Avidipta CESE Power Water Inlands

Minutes of the sixtieth meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 24.10.2011 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake.

___________________________________________________________________

Name of the members who were present in the meeting are as follows:

1. Prof. Shymal Kanti Sanyal Chairman, State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)2. Prof. (Dr.) Siddhartha Dutta Member, SEAC3. Prof. (Dr.) Jayashree Roy Member, SEAC4. Shri Manoj Kumar Nandi Member, SEAC5. Prof. Subhash Chandra Santra Member, SEAC6. Dr. Kalyan Rudra Member, SEAC7. Shri Somnath Bhattacharyya Member, SEAC8. Shri Arijit Banerjee Member, SEAC9. Dr. S. P. Sinha Ray Member, SEAC10. Shri Sandipan Mukherjee, I.F.S. Secretary, SEAC & Member Secretary, WBPCB

In the beginning of the 60th meeting of SEAC, which was held on 24.10.2011 at 12:00 hrs at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Bidhan Nagar, the Secretary, SEAC welcome all the members. After introductory session, eighteen cases were placed for reconsideration. One additional issue was discussed under 'Miscellaneous' section. Three applicants were requested to make their presentation before the committee. All the three applicants appeared before the SEAC for technical presentation on their respective project proposal.

Session I

A. Reconsideration proposals: Eighteen reconsideration proposals were placed in the meeting.

1. Proposed Cement Grinding Unit of M/s. Salasar Cements at Plot No. – G10, Mangalpur Industrial Estate, PS Raniganj, PO – Baktarnagar, Dist. Burdwan, Pin 713321, West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – NIL.

Activity:

This is a proposal for installation of Cement Grinding unit (1x20 TPD and 1x30 TPD). It is noted that clinker will not be manufactured at the site. The manufacturing process will involve grinding of Cement Clinker with Flyash and Gypsum.

Chronology of the event:

The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 58th meeting held on 19.08.2011.

During the presentation in the 58th meeting held on 19.08.2011, the committee has noted that

1. The proponent obtained Consent to Establish from West Bengal Pollution Control Board in 2002. However, the proponent has not obtained any extension of this Consent to Establish nor applied for Consent to Operate. Subsequently the ownership of the unit has changed.

2. The proponent earlier applied for environmental clearance for Portland Slag Cement grinding unit on 19.02.2010. Considering the siting policy of WBPCB, the SEAC recommended that the proposal for Portland Slag Cement grinding unit with coal fired slag drier cannot be considered for Environmental Clearance at the proposed site.

Page 1 of 36


___________________________________________________________________3. The proponent has now applied for Environmental Clearance on 23.05.2011 for Portland

Pozzolona Cement grinding unit instead of the earlier proposal for Portland Slag Cement grinding unit. :

The committee also recommended the following :

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee, issued on 26.08.2011

Response of the Proponent submitted on 22.09.2011

1. Scaled plant layout showing proposed facilities, Greenbelt area, Rainwater Harvesting storage area, internal roads, storage sheds etc. along with a detailed area statement on a suitable grid should be submitted.

1. The proponent has submitted gridded plant layout without any area statement. The greenbelt shown in plan seems to be less than 33% (approx. 26% of land area).

2. Detailed list of plantation should be submitted.

2. The proponent has submitted the list of plantation for 200 trees.

3. Revised Rainwater Harvesting plan should be submitted.

3. The proponent has submitted Rainwater Harvesting calculation assuming annual rainfall as 150 mm and has provided storage area of 713.55 sqm.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant is not mentioned. However, as the presentation was delivered in the 58th SEAC meeting held on 19.08.2011, the SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting scrutinized the documents submitted by the unit, The SEAC has recommended that –

1. the scaled and gridded layout submitted does not consist of any area statement. Further, the greenbelt shown in the plan appears to be approx. 26% of total land area instead of 33% of total land area. Revised layout plan should be submitted along with the area statement.

2. the calculation for Rainwater Harvesting submitted is based on annual rainfall of 150 mm only. Supporting document may be provided for annual rainfall in the locality.

It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the necessary clarification.

2. Proposed expansion of the existing Cement Grinding Unit and installation of CBM based Captive Power Plant by M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd., Unit : Durgapur Cement Works at Jl. No. – 62 & 63, Vill. – Sujara, Near DSP Slag Bank, Durgapur 713203, Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion of the existing Cement Grinding unit for increasing the manufacturing capacity of Portland Slag Cement from 0.6 to 1.3 Million TPA and installation of CBM based Captive

Page 2 of 36


___________________________________________________________________Power Plant (2x6.93 MW i.e. 13.86 MW). The existing plant also produces Portland Pozzolana Cement (1.0 Million TPA). It is noted that clinker will not be manufactured at the site. The manufacturing process will involve grinding of Cement Clinker with Slag / Flyash and Gypsum.

The existing coal fired slag drier shall be removed and Roller Press unit shall be installed. The proposed Roller Press shall have dual function – drying and grinding of slag and shall be dual fuel operated – CBM and Coal. However, Coal shall be used only in case of nonavailability of CBM.

Chronology of the event :

The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 58th SEAC meeting held on 19.08.2011.

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) also made the following recommendations in the 58th SEAC meeting held on 19.08.2011. During the presentation the committee has noted that the proponent presented the EIAEMP study in response to the Terms of Reference (ToR) prescribed by Expert Appraisal Committee at Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF), Government of India.

The observations of SEAC in the 58th SEAC meeting held on 19.08.2011 and consequent responses of the project proponent on 23.09.2011 and 12.10.2011 are prescribed in the following table :

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee Response of the Proponent 1. Compliance report of the existing unit as per

the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.2011 of MoEF, Government of India, should be submitted.

1. The proponent has submitted compliance report for the existing unit.

2. Details of CBM based Captive Power Plant (CPP) along with capacity of CPP should be submitted.

2. The proponent has submitted details of CBM based CPP.

3. The estimated emission load after expansion visavis the current emission load as well as present permissible emission should be mentioned in a unit wise manner.

3. The proponent has submitted emission load estimate.

4. Detailed plantation plan with the list of plantation species should be mentioned.

4. The proponent has submitted detailed plantation plan.

5. Revised Rain Water Harvesting proposal as per SEAC guidelines should be submitted. Only storage and reuse is allowed for industrial projects. Recharging is not permitted.

5. The proponent has submitted RWH plan.

6. Scaled plant layout showing existing and proposed facilities, Greenbelt area, Rainwater Harvesting storage area, internal roads, storage sheds etc. on a suitable grid should be submitted.

6. The proponent has submitted gridded plant layout.

The name of the Consultant is M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd.

Page 3 of 36


___________________________________________________________________

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The SEAC considered the submission by the proponent with proposal for achieving the standard of 30 mg/Nm3

and thereby restricting the emission load within initially approved level. The SEAC, also, considering Ambient Air Quality of Durgapur imposed the condition to comply with 30 mg/Nm3 standard for all sections recommended Environmental Clearance.

3. Proposed Waste paper based plant and Cogeneration Captive Power Plant of M/s. Balaji Paper & Newsprint Private Limited at Jl. No. – 561, 562, 649, 650, Vill. Manikpara, PS – Jhargram, Dist. – Pashim Medinipur, Pin – 721513, West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposed Waste Paper Based Paper Plant with additional paper manufacturing capacity of 100 TPD and 6 MW CoGeneration Captive Power Plant.


The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 46th SEAC meeting held on 06.09.2010.

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) also made the following recommendations in the 46th SEAC meeting held on 06.09.2010. The recommendations / directions of the Committee dated 11.10.2010 and consequent responses of the project proponent dated 24.02.2011 are prescribed in the following table :

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee dated 11.10.2010

Response of the Proponent dated 24.02.2011

1. The performance report of the existing unit should be submitted.

1.

2. Prior permission should be obtained from DLA for ground water abstraction and the copy should be submitted.

2. The proponent has informed that they have obtained permission from DLA for 8nos. borewell each 10m3/hr, copies enclosed.

3. Water balance statement and water consumption per tonne of product should be mentioned.

3. The proponent has submitted revised water balance statement. As per the information provided the water consumption per tonne of product is 4.8 m3.

4. Details of Rainwater Harvesting proposal and Corporate Social Responsibility plan should be submitted.

4. The proponent has submitted Rainwater Harvesting proposal and Corporate Social Responsibility plan.

5. Solid waste management and Flyash management plans should be submitted.

5.

Page 4 of 36


___________________________________________________________________

The response dated 24.02.2011 was placed before SEAC in the 52nd meeting held on 04.03.2011. Further the SEAC has considered the reply submitted on 16.06.2011 in the 58th meeting held on 19.08.2011 and the committee has recommended the following :

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee dated 30.08.2011


1. The influent BOD value has been assumed to be very low in comparison to waste water usually generated from such a waste paper based mill.

1. The proponent has mentioned that they have assumed influent of BOD 600 mg/l on the basis of their raw material input and production process.

2. The influent BOD is likely to magnify due to recycling of the treated / partially treated waste water.

2. The proponent has mentioned that they will provide adequate treatment so that magnification of BOD due to recycling is less.

3. The mass vs water ratio is also not realistic. The project proponent should try to explain those ratios or should submit corrected water and mass balance diagram.

3. The proponent has stated that they have prepared water balance and mass balance statement based on their past experience. The proponent has also mentioned that the proposed water balance and mass balance is achievable.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant is not mentioned in this application. However, as the presentation was delivered in the 46th

SEAC meeting held on 06.09.2010, the SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting scrutinized the documents submitted by the unit. The SEAC has noted that

1. The performance report of the existing unit has not been submitted.

2. The BOD influent has been assumed on lower side and there is no specific proposal available, which ensure adequate treatment to prevent magnification of BOD concentration in the recycled water.

3. No plausible explanation has been provided to substantiate the claim that the water balance and mass balance, which were submitted to the SEAC earlier and was duly questioned by SEAC through earlier communications, are correct and validated.


Page 5 of 36


___________________________________________________________________

4. Proposed expansion of the Cement Grinding Unit of M/s. Maa Gouri Cement Industries at Plot No. – 391 (P), 392, Jl. No. – 53, Vill. & PO – Kuldiha, SD Durgapur, PS – Kanksa, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – M/s. Pacific Scientific Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion of the existing Cement Grinding unit for production of Portland Slag Cement & Portland Pozzolana Cement (150000 TPA). It is noted that clinker will not be manufactured at the site. The manufacturing process will involve grinding of Cement Clinker with Slag / Flyash and Gypsum. The existing and the proposed facilities are as follows :

Installations Existing Capacity

Ball Mill (50 TPD)

Proposed Capacity

Ball Mill (2x200 TPD, 1x100 TPD)

Portland Slag Cement (PSC) 50 TPD, 15000 TPA 300 TPD, 90000 TPA

Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) 200 TPD, 60000 TPA



The observations of SEAC in the 56th meeting held on 15.07.2011 and consequent responses of the project proponent on 13.10.2011 are prescribed in the following table :

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee issued on 22.07.2011


1. It has been noted that at present sun drying of slag is practiced. As slag drying capacity is to be enhanced after the proposed expansion, the SEAC has recommended CBM as fuel for the slag drying. Revised proposal for CBM based slag drier should be submitted.

1. The proponent has mentioned that there is no CBM distribution centre nearby. The proponent has proposed coal fired slag drier and has mentioned that the same shall be converted to CBM whenever available.

2. The Rainwater Harvesting proposal should be revised as advised during the presentation and submitted to the SEAC.

2. The proponent has submitted RWH proposal considering annual rainfall of 1300 mm. The proponent has proposed storage capacity of 90m3.

3. Prior permission is to be obtained for groundwater abstraction for the existing project.

3. The proponent has mentioned that they have approached the concerned authority for groundwater permission for existing project. However, the permission has not yet been obtained since the concerned officer has been

Page 6 of 36


___________________________________________________________________Recommendations / Directions of the

Committee issued on 22.07.2011Response of the Proponent dated 13.10.2011

replaced and the new person has not yet joined.

4. Design specification of air pollution control systems should be submitted.

4. The proponent has submitted specification of air pollution control systems.

5. Species wise plantation list should be submitted.

5. The proponent has submitted list of existing trees (120 nos.) and proposed plantation.

6. Specific Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plan with adequate financial commitment for improvement of neighbourhood area of proposed project site should be submitted. Atleast 5% of the project cost should be utilised for Corporate Social Responsibility programmes.

6. The proponent has submitted the details of CSR proposal alongwith financial planning.

The name of the Consultant is M/s. Pacific Scientific Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has recommended that

a) the prior permission for groundwater abstraction for the existing project must be submitted to SEAC.

b) considering the typical location of your unit and air quality in surrounding environment, the SEAC once again advices you to modify the scope of converting the coal fired slag drier to CBM based system. For such measure, the proponent should explore the options available in current CBM supply and distribution network exhaustively, as CBM is now available in that region.


5. Proposed expansion project for installation of Induction Furnace and Continuous Casting Machine by M/s. Shivam Meltech Pvt. Ltd. at Jl. No. – 58, Vill. – Gopalpur, Mouza Bamunara, PS – Kanksa, SD – Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – M/s. Pacific Scientific Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion for installation of Induction Furnaces (2x15T) followed by ladle refining furnace (1x15T) and Continuous Casting Machine for manufacturing MS billets (87300 TPA) at the existing plant. The existing and the proposed facilities are as follows :

Page 7 of 36


___________________________________________________________________Installations Existing Capacity Proposed Capacity

Induction Furnace 2x6T 2x15T (87300 TPA)

Ladle Refining Furnace (Oil fired) 1x15T

Chronology:






1. The proponent has submitted RWH proposal considering annual rainfall of 1330 mm. The proponent has proposed storage capacity of 1107 m3.


2. The proponent has mentioned that they have approached the concerned authority for groundwater permission for existing project. However, the permission has not yet been obtained since the concerned officer has been replaced and the new person has not yet joined.


3. The proponent has submitted the list of existing trees (36) and proposed plantation.

4. Design specification of air pollution control systems should be submitted

4. The proponent has submitted specification of air pollution control systems.



The name of the Consultant is M/s. Pacific Scientific Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, The SEAC has noted that the prior approval for groundwater abstraction for the existing project must be submitted to SEAC.


Page 8 of 36


___________________________________________________________________

6. Proposed expansion project for installation of Induction Furnace by M/s. VSP Udyog Pvt. Ltd. at Jl. No. – 58, 65, Banskopa More, Vill. & Mouza – Gopalpur, PO – Bamunara, PS – Kanksa, SD – Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – NIL.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion for installation of Induction Furnace (1x15T) for manufacturing MS billets (45000 TPA) at the existing plant. The existing and the proposed facilities are as follows :

Installations Existing Capacity Proposed Capacity

Induction Furnace 2x8T (45600 TPA) 1x15T (45000 TPA)

Rolling Mill 80000 TPA


The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 56th meeting held on 15.07.2011. The observations of SEAC in the 56th meeting held on 15.07.2011 and consequent responses of the project proponent on 18.10.2011 are prescribed in the following table :




1. The proponent has submitted RWH proposal considering annual rainfall of 1330 mm. The proponent has proposed to provide storage capacity of 1107 m3 approx.


2. The proponent has mentioned that they have approached the concerned authority for groundwater permission for existing project. However, the permission has not yet been obtained since the concerned officer has been replaced and the new person has not yet joined.


3. The proponent has submitted the list of existing trees (75) and proposed plantation.



Page 9 of 36


___________________________________________________________________

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant is not mentioned. However, as the presentation was delivered in the 56th meeting held on 15.07.2011, the SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting scrutinized the documents submitted by the unit, The SEAC has noted that the prior approval for groundwater abstraction for the existing project must be submitted to SEAC.


7. Proposed expansion project for enhancement of production of Unsaturated Polyester Resins by M/s. Strongbonds Polyseal Pvt. Ltd. at Plot No. – 26/C, 26/D/1 & 26/D/2, Kalyani Industrial Estate Phase I, Block – D, Dist. – Nadia, Pin – 741235, West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – NIL.

Activity:

This is an expansion proposal for enhancement of production capacity of Unsaturated Polyester Resins (UPR) by 690 TPA. The proposed plant will be located adjacent to the existing plant at Kalyani Industrial Estate.


The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 52nd meeting held on 04.03.2011. During presentation it was understood by the SEAC that the proposed expansion work has been started before obtaining Environmental Clearance. The observations of SEAC in the 52nd meeting held on 04.03.2011 and consequent responses of the project proponent dated 16.06.2011 are prescribed in the following table :



1. The unit should not continue any work for the proposed expansion project before obtaining prior necessary clearances.

1. The proponent has stated that they will not continue any work for the proposed expansion project before obtaining prior necessary clearances.

2. The Hazardous Waste Authorization must be obtained from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board before further consideration of this case for Environmental Clearance.

2. The proponent has mentioned that they have applied for Hazardous Waste Authorization to West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

3. The effluent characteristics for the existing plant should be submitted. Incremental load of the proposed

3. The proponent has submitted analysis report of the effluent. The proponent has mentioned that the incremental wastewater generation

Page 10 of 36



Committee issued on 15.03.2011Response of the Proponent dated 16.06.2011

enhancement should be mentioned along with the effluent treatment method to be adopted.

will be 0.2 KLD. The proponent has proposed neutralization and evaporation for treatment of effluent.

4. Adequate no. of trees should be provided. 4. The proponent has mentioned that total 47 nos. of trees will be provided.

5. Adequate storage volume for rainwater harvesting should be provided.

5. The proponent has mentioned that 100 KL storage volume will be provided.

6. Modified Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Plan with specific programmes and financial commitment to be submitted.

6. The proponent has submitted revised Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Plan with financial commitment.

The reply dated 16.06.2011 was placed in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011. The observations of SEAC in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011 and consequent responses of the project proponent dated 14.10.2011 are prescribed in the following table : :



1. The Hazardous Waste Authorization must be obtained from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board before further consideration of this case for Environmental Clearance.

1. The proponent has submitted copy of the Hazardous waste Authorisation valid upto 30.04.2012.

2. The unit should not continue any work for the proposed expansion project before obtaining prior necessary clearances.

2. The proponent has stated that they will not continue any work for expansion project before obtaining all statutory clearances.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant is not mentioned. However, as the presentation was delivered in the 52nd meeting held on 04.03.2011, the SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting considered the submission by the proponent and recommended Environmental Clearance.

Page 11 of 36


___________________________________________________________________

8. Proposed Residential Complex & Hospital by M/s. Oriental Sales Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. at 2, Jessore Road, Holding No. – 380 (N), 1108 (O), CalJessore Road, Jl. No. – 19, Mouza – Dum Dum House, South Dum Dum Municipality Ward No. 07, PO & PS – Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700028, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North). Name of the Consultant – M/s. JB Enviro Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential Complex having 1196 flats (13 blocks of B+G+13 storied buildings, 13 blocks of G+13 storied buildings), Hospital (70 beds, 1 block of G+9 storied building), Club (2 blocks of G+1 storied buildings) and 2 nos. podium.



The observations of SEAC in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011 and the consequent responses of the project proponent on 18.08.2011 are prescribed in the following table :



1. The project proponent should submit the copy of MSW authorisation of the designated site where the solid waste will be dumped.

1. The proponent has submitted the MSW Authorisation of SDDM valid upto 31.05.2006 to set up waste disposal facility at Goroi Mathkal.

2. Revised Rainwater Harvesting proposal should be submitted. The ground water recharge in hospital area is not permitted.

2. The proponent has submitted revised Rainwater Harvesting proposal excluding hospital area.

3. Prior permission should be obtained from the concerned authority for felling of trees. The SEAC also requested the project proponent for submission of detailed census of existing trees.

3. The proponent has submitted certificate of clearance dated 10.08.2011 of DFO, 24 Parganas (N) which refers to the concurrence obtained from WBPCB vide letter 25.07.2011. But no such concurrence was conferred by WBPCB.

The reply submitted by the project proponent on 18.08.2011 was placed before the SEAC in the 58th

meeting held on 19.08.2011. The observations of SEAC in the 58th meeting held on 19.08.2011 and the consequent responses of the project proponent on 22.09.2011 are prescribed in the following table:



1. The authorisation dated 21.06.2005 was valid upto 31.05.2006. The committee has requested the proponent to submit copy of

1. The proponent has mentioned that as South Dum Dum Municipality is not in a position to provide copy of valid MSW

Page 12 of 36



Committee, issued on 26.08.2011Response of the Proponent submitted on

22.09.2011valid Municipal Solid Waste authorisation for disposal of solid waste to designated site.

authorisation, onsite treatment of solid waste has been proposed. The details of onsite organic waste composting has been submitted.

2. The Certificate of Clearance dated 10.08.2011 refers to the concurrence of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board obtained vide letter No. 4302N70/2010(E) dated 25.07.2011. However, no such concurrence was conferred to the proponent. Instead, the SEAC requested the proponent to obtain necessary permission from the concerned authority for felling trees and to submit necessary details.

2. The proponent has submitted copy of the letter dated 03.08.2011 to the DFO, 24 Parganas (North) Division.

The letter dated 14.09.2011 has also been received from DFO in response to SEAC's letter dated 26.08.2011.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant for this application is M/s. JB Enviro Consultants Pvt. Ltd. However, as the presentation was delivered in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011, the SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting scrutinized the documents submitted by the unit and considering this new technical proposal, the SEAC further desired that a detailed technical presentation ought to be delivered by the competent agencies about the feasibility and viability of the proposed solid waste treatment and disposal system. The performance report of the proposed composter equipment operating in any residential complex, needed be presented through powerpoint presentation. The final utilisation of the compost and disposal of inorganic wastes needed also be illustrated, before taking any decision in this issue.

9. Proposed Residential Complex “UJAAS” by M/s. Designer Real Estate India Pvt. Ltd. at Plot No. 69, Holding No. – 152 (new), 97 (old), S.K. Deb Road, Jl. No. 25, Mouza – Dakshindari, PS – Lake Town, South Dum Dum Municipality Ward No. 31, Dist – 24 Parganas (North) West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – NIL.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of Residential Complex having 174 flats (20 blocks of G+4 storied buildings and 3 blocks of G+2 bungalows). However, the proposed PHASE I shall comprise of 134 flats (20 blocks of G+3 storied buildings and 3 blocks of G+2 bungalows). This clearance is applicable for the proposed PHASE I only. However, the proposal for subsequent phase should abide by the necessary stipulations of the Provisional Environmental Clearance for the entire project.

Page 13 of 36


___________________________________________________________________


The proponent obtained Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal on 14.10.2009 for PHASE – I and NOC from the WBPCB on 08.12.2009.

The proponent has now applied for Environmental Clearance for PHADE – II. The proponent has mentioned that there is no change in sanctioned plan and construction of PHASE – I is completed and PHASE – II has not been started.

Salient features of the proposed PHASE – II is given below:

Salient Features As per SCEC dated 21.07.2009

Phase I (As per EC dated 27.08.2009)

Phase II (EC Applied for)

Land Area 4.7828 acres

(19362.34 sqm.)

4.7828 acres

(19362.34 sqm.)

4.7828 acres (19362.34 sqm.)

Expected Population 810 610 200

Total Water requirement

191 KLD 167 KLD 24 KLD

Fresh Water requirement

136 KLD 106 KLD 30 KLD

Wastewater generated 109 KLD 84.8 KLD 24.2 KLD

Wastewater recycled 61 KLD 61 KLD 0

Wastewater discharged 26 KLD 6.8 KLD 19.2 KLD

Solid waste disposal 0.55 tonne per day 0.43 tonne per day 0.12 tonne per day

Total Builtup Area 34920.08 sqm. 28297.5 sqm. 6622.58 sqm.

Page 14 of 36


___________________________________________________________________Salient Features As per SCEC dated

21.07.2009Phase I (As per EC dated 27.08.2009)

Phase II (EC Applied for)

Ground Coverage 7470.81 sqm.

(38.58% of land area)

7470.81 sqm.


Services 313.67 sqm.


313.67 sqm.


Landscaped Green Area

5661.54 sqm.


5661.54 sqm.


Paved Area 3695.21 sqm.


3695.21 sqm.


Semi Paved Area 583.05 sqm.


583.05 sqm.


Water Body 1568.14 sqm.


1568.14 sqm.


Swimming Pool 73. sqm.

74. (0.38% of land area)

73. sqm.

74. (0.38% of land area)

No. of Parking Spaces proposed

230 230

Power requirement 980 KW 980 KW, CESC

Number of DG Set 1 no. x 275 KVA 1 no. x 275 KVA

Number of Trees 486 486

Number of Trees felling

18 18

Shall remain unchanged

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant is not mentioned. The SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting considered the submission by the proponent and recommended Environmental Clearance.

10. Proposed project including expansion of the Commercial Complex “AVANI RIVERSIDE MALL” by M/s. Avani Projects and Infrastructure Limited at 32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah . Name of the Consultant – NIL.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion of a Commercial Complex from 1 block of 2B+G+2 storied building to 1 block of 2B+G+3 storied building.

Page 15 of 36


___________________________________________________________________


The proponent obtained Environmental Clearance from SEIAA, West Bengal on 10.09.2009.

The proponent was requested to apply for ConsenttoEstablish on 24.09.2009. The proponent has not yet applied for NOC.

The proponent has applied for the following amendment in Environmental Clearance on 29.09.2011.

As per EC dated 10.09.2009) Amendment applied on 29.09.2011Total Power Requirement

4500 KVA, CESC 5625 KVA, CESC

Back up Power DG Sets ( 3x1500 KVA) DG Sets (4x2000 KVA)

It has been noted that Back up power provision is much higher than total power requirement.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of Consultant is not mentioned. However, as the presentation was delivered in the 7th SEAC meeting held on 26.07.2007, the SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting scrutinized the documents submitted by the unit.

The SEAC has noted that in case of the proposed amendment, the back up power requirement is 4x2000 KVA, which exceeds the CESC power requirement i.e. 5625 KVA to a considerable extent. But no clarification has been provided for demand of such additional back up power. Further, the SEAC also desired to obtain the current compliance status of this particular project with respect to the environmental norms prevailing in the country.


11. Proposed Residential Complex “SANKALPA II” by M/s. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. at Prem. No. – 36, MAR (Plot No. – BF/1, BF/2, BF/3), Action Area I, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – M/s. Centre for Sustainable Development.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential Complex having 228 flats (2 blocks of B+G+15/19 storied buildings and 2 blocks of B+G+11/13 storied buildings) alongwith Club (1 block of B+G+2 storied building).

Page 16 of 36


___________________________________________________________________Chronology of the event :

The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 56th meeting held on 15.07.2011. During presentation in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011, the committee noted that

1. the construction is almost complete. The unit has requested for post facto clearance. 2. there was anomaly between the statement made by the unit regarding the status of

wastewater treatment and the status shown in presentation slide. The SEAC has recommended that this kind of anomalies should not occur in future.

Further the observations of SEAC in the 56th meeting held on 15.07.2011 and the consequent responses of the project proponent on 29.09.2011 are prescribed in the following table :



a) Revised plantation plan should be submitted as discussed in the meeting excluding Chattim, Kadam etc.

a) The proponent has submitted revised plantation plan excluding Chattim, Kadam etc.

b) Specific Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plan with adequate financial commitment for improvement of neighbourhood area of proposed project site should be submitted.

b) The proponent has mentioned that the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plan will be submitted after approval from Board of Directors of the company.

The name of the Consultant is M/s. Centre for Sustainable Development.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, The SEAC has noted that the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plan requires prior approval from the Board of Directors of the company. The SEAC requested the proponent to submit the CSR plan approved by the competent authority.

It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the necessary documents in relation to CSR.

12. Proposed renovation and reconstruction project "DIAMOND HERITAGE" by M/s. Strand Properties Ltd. at 16, Strand Road, KMC Ward No. 45, PS – Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – NIL.

Activity:

This is a proposal for restoration cum reconstruction of a Heritage Building. The proposed project shall consist of 1 block of B+G+14 storied building having Office Complex and Multi Level Car Parking. The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal, recommended environmental clearance for the proposed project in the 44th SEAC meeting held on 12.07.2010.

Page 17 of 36



The proposed project was considered in the SEIAA meeting dated 22.09.2010. The SEIAA observed that the proposal for renovation and reconstruction of the building does not have concurrence of the Heritage Commission of West Bengal. The SEIAA has referred back the case to the SEAC with a request to get the views of Heritage Commission and to reexamine the proposal in light of the same.

The proponent submitted the following documents earlier –

1. The copy of the building plan sanctioned by KMC on 08.01.2010. 2. The copy of the letter dated 20.07.2006 from the Director General (Building) to M/s. Alcove

Industries Ltd.3. The copy of the minutes of the extended meeting of the Heritage Conservation Committee

held on 23.06.2006.

The proponent submitted a letter dated 25.10.2010 regarding final environmental clearance of the proposed project. The SEAC considered the same in the 48th SEAC meeting held on 09.11.2010. The SEAC requested the proponent to submit the copy of the permission obtained from the Heritage Commission, West Bengal, for the proposed renovation and reconstruction project.

The proponent has submitted letter dated 22.03.2011 alongwith the copy of the letter dated 20.07.2006 of the Building Department, KMC, which was submitted earlier. The letter states that the project has been approved by the Heritage Conservation Committee. However, the proponent has not yet submitted approval of the Heritage Commission, West Bengal.

The proponent has also mentioned that the initial developer was M/s. Alcove Industries Ltd. which was subsequently taken over by M/s. Strand Properties Ltd. This was considered in the 53rd SEAC meeting held on 13.04.2011. The SEAC requested the proponent vide letter dated 21.04.2011 to submit necessary approval from the Heritage Commission, West Bengal instead of resubmission of the approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee.

The proponent has submitted their reply on 10.10.2011. The proponent has mentioned that they have obtained permission from the Heritage Conservation Committee and KMC. The proponent has also stated that they don't have any access to internal correspondences exchanged between Heritage Commission, West Bengal and Heritage Conservation Committee.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant is not mentioned. However, as the presentation was delivered in the 24th SEAC meeting held on 30.09.2008, the SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting forwarded the communications received from the project proponent to SEIAA, West Bengal.

Page 18 of 36


___________________________________________________________________13. Proposed Residential Complex "AVIDIPTA” by M/s. Bengal Peerless Housing Development

Company Limited at R.S. Dag Nos. 125 (Part) and 126 (Part), J.L. No. 21, Premises No. – 401, Mouza – Barakhola, PS Purba Jadavpur, KMC Ward No. 109, Dist. 24 Parganas (S). Name of the Consultant – M/s. Centre for Sustainable Development.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of Residential Complex having 1068 flats (3 blocks of G+18 storied buildings, 5 blocks of G+17 storied buildings, 4 blocks of G+16 storied buildings, 1 block of G+15 storied building and 2 blocks of G+3 storied buildings) alongwith Community building (2 blocks of G+1 storied buildings).


The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 51st meeting held on 03.02.2011.

The SEAC proposed conditions for Environmental Clearance in the 51st meeting held on 03.02.2011.

The proponent mentioned vide letter dated 02.05.2011 that there are certain changes in the layout plan. The modified features were considered in the 54th meeting held on 12.05.2011.

The proponent has now applied for Environmental Clearance alongwith the building plan sanctioned by KMC on 29.09.2011. The modified features of the proposed project is given below :

Salient Features As per the SCEC issued on 23.02.2011

As per the Revised proposal

Land Area : 12.67 acres (51273 sq m.) : 12.67 acres (51273 sq m.)

Expected Population : 5212 (fixed), 721 (floating) : 5212 (fixed), 721 (floating)

Total Water requirement : 993 KLD (Operation stage) : 993 KLD (Operation stage)

Fresh Water requirement : 894 KLD (KMC supply) : 894 KLD (KMC supply)

Domestic Water requirement

: 800 KLD : 800 KLD

Wastewater generated : 640 KLD (to be treated in STP)

: 640 KLD (to be treated in STP)

Treated Effluent : 512 KLD : 512 KLD

Wastewater recycled : 93 KLD (to be reused after treatment in STP)

: 93 KLD (to be reused after treatment in STP)

Wastewater discharged : 419 KLD (to be discharged to KMC Sewer line after treatment in STP)

: 419 KLD (to be discharged to KMC Sewer line after treatment in STP)

Solid waste disposal : 3.0 tonnes per day (to be disposed off through local authority)

: 3.0 tonnes per day (to be disposed off through local authority)

Total Builtup Area : 103925.47 sqm. : 112616.22 sqm.

Page 19 of 36


___________________________________________________________________Salient Features As per the SCEC issued on

23.02.2011As per the Revised proposal

Ground Coverage : 9086.90 sqm. (17.72% of land area)

: 9736.79 sqm. (18.99% of land area)

Total Paved Area : 12192.15 sqm. (24.17% of land area)

: 12562.96 sqm. (24.50% of land area)

Landscaped Green Area : 21727.01 sqm. (42.37% of land area)

: 19832.49 sqm. (38.675% of land area)

Area for future development : 7500.38 sqm. (14.75% of land area)

: 7500.38 sqm. (14.63% of land area)

Area gifted to local authority

: 566.56 sqm. (1% of land area)

: 1643.318 sqm. (3.205% of land area)

Total No. of plantation : 720 (Existing – 40, Proposed – 680)

: 720 (Existing – 40, Proposed – 680)

No. of Parking spaces proposed

: 712 (Covered 212, Open 500)

: 755 (Covered 220, Open 535)

Total Power requirement : 6000 KW, CESC : 6000 KW, CESC

Backup Power : DG Sets (1 x 40 KVA, 6 x 250 KVA)

: DG Sets (1 x 40 KVA, 6 x 250 KVA)

The proponent has also mentioned that only boundary wall has been constructed at site.

Name of the Consultant is M/s. Centre for Sustainable Development.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The SEAC considered the submission by the proponent and recommended Environmental Clearance.

14. Proposed Medical College & PGI by ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ) at JL No. 21, Mouza – Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, PS – Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 700104, West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for development of Medical College & PGI. The proposed project shall consist of 500 bedded Teaching Hospital, Medical College, Nursing College, Hostel, Quarters, Guest House, Auditorium, Community Centre, Laundry, Canteen etc. This is an expansion proposal of the existing 300 bedded Hospital.


The presentation for the proposed project was made by School of Water Resources Engineering, Jadavpur University, in the 47th SEAC meeting held on 05.10.2010.

The SEAC proposed conditions for Environmental Clearance for the proposed project in the 48th

meeting held on 09.11.2010 and the unit was informed for submission of sanctioned plan after

Page 20 of 36


___________________________________________________________________necessary incorporation of environmental conditions stipulated by SEAC through letter dated 03.12.2010.

The proponent vide letter dated 22.06.2011 enquired whether final Environmental Clearance has been issued by the competent authority. The proponent was informed vide letter dated 11.07.2011 that final Environmental Clearance will be issued by the SEIAA, West Bengal only after submission of sanctioned plan as per SCEC issued on 03.12.2010.

The proponent has once again informed vide letter dated 24.09.2011 that they have not yet received final Environmental Clearance. The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. However, the proponent has not submitted requisite documents for processing final Environmental Clearance since 24.10.2011.

The SEAC agreed to inform the proponent that in continuation to the communications from the SEAC, West Bengal dated 03.12.2010 and 11.07.2011, the case would be considered only after submission of sanctioned building plan alongwith the comparative statement and current status of the proposed project.

The SEAC also decided to caution the project proponent that no activity related to the project including civil construction, can be undertaken at site except fencing of the site and construction of temporary sheds for guards before obtaining Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal and Consent to Establish from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the necessary submission.

15. Proposed Software Park by M/s. DELTA PV Pvt. Ltd. at Plot No. A13, Block GP, Sector – V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North). Name of the Consultant – M/s. Centre for Sustainable Development.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Software Park (1 block of B+G+20 storied building).


The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 55th meeting held on 10.06.2011. The presentation before the SEAC required further detailing as mentioned during the meeting. The proponent delivered a revised powerpoint presentation in the 58th SEAC meeting held on 19.08.2011. The SEAC proposed conditions for Environmental Clearance in the 58th SEAC meeting held on 19.08.2011. The proponent has now submitted vide letter dated 12.10.2011 copy of building plan sanctioned by NDITA on 24.06.2011. The salient features of the proposed project alongwith comparative statement remains unchanged. The proponent has mentioned that construction activity has not been started yet.


Page 21 of 36


___________________________________________________________________The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The SEAC considered the submission by the proponent and recommended Environmental Clearance.

16. Proposed construction project of "National Institute of Biomedical Genomics" by National Institute of Biomedical Genomics at Holding No. 34/1, Dag No. 7 & 29, Khatian No. 5, JL No. 75, Gayeshpur Municipality Ward No. 19, Mouza – Gopalpur, PS – Kalyani, Dist – Nadia, West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of the Campus of National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, An Autonomous Institution of Government of India, Department of Biotechnology. The complex includes the Main Building (G+4), Faculty Housing (G+4), Director’s Bungalow (G+1), VIP Hostel (G+3), Hostel (G+3), Dinning, Recreation (G+1), Collection Store, Creche, Auditorium (B+G), Substation, Water Tower, Bank, Staff Facilities, Security Rooms, Pump Room etc.


The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011. During presentation in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011, the committee noted that

1. The project proponent has stated that existing trees will be retained.

2. Low flow appurtenances shall be used in the buildings. Water meter will be installed in the buildings.

3. The area development will be done in the project site considering HFL of the area.

The observations of the committee in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011 and the consequent responses of the project proponent on 14.10.2011 are prescribed in the following table :



1. the list and number of existing trees as well as the number of existing trees to be retained should be provided in detail. Revised list of plantation should be submitted as discussed in the meeting.

1. The proponent has mentioned that a total of 103 no. of trees existing at the site will be retained. The proponent has also submitted the revised list of plantation.

2. The SEAC has noted that the project proponent has proposed illumination of common area by using of solar light but the location of solar panels have not been specified. 25% external illumination by solar lighting should be substantiated with adequate details on the lighting arrangement. The solar water heating should also be introduced in the buildings.

2. The proponent has mentioned that 25% of street lighting i.e. 42 nos. of street lights will be solar powered. Further, solar water heating will be introduced in buildings requiring hot water .

Page 22 of 36



Committee, issued on 30.09.2011Response of the Proponent submitted on

14.10.20113. Utilisation of fly ash building materials

should be submitted as per the MoEF latest Notification.

3. The proponent has mentioned that fly ash building materials will be utilised as per the MoEF notifications.

4. The proponent should clearly state whether the paved area is fully paved or semipaved.

4. The proponent has mentioned that paved area shown in the layout is semi paved with 50% hardscape and 50% softspace.

5. A larger copy of gridded Master Plan to be submitted.

5. The proponent has submitted a larger print of gridded Master Plan.

6. Considering the typical nature of Research and Development activity to be conducted in this institute, the SEAC requested to comply with the following conditions :

a) Groundwater recharge is not desired rather the project proponent should explore the scope of creation of small waterbody for enhancing the surface recharging.

b) The laboratory waste as well as solid waste, even if the quantity is small, should never be mixed with other sources rather these should be treated in a separate system, preferably through incineration at CHWTSDF.

c) The rules and provisions as applicable in this case for the radio active wastes and biomedical wastes should be strictly followed.

d) Copy of MoU for disposal of Biohazardous waste to be submitted.

a) The proponent has mentioned that no groundwater recharge would be done. Instead, 10 surface / storage tanks will be provided to enable surface recharge.

b) The proponent has mentioned that laboratory waste and solid waste will never be mixed with other sources. The biomedical waste would be segregated, treated and disposed of through incineration.

c) The proponent has mentioned that use of radioactive materials is not envisaged at present. However, if used in future radioactive wastes will be handled as per the Government of India Rules, as applicable.

d) The proponent has submitted copy of MoU with M/s. Semb Ramky Environment Management Pvt. Ltd. for disposal of biomedical waste.

7. Name of consultant should be mentioned 7. The proponent has mentioned that M/s. Ghosh, Bose & Associates, Kolkata, have been appointed to render comprehensive design consultancy services for the project.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011.

The SEAC considered the submission by the proponent and finalised Stipulated Conditions for Environmental Clearance. The set of environmental conditions are annexed as Annexure 1.

Page 23 of 36


___________________________________________________________________17. Proposed Commercial cum Residential project by M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development

Limited at City Centre, Haldia, West Bengal. Name of the Cosultant – NIL.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of Commercial cum Residential Complex in two phases. The Commercial Complex is proposed to be developed in Phase I and the Residential Complex in Phase II. The Commercial Complex will comprise of shopping mall, multiplex, food court, family entertainment centre etc. The Residential Complex will have 112 dwelling units.


The proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 3rd meeting held on 29.05.2007.

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) granted Provisional Environmental Clearance vide letter dated 13.07.2007. The unit mentioned in the letter dated 02.09.2010 that building plan has been sanctioned by Haldia Municipality for PHASE I. However, the plan submitted does not bear any authorization of Haldia Municipality and the total paved area is exceeding 25% of land area.

The reply dated 02.09.2010 from the project proponent was placed before the SEAC in the 46th SEAC meeting held on 06.09.2010 and the SEAC appreciated the effort to comply with the recent environmental norms and stipulation. However, considering the fact that adequate area is still available in PhaseII, the SEAC requested the project proponent to modify the proposal to limit the paved area within 25% of land area for the total project. Further it was noted that the copy of plan submitted has not been endorsed by HDA.

The proponent has submitted on 15.09.2011 the Site Plan approved by Vice Chairman, Haldia Municipality, on 30.08.2011 along with the comparative statement for the proposed PHASE – I. The modified salient features are given below :

Salient Features As per Provisional EC As per execution plan sanctioned drawing for PHASE – I

Land area 5.37 acres 5.37 acres

Building Description The Commercial Complex is proposed to be developed in Phase I and the Residential Complex in Phase II.

The Commercial Complex will comprise of shopping mall, multiplex, food court, family entertainment centre etc.

Estimated Population Residential 560, total 11643.

Total Water Requirement 440 KLD (Haldia Municipality supply)

240 KLD for Phase I

Wastewater Generated 350 KLD 50 KLD for Phase I

Wastewater Recycled 30 KLD for Phase I

Wastewater Discharged 20 KLD for Phase I

Page 24 of 36


___________________________________________________________________Salient Features As per Provisional EC As per execution plan sanctioned

drawing for PHASE – ISolid waste disposal 1.9 tonne per day

Total Builtup Area 57883 sqm. 28130.49 sqm. for Phase IGround coverage 39.19% 7770.0 sqm. (35.75%)

Water Body 1.97% Nil

Total Number of trees 130 for Phase I

Greenery 15.23% Phase I – 9.78%

Phase II 15.56%

Total 25.33% (Phase I & Phase II)

Parking Surface Car Parking – 99 nos., Basement Car Parking – 334 nos., Total – 433nos.

For Phase I

Surface Parking – 50 nos., Basement Parking – 134 nos.

Total Power Requirement 3750 KW, WBSEB 3750 KW, WBSEB

Internal Road 11.71% for Phase I

Paved Area 2.86%

Grass Pavers Block Phase I – 14.64%

Phase II – 5.41%

Total (Phase I & Phase II) = 20.09%

Back up Power DG Sets (1x 150 KVA, 1x 1000 KVA, 3x 1750 KVA)

DG Sets (1x 150 KVA, 1x 1000 KVA, 3x 1750 KVA)

The proponent has also mentioned that boundary wall and site office has been constructed.

The comparative statement for the proposed PHASE – I is placed before the SEAC in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011. The proponent has submitted vide letter dated 20.10.2011 two copies of site plan.

The proponent earlier submitted Rapid EIA report prepared by Environmental Engineers Consortium. The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The SEAC considered the submission by the proponent and recommended Environmental Clearance.

18. Proposed Residential Complex by M/s. Lingraj Properties Pvt. Ltd. at JL No. 48, Mouza – Kumrakhali, PO – Narendrapur, PS – Sonarpur, RajpurSonarpur Municipality, Kolkata – 700 103, Dist – South 24 Parganas. Name of the Consultant – M/s. JB Enviro Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential Complex having 479 flats (7 blocks of B+G+18 storied buildings).

Page 25 of 36


___________________________________________________________________



During presentation in the 59th SEAC meeting, the committee recommended the following and the proponent submitted their reply on 20.10.2011




1. The project proponent should obtain assurance from Municipality that they will ensure supply of arsenicfree water to the proposed project.

1. The proponent has submitted copy of the letter dated 19.10.2011 from Chairman Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality ensuring supply of arsenicfree water to the proposed project.

2. The recharge in this arsenic prone zone should be designed as per the MoEF Manual for large construction projects and provisions of State Ground Water Act. Revised Rainwater Harvesting Plan should be submitted as discussed in the meeting.

2. The proponent has submitted Revised Rainwater Harvesting Plan.

3. 20% tree plantation area and other green area should be clearly shown in a scaled and gridded plan. Revised plantation list should be submitted.

3. The proponent has submitted scaled and gridded plan and revised plantation list.

4. The SEAC has noted that the project proponent has proposed illumination of common area by using of solar light, but the location of solar panels have not been specified. Details of the solar lighting proposal should be submitted.

4. The proponent has submitted solar street lighting plan.

5. The total impervious area of the site within permissible Ground Coverage and Paved Area stipulations.

5. The proponent has mentioned that total impervious area of the site will be within permissible Ground Coverage and Paved Area stipulations.

6. Detailed car parking calculation as per West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007 should be submitted.

6. The proponent has submitted car parking calculation.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant is M/s. JB Enviro Consultants Pvt. Ltd. However, as the presentation was delivered in the

Page 26 of 36


___________________________________________________________________59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011, the SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting considered the submission by the proponent and finalised Stipulated Conditions for Environmental Clearance. The set of environmental conditions are annexed as Annexure 2.

B. Miscellaneous :

1. Relevant Circulars / Notification of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

The following circulars and / or notifications has been issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests –

i. O.M. [30/09/2011] Accreditation of the EIA Consultants with Quality Council of India (QCI) National Accreditation Board of Education and Training (NABET). [Updated: October 11th, 2011]

ii. O.M. [05/10/2011] Integrated Steel Plants and Sponge Iron Plants, which are linked to iron ore as raw material from mining operations in the Districts of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga in Karnataka. [Updated: October 5th, 2011]

iii. O.M. [05/10/2011] Ownership of EIA report and other documents by the project proponent. [Updated: October 5th, 2011]

iv. Adherence to the procedure for conduct of Public Hearing as prescribed in the EIA Notification, 2006 Regarding. Dated September 28, 2011.

v. Consideration of projects for environmental clearance based on Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) Extension of Moratorium up to 31.03.2012 Regarding. Dated September 27, 2011.

vi. Mining Projects from the Districts of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga in Karnataka reg. Dated: September 20, 2011.

vii. Consideration of projects for grant of environment clearance under EIA Notification, 2006, which involve forestland Procedure to be followed further clarifications reg. Dated: September 9, 2011.

The matter was placed for information in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011.

The SEAC noted all the above mentioned Relevant Circulars / Notification in general and considered the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 in particular. It was decided that as mentioned in the Office Memorandum, the submission endorsed by Category – C consultants shall not be considered for the presentation cases any further. However, for the reconsideration cases the status of relevant environmental data and information provided before 30.09.2011 shall be considered with due regard to the status of eligibility of the concerned consultant prevailing during that period of time.

Page 27 of 36


___________________________________________________________________

Session II

C. Technical Presentations:

1. Proposed modernization of the existing 5th unit of Bandel Thermal Power Station by M/s. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. at Bandel, Dist – Hooghly, West Bengal. Name of the Consultant – M/s. M.N Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

1. This is a proposal for renovation and modernisation of the existing 5th unit of Bandel Thermal Power Station resulting in capacity augmentation of 5th unit from 210 MW to 215 MW. Presently BTPS has 4x60 MW (derated capacity) and 1x210 MW units. The proposed capacity enhancement will be achieved by improving the efficiency of the 5th Unit.

2. Salient features of the proposed modernisation project are :i. Location of the Site Plot Nos. – Bandel, Dist. Hooghly, West Bengal.ii. Land Area – existing plant. iii. Proposed installation – Efficiency of the 5th unit and other auxiliaries will be enhanced. iv. Raw Materials Coal (1.2 MTPA), Startup Fuel (2391 KL/annum).v. Emission Control System ESP efficiency will be enhanced, stack of adequate height from

GL.vi. Additional Water Requirement nil.vii. Effluent DM Plant effluent will be treated in a neutralisation tank, all effluent will be

collected in a guard pond. Treated effluent will be used for dust suppression, gardening etc. and excess treated water will be discharged to River Hooghly through existing drain of the plant.

viii. Ash Handling System Fly Ash will be disposed of in dry condition. Provision will be kept for ash pond for Bottom Ash and unused dry flyash.

The proponent has proposed ToR for EIAEMP study. The name of the consultant is M/s. M.N Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

The case was put up for consideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. After carefully considering the proposal and presentation the committee recommended Terms of Reference (ToR) for conducting EIA. The ToR is annexed as Annexure 3.

2. Proposed Residential Complex by M/s. Fortune Park Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. at 168 Krishnanagar Road, Vill. – Paschim Khilkapur, Mouza – Moynagadi, PS – Barasat, Dist. 24 Parganas (N). Name of the consultant M/s. Centre for Sustainable Development.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential Complex having 819 flats (13nos. G+11 storied buildings and 1no. G+7 storied building) and Club cum Community Building (G+2 storied).

Page 28 of 36



Salient features of the proposed project are –

Land Area : 5.841 acres (23641.5 sqm.)

Expected Population : 4100 (fixed), 510 (floating)

Total Water requirement : 710 KLD

Fresh Water requirement : 632 KLD (Panchayat supply / Groundwater)

Domestic Water requirement : 626 KLD

Wastewater generated : 500 KLD (to be treated in STP)

Wastewater reclaimed : 450 KLD (after treatment in STP)

Wastewater recycled : 70 KLD (to be reused after treatment in STP)

Wastewater discharged : 380 KLD (to be discharged through panchayat drain after treatment in STP)

Solid waste disposal : 2.35 tonnes per day (to be disposed through local panchayat)

Total Builtup Area : 81360.39 sqm.

Ground Coverage : 7167.01 sqm. (30.32% of land area)

Building Ground Coverage : 6931.06 sqm. (29.32% of land area)

Cantilever Area : 235 sqm. (1% of land area)

Landscaped Green Area : 5574.97 sqm. (23.58% of land area)

Other Soft Area : 5796.23 sqm. (24.52% of land area)

Total Paved Area : 5139.23 sqm. (22.58% of land area)

Proposed waterbody : It is not clear whether any waterbody exists or has been proposed

No. of plantations proposed : 350

No. of Parking spaces proposed

: 597 (covered – 220, open 377)

Total Power requirement : 3000 KW, WBSEDCL

Backup Power : DG Sets (4x250 KVA)


The case was put up for consideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. After carefully considering the proposal and during the presentation the committee noted that –

1. The project has been proposed in an arsenic prone zone. As per the provision of MoEF, New Delhi guidelines on large building projects, groundwater abstraction and recharging cannot be allowed in this area.

Further, approx. 632m3/day groundwater is proposed to be abstracted from this arsenic prone zone. However, no information is available about the depth of borewell and impact of abstraction.

Page 29 of 36


___________________________________________________________________2. The proponent has mentioned that water requirement will be met from Panchayat supply.

Details of water source, quality and quantity of Panchayat water supply should be provided alongwith specific commitment from concerned authority.

3. No information has been provided about the carrying capacity of the adjacent drainage system in which runoff from the project site in addition to 380m3/day of treated wastewater has been proposed to be discharged. The route of transport of stormwater as well as treated wastewater to the final recipient waterbody is also not specified.

Details of stormwater and treated wastewater discharge, conveyance to the final recipient waterbody should be provided alongwith necessary concurrence of concerned authority.

4. Details of solid waste collection, transport and disposal scheme alongwith concurrence of concerned authority. The copy of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) authorization should be valid.

5. Existing trees and waterbodies, if any, should be specified.

6. Land conversion certificate should be submitted. The detailed list of landuse classification of dag nos. should be provided.

7. It has been noted that PVC grass cell structure has been proposed with 25% hard area and 75% soft area. Typical design drawing should be provided.

All such details should be be obtained from the competent and concerned authorities with necessary endorsement and should be submitted to the SEAC.


3. Proposed construction of Township, Residential & Commercial Complex “URBANA” by M/s. Bengal NRI complex Limited at 782 & 783, Anandapur, PO – EKTP, Kolkata – 700 107. Name of the Consultant – NIL.

Activity:

This is a proposal for development of a Township consisting of Residential and Commercial Complexes. The Residential Complex shall comprise of 912 dwelling units in 2 Apartment Towers (5nos. G+40 & 2nos. G+45 storied buildings) and 48 Bungalows. The Commercial Complex shall comprise of 2 Office Towers (2B+G+6 Podium+34 storied building & 2B+G+6 Podium+26 storied building).


The project proponent delivered a powerpoint presentation in the 25th SEAC meeting on 31.10.2008.

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) granted Provisional Environmental Clearance during 26th SEAC meeting held on 28.11.2008.

The unit submitted on 07.05.2010, the copy of the building plan sanctioned by KMC on 09.04.2010 & 24.04.2010 for PHASE I of the proposed project. The modified features of the proposed project (PHASE I) was placed in the 44th SEAC meeting held on 12.07.2010. The observations of the SEAC

Page 30 of 36


___________________________________________________________________in the 44th SEAC meeting held on 12.07.2010 and the consequent response from the unit submitted on 02.09.2010 are prescribed in the following table :

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee

Response of the Proponent

1. Area of waterbody should be mentioned. The status of the water body (existing or proposed) should be mentioned explicitly alongwith supporting documents.

1. The PP has mentioned that the area of the proposed waterbody will be same as that specified in the provisional environmental clearance. The PP has also mentioned that there is no existing waterbody within the premises.

2. The rationale for assuming per capita water consumption of 175 lpcd should be mentioned and scope for minimization should also be explored and reported.

2. The PP has mentioned that they have assumed per capita water consumption of 175 lpcd as per the Manual on Water Supply and Treatment.

3. Quantity of wastewater recycled and discharged should be mentioned.

3. The PP has mentioned the quantity of wastewater to be recycled and discharged.

4. Clearance for the height of the building from the Airport Authority of India should be submitted.

4. The PP has mentioned that obtaining Height clearance from AAI was not a requirement for plan sanction by KMC.

5. Considering the condition of water availability in that locality and the dimension of the project, the SEAC also decided that the project proponent should obtain the permission for water abstraction from concerned authorities and submit the same to the SEAC for further processing of this project.

5. The PP has mentioned that SWID will take necessary decision on the basis of technical report to be submitted by Jadavpur University. The PP has enclosed the permit for one no. existing tubewell with rate of withdrawal 20 m3/hr. The rate of withdrawal of the proposed tubewell will be 50 m3/hr. The PP has mentioned that the water requirement for PHASE I shall be met from 2nos. tubewells (one existing and one proposed).

6. Status of the project at present should be stated.

6. The PP has mentioned that work on test piles installation, conducting pile load test and site preparation works are in progress.

The proponent has also submitted mouza maps of Madurdaha mouza.

The committee scrutinized the submission in the 46th SEAC meeting held on 06.09.2010 and it was agreed that considering the typical ground water condition in that particular area and also the status of proposed municipal water supply, the project proponent should first ensure availability of adequate water atleast for operation of PhaseI and in support of their claim they should submit the permission from the competent authority for ground water abstraction.

The proponent submitted a letter on 17.08.2011 alongwith the permission of SWID dated 11.07.2011, which was considered in the 58th SEAC meeting held on 19.08.2011. The SEAC noted that the

Page 31 of 36


___________________________________________________________________proponent has obtained permission from the SWID for sinking one no. tube well of capacity 50 cum/hr. Accordingly, they have restructured your PHASE – I development. Further, the committee recommended that following information may be submitted –

a) detailed comparative statement of salient features for the proposed restructured PHASE – I development.

b) NOC for height clearance from the Airport Authority of India, if applicable.

However, the proponent has submitted on 12.09.2011 revised parameters and sought amendment of Provisional Environmental Clearance earlier granted by the SEAC. The modified building profile is as follows –

Earlier proposal as mentioned in PEC Revised proposalResidential Complex having 912 dwelling units (5nos. G+40 & 2nos. G+45 storied buildings) and 48 Bungalows. The Commercial Complex shall comprise of 2 Office Towers (2B+G+6 Podium+34 storied building & 2B+G+6 Podium+26 storied building).

Residential Complex 5nos. G+45 storied buildings (tower no. 2,3,4,5&6) and 2nos. G+40 storied buildings (tower no. 1 & 7) Other components will remain unchanged.

In the previous letter submitted on 17.08.2011 the proponent mentioned that PHASE I development shall consist of 4 towers (1, 2, 6 & 7) only.

Further, the proponent submitted on 14.09.2011 comparative statement of earlier PHASE I development and the proposed PHASE I development. The revised parameters and the comparative statement could not be scrutinised in detail.

The letters dated 09.09.2011 and 13.09.2011 were placed in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011. The committee noted that

1. In the earlier letter submitted on 17.08.2011, the proponent mentioned that PHASE I development shall consist of 4 towers (1, 2, 6 & 7) only.

2. However, the proponent has submitted revised parameters for the entire Township in the letter dated 09.09.2011 and sought amendment of Provisional Environmental Clearance earlier granted by the SEAC for the modified proposal.

The SEAC requested the proponent to deliver a detailed powerpoint presentation on the revised proposal for the overall Township project.

The case was put up for consideration in the 60th meeting held on 24.10.2011. The name of the Consultant is not mentioned. The SEAC in tune with the decisions taken in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011 (vide serial no. 3 & 4 of the Miscellaneous Section) in connection to the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2011 and the 30th September deadline as well as the decisions taken in this meeting considered the proposal and during the presentation the committee noted that construction has been started. The water quality tests report for the approved capacity of water is not available.

The SEAC requested the project proponent for submission of detailed information regarding the borewell depth as well as quantity of water available, water requirement for the proposed project, the

Page 32 of 36


___________________________________________________________________water quality test report and corrected water balance diagram. The comparative statement for the greenbelt should also be submitted. Considering the current status of permission of water abstraction, the SEAC not in a position to consider any further amendment for increasing the construction area (Total Builtup Area) in the communication dated 13.02.2009 in which the conditions for Environmental Clearance was stipulated by the SEAC, West Bengal (erstwhile termed as Provisional Environmental Clearance earlier).


Summaries of above decisions are also provided in Table1.

Table1 : List of the projects which were placed before the SEAC in the sixtieth meeting held on 24.10.2011 at 12:00 hrs. and the Summary Decisions thereof:

A Cases placed for consideration of Environment Clearance Sl. No.

Name of the unit Summary Decision

1. M/s. Salasar Cements

Proposed Cement Grinding Unit at Plot No. – G10, Mangalpur Industrial Estate, PS – Raniganj, PO – Baktarnagar, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713 321, West Bengal

AAS

2. M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd., Unit : Durgapur Cement Works

Proposed expansion of the existing Cement Grinding Unit and installation of CBM based Captive Power Plant at Jl. No. – 62 & 63, Vill. – Sujara, Near DSP Slag Bank, Durgapur 713203, Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal

REC

3. M/s. Balaji Paper & Newsprint Private Limited

Proposed Waste paper based plant and Cogeneration Captive Power Plant at Jl. No. – 561, 562, 649, 650, Vill. Manikpara, PS – Jhargram, Dist. – Pashim Medinipur, Pin – 721513, West Bengal

AAS

4. M/s. Maa Gouri Cement Industries

Proposed expansion of the Cement Grinding Unit at Plot No. – 391 (P), 392, Jl. No. – 53, Vill. & PO – Kuldiha, SD Durgapur, PS – Kanksa, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal.

AAS

5. M/s. Shivam Meltech Pvt. Ltd.

Proposed expansion project for installation of Induction Furnace and Continuous Casting Machine at Jl. No. – 58, Vill. – Gopalpur, Mouza Bamunara, PS – Kanksa, SD – Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal.

AAS

Page 33 of 36


___________________________________________________________________



6. M/s. VSP Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Proposed expansion project for installation of Induction Furnace at Jl. No. – 58, 65, Banskopa More, Vill. & Mouza – Gopalpur, PO Bamunara, PS – Kanksa, SD – Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal

AAS

7. M/s. Strongbonds Polyseal Pvt. Ltd.

Proposed expansion project for enhancement of production of Unsaturated Polyester Resins at Plot No. – 26/C, 26/D/1 & 26/D/2, Kalyani Industrial Estate Phase I, Block – D, Dist. – Nadia, Pin – 741235, West Bengal

REC

8. M/s. Oriental Sales Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Proposed Residential Complex & Hospital at 2, Jessore Road, Holding No. – 380 (N), 1108 (O), CalJessore Road, Jl. No. – 19, Mouza – Dum Dum House, South Dum Dum Municipality Ward No. 07, PO & PS – Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700028, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North).

AAS

9. M/s. Designer Real Estate India Pvt. Ltd.

Proposed Residential Complex “UJAAS” at Plot No. 69, Holding No. – 152 (new), 97 (old), S.K. Deb Road, Jl. No. 25, Mouza – Dakshindari, PS – Lake Town, South Dum Dum Municipality Ward No. 31, Dist – 24 Parganas (North) West Bengal.

REC

10. M/s. Avani Projects and Infrastructure Limited

Proposed project including expansion of the Commercial Complex “AVANI RIVERSIDE MALL” at 32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah.

AAS

11. M/s. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

Proposed Residential Complex “SANKALPA II” at Prem. No. – 36, MAR (Plot No. – BF/1, BF/2, BF/3), Action Area I, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal.

AAS

12. M/s. Strand Properties Ltd.

Proposed renovation and reconstruction project "DIAMOND HERITAGE" at 16, Strand Road, KMC Ward No. 45, PS Hare Street, Kolkata 700 001, West Bengal.

To be forwarded to SEIAA, West

Bengal

Page 34 of 36


___________________________________________________________________



13. M/s. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Limited

Proposed Residential Complex "AVIDIPTA” at R.S. Dag Nos. 125 (Part) and 126 (Part), J.L. No. 21, Premises No. – 401, Mouza Barakhola, PS – Purba Jadavpur, KMC Ward No. 109, Dist. 24 Parganas (S)

REC

14. ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ)

Proposed Medical College & PGI at JL No. 21, Mouza Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, PS – Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 700104, West Bengal.

Provisions to be informed with no prior construction

direction

15. M/s. DELTA PV Pvt. Ltd.

Proposed Software Park at Plot No. A13, Block GP, Sector – V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North).

REC

16. National Institute of Biomedical Genomics

Proposed construction project of "National Institute of Biomedical Genomics" at Holding No. 34/1, Dag No. 7 & 29, Khatian No. 5, JL No. 75, Gayeshpur Municipality Ward No. 19, Mouza – Gopalpur, PS – Kalyani, Dist – Nadia, West Bengal.

SCEC Finalized

17. M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Limited

Proposed Commercial cum Residential project at City Centre, Haldia, West Bengal.

REC

18. M/s. Lingraj Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Proposed Residential Complex at JL No. 48, Mouza – Kumrakhali, PO – Narendrapur, PS – Sonarpur, RajpurSonarpur Municipality, Kolkata – 700 103, Dist – South 24 Parganas.

SCEC Finalized

B Miscellaneous cases

Sl. No.

Name of the unit & Project address Summary Decision

1. Relevant Circulars / Notification of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India

30.09.2011 onwards the MoEF – Office Memorandum shall be strictly followed.

Page 35 of 36


___________________________________________________________________

C Cases placed for presentationSl. No.

Name of the unit & Project address Summary Decision

1. M/s. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd.

Proposed modernization of the existing 5th unit of Bandel Thermal Power Station at Bandel, Dist – Hooghly, West Bengal.

ToR Finalized

2. M/s. Fortune Park Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Proposed Residential Complex at 168 Krishnanagar Road, Vill. – Paschim Khilkapur, Mouza – Moynagadi, PS – Barasat, Dist. 24 Parganas (N).

AAS

3. M/s. Bengal NRI complex Limited

Proposed construction of Township, Residential & Commercial Complex “URBANA” at 782 & 783, Anandapur, PO – EKTP, Kolkata – 700 107.

AAS

REC: Recommended Environmental Clearance, SCEC: Stipulated Conditions for Environmental Clearance, AAS: Asked for Additional Submission / Clarification

The meeting ended with a note of thanks to the Chair.

Page 36 of 36

Documents

Avidipta CESE Power Water Inlands