STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY PUNJAB Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India No. SEIAA/M.S./2011/ To Registered M/s JBR Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2680, Moti Nagar, Jain Colony, Ludhiana. O/O Punjab Pollution Control Board, Vatavaran Bhawan, Nabha Road, Patiala 147 001 Telefax:- 0175-2215636 Dated Subject: Application for obtaining environmental clearance as required under EIA Notification dated 14.9.2006 for setting up of a CETP of 2 MLD capacity in the revenue estate of Kohara- Machhiwara Road, Village Mangarh, Distt. Ludhiana by M/s JBR Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Whereas, M/s JBR Technologies Pvt. Ltd., has applied for obtaining environmental clearance for setting up of a CETP of 2 MLD capacity in the revenue estate of Kohara-Machhiwara Road, Village Mangarh, Distt. Ludhiana on Form-1, on 21.6.2010 to SEIAA, Punjab. But the same was sent to Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi due to non-functioning of SEIAA, Punjab, at that time. The case of the project proponent was considered by the EAC of Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi in 94 th meeting held on 30 th November, 2010 to 2.12.2010 and the EAC decided to defer the case since the project proponent did not attend the meeting. Accordingly, the Ministry of Environment & Forests, requested the project proponent vide letter no. 10-59/2010-IA.III dated 30.12.2010 to intimate as to whether the project proponent is willing to obtain the Terms of Reference or not and to send a request in this regard to the MoEF. But the project proponent did not respond in connection with
the said letter of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi. Thereafter, the Ministry of Environment & Forests, has sent the application to SEIAA/SEAC, Punjab mentioning that the project is of category-b. And whereas, the project proponent was requested by the SEAC vide letter no. 2754 dated 08.07.2011 to attend its 49 th meeting on 18.7.2011, but the project proponent vide letter no. JBR/11-12/EC/12 dated 18.07.2011 has requested to adjourn the case to the next meeting. The SEAC decided to accept the request made by the project proponent vide letter dated 18.7.2011 and decided to defer the case to the next meeting of the Committee and to ask the project proponent to submit the following documents within a week positively. The said decision of the Committee was conveyed to the project proponent letter no. 31811 dated 03.08.2011 i) Proof of ownership of land ii) iii) iv) CLU status Topographical map of the area showing Contour Plan. Status of construction, if any, alongwith photographs from all the four sides. v) 500 meter radius map of the area from periphery of project site clearly indicating the various industries (specifically red category industries) and structures lying in the area. vi) vii) viii) ix) Certificates from authorized departments regarding a) State Boundary not within 10 Km. b) Project not lying in eco-sensitive and protected area including wild life sanctuaries. c) Not lying in the critically polluted areas. Permission of CGWA for abstraction of Groundwater Water balance chart for summer, rainy and winter seasons indicating critical requirements. Analysis reports of ambient air, ground water and noise levels from NABL Accredited laboratories.
x) Construction schedule (PERT/CPM Chart) And whereas, the project proponent did not respond in connection letter no. 31811 dated 3.8.2011 of the Committee. The project proponent was again requested vide letter No. 32586 dated 08.08.2011 by the SEAC to attend its 50 th meeting on 12.8.2011 to present the project proposal before the Committee and to submit the reply of the observations of the SEAC already conveyed vide letter dated 3.8.2011, which was attended by the following on behalf of the project proponent: 1. Sh. Rajinder Singh, M.D. of the promoter Company 2. Sh. Vishal Duggal, Environmental Consultant Sh. Vishal Duggal submitted a certificate issued by Sh. Yash Pal Jain, Proprietor of M/s Ace Engineers & Consultants, Patiala to the effect that Sh. Vishal Duggal son of Sh. Raj Kumar Duggal has been engaged as Principle Consultant related to EIA studies and his name and resume is in the application submitted for accreditation from NABET, QCI. But he could not submit any documentary evidence to the effect that he is one of the applicants in the application submitted M/s Ace Engineers and Consultants, Patiala for accreditation to the MoEF, New Delhi. He further informed that the entire project proposal contains 28 no. industrial plots for electroplating units and installation of a common effluent treatment plant to treat the wastewater of said units. The CETP will be based on Zero Liquid Discharge technology and about 30-40% plots have already been sold out. The SEAC brought into the notice of the representative of the project proponent that Sh. Vishal Duggal will not be allowed to present the project proposal till he submits a documentary evidence to the effect that he is one of the applicants in the application submitted by M/s Ace Engineers and Consultants, Patiala for accreditation to the MoEF, New Delhi. Further, the SEAC brought into the notice of the project proponent that the application has been submitted only for installation of CETP to treat the wastewater of electroplating units and there is no mentioning for developing a cluster of electroplating units. Therefore, the project proposal submitted by the project proponent for obtaining environmental clearance is incomplete and does not contain the
actual facts. The Committee further observed that the project proponent has not submitted the information / data as requested vide letter no. 31811 dated 3.8.2011. Furthermore, properly prepared pre-feasibility report has not been submitted. Sh. Rajinder Singh, M.D. of the Company informed that afresh application will be filed containing all the facts. He requested the Committee to permit him to withdraw the application. And whereas, the SEAC decided to recommend the case to the SEIAA for returning the application to the project proponent, so that the project proponent may file complete application containing all material facts. And whereas, the project proponent was requested by the SEIAA vide letter no. 36294 dated 07.09.2011 to attend its 33 rd meeting on 12.09.2011, which was attended by the following on behalf of the project proponent: i) Sh. Rajinder Singh, M.D. of the promoter Company ii) Sh. Vishal Duggal, Environmental Consultant Sh. Rajinder Singh, brought out that: 1. An industrial estate is being developed for electroplating units in the revenue estate of Village Manngarh, District Ludhiana, in which there are 28 plots. Out of those plots, some plots have already been sold out to the entrepreneur, who intends to establish electroplating units. The said plots are being developed and sold out by another developer. A plot in the said estate has been purchased by M/s JBR Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for installation of CETP for electroplating units. 2. M/s JBR Technologies (P) Ltd., will install CETP based on Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) technology since it has been proposed to give the entire treated wastewater to the proposed electroplating units to be established in the said industrial estate, for reusing in their processes. 3. The industrial estate to be developed for electroplating units is not covered under EIA notification dated 14.09.2006, but the CETP is covered under the said
notification, as such, the application has been filed to obtain environmental clearance for installation of CETP. And whereas, after detailed deliberations in the matter, the SEIAA observed that the project proponent has proposal to give the entire treated wastewater to the electroplating units to be established in the Industrial Estate for reusing the same in their processes, thus, the project proponent is required to apply for obtaining environmental clearance for the project as a whole to ascertain the environmental impacts holistically. The Authority, therefore, decided to return the application to the project proponent so as to facilitate the project proponent to file a single application for the entire project proposal after executing proper MoU with the developer of the Industrial Estate. This is for your information and compliance of the decision of the SEIAA taken in its 33 rd meeting held on 12.09.2011. REGISTERED Member Secretary (SEIAA) Endst. No. Dated A copy of the above is forwarded to the following for information & further necessary action please. 1. The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhavan, CBD-cum-office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. 3. The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. 5. The Chairman, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Vatavaran Bhawan, Nabha Road, Patiala. 6. The Chief Conservator of Forests (North), Ministry of Environment and Forest, Regional Office, Bays No.24-25, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh. 7. The Chief Town Planner, Department of Town and Country Planning, Punjab, Sector 18-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
8. Monitoring Cell, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 9. The Systems Analyst (Computer), Punjab Pollution Control Board, Head Office, Patiala for displaying the above said decision of the SEIAA on the web site of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. 10. The Executive Engineer, GLADA, Ludhiana. Member Secretary (SEIAA)