Untitled Page

Ministry of Environment & Forests (IA Division) ******

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 24^TH MEETING OF EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL OF MINING PROJECTS CONSTITUTED UNDER EIA NOTIFICATION, 2006.

The 24^th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee for Environmental Appraisal of Mining Projects of the Ministry of Environment and Forests was held on February 21-23, 2012. The list of participants is annexed.

After welcoming the Committee Members, discussion on each of the agenda items was taken up ad-seriatim.

Item No. 1:

1.1 Confirmation of the minutes of the 23^rd Meeting.

The minutes of the 23^rd meeting were confirmed as circulated.

2.1 Gonua Iron & Manganese Ore Mines of M/s M.G. Mohanty, Village Gonua, District Sundergarh, Orissa (EC)

The consideration of the proposal was deferred at the request of the project proponent. The Committee, however, observed that the said project was earlier listed twice in the meeting held in June, 2011 as well as in December, 2011 and the consideration was to be deferred on each occasion. Since, the proposal has now been listed thrice, the Committee recommended that the file may be closed and project delisted till a specific request in writing is received from the proponent regarding their readiness for presenting their case before the EAC.

2.2 Thakurani Iron Ore Mine of M/s Padam Kumar Jain, located at District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand (Consultant: Ecomen Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow)

The proposal was considered by the Committee and the proponent made a presentation on the same. The proposal is for renewal of mine lease, which fell due from 1.1.2012 and enhancement of production of iron ore from 1.3 million TPA to 3.0 million TPA. The mine is reported to be closed since 1^st January, 2012. The earlier environment clearance was granted on 24.9.2008. TOR for this project were prescribed on 20^th October, 2009. Public hearing has been held on 15.9.2010. Mine lease area is 84.68 ha, which includes 65.68 ha of forestland. The proponent has applied for diversion of 23.33 ha of virgin forestland. It was also stated that 32.94 ha is broken forestland and the proponent has applied for permission for continuation of use of broken forestland for the project. Kanda nallah is reported at a distance of 0.25 km from the mine lease in the north west part and Betlata nallah at a distance of 0.5 km in the east of the mine lease. Mine working will be opencast mechanized involving drilling and blasting. Life of mine is 11 years. It is a violation case as the production from the mine was enhanced after the EIA Notification, 1994 coming into force without obtaining requisite prior environment clearance. As the project is located in identified severely polluted area, comments of the State Pollution Control Board were also obtained. The comments received vide no. PC/NOC/JSR/320/10-531 dated 18.2.2012 were also considered. It was observed that the ambient air quality within 3-4 km of mine lease shows high level of RSPM. The baseline AAQ data presented by the proponent also showed high levels of RSPM within the mine lease area, Camp Office, Badajamda. It is estimated that 35,76,780 m3 of waste will be handled during the mine life, which will partly be backfilled and partly will be dumped in two external OB dumps. An area of 18.43 ha will be backfilled. The issues raised during public hearing were also considered and discussed during the meeting. It was reported that there is no court case pending against the project.

Based on the presentation made and discussions held, the Committee sought information on the following:-

(i) Blasting is reported to be outsourced. A note in this regard should be given.

(ii) The mineable reserves and geological reserves need to be rechecked and a note in this regard should be given.

(iii) Sections and Plans need to be duly signed and submitted.

(iv) While the proposal is for 3.0 million TPA, the EIA/EMP report shows capacity in excess of three million TPA. This may be corrected.

(v) The production figures from 2002 onwards as given in the EIA report and in the presentation are at variance, this may be reconciled.

(vi) The information as given in Question no. 4 of the Questionnaire needs to be rechecked and reconciled.

(vii) Details of greenbelt already planted should be given.

(viii) Status of lease ownership should be furnished.

(ix) Biological data collection needs to be redone and resubmitted.

(x) In view of the reported high levels of RSPM, steps taken / proposed to be taken should be detailed. It would be desirable that the proponent should implement the RSPM control measures and thereafter show their effectiveness with actual data collection.

(xi) It was observed that there was no monitoring station in the east direction. The baseline AAQ data should be collected afresh and submitted. The location of the monitoring stations should be such as to represent whole of the study area and justified keeping in view the pre-dominant downwind direction and location of sensitive receptors. There should be at least one monitoring station within 500 m of the mine lease in the pre-dominant downwind direction.

(xii) Copy of the advertisement made for conduct of public hearing should be submitted.

(xiii) It was observed that the issue of dust was also raised in the public hearing, the action plan to address the same as also the other issues raised during public hearing with definite time frames should be given.

(xiv) The dust sample should be analyzed for percentage of free silica and details furnished.

(xv) Status of compliance of earlier EC conditions with supporting documents and photographs should be furnished.

It was decided that the proposal may be brought back before the Committee for its further consideration after the requisite information as mentioned above has been submitted. Till then the file may be closed.

2.3 Danda-Bagmandla-Saigaon Bauxite Mine of M/s Alatge Stone Crushing Industries located at village Danda-Bagmanddla-Saigaon, Taluka Shrivardhan, District Raigad, Maharashtra (Consultant: M/s Sankalpana)

The proposal was considered by the Committee and the proponent made a presentation on the same. The proposal is for enhancement of production of bauxite from 56,000 TPA to 1,35,000 TPA. The earlier EC was granted in April, 2007. Public hearing was held on 21.11.2010. TOR for this project was granted on 12.2.2007. The mine lease area is 148.468 ha. No forestland is involved. Mine working will be opencast mechanised. Ultimate working depth will be 210 m AMSL. The groundwater table is reported to vary between 170 – 175 m AMSL. Life of mine is 56 years. Water requirement is estimated as 23 kld, which will be obtained from groundwater. It is estimated that 0.37 million m3 of waste will be generated. Backfilling is proposed, which will start from 5^th year. The issues raised during public hearing were also considered and discussed during the meeting. It was reported that there is no court case pending against the project.

Based on the presentation made and discussions held, the Committee sought information on the following:-

(i) A CRZ map duly authenticated by one of the authorized agencies showing the location of the mine w.r.t. CRZ should be given. It may clearly be shown whether any portion of the mine lease falls in CRZ. It should include the distance w.r.t. CRZ of all tidal influenced water bodies in the area.

(ii) The information regarding the distance from Savitri River as given in the Questionnaire and in the presentation is at variance. This may be rechecked and reconfirmed.

(iii) An undertaking to the effect that all the TORs have been addressed in the EIA should be given. A status note on the compliance of TOR with corresponding relevant sections and page numbers of EIA should be indicated.

(iv) Water table information should be rechecked and details furnished.

(v) Details of the transportation route w.r.t. the village should be given. The nature and type of road through which the transportation will take place should be given.

(vi) The traffic issue has been raised in the public hearing. A note and action plan should be given as to how it is being addressed.

(vii) Necessary permission from the Competent Authority for drawl of ground water should be given.

(viii) The information given in the Questionnaire and presentation are not mutually consistent and needs to be rechecked and revised Questionnaire to be furnished. For example the ultimate working depth given in the Questionnaire is 5 m bgl while in the presentation it is 10 m bgl.

(ix) Drainage map of the mine site and study area stated to have been given in figure 2.2 has not been actually given. This may be furnished.

(x) Sections are not clear and need to be redone.

(xi) Noise data needs to be rechecked.

(xii) Explore possibility of reducing noise levels in the drilling. Details in this regard should be furnished.

(xiii) The AAQ data as given in EIA is for summer of 2009 while in the mine plan it is for the monsoon of 2007. Even the monsoon data shows more values which may be rechecked.

(xiv) The baseline AAQ data should be collected afresh and submitted. The location of the monitoring stations should be such as to represent whole of the study area and justified keeping in view the pre-dominant downwind direction and location of sensitive receptors. There should be at least one monitoring station within 500 m of the mine lease in the pre-dominant downwind direction. The AAQ data at various locations should be collected simultaneously.

(xv) Groundwater data needs to be rechecked.

(xvi) The backfilling is reported from 6^th year, however, the area of dump is shown to increase to 16 ha at conceptual stage. It is contradictory to each other. This may be reconciled and clarifications furnished.

(xvii) Top soil and OB area has been shown as nil. This needs to be explained and material balance given. Top soil management details should also be given.

(xviii) Year-wise production details should be furnished.

(xix) Information regarding OB has to be consistent with mine plan. Copy of the mine plan and mining scheme to be furnished.

(xx) Compliance status of earlier EC conditions with supporting data should be given.

(xxi) As grazing land is involved in the project, the steps/ action taken during the last five years to address the issues of grazing land should be given.

(xxii) The biological study needs to be redone, as the earlier data is not in conformity with ecological habitat of the terrain.

(xxiii) Copy of the advertisement made for the public hearing should be given.

(xxiv) Issues raised during public hearing and the action plans to address the same should be given especially the transportation issue, accidental fall of animals in the exhausted pit etc.

(xxv) Water balance keeping in view the water collected from the pit should be given.

(xxvi) Status of lease and the lessee should be given. It may be clearly stated as to who is the lessee of the said mine and the documents should accordingly be signed by the lessee or his/her authorized signatory.

(xxvii) Questionnaire needs to be refilled with correct and complete information and resubmitted.

2.4 Mahadevia Gandhvi, Bauxite Mine of Smt. Nirmala Ben S. Mehta District Jamnagar Gujarat.

The proposal was earlier considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee during its meeting held on July 16-17, 2009 wherein the Committee had sought additional information/clarifications on various related issues. Based on the additional information/clarifications submitted by the proponent, the proposal was considered further. It has been reported that the marine national park is at a distance of 6.3 km from the mine lease and the marine sanctuary is at a distance of 9.0 km. In view of the location of the sanctuary / national park within 10 km of the mine lease, the Committee desired information on the following:

(i) The view / recommendations of the State Govt. (Chief Wildlife Warden) on the project due to its location within 10 km of the mine lease.

(ii) Clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife.

(iii) Steps proposed for control of tailings and waste including heavy metals and residue from flowing into the marine sanctuary.

(iv) Steps proposed to arrest the material from run of mine should be supplemented and detailed.

2.5 Expansion of Slate (School Slate & Slate Stone) mining project of M/s Ashok Somany located at village Manethi, Majra and Padla, District Rewari, Haryana (Reconsideration Case)

The consideration of the proposal was deferred at the request of the project proponent.

2.6 Kujam-II Bauxite Mining Project of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., village Kujam & Chirodih, Thana Bishunpur, District Gumla, Jharkhand (Consultant: M/s Vimta Labs Ltd., Hyderabad)

The proposal was considered by the Committee to determine the Terms of Reference (TOR) for undertaking detailed EIA study for the purpose of obtaining environmental clearance in accordance with the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006. For this purpose, the proponent had submitted information in the prescribed format (Form-1) along with pre-feasibility report.

The proposal is for enhancement of production of bauxite from 0.15 million TPA to 0.3 million TPA. The mine lease area is 157.38 ha. No forestland is involved. The earlier EC was granted in the name of M/s INDAL in August, 2006. The lease has since been transferred in the name of M/s Hindalco, and the earlier EC would also need to be got transferred from INDAL to Hindalco before the proponent submits its application for environment clearance. The mine working will be opencast involving drilling and blasting. Ultimate working depth will be 15 m bgl. It is estimated that 53,90,449 m3 of waste will be generated. Simultaneous backfilling is proposed. Water requirement is estimated as 23 kld. The status of compliance of earlier EC conditions was also presented and discussed. The Committee observed that the compliance needs to be further improved and that when the proposal is submitted for EC, the PP should give detailed presentation with supporting documents about the compliance.

Based on the information furnished and presentation made, the Committee prescribed the following TORs for undertaking detailed EIA study:-

1) Status of compliance of the earlier EC conditions along with supporting documents and photographs should be submitted.

2) The earlier EC which is reported to be in the name of M/s INDAL should be got transferred in the name of M/s Hindalco before the expansion proposal for environment clearance is submitted to MoEF.

3) Year-wise production details since 1994 onwards should be given clearly stating the highest production achieved in any one year prior to 1994. It may also be categorically informed whether there had been any increase in production after the EIA Notification, 1994 coming into force w.r.t. the highest production achieved prior to 1994.

4) A copy of the document in support of the fact that the proponent is the rightful lessee of the mine should be given.

5) All documents including approved mine plan, EIA and public hearing should be compatible with one another in terms of the mine lease area, production levels, waste generation and its management and mining technology and should be in the name of the lessee.

6) All corner coordinates of the mine lease area superimposed on High Resolution Imagery/toposheet should be provided.

7) Does the company have a well laid down Environment Policy approved by its Board of Directors? If so, it may be detailed in the EIA report.

8) Does the Environment Policy prescribe for standard operating process/ procedures to bring into focus any infringement / deviation / violation of the environmental or forest norms / conditions? If so, it may be detailed in the EIA.

9) What is the hierarchical system or Administrative order of the company to deal with the environmental issues and for ensuring compliance with the EC conditions? Details of this system may be given.

10) Does the company have a system of reporting of non compliances / violations of environmental norms to the Board of Directors of the company and / or shareholders or stakeholders at large? This reporting mechanism should be detailed in the EIA report.

11) The study area will comprise of 10 km zone around the mine lease from lease periphery and the data contained in the EIA such as waste generation etc should be for the life of the mine / lease period.

12) Land use of the study area delineating forest area, agricultural land, grazing land, wildlife sanctuary and national park, migratory routes of fauna, water bodies, human settlements and other ecological features should be indicated.

13) Land use plan of the mine lease area should be prepared to encompass pre-operational, operational and post operational phases and submitted.

14) Location of National Parks, Sanctuaries, Biosphere Reserves, Wildlife Corridors, Tiger/Elephant Reserves (existing as well as proposed), if any, within 10 km of the mine lease should be clearly indicated supported by a location map duly authenticated by Chief Wildlife Warden. Necessary clearance, if any, as may be applicable to such projects due to proximity of the ecologically sensitive areas as mentioned above should be obtained from the State Wildlife Department/ Chief Wildlife Warden under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and copy furnished.

15) A detailed biological study for the study area [core zone and buffer zone (10 km radius of the periphery of the mine lease)] shall be carried out. Details of flora and fauna, duly authenticated, separately for core and buffer zone should be furnished based on primary field survey clearly indicating the Schedule of the fauna present. In case of any scheduled-I fauna found in the study area, the necessary plan for their conservation should be prepared in consultation with State Forest and Wildlife Department and details furnished. Necessary allocation of funds for implementing the same should be made as part of the project cost.

16) Impact, if any, of change of land use should be given.

17) R&R plan / compensation details for the project affected people should be furnished. While preparing the R&R plan, the National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy should be kept in view. In respect of SCs / STs and other weaker sections, need based sample survey, family-wise, should be undertaken to assess their requirement and action programmes prepared accordingly integrating the sectoral programme of line departments of the State Government.

18) One season (non-monsoon) primary baseline data on ambient air quality (PM₁₀, SO₂ and NOx), water quality, noise level, soil and flora and fauna shall be collected and the AAQ data so collected presented date-wise in the EIA and EMP report. Site-specific meteorological data should also be collected. The location of the monitoring stations should be such as to represent whole of the study area and justified keeping in view the pre-dominant downwind direction and location of sensitive receptors. There should be at least one monitoring station within 500 m of the mine lease in the pre-dominant downwind direction. The mineralogical composition of PM₁₀particularly for free silica should be given.

19) Air quality modeling should be carried out for prediction of impact of the project on the air quality of the area. It should also take into account the impact of movement of vehicles for transportation of mineral. The details of the model used and input parameters used for modeling should be provided. The air quality contours may be shown on a location map clearly indicating the location of the site, location of sensitive receptors, if any and the habitation. The wind roses showing pre-dominant wind direction may also be indicated on the map.

20) The water requirement for the project, its availability and source to be furnished. A detailed water balance should also be provided. Fresh water requirement for the project should be indicated.

21) Necessary clearance from the Competent Authority for drawl of requisite quantity of water for the project should be provided.

22) Details of water conservation measures proposed to be adopted in the project should be given.

23) Impact of the project on the water quality both surface and groundwater should be assessed and necessary safeguard measures, if any required should be provided.

24) Based on actual monitored data, it may clearly be shown whether working will intersect groundwater. Necessary data and documentation in this regard may be provided. In case the working will intersect groundwater table, a detailed hydro geological study should be undertaken and report furnished. Necessary permission from Central Ground Water Authority for working below ground water and for pumping of ground water should also be obtained and copy furnished.

25) Details of any stream, seasonal or otherwise, passing through lease area and modification / diversion proposed, if any and the impact of the same on the hydrology should be brought out.

26) Details of rainwater harvesting proposed, if any, in the project should be provided.

27) Information on site elevation, working depth, groundwater table etc. should be provided both in AMSL and bgl. A schematic diagram may also be provided for the same.

28) Quantity of solid waste generation to be estimated and details for its disposal and management should be provided. The quantity, volumes and methodology planned for removal and utilisation (preferably concurrently) of top soil should be indicated. Details of backfilling proposed, if any, should also be given. It may be clearly indicated that out of the total waste generated during the mine life, how much quantity would be backfilled and how much quantity would be disposed off in the form of external dump (number of dumps, their height, terraces etc. to be brought out).

29) The reclamation plan, post mine land use and progressive greenbelt development plan shall be prepared in tabular form (prescribed format) and submitted.

30) Impact on local transport infrastructure due to the project should be indicated. Projected increase in truck traffic as a result of the project in the present road network (including those outside the project area) should be worked out, indicating whether it is capable of handling the increased load. Arrangement for improving the infrastructure, if contemplated (including action to be taken by other agencies such as State Government) should be covered.

31) Details of the infrastructure facilities to be provided for the mine workers should be included in the EIA report.

32) Conceptual post mining land use and Reclamation and Rehabilitation of mined out area (with plans and with adequate number of sections) should be given in the EIA report.

33) Phase-wise plan of greenbelt development, plantation and compensatory afforestation should be charted clearly indicating the area to be covered under plantation and the species to be planted. The details of plantation already done should be given.

34) Occupational health impact of project should be anticipated and preventive measures initiated. Details in this regard should be provided. Details of pre-placement medical examination and periodical medical examination schedules should be incorporated in the EMP.

35) Public health implication of the project and related activities for the population in the impact zone should be systematically evaluated and the proposed remedial measures should be detailed along with budgetary allocation.

36) Measures of socio economic significance and influence to the local community proposed to be provided by project proponent should be indicated. As far as possible, quantitative dimensions may be given with time frame for implementation.

37) Detailed environmental management plan to mitigate the environmental impacts which, should inter-alia also include the impact due to change of land use, due to loss of agricultural land and grazing land, if any, occupational health impacts besides other impacts of the projects.

38) Public hearing points raised and commitment of the project proponent on the same along with time bound action plan to implement the same should be provided and also incorporated in the final EIA/EMP Report of the Project.

39) Details of litigation pending against the project, if any, with direction /order passed by any Court of Law against the project should be given.

40) The cost of the project (capital cost and recurring cost) as well as the cost towards implementation of EMP should clearly be spelt out.

Besides the above, the below mentioned general points should also be followed:-

a) A note confirming compliance of the TOR, with cross referencing of the relevant sections / pages of the EIA report should be provided.

b) All documents may be properly referenced with index and continuous page numbering.

c) Where data are presented in the report especially in tables, the period in which the data were collected and the sources should be indicated.

d) Where the documents provided are in a language other than English, an English translation should be provided.

e) The Questionnaire for environmental appraisal of mining projects as prescribed by the Ministry shall also be filled and submitted.

f) Approved mine plan along with copy of the approval letter for the proposed capacity should also be submitted.

g) While preparing the EIA report, the instructions for the proponents and instructions for the consultants issued by MoEF vide O.M. No. J-11013/41/2006-IA.II(I) dated 4^th August, 2009, which are available on the website of this Ministry should also be followed.

h) Changes, if any made in the basic scope and project parameters (as submitted in Form-I and the F.R for securing the TOR) should be brought to the attention of MoEF with reasons for such changes and permission should be sought, as the TOR may also have to be altered. Post Public Hearing changes in structure and content of the draft EIA/EMP (other than modifications arising out of the P.H. process) will entail conducting the PH again with the revised documentation.

The EIA report should also include (i) surface plan of the area indicating contours of main topographic features, drainage and mining area, (ii) geological maps and sections and (iii) sections of the mine pit and external dumps, if any, clearly showing the land features of the adjoining area.

After preparing the draft EIA (as per the generic structure prescribed in Appendix-III of the EIA Notification, 2006) covering the above mentioned issues, the proponent will get the public hearing conducted and take further necessary action for obtaining environmental clearance in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the EIA Notification, 2006.

2.7 Amtipani Bauxite Mining Project of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., village Amtipani, Gurdari & Chirodih, Thana Bishunpur, District Gumla, Jharkhand (Consultant: M/s Vimita Labs Ltd., Hyderabad)

The proposal is for enhancement of production of bauxite from 0.15 million TPA to 0.3 million TPA. The mine lease area is 190.95 ha. No forestland is involved. The earlier EC was granted in the name of M/s INDAL in August, 2006. The lease has since now been transferred in the name of M/s Hindalco, the earlier EC would also need to be got transferred from INDAL to Hindalco before the proponent submits its application for environment clearance. The mine working will be opencast involving drilling and blasting. Ultimate working depth will be 1040 m AMSL. It is estimated that 32,62,757 m3 of waste will be generated. Simultaneous backfilling is proposed. Water requirement is estimated as 23 kld. The status of compliance of earlier EC conditions was also presented and discussed. The Committee observed that the compliance needs to be further improved and that when the proposal is submitted for EC, the PP should give detailed presentation with supporting documents about the compliance.

Based on the information furnished and presentation made, the Committee prescribed the following TORs for undertaking detailed EIA study:-

1) Status of compliance of the earlier EC conditions along with supporting documents and photographs should be submitted.

2) The earlier EC which is reported to be in the name of M/s INDAL should be got transferred in the name of M/s Hindalco before the expansion proposal for environment clearance is submitted to MoEF.

4) A copy of the document in support of the fact that the proponent is the rightful lessee of the mine should be given.

6) All corner coordinates of the mine lease area superimposed on High Resolution Imagery/toposheet should be provided.

7) Does the company have a well laid down Environment Policy approved by its Board of Directors? If so, it may be detailed in the EIA report.

9) What is the hierarchical system or Administrative order of the company to deal with the environmental issues and for ensuring compliance with the EC conditions. Details of this system may be given.