Geo Technical Investigation Report on study carried out for locating underground laboratory of INO on Pottipuram Site. APPENDICES Appendix - 1 Geo-technical investigation reports by GSI 181 Appendix - 1 182 Appendix - 1 183 Appendix - 1 184 Appendix - 1 185 Appendix - 1 186 Appendix - 1 187 Appendix - 1 188 Appendix - 1 189 Appendix - 1 190 Appendix - 1 191 Appendix - 1 . 192 Appendix - 1 193 Appendix - 1 194 Appendix - 1 195 Appendix - 1 196 Appendix - 1 197 Appendix - 1 198 Appendix - 1 199 Appendix - 1 200 Appendix - 1 201 Status of Court cases pending/ disposed against the project INO and Legal Issues, Report With reference to the W.P. (MD) No. 733 of 2015 filed by Shri Vaiko,General Secretary, MDMK, Chennai and an Interim Order dated 26.03.2015, against INO. 1. The case was filed on 20 January 2015 in Madras High Court, Madurai Bench-- HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI - W.P. (MD) No. 733 of 2015 filed by Shri Vaiko, General Secretary, MDMK, Chennai - the petitioner. Respondents mentioned in the petition: 1. Union of India, MOEF Secretary 2. DST 3. Chairman AEC 4. TN- Secretary E&F 5. IMSc 6. TNPCB 7. Theni District Collector 2. A counter affidavit by Dr Shekar Basu on behalf of DAE/ AEC/ IMSc was filed by the ASG, Government of India, Mr G R Swaminathan. 3. The first hearing was scheduled for 6 February. Mr Vaiko asked more time to go through the counter affidavits and the hearing was postponed to 23rd February 2015. 4. On 23rd February the WP came up for hearing. The case was listed as no. 38 and came up for hearing in the afternoon. Mr Vaiko presented arguments all day. He continued on 5th March and ASG responded, asking for a summary dismissal of the case. On that day, Mr Vaiko filed a miscellaneous petition, asking for a stay order. Judges reserved orders on issue pertaining to (non- )filing of application for air and water clearance with TNPCB. This fact was already mentioned in counter-affidavit of INO. There was (and is) no response from TN State. 5. Interim orders on the miscellaneous petition passed by Judges on 26 Mar, 2015. It states, in part: "According to the petitioned, the implementation of the proposed INO project ... will bring unimaginable and terrible disaster to the mankind and also make degradation of the environment in and around Theni District in Tamil Nadu and Idukki District of Kerala. ... According to the petitioner, if the prject is commenced even without getting proper clearance from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and other authorities concerned, that would be detrimental to the life of the people, who are residing in and around the proposed site of the project. ... On the facts and circumstances, we pass the interim order restraining the respondents 1 to 3 and 4, by way of interim injunction only watih regard to the commencement of the research work of the project, without getting necessary clearance from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and without following the mandated provisions. It is also made clear that the interim order is passed without prejudice to the disposal of the main writ petition." INO has since filed for TNPCB clearance and it is awaited for more than 2 years now. With reference to Appeal No 6 of 2015 (SZ) before the National Green Tribunal, South Zone Bench The case was filed by Shri G Sundarrajan on 16th Feb, 2015. Respondents mentioned in the petition: 1. MOEF, Centre 2. Secretary, MOEF, TN 3. Secretary, TNPCB, TN 4. Secretary, SEIAA, TN 5. IMSc, Chennai The main contention was that the lab will cause environental damage and also due procedure with respect to environmental clearance was not followed. 1. A counter affidavit was filed by Prof V Arvind, Director, IMSc, on 5th May. 2. After several postponements,and several hearings, there was (and is) no response from TN State government. 3. On 18th Nov, proponent R1 (Secretary, MoEF, Central, Govt of India), filed a counter. They highlight in their prayers “That the appeal is time-barred. The environmental clearance to the said project was granted on 01.06.2010; however, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 14.02.2015”. Also, they stated that clearance was accorded under Category 8a (Category B) which was disputed by the Hon Judge, stating that nowhere in the EC clearance was the category of the clearance mentioned. 4. One main point where the case got stuck is the lack of the mandatory accredition of SACON, which did the EIA for INO. An Office Memorandum of March 2010 states that all final reports submitted after 30th June 2010 need to have EIA done by institutions with accredition by Quality Council of India. Since MoEF counter-affidavit clearly mentioned that it was treated as Category B, EIA is not required. However, Hon Judge was not convinced that “General Conditions do not apply” (since the project is within 10 km of interstate boundary) and so he insisted it had to be treated as Category A project where EIA is required. In addition, the EC clearance document clearly states that EIA was done by SACON and if it was not required, it need not have been mentioned. 5. On 20 Mar, 2017, the Hon Judge passed orders and held the EC in abeyance, directing us to file for fresh EC, citing the presence of Mathikettan Shola National park “within 4.9 km of INO” as mentioned by Shri Sundarrajan, and also indicating that not only should it therefore have been treated as Categoty A project but also that wildlife clearance should have been obtained. Legal Status PIL filed in Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Jan 2015 by Shri Vaiko. Hon Judge granted a stay in Mar 2015, restraining project proponent “by way of interim injunction only with regard to the commencement of the research work of the project, without getting necessary clearance from the TNPCB and without following the mandated provisions ... without prejudice to the disposal of the main writ petition." Appeal filed in NGT, Chennai, in Mar 2015 by Shri G Sundarrajan. Hon Judge disposed of the case with the following orders, “... the impugned EC is kept in abeyance so as to enable the 5th respondent project proponent ... to make proper application in Form — I or in any other manner known to law. ... While keeping the impugned order in abeyance, we make it clear that the transfer of land in the name of the project proponent should not be affected and ... status quo ... as on today shall be maintained. Till final orders are passed by the Regulatory Authority As per the Orders passed by the NGT (March 2017), the EC granted by the MoEF&CC, has been held in abeyance and INO has been asked to obtain clearance from the National Board for Wild Life and apply for fresh environmental clearance with the MoEF&CC. Minutes of public meeting held on 08.07.2010 by Collector Draft summary of INO outreach meeting in Ramakrishnapuram Govt High School, July 8, 2010, in presence of Collector, Theni District Members Present: Theni District Collector, Shri Pu. Muthuveerran, IAS Superintendent of Police, Shri Balasubramanian, IPS Theni District Revenue Officer, Smt Birundha Devi District Forest Officer, Shri Srinivasa Reddy, IFS Bodi MLA Shri Lakshmanan American College Principal, Prof Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar INO Spokesperson Prof Naba K Mondal, TIFR INO Scientists Prof M V N Murthy, Dr Vivek Datar, Prof D Indumathi, Dr Deepak Samuel, Dr B Satyanarayana, Mr S Kalmani INO Engineers Shri N S Sreenivasan, Shri P Verma, Shri R Sundara Srinivasan TNEB SE Shri Stephen, TNEB EE, Srhi Madaswamy TNEB Engineers Shri R Rose, Smt Shyamala, Shri Shekhar IGCAR Outreach team, headed by Shri Daniel Chellappa Uttamapalayam Tahsildar Shri Manoharan, Revenue Inspector Shri Kannan Pottipuram Panchayat President Smt Suruliammal Pottipuram VAO Shri Surulivelu, about 1000-1200 members of Pottipuram and surrounding 6 villages and about 40 members of the press. Agenda of the meeting attached. l The meeting began by the Ameriacn College Principal, Prof Chinnaraj Jospeh Jaikumar, welcoming the gathering. l The Collector, Shri Muthuveerran, addressed the villagers, telling them that he had promised to bring the INO scientists to their village to hear their questions and clarify their doubts and this was that promised forum. He urged the villagers to ask all their questions and that every question would be addressed, however long it took. He said that the decision on whether this project would be good or bad for the villagers was one that they should reach after hearing the answers to all their questions. l Bodi MLA Shri Lakshmaman spoke, saying that there had already been several meetings held at several places and times earlier where people's doubts had been cleared. Today was also one such, where he requested that they should come to a definite conclusion. He also said that the INO project team had searched all over and had chosen OUR site as the most appropriate one for locating the project and that it would not be in any way harmful to the people or the land. He also requested the people to clearly find out what benefits would accrue from the project. l The Principal, AC introduced the INO project members as well as Mr Stephen and the rest of the TNEB team. He gave a short overview of the four presentations that were to be shown. He clarified that this is a project jointly funded by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).