Minutes of the tenth meeting of the State Level Expert...

Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 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. Shri Manoj Kumar Nandi Vice Chairman, SEAC2. Prof. Subhash Chandra Santra Member, SEAC3. Dr. Kalyan Rudra Member, SEAC4. Shri Somnath Bhattacharyya Member, SEAC5. Shri Arijit Banerjee Member, SEAC6. Dr. S. P. Sinha Ray Member, SEAC7. Shri Sandipan Mukherjee, I.F.S. Secretary, SEAC & Member Secretary, WBPCB

In the beginning of the 63rd meeting of SEAC, which was held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Bidhan Nagar, the Secretary, SEAC welcome all the members. After introductory session, nine cases were placed for reconsideration. One additional issue was discussed under 'Miscellaneous' section. Five applicants were requested to make their presentation before the committee. All the five applicants appeared before the SEAC for technical presentation on their respective project proposal.

Session I

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

1. Proposed Cement Grinding Unit of M/s. U.K. Cement Pvt. Ltd. at Jl. No. – 58, Vill. & Mouza – Bamunara, Bamunara Industrial Area, Durgapur, GP – Gopalpur, PO – Panagarh Bazar, PS – Kanksa, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for installation of a Cement Grinding unit (1200 TPD) with one no. coal fired Slag drier (500 TPD) for production of Portland Slag Cement & Portland Pozzolana Cement (360000 TPA).

Chronology of the event:

The proponent obtained Environment Clearance from SEIAA, West Bengal on 17.03.2011 for the proposed site at Jl. No. – 58, Dag No. – 1943 – 1955, Vill. & Mouza – Bamunara, Bamunara Industrial Area, Durgapur, GP – Gopalpur, PO – Panagarh Bazar, PS – Kanksa, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal, having land area 5.68 acres.

Subsequently, the proponent applied for Consent to Establish to the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. On detailed scrutiny it was found that land area in above dag nos. is only 50 decimal or 0.5 acres.

The Member Secretary, SEIAA vide letter dated 05.08.2011 intimated that the proponent has applied for amendment of Environmental Clearance regarding dag nos.

The proponent has informed vide letter dated 26.08.2011 that there are total 83 nos. of plots covering land area of 5.68 acres. The proponent also submitted supporting documents from BL&LRO, Kanksa Block, Dist. Burdwan. However, dag nos. 1947 – 1950 is not included in the list of dag nos. submitted.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

The matter is placed for discussion in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011. During discussion in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011, the committee reviewed the letter dated 26.08.2011 and noted that :

1. The project proponent have obtained Environment Clearance from SEIAA, West Bengal on 17.03.2011 for the proposed site at Jl. No. – 58, Dag No. – 1943 – 1955, Vill. & Mouza – Bamunara, Bamunara Industrial Area, Durgapur, GP – Gopalpur, PO – Panagarh Bazar, PS – Kanksa, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal, having land area 5.68 acres.

2. However, the project proponent have informed vide letter dated 26.08.2011 that there are total 83 nos. of plots covering land area of 5.68 acres. The unit has submitted supporting documents from BL&LRO, Kanksa Block, Dist. Burdwan. However, dag nos. 1947 – 1950 is not included in the list of dag nos. submitted.

3. It is not clear from the submission whether the land parcel which was shown during the presentation through satellite imagery before the SEAC and the land parcel which comprises of 83 number of plots, are same or there is any difference. The SEAC requests the project proponent to kindly confirm whether the latitudelongitude provided for the project location is still applicable in this case or not.

The reply of the proponent submitted on 17.11.2011 are as follows :

a) The proponent has mentioned that the land parcel of 5.68 acres for the proposed cement plant covering 83 nos. of plots is same as that shown during presentation before SEAC. The latitudelongitude mentioned earlier is still applicable for the proposed project.

b) The proponent has also mentioned that dag nos. 19471950 are not situated in the 5.68 acres land parcel. However, the index map submitted is not clearly legible.

Further, the prayer for amendment of dag nos. in original Environmental Clearance has been forwarded by the Member Secretary, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal vide letter dated 15.11.2011. However, the enclosure was not found.

The letter dated 17.11.2011 was placed for consideration in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011. During discussion in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011, the committee requested the proponent vide letter dated 19.12.2011 to submit an undertaking that layout with RS no., list of Dag no. and Latitude Longitude has been provided for same land parcel, which was shown in the presentation made in the 49th SEAC meeting held on 03.12.2010.

The project proponent submitted their reply on 03.01.2012. They submitted the undertaking that layout with RS no., list of Dag no. and Latitude Longitude have been provided for same land parcel, which was shown in the presentation made in the 49th SEAC meeting held on 03.12.2010.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has approved the amendment of Environmental Clearance with 83 nos. plots as mentioned in the documents of BL&LRO, Kanksa Block, Dist. Burdwan, in the 63rd meeting held on 31.01.2012. The copy of the summary decision of the said SEAC meeting alongwith other relevant documents is forwarded to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal for necessary action and perusal.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

2. Proposed expansion of Cement Grinding Unit by M/s. Shri Shankar Suwan Estate Pvt. Ltd. at Jl. No. 24, Mouza – Balanpur, PS – Kanksa, PO – Ikra, Jamuria Municipality, Pin – 713362, Dist – Burdwan, West Bengal. Name of the Environmental Consultant – M/s. Environ India.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion of an existing Cement Grinding unit through installation of 2x50 TPD grinding mill for additional production of Portland Slag Cement (30000 TPA). The existing plant has 2x50 TPD cement grinding mill with coal fired slag drier (50 TPD). It is noted that clinker will not be manufactured at the site. The manufacturing process will involve grinding of Cement Clinker with Slag and Gypsum.

Chronology of the event :

During the presentation in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011, the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), West Bengal, has noted that

a) A pond is present in the factory premises.b) The project proponent has verbally agreed to comply with the stringent standard for particu

late emission of 50 mg/Nm3 in the existing plant.c) The proponent has not yet obtained permission for groundwater abstraction in the existing

plant.

Further the SEAC made the following recommendations in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011 Subsequent response dated 24.01.2012 from the unit is given below : –

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee, issued on 19.12.2011

Response of the Proponent submitted on 24.01.2012

1. The project proponent should obtain the permission for groundwater abstraction for the existing plant at first.

1. The project proponent has mentioned that water is being used for domestic purposes only and no process water is required for the operation of the Cement Grinding Unit. As per notification issued by Water Resources Investigation & Development Department, domestic users – with sump or overhead tank upto 10000 ltrs. are exempted from obtaining permission. However, for permission towards abstraction of groundwater which will be used for domestic purposes only, application has already been submitted to State Water Investigation Dept.

2. The proponent should retain the existing pond and utilise the same for Rainwater Harvesting. The proponent should submit authenticated document regarding size of pond. The project proponent should overlay the site plan on the Mouza map for showing the location of the existing pond.

2. The project proponent has submitted that the area marked as pukur and mentioned in the Mutation Certificate is outside the proposed project area of M/s. Sri Shankar Suwan Estate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Satwik Metals Pvt. Ltd. and is being kept as an open area without any construction or development. The area will be utilised for rainwater harvesting.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________



3. 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.

3. The proponent has submitted the copy of layout.

4. The plantation area should be 33% of the land area.

4. The proponent has mentioned that the total land area considered for the project is 3.282 acres, out of which 1.09 acres (33% of total land) has been allocated for greenbelt development. Plantation is being developed as a continuous process along with periphery of the plant in line with the area shown in the plant layout.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the committee has noted that this is a proposal for expansion of existing Red category unit located under Jamuria Municipality, Dist – Burdwan. As per the siting policy of WBPCB, Special Red & Red category industries are not permitted to set up within the municipal areas of Burdwan District except Jamuria Industrial Area.

Therefore, before consideration of the proposal, the unit is requested to obtain in principle approval from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board for the proposed expansion of the existing unit. Furthermore, the committee has not yet received permission for drawl of groundwater from the concerned authority.

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

3. Proposed Township Project (PHASE IA) by M/s. Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd. at Mouza – Kona, Balitikuri, Bankra, Pakuria, Tentulkuli, Khalia & Salap, PO & PS – Domjur, Dist – Howrah.

Activity:

This is a proposal for development of a Township with 9000 dwelling units, commercial facilities and other infrastructural facilities. The proposed development shall comprise of 5 phases.


The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) has granted Provisional Environmental Clearance for the proposed Township project in the 7th meeting held on 26.07.2007. The proponent mentioned that the proposed development shall comprise of 5 phases.

Subsequently, the proponent obtained Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal for PHASE – I of the proposed project on 11.11.2008.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

The proponent obtained amendment of the said Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal for PHASE – I of the proposed project on 04.02.2010.The proponent has submitted vide letter dated 08.09.2011, sanctioned plan for PHASE – IA along with key plan sanctioned by KMDA, comparative statement and other documents. The proponent has mentioned that status of construction of PHASE – I is vacant land.Salient features of the proposed PHASE – I is given below:

Salient Features As per Provisional EC

Phase I

(EC Obtained)

Phase IA

(EC Applied for)Land Area 390.165 acres 89.174 acres 4.283 acres (17272.98

sqm.)

Expected Population 45000 4550 2324

Building profile

Water requirement (Operation stage)

10000 KLD 690 KLD 335 KLD

Wastewater generated 7500 KLD 518 KLD 262 KLD

Firefighting Water demand

700 KL 200 KL 300 KL

Solid waste disposal 24.99 TPD 2.53 TPD 1.12 TPD

Total Builtup Area Not mentioned 165202.4 sqm. 52736.43 sqm.

Ground Coverage 167.77 acres 18.2 acres 0.967 acres (3913.55 sqm.), 22.578%

Landscaped area with waterbody

128.76 acres 22.85 acres 1.019 acres (23.792%)

Waterbody 3.7 acres NIL NIL

Road & Pathway 93.64 acres 21.4 acres 2.297 acres (53.63%)

No. of Car Parking spaces proposed

33000 nos. 1811 nos. 210 nos.

Power requirement 32 MVA 4.5 MVA 1.9 MVA

Backup Power DG Sets (3x625 KVA, 10x750KVA & 6x1010 KVA)

DG Sets (2x65 KVA)

DG Sets (2x380 KVA)

The case was placed in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011 and the SEAC noted that the total project area is 390.165 acres. The project proponent earlier obtained Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal for PHASE – I comprising of 89.174 acres. Now the unit applied for PHASE – IA which is only 4.283 acres. The SEAC requested the project proponent vide letter dated 30.09.2011 to consider the project in an integrated manner and also to explain the reasons for reverting to the proposal for sending the sewage to the KMW STP instead of augmenting the capacity of the STP at the project site in a modular form. The SEAC also

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

desired to review the compliance status of the PHASE – I for which Environmental Clearance has already been granted.

The proponent has submitted their reply on 22.11.2011. The proponent has mentioned that as per development agreement with KMDA, the sewer line is to be connected to KMW & SA STP at Kona. However, Kona STP was too far from PHASE – I development and development planning for finalisation of the route of the sewer line could not be done for PHASE I. Hence, construction of STP of 650 KLD was considered for PHASE – I. If it is not feasible to connect the sewer line for PHASE – IA, the capacity of the existing STP will be enhanced.

The progress status of PHASE – I as mentioned by the proponent is as follows:

Total no. of units as per EC

Total No. of units as per sanctioned

plan.

Completed unit

CC obtained

CC applied ConsenttoOperate obtained

Consentto

Operate to be applied

shortly

910 907 370 269 101 179 191

The comparative statement for PHASE – I and PHASE – II as mentioned by the proponent is given below :


Phase I (EC Obtained) Phase IA (EC Applied for)

Land Area 390.165 acres 89.174 acres 4.283 acres

(17272.98 sqm.)

Expected Population 45000 4550 (as per the EC)

4535 (as mentioned by the proponent)

2324

Building profile

Water requirement (Operation stage)

10000 KLD 690 KLD 335 KLD

Wastewater generated 7500 KLD 518 KLD (as per the amended EC)

513 KLD (as mentioned by the proponent)

262 KLD

Firefighting Water demand

700 KL 200 KL 300 KL

Solid waste disposal 24.99 TPD 2.53 TPD (as per the EC)

2.52 TPD (as mentioned by the proponent)

1.12 TPD

of 33


___________________________________________________________________


Phase I (EC Obtained) Phase IA (EC Applied for)

Total Builtup Area Not mentioned 165202.4 sqm. 52736.43 sqm.

Ground Coverage 167.77 acres 18.2 acres 0.967 acres

(3913.55 sqm.), 22.578%

Landscaped area with waterbody

128.76 acres 22.85 acres 1.019 acres (23.792%)

Waterbody 3.7 acres NIL NIL

Road & Pathway 93.64 acres 21.4 acres 1.648 acres (53.63%)

No. of Car Parking spaces proposed

33000 nos. 1811 nos. 210 nos.

Power requirement 32 MVA 4.5 MVA 1.9 MVA

Backup Power DG Sets (3x625 KVA, 10x750KVA & 6x1010 KVA)

DG Sets (2x65 KVA) DG Sets (2x380 KVA)

The letter dated 22.11.2011 was placed before the SEAC in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011 and the committee requested the project proponent vide letter dated 19.12.2011 that as requested earlier the renewed agreement / concurrence of KMW&SA for accepting the sewage and treating in KMW&SA STP was not made available to SEAC till 29.11.2011. The SEAC requested the proponent to confirm the STP proposal.

The reply of the proponent submitted on 03.01.2012 are as follows :

1. The proponent has mentioned that the SEAC already accorded clearance to connect the waste water of the entire township to KMW&SA STP at Kona having capacity 40 MLD vide SEAC's letter dated 16.08.2007.

2. The proponent has also mentioned that they have already conveyed vide letter dated 30.04.2009 about some practical difficulties in sending sewer of PhaseI to KMW&SA STP. Accordingly they constructed a separate 650 KLD capacity STP dedicated for this phase within the site and obtained the Environmental Clearance.

3. Further, the proponent mentioned that they propose to construct another 300 KLD STP (Modular type) for Phase IA. The location of the said proposed STP along with sewer line is marked in the annexed plan.


After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the committee requested the unit to present the case through a power point presentation in the 64th Meeting scheduled to be held on 16.02.2012 at 12.30 pm at the Conference Room of Paribesh Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Bidhannagar. The following issues must be addressed in the presentation:

1. The compliance status of Phase I for which EC has been already granted including present source and quantity of water consumed

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

2. The project proposal for Phase IA. 3. Justification for the proposal of construction of another 300 KLD STP (modular type) for

Phase IA for sewage treatment.

It is also informed that the unit is required to comply with the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

4. Proposed Infrastructure cum Logistic Hub “FREIGHT PORT” by M/s. Bengal Anmol South City Infrastructure Ltd. at Jl. No. – 2 & 13, Mouza – Joypurbill & Jagdishpur, PS – Liluah, Dist. – Howrah, West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for development of an Infrastructure cum Logistic Hub consisting of Warehouse (4 blocks of B+G+3 storied buildings), Retail Area (2 blocks of G+4 storied buildings), Office (1 block of B+G+6 storied building), Captive Housing (4 blocks of G+5 storied buildings) with 108 flats and MLCP (1 block of G+3 storied building) alongwith loading, unloading bays and parking spaces with total built up area – 1,38,325 sqm.


The information provided in the application for Environmental Clearance for the proposed project was found to be insufficient. The letter dated 05.04.2010 was issued to the proponent for submission of necessary information. The proponent submitted on 07.04.2010 the status of the writ petition made by Jalabhumi Banchao Committee & Org. at the High Court, Calcutta.

Further, the SEAC received one copy of order, which states that “it is made clear that the issue before the Court is in respect of filling up or conversion of water body and not agricultural land. In case the authorities are in doubt as to the particular piece of land comes within the definition of water body they would not permit its conversion without bringing it to the notice of this Court and seeking appropriate order/direction in the matter, otherwise, in our view, there is no restriction placed by this Court on the State Government in processing the cases of conversion of agricultural land”.

The letter dated 15.07.2010 was placed in the 45th SEAC meeting held on 03.08.2010. The SEAC noted the following : –

1. The land conversion is still under process and the project proponent is yet to submit conversion status for 3.16 acres of water body.

2. The copy of the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya of Kolkata High Court, which states that “it is made clear that the issue before the Court is in respect of filling up or conversion of water body and not agricultural land. In case the authorities are in doubt as to the particular piece of land comes within the definition of water body they would not permit its conversion without bringing it to the notice of this Court and seeking appropriate order/direction in the matter, otherwise, in our view, there is no restriction placed by this Court on the State Government in processing the cases of conversion of agricultural land”.

The SEAC requested the proponent vide letter dated 17.08.2010 to submit the authenticated document on status of conversion visàvis the project proposal along with concurrence letter from the concerned

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

authority for ensuring water supply, emergency discharge of treated wastewater and solid waste disposal at an earliest. The proponent was also requested to mention the existing vegetation, if any, at the proposed site. The proponent was also requested that as per the circular by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, only the enlisted consultants, if any, other than the proponent themselves, are permitted to appear before the SEAC.

The proponent stated vide letter dated 10.03.2011 that –

1. The proponent has mentioned that they will retain the waterbody, hence conversion will not be done. The copy of conversion certificate for some plot nos. submitted.

2. The copy of the High Court Order dated 06.07.2010 submitted earlier is again enclosed.

3. The copy of the letter dated 25.02.2011 of the Executive Engineer, Howrah Irrigation Division, for discharge of additional runoff (not effluent) to Br. No. 1 of Howrah Drainage Canal.

4. The copy of the application for sinking 2nos. tubewell each 12m3/hr x 10hr.

5. Section drawing of the canal submitted.

The proponent has not yet submitted –

1. Concurrence letter from the concerned authority for ensuring water supply, emergency discharge of treated wastewater and solid waste disposal.

2. Existing vegetation, if any, at the proposed site and the mouza map showing existing waterbodies.

The SEAC considered the reply dated 03.03.2011 of the proponent in the 53rd SEAC meeting held on 13.04.2011. The SEAC requested the project proponent vide letter dated 28.04.2011 to submit the following –

1. The concurrence letter from the concerned authority for ensuring water supply, emergency discharge of treated waste water and solid waste disposal.

2. Details about the existing vegetation, if any, at the proposed site.

3. Master Plan of the proposed project superimposed on an authenticated Mouza Map clearly showing the existing waterbodies and also approved current classification of the land parcel alongwith JL No., LR Khatian No. / Plot No. A comprehensive list of land parcels alongwith area of the parcels for the entire project shall be highly appreciated.

The minutes of the meeting held in Paribesh Bhawan on 12.07.2011 has been received. The matter is placed before the SEAC in the 58th meeting held on 19.08.2011.

The project proponent submitted their reply on 09.01.2012, which is as under :

1. The proponent submitted that they have received NOC from SWID for sinking of deep tubewell. Further, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Water Works was pleased to issue necessary NOC for disposal of treated waste water in case of emergency. For solid waste disposal, they have a plan to put portable dustbin, which will be cleared on a regular basis by vehicle.

2. The proponent submitted the following vegetation found at site :

a) Palm Tree – 5 nos.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

b) Banana Tree – 13 nos.

c) Ashwattha Tree – 4 nos (small)

d) Other type – 2 nos. (Kadam Tree)

e) Besides part of the site is covered by long wild grass.

3. The proponent enclosed two nos. of Mouza Maps duly authenticated by the concerned BL & LRO Office showing the existence of the waterbodies.


After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has opined that clarifications sought in the 53rd SEAC meeting has not been properly addressed in the said letter. The unit is therefore requested to provide the following documents for further processing of the application:

1. Necessary concurrence letter should be obtained from the competent authority for the solid waste disposal facilities.

2. Details of the existing vegetation including types of grass cover should be specified.3. Master Plan of the proposed project superimposed on an authenticated Mouza Map clearly

showing the existing water bodies and also approved current classification of the land parcel alongwith JL No., LR Khatian No. / Plot No. should be submitted. A comprehensive list of land parcels along with area of the parcels for the entire project shall be highly appreciated.

4. Necessary concurrence letter should be obtained from competent authority for ensuring total water supply for the proposed project.

5. A copy of NOC for disposal of treated waste water in case of emergency from competent authority should be submitted.


5. Proposed IT Park by M/s. Phoenix Software Ltd. at Jl. No. 35, Mouza – Gangapur, Kolkata Information Technology Park (KITP), Bantala, PS – Kolkata Leather Complex, Dist. – 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of an IT Park (1 block of B+G+10 storied building, 52.625m from GL and 1 block of B+G+12 storied building, 72.075m from GL) alongwith Central block, Service block etc.


The proponent applied for environmental clearance on 08.12.2010 to the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), West Bengal. The same was forwarded to the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), West Bengal on 31.12.2010. The proponent was requested to submit necessary information vide letter dated 17.02.2011 as the information provided in the application was inadequate. The letter dated 07.06.2011 was received from the Principal Secretary, Dept. of IT, Govt. of West Bengal.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

The proponent has submitted their reply on 04.08.2011. The following observations were verbally communicated to the proponent –

1. The Deed of Assignment of Lease mentions that “The Assignee shall have to apply for supply of electricity, water line (drinking and Construction water separately) to the WBSEB / the Assignor / any other Authority engaged by the State Government and on payment of prescribed charges and as and where necessary the WBSEB / the Assignor / any other Authority engaged by the State Government shall provide the same”. However, the same has not been submitted.

2. The proponent has mentioned that KMDA is the plan sanctioning authority alongwith South 24 Parganas Zilla Parishad.

3. The proponent has also mentioned that the rainwater storage capacity has been increased to approx. 10.7% of the potential.

During presentation in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011, the committee recommended the following:

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee issued on 10.10.2011


1. The corrected site plan should be submitted. Vertical profile of the building should be clearly specified.

1. The project proponent has submitted revised site plan. However, vertical profile of the building has not been mentioned, instead, perspective view of the building has been submitted.

2. Revised plantation plan should be submitted as discussed in the meeting.

2. The project proponent has submitted revised list of plantation.

3. The total impervious area of the site should be limited within permissible Ground Coverage and Paved Area stipulations.

3. The proponent has mentioned that building ground coverage does not include extended basement, underground STO, Rainwater Harvesting tank, UGR etc. The project proponent has referred to KMDA Notification dated 12.12.2008. However, such provisions could not be found in the said notification. The project proponent has submitted ground floor plan with area statement. The area statement is not clear and larger (with appropriate grid size) print out of the gridded Master Plan is needed for verification.

4. The proponent should clearly specify whether chlorination or ozonation will be adopted for tertiary treatment of sewage.

4. The project proponent has mentioned that chlorination will be adopted for tertiary treatment of sewage.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________



5. The car parking calculation as per the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007 should be submitted.

5. The project proponent has mentioned that as per West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules 2007 required car parking is 1172 and car parking provided is 1303. However, supporting calculation has not been provided.

6. Utilisation of fly ash building materials should be submitted as per the MoEF latest Notification.

6. The project proponent has mentioned that fly ash building materials will be utilised. However, no details has been provided.

7. The financial commitment along with the time bound action programme for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activity like improving the health facility, educational facility at the surrounding economically backward area, should be submitted.

7. The project proponent has mentioned that financial outlay of 1% of the project cost will be allocated for CSR activities for improvement of physical and social infrastructure in the neighbourhood backward areas. However, itemwise detailed breakup has not been provided.

8. Name of Environment Consultant should be mentioned.

8. The project proponent has mentioned that M/s. Ghosh, Bose & Associates Pvt. Ltd. are the Environment Consultant for the proposed project. However, no undertaking has been provided on behalf of the consultants as per the MoEF, Government of India Office Memorandum dated 05.10.2011.

In this regard it may be mentioned that as per the clarification received from Director, NABET on 19.09.2011, the SEAC decided in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011, to allow M/s. Ghosh, Bose & Associates Pvt. Ltd. Till 30.09.2011.

The matter was placed before the SEAC in the 61st meeting held on 29.11.2011. The committee has noted the following and the project proponent has submitted the reply as follows :



1. Although the perspective view of the building has been submitted but the vertical profile (i.e. number of floor, building heights etc.) has not been clearly mentioned in the submission.

1. The proponent has mentioned that the building is B+G+10 storied and the height is 54.50 meters.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________



2. The provision of rule regarding ground coverage which was mentioned in support of the claim about additional ground coverage during the presentation could not be found in the copy of KMDA notification dated 12.12.2008 provided by the unit.

2. The project proponent has submitted the National Building Code of India, Para 2.26 highlighting the relevant portion.

3. No back up calculation has been provided in support of the claim that as per the West Bengal (Building) Municipal Rules 2007, the required car parking is 1172 and car parking proposed to be provided is 1303.

3. The project proponent has submitted the backup calculation for the required car parking of 1172 nos. as per the West Bengal (Building) Municipal Rules 2007 and the car parking proposed is 1303 nos.

4. The itemwise detailed break up of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) along with the time bound action plan has not been provided.

4. Itemwise CSR plan proposed but without any time bound programme. Total budgetary allocation for the CSR has been mentioned as Rs. 55 lacs (approx).

5. It is once again reiterated that all project proponents are required to strictly comply with the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India on 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011.

5.


After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has opined that the directions of the Committee issued on 19.12.2011 have not been adequately addressed in the said letter. The unit is therefore requested to provide the following documents for further processing of the application:

1. Regarding the provision of rule for additional ground coverage, the KMDA notification shall prevail.

2. The CSR initiatives proposed does not have any time bound programme, item wise time frame should be proposed and the activities should be completed within a period of 5 years. Necessary undertaking should be submitted to that effect.


of 33


___________________________________________________________________

6. Proposed Residential & Commercial Complex by M/s. P.S. Villa Pvt. Ltd. & Others at Holding No. – 4S/08/BlockP & 4S/09/BlockP, Jl. No. – 5 & 6, Mouza – Kaikhali & Mondal Ganti, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality Ward No. – 26 & 27, PS – Baguihati, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential and Commercial Complex. The Residential Complex (6 blocks of B+G+9 storied buildings) shall consist of 216 apartments. The Commercial block (1 block of B+G+7 storied building) shall consist of Retail Area, Hotels (with 184 double bedded rooms) and Restaurants.


The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal stipulated the conditions for Environmental Clearance in the 45th SEAC meeting held on 03.08.2010.

The proponent has now applied for Environmental Clearance vide letter dated 11.11.2011 and 16.11.2011. The proponent has also submitted the copy of the building plans provisionally sanctioned by the Chairman, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality on 28.09.2011 upto ground floor. However, the area statement in the plan is not clearly legible. The proponent has also mentioned that piling work is being carried out at the site. The modified salient features of the proposed project as per the comparative statement submitted by the proponent, are as follows:

Salient Features As per SCEC dated 18.08.2010 Post plan sanction by Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality

Land Area 13602.69 sqm. 13602.69 sqm.

No. of Flat 216 216

No. of Building Block Residential – 6Commercial – 1

Residential – 6Commercial – 1

Height of Building Block Residential – B+G+9 storied

Commercial – B+G+7 storied

Residential – B+G+9 storied

Commercial – B+G+7 storied

Expected Population 1080 (fixed)1861 (floating)

1080 (fixed)1861 (floating)

Total Water requirement 451 KLD (operation stage) 451 KLD (operation stage)

Fresh Water requirement 289 KLD (Municipal Supply) 289 KLD (Municipal Supply)

Domestic Water requirement

285 KLD 285 KLD

Wastewater generated 207 KLD 207 KLD

Wastewater treated 166 KLD 166 KLD

Wastewater recycled 162 KLD 162 KLD

Wastewater discharged 4 KLD 4 KLD

Wastewater Treatment To be treated in Sewage Treatment Plant

To be treated in Sewage Treatment Plant

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

Salient Features As per SCEC dated 18.08.2010 Post plan sanction by Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality

Solid waste disposal 1.2 tonne per day 1.2 tonne per day

Total Builtup Area 49606.55 sqm. 49606.55 sqm.

Ground Coverage 5650.04 sqm. (41.5% of land area)

6102.50 sqm. (44.86% of land area)

Green Area 4552.44 sqm. (33.5% of land area)

4099.98.44 sqm. (30.14% of land area)

Paved Area 3400.21 sqm. (25.0% of land area)

3400.21 sqm. (25.0% of land area)

No. of Parking Spaces proposed

292 (Covered – 241, Open 51) 302 (Covered – 252, Open 50)

Total Power requirement 1000 KW (WBSEDCL) 1000 KW (WBSEDCL)

Back up Power 4 x 250 KVA D.G. Sets 4 x 250 KVA D.G. Sets

Furthers the SEAC has considered the reply submitted on 16.11.2011 in the 61st meeting held on 29.11.2011 and the committee has recommended the following :

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee dated 19.12.2011

Response of the Proponent dated 18.01.2012

1. The ultimate source of water from which the water will be supplied to the project.

1. The unit has submitted a letter from the office of RajarhatGopalpur Municipality informed that part supply from the Municipality may be availed and rest to be obtained by installing deep tubewell after getting permission from SWID.

2. The capacity of the storm water carrying drain and its route to final disposal point.

2. To be discharged to Municipality drain.

3. As per the submission of the unit the municipality is supposed to collect and finally dispose the solid waste, the municipality should possess a valid Municipal Solid Waste Authorisation Certificate.

3. The project proponent has submitted the letter issued by the Chairman of RajarhatGopalpur Municipality for the collection and dispose of the solid waste.

4. The area statement in the plan submitted is not legible. The unit is requested to submit a legible copy of the same.

4. The proponent has submitted the area statement ratified by RajarhatGopalpur Municipality.


After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has noted that infrastructure facilities to be provided for the proposed project need further introspection. The unit is therefore requested to provide the following documents for further processing of the application:

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

a) Permission form SWID for drawl of ground water ;b) The unit may also kindly note that as per the submission the concerned municipality will col

lect and finally dispose the solid waste. The municipality should possess a valid Municipal Solid Waste Authorization Certificate. Copy of the same is to be submitted.

c) Sanctioned building plan from the concerned municipality clearly suggests that the building plan is provisionally sanctioned up to Ground floor. The unit is required to submit the sanctioned plan for the total project.

d) It has also been observed as per the submission of the unit dated 11.11.2011, piling work has been started. The unit is therefore directed not to start any construction activity without obtaining Environmental Clearance from SEIAA and NOC from the WBPCB.

7. 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).

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 proposal was placed before the SEAC in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011, 58th

meeting held on 19.08.2011 and 60th SEAC meeting held on 24.10.2011.

The proponent delivered two technical presentations on composting machine on 25.11.2011. The committee has considered the letter dated 02.11.2011 of the proponent in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011 and the committee informed that the proposals for inhouse Solid Waste Management Technologies are under scrutiny and review by the field experts.

The proponent has submitted letter dated 14.12.2011 stating that South Dum Dum Municipality has undertaken a centralized 'Waste to Energy' programme. The proponent has further mentioned that they would like to join the said scheme of the Municipality. However, in case the said 'Waste to Energy' programme is not ready in time, the proponent shall take up the responsibility of operating an approved technology for onsite treatment of organic solid waste till the time the Municipal facility is ready and operational.

The SEAC considered the reply dated 14.12.2011 in the 62nd meeting held on 22.12.2011. The committee has opined through letter dated 03.01.2012 that the solid waste disposal facilities must be ensured for the upcoming building projects. In this connection the status of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) authorisation of concerned urban local bodies shall be reviewed during appraisal of any building projects. As in this present case the municipality does not posses any valid municipal solid waste authorisation, the project proponent should keep adequate space as a future provision for setting up of appropriate onsite biodegradable solid waste treatment plant. The odour control system, leachate disposal system for the said treatment plant should be adequate. The output characteristics of the compost should be of desired quality as per MSW Rules. The project proponent should also propose

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

the mechanism which would ensure regular operation and maintenance of such treatment plant and would also propose inhouse use of compost as well as for selling out the excess quantity. The project proponent is also required to submit an undertaking that the building shall not be functional before either the concerned municipality obtains valid MSW authorisation and accepts the solid waste from the abovementioned project or appropriate onsite solid waste treatment system are made available within the housing complex. The suitable onsite solid waste treatment system shall also be subject to review and scrutiny and approval of concerned authorities.

The project proponent has submitted letter dated 19.01.2012 stating that they have already kept adequate space for future provision for onsite treatment of biodegradable fraction of MSW and the location of the MSW management site is shown in a drawing. They also informed that they will adopt the best and approved technology by reputed manufacturer of composite onsite treatment of biodegradable fraction of MSW. In addition they would also take the responsibility that the odour control system and leachate disposal system would be adequate and the characteristics of compost manure would be of desired quality as per MSW (Management & Handling) Rule 2000. The compost manure would be used in landscaping within the project area and the excess quantity will be sold to the prospective vendors. In this regard they also submitted an undertaking on nonjudicial stamp paper that the building would not be functional before either the South Dumdum Municipality obtains valid MSW authorisation and accepts the solid waste from the project or appropriate onsite solid waste management system are made available within the project area.


After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has opined that the solid waste management and disposal facilities must be ensured for the upcoming building projects. The SEAC has noted that the waste management facilities to be provided for the proposed project need further introspection. In this connection, the following points have been noted by the SEAC and require further clarification:

1. The proposed location of the area allocated for solid waste management was previously earmarked for car parking and appears to be near one of the residential blocks

2. Modalities of Operation and Maintenance of the Solid Waste Management System

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

8. Proposed Residential cum Commercial Complex “SRIJAN HARMONY” by M/s. Srijan Realty Limited & Others at JL No. 77, Holding No. 132, Mouza – Manikpur, PS – Sonarpur, Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality Ward No. 23, Dist – 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential cum Commercial complex comprising of 1425 dwelling units in 11nos. G+11 storied buildings alongwith Club (G+1 storied) and Commercial Complex (2nos. G+1 storied buildings).

of 33


___________________________________________________________________


The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), West Bengal made the following recommendations in the 62nd SEAC meeting held on 22.12.2011. Subsequent response dated 25.01.2012 from the unit is given below :



1. Fire fighting storage provisions should be made as per norms. The open car parking should be revised accordingly.

1. The project proponent has mentioned that the fire fighting provision should be provided as per WBFS Norms. The proponent has also submitted the revised open car parking plan.

2. The design influent and effluent characteristics considered for the STP should be mentioned. Test reports of similar STPs should be submitted.

2. The project proponent has also mentioned that the proposed STP is based on FAB. They submitted the design influent and effluent characteristics of STP. The STP, based on the same principle (FAB), is currently running in their another project at “PS Srijan Tech Park” at DN52, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. The project proponent has also submitted the influent and effluent characteristics of the STP.

3. Revised Rainwater recharging proposal should be submitted as discussed in the meeting.

3. The proponent has submitted revised rainwater recharging proposal.

4. Detail solar lighting proposal with numbers and locations for installations “solar operated LED” lighting should be specifically mentioned.

4. The proponent has mentioned that the 60 nos. of solar lighting system will be installed for street lights. All the solar street lights will be LED operated. They submitted the details of solar light plan.

5. Revised CSR proposal should be submitted as discussed in the meeting.

5. The proponent has submitted revised Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plan with financial commitment of Rs. 30 lacs.


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.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

9. 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).

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).


The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), West Bengal made the following recommendations in the 60th SEAC meeting held on 24.10.2011. Subsequent response dated 20.01.2012 from the unit is given below :



1. The project has been proposed in an arsenic prone zone. Please note that 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.

1. The project proponent has submitted the concurrence letter obtained from the Paschim Khilkapur Gram panchayat regarding supply of potable water (without mentioning the quantity), discharge of treated wastewater and collection and disposal of solid waste.

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.

2. The project proponent has also mentioned that required freshwater during construction and operational phase is expected to be arranged by Paschim Khilkapur Gram Panchayat. They submitted the concurrence letter in this regard.

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.

3. The proponent has submitted the concurrence letter from the Paschim Khilkapur Gram Panchayat alongwith the stormwater drainage route. They also mentioned that stormwater drainage facility exists along the Ardebak Road which ultimately discharges into Sunthi Khal. Stormwater runoff and surplus treated wastewater from the proposed complex will be discharged into the said drain.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________



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.

4. The proponent has mentioned that the generated solid waste within the complex will be handed over to panchayat solid waste collection system. Paschim Khilkapur Gram Panchayat has its solid waste collection, transportation and disposal arrangement under P & RD scheme.

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

5. The proponent has mentioned that there is no existing trees or waterbody within the project site.

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

6. The unit has confirmed that they will submit the land conversion certificate to the SEAC on receipt from the land department. The project proponent has submitted a list of dagwise land details.

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.

7. The unit has submitted a photograph of PVC grass paver.


After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has opined that the directions of the Committee issued on 15.11.2011 has not been adequately addressed in the said letter. The unit is therefore requested to provide the following documents for further processing of the application:

1. Since the project has been proposed in an arsenic prone zone, necessary concurrence from PHED should be obtained regarding supply of potable water along with quantity. Necessary backup calculation about depth of bore well and impact of abstraction should be obtained from PHED.

2. Regarding solid waste management, the unit has mentioned that the concerned panchayet has it’s waste disposal system under P&RD scheme and valid authorisation from WBPCB. The relevant enclosure, Annexure 1 is not available along with the letter submitted dated 20.01.2012.

3. Typical design drawing of PVC grass cell was required to be submitted as per Direction dated 15.11.2011, however only a photograph of the same has been submitted.


of 33


___________________________________________________________________

B. Miscellaneous :

1. 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.

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 State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) made the following recommendations 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. Subsequent response from the unit submitted on 16.06.2011, is given below :



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

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

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

The reply dated 16.06.2011 was placed in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011. The committee made the following recommendations and the proponent submitted their reply on 14.10.2011 :



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

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

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

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

The case was placed in the 60th SEAC meeting held on 24.10.2011 and recommended by SEAC.

The Member Secretary, SEIAA noted that there is a lack of clarity regarding effluent treatment unit (both existing as well as proposed unit) and returned the case to SEAC with a request to get the clarification on effluent treatment from the project proponent.

The case was placed for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the committee noted that there is a lack of clarity regarding effluent treatment unit (both existing as well as proposed unit ) and seeks the opinion of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board regarding the present status of effluent treatment plant of the unit.

The unit is therefore requested to send the present status of effluent treatment plant of the existing unit as well as present status of the proposed expansion unit for further processing of the application.

Session II

C. Technical Presentations:

1. Proposed waste paper based plant and Cogeneration Captive Power Plant by M/s. Balaji Paper & Newsprints Pvt. Ltd. at JL No. 561, 562, 649, 650, Vill & PO – Manikpara, PS – Jhargram, Dist – Paschim Medinipur, Pin – 721 513, West Bengal. Name of the Environmental Consultant – not mentioned.

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 State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) also made the following recommendations in the 46th SEAC meeting held on 06.09.2010. Subsequent response dated 24.02.2011 from the unit is given below:

of 33


___________________________________________________________________



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.

The response dated 24.02.2011 was placed before SEAC in the 52nd meeting held on 04.03.2011.

Furthers 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 :



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 reply of the proponent submitted on 30.09.2011 was placed in the 60th SEAC meeting held on 24.10.2011. The committee has noted the following and the subsequent reply received on 19.12.2011 of the unit are as under :

of 33


___________________________________________________________________



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

1. The proponent has submitted inhouse test reports.

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.

2. The proponent has submitted BOD calculation.

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.

3. The proponent has submitted mass and water balance diagram.

The reply dated 19.12.2011 of the proponent is placed before the SEAC in the 62nd SEAC meeting held on 22.12.2011 for consideration. The committee noted that even after several correspondences, the issues regarding water consumption, wastewater characteristics and treatment remained unresolved, and therefore the committee has requested the project proponent called for a detailed revised powerpoint presentation to justify the claim regarding water and wastewater and submit the hard copy of the presentation by 15.01.2012. The proponent submitted a clarification on 18.01.2012, which is placed for consideration.

The industry also submitted a letter on 25.01.2012 mentioning that they have dropped the project of cogeneration captive power plant of capacity 6 MW. They have further submitted that they would manufacture paper by hydro pulping of waste paper and deinking by using enzymes which is the latest technology in waste paper recycling in which no beaching or chlorine in any form is used. They also requested to exempt them from obtaining prior Environmental Clearance.

The case was placed for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After carefully considering the proposal and presentation the committee has recommended the following –

1. The project proponent shall submit a fresh FORM – I for the revised proposal which will exclude the project of cogeneration captive power plant of capacity 6 MW.

2. The project proponent should submit appropriate water balance statement and clearly indicate the water consumption per tonne of product. The proponent should indicate the number of borewells that may be required including necessary back up calculation justifying the said water requirement.

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

As per the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011, only the enlisted eligible consultants of the concerned sector would be permitted to certify any documents. The Environmental Consultant as well

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

as the Project Proponent should also submit necessary undertakings as per MoEF Office Memorandum dated 05.10.2011.

2. Proposed Residential Complex by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority at Plot No. 1/3, CIT Scheme VII (M), PS – Maniktala, PO – Kankurgachi, KMC Ward No. 32, Kolkata – 700 054, West Bengal. Name of the Environmental Consultant – M/s. Envirotech East Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential Complex having flats (3 blocks of B+G+27 storied buildings with podium, 2 blocks of G+5 storied buildings and 5 blocks of G+6 storied buildings), max. ht. 102.80m. The project will also comprise of Rehabilitation block and Club house.


Salient features of the proposed project are –

Land Area : 5.93 acres (23997.524 sqm.)

Expected Population : 2659 (fixed), 150 (floating)

No. of Units : Towers – 229, Rehabilitation block – 160, Club house 1, Banquet Hall 400

Total Water requirement : 442 KLD (Operation stage, KMC supply)

Wastewater generated : 325 KLD (to be discharged to KMC sewer)

Solid waste disposal : 1.2 tonnes per day (to be disposed off through municipal authority)

Total Builtup Area : 76994.52 sqm.

Ground Coverage : 7899.02 sqm. (32.92% of land area)

Parking Area : 1308.49 sqm. (5.45% of land area)

Semi Paved Area : 2726.84 sqm. (11.36% of land area)

Open Area : 41.26 sqm. (0.17% of land area)

Facilities Area : 47.62 sqm. (0.20% of land area)

Roads : 4600.61 sqm. (19.17% of land area)

Green Area : 7373.65 sqm. (30.73% of land area)

Total No. of plantation proposed

: 600

No. of Parking spaces proposed

: 580 (Covered 437, Open 143)

Total Power requirement : 2850 KVA, CESC

Backup Power : DG Sets (4x380 KVA, 2x125 KVA)

The case was put up for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.


of 33


___________________________________________________________________

1. It appears that the process of transferring the land to KMDA is underway. Necessary authenticated land document should be submitted.

2. Some discrepancy has been noted in the area statement submitted in the EC application and also during presentation. Master plan indicating Ground Coverage, Paved Area, Landscaped Area etc. should be clearly mentioned. Total Paved Area should not exceed 25% of total land area.

3. Detailed calculation for rainwater harvesting should be submitted. Design of ground water recharge structure for rainwater harvesting should be checked as discussed during the meeting.

4. Scientific names for list of plantation species for greenery development should be checked and the landscape planning should include plantation of native species. The species with heavy foliage, broad leaves and wide canopy cover are desirable. Water intensive and/or invasive species should not be used for landscaping.

5. Concurrence letter from KMC for supplying water for the proposed project should be mentioned.

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

It is informed that the unit is required to comply with the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, if applicable.

3. Proposed Integrated Industrial Township by M/s. Kanchan Janga Integrated Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (A Joint Venture Company of M/s. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & M/s. West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.) at Fatapukur, JL No. 9, Mouza – Chhat Gujrimari, JL No. 10, Mouza – Kismat Sukani, PS – Rajganj, Dist – Jalpaiguri, West Bengal . Name of the Environmental Consultant – not mentioned.

Activity:

This is a proposal for development of an Integrated Industrial Township. The proposed Township shall include small scale industries, Retail, Hotel and Social Infrastructure like School, Educational Institutes, Nursing Home, Health Care Centre etc. Further, Residential apartments along with individual plots are also proposed.



Total Land Area : 124.5 acres / 50.383 ha. Industrial Area – 63.95 acres (51.4%)Residential / Institutional / Commercial – 29.41 acres (23.6%)Infrastructure (Roads / STP) – 31.14 acres (25%)

Expected Population : Industrial Zone – 14940Retail, Social, Residential – 24936Plots – 7359Total 47000

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

Total Water requirement : 5.5 MLD (Operation stage)

Fresh Water requirement : 3.92 MLD (Ground water)

Wastewater generated : 3.16 MLD (to be treated in STP)

Wastewater recycled : 1.58 MLD (to be reused after treatment in STP)

Wastewater discharged : 1.58 MLD (to be discharged to natural drain / sewer after treatment in STP)

Solid waste disposal : 14 tonnes per day (to be disposed off through panchayat)

Total Builtup Area : Commercial Complex – 46451.52 sqm.Hotel – 55741.82 sqm. Social Infrastructure – 23225.76 sqm.Residential Complex (1846 flats) – 141515.6 sqm.Individual Plots – 119110.5 sqm.Total – 386045.2 sqm.

Ground Coverage : 37.64 acres (30.23% of land area)

Landscaped Area : 61.57 acres (49.45% of land area)

Total Paved Area : 25.29 acres (20.31% of land area)

Total No. of plantation : 17451 approx.


: Commercial – 1254Industrial – 1200Residential 1415

Total Power requirement : Commercial – 6524 KWIndustrial – 6890 KWResidential – 7150 KW, WBSEDCL

Backup Power : DG Sets (1x320 KVA, 1x600 KVA) for every alternate street lighting.

The case was put up for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012. After carefully considering the proposal and presentation the committee categorized the project as B1 category unit and recommended Terms of Reference (ToR) for conducting EIA. The ToR is annexed as Annexure 2.

4. Proposed IT Park “ASTRA TOWERS” by M/s. Rajarhat IT Park Ltd. at Plot No. IIC/1, Action Area – II, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata, Dist – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal. Name of the Environmental Consultant – M/s. Centre for Sustainable Development.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of an IT Park alongwith allied facilities (2 blocks of B+G+7 storied buildings, 1 block of B+G+3 storied building having common basement). The project will comprise of IT and General Offices as well as Retail Spaces, Food Court and Hypermarket.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________



Total Land Area : 16189 sqm.

Expected Population : Employee – 3171, Others 2660

Total Water requirement : 294 KLD (Operation stage)

Domestic Water requirement : 205 KLD

Fresh Water requirement : 137 KLD (WBHIDCO supply)

Wastewater generated : 164 KLD (to be treated in STP)

Wastewater reclaimed : 148 KLD (to be reused after treatment in STP)

Wastewater discharged : Zero discharge

Solid waste disposal : 1.6 tonnes per day

Total Builtup Area : 54417.05 sqm.

Ground Coverage : 6475 sqm. (40% of land area)

Plantation Area : 3237.80 sqm. (20% of land area)

Semi Paved Area for Internal Roads and Surface parking

: 3810.69 sqm. (23.5% of land area)

Other Soft Area : 2665.51 sqm. (16.5% of land area)

No. of Plantation proposed : 230

No. of Parking spaces proposed : 651 (covered – 620, open 31)

Total Power requirement : 3446 KW, NTESCL


No. of solar light proposed : 18 (Total street light : 73 nos.)

The case was put up for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.


The project proponent should submit the modified proposal of Corporate Social Responsibility and also indicate the annual expenditure for the same for each component

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

It is also informed that the unit is required to comply with the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, if applicable.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

5. Proposed expansion of Educational cum Office Building by M/s. Techno India at EM 4/1 & 4/2, Sector – V, Saltlake, Kolkata – 700091, Bidhannagar Municipality, Dist. 24 Parganas (North). Name of the Environmental Consultant – M/s. Envirotech East Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion of an Educational cum Office Building (Block 1 – G+4, Block – G+7, Block 3 – G, Block 4 – B+G+18, Block 5 B+G+26, Block 6 – B+G+27, Block 7 – G, Block 8 G). The proposed project shall comprise of Educational buildings (Block 1, 2, 4), Service area (Block 3), Office building (Block 5, 6), Water tank and others (Block 7), Canteen and Others (Block 8). Block 1 & 2 partly exists.



Existing Project Proposal as per FORM – 1 including Expansion

Revised proposal

Land Area : 6.2 acres (25090.32 sqm.) : 6.2 acres (25090.32 sqm.)

Expected Population : 13409 : 13409

Total Water requirement

: 761 KLD (Operation stage, NDITA supply)

: 761 KLD (Operation stage, NDITA supply)

Wastewater generated

: 467 KLD (to be discharged to municipal sewer leading to NDITA STP)

: 467 KLD (to be discharged to municipal sewer leading to NDITA STP)

Solid waste disposal : 2 tonnes per day : 2 tonnes per day

Total Builtup Area : 19430.19 sqm. : 154391.63 sqm. (including parking)

149823.6 sqm. (including parking)

Ground Coverage : 10030.54 sqm. (39.98% of land area)

: 9726.48 sqm. (38.77% of land area)

Service Area : 398.93 sqm. (1.59% of land area)

: 616.61 sqm. (2.46% of land area)

Total Paved Area : 6156.91 sqm. (24.54% of land area)

: 6254.325 sqm. (24.93% of land area)

Road Area : 4858.12 sqm. (19.36% of land area)

: 4069.39 sqm. (16.22% of land area)

Semi Paved Area (50%)

: 661.26 sqm. (2.64% of land area)

: 347.565 sqm. (1.39% of land area)

Open Parking Area (50%)

: 637.53 sqm. (2.54% of land area)

: 1837.37 sqm. (7.32% of land area)

Total Green Area : 8503.05 sqm. (33.89% of land area)

: 8492.885 sqm. (33.85% of land area)

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

Existing Project Proposal as per FORM – 1 including Expansion

Revised proposal

Plantation Area : 7204.26 sqm. (28.71% of land area)

: 5314.70 sqm. (21.18% of land area)

Semi Paved Area (50%)

: 661.26 sqm. (2.64% of land area)

: 347.565 sqm. (1.39% of land area)

Open Parking Area (50%)

: 637.53 sqm. (2.54% of land area)

: 1837.37 sqm. (7.32% of land area)

No. of plantation proposed

: 510 : 510

No. of Solar Street lights proposed

: 51 (Total street light – 102) : 33 (Total street light – 74)


: 938 (covered – 854, open – 84)

: 977 (covered – 681, open – 296)

Total Power requirement

: 24540 KVA, WBSEDCL : 24540 KVA, WBSEDCL


: DG Sets (1x550 KVA, 12x2000 KVA)

The case is put up for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.


1. Total builtup area for existing project as well as the proposed project should be clearly mentioned. The date of amalgamation of two plots of land and date of completion of existing project should be submitted along with necessary supporting documents from competent authority.

2. Present status of existing project and proposed project should be clearly mentioned.3. Revised landscape plan should be submitted as discussed in the meeting.4. Provision for solar water heating systems and other energy conservation methods may be in

cluded in the project proposal. 5. Revised CSR proposal should be submitted as discussed in the meeting.

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

It is also informed that the unit is required to comply with the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

Summaries of above decisions are also provided in Table1.

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

Table1 : List of the projects which were placed before the SEAC in the sixty third meeting held on 31.01.2012 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. U.K. Cement Pvt. Ltd. Proposed Cement Grinding Unit at Jl. No. – 58, Vill. & Mouza – Bamunara, Bamunara Industrial Area, Durgapur, GP – Gopalpur, PO – Panagarh Bazar, PS – Kanksa, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal.

Fresh Environmental Clearance to be issued with suggested

amendments

2. M/s. Shri Shankar Suwan Estate Pvt. Ltd.Proposed expansion of Cement Grinding Unit at Jl. No. 24, Mouza – Balanpur, PS – Kanksa, PO – Ikra, Jamuria Municipality, Pin – 713362, Dist – Burdwan, West Bengal.

Opinion of WBPCB to be obtained with reference to

siting policy for reconsideration of the proposal

3. M/s. Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd.Proposed Township Project (PHASE IA) at Mouza – Kona, Balitikuri, Bankra, Pakuria, Tentulkuli, Khalia & Salap, PO & PS – Domjur, Dist – Howrah, West Bengal.

AAS Recommended for fresh

presentation for Phase I & IA

4. M/s. Bengal Anmol South City Infrastructure Ltd. Proposed Infrastructure cum Logistic Hub “FREIGHT PORT” at Jl. No. – 2 & 13, Mouza – Joypurbill & Jagdishpur, PS – Liluah, Dist. – Howrah, West Bengal.

AAS

5. M/s. Phoenix Software Ltd. Proposed IT Park at Jl. No. 35, Mouza – Gangapur, Kolkata Information Technology Park (KITP), Bantala, PS – Kolkata Leather Complex, Dist. – 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal.

AAS

6. M/s. P.S. Villa Pvt. Ltd. & Others Proposed Residential & Commercial Complex at Holding No. – 4S/08/BlockP & 4S/09/BlockP, Jl. No. – 5 & 6, Mouza – Kaikhali & Mondal Ganti, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality Ward No. – 26 & 27, PS – Baguihati, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal.

1. Construction started prior to obtaining Environmental Clearance. Referred to WBPCB for necessary action.

2. Asked for additional submission

7. 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

8. M/s. Srijan Realty Limited & Others Proposed Residential cum Commercial Complex “SRIJAN HARMONY” at JL No. 77, Holding No. 132, Mouza – Manikpur, PS – Sonarpur, Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality Ward No. 23, Dist – 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal.

SCEC Finalized

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

A Cases placed for consideration of Environment Clearance

Sl. No.

Name of the unit Summary Decision

9. 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), West Bengal.

AAS

B Miscellaneous cases

Sl. No.

Name of the unit & Project address Summary Decision

1. 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.

Asked for observation from WBPCB

C Cases placed for presentationSl. No.


1. 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.

Recommended for submission of fresh Form 1 for the revised

proposal.

2. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority,Proposed Residential Complex at Plot No. 1/3, CIT Scheme VII (M), PS – Maniktala, PO – Kankurgachi, KMC Ward No. 32, Kolkata – 700 054, West Bengal.

AAS

3. M/s. Kanchan Janga Integrated Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd.Proposed Integrated Industrial Township (A Joint Venture Company of M/s. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & M/s. West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.) at Fatapukur, JL No. 9, Mouza – Chhat Gujrimari, JL No. 10, Mouza – Kismat Sukani, PS – Rajganj, Dist – Jalpaiguri, West Bengal.

Appropriate ToR to be issued

of 33


___________________________________________________________________

C Cases placed for presentationSl. No.


4. M/s. Rajarhat IT Park Ltd. (A Bharti Enterprise)Proposed IT Park “ASTRA TOWERS” at Plot No. IIC/1, Action Area – II, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata, Dist – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal.

AAS

5. M/s. Techno IndiaProposed expansion of Educational cum Office Building at EM4/1 & 4/2, Salt Lake, Sector – V, Kolkata – 700 091, Bidhannager Municipality, Dist – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal.

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.

of 33

Minutes of the tenth meeting of the State Level Expert...

Documents

Transcript of Minutes of the tenth meeting of the State Level Expert...