Conducting a study with regard to significant impact of the
activities that are not covered under the EIA Notification, 2006
March 2014 Funded by Department of Ecology and Environment
Government of Karnataka Prepared by Environment Management and
Policy Research Institute Bangalore F O R E W O R D
Withhighdevelopmentimperativesononesideandthe
importanceofEnvironmentalConservationontheother,the
Environmentalclearanceshavebecomeoneofthemostcontroversial
subjects.ThisreportAstudywithregardtosignificantimpactofthe
activities that are not covered under EIA Notification 2006 is an
excellent attemptatexaminingthesituationandgivingremediesinorderto
strengthen Environmental Governance in Karnataka. The report has
traced the origin of SECC and has gone ahead to
showthattheclearancesrequiredmoretransparency,accountability,
publicparticipationanddecentralizationthanwereactuallycarriedout
bySECC.InfactthoughthemandateofSECCwastogiveclearanceto
thoseprojectswhichwerenotcoveredby2006notification,ithasin some
cases given clearance to the project which should have been cleared
underSEIAAandSEAC.Insomecasestheyhavetakenclearancefrom SECC and
then again from SEIAA & SEAC. The report has done a study of
the447projectsthatweregivenclearanceunderSECCfrom2001to
2012.About10%oftheprojectswerechosenanddetailedstudy including
visit to the field was done.
InthemeanwhilethestateGovernmenttookactionto
discontinuetheStateEnvironmentClearanceCommitteethroughaG.O.
No.FEE19ENV(Part)Bangalore2013dated07/02/2014.Thishas
createdavoidintheenvironmentalclearanceandregulatoryregime;
thoughitcanbearguedthatmultiplicityofinstitutionscancause
confusionwithregardtojurisdictionandcompetenciesofinstitutions
giving environmental clearances.The report has also identified
activities
whichhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironmentbutarenotcovered
byEnvironmentImpactAssessmentNotificationof2006.Someofthese
projectswerehithertoclearedbySECC.Awayforwardcouldbeto include
these activities which have been identified in this report in the
list ofactivitiesunder2006notificationofGovernmentofIndia.This
togetherwiththeSupremeCourtsdirectiontoestablishanindependent
environment regulator at the centre with Offices in the state would
bring about a better environmental clearance system. Bangalore
(Ritu Kakkar) 19.03.2014Director General E M P R I ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TheEnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute,
BangaloreisthankfultotheDepartmentofEcology&Environment
DepartmentforentrustingthetaskofconductingStudywithregardto
thesignificantimpactoftheactivitiesthatarenotcoveredunderEIA
Notification2006andforprovidingthefinancialsupportand encouragement
for this study.
WethankShSridharan,IAS,formerPrincipalSecretary,Forest,
Ecology&EnvironmentDepartment,&formerChairman,Governing
Board,EMPRI,fortakingspecialinterestinpreparingthetermsof reference
for this study and his support and guidance. We thank the authors
and members of the team which carried out the
studyandpreparedthisreportnamelyShAbhayRaj,MsBhargavi,Sh,
LeoFSaldanha,MsJayalakshmi,MsNehaPai,DrPapiyaRoy,MsNisha
ShettyandMsReethuSinghfortheirhardwork,enthusiasm, commitment in
bringing out this excellent report.
WethankDrSJVikas,ProjectDevelopmentOfficer,EMPRIforthe
hardworkandperseveranceinobtainingthenecessaryfilesand
documentsfromvariousgovernmentdepartments.WealsothankSh
Girish,MsPragathiBadrinath,MsShashikalaandShDavisfortheir support
rendered in carrying out the field work and getting information and
data from various sources. We thank Dr MK Ramesh, Professor,
National Law School University of India, Bangalore, for taking up a
detailed review of the entire report and offering his valuable
suggestions.
Wethankallthe39projectproponents,whosefacilitieswerevisited
byourteamduringthecourseofthisstudy,forprovidinguswith information
during the visits and with feedback on their case studies.
WearealsothankfultotheofficialsofKarnatakaForestDepartment
andKarnatakaStatePollutionControlBoardinthedistrictsofHassan,
Mangalore,Belgaum,Bellary,ChitradurgaandMandya,fortheirhelp and
support during the field visits of the study teams.
WearealsothankfultoDr.MHBalakrishnaiah,SpecialDirector
(Technical),DepartmentofEcology&EnvironmentBangalore,ShM
Natesh,EnvironmentalOfficer,KarnatakaPollutionControlBoard,for
providing their valuable suggestions during the workshops.
WealsothankmembersofResearch,TrainingandAdvisory
CommitteeofEMPRI,forgivingtheirsuggestionsandguidanceduring
thestudy.WeareespeciallygratefultoShRMNSahai,IFS,Former Director
General, EMPRI, Sh Vijaya Kumar, Member Secretary, KSPCB, Dr MH
Balakrishnaiah, Special Director (Technical), Department of Ecology
& Environment, Bangalore, Prof Subramanya, Post Harvest,
University of
AgricultureSciences,Bangalore,ProfMSMohanKumar,Departmentof
CivilEngineering,IndianInstituteofScience,BangaloreandShSuresh,
Zonal Officer, Central Pollution Control Board, Bangalore for the
same. WearealsothankfultoProjectReview&MonitoringCommittee,
EMPRIcomprisingMsRituKakkarIFS(Chairperson)andShG.S.
Kariyappa,IFS,ManagingDirector,KarnatakaHandicraftsDevelopment
Corporation,ShVipinSingh,IFS,DirectorEMPRIandShKHVinaya
Kumar,IFS,Director(Research)fortheirsupportinconductingthe study
and for reviewing and editing of the report.
COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Dr.S.J.Vikas,ProjectDevelopmentOfficer,EnvironmentalManagement&
Policy Research Institute, Bangalore
Mr.RakeshM.S,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute,
Bangalore COMPILATION, ANALYSIS and REPORT WRITING Dr. Abhayraj
Naik ,Azim Premji University, Bangalore Mrs. Bhargabhi S. Rao,
Researcher Sh Leo F Saldanha, Environmentalist
Ms.JayalakshmiG.K,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearch
Institute, Bangalore
Ms.NehaPai,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute,
Bangalore
Dr.PapiyaRoy,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute,
Bangalore Ms. Nisha Shetty, Environmental Management & Policy
Research Institute, Bangalore Ms. Reethu Singh, Environmental
Management & Policy Research Institute, Bangalore REVIEW Prof.
M.K Ramesh, Professor, National Law School, Bangalore PERIODICAL
REVIEW AND EDITING
Mrs.RituKakkar,IFS,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearch
Institute, BangaloreAUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Sh.G.SKariyappa,IFS,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearch
Institute,
BangaloreSh.VipinSingh,IFS,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearch
Institute, Bangalore
Sh.K.H.VinayaKumar,IFS,EnvironmentalManagement&Policy Research
Institute, Bangalore FIELD VISITS
Sh.K.H.VinayaKumar,IFS,EnvironmentalManagement&Policy Research
Institute,Bangalore Dr. Abhayraj Naik ,Azim Premji University,
Bangalore Bhargabhi S. Rao, Researcher Sh Leo F Saldanha,
Environmentalist
Ms.JayalakshmiG.K,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearch
Institute, Bangalore
Ms.NehaPai,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute,
Bangalore
ShGirishK.M.,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute,
Bangalore
Ms.PragathiBadrinath,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearch
Institute, Bangalore Ms.Shashikala Iyer, Researcher Sh. Davis
George Thomas, Researcher COVER PAGE DESIGNING Sh. Prakash M.
Kanive, Ecospatial Solution, Bangalore
Ms.SoujanyaN,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute,
Bangalore Ms. Reethu Singh, Environmental Management & Policy
Research Institute, Bangalore PHOTOGRAPHY
Sh.K.H.VinayaKumar,IFS,EnvironmentalManagement&Policy Research
Institute, Bangalore
ShGirishK.M.,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute,
Bangalore Ms. Reethu Singh, Environmental Management & Policy
Research Institute, Bangalore
Ms.JayalakshmiG.K,EnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearch
Institute, Bangalore Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Section
A: LegalandTheoreticalframeworksforprogressive
environmentaldecisionmakinginKarnatakaandproposal for reform of
SECC by establishing SEPMA 1.1Introduction6 2.2Historical
Development of the SECC in Karnataka9 3.3Scope of SECC Regulation
vis--vis the EIA Notification 2006 15 4.4Environmental Impact
Assessment in India20 5.5Historical Origins and Evolution of
EIA-based Regulation in India26 6.6Judicial Decisions Relating to
Environmental Regulation and EIA33 7.7Contextualising Determinants
of Environmental Performance 41 8.8Evaluation of the SECC47
9.9Applying criteria evolved by Christopher Woods to review SECC
mechanism in Karnataka 57 10Cumulative Impact Assessment and the
SECC62 11Strengthening or Reforming the SECC?74 12Proposal to
establish SEPMA and DEPMA and evaluation of Self-Regulation
Possibilities 78 13Postscript95 Section B: Evaluating the SECC
Clearance Regime based on Field Assessment of Projects 14Criteria
employed for selection of projects for the field study 100
15Grading of the projects based on Environmental Clearance
mechanism 101 16Ensuring randomness in selection of projects for
field study104 17Field Visit methodology105
18Challenges/Opportunities during field visits106 19 20 21 Sectoral
overview of the field visits, major observations and analysis
Automobile Industry Mini Hydro-electric projects Textile Industry
Drugs, Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Industry Petroleum
Industry and Fuel Parks Nuclear and Radiation Industry Health
Facilities Chemical Food, Poultry and Biomass Industry Sugar,
Distillery, Brewery and Cogeneration Industry Synthetic Rubber
Industry Mining Sector Metallurgy Industry (Steel & Iron) Ship
breaking Industry Wood, Pulp and Paper Industry Tourism and Leisure
Industry Cement industry Biomass based Energy Infrastructure
Industry Waste Reclamation and Disposal Section C: Review of Report
Section D: List of Annexures Annexure List A Annexure List B
Annexures in Text 107 109 - 116 117 - 133 134 - 144145 - 155 156 -
161 162 - 164 165 - 168 169 - 175 176 - 182 183 - 192 193 - 196 197
- 202 203 - 217 218 - 219 220 - 226 227 - 231 232 - 234 235 - 237
238 - 239 240 - 243 245 254 256 257 Executive Summary Environmental
decision making is a unique component of public administration that
has
increasinglycomeintofocusduetothewidespreadandincreasinglycontentious
conflictsbetweentheobjectivesofeconomicadvancementandtheirimpactson
environmentandhumanhealth.Itsspecificobjectiveistoensureenvironmental
considerations are integrated into economic decision making in such
a manner that the
finaloutcomewouldservetheinterestsofpresentandfuturegenerationsandalso
secure a healthy state for the perpetuation of web of life on this
planet.The procedures
containedinenvironmentaldecisionmakingareinacknowledgementofthefactthat
prudence in use of natural resources and mitigating adverse impacts
of development are wise economic choices as well, and is an effort
to promote a win-win situation for all.
Soundenvironmentaldecisionmakinghasseveralimperatives.Primeamongstthese
aretransparency,accountabilityandpublicinvolvementindecisionmaking.Themore
informed an environmental decision, the better are the chances of
mitigating, containing and avoiding adverse environmental and
social impacts of industrial, infrastructure and urban development
projects.
Takingtheseaspectsintoconsideration,theGovernmentofKarnatakatookan
unprecedenteddecisiontoestablishtheStateEnvironmentalClearanceCommittee
(SECC)in1985toassistinformulatingdecisions.Thespecificpurposewastofully
comprehendexternalitiesofeconomicdevelopmentspriortotheprojectsbeing
initiatedsothatnecessaryremedialmeasurescouldbeintegratedintotheproject
developmentcycle,andwhenfoundthatenvironmentalandpublichealthcosts
outweighed proposed benefits, to reject such developments.The
institutionalisation of the SECC was also undertaken in the context
of the terrible industrial disaster in Bhopal
in1984involvingUnionCarbide(nowownedbyDowChemicals)thatkilledand
maimedthousands.TheGovernmentofKarnatakawasconcernedthatlapsesin
regulationandjudgementshouldnotresultinenvironmentaldevastation,andfound
thatanSECCtypemechanismwasessential.Thisespeciallyconsideringtheneedof
holisticappraisalofaproject'senvironmentalandsocialimpacts,asthepossibilityof
KarnatakaStatePollutionControlBoard,KarnatakaForestDepartment,Karnataka
TownandCountryPlanningDepartmentandsuchotheragenciesbeingabletotake
suchacomprehensiveviewofimpactswasnotpossibleintheprevailingstatutory
frameworks.
SuchaprogressiveeffortonthepartofKarnatakaStatewaspioneeringasatthattime
onlytheDepartmentofEnvironmentandForestsoftheCentralGovernmentexisted,
and which would assess the environmental impacts of certain
projects on a case-by-case 2
basis.ItisonlyaftertheenactmentoftheEnvironmentProtectionAct,1986,inthe
contextoftheOurCommonFuturereportoftheUnitedNationsCommissionon
SustainableDevelopmentandasarunuptoIndiapreparationforthe1992UN
ConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopment,thattheimportanceofmaking
environmentaldecisionmakingfundamentaltoeconomicplanningevenbegantobe
discussed in other States of the country.Forthe rest of the
country, such integration of environmental decision making in
formal public administration took place only in 1994 when the
Environment Impact Assessment Notification was brought into effect.
By then
Karnatakahadalreadypracticedtheseprinciplesforoveradecadeandwascitedasa
model for the rest of the country to emulate. With the enactment of
the EIA Notification in 1994, Karnataka thought it fit to retain
the
SECCbutmodifyingitsroletoattendtosuchprojectswhichwerenotcoveredbythe
realmoftheNotification.Realisingtheimportanceofmakingthedecision-making
processesofSECCrigorous,analyticalandtobuildcapacitiesofpost-clearance
monitoring,variousamendmentswerepassedtotheexecutiveordersbywhichSECC
was established.These amendments, in effect, sought to bring out
inter-disciplinarily to
thedecisionsformulated,deepentheirscientificcontent,buttresstheirlegalvalidity
andalsoensure,finally,thattheprocessservedthewiderpublicinterestinsecuring
environmentalsustainabilityofdevelopmentprojects,andnotmerelytheireconomic
viability.
SincethesettingupoftheSECCtherehasnotbeenanyefforttoevaluateits
performance,utilityandneedinasystematicmannerandbasedonempiricalanalysis.From
time to time there have been opinions formed questioning the need
for SECC type of review mechanism, when, in fact, following the
comprehensive amendment to the EIA
Notificationin2006theCentralGovernmentdevolvedahostofpowerstonew
authorities,viz.,StateEnvironmentImpactAssessmentAuthoritywhichisassistedby
StateEnvironmentalAppraisalCommittee.Therehavealsobeenopinionsexpressed
that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, and other
statutory regulatory bodies
suchastheKarnatakaForestDepartmentandKarnatakaStateBiodiversityBoard,all
formedbyhighlydevelopedCentralstatutes,arebythemselvescapableofaddressing
environmentalconcerns.Thus,effectivelyarguingthatSECC,asadecision-making
mechanism, had become redundant.
Bethatasitmay,thegrowingpublicawarenessofenvironmentalproblemsthat
humanity today is challenged with, and specifically the assertion
of local communities to
securetheirqualityoflifeaspartoftheirRighttoLifehasresultedinmanysmall,
medium and not-so-large industries and infrastructure developments
being challenged,
includingthroughlitigation.AsCourtshavedealtwithsuchmattersonacase-by-case
basis,theyhaveinabroadsensehighlightedtheimportanceofestablishingformal
institutionalmechanismstoassistenvironmentaldecision-making.Thisisparticularly
3 evident in the formation of the Central Empowered Committee by
the Supreme Court in the Godavarman case to monitor every decision
where forests are being diverted to
non-forestactivities.Similarly,CourtshavedirectedtheStatetoconstitutespecial
authoritiestoprotectlakeswhentheywerefoundtobewidelyencroached,
comprehensivelypollutedandnosingleagencywasabletotakeaholisticviewofthe
problemathand.Thus,broadly,thrustingtheStatetorealisethatasinfinancialand
economic planning where there are multiple checks and safeguards
and several layers of
institutionalisedregulatorysystemsinoperationtosafeguardpublicinterest,which
haveevolvedoverseveraldecades,itisessentialtosimilarlyregulatedthe
environmental and social impacts of economicactivities as alaissez
faire approach was defeating the ends of securing justice and
public interest.Such thinking was consistent
withevolutionofenvironmentalregulatorysystemsworldwide,whichwere
increasinglyhonedtowardsadvancingtransparency,accountabilityandpublic
involvementinenvironmentaldecisions,betheyinthecaseofsmall,medium,largeor
mega projects.In addition, the enactment of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 set the
stageforAccesstoInformation,ParticipationandJusticeassuminganewlevelof
importance in public administration.
SuchaclimateofopinionperhapsinfluencedtheKarnatakaDepartmentofForests,
Ecology and Environment to review the performance of the SECC
andthis was done by passing G.O. No.NO. FEE 19 ENV 2013, dated 13th
March 2013.Consequently, the task
ofsuchareviewwasdelegatedtoEnvironmentalManagementPolicyResearch
Initiative,anautonomousbodyconstitutedbytheGovernmentofKarnataka,which,in
turn, hired the consultants for a period of three months in
April2013 to undertake the
study.Asitturnedoutthetaskwasmuchgreaterthanwasoriginallyanticipated,and
took about 10 months to complete. This report is organised in three
sections. In Section A, we present the overall legal framework by
which the SECC was constituted
bytheGovernmentofKarnatakaanddemonstratethatitisastatutorybodyasper
Section3and5oftheEnvironmentProtectionAct,1986,readwithEnvironment
ProtectionRules,1986.Basedonextensiveanalysisoftheoreticalframeworksof
environmentaldecisionmaking,Indianenvironmentaljurisprudence,Constitutional
mandates and international treaties and law, we make a case for
comprehensive reform
oftheSECC.WearguethattheSECCaspresentlyconstitutedisabodythatoperates
with least transparency and accountability to the wide public, and
does not at all involve public in decision making. Based on an
empirical analysis of 447 clearances accorded by
SECCduring2001-2012,wearguethattheclearanceshavebeenextendedwithoutsite
assessmentingeneral,insensitivetoparticularsectoralcasetypesandconditions
imposedarenotsectororprojectspecific.Wefindthatsuchritualisticclearancehas
resultedinweakappraisaloftheenvironmentalandsocialimpactsofmostprojects,
4 which is also borne out by the fact that there has been no
rigorous review of compliance
withclearanceconditions.Inaddition,wearraytheissuesforreformthathave
emergedbasedonfieldvisitsto47projectspickedrandomlyacrosssectors,
geographiesandfromdifferentyears,andacloseexaminationofthedocumentation
thatwasprovidedtousfor31projectsthatwereaccordedSECCclearances.Onthe
basis of this empirical assessment we propose that the prevailing
gaps and weaknesses
inenvironmentaldecisionmakinginKarnatakacanbemetbyinstitutingtheaState
Environment Protection and Monitoring Authority (SEPMA) that would
be supported by
DistrictEnvironmentProtectionandMonitoryAgency(DEPMA),thelatterworking
closelywithconstitutionallyempoweredDistrict/MetropolitanPlanningCommittees,
linesagencies,andGramPanchayatsandWardCommitteesasapplicable.Wealso
considerthepossibilityofself-regulationbeinganacceptablepracticeinsafeguarding
theenvironmentandrejectthepropositionasnotinthepublicinterestbasedon
international experience. InSectionB,wedescribetheprocess
bywhichwesoughtoutavarietyofinformation on environmental decision
making of the SECC, in particular the 447 projects that were
clearedduring2001-2012.Wediscussthemethodologyemployedinassessingthe
qualityoftheenvironmentalclearancesaccordedbySECCanddemonstrateefforts
undertakentoensurethattherewasrandomnessinselectionof47projectsforfield
assessmentbasedontheirsectoral,geographicandperiodofclearance.Wethen
proceedtodescribeeachoftheprojectsthatwerevisited,themannerinwhichthey
were accorded environmental clearance, the specific issues and
concerns that arose in a particular project and also the general
concerns relating to the sector.In all 20 sectors
havebeenevaluatedthusly,andvariouslessonslearnthaveinformedtoproposalfor
constitution of SEPMA and DEPMA, as explained before. In Section C,
the review of the report has been submitted by Dr. M.K. Ramesh,
Professor, NLSIU.
InSectionD,weprovidevariousannexuresthatarerelevanttotheunderstandingof
this study, several of which are not in the public domain. 5
SECTION A Legal and Theoretical frameworks for progressive
environmental decision making in Karnataka and proposal for reform
of SECC by establishing SEPMA 6 Chapter 1 Introduction The State of
Karnataka has been a pioneer in establishing an institutional
mechanism for review
ofenvironmentalimpactsofdevelopmentactivities,whichevenprecedestheEnvironment
(Protection)Act,1986.In1985,theStateGovernmenthadcreatedtheStateEnvironment
ClearanceCommittee[hereafterSECC],whichinstitutedaprocedureforassessingthe
environmentalimpactsofvariousprojects.Thismechanismwascontinuedevenafterthe
initiationoftheEnvironmentalImpactAssessment[hereafterEIA]Notification,1994.Several
projectswithsignificantenvironmentimpacthadbeenleftoutofthepurviewoftheEIA
Notification1994,andtheSECCmechanismaddressedthisregulatorygapinthecontextof
Karnataka.TheprocedureforenvironmentalclearancethroughtheSECC(asamended
periodically)continuedevenafterthecomprehensivere-formulationoftheEIANotificationin
2006.
ThequestionofwhethertheSECCmechanismhaseffectivelyattendedtotheexistinggapsin
environmental regulation in Karnataka has never been objectively
reviewed. In this context, it is a much needed, unprecedented and
welcome step that the Government of Karnataka has taken
inreviewingtheexistinggapsinenvironmentaldecision-making,focusingparticularlyonthe
SECCmechanism,bywayofitsOrderNO.FEE19ENV2013(dated13thMarch2013,annexed
herewithasAnnexureA-12).Thetermsofthisorderhaverightlyprioritisedtheneedto
identifyandfillthegapsinenvironmentaldecision-makingnormsandprocesseswithdue
dispatch.
FundamentallyfivequestionshavebeenraisedintheaforesaidGOintermsofassessingthe
qualityofenvironmentalreviewandassessmentoftheimpactsofvariousdevelopmental
projects, and they are the following:
1)DoestherevisedGovernmentofIndiaEnvironmentImpactAssessmentNotificationof
2006 leave out of its purview any activity with a significant
impact on the environment? If so, which are these activities?
2)Incasethereareanysuchactivities,cantheirimpactontheenvironmentbeassessed
throughamechanismastheSECC,withoutgoingthroughaformal,structuredRapid
Environment Impact Assessment (REIA)/Environment Impact Assessment
(EIA)? 3)What is the mechanism available under EIA notification,
2006 issued by the Government
ofIndia/StateEnvironmentalClearancecommittee(SECC)oftheStateGovernmentto
undertakeCumulativeImpactAssessments(hereafterCIA)?Ifthisisnotbeingdone
what should be the mechanism?
4)Whathasbeenthefollowuponactualimpact/outcomesoftheSECCapprovals,
especially those given in the past 10 years? 5)Any other issue
relevant to, and arising out of the above. 7
Inrespondingobjectivelyandcomprehensivelytothesequestions,theConsultantresearchers,
withcomprehensiveassistancefromtheEnvironmentalManagementandPolicyResearch
Institute (EMPRI) leadership and research team, have:
1.Reviewedexistingacademicliteratureanddocumentationrelatingtoenvironmental
protection,regulatoryframeworks,andEIAnormsinIndiaandincomparative
jurisdictions. 2.Reviewed laws and relevant judicial decisions
relating to the EIA system in India and in comparative
jurisdictions.
3.Compiled,indexedandreviewed(totheextentpossible)theclearancesissuedbythe
SECCoverthepastdecade,including,applicationsforclearance,clearance
documentationandalsocompliancereports.Adetailedsummaryindexingthe
clearances reviewed is annexed herewith as Annexure B-1.
4.Circulatedaquestionnaireamongststakeholdersrepresentingindustry,government,
civilsociety,andacademiatoelicitviewsontheissuesunderanalysis.Acopyofthe
questionnaire and a summary of the views received is annexed
herewith asAnnexure B-5. 5.Obtained inputs from key governmental
functionaries through an interactive workshop
andbriefingsession.Acopyoftheminutesofthisworkshopisannexedherewithas
Annexure
B-6.6.Carriedoutsite-visitsforapproximately10%oftheprojectsclearedoverthelast
decade(i.e.,47projects)toassessthenatureoftheproject,theextenttowhichthe
SECCmechanismhaseffectivelyappreciatedtheenvironmentalandsocialimpacts
involved,andalsotoseektheopinionoftheprojectproponentontheefficacyofthe
SECCmechanism.Alistofthedocumentationpertainingtothe47projectsvisitedis
annexedatAnnexureB-2andanoverviewofthesameisannexedatAnnexureB-3.
Thecasestudysitesforthesevisitswereselectedbyarandomizedmethodwhile
ensuringthatprojectsacrosssectors,acrossthewide-ranginggeographyofthestate,
andspanningalltheyearsunderreviewwereincludedinthesample.Theproject
proponentswereinformedoftheimpendingsitevisitinadvanceinwriting,and
requestedtoprovideall necessaryassistancetothereviewteam,
includingbysharing
projectdocumentationandSECCclearancecomplianceinformation.Duringthevisit,
theproponentswereprovidedwithadetailedinformationcheck-listtoguidethemin
formulatingtheirresponse,particularlyintermsofidentifyinggapsintheSECC
mechanism and also to propose ideas for reform. Field reports were
prepared for each
andeverysitevisited,comparingfieldnotesagainstclearanceandcompliance
documentationoftheproject(whereavailable).Thesite-visitmethodology,
questionnaire,andfieldreportsarediscussedlaterinthisreportandforman
important basis for suggesting a variety of reforms to the SECC
mechanism.
Giventhethematicallycross-cuttingissuesraisedbythefourquestionsposedinGovernment
OrderNO.FEE19ENV2013(dated13thMarch2013),thisreportattemptstoprovidea
contextual,empirically-driven,andtheoretically-informedappraisaloftheSECCinKarnataka
by:
-Highlightingrelevantaspectsofthecurrentenvironmentalregulatoryregimeandthe
economic and legal context in India;8 - Emphasizing the salient
features of EIA systems in general and the main historical and
institutional dimensions of EIA systems in India;
-ClarifyingtheregulatoryscopeoftheSECCvis--vistheinstitutionalframework(s)
established under the EIA Notification 2006 and other relevant
laws; - Evaluating the institutional design and actual operation of
the SECC through an analysis
ofrelevantacademicliterature,legaldecisions,andempiricaldata(withafocuson
cumulative impact assessment). Operational issues: While the
project, including field work, was intended to be completed in
three months as per the initial Terms of Reference (TOR) in the
agreement signed between EMPRI and the Consultants, this was not
practically achievable for the following reasons:
1.TheDepartmentofForests,EcologyandEnvironment(hereafterDFEE),whichisthe
nodal agency for SECC, did not have the necessary documentation on
the basis of which Environmental Clearances (hereafter referred to
as EC) had been accorded over the past
decade.Suchprojectspecificdocumentationhadalreadybeenarchivedandwhen
eventually accessed was not in an easily accessible, organised,
retrievable and verifiable
form.OnlytheclearancedocumentswerereadilysecuredfromtheDepartment;the
applicationsonthebasis
ofwhichclearancesweregrantedandthecompliancereports
werenotavailableatthedepartmentinmostcases.Thiswasbecausethefileshad
already been sent to the Government Archives, including in cases
where clearances were
activeorprojectswereinoperation.Thus,retrievingevenapartialsetofthese
documentsinvolvedsubstantialeffortonthepartofEMPRIstaffandwasanextremely
time consuming process (consuming several months).
2.Thissubstantiallydelayedtheinitiationofthefieldassessmentofselectedprojects.
Considering that even by the end of August 2013 the project
information on the basis of
whichECswereextendedwasnotmadeavailable,itwasdecidedtoinitiatefield
assessmentofselectedprojectsduringSeptember2013onthebasisofECsandnoton
thebasisofprojectinformationaswastheoriginalintention.Evenwhenthefield
assessments were underway, efforts were made by EMPRI staff to
secure documentation on projects, which had not yet been sourced
from the Archives by the Department. Only
insomecaseswasprojectinformationavailable,andthatessentiallybecausethe
informationwasvoluntarilysharedbytheprojectproponentand/orprovidedbythe
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (hereafter KSPCB).
3.Insomeofthecasesselectedforfieldvisit,thecontactinformationprovidedforthe
project in the clearance document was inaccurate, or no up-to-date
contact information was available in DFEE.In fact some projects had
ceased to function and this information was unavailable with the
Department. A more detailed description of the informational
challenges is provided later in the report. 9 Chapter 2 Historical
Development of the SECC in Karnataka
InthissectionwebrieflyhighlightthechanginginstitutionalnatureoftheSECCinKarnataka
through an overview of the major Government Orders relating to the
SECC.
ThecreationoftheSECCinKarnatakadatesbackto1985andtheimmediateaftermathofthe
industrialdisasteratBhopal.Atthistimetherewasnostatutoryandstandardised
environmentalreviewofdevelopmentalprojectsanywhereinthecountry.Suchassessments
were undertaken only on a case-by-case basis when concerns were
raised by the wide public or
undertheinitiativeoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentoftheCentralGovernmentinsome
matters such as in the case of Silent Valley in Kerala. After the
Ministry of Industries, Government of India published a list of 20
industries forwhich
clearancefromtheStateEnvironmentDepartmentandtheStatePollutionControlBoardwas
required to be obtained, the Government of Karnataka through G.O.
No. DEE 6 ENV 85 dated 10th
July1985(annexedherewithasAnnexureA-0)extendedthislistofindustriesforwhichprior
environmentalclearancewasrequiredto32industries.Thiseffectivelymarkstheoriginand
institutionalisationoftheSECCinKarnatakaandistobeacknowledgedasapioneering
initiative of the Government of Karnataka.
TheGovernmentofKarnatakathenpassedaGONo.DEE158EPC88dated21stApril1990
(annexed herewith as Annexure A-1), which makes reference to the
earlier G.O. No. DEE 6 ENV 85dated10th
July1985.GONo.DEE158EPC88dated21stApril1990suggeststhat
environmentclearancefromtheStateEnvironmentDepartmentwasprimarilyconcernedwith
sitingofindustriesfromtheenvironmentalandsafetyanglesincludingpollutionandstates
thattheearlierOrder(GONo.DEE158EPC88)hadoftenbeenmis-interpretedleadingto
avoidable delay and harassment in respect of non-hazardous
industries. GO No. DEE 158 EPC 88 dated 21st April 1990 further
states that the issue of environmental clearance was re-examined
inconsultationwiththeCommerceandIndustriesDepartment,theStatePollutionControl
Board,andtheChiefInspectorofFactoriesandBoilers,andtheconsensuswasthat
EnvironmentalClearance/NoObjectionCertificateforsitingofindustriessoastoavailthe
facilitiesofservicesinstitutionslikeKarnatakaStateElectricityBoard,KarnatakaStateSmall
IndustriesDevelopmentCorporationandKarnatakaStateFinanceCorporationetc.,should
applyonlyinrespectofhazardousandhighlypollutingindustriesandalltheotherindustries
need not obtain prior siting clearances but only have to obtain
prior consent/license as required
undertheWaterAct/AirAct/FactoriesAct,beforecommissioningtheunits.Accordingly,GO
No.DEE158EPC88dated21stApril1990replacesthelistof32industriesearlieridentified
through G.O. No. DEE 6 ENV 85 dated 10th July 1985, and the
operative part of the Order states:
GovernmentdirectthatThirtySixsetofindustriesaslistedintheannexureappendedtothis
document,shallbedeclaredashazardousandhighlypollutingindustries.Thereforethese
industriesshallobtainpriorenvironmentalclearanceforsitingofindustriesfromthe
DepartmentofEcologyandEnvironmentandconsent/licensefromtheKarnatakaState
Pollution Control Board / Chief Inspectorate of Factories and
Boilers.10
TheG.O.No.FEE297ENV93dated21stJanuary1994(annexedherewithasAnnexureA-2)
formallyconstitutedtheSECC.Thecoverageoftheenvironmentalclearanceregimewas
extendedtoallindustries,projectsandprocessesbyCircularNo.FEE43EPC92dated22nd
October 1994 (annexed herewith as Annexure A-3) and also made
applicable for the expansion, diversification, and modernization of
existing projects, industries and process.
NoneoftheGovernmentOrdersavailabletotheconsultantsprovideclearorspecific
information on how or through what procedure the SECC was created
in 1985. The Government Order No. FEE 297 ENV 93 dated 21st January
1994, which seems to be the formal constitution of the SECC, is
referred to in most subsequent Government Orders. By way of G.O.
No. FEE 14 ENV 2000 dated 31st December 2001 (annexed herewith as
Annexure
A-4)theSECCwasfundamentallyreconstitutedincludinginitsscopeandthemannerofits
operation.ThisexpansiveGovernmentOrderexplicitlyrecognisedtheneedtoregulatefrom
theenvironmentprotectionangle,projectsotherthanthoselistedintheScheduleIofthe
NotificationNo.SO60(E)dated27thJanuary1994[theEIANotification,1994]andprovided
thattheSECCwouldbereconstitutedtoincludeaprofessionalmixofadministratorsand
expertswithknowledgeandcompetenceintheareasof(i)ecosystemmanagement,(ii)
air/water pollution control; (iii) water resource management, (iv)
flora/fauna conservation and
management,(v)landuseplanning,(vi)socialsciencesrehabilitation,(vii)ecologyand
environmenthealth,(viii)representationofNGOsandpersonsconcernedwithenvironment
issues. This Government Order further provided that the SECC would
scrutinize:
projectsbelowinvestmentlevelsofRs.50croreandaboveRs.5croreindicatedin
ScheduleIandpara2II(a)-(e)ofEIANotification,1994irrespectiveoflocation
indicated in Annexure I of this Order. projects falling in the Red
Category (as per KSPCB categorization) with an investment of
morethanRs.5croreandlocatedoutsideStatesponsoredIndustrialAreas/Estatesas
indicated in Annexure III appended to this Order. The Order further
provides:
AllIndustrialAreas/Estates,SpecialEconomicZoneshenceforthsetupintheprivate,
cooperativeorpublicbodies/sectorwillrequiretoconductacomprehensive
EnvironmentImpactAssessment(EIA)study,andwillcomeunderthepurviewofthe
SECC.TheEIAwillbeconductedinaccordancewiththeguidelinesoftheMoEF.
(emphasis supplied)
TheDepartmentofCommerceandIndustriesthroughKarnatakaIndustrialArea
Development Board (KIADB) and in interaction with private
entrepreneurs to take steps to provide for treatment and disposal
systems in respect of solid waste, trade effluents, hazardous and
toxic chemicals in all existing and future Industrial
Areas/Estates. 11 Application in prescribed proforma along with
prescribed documents to be submitted to
theDept.ofEcologyandEnvironmentbeforestartingworkonthe
new/expansion/diversification/modernisation project.
Riskanalysisreportandon-sitedisastermanagementplanwouldadditionallybe
considered essential in case of units using hazardous chemicals and
substances per the Hazardous Wastes Rules,
1989.SubmitteddocumentswillbefirstscrutinizedbytechnicalstaffoftheDept.ofEcology
andEnvironmentwhomayundertakefieldvisits,interactwiththeentrepreneur,hold
consultationswithexpertsonspecificissues,etc.Afterpreliminaryscrutiny,the
proposalwillbeplacedbeforeSECC,whichwilltakeadecisionbasedoninformation
submitted by the entrepreneur and the findings of the technical
staff.
ApplicationforenvironmentclearancetobemadeonlyaftertheConsentfor
EstablishmenthasbeenissuedbytheKSPCB.Noconstructionworkrelatingtothe
industry to be undertaken until the environment clearance has been
received violation
ofthisconditionwillattracttheprovisionsofSection5oftheEPA,1986.KSPCBnotto
issue Consent for Operation till environment clearance has been
received from the SECC.
Proposalssubmittedwithoutrequisitedocumentsorthosewithinsufficientor
inadequatedataandplanswillberejectedbytheSecretaryoftheadministrative
department. These proposals may be reviewed as when submitted in
complete form.
SECCtomeetregularly;todecidetheproceduretoevaluatetheprojects;maycallfor
additionalinformation,consultindividualsorconstitutecommitteeofexperts.Where
necessary,theSECCtoundertakefieldvisits,obtainfirst-handinformationand
interact with the public and project/industry/process affected
persons. (emphasis supplied)Projects to be deemed clear in case of
delays beyond 120 days.
Entrepreneurwhoseproposalisbeingconsideredtobeinvitedtoparticipateinthe
deliberations of the SECC with a view to ensuring transparency in
the proceedings of the SECC.
TheEnvironmentClearancegivenbytheSECCwithoutprejudicetoanyother
permission required under any other law, bye-laws or regulations in
force. EC to remain valid and would require clearance only in case
of changes relating to process, operation, product or capacity.
State Government has the right to revoke clearance at any time,
with
duenotice,ifanybreachofconditionscontainedintheEnvironmentClearance
certificate are noticed and proved.
Concealingfactualdataorsubmissionoffalse,misleadingdata/reports,decisionsor
recommendations would lead to project being rejected. If an
approval has been given on the basis of false data, information,
etc. the approval shall be revoked. Project proponent
isliableforactioninaccordancewithS.5oftheEnvironment(Protection)Act,1986
delegated to the State Government and Section 15 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 for violation of any of the stipulated
conditions of the environmental clearance.12
KSPCBtotakecognizanceofthedecisionofSECCwhileconsideringcasesforissueof
CFO. KSPCB to also take steps to monitor conditions stipulated in
SECC clearances. The G.O. No. FEE 130 ENV 2002 dated 24th October
2002 (annexed herewith as Annexure A-5) nominates members to the
SECC. The main details are:
16membersnominated.3SecretariestotheGovernment(EcologyandEnvironment
as Chairperson, Forest, Major Irrigation), Chairman - KSPCB, Chief
Inspector of Factories
andBoilers,CommissionerforIndustrialDevelopmentandDirectorIndustriesand
CommerceDepartment,DirectorDepartmentofMinesandGeology,ZonalOfficer
CentralPollutionControlBoard,DirectorTownPlanningDepartment,Controllerof
DrugsfortheStateofKarnataka,Director(Technical)oftheDepartmentofForest,
EcologyandEnvironmentasMemberConvener,and5namedindividuals(PR
Mallikarjuna; AK Lahiri (Department of Metallurgy, IISc); PP
Nageshwara Rao (Director,
RRSSC);VasundharaKamath(VictoriaHospital);andR.Shailaja(Centrefor
Environment Education).
G.ONo.FEE14ENV2000(P)dated21stAugust2003(annexedherewithasAnnexureA-6)
statesthattheSECCshallcontinuetofunctionattheStatelevelwithsomeimportant
modifications relating to the threshold conditions that attract
environmental clearance. As per this Order, the SECC is to
scrutinize
projects:1)NewprojectsbelowinvestmentlevelsofRs.100crorebutaboveRs.5croreas
indicated in Annexure I to the Government
Order;2)ProjectsbelowinvestmentlevelsofRs.50crorebutaboveRs.5crorefor
expansion/modernization projects as indicated in Annexure-I to the
Government
Order;3)Modernizationprojectsinirrigationsectorifadditionalcommandareaislessthan
10,000 hectares or project cost is less than Rs. 100 crore.
ThisGovernmentOrderfurtherclarifiesthattherestofG.O.No.FEE14ENV2000dated31st
December 2001 remains unchanged and that the Order is issued with
immediate effect. By the G.O. No. FEE 129 ECO 2004 dated 7th
December 2004 (annexed herewith as Annexure A-7) the SECC was
reconstituted to now include 20 members. These
are:PrincipalSecretarytoGovernment(DepartmentofForest,EcologyandEnvironment)
as Chairperson, Principal Secretary to Government (Urban
Development Department), 3
SecretariestoGovernment(EcologyandEnvironment,Forest,MajorIrrigation),
CommissionerBangaloreMahanagarPalike,CommissionerBangaloreDevelopment
Authority,CommissionerforIndustrialDevelopmentandDirectorIndustriesand
CommerceDepartment,ChairmanKSPCB,ChiefInspectorofFactoriesandBoilers,
DirectorDepartmentofMinesandGeology,ZonalOfficerCentralPollutionControl
Board,DirectorTownPlanningDepartment,ControllerofDrugsfortheStateof
Karnataka,SeniorDirector(Technical)(EcologyandEnvironmentDepartmentof
Forest, Ecology and Environment as Member-Secretary) and 5 named
individuals (PR Mallikarjuna; AK Lahiri (Department of Metallurgy,
IISc); PP Nageshwara Rao (Director, 13
RRSSC);VasundharaKamath(VictoriaHospital);andR.Shailaja(Centrefor
Environment Education).
TheG.O.No.FEE129ECO2004dated4thAugust2005(annexedherewithasAnnexureA-8)
partially modifies G.O. No. FEE 14 ENV 2000 dated 31st December
2001 such that projects which
fallintheRedCategory(asperKSPCBcategorisation)withaninvestmentofmorethanRs.5
crores,andarelocatedinsideindustrialareas/estates,shallalsomandatorilyobtain
environmentalclearancefromtheSECC.TheearlierpositionwasthatSECCclearancewas
requiredonlyforindustriesfallingoutsideindustrialareas/estatesandsatisfyingtheother
requirements (investment thresholds, red categorization). As per
this Order, the rest of G.O. No. FEE 14 ENV 2000 dated 31st
December 2001 and G.O No. FEE 14 ENV 2000(P) dated 21st August 2003
remained unchanged. The G.O. No. FEE 132 ECO 2011 dated 17th
October 2012 (annexed herewith as Annexure A-11)
statesthattheSECCwillconsiderallcasesofRedCategoryindustries(asperKSPCB
categorisation) which have an investment of Rs. 10 crore and above
(change from the Rs. 5 crore limit as originally stipulated in G.O.
No. FEE 14 ENV 2000 dated 31st December 2001) which are not covered
by the EIA Notification 2006, and the mini hydel projects which are
not covered by the EIA Notification 2006.1 The Preamble to this
Order states that the KSPCB had requested the Government to enhance
the threshold limit to Rs. 10 crore in view of the escalation of
the cost of land and other infrastructure. Significantly, this is
the first major Government Order relating to the SECC which is
passed after the passage of the EIA Notification 2006.
TheG.O.No.FEE19ENV2013dated13thMarch2013(annexedherewithasAnnexureA-12)
directsEnvironmentalManagementandPolicyResearchInstitute(EMPRI),Bangaloretocarry
out a study on the following Terms of
Reference:(i)DoestherevisedGovernmentofIndianotificationof2006leaveoutofpurviewany
activity with a significant impact on the environment? If so, which
are these activities.
(ii)Incasethereareanysuchactivities,cantheirimpactontheenvironmentbe
assessedthroughamechanismsuchastheSECC,withoutgoingthroughaformal,
structured REIA/EIA?
(iii)WhatisthemechanismavailableundertheEIANotification,2006issuedbythe
GovernmentofIndia/StateEnvironmentClearanceCommittee(SECC)oftheState
Government to undertake cumulative impact assessments? If this is
not being done what should be the mechanism?
(iv)Whathasbeenthefollowupandactualimpact/outcomesoftheSECCapprovals,
especially those given in the past 10 years? (v) Any other issue
relevant to, and arising out of the above.
ThePreambletothisG.O.pointsoutthatthelistofactivitiesrequiringSECCclearanceas
detailed in G.O. No. FEE 14 ENV 2000 dated 31st December 2001 has
not been modified pursuant to the EIA Notification, 2006 - though
the lower threshold limit for Red Category (as per KSPCB 1 The
exact manner in which and the exact time at which mini-hydel
projects (that are not covered under the
EIANotification2006)gotincludedundertheSECCmechanismissomewhatunclear.OftheGovernmentOrders
madeavailable,G.O.No.FEE132ECO2011dated17thOctober2012isthefirstOrdertomentionmini-hydel
projects,thoughabarereadingoftheOrdersuggeststhatthisinclusionintotheSECCsystemwasmadeatan
earlier point in time.14
categorisation)industriesrequiringSECCclearancehasbeenincreasedfromRs.5croretoRs.
10 crore. The Preamble highlights that the study by EMPRI has been
necessitated in light of the
changedcircumstancesandthedecentralizedapproachofEnvironmentImpactAssessment
procedure that has been put in place by the Central Government.
(Emphasis supplied) 15 Chapter 3 Scope of SECC Regulation vis--vis
the EIA Notification 2006
Asdetailedintheprecedingsection,theenvironmentalclearanceregimeundertheSECC
currentlyappliestoallRedCategoryindustries(asperKSPCBcategorisation)whichhavean
investment of Rs. 10 crores and above and which arenot covered by
the EIA Notification 2006, and to mini hydel projects which are not
covered by the EIA Notification 2006. A closer look at the
activities/projects covered under the EIA Notification 2006, an
appreciation of activities not
coveredundertheEIANotification2006,andanoverviewoftheKSPCBlistofRedCategory
industries are therefore warranted. We proceed to examine each of
these aspects in turn below
TheEIANotification,2006listsout39developmentalsectors(projectsandactivities),which
require prior environmental clearance either at the State level or
at the Central level. These 39
developmentalprojects/activities,thedecision-makingauthoritywithregardtoeachspecific
type of project, and the applicable threshold conditions are listed
out in the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006. A copy of the
Schedule (amended up to early 2012) is annexed atAnnexure
A-10.Ausefulsummarylistofprojectswithlinkedthresholds(updatedasof2011)underthe
EIA Notification 2006 is at Annexure A-9. The EIA Notification
2006, though well intended, has produced a variety of complex
problems in
itsimplementation.2Thisisbecausetheregulatorysystemproposedoperatesonthebasisof
criteria(unilaterallyevolvedbytheMinistryofEnvironmentandForests)thatarenot
adequately sensitive to issues of culture, geography, ecological
science, and also constitutionally
endowedlocalgovernmentalrolesinplanningoflandandnaturalresources.Inaddition,the
promotionoftheideathatsignificantenvironmentalandsocialimpactsaregeneratedonlyby
projectsbeyondacertainscaleorsatisfyingacertainoutputthresholdleavesroomforhighly
problematicrepresentationanddiscretion,oftentothedetrimentoftheenvironment.For
instance, mega public transport projects (such as Metro) and
massive automobile manufacturing units (such as those involved with
production of cars and buses) have beencompletely left out
ofthepurviewofreviewpertheEIANotificationonthespeciousclaimthattheyarenot
polluting or hazardous. Similarly, highly land intensive projects,
such as solar ponds, wind mills,
etc.,arealsonotconsideredforreviewoftheirenvironmentalandsocialimpacts.3Similarly,
thereareinstanceswherehighlypollutingfacilities,suchasmassivebusstationsincities,are
also left out of the scope of review due to the poor drafting of
the EIA Notification 2006.
Theproblemisnotsomuchindefiningthenatureoftheprojectswhichhaveasignificant
environmental and social impact, but the way in which the
applicability of the clearance regime 2 The current EIA
Notificationisfraughtwith variousinconsistencies,which have been
documentedand critically analysed in Leo Saldanha et al, GREEN
TAPISM: A REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT ASSESSMENT NOTIFICATION
2006 (2007). 3 On this point, see Ministry of Environmentand
Forests, Office Memorandum No. J-11013/41/2006-IA.II(I)
dated30thJune,2011clarifyingthatSolarThermalPowerProjectsarenotcoveredbytheprovisionsoftheEIA
Notification, 2006.16 has been designed.4Since the standard rule is
to require clearance per EIA Notification 2006 for projects beyond
a particular scale or exceeding a threshold output requirement,
such as over 50
hectaresoflandrequiredor>25MWofenergygenerated,etc.,thetendencyisthatprojects
below this scale are automatically considered to be of no or low
impact. To give a few examples, mining Rs.1 crores) 52Nucear Power
Pants 53O & Gas extracton ncudng CBM (offshore & onshore
extracton through drng wes) 54O and gas transportaton ppene ncudng
storage Depots ANNEXURE-1355O Refnery (Mnera O or Petro Refneres)
and product ppene 56Organc chemcas manufacturng, MetaAmno pheno
57Pestcdes (Technca) ncudng manufacture of bo-pestcdes (excudng
formuaton) 58Petrochemcas ncudng manufacture of poypropyene and
pthac Anhydrde (Manufacture of and not merey use of as raw matera)
59Pharmaceutcas & Buk Drug (excudng formuaton). 60Pup and Paper
(paper manufacturng wth or wthout pupng) 61Phosphate rock processng
pant 62Phosphorous and ts compounds 63Photographc fms and ts
chemcas 64Ports &Harbours, |ettes and Dredgng Operatons 65Power
Generaton Pants and Bo-mass power pants|Except Wnd, Soar andMn Hyde
Power pants of capacty 5 MVA| 66Processes nvovng chornated
hydrocarbons 67Raway Locomotve workshops / Integrated Roadtransport
workshop/ Authorsed servce centres68Reprocessng of used os and
waste os 69Shp breakng actvtes 70Saughter houses (As per the
notfcaton S.O.270(E) dated 26.03.2001) andmeat processng ndustres,
bone m, processng of anma horns, hoofs and other body parts 71Stee
and stee products usng varous furnaces ke bast furnaces/ open
hearth furnace/ nducton furnace/ eectrcarc furnace/ submerged arc
furnace/ basc oxygen furnace/ hot rong usng reheatng furnace
72Stone crushers 73Sugar (excudng Khandsar) 74Surgca and medca
products nvovng prophyactcs and atex 75Synthetc detergents and
soaps (excudng formuaton) 76Synthetc fbres ncudng rayon, tyre cord,
poyester fament yarn and nyon 77Synthetc resns 78Synthetc rubber
excudng modng 79Tanneres 80Therma Power Pants ncudng a barge
mounted power pants 81Tobacco products ncudng cgarettes and
tobacco/ opum processng 82Vegetabe os ncudng sovent extracton and
refnery/ hydrogenated os 83Yarn/ texte processng nvovng any
effuent/ emsson-generatng process,beachng, dyeng, prntng and
scourng 84Znc Smeter ANNEXURE-1385Pupng and fermentng of coffee
beans 86Ntrogen compounds (cyandes, cyanamdes and other ntrogen
compounds) 87Natura Latex 88Import and storage of o 89Eectrc bub
fament processng 90Tyremanufacture 91Prnted crcut board
manufacturng unts 92Formuaton of Pestcde, nsectcde, & fungcde
93Aquacuture pond ncudng prawn hatcheres 94Shavng bade manufacturng
95CNS She o manufacture (cashew or other smar she) 96Compostng of
Pressmud, Bo-fertzer and organc Nutrents usng
SpentWash97Manufacture of Offce & Househod equpments and
appances usng foss fue for combuston 98Research aboratores nvovng
chemcas/anmas 99Fuorescent tubuar amps 100 Manufacture of organc
nutrent for agrcutura and hortcutura appcatonNote: 1. Any
ndustry/ndustra actvty whch s not covered n above st havngcoa fred
boer wth steam generaton capacty more than 5 T/hr w becovered under
Red Category.Source: KSPCB webste at (ast vsted on 23rd |anuary,
2014)
ANNEXURE-13APPLICATION FORM FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE(To
be submitted to the Secretary to Government, Department of Forest,
Ecology andEnvironment (E&E), th Floor, !"S" #uilding,
#angalore $ %&' ''( in triplicate))art *+ General( ,ame &
*ddress of the pro-ectproponent . occupier(for correspondence) ,ame
& *ddress of pro-ect site*ddress+Telephone ,o"Fa/
,o"*ddress+Telephone ,o"Fa/ ,o"0 Status of organi1ation+ (Tic2
appropriate bo/) Govt" Semi Govt")ublic Sector 3nderta2ing)rivate4
)ro-ect details+ (Tic2 appropriate bo/),e5Diversification (change
over or adding ne5 product)E/pansion(increasing 6apacity of
e/isting product)!oderni1ation(7uality improvement, process
change,e8uipment upgradation)IANNEXURE-A149 :b-ectives of the
pro-ecta);tems of manufacture < E/isting)roposedb)#y products
< (=ist may be enclosed separately)% Total investment on the
pro-ect in =a2hs (>s")