The India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) project has been adhering to all regulations and allegations of violations were unsubstantiated, its director V.M. Datar said. He also denied the charge that rules were being bypassed to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
Speaking to The Hindu during the two-day collaboration meeting of scientists involved in the project here on Friday, he said that concerns of some activists that the project was recommended for EC by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of MoEFCC earlier this month by treating it as a ‘special case’ under ‘incorrect category’ were unfounded.
According to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006, the projects that needed EC were classified into sections ranging from 1 (a) to 8 (b) with each section sub-divided into Category A and B. While Category A required MoEFCC clearance, Category B projects can be provided EC by the State-level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).
The INO project was considered under Section 8 dealing with ‘Buildings and Construction projects’ and Category B since the built-up area was between 20,000 and 1.5 lakh square metre.
Section of activists, however, contended that the project must be under Category A, which imposed stringent conditions for approval, since the General Conditions (GC) of 2006 notification would be applicable due to the project site’s proximity to the Mathikettan Shola National Park.
Stating that this was a misunderstanding, Mr. Datar said the 2006 notification had no explicit mention that the general conditions would apply to Section 8 (a) projects although it was mentioned so for a few other sections. “To clear any ambiguities, a notification in December 2014 clarified that GC does not apply to Section 8 (a),” he said.
‘Special case’
Pointing out that INO project’s application for EC could have been handled by Tamil Nadu’s SEIAA, he said it was taken up by the MoEFCC as a ‘special case’ only because the State agency refused to process the application citing various reasons and instead asked the Union government to handle it appropriately. Highlighting that the EC had now been recommended with 17 conditions, he said that concerns of activists would be addressed since these conditions included approval from National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and a clearance from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB).
“While we have already applied to NBWL, we are yet to make a fresh application to TNPCB since we are yet to get the formal EC in hand, which has to be attached to the application,” he added.
On concerns raised about the EIA earlier done by Salim Ali Centre, which is an unaccredited agency, and lack of transparency in the public hearing, he said that both EIA and public hearing were not mandatory for Section 8 (a) - Category B projects.
“Nevertheless, we proactively did an EIA with Salim Ali Centre. We also did a well-attended public meeting (not hearing) in Pottipuram in 2010 to explain the project and clear misconceptions,” he said.
Alleging that several ‘unfounded’ criticisms about water-usage for the project, radioactivity, and impact due to blasting of rocks were being raised, he said that the INO project team would intensify its outreach programmes to tackle this.
