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

         

         

 

 

 

 

Untitled Page