MINUTES

The Minutes of the 96^th Meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee for Building/Construction Projects/Township and Area Development Projects, Coastal Regulation Zone, Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous projects held on 25^th January, 2011 at Fazal Hall, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

2. Opening Remarks of the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed the members to the 96^th meeting of the EAC. Member Secretary informed that in the last meeting of the EAC held on 18^th - 20^th January, 2011, some of the proposals were deferred because of the shortage of time. M/s Posco India Ltd. has also submitted a reply to the observations raised during the 94^th EAC meeting held on 30^th November, 2010 to 1^st – 2^nd December, 2010. A presentation was made by them to Hon’ble MEF regarding the proposed project in which Prof. Ramesh Ramchandran of the Institute of Ocean Management, Anna University, Chennai briefed about the shoreline changes around the project site. The above project is also to be considered in this meeting.

3. Reconsideration of Old Projects

3.1 Review of CRZ and Environmental clearance issued for the Captive Port: Deliberations on the reports of the review committee constituted for integrated Steel Plant of M/s Posco India Pvt. Ltd. at Jagatsinghpur District, Orissa. [F.No.10-9/2006-IA-III]

The Environmental and CRZ Clearance for the construction of proposed captive port at Jatadhar Muhan Creek, Near Paradeep, District Jagatsinghpur, Orissa by M/s Posco India Pvt. Ltd. was issued on 15.05.2007. After getting complaints and various representations against the project, the Ministry constituted a four member committee under the Chairmanship of Ms. Meena Gupta. The committee was asked to review the Environment, CRZ and other clearances given by MoEF and State and local authorities in connection with POSCO project. The report was submitted to the Ministry in two parts- one by Ms. Meena Gupta and the second one by others each giving different findings and recommendations. The 3 members of the Committee have recommended revocation of the Environmental and CRZ Clearance issued to the project whereas the Chairperson of the Committee has recommended continuation of the clearance with an advice to the Ministry to request Expert Appraisal Committee’s to look into certain aspects of the project.

2. In the light of deliberations of Ms. Meena Gupta Committee related to the Port project, the EAC examined and discussed the details in the EAC meetings held on 9^th -10^th November, 2010 and 30^th November, 2010 & 1^st to 2^nd December, 2010. The Committee sought additional information including the comprehensive EIA. In the later meeting, Senior officers from State Government of Orissa, Orissa Coastal Zone Management Authority and State Pollution Control Board also invited to the meeting for discussion. M/s Posco India Pvt. Ltd. submitted the comprehensive EIA to all the committee members. The details submitted and circulated were discussed during the meeting.

3. Prof. Ramesh Ramchandran of the Institute for Ocean Management, Anna University, Chennai was invited to make a presentation on the location of the project site in view of the studies undertaken regarding the shoreline study of the stretch from Gopalpur to Paradip which IOM had carried out along the coast of the proposed Captive Port of M/s Posco India Pvt. Ltd. at Jagatsinghpur District, Orissa.

4. The Committee noted that:

(a). The proposed site for M/s POSCO port is ~3.4km stretch along the creek (Jatadhar), on the seaside of the channel, breakwaters and the mouth opening to the creek has been located.

(b). The following are the characteristics of the 3.4km of the coastline:-

*Erosion Characteristics*	*Distance (m)*
High erosion	200
Medium erosion	2000
Low erosion	940
Stable coast	340
Low accretion	Nil
Medium accretion	Nil
High accretion	Nil
Total	3480

(c). With regard to the change along the shore it is observed that the mouth of the creek opens at different locations at different seasons of a year. During the study period the mouth opening of the creek is at latitude of 20^o12.6’N and longitude 86^o34.5’E, and latitude 20^o12.1’N and longitude 86^o33.9’E. This mouth opening is proposed to be the opening to the port through which the ships would enter the creek. M/s POSCO port is located at the landward side of the creek.

(d). Although seasonal shifts in the Jatadhar Creek mouth was noticed in the past, since 2010, the creek opening has shifted more south and remains stable. Hence this section of the creek mouth has not been considered for erosion/accretion dynamics.

(e). A breakwater at the northern side of 1.07 km and south breakwater 1.6 km is proposed to be developed, latitude of 20^o12.6’N and longitude 86^o34.5’E, and latitude 20^o12.1’N and longitude 86^o33.9’E, respectively.

5. During the discussion, the Committee suggested following additional conditions:

I – Shoreline protection

(i) No construction shall be undertaken in the “high erosion” zone as indicated in the map produced by the Institute for Ocean Management, Anna University. Port limits as approved by the competent authority along with the coordinates shall also be supplied to the MoEF.

(ii) Shoreline protection measures to counter erosion on the northern side of north breakwater shall be undertaken using modern techniques. A well designed and matching sand bypassing system shall be put be put in place.

(iii) The shoreline shall be protected to ensure that no further erosion occurs on the northern side of the Northern Breakwater up to Paradip.

(iv) The initial shoreline protection shall be carried out through pumping of the good dredged material obtained from capital dredging, to the north of northern breakwater.

(v) A permanent pipeline of a suitable diameter is to be laid below the channel (-23m and below) for sand by-pass system.

(vi) The good dredged material obtained from maintenance dredging (at least about 3 million m³) shall be used for nourishing the northern shoreline in addition to the sand bypassing system.

(vii) The dredging quantities indicated in the report must be updated in the light of dredging carried out for IOCL in the creek after 2007 and consequential likely reduction in the volume

(viii) Nourishment of the coast shall cover not only the area which is likely to be affected due to construction of breakwater (about 5.5km as per model report of DHI-Fig 2 and 3) but also shall extend till the Paradip Port site.

(ix) For the sand bypassing system an amount of at least Rs.6.0 crores shall be earmarked along with the sufficient budgetary provisions for maintenance including man-power.

I. I Monitoring of shoreline during construction and post construction phases of the project

(i) A MOU shall be signed between NIO and Posco which shall include works relating to monitoring of the shoreline, sand bypass system, beach nourishment and any other activity that has an impact along the coast/coastal waters. National Center for sustainable Coastal Management shall monitor the progress periodically on behalf of the MoEF.

(ii) Periodical study on shore line changes shall be conducted, mitigation measures taken and report submitted along with the six- monthly monitoring report.

(iii) Posco shall ensure that no industrial activity shall be carried out within CRZ area other than those permissible under the Notification.

II- Site Selection Process

The selection of POSCO captive port site was mainly based on operational reasons supported by technical feasibility. POSCO should have examined all the identified sites based on the environmental parameters and selection should have been based on technical/operational/economical and also environmental justifications. The Multi Criteria Matrix (MCM) analysis submitted by Posco depicts mostly the economic criteria and not the environmental parameters. Further a uniform parameter description is desirable for a better comparison of various site options on a common footing. The potential of the existing facilities and those planned for accommodating bigger vessels at Paradip port has not been explored.

(i) Posco shall submit a modified analysis giving main thrust on environmental issues (marine environment in particular) besides other parameters such as transport logistics, ease of operation etc and finally zeroing in on JMC for development of a captive port.

(ii) To avoid the adverse impact of increased in ship movement (combined of existing and proposed ports), Posco shall assess the cumulative impacts of ship movement on the marine environment and shall submit to the Ministry a detailed EMP to address impacts of the same.

(iii) To avoid the adverse impact of combined terrestrial activities (existing and proposed ports and industries), Posco shall assess the impacts and submit a detailed EMP to address the adverse impacts – if any, to the Ministry. The EMP so prepared should clearly list the role, responsibilities and liabilities including the action plan specifying commitments, role and responsibilities to avoid any adverse impact of terrestrial activities on the marine environment. The developer shall commit to full responsibility for liability and penalty (in case of any adverse impact) if any.

III – Marine Biological Activities - Sea turtle and Horse shoe crabs

Additional documentary evidences to substantiate that i) the proposed development will not impact the migration of Olive Ridley turtle in the area and ii) that the present site has not witnessed any nesting so far.

(i) Posco shall submit detailed Marine Environment Conservation Plan to promote nesting of Olive Ridley Turtle as well Mangrove Plantation. The implementation of conservation plan should start before commencing of construction of port. The plan should clearly mention the role and responsibilities in implementation and monitoring the conservation plan along with dedicated funding provisions. The detailed compliance report for the conservation plan shall be submitted every six months.

(ii) Similarly, in the case of horse shoe crabs, Posco shall submit the grain size analysis carried out at the site of development and documentary evidences to show that the animal would prefer a grain size of 0.18 to 0.20 mm only.

(iii) Grain size distribution analysis shall be carried out scientifically by calculating the uniformity coefficient to confirm the sediment grain size that does not support nesting for horse shoe crabs.

IV – Fishing Jetty

(i) The location and size of the fishing jetty intended to compensate the loss of fishing activity arising out of development of the port at JMC shall be carried by Posco in consultation with the local people to their satisfaction and requirement. Separate clearance under Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 for the proposed fishing jetty shall be obtained.

(ii) Posco shall made a detailed assessment of the impacts on fishing communities and resultant economic losses covered in R&R package – along with requirement of fishing jetty and identified beneficiaries, location identified for of jetty (and alternative options considered).

V – Sea water Intake and Outfall

It is noted that the sea water intake from proposed power plant (at plant site) and outfall of the waste water from plant back into sea has not been accounted for in the proposal. The discharge of cooling water is also required to meet the standards of pH, temperature and free Chlorine, notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The proposal of intake and outfall shall require CRZ clearance which will involve identification of the intake & discharge points and studies including modeling for prediction of impacts on the marine ecology at the locations. This will also need preparation and implementation of EMP for smooth operation of the intake and discharge system. It is also noted that the layout of the other facilities in the plant including the condensers may have to be changed depending upon alignment of the intake/discharge pipe lines.

(i) Separate CRZ clearance with details like temperature change, location/site for discharge, conveyance (inlet/outlet), along with impact on marine environment – flora and fauna shall be obtained.

(ii) Also the total plant capacity is 12 MTPA – water balance needs to be revised and provided for the entire ultimate capacity and not just Phase I (i.e. 4 MTPA). The details should also include how the ‘zero discharge’ water balance shall be achieved during monsoon season with no/negligible demand for horticulture or green areas.

VI - Other Conditions

(i) Representative number of sediment samples from the sea bed as well as from the boreholes shall be collected and analysed at least for the metals listed from A1 to A9 under class ‘A’ of the Schedule-II of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling, and Transboundary) Rules, 2008 (HW Rules 2008). The locations for collection of representative samples to be selected keeping in mind the wide variation in the concentration of lead, chromium and cadmium provided by the proponent. In case the concentration either or all these metals exceeds the limit of 50mg/kg specified in the HW Rules 2008 at any of the sampling location in the dredging area, the dredged material will be hazardous waste and not be used for any of the proposed activities. This shall also mean that the proposed use of this material (17,962,000 cubic meters) for reclamation for site preparation in the steel plant will have to be dropped. Even in case of its being non-hazardous as per the HW Rules 2008, the material is required to be tested for its leachabllity using the TCLP test, before starting any dredging activities.

(ii) Material handling system and associated environmental issues in terms of fugitive emission, dust control system (dry fogging system for dust control at port areas particularly for iron ore, coal handling areas), conveyor system, spillage and prevention, type of vessels, wharf side operations, material flow system to the storage yard etc should be examined. Posco shall submit detailed plan for handling fugitive dust emission – including break up of large quantities – type of handling equipment for each category of material along with quantities to be handled. The fugitive dust plan and implementation shall be the responsibility of Posco.

(iii) Posco shall submit details of dredged material (detailed map indicating the location) proposed for reclamation at Plant site in addition to reclamation plan for beach nourishment. ‘Non –permissible/hazardous’ dredged material shall not used for reclamation. Fresh bathymetry survey shall be carried out before dredging operations and the report submitted to the Ministry.

(iv) Mangrove plantation/shelters belts shall be provided wherever possible and a plan with budgetary provisions shall be submitted before the commencement of the port facility.

(v) Posco shall submit final DPR including the estimation of number of berths during various stages of development and consequential environmental issues, along with implementation programme, for monitoring.

(vi) R & R shall be provided to the affected people as per the norms State Government/Central Government.

(vii) Posco shall submit a comprehensive EIA report combining both the terrestrial environment on the land ward side (steel plant) and the marine environment on the seaward side (activities connected with captive port) so as to assess i) the cumulative effect of both impacts on the development process in its totality and ii) the appropriate mitigation measures required to be put in place to preserve the environment without undue irretrievable damages.

(viii) Oil Spill Contingency Management Plan shall be prepared and facilities to deal with Oil spill in and around the port area shall be provided in the port along with the dedicated staff.

(ix) A high level expert monitoring committee shall be set up comprising of conservation experts and NGOs representative to oversee – monitoring of shoreline (during construction and post construction) including dredging, disposal of dredged material and reclamation processes, Marine Environment Conservation Plan. The composition shall be submitted to the Ministry for approval before the commencement of the port operations.

With the above additional conditions, the Committee recommended the proposal.

4. Consideration of New projects - Cont.

4.1 Environmental Clearance for construction of residential complex at TS.No. 2-9-408, Ward No.2, Kacheri Kozhikode, Kerala by M/s. P. K. Sons [F.No.21-50/2010-IA.III]

Project proponent requested for postponement.

4.2 Finalisation of ToR for construction of Urban Estates at Mullanpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab by M/s. Divisional Engineer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) [F.No.21-52/2010-IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the proposal involves development of urban estate on a plot area of (450 acres) 18,21,085.39 sq.m. The total water requirement is 7425 KLD (domestic water 385 KLD). The capacity of STP proposed is 2 MGD. Treated waste water to be used for flushing 2475 KLD, horticulture 495 KLD, washing 2200 KLD and bathing 1100 KLD. Total Municipal waste generated is 24,750 Kg/day. The power requirement is about 20 MVA. The total parking proposed are for 376 Cars. The total cost of the project is Rs. 765 Crores.

During discussions, the Committee finalized the following ToR:

(i) A site plan showing the project site and its surroundings with physical features and topographical details, such as land use, contours and drainage pattern, along with photographs of the site from all four sides, should be included in the background information.

(ii) Examine the quantity required for filling/excavation of site and identify the area from where the earth will be borrowed/ disposed and whether any permission will be needed.

(iii) Examine in detail the proposed site with reference to impact on infrastructure covering water supply, storm water drainage, sewerage, power, etc., and the disposal of treated/raw wastes from the complex on land/water body and into sewerage system.

(iv) Carry out hydro-geological investigations and seek permission from Central Ground Water Authority for withdrawal of ground water.

(v) Examine water quality also with reference to Persistent Organic Pollutants.

(vi) Consider soil characteristics and permeability for rainwater harvesting proposals, which should be made with due safeguards for ground water quality. Maximise recycling of water and utilisation of rainwater.

(vii) Make provision for guard pond and other provisions for safety against failure in the operation of wastewater treatment facilities. Identify acceptable outfall for treated effluent.

(viii) Submit a NOC from Defense establishment as the project site is adjoining above.

(ix) Examine the impact on rivers flowing on both sides of the site.

(x) Noise mitigation plan should be described. Also make provision of green belt as a measure for mitigation of dust and noise and buffer between habitation and I.T. Park.

(xi) Examine existing education and health facilities, police and other services and include adequate provisions in the proposal.

(xii) Study the existing flora and fauna of the area and the impact of the project on them.

(xiii) Landscape plan, green belts and open spaces may be described.

(xiv) Assess soil erosion in view of the soil characteristics, topography and rainfall pattern.

(xv) Application of renewable energy/alternate energy, such as solar and wind energy may be described including solar water heating in the guidelines for entrepreneurs.

(xvi) Consider solid wastes, including e-waste in addition to other solid wastes and their disposal.

(xvii) Identification of recyclable wastes and waste utilisation arrangements may be made.

(xviii) Explore possibility of generating biogas from biodegradable wastes.

(xix) Arrangements for hazardous waste management may be described as also the common facilities for waste collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of all effluent, emission and refuse including MSW, biomedical and hazardous wastes. Special attention should be made with respect to bird menace.

(xx) Provisions made for safety in storage of materials, products and wastes may be described.

(xxi) Disaster management plan should be prepared.

(xxii) Traffic management plan including parking and loading/ unloading areas may be described. Traffic survey should be carried out both on weekdays and weekend.

(xxiii) Provide service road for entry and exit to project site.

(xxiv) Use of local building materials should be described.

(xxv) Consider DG Flue Gas emissions to be treated in a scrubber.

(xxvi) Provide for conservation of resources, energy efficiency and use of renewable sources of energy in the light of ECBC code.

(xxvii) Application of resettlement and rehabilitation policy may be described. Project affected persons should be identified and rehabilitation and resettlement plan should be prepared.

(xxviii) Examine separately the details for construction and operation phases both for Environmental Management Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan.

A detailed draft EIA/EMP report should be prepared as per the above TOR and submitted to the Ministry in the prescribed form as per EIA Notification dated 14^th September 2006.

4.3 Finalisation of ToR for the development of a Golf Course and residential project Imperial Golf Estate at Village Mullapur & Talwandi, Block Sidwan Bet, Tehsil Jargaon, District Ludhiana by M/s Spark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. [F.No.21-55/2010-IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the proposal involves construction of an Imperial Golf Estate on a plot area of 113.3073 ha. The total built-up area of the project is 5,42,744 Sq.m. It is proposed to construct villas (Ground + 1 floor) overlooking the Golf Course. The total water requirement is 2092 KLD (fresh water 1288 KLD + treated water 804 KLD). The capacity of STP proposed is 1.2 MLD. Treated waste water to be used for flushing 412 KLD, horticulture 270 KLD, Golf course irrigation 703 KLD. Total Municipal waste generated is 3487 T/day. The power requirement is about 12139 KW. The total parking proposed are for 1500 ECS.

During discussions, the Committee finalized the following ToR:

(ii) Examine the quantity required for filling/excavation of site and identify the area from where the earth will be borrowed/ disposed and whether any permission will be needed.

(iv) Carry out hydro-geological investigations and seek permission from Central Ground Water Authority for withdrawal of ground water.

(v) Examine water quality also with reference to Persistent Organic Pollutants.

(vi) Submit details about reduction of water consumption and also with site specific limit to application of water (in terms of m³/day/ha)

(vii) Consider soil characteristics and permeability for rainwater harvesting proposals, which should be made with due safeguards for ground water quality. Maximise recycling of water and utilisation of rainwater.

(viii) Submit details about pesticide management so that the water bodies and groundwater are not affected.

(ix) Make provision for guard pond and other provisions for safety against failure in the operation of wastewater treatment facilities. Identify acceptable outfall for treated effluent.