STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE, PUNJAB Ministry …seiaapunjab.co.in/proceedings of 94th meeting of SEAC held on 12.6... · STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE, PUNJAB Ministry of

1

STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE, PUNJAB

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India O/O Punjab Pollution Control Board,

Vatavaran Bhawan, Nabha Road, Patiala – 147 001

Telefax:- 0175-2216980

No. SEAC/2007-16 Dated 17.06.2014

To

1. Sh. Kuldip Singh, IFS (Retd), House No. 2704, Sector-69, Mohali-160062

Chairman (SEAC)

2. Shri Harbax Singh, House No. 2917, Sector-42-C, Chandigarh-160036

Member (SEAC)

3. Er. Malvinder Singh, FIE, House No. 10, Gill Enclave, Near Hira Nagar, Patiala.

Member (SEAC)

4. Prof. P. Thareja, House No. 1010, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh-160036

Member (SEAC)

5. Sh. Nirmal Singh Kahlon, 5-D, Passy Road, Patiala

Member (SEAC)

6. Dr. Arun Kumar Yeluri, Door No. 1-2-33/37, Meridian Enclave, Prasanth Nagar, Hdernagar, Nizampet Road, Hyderabad-500085

Member (SEAC)

7. Sh. Jaswinder Singh Sekhon, 5, Bhupoindra Road, Near YPS, Patiala-147001.

Member (SEAC)

8. Dr. Akepati Sivarami Reddy, Associate Professor & Head, School of Energy & Environment, Thapar University, Patiala.

Member (SEAC)

9. Dr. Manpreet Singh Bhatti, Assistant Professor Deptt. of Botanical & Environment Sciences, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar-143005.

Member (SEAC)

10. Dr. V.K. Singhal, Department of Botany, Punjabi University, Patiala House No. 47-A, Kaka Colony (Near 23 No. Phatak), Patiala.

Member (SEAC)

2

-2-

11. Dr. Sandeep Singh Virdi, Assistant Professor, School of Management Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala

Member (SEAC)

Subject: Proceedings of the 94th meeting of State Level Expert Appraisal Committee held on 12.06.2014 at 10.00 AM in the Committee Room, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Vatavaran Bhawan, Nabha Road, Patiala.

Enclosed, please find herewith, a copy of the proceedings of the 94th

meeting of State Level Expert Appraisal Committee held on 12.06.2014 at

10.00 AM in the Committee Room, Punjab Pollution Control Board,

Vatavaran Bhawan, Nabha Road, Patiala for your information please.

DA: As above. Sd/-

Secretary (SEAC)

Endst. No.2007-16 Dated 17.06.2014

A copy of the above is forwarded to the Environmental Engineer

(Computers), Punjab Pollution Control Board, Patiala for displaying the Agenda of

the meeting on the official website of the SEIAA, Punjab.

Sd/- Secretary (SEAC)

3

Proceedings of 94th meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee held on 12.06.2014 in Committee Room, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Vatavaran Bhawan, Nabha Road, Patiala. The following were present in the meeting:

S.N.

Name

Designation

1. Sh. Kuldip Singh, IFS (Retd), House No. 2704, Sector-69, Mohali-160062

Chairman (SEAC)

2. Sh. Harbax Singh, House No. 2917, Sector-42-C, Chandigarh-160036

Member (SEAC)

3. Er. Malvinder Singh, FIE, House No. 10, Gill Enclave, Near Hira Nagar, Patiala.

Member (SEAC)

4. Sh. Nirmal Singh Kahlon, 5-D, Passy Road, Patiala

Member (SEAC)

5. Dr. Akepati Sivarami Reddy, Associate Professor & Head, School of Energy & Environment, Thapar University, Patiala.

Member (SEAC)

6. Dr. Manpreet Singh Bhatti, Assistant Professor Deptt. of Botanical & Environment Sciences, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar-143005.

Member (SEAC)

7. Dr. V.K. Singhal, Department of Botany, Punjabi University, Patiala

Member (SEAC)

8. Dr. Sandeep Singh Virdi, Assistant Professor, School of Management Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala

Member (SEAC)

9. Sh. Samarjit Goyal, Senior Environmental Engineer (HQ), Punjab Pollution Control Board.

Secretary (SEAC)

At the outset, the Secretary, State Level Expert Appraisal Committee

(SEAC) welcomed the members of the Committee in its 94th meeting. Thereafter,

the agenda items were discussed as under:-

4

Item No.94.01: Confirmation of the proceedings of 93rd meeting of State Level Expert Appraisal Committee held on 03.02.2014.

The SEAC noted that the proceedings of the 93rd meetings of

State Level Expert Appraisal Committee held on 03.02.2014 were circulated to all

the members of SEAC vide no. 8872-81 dated 04.02.2014 and no observations

have been received from any of the members. As such, the SEAC confirmed the

proceedings of the above said meetings.

Item No: 94.02: Action taken on the proceedings of the 93rd meeting

of State Level Expert Appraisal Committee.

It was seen by the SEAC.

Item no. 94.03: Application for obtaining Environmental Clearance for development of an "Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility" by Municipal Council, Ferozepur.

The SEAC observed as under:

The project proponent was requested by the SEAC vide letter no. 27426

dated 10.06.2014 to attend its 94th meeting on 12.06.2014. The SEAC perused the

previous details of the case presented in the Agenda Item and deliberated on the

issue. Thereafter, the project proponent and their consultant were called and

asked to make a presentation of their project in light of the final EIA report

submitted by them. The following were present in the meeting on behalf of the

project proponent:

(i) Sh. Dharampal Singh, Executive Officer, M.C., Ferozepur

(ii) Smt. Goonam Bhatnagar, E.O., M.C. Faridkot

(iii) Dr. R.M. Mehta, Environmental Consultant of M/s Ind Tech House

Consult, Delhi

(iv) Sh. Soumya Dwivedi, Environment Expert of M/s Ind Tech House Consult, Delhi

Dr. R.M. Mehta, Environmental Consultant of the project proponent

presented the EIA study report before the SEAC. The Committee noted that the

Environmental Consultant has not properly prepared the presentation since he

was unable to reply satisfactorily to the queries raised by the members of the

5

Committee during the presentation. The Committee further noted that there are

number of technical errors in rapid EIA study report and the Committee was not

satisfied with the report submitted by the project proponent.

After detailed deliberations in the matter, the Committee observed

that the project proponent is required to submit the following information / data

before appraisal of the project proposal:

The solid waste generation of 281 TPD of all the ULBs of Ferozepur cluster

has been estimated for the year 2010 taking into account the population

based on census 2001 instead of 2011. Moreover, as per the project

proposal, the Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management facility

including Engineered Landfill facility is meant for life span of 25 years but

the estimated population after 25 years has not been taken into account

while estimating the generation of solid waste. Therefore, the project

proposal prepared by M.C. Ferozepur does not seem to be in order as far

as generation of municipal solid waste is concerned.

The M.C. has only 18 acres of land, which, as per the calculations

submitted by them, is adequate only upto 2019 and nothing has been

depicted regarding future expansion plan of Council.

During handling and processing of municipal solid waste, there is likelihood

of generation of odour problem in the vicinity of the facility, but no

concrete solution has been prescribed in the Environment Management

Plan to control the odour problem.

Calorific value of the proposed RDF has been assumed in the range of

2600 to 3000 Kcal which is not in consonance with the waste analysis

report submitted by the project proponent as well as with the typical

composition of MSW generated in India. The project proponent clarified

that the calorific value has been taken based on the composition of the

segregated MSW which has higher composition of plastic waste, paper and

paper bags etc. However, the SEAC observed that most of the RDF plants

are not successful because the assumed composition of waste that has

been considered is not available as the waste such as plastic, paper etc.

are directly sold and are therefore not present in the solid waste available.

6

No mathematical modeling has been carried out to assess the impact of

different pollutants to be emitted from the Integrated MSW Management

facility on the environment, sensitive receptors including all the religious

places and historical places in the vicinity of the site.

Nothing has been mentioned in the EIA report regarding quantity of

leachate to be generated, its characteristics, details of proposed treatment

facility and reuse/ disposal of the same after treatment during operation

and post closure phase.

No proper traffic analysis has been done to ascertain impact of traffic

volume on the approach road. Also, no route plan has been submitted.

No post closure monitoring plan has been submitted to ascertain the

impact of surface run-off of the area on the site of facility and impact of

leachate on the lower contours of the adjoining area.

Details for mitigation of pollution from transfer stations and primary

collection centers has not been given.

Nothing has been mentioned regarding financial plan for construction

phase, operation phase and post-closure phase including details of bank

guarantee to be taken from the Operator of the facility for all the three

phases and details of corpus fund for post closure monitoring of the

facility.

A complete plan for management & handling of surface run-off during rainy

season has not been submitted.

The EIA report has not addressed the issues raised by the public during the

public hearing alongwith material evidences, which is the statutory

requirement as per EIA notification dated 14.09.2006.

Nothing has been mentioned in the EIA report regarding the Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR).

The Committee decided to ask the project proponent to submit a

revised proposal after attending to the above observations and to defer the case

till the project proponent submits the same.

7

Item No. 94.04: Application for obtaining environmental clearance under EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 for increase in the production capacity of existing differential, rear cover, gear box, trumpet & other tractor parts from 35,000 TPA to 60,000 TPA in the existing Swaraj Division Foundry unit located in the revenue estate of Village Majri, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali by M/s Mahindra & Mahindra (P) Ltd.,


1. The case was discussed in the 91st meeting of SEAC and after discussions,

it was decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits certified

report from Regional Office of MoEF regarding the status of compliance of

the conditions of the environmental clearance already granted to the

promoter company in compliance of MoEF circulars dated 30.05.2012.

The decision of the SEAC was conveyed to the project proponent vide letter no.

1764 dated 06.02.2014.

2. Now, the Northern Regional Office, Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment

and Forests vide letter no. 314 dated 12.05.2014 (received on 16.05.2014)

has submitted the status of compliance of the conditions of the

environmental clearance already granted to the promoter company. As per

the Northern Regional Office of the MoEF, most of the conditions are being

complied with by the project proponent.

3. The project proponent was requested by the SEAC vide letter no. 27588

dated 10.6.2014 to attend its 94th meeting on 12.06.2014. Following were

present in the meeting on behalf of the project proponent:

(i) Mr. Rajeev Mehta, Senior Manager of the promoter company

(ii) Mr. Gaurav Bhutani, Manager of the promoter company

(iii) Mr. Sandeep Garg, Technical Advisor of the promoter company

(iv) Sh. Sital Singh of M/s CPTL Environet, Chandigarh, Environmental Consultant of the promoter company.

Sh. Sandeep Garg presented the salient features of the EIA

study report before the SEAC.

8


Project proponent is required to submit the following information /

documents:

a) Revised water balance clarifying the quantity of wastewater

generated from the DM plant and blow down from cooling

towers, their treatment and disposal arrangements.

b) Revised material balance.

c) Storm Water Management Plan.

d) Rain water harvesting system for the existing plant and for

the proposed expansion.

e) Disaster Management Plan.

f) Complete layout plan showing the Hazardous waste storage

area.

Approved building plans for its expansion project.

Onsite storage and disposal arrangements for used CFL tubes and

other such waste as E-Waste and not as hazardous waste as

mentioned in the EIA report.

Details regarding the disposal of the slag and used foundry sand

generated from the plant.

Detailed Ambient Air Monitoring of the project site which should

include all the 12 parameters as prescribed under NAAQM.

Proposal to provide a holding tank for the storage of storm water

runoff for a capacity of atleast two days.

Total area available under plantation for the existing project as well

as the area proposed for the expansion project duly marked on the

layout plan.

Complete detail of water bodies / drains in the vicinity of 500 m of

the project duly marked on the layout plans.

The Committee decided to defer the case till the reply of the above noted

observations is received.

The Committee further noted from the EIA report that the chloride content in the

groundwater in the area is though within the permissible levels but it is

abnormally high than usually seen in the groundwater in other areas. As such, the

9

committee decided that the matter be brought to the notice of Central Ground

Water Board at Chandigarh for taking corrective measures, if so required.

Item No. 94.05: Application for obtaining Environmental Clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 for development of Tourist Reception Facility and car Parking near Wagha Border, Village Attari, Teh & Distt. Amritsar by the Department of Tourism, Govt. of Punjab.


1. The Department of Tourism, Govt. of Punjab, vide letter dated 31.10.2013

(received on 01.11.2013) has applied for obtaining Environmental

Clearance under the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 for development of

Tourist Reception Facility and car Parking near Wagha Border, Village

Attari, Teh & Distt. Amritsar. The project is covered under category B-2

Clause 8 (a) of the Schedule appended to the said notification.


dated 24.12.2013, to attend its 85th meeting on 26.12.2013 and following

were present in the said meeting on behalf of the project proponent:

(i) Ms. Reena Chadha, Env. Safeguard Specialist, Punjab Heritage & Tourism Promotion Board.

(ii) Sh. Abhijit Tanna, Team Leader, Project Management Consultants

Ms. Reena Chadha, Env. Safeguard Specialist, Punjab

Heritage & Tourism Promotion Board presented the project proposal before

the SEAC as under:

o The total land area of the project is 11.84 acres in which parking facility

having builtup area as 60,000 sqm and reception facility having builtup

area of 2000 sqm will be provided.

o The reception facility will be provided for 2000-3000 visitors per day.

o The total water requirement for the project will be 90 KLD, out of which

40 KLD will be met through ground water by installing tubewell and

remaining 50 KLD will be met through recycling of treated wastewater.

o The project site falls in the 'Safe Zone' and total water abstraction will

be less than 100 KLD, as such, permission from the CGWA is not

10

required.

o The total wastewater generation from the project will be 60 KLD, which

will be treated in a STP of capacity 70 KLD, to be installed within the

project premises. The total treated wastewater generation will be 60

KLD. The project proponent has proposed to use 50 KLD of treated

wastewater for flushing purpose, 10 KLD will be used for

landscaping/horticulture and remaining (if any) will be used for

irrigation of agricultural fields.

o The total quantity of solid waste generation will be 3 tons/day which

will be disposed off at appropriate designed location in the MSW

dumping areas as per Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling)

Rules, 2000.

o The total load of electricity required for the project will be 300 KW,

which is to be provided by the PSPCL.

o The project proponent has proposed to provide rain water harvesting

wells for ground water recharge.

o The ambient air quality monitoring has been got done from M/s

Industrial Testing Laboratory & Consulting House, which is NABL

accredited and the analysis results indicate that the concentration of

various pollutants such as SPM, RPM, Oxides of Sulphur, oxides of

Nitrogen and CO have been measured. Also, ambient noise monitoring

has been got done from the said firm and the analysis results indicate

that the noise levels during day times, have been measured as 63.5

dB(A) leq against the prescribed standards of 75 dB(A) leq. The

groundwater of the area is potable in nature as per analysis report of

groundwater.

o The Airports Authority of India has issued a letter bearing no. 613 dated

18.11.2013, wherein, it has been mentioned that the project site is

located at a distance of more than 20 km from the Amritsar Airport and

NOC for the same is not required.

o Rs.94,000/- will be incurred for ambient air quality monitoring and noise

monitoring. The Project Management Unit (PMU) will be responsible for

the same.

o The traffic circulation plan has been prepared and the same has been

11

submitted alongwith application.

o Disaster/Risk Assessment & Management Plan has been prepared and

the same has been submitted alongwith application.

o No construction activity has been started at site.

The SEAC noted that the project proponent is required to submit the

following information/data for further appraisal of the project proposal:

(i) Permission for change of land use (CLU) from the competent

authority of the Department of Town & Country Planning, Punjab.

(ii) Layout plan duly approved by the competent authority.

(iii) Water balance chart for three seasons i.e. winter, summer and rainy, separately.

(iv) As per proposal, the wastewater is to be utilized onto land for irrigation purposes even during rainy season, which may not be feasible as there will be no demand during rainy season. As such, the project proponent is required to submit alternate arrangement for utilizing the wastewater during rainy season.

(v) The project proponent has proposed to provide rainwater harvesting wells for groundwater recharge. However, top floor of car parking as informed by project proponent will be open to the sky and as such adequate treatment is required to be given to the run-off before

discharging it into rain harvesting wells.

(vi) The location of STP proposed is near the canal bank and project proponent shall re-orient the location of STP, so that it is away from

the canal bank.

(vii) Project proponent shall submit a proof to the effect that the Laboratory from where the air, water and noise analysis has been

got done is MoEF/NABL accredited.

After detailed discussions, the SEAC decided to defer the case

till the project proponent submits proper reply of above mentioned

observations.

The decision of the SEAC was conveyed to the project

proponent vide letter no. 3359 dated 16.01.2014.

3. Now, the project proponent vide letter no. 3632-37 dated 20.02.2014 has

submitted the reply to the observations of the SEAC the details of which

are as under:

12

Sr.

no

Observations raised by

the Committee

Reply of the observations

1. Permission for change of land use (CLU) from the competent authority of the Department of Town &

Country Planning, Punjab

Submitted a copy of the NOC issued by Department of Town & Country Planning, Punjab vide no. 72 dated 21.01.2014. Also, submitted proposed land-use plan as per the Master Plan Amritsar prepared by PUDA showing the approved land-use for the project site as “ Traffic and Transportation : Off-Port Facility” under which public buildings and

parking spaces are permissible.

Further, submitted a copy of the NOC issued by Amritsar Development Authority vide no.

17268 dated 19.11.2013.

2. Layout plan duly approved by

the competent authority

Submitted a copy of layout plan approved by STP, Amritsar vide

letter no. 212 dated 19.02.2014..

3. Water balance chart for three seasons i.e. winter, summer and rainy, separately

Submitted. However, the same is

not clear.

4. As per proposal, the wastewater is to be utilized onto land for irrigation purposes even during rainy season, which may not be feasible as there will be no demand during rainy season. As such, the project proponent is required to submit alternate arrangement for utilizing the wastewater during rainy season

The project proponent has submitted that as per the water balance chart, 50 KLD of treated wastewater will be utilized for Toilet Flushing through dual plumbing system and balance 10 KLD will be utilized for horticulture in the project premises itself, thus there is no excess runoff during summer and winter seasons. However, during rainy season, when there is no demand for irrigation purposes, it is proposed to utilize the 10 KLD treated wastewater for feeding the Fire Storage Tank and water quality standards will be achieved for the same as per the CPCB/BIS/NBC/ guidelines. Further, it is submitted that the corresponding abstraction of ground water will be reduced during the rainy season to avoid

13

generation of excess treated

wastewater.

5. The project proponent has proposed to provide rainwater harvesting wells for groundwater recharge. However, top floor of car parking as informed by project proponent will be open to the sky and as such adequate treatment is required to be given to the run-off before discharging it

into rain harvesting wells

The project proponent has submitted that the rainwater harvesting scheme will not utilize any runoff from the areas susceptible to chemical/ oil/ lubricant pollution as in the case of top floor of car parking, as stipulated by SEAC. However, subject to SEAC’s acceptance, the runoff will be passed through oil trap/ degreasing chamber via de-siltation chamber and further treatment in STP for achieving the applicable standards of BIS/CPCB

for ground water recharge.

6. The location of STP proposed is near the canal bank and project proponent shall re-orient the location of STP, so that it is away from the canal

bank

Submitted the layout plan with

revised location of STP.

7. Project proponent shall submit a proof to the effect that the Laboratory from where the air, water and noise analysis has been got done is MoEF/NABL

accredited

Submitted a copy of the

recognition letter no. 24488 dated

14.06.2013 issued by PPCB to M/s

Industrial Testing Laboratory &

Consulting House.


dated 10.06.2014, to attend its 94th meeting on 12.06.2014 and following

were present in the said meeting on behalf of the project proponent:

(i) Ms. Reena Chadha, Env. Safeguard Specialist, Punjab Heritage & Tourism Promotion Board.

(ii) Sh. Nitish Das, Civil Engineer, Project Management Consultants

Ms. Reena Chadha, presented the reply before the SEAC and

she informed that all the observations raised by the SEAC have been

attended. Regarding water balance for three seasons i.e. winter, summer

and rainy, she informed that:

14

The total water requirement during summer season will be 90 KLD,

out of which 30 KLD will be met from fresh groundwater and 60 KLD

will be met from recycling of treated wastewater. The total

wastewater generation will be 64 KLD, which will be treated in an

STP of capacity 70 KLD to be installed within the project premises.

Out of the total 60 KLD of treated wastewater, 50 KLD will be used

for flushing purposes and remaining 10 KLD will be used for

landscaping/horticulture.

The total water requirement during winter season will be 87 KLD,

out of which 30 KLD will be met from fresh groundwater and 57 KLD

will be met from recycling of treated wastewater. The total


STP of capacity 70 KLD to be installed within the project premises.

Out of the total 60 KLD of treated wastewater, 50 KLD will be used

for flushing purpose, 7 KLD will be used for landscaping/horticulture

and remaining 3 KLD will be stored in treated water tank of capacity

60 KLD.

The total water requirement during rainy season will be 81 KLD, out

of which 30 KLD will be met from fresh groundwater and 51 KLD will

be met from recycling of treated wastewater. The total wastewater

generation will be 64 KLD, which will be treated in an STP of

capacity 70 KLD to be installed within the project premises. Out of

the total 60 KLD of treated wastewater, 50 KLD will be used for

flushing purpose, 1 KLD will be used for landscaping/horticulture

and remaining 9 KLD will be stored in treated water tank of capacity

60 KLD.

The Committee perused the copy of NOC dated 26.09.2012 granted

to the project by the Border Security Force and observed that the

NOC has been granted subject to main condition that only ground

level parking facilities to be created from atleast 50 m on the east of

the Border fence to provide unrestricted view. In other portion,

more levels of parking may be created.

15

The project proponent clarified during the presentation that the

layout plan approved by the competent authority is in conformity with the

stipulations mentioned in the said NOC granted by the BSF and that actual

construction at site will also be in accordance with the approved plan.

The Committee desired that the project proponent should submit an

undertaking to this effect.

The Committee observed that the project proponent has provided

adequate and satisfactory clarifications to the observations raised by it. Therefore,

the Committee awarded 'Silver Grading' to the project proposal and decided to

forward the case to the SEIAA with the recommendation to grant environmental

clearance to the project proponent for establishment of Tourist Reception Facility

and car Parking in an area of 11.84 acres (having built-up area as 60,000 sqm for

parking facility and 2000 sqm for Reception Facility) near Wagha Border, Village

Attari, Teh & Distt. Amritsar, subject to following conditions in addition to the

proposed measures and submission of an undertaking w.r.t the construction in

accordance with the approved plan as mentioned above.

PART A – Specific conditions

I. Construction Phase

i) “Consent to establish” shall be obtained from Punjab Pollution Control Board under Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and a copy of the same shall be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests / State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority before the start of any construction work at site.

ii) All required sanitary and hygienic measures should be in place before starting construction activities and to be maintained throughout the construction phase.

iii) A first aid room will be provided in the project both during construction and operation phase of the project.

iv) All the topsoil excavated during construction activities should be stored for use in horticulture / landscape development within the project site.

v) Disposal of muck during construction phase should not create any adverse effect on the neighbouring communities and be disposed off after taking the necessary precautions for general safety and health aspects of people with the approval of competent authority.

vi) Construction spoils, including bituminous material and other hazardous material, must not be allowed to contaminate watercourses and the dump

16

sites for such material must be secured, so that they should not leach into the groundwater.

vii) The diesel generator sets to be used during construction phase should be of low sulphur diesel type and should conform to the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prescribed for air and noise emission standards.

viii) Vehicles hired for bringing construction material to the site and other machinery to be used during construction should be in good condition and should conform to applicable air and noise emission standards.

ix) Ambient noise levels should conform to prescribed standards both during day and night. Incremental pollution loads on the ambient air and noise quality should be closely monitored during construction phase.

x) Fly ash should be used as construction material in the construction as per the provisions of Fly Ash Notification of September, 1999 and as amended on August, 2003 (This condition is applicable only if the project is within 100 Km of Thermal Power Station).

xi) Ready mixed concrete should be used in building construction as far as possible.

xii) Water demand during construction should be reduced by use of premixed concrete, curing agents and other best practices.

xiii) Separation of drinking water supply and treated sewage supply should be done by the use of different colours.

xiv) Fixtures for showers, toilet flushing and drinking should be of low flow either by use of aerators or pressure reducing devices or sensor based control.

xv) Adequate steps shall be taken to conserve energy by limiting the use of glass, provision of proper thermal insulation and taking measures as prescribed under the Energy Conservation Building Code.

xvi) The approval of competent authority shall be obtained for structural safety of the buildings due to earthquakes, adequacy of fire fighting equipments etc. as per National Building Code including protection measures from lightning.

xvii) 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, disposal of waste water & solid waste in an environmentally sound manner, 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.

II. Operation Phase

17

i) The installation of sewage treatment plant (STP) and adequacy of disposal system should be certified by Punjab Pollution Control Board and a report in this regard should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority before the project is commissioned for operation. The discharge of treated sewage shall conform to the norms and standards prescribed by Punjab Pollution Control Board for such discharges. The project proponent shall not discharge any treated wastewater into any public sewer.

ii) The project proponent shall provide electromagnetic flow meter at the

outlet of the water supply, outlet of the STP and any pipeline to be used for re-using the treated wastewater back into the system for flushing and for horticulture purpose/green etc. and shall maintain a record of readings of each such meter on daily basis.

iii) Adequate & appropriate pollution control measures should be provided to control fugitive emissions to be emitted within the complex.

iv) Adequate treatment facility for drinking water shall be provided, if required.

v) Rainwater harvesting for roof run-off should be implemented. Before recharging the roof run-off, pretreatment must be done to remove suspended matter, oil and grease. However, no run off from gardens/green area/roads/pavements shall be connected with the ground water recharging system.

vi) The solid waste generated should be properly collected and segregated. The recyclable solid waste shall be sold out to the authorized vendors and inerts shall be sent to disposal facility. The Bio-degradable solid waste shall be adequately treated as per the scheme submitted by the project proponent. Prior approval of competent authority should be obtained, if required.

vii) Hazardous waste/E-waste should be disposed off as per Rules applicable and with the necessary approval of the Punjab Pollution Control Board.

viii) The green belt along the periphery of the plot shall achieve attenuation factor conforming to the day and night noise standards prescribed for residential land use. The open spaces inside the plot should be suitably landscaped and covered with vegetation of indigenous species/variety.

ix) The project proponent should take adequate and appropriate measures to contain the ambient air quality within the prescribed standards. The proposal regarding mitigation measures to be taken at site should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests/ State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority within three months.

x) Incremental pollution loads on the ambient air quality, noise and water quality should be periodically monitored after commissioning of the project.

xi) Application of solar energy should be incorporated for illumination of common areas, lighting for gardens and street lighting in addition to provision for solar water heating.

18

xii) Traffic congestion near the entry and exit points from the roads adjoining the proposed project site must be avoided. Parking should be fully internalized and no public space should be utilized.

xiii) A report on the energy conservation measures conforming to energy conservation norms finalized by Bureau of Energy Efficiency should be prepared incorporating details about machinery of air conditioning, lifts, lighting, building materials, R & U Factors etc. and submitted to the respective Regional office of MoEF, the Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB/SEIAA in three months time.

xiv) Environmental Management Cell shall be formed during operation phase which will supervise and monitor the environment related aspects of the project.

PART B – General Conditions :

i) This environmental clearance will be valid for a period of five years from the date of its issue or till the completion of the project, whichever is earlier.

ii) The environmental safeguards contained in the application of the promoter / mentioned during the presentation before State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority/State Expert Appraisal Committee should be implemented in letter and spirit.

iii) The entire cost of the environmental management plan (i.e. capital cost as well as recurring cost) will continue to be borne by the project proponent until the responsibility of environmental management plan is transferred to the occupier/residents society under proper MOU after obtaining prior permission of the Punjab Pollution Control Board.

iv) The project proponent shall also submit six monthly reports on the status of compliance of the stipulated EC conditions including results of monitored data (both in hard copies as well as by mail) to the respective Regional office of MoEF, the Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB/SEIAA.

v) Officials from the Regional Office of Ministry of Environment & Forests, Chandigarh / State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority / State Level Expert Appraisal Committee / Punjab Pollution Control Board who would be monitoring the implementation of environmental safeguards should be given full cooperation, facilities and documents / data by the project proponents during their inspection. A complete set of all the documents submitted to State Environment Impact Assessment Authority should be forwarded to the CCF, Regional Office of Ministry of Environment & Forests, Chandigarh/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

vi) In the case of any change(s) in the scope of the project, the project would require a fresh appraisal by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

vii) Separate distribution pipelines be laid down for use of treated effluent / raw water for horticultural/gardening purposes with different colour coding.

19

viii) All other statutory clearances such as the approvals for storage of diesel from Chief Controller of Explosives, Fire Department, Civil Aviation Department, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 etc. shall be obtained, by project proponents from the competent authorities including Punjab Pollution Control Board and from other statutory bodies as applicable. The project proponent shall also obtain permission from the NBWL, if applicable.

ix) The project proponent should advertise in at least two local newspapers widely circulated in the region, one of which shall be in the vernacular language informing that the project has been accorded environmental clearance and copies of clearance letters are available with the Punjab Pollution Control Board. The advertisement should be made within seven days from the day of issue of the clearance letter and a copy of the same should be forwarded to the Regional Office, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Chandigarh.

x) These stipulations would be enforced among others under the provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability (Insurance) Act, 1991 and EIA Notification, 2006.

xi) Environmental clearance is subject to final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460 of 2004 as may be applicable to this project and decisions of any competent court, to the extent applicable.

xii) The project proponent shall obtain the permission for change of land use, if any authority insists for the same.

xiii) A copy of the clearance letter shall be sent by the proponent to concerned Panchayat, Zilla Parishad/ Municipal Corporation, Urban local body and the local NGO, if any, from whom suggestions / representations, if any, were received while processing the proposal. The clearance letter shall also be put on the website of the Company by the proponent.

xiv) The proponent shall upload the status of compliance of the stipulated EC conditions, including results of monitored data on their website and shall update the same periodically. It shall simultaneously be sent to the Regional Office of MoEF, the respective Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB. The criteria pollutant levels namely; PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NOx, CO, Pb, Ozone (ambient air as well as stack emissions) shall be monitored and displayed at a convenient location near the main gate of the company in the public domain.

xv) The project proponent shall adhere to the commitments made in the Environment Management Plan and Corporate Social Responsibility. Rs.22.25 lacs will be utilized for activities like sensitization workshop and various training sessions.

xvi) The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority reserves the right to add additional safeguards/ measures subsequently, if found necessary, and to take action including revoking of the environmental clearance under the provisions of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, to ensure effective

20

implementation of the suggested safeguards/ measures in a time bound and satisfactory manner.

xvii) Any appeal against this environmental clearance shall lie with the National Green Tribunal, if preferred, within a period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Item No. 94.06: Application for obtaining Environmental Clearance for development of a Township namely "Knowledge Park" in Sector 66, 82 & 83, SAS Nagar by M/s Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).


1. M/s Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) vide letter dated

NIL(received on 26.03.2013) had applied for obtaining environmental

clearance as required under EIA notification dated 14/9/2006 development

of a Township namely "Knowledge Park" in Sector 66, 82 & 83, SAS Nagar.

2. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 69th meeting held on

18.04.2013, wherein, Sh. Devinder Singh, Divisional Engineer, (PH-1),

GMADA, Mohali informed that there is a proposal to develop a Knowledge

Park in Sector 66,82 83 of Mohali in an area of 709 hectares, which will be

developed into following components:

a. Residential plotted accommodation

b. Group Housing

c. Commercial Establishments

d. Institutions

e. Industrial Units of Green Category

He also informed that the proposed site of the project falls

within a radius of 10 kms from the boundary of UT, Chandigarh.

The SEAC noted that as per EIA notification dated 14.09.2006,

the 'Industrial Park' of area more than 500 hectares are covered under

category 7 (C) of the Schedule appended to the said notification and

'General Condition' is applicable to this category. The SEAC further noted

that in the 'General Condition' of the EIA notification, it has been

mentioned that any project or activity specified in Category-B will be

treated as Category-A, if located in whole or in part within 10 kms from the

Inter-State boundaries. Since the site of this project is located within a

radius of 10 kms from the boundary of UT, Chandigarh, as such, this

21

project falls in the competence of Ministry of Environment & Forests being

Category–A project.

After detailed deliberations, the SEAC decided to recommend

to SEIAA to return the case to the project proponent being Category–A

project.

3. The case was considered by the SEIAA in its 47th meeting held on

15.05.2013, wherein, after deliberations, the SEIAA decided to accept the

recommendations of the SEAC. The decision of the SEIAA was conveyed to

the project proponent vide letter no. 22314 dated 24.05.2013.

4. Thereafter, the project proponent vide letter dated 27.01.2014 has applied

afresh for obtaining environmental clearance under EIA notification dated

14/9/2006 for development of a Township namely "Knowledge Park" in

Sector 66, 82 & 83, SAS Nagar, stating that the case was considered by the

EAC in its 127th meeting held on 29.10.2013 and observed that the total

plot area is greater than 500 hectares & there is no Category A and B. The

project proponent had further informed that the EAC advised the Ministry

to refer the case back to SEIAA/SEAC, Punjab for considering the project as

Category (8b).

However, no such correspondence of MoEF was attached with the

application to corroborate the contentions regarding fresh grounds for

resubmission of application with the SEIAA. As such, the incomplete

application was returned back to the project proponent in original vide

letter no. 2005 dated 06.02.2014, with a request to resubmit the same

after attending the aforesaid observation.

5. Consequently, the project proponent vide letter no. 1886 dated 05.05.2014

(received on 07.05.2014) has applied afresh along with the minutes of

127th meeting of EAC held on 28th-30th October, 2013. The project is

covered under category 8(b).


dated 10.06.2014 to attend its 94th meeting on 12.06.2014. The following

were present in the meeting on behalf of the project proponent:

Sh. Devinder Singh, Executive Engineer (PH), GMADA

22

Sh. Pankaj Bawa, District Town Planner, GMADA

Dr. Rekha Singh (Coordinator) of M/s GRC India Pvt. Ltd, Environmental Consultant of the project proponent

Mr. Puneet Bhardwaj, Assistant Manager, Environmental Consultant of the project proponent

Dr. Rekha Singh (Coordinator) of M/s GRC India Pvt. Ltd,

Environmental Consultant of GMADA, presented the project proposal

before the SEAC as under:

The total plot area is 7,098,226.62 sqm, which will be developed for

residential, commercial and institutional areas. The GMADA vide letter

no. 14860 dated 11.06.2014 has intimated that the principal change

of land (CLU) for an area of 709 hectares has been granted to

Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Punjab and the letter

regarding approval of the same will be sent later on.

30% of fresh water will be abstracted from groundwater and rest of

70% will be taken from canal water at Kajoli Headworks.

The total water requirement during summer season will be 20,291

KLD, out of which 16108 KLD will be met from fresh water and 4183

KLD will be met from recycling of treated wastewater. The total


STP of capacity 10,000 KLD to be installed within the project

premises. Out of the total 8266 KLD of treated wastewater, 4183 KLD

will be used for flushing purpose and remaining 3256 KLD will be used

for irrigation of green area.


out of which 7218 KLD will be met from fresh water and 4183 KLD will


generation will be 8266 KLD, which will be treated in a STP. Out of


flushing purpose and remaining 3256 KLD will be used for irrigation of

green area.


out of which 6149 KLD will be met from fresh water and 4183 KLD will

23


generation will be 8266 KLD, which will be treated in a STP. Out of


flushing purpose, 1201 KLD will be used for irrigation of green area

and remaining 2055 KLD will be discharged into choe.

Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar vide letter no. 18456 dated

22.11.2013 informed that Mohali city does not fall under the 43

notified critical/ over exploited zones, therefore, it does not require

permission from this office to install the tubewell.

The total quantity of MSW has been estimated as 38,257 Kg/day. The

biodegradable and non-biodegradable solid waste will be segregated

at source. The biodegradable organic waste will be treated inside the

premises. The recyclable and non-recyclable wastes will be disposed

through approved Govt. Agency.

The hazardous wastes such as used oil from the D.G. sets will be sold

to authorized recyclers.

The total power requirement will be 100 MVA, which will be taken

from Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The project promoter has

also made provision to provide DG sets as standby arrangement of

power supply.

The ambient air quality monitoring has been got done from M/s GRC

India Training & Analytical Lab. which is NABL accredited and the

analysis results indicate that the concentration of various pollutants

such as PM10, PM2.5, Sulphur dioxide, Nitrogen dioxide and CO have

been measured. Also, ambient noise monitoring has been got done

from the said firm and the analysis results indicate that the noise

levels during day times, have been measured as 51.4 dB(A)leq and

during night time have been measured as 41.7 dB(A)leq against the

prescribed standards of 55 dB(A) leq and 45 dB(A)leq, respectively.

The groundwater of the area is potable in nature as per analysis

report of groundwater.

24

Adequate parking facilities will be provided by individual plot owner,

within the plots.

Rs.400 Lacs will be earmarked for environmental monitoring and

Rs.100 Lacs will be spent as recurring cost for implementation of

Environment Management Plan. Since the project is being developed

by Govt. Agency, EMP will be implemented by Govt. Department for

the life time of this project.

Public facilities like Hospital, school, playground, community centre

etc. will be provided by the GMADA under Corporate Social

Responsibility.

The traffic circulation plan has been prepared and the same has been


Disaster/Risk Assessment & Management Plan has been prepared and


NOC from Airports Authority of India is not required as this the 'Area

Development Project' and no building is being erected under this

project.

No construction/development activity has been started at the

proposed site.

The Executive Engineer (PH) GMADA submitted the following

documents during the meeting which were taken on record by the SEAC:

(i) Letter No. 14860 dated 11.06.2014 mentioning that in principle

approval for change of land use (CLU) has been granted by the

Competent Authority for developing 'Knowledge Park' in Sector 66-B,

82-A, 83-A and 101 A.

(ii) Layout plan duly approved by the Competent Authority.

(iii) Proper photographs of the project site showing construction status

of the project.

(iv) Topographical map of the area showing contour plan.

(v) 500 meter radius map of the area from periphery of project site

clearly indicating the various industries and structures etc.

25

(vi) Site plan of the project showing the following:

Location of STP ; Solid waste storage area. Green belt

Location of Tubewells (vii) Permission of Competent Authority for:

Water & Sewerage connection.

Collection of solid waste.

Letter no. 18456 dated 22.11.2013 issued by Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar to the effect that Mohali city does not fall under the 43 notified critical/ over exploited zones, therefore, it does not require permission to install the tubewell.

(viii) Analysis reports of ambient air, groundwater and noise levels of M/s

GRC India Training & Analytical Lab. which is NABL accredited

Laboratory.

(ix) Environmental Management Plan.

(x) Corporate Social Responsibility programme.

(xi) Traffic circulation system.

To a query raised by the SEAC, the project proponent

categorically stated that the natural and original course of the storm water

drain passing through the project site will not be altered rather it will be

lined and beautified by providing a green cover of 30 m width on both

sides of the drain.

The SEAC decided that during the rainy season there will be

excess of storm water and hence the project proponent should provide a

holding reservoir for the storage of this storm water with a storage

capacity of atleast two days and utilize the same for horticulture and other

purposes.


adequate and satisfactory replies/clarifications to the observations raised by it.

Therefore, the Committee awarded 'Silver Grading' to the project proposal and

decided to forward the case to the SEIAA with the recommendation to grant

environmental clearance to the project proponent for development of a Township

namely "Knowledge Park" in Sector 66, 82 & 83, SAS Nagar, subject to the

following conditions in addition to the proposed measures:

26



i) The project proponent will not alter the natural and original course of the storm water drain passing through the project site and will line and beautify the same by providing a green cover of 30 m width on both sides of the drain as committed during the presentation before the SEAC on 12.06.2014.

ii) The project proponent will provide a storage reservoir for the storage of storm water runoff with a capacity of atleast two days and use this water for horticulture and other purposes subsequently.

iii) “Consent to establish” shall be obtained from Punjab Pollution Control Board under Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and a copy of the same shall be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests / State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority before the start of any construction work at site.

iv) All required sanitary and hygienic measures should be in place before starting construction activities and to be maintained throughout the construction phase.

v) A first aid room will be provided in the project both during construction and operation phase of the project.

vi) All the topsoil excavated during construction activities should be stored for use in horticulture / landscape development within the project site.

vii) Disposal of muck during construction phase should not create any adverse effect on the neighbouring communities and be disposed off after taking the necessary precautions for general safety and health aspects of people with the approval of competent authority.

viii) Construction spoils, including bituminous material and other hazardous material, must not be allowed to contaminate watercourses and the dump sites for such material must be secured, so that they should not leach into the groundwater.

ix) The diesel generator sets to be used during construction phase should be of low sulphur diesel type and should conform to the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prescribed for air and noise emission standards.

x) Vehicles hired for bringing construction material to the site and other machinery to be used during construction should be in good condition and should conform to applicable air and noise emission standards.

xi) Ambient noise levels should conform to prescribed standards both during day and night. Incremental pollution loads on the ambient air and noise quality should be closely monitored during construction phase.

xii) Fly ash should be used as construction material in the construction as per the provisions of Fly Ash Notification of September, 1999 and as amended

27

on August, 2003 (This condition is applicable only if the project is within 100 Km of Thermal Power Station).

xiii) Ready mixed concrete should be used in building construction as far as possible.

xiv) Water demand during construction should be reduced by use of premixed concrete, curing agents and other best practices.

xv) Separation of drinking water supply and treated sewage supply should be done by the use of different colours.

xvi) Fixtures for showers, toilet flushing and drinking should be of low flow either by use of aerators or pressure reducing devices or sensor based control.

xvii) Adequate steps shall be taken to conserve energy by limiting the use of glass, provision of proper thermal insulation and taking measures as prescribed under the Energy Conservation Building Code.

xviii) The approval of competent authority shall be obtained for structural safety of the buildings due to earthquakes, adequacy of fire fighting equipments etc. as per National Building Code including protection measures from lightning.

xix) 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, disposal of waste water & solid waste in an environmentally sound manner, 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.

II. Operation Phase

i) The installation of sewage treatment plant (STP) and adequacy of disposal system should be certified by Punjab Pollution Control Board and a report in this regard should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority before the project is commissioned for operation. The discharge of treated sewage shall conform to the norms and standards prescribed by Punjab Pollution Control Board for such discharges. The project proponent shall discharge not more than 2055 KLD of treated wastewater into choe during rainy season.

ii) The project proponent shall provide electromagnetic flow meter at the

outlet of the water supply, outlet of the STP and any pipeline to be used for re-using the treated wastewater back into the system for flushing and for horticulture purpose/green etc. and shall maintain a record of readings of each such meter on daily basis.



v) Rainwater harvesting for roof run-off should be implemented. Before recharging the roof run-off, pretreatment must be done to remove suspended matter, oil and grease. However, no run off from gardens/green

28

area/roads/pavements shall be connected with the ground water recharging system.













29










30

xii) The project proponent shall comply with the conditions to be imposed in the Change of land use issued by the Competent Authority.


xiv) The proponent shall upload the status of compliance of the stipulated EC conditions, including results of monitored data on their website and shall update the same periodically. It shall simultaneously be sent to the Regional Office of MoEF, the respective Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB. The criteria pollutant levels namely; PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NOx, CO, Pb, Ozone (ambient air as well as stack emissions) shall be monitored and displayed at a convenient location near the main gate of the company in the public domain.

xv) The project proponent shall adhere to the commitments made in the Environment Management Plan and Corporate Social Responsibility. Public facilities like Hospital, school, playground, community centre etc. will be provided by the GMADA under Corporate Social Responsibility programme.

xvi) The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority reserves the right to add additional safeguards/ measures subsequently, if found necessary, and to take action including revoking of the environmental clearance under the provisions of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, to ensure effective implementation of the suggested safeguards/ measures in a time bound and satisfactory manner.


Item No. 94.07: Application for environmental clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 for construction of "Thapar University Campus" in the revenue estate of

Village Behra Tehsil Dera Bassi, Distt. Mohali.

The SEIAA observed as under:

1. The project proponent has applied for obtaining environmental clearance

as required under the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 for development of

"Thapar University Campus" in the revenue estate of Village Behra Tehsil

Dera Bassi, Distt. Mohali. The project is covered under category 8 (a) of

the Schedule appended to the said notification.


18.03.2013 for screening of the project proposal. The Committee screened

the application meticulously and noticed that the project proponent is

31

required to submit following information/data for appraisal of the project

proposal:

(i) Status of construction, if any, alongwith photographs from all the four sides.

(ii) Layout/ Site plan of the project showing the following

a) Solid waste storage area.

b) First aid room

(iii) Permission of Competent Authority for;

a) Sewer connection

b) Collection of Solid waste

c) Abstraction of ground water

(iv) Water balance chart for summer, rainy and winter seasons indicating

critical requirements.

(v) Analysis reports of ambient air, ground water and noise levels from

NABL Accredited laboratories.

(vi) Quantification of energy saved and renewable energy devices used

and permission of PSPCL for power connection.

(vii) Construction schedule (PERT/CPM Chart).

(viii) Affidavits for;

a) Constitution of Environment Monitoring Cell

b) Use of ready mix concrete or use of fly ash during construction.

c) To provide Fire Fighting System

d) To provide wind breaking curtains and water sprinkling system

to minimize dust emissions.

e) To provide adequate safety measures for the construction

workers during the construction phase.

(ix) Whether the height of building tower is more than 15m or not, if

yes?

Whether the permission from fire department has been submitted?

At how far distance the fire station is located from the project

site.

32

What is minimum width of the approach road? (x) NOC of the nearest AirPort issued by its Authority.

After detailed discussions, the SEAC decided to ask the

project proponent to submit the reply to the above noted observations and

to take up the case for appraisal only after submission of proper reply by

the project proponent. The decision of the SEAC was conveyed to the

project proponent vide letter no. 16114 dated 08.04.2013.

3. Thereafter, in compliance to the Office Memorandum dated 30.10.2012 of

the Ministry of Environment & Forests, the reminder was issued to the

project proponent, vide letter no. 42786 dated 24.09.2013, to submit the

reply of its observations within one month.

4. The project proponent vide letter received on 03.10.2013 has submitted

the reply of the observations of the Committee, the details of which are as

under:

Sr.

No.

Observations raised by the

Committee

Reply of the

observations

1. Status of construction, if any, alongwith photographs from all the four sides

Submitted. However, from the photographs it is observed that the construction has already been

done at site.

2. Layout/ Site plan of the project showing the following;

Solid waste storage area. First aid room

Submitted

3. Permission of Competent Authority for;

a) Sewer connection

b) Collection of Solid waste

a) The project proponent has submitted that the sewage will be managed within the campus.

b) The project proponent has submitted that the solid waste will be managed within the campus.

33

c) Abstraction of groundwater

However, no further details regarding the collection, handling and management of MSW have been provided.

c) Not Submitted

4. Water balance chart for summer, rainy and winter seasons

indicating critical requirements.

The project proponent has submitted the same water balance as submitted earlier alongwith Form-1 & 1A.

5. Analysis reports of ambient air, ground water and noise levels from NABL Accredited

laboratories.

The ambient air monitoring has been got done from M/s Eco Laboratories & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and the analysis results indicate that the concentration of various pollutants such as PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO2, Pb, ozone and CO have been measured. Also, ambient noise monitoring has been got done from the said firm and the analysis results indicate that the noise levels during day and night times, have been measured as 52.9 dB(A) leq and 42.5 dB(A) leq, respectively, against the prescribed standards of 55

and 45 dB(A) leq.

6. Quantification of energy saved and renewable energy devices used and permission of PSPCL for power connection.

Submitted

7. Construction schedule

(PERT/CPM Chart) Submitted

8. Affidavits for;

a) Constitution of Environment Monitoring Cell

b) Use of ready mix concrete or use of fly ash during construction.

c) To provide Fire Fighting System

Submitted

34

d) To provide wind breaking curtains and water sprinkling system to minimize dust emissions.

e) To provide adequate safety measures for the construction workers during the construction phase.

9. Whether the height of building tower is more than 15m or not, if

yes?

i) Whether the permission from fire department has been submitted?

ii) At how far distance the fire station is located from the project site.

iii) What is minimum width of the approach road?

The project proponent has submitted that the maximum height of the building is 11.58 m, thus is not covered under office memorandum of Ministry of Environment and Forests, regarding high rise

buildings.

10. NOC of the nearest AirPort issued

by its Authority.

Not Submitted


dated 22.11.2013 to attend its 83rd meeting on 23.11.2013. Following were

present in the said meeting on behalf of the project proponent:

(i) Sh. Chiranjeev Singh (OSD) of the promoter company. (ii) Sh. Anil Singh, Engineer of the promoter company. (iii) Sh. Sandeep Garg of M/s Eco Labs, Mohali, who is the

environmental consultant of the project proponent

Sh. Chiranjeev Singh informed the committee that the

construction of the project has already been completed and only minor

finishing work is left. However, they conceded that prior environmental

35

clearance is required for an area more than 20,000 sqm but due to some

misconceptions, they did not apply for obtaining environmental clearance

before the start of construction, but it was not intentional.

The SEAC observed that the case is required to be dealt as

per the procedure mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2012

of the Ministry of Environment & Forests as amended on 27.06.2013 since

the promoter company has violated the provisions of EIA notification dated

14.09.2006 by starting construction of the project without obtaining

environmental clearance under the said notification.

Further, the Committee also noted that there is an existing

hot mix plant in the vicinity of the project. It was informed that Punjab

Pollution Control Board has already sought a clarification from the Chief

Town Planner, Punjab with regard to suitability of site as per the provisions

of Zoning Regulation/Bye-laws of Master Plan.

After detailed deliberations, the SEAC decided as under:

(i) To forward the case to SEIAA with the recommendation to ask the

project proponent to submit a formal resolution passed by the Board

of Directors of the Company or to the Managing Committee / CEO of

the Society, Trust, partnership / individually owned concern, within

60 days, mentioning that violations will not be repeated in future

and in the meantime, the project may be delisted. In the eventuality

of not having any response from the project proponent within the

prescribed limit of 60 days, the project file may be closed.

(ii) To recommend to SEIAA to send the case to the Govt. of Punjab,

Department of Science, Technology & Environment for

Initiating credible action against project proponent /

responsible persons / promoter company under the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 due to start of

construction activities of the project without obtaining

Environmental Clearance under EIA notification dated

14.09.2006.

Issuance of directions under Section 5 of the Environment

36

(Protection) Act, 1986 to restrain the promoter company from

carrying out any further construction activity of the project till

the environmental clearance under EIA notification dated

14.09.2006 is obtained.

(iii) Obtain information from Punjab Pollution Control Board regarding

reply received from Chief Town Planner, Punjab with regard to

suitability of site as per the provisions of Zoning Regulation/Bye-laws

of Master Plan.

The case was considered by the SEIAA in its 55th meeting

held on 30.12.2013, wherein, after detailed deliberations, the SEIAA decided as

under:

a) To ask the project proponent to submit, within 60 days, a formal

resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company or to

the Managing Committee / CEO of the Society, Trust, partnership /

individually owned concern, mentioning that violations in respect of

starting construction activities without obtaining environmental

clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006, are un-

intentional and will not be repeated in future. In case, the project

proponent fails to submit the said resolution within a period of 60

days, it will be presumed that the project proponent is no longer

interested in pursuing the project further and the project file will be

closed and the project proponent will have to initiate the procedure

de novo for obtaining environmental clearance.

b) To send the case to the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Science,

Technology & Environment for:

Initiating credible action against project proponent / responsible

persons / promoter company under the Environment (Protection)

Act, 1986 due to start of construction activities of the project

without obtaining Environmental Clearance under EIA notification

dated 14.09.2006.



carrying out any further construction activity of the project till the

37

environmental clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 is

obtained.

c) To inform the project proponent that the application for

environmental clearance under EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006

will be considered only after the action is initiated by the Govt. of

Punjab, Department of Science, Technology & Environment for

violating the provisions of the said notification due to start of

construction work of the project without obtaining environmental

clearance and resolution as at (a) above is received within the

stipulated period.

The decision of the SEIAA has been conveyed to the project

proponent vide letter no. 170 dated 17.01.2014 and the case has been

sent to the Govt. of Punjab Department of Science, Technology &

Environment for initiating action under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

vide letter no. 171 dated 17.01.2014.

6. Now, the Punjab Pollution Control Board vide letter no. 1645 dated

31.03.2014 has informed that a complaint has been filed in the Hon'ble

Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi against the project

promoter and the persons responsible for violation of the provisions of the

EIA notification dated 14.09.2006.

However, the project proponent has not submitted a formal

resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company or to the

Managing Committee / CEO of the Society, Trust, partnership / individually

owned concern, mentioning that violations in respect of starting

construction activities without obtaining environmental clearance under EIA

notification dated 14.09.2006, are un-intentional and will not be repeated

in future.

It was further, noted that the newly constituted SEIAA/SEAC

in its combined meeting held on 29.05.2014, proceedings of which are

under issue, decided that all such cases where intimation regarding taking

credible action against the project proponent has been received from the

Punjab Pollution Control Board, may be assigned directly by Member

Secretary (SEIAA) to the SEAC for appraisal/ recommendations.

38




(i) Sh. Chiranjeev Singh (OSD) of the promoter company. (ii) Sh. Anil Singh, Engineer of the promoter company. (iii) Sh. Sandeep Garg of M/s Eco Labs, Mohali, who is the

environmental consultant of the project proponent Sh. Sandeep Garg, Environmental Consultant, presented the

project proposal before the SEAC as under:

The total plot area is 26.29 acres, having a total built up area of about

41118.489 sqm. The project proponent has obtained CLU for land

area measuring 11.20 acres vide letter no. 3871 dated 18.05.2009

and for land area measuring 15.09 acres vide letter no. 8185 dated

NIL issued by Deptt. of Town & Country Planning, Punjab. The layout

plans have been approved by Deptt. of Town & Country Planning,

Punjab vide letter no. 318 dated 12.01.2013.

The total estimated cost of the proposed project is Rs. 64.14 crores.

The estimated population of the project will be 2065 persons, out of

which 985 will be residential population and 1080 will be floating

population.

The water requirement for the project will be 182 KLD out of which

110 KLD shall be met from ground water and remaining 72 KLD will

be met from treated wastewater.

The total wastewater generation from the project will be 146 KLD

which will be treated in an STP of capacity 150 KLD to be installed

within the premises.

Out of the total treated wastewater of 143 KLD (98% of wastewater

generated), 72 KLD will be used for the flushing purposes and the

remaining 71 KLD will be used for irrigation purposes.

The groundwater shall be recharged by providing 4 no. rain water

harvesting pits to tap roof top water.

39

The total quantity of MSW has been estimated as 610 Kg/day, which

will be segregated into biodegradable and non-biodegradable solid

waste. The recyclable waste will be sold out to the recyclers. Inert

waste will be sent to the dumping site of the Municipal Corporation.

The biodegradable organic waste will be treated inside the premises

using mechanical composter.

The E-wastes and hazardous wastes will be handled and managed as

per the rules.

The total power requirement will be 1600 KW, which will be taken

from Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The project promoter has

also made provision to provide DG sets as standby arrangement of

power supply.

The ambient air quality monitoring has been got done from M/s ECO

Laboratories and Consultant Pvt. Ltd. which is NABL accredited and

the analysis results indicate that the concentration of various

pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, Sulphur dioxide, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ammonia, Ozone, Lead, Benzo Pyrene, Benzene, arsenic, nickel and

CO have been measured. Also, ambient noise monitoring has been

got done from the said firm and the analysis results indicate that the

noise levels during day times, have been measured as 52.9 dB(A)leq

and during night time have been measured as 42.5 dB(A)leq against

the prescribed standards of 55 dB(A) leq and 45 dB(A)leq,

respectively. The groundwater of the area is potable in nature as per

analysis report of groundwater.

The project proponent has proposed to provide parking facility for 442

cars in an area of 10224.07 sqm.

Rs.143 Lacs will be earmarked for environmental monitoring and

Rs.12 Lacs will be spent as recurring cost for implementation of

Environment Management Plan. The Head Department of

Environment & Bio-Technology, Head Construction wing, Head

Department of Civil Engineering and Incharge Maintenance

40

Department, Thapar University, Patiala will be responsible for the

implementation of EMP.

Rs. 6.4 crores will be invested on the corporate social responsibility

for following activities:

Environment Program in Schools through NGOs especially in

surrounding of the project site.

Organizing Health Camps with support from NGOs e.g. Eye

Checkup, Dental Checkup Camps etc.

Providing scholarships to class X, XII students for higher

education.

Providing Solar lights on the village Rastas, helping villages

Panchayats in community development programmes.

The traffic circulation plan has been prepared and the same has been


Disaster/Risk Assessment & Management Plan has been prepared and


The project proponent informed that there is a Hot Mix Plant at a

distance of 296 m from the boundary of the project site which is lying

closed since long time. He further informed that the NOC granted by

the Punjab Pollution Control Board for the said project has been

revoked and legal action has been initiated against them by Punjab

Pollution Control Board. However, he requested that as such there is

no such guideline of SEIAA / SEAC and hence the case may be

recommended to SEIAA for grant of environmental clearance.

As far as observation of the previous SEAC w.r.t. the existing hot mix

plant in the vicinity of the project site, it is clarified as under:

(a) The distance between the boundary of their project site and

the point source of air emissions i.e. chimney of the hot mix

plant is 292 m against 300 m required as per Punjab Pollution

Control Board guidelines for hot mix plant, however, it keeps

41

on varying as the equipment alongwith chimney is movable

and is shifted as per the requirement of the hot mix plant.

(b) The hot mix plant is lying closed for the last so many years.

(c) In addition to the green belt being provided along the

boundary of their project towards the hot mix plant, they are

raising the height of the boundary wall by 15 feet by

providing special type of creepers.

(d) The construction of the project was started only after

obtaining NOC from the Punjab Pollution Control Board. At

that time the total project area was 11.20 acres and the built-

up area was less than 20000 sqm. Thus, the project did not

require environmental clearance under EIA notification dated

14.09.2006. In this regard, the SEAC, however, observed

that the project proponent has increased the built-up area to

more than 20,000 sqm without obtaining environmental

clearance, thus, violating the provisions of EIA notification

dated 14.09.2006 and attracting action under Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 as per MoEF Office Memorandum

dated 12.12.2012. As per the action taken report sent by

Punjab Pollution Control Board, credible action has now been

initiated against the project proponent.

The SEAC observed that though the project proponent has

satisfactorily clarified all the technical observations, however, certain

documents such as:

(a) Recommendation letter from CGWB to CGWA for abstraction of

groundwater.

(b) Formal resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company

or to the Managing Committee / CEO of the Society, Trust,

partnership / individually owned concern, mentioning that violations

in respect of starting construction activities without obtaining

environmental clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006,

are un-intentional and will not be repeated in future.

42

(c) Undertaking to the effect that 5 acres of land shown to be reserved

for future expansion in the layout plan, which has now been

proposed to be developed with eucalyptus plantation as per Karnal

Technology in one acre and green area in the remaining 4 acres,

shall not be used for expansion of the project or any other activity at

any stage.

(d) The project proponent has submitted that out of 143 KLD of the

treated wastewater, 72 KLD of the wastewater will be used for

flushing purposes and the remaining 71 KLD will be used for

irrigation purposes. Moreover, the project proponent has submitted

that during summer season the water demand for irrigation

purposes is 108 KLD which is more than the quantity of treated

wastewater (71 KLD) available for irrigation purposes. Also, during

winter and monsoon season the water demand for irrigation

purposes is 35 KLD and 10 KLD respectively, which is very less than

the quantity of wastewater available for irrigation purpose.

Therefore, the project proponent is required to submit clarification

regarding the quantity of wastewater available and that to be used

for irrigation purposes in all the three seasons.

The project proponent assured the SEAC that all the above

documents/clarification will be submitted shortly and requested for recommending

their case to SEIAA for grant of environmental clearance.


adequate and satisfactory clarifications of the observations raised by it. Therefore,

the Committee awarded 'Silver Grading' to the project proposal and decided to

forward the case to the SEIAA with the recommendation to grant environmental

clearance to the project proponent for construction of "Thapar University Campus"

in the revenue estate of village Behra, The. Dera Bassi, Distt. Mohali, subject to

the following conditions in addition to the proposed measures as and when the

project proponent submits the above mentioned documents/clarification and the

same is approved by the Chairman SEAC on the case file of the project:



43

(i) The project proponent, in addition to the green belt to be provided along the boundary of their project towards the hot mix plant, shall also raise the height of the boundary wall by 15 feet by providing special type of creepers as proposed during the presentation before SEAC on 12.06.2014.

(ii) “Consent to establish” shall be obtained from Punjab Pollution Control Board under Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and a copy of the same shall be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests / State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority before the start of any construction work at site.

(iii) All required sanitary and hygienic measures should be in place before starting construction activities and to be maintained throughout the construction phase.

(iv) A first aid room will be provided in the project both during construction and operation phase of the project.

(v) All the topsoil excavated during construction activities should be stored for use in horticulture / landscape development within the project site.

(vi) Disposal of muck during construction phase should not create any adverse effect on the neighbouring communities and be disposed off after taking the necessary precautions for general safety and health aspects of people with the approval of competent authority.

(vii) Construction spoils, including bituminous material and other hazardous material, must not be allowed to contaminate watercourses and the dump sites for such material must be secured, so that they should not leach into the groundwater.

(viii) The diesel generator sets to be used during construction phase should be of low sulphur diesel type and should conform to the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prescribed for air and noise emission standards.

(ix) Vehicles hired for bringing construction material to the site and other machinery to be used during construction should be in good condition and should conform to applicable air and noise emission standards.

(x) Ambient noise levels should conform to prescribed standards both during day and night. Incremental pollution loads on the ambient air and noise quality should be closely monitored during construction phase.

(xi) Fly ash should be used as construction material in the construction as per the provisions of Fly Ash Notification of September, 1999 and as amended on August, 2003 (This condition is applicable only if the project is within 100 Km of Thermal Power Station).

(xii) Ready mixed concrete should be used in building construction as far as possible.

(xiii) Water demand during construction should be reduced by use of premixed concrete, curing agents and other best practices.

44

(xiv) Separation of drinking water supply and treated sewage supply should be done by the use of different colours.

(xv) Fixtures for showers, toilet flushing and drinking should be of low flow either by use of aerators or pressure reducing devices or sensor based control.

(xvi) Adequate steps shall be taken to conserve energy by limiting the use of glass, provision of proper thermal insulation and taking measures as prescribed under the Energy Conservation Building Code.

(xvii) The approval of competent authority shall be obtained for structural safety of the buildings due to earthquakes, adequacy of fire fighting equipments etc. as per National Building Code including protection measures from lightning.

(xviii) 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, disposal of waste water & solid waste in an environmentally sound manner, 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.

II. Operation Phase

i) The installation of sewage treatment plant (STP) and adequacy of disposal system should be certified by Punjab Pollution Control Board and a report in this regard should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority before the project is commissioned for operation. The discharge of treated sewage shall conform to the norms and standards prescribed by Punjab Pollution Control Board for such discharges.

ii) The project proponent shall provide electromagnetic flow meter at the outlet of the water supply, outlet of the STP and any pipeline to be used for re-using the treated wastewater back into the system for flushing and for horticulture purpose/green etc. and shall maintain a record of readings of each such meter on daily basis.



v) Rainwater harvesting for roof run-off should be implemented. Before recharging the roof run-off, pretreatment must be done to remove suspended matter, oil and grease. However, no run off from gardens/green area/roads/pavements shall be connected with the ground water recharging system.


45














46








xii) The project proponent shall comply with the conditions imposed in the Change of land use issued by the Competent Authority.


xiv) The proponent shall upload the status of compliance of the stipulated EC conditions, including results of monitored data on their website and shall

47

update the same periodically. It shall simultaneously be sent to the Regional Office of MoEF, the respective Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB. The criteria pollutant levels namely; PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NOx, CO, Pb, Ozone (ambient air as well as stack emissions) shall be monitored and displayed at a convenient location near the main gate of the company in the public domain.

xv) The project proponent shall adhere to the commitments made in the Environment Management Plan and Corporate Social Responsibility.

xvi) The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority reserves the right to add additional safeguards/ measures subsequently, if found necessary, and to take action including revoking of the environmental clearance under the provisions of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, to ensure effective implementation of the suggested safeguards/ measures in a time bound and satisfactory manner.


Item no. 94.08: Application for environmental clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 for development of a Hospital namely “Guru Nanak Dev Super-Specialty Hospital” in the revenue estate of Village Muradpura, Goindwal Sahib- Tarn Taran road, Tehsil & Distt Tarn Taran by M/s Baba Jiwan Singh Baba Dalip Singh Educational Trust.

The SEIAA observed as under:

1. M/s Baba Jiwan Singh Baba Dalip Singh Educational Trust has applied vide

letter received on 20.03.2013 for obtaining environmental clearance as

required under the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 for construction of a

Hospital namely “Guru Nanak Dev Super-Specialty Hospital” in the revenue

estate of Village Muradpura, Goindwal Sahib- Tarn Taran road, Tehsil &

Distt Tarn Taran. The project is covered under category 8(a) of the said

notification.

2. The project proponent vide letter dated 17.04.2013 informed the SEAC that

the management has applied for hostel and hospital as single project, but

now the proposal has been changed. The hospital and hostel are two

separate identities and built up area of each is less than 20,000 sqm, thus,

the project does not require environmental clearance. The promoter

48

company requested the SEAC to allow it to withdraw the application filed

for obtaining environmental clearance.


18.04.2013, wherein, the SEAC decided that Member Secretary, Punjab

Pollution Control Board, may be requested to get the ownership of hospital

and hostel verified and also to get legal opinion from the Law Officer of the

Punjab Pollution Control Board as to whether these two buildings can be

treated as separate entities or not, before the case is sent to SEIAA.

The decision of the SEAC was conveyed to the Member

Secretary, Punjab Pollution Control Board vide this office letter no. 20253

dated 06.05.2013. A reminder in this regard was also issued vide letter no.

35067 dated 16.08.2013.

4. Thereafter, the Punjab Pollution Control Board, vide letter no. 4260 dated

14.08.2013(received on 27.08.2013) has sent the requisite report, the

details of which are as under:

The project proponent was granted consent to establish (NOC) from

pollution angle for the establishment of hospital comprising of 300 beds

alongwith hostel building project vide Board's Zonal Office letter NO.

142 dated 07.01.2013. Thereafter, the project proponent applied for

obtaining consent to operate under Water (Prevention & Control of

Pollution) Act, 1974 & Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

for hospital project only and the project proponent submitted an

affidavit to the effect that M/s Guru Nanak Dev Super Specialty

Hospital has been divided into two parts i.e. hospital and hostel. Both of

these projects now have separate entities. The built up area of the

individual project is less than 20,000 sq.m, as such, as an individual

project, both of these projects do not attract the provision of EIA

Notification.

Keeping in view the fact that the ownership of both projects

lies with same trust, but these two projects have separate buildings and

separates gates and the built up area of hospital building is 19235.9 sqm

and hostel building is 10632 sq. m respectively, which is less than 20,000

49

sqm, application for consents to operate under Water (Prevention &

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,

1981 were processed and the same have been granted to the project

proponent by the Board vide Zonal Office letter NO. 2735 & 2733 dated

17.05.2013 respectively.

A legal opinion has also been obtained form Law Officer and is

reproduced as under:

“As per the contents of letter No. 4706 dated 08.06.2013 written by

Environmental Engineer Regional Office Amritsar to the office of Senior

Environmental Engineer Zonal Office, Amritsar, M/s Guru Nanak Dev

Super Speciality Hospital is in the revenue estate of Village Muradpura,

Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran Road, Tehsil & Distt. Tarn Taran being run

by M/s Baba Jiwan Singh Baba Dalip Singh Educational Trust was

granted consent to establish (NOC) from Pollution angle by the Board

vide Zonal Office letter No. 142 dated 07.01.2013, for the establishment

of a hospital, comprising of 300 beds alongwith hostel building.

When NOC was granted to the Hospital alongwith Hostel building

how can the project proponent now divide the project into two parts i.e.

Hospital & Hostel Building separately. Built up area of Hospital building

is reported to be 19235.9 sq.m. And that of hostel building as 10632

sq.m. The project is being run by Baba Jiwan Singh Baba Dalip Singh

Educational Trust. In my opinion, the project is squarely covered under

the provisions of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. We have to

properly guide/advise the trust to follow the Law.

As the consent to operate under the provisions of Water

(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & Air (Prevention &

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and obtaining of Environmental

clearance under the provisions of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 are

different Legal requirement, the case of Baba Jiwan Singh Baba Dalip

Singh Educational Trust, for establishment of Guru Nanak Dev Super

Speciality Hospital, may please be referred to State Environment Impact

Assessment Authority for further necessary action please. The Authority

(SEIAA) will decide as to whether Environmental Clearance is required

or not”.

50

The case was considered by the SEAC in its 75th meeting held on

25.09.2013 and observed that as per the report sent by Punjab Pollution Control

Board vide letter no. 4260 dated 14.08.2013, wherein, mention of legal opinion

obtained in the matter has also been made, the built up area of Hospital building

is 19235.9 sqm and that of hostel building is 10632 sqm and combined built up

area of both the buildings exceeds 20,000 sqm, as such, the project is covered

under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. The SEAC further observed that as per

the report of the Punjab Pollution Control Board, consent to operate has already

been granted to both the projects which reflects that construction has already

been done at site. As such, the case is required to be dealt as per the procedure

mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2012 of the Ministry of

Environment & Forests as amended on 27.06.2013 since the promoter company

has violated the provisions of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 by starting

construction of the project without obtaining environmental clearance under the

said notification.

After detailed deliberations, the SEAC decided as under:

(i) To recommend to SEIAA to decline request of the project proponent

to withdraw the application for obtaining environmental clearance

under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 since the project as a whole

(hospital and hostel) attracts the provisions of said EIA notification

being having built up area more than 20,000 sqm.

(ii) To recommend to SEIAA to send the case to the Govt. of Punjab,

Department of Science, Technology & Environment for:

Initiating credible action against project proponent /

responsible persons / promoter company under the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 due to start of

construction activities of the project without obtaining

Environmental Clearance under EIA notification dated

14.09.2006.



carrying out any further construction activity of the project till

51

the environmental clearance under EIA notification dated

14.09.2006 is obtained.

(iii) To write to the Punjab Pollution Control Board to send a report to

SEIAA, Punjab, mentioning the present construction status of the

project.

The decision taken by SEAC as at point (iii) above has already

been conveyed to Punjab Pollution Control Board vide letter no. 44609

dated 08.10.2013, to send the requisite report to SEIAA.

The case was considered by the SEIAA in its 52nd meeting held on

23.10.2013, wherein, after detailed deliberations, the SEIAA decided as under:

a) To accept the recommendation of the SEAC and decline the request of the

project proponent to withdraw the application for obtaining environmental

clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 since the project as a

whole (hospital and hostel) attracts the provisions of said EIA notification

for having built up area more than 20,000 sqm and the project proponent

be informed in this regard.

b) To send the case to the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Science,

Technology & Environment for:

Initiating credible action against project proponent / responsible

persons / promoter company under the Environment (Protection)

Act, 1986 due to start of construction activities of the project

without obtaining Environmental Clearance under EIA notification

dated 14.09.2006.



carrying out any further construction activity of the project till the

environmental clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 is

obtained.

c) To inform the project proponent that the application for environmental

clearance under EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 will be considered only

after the action is initiated by the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Science,

Technology & Environment for violating the provisions of the said

52

notification due to start of construction work of the project without

obtaining environmental clearance.

The decision of the SEIAA has been conveyed to the project

proponent vide letter no. 47423 dated 30.10.2013 and the case has been

sent to the Govt. of Punjab Department of Science, Technology &

Environment for initiating action under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986


5. Now, the Punjab Pollution Control Board vide letter no. 2163 dated

06.06.2014 has informed that a complaint has been filed in the Hon'ble

Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran against the project promoter

and the persons responsible for violation of the provisions of the EIA

notification dated 14.09.2006. The next date of hearing is on 08.08.2014.

It is further, mentioned here that the newly constituted SEIAA/SEAC

in its combined meeting held on 29.05.2014, proceedings of which are

under issue, decided that all such cases where intimation is received

regarding taking credible action against the project proponent from the

Punjab Pollution Control Board, may be assigned directly by Member

Secretary (SEIAA) to the SEAC for appraisal/ recommendations.

The project proponent has not submitted a formal resolution

passed by the Board of Directors of the Company or to the Managing

Committee / CEO of the Society, Trust, partnership / individually owned

concern, mentioning that violations in respect of starting construction

activities without obtaining environmental clearance under EIA notification

dated 14.09.2006, are un-intentional and will not be repeated in future.




Sh. Rajesh Gotra, Administrator.

Baba Sarwan Singh, Member of Trust

Baba Sarwan Singh, Member of Trust, informed that they are

not ready for presenting the case before the SEAC and may be granted

some time to prepare the same.

53

The SEAC decided to defer the case till its next meeting.

Item No. 94.09: List of projects where additional information desired has not been submitted even after a lapse of 6 months of conveying the observations of SEAC.


The Ministry of Environment & Forests has issued an Office

Memorandum on 30.10.2012 regarding delisting of pending projects, wherein,

it has been mentioned as under:

(i) All projects where additional information desired has not been

submitted even after 6 months of the Expert Appraisal Committee

(EAC) meeting should be de-listed from the list of pending projects.

(ii) For the projects pending between 3 to 6 months of the EAC meeting

for want of information, reminder may be sent seeking information

within a month. If the information is not received within this period,

even these projects may be de-listed.

The said Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Environment

& Forests was discussed in the 66th meeting of SEAC held on 11.01.2013,

wherein, it was decided that a list of all projects, where additional information

sought by the SEAC has not been submitted by the project proponent even after a

lapse of 6 months and a list of all the projects pending between 3 to 6 months for

want of desired information be prepared and placed before next meeting of SEAC,

so as to take necessary action in these cases in compliance to Office

Memorandum dated 30.10.2012 of the Ministry of Environment & Forests.

Now, list of sand mining projects where additional information

sought by the SEAC has not been submitted by the project proponent even after

the lapse of 6 months has been prepared as under:

Sr. No. Details of the Project Decision Conveyed

1. Mining of minor minerals (sand) in

the revenue estate of Village

Madhepur, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt.

Ludhiana

The case was considered in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize "Terms of Reference" to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report. The "Terms of Reference" have been issued to the project proponent vide

letter No. 38073 dated 23.09.2011.

54

The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits proper reply of its observations and clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM is received from SEIAA. The decision of the SEAC has been conveyed to the project proponent vide letter no. 2267 dated 19.06.2013.

Also, SEIAA has been requested vide

letter no. 25219 dated 20.06.2013 to

give necessary clarification regarding

conduct of public hearing below the

rank of DM/ADM.

The matter was discussed by the

SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on

26.06.2013 and decided to ask the

SEAC to accept only those public

hearings, which are supervised and

presided over by an Officer not below

the rank of an Additional District

Magistrate/Additional Deputy

Commissioner and to request the

SEAC to follow the provisions of the

EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 in

letter and spirit at the time of

screening, scoping and appraisal of

the project proposal.

The matter was again considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and after considering the decision of SEIAA, the SEAC decided to ask the project proponent to take up the matter with the Punjab Pollution Control Board for re-conducting the public hearing as per the procedure mentioned in the Appendix-IV of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. Accordingly, the project proponent was asked vide letter no. 31981 dated 22.07.2013 to attend to the above observation. However, no reply has

55

been received as yet from the project proponent.


the revenue estate of Village Mand

Jharaudi, Tehsil Samrala, District

Ludhiana

The case was considered in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize "Terms of Reference" to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report. The "Terms of Reference" have been issued to the project proponent vide letter No. 38115 dated 23.09.2011. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits proper reply of its observations and clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM is received from SEIAA. The decision of the SEAC has been conveyed to the project proponent


Also, SEIAA has been requested vide

letter no. 25219 dated 20.06.2013 to

give necessary clarification regarding


rank of DM/ADM.

The matter was discussed by the SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on 26.06.2013 and decided to ask the SEAC to accept only those public hearings, which are supervised and presided over by an Officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate/Additional Deputy Commissioner and to request the SEAC to follow the provisions of the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 in letter and spirit at the time of screening, scoping and appraisal of the project proposal. The matter was again considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and after considering the decision of SEIAA, the SEAC decided to ask the project proponent to take up the matter with the Punjab Pollution Control Board for re-

56

conducting the public hearing as per the procedure mentioned in the Appendix-IV of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006.

Accordingly, the project proponent was asked vide letter no. 31993 dated 22.07.2013 to attend to the above observation. However, no reply has been received as yet from the project proponent.

3. Mining of minor minerals (sand) in the revenue estate of Village Hadiwal, Tehsil Ludhiana (East), District Ludhiana

The case was considered in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize following "Terms of Reference" and to convey the same to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report. The "Terms of Reference" have been issued to the project proponent vide letter No. 38079 dated 23.09.2011. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits proper reply of its observations and clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM is received from SEIAA. The decision of the SEAC has been conveyed to the project proponent vide letter no. 2275 dated

19.06.2013.

Also, SEIAA has been requested vide letter no. 25219 dated 20.06.2013 to give necessary clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM.

The matter was discussed by the SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on 26.06.2013 and decided to ask the SEAC to accept only those public hearings, which are supervised and presided over by an Officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate/Additional Deputy Commissioner and to request the SEAC to follow the provisions of the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 in

57

letter and spirit at the time of screening, scoping and appraisal of


The matter was again considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and after considering the decision of SEIAA, the SEAC decided to ask the project proponent to take up the matter with the Punjab Pollution Control Board for re-conducting the public hearing as per the procedure mentioned in the Appendix-IV of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006.



the revenue estate of Village

Mahal Ghumana, Tehsil Ludhiana

(East), Distt. Ludhiana

The case was considered in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize "Terms of Reference" to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report.

The "Terms of Reference" have been issued to the project proponent vide

letter No. 38085 dated 23.09.2011.

The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits proper reply of its observations and clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM is received from SEIAA.

The decision of the SEAC has been conveyed to the project proponent vide letter no. 2270 dated

19.06.2013.

Also, SEIAA has been requested vide letter no. 25219 dated 20.06.2013 to give necessary clarification regarding

58


rank of DM/ADM.

The matter was discussed by the SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on 26.06.2013 and decided to ask the SEAC to accept only those public hearings, which are supervised and presided over by an Officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate/Additional Deputy Commissioner and to request the SEAC to follow the provisions of the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 in letter and spirit at the time of screening, scoping and appraisal of


The matter was again considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and after considering the decision of SEIAA, the SEAC decided to ask the project proponent to take up the matter with the Punjab Pollution Control Board for re-conducting the public hearing as per the procedure mentioned in the Appendix-IV of EIA notification dated

14.09.2006.


5. Mining of minor minerals (sand) in the revenue estate of Village Milkowal, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana

The case was considered in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize "Terms of Reference" to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report. The "Terms of Reference" have been issued to the project proponent vide letter No. 38067 dated 23.09.2011. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits proper reply of its observations and clarification regarding conduct of

59

public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM is received from SEIAA. The decision of the SEAC has been conveyed to the project proponent


Also, SEIAA has been requested vide letter no. 25219 dated 20.06.2013 to give necessary clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM. The matter was discussed by the SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on 26.06.2013 and decided to ask the SEAC to accept only those public hearings, which are supervised and presided over by an Officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate/Additional Deputy Commissioner and to request the SEAC to follow the provisions of the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 in letter and spirit at the time of screening, scoping and appraisal of the project proposal. The matter was again considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and after considering the decision of SEIAA, the SEAC decided to ask the project proponent to take up the matter with the Punjab Pollution Control Board for re-conducting the public hearing as per the procedure mentioned in the Appendix-IV of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006.


6. Mining of minor minerals (sand) in the revenue estate of Village Khaira Bet-2, Tehsil Ludhiana (West), District Ludhiana

The case was considered in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize "Terms of Reference" to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report. The "Terms of Reference" have been

60

issued to the project proponent vide letter No. 38091 dated 23.09.2011. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits proper reply of its observations and clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM is received from SEIAA. The decision of the SEAC has been conveyed to the project proponent vide letter no. 2274 dated 19.06.2013. Also, SEIAA has been requested vide letter no. 25219 dated 20.06.2013 to give necessary clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM. The matter was discussed by the SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on 26.06.2013 and decided to ask the SEAC to accept only those public hearings, which are supervised and presided over by an Officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate/Additional Deputy Commissioner and to request the SEAC to follow the provisions of the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 in letter and spirit at the time of screening, scoping and appraisal of the project proposal. The matter was again considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and after considering the decision of SEIAA, the SEAC decided to ask the project proponent to take up the matter with the Punjab Pollution Control Board for re-conducting the public hearing as per the procedure mentioned in the Appendix-IV of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. Accordingly, the project proponent was asked vide letter no. 31984 dated 22.07.2013 to attend to the above observation. However, no reply has been received as yet from the project proponent.

61

7. Mining of minor minerals (sand) in the revenue estate of Village Dhullewal, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana

The case was considered in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize "Terms of Reference" to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report. The "Terms of Reference" have been issued to the project proponent vide

letter No. 38127 dated 23.09.2011.

The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits proper reply of its observations and clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM is received from SEIAA. The decision of the SEAC has been conveyed to the project proponent vide letter no. 2267 dated

19.06.2013.

Also, SEIAA has been requested vide letter no. 25219 dated 20.06.2013 to give necessary clarification regarding conduct of public hearing below the rank of DM/ADM. The matter was discussed by the SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on 26.06.2013 and decided to ask the SEAC to accept only those public hearings, which are supervised and presided over by an Officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate/Additional Deputy Commissioner and to request the SEAC to follow the provisions of the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 in letter and spirit at the time of screening, scoping and appraisal of the project proposal. The matter was again considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and after considering the decision of SEIAA, the SEAC decided to ask the project proponent to take up the matter with the Punjab Pollution Control Board for re-conducting the public hearing as per the procedure mentioned in the Appendix-IV of EIA notification dated

62

14.09.2006. Accordingly, the project proponent was asked vide letter no. 31986 dated 22.07.2013 to attend to the above observation. However, no reply has been received as yet from the project proponent.

8. Mining of minor minerals (sand) in the revenue estate of Village Kot Umran, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana

The case was considered in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize "Terms of Reference" to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report. The "Terms of Reference" have been issued to the project proponent vide letter No. 38751 dated 23.09.2011. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013, wherein the General Manager-cum-Mining Officer requested the SEAC to allow to withdraw the application submitted for environmental clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 and decided to recommend the case to SEIAA to accept the request of the General Manager-cum-Mining Officer. The case was considered by the SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on 26.06.2013 and decided to remand the case to SEAC to examine the same afresh in view of Office Memorandum dated 18.05.2012 of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, and submit its recommendations and to inform the General Manager-cum-Mining Officer in this regard. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and decided to defer the case to the next meeting of the SEAC. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 74th meeting held on 14.08.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits revised EIA report after incorporating the reply of certain observations.

Accordingly, the project proponent was asked vide letter no. 36443 dated

63

29.08.2013 to attend to the above observation. However, no reply has been received as yet from the project proponent.

9. Mining of minor minerals (sand) in the revenue estate of Village Khaira Bet-1, Tehsil Ludhiana (West), District Ludhiana

The case was considered by the SEAC in its 51st meeting held on 07.09.2011 decided to finalize "Terms of Reference" to the project proponent for preparation of rapid EIA study report. The "Terms of Reference" have been issued to the project proponent vide letter No. 38139 dated 23.09.2011. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 71st meeting held on 07.06.2013, wherein the General Manager-cum-Mining Officer requested the SEAC to allow to withdraw the application submitted for environmental clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 and decided to recommend the case to SEIAA to accept the request of the General Manager-cum-Mining Officer. The case was considered by the SEIAA in its 49th meeting held on 26.06.2013 and decided to remand the case to SEAC to examine the same afresh in view of Office Memorandum dated 18.05.2012 of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, and submit its recommendations and to inform the General Manager-cum-Mining Officer in this regard. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 73rd meeting held on 12.07.2013 and decided to defer the case to the next meeting of the SEAC. The case was considered by the SEAC in its 74th meeting held on 14.08.2013 and decided to defer the case till the project proponent submits revised EIA report after incorporating the reply of certain observations. Accordingly, the project proponent was asked vide letter no. 36426 dated 29.08.2013 to attend to the above observation. However, no reply has been received as yet from the project proponent.

64

The matter was deliberated upon by the SEAC and decided to

recommend to SEIAA to delist all the above mentioned projects, where additional

information sought by the SEAC has not been submitted by the project proponent

even after 6 months.

Item No. 94.10: Guidelines for consideration of proposals for grant of environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 for mining of minor minerals – regarding categorization of Category ‘B’ projects/activities into

category 'B1' and 'B2'.

The Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi has issued

an Office Memorandum No. L-11011/47/2011-IA.II (M) dated 24.06.2013, in

which it has been mentioned as under:

"1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 27.02.2012 in I.A.No.12-

13 of 2011 in SLP (C) No.19628-19629 of 2009 titled Deepak Kumar etc.

Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. has inter alia ordered that leases of minor

minerals including their renewal for an area less than 5 ha be granted by

the State / Union Territory only after getting environment clearance (EC)

from the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). In order to ensure

compliance of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, MoEF

issued an OM No.L-11011/47/2011-IA.II(M) dated 18.05.2012 stating inter-

alia that all mining projects of minor minerals including their renewal,

irrespective of the size of the lease would henceforth require prior EC and

that the projects of minor minerals with lease area less than 5 ha would be

treated as Category “B” as defined in EIA Notification, 2006 and will be

considered by the respective State Environment Impact Assessment

Authorities (SEIAAs) notified by MoEF and following the procedure

prescribed under the EIA Notification, 2006.

2. MoEF has received a number of representations conveying problems being

faced by the brick kiln manufacturers in obtaining EC for ‘brick earth’ mined

by them for making bricks and by the developers of road projects in

respect of mining of ‘ordinary earth’ used for road construction. The brick

65

kiln manufacturers have requested that as the digging of ‘brick earth’ for

making bricks is a small scale activity requiring digging only upto a certain

depth, the activity may be kept outside the purview of EC. The project

proponents developing roads have represented that the ‘ordinary earth’

required for road construction is generally taken from the farmers /

individuals along the road alignment from their borrows. It would be

impractical to ask the farmers / individuals to obtain EC for such digging. In

a nutshell, the arguments being put forth are that digging of ‘brick earth’

for brick making and ‘ordinary earth’ for road making do not have serious

environmental implications, the provisioning for EC for such operations is

impeding these development activities because of practical problems in

obtaining EC.

3. MoEF vide OM No.F.No.J-11013/12/2013-IA-II(I) dated 30.01.13 has

constituted an Expert Committee, under the Chairmanship of Director,

NEERI, Nagpur, to categorize Category “B” projects / activities into

Category “B1” and “B2” under EIA Notification, 2006 and review

classification of projects / activities into “A” and “B” and General conditions

as contained in the aforesaid Notification. The issues raised by brick kiln

manufacturers regarding ‘brick earth’ and road developers in respect of

‘ordinary earth’ were referred by MoEF to this Expert Committee to give

their recommendations. The Committee deliberated upon these issues and

has since given its recommendations in the matter.

4. The recommendations of the Committee have been examined by MoEF and

the following has been decided:

(a) The activities of borrowing / excavation of ‘brick earth’ and ‘ordinary

earth’, upto an area less than 5 ha, may be categorized under ‘B2’

Category subject to the following guidelines in terms of the

provisions under ‘7.I Stage(1)-Screening’ of EIA Notification, 2006:

(i) The activity associated with borrowing/excavation of ‘brick

earth’ and ‘ordinary earth’ for purpose of brick manufacturing,

construction of roads, embankments etc. shall not involve

blasting.

66

(ii) The borrowing/excavation activity shall be restricted to a

maximum depth of 2 m below general ground level at the

site.

(iii) The borrowing/excavation activity shall be restricted to 2 m

above the ground water table at the site.

(iv) The borrowing/excavation activity shall not alter the natural

drainage pattern of the area.

(v) The borrowed/excavated pit shall be restored by the project

proponent for useful purpose(s).

(vi) Appropriate fencing all around the borrowed/excavated pit

shall be made to prevent any mishap.

(vii) Measures shall be taken to prevent dust emission by covering

of borrowed/excavated earth during transportation.

(viii) Safeguards shall be adopted against health risks on account

of breeding of vectors in the water bodies created due to

borrowing/excavation of earth.

(ix) Workers / labourers shall be provided with facilities for

drinking water and sanitation.

(x) A berm shall be left from the boundary of adjoining field

having a width equal to at least half the depth of proposed

excavation.

(xi) A minimum distance of 15 m from any civil structure shall be

kept from the periphery of any excavation area.

(xii) The concerned SEIAA while considering granting

environmental clearance for such activity for brick earth /

ordinary earth will prescribe the guidelines as stated at (i) to

(xi) above and specify that the clearance so granted shall be

Iiable to be cancelled in case of any violation of above

guidelines.

(b) Notwithstanding what has been stated at (a) above, the following

will apply:-

67

(i) No borrowing of earth / excavation of 'brick earth' or

'ordinary earth' shall be permitted in case the area of

borrowing/ excavation is within I km of boundary of national

parks and wild life sanctuaries.

(ii) In case the area of borrowing / excavation is likely to result

into a cluster situation i.e. if the periphery of one borrow area

is less than 500 m from the periphery of another borrow area

and the total borrow area equals or exceeds 5 ha, the activity

shall become Category 'B-I' Project under the EIA

Notification, 2006. In such a case, mining operations in any

of the borrow areas in the cluster will be allowed only if the

environmental clearance has been obtained in respect of the

cluster."

The matter was discussed in the 3rd combined meeting of

SEIAA and SEAC held on 12.07.2013 and formulated the check list and

also decided to upload this check list on the official website of SEIAA,

Punjab.

Thereafter, the Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi

vide notification dated 09.09.2013 has made amendments in category 1(a)

of the Schedule on the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 to the effect that

‘General Condition’ will not be applicable for the projects having mining

area less than 5 hectares.

The matter was deliberated upon by the SEIAA & SEAC in its

4th combined meeting held on 28.09.2013 and noted that there is a need to

amend the check list of documents required to be submitted by the brick

kiln owners for obtaining environmental clearance under EIA notification

dated 14.09.2006 for mining of ‘brick earth’ and ‘ordinary earth’ in the light

of amendment made by the MoEF in the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006

vide notification dated 09.09.2013 and with regard to topographical map.

68

After detailed deliberations, the members of SEIAA and SEAC

decided to amend the check list as under and to upload this revised check

list on the official website of SEIAA, Punjab.

CHECK LIST

1. Properly filled Form 1 and pre-feasibility report

2. Proof of ownership of land /registered lease deed of mining area

3. Site-cum-location plan of the mining site clearly indicating the hadbast number, khasra number and khewat/khatoni number etc. on the 'akash sajra' plan

4. Status of mining at the site, if any, alongwith photographs from all the four sides.

5. 500 meter radius map of the area from periphery of project site clearly indicating the physical features.

6. Environmental Management Plan indicating the following: a) All mitigation measures to minimize adverse environmental impacts as

a result of the activities of the project. b) Compliance of various environmental regulations c) Steps to be taken in case of emergency such as accidents at the site

including fire. d) For how long period the project proponent will be responsible for

implementation of EMP and the name of the person(s) responsible for implementation of EMP.

e) Capital & recurring cost for the EMP per year and the details of funds for the same.

f) Name of the individual persons / organization, who will be responsible for implementation of EMP after the lapse of the period for which the project proponent is responsible.

7. Whether the periphery of any other area of borrowing/excavation falls within a radius of 500 m from the periphery of this area borrowing/excavation or not? If yes, how much is the total area of all such borrowing/excavation sites? The project proponent shall submit an undertaking to the effect that the total area of all borrowing/excavation sites including the area of proposed project within a radius of 500 m from the proposed area of borrowing / excavation is less than 5 hectares.

8. Certificate of Deptt. of Forests & Wildlife Preservation to the effect that there is no boundary of National Park & Wildlife within a radius of 1.0 km of

from boundary of the mining site.

9. Mining sites located more than 1 km apart are to be considered as different block/cluster and are required to obtain separate environmental clearance under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006.

Subsequently, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi vide

OM No. J-13012/12/2013-IA.II (I) dated 24.12.2013 has issued certain

69

guidelines for consideration of proposals for grant of environmental clearance

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 and its amendments

— regarding categorization of Category ‘B’ projects activities into Category ‘BI’ &

‘B2’.

The following has been decided w.r.t. categorization of category 'B'

projects/activities into category 'B1' and 'B2'. The decision w.r.t. mining of minor

minerals projects/activities as under:

As of now, mining projects of minor minerals with less than 50 ha of mining

lease area are categorized as Category ‘B’ as per Notification S.O.2731(E) dated

9th September, 2013. Also vide CM No.L-11011/47!2011-IA.II(M) dated

24.06.2013, guidelines have been issued regarding categorization of mining

projects of ‘brick earth’ and ‘ordinary earth’ having lease area less than 5 ha as

category ‘B2’ subject to stipulations stated therein.

In the above backdrop, the projects of mining of minor minerals,

categorized as Category ‘B’ are hereby categorized as ‘B2’ as per the following:

i) ‘Brick earth’/‘Ordinary earth’ mining projects having lease area less than

5 ha will be considered for granting EC as per the aforesaid guidelines

issued by MOEF on 24.6.2013.

ii) ‘Brick earth’/'Ordinary earth’ mining projects with mining lease area > 5

ha but < 25 ha and all other minor mineral mining projects with mining

lease area <25 ha, except for river sand mining projects will be

appraised as Category ‘B2’ projects. These projects will be appraised

based on following documents:

a) Form -1 as per Appendix-I under EIA Notification, 2006

b) Pre-feasibility report of the project

c) Mining plan approved by the authorized agency of

the concerned State Government

Provided, in case the mining lease area is likely to

result into a cluster situation, i.e., if the periphery of one lease area

is less than 500 m from the periphery of another lease area and the

total lease area equals or exceeds 25 ha, the activity shall become

Category ‘B-1’ Project under the EIA Notification, 2006. In such a

case, mining operations in any of the mine lease areas in the cluster

will be allowed only if the environmental clearance has been

obtained in respect of the cluster.

iii) No river sand mining project, with mine lease area less than 5 ha,

may be considered for granting EC. The river sand mining projects

70

with mining lease area 5 ha but < 25 ha will be categorized as ‘B2’.

In addition to the requirement of documents, as brought out above

under sub-para (ii) above for appraisal, such projects will be

considered subject to the following stipulations:

a) The mining activity shall be done manually.

b) The depth of mining shall be restricted to 3m/water level,

whichever is less.

c) For carrying out mining in proximity to any bridge and/or

embankment, appropriate safety zone shall be worked out on

case to case basis to the satisfaction of SEACISEIM, taking

into account the structural parameters, locational aspects,

flow rate, etc., and no mining shall be carried out in the

safety zone so worked out

d) No in stream mining shall be allowed

e) The mining plan approved by the authorized agency of the

State Government shall inter-alia include study to show that

the annual replenishment of sand in the mining lease area is

sufficient to sustain the mining operations at levels prescribed

in the mining plan and that the transport infrastructure is

adequate to transport the mines material. In case of

transportation by road, the transport vehicles will be covered

with taurpoline to minimize dust/sand particle emissions.

f) EC will be valid for mine lease period subject to a ceiling of 5

years.

Provided, in case the mining lease area is likely to result into

a cluster situation i.e. if the periphery of one lease area is less than 1 km

from the periphery of another lease area and total lease area equals or

exceeds 25 ha, the activity shall become Category ‘BI’ Project under the

EIA Notification, 2006. In such a case, mining operations in any of the

mine lease areas in the cluster will be allowed only if the environmental

clearance has been obtained in respect of the cluster.

Now, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in

application No. 343 of 2013 (M.A. No. 1093/2013) and application No. 279

of 2013 (M.A. No. 1120/2013) has passed the Order on 28.03.2014, which

is reproduced as under:

71

”The Ministry of Environment & Forests has not been

able to explain as to how the Office Memorandum dated 24th

December, 2013 is in conformity with the order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case, order of the NGT and the

Notification dated 9th September, 2013 issued by the MoEF itself.

We do not think that the MoEF could have issued such

memorandum.

The Notification issued by the MoEF is an act of

subordinate legislation and was issued in exercise of statutory

powers. The Office Memorandum is an administrative order and

cannot frustrate the legislative act. In fact, it falls beyond the

scope of administrative powers. Consequently, we stay the

operation and effect of the order of Office Memorandum dated

24th December, 2013. In so far as it relates to the minor minerals

like sand etc., list these matters on 30.05.2014 for hearing."

In view of the above, orders passed by the Hon'ble National

Green Tribunal, New Delhi, the matter is placed before the SEAC for:

(i) To decide whether the cases of mining of minor mineral projects

already received under category 'B2' are to be returned or kept in

abeyance till final orders are passed by the Hon'ble NGT in the said

matter.

(ii) Whether fresh application for obtaining environmental clearance for

mining of minor mineral projects under category 'B2' are to be

accepted or not by the SEIAA/SEAC.

The matter was deliberated upon by the SEAC and decided that:

(i) The matter be referred to Law Officer of Punjab Pollution Control

Board for legal opinion and till such time:

(a) Pending environmental clearance cases of mining of minor

minerals be kept in abeyance.

(b) No fresh application for obtaining environmental clearance for

mining of minor minerals be received.

72

(ii) The information regarding Hon'ble NGT Orders dated 28.03.2014

and (i) above be displayed on the official website of SEIAA i.e.

www.seiaapunjab.co.in

(iii) The above said decisions of the SEAC be brought to the knowledge

of SEIAA.

General Discussion

The SEAC observed that there are certain cases where the visit of

the Sub-Committee constituted by the previous SEAC to inspect the site of the

project to check the construction status, are lying pending with the SEAC, as the

same could not be carried out due to the expiry of the tenure of previous SEIAA-

SEAC on 06.02.2014.

The SEAC decided to re-constitute the Sub-Committee comprising of the

following members for visiting the site of the projects whose cases are lying

pending with the SEAC, to check the latest construction status:

(a) Sh. Malvinder Singh, Member (SEAC)

(b) Sh. Harbax Singh, Member (SEAC)

(c) Sh. Nirmal Singh Kahlon, Member (SEAC)

The Sub-Committee will visit the site and submit its report to SEAC within

10 days.

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair. *****

http://www.seiaapunjab.co.in/

Documents

STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE, PUNJAB Ministry …seiaapunjab.co.in/proceedings of 94th meeting of SEAC held on 12.6... · STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE, PUNJAB Ministry of