MINUTES
The
Minutes of the 94th 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 30th November, 2010 to 1st – 2nd
December, 2010 at Conference Hall, Van Vigyan Bhawan, ICFRE, Sector-5, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi.
1. Opening
Remarks of the Chairman.
The
Chairman welcomed the members to the 94th meeting of the EAC. Member
Secretary put up two office memorandums issued by the Ministry for information
to the members. He further informed about the action taken on the decisions of
the 93rd meeting held on 9th – 10th November,
2010 in New Delhi.
2.
Confirmation of the Minutes of the 93rd
Meeting of the EAC held on 9-10th November, 2010 at New Delhi.
Minutes
of the 93rd Meeting of the EAC held on 9th – 10th
November, 2010 at New Delhi were confirmed.
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 at Jagatsighpur District, Orissa. [F.No. 10-9/2006-IA-III]
Member Secretary informed that M/s POSCO Ltd circulated the comprehensive EIA report to all the members of the Committee as decided in the 93rd meeting of the EAC. He further informed that Ministry has engaged Anna University to examine the shore line changes in various states. Dr. Ramesh Ramchandran of the Institute for Ocean Management, Anna University, Chennai who was a member of the previous EAC was invited to make a presentation regarding the changes in the coast of Orissa.
During presentation Dr. Ramesh presented the detailed methodology for studying the shoreline changes by adopting remote sensing technology coupled with limited DGPS surveys, integrated in GIS platform to collect historical shoreline information. For the coast of Orissa, base maps were prepared on 1:50,000 scale using Survey of India/ and onscreen digitization of coastline using various satellite images on 1:50,000 scale and stored as four different layers in GIS environment for the years 1972, 1990, 2000 and 2010.
Further, the multi-date shorelines served as input into the USGS digital shoreline analysis model to cast various transects (261 reference stations) along the coastline of Orissa. A distance of 500m intervals were assigned to calculate the erosion/accretion statistics in ArcGIS 9.3 software. The results obtained were classified as follows:
(a)
High
Erosion < -5m/yr
(b)
Medium
Erosion <-2 to -5 m/yr
(c)
Low
Erosion <-0.5 to
-2 m/yr
(d)
No
Change -0.5 to
+0.5 m/yr
(e)
Low
Accretion >+0.5 to
+2 m/yr
(f)
Medium
Accretion >+2 to +5 m/yr
(g)
High
Accretion > +5 m/yr
From the
above studies it has been observed that:
(i)
The
coast of Orissa is highly eroding in nature due to the recent proliferation of
ports and other structures along the coast.
(ii)
Along
the Paradip coast, rip rap (seawalls) have been raised to protect the coast
from high erosion and have been classified as "artificial coast".
(iii) The proposed site for
POSCO shows zones ranging from high erosion to stable coast. On the southern
side of the proposed site, low to medium accretion is observed. Nearly 4.8km of
the coast along the proposed site (which is 9.3 km in length) is eroding. In
other words, nearly 50% of the coast is already eroding and it is advised that
proper precautions be taken to erect any structure along this coastal stretch.
Senior officers from State Government
of Orissa, Orissa Coastal Zone Management Authority and State Pollution Control
Board also attended the meeting.
Chairman asked the representatives of
M/s POSCO Ltd to clarify the observations raised during the 93rd
meeting of the EAC held on 9th – 10th November,
2010.During discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
EIA
report of the POSCO project recognizes the importance of the fragile nature of
the Orissa coast but failed to give a comprehensive report on the impact of the
project on the fisheries in the area. The Orissa coast is critically important
as it hosts and supports commercial fishing besides being breeding grounds for
turtles and crabs. Orissa coast is very fragile and sensitive-particularly from
the view point of nesting, breeding, spawning of fishes and other marine
animals-turtles, crabs etc. This aspect does not appear to have been addressed
in adequate detail.
(ii)
The EIA
does not provide any information on important aspects of fisheries such as -
the type of fishing operations, type fishing crafts operated in the area, fish
biodiversity, fishermen population in the area, total fish catch in the area.
(iii)
The
environmental and social impacts of choosing JMC as the port site are not
mentioned in the Comprehensive EIA and it seems the selection is on purely
economical considerations such as distance to the steel plant (page xii). It
seems that no other potential site was examined (alternative sites is the very
first requirement of an EIA) to the extent necessary with particular focus on
environmental issues; in other words, the reports so far submitted revealed
that JMC site had already been selected and evaluation of alternative sites
such as Dhamra and Paradip had not been made on an equal footing.
(iv)
The
Comprehensive EIA doesn’t cover the impact of the proposed port along with the
existing ports and other existing /proposed industries. It also doesn’t address
the impacts on the land environment.
(v)
The
maximum capacity of the port has not been mentioned in the EIA report. The
POSCO steel plant for which the port is proposed will have the ultimate
capacity of 12 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) to be constructed in three
phases. How much raw material (coal, iron ore, etc.) the port will handle, has
not been given in the report.
(vi)
The
Comprehensive EIA does not reflect the impact of increased ship movements
arising out of the captive port for Posco during the nesting period and these
needs to be studied further.
(vii)
The
report discusses the sand deposition/ accretion resulting from the construction
of proposed breakwaters in qualitative terms. However, it is silent on the
proposed the mitigation measures, coastal protection/ nourishment methods,
maintenance of coastal equilibrium cost implications, etc.
(viii)
During
different phases of the project, it is proposed to use some of the dredged
volume of earth for reclamation at the steel plant site (pages xviii-xix).
Since the two projects are inter-related even in terms of disposal and
reclamation, it would make sense to do an integrated EIA than two stand alone
ones. Also, some of the dredged material will be disposed in the sea. However,
the report does not specify the `pre-identified location` for this disposal.
EIA also identifies that the disposal of such a huge quantity of dredged
material into the sea may cause its movement (page xix). The impact of this movement
has not been addressed in the report. The report also mentions that dredging
will cause destruction of marine habitat (page xx) including death of some
fragile benthic organisms. The report does not mention any mitigation measures
for addressing the issues. Page xxiii merely mentions how the same needs to be
managed with `proper mitigation measures`.
(ix)
The EIA
report also mentions that there maybe changes in the creek and associated
tributaries (page xix). Changes maybe deepening of the creek and widening of
mouth which may result in erosion of inner creek and high tides. The report
remains silent on what is the impact of such physical changes on the flora and
fauna of the creek.
(x)
As the
coast is susceptible to high wind speed and prone to cyclones, the potential of
fugitive emissions is high while handling dry raw material like coal and iron
ore. The EIA fails to mention the quantity and mode of storage of raw
materials. If the storage is open then fugitive dust potential will increase
further. The EIA report proposes water sprinkling for coal/iron ore as a
mitigation step but considering the large quantities of the two involved this
sounds superficial (page xxiii).
(xi)
Since the
area is dominated by fishing communities drastic changes in the creek and
disposal of material in the sea is bound to have some impact on the catch. This
is missing in the comprehensive EIA. The economic loss to the local fishing
communities is not assessed in the report which is a very crucial issue due to
the presence of close to 30,000 fishing communities. The report mentions the
fishing potential of the state as whole but fails to provide fishing potential
of the JMC and nearby areas.
(xii)
With the
information on the type of treated wastewater/ disposal and quantities of
disposal without exact location and alignment the impact assessment is
incomplete. The comprehensive EIA of plant needs to be examined along with the
comprehensive EIA of port to have better understanding of the both individually
and cumulative impacts. It is necessary and would be useful to examine the
source characteristics (Comprehensive EIA report of plant) to understand the
extent of impacts in totality.
(xiii)
Details
of justification for the number of berths vis a vis the volume of cargo to be
handled (Phase-wise) is not indicated in the report, and the plan shows full
development for 12 MTPA stage-which was contradictory to the planning
philosophy disclosed during the discussions in the meeting and the loose ends
are not addressed. Re-examine and submit details.
(xiv)
Submit a
detailed Feasibility report to study the requirements in totality and the
associated impact on marine environment.
(xv)
Facilities
shown on NIO map appear encroaching into CRZ area. Re-examine and submit
details.
(xvi)
The study
report by DHI showing the littoral processes confined only to a distance of 5km
on the north of NBW and the accretion on the south was not made available to
the Committee which is necessary. Re-examine and submit details.
(xvii)
Phasing
of dredging in CEIA report of March 2007 reveals completion of capital dredging
in Phase II itself and the extent of reclamation and the volume of dumping in
sea is not available for further examination together with impact on marine
ecology. Submit details.
(xviii)
The
bathymetry status of creek pertains to the year 2006/2007 and the current
status would be necessary for a meaningful evaluation of the depth requirements
at the berth and the turning circle area. Examine and submit details.
(xix)
Details
concerning the impact of port development on the utilization of the creek for
fishing vessels, if existed previously must be highlighted in the report.
(xx)
The land
use plan shows an area of roughly 1.54km x 2.0km (roughly) for future expansion
and if so the planned expansion must be justified. Submit details.
(xxi)
The advantages
of FINEX technology vis a vis the conventional blast furnace technology must be
highlighted and the additional advantages must be quantified in terms of
environmental mitigation measures. Submit details.
(xxii)
The
proponent has not obtained CRZ clearance for the proposed disposal of the
treated wastewater into sea. The laying of the pipeline itself requires
providing of the details of the effluent conveying system, the environmental
relevant activities during its construction as well as the operation phase and
their impact on the environment.
(xxiii)
There is
a lot of dredging involved into the sea for the proposed port and the reports
also make a mention that the dredged material will be disposed in the sea and a
part of it will also be used for reclamation at the steel plant. However, the
report is silent in regard to the suitability/permissibility of the dredged
material for reclamation or marine disposal, as the concentrations of the toxic
metals in the sea sediments given in table 3.14(page 84 of the EIA report) are
very high. In fact the total concentration of Cadmium and Chromium alone given
in this table is 48.5(5.1+43.4) mg/kg. If the Chromium present in the sediments
is mostly hexavalent Chromium this concentration is close to the 50ppm limit
specified for the class A group of the hazardous waste as per schedule 2 of the
Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundry Movement) Rules 2008. It
may be further mentioned here that the important toxic metals namely Antimony,
Beryllium, Mercury and Arsenic which are also specified in class A of this
schedule have not even been analysed in the marine sediments. It has to be
noted here that if the concentration of any of individual constituent or the
total of the concentrations of the constituents listed in the class A of the
above mentioned schedule 2 is 50mg/kg or above, the dredged material will be
classified as hazardous waste and it cannot be disposed into sea or used for
any reclamation.
(xxiv)
The toxic
elements analyzed in the bore hole sediments given in table 3.15 (page 84) do
not cover many of the toxic metals (including Cr 6) specified in
class A of schedule 2.
(xxv)
The
environmental impact of the dredging and the related activities given in the
report is therefore irrelevant/ inadequate from the point of its acceptability
on the land/sea ecology. It may be further mentioned here that since the
dredging and the disposal of dredged materials is linked to all the subsequent
activities, the entire site may not be suitable in case of the dredged material
contains toxic metals/ constituents above the limits specified in schedule II
of the Hazardous Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 2008.
(xxvi)
It is a
very large capacity (12 MTPA) cargo handling port and the environmental
mitigation measures can only be planned properly only if the type and
quantities of the different materials such as coal and iron ore are considered
right at the EIA stage itself. The handling of such materials at ports requires
greater attention as they not only result into air pollution but their
spillages may end up into sea.
(xxvii)
There is
a strong need to conduct the TCLP test for the sea sediments and the bore hole
sediments to ensure the leachability of the toxic metals to the extent of
acceptable concentration especially that of Chromium in the leachate. It may be
kept in mind that the dredging of sediments with such as high concentration of
Chromium may also create colour problems in the aquatic system.
(xxviii)
The basic
critical velocity component of sediment particles/sand particles under
submerged condition has to be evolved and indicated in the EIA report. The same
value has to be utilised as one of the major basic data in running in running
the model to arrive at other associated hydrodynamic parameters.
(xxix)
The width
and depth of the creek at JMC cannot be increased for the sole cause of
reducing the velocity.
(xxx)
Overall
the EIA report on marine environment (during construction phase and operational
phase) needs to be revisited taking into account the above points and also
other issues raised by other members.
(xxxi)
Following are the “Findings” in the comprehensive report on marine EIA for
captive minor port are:
(a)
Page no
xxvii – One of the key recommendation is “Release of domestic wastewater and
the sewage generated at the terminals to the creek is to be avoided even after
treatment. After treatment it can be disposed at a pre-identified location
through properly designed diffuser in the sea .Use of treated wastewater for
developing greenery around, can be an environmental friendly solution”. But the
detail of marine outfall with diffuser system and its impact on the marine
environment was not discussed in the CEIA. In the CRZ map also the alignment of
the marine outfall was not shown.
(b)
Page no
xxvi – One of the key recommendation is “Total capital dredging volume is
around 27.325 x 106 m3, 14.018 x 106 m3
and 9.981 x 106 m3 during 1st, 2nd and 3rd phase respectively .A
comprehensive dredging and disposal plan describing the equipment proposed to
be used methodology etc is to be formulated during the detailed engineering.
Since most of the river mouth experience fish migration during their spawning
period, it is vital that dredging operation is undertaken well outside the
periods of migration”. The type of dredging equipments / methodology should be
furnished in the CEIA report and the EIA consultant should assess the impacts
based on the planned technology. If the
details are not finalized so far, then how the impacts are assessed in the
CEIA? This aspect assumes greater importance, by considering the observation of
NIO in the report, as most of the river mouth experience fish migration during
the spawning period. The safe period
for dredging also not mentioned in the report.
(c)
Page no
xxvi – One of the key recommendation is “Suitable facilities for receiving and
treating oily wastes up to 100 t is to be created within the port premises as
per the IMO guidelines”. But, In the chapter 5 i.e. MITIGATION MEASURES, no
details on oily waste management and applicable IMO guidelines and planned
preparation to comply the IMO guidelines were not discussed .It is only
recommended at para no 5.3 that the location of release for the treated ballast
water that ensures required dilution is to be selected. This clearly indicates
that the disposal point was not finalized.
(d)
Page no
xxvi – One of the key recommendation is “The impact on the marine ecology
during the construction phase would be largely confined to the duration over
which the activities are spread. Hence the key factors in minimizing the
adverse impacts would be the reduction in the construction period site”. It is
very generic recommendation. The EIA consultant should have been reviewed the
project construction period planned by the PP, and should have been given
observations whether the PP has taken all measures keeping in view of Best
Available Technology available or not. Otherwise, these type of recommendations
will be only on paper, as they are not verifiable for compliance.
(e)
At page
No127, it was reported that “However, chances of such eventualities are very
meager since the port assurance efficient handling of coal without spillage
into the environment”. But the efficient handling methods proposed should
have been documented in the comprehensive EIA document. Also, the methods
proposed by the PP should have been reviewed by the EIA consultant with
reference to BAT and should have been given their observations i.e. whether
efficient methods are planned or not?
(f)
Page No
127-128 of the comprehensive EIA. - It was reported that iron ore will be
handled at raw material births in the steel plant area. It is excepted that
steel plant authorizes may assure handling of iron ore in the safest manner to
avoid any adverse eventualities and hence impacts due to iron ore need not be
of concern.
From
the above it is clear that iron ore will be stored in the port boundary limits.
But the storage systems, loading and unloading systems, control measures are
not documented in the EIA report. The statement such as -“It is excepted
that steel plant authorities may assure the handling of iron ore in the safest
manner” - without listing what is meant by safest manner will not be
verifiable for compliance.
In
view of the foregoing observations, the Committee suggested that M/s Posco Ltd.
should examine and revise the proposal. The proposal is deferred and shall be
considered again after the observations are incorporated and submitted to the
Ministry. In the mean time the project proponent may be asked by the Ministry
not to go ahead with the proposal.
3.2 CRZ
clearance for the construction of coal conveyor from
Coal Jetty and pipeline of
cooling water intake and outfall at Vanagiri
Village, Nagapattinam District, Tamil Nadu by M/s PEL Power Ltd., Hyderabad
[F. No. 11-9/2010-IA.III]
As presented by the project proponent,
M/s PEL Power Limited (PPL), a group company of M/s Patel Engineering Limited
(PEL) proposes grass root development of 1000 MW coal based thermal power plant
(TPP) at Marudampallam village in Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu. The
original configuration of the plant is 2x500 MW (subsequently changed to 3x350
MW while obtaining the EC) based on conventional pulverized coal combustion
(PCC) sub critical technology. Three units will have common stack. Imported
coal will be used for power generation.
The sea shore is about 1 Km distance
from the eastern boundary of the project site. The sea shore is covered
with sand and there are no mangroves in this area.
The coal from Indonesia shall be
transported by sea route up to the captive coal jetty near the project site.
The imported coal from the ships will be unloaded into the hoppers, which would
be positioned over the belt conveyers to convey the coal to the proposed site.
The coal handling system will have design capacity of 1200 ton/h with two
conveyers (one operating and the other stand-by). The water requirement at the
project site for heat cycle make-up, chilling plant make-up, sweet water etc.
would be met from desalination and demineralization of sea water.
The project was discussed in the EAC in
its meeting held on 21st – 23rd July, 2010 and sought additional
information. The details was submitted by project proponent were discussed
during the meeting.
During discussions, the project
proponent informed that the present report pertains to 2-season data and a
comprehensive EIA is in process taking into account the remaining season (3rd
season).
In view of the above, the Committee
deferred the project.
3.3 Development of LNG Terminal at Mundra Port, Kutchch, Gujarat by M/s. GSPC LNG Ltd. (F.No.10-2/2009-IA.III) –Complaint issue.
As presented by the project proponent,
the project involves development of LNG Terminal at Mundra Port. The Project
proponent made a detailed presentation and indicated that the Environmental
Clearance was issued to Water Front Developments of Mundra Port SEZ Ltd
(MPSEZ). The present application is for the transfer of Environmental Clearance
from M/s. Mundra Port SEZ Ltd. to M/s. GSPC LNG Ltd. It was further clarified
that M/s. GSPC will have a 50% equity, M/s. Adani Infrastructure will have 25%
equity and balance 25% will be of financial institutions. The LNG receiving,
Storage and Regassification facilities will be established in the terminal. The
proposed LNG jetty will be located to the south of the shore line and west of
the proposed new container terminal at sea bed level of about -15 m CD, which
would be sufficient to berth LNG ships up to 2,50,000 Cum capacities. The
terminal shall be developed consists of two phases (Phase-I - 5 MMTPA of
import, storage, process and transport of LNG and Phase - II-20 MMTPA of
import, storage, process and transport of LNG).
The project was earlier appraised by
the EAC in its 73rd meeting held on 30th – 31st January, 2009 and finalized the additional TOR for
further study. The project proponent requested for the exemption of public
hearing stating that it was conducted by the M/s. Mundra Port Ltd., for which
Environmental Clearance was issued by the Ministry and the above project is
part of the total project of M/s. Mundra Port Ltd. The issue was examined by
the EAC in its 79th meeting held on 27th – 28th August
2009 and the Committee after a detailed discussion, recommended to exempt the
public hearing as it was already conducted earlier for whole of the project.
The project proponent submitted the
EIA as per ToR finalized earlier. The details were discussed by the Committee
in the 85th meeting of the EAC held on 28.03.2010. In response to
the observations of the Committee, the project proponents submitted the
details.
During discussion, the Committee
suggested to obtain the comments from the State Government/ Secretary,
Environment, Government of Gujarat.
In view of the above, the Committee
deferred the project.
3.4 CRZ
clearance for construction of bridge with approach road on River Sal at Village
Benaulim Sinquetim, Goa by M/s Public Works Department, Goa. [F. No.
11-47/2010-IA-III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent requested for postponement.
4. Consideration
of New projects
4.1 CRZ and Environmental Clearance for
extension of Jetty at Gujarat
Cement Works, Village Kovaya, District Amreli, Gujarat by M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [F.No.10-73/2007-IA.III].
As presented
by the project proponent, the project involves the extension of jetty at the
existing Gujarat Cement Works. The present length of the jetty is 337 m. GCW
proposes to extend the jetty by 210 m towards north wards GPPL side. The
primary objective is to create jetty for handling fully loaded 60,000 DWT
capacity vessels. The present jetty is designed for fully loaded 40,000 DWT
vessels. The dredged depth in front of the present jetty is -12.00CD. In order
to accommodate 60,000 DWT ship of loaded draft of 12.5 the minimum dredged
requirement will be 13.5 m CD. The capital dredging in front of the existing
and new jetty is considered as 600 m long x 90 m wide x13.5 m depth taking into
consideration of the supermax vessels having width and 12,5 loaded draft. Based
on the latest bathymetric chart the total quantity of dredging will be
approximately 1 lakh Cum. The maintenance dredging will be 15-40 cum per annum.
The jetty extension will include setting up of separate silo extraction system
from 2 numbers silos, New conveyor systems, extension of coal conveyor, New
ship loader for loading cement and clinker and unloader.
The
EAC in its 73rd meeting held on 30th – 31st January,
2009 finalized the TOR for further study and the ToR was issued on 20.02.2009.
SCZMA has recommended the project vide letter No. ENV-10-2008-1227-E, dated
16.12.2008. The project proponent submitted the EIA and EMP, which were
discussed in detail.
During discussion, the following
points emerged:
(i)
The area
of dumping of the material arising out of maintenance dredging proposed to be
undertaken once in three years. Appropriate modeling study shall be conducted
to ensure that there would not be any adverse impact on marine environment.
(ii)
The mode,
location of the dredging sludge disposal and its impact on the location are
linked to the presence of contaminants specially toxic metals in the sludge.
Necessary monitoring shall be carried out for complete characterization and
proper disposal of the sludge. The concentration of the constituents including
toxic metals in respect of their limits should be less than 50mg/kg for the
class A group of the schedule 2 of the Hazardous Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 2008.
The Committee recommends the proposal
for CRZ and Environmental Clearance with the above conditions in the Clearance
letter for strict compliance by the project proponent.
4.2
CRZ
clearance for the shore protection measures at Chennai Port by M/s Chennai Port
Trust [F.No. 10-104/2008-IA-III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent did not attend the meeting.
4.3
CRZ
clearance for proposed development of building on plot bearing CTS No. 5, 6, 7,
8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 26, 27 and 134 of village Charkop at Kandivali (West),
Mumbai by M/s Dhaval Developers, Mumbai [F.No. 11-101/2010 – IA-III]
As
presented by the project proponents, the proposed construction of residential
building is on plot area of 13,073m2, after deduction of
reservations plot area available for development is 9802.5 m2. As
per the approved CZMP the said plot is in CRZ II area and it is on the landward
side of the existing road. The total
built up area proposed is 9364.88 m2. It is proposed to have
6 wings (A, B, C, D, E & F). The A wing proposed is 1 to 3 floors for
podium parking + Stilt parking and 1 to 6 floors for residential use. Rest of
the B, C, D, E & F wings are proposed as 1 to 3 floors for podium parking +
stilt parking and 1 to 7 floors for residential use. It is proposed to have 176
unites. Total water requirement for this population will be around 112 KLD
including Fresh water of 75 KLD. The Sewage generated will be treated using
Membrane Bio Reactors (MBR and treated waste water to be used for flushing (37
KLD), gardening (14 KLD). Excess (48 KLD) will be discharged into drain. Total
solid waste generated from building will be 415 kg/day and biodegradable
component will be composted using Vermi Composting Pit. Dry garbage will be
recycled. Power requirement will be 0.8 MW. A total of 275 car parking
provisions are made (Stilt- 45, 1st podium - 90, 2nd
podium - 70 and 3rd podium - 70). The project cost is Rs. 45.45
Crore.
As per the
MCZMA, the site falls in CRZ-II has considered the project in its meeting and
recommended to the Ministry.
During
discussion, the following points emerged:
(i)
The entry and exit for the project should be revised
(Left in and left out).
(ii)
Submit parking and circulation plan.
Provided the response of the project
proponent to the aforesaid observations is to the satisfaction of the
committee, the proposal may be considered for recommendation for
Clearance.
4.4
Finalization
of ToR for proposed new construction of State Highway project in Jharkhand
Cahibasa – Kandra Road by M/s Jharkhand Accelerated Road Development Company
[F.No.10-61/2010 – IA-III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent did not attend the meeting.
4.5 Finalization of ToR for Bareily – Almora –
Bageshwar Road (SH- 37) km 2.0 (Pilibhit
bypass) km 56.00 km (Uttrakhand Border) by
M/s Uttar Pradesh State Highway Authority [F.No. 10- 63/2010 – IA-III]
As presented
by the project proponents, the project road starts from km. 2.00 (Pilibhit
bypass) near Bareilly town and ends at Km. 56.00 at U.P./Uttrakhand border.
Existing highway is 2-lane with ROW of 30 m and is under possession of U.P.
Public Works Department. U.P. According to the traffic count done on various
sections of this road, it qualifies for 4-laning according to the PCU norms
which is nearly 15,000. Land proposed to be acquired is only 4.5 ha. Major
towns on this road are Bareilly, Bhojipura, Bahedi. The main commercial goods
traffic on this road carry stone ballast, stone grit etc. from Uttarakhand
while the passenger traffic caters the public transportation from Bareilly to
Uttrakhand.
The main
crops of the area is sugarcane, paddy etc. Up-gradation of this road will
facilitate transportation of agricultural products to various towns and states
of India and cater the needs of Uttrakhand people. The agricultural produce
from eastern and western U.P. are transported to the district of Udhamsingh
Nagar, Nainital, Almora, Bagheshwar etc. of Uttrakhand state. Maintenance of
this road will be entrusted to the private sector for a period of twenty five
years (Concession Period).
The project stretch falls under reserve
forest area of Bareilly – Nainital Marg.
Total trees affected due to the project are 2247.
During the discussions, the Committee finalized the
following additional TOR for further study:
(i)
Examine and submit a brief description of the
project, project name, nature, size, its importance to the region/state and the
country.
(ii)
Any litigation(s) pending against the proposed
project and/or any directions or orders passed by any court of law/any
statutory authority against the project is to be detailed out.
(iii)
Submit detailed alignment plan, with details
such as nature of terrain (plain, rolling, hilly), land use pattern,
habitation, cropping pattern, forest area, environmentally sensitive places,
mangroves, notified industrial areas, sand dunes, sea, river, lake, details of
villages, teshils, districts and states, latitude and longitude for important
locations falling on the alignment by employing remote sensing techniques
followed by ground truthing and also through secondary data sources.
(iv)
Describe various alternatives considered,
procedures and criteria adopted for selection of the final alternative with
reasons.
(v)
Submit Land use map of the study area to a scale
of 1: 25,000 based on recent satellite imagery delineating the crop lands (both
single and double crop), agricultural plantations, fallow lands, waste lands,
water bodies, built-up areas, forest area and other surface features such as
railway tracks, ports, airports, roads, and major industries etc. and submit a detailed ground surveyed map on
1:2000 scale showing the existing features falling within the right of way
namely trees, structures including archaeological & religious, monuments
etc. if any.
(vi)
If the proposed route is passing through any
hilly area, examine and
submit the stability of slopes, if the proposed road is to pass through cutting
or embankment / control of soil erosion from embankment.
(vii)
If the proposed route involves tunneling, the
details of the tunnel and locations of tunneling with geological structural
fraction should be provided. In case
the road passes through a flood plain of the river, the details of micro
drainage, flood passages and information on flood periodicity at least of last
50 years in the area should be examined.
(viii)
If the projects is located within 10km. of the
national parks, sanctuaries, biosphere reserves, migratory corridors of wild
animals, then a map duly authenticated by Chief Wildlife Warden showing these
features vis-à-vis the project location and the recommendations or comments of
the Chief Wildlife Warden thereon should be furnished at the stage of EC.
(ix)
The project stretch falls under reserve forest area of Barellie –
Nainital marg. Total number of trees effected by the widening is 2247. Study
regarding the animal bypasses / underpasses etc. across the habitation areas
shall be carried out. Adequate cattle passes for the movement of
agriculture material shall be provided at the stretches passing through
habitation areas.
(x)
If the proposed route requires cutting of trees,
then the information should be provided for number of trees to be cut, their
species and whether it also involved any protected or endangered species. Necessary green belt shall be provided on both side
of the highway with proper central verge and cost provision should be made for
regular maintenance.
(xi)
If the proposed route is passing through a city
or town, with houses and human habitation on the either side of the road, the
necessity for provision of bypasses/diversions/under passes shall be examined
and submitted. Service roads should be provided along side the habitation area.
The proposal
should also indicate the location of wayside amenities, which should include
petrol station/service centre, rest areas including public conveyance, etc.
(xii)
Submit details about measures taken for the pedestrian safety and
construction of underpasses and foot-over bridges along with flyovers and
interchanges.
(xiii)
Assess whether there is a possibility that the
proposed project will adversely affect road traffic in the surrounding areas
(e.g. by causing increases in traffic congestion and traffic accidents).
(xiv)
Examine and submit the details of use of fly ash in the road
construction, if the project road is located within the 100 km from the Thermal
Power Plant.
(xv)
Examine and submit the details of sand quarry, borrow area and
rehabilitation.
(xvi)
Climate and meteorology (max and min
temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, frequency of tropical cyclone and
snow fall); the nearest IMD meteorological station from which climatological
data have been obtained to be indicated.
(xvii)
The air quality monitoring should be carried out as per the new
notification issued on 16th November, 2009.
(xviii)
Identify project activities during construction
and operation phases, which will affect the noise levels and the potential for
increased noise resulting from this project. Discuss the effect of noise levels
on near by habitation during the construction and operational phases of the
proposed highway. Identify noise reduction measures and traffic management
strategies to be deployed for reducing the negative impact if any. Prediction
of noise levels should be done by using mathematical modeling at different
representative locations.
(xix)
Examine the impact during construction
activities due to generation of fugitive dust from crusher units, air emissions
from hot mix plants and vehicles used for transportation of materials and
prediction of impact on ambient air quality using appropriate mathematical
model, description of model, input requirement and reference of derivation,
distribution of major pollutants and presentation in tabular form for easy interpretation
shall be carried out.
(xx)
Also examine and submit the details about the protection to existing
habitations from dust, noise, odour etc. during construction stage.
(xxi)
If the proposed route involves cutting of earth,
the details of area to be cut, depth of cut, locations, soil type, volume and
quantity of earth and other materials to be removed with location of disposal/
dump site along with necessary permission.
(xxii)
If the proposed route is passing through low
lying areas, details of fill materials and initial and final levels after
filling above MSL, should be examined and submit.
(xxiii)
Examine and submit details of water quantity required and source of
water.
(xxiv)
Examine and submit the details of measures taken during constructions of
bridges across river/canal/major or minor drains keeping in view the flooding
of the rivers and the life span of the existing bridges. Provision
of speed breakers, safety signals, service lanes and foot paths should be
examined at appropriate locations through out the proposed road to avoid the
accidents.
(xxv)
If there will be any change in the drainage
pattern after the proposed activity, details of changes shall be examined and
submitted.
(xxvi)
Rain water harvesting pit should be at least 3 - 5 m. above the highest
ground water table. Provision shall be made for oil and grease removal from
surface runoff.
(xxvii)
If there is a possibility that the
construction/widening of road will cause impact such as destruction of forest,
poaching, reductions in wetland areas, if so, examine the impact and submit
details.
(xxviii)
Submit the details of road safety, signage, service roads, vehicular
under passes, accident prone zone and the mitigation measures.
(xxix)
IRC guidelines shall be followed for widening & up-gradation of road.
(xxx)
Submit details of social impact assessment due to the proposed
construction of road.
(xxxi)
Examine road design standards, safety equipment
specifications and Management System training to ensure that design details
take account of safety concerns and submit the traffic management plan. Road
safety audit shall be carried out and report shall be submitted to the
Ministry.
(xxxii)
Accident data and geographic distribution should
be reviewed and analyzed to predict and identify trends – incase of expansion
of the existing highway and provide Post accident emergency assistance and
medical care to accident victims.
(xxxiii)
If the proposed project involves any land
reclamation, details to be provided for which activity land to reclaim and the
area of land to be reclaimed.
(xxxiv)
Details of the properties, houses, businesses etc.
activities likely to be effected by land acquisition and their financial loses
annually.
(xxxv)
Detailed R&R plan with data on the existing
socio-economic status of the population in the study area and broad plan for
resettlement of the displaced population, site for the resettlement colony,
alternative livelihood concerns/ employment and rehabilitation of the displaced
people, civil and housing amenities being offered, etc and the schedule of the
implementation of the project specific.
(xxxvi)
Submit details of Corporate Social Responsibility. Necessary provisions
should be made in the budget.
(xxxvii)
Estimated cost of the project including
environmental monitoring cost and funding agencies, whether governmental or on
the basis of BOT etc and provide details of budget provisions (capital &
recurring) for the project specific R&R Plan.
(xxxviii)
Submit environmental management and monitoring
plan for all phases of the project viz. construction and operation.
(xxxix)
Explore possibilities of adding service roads
along side of habitation area.
Public hearing to be
conducted in all the districts of both the States for the project as per
provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and the issues
raised by the public should be addresses in the Environmental Management Plan.
Any further
clarification on caring out the above studies including anticipated impacts due
to the project and mitigative measure, project proponent can refer to the model
ToR available on Ministry website “http://moef.nic.in/Manual/highways”.
4.6 Finalization of ToR for Delhi – Saharanpur –
Yamunotri road (SH-57) km 10.911
(Delhi – U.P. Border) to km 217.00 (Uttrakhand
border) by M/s Uttar Pradesh State Highway Authority
[F.No.10-64/2010 – IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the project road starts from km. 10.911
at Loni town in district Ghaziabad at Delhi border and ends at km. 217.00
Darrihat at Uttrakhand Border. Existing road is 2-lane while the traffic count
qualifies for 4-lane with paved shoulder (15,000 PCU). Keeping in view, the
huge traffic and several bottlenecks in the townships situated besides the
road, creating congestion and obstruction in the free flow of the transport and
passenger vehicles, the U.P. State Highways Authority has conducted the
feasibility study of the above project. On the basis of feasibility submitted
by the expert group, the U.P. State Highways Authority has undertaken to
upgrade it into 4-lane with paved shoulder which will enhance safety and level of
services for road users. Major towns situated besides the road are Loni,
Baghpat, Shamli, Nanauta, Jalalabad, Saharanpur and Behat, while Khekda,
Bawali, Jasala, Thanabhawan etc. are other towns on this road. The existing
length of the road is 206.089 km and proposed length is 209.313 km.
Total land
required is 180.80 about 20,000 trees are proposed to be cut. 10 km stretch of
the road will pass through the reserve forest. This project after completion
will cater the need of commercial traffic carrying catechu woods, grit, stone
ballast, bricks etc. The forest and horticulture produce is transported from
Uttrakhand to Delhi market. The project will be an alternate to the NH-1 i.e.
Delhi-Shimla National Highway. The main crop in this area is sugarcane; hence
several sugar factories are situated in this area. The traffic congestion in
the crushing season from November to February usually is very problematic. The
completed project would solve this problem too.
During the discussions, the Committee finalized the
following additional TOR for further study:
(i)
Examine and submit a brief description of the
project, project name, nature, size, its importance to the region/state and the
country.
(ii)
Any litigation(s) pending against the proposed
project and/or any directions or orders passed by any court of law/any
statutory authority against the project is to be detailed out.
(iii)
Submit detailed alignment plan, with details
such as nature of terrain (plain, rolling, hilly), land use pattern,
habitation, cropping pattern, forest area, environmentally sensitive places,
mangroves, notified industrial areas, sand dunes, sea, river, lake, details of
villages, teshils, districts and states, latitude and longitude for important
locations falling on the alignment by employing remote sensing techniques
followed by ground truthing and also through secondary data sources.
(iv)
Describe various alternatives considered,
procedures and criteria adopted for selection of the final alternative with
reasons.
(v)
Submit Land use map of the study area to a scale
of 1: 25,000 based on recent satellite imagery delineating the crop lands (both
single and double crop), agricultural plantations, fallow lands, waste lands,
water bodies, built-up areas, forest area and other surface features such as railway
tracks, ports, airports, roads, and major industries etc. and submit a detailed ground surveyed map on
1:2000 scale showing the existing features falling within the right of way
namely trees, structures including archaeological & religious, monuments etc.
if any.
(vi)
If the proposed route is passing through any
hilly area, examine and
submit the stability of slopes, if the proposed road is to pass through cutting
or embankment / control of soil erosion from embankment.
(vii)
If the proposed route involves tunneling, the
details of the tunnel and locations of tunneling with geological structural
fraction should be provided. In case
the road passes through a flood plain of the river, the details of micro
drainage, flood passages and information on flood periodicity at least of last
50 years in the area should be examined.
(viii)
If the projects is located within 10km. of the
national parks, sanctuaries, biosphere reserves, migratory corridors of wild
animals, then a map duly authenticated by Chief Wildlife Warden showing these
features vis-à-vis the project location and the recommendations or comments of
the Chief Wildlife Warden thereon should be furnished at the stage of EC.
(ix)
Study regarding the Animal bypasses / underpasses etc. across the
habitation areas shall be carried out. Adequate cattle passes for the movement of
agriculture material shall be provided at the stretches passing through
habitation areas.
(x)
If the proposed route requires cutting of trees,
then the information should be provided for number of trees to be cut, their
species and whether it also involved any protected or endangered species. Necessary green belt shall be provided on both side
of the highway with proper central verge and cost provision should be made for
regular maintenance.
(xi)
If the proposed route is passing through a city
or town, with houses and human habitation on the either side of the road, the
necessity for provision of bypasses/diversions/under passes shall be examined
and submitted. The
proposal should also indicate the location of wayside amenities, which should
include petrol station/ service centre, rest areas including public conveyance,
etc.
(xii)
Submit details about measures taken for the pedestrian safety and
construction of underpasses and foot-over bridges along with flyovers and
interchanges.
(xiii)
Assess whether there is a possibility that the
proposed project will adversely affect road traffic in the surrounding areas
(e.g. by causing increases in traffic congestion and traffic accidents).
(xiv)
Examine and submit the details of use of fly ash in the road
construction, if the project road is located within the 100 km from the Thermal
Power Plant.
(xv)
Examine and submit the details of sand quarry, borrow area and
rehabilitation.
(xvi)
Climate and meteorology (max and min
temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, frequency of tropical cyclone and
snow fall); the nearest IMD meteorological station from which climatological
data have been obtained to be indicated.
(xvii)
The air quality monitoring should be carried out as per the new
notification issued on 16th November, 2009.
(xviii)
Identify project activities during construction
and operation phases, which will affect the noise levels and the potential for
increased noise resulting from this project. Discuss the effect of noise levels
on near by habitation during the construction and operational phases of the
proposed highway. Identify noise reduction measures and traffic management
strategies to be deployed for reducing the negative impact if any. Prediction
of noise levels should be done by using mathematical modeling at different
representative locations.
(xix)
Examine the impact during construction
activities due to generation of fugitive dust from crusher units, air emissions
from hot mix plants and vehicles used for transportation of materials and
prediction of impact on ambient air quality using appropriate mathematical
model, description of model, input requirement and reference of derivation,
distribution of major pollutants and presentation in tabular form for easy
interpretation shall be carried out.
(xx)
Also examine and submit the details about the protection to existing
habitations from dust, noise, odour etc. during construction stage.
(xxi)
If the proposed route involves cutting of earth,
the details of area to be cut, depth of cut, locations, soil type, volume and
quantity of earth and other materials to be removed with location of disposal/
dump site along with necessary permission.
(xxii)
If the proposed route is passing through low
lying areas, details of fill materials and initial and final levels after
filling above MSL, should be examined and submit.
(xxiii)
Examine and submit details of water quantity required and source of
water.
(xxiv)
Examine and submit the details of measures taken during constructions of
bridges across river/canal/major or minor drains keeping in view the flooding
of the rivers and the life span of the existing bridges. Provision
of speed breakers, safety signals, service lanes and foot paths should be
examined at appropriate locations through out the proposed road to avoid the
accidents.
(xxv)
If there will be any change in the drainage
pattern after the proposed activity, details of changes shall be examined and
submitted.
(xxvi)
Rain water harvesting pit should be at least 3 - 5 m. above the highest
ground water table. Provision shall be made for oil and grease removal from
surface runoff.
(xxvii)
If there is a possibility that the
construction/widening of road will cause impact such as destruction of forest,
poaching, reductions in wetland areas, if so, examine the impact and submit
details.
(xxviii)
Submit the details of road safety, signage, service roads, vehicular
under passes, accident prone zone and the mitigation measures.
(xxix)
IRC guidelines shall be followed for widening & up-gradation of road.
(xxx)
Submit details of social impact assessment due to the proposed
construction of road.
(xxxi)
Examine road design standards, safety equipment
specifications and Management System training to ensure that design details
take account of safety concerns and submit the traffic management plan. Road
safety audit shall be carried out and report shall be submitted to the
Ministry.
(xxxii)
Accident data and geographic distribution should
be reviewed and analyzed to predict and identify trends – incase of expansion
of the existing highway and provide Post accident emergency assistance and
medical care to accident victims.
(xxxiii)
If the proposed project involves any land
reclamation, details to be provided for which activity land to reclaim and the
area of land to be reclaimed.
(xxxiv)
Details of the properties, houses, businesses
etc. activities likely to be effected by land acquisition and their financial
loses annually.
(xxxv)
Detailed R & R plan with data on the
existing socio-economic status of the population in the study area and broad
plan for resettlement of the displaced population, site for the resettlement
colony, alternative livelihood concerns/ employment and rehabilitation of the
displaced people, civil and housing amenities being offered, etc and the schedule of the implementation of
the project specific.
(xxxvi)
Submit details of Corporate Social Responsibility. Necessary provisions
should be made in the budget.
(xxxvii)
Estimated cost of the project including
environmental monitoring cost and funding agencies, whether governmental or on
the basis of BOT etc and provide details of budget provisions (capital &
recurring) for the project specific R&R Plan.
(xxxviii)
Submit environmental management and monitoring
plan for all phases of the project viz. construction and operation.
Public hearing to be
conducted in all the four districts separately for the project as per
provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and the issues
raised by the public should be addresses in the Environmental Management
Plan.
Any further
clarification on caring out the above studies including anticipated impacts due
to the project and mitigative measure, project proponent can refer to the model
ToR available on Ministry website “http://moef.nic.in/Manual/highways”.
4.7 Environmental
Clearance for 4 laning of Gaya – Bihar Sharif section of NH-82 in the State of
Bihar by M/s Chief Engineer, NH Wing, Road Construction Department, Bihar
[F.No. 10-66/2010 – IA-III]
As presented by project proponent, the
project road is located in Gaya, Nawada and Nalanda District of Bihar. It
starts near Gaya with it’s junction with NH-83 and terminates near Bihar Sharif
at Junction with N.H.-31 covering total length of 95 Km. The designed length is
92.939 Km. The important settlement on the rout are Gaya, Manpur, Wazirganj,
Hisua, Tungi, Silao, Rajgir and Bihar Sharif. The up-coming international
university is proposed near the project road at Nalanda.
There are 3 bye-passes proposed at
Manpur (Km 5.600 to Km 9.550), Wazirganj (Km 27.650 to Km 32.225) and Tungi
(Km. 35.925 to Km 38.000). The existing average right of way is 27 mtr. And
proposed is 60 mtr. Except in the sanctuary area where no widening is proposed
(Km 65.750 to Km 70.200), the existing width of the carriage way is 6.7 mtr. To
7.0 mr. The proposed carriage way width is 14.5 mtr. with 1.5 mtr. Paved
shoulders. There are 6 major and 15 minor bridges existing. It is proposed to
widened the above 6 major bridges and widen / construct 33 minor bridges. The
total land requirement is 335.8 ha. (private 296.2 ha. and Govt. land 39.60
ha.).
The total water requirement is 600 KLD
during the construction phase which will be extracted from rivers and nallas
only 50 KLD extraction from ground. There is no thermal power plant located
within 100 Kms. of the project road. The project road passes through Rajgir
Wildlife Sanctuary from 65.750 Km. to 70.200 Km. Approx. 11,486 trees will be
affected and compensatory afforestation will be done on the basis of the 1:3. The total cost of the project is
Rs. 1244 crores.
The TOR was finalised on 23.09. 2010.
The details and the EIA/EMP submitted by the project proponent was examined by
the EAC.
During the discussions, following
points emerged:
(i)
IRC code
and practices shall be followed.
(ii)
Animal
underpasses shall be provided within the Sanctuary area.
The
Committee recommends the proposal for Environmental Clearance with the above
two conditions in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by the project
proponent.
4.8 Finalization
of ToR for recycling and management zone at village Aladur and Paniyadara,
district Bharuch by M/s Gujarat Enviro Protection Infrastructure Ltd. [F. No.
10-68/2010-IA-III]
As
presented by the project proponents, the proposed project GEPIL Recycling and
Management Zone, (GRAMZ – D), is an Eco Industrial Park in Dahej housing
various Resource Recovery & Recycling Facilities including Waste Disposal
Infrastructure for both the Hazardous and the Non Hazardous Wastes.
The
objective of the project is to sustain the rapid Industrial and Urban Growth of
Gujarat through the strengthening and streamlining the waste collection system. Implementation of World Class Resource Recovery & Recycling
Technologies from the wastes and Treating and Disposal of the Residual Wastes
through the State of Art Disposal Infrastructure.
The
concept of 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) together with an objective to
accomplish zero landfill practice by 2021 in Gujarat, has driven a public and
private initiative to work on establishing the Eco Industrial park. The Eco
Town is a widely practiced environmentally related industrial cluster in Japan,
and the idea of “GRAMZ D” - GEPIL Recycling and Management Zone - to be
developed as the first Eco Recycling Park in Dahej, India came out through a
discussion. As a result Two tripartite Memorandums of Understanding (Two MoUs)
were signed on 13th day of January, 2009 at Ahmedabad (Gujarat) during Vibrant
Gujarat Global Investors’ Summit 2009 with GoG, GEPIL and the Japan Development
Institute, as the signatories.
About
65 plus Resource Recovery & Recycling facilities from the various Wastes in
272 acres of land in villages Aladar and Paniyadara are proposed. To make the
recycling Zone self sufficient as well as to cater to the neighboring regions,
the Terminal Wastes Disposal Facilities such as the Integrated Common Hazardous
Waste Treatment Storage & Disposal Facility, Common Effluent Treatment
Plant, Coal Based Power Plant etc are proposed. The total water consumption
will be 45.000 KLD, waste water generation will be 36.000 KLD and power
consumption will be 70 MW. The total investment in the park is to the tune of
Rs 2000 Cr. This is likely to provide employment to 15,000 plus people.
During the discussions, following
points emerged:
(i)
The
project involves every kind of waste processing right from Building and
Construction waste, municipal, Bio-medical, Glass to Hazardous Waste and even
the non-hazardous ferrous metal waste for recycling and disposal in a confined
area. There is almost every kind of common disposal facilities within the site.
These include, the bio-medical waste treatment the location of which actually
depends upon the sources of its generation i.e. the location of health care
facilities as the biomedical waste treatment is required to be given treatment
within 48 hrs as per Rule 6(5) of the Biomedical Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 1998. The above aspects have not been examined.
(ii)
The
proposed facility includes large processing units such as ferrous metal
recovering and recycling (3MMTA) for which EC is required to be taken
separately. All the secondary metallurgical processing industrial units
involving operation of furnaces such as induction and electric arc furnace ,
submerged arc furnace etc with a capacity of more than 30,000(TPA) are required
to obtain EC under category 3(a) as per the EIA Notification was as amended
December 1, 2009. The project with the proposed non-compitible material
recycling facilities can not acceptable.
(iii)
The
recycling of the construction and demolition waste is not understandable and
required re-examination.
(iv)
It is
suggested to revise the proposal limiting the facility only to either hazardous
waste or municipal waste or ferrous metal waste processing depending upon the
type and quantities of the waste that is expected to be received.
(v)
The
proposal indicates the discharge of waste water into the sea for which CRZ
clearance will be required. The proposal should be submitted to SCZMA with all
the necessary studies.
(vi)
Justify
the site from environmental point of view as the habitations are at a distance
of 1.5 km. Examine the impact on the habitations and submit details of
mitigative measures.
(vii)
Availability
of water and effluent disposal system.
(viii)
The PP
shall come with identified impacts and applicable standards for all the
proposed activities in the project.
(ix) Based
on the presentation, the proposal is only a concept and there are no specific
plans which can enable giving of the parameters/aspects to be studied/ covered
in the EIA.
In view of the above, the
Committee deferred the project. The proposal will be taken up again after the
submission of the details for finalisation of ToR.
4.9
Finalization
of ToR for development of Bellora airport at Amravati, Maharashtra by M/s
Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. [F. No. 10-74/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the proposal is for the development of Bellora Airport, in District Amravati,
Maharashtra. The Bellora airstrip is located on the south-west of Amravati at a
distance of 14.50 km from Amravati city. The runway orientation of the airport
is 08/26 at an elevation of 341.50 m above MSL. The airstrip was originally
constructed by PWD in 1992. The existing facilities includes Terminal Building
(308 sqm.), ATC tower (G + 2), Taxiway 140 x 15.25 m, Apron 61m x 45 m and
total area is 74.80 Ha. The total land required for development of airport is
368.00 Ha. approximately including land required for diversion of road and
existing land of 74.80 Ha. The proposed land belongs to villages Addgaon, Dama,
Jalu, Bellora and Nimbhora. The proposed interventions are Apron (10212 sq.m),
Power House and Electric Substation (260 sqm), Terminal Building (3560 sqm),
GSE Parking (300 sqm), Car park (5000sqm), ATC tower (342 sqm) administrative
Offices (432 sqm), Fuel farm (350 sqm), Fire station (520 sqm), Space for
general aviation and Helicopter (3500 sqm.), Airport Maintenance area (490
sqm), future Hanger with Taxi way. 2500 no (approx.) of trees approximately are
required to be felled which includes 2000 trees of commercial plantation of
teak and 500 trees predominant species are Mahua, Mango, Neem, Shisham, teak.
No Reserve forest/ Protected Forest is falling within the proposed boundary of
the Airport.
During discussions, the Committee
finalized the following ToR:
(i) Examine details of land use around 10 km radius of the site. Submit a copy of the contour plan with slopes, drainage pattern of the site and surrounding area.
(ii) Submit details of alternative sites considered and justification for selecting the present site.
(iii) Describe the project site, geology, topography, climate, transport and connectivity, demographic aspects, socio cultural and economic aspects, villages, settlements and meteorological data.
(iv) Submit details of environmentally sensitive places, land acquisition status, rehabilitation of communities/ villages and present status of such activities.
(v) Environmental data to be considered in relation to the airport development would be (a) land, (b) groundwater, (c) surface water, (d) air, (e) bio-diversity, (f) noise and vibration, (g) socio economic and health.
(vi) Examine details of Solid waste generation treatment and its disposal.
(vii) Examine the anticipated environmental impacts of the project and mitigations measures.
(viii) Examine baseline environmental quality along with projected incremental load due to the project shall be studied.
(ix) Examine and submit the details of road connectivity and impacts on the traffic.
(x) Examine and submit the details of Noise modeling studies and mitigative measures.
(xi) Analysis should be made based on latest satellite imagery for land use with raw images.
(xii) Examine the impact of airport location on the nearest settlements.
(xiii) Examine the details of water requirement, use of treated waste water and prepare a water balance chart.
(xiv)
Source of water vis-à-vis waste water
to be generated along with treatment facilities to be proposed.
(xv)
Rain water harvesting proposals
should be made with due safeguards for ground water quality. Maximise recycling
of water and utilisation of rain water.
(xvi) A thick green belt should be planned all around the nearest settlement to mitigate noise and vibrations.
(xvii) The identification of species/ plants should be made based on the botanical studies.
(xviii) Examine soil characteristics and depth of ground water table for rainwater harvesting.
(xix)
Landscape plan, green belts and open
spaces may be described.
(xx)
Submit details of traffic projections
phase wise with relation to facilities proposed with justification.
(xxi)
Details of the demolished material,
its quantity and disposal.
(xxii) Identify,
predict and assess the environmental and sociological impacts on account of the
project.
(xxiii) Submit
details of a comprehensive Disaster Management Plan including emergency
evacuation during natural and man-made disaster.
(xxiv) Submit
details of social corporate responsibilities.
(xxv) Examine
separately the details for construction and operation phases both for
Environmental Management Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan with cost and
parameters.
(xxvi) Examine
and submit details of energy conservation including use of alternate source of
energy.
Public
hearing to be conducted for the project as per provisions of Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and the issues raised by the public should
be addressed in the Environmental Management Plan.
A detailed draft EIA/EMP report should
be prepared as per the above additional TOR and should be submitted to the
Ministry as per the Notification.
4.10 Finalization of TOR of Chitradurga – Shimoga
section of NH-13, Karnataka by M/s Superintending Engineer, National Highway
Zone [F.No. 10-75/2010-IA-III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent did not attend the meeting.
4.11 Finalization of TOR for rehabilitation and
upgradation and strengthening of SH-78 in the State of Bihar by M/s Bihar State
Road Development Ltd. [F.No.10-76/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent, the
project road (SH-78) is located in Patna and Nalanda districts Bihar. It is
distinctively divided into 2 segments separated by NH 30A. The first segment,
Bihta-Daniyawan is in Patna District and the other section, Chandi-Sarmera is
in Nalanda District. The first segment starts at Junction of NH-30 near Bihta
and ends at junction of NH-30A near Daniyawan totalling 52.3 km. The other
section starts at Junction of NH- 30A near Chandi and ends at Junction of NH-82
near Sarmera totaling 48.014 Km. The total length of this subproject is 100.314
kms. The existing right-of-way is 7 to 20 m except in some sections where it
is 20 to 30m. Carriageway width is limited to 3.5 9 (single lane) to 5.5 m
(intermediate lane). The project state highway will be widened to 2-lane carriageway with
provision of structures for 4-lane configuration considering the future
widening. The total length of the project road is 100.300 km (design Length).
Proposed ROW is 60 m.
Realignment and
bypasses has been proposed for 80.65 km due to limited availability of ROW,
poor geometrics and R&R issues. Bybasses are proposed at Sadisopur (0.750
Km), Naubatpur, Punpun, Dumri, Kansari , Rahui, Bind and Gopalbad. One major
bridge (on river Punpun), 17 minor bridges and 206 culverts are proposed on
this project corridor. Three ROBs are proposed at Sadisopur (Ch. 6.700), Jat
Dumri (Ch 31.300.) in Bihta-Daniyawan section and at Kadibigha (Ch. 17.230) in
Chandi-Sarmera section. There are nine major intersections with national and
state highways and major district roads (MDRs).
The project road falls in
seismic Zone IV. Some part of the project road falls in flood prone zone. There
is no wildlife sanctuary, reserve forest or national park along the project
road. Total land requirement is estimated to be 405.5 Ha. Out of which 382.4 Ha
is private land and remaining is government Land. No forest land is involved.
Approximately 1785 trees are likely to be affected.
During the discussions, the Committee finalized the
following additional TOR for further study:
(i)
Examine and submit a brief description of the
project, project name, nature, size, its importance to the region/state and the
country.
(ii)
Any litigation(s) pending against the proposed
project and/or any directions or orders passed by any court of law/any
statutory authority against the project is to be detailed out.
(iii)
Submit detailed alignment plan, with details
such as nature of terrain (plain, rolling, hilly), land use pattern,
habitation, cropping pattern, forest area, environmentally sensitive places,
mangroves, notified industrial areas, sand dunes, sea, river, lake, details of
villages, teshils, districts and states, latitude and longitude for important
locations falling on the alignment by employing remote sensing techniques
followed by ground truthing and also through secondary data sources.
(iv)
Describe various alternatives considered,
procedures and criteria adopted for selection of the final alternative with
reasons.
(v)
Submit Land use map of the study area to a scale
of 1: 25,000 based on recent satellite imagery delineating the crop lands (both
single and double crop), agricultural plantations, fallow lands, waste lands,
water bodies, built-up areas, forest area and other surface features such as
railway tracks, ports, airports, roads, and major industries etc. and submit a detailed ground surveyed map on
1:2000 scale showing the existing features falling within the right of way
namely trees, structures including archaeological & religious, monuments
etc. if any.
(vi)
If the proposed route is passing through any
hilly area, examine and
submit the stability of slopes, if the proposed road is to pass through cutting
or embankment / control of soil erosion from embankment.
(vii)
If the proposed route involves tunneling, the
details of the tunnel and locations of tunneling with geological structural
fraction should be provided. In case the road passes through a flood plain of
the river, the details of micro drainage, flood passages and information on
flood periodicity at least of last 50 years in the area should be examined.
(viii)
If the projects is located within 10km. of the
national parks, sanctuaries, biosphere reserves, migratory corridors of wild
animals, then a map duly authenticated by Chief Wildlife Warden showing these
features vis-à-vis the project location and the recommendations or comments of
the Chief Wildlife Warden thereon should be furnished at the stage of EC.
(ix)
Study regarding the Animal bypasses/ underpasses etc. across the
habitation areas shall be carried out. Adequate cattle passes for the movement of
agriculture material shall be provided at the stretches passing through
habitation areas.
(x)
If the proposed route requires cutting of trees,
then the information should be provided for number of trees to be cut, their
species and whether it also involved any protected or endangered species. Necessary green belt shall be provided on both side
of the highway with proper central verge and cost provision should be made for
regular maintenance.
(xi)
If the proposed route is passing through a city
or town, with houses and human habitation on the either side of the road, the
necessity for provision of bypasses/diversions/under passes shall be examined
and submitted. The
proposal should also indicate the location of wayside amenities, which should
include petrol station/service centre, rest areas including public conveyance,
etc.
(xii)
Submit details about measures taken for the pedestrian safety and
construction of underpasses and foot-over bridges along with flyovers and
interchanges.
(xiii)
Assess whether there is a possibility that the
proposed project will adversely affect road traffic in the surrounding areas
(e.g. by causing increases in traffic congestion and traffic accidents).
(xiv)
Examine and submit the details of use of fly ash in the road
construction, if the project road is located within the 100 km from the Thermal
Power Plant.
(xv)
Examine and submit the details of sand quarry, borrow area and
rehabilitation.
(xvi)
Climate and meteorology (max and min
temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, frequency of tropical cyclone and
snow fall); the nearest IMD meteorological station from which climatological
data have been obtained to be indicated.
(xvii)
The air quality monitoring should be carried out as per the new
notification issued on 16th November, 2009.
(xviii)
Identify project activities during construction
and operation phases, which will affect the noise levels and the potential for
increased noise resulting from this project. Discuss the effect of noise levels
on near by habitation during the construction and operational phases of the
proposed highway. Identify noise reduction measures and traffic management
strategies to be deployed for reducing the negative impact if any. Prediction
of noise levels should be done by using mathematical modeling at different
representative locations.
(xix)
Examine the impact during construction
activities due to generation of fugitive dust from crusher units, air emissions
from hot mix plants and vehicles used for transportation of materials and
prediction of impact on ambient air quality using appropriate mathematical
model, description of model, input requirement and reference of derivation,
distribution of major pollutants and presentation in tabular form for easy
interpretation shall be carried out.
(xx)
Also examine and submit the details about the protection to existing
habitations from dust, noise, odour etc. during construction stage.
(xxi)
If the proposed route involves cutting of earth,
the details of area to be cut, depth of cut, locations, soil type, volume and
quantity of earth and other materials to be removed with location of disposal/
dump site along with necessary permission.
(xxii)
If the proposed route is passing through low
lying areas, details of fill materials and initial and final levels after filling
above MSL, should be examined and submit.
(xxiii)
Examine and submit details of water quantity required and source of
water.
(xxiv)
Examine and submit the details of measures taken during constructions of
bridges across river/canal/major or minor drains keeping in view the flooding
of the rivers and the life span of the existing bridges. Provision
of speed breakers, safety signals, service lanes and foot paths should be
examined at appropriate locations through out the proposed road to avoid the
accidents.
(xxv)
If there will be any change in the drainage
pattern after the proposed activity, details of changes shall be examined and
submitted.
(xxvi)
Rain water harvesting pit should be at least 3 - 5 m. above the highest
ground water table. Provision shall be made for oil and grease removal from
surface runoff.
(xxvii)
If there is a possibility that the
construction/widening of road will cause impact such as destruction of forest,
poaching, reductions in wetland areas, if so, examine the impact and submit
details.
(xxviii)
Submit the details of road safety, signage, service roads, vehicular
under passes, accident prone zone and the mitigation measures.
(xxix)
IRC guidelines shall be followed for widening & up-gradation of road.
(xxx)
Submit details of social impact assessment due to the proposed construction
of road.
(xxxi)
Examine road design standards, safety equipment
specifications and Management System training to ensure that design details
take account of safety concerns and submit the traffic management plan. Road
safety audit shall be carried out and report shall be submitted to the
Ministry.
(xxxii)
Accident data and geographic distribution should
be reviewed and analyzed to predict and identify trends – incase of expansion
of the existing highway and provide Post accident emergency assistance and
medical care to accident victims.
(xxxiii)
If the proposed project involves any land
reclamation, details to be provided for which activity land to reclaim and the
area of land to be reclaimed.
(xxxiv)
Details of the properties, houses, businesses
etc. activities likely to be effected by land acquisition and their financial
loses annually.
(xxxv)
Detailed R&R plan with data on the existing
socio-economic status of the population in the study area and broad plan for
resettlement of the displaced population, site for the resettlement colony, alternative
livelihood concerns/ employment and rehabilitation of the displaced people,
civil and housing amenities being offered, etc and the schedule of the
implementation of the project specific. A Social Impact Assessment study should
be conducted and the SIA report shall be submitted along with the EIA.
(xxxvi)
Submit details of Corporate Social Responsibility. Necessary provisions
should be made in the budget.
(xxxvii)
Estimated cost of the project including
environmental monitoring cost and funding agencies, whether governmental or on
the basis of BOT etc and provide details of budget provisions (capital &
recurring) for the project specific R&R Plan.
(xxxviii)
Submit environmental management and monitoring
plan for all phases of the project viz. construction and operation.
Public hearing to be
conducted for the project as per provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification, 2006 and the issues raised by the public should be addresses in
the Environmental Management Plan.
Any further
clarification on caring out the above studies including anticipated impacts due
to the project and mitigative measure, project proponent can refer to the model
ToR available on Ministry website “http://moef.nic.in/Manual/highways”.
4.12 Finalization of TOR for Planning of 4/6 laning
Rampur to Kathgodam section NH-87, by M/s NHAI [F.No. 10-77/2010-IA-III]
The
project proponent requested to defer the project as project is under going some
changes.
4.13 Finalization of TOR for Widening and
improvement of existing carriageway to 4/6 laning of Kuttipuram edapally,
section NH-17, Kerala, by M/s NHAI [F.No. 10-78/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the project road starts at Kuttippuram at km 317+710 (Design Chainage km 317+710)
and ends at Edappally junction on NH-47 at km 438+600 (Design Chainage km 429+440).
Total length of existing road is 120+890 km and the right of way (ROW) varies
from 7.74 to 38.01 m. Design length of the road is 111.730 km and the proposed
ROW is 45m. Design speed is 100 kmph. The project road is part of NH-17 starting at Panvel
(Mumbai) in Maharashtra and ending at Edappally (Cochin) in Kerala. It connects
major ports and coastal towns of Kerala, Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra. The project road traverses through 3 districts
(Malappuram, Thrissur and Ernakulam), 6 Taluks, 39 villages and 7 towns. 1605
families are to be affected due to the project.
Bypasses are proposed at 11 locations
and there are 15 bridges existing along
the project road in which 6 bridges are bypassed. Additional 8 new four lane
bridges are proposed. Total 124 culverts are there in the existing road. Out of these 30 culverts are bypassed. Remaining 94
culverts are widened /reconstructed. 24 new box culverts and 55 new pipe culverts
are proposed along the project stretch. One ROB and is proposed at Edappally. There are 30 major Junctions and 26 minor junctions, which
are proposed for improvement. Bus bays are
proposed at 70 locations. Service roads are proposed for 33.65 Km.
The project road is passing parallel
to Arabian Sea and falls in CRZ at 16 locations, where it crosses rivers/
canals with tidal influence. Application has been submitted to Kerala State
Coastal Zone Management Authority for CRZ Clearance.
The project doesn’t require diversion
of any forest land. However, it falls within 5 Km from Mangalavanam Bird
Sanctuary at Cochin and application has been submitted to Chief Wildlife Warden
for his comments and recommendations.
The
project road is passing adjacent to Vembanad-Kol wetland system, which is a
Ramsar Site. About 56325 trees are to be felled for the project road, against
which about 168975 trees are proposed to be planted. Cost of construction for
the project road is Rs. 809 Crores. Environmental management cost during
construction phase works out to Rs. 15.32 Crores and that for operation phase
is Rs. 1.5 Lakhs per year for first three years and Rs 27.93 Lakhs from fourth
year onwards. Total 305.06 Ha of land is proposed to be acquired for the
project. R&R cost for the project is about Rs. 469.68 Crores and utility
shifting cost is Rs. 1321.6 Crores.
During the discussions, the Committee finalized the
following additional TOR for further study:
(i)
Submit the recommendations of the Kerala Coastal
Zone Management Authority.
(ii)
Destruction of mangroves are not permissible.
Submit the details of the measures taken to prevent mangrove destruction.
(iii)
Examine and submit a brief description of the
project, project name, nature, size, its importance to the region/state and the
country.
(iv)
Any litigation(s) pending against the proposed
project and/or any directions or orders passed by any court of law/any
statutory authority against the project is to be detailed out.
(v)
Submit a
copy of the CRZ map on a scale of 1:4000 prepared by an authorised agency and
submit the recommendations of Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority.
(vi)
Submit detailed alignment plan, with details
such as nature of terrain (plain, rolling, hilly), land use pattern,
habitation, cropping pattern, forest area, environmentally sensitive places,
mangroves, notified industrial areas, sand dunes, sea, river, lake, details of
villages, teshils, districts and states, latitude and longitude for important
locations falling on the alignment by employing remote sensing techniques
followed by ground truthing and also through secondary data sources.
(vii)
Describe various alternatives considered,
procedures and criteria adopted for selection of the final alternative with
reasons.
(viii)
Submit Land use map of the study area to a scale
of 1: 25,000 based on recent satellite imagery delineating the crop lands (both
single and double crop), agricultural plantations, fallow lands, waste lands,
water bodies, built-up areas, forest area and other surface features such as
railway tracks, ports, airports, roads, and major industries etc. and submit a detailed ground surveyed map on
1:2000 scale showing the existing features falling within the right of way
namely trees, structures including archaeological & religious, monuments
etc. if any.
(ix)
If the proposed route is passing through any
hilly area, examine and
submit the stability of slopes, if the proposed road is to pass through cutting
or embankment/ control of soil erosion from embankment.
(x)
If the proposed route involves tunneling, the
details of the tunnel and locations of tunneling with geological structural
fraction should be provided. In case the road passes through a flood plain of
the river, the details of micro drainage, flood passages and information on
flood periodicity at least of last 50 years in the area should be examined.
(xi)
If the projects is located within 10km. of the
national parks, sanctuaries, biosphere reserves, migratory corridors of wild
animals, then a map duly authenticated by Chief Wildlife Warden showing these
features vis-à-vis the project location and the recommendations or comments of
the Chief Wildlife Warden thereon should be furnished at the stage of EC.
(xii)
Study regarding the Animal bypasses / underpasses etc. across the
habitation areas shall be carried out. Adequate cattle passes for the
movement of agriculture material shall be provided at the stretches passing
through habitation areas.
(xiii)
If the proposed route requires cutting of trees,
then the information should be provided for number of trees to be cut, their
species and whether it also involved any protected or endangered species. Necessary green belt shall be
provided on both side of the highway with proper central verge and cost
provision should be made for regular maintenance.
(xiv)
If the proposed route is passing through a city
or town, with houses and human habitation on the either side of the road, the
necessity for provision of bypasses/diversions/under passes shall be examined
and submitted. The
proposal should also indicate the location of wayside amenities, which should
include petrol station/service centre, rest areas including public conveyance
etc.
(xv)
Submit details about measures taken for the pedestrian safety and
construction of underpasses and foot-over bridges along with flyovers and
interchanges.
(xvi)
Assess whether there is a possibility that the
proposed project will adversely affect road traffic in the surrounding areas
(e.g. by causing increases in traffic congestion and traffic accidents).
(xvii)
Examine and submit the details of use of fly ash in the road
construction, if the project road is located within the 100 km from the Thermal
Power Plant.
(xviii)
Examine and submit the details of sand quarry, borrow area and
rehabilitation.
(xix)
Climate and meteorology (max and min
temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, frequency of tropical cyclone and
snow fall); the nearest IMD meteorological station from which climatological
data have been obtained to be indicated.
(xx)
The air quality monitoring should be carried out as per the new
notification issued on 16th November, 2009.
(xxi)
Identify project activities during construction
and operation phases, which will affect the noise levels and the potential for
increased noise resulting from this project. Discuss the effect of noise levels
on near by habitation during the construction and operational phases of the
proposed highway. Identify noise reduction measures and traffic management
strategies to be deployed for reducing the negative impact if any. Prediction
of noise levels should be done by using mathematical modeling at different
representative locations.
(xxii)
Examine the impact during construction
activities due to generation of fugitive dust from crusher units, air emissions
from hot mix plants and vehicles used for transportation of materials and
prediction of impact on ambient air quality using appropriate mathematical
model, description of model, input requirement and reference of derivation,
distribution of major pollutants and presentation in tabular form for easy
interpretation shall be carried out.
(xxiii)
Also examine and submit the details about the protection to existing
habitations from dust, noise, odour etc. during construction stage.
(xxiv)
If the proposed route involves cutting of earth,
the details of area to be cut, depth of cut, locations, soil type, volume and
quantity of earth and other materials to be removed with location of disposal/
dump site along with necessary permission.
(xxv)
If the proposed route is passing through low
lying areas, details of fill materials and initial and final levels after
filling above MSL, should be examined and submit.
(xxvi)
Examine and submit details of water quantity required and source of
water.
(xxvii)
Examine and submit the details of measures taken during constructions of
bridges across river/canal/major or minor drains keeping in view the flooding
of the rivers and the life span of the existing bridges. Provision
of speed breakers, safety signals, service lanes and foot paths should be
examined at appropriate locations through out the proposed road to avoid the
accidents.
(xxviii)
If there will be any change in the drainage
pattern after the proposed activity, details of changes shall be examined and
submitted.
(xxix)
Rain water harvesting pit should be at least 3 - 5 m. above the highest
ground water table. Provision shall be made for oil and grease removal from
surface runoff.
(xxx)
If there is a possibility that the
construction/widening of road will cause impact such as destruction of forest,
poaching, reductions in wetland areas, if so, examine the impact and submit
details.
(xxxi)
Submit the details of road safety, signage, service roads, vehicular
under passes, accident prone zone and the mitigation measures.
(xxxii)
IRC guidelines shall be followed for widening & up-gradation of road.
(xxxiii)
Submit details of social impact assessment due to the proposed
construction of road.
(xxxiv)
Examine road design standards, safety equipment
specifications and Management System training to ensure that design details
take account of safety concerns and submit the traffic management plan. Road
safety audit shall be carried out and report shall be submitted to the
Ministry.
(xxxv)
Accident data and geographic distribution should
be reviewed and analyzed to predict and identify trends – incase of expansion
of the existing highway and provide Post accident emergency assistance and
medical care to accident victims.
(xxxvi)
If the proposed project involves any land
reclamation, details to be provided for which activity land to reclaim and the
area of land to be reclaimed.
(xxxvii)
Details of the properties, houses, businesses
etc. activities likely to be effected by land acquisition and their financial
loses annually.
(xxxviii)
Detailed R&R plan with data on the existing
socio-economic status of the population in the study area and broad plan for
resettlement of the displaced population, site for the resettlement colony,
alternative livelihood concerns/ employment and rehabilitation of the displaced
people, civil and housing amenities being offered, etc and the schedule of the
implementation of the project specific
(xxxix)
Submit details of Corporate Social Responsibility. Necessary provisions
should be made in the budget.
(xl)
Estimated cost of the project including
environmental monitoring cost and funding agencies, whether governmental or on
the basis of BOT etc and provide details of budget provisions (capital &
recurring) for the project specific R&R Plan.
(xli)
Submit environmental management and monitoring
plan for all phases of the project viz. construction and operation.
Public hearing to be
conducted for the project as per provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification, 2006 and the issues raised by the public should be addresses in
the Environmental Management Plan.
Any further
clarification on caring out the above studies including anticipated impacts due
to the project and mitigative measure, project proponent can refer to the model
ToR available on Ministry website “http://moef.nic.in/Manual/highways”.
4.14
Finalization
of ToR for Widening and improvement of existing carriageway to 4/6 laning of
Jabalpur (km 465.600) to Lakhnadon (km 546.426) section of NH-7, Madhya Pradesh
by M/s NHAI [F.No. 10-79/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent, the project road
starts at Jabalpur at design Km 465+600 (Existing Chainage Km 466+600) and ends
a Lakhanadon Km 546+426 (Existing chainage Km 546+500). The total design length
of proposed project road is 80.820 Km (Existing length 81+450 Km). National
Highway – NH-07 starts at Varanasi and ends at southern tip of India at
Kanayakumari, which joins north Indian states viz. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra with southern India states viz. Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu. Present project road a section of NH 07 is passing though Jabalpur
and Seoni districts. The project road traverse through 48 villages and 3 towns
(Bargi, Dhuma and Lakahanadon). The Project road has been designed for ruling
design speed of 100 kmph and a minimum design speed of 80 kmph, however, in
hilly sections the design speed is 50kmph. Existing RoW of the project corridor varies from 12 m to 28 m and it is
proposed to widen 30m at forest locations and 60m at other areas. There are 31
Junctions present along the existing project stretch. Out of which 6 junctions
are considered as major junction identified based on existing traffic movement
and category of crossroad. The project road crossing/abutting several water
bodies viz.. Rivers, canals, lakes, ponds, hand pumps, and open wells. At
existing Km 471+470 and Km 533+954 the project road crossing Narmada and Sher
Rivers respectively. Jabalpur Municipal drinking water treatment plant is
located near Km 469+250. There are 22 minor
bridges and 2 major bridges along the project road. Total 140 culverts are present along existing project road, which are
generally in fare to good condition. At feasibility stage, bypasses are
proposed at 4 locations along the project road at Bargi Bypass - from Km
487+200 to Km 489+700 with total Length of 2.5 Km, Sukari Bypass – from Km
497+800 to Km 499+000 with total Length of 1.2 Km, Dhuma Bypass – from Km
520+700 to Km 524+100 with total Length of 3.400 Km and at Lakhanadon Bypass –
from Km 541+900 to Km 545+600 with total Length of 2.5 Km.
The total length of 4 Bypasses (new
alignment) is 11.34 km. Total length of existing road bypassed is 10.8 Km.
Total increase in road length due to bypasses is 0.54 Km. Terrain pattern of
above mentioned bypass locations are observed to be plain to rolling consists
of numerous lentic and lotic water bodies, which envisages construction of new
bridges and culverts. Two railway level crossings are present at existing Km
486+810 and Km 493+850, which requires construction of ROB.
Total 224.11 Ha (excluding Forest
area) of land is proposed to be acquired for the project. The project requires
diversion of approx. 30 Ha of forest land and hence requires clearance under
Forest (conservation) Act, 1980. The project road does not pass through CRZ,
ecologically sensitive or protected areas. About 10008 trees are to be felled
for the proposed project road. About 680 structures get affected. Cost of
construction for the project road is Rs. 911.00 Crores.
During the discussions, the Committee finalized the
following additional TOR for further study:
(i)
Examine and submit a brief description of the
project, project name, nature, size, its importance to the region/state and the
country.
(ii)
Any litigation(s) pending against the proposed
project and/or any directions or orders passed by any court of law/any
statutory authority against the project is to be detailed out.
(iii)
Submit detailed alignment plan, with details
such as nature of terrain (plain, rolling, hilly), land use pattern,
habitation, cropping pattern, forest area, environmentally sensitive places,
mangroves, notified industrial areas, sand dunes, sea, river, lake, details of
villages, teshils, districts and states, latitude and longitude for important
locations falling on the alignment by employing remote sensing techniques
followed by ground truthing and also through secondary data sources.
(iv)
Describe various alternatives considered,
procedures and criteria adopted for selection of the final alternative with
reasons.
(v)
Submit Land use map of the study area to a scale
of 1: 25,000 based on recent satellite imagery delineating the crop lands (both
single and double crop), agricultural plantations, fallow lands, waste lands,
water bodies, built-up areas, forest area and other surface features such as
railway tracks, ports, airports, roads, and major industries etc. and submit a detailed ground surveyed map on 1:2000
scale showing the existing features falling within the right of way namely
trees, structures including archaeological & religious, monuments etc. if
any.
(vi)
If the proposed route is passing through any
hilly area, examine and
submit the stability of slopes, if the proposed road is to pass through cutting
or embankment / control of soil erosion from embankment.
(vii)
If the proposed route involves tunneling, the
details of the tunnel and locations of tunneling with geological structural
fraction should be provided. In case
the road passes through a flood plain of the river, the details of micro
drainage, flood passages and information on flood periodicity at least of last
50 years in the area should be examined.
(viii)
The project requires diversion of 30 ha of
Forest land a detailed study should be made for migratory corridors of wild
animals, then a map duly authenticated by Chief Wildlife Warden showing these
features vis-à-vis the project location and the recommendations or comments of
the Chief Wildlife Warden.
(ix)
Study regarding the Animal bypasses / underpasses etc. across the
habitation areas shall be carried out. Adequate cattle passes for the movement of
agriculture material shall be provided at the stretches passing through
habitation areas.
(x)
If the proposed route requires cutting of trees,
then the information should be provided for number of trees to be cut, their
species and whether it also involved any protected or endangered species. Necessary green belt shall be provided on both side
of the highway with proper central verge and cost provision should be made for
regular maintenance.
(xi)
If the proposed route is passing through a city
or town, with houses and human habitation on the either side of the road, the
necessity for provision of bypasses/diversions/under passes shall be examined
and submitted. The
proposal should also indicate the location of wayside amenities, which should
include petrol station/service centre, rest areas including public conveyance,
etc.
(xii)
Submit details about measures taken for the pedestrian safety and
construction of underpasses and foot-over bridges along with flyovers and
interchanges.
(xiii)
Assess whether there is a possibility that the
proposed project will adversely affect road traffic in the surrounding areas
(e.g. by causing increases in traffic congestion and traffic accidents).
(xiv)
Examine and submit the details of use of fly ash in the road
construction, if the project road is located within the 100 km from the Thermal
Power Plant.
(xv)
Examine and submit the details of sand quarry, borrow area and
rehabilitation.
(xvi)
Climate and meteorology (max and min
temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, frequency of tropical cyclone and
snow fall); the nearest IMD meteorological station from which climatological
data have been obtained to be indicated.
(xvii)
The air quality monitoring should be carried out as per the new
notification issued on 16th November, 2009.
(xviii)
Identify project activities during construction
and operation phases, which will affect the noise levels and the potential for
increased noise resulting from this project. Discuss the effect of noise levels
on near by habitation during the construction and operational phases of the
proposed highway. Identify noise reduction measures and traffic management
strategies to be deployed for reducing the negative impact if any. Prediction
of noise levels should be done by using mathematical modeling at different
representative locations.
(xix)
Examine the impact during construction
activities due to generation of fugitive dust from crusher units, air emissions
from hot mix plants and vehicles used for transportation of materials and
prediction of impact on ambient air quality using appropriate mathematical
model, description of model, input requirement and reference of derivation,
distribution of major pollutants and presentation in tabular form for easy
interpretation shall be carried out.
(xx)
Also examine and submit the details about the protection to existing
habitations from dust, noise, odour etc. during construction stage.
(xxi)
If the proposed route involves cutting of earth,
the details of area to be cut, depth of cut, locations, soil type, volume and
quantity of earth and other materials to be removed with location of disposal/
dump site along with necessary permission.
(xxii)
If the proposed route is passing through low
lying areas, details of fill materials and initial and final levels after
filling above MSL, should be examined and submit.
(xxiii)
Examine and submit details of water quantity required and source of
water.
(xxiv)
Examine and submit the details of measures taken during constructions of
bridges across river/canal/major or minor drains keeping in view the flooding
of the rivers and the life span of the existing bridges. Provision of speed breakers, safety signals,
service lanes and foot paths should be examined at appropriate locations
through out the proposed road to avoid the accidents.
(xxv)
If there will be any change in the drainage
pattern after the proposed activity, details of changes shall be examined and
submitted.
(xxvi)
Rain water harvesting pit should be at least 3 - 5 m. above the highest
ground water table. Provision shall be made for oil and grease removal from
surface runoff.
(xxvii)
If there is a possibility that the
construction/widening of road will cause impact such as destruction of forest,
poaching, reductions in wetland areas, if so, examine the impact and submit
details.
(xxviii)
Submit the details of road safety, signage, service roads, vehicular
under passes, accident prone zone and the mitigation measures.
(xxix)
IRC guidelines shall be followed for widening & up-gradation of road.
(xxx)
Submit details of social impact assessment due to the proposed
construction of road.
(xxxi)
Examine road design standards, safety equipment
specifications and Management System training to ensure that design details
take account of safety concerns and submit the traffic management plan. Road
safety audit shall be carried out and report shall be submitted to the
Ministry.
(xxxii)
Accident data and geographic distribution should
be reviewed and analyzed to predict and identify trends – incase of expansion
of the existing highway and provide Post accident emergency assistance and
medical care to accident victims.
(xxxiii)
If the proposed project involves any land
reclamation, details to be provided for which activity land to reclaim and the
area of land to be reclaimed.
(xxxiv)
Details of the properties, houses, businesses
etc. activities likely to be effected by land acquisition and their financial
loses annually.
(xxxv)
Detailed R&R plan with data on the existing
socio-economic status of the population in the study area and broad plan for
resettlement of the displaced population, site for the resettlement colony,
alternative livelihood concerns/ employment and rehabilitation of the displaced
people, civil and housing amenities being offered, etc and the schedule of the
implementation of the project specific
(xxxvi)
Submit details of Corporate Social Responsibility. Necessary provisions
should be made in the budget.
(xxxvii)
Estimated cost of the project including
environmental monitoring cost and funding agencies, whether governmental or on
the basis of BOT etc and provide details of budget provisions (capital &
recurring) for the project specific R&R Plan.
(xxxviii)
Submit environmental management and monitoring
plan for all phases of the project viz. construction and operation.
Public hearing to be
conducted in both the districts for the project as per provisions of
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and the issues raised by the
public should be addresses in the Environmental Management Plan.
Any further
clarification on caring out the above studies including anticipated impacts due
to the project and mitigative measure, project proponent can refer to the model
ToR available on Ministry website “http://moef.nic.in/Manual/highways”.
2nd
Day: 1st December, 2010:
4.15 CRZ clearance for the storage of B & C
class and Non-Hazardous chemicals
at Plot No. 4, JNPT, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai by M/s Suraj Agro
Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. [F. No. 11- 106/2010- IA.III]
The
Committee defer the project, since the project proponent did not attend the
meeting.
4.16 CRZ
clearance for the erection of Transmission Line Towers a) Trombay back bay
& b) Trombay – Salsette in Sewri area Mumbai, Maharashtra by M/s Tata
Power, Mumbai [F. No. 11-107/2010-IA.III]
As presented by the project proponent, Tata Power
Company Limited is generating 1430 MW power at Trombay Thermal Power Station
(TTPS) and supplying power to Mumbai city. The power demand of South, Central
& North Mumbai area is growing rapidly due to upcoming activities such as
slum rehabilitation, construction of Commercial Complexes, Multiplex, Malls,
residential complexes, up-gradation of railways and Airport. To meet the
growing power demand and to improve reliability of power supply to South,
Central and North Mumbai, TATA Power is executing construction of transmission
line which will augment the power evacuation from TTPS.
a) Proposal – I - It is proposed to construct a new
220 KV Trombay – Dharavi - Salsette Transmission Line which has 15 numbers of
towers passing through the CRZ area. MOEF has accorded approval for
construction of 8 numbers of towers on 13th February 2008. After
detailed route survey, as per the actual site condition and the final alignment
of towers, it is observed that fifteen (15) numbers of towers fall in CRZ area.
The proposal is for construction of additional 7 towers including 8 approved
towers.
b) Proposal II - In order to augment the power
evacuation from TTPS to South Mumbai, it is proposed to replace / augment
existing 110 KV line with 220 KV Trombay – Backbay Transmission Line on it’s
existing right of way. The proposal is for augmentation / replacement of 8
towers which falls in CRZ area.
Each
Transmission Line towers has 4 legs and each leg rests on a pile type
foundation of about 1 to 1.2 m diameter. The height of the towers will be
approximately 60 meters and the distance between two towers will be
approximately 250 m. Each tower accommodates 4 number of power circuits of 220
KV. Each circuit has got 3 power carrying conductors. In addition to that, the
top wire is optical fiber guard wire which is essential for data transmission,
communication, metering and protection of the power passing through the
circuit.
Both
the Transmission Lines projects are interlinked to each other and passing
through the same CRZ area. Only local wards of Mumbai Municipal Corporation are
different and Environment Impact Assessment study of both the Transmission
Lines Projects was carried out by BNHS. About 1607 number of mangrove trees
will get affected due to the proposed line. Mangroves affected area will be
around 0.6 Ha. BNHS has suggested compensatory plantation of about 25,000
mangroves. Mangrove plantation will be carried out on 13.8 Ha area at
Trombay.
Both
the project were considered in 63rd meeting of Maharashtra Costal
Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) held on 5th July 2010. MCZMA has
recommended both the project to MOEF on 23rd Aug 2010. Bombay High
Court has passed an interim order on 27th January 2010 directing
TATA Power to approach to the competent authority to seek permission in
accordance with the law. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF),
Maharashtra State has already recommended our proposal to the Government of
Maharashtra for clearance under Forest Conservation Act.
During
discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
The
proposal is for increase the number of transmission towers from the already
approved 8 to 16 in the CRZ area. The number of individual mangrove trees which
will get destroyed for 16 towers is stated as 1607 and a total of 22500
saplings of A. marina mangrove is proposed to be planted as per the
presentation made in the EAC meeting. The compensation which has been actually
recommended (page 3) in the EIA report of Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS)
is 25000 numbers of A. marina. The BNHS has arrived this number of annual
mortality and replacement plantation for 5 years. The difference in the
mangrove plantation given as 22500 in the presentation and 25000 needs to be
clarified.
(ii)
The
details of the number of mangroves involved in the existing clearance for 8
towers and the corresponding approach roads requirement may also be provided
for relative comparison. In addition to this a map showing the locations of the
existing approved 8 towers with the locations of the 16 towers superimposed in
the form of the map 5 given in the BNHS report may also be provided.
(iii)
The BNHS
report states (page 2) that most of the towers are approachable by the existing
maintenance road which run parallel to the already existing transmission lines
and that these existing roads are completely covered by the seedlings and
saplings of A. marina. The report also confirms that the existing lines are
more than 50 year old and the approach roads have not been used for long long
time and they are devoid of any mature trees. This implies that once the
approach roads get constructed in the area, the road space is not suitable for
the growth of the mangroves even if the road is not used after completion of
the project. The material to be used for the construction of the approach roads
therefore needs proper selection from the point of possibility of the growth of
mangroves.
(iv)
The
approach roads involving cutting of large number of mangrove trees even for
smaller road lengths are, the road from J4 to I-7 (500m) requiring cutting of
503 mangroves, the road from tower J2 to I-6 (300m) involving 248 trees, the
road from J3 to tower I-4 involving 232 trees. The road from J1 to tower I-8 is
700m long and already existing and it involves only 77 mangrove trees. It may
be seen from map 5 given on page 17 of the BNHS report that the distance of
tower I-7 from this existing road (i.e. J1 to tower I-8) is less than the
distance of this tower from J4. In other words the approach road from J4 to I-7
involving 503 trees could be avoided by taking the approach of this tower from
the above existing road.
(v)
The
approach road from tower I-14 to the motorable tar road may not be required as
this tower can also be reached from the approach road proposed in respect of Grid
II towers. Also, the approach road to tower II-8 shown in map 9 (page 24 of the
BNHS report) may not be required as this tower can also be approached from the
motorable tar road connecting tower II-7 to Mohul road.
(vi)
There are
typographical errors in the maps 5,6,7,8 and 9 as the towers indicated on the
top of these maps are same which is I-9, I-10, I-11 and I-14.
(vii)
The above
aspects may be clarified by the proponent /examined during the inspection of
the site by the EAC members as decided in meeting.
In view of the
foregoing observations, the proposal is deferred. The Committee constitutes a 4
(four) member sub-committee having Dr. Apurba Gupta, Dr. R.S.Mahawar,
Member Secretary, MCZMA and a representative from Bombay Natural History
Society to visit the site and examine the alternate routes for the transmission
line to minimise the damage to the mangroves. The proposal shall be considered
afresh after the recommendations of the sub-committee and incorporation of the
above observations.
4.17 Finalization
of TOR for the proposed Port with Shipyard in Mugaiyur, Cheyyur Taluk,
Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu by M/s MARG Swarnabhoomi Port Pvt. Ltd. [F. No.
11-108/2010-IA.III]
As
presented by the project proponent, the proposal is for a PORT with SHIPYARD
for construction, repair and maintenance of the ships/vessels. The Port will
initially serve as a captive facility for getting materials, machines towards
ship/vessel construction and repair works. The proposed project of MSPPL will
have a water front of 2700m near the village of Mugaiyur in Kancheepuram
district, along the coast of Bay of Bengal, Tamil Nadu.
The
MSPPL has envisaged to have infrastructure viz., Dry docks (3 Numbers; one for capesize vessel and two for
off shore rigs), Afloat Repair berths (
5 Numbers), Slipway, Jetty, cradle , repair shops, material stock yard and
ancillary facilities like subcontractors’ workshops, housing, commercial
complex, canteen, Rig repair area, etc. The proposed Port, initially captive in
service nature, will begin its operations with a Jetty of size (400m X 15m
wide). The proposed Shipyard will cater to the requirements of construction,
repairing and maintenance of vessels owned by Marg
and others. The budgetary estimate for the proposed PORT with SHIPYARD facility
is over Rs. 760 crores.
During
discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
The
requirements are still in conceptual stage as learnt from the presentation of
the project by the project proponent and there are no specific plans which can
enable giving of the parameters/aspects to be studied/ covered in the EIA.
(ii)
Phase-wise
requirements must be firmed up and a meaningful proposal must be evolved for
further consideration.
(iii)
Feasibility
study report covering, among others, the basic elements of evolution of layout,
details of activities, volume of cargo, alternatives studied, existing site
environment, optimization of coastline requirements, need for the project,
planning philosophy, phase-wise development, segregation of shipyard activities
and the cargo handling facilities and other associated infrastructure
requirements, implementation schedule, preliminary costing, anticipated
environmental impacts (both terrestrial and marine), vessel sizes, etc. must be
submitted.
In
view of the foregoing observations, the proposal is deferred and shall be
considered afresh for finalisation of ToR after the above observations are
addressed and submitted for reconsideration.
4.18
CRZ
clearance for laying intake and outfall pipeline for 1350 MW Natural Gas based
power project at Komaragiri Village near Kakinada by M/s Spectrum Power
Generation Ltd., Hyderabad. [F.No. 11-110/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent, the Spectrum Power
Generation Limited (SPGL) was incorporated on October 26, 1992 under the Indian
Companies Act 1956 as a special purpose to implement a 208 MW gas based
combined cycle power plant near Komaragiri village, Kakinada in the East
Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh, which was one of the first eight fast
track power project offered in the private sector under privatization policy of
the Government of India initiated in 1991. The project achieved its commercial
operations on April 1998.
The 208 MW Gas based Combined Cycle Power Plant is capable
of firing Natural gas as well as Naphtha. The project comprises (a) Three Gas
Turbines of Westinghouse make with capacity of 46 MW each (b) Three Waste Heat
Recovery Boilers of International Combustion make (c) One Steam Turbine of 70
mw of Parsons, UK make. The power generated from this project is being supplied
to AP DISCOMs since 1998 under Long Term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with an
initial terms of 18 years and sources its Natural gas requirements from GAIL
(India) Limited and Reliance. The
Company has developed a green belt area of around 350 acres.
SPGL is proposed to add 1350MW Natural Gas fired Combined
Cycle Power Project (CCPP) in phased manner. The plant would generally operate
as base load station; however, part load operations are also envisaged. The
power from the proposed expansion project would be sold to AP DISCOMS under a
long term PPA, which is at present being under negotiations stage.
The site
proposed for the expansion project is located adjacent to the 208 MW CCPP in
the 814.21 Acres of land owned by SPGL, near Komaragiri village which is about
20 kms from Kakinada. The NH 5 running between Chennai and Kolkata is about 40
kms from the plant site. NH214 running in between Kathipudi and Pamarru is
about 11KM from the site. The port of Kakinada is situated at about 15Kms from
the site. About 80 acres of land proposed for the expansion project has been
identified and is already in the possession of SPGL. The proposal will require
an intake quantity – 41, 000 m3/hr and outfall quantity – 2743 m3/hr.
The temperature difference will be 40 C and salinity difference will
be 17.5 ppt.
During
discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
The
project shall be implemented in such a manner that there is no damage
whatsoever to the mangroves/other sensitive coastal ecosystems.
(ii)
A continuous
and comprehensive post-project marine quality monitoring programme shall be
taken up. This shall include monitoring of water quality, sediment quality and
biological characteristics and report submitted every 6 month to Ministry’s
Regional Office at Bangalore.
(iii)
There
shall be no withdrawal of ground water in CRZ area, for this project.
(iv)
Temperature
shall be maintained below 40 C to avoid possible damage to flora and
fauna.
(v)
Possibility
of additional diffuser shall be explored.
(vi)
Appropriate
online mechanism shall be put in place to monitor the salinity and temperature.
(vii)
Mercury
values shall be re-examined and shall be submitted to Ministry.
(viii)
Usage of
RO instead of DM plant, shall be explored to avoid the acidic & alkaline
effluent generation and shall submit a report to the ministry as agreed during
the presentation within two months.
The Committee recommended the proposal
for CRZ Clearance with the above conditions in the Clearance letter for strict
compliance by the project proponent.
4.19
CRZ
clearance for slum Rehabilitation on plot bearing no. CS No. 5 pt & 15 pt
Mahim Division, Adarsh Nagar, Mumbai by M/s Worli Sagar Darshan Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd, [F.No. 11-111/2010-IA-III]
The project
proponent did not circulate the documents in time.
The Committee deferred the proposal for January, 2011
meeting.
4.20
CRZ permission for additional FSI for proposed
Institutional & Health Care Center on the land of Shri Shddhivinayak
Ganapati Temple Trust bearing TPS – IV, FP No. 901, 903 B, Mahim Dicision,
Prabhadevi by M/s Shri Shddhivinayak Ganapati Temple Trust, Mumbai [F.No.
11-112/2010-IA-III]
The
Committee defer the project, since the project proponent did not attend the
meeting.
4.21
CRZ clearance for Carnoustie Beach Resort at Sy. No. 11
,12 ,13 ,14 ,15 ,16 ,17 ,18 ,19 and 26, Mararikkulam North, Taluk Cherthala
Alappuzha, by M/s Carnoustie Resort Pvt. Ltd [F.No. 11-114/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent, the proposed project is a beach resort in
Chennaveli, Chethi P.O, Pin – 688553, Mararikulam North, Alappuzha District,
Kerala State. The total area of the plot is 7.0309 ha. The land is a coastal
plane with sandy soil at an average elevation of +1.2m MSL. Total built-up area
of buildings is 4,647.06 m2 located between 200 and 500m from HT; number
of cottages 40, ECU provided 43, restaurant/bar seats 100. Total water
requirement 26.9 KLD (fresh water requirement - 17.5 KLD). The capacity of STP
proposed is 26 KLD. Treated waste water to be used for flushing - 7.20 KLD,
horticulture – 12.361 KLD. The land is in mixed use with residential units and
coconut plantation. Length of the coastline is 240.1m. The site is accessible
from Alappuzha – Arthunkal Coastal Road with a present width of 7.7m, which is
being widened as a State Highway. Power requirement is 400 kVA which will be
taken from State Electricity
Board. Solid waste generated during operational
phase 63.6 kg/d. Biodegradable waste will be converted to biogas in a
biodigester. The project proposes to harvest rain water in tanks and pools of 270 m3 holding capacity and to recharge
overflow to sandy soil to form Ghyben-Herzberg fresh
water lens. The project incorporates a Disaster Management Plan, Environment
Management Plan, Environmental Monitoring Plan, greenbelt and landscape with
indigenous plans. Part of energy requirements will be met with solar energy. The total cost of the project is Rs.
26.92 Crores.
During
the discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
Retain
the coconut trees as many as possible. Submit details along with a layout plan.
(ii)
Rainfall
data seems to be wrong. Re-examine and submit.
(iii)
Obtain a
land conversion certificate from Panchayat.
Provided the response of the project
proponent to the aforesaid observations is to the satisfaction of the
committee, the proposal may be considered for recommendation for
Clearance.
4.22 CRZ clearance for Permanent stability of
coastal inlet of Uppanor river of Thirumullaivasal
Village, Sirkali Taluk Nagapatinam district, Tamil Nadu by M/s Department of
Fisheries [F.No. 11-115/2010-IA-III]
As
presented by the project proponent, the proposal is for Under the Emergency
Tsunami Reconstruction Project funded by World Bank, it is proposed for
permanent stability of coastal inlets, one at Vellar and one at Uppanar with
the view to improve the number of fishing days and thereby the standard of life
of Fishermen will be improved. The proposed sites were identified by the
Department of Fisheries and the respective Collectors of the District.
Out
of the two projects sanctioned permanent stability of coastal inlet at Uppanar
is in Nagapattinam District, situated in Coromandel Coast is now proposed.
The
Fishing Villages connected through this coastal inlet are well renowned for the
fishing activities as it is a traditional activity and at present, there is no
stabilised coastal inlet in this village. This site was identified by the
Department of Fisheries and Nagapattinam Collector. The works to be undertaken
in this project are construction of a groin of 220 m length to the southernside
of the confluence point of the Uppanar River, dredging of river approach
channel (length-2815 m, width–75 m, depth-1.5 m) and berthing channel
(length-300 m, width-70m, depth-1.5 m), and an approach road 1000 m length and
4 m width. The cost of the project was arrived at Rs. 5.203 Crores.
The
State Coastal Zone Management Authority, during the meeting held on 30.08.2010
resolved to recommend the proposal to the Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of India
During
the discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
Proposed
groyne of 220m long is likely to cause accretion on the southern side and some
erosion on the northern side and this must be monitored and appropriate beach
nourishment measures must be taken if required.
(ii)
Sand by
passing of the dredged channel must be monitored by periodical observations to
ensure smooth functioning of the system.
(iii)
Monitoring
of the water and sediments quality in the estuarine zone as well as the ground
water quality along the stretch of the estuary shall be done on quarterly basis
and reports shall be submitted to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and
Regional office of MoEF at Bangalore, every six months.
The Committee recommended the
proposal for CRZ Clearance with the above conditions in the Clearance letter
for strict compliance by the project proponent.
4.23 CRZ clearance for Re-construction and modernization of existing
Pazhayar Fishing Harbour, Sirkoli Taluk, Nagapattinam district under ETRP,
Tamil Nadu by M/s Department of Fisheries [F.No. 11-116/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the proposed modernization of fishing harbour project is to be located on the
banks of COLEROON River at Pazhayar Village of Nagapattinam District. The
fishing village is well renowned for the fishing activities as it is a
traditional activity and at present, the fishermen of Nagapattinam District are
berthing their boats in the existing facilities and in the river course of
coleroon river at Pazhayar Village. Since the berthing facility as well as the
connected infrastructure facilities are inadequate, the fishermen are compelled
to berth the boats in the river streams which is unsafe and handling of fish is
unhygienic. Hence, it is proposed to reconstruct and modernize the existing
fishing harbour by creating additional infrastructures to cater the need of the
local fishermen.
The activities to be undertaken are
construction of additional Diaphram Wall, Training Wall, Dredging, additional
Auction Hall, Net mending Shed, Gear Locker Shed, Administrative Building, Solid
Waste Management System, Sewerage treatment facility etc. Detailed studies and
project report has been prepared by M/s. SMEC International Pty. Ltd.,
Australia. The cost of the project was arrived at Rs.29.36 Crores.
The State Coastal Zone Management
Authority while recommending the CRZ proposal to Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi has imposed certain conditions while clearing the proposal
and requested the Commissioner of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Government
of Tamil Nadu to submit ground water details from the central ground water
authority.
During discussions, following points
emerged:
(i)
Oil waste
shall be separately collected, treated and recycled.
(ii)
All the
recommendations of the EMP shall be strictly complied with.
(iii)
Construction
activity shall be carried out strictly as per the provisions of CRZ
Notification, 1991. No construction work other than those permitted in Coastal
Regulation Zone Notification shall be carried out in Coastal Regulation Zone
area.
The Committee recommends the proposal
for CRZ Clearance with the above conditions in the clearance letter for strict
compliance.
4.24
CRZ clearance for Construction of Fish Landing Center at R Pudupattinam village
Pudukkottai by M/s Department of Fisheries [F.No. 11-117/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent, the proposal involves the construction of fish landing center at S.F.M. 171/3, R. Pudupattinam village. The total area proposed is 0.33 ha. The fresh water demand will be 14.50 KLD, sea water demand will be 8.20 KLD, Effluent quantity will be 20.30 KLD, and the capacity of the STP will be 20 KLD. The total cost of the project is Rs. 4.40 crores.
The activities to be undertaken are
construction of Auction hall, Netmending Shed, Administrative Office, Toilet
Facilities, Compound Wall, Deep Freeze Hall, Solid Waste Collection Area,
Sewage Treatment Facility, etc.
Earlier, the State Coastal Zone
Management Authority, during the meeting held on 28.08.2009, suggested to
provide improved/ modern techniques to handle the liquid and solid waste
generated within the proposed FLC and also suggested to delete certain
facilities which are not directly related to water front activities. Accordingly, sewage and Trade effluent
treatment plant, Solid waste management, oil spillage measures have been
included and certain facilities have been deleted.
During the discussion, the following
points emerged:
(i)
There
shall be no disposal of untreated waste water into the coastal area.
(ii)
All the
solid waste shall be handled as per the Solid waste Management Rules.
(iii) Construction activity shall be carried
out strictly as per the provisions of CRZ Notification, 1991. No construction
work other than those permitted in Coastal Regulation Zone Notification shall
be carried out in Coastal Regulation Zone area
(iv) There
shall be no drawl of ground water.
(v)
Washing from Auction Hall /Sewage
shall be treated and the Treatment Facility shall be provided in accordance
with the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991. The disposal of treated
water shall confirm the regulation of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
(vi) Putrefied
and discarded parts of fishes shall be removed from the Fish Landing Centre and
disposed off in the approved landfill/ used as manure/ poultry feed.
(vii) Oil
spills if any shall be properly collected and disposed as per the Rules.
The
Committee recommends the proposal for CRZ Clearance with the above conditions
in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by the project proponent.
4.25
CRZ clearance for beach resort at Sy. No. ¼,
25/A, 2/19B, & 434 in Uthandi village Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu by
M/s Malvika Resorts, Chennai [F.
No. 11-119/2010-IA.III].
As presented by the project proponent,
the proposal involves construction of a beach resort at Sy. Nos. 1/4, 2/19B, 25
A, 434 at Uthandi Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu.
The total plot area is 23831.64 sq. m out of which the landscape area will be
4359.84 sq.m, roads and pavements will 2819.94 sq.m. No development zone within
0 - 200 m of HTL is 17487.58 sq.m and the area between 200 -500 m of HTL is
6344.00 sq.m. Total buildup area for the project is 4814.37 sq.m. The proposal
involves the construction of 44 rooms, and parking facilities for 64 cars. The
power required for the project is 2000KWHr/day, which will be sourced from
Tamil Nadu Electrical Board. The project will require water of 20KLD. No drawal
of ground water from the Coastal Regulation Zone area. The water requirement
will be met through our well located outside the CRZ area ie., in S.F.No.3/1A
of Uthandi village, falling about 1 km away from the Project Site. Total Sewage
generated will from project is 18 KLD which will be treated in the 24 KLD
capacity sewage treatment plant. The rainwater harvesting is proposed to
augment the water requirement of the project during season. Zero Discharge
concept of STP is planned in the development by which the sewage generated will
be treated & reused for flushing & landscaping. The estimated cost of
the project is Rs. 20 Crores.
During
the discussion, the following points emerged:
i)
There
shall be no permanent fencing within 0-200 m. from HTL.
ii)
There
shall be no ground water drawal within CRZ area.
iii)
Solid
waste Management shall be as per Municipal Solid (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.
iv)
Public
access to the beach shall be provided.
The Committee recommends the proposal
for CRZ Clearance
with the above conditions in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by the
project proponent.
4.26 CRZ clearance for the construction of
pump house, Sea water Intake and Outfall facilities at Pianapuram Village, Near
Nellore, Andhra Pradesh by M/s Thermal Power Tech Corporation India Ltd. [F.No.11-129/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the project involves the construction of pump house, Sea water Intake and
Outfall facilities at Pianapuram & Nelaturupalem Villages, Muthukur Mandal
SPS Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. Buckingham
canal is 0.10 km (W). A creek is located at a distance of 150 m from the
southern boundary of the plant site.
The
auxiliary facilities are proposed in CRZ areas (i) pump house, outfall tank,
sea water intake & outfall pipelines (ii) coal conveyor corridor crossing
over creek (iii) bridges over Buckingham Canal as part of approach road (iv)
power evacuation corridor (v) diversion road to Nelaturupalem village.
Proposed
marine facilities are: (i) Laying of submarine pipelines (ii) construction of
seawater intake head (iii) construction of warm water outfall. Intake and
Outfall of Sea water intake: Distance: 2000 m and Quantity: 13936 m3/hr.
The Warm Water outfall will be at a Distance: 950 m and Quantity: 8143 m3/hr.
The Initial temperature difference: 40 C and Initial Salinity difference: 19 ppt.
During
the discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
As there
are some changes in the map submitted to State Coastal Zone Management
Authority and the map now submitted to MoEF, the project proponent shall submit
the updated map to the State Coastal Zone Management Authority for review and
recommendations to MoEF.
(ii)
Figure
4.4 - Water Balance - of final EIA report: The water requirement for ash slurry
is 72000 m3/day. But the water requirement should be worked out duly
considering the fly ash to be disposed in accordance with the time schedules
notified under Fly Ash Rules.
(iii)
Figure
4.4 - Water Balance - of final EIA report: Out of 50,400 m3/day of
ash pond effluent, the project proposing to recycle only 1512 m3/day
and remaining quantity of 48,888 m3/day is proposed to recharge into
sea. But the waste water generation should be worked out duly considering the
fly ash to be disposed in accordance with the time schedules notified under Fly
Ash Rules.
(iv)
Figure
4.4 - Water Balance - of final EIA report: The effluent from Central Plant
Monitoring Basin (408 m3/day) is been proposed to dispose for Green Belt
Development. The PP should clarify how this effluent is proposed to dispose
during the rainy days and not to discharge into the creek or sea as the impact
due to discharge into the creek or sea are not assessed in the EIA report.
(v)
Page No.
71 and 72 of Marine EIA report in the impact assessment only “discharge of
warm water” and “discharge of brine reject with chlorine”, were only
discussed. But the impact due to discharge of effluent from ash pond was not
discussed. The dispersion modeling was done only for the parameters – WARM
WATER & BRINE. The impact due to heavy metals in the ash pond effluent is not
addressed. During the presentation the PP informed the committee that they
would adopt zero discharge of effluent from ash pond. The PP should come up
with specific EMP in this regard along with monitoring mechanism planned to
achieve Zero discharge from ash pond.
(vi)
Page No
76 of Marine EIA report: Identified impact during trenching and laying of
submarine pipeline is “Increased turbidity affecting the photosynthetic
process of the water column”. The suggested mitigation is “Controlled
method of dredging with latest technology”. The recommended mitigation is
generic in nature and the EIA consultant should specifically review the
dredging technology proposed by PP and shall give his recommendation
/observation.
(vii)
Page No
80 of Marine EIA report: Mitigation – The return warm water temperature should
be less than 4°C
than the ambient sea water – in the EMP how this will be achieved was not
addressed.
(viii)
Page No
81 of Marine EIA report: Compensation – The activities are related to the sea
and the fishermen are directly affected. Community facilities like school,
hospitals, training centers, self helping groups for females, and sports center
can be established – This requires elaboration as it is stated in the EIA
report itself that the fishermen are directly affected.
(ix)
Page No
81 of Marine EIA report: Coastal
Installation – Compensation: proper access for the public to the shoreline has
to be ensured. The coastal front may be development as good Marine Park with
amusement facility – The EIA consultant should review the layout plan and check
whether the proposed mitigation measure is incorporated while finalizing the
layout or not and should give his assessment on the adequacy.
(x)
MoEF EC
dated 4th November 2009(4(iii)) – The PP has not submitted report on
“Possibility for installation of combined intake with neighboring power
plants shall be examined and in the event of non-feasibility adequate
justification shall be submitted within a period of six month” as per the
EC condition.
(xi)
MoEF EC
dated 4th November 2009(4(xviii)) – Shelter Belt consisting of 3
tiers of plantation around the plant of 100m width and adequate tree density
construction phase – The project proponent should confirm whether the plan now
submitted is complying with the EC condition or not.
(xii)
Attachment
No 7 (plant layout) of final EIA report and CRZ map prepared by Institute of
Remote Sensing, Anna University submitted with marine EIA report is not
tallying with each other. Location of ash pond was not shown in the map
submitted with marine EIA report. The area marked as “Proposed township
area” in CRZ map was marked as “Ash Pond” in final EIA report. As
per CRZ map the alignment of proposed
Marine out fall is straight and whereas as per attachment 7 of Final EIA, the
marine out fall is running straight for certain distance and taking bend there
on. Also as per CRZ map, the outfall is between 14° 20`00`` N and 14º20` 30``N. Where as
the location of the marine out fall as per attachment No 7 is shown near N
1584800.
(xiii)
The
location details of already permitted seawater intake systems and marine out
falls shall be marked in a suitable plan (10 kms from either side of the
proposed marine outfall by the PP).
(xiv)
4.3.4.1
of compensative EIA report – Under the heading “Storm Water Management and
Rain Water harvesting”, the EIA consultant had addressed only rain
harvesting system. The storm water outlet(s) locations and impact on the marine
system especially due to carry over of coal from storage yards should be
addressed.
(xv)
The
proposal covered overflow from the fly ash ponds to be disposed into the sea.
The wet disposal of the fly ash is not encouraged anymore and the overflow from
the ash ponds is to be recycled fully even in the existing plants.
(xvi)
The
proponent is to come up with the correct CRZ map and facilities for dry
disposal of the fly ash.
Due to basic error in the NIO
map submitted to State Coastal Zone Management Authority showing the proposed
facilities and the one finalised later by NIO at the instance of the project
proponent the proposal is deferred and shall be considered afresh after the above observations are addressed and
submitted for reconsideration.
4.27 Finalization
of ToR for common effluent treatment plant 2MLD CETP at Mangarh village
Ludihiana, Punjab by M/s J B R Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [F.No. 10-59/2010 –
IA-III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent did not attend the meeting.
4.28 Finalization of ToR for the development of
phase II of Gangavaran Port from 16.54 MTPA to 40.95 MTPA Cargo handling
Visakhapatnam District Andhra Pradesh by M/s Gangavaram Port Ltd.
[F.No.11-91/2010-IA-III].
As presented by the project proponent,
Gangavaram Port is developed as all
weather multipurpose deepest port in India to handle super cape size vessels
located on the East coast of India approximately 15 km south of Visakhapatnam
Port and acting like gateway port to the existing and green field projects in
the hinterland. At Gangavaram Port presently five berths are under operation to
handle variety of cargoes such as Coal / Iron ore, Fertilizer, Limestone, Food
Grains, and Steel Products etc.
As a
part of expansion, it is proposed to expand the port facilities from 16.54 MTPA
to 41 MTPA to cater for future cargo within the existing port premises at
Gangavaram Village, Pedagantyada mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra
Pradesh. The existing Project already received Environmental Clearance under
EIA & CRZ notifications vide letter No.10-14/2009-IA.III dt.19th
March, 2010.
The
following facilities proposed to be planned at Gangavaram port to handle the
above mentioned future traffic up to year 2015:
·
One mechanized coal berth to handle cape size coal
carrier.
·
Three multipurpose berths to handle
multipurpose/General cargo.
Dredging
to the extent of 4.88 million cubic meters will be carried out in front of the
berths and near turning basin. The
dredged material will be pumped onshore for reclamation of the port backup
areas.
The
other associated facilities like Buildings, Storage, roads, railways, water, power,
drainage, sewage, pollution control including Dust suppression system, greenery
fire fighting system etc. are planned to be provided.
10
Additional Rail sidings will be developed within port premises to take on
additional cargo evacuation. No additional land requirement as sufficient land
is available within existing port premises. The water requirement will be 1000
m3/day in addition to existing 600 m3/day of Phase I and will be sourced from Visakha
International Water Supply Company. The Power requirement will be 5 MVA in
addition to 9 MVA of existing Phase – I and will be sourced from APTRANSCO.
Adequate dust suppression measures will be installed in addition to existing
sprayers. Zero waste water discharge shall be maintained by utilising treated waste
water for dust suppression & green belt development. Total development
green belt is 106 acres and further 40 acres will be developed before January,
2011. The total cost of the project is Rs. 800 crores.
During
the discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
Hydrodynamic
studies to ensure that the proposed expansion does not have any significant
impact to the shoreline abutting the project must be carried out.
(ii)
The
adequacy of existing storm water drain to meet the requirements of the proposed
facilities must be confirmed.
(iii)
Dredging
and disposal mechanism shall be included on the basis of modeling study.
(iv)
The port
has been in operation for the past three years and the current status of both
terrestrial and marine environment must be available along with appropriate
mitigative measures, EMP, DMP, Risk management etc.
(v)
Additional
impact arising out of handling new cargo such as caustic soda, bulk alumina,
IRM cargo etc at the berth and at storage /evacuation zones must be identified
and the system must be augmented to meet the present requirement in terms of
risk assessment, EMP, DMP etc.
(vi)
The
facilities planned by the port (for which the EC is now sought) and the
facilities planned for the development by the developers shall be furnished
with roles and responsibilities.
(vii)
A
comprehensive EIA shall be prepared for the port as a whole including the
proposed expansion and submitted to the ministry-showing construction phase and
operational phase.
(viii)
The
possibility of deploying closed conveyor system in place of conventional grab
unloader system may be explored with a view to minimizing possible airborne
fugitive emissions inherent with the latter system.
(ix)
An
overall review of the existing handling methods and the proposed ones for the
expansion facilities may be made keeping in view the environmental requirements
vis a vis the productivity parameters.
(x)
The EIA
to include complete characterization of the sediments at least for toxic metals
namely Antimony, Arsenic, Berilium, Cadmium, Chromium +6, Chromium
total, Mercury and lead. The water quality monitoring parameters should also
include these metals.
(xi)
The
impact of the dredging material and disposal of the dredged material should be
studied in-depth depending upon the toxic metal contents of this material and
the location of its disposal, using modelling studies.
(xii)
The cargo
proposed to be handled include use of the berthing facilities by other parties
even for chemicals like caustic soda. The port is required to take the entire
responsibility of the material handling in the port area including the berthing
facilities and the EIA should be done accordingly.
(xiii) The EIA should include the
environmental status in the context of the compliance by the existing port
activities.
In
addition to the above, the TOR already contained in Annexure 1 of Ports and
Harbours Guidance manual shall also be referred and the details shall be
included in the EIA/EMP accordingly. The project proponent can refer to the model ToR
and EIA guidance manual available on Ministry website “http://moef.nic.in/Manual”.
4.29
Finalization
of ToR for construction of Captive Jetty at Kandla, Gujarat by M/s Indian
Farmers Fertilisers Co- Operative Ltd [F.No.11-93/2010-IA-III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent did not attend the meeting.
4.30
Finalization
of TOR for proposed twin jetties with a common deck in property bearing sy No.
18/2, 18/3, 18/4, 18/5, 19/2and 20/1 at village Cotombi, Bicholim Taluka,
District North Goa, State Goa, [F.No. 11-104/2010-IA-III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent requested for postponement.
4.31
Finalization
of ToR for establishing Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility at Sector#4, SIDCUL – Haridwar, Uttrakhand by M/s
Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd.[F. No. 11-105/2010-IA.III]
As
presented by the project proponent, the SIDCUL-Haridwar is an approved Industrial Estate
by MoEF and State of Uttrakhand housing over 400 Industries, residential
complex and commercial shops. SIDCUL had proposed Solid Waste Management
facility in Sector# 4 in 2003 to MoeF & State of Uttrakhand during its
planned Industrial township. As of date, there is no municipal solid waste
management facility currently in SIDCUL-Haridwar or Haridwar district. The
proposed facility would help in collection, reception, storage, treatment and
disposal of all municipal solid waste.
The disposal of municipal waste would be through
segregation of waste. The inorganic and insert waste will be disposed in the
secured landfill cell with dual composite HDPE liner, leachate management, gas
monitoring per CPCB guideline. The facility will adhere to CPCB guideline and
MSW rules 2000, HW Act 2008 or as amended revised time to time. The facility
will provide all necessary components of a treatment storage disposal facility
(TSDF) as required in MSW rules 2000 or as amended. This is a EIA Category-B
project but the location of site within SIDCUL industrial area is 5Km, which is
less than 10Km from Rajaji National Park, so its referred to the MoEF. The project
is inside the approved industrial area, site identification notified in 2004 by
MoEF. The project is classified as Infrastructure and would help reduce impact
to environment and habitat through centralized and scientific waste processing.
The site is in
SIDCUL-Haridwar notified industrial area in Sector# 4, owned, selected by
SIDCUL and leased to BOWML. There is no sensitive zone/ area near the site as
per the guidelines and information for the selection of Landfill Sites.
·
3 Km from NH-58, No religious place within 500 m
radius.
·
No river within 500 m radius; No human population
within 500 m radius.
·
294 m above Sea Level; The Ganges River is
approx. 4km away.
·
Rajaji National Park Forest is 5km away; Flora
& Fauna – None within 500m.
·
Nearest railway station is at Haridwar (distance
4 Km).
·
Nearest airport is at Dehradun (distance 60 km).
During the discussions, the
Committee finalized the following additional TOR for further study:
(i) The project should be designed based on the population projections as by Master Plan.
(ii) Submit a copy of the MoU entered with different industries regarding the quantity and type of waste generation along with the Terms of Conditions of the MoU. Also submit the details of list of industries from where it will be collected.
(iii) Submit a 10 km. radius map (on survey of India toposheet) showing co-ordinates of project site, national highway, state highway, district road/approach road, river, canal, natural drainage; protected areas, under Wild Life (Protection) Act, archaeological site, natural lake, flood area, human settlements (with population), industries, high tension electric line, prominent wind direction (summer and winter), effluent drain, if any and ponds etc. should be presented and impacts assessed on the same.
(iv) Rajaji National Park is within 10 km of the site. Examine the impact of the above facility.
(v) Examine and submit details of alternative technologies viz. RDF shall also be evolved.
(vi) Examine and submit details of storm water/ leachate collection from the composted area.
(vii) Examine and submit details of monitoring of water quality around the landfill site. Water analysis shall also include for nitrate and phosphate.
(viii) Examine and submit details of the odour control measures.
(ix) Examine and submit details of impact on water bodies/rivers/ ponds and mitigative measures during rainy season.
(x) Submit the criteria for assessing waste generation.
(xi) Submit a copy of the layout plan of project site showing solid waste storage, green belt (width & length, 33% of the project area), all roads, prominent wind direction, processing plant & buildings etc. should be provided.
(xii) Submit a copy of the land use certificate from the competent authority.
(xiii) Submit a copy of the status of ambient air quality and surface and ground water quality, soil type, cropping pattern, land use pattern, population, socio-economic status, anticipated air and water pollution.
(xiv) Submit the details of Odour Management system.
(xv) Submit a copy of the topography of the area indicating whether the site requires any filling, if so, the details of filling, quantity of fill material required, its source and transportation, etc.
(xvi) Examine and submit the details of impact on the drainage and nearby habitats/settlements (surroundings).
(xvii) Examine and submit the details of surface hydrology and water regime and impact on the same.
(xviii) Examine and submit the details of one complete season AAQ data (except monsoon) with the dates of monitoring, impact of the project on the AAQ of the area (including H2S, CH4).
(xix) Submit a copy of detailed plan of waste management.
(xx) Submit the details of sanitary land fill site impermeability and whether it would be lined, if so details thereof.
(xxi) Submit the details of assessment of the site in view of impact on smooth movement in religious/pilgrimage areas.
(xxii) Examine and submit the details of impact on environmental sensitive areas.
(xxiii) Examine and submit the details of rehabilitation/compensation package for the project effected people, if any.
(xxiv) Submit Environmental Management Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan with costs and parameters.
Public
hearing to be conducted for the project as per provisions of Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and the issues raised by the public should
be addressed in the Environmental Management Plan.
A
detailed draft EIA/EMP report should be prepared as per the above additional
TOR and should be submitted to the Ministry as per the Notification.
4.32
Finalization
of TOR for CETP of 30 MLD Capacity at Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Punjab by M/s
Tajpur Road Dyeing & Industries Association. [F.No.11-126/2010-IA-III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent did not attend the meeting.
4.33
Finalization
of ToR for the construction of Fishing Jetty at Katem baina, Mormuga, Goa by
M/s Mormuga Port Trust [F.No. 11-127/2010-IA-III]
The Committee recommended to
transfer the project to SEIAA, Goa as the project falls under Category ‘B’.
There are complaints also which may also be referred to SEIAA to examine while
appraising the project. The Proponent has to come for clearance under CRZ
Notification, 1991 with recommendation of the Goa Coastal Zone Management
Authority.
4.34
Finalization
of ToR for the Development of Coal Terminal at Berth No. 11 at Mormugaon Port
Trust M/s Mormugao Port Trust [F.No. 11-128/2010-IA-III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the proposal is at berth no. 11 is an existing multi purpose cargo berth. Due
to the demand of coal imports for the steel industries primarily within Goa
about 1.5 million tons of coal is handled at this berth. Due to the proximity
of berth no. 11 with Vasco City, and since coal is handled by semi mechanised
means coal dust pollution is experienced at Vasco City. PILs have been filed in
court against the alleged coal dust pollution caused in the city. The Goa State
Pollution Control Board has suggested that coal should be stacked in covered
storage facility at berth no 11. The court has been informed about this.
The existing berth no 11 will be used
for berthing of vessels. This berth may have been strengthened. 4 nos covered
storage domes/sheds will be constructed with a storage capacity of about 80,000
tonnes. The entire handling operations will be mechanised including screw type
unloaders to prevent pollution. In motion loading of coal will be installed for
quick and pollution free loading of coal.
The committee expressed its
displeasure over the scanty way the TOR has been proposed. The Committee
advised that the guidelines proposed in Ports & Harbours suitably tailored
to meet the requirements be followed on the basis of data already available and
experience gained over a period of time in handling similar type of cargo.
The committee noted the project the
proposed handling system deploying closed conveyor, domes for storage, screw
type unloaders etc would bring about almost a dust free coal handling system
and the environmental impact would be minimal.
It was brought to the notice of the committee that the present expansion
was being proposed under the specific orders of the Hon’ble High court and the
state Pollution Control Board.
Basically, the proposed development
consists of two components:
i)
Mechanisation
of the existing coal handling operations to minimize dust pollution to the
Vasco City which is just next door as permitted by the Court.
ii)
Proponent’s
proposal to expand the facilities for handling additional volume of cargo.5
The Committee is of the view that in
as much as the Court has given permission only for mechanization of the
existing coal handling practices without mentioning the volume, item (i) alone
can be taken up in the first instance and the environmental issues may be
monitored for two years after mechanization, and a separate proposal may be
submitted for expansion or otherwise as mentioned in item (ii) keeping in view
the close proximity of the Vasco City and its vulnerability for exposure to
adverse environmental conditions due to handling of dusty cargo.
During discussions, following points
emerged:
(i)
Hydrodynamic
studies to ensure that the proposed expansion does not have any significant
impact to the shoreline abutting the project must be carried out.
(ii)
Dredging
and disposal mechanism shall be included on the basis of modeling study.
(iii)
The port
has been in operation for the past three years and the current status of both terrestrial
and marine environment must be available along with appropriate mitigative
measures, EMP, DMP, Risk management, firefighting facilities etc.
(iv)
Impact
arising out of handling coal at the Berth 11 due to mechanization and at
storage/evacuation zones must be identified and the system must be augmented to
meet the present requirement in terms of risk assessment, EMP, DMP etc.
(v)
A
comprehensive EIA shall be prepared for the port as a whole including the
proposed expansion and submitted to the ministry-showing construction phase and
operational phase.
(vi) In view of Vasco City being within the close proximity of the project adequate measures in terms of green belt etc must be implemented. The situation must be continuously monitored to ensure no adverse impact on environment at all times to Vasco City.
(vii) Committee observed that the proposed activity must comply with the Court Order in letter and spirit.
(viii)
The EIA
to include complete characterization of the sediments at least for toxic metals
namely Antimony, Arsenic, Berilium, Cadmium, Chromium +6, Chromium
total, Mercury and lead. The water quality monitoring parameters should also
include these metals.
(ix)
The
impact of the dredging and disposal of the dredged material should be studied
in-depth depending upon the toxic metal contents of this material and the
location of its disposal, using modelling studies. To avoid PIL litigations in
future the possibility of shifting/grouping of all coal handling facilties to
other berths on the north leaving Berth 11(which is very close to Vasco City)
exclusively for clean cargo may also be studied as a permanent solution.
(x)
Submit a
copy of the court order.
Public
hearing to be conducted for the project as per provisions of Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and the issues raised by the public should
be addresses in the Environmental Management Plan.
A detailed draft EIA/EMP report should be prepared as per the above additional TOR
and should be submitted to the Ministry as per the EIA Notification, 2006.
3rd
Day: 2nd December, 2010:
3. Reconsideration of Old Proposals
3. 5 Environmental
Clearance for Residential Group Housing “Palm Garden”
at Village Sahnewal Khurd, Bilga Mazara, District Ludhiana, Punjab by M/s. Malhotra Land Developers & Colonizers Pvt. Ltd [F.No.SEAC-163/2010-IA.III]
The project
proponent not circulated the documents & not attended the meeting.
The committee recommended to defer the project.
3.6 Environmental
Clearance for Residential Housing “Parsvnath Greens”
at Village Sadhe Majra, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, Punjab by M/s. Prasvnath Developers Ltd [F.No.SEAC- 167/2010- IA.III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the project involves the construction
of Township on a total plot area of 20.10 hectares. The total built-up area of
the project is 72, 030.6 Sq. m. The total water requirement is 1883 MLD (Fresh
water -732 KLD). The capacity of STP proposed is 120 KLD. Treated waste water
to be used for flushing is 453 KLD, horticulture 76 KLD and fire fighting -12
KLD. The total Municipal Solid waste generation will be 5.67 MT/day. The power
requirement will be about 8500 KW. The total parking proposed are 970 ECS.
Total cost of the project is Rs 118.4 Crores.
The proposal was considered by the
State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) at its meetings held on 9.1.2010,
2.4.2010 at Punjab State Pollution Control Board, Patiala. The EAC examined the
details submitted and presented by the project proponent.
During
the discussions following points emerged:
(i)
For construction purpose, the
surface water should be obtained
and no ground water shall
be used.
The Committee
recommended the proposal for environmental Clearance with the
above condition in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by the project
proponent.
3.7 Environmental Clearance for Integrated
Residential-cum-Commercial township “Pearls City” at Sector-100 & 104 of
Mohali Master Plan, Mohali, Punjab by M/s. PACL India Ltd
[F.No.SEAC-174/2010-IA.III]
The project
proponent not circulated the documents & not attended the meeting.
3.8 Environmental Clearance for Residential
group housing project “SPB Homes” at Karar, District Mohali, Punjab by M/s.
Vishav Real estates Pvt. Ltd [F.No.SEAC-179/2010-IA.III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the project involves construction of a Residential Group Housing on a
plot area of 22,458 sq.m. The total built-up area of the project is 29,820
Sq.m. The total water requirement is 244 KLD (freshwater -150 KLD). The
capacity of STP proposed is 200 KLD. Total Municipal waste generated is 666
Kg/day. The power requirement is about 1600 KW. Total cost of the project is
Rs. 35 crores.
The
proposal was considered by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) in its
meetings held on 9.1.2010, 2.4.2010 at Punjab State Pollution Control Board,
Patiala. The details submitted and presented by the project proponent was
examined by the EAC.
During
the discussions following points emerged:
i)
All the
licenses should be in the same name. Submit the undertaking.
ii)
Submit
status of the project including the site photographs.
iii)
Submit a
copy of the permission from the Central Ground Water Authority.
iv)
Pert
chart for construction should be revised. Submit details.
v)
Undertaking
to be submitted for Water conservation measures adopted in the project.
vi)
Periodic
submission of standby water uses for ground water.
vii)
For
construction purposes, the surface water should be obtained and no ground water
should be used.
Provided the response of the project
proponent to the aforesaid observations is to the satisfaction of the
committee, the proposal may be considered for recommendation for
Clearance.
3.9 Environmental Clearance for Township project
“Golf Links” at Sector-118, Mohali, Punjab by M/s. Ansal Properties &
Infrastructure Ltd [F.No.SEAC-187/2010-IA.III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the project involves the construction
of Township on a total plot area is 9,19,850.46 Sq.m. The total built-up area
proposed is 2,52,330 Sq. m. The total water requirement is 2580 KLD (Fresh
water -2042 KLD & treated water 538 KLD). The total capacity of STP
proposed is 250 KLD+ 3x500 KLD + 314 KLD = (2064 KLD). Treated waste water to
be used for flushing of toilets is 538 KLD and horticulture 1526 KLD. Total
Municipal waste generated will be 7758 kg/day. The power requirement is about
24 MW. The total parking proposed are 1176 ECS. Total cost of the project is Rs
431 Crores.
The
Environmental Clearance to the above project was issued by MoEF for 168.09
acres (File No. 21-510/2007-IA.III). The revised project submitted to SEAC was
for 227.30 acres.
The
proposal was considered by the State level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) at
its meetings held on 28.11.2009 and 2.4.2010 and asked project proponent to
submit a copy of the permission from CGWA for abstraction of groundwater @2064
KLD. The project proponent submitted CGWA permission for only 1494 KLD and
informed that they have applied for 2064 KLD.
The Committee recommended the proposal
with a condition that permission shall be obtained from CGWA and a copy shall
be submitted to the Ministry.
3.10 Environmental
Clearance for Residential Apartments “Silver Palms” at Jalandhar-Nakodar Road,
Jalandhar, Punjab by M/s. PPR Associates [F.No.SEAC-190/2010-IA.III]
The project
proponent not circulated the documents & not attended the meeting.
4. Consideration
of New Proposals
4.35
Environmental Clearance for
Multiproduct Andhra Pradesh SEZ at Achutapuram and Rambilli Mandals,
Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh by M/s. Andhra Pradesh Industrial
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd [F.No.21-379/2007-IA.III]
As
presented by the project proponent, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure
Corporation Limited (APIIC), an undertaking of Government of Andhra Pradesh
(GoAP) is the Nodal Agency for development of Multiproduct Special Economic
Zone in Atchutapuram and Rambilli Mandals of Visakhapatnam District, Andhra
Pradesh (APSEZ). Department of Industries and Commerce, GoAP issued an Order
vide G.O.Ms.No151 on April 09, 2002 and the APSEZ was subsequently notified by GoI
on April 12, 2007. EAC, New Construction and Industrial Estate Projects, MoEF
has approved the ToR for EIA Study vide letter no: F. No: 21-379 / 2007-IA.III
of October 26, 2007 and public consultation was held on July 23, 2010.
The
project area is 5,683 acres (2300 hectares) and the land has been acquired
completely for the project. The site coordinates are 170 29’ 23” N and 170 32’ 47.5” N and
800 56’ 58” E and 800 00’ 57” E and it is about 40 km
south-west of Visakhapatnam City and 3.0 km south of Atchutapuram. The
processing area in APSEZ occupies an area of 5479 acres and comprises of
industrial plots, infrastructure facilities, logistics areas, common amenities
and green/open areas etc. Entire processing area of APSEZ has been divided into
five different Industrial Zones. The remaining 204 acres has been identified as
non processing area and comprises of township and social infrastructure
facilities such as educational and medical facilities.
In
order to ensure adequate circulation within the SEZ, the internal roads with a
Right of Way (RoW) of 55m, 50m, 45m, 40m, 30m and 15 m are proposed. A
dedicated rail corridor connecting the Logistics hub is also proposed. Water
requirement for APSEZ is estimated at 100 MLD which will be sourced from Yeluru
Left Main Canal and a 60 MLD desalination plant is being planned considering
the ultimate demand of fully developed SEZ. Power requirement for APSEZ is 500
MW which will be sourced from APTRANSCO’s 132 kV feeder line near Atchutapuram
and captive power plant (500 MW) is proposed in APSEZ to facilitate
uninterrupted power supply. A common effluent treatment plant (CETP) of 31 MLD
and provision for guard pond is planned for the detention of treated wastewater
for about 3.5 days. Based on mathematical model studies, a marine outfall
system is proposed to discharge the treated wastewater from APSEZ at (-) 19 m
CD in Bay of Bengal and point of discharge is located at a distance of about
~3.5 km from shore. Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) of 7.0 MLD capacity is proposed
in Non-processing area and sewage generated in processing area shall be sent to
CETP for treatment and disposal. Hazardous waste generated from APSEZ shall be
sent to nearby Transport Storage Disposal Facility (TSDF). As a part of
sustainable environmental management plan of APSEZ, it is proposed to maintain
a dedicated TSDF in an area of 50 acres of land which can be operated for a
period of 30 years outside SEZ premises. Greenbelt/Green Areas proposed to be
developed at SEZ level is 860 acres.
National
Institute of Oceanography (NIO) was engaged for demarcation of HTL, LTL and CRZ
area. As per the NIO report, SEZ site is located at about one kilometer from
the HTL of open sea and 100 m away from Pudimadaka creek. The project
development area does not fall or contain any environmentally sensitive areas
as specified in CRZ Notification and that the project area meets the
regulations of CRZ notification, 1991 (as amended). The proposed marine outfall
system for the disposal of treated wastewater from the SEZ passes the CRZ which
is a permissible activity as per the CRZ notification.
During
discussions, following points emerged:
(i)
The roles
and responsibilities of the project developer and individual members with
reference to treatment and disposal of the wastes and monitoring of the
environmental parameters should be addressed. This has been already mentioned
in TOR (Condition No 28) Model agreement copy between the project developer and
member industries covering environmental aspects, with the roles and
responsibilities. In case of non compliance of meeting inlet norms to the CETP,
what is the course of action planned by the SEZ developer
(ii)
Chapter 2
(Page 2-1): The recommendations of the report on “Qualitative Environmental
and Social Assessment Study for APSEZ” should be furnished along with the
incorporation made in the EIA report, if any. The observations /
recommendations of German Technical Cooperation and Bayer Technology Services
made in the review of Master planning and infrastructure planning of APSEZ should be furnished along with the
incorporation made in the EIA report, if any
(iii)
Chapter 2
(Page 2-8): It was stated that APSEZ is planned and designed resulting in “Reduction
of specific usage of natural resources (energy, raw materials, water) in
production processes of selected industrial sectors” – but how this will be
implemented was not discussed in the EIA report.
(iv)
Page No
2-9 justification for classifying speciality chemical as low polluting and low
hazardous category industry.
(v)
Table 2-6
Water Demand Breakup (Page No 2 of 16). The basis on which the water demand is
worked out should be furnished. Whether water consumption for proposed 500MW
power plant is also included in the estimated demand or not?
(vi)
The basis
of estimation of 31 MLD of process effluent should be addressed. Expected
quantities of wastewater generation from each zone should be addressed. The
excepted wastewater from the power plant of 500 MW and petro chemical complex
and point of disposal should be addressed. Whether wastewater quantity from the
power plant is included in the 31MLD or not?
(vii)
Page No
2-19: It was stated until APSEZ develops CEPT facility, it is proposed to
utilise Brandix Textile and Apparel SEZ CEPT (which is already under
implementation) by upcoming APSEZ industrial units – no scientific data on the
suitability of the Brandix out fall was furnished in the EIA report. These
types of vague recommendations in the EIA report are not acceptable. The EIA
report should cover specific EMP with details especially on important aspects
such as disposal systems.
(viii)
The
applicable notifications and standards for CETP (inlet and outlet) and marine
discharge standards are not discussed in the EIA report.
(ix)
Process
flow diagram of CETP (FDO206)- efficiency of unit operations of proposed ETP
and design basis to establish that the proposed CETP will be meeting the
parameters mentioned in table 2-11.Whether the CETP receives the effluent from
power plant /petro chemical units / petro chemical units or not? If yes, type
of the fuel of the power plant and excepted wastewater quantity and quality.
Also, the process flow diagram given at
FDO206 is not tallying with presentation slide No 19.
(x)
Table 4-1
Industrial Emission Characteristics – The details of assumption such as type of
the industries, fuel, quantity of the fuel, whether the emissions are with APC
or without APC should be furnished. It also to be clarified whether the
emissions from the proposed power plant and petro chemical units are considered
or not. The SPM and NOx from some of the stacks are reported as NIL
requires clarification.
(xi)
Table 4-4
and 4-5 the anticipated SO2 and NOx at Yathapalem are
68.03 µg/m3 and 70.67 µg/m3. It is nearer to the 24hrs
limit of 80µg/m3of NAAQ Standards. The annual standard for SO2
and NOx are only 50µg/m3 and 40 µg/m3. The PP
should review the air quality management from SEZ and furnish suitable plan of
action.
(xii)
Page
4-21: The sewage of 7 MLD is planned to use for green belt after treatment –
The method of disposal during the rainy period should be addressed.
(xiii)
Page
4-23: odour measurement through instrument method for know compounds and sensor
method for unknown substance / source specific (point source as well as
diffused source) standard for odour emission to be evolved. Submit details.
(xiv)
Page 6-4:
Monitoring of influent of CETP is not planned. The same shall be clarified.
CETP outlet is planned for monitoring once in a month. Adequacy of the same
shall be furnished. Laboratory infrastructure proposed should be furnished. Selection criteria for AAQM stations shall
be furnished. The maximum GLC values are reported at Yathapalem. But, in the
post project-monitoring program this location was not included. The same
requires clarification.
(xv)
Table
6-1: Details of the water sprinkling system for dust suppression proposed with
a capital cost of Rs 800 lakhs should be furnished in detail with
justification.
(xvi)
Page No
7-33: Plan of action to implement the recommendations mentioned at 7.4.7 of the
report.
(xvii)
Presentation
slide 18: Solar Water Heating will be
mandatory – Clarification shall be furnished.
(xviii)
The
entire processing area of 5479 acres has been proposed to be divided into 5
industrial zones. The zone I and zone IV are proposed for the engineering
sector, zone II for the petroleum and petrochemical, zone III for the
formulation and fine chemicals and zone V for specialty chemicals. The
different type of industrial units that are proposed to be setup in these zones
(page 2-9 to 2-11of the EIA report) include units that are different from what
a specific zone has been proposed for. The examples of these are, (a) inclusion
of metal processing industries like forging units, production of glass,
ceramics and dimensional stones in zone I and IV kept for engineering sector,
(b) inclusion of inorganic chemicals, fertilizers, alkalis and dyes, textiles
and even agro chemicals in zone II kept for petroleum and petrochemical sector,
(c) inclusion of surgical items, soap and detergents, oil reclamation units and
lead acid battery reconditioning units in zone III kept for formulation and
fine chemicals sector, and (d) the inclusion of basic chemicals cum
petro-chemicals etc in zone V kept for specialty chemicals. The planning of the
establishment of different industrial units within a zone itself is not compatible.
It appears that the grouping has been done entirely on the economic/profit
point of view and it cannot be a sustainable development.
(xix)
The
allotment of the industrial land to industrial units achieved so far is only
246 hectares out of these 3527 acres kept for this purpose. This is just about
7% of the total industrial land and not even 5% of the total processing area of
5479 proposed. The entire EIA report including the selection of the monitoring
stations (water, air, soil and sediment), the selection of the monitoring
parameters, the analysis of the results in the context of the environmental
impacts of the proposed industrial activity are based on the assumption of the
industries, which are not even known to the extent of 93%. It may be specially
noted that characteristics of the wastewater given in appendix ‘F’ of the
Questionnaire for Environmental Appraisal shows the expected treated wastewater
quality from the CETP worst than the inlet water quality to the CETP in respect
of many parameters and no change in respect of some of the parameters including
oil and grease. This further supports the comment given under para (i) above
that the details of the industrial units is not known. It may also mentioned
here that the revision of the standards for Oil and Grease from 20 mg/l to 10
mg/l for discharge of the treated effluent from CETP into the marine system
already notified by MoEF in September 2010, is not known to the proponent.
(xx)
The
contents of para 2.7.5 (page 2-19 of the EIA report) in respect of the effluent
collection and treatment cover meaningless/vague statements. The heavy metal
treatment has been taken as primary treatment which the proponent expects to
make it mandatory for all the industrial units without even knowing the
industries and also whether the provisions of the Environmental Legislation
empowers the proponent to do so. The effluent discharge into CETP as well as
the discharge of the treated water from the CETP has to be as per the standards
notified under the EP Act.
(xxi)
It is stated
that until APSEZ develops its CETP facility, the Brandix Textile Apparel SEZ
(BTASEZ) CETP which is already under implementation will be used for the
treatment of effluents from Zone I, VI and V. In other words the operation of
the industries in the propose SEZ has been assumed to get permission to operate
even before the commissioning of the CETP for this project. It is not
understandable how the treatability of the effluents from this SEZ and the
availability of the surplus capacity into the BTASEZ for this purpose has been
assumed by the proponent.
(xxii)
The
drainage system proposed for conveyance of the effluents from industries to
CETP is very complex and the segregation of the effluents at the industry level
is not practically possible for such a conveyance system.
(xxiii)
It is
proposed (para 2.7.6 of the EIA report) to lay an outfall pipeline parallel to
the BTASEZ outfall pipeline in the same R.O.W already acquired. The laying of
the separate pipeline here is contradicting to the use of the BTASEZ CETP for
treatment effluents as given in para 2.7.5. The capacity of the proposed APSEZ
pipeline has not even been mentioned in the report. Moreover it is not
understandable how the pipeline can be designed without knowing the details of
the industrial units to the extent of 93% and the requirement of the CETP. It
is further stated under para 2.7.7 that 1.2 MLD of the sewage generated from
the processing area will be sent to CETP for treatment without any
justification in regard to its treatability in the CETP.
(xxiv)
The
details of the solid waste generation and its treatment and disposal given
under para 2.7.8 are meaningless in view of the non-availability of the
specific data corresponding to the 93% of the industrial activity. The
hazardous waste generated is proposed to be sent to the nearby TSDF without any
support in regard to the availability of surplus capacity in the TSDF.
(xxv)
There is
no explanation of the irractic trend in the sediment quality in regard to TOC
and heavy metals data given under para 3.9.3 of the report. On the contrary the
sediment composition for its clay
content has been reported to be in the range of 93.56% to
98.59% i.e. more or less a uniform composition.
(xxvi)
The
proponent may be asked to finalize the industrial activity to the extent of
full area available, group the units on the basis of their environmental
compatibility and sustainability, finalize the specific location of each in the
proposed zone, obtain process details and emission/discharge requirements from
each of these, plan the location, capacity/marine outfall of the CETP/STP
accordingly and come up with a revised proposal and EIA report for
consideration.
The committee recommended to defer the project.
4.36 Environmental Clearance for proposed SEZ
project “Nest Hi-Tek Park” at Sy.No.321, Kalamassery, District Ernakulam,
Kerala by M/s. Nest High Tek Park Pvt. Ltd. [F.No.21-34/2009-IA.III]
The project
proponent not circulated the documents on time and members have not received
the documents. Therefore, the committee deferred the project to next EAC
meeting.
4.37 Environmental
Clearance for Residential Apartments “Silver Heights” at Village Boota, Nakodar
Road, Jalandhar, Punjab by M/s. PPR Associates [F.No.SEAC-191/2010-IA.III]
The Committee decided to defer the
project, since the project proponent did not attend the meeting.
4.38 Environmental
Clearance for a Hotel Complex “Apna
Punjab Homes” at Canal Road adjoining South City, Barewal, Ludhiana, Punjab by
M/s. Apna Punjab Homes Ltd. [No: 21-35/2010-IA.III]
The project
proponent not circulated the documents & not attended the meeting.
4.39 Environmental Clearance for “Royale Empire” at village pirmacchala,
NAC Zirakpur Dist. Mohali, Punjab by M/s. Royale Empire
[F.No.21-36/2010-IA.III]
The project
proponent not circulated the documents & not attended the meeting.
4.40
Environmental Clearance for Swami
Vivekanand Institute of Engineering and Technology (SVIET) at Banur, Ram Nagar,
Distt Patiala, Punjab by M/s. Swami Vivekanand Group of Institutes, Chandigarh
[ F.No:21-37/2010-IA.III]
The project
proponent not circulated the documents & not attended the meeting.
4.41 Finalization of ToR for Township & Area Development Project
at Sector 66, 66-A Junction to NH-64 near village Chhat in Urban Estate, SAS
Nagar, Molai, Punjab by M/s. Divisional Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1,
Mohali [F.No.21-38/2010-IA.III]
As presented
by the project proponent, the project involves the development of mixed land-use on a total plot area is 312.14 Hectares.
The total water requirement is 17958 KLD. The power requirement is 20 MVA. The
total parking proposed for 1826 ECS. Total cost of the project is Rs 1311.27
Crores.
During the discussions, the Committee
finalised the following ToR for further studies:
(i)
The
project falls under category ‘B1’ under item 8(b) – Township and Area
Development projects and requires an Environmental Impact Assessment Studies,
the total site area is 312.14 ha.
(ii)
Examine
the land use of the project in the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan of Mohali
and its permissible uses.
(iii)
Give process wise breakup of water consumption with
their fulfilling source.
(iv)
A site
plan showing the project site and its surrounding with physical features,
meteorology 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 background information.
(v)
Examine and submit details of buildings to be constructed with details of built
up area.
(vi)
Examine
in detail the proposed site with reference to impact on existing infrastructure
covering water supply, storm water drainage, sewerage, power, etc., and the
disposal of treated /raw wastes from the project on land and ground water or
sewerage system.
(vii)
The project is coming next
to National Highway on one side and the agricultural fields on the other side
of the project site. Submit details of connecting in relation to the Highway.
The buffer zone from national highway in consultation with NIH.
(viii)
Examine
entry/exit of the project including the crossings from the highway and
provision of service roads. There seems to be conflict between entries for
commercial and residential areas. Examine entry and exit details separately for
residential and commercial.
(ix)
Furnish details on precautions & road safety
measures as per NHAI guidelines.
(x)
Study the
socio-economic situation of the project area and its surroundings and their
impact on the project design and operation.
(xi)
Study the
existing flora and fauna of the area and the impact of the project on them.
(xii)
Study the
hydrological and geo-hydrological conditions of the project area. Include a
contour plan indicating slopes and showing drainage pattern and outfall. The
contour plan presented has a very few spot levels and no contours. The total
site topography should be examined with detailed contours to analyze.
(xiii)
Submit
details of location of proposed and existing bore wells.
(xiv)
Examine and submit details about the resettlement
and rehabilitation of project-affected persons, in accordance with the national
resettlement and rehabilitation
policy.
(xv)
Submit
development strategy for the proposed project.
(xvi)
Give details of sewage treatment plant and use of
treated waste water.
(xvii) Examine and
submit details of natural drainage near the proposed project site. Storm water drainage and outfall should
be described in detail. Storm water should be worked out on the basis of peak
hourly runoff and the storage of rainwater should be based on daily runoff.
Segregate terrace and surface runoff.
(xviii)
Rain
water harvesting proposals should be made with due safeguards for ground water
quality. Maximise
recycling of water and utilisation of rain water. Fresh water should not be
used for flushing of toilets. Use treated waste water first for flushing, then
for horticulture and then for HVAC.
(xix)
Assess soil
erosion in view of soil characteristics, topography and rainfall pattern.
(xx)
Examine and submit details of power requirement and
their supplying & back-up source. Application of renewable
energy/alternate energy, such as solar and wind energy may be described in
kWh/sq.m./annum. Provide solar PV for daytime lighting of corridors and common
areas.
(xxi)
Diesel
power generating sets, if proposed, as source of back up power for elevators
and common area illumination during construction/operation phase should be of
enclosed type and conform to rules made under the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 and guidelines issued by CPCB.
(xxii)
The
height of stack of DG sets should be equal to the height needed for the
combined capacity of all proposed DG sets.
The location of the DG sets may be decided with in consultation with
Punjab State Pollution Control Board.
(xxiii)
Management
of wastes discharged including electronic wastes and the service facilities,
especially the CETP may be described.
(xxiv)
Identification
of recyclable wastes and waste utilisation arrangements may be made.
(xxv)
Explore
possibility of generating biogas from decomposable wastes.
(xxvi)
Arrangements
for hazardous waste management including e-waste may be described.
(xxvii) Common facilities for waste collection,
treatment, recycling and disposal (all effluent, emission and refuse including
MSW and hazardous wastes).
(xxviii)
Use of
environment friendly materials and local building materials. The provisions of
fly ash notification should be kept in view.
(xxix)
Risk
assessment and disaster management plan should be proposed.
(xxx)
Traffic
management plan including parking of all type of vehicles and loading/unloading
areas may be described. Traffic survey should be carried out on week days and
week end and also analyse the anticipated traffic increase. Analyse and submit
details of survey of traffic and transport and necessary improvement required.
Also examine the link with National Highway. Provision should be made for
service road. The road widths indicated are not correct. Follow IRC guidelines.
(xxxi)
Make
provision of green belt as a measure for mitigation of dust and noise and
buffer between habitation and Highway. Also submit landscape plan.
(xxxii) Make provision for guard pond and
similar provisions for safety against failure in the operation of wastewater
treatment facilities. Identify acceptable outfall for treated effluent.
(xxxiii)
EMP/SMP
should include technical and institutional aspects for pre-treatment by
constituent units.
(xxxiv)
Use of
local building materials should be described. The provisions of fly ash
notification should be kept in view.
(xxxv)
Landscape
plan, green belts and open spaces may be described.
(xxxvi)
Environmental
Management Plan should be accompanied with Environmental Monitoring Plan and
environmental cost and benefit assessment.
(xxxvii)
Examine
separately the details for construction and operation phases both for
Environmental Management Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan.
(xxxviii) Provide for conservation of resources,
energy efficiency and use of renewable sources of energy in the light of ECBC
code.
(xxxix)
Provision
shall be made for the housing of construction labour within the site with all
necessary infrastructure and facilities such as fuel for cooking, mobile
toilets, mobile STP, safe drinking water, medical health care, crèche etc. The
housing may be in the form of temporary structures to be removed after the
completion of the project.
(xl)
Other
details as indicated in Appendix III of EIA Notification 2006 should also be
attended.
A
detailed draft EIA/EMP report should be prepared as per the above additional
TOR and should be submitted to the Ministry as per the Notification.
4.42 Environmental Clearance for Shopping Complex
“The Celebration Mall” at Village Paragpur, Jalandhar, Punjab by M/s. Francolin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
[F.No.21-39/2010-IA.III]
The project
proponent not circulated the documents & not attended the meeting.
4.43 Environmental Clearance for City Centre at
Patna, Bihar by M/s.
Utkarsh S Falik Ltd [F.No.21-40/2010-IA.III]
As
presented by the project proponent, the
project involves construction of City Centre (Shopping Mall, Multiplex,
Office, Hotel & Residential Apartments) on a plot area of 30432.3 Sqm i.e 7.52 Acres. Out of 7.52
acres of total land, green belt will be developed in 2.48 acres of land. The built-up area for Shopping Mall,
Multiplex, Office & Hotel is 47805
Sqm & Residential built-up area is 25831.35 Sqm. It is proposed to
construct 1 Commercial Block of 12 floors for Shopping Mall, Multiplex,
Office & Hotel and 2 Residential
Block of 17 floors each having 40 nos. flats. Glass will not be used as
a wall material in the proposed
project. The total water requirement is 565 KLD out of which 340 KLD
will be fresh water and 225 m3/day will be recycled treated sewage.
The fresh water will be sourced from own 2 nos. borewell at project site. A 450 m3/day Sewage
Treatment Plant (STP) based on Moving Bed Bio Reactor (MBBR) Process will be
installed. Treated waste water will be
used for flushing of toilets 127.6 KLD, Cooling Tower makeup 45 KLD & for
Green Belt 50 KLD. Total solid waste generated will be about 2583 Kg/day
from the proposed city centre project out of which about 1083 Kg/day would be
dry garbage and the balance 1500 Kg/day would be wet waste (Kitchen waste,
leftovers etc.) The solid waste
generated will be segregated into dry and wet waste and then disposed off. The
dry garbage will be disposed off through the municipal waste collection system
while the wet waste will be composted on site and used as manure or handed over
to piggeries as feed. The power
requirement is 8452 KVA. For emergency backup 3 Nos. 2000 KVA, 1 No. 500
KVA & 1 No. 380 KVA D.G. Set will be installed.
It
is proposed to collect all the Rain Water falling on Terrace & channalise
them to Rain Water Harvesting tank, then will be passed through a filteration
and disinfection system after which the same can be used for the Flushing
requirements. The overflow of the same shall be lead into storm water Catch
Basins with in built Percolation pits upto 1 to 1.5 m. deep all around the
periphery of the proposed project for recharging the ground water. Total annual
rain water harvesting potential of the proposed project is 6081.24 m3.
The total parking space proposed for
514 ECS out of which covered parking in basement & silt is for 407 ECS
& Open parking for 107 ECS. Total cost of the project is Rs. 173.5 Crores.
During
the discussions following points emerged:
(ii)
For construction purpose,
the surface water should be obtained and no ground water should be used.
(iii) Re-examine and submit details of parking requirements
for each activities including bus parking, staff and visitors parking etc.
(iv) Entry & exist to the project site should be
worked-out again to avoid conflict zones on the main road. Provide circulation
plan and a seperate provision for physically challanged persons.
(v)
Existing drainage facility
and their connectivity to outside municipal drain.
(vi) Submit detailed plan for quantification for excavated
earth & its disposal.
(vii) submit a copy of DBR & Ecospace building.
(viii) Re-examine and submit details of solid waste
generation and their segragation in the project.
(ix) Provide details for disaster management plan.
(x)
Provide EMP &
emvironmental monitoring plans seperately.
In
view of the foregoing observations, the proposal is deferred and shall be
considered afresh after the above observations are addressed and submitted for
reconsideration.
Extra item
4.44 Finalization
of ToR for One time approval for Ship breaking of 06 Nos.vessels in Port Blair Harbour by M/s Andaman &
Nicobar Administration [File No. 19-62/2010IA.III]
As
presented by the project proponents, the proposal involves the one time
approval of Ship breaking (6 Nos. vessels) which are lying
in sea water near the Port Blair Harbour. The Four (04) vessels of A&N Administration( TSS Yerawa, MV Vanvikas,
MV Jaldhar, MT Balshali) and 02 private
vessels ( MV Andaman Victory and MV
Andman Fortune) operating in A&N Islands
are lying for disposal by dismantling / breaking on expiry of their life
span. Due to unseaworthy conditions, these ships cannot be navigated or towed
to a ship breaking yard in mainland.
As per Ministry of Shipping notification No.G.S.R.83 (E) Dated 28th
January 2004 on Andaman & Nicobar Islands Port Rules (Chapter V), Ship
breaking is permitted in these islands on obtaining permission by the owner
from the Director General of Shipping, Custom and sales tax authority. As per
the above rule, Dy. Conservator of Ports is authorized to provide suitable
berth /undeveloped beach area for dismantling of vessel within A&N Islands. Further as per MoEF notification No. S.O
1533 dated 14th September 2006 clearance from Ministry of
Environment and Forest is required for undertaking Ship Breaking.
As it is the responsibility of Deputy
Conservator of Ports/Harbour Master, PBPT to provide suitable berth/ area for
ship breaking and it is necessary to identify a suitable site for this purpose
in these Islands. Accordingly, port has identified an area near Junglighat
Harbour complex, Port Blair for scraping /dismantling of the above mentioned
vessels.
During discussions, the committee
finalised the following ToR:
(i)
Submit
the proposal along with the recommendations of the Andaman & Nicobar
Coastal Zone Management Authority about the project/activity.
(ii)
The
presentation given by the proponent showed the generation of hazardous waste
and materials like asbestos as nill. The information given by the proponent in
form 1 circulated to the members however shows generation of the hazardous
wastes including asbestos, used lead acid batteries and the other related
information under item 3.1 and 4.3 of the basic information part (I) of the
application. At the same time the applicability of the item 4.9, 4.11, 5.3 and
8.1 has also been shown as “NO”. Re-examine and submit the details.
(iii)
The
application (Part II-Environmental sensitivity) also shows the proposed
location to be in a inter-tidal zone at serial no 2(2) defense installation
within 1km at serial no 7, and densely populated area in the proximity at
serial no 8 and 9. Examine the impact on the surrounding area.
(iv)
Prepare
and submit a list of the various types of wastes, their respective estimated
quantities and the mode of disposal for each of the 6 vessels. The category No.
33.3 of the schedule 1, the wastes listed in Schedule 2, 4 and 6 of the Hazardous
Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary movement) Rules, 2008 should be
referred for the identification of the hazardous waste type that will be
generated from the proposed ship breaking facility.
(v)
The
schedule 1 of the manufacture, storage and import of Hazardous Chemical Rules
1989 should also be referred for identification of any of these chemicals in
case existing on the six vessels.
(vi)
The
proposal is not clear in the sense of whether it is only a dismantling or the
complete breaking. The ship breaking is a major activity which has different
environmental impacts depending upon whether it is done on land or on the
coastal waters. It is also not clear as to why anyone or some of the already
existing 23 ports in Andaman and Nicobar Islands cannot take up this one time
ship breaking activity. Examine the possibilities and submit details.
(vii)
The
proposed activity is sure to generate hazardous wastes including asbestos which
is to be transported to the main land of the country for its treatment and disposal.
This will involve transportation of the hazardous wastes from these islands to
the nearest available such facility along the east coast of the country as well
as the permissions from the relevant authorities. Submit details of their
disposal process.
Public hearing to be conducted for the
project as per provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
and the issues raised by the public should be addresses in the Environmental
Management Plan.
A
detailed draft EIA/EMP report should be
prepared as per the above additional TOR and should be submitted to the
Ministry as per the EIA Notification, 2006.
Agenda item no. 5.1
5.1
Environmental Clearance for
construction of Group Housing at Re.Sy. No.38/3, 39/1, 2, 6, 48/2 Ward No.3,
Olavanna Panchyat, District Calicut, Kerala by M/s. Calicut Land Mark Builders
& Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd [F.No.21-375/2008-IA.III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the project involves construction of Group Housing project on a plot area
of 1.86 ha. The total built-up area of the project is 82,421.76 Sq.m. It is
proposed to construc 495 units (1BR-255 & 2BR-240) in 6 towers (Tower-1 =
B+GF+25 Floors; Tower-2 = B+GF+18 Floors; Tower-3&4 = B+GF+19 Floors;
Tower-5 = B+GF+20 Floors Tower-6 = B+GF+16 Floors). The total water requirement
is 356.62 KLD (freshwater -247.75 KLD). The capacity of STP proposed is 350
KLD. Treated waste water to be used for flushing 121.375 KLD + 10 KLD for club,
horticulture-44.84 KLD & balance 109.055 KLD for adjacent coconut
plantation. Total solid waste generation will be 990 kg/day. The power
requirement is about 3025 KWH. The
total parking proposed are 550 cars + 270 two wheelers. Total cost of
the project is Rs. 81.50 crores.
The project proponent confirmed that
the project site is located 4 km from the seas/bays/estuaries/creeks and back
waters which are influenced by tidal action and is not falling under CRZ area.
The
proposal was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) at its meeting
held on 19th - 20th November, 2008. The details submitted
by the project proponents were examined by the project proponent.
The committee recommended
environmental clearance for the project.
5.2 Environmental Clearance for Residential
Colony “Estate One” at Village Rakpura/Hussainpurs & Bhatain, Ludhiana,
Punjab by M/s. Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd [F.No.SEAC(P)
/349/2010-IA.III]
As presented by the project proponent,
the project involves development of Residential Colony on a plot area of
1,98,388.06 sq.m. The total built-up area of the project is 68,302.87 Sq.m. The
total water requirement is 1321 KLD (domestic water -902 KLD). The capacity of
STP proposed is 950 KLD. Treated waste water to be used for flushing 271 KLD,
horticulture-212 KLD, HVAC + DG cooling - 205 KLD. Total muncipal waste
generated is 3442.85 Kg/day. The power requirement is about 2539 KVA. A DG set
of capacity is proposed for power back-up for the project. The total parking proposed are 699 cars. Total
cost of the project is Rs. 62.376 crores.
The
proposal was considered by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) at its
meeting held on 3.7.2010 & EAC at its meeting held on 9-10th
November, 2010 at New Delhi. The EAC examined the information submitted by the
project proponent.
The committee recommended
environmental clearance for the project.
94th Meeting of the Expert
Appraisal Committee for Infrastructure Development, Coastal Regulation Zone and
Miscellaneous projects held on 30th November to 1st – 2nd
December, 2010 at Conference Room, Indian Council of Forestry Research and
Education, Van Vigyan Bhawan, R. K. Puram, Sector-5, New Delhi.
List of Participants/ Expert
Committee
1.
Shri Naresh Dayal, IAS(Rtd)
Chairman
2.
Dr. M.L.Sharma, IFS(Retd) Vice Chairman
3. Shri
Kathirvel Dharmalingam Member
4.
Dr. S.P. Bansal Member
5.
Dr. Apurba Gupta Member
6.
Dr. H.S.Ramesh Member
7.
Dr. Y.Basavaraju Member
8. Shri G Bala Subramanyam Member
9. Dr. Suresh Kumar Rohilla Member
10.
Dr. R.S.Mahawar (Rep. of CPCB) Member
11.
Shri Bharat Bhushan Member Secretary
Supporting Staff
12.
Shri E. Thirunavukkarasu Dy.
Director, MoEF
13.
Dr. P.V. Subba Rao Research
Officer, MoEF
Special
Invitees
1. Shri
J.K. Tiwari, CCF, Central Eastern Regional Office, MoEF, Bhubaneswar
2. S.K. Ratho, Additional Resident
Commissioner, Government of Orissa.
3. Siddhanta Das, Member Secretary, State
Pollution Control Board, Orissa,
Bhubaneswar.
4. Dr. A.K. Patnayak, Chief Executive, CDA
and Member, Orissa Coastal Zone
Management Authority.
Project Authorities:
Representatives from M/s. Pasco India Limited
Representatives
from M/s. PEL Power Ltd.
Representatives
from M/s. GSPC LNG Ltd.
Representatives from M/s. Ultra Tech
Cement Ltd.
Representatives
from M/s. Dhaval
Developers, Mumbai
Representatives from M/s. Uttar Pradesh State Highway Authority
Representatives
from M/s. Chief
Engi., NH Wing, Road Const. Dept., Bihar
Representatives from M/s. Gujarat Enviro Protection Infra. Ltd.
Representatives
from M/s. Maharashtra
Airport Development Co. Ltd.
Representatives from M/s. Bihar State Road Development Ltd.
Representatives
from M/s. NHAI
Representatives from M/s. Tata Power Mumbai
Representatives
from M/s. MARG
Swarnabhoomi Port Pvt. Ltd.
Representatives from M/s. Spectrum
Power Generation Ltd.,
Representatives
from M/s. Carnoustie
Resort Pvt. Ltd
Representatives from M/s. Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu
Representatives
from M/s. Malvika Resorts,
Chennai
Representatives from M/s. Thermal Power Tech Corp. India Ltd.
Representatives from M/s. Gangavaram Port Ltd.
Representatives from M/s. Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd
Representatives
from M/s. Mormuga Port
Trust
Representatives from M/s. Prasvnath
Developers Ltd
Representatives from M/s. Vishav Real
estates Pvt. Ltd
Representatives from M/s. Ansal
Properties & Infrastructure Ltd
Representatives
from M/s. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infra. Corp. Ltd
Representatives from M/s. PPR Associates
Representatives
from M/s. Divisional
Engi., Public Health Div. No. 1, Mohali
Representatives
from M/s. Utkarsh S Falik
Ltd.
Representatives from M/s. Andaman
& Nicobar Administration