SEIAA KARNATAKA PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBINED SEIAA AND SEAC MEETING HELD ON 10.08.2007 AT 11.00 AM IN ROOM NO.

252, 2ND FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.

The Secretary, SEAC and Senior Director welcomed all the members and Chairmen of the Committees and informed that the Principle Secretary had to go to Delhi on Official visit and hence he could not attend this meeting and that he had conveyed his best wishes for the combined meeting. He also informed that the Secretary, Environment and Ecology, Government of Karnataka would join this meeting a little late on the same day. Thereafter the Chairmen and the members introduced themselves. The Chairman, SEIAA was requested to preside over the combined meeting and in his address to the members he informed that each and every member should make his valuable contribution in the meetings and has requested that no one should be prejudiced against any project, especially those who had made studies about certain categories of projects and came out with their own observations. He also said that a checklist should be prepared for each category of project and if a project is complete in all respects then only it should be put up for the consideration of the SEAC and that time frame should be set for the clearance of the projects. He also suggested that the committee should look in to various aspects such as availability of water, proper approach road, availability of energy, availability of other inputs, infrastructure etc., while considering projects for Environment Clearance. Thereafter Dr. R.R. Rao, Chairman of the SEAC informed that though on 30th June he was informed telephonically that this meetings would be held on 10th August, 2007 he received information on the above meeting only on 9th August, 2007 evening. He expressed that the intimation for the meetings should be made well in advance so that the project proponents submit information on the project well in advance to enable enough time for the members to go through the material and prepare for the meeting. Dr. H.R. Rajmohan, informed that proper plan of work should be chalked out for such meetings, decision should be made about the format in which the discussion should be held and procedure for initial screening
1

should be decided by the committee. He also suggested that an agenda should be prepared for the meeting and communicated to members well in advance. He said that in the minutes of the meeting, the suggestion /comments made by the members should be recorded and communicated on the same day to the Chairman and the Members by E-mail. Some other Members have also supported these views and expressed that this was a hurriedly convened meeting. Two of the Members have strongly expressed that since there was not enough time to go through the project information received by them, no cases should be herd by the SEAC on that day. Mr. Simha, Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board said that a time frame has to be set for the process of issuance of Environment Clearance. That the Good Practices which are put up in their website by the MoEF should be followed by the committees. He also wanted to know if there is any quorum set for the holding the SEAC/ SEIAA meetings. To this he was informed that there is no such quorum prescribed. The Secretary, SEAC and Senior Director informed that it was proposed to have a joint meeting of SEIAA and SEAC Members to enable them to get to know each other and the Principal Secretary was asked to preside over the meeting and address the Members. The Principal Secretary had fixed 10th August, 2007 for the meeting. Mean while it was informed by the Legislature Assurance Committee, Under Secretary that the Committee would visit the Gulbarga Cement Plant on 10th August, 2007 and so the Department was contemplating postponement of the combined SEIAA and SEAC Meeting and obtaining a fresh date from the Principal Secretary, when it was again informed on 4th August 2007 that the meeting was postponed. In view of this and with view to initiate the functioning of the SEIAA and SEAC, after discussing with the Secretary, Environment and Ecology it was decided to convene the meeting on 10th it self. It was also decided to take up the first 6 cases for the consideration of the SEAC so as to give exposure to the members to the Environment Clearance process. The Chairman, SEAC was consulted on 30th July, 2007 itself and permission was sought to place the first 6 cases in the meeting to be held on 10th August, 2007 ; for which he had given his consent. The Secretary, SEAC informed that it is up to the committee to decide whether to hear the six cases or not during the meeting. To this both the Chairmen and majority of the members felt that having come for the meeting, and having called the project proponents, they should be heard.

The Secretary, Environment and Ecology and Member Secretary, SEIAA who joined the meeting a little late has said that Karnataka is the 2nd State to get the committees and these are Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests committees constituted at State Level to decentralize the process of issuance of Environment Clearance. He has informed that the State Environment & Ecology Secretariat shall function as the Secretariat of the SEIAA/ SEAC and steps are being taken to strengthen the Secretariat and make use of the services of all the Scientific Officers of the technical cell, which shall be assisting the SEIAA/ SEAC. He has also informed that the NIC has been requested to provide suitable computerized programmes to enable timely updating of information about the project proposals received by the SEIAA and displaying in the website. It was informed to the committee that 83 files are being transferred from Government of India and the State has directly received 40 files. It was felt that the committees must meet often to clear the backlog. After discussion, it was decided to hold the SEAC meeting on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month. In case the day happens to be a holiday, then to have the meeting one day in advance. The Secretary, SEAC and Senior Director made a detailed power point presentation about the 2006 EIA notification for the benefit of the members. Discussion was held regarding logistics for the members, to this the Secretary SEAC and Senior Director informed that action would be taken to book rooms in Forest Guest House/ Kumarkrupa Guest House. As regards transportation it was informed that members could engage either taxi or Auto and produce receipt (in case of taxi) for reimbursement. Also for traveling from outside, Air/ Bus/Rail/Tickets may be produced for reimbursement. It was informed that, in future efforts would be made to hire taxis. During the discussion about scrutiny of project proposals by SEIAA before sending to SEAC for consideration, the Chairman, SEIAA informed that after technical scrutiny by the Technical cell of the Environment and Ecology Department, approval may be obtained from the Member Secretary, SEIAA and then the files can be transferred to SEAC.

Thereafter the SEAC examined the 6 cases called for the consideration of the SEAC. The proceedings are as follows: Case 1: - IT/ITES THDC project: The concerned representatives were absent and hence not heard. Case 2:- Renuka Sugars :The project representatives made oral presentation about their project. During the presentation it was informed the Electrostatic precipitators are proposed for control of air pollution. To this the committee informed that they should go in for bag filters instead, to which the project authorities agreed. When the Project Authorities (PAs) were asked about the preparation they have for boiler blowdown, the industry informed that they would take it to the spray pump and give the ash to the farmers. To this they were informed that by doing so they would transfer the high TDS to the farms. The industry said that they have proposed a Demineralization (DM) plant. As regards ETP, they said it is already constructed and trials are going on and the treated water would be used within their premises as altogether they have 140 Acres of which 45 acres are exclusively available for faming. The committee suggested that the ash generated should be mixed with the press mud and composted and use as manure. The proponent informed that they have planes to further expand the sugar plant to 5000 TCD and the captive generation plant to 25 MW and also propose a distillery and for all these EIA and public Hearing is a must and hence requested that EIA and Public Hearing for the 6 MW plant may be dispensed with. They have also said that they require only 4 MW power for the running of the Sugar plant and hence they would generate only 4 MW power. They have also informed that they had applied to KSPCB for CFE prior to 14.9.2006 and CFE was given one month after the EIA 2006 Notification was issued. The committee decided to recommend this case to the SEIAA for Environment Clearance with the following condition: 4

project

(1) The industry shall consider installation of bag filters instead of ESP for air pollution control as only bagasse is proposed to be used as fuel. (2) Treated water shall not be let out of the industry premises and shall be used for farming/gardening within their premises. (3) Ash generated shall be mixed with press mud and composted and used or given to farmers as manure. 100% utilization of ash shall be ensured from the date of operation of the plant. (4) The committee decided to treat this case as B2 in view of the industry proposing to use only bagasse as fuel. In addition the following conditions are proposed :All the conditions stipulated by Karnataka Pollution Control Board in their CFE shall be strictly implemented. (ii) Only bagasse should be used as fuel. No other fuels should be used. (iii) Water requirement shall be met from the existing available water allocation. No ground water shall be drawn for the power plant at any stage. Treated effluents shall be used for sugar cane seed farm. There will be no wastewater discharge from the plant. (iv) For controlling fugitive dust during transport of coal, from coal storage and vulnerable areas of the plant, dust extraction and suppression system and water sprinklers shall be ensured. (v) Noise level shall be limited to 75 dBA. For people working in high noise area, requisite personal protective equipment like earplugs etc., shall be provided. (vi) A greenbelt shall be developed around the plant periphery with tree density of about 2500 trees per ha. Covering 33% of the project area. (vii) Regular monitoring of the air and water quality shall be carried out in and around the power plant and records be maintained. Six monthly reports shall be submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), SEIAA Karnataka, MOEF regional Office, Bangalore, Department of Environment and Ecology, Karnataka and Regional Director,(Environment), Belgaum. (viii) The project proponent shall advertise at least in two local newspapers widely circulated in the region around the project, one of which shall be in the vernacular language of the locality
5

(i)

concerned, informing that the project has been accorded environmental clearance and copies of clearance letter are available with the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and also at Website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests at http://envfor.nic.in/ and Environment and Ecology Department at http://www.parisara.kar.nic.in (ix) A separate environment and safety management cell with qualified staff shall be set up before commission of construction activities and shall be maintained through out the lifetime of the industry,for implementation of the stipulated environmental safeguards. (x) Half yearly report on the status of implementation of the stipulated conditions and environmental safeguards shall be submitted to this Ministry / Regional Office/CPCB/KSPCB, Department of Environment and Ecology, Karnataka and Regional Director,(Environment), Belgaum.. (xi) Karnataka SEIAA/Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests located at Bangalore/ Department of Environment and Ecology, Karnataka will monitor the implementation of the stipulated conditions. Complete set of Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Environment Management Plan along with the additional information submitted from time to time shall be forwarded to the Regional Officeof MOEF Bangalore/ Department of Environment and Ecology, Karnataka/ SEIAA, Karnataka for their use during monitoring. (xii) Separate funds shall be allocated for implementation of Environmental protection measures along with item-wise breakup. These cost shall be included as part of the project cost. The funds earmarked for the environment protection measures shall not be diverted for other purposes and year-wise expenditure should be reported to the MOEF, SEIAA Karnataka, MOEF regional Office, Bangalore, Department of Environment and Ecology, Karnataka and Regional Director,(Environment), Belgaum. (xiii) The project authorities shall inform the SEIAA, Karnataka/ Department of Environment and Ecology, Karnataka/ Regional Director,(Environment), Belgaum/ Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests regarding the date of financial closure and final approval of the project by the concerned authorities and the dates of start of land development work and commissioning of plant.

(xiv) Full cooperation shall be extended to the Scientists/ Officers from the Ministry/ Regional office of the Ministry at Bangalore/ the CPCB / the KSPCB/ the Department of Environment and Ecology, Karnataka State who would be monitoring the compliance of environmental status. (xv) The Ministry reserved the right to revoke the clearance if conditions stipulated are not implemented to the satisfaction of the Ministry. (xvi) The environmental clearance accorded shall be valid for a period of 5 years or starting construction/ operation of the power plant. In case, the project authorities fail to do so within this stipulated period, this environmental clearance shall stand lapsed automatically. (xvii) In case of any deviation or alteration in the project proposed from those submitted to this Ministry for clearance, a fresh reference should be made to the Ministry to assess the adequacy of the condition (s) imposed and to add additional environmental protection required, if any. (xviii) The above stipulations would be enforced among others under the Water (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and its amendments, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and its amendments, the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of January, 2006 and their subsequent manufacture, storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 amendments. Case 3:- Salarpuria Touchstone The company made the power point presentation for the consideration of the committee. When a query was made it was informed by the company that Bellandur lake is just 2.5 kms away and varthur lake is very far away. They said that the site has a gradient sloping towards the lake and the site is at a much higher level as compared to the level of the lake. The company informed that they propose to use treated water brought by tankers for construction purposes and for the post construction phase, i.e., the operation phase, they would make use of BWSSB water and if there is shortfall, the project would use bore well water and if
7

necessary buy water through tankers. They have produced BWSSB NOC. Two members objected to the discrepancies in the figures shown for water use in the project and have insisted that the BWSSB NOC is not enough and that a commitment from BWSSB to supply the required quantity of water should be produced. Another member felt that the project alters the topography of the area, to which the PAs informed that the topography is not altered as construction is proposed without altering the topography. The company was told to ensure proper sanitary facilities for the labourers in the labour colony. The company assured to take care of the labourers and provide the necessary sanitary facilities. One of the members expressed that much more than 80% of the water consumed should be discharged as wastewater. He has also said that the BOD of treated water if proposed to be used for toilet flushing should be less than 4mg/lit and asked to provide proper design and technology to achieve the same and that less than 20mg/lit BOD is not acceptable. He wanted to know how they proposed to use such high BOD water for toilet flushing as it contains high E-coli content. The proponent proposed 25% green area to which the committee said that it should be minimum 33%. The proponents also informed that the Draft Energy conservation Building code is being proposed to be followed for the project, such as, use of time control for street lights and corridor lights, use of solar energy, etc. They have said that they have provided for Rain Water Harvesting and that except for the first rains, the rest of the rainwater shall be used 100% for the project and that 75 KLD tank is proposed and rainwater received shall be tapped and used. They have also proposals for infiltration of run off rainwater received on the ground by providing several infiltration pits, for recharging the ground water table. The traffic management consultant furnished details of the Traffic management proposal. Dr. T.V. Ramachandra asked him if he had taken in to consideration the traffic increase in the city in view of this project and many such projects which are likely to come up in the surroundings. To this the consultant informed that he has worked out the increase in traffic with the addition of this project which amounts to a net increase of 3-4 % of traffic density during peak hours and that he has not calculated for the future projects to be taken up by either their company or by other companies. The member felt that since construction activities are causing increased urbanization, increased traffic, increased pollution, in the interest of the future generations, a decision should be taken by the
8

SEAC not to accord clearance for Building projects and to write to Karnataka Government to provide for proper traffic management and infrastructure facilities for the fast growing city. He said topography alteration / urbanization should be decided based on the carrying capacity of the area. Prof. D.L. Manjunath, member informed the project authority that not much glass should be used except for elevation in the front and if necessary to a certain extent on the sides. He said glass is suited for temperate countries and not for tropical countries as it reflects heat, which could add to global warming. He has asked for the glass calculations for reflection of heat, to provide the revised design of STP that produces less than 4 mg/ Lit BOD and also to furnish details of rainwater harvesting. Finally the company was asked to furnish details of: 1) Increase in Traffic Load with the addition of present/ future projects. 2) Wastewater treatment design to ensure that the BOD is less than 4 gm/ lit. 3) Proper detailed information on Rain Water Harvesting. 4) Glass calculation for reflection. Two other project proposals belongs to the above company were also listed for the day. For these projects the PAs were asked to furnish similar information. The committee decided to conclude the meeting for the day and hear the rest of the cases on 25th August 2007. -sdCHAIRMAN, SEAC NO. SEAC.MEETING1/2007 DT.24-08-2007 Secretary SEAC
KARNATAKA

Copy communicated to: All the members of the committees.

10