You are on page 1of 8

CONSTUCTION ON HYDRO-PROJECT

<Project>

Prepared by :- GAYATRI ADITYA SHARMA.


ROLL NO :- 1649213902..

BRANCH :- INFORMATION TECNOLOGY.

Software Requirements Specification for <Project DOCUMENT>


Table of Contents:-
Table of Content......................................................................................................... ii

Revision History…………………………….iii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... .......... 1
1.2 Document Conventions ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Intended Audience and Reading Suggestions......................................................................... 1
1.4 Product Scope ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.5 References............................................................................................................................... 12.
2.Overall Description .............................................................................................................2

2.1 Product Perspective .............................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Product Functions ............................................................................................................................. 2


2.3 User Classes and Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 2
2.4 Operating Environment .................................................................................................................... 2
2.5 Design and Implementation Constraints ........................................................................................... 2
2.6 User Documentation ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.7 Assumptions and Dependencies ....................................................................................................... 3
3. External Interface Requirements ...........................................................................................3
3.1 User Interfaces ................................................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Hardware Interfaces .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Software Interfaces ...................................7
.................................................................................... 3
3.4 Communications Interfaces .............................................................................................................. 3
4. System Features .......................................................................................................................4
4.1 System Feature 1 .............................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 System Feature 2 (and so on)............................................................................................................ 4
5. Other Nonfunctional Requirements .......................................................................................4
5.1 Performance Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Safety Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 5
5.3 Security Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 5
5.4 Software Quality Attributes .............................................................................................................. 5
5.5 Business Rules ................................................................................................................................ 5
6. Other Requirements ................................................................................................................5
Appendix A: Glossary....................................................................................................................5
Appendix B: Analysis Models .......................................................................................................5
Appendix C: To Be Determined List ............................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION :-

INTRODUCTION OF HYDRO PROJECT IN HIMACHAL PRADESH.

The Central Electricity Authority


(CEA) of India, with allegedly a view
to fill the gap between supply and
demand in power is pushing towards
the exploitation of maximum
hydroelectric potential in the country.
As a part of this plan, launched in
May 2013 and named "50000 MW
hydro power initiative", 162 schemes
with probable installed capacity of
50,600 MW and located in various
river basins spread over 16 states
have to be taken up for preparation of
Pre Feasibility Reports (PFRs) in the
first phase.
The proposed Bajoli Holi
Hydroelectric Project is one such
scheme identified in Ravi Basin in
Chamba district of Himachal Pradesh
State. Bajoli Holi Hydroelectric
Project is a run of the river scheme
that envisages the construction of a
30 m high diversion barrage across
the river Ravi, 200 m downstream of
its confluence with Channi nallah
(rivulet). The project has been
awarded in 2007 by the government
of Himachal Pradesh to the
Bangalore-based company GMR
Energy Limited. According to its
technical profile, the plant has the
capacity of 180MW to feed into the
Norhtern grid and represents an
upstream development of Kutehr
Hydro-electric Project (260 MW), built
on the same river.
Regarding the economic rationale of
the project, the Preliminary Feasibility

HReport 2004 cites "The levelized


tariff of this project in 90%
dependable year works out as Rs.
1.60/ unit at power house bus bars as
per Annex.-13.5.This project will
provide power at cheaper rates in
comparison to thermal power, rate
which , at present is more than
Rs.3.75/unit. Additionally this project
will provide pollution free power for
years together at much cheaper rates
considering the escalation in coal
prices for Thermal Power. ”

The project is said to be completed in


2018.

In 2008, unlike it was previously


announced and discussed with the
villagers of the area, GMR shifted the
site of the tunnel and the powerhouse
from the barren and uninhabited right
bank of the river to the left bank,
which comprises four gram
panchayats, dense forests and rich
agricultural land. This was done due
to the "greater techno-economic
feasibility", according to the
company, but represented the major
cause of stiff protests by the local
inhabitants as no proper EIA study or
report was prepared in that regard.
Locals allege that the shift of the
project components was approved by
MoEF without clear evaluation, while
the forest clearance has been
granted in clear violation of the
Forest Rights Act. A local woman
stated that "“We gave the no-
objection certificates to the company
believing that the project will come up
on the right bank which has no
habitation, no orchards and no fields.
Nobody knows how the site was
changed from left to right bank. We
also want development of the area
but not at this cost,”[5]. The
protesters also noted that: -No
permission from the National Board
for Wildlife has been obtained and
that the dam site of the project is
within 10 Kms radius of Dhauladhar
Wildlife Sanctuary.

-No cumulative impact assessment


(CEIA) has been done by the state
government, despite indications by
the Forest Advisory Committee
(FAC).

The reason that GMR preferrs the


project to be on the left bank rather
than on the right is the comparative
ease which comes with switching
sides. Since the left bank is already
populated, it already has basic
infrastructure like access roads. As
villagers protested such a change in
location, Chamba’s Deputy
Commissioner sought HPSEBL’s
opinion, which disapproved the
justifications given by GMR for
shifting of the project [6]. The board
noted that the left bank had
subsurface water sources, lakes and
ponds which may dry up due to
construction activity; it was also
found to be geologically more
disturbed due to heavy landslides.
However, MoEF and Special
Secretary (Power) of the HP
government approved the shifting.

Two public hearings have taken


place; the first on April 19, 2010, by
GMR witnessed strong opposition
from all the five affected gram
sabhas. The second was held on
October 30, 2010, where most of
those present approved the project
with conditions that the company
takes adequate care regarding the
possible damages, adequate
compensation and ensures
guaranteed employment to the locals
in the project. The Expert Appraisal
Committee (EAC) of the Union
Ministry of Environment and Forests
also accepted the company’s case
for the project on left bank. Though
all five gram panchayats gave their
consent to the project, two of them
(Holi and Nayagraon) later withdrew
their support citing the diversion of
large forest land and possible loss to
livelihood.

In Feb 2012, a local inhabitant


approached the High Court. It
became quite clear that the proposal
of the company is guided by
commercial advantages of the left
bank option, namely, short lead time
to commencement of construction as
well as savings in infrastructure.

During the hearing, the court refused


to consider this opinion noting that
the Central Electricity Authority is the
only competent authority and it has
already given its approval for shifting
the project.

The plaintiff appealed then to the


National Green Tribunal in the Delhi
branch but the case was dismissed
on April 24, 2014; judges declared
"We hardly find any merit in the
various contentions raised by the
appellant except to the limited
observations afore recorded. Thus,
the present appeal is dismissed,
however, with the direction to the
project proponent to seek clearance
from the National Board for Wildlife in
accordance with law."[2] However,
local inhabitants still manifest their
discontent; in May 2014, during a
dharna and occupation of the
construction site, 31 local Gaddi
women have been recently even
accused by HP police of “inciting
communal riots”.[4] When asked to
leave and stop the occupation, one of
the woman said "“After the incident,
sub divisional magistrate, Jitender
Kanwar, visited the site along with a
company official. He asked us to stop
the protests and let the construction
work happen peacefully. But we told
him that he should grant us 15 days
to start our own case against the
project proponent,”[4].

She also added "“We are fighting


because we have seen huge leaks in
the tunnel of Chamera III project
downstream leading to an entire
village getting evacuated overnight.
We do not want the same fate to
befall us. Our struggle in exercise of
the powers and responsibility to
protect our natural resources under
Section 5 of the Forest Rights Act
shall continue till the company stops
construction of the project on the left
bank”[4]. In fact, the leakage from the
tunnel in the nearby project Chamera
III has caused extensive landslides in
the area damaging houses, shops
and farms thus pushing the residents
out.

According to Manu Moudgil, who


authored an article in the India
Waterportal, one of the main issues
in the local struggle are forest rights;
in a context where the state
government tries to dilute the
restrictions to forest divertions in
favour of hydelpower, forest dwellers
defend their territories and
livelihoods. [5] The project has also
been registered for CDM funds in
2011 as it would "aid in bridging the
gap in demand and supply and also
increasing the share of renewable
energy in the grid mix. The electricity
exported by the project would
displace an equivalent amount of
electricity generated by the power
plants already operational and
proposed to be added in the NEWNE
Grid which relies predominantly on
fossil fuels"[1]. According to the PDD,
the additionality criteria is being met
because "The Internal Rate of Return
for the project activity works out to
9.03%. Hence it can be clearly
observed that the returns from the
project do not exceed the benchmark
of 14.25%. Thus the project activity
on its own is clearly

not a financially viable option and


hence the revenue from CDM is
essential to make the project activity
a financially viable venture.