By The Hindu Bureau
Copyright thehindu
Former IAS officer E.A.S. Sarma expressed concern over the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study for the proposed Gangavaram cement grinding unit at Gajuwaka, stating that it was not authentic enough for holding a public hearing by the A.P. Pollution Control Board.
In letter to APPCB chairman P. Krishnaiah on Sunday (September 28, 2025), Mr. Sarma said that the APPCB scheduled a public hearing for the proposed cement grinding unit with a production capacity of four MMTPA located at Pedagantyada village of Gajuwaka mandal in the city by M/S Ambuja Cements Limited early next month (October).
“I have gone through the EIA study for the project and I find it highly misleading, not authentic enough for holding a public hearing,” Mr. Sarma said in the letter.
He said that the project envisages more than 4,000 TPD of fly ash from a nearby coal-based power plant, to be transported over 14 km. The EIA study is totally silent on the composition of the fly ash, which contains highly toxic pollutants such as mercury, lead, radioactive isotopes of Uranium and Thorium, and heavy metals like cadmium, arsenic, zinc etc., which characterise all domestic coal from which such fly ash is generated. Those pollutants will adversely impact the health of the people residing in the vicinity of the project, he stated.
“The EIA study indicates Pedagantyada habitations within 130 metres. To present such a highly deficient, unprofessionally made EIA study for the so-called “public hearing”, in my view, amounts to both APPCB and the District administration committing a serious breach of public trust,” Mr. Sarma said.
Secondly, the EIA study indicates that the project will require 4,000 KL of water daily. It further indicates that it will draw 200 KL per day from a “desalination plant” four km away and 400 KL per day during operation from the same desalination plant. This raises serious concerns, he said.
When a project proponent submits an EIA study based on such misleading facts, the role of the APPCB is to subject it to a preliminary fact-check process and return it to the project proponent. In the instant case, the APPCB seems to have acted merely as a post-box, abrogating its role as a statutory authority, he said in the letter.
