SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF
STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
CHHATTISGARH
The 8th meeting of State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Chhattisgarh was held on 16/02/2009 at 12.00 P.M. and continued on 25/02/2009 at
Conference Hall, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Chhattisgarh
Secretariat, Raipur Shri A. P. Singh, Chairman, SEIAA, Chhattisgarh chaired the
meeting. The following members of SEIAA were present in the meeting: 1. Dr M.L. Naik, Member, SEIAA
2. Shri P.V. Narsing Rao, Member Secretary, SEIAA
At the outset, the Nodal Officer, SEIAA, Chhattisgarh welcomed the Chairman
and Members of Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Chhattisgarh. Agenda wise
discussions were carried out as follows: Agenda Item No. 1: -
Confirmation of minutes of the 7th meeting of SEIAA,
Chhattisgarh –
Summary record of the 7th meeting of SEIAA, Chhattisgarh held on 16/12/2008
were presented before the committee. The Committee approved the minutes of the
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2: -
(01)
Discussion
on
Consideration.
Proposals
Submitted
for
The following proposals which were appraised by the SEAC Chhattisgarh and
have been sent to SEIAA Chhattisgarh for further consideration were placed
before the SEIAA, CG for the grant of environmental clearance.
Sr.
Name of Proposal
No.
1
M/s Mahamaya Steel,
B-8/9, Urla Industrial Complex,
Sarona, Sector-C, Raipur
2
M/s U.P. Ispat Private Limited,
Village & Post – Tendua, District
Raipur (CG)
3
M/s.
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Limited,
Mandir Hasoud, Raipur
4
M/s Pathrakundi Lime Stone Mine,
Village-Pathrakundi, Tahsil-Tilda,
District- Raipur
5
M/s. Shakti Development Private
Limited,
Village – Silpahri, Tahsil & District
– Bilspur
6
M/s Orient Ispat Private Limited,
Works: Village- Tedesara, PostSomni,
Dist.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
7
M/s Gupta Infrastructure Private
Limited, Khasra no. 515, Scheme
D:\81916450.doc
the
1
Proposal Put-up For
The grant of environmental
clearance
The grant of environmental
clearance
The grant of environmental
clearance
The grant of environmental
clearance
The grant of environmental
clearance
Exemption for the preparation of
EIA
The grant of environmental
clearance
8
9
10
11
12
no. 32, Pandari Road, Devendra
Nagar, Raipur
M/s Bhilai Entertainment World
Developers Private Limited Site:
Opposite Surya Vihar, Junwani,
Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG)
M/s.
Chhattisgarh
Mineral
Development Corporation Limited,
(Khasra
No.
178/16,178/13,
178/13kh,
178/14,176
and
178..Area 12.106 Ha.)
Village – Visarpani, Tehsil –
Sitapur, District- Sarguja,
M/s Rajat Power & Steel Private
Limited, Plot No. 3-4 A, Industrial
Area, Village- Sarora, Dist. –
Raipur (C.G.)
M/s Goyal Energy & Steel Private
Ltd. Tatibandh Chowk, Ring Road
No. -02 Raipur (C.G.)
M/s Bhajanka Ferro Alloy, 66-C,
Industrial Area, Korba (C.G.).
The grant of environmental
clearance
The grant of environmental
clearance
The grant of environmental
clearance
Guidance regarding environmental
clearance.
Guidance regarding requirement
of environmental clearance.
The proposals were discussed in detail and a consensus was reached that the next
meeting would be called where a final decision can be arrived at.
The Chairman after attending the meeting on 16/02/2009 gave a letter dated 17/02/2009
in the office raising some issues in the form of an advisory. The meeting on SEIAA,
Chhattisgarh was again held on 25/02/2009 to discuss the remaining issues for arriving
at a conclusion. The points raised by the Chairman, SEIAA, Chhattisgarh in the advisory
letter were also discussed and the members have expressed their opinion on
25/02/2009. The issues are as follows:
(02)
The proposals were considered in the 6th meeting of State Level Environment
Impact Assessment Authority, Chhattisgarh held on 03/12/2008. After
deliberations, following decision was taken.
“The authority felt the need to have before them the formal basis of categorization
of projects as ‘B1’ or ‘B2’, which the SEAC, Chhattisgarh, has adopted.
Accordingly, SEAC, Chhattisgarh may be requested to furnish a copy of the same,
so that appropriate decision may be taken in this regard.”
Accordingly, the issue was placed before the SEAC, Chhattisgarh. After
deliberation in the 22nd meeting held on 31/01/2009, SEAC, Chhattisgarh decided
as follows:“Para 7 (i) I -Stage (1) – Screening of Environment Impact Assessment,
Notification, 2006 states that “in case of category ‘B’ projects or activities, this
stage will entail the scrutiny of an application seeking prior environmental
clearance made in Form I by the concerned State level Expert Appraisal
Committee (SEAC) for determining whether or not the activity requires
further environmental studies for preparation of an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) for its appraisal prior to the grant of environmental
clearance depending up on the nature and location specificity of the
project.”
The categorization of category ‘B’ projects or activities in to B1 or B2 lies in the
purview of State level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). The Committee had
D:\81916450.doc
2
considered the above proposals from the point of view of its location (industrial
area/other area), size and nature of activity for which Environmental Clearance
sought, (i.e. Mining projects, Rolling Mill, Induction Furnace and other activities) of
comparatively small capacity and felt that no significant impact on the surrounding
is anticipated. Based on these considerations, the committee had considered the
above mentioned projects as ‘B2’ category and recommended for grant of
Environmental Clearance subject to fulfillment of specific terms and conditions
stipulated.”
(03) Advisory Letter dated 17/02/2009 of Chairman, SEIAA, Chhattisgarh :(A) The environmental impacts resulting from the individual and cumulative
activities proposed by the many project proponents in their applications for prior
environmental clearance (PEC), for setting up/expanding their projects located in
and around the cities of Raipur, Korba and Raigarh, need to be evaluated with
care and concern as these cities are perceived to have high/critical levels of air
pollution (pl refer the ambient air quality data for the year 2004 onwards, for these
cities, available at cpcbenvis.nic.in). As on date, of the 109 applications received
52 or (48%) are in and around Raipur, 13 or (12%) are for Raigarh area and 5 or
(4.6%) are for Korba. Thus before granting PEC to such applications and for a fair
and proper appraisal of the consequences of the proposed additional
environmental impacts, which have the potential to seriously damage the life and
health of the large populations residing in this cities, it is necessary to have
access to the following latest/most recent data for the aforementioned cities :
1) Area wise / sector wise, annual average concentration of air
pollutants within each city limit as defined by the competent Area
Development Authority and also for a 20 km wide perimeter area/belt
surrounding these cities.
2) Baseline environmental data as at (1).
3) Carrying capacity as at (1).
4) Individual and cumulative environmental impacts of all the
applications received for PEC on (1), (2) and (3) and the projections
of the population impacted.
5) Number of cases of respiratory ailments and the resultant deaths, for
the period 2000-2008, as at (1).
6) Any other relevant information.
Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board is requested to provide the above
information. In case the above information is not available, the Board is requested
to make the necessary arrangements with an authorized agency such as NEERI
and the State Health Department, for obtaining information within four months of
this meeting. Accordingly all such cases will come under “deferred” status till then.
Based on the information provided by the board, these applications will be
reviewed after four months for grant/ rejection of PEC. In case the above
information as specified is not made available in time, all the applications for the
specified locations will automatically stand rejected. The Board is also requested
to provide similar information for Bilaspur and Bhilai areas.
In the meantime in line with Justice Kuldeep Singh’s decision in the “Welfare
Forum Vs Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 case” on the “ Precautionary
Principal”, which says “the onus of proof is on the developer/industrialist to show
be that his action is environmentally benign”, letters to this effect should be sent by
the SEAC to all the concerned applicants in the above specified locations
requesting complete details of the generated impacts, immediately, to avoid the
occurrence of deemed environmental clearance, due to procedural delays.
D:\81916450.doc
3
(B) Categorization of projects as B1 or B2 may be done as per Schedule I and the
guidelines issued by MoEF from time to time. Red category (highly polluting)
industries may not be categorized as B2.
(C) The MoEF notification No: 1533 (E) dated 14/09/2006 clearly states that only
“Prior Environmental Clearance” is to be granted by SEIAA. There is no provision
regarding the grant of post-facto PEC in the notification. Clarifications in this
regard have been sought from Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of
India, New Delhi by SEIAA (CG) and may be implemented on receipt. In the
interim it will be advisable to maintain status-quo.
Subsequently, a general clarification was received from JD(S), MOEF vide his
letter F.No.J-11013/8/2009-IA-II(I), dated 06.04.2009,addressed to MS
SEIAA(C.G.),which has been referred to at point 06(vii) below.
Chairman SEIAA (C.G.) has expressed disagreement with the approach in the
above clarification from JD(S),MOEF,vide his communication No: Chairman
SEIAA(C.G.)/2009/07,dated 09.04.2009 addressed to MOEF stating:
“That it is possible to find a suitable precedence for almost anything. But a
precedence which gives rise to counter-productive decision making, does not
necessarily require emulation.
By initiating a system of granting post-facto Environmental Clearances, we will be
encouraging Project Proponents to set up highly polluting industries, wherever and
however they desire, of whatsoever capacity they wish, with no concern for the
health and safety of the People of Chhattisgarh .The PP’s cannot pre-suppose an
ex-post facto approval by SEIAA, or that the EC will be operative retrospectively
and available on the tap eventually. I have already brought out some of these
aspects in my letter dated 17.02.2009, wherein I have made a specific mention of
critical ambient air pollution levels ,as reported by CPCB and the CECB, from
2004 onwards, in Raipur, Korba and Bhilai. Raigarh and Janjgir Champa also
have high levels of air and at places water pollution.. If carrying capacity exists in
the residential areas of these cities, presently, please send me the data for needful
at our end, as to the best of my information it does not.. Superimpose on these
already high levels of air pollution,the consequences of sanctioning a large
number of category-A Thermal Power Plants by MOEF, in and around these
populated cities, and you have recipe for an unwholesome spin off’s for the health
and well being of a large section of the population in this state, in direct
contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution. Whether the increase in the
respiratory ailments and deaths in these cities has been taken into consideration
by MOEF, is the moot question. This difficult scenario is being further complicated
by the selective precedents, being provided as in the letter at reference, by JD(s),
MOEF(IA Division).Each State and each Project is unique and imposing a
precedence, out of context, has a large potential for mismatch, resulting in
disastrous consequences for the people living there.
No decision regarding grant of EC is valid, without having gone through the EIA
evaluation process, which is documented and available for public record and in
which the Public participation has been mandatory, with a feedback to the
communities on how their inputs have been considered. In this direction more
attention needs to be paid to section 4 of the RTI Act of 2005.
Your kind attention is also drawn to the Planning Commission’s March 2007, –
Reports of the Task Forces on Governance, Transparency, Participation &
Environmental Impact Assessment and urban environmental issues, in the E&F
sector for 2007-2012, which states categorically on page 12, point 47, that “ExPost Facto environmental clearances should be prohibited by law.”
D:\81916450.doc
4
You will agree that granting ex- post facto EC’s, to project proponents who have
installed their industries, in an unregulated manner, without a systematic appraisal
of the impacts on the environment, health and livelihood of populations, strikes at
the very purpose, for which the Prior Environmental Clearance has been, notified.
It also encourages grant of EC through the back door, by means never desired by
MOEF. It would be interesting to learn about the total number of prosecutions/
cases successfully decided in favour of the prosecuting agencies at the Centre
and the States and the quantum of punishment/fines levied,along with a
comparison to the damage inflicted on the health and environment by such
unregulated project proponents. I’m sure no such information has been collated, in
case it does exist, it may please be made available.
Considering the above, granting post-facto EC’s, is a bad precedence, defeating
the spirit and purpose of the Notification, which talks only about Prior
Environmental Clearance. The words Ex- Post Facto EC, find no mention in the
Notification S.O.1533(E) or its amendments and therefore granting of these, would
result in consequences adversely impacting the interests of the people of
Chhattisgarh, to serve whom, the SEIAA(C.G.) has been constituted.
Given the gravity of the issues involved, I request you to personally respond to this
issue with the desired supporting data, preferably by return e-mail/ speedpost,
taking into consideration the environmental/air pollution situation prevailing in the
State of Chhattisgarh, from the data available with the Board, CPCB & MOEF and
the uniqueness of each project , its impacts on the environment, health and
livelihoods of the population inhabiting the surrounding areas and then advice us
to grant ex-post facto environmental clearances to the PP,s, considering the
purpose of granting Prior Environmental Clearance. A response, within a fortnite is
requested, as this will enable the Authority to quickly take correct decisions, in the
best interests of the People and the PP’s, and reduce the escalating pendency of
applications.
However, if no response is received within the requested timeline, then it will be
presumed that only PEC’s are required to be issued by SEIAA (C.G.).”
The bottom line is, that if in spite of the above prayer, MOEF still feels the need
and compulsion to issue ex-post facto EC’s, it can arrange to issue an amendment
to the Notification and integrate the issue of ex-post facto environmental clearance
by SEIAA’s, into law. Till then the hiatus between the proposed general precedent
and the application of the Notification, in its present form and content, appears to
be unbridgeable.In any case acceptance/non-acceptance of precedents is
discretionary, depending on its suitability in a given context. For reasons
mentioned above it is non acceptable. Accordingly applications for grant of expost facto EC, are to be rejected,“ in good faith” and in the larger interest of the
health safety and welfare of the people as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Legal
action is to be initiated as per rules, by CECB. Request for needful should be sent
to MS CECB by MSSEIAA(C.G.).
(D) Chairman’s application wise comments on the agenda points of the Eighth
SEIAA meeting vide letter no: Chairman SEIAA(C.G.)/ 2009/02, dated
25/02/2009, were sent after considering the recommendations of the SEAC, and
are as follows:
1) M/s Mahamaya Steel ,Urla Sector C, Raipur : to be dealt in accordance with
point 03(C) above. Application for PEC is to be rejected and legal action to be
initiated by MS CECB as per rules. Request for needful to be sent by MS
SEIAA(C.G.) to MS CECB.
2) M/s U.P.Ispat, Tendua, Raipur : to be dealt in accordance with point
03(A)&(B) above. Applicant to be issued notice as per “precautionary
D:\81916450.doc
5
principle”.Applicant to show that carrying capacity will be available after
superimposing the environmental impacts of its proposed activities on the existing
pollution levels over the entire impacted sector/area, with separate and detailed
data for each of the residential areas, i.e cities, towns, villages and habitats falling
therein. Applicant is to be requested for submission of comparative data on the
environmental impacts, environmental performance and effects on the health,
welfare and livelihood of the people, living in the impacted areas of at least two
similar industries in existence, for a more accurate evaluation.(The on going
NEERI apportionment study does not wholly fulfill the above requirements). SEAC
on receipt of the above data from all the interested applicants, after the expiry of
the precautionary notice period, will put up the cumulative environmental impacts
of all such applicants, area wise, sector wise, location wise, especially with regard
to industries proposed in and around the cities of Raipur, Korba, Raigarh, JanjgirChampa, Bhilai and Bilaspur, in the perimeter area defined in point 03(A), in a
properly tabulated manner, to the Authority for further needful. Applications for
activity in the above locations will be defined only as B1. . Non submission of any
of the above information, by the applicant or SEAC, within the specified time ,will
result in rejection of the application.
3) M/s HPCL,Mandir Hasoud,Raipur :it is noted by SEAC, in the summary
record of its 9th meeting, that during site visit of the sub-committee on 19.07.09. It
was observed that the proposed activity had already been started by the Project
Proponent(PP) without obtaining Prior Environmental Clearance(PEC). To be
dealt in accordance with point 03(C) above. Application for PEC to be rejected and
legal action to be initiated by MS CECB as per rules. Request for needful to be
sent by MS SEIAA(C.G.) to MS CECB.
4) M/s Pathrakundi Limestone Mine ,Pathrakundi ,Tilda, Raipur: to be dealt in
accordance with point03(A),(B) and 03D(2)above, in case the project location falls
within the specified area of the impact study. In case the location falls outside of
the specified area of impact study, then the project needs to be classified as B1,
since the MOEF guidelines for B1/B2 categorisation have not been issued till date
and will only be finalized after receiving suggestions in writing from the SEIAA’s (pl
refer point – 6 on page 2 of the second interactive meeting held at Delhi on
29/01/09). Site specificity issues will operate within the parameters of the MOEF
guidelines, as and when issued. A duly authenticated map with the required
distances marked on it, may be put up before the Authority. Non submission of
any of the above information, by the applicant or SEAC, within the specified time
,will result in rejection of the application.
5) M/s Shakti Development Private Ltd, Silpahari, Bilaspur: to be dealt as in
point 03(A),(B),D-2&4 above.
6) M/s Orient Ispat Pvt Ltd, Tedesara, Somni,Rajnandgaon: as desired by
MOEF vide its letter F.No.J-11011/801/2007-IA II(I), dated 04.08.2008 ,the final
EIA/EMP as per TORs should be submitted to the Chairman SEIAA/SEAC
Chhattisgarh for further consideration for PEC by the Authority. SEAC to inform if
any site activity for the proposed project has been started by the PP, prior to
obtaining PEC. Relevant baseline environmental data for the last two years,
available with CECB to be made available.
7) M/s Gupta Infrastructure Pvt Ltd,Pandari Road, Devendra Nagar, Raipur:
as informed by SEAC, the construction work of the project has been started by the
PP without obtaining Prior Environmental Clearance(PEC). To be dealt in
D:\81916450.doc
6
accordance with point 03(C) above. Application for PEC to be rejected and legal
action to be initiated by MS CECB as per rules. Request for needful to be sent by
MS SEIAA(C.G.) to MS CECB.
8) M/s Bhilai Entertainment World Development Private Ltd, Junwani, Bhilai:
as informed by SEAC, the construction work of the project has been started by the
Project Proponent, without obtaining PEC. To be dealt in accordance with point
03(C) above. Application for PEC to be rejected and legal action to be initiated by
MS CECB as per rules. Request for needful to be sent by MS SEIAA(C.G.) to MS
CECB.
9) M/s Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Visarpani,
Sitapur, Sarguja: maybe categorized as B1 for further processing, as guidelines
for categorization of projects as B1/B2 are awaited from MOEF as per 03(B)
and03 D-2 above.
10) M/s Rajat Power & Steel Pvt Ltd, Sarora, Raipur: to be dealt in accordance
with point03 D-2 above, after verifying that PP has not started site project activities
prior to obtaining PEC.
11) M/s Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt Ltd. Tatibundh Chowk, Raipur: as informed
by SEAC, the Project Proponent has already completed the expansion of his
industry , without obtaining the PEC. To be dealt in accordance with point 03(C)
above. Application for PEC to be rejected and legal action to be initiated by MS
CECB as per rules. Request for needful to be sent by MS SEIAA(C.G.) to MS
CECB.
12) M/S Bhajanka Ferro-Alloy,Industrial Area,Korba (C.G.) : on receipt, the
application for PEC will be dealt as at03 D-2 above.
(05) Chairman SEIAA(C.G.) directed, that in cases where consensus regarding
grant of PEC could not be arrived at by SEIAA: in such cases CECB will be
requested to initiate suitable legal action under the relevant provisions of Chapter 7 of
the Water Act 1974,Chapter 6 of the Air Act 1981 and Chapter 3 of the EPA
1986,against the Project Proponents / Applicants, for violation. Also it must be
conveyed to such Applicants, that consensus could not be arrived at by SEIAA on their
application, citing the reasons for the lack of consensus/disagreement and thereby the
rejection of their application/proposal. This is required to show to the Applicants, that,
their applications have been considered in a transparent manner and decided by the
Authority after due diligence. This is also imperative for restricting the misuse of the
deemed EC provision, while allowing the Applicants to know the reasons for the
rejection of their proposal. A copy of all such communications, must be endorsed to all
the Members of the SEIAA
(06) The Member and Member Secretary were of opinion that:1)
The proposals recommended for grant of Environmental Clearance by
SEAC, Chhattisgarh were of :a. M/s Mahamaya Steel, B-8/9, Urla Industrial Complex, Sarona,
Sector-C, Raipur - Billets/ Blooms Manufacturing Plant (Induction
Furnace of capacity 02 LTPA) – Expansion/backward integration
proposal (Induction Furnace installed without environmental
clearance),
D:\81916450.doc
7
b. M/s U.P. Ispat Private Limited, Village & Post – Tendua, District
Raipur (CG)- Oil Fired Rolling Mill of capacity 60000 TPA – New
proposal,
c. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mandir Hasoud,
Raipur - LPG Mounded Storage of capacity 1500 MT – Expansion of
storage proposal (Construction of LPG mounded storage started
without environmental clearance),
d. M/s Pathrakundi Lime Stone Mine, Village-Pathrakundi, Tahsil-Tilda,
District- Raipur - Manual/semi mechanized open cast lime stone
mine of 5000 TPA capacity (total lease area 7.044 hectare) - New
proposal,
e. M/s. Shakti Development Private Limited, Village – Silpahri, Tahsil &
District – Bilspur - Oil Fired Rolling Mill of capacity 150000 TPA New proposal,
f. M/s Gupta Infrastructure Private Limited, Khasra no. 515, Scheme
no. 32, Pandari Road, Devendra Nagar, Raipur - Construction
project of City Center with Mall, Star Hotel and Multiplex theaters New proposal (Construction started without environmental
clearance),
g. M/s Bhilai Entertainment World Developers Private Limited Site:
Opposite Surya Vihar, Junwani, Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG) Construction project of Mall, Multiplex, Hotel and office complex New proposal (Construction started without environmental
clearance),
h. M/s. Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Village
– Visarpani, Tehsil – Sitapur, District- Sarguja - Manual open cast
bauxite mine of 50,000 TPA capacity (total lease area 12.106
hectare) - New proposal,
i.
M/s Rajat Power & Steel Private Limited, Plot No. 3-4 A, Industrial
Area, Village- Sarora, Dist. – Raipur (C.G.) - Oil Fired Rolling Mill of
capacity 21,000 TPA and Induction Furnace of capacity 21,000 TPA
- New proposal and
j.
M/s Goyal Energy & Steel Private Ltd. Tatibandh Chowk, Ring Road
No. -02 Raipur (C.G.) – Oil Fired Rolling mill of capacity 40,000 TPA
– Expansion proposal (Re-Heating Furnace installed without
environmental clearance) – SEAC, Chhattisgarh sought guidance
regarding environmental clearance.
The sites of above proposal are situated either in the industrial areas or
near to industrial area (except proposal of LPG mounded storage,
construction projects and mines). The induction furnace units will not
consume any fuel (Coal, Furnace oil etc.) and will run on electricity. The
basic raw materials in induction furnace units will be sponge iron and pig
iron/scrap. Rolling mill units will consume furnace oil as fuel. The basic
raw materials in Rolling mill units will be mild steel ingots/billets. The
project proponents have proposed to install collection hood, bag filter in
induction furnace units and scrubber in rolling mill units with minimum
30 meter high stack to control air pollution. The emission of particulate
matter would be kept less then 50mg/Nm 3. A greenbelt in minimum 33%
area would be developed. All roads would be asphalted /concreted in
time bound manner. Iron content in the slag of induction furnace units
shall be separated before use for low-lying areas filling and road
D:\81916450.doc
8
construction. Mill scales from Rolling mill units shall be sold. Zero
discharge condition shall be maintained.
Lime stone mine and bauxite mine are of smaller capacity having
less than 15 hectare lease area. Mining method will be manual/semi
mechanized. No cluster of mines adjacent to proposed sites. Project
proponents have proposed to take appropriate measures to control the
air, water, noise etc. pollution.
D:\81916450.doc
2)
With the above measures, the additional load of air pollutants on the
environment will be insignificant and ambient air quality will not be
further deteriorated. SEAC, Chhattisgarh has also arrived at conclusion
that the projects are of comparatively small capacity and there will be no
significant impact on the surrounding. Accordingly, SEAC, Chhattisgarh
has also considered these proposals as ‘B2’ category and
recommended for grant of environmental clearance. Hence the
recommendations of SEAC, Chhattisgarh should be accepted and
environmental clearances granted.
3)
Authority was informed that Industries Department, Government of
Chhattisgarh has banned only new sponge iron plants and coal based
power plants in Urla, Siltara, Borjhara and nearby areas of Raipur
District. Other industries are not banned and accordingly, Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Government of India, New Delhi is issuing
environmental clearances for induction furnaces, rolling mills, ore
beneficiation & pelletization plants, coal beneficiations, ferro alloys units
etc. in these areas, which will not use coal as prime fuel. The projects
under consideration will not use coal as fuel.
4)
The contributing factors to ambient air quality of the particular area
depend on various activities such as transportation, construction, road
conditions of the area and industrial activities etc. A study namely
“Assessment of Contribution of Industrial Sources to Ambient Air Quality
in Raipur Region” has been assigned to National Environment
Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur by Chhattisgarh
Environment Conservation Board to assess the contributing factors to
ambient air quality of Raipur region. NEERI has already started the
study. After receipt of the final report, appropriate action would be taken
by Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board based on the
recommendations of the NEERI.
5)
Central Pollution Control Board has not identified the Urla, Siltara,
Borjhara and nearby areas of Raipur District as critically polluted areas.
Only Korba has been identified as critically polluted area by Central
Pollution Control Board. Identification of critically polluted area by
Central Pollution Control Board does not mean that no industrial activity
should come in that area, instead the industries should be allowed on
more stringent conditions. Hence, more stringent condition for emission
of air pollutants may be imposed for the proposed industries/expansion
units at Urla, Siltara, Borjhara and nearby areas of Raipur District.
6)
In the Urla, Siltara, Borjhara and nearby areas of Raipur District, no
resultant deaths and respiratory ailments only due to prevailing ambient
air quality has been reported yet. The resultant deaths and respiratory
ailments due to ambient air quality / air pollution of the area or its
contribution can only be ascertained only after conducting a detailed
long term study. Till such study in not complete, it is not prudent to
withhold the grant of environmental clearances on the premise that the
9
pollution load as of today would contribute to the respiratory ailments
and subsequent loss of life.
7)
Member Secretary informed the authority that clarification has been
sought from Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India,
New Delhi regarding applicability of prior environmental clearance for
such project proponent(s) who have either started construction work
and/or production in violation of the provisions of Environment Impact
Assessment Notification, 2006. Member secretary also informed that he
has discussed the matter with the officials of Ministry of Environment &
Forests, Government of India, New Delhi on telephone and in person on
29/01/2009. The officials of the Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India, New Delhi informed that in violation cases, State
Government may be requested to file court case against defaulting
project proponent(s) and consider the proposal on merit basis for grant
of environmental clearance. The similar line of action is being taken by
the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, New Delhi
for such violation cases. Hence, the violation cases should also be
considered by SEIAA, Chhattisgarh accordingly and SEAC,
Chhattisgarh may be requested to consider the proposal(s) on merit
basis for grant of environmental clearance and recommend accordingly.
8)
The members were of opinion that State Government /Chhattisgarh
Environment Conservation Board may be requested for filing a
complaint case under section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 for defaulting period and environmental clearance should be
issued from prospective but not from retrospective effect and effective
from the date of issue of clearance letter. This environmental clearance
should be issued on stringent condition subject to condition that this is
being issued without prejudice to the court case pending in the court of
law and it does not mean that project proponent has not violated any
environmental laws in the past and whatever decision of the hon’ble
court will be binding on the project proponent. Hence this clearance
does not give immunity to the case filed against the project proponent.
9)
The recommendations of SEAC, Chhattisgarh should be accepted and
environmental clearance should be granted for above proposals.
Consensus regarding grant of environmental clearance along with legal action against
the project proponent for violation of provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 (starting
construction work without obtaining prior environmental clearance) could not be arrived at
by SEIAA, Chhattisgarh.
(07)
M/s Orient Ispat Private Limited, Village- Tedesara, Post- Somni, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)
The project proponent has applied for environment clearance to Ministry of Environment
& Forests, Government of India, New Delhi on 29/05/2007 for the expansion of existing
Re-rolling mill by installing a SMS (Steel Melting Shop-Induction Furnace). The Central
Expert Appraisal Committee for environmental appraisal of Industrial projects considered
the project during its 81st meeting held on 12-14/05/2008. Terms of References (TORs)
for preparing draft EIA report were prescribed by Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India, New Delhi vide letter no. J-11011/801/2007-IA, II(I) dated
06/06/2008. Subsequently Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India,
New Delhi issued two Corrigendum letter no. J-11011/801/2007-IA, II(I) dated 28/07/2008
and letter no. J-11011/801/2007-IA, II(I) dated 04/08/2008. It is noted that (1) Rolling Mill
already exist and want to install Steel Melting Shop (SMS) at Village - Tedesara, PostSomni, District- Rajnandgaon and (2) The final EIA/EMP as per TORs should be
D:\81916450.doc
10
submitted to the Chairman, SEIAA/SEAC, Chhattisgarh for further consideration for
environmental clearance by the SEIAA/SEAC. No Public Hearing is required due to
expansion of the project in the same premises. Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India, New Delhi has transferred the file to SEIAA, Chhattisgarh vide
letter no. J-11011/801/2007-IA, II(I) dated 11/08/2008 for necessary action. Now, project
proponent has requested SEIAA, Chhattisgarh for exemption of EIA study.
SEAC, Chhattisgarh considered the proposal in 16th meeting held on 23rd October 2008.
The brief of the project is as follows:Name of the Project
Proposed Site
Production Capacity
Proposed Cost
Activity falls under the
Schedule of EIA
Notification, 2006
M/s Orient Ispat Private Limited,
Village-Tedesara, Post-Somni, District- Rajnandgaon (
Existing Re-Rolling Mill 36000 TPA
Expansion proposed : Steel Melting Shop 66000 TPA
Rs. 12.72 Crores
5 (K)
Based on the consideration of the documents submitted and discussion held, the
Committee then decided that no change in the condition given by Ministry of Environment
& Forests, Government of India, New Delhi. Project proponent should be asked to follow
all the directions given by Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, New
Delhi. Proposal for Environmental Clearance will be considered after submission of the
EIA report as per the TORs issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government
of India.
Authority decided that as desired by MoEF vide its letter F.No.J-11011/801/2007-IA II (I),
dated 04/08/2008, the final EIA/EMP as per TORs should be submitted to the Chairman
SEIAA/SEAC, Chhattisgarh for further consideration for environmental clearance by the
SEIAA.
(08)
M/s Bhajanka Ferro Alloy, 66-C, Industrial Area, Korba (C.G.)
The proposal was originally received from CECB Raipur for guidance regarding the
requirement of environment clearance as per EIA Notification, 2006. M/s Bhajjanka Ferro
Alloy, 66C, Industrial Area, Korba (C.G.) is an existing industry since 01/04/2000. It is a
small scale industry engaged in production of (1) Vanadium Pentoxide - 300 TPA, (2)
Ferro Vanadium - 135 TPA and (3) Aluminum Ingots - 110 TPA. Project proponent has
proposed production of Nickel Sulphate/Oxide and Cobalt Sulphate/Oxide of total 400
Tonnes/Year. Raw materials will be spent catalyst 8000 Tonnes/Year (containing Ni/Co),
10% Sulphuric acid for acid leaching, organic solvent & kerosene. The project proponent
submitted that the process is basically based on acid leaching and it does not fall under
the category of secondary metallurgical process, so this process does not require
environment clearance as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006.
Following recommendation was made by the SEAC, Chhattisgarh in the 12th meeting
held on 12/09/2008.
“(1)
Hydro metallurgy is involved in the process, so the proposal should require
environmental clearance.
(2)
The proposal falls under project /activity 3 (a), category ‘B’ (i) All toxic and
heavy metal producing units <20,000 tonnes/ annum of the schedule of EIA
Notification, 2006.
(3)
The project proponent should be asked to submit application for obtaining
environment clearance from SEIAA, Chhattisgarh”.
D:\81916450.doc
11
Recommendation was received to SEIAA, Chhattisgarh, wherein the production of
Nickel Sulphate/Oxide and Cobalt Sulphate/Oxide has been treated as Hydro metallurgy
and in turn as secondary metallurgical industries (non ferrous). The SEIAA, Chhattisgarh
discussed the recommendation in fifth meeting on 07th November 2008 and after
deliberations and review of available literature, felt that SEAC, Chhattisgarh may like to
have a re-look and inform, to facilitate for further needful action.
The case was reconsidered in the 19th meeting of SEAC, Chhattisgarh held on
26/12/2008. After deliberation the committee decided as follows: “The process proposed by the project proponent involves the extraction of heavy
metals like Nickel and Cobalt In the form of Sulphates and Oxides. Hence the process
falls under secondary metallurgical processing industry producing toxic and heavy metals
less than 20,000 TPA. Therefore it falls under project /activity 3 (a), category ‘B’ (i) All
toxic and heavy metal producing units <20,000 tonnes/ annum of the schedule of EIA
Notification, 2006.”
After deliberation, SEIAA, Chhattisgarh accepted the recommendation of the
SEAC, Chhattisgarh and decided to inform Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation
Board.
Meeting concluded with thanks.
Member,
SEIAA
D:\81916450.doc
Member Secretary,
SEIAA
12
Chairman,
SEIAA