrongtons free tailis as an endangered species.Malabar Giant Squirrel is and an endangered species.He stated that the person who has carried out by the study appears to have been list concerned. 16.83 As regards Avi-Fauna the EIA The EIA study has reported all listed out just 70-80 species. avifaunal species that are commonly There are about more than 400 found in abundance in the study area. species which are in public domain. There is no protection status mentioned here .No population estimates are made of these soeciesavailable and hence impact cannot be assessed. 16.84 No study made on the economic Socioeconomic assessment of the study aspects of the people living in the area has been covered in Chapter-3 of study area Similarly socio EIA report. cultural aspects too are ignored. 16.85 There is a requirement to carry A detailed study of the health aspect of out detailed study on the health the population is not a part of the of the people of Vasco and so approved ToR. also on the fishermen and the impact of the growth and on the city of Vasco. No data is provided on any of these aspects and hence the EIA study is of no use. 16.86 On the aspect of impact Doubling of Rail tracks is an Indian assessment of the EIA study on Railways project and construction of land use pattern is inadequate as highway comes under the purview of double tracking of railways and NHAI. Only material from licensed highway construction is not quarries will be used for the present mentioned. As regards to impacts project. The impacts of dredging have due to quarrying operation he been considered in the draft EIA
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public stated that there are no approved Report. quarries in the areas of Verna and Cortalim which means again destruction of the nearby villages by MPT. All over groundwater is in the laterite rocks which is sought to be removed by destroying aquifers which sustain the flora and fauna. Any cutting of Hill is against the State Water Policy and National Water Policy. What would be the impact on the marine water quality is not supplemented by way of proof with a proper study. He stated that dredging and dumping would have ramification on land and water. 16.87 In a water starved State of Goa, No remarks. we cannot use the same for industrial growth. Only after domestic & irrigation requirements of water are met with than only water can be provided to the industries as per National Water Policy. On the aspect of terrestrial ecology he stated that doubling of this railway track on the Western Ghats would have wide ramification. 16.88 As regards impact on ‘Marine This is not true. As stated time and Environment’ he stated that the again hereinabove, the draft EIA report provided data should not be includes all information as provided in relied upon. The impacts on the ToR. Any deficiency will be maintenance dredging are not rectified in the final EIA, if found disclosed. The breeding ground necessary. of the windowpane oyster is
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public within a few kilometres away from the project site. He stated that dredged stretches would not get recolonised. The moment dredging is done the entire benthic life would die. There is no quantification of the impact that would be caused and hence the study is completely inadequate. 16.89 He stated only general statements This is not true. As stated earlier the are made without proper draft EIA report has relied on the data analytical exercise. He read out provided by the official publication of from the report the impact on the Department of Fisheries (Goa) and fisheries and said that it is false. CMFRI (GoI). The nature of the No studies made on this as no present brown field project will mostly reference is quoted as to from have a temporary adverse impact on where they got the information. benthic flora only in the dredging foot He stated pollution is going to print. After the cessation of dredging take place. The precautionary the marine eco system will come back principle should be applied. He to its original status all over the basin stated that there is rich except in the limited foot print area biodiversity as well as were Capital dredging will take place endangered species being of this project. Also refer 16.65. sighted. Whether corals will survive or not is not finding a mention. He stated that the statement made that coral will be taken to sea that no hill cutting will be permitted is highly incorrect as a number of hills are to be destroyed for reclamation. 16.90 Impact on account of dust No such possibility arises as the coal particulates fleeing off and cargo is transported under fully covered entering into homes of all people wagons/trucks. living along the routes of transport is not assessed. No quantification of the impact is
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public spelt out on the impact from ship traffic. 16.91 4.3.5 as regards to impact on This is not true. socio economic environment, he said that impact on this is the highest whereby livelihood, health, displacement of fishermen etc. is at its peak. 16.92 As regards to shoreline changing Refer 15.28 status has to be studied as per the guidance manual. This shoreline is highly vulnerable as it is on a estuarine. He read out the reports of experts where it says that there is a chronic shore loss but the EIA report speaks otherwise. In this EIA report in the Para concerning recommendations as page 4-26, the WAPCOS themselves have called for studies. 16.93 He pointed out that on page 6-7 it Sporadic incidents of smoke emanating has been clearly mentioned that from coal heaps do occur if the sulphur coal is susceptible to a variety of content in coal is high. However, no causes of ignition. He asked if flames result from this phenomenon any fire had been caused due to and it is routinely controlled due to the coal stacks. MPT replied that due functioning of water spraying for dust to continuous water sprinkling control. There is exclusive fire smoke, emanates which is a fighting section in MPT with fire regular phenomenon. When tenders/equipment, available round the Abhijit questioned as to how clock. many times did this occur. MPT (ii) Coal is not a hazardous commodity replied saying that they haven’t as per MSIHC Rules, 1989. maintained records. 16.94 Abhihjit asked if the MPT is Ambient Air Quality has been monitoring the levels of Carbon monitored for 12 consecutive weeks at Monoxide and Methane and also 6 locations considering the proposed Ammonia.MPT replied that they project location and prevailing wind
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public are only monitoring PM2.5 direction recorded at Mormugao station &PM10.He thereafter read out of IMD. All the 12 parameters the contents of Coal dust suggested by MoEF&CC vide explosion of the EIA report notification dt. 16.11.2009 have been .Liquid commodities of highly monitored and given in chapter-3 of inflammable nature would have EIA report. to run the risk if in the case the stacked coal catches fire, is what Abhijit said which has not been considered in the EIA report. 16.95 MPT stated that as per safety The Port has the necessary emergency norms liquid material is response system in case of any such monitored.When asked if the eventuality. Besides each of such increased risk is assessed after installations has independent safety and getting the material in higher emergency response mechanism. If volumes.MPT replied saying that required, the Fire and Emergency they have taken note of the same Department of the State Govt., the and they will take necessary Coast Guard as well as the Indian Navy steps. can be requested for assisting the Port in emergency relief operations. 16.96 Abhijit stated that the dirty cargo Not relevant to the present project. was supposed to be shifted but instead of that they have not acted upon the same but have on the contrary retracted. 16.97 He spoke on the role of The list of the experts involved in the WAPCOS who are listed on preparation of the EIA report has been page 9-I where A.S. Leo is said presented in the report. to be Air Pollution Expert but in The EIA Report has dealt with the all the EIA report of dredging the the issues as provided in the ToR. Any same person is listed to be deficiency will be rectified in the Final ecology & Bio –Diversity EIA report, if found necessary. expert. Abhijit wanted to know as to what was the expertise of Dr.S.K.Tyagi.Dr.Tyagi replied that I am Functional Area Expert on Ecology and Biodiversity as per NABET Scheme. He stated
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public that WAPCOS is supposed to have scientific temperament and that they do not have any interest in scientific debate. He also pointed out to Dr. K. K. Gaur who is a social expert and Abhijit wanted to know for how many days was he for the study.MPT replied that they would be complying in writing.Abhijit stated that social sector include health, occupation, socio cultural issues,impact on public amenities on recreational facilities had to be studied. He charged that no Sociological study has been carried out byDr.K.K.Gaur. 16.98 He pointed out that the people This is not true. who are living along the railway line and along the roads should have participated in the public hearing .He highlighted that due to WAPCOS being unable to answer the entire public hearing is vitiated.This Public Hearing is incomplete as it is not possible to get clarification and unless they are replaced on the spot, no fair hearing can be said to have been done. 16.99 Regarding maintenance dredging As explained, this is a common user the impact is not assessed.Abhijit facility and the benefit will go to all questioned how the public is users who wish use the facility. The benefitted.MPT replied that Port PPP operator will be providing the is just a facilitator for importing infrastructure and operating the facility. and exporting .MPT being a It goes without saying that the
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public public undertaking the role proposed modernisation project is played is of national essential for the development of the interest.Abhijit stated that Port and important for trade and Vedanta is taking the Coal for his commerce. private Steel and Power Plant .MPT stated that the facility is for common users facility.Any exporter or importer can bring their cargo ,load&unload at this facility is what MPT stated.Abhijit stated that submission made by the officials do not find mention in this EIA report and is contradictory to the data in the EIA report.There is no public interest involved.It is only to reduce freight charges purely for the profit of private Corporation that the project is taken up. He stated that the project is completely against the interest of the country and the people. 16.100 Abhijit stated that the EIA report No remarks. is solely for facilitating the corporates to import coal for private use.He stated that no public purpose is attained and the ports located on the east coast are as of now facilitating the interest of the corporate. MPT is going against the coal policy against the PM assurance on reducing coal and against national interest. 16.101 He stated that before going ahead The present project is restricted to the with the exercise of dredging the active Port Basin of MPT. rivers which are one of business plans of MPT it should be made
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public available to the public and no EIA study should be done and vehemently stated that the EIA study should not be considered and no coal handling should be allowed.
17.0 SherwynCorreia, Mangor Hill Vasco Iam just 17yrs old studying in St Coal pollution is under control at the Andrews Higher Secondary.I am MPT terminals complex and the speaking on behalf of the youth environs. .Everyday when I swipe my finger tip on the table which is full of dust.Imagine what would be the dust inhaled everyday .I have been Constantly on a nebuliser. The rich have shifted out of Vasco what about the poor who cannot afford the second home. The concept of right of clean environment is an integral to be the right to life. He quoted the judgement of 1986 when pollution levels have increased and how can we think about increase. Spoke about the poisonous chemicals present in coal which causes rise in cases of autism. Fishwhich is staple food of Goans has become toxic in nature. When Coal handling has been a cause of concern how can be permit doubling the coal handling as what we stated. “SobitMhojemGoem, SundorMhojemGoem” inherited from our parents would be able to pass on the same to our future
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public generation.I had attended the hearing for second day Pooja Mehra had highlighted the type of Marine life existing in our Goan Waters.He pleaded not to permit the activity of Coal handling by making Goa as a Coal Hub and Coal Corridor.
18.0 Madeline Pereira 18.1 Speakers who have spoken This is not true. The said 3 projects earlier have brought the issue conceived are separate project activities before the authority that all three and to be executed independently. projects are interconnected and interlinked. 18.2 Todays issue is Work of No remarks. Redevelopement of Berth 8, 9 And Barge Berth at the Port of Mormugao –Sada, by MPT 18.3 She questioned of what will be No remarks. the length berth 5A,6A,7,8,9 Barge Berth in case your project goes ahead.MPTreplied as 1800 Meters in length 18.4 What is distance between end of No remarks. Berth 9A &KhariwadaBeach.MPT replied -800 Meters. 18.5 She stated that by getting coal on Coal if handled at the berths will be these berths the pollution is being stored in covered mechanism and all bought closer to the people. MPT operations will be mechanized. is surrounded by all side by Mormugao Municipal Council limits. All your operations are carried out geographically within our city limits. She questioned as to what would be capacity of
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public handling once the Berths take shape. 18.6 MPT replied that would be - No remarks. 19.22 million tonnes which includes coal, iron etc. She stated that Board of Trustees had resolved not to handle coal handling. MPT replied saying that Barge Jetty will be utilised for unloading Iron Ore cargo by mechanised conveyor Barge Jetty is put up by Vedanta.It is upto concessionaire to decide what system they are going to use. 18.7 She asked how coal will be The facility will be totally mechanised unloaded MPT replied that it is with fogging and sprinkling systems. by Harbour mobile crane Coal will be stocked in fully covered Mounted on the Berth. The coal shed and entire conveying system will will be unloaded and dumped in also be covered. hopper by GRABS system .She said that the grab system is not useful because the Tips of the system does not fit and it can malfunction. Thereby the fine coal dust is spilled everywhere. She also wanted to know if there are there any measures controlling the same. 18.8 MPT carries out the All necessary precautions will be taken activitieswith scant respect to our while unloading coal from the ships. safety as can be seen from the This will be covered in the final EIA fine coal dust flowing during the report. scooping done by using GRAB System. 18.9 She has brought dust sample Coal dust pollution is under control at from the AC filters of her house MPT and its environs. and requested that the samples be taken on record. The people are
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public breathing day in day out high level of sulphur content which is present in the coal and the same is inhaled by us thereby affecting our lungs. 18.10 Sulphur from Sulphuric acid The proposal does not involve handling percolates into ground water and of Sulphuric acid. sea which is further damaging our environment and affecting health of people. 18.11 At the rate at which the PP plan This is not true. The proposed project to increase the volume of coal it coal will be handled in fully covered is further going to aggregate the stacking shed and conveyors are also situation covered. Advanced dust suppression mechanisms will be introduced in the final EIA report. 18.12 The sulphuric content is emitted This is not true. in the environment and also water where fish live and we Goans eat this fish. There by infecting our system which is double jeopardy. 18.13 The metallurgical coal is not No remarks. going for power generation /electricity but it is been used by private companies such as Adani and Jindal for increasing their production and profit margins. 18.14 She gave example how Karwar This is not relevant to the proposed Beach was washed away and project. eroded due to dredging activity. The authorities had is dumped stones for preventing further erosion. 18.15 Submitted that the Sada hill area Any changes are due to illegal hill of late is facing a rapid change cutting and construction activities on and is slowly getting dislodged. steep slopes. Port projects have no
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public bearing on the Sada hill slopes. 18.16 Hence it is not safe to interfere The Koyna Dam disaster cannot be with the balance of nature. compared with the proposed project. Example of Koyna dam disaster should as be seen as example of such disaster. 18.17 She stated that Vasco Beach was This is not true. There is no evidence of 150 mtrs width but today it is any sustained erosion of Vasco Beach. only 15 mtrs due to extensive The latest report of the NIO shoreline dredging done alone by MPT and change study will be attached to the has further plan to do captive Final EIA. dredging and maintenance dredging. 18.18 She inquired with MPT whether No remarks. dredging is carried out continuously to which MPT replied that they stop dredging during fish spawning period so that the fish to lay eggs. She stated that once fishes go away from that place if they do not return at that site.MPT is stopping the dredging not for fish spawning but for their own convenience and advantage. 18.19 She inquired as to who decides Already answered. the Berth hire and the rates MPT replied that tariff authorities decide the charges and the details are on the website. 18.20 MPT is privatising everything, in Question not relevant to project. that case will the private companies employ the present staff or retained them or remove them. 18.21 She wanted to know as to why The selection of terminal operators is Adani /Jindal are coming to through the tendering process by
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public Goa.MPT replied that they are following due norms. not aware. She commented that Adani thinks that Goa is a soft target and wants to bring all dirty cargo in Goa. 18.22 She wanted to know from MPT The Port has the necessary emergency that if some catastrophe /disaster response system in case of any such takes place due to fault of eventuality. Besides each of such Adani/Jindal or Vedanta who installations has independent safety and will be held responsible and what emergency response mechanism. If will be the financial required, the Fire and Emergency commitments where should they Department of the State Govt., the go to seek justice. Coast Guard as well as the Indian Navy can be requested for assisting the Port in emergency relief operations. 18.23 MPT stated that this is not the Please refer 18.22. forum to reply to this query. 18.24 She stated that our PM said that No remarks. VIP culture be checked and the common person should be given importance. 18.25 She commented that MPT gives No remarks. reply as if they don’t have any respect to us and appears to be so confident that their projects will sail through.MPT should note that this is our land and resources which we have given to them that they should respect each ones life as it is precious and valuable and that is the reason that we all have come to express our views /grievances. We are agitated and boiling due to the coal pollution that we are facing for the last so many years. 18.26 She wanted to know from MPT No remarks. whether PPP are there in other
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public ports in India to which MPT replied that many ports in India have projects under the PPP. She summed up saying that once the berths are developed the enormous handling of hazardous cargo would take a toll on the lives of people of Vasco and as well as the people of Goa in general and hence she voiced her strong objection to the project.
19.0 Smt. Alina Saldanha, MLA Cortalim. 19.1 She stated that she had attended No remarks. hearing on 26/.4/2017 but there were several speakers and as she had to attend urgent work could not speak and place her views. 19.2 The Chairman of the Public No remarks. Hearing made it clear to her that she had not attended the Public hearing which was scheduled on 28/04/2017 and hence she was ineligible to voice her opinion as the present public hearing is an adjourned hearing. The Chairman also informed her that her name is also not mentioned in the list of speakers but being an MLA is given an opportunity for just 5 minutes. 19.3 MPT is a Government MPT and its terminal operators are Undertaking and has to operate following all consent conditions and its activity as per the prescribed directions issued by GSPCB from time laws and interest of Goa. It to time in order to check/suppress dust cannot compromise on the life generated during handling of cargo. and safety of the Goan people. It has to deal with the pollution
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public aspect in the first instance and take all requisite measures for controlling the existing Coal Pollution. 19.4 She stated that she had visited Coal handling at Berths 10 & 11 was MPT Port area and seen the level done manually and therefore there was of coal pollution in the area. pollution. This has been completely Every place every houses every stopped. parked car on road were full of coal dust. The sprinklers system was not in operation and was switched on after she entered. At peoples request GSPCB Officials visited several houses and places and observed coal dust. In 2012 GSPCB directed MPT to shut down coal handling at Berth 10 &11 and MPT had to shift it to Berth 5,6&7 .GSPCB issued several orders and directions to MPT to take pollution controls measures such as operation of Sprinklers during handling activities, reduce the height of Coal heaps, barricade, etc. However the pollution continued as a result I was answerable to the assembly Shri Arlekar Former Environmental Minister also directed the authorities to take action against MPT. 19.5 She statedthat Berth No. 7 was The remark is directed to GSPCB. granted to Adani.Presently 5.5 MT is operated and the quantum of pollution is very high.It is the responsibility of the GSPCB to initiate action as per the law 19.6 Presently GSPCB has proposed No remarks.
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public to conduct sources proportionate study.Hence until and unless this study is complete no permission should be given to MPT for any expansion .The current capacity of using the state infrastructure such as roads, railways should be studied prior to granting permission for expansion. 19.7 Presently 708 wagons of coal are About 7 to 9 rakes of coal are transported everyday and if transported from MPT every day. expansion is allowed there will be more coal pollution. The Ambient Air Quality Monitoring conducted by GSPCB indicates high level of Coal dust pollution. 19.8 She stated that during site visit All wagons are covered to avoid any for the purpose of doubling spillage or flying of coal dust. The project of the South Western issue of torn tarpaulins will be looked Railway she observed seven into and remedial action will be taken. trains passing, out of which 5 All wagons carries load as specified by trains were carrying coal without the railways as per type of wagons. proper dust control measure. The tarpaulin was torn and not tied properly, Wagons were overloaded and there was spillage .She stated that it is the responsibility of the MPT to see that all pollution control measures are taken as they have moral duty towards the common man. 19.9 She stated that every project of All facilities created by MPT and its MPT should benefit the common terminal operators are common user man and it should considered the facilities and the benefit will go to any needs of all the common user using the facility. The PPP people.MPT should go by the operator will be providing the principle of “Sab KaSaath, Sab infrastructure, operating and
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Project: Re-development of Berth Nos. 8, 9 and Barge Berths at the Port of Mormugao.
Sr. Objection/Query Raised by Reply to Query by MPT No. Public KaVikas” and not only the maintaining the facilities. The project is interest of industrialist and she beneficial to the trade and the Country. condemned the projects, but if in case of any disaster at the location of MPT occurs than the possibility of the same being controlled is simply not possible as the plan is not put to test is what he stated. **********
Project Proponent: M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland – Sada, Goa.
Short Note on Mathematical Model Studies to assess the Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco Bay at Mormugao Port, Goa
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Mormugao port, one of the major ports on the west coast of India, is located at the entrance of Zuari estuary as shown in the Figure 1. The existing 250m wide approach channel is dredged to a depth of (-) 14.4 m and harbor area and turning circle to a depth of (-) 14.1m to cater to 60000 DWT size ships.
Figure 1: Imagery showing Mormugoa Port and its Surroundings
In order to boost commercial trade in the region on Public – Private – Partnership basis, the Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) has been executing the work of deepening the existing approach channel to a depth of (-) 19.8 m and harbor areas to (-) 19.5 m covering a total plan area of
CWPRS Technical Report No. 5409, July 2016 1
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
about 2.90 km2 as shown partly in the Figure 2. The work of deepening of the Approach channel has been completed by about 50% so far.
Figure 2: Layout Plan showing areas being deepened in the Mormugao Port
Mormugao Port Trust vide email dated November 16, 2017 requested CWPRS to find the impact of re-development of Berths 8 and 9, which would primarily involve additional deepening of port area in front of the these berths (zones C1, B4 and B5) as shown in Figure 3 from existing (-) 14.1m to (-) 19.8m, on the Vasco bay in respect of flow conditions and sedimentation. The capital dredging in the proposed dredging area in front of Berths 8 and 9 would be about 2.3 Mm3 covering a plan area of about 0.39 Mm2. The earlier CWPRS
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
Technical Report No. 5409 of July 2016 submitted to MPT described the assessment of maintenance dredging and location of suitable disposal grounds for the re-development of Berths 8 and 9. The scope of present studies includes estimation of the impact of capital dredging done for re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on the Vasco bay in respect of flow conditions and sedimentation aspects.
-19.8m
Figure 3: Layout Plan showing proposed additional deepening in front of Berths 8 & 9
The mathematical model studies have been conducted to assess the changes on the flow conditions and sedimentation patterns in the Vasco bay as a result of capital dredging for re- development of Berths 8 and 9. Subsequently, advection-dispersion studies have also been conducted to study the movement of suspended particles from Berth nos. 8 and 9 during flood and ebb tides in order to observe their path through Vasco bay. In the present study, 2-
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
Dimensional hydrodynamic model MIKE 21 HD , spectral wave model MIKE 21 SW and mud transport Model, MIKE 21 MT, have been used to simulate the flow field and sediment transport in the existing and the proposed scenario under prevailing tidal and wave conditions. Sediment movement during the dredging process has been studied using MIKE-21 AD model.
2.0 PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS
The width of the Zuari estuary at the entrance is 5500 m and natural depths are about 6 to 7 m below CD (Figure 4) and the estuary is flanked by the hills of Mormugao headland on the southern side and Cabo hills on the northern side. The Mormugao bay extends upto a reach of about 12 km before narrowing to about 500m at Cortalim. A number of embayments exist on both the banks. Even though the entrance is characterisized by the absence of the shallow bars, however, a shallow bar with depths less than 2 m is present at a distance of about 8 km upstream of the Mormugao headland as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Layout of Mormugao bay showing Headland and shallow bars
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
The bed material in the approach channel and harbor area is mostly of soft-silty-clayey nature. The sea bed at the Mormugao port often consists of a discontinuous transition from muddy water, through watery mud to firm mud.
The Vasco bay is located at about 3.0 km upstream from the existing breakwater at Mormugao port (Figure 1). The size of the Vasco bay is about 800 m x 1000 m and the existing depths are of the order of 2 – 4 m below chart datum. The Vasco bay is exposed to the direct incident waves from Arabian sea from predominant Northwest direction during the non-Monsoon season (October to May) and west during the southwest Monsoon season (June to September). Mostly the diffracted waves reach the Vasco bay area when the predominant waves are incident from the West direction. The maximum significant wave heights in the Vasco bay area are about 0.50 m. Maximum spring tidal range is 2.4 m and the maximum currents in the port area range between 0.20 - 0.30 m/s. The bed material in the Vasco bay area is also of soft- silty -clayey type. As such, the movement of the sand is not visible along the coast line in port area. The littoral drift is observed to be insignificant in the Mormugao bay and in the adjacent regions.
2.1 Prototype Data Analysis
Analysis of the prototype data is the most important part of model studies as the results depend on the accuracy of data. The basic inputs for hydrodynamic and sedimentation studies are bathymetry, tidal data, current data, wave data, sediment characteristics, suspended sediment concentration etc. Field data available with CWPRS were used to carry out the studies and brief description of the same is given below:
2.1.1 Bathymetry
Bathymetry is the one most important input for the model. The bathymetry of the prototype area was obtained from available hydrographic charts as supplied by the MPT and from MIKE- 21 C-map data. The bathymetry covers an area of 70 km X 40 km including river stretches. The model area includes major stretch of Zuari and Mandovi rivers. Towards sea side, it covers soundings upto (-) 56 m depth contours below CD. Figure 5(a) shows the mesh generated in the model area. In the approach channel and harbor area, very fine mesh is generated while in remaining model area, fine to coarse mesh is generated. This has been done to reduce the simulation time of model without compromising grid resolution in the area
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
of interest. Figure 5(b) shows complete model area and bathymetry. It could be seen from this figure that the sea depth contours are more or less parallel to coastline.
Vasco Bay
Figure 5(a): Mesh Generated in Model Area
Figure 5(b): 2-D View of Bathymetry at Mormugoa Port
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
2.1.2 Tides
Tides in the estuary are semidiurnal with pronounced diurnal inequality having considerable difference in the tidal ranges and the elevation of low waters and high waters in the successive tidal cycles. The spring tidal range in the Zuari estuary is about 2.4 m.
2.1.3 Tidal Current
The field observation carried out in September 1977 have been analysed and the same have been used for model studies, in absence of the recent field observations. The maximum current in the channel is of the order of 0.40 m/s during spring tide while during average tide, it is observed to be 0.20 m/s.
2.1.4 Sediment Concentration and Bed Material Data
During the Stage -1 development of Mormugao port in 1970s, the water samples in the port and channel area were collected for a period of more than three years and analyzed for sediment concentration and salinity. In the Mormugao bay, there are considerable spatial and seasonal variations in the values of the sediment concentration due to varied hydraulic and physiographic conditions. The average values of the sediment concentration in the Mormugao port and bay area are shown in the Figure 6.
On the basis of the analysis of water sample data, the average sediment concentration has been considered as 0.04 ppt during the monsoon season and 0.012 ppt during the non- monsoon season in the port and channel areas.
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
Figure 6: Suspended Sediment Concentration in Mormugao bay during Monsoon and Non- Monsoon seasons
The mean diameter (D50) of suspended sediment is about 0.002 mm under dispersed state and the bed material may be classified as soft – silty and clayey type.
2.1.5 River Discharge The maximum river discharges in Mandovi and Zuari rivers have been observed to be 4000 m3/s and 970 m3/s respectively. The average discharges in Mandovi and Zuari river are about 1000 m3/s and 250 m3/s respectively.
2.1.6 Wave Data Offshore wave data reported in Indian daily weather chart reports published by India Metrological Department (IMD) and the same have been used to simulate MIKE-21 SW module.
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
The Mormugao port region is subjected to incident short period waves of significant height of 2.0 m from the directions north to northwest during the non-Monsoon season (October to May) and from the directions between southwest and west of significant height of about 4.0m during the southwest Monsoon season i.e. from June to September.
3.0 RESULTS OF THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL STUDIES
3.1 Simulation Of Hydrodynamic and Sedimentation Conditions
3.1.1 Existing condition
Initially the studies were conducted under the existing conditions of the area in front of berth nos. 8 and 9 and Vasco bay to simulate the hydrodynamic and sedimentation conditions with the calibrated mathematical model MIKE-21 HD. The detailed bathymetry in Vasco Bay and near Berth nos. 8 and 9 is shown in Figure 7.
-14.4m
-13.1m
-6.0m
Berth 8 &9 Vasco Bay
Figure 7: Bathymetry in the vicinity of Vasco Bay with Berths 8 & 9 in existing Condition
The model including two river stretches (Fig. 5(b)) was simulated and calibrated for hydrodynamic condition. The prevailing depths of -14.4m at Berths 8 and 9 were incorporated
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
in the model to study the hydrodynamics in the Vasco Bay. Typical flow patterns during Flood and Ebb phases of tide are shown Figs. 8(a) & 8(b) respectively.
Figure 8 (a): Flow Pattern during Flood Phase in Model Area (Existing Condition)
Figure 8 (b): Flow Pattern during Ebb Phase in Model Area (Existing Condition)
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
3.1.2 Proposed condition
The model was simulated after incorporating proposed dredged depths of -19.5m at berth 8 and 9 as shown in Figure 9. Typical flow patterns during Flood and Ebb phases of tide are shown Figures 10 (a) & 10 (b) respectively. No change is observed in flow patterns and magnitude of current in Vasco Bay under the existing and proposed conditions of dredging. In order to determine even minute change in magnitude of current in Vasco Bay due to proposed dredging, current data was extracted at two locations P1 and P2 (Figure 11) in both existing and proposed condition. The typical time series plot of currents in existing and proposed condition at locations P1 and P2 are shown in Figure 11. It could be seen from these figures that there is no change in magnitude of current in the Vasco Bay after dredging the area from - 14.4m to -19.8m. The flow conditions are the basic parameters for the process of sedimentation. Further, mud transport studies were carried out to observe the probable changes in sedimentation in the Vasco Bay due to proposed dredging at Berths 8 and 9, if any.
Area to be dredged
-19.5m
-13.1m P1 -6.0m
Berth 8 &9 P2 Vasco Bay
Figure 9: Bathymetry in the vicinity of Vasco Bay indicating Proposed Dredging at Berth 8 and 9
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
Figure10 (a) :Flow Pattern during Flood Phase in Model Area ( Proposed Condition)
Figure10 (b) :Flow Pattern during Ebb Phase in Model Area ( Proposed Condition)
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
Figure 11: Time Series Velocity Plot at Locations P1 and P2
4.1.3 Mud Transport and Mud plume simulation
MIKE-21 MT model was simulated to establish sediment transport before and after dredging at the berths. Typical plots of sedimentation existing and proposed condition are given in Figure 12 (a) and 12(b). From these figures, it could be seen that there is no change in sedimentation pattern in the Vasco Bay although sedimentation increases at Berths 8 & 9. This indicates that dredging at berth 8 and 9 would not have any impact on the morphology of the Bay.
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
Fig. 12(a): Sedimentation pattern in Vasco Bay in existing Condition ( dredged depth -14.1m at Berths 8 & 9)
Fig. 12(a): Sedimentation pattern in Vasco Bay in Proposed Condition (Dredged depth -19.5m at Berths 8 & 9)
The studies were further carried out to identify the track of sediment plume during dredging period to check whether it would cross Vasco Bay. In this regard, MIKE AD model was simulated to identify the path of sediment movement which comes into suspension during dredging process. The typical sediment plume during flood and ebb phase of tide is given in Figures 13(a) and 13 (b). It could be noticed from these figures that both during flood and ebb phases of tides, sediment plume does not enter into the Vasco Bay. Considering all the aspects of coastal process, it can be ascertained that capital dredging at Berths 8 and 9 would not have any impact on the hydraulic and sedimentation conditions in the Vasco bay.
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
Figure 13(a): Movement of sediment Plume during Flooding phase of tide
Figure 13(b): Movement of sediment Plume during Ebbing phase of tide
4.0 DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESULTS
The redevelopment of Berths 8 and 9 would involve capital dredging to the tune of 2.3 Mm3 in front of these berths. To assess the impact of this capital dredging on the adjacent Vasco bay in respect of flow conditions and sedimentation, the mathematical model studies were conducted to see the difference in the flow conditions, sedimentation patterns and to observe the trail of sediment plume in the Vasco bay as a result of capital dredging in front of the Berths 8 and 9. The basic parameters to effect change in the sedimentation patterns are flow conditions, flow exchange, sediment concentrations and existing and proposed dredged conditions. The Vasco bay is adjacent to the berths 8 and 9 but physically located as a bay which primarily falls into a very low flow exchange area.
Assessment of Impact of Re-development of Berths 8 and 9 on Vasco bay, Goa
The mathematical model studies to observe the change in the flow conditions and sedimentation patterns in the Vasco bay as a result of capital dredging in front of Berths 8 and 9 reveal that there is absolutely no change in the above parameters which signify majorly that there would be no effect on the Vasco bay as a result of re-development of Berths 8 and 9. In addition to the above, the mathematical model studies were also conducted to see the path of sediment plumes during flood and ebb tides which would be generated as a result of dredging. The studies indicated that the sediment plumes would not be entering the Vasco bay, hence, there is no chance of sediments depositing in the Vasco bay as a result of capital dredging in front of Berths 8 and 9. Consequent to all above, it can also be inferred that that there would be no change in the shoreline patterns of the Vasco bay as a result of re-development of Berths 8 and 9.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The Mathematical model studies indicated that there would be no change in the flow conditions, sedimentation patterns in the Vasco bay region as a result of re-development of Berths 8 and 9. Further, the sediment plumes generated during the capital dredging process in front of Berths 8 and 9 would also be not crossing the Vasco bay area. It may be concluded that the re-development of Berths 8 and 9 would not have any effect in the Vasco bay area in respect of flow conditions and sedimentation and overall morphology of the shoreline.