Reference Image for Case Study in ESIA:

Case Study 1: Metro Expansion in Chennai

1. Project Description
 Air (Prevention and Control of
The Metro Expansion Project in Chennai Pollution) Act, 1981
aims to extend the current metro network  Water (Prevention and Control of
under Phase II, covering approximately Pollution) Act, 1974
118.9 kilometers with 128 stations across  Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
three corridors. The objective is to improve  CRZ Notification, 2011 (if coastal
urban mobility, reduce traffic congestion, zones are impacted)
enhance environmental sustainability, and  Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
provide efficient public transportation. The (TNPCB) guidelines
project involves construction of elevated and  Urban Development Authority and local
underground stations, laying of tracks, municipal norms
setting up depots, and ancillary
infrastructure. 3. Baseline Conditions:
Comprehensive baseline studies were
2. Legal and Regulatory Framework conducted in the proposed metro corridors
covering:
The project is governed by multiple national
and state-level laws and regulations,  Air Quality: PM2.5 and PM10 levels
including: exceed permissible limits in central
city areas.
 Environmental Protection Act, 1986  Water Resources: Groundwater levels
 EIA Notification, 2006 (amended) are low; surface water moderately
 Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (if forest polluted.
land is involved)
  Noise Levels: Exceeding CPCB standards  Assessment: Moderate to high during
during peak hours. construction phase, low in operation phase.
 Flora and Fauna: Limited vegetation,
some green patches in southern suburbs.  Mitigation:
 Socio-Economic Profile: Densely
 Dust suppression by water
populated areas with mixed residential,
sprinkling.
commercial, and slum settlements.  Noise barriers and silent
 Cultural Heritage: Several heritage sites
equipment.
exist near proposed routes, especially in  Tree plantation and green buffers.
George Town and Mylapore.
 Proper Construction Disposal.
4. Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)
6. Public Opinion
The following alternatives were
considered:  Public consultations were held in multiple
 No-Project Scenario: Continued traffic zones.
congestion, increased pollution, and strain  Supportive Views: Improved
on existing transport systems. connectivity, employment opportunities.
 Alternative Alignments: Evaluated  Concerns Raised: Land acquisition,
based on land acquisition, cost, noise, disruption to businesses.
environmental sensitivity, and socio-  Action Taken: Resettlement Action Plans
economic disruption. Selected alignment (RAP), stakeholder grievance redressal
minimized impact on heritage sites and mechanism initiated.
residential displacement.
 Construction Techniques: Compared 7. Environmental Management Plan
cut-and-cover vs. tunnel boring for (EMP)
underground sections. Tunnel boring
selected for reduced surface disruption. The EMP includes:
 Construction Phase: Environmental
Socio-Economic Impact: monitoring, waste management, noise
 Positive: Increased employment control.
opportunities, improved access to  Operation Phase: Energy-efficient
education and healthcare, reduced travel systems, regular maintenance, and
time, and enhanced connectivity. green station initiatives.
 Negative: Temporary displacement, loss of  Budget: INR 200 crores allocated for
income for street vendors, and EMP implementation and monitoring.
inconvenience during construction. These
8. Risk Assessment
are addressed through comprehensive
rehabilitation and compensation plans.  Construction Hazards: Accidents,
structural failures.
5. EIA Process: Identification,  Operational Risks: Fire, electrical
Prediction, Assessment & faults, derailment.
 Mitigation: Safety audits, emergency
Mitigation
response plans, fire drills, training
 Identification: Impacts on air, noise, land programs.
use, water, and biodiversity.
 Prediction: Increased dust and emissions
during construction; noise pollution near
stations.
9. Decision Making 11. Post-Approval Activities
Based on the EIA findings and  Regular environmental monitoring as
stakeholder feedback, the project has per schedule.
been deemed environmentally viable  Compliance reports submission to
with appropriate mitigation MoEFCC and TNPCB.
measures. Project modifications were  Grievance redressal forums and
recommended in sensitive areas. public communication maintained.
 Third-party audits and adaptive
10. Review and Approval management approach adopted.
 Reviewed by State Expert Appraisal
Committee (SEAC)
 Recommendations submitted to
Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (MoEFCC)
 Public hearing minutes documented
and integrated