National Green Tribunal
Satyanarayan Rao vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2025
Item No.09 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)
Appeal No.24/2022/EZ
Satyanarayan Rao Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 24.03.2025
Date of uploading: 28.03.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, Adv. (in Virtual Mode)
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Amrita Pandey, Adv. for R-1 (in Virtual Mode),
Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. a/w
Ms. Mansi Bachani, Adv. and
Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Adv. (in Virtual Mode) for R-2,
Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv. for R-4,
ORDER
1. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Appellant.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(Final order of the said case will be uploaded in website in separate sheets of paper).
.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM .............................................
Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM
March 24, 2025,
Appeal No.24/2022/EZ
SKB
1
Item No.09 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE) Appeal No.24/2022/EZ In the matter of:
Satyanarayan Rao S/o Late Kurma Rao, Aged 40 years, R/o Milan Market OMP Line, Jharsuguda District, Orissa - 768204 .... Appellant(s) Versus
1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, Aligunj, New Delhi - 110003;
2. M/s Vedanta Limited Through its Chief Executive Officer, Village Bhurkamunda, PO Kalimandir, District Jharsuguda, Odisha - 768202;
3. State of Odisha Through its Chief Secretary, Kharavel Bhavan, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha - 751001;
4. Odisha State Pollution Control Board Through its Member Secretary, Paribesh Bhawan, A/118, Nilakantha Nagar, Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar - 751012 .... Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 24.03.2025 Date of uploading: 28.03.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, Adv. (in Virtual Mode) For Respondent(s) : Ms. Amrita Pandey, Adv. for R-1 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Mansi Bachani, Adv. and Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Adv. (in Virtual Mode) for R-2, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv. for R-4, 2 ORDER
1. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant seeking quashing of the Environmental Clearance dated 05.05.2022 granted to the Respondent No.2, M/s Vedanta Limited for expansion of Aluminium Smelter Production Capacity from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA.
2. Mr. Rahul Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing at the time admission on 17.08.2022 stated that relief of quashing in respect of the (Captive Power Plant) CPP Capacity of 1215 Mega Watts (MW) to the Respondent No.2, M/s Vedanta Limited is not being sought and may be dismissed as withdrawn. We, therefore, permit the learned Counsel to withdraw this part of the relief with regard to Captive Power Plant (CPP) and dismiss this appeal so far as the relief regarding the Captive Power Plant (CPP) is concerned.
3. On the question of limitation with regard to the condonation of delay of 39 days, the matter was heard and the Tribunal by its order dated 27.09.2022 had dismissed the Appeal as being barred by limitation.
4. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9216/2022, Satyanarayan Rao vs. Union of India & Ors., and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 18.08.2023 set aside the order of the Tribunal directing that the application for condonation of delay being I.A.No.186/2022/EZ in Appeal No.24/2022 will be treated allowed, and the delay in filing of the Appeal before the NGT condoned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter, directed the parties to appear before the NGT. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.08.2023 reads as under:-3
"ORDER The impugned judgment/order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata in Appeal No. 24 of 2022/EZ dismissed the application for condonation of delay preferred by the appellant - Satyanarayan Rao.
It is an accepted and admitted position that under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010, an appeal is to be filed within a period of thirty days. However, the NGT can condone the delay up to the period of sixty days on sufficient cause being shown.
We have examined the reasons given by the appellant - Satyanarayan Rao for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before the NGT. The Environment Clearance was granted on 05.05.2022. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant - Satyanarayan Rao did not have the copy of the said order granting EC to respondent No. 2 - M/s Vedanata Limited which he had obtained after moving an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Thereafter, the appellant - Satyanarayan Rao had engaged advocate(s) for preparing the appeal and the appeal was filed within the condonable period of sixty days.
In view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable, as it has taken hyper-technical view of the matter and has not appreciated that the appellant, who is an individual, had faced difficulty in procuring information and details including the certified copy of the order granting EC. After procuring the documents, he had to take professional help to file an appeal. A realistic rather than strict and legalistic approach is required to be taken.
Recording the aforesaid, the impugned judgment/order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The application for condonation of delay being I.A. No. 186/2022/EZ in Appeal 4 No. 24 of 2022/EZ will be treated allowed, and the delay in the filing of the appeal before the NGT condoned. There would be no order as to costs.
We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
To cut short the delay, parties are directed to appear before the NGT on 05.09.2023, when a date of hearing will be fixed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
5. The allegation of the Appellant is that the Expert Appraisal Committee ('EAC' for short) appraised the Project in its 2nd meeting on 22nd - 23rd, March, 2022 and recommended the Project for grant of Environmental Clearance for expansion, without considering that there were various non-compliances by the Project Proponent and the Environmental Clearance was granted without proper application of mind or verifying the facts with respect to the past compliances. It is alleged that the EAC also failed to apply its mind with respect to the fact that the EIA Report on the basis of which Public Hearing was conducted was of poor quality and the EAC itself observed that the Report intentionally tried to mislead the EAC. It is also alleged that the EAC and the MoEF&CC failed to take into consideration the proceedings before the Tribunal in O.A. No.10/2021 wherein Reports were submitted with respect to violation by the Project Proponent causing damage to the land and the environment.
6. The Appellant is stated to be a President of an organization known as 'Anchalik Paribesh Surakhya Sangha Samiti' which is said to be working on the protection and conservation of forest and 5 environment and working with local communities. It is stated that the Appellant has also participated in the Public Hearing of the Project. It is stated that the Aluminium Refinery Project of the Respondent No.2, M/s Vedanta Limited, is located at Bhurkamunda, Jharsuguda District in Odisha; the said Project has proposed for expansion of its production capacity from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA without increasing the Captive Power Plant capacity of 1215 MW; it is stated that the expansion facility is proposed in the existing project area of 834.236 Ha. of land; as per the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, the Project is listed at schedule no.3 (a) Metallurgical Industries under Category 'A'. It is further stated that the proposed Project of the Aluminium Smelter was issued Terms of Reference (ToR) by letter dated 20.12.2017 for preparation of Environment Impact Assessment ('EIA' for short) Report; it is alleged that the ToR wrongly recorded at Serial No.13 that there is no violation under EIA Notification to the Project or related activity. It is stated that a Public Hearing for expansion of Aluminium Smelter Plant was held on 30.09.2020 at the Government Upper Primary School, Kurebaga, Dalki in Jharsuguda District of Odisha.; Public Hearing was conducted on the basis of an EIA Report which was not the same document on the basis of which the Project was approved; vide notice dated 27.08.2020, the public was informed about availability of the EIA Report at different offices but the EIA Report was faulty and was not the one on the basis of which Environmental Clearance was granted.
7. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Public Hearing dated 30.09.2020, Annexure A/3 (page no.52-69 of the paper book) has also been filed. It is stated that the proposal of Respondent No.2 for 6 expansion of Aluminium Smelter production capacity from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA was considered for appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee in its meeting on 22nd - 23rd March, 2022; it is also stated that this meeting was considering the Project of the Respondent No.2 against the online application dated 03.11.2021 which was submitted along with the revised EIA/EMP (Environment Management Plan) Report along with Form-2 seeking Environmental Clearance. It is stated that Public Hearing was held on 30.09.2020 prior to submission of the application by the Project Proponent; EAC has also recorded in its meeting that the Respondent No.2 made an online application dated 29.12.2020 but the EAC in its meeting held on 18th - 20th January, 2021 recommended to return the proposal as the consultant had drafted a poor EIA/EMP Report and had intentionally tried to mislead the EAC. It is alleged that the EAC has recorded several violations and non-compliances of the earlier Environmental Clearance letter dated 11.06.2008 and also recorded about the pollution caused to the land and environment but it still proceeded to grant Environmental Clearance to the Project.
8. The principal grievance and contention of the Appellant in assailing the Environmental Clearance dated 05.05.2022 is that the EAC failed to consider the necessity of a fresh Public Hearing/Consultation on the basis of the Revised EIA Report. The contention of Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Respondent No.2 had made an online application dated 29.12.2020 along with EIA/EMP Report; EAC in its Minutes of the Meeting held on 18th - 20th January, 2021 had clearly recorded that the consultant had drafted EIA/EMP Report 7 intentionally to mislead the EAC and warned the Respondent No.2 not to mislead the Committee and, thereafter, returned the proposal; it is stated that another proposal was made on 03.08.2021 which was also rejected. Learned Counsel submitted that the proposal on the basis of which Environmental Clearance was granted was submitted on 03.011.2021 along with revised EIA/EMP Report and Form-2 and, therefore, the EAC should have asked the Project Proponent to go for fresh Public Hearing when the new EIA Report was made. Learned Counsel also submitted that the perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 22nd - 23rd March, 2022 would itself show that the EAC did not consider the fact that a fresh Public Hearing had not been conducted after submission of the Revised EIA Report before recommending the Project for grant of Environmental Clearance. He submitted that as per the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, submission of false and misleading information is itself a ground for rejection of the proposal and the EAC could not have directed for a revised EIA to be submitted without undergoing the process of public consultation. Reference has been made to Paragrah-8 (vi) of the EIA Notification which reads as under:-
"Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. Rejection of an application on cancellation of a prior environmental clearance already granted, on such ground, shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles of natural justice."8
9. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the several non-compliances by the Respondent No.2 as recorded by the EAC not only with respect to the Environmental Clearance granted earlier but also other violations with respect to dumping of fly ash and polluting the area. Reference has also been made to Para-2.15.19 of the EAC meeting held on 12th - 13th August, 2021 which is as under:-
"2.15.19 The proposal cited above was considered by the EAC in its meeting held on 12th - 13th August, 2021. Wherein, EAC recommended to return the proposal in its present from and also recommended for issuance of show cause notice to PP on account of following non-compliances to the prescribed EC conditions.
"i. The fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant is presently at 10.78 Kg/T AI, which is not in compliance to Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) guideline. Fluoride consumption shall be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 kg/t.
ii. Utilization of spent pot lining waste by the cement and steel industries are yet to be implemented.
iii. Project proponent has only achieved green belt development in 27% of the total area as against the 33% requirement.
iv. Rain water harvesting has not been carried out at the site by stating that the ground water table is high in the area and establishment of rain water harvesting structures may lead to flooding in the area.
v. Prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project has been obtained till date.9
vi. Significant quantity of legacy ash stocks is still stored in the ash pond located at three different locations in the vicinity of the project site. No effort has been taken to quantify the legacy ash stocks and utilize the same.
vii. Secured Land Fill (SLF) is provided inside the smelter complex. SLF is being implemented in two phases. Phase I of 5000 m3 capacity started in 2010 was capped in Sep 2013. Phase II of SLF is now in operation. It started in May 2014 and has 5285m3 space. No details of the material filled in SLF or the capacity available were provided. No information on plan for post expansion of SLF capacity, once the Phase II site is filled shall be furnished.
viii. There are three ash ponds sites in operation and PP has proposed to acquire large area for ash disposal in spite of new Fly Ash notification to utilize 100% ash. Further, PP mentioned that they were utilizing 100% Fly ash since 2018 and the pond ash shall be liquidated in next five years. In view of this seeking additional land for ash disposal found to be not justifiable."
Learned Counsel submitted that on the basis of its observations, the EAC returned the proposal of the Respondent No.2.
10. Learned Counsel, however, submitted that the Project Proponent made another proposal dated 03.11.2021 for expansion of the Project; EAC meeting held on 11.12.2021 again recorded serious issues with respect to pollution caused by the Project Proponent and also about concealment of vital information. Reference has been made to the observations of the EAC in Para 2.15.24 which read as under:-
"2.15.24 ii. EAC noted that the public representation mentioned at para 2.5.8 quoted a NGT court case (O.A.10/2021/EZ) National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone 10 Bench, Kolkata. The case is arising out of disposal of fly ash in the nearby agricultural land by the proponent causing damaging on the agricultural land. As per the Hon'ble NGT order dated 02/09/2021, the inspection report filed by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board shows several violations of Consent conditions. In this regard, the Hon'ble NGT directed to file an affidavit inter-alia the Environmental Compensation assessed on account of damage caused to the environment.
iii. PP did not provide the information of said court case in Form 2 application and also did not disclose during the presentation. EAC opined to seek an explanation from PP in this regard.
v. Show Cause Notice was issued to the unit 01/09/2021 and as per the reply furnished, the unit is yet to comply with the following. Further, MoEF&CC is yet to take final view on the SCN issued to the unit.
a. current fluoride emission is at 10.78 kg/T AI production and sought time till December 2021 to achieve reduced level.
b. SPL refractory stock is 85,108 MT which is being stored in covered sheds as there is no mechanism in place for disposal of SLP refractory stock.
c. Ash stock of 124 Lakh Metric Ton is utilized and sought additional time for its liquidation by 31/03/2027.
d. Only one Roof Top Rainwater Harvesting (RTRW) has been commissioned and 6-RTRH, the construction activities are reported to be under progress.
e. Green belt development covering 33% of the project area will be achieved by Dec, 2021."
11. Learned Counsel submitted that the EAC has accepted the response of the Project Proponent with regard to disposal of fly ash 11 in the nearby agricultural field causing damage to the agricultural land merely accepting the response of the Project Proponent without verifying the facts on the ground.
12. Allegations of encroachment upon forest land by the Project Proponent and dumping of ash on the forest land has also been made and it is alleged that the Project Proponent has encroached more than 48.68 acres of forest land without any forest diversion from the MoEF&CC and an Encroachment Case No. 158 of 2013 was also filed before the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha, by the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda on 04.04.2013 against the Project Proponent and an eviction order was passed on 03.09.2013 but no action has been taken and eviction order has not been carried out. It is alleged that the Collector had granted permission for filling up ash over the land in question even though dumping of ash is a non-forest use of the forest land and attracts the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The order of the Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 23.03.2019 (Annexure A-6, page no.115 of the paper book) mentions that a patch of Ac. 48.68 dec. was utilized by Respondent No.2 for dumping of fly ash and not Ac. 246.74 dec. as alleged; a case was instituted against the Company but eviction has not been done as per provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 and on the other hand, the Collector had granted permission for filling up the ash in the land in question which is Kisam Jungle. Accordingly, directions were issued by the Government to the Collector, Jharsuguda, to withdraw the permission granted to the Respondent No.2 vide his 12 letter dated 21.07.2011 for filling up fly ash over Plot No.188 of Mouza Bhurkamunda with immediate effect and evict the Company from the entire forest land within a month; Government dues like penalty, assessment and fine will be collected from the Company as per the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 and assessment of damage caused by the dumping of ash be carried out and same be recovered from the Company within six months.
13. Further, documents appended with the Memo of Appeal show that an amount of Rs.17,67,680/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty- Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only) was assessed against the Respondent No.2 and a requisition for recovery of the said amount has also been also issued in respect of Encroachment Case No.158 of 2013 pm 25.03.2022. It is alleged that till date the said amount has not been deposited by the Respondent No.2 as per orders issued in O.P.D.R. Case No.01 of 2022 filed against the Respondent No.2 under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 for recovery of the amount of Rs.19,67,680/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only).
14. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha further submitted that an examination report dated 27.10.2021 was submitted by the Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC stating that the Respondent No.2, Project Proponent, has only achieved Green Belt development in 27% of the total area as against the 33% requirement. It was observed that the Project Proponent had carried out plantation of 3,32,893 saplings planted over an area of 46.24 Ha. within the industrial complex and around the ash pond. Although he also submitted that the Appellant has illegally constructed 8 blocks of S+9 storied 13 residential apartments name "Nagavalli" in the greenbelt area for which no permission has been obtained from the Jharsuguda Regional Improvement Trust (JRIT) for the said construction as required under Section 33 (1) of the Orissa Town Planning & Improvement Trust Act, 1956 and, therefore, the entire construction is unauthorized.
15. Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Mansi Bachani, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has, refuting the allegations made in the Appeal as well as the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that there has been no violation committed by the Respondent No.2, Project Proponent, and that there is no provision under the EIA Notification, 2006 for providing a second opportunity of Public Hearing. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the MoEF&CC OM dated 11.04.2022 which mentions that in expansion cases fresh Public Hearing is not required. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Environmental Clearance was issued on 05.05.2022 on the basis of the revised EIA Report and, therefore, the OM of 11.04.2022 would be applicable in the present case.
16. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
17. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned Counsel for the Appellant principally contended, referring to the first EAC Report that Terms of Reference for the proposed Project of the Aluminium Smelter of the Respondent No.2 were issued vide letter dated 20.12.2017 for preparation of EIA Report. Public Hearing was held on 30.09.2020. It is not disputed that the Appellant on his own showing and admission in the Memo of Appeal, participated in the said Public 14 Hearing. Learned Counsel submitted that since during that period COVID-19 was raging over the country, therefore, COVID-19 protocol should have been maintained and instead in the Public Hearing about 100 people were allowed to participate in gross violation of the Guidelines of the MoEF&CC, Government of India, O.M. F. No.22-25/2020-IA.III dated 14.09.2020. The facts would however be clear from the letter of the Odisha State Pollution Control Board dated 06.11.2020 (page no.57 of the paper book) which mentions that the Board had issued public notices on 27.08.2020 for conducting Public Hearing which was published in the Newspapers "The Samaj" (in Odia Language) and "The Times of India" (in English) on 28.08.2020. However, in the meantime Writ Petition (C) No.24789/2020, Subrat Bhoi vs. State of Odisha & Ors., was filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Odisha at Cuttack wherein an order was passed on 29.09.2020 that Public Hearing pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.08.2020 scheduled to be held on 30.09.2020 shall not be held till the next date. The letter shows that the Respondent No.2 approached the Hon'ble High Court of Odisha and the Hon'ble High Court partially modified the aforesaid order on 30.09.2020 to the effect that the Odisha State Pollution Control Barod may continue with the Public Hearing but no final decision shall be taken till the next date and the Petitioner may participate in the Public Hearing if so advised and thereafter, the Public Hearing was held on 30.09.2020 at 04.30 PM after receiving the order of the Hon'ble High Court at about 04.20 PM. The letter mentions that the said Writ Petition was finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Odisha on 09.10.2020 permitting the petitioner and another to make a representation before the 15 Collector, Jharsuguda with reference to their grievance regarding Public Hearing.
18. The proceedings of the Public Hearing have been filed at page no.60 'colly' of the paper book, which mentions that in response to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions & precautions, sitting arrangement at meeting place with social distancing was made up to 100, and seven waiting sheds near the venue had been made to accommodate more number of public duly maintaining social distancing. At the cost of repetition, we may note that the Appellant on his own admission had participated in the Public Hearing held on 30.09.2020. The proceedings of the meeting show that 221 persons attended the Public Hearing whereas 62 persons express their views; about 153 written representations were received; the list of persons who have participated in the Public Hearing and express their views is at page nos.64 to 69 of the paper book which is as under:-
THE STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATED IN THE DELIBERATION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT GOVT. UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KUREBAGA, JHARSUGUDA AT 4.30 PM ON 30.09.2020.
The views expressed by various speakers present in the meeting are as follows:
1. Smt. Santoshini Naik, Kurebaga Village:
She said that she welcomed the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and local employment should be given in the expansion.
2. Smt. Arati Seth, Kurebaga Village:
She stated that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd and raised a question to Vedanta Ltd. that it will established near the Kurebaa village and no inconvenience should be done to them.16
3. Smt. Nisha Naik, Kurebaga Village:
She said that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd and local employment should be given in the expansion as per the eligibility of the local people.
4. Smt. Minati Naik, Kurebaga Village:
She thanked the district administration for conducting a large meeting during covid-19 time. She has no objection in the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. but raised the issues that Vedanta Ltd. has to address the various problems of the affected people. She also stated that land loser will lose the land which has not be finished after cultivation generation after generation, so Vedanta Ltd. has to take care. The gas emitted by Vedanta Ltd. has damaged cultivation. Hence, she requested Vedanta Ltd to provide compensation & job generation wise to land losers.
5. Smt. Kumuduni Naik, Kurebaga Village:
She said that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA and development in this area was happened due to Vedanta Ltd and they hope that it will be so in the future. Further she urged that Vedanta should address the unemployment issue of this locality & Vedanta Ltd. has to focus on the protection of the environment.
6. Smt. Mounabati Bag, Katikela GP:
She thanked the authority of Vedanta for supporting various women empowerment programme (Subha Laxmi SHG). She welcomed the project expansion & local employment was to be given in the expansion as per the eligibility of the local people.
7. Sri. Dillip Pandey, Dalki GP:
He welcomed all & supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd and raised the issues like local employment, water supply & street light facility.
8. Smt. Sangita Naik, Kurebaga Village:17
She said that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and local employment was to be given in the expansion as per the eligibility of the local people.
9. Smt. Usharani Naik, Kurebaga Village:
She stated that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and local employment was to be given in the expansion to the local people.
10. Smt. Alladini Dila, Samiti Member, Dalki GP:
She welcomed all & supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and opined that the authority of Vedanta should take care all the affected people (both land looser & other poor people).
11. Smt. Sabita Mirig, Banjari Village:
She said that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and due to Vedanta Ltd. overall development has been possible in nearby all villages. Further she urged to provide permanent employment for local people.
12. Smt. Saila Ranbida, Kurebaga Village:
She appealed to provide employment for poor local people.
13. Smt. Kunti Kharsel, Kurebaga Village:
She said that the authority of Vedanta supported various women empowerment programme (Subha Laxmi SHG). Further she said local employment was to be given in the expansion for the local youth.
14. Smt. Suchitra Sohela, Kurebaga Village:
She said local employment was to be given in the expansion for the local people.
15. Smt. Anita Sahoo, Sarpanch, Katlkela GP:
She welcomed all & supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd and said that they will be benefitted by the expansion. Again she thanked authority of Vedanta for development like education, health and transport facilities. She urged to provide employment for local people & peripheral development through CSR activities.18
16. Sri Pratap Nanda, Ex-Councillor, Jharsuguda Municipality:
He fully supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd and requested Vedanta Ltd. to cooperate in the development of Jharsuguda.
17. Sri Benugopal Panigrahi, Ex-Councillor, Jharsuguda Municipality:
He said that they have been displaced & affected by Vedanta Ltd. he opined that Vedanta Ltd is the financial back bone of Jharsuguda & with the expansion of Vedanta, Jharsuguda will develop. He proposed to form a committee with local leader & Govt. Officials to address various environmental issues & other issues like local employment through mutual discussion. Lastly he supported the expansion of the project.
18. Shri Sailendra Mohanty, Kalimandir:
He supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and said that local employment has to be given. They should develop along with Vedanta Expansion and requested to address pollution issue and periphery development in the villages like Kurebaga, Kalki & Banzari etc.
19. Sri Raghumani Patel, H. Kantapali, Ex-President of Jharsuguda Advocate Association:
He said that development of Jharsuguda had happened due to establishment of Vedanta Ltd. Good or bad is two sides of everything. Vedanta Ltd. has contributed to CSR fund & street light facilities at Jharsuguda and development of roads in Laikera, Kolabira & other places of Jharsuguda have ben done from CSR fund. Local employment shall be given as per eligibility of local after training by Vedanta. At last, he supported the expansion of Vedanta.
20. Sri Rabi Singh, Ward No.-7, Jharsuguda Municipality:
He agreed with views of the previous speaker and stressed upon the issues like environment protection & local employment as per the eligibility of local etc. 19
21. Smt. Mamta Dhurua, Katikela Village:
She said that their development like health, employment road transport etc. has been possible due to establishment of Vedanta Ltd. Further she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and urged to provide employment for local youth.
22. Smt. Labanga Patel, Kurebaga Village:
She said that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd and she urged to provide employment for local people.
23. Smt. Surama Naik, KurebagaVillage:
She stated that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and she urged to provide employment for local people.
24. Smt. Anita Sandha, Sarpanch,Badmal GP:
She said that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and she requested the authorities of Vedanta Ltd. to focus in the development of nearby villages through CSR activities.
25. Smt. Laxmi Badi, Zila Parisad Member, Jharsuguda:
She stated that she supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and she urged to provide employment for local people.
26. Sri Digamber Bhoi, Block Chairmen, Jharsuguda:
He welcomed all & supported the expansion project. Further he apprehended that due to this expansion project overall development of the locality like education, health, road transport, drinking water & employment will be possible through CSR activities.
27. Sri Pramod Kumar Tripathy, Badmal Village:
He said that he supported the expansion of Vedanta Ltd. and she requested the authorities to Vedanta Ltd. to focus in the development of Brundamal Village.
28. Sri Rabindra Rohidas, Brundamal Village:
He said that eight-ten villages around the Vedanta has developed. He demanded that jobs have to be provided to the 20 local contractors along with employment to local youth. He was happy with development of Vedanta.
29. Sri Ganesh Bhinsa, Ex. PS Member, Banjari Village:
He said that he welcomed Vedanta Ltd. from the beginning. He raised questions to Vedanta Authority that Vedanta has avoided local people for employment and local contractors do not have proper profile for 4 crore jobs etc. and giving employment to outside state people. He requested to address the issues relating to local contractors along with employment to local youth.
30. Shri Suresh Jaipuri, Brundamal Village:
He said that Vedanta has done development oof the area but there were small big issues along with establishment of the factory. He hoped that if it will be expanded, it can solve the issues. At last, he supported the expansion of Vedanta.
31. Sri Pramod Rohidas, Brundamal Village:
He thanked Vedanta for providing health facilities in villages and always stands with convenience & inconvenience of the villages. Further he said that they always cooperate with Vedanta and supported the Vedanta Expansion.
32. Sri Nrupalal Nayak, Kurebaga Village:
He said that Vedanta had been taking land in different phases since 1997 and they are facing different problems & losing their peace of mind for money. He demanded that Vedanta Ltd should provide employment to next generations, old age allowance & bonus for farmers. House, land etc. had become dusty and paddy cultivation & vegetable cultivation had got damaged due to the gas emitted by M/s Vedanta Ltd. Further he stated that he did not agree with the views of previous speakers regarding development and asked to go & see status of Bhagipali, Burkhamunda villagers. Next generation will question them that why they had taken money & given birth to them. He also raised a question regarding local employment status and demanded bond agreement for local employment. He requested Vedanta to provide boundary related to nallah, 21 Vedanta taken his land but Vedanta could not hear him. He raised the various issues relating to contractual employment & occupational disease.
33. Sri Hiralal Bag, Sarpanch, Sripura GP:
He stressed upon avenue plantation from Badmal village and massive plantation is a solution for protection of environment against pollution.
34. Smt. Kishori Naik, Kurebaga Village:
She told that they were good & also in bad condition due to Vedanta and most people were in bad condition. During initial survey, there were issues relating to land procurement. She again raised various issues relating to local employment, contractual employment, dust & fume & land issues etc. Lastly, she commented that they will die but will not give land to Vedanta Ltd. and did not know about the machine to be installed in the expansion. She apprehended that several issues will arise due to this expansion.
35. Sri Sundar Pradhan, Katikela Village:
He said that economical development was happened in their village like very house had vehicle and welcomed the Vedanta expansion.
36. Sri Dillip Majhi, Katikela Vilalge:
He stated that living standard has been improved due to establishment of the Vedanta. He fully supported the proposed expansion of Vedanta and hope that Vedanta authority should focus local employment, income, road transport and education etc.
37. Smt. Sarojini Patel, Purunabasti, Jharsuguda:
She told that this is not the time for public hearing due to this pandemic Covid-19. So she opposed to the meeting and said that it should take place after two months.
38. Smt. Parbati Rohidas, Burkhamunda Village: 22
She said that they have given land to Vedanta and their children were employed in Vedanta. Vedant should expand and their children will earn livelihood.
39. Sri Umashankar Dihiria, Burkhamunda village:
He welcomed the capacity expansion of Vedanta and told that there is remarkable difference in development before & after establishment of Vedanta. Local employment was given and peripheral development has happened through CSR fund. He hope that it will better in the expansion of Vedanta.
40. Sri Manas Roy, Sarbahal, Jharsuguda:
Direct & indirect benefit has been possible due to Vedanta like from house rent to pan shop etc. if expansion will be done, then people will get more benefit.
41. Sri Bharat Rout, Buromal, Jharsuguda:
He supported the expansion of Vedanta and raised the various issues of local employment. Further he told that in actual case, employment has not been given to local people. Being a B. TECH degree holder, he had not been employed till date. Vedanta has not given employment to the people from local institutions like L.N. college, Women's College & ITI Institution; rather Vedanta has taken people from Sundargarh & G. M. University, Sambalpur.
42. Sri Uttam Sunani, Siriapali Village:
He welcomed and fully supported the expansion of Vedanta. He also told that economic development has been possible due to establishment of industry. Further he demanded employment & contracts for land losers in priority basis.
43. Smt. Satyabati Padhan, Katikela Village:
She told that they were earning livelihood from Vedanta and Vedanta has been giving employment as per eligibility. So, she supported the expansion of Vedanta.
44. Smt. Padmini Seth, Katikela Village:
She said that they are in good condition due to Vedanta company and welcome the expansion.23
45. Smt. Jayakanti Bhoi, Katikela:
She stated that they have given land to Vedanta and no repent for that, but Vedanta should look after their happiness.
46. Shri Trinath Gual, Advocate, Jharsuguda:
He told that Vedanta should obey the environment laws and stop deforestation. He requested environment department to look after the issue. He said that people have been suffering from various diseases of live & kidney etc. so he demanded Vedanta to establish medical college for treatment of poor people going outside. He also raised various issues relating to local employment, contracts to local people and stop employment of outside people etc.
47. Sri Sarojini Sunani, Kurebaga Village:
She said that no employment was given by Vedanta as promised to the land looser. Employment should be also given to all the displaced people even though they have no recorded land. Job should be given to the uneducated people too. Further she demanded allowance to the poor & land less people.
48. Sri Rabin Pandey, Debadihi Village:
He said that they were happy with the Vedanta expansion and hope that employment will be given to educated mass.
49. Smt. Shantilata Sahu, Katikela Village:
She welcomed the expansion of Vedanta.
50. Sri Alok Chandra Tripathy, Advocate, Jharsuguda:
He supported the expansion of Vedanta and demanded local employment.
51. Sri Asish Tripathy, Kurebaga:
He stated that educated students of locality are remaining unemployed and being neglected. He welcomed expansion of Vedanta and demanded local employment as per educational qualifications like ITI, B.Tech, Diploma etc. 24
52. Sri Dileswar Nayak, Kurebaga:
He welcomed expansion of Vedanta and stress upon education, training, skill development and placement of local youth. Further he demanded overall development of local villages and compensation for crop loss due to gas emitted by Vedanta.
53. Sri Hemsagar Pradhan, Patrapali Village:
He told that development was going on only in Jharsuguda town & municipality area by Vedanta Ltd. as Vedanta has to be expanded, so he demanded that development of villages around 10 km radius with street light, road transport, water supply facility along with a medical college.
54. Sri Mithun Padhan, Katikela:
He supported the expansion of Vedanta and hope for local employment in the expansion.
55. Sri Rabindra Padhan, Katikela:
He raised various issues relating to road dust problem faced by cycle & bike riders during transportation ash from Katikela ash pond.
56. Sri Surendra Mirig, Banjari:
He said that they have been welcoming Vedanta and welcomed Vedanta. He demanded that Vedanta should provide education, employment & protect environment. Local employment should be given as per educational qualification & eligibility and for protection of environment, ten numbers of trees shall be planted for one tree.
57. Sri Birendra Behera, Banjari:
He welcomed the expansion of Vedanta and hope for local employment in the expansion.
58. Sri Lokanath Rohidas, Banjari:
He said that they have been welcoming Vedanta and welcomed Vedanta. He fully supported the expansion of 25 Vedanta and hope for development of the locality along with Vedanta Ltd.
59. Sri Jogeswaar Rohidas, Banjari:
He demanded education for local children, English medium school for better education and local employment.
60. Sri Ramakant Ghugar, Siriapali:
He said that they always co-operate with Vedant and requested Vedant to given local employment to the land looser of Tharkimal and Siriapali area as per their qualification.
61. Sri Chandra Sekhar Singh, Siriapali:
He supported the expansion of Vedanta and requested for local employment, periphery development of village.
62. Sri Srikanta Mohanty, Purunabasti, Jharsuguda:
He said that local students as well as students from other places got employment due to commencement of M/s Vedanta Ltd. Hence, Vedanta should expansion and supported the expansion of Vedanta."
19. This list does not contained name of the Appellant and it is not even his case that he had expressed his opinion during the Public Hearing but the same was not recorded. In the Memo of Appeal also he has not stated anywhere that he had submitted a representation and the same was not considered.
20. The Respondent No.1, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, in its affidavit dated 15.09.2022 has confirmed that the Project Proponent submitted an online application vide proposal dated 03.11.2017 in the prescribed format (Form-I), pre-
feasibility report and proposed ToRs for undertaking EIA study as per the EIA Notification, 2006 for Aluminium Smelter (from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA); Captive Power Plant (1215 MW) by adding 2 LTPA smelter plant, District Jharsuguda, Odisha for prescribing 26 Terms of Reference for the expansion Project. It is stated that the proposal was considered by the EAC (Industry-I) held on 11th - 13th December, 2017 for prescribing ToRs for undertaking detailed EIA/EMP study and after due deliberation the EAC recommended to issue ToR and prescribed the specific and standard ToR. It is also stated that thereafter, the Project Proponent made an online application vide proposal dated 03.11.2021 along with copy of EIA/EMP report and Form-2 and sought Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006. However, it is further stated that the Public Hearing was conducted on 30.09.2020 presided by the Additional District Magistrate, Jharsuguda; the EAC deliberated the Action Plan along with budget on issues raised during the Public Hearing and accordingly, EAC stipulated specific conditions with respect to implementation of the Action Plan; the EAC was deliberated the certified compliance report of Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC and Action Taken Report submitted by the Project Proponent, Public Hearing issues as well as the action plan to address the issues raised. It is stated that the proposal has been considered by the EAC (Industry-I) held on 11th - 12th November, 2021 and further, reconsidered the proposal in it meeting held on 16th -17.12.2021. It is also stated that the EAC (Industry-I) after detailed deliberations, has recommended the instant proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance in its meeting held on 22nd - 23rd March, 2022 as per EIA Notification, 2006 subject to the stipulation of specific conditions and general conditions and based on the recommendations of the EAC, Environmental Clearance has been granted to the Project Proponent vide letter dated 05.05.2022. 27
21. Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for the Project Proponent submitted that the Appellant has constantly and continuously tried to stall the expansion project of the Respondent No.2, Project Proponent, by filing various Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court. Learned Counsel submitted that W.P. (C) No.24669/2020 was filed by the Anchalik Paribesh Surakhya Sangh, Jharsuguda, Appellant herein, in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation seeking to defer the Public Hearing fixed under the Pollution Control Board Notice dated 27.08.2020 on various allegations including that due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic most of the people of the locality may not be able to file their objections/suggestions and may not participate in the Public Hearing thereby frustrating the very purpose of Public Hearing contemplated in the EIA Notification, 2006. We, however, find that the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 28.09.2020 dismissed the Writ Petition with the observation that the petitioner as well as all the interested public at large may give their objections/suggestions/views not only at the time of Public Hearing but at any time within 30 days from the date of the said notice in writing. Paragraphs-8 and 9 of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court dated 28.09.2020 reads as under:-
"8. Again, the impugned notice has been issued on 27.08.2020 inviting objections within 30 days and fixing 30.09.2020 as the date of open public hearing, but the petitioner has filed this writ petition much belatedly on 24.09.2020 and further before completion of 30 days period of holding of such public hearing with an apprehension that public may not participate in the meeting, which cannot be well-founded. It is open for the petitioner as well as all the interested public at large to give their 28 objections/suggestions/views not only at the time of public hearing but at any time within 30 days from the date of said notice in writing.
9. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to accept the stands taken by the petitioner and to interfere in the matter. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."
22. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that another Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 24789/2020 with I.A. No.11476/2020 was filed assailing the advertisement dated 27.08.2020 issued by the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha for conducting a Public Hearing on 30.09.2020 alleging that the said notice of Public Hearing is in violation of the order No.5039/R&DM (DM) dated 31.08.2020 issued by the Special Relief Commission, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar. In this Writ Petition, an order was passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court of Orissa on 30.09.2020 observing that in partial modification to the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in I.A. No.11105/2020 Public Hearing pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.08.2020 issued by the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, may continue but no final decision shall be taken till the next date; the petitioners, if so advised may participate in the Public Hearing. Paragraph-14 of the said order reads as under:-
"14. In partial modification to the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in IA No.11105 of 2020, it is directed that the public hearing pursuant to advertisement dated 27.08.2020 under Annexure-1 issued by the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha may continue, but no final decision shall be taken till the next date. Petitioners, if so advised may participate in the public hearing."29
23. The W.P. (C) No.24789/2020 with I.A. No.11476/2020 was finally disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack vide judgment and order dated 09.10.2020. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner therein was that only 90 persons had participated in the Public Hearing held on 30.09.2020 which cannot be said to be a substantial representation of villagers of five revenue villages having a population of more than ten thousand and therefore, there was no effective 'Public Hearing'. The Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition and I.A., directed that if that be so, then the petitioners may make a representation to the Collector, Jharsuguda within a period of three days i.e. 12.10.2020 who shall consider the same and pass necessary order thereon in consultation with the stakeholders, if necessary by taking steps to hold another 'Public Hearing'. Paragraphs-10 and 11 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge read as under:-
"10. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only 90 persons have participated in the public hearing held on 30.09.2020 pursuant to order dated 30.09.2020 passed in IA No.11476 of 2020, which cannot be said to be a substantial representation of villagers of five revenue villages having population of more than then thousand and there was no effective 'public hearing' at all. However, there is no material available before this Court to test the veracity of the same. If that be so, then petitioners may make a representation to the opposite part No.2-Collector, Jharsuguda within a period of three days hence, i.e., by 12.10.2020 who shall consider the same and pass necessary orders thereon in consultation with the stakeholders, if necessary, by taking steps to hold another 'public hearing' pursuant to notice under Annexure-1.30
11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition as well as IA No.11105 of 2020 and IA No.11476 of 2020 are disposed of."
24. It is stated that the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 09.10.2020 was challenged in Special Leave to Appeal No.5140/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 26.07.2021 as there was an alternative remedy before the Division Bench of the High Court.
25. The order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 09.10.2020 was thereafter challenged by the petitioners before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. No.711/2021, Subrat Bhoi, Jharsuguda and Another vs. State of Odisha and Others, but the said writ appeal was unconditionally withdrawn by the Petitioners/Appellants therein. The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 10.01.2022 reads as under:-
"ORDER (Oral) 10.01.2022
1. Though this matter was not in today's list, on being mentioned, the same was taken up.
2. This matter is taken up through virtual mode.
3. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 24789 of 2020 along with I. A No. 11476 of 2020, whereby the writ petition along with I.A. were disposed of, with the liberty granted to the Petitioners/Appellants to make a representation to the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 2- Collector, Jharsuguda within three days i.e. by 12.10.2020, who was thereupon to take a decision, whether to hold a fresh public hearing in respect of the proposed expansion of 31 the output capacity of an existing Aluminium Smelter Plant from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA.
4. Upon notice of the present appeal, the Respondents have put their appearance.
5. Now both the Appellants i.e. Subrat Bhoi & Tejraj Kumura have, through their counsel, moved I.A. Nos. 2390 of 2021 and 2401 of 2021 along with their affidavits, seeking an unconditional withdrawal of the present appeal. Counsels for the respondents have no objection.
6. In view of the content of the aforesaid I.As., the present appeal is disposed of as withdrawn.
7. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No. 4587, dated 25th March, 2020, modified by Notice No. 4798, dated 15th April 2021, and Court's Office Order circulated vide Memo No. 514 and 515 dated 7th January, 2022."
26. We also find that on 10.01.2022, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa passed another order in W.P. (C) (PIL) No.24790/2020, P. Ram Mohan Rao, Jharsuguda vs. Union of India & Others, wherein it was observed that the petitioner therein has stated that the writ petition had become infructuous since the Public Hearing under challenge had already been held on 30.10.2020 (sic 30.09.2020) and the withdrawal Memo dated 10.01.2022 filed by the writ petition was accepted and the writ petitioners was disposed of as withdrawn. The order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack reads as under:-
32
"ORDER (Oral) 10.01.2022
1. Though this matter was not in today's list, on being mentioned, the same was taken up.
2. This matter is taken up through virtual mode.
3. The present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (in short 'the PIL') has been filed by the Petitioner, who is an Ex-Councillor of Jharsuguda Municipality, claiming to be an environmental activist, against the proposed expansion of Aluminium Smelter Plant of Vedanta Limited from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA at Bhurkamunda under Jharsuguda District.
4. At the outset, counsel for the Petitioner states that the present writ petition has become infructuous as the impugned public hearing to be conducted by the Pollution Control Board, has since been held on 30.10.2020. Withdrawal Memo dated 10.01.2022 has been filed for withdrawing the writ petition, which be kept on record.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
6. Thus, it is clear that there is no legal impediment for the competent authority, to proceed in accordance with law.
7. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No. 4587, dated 25th March, 2020, modified by Notice No. 4798, dated 15th April 2021, and Court's Office Order circulated vide Memo No. 514 and 515 dated 7th January, 2022."33
27. The Respondent No.2 in its response has stated that after the matter was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court directing the Collector to take a decision on the representation, the Collector on 18.10.2020 considered the representation of the members of the village community and held that the Public Hearing conducted on 30.09.2020 was smooth and complete which document has been by the Appellant as well as by the Respondent No.2.
28. The stand of the Respondent No.2 is that the Project Proponent had setup an Aluminium Smelting Complex at Bharkhamunda village, Sripura Tehsil, District Jharsuguda, Odisha for 2.5 LTPA with a Captive Power Plant of 675 MW in the year 2007 with requisite statutory clearances including Environmental Clearances dated 07.03.2007 and 14.03.2007. It is stated that these Environmental Clearances were never put to challenge by the present Appellant or anyone else; no forest land was involved in the said establishment and has been noted as such in the Environmental Clearances granted; subsequently, the Unit expanded to 16 LTPA of Aluminium Smelter and a Captive Power Plant of 1350 MW in pursuance of Environmental Clearance dated 11.06.2008. It is pointedly stated that the composite Environmental Clearance was never challenged by the present Appellant or by anyone else. It is stated that due to increase in demand, the Project Proponent applied for Environmental Clearance on 24.10.2017 for further expansion of the Aluminium Smelter Plant from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA; the Terms of Reference for the said expansion were granted on 20.12.2017; after a detailed scrutiny of the compliances undertaken by the Project Proponent with Terms of Reference and conditions imposed by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) 34 during its appraisal meetings, the Environmental Clearance was granted to the Respondent No.2 on 05.05.2022 as per EIA Notification, 2006.
29. The specific contention of the Respondent No.2 is that though the Appellant has stated that it participated in the Public Hearing but the minutes of the hearing as already noted hereinabove, do not record the objection of the Appellant or his organisation nor does it even mention their participation in the Public Hearing.
30. It is further stated that post Public Hearing the Project Proponent submitted the documents along with EIA Report and Form-II on 28.11.2020 and the Environmental Consultant of the Project Proponent presented the same before the Expert Appraisal Committee on 19.01.2021; it is stated that the EAC noted certain deficiencies in the EIA Report prepared by the Consultant of the Project Proponent and directed the Respondent No.2 to revise their Report based on the observations and recommendations noted in the 28th EAC Meeting dated 19.01.2021. It is also stated that the revised EIA Report was submitted to the Expert Appraisal Committee on 03.08.2021 for their consideration.
31. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that after the revised EIA Report was submitted no Public Hearing was held and therefore, the Environmental Clearance in the absence of Public Hearing was absolutely illegal and in violation of the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006.
32. In response to the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for the Project Proponent submitted that MoEF&CC had in the meantime issue O.M. dated 11.04.2022 (page no.952 of the paper book) which 35 specifically dealt with grant of Environmental Clearance under Para 7 (ii) of EIA Notification, 2006 for expansion up to 50%, within the existing premises/mine lease area, without additional land acquisition. A perusal of the said O.M. issued by the MoEF&CC, Government of India dated 11.04.2022 in cases of grant of Environmental Clearance for expansion up to 50% within the existing premises/mine lease area under the Heading Requirement of fresh Public Consultation clearly mentions 'No' meaning thereby that no fresh Public Consultation is required. The O.M. dated 11.04.2022 reads as under:-
"F.No. IA3-22/10/2022-IA.III [E 177258] Government of India Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (IA Division) Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi - 110003 Dated: 11th April, 2022 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Guidelines for granting Environmental Clearance (EC) under para 7(ii)(a) of EIA Notification, 2006 for expansion up to 50%, within the existing premises/mine lease area, without additional land acquisition - reg."
Expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the EIA notification 2006 entailing capacity addition with change in process or technology and/or product mix shall be undertaken only after obtaining prior Environmental Clearance (EC).
2. Para 7(ii) of EIA Notification 2006, inter-alia provides that:
a. Projects seeking prior EC for expansion with increase in the production capacity beyond the capacity for which prior 36 environmental clearance was granted [with increase in lease area or production capacity in mining projects] shall be considered by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee [or SEAC, as the case may be] to decide whether Environment Impact Assessment and public consultations need to be carried out for grant of EC.
b. Expansion of existing projects [listed in item numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schedule having Prior Environmental Clearance] with no increase in pollution load shall be exempt from the requirement of prior EC (derived on the basis of such prior EC).
c. Any change in configuration of the plant or activity from the EC conditions during execution of the project, shall not require prior EC, if there is no change in production capacity and there is no increase in pollution load.
3. The Ministry has been continuously making efforts to streamline the procedure for projects seeking prior Environmental Clearance (EC) under the different provisions of para 7(ii) of the EIA Notification 2006. Vide O.M. No. J11015/ 224/ 2015-IA.II(M) dated 15.09.2017, the Ministry provided certain guidelines for expansion of Coal mining projects up to 40% capacity in two-three phases subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, vide OM No. IA3-22/23/2021-IA.III [E167077] dated 20.10.2021, the Ministry also issued guidelines for expansion of Iron, Manganese, Bauxite and Limestone mining projects upto 20% capacity, subject to certain conditions.
4. The aforesaid matters have been further examined in the Ministry with the objective of bringing about uniformity and consistency in consideration of projects under Para 7(ii)(a) by concerned Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC)/ State level EACs across all states. Accordingly, the Ministry deems it necessary to issue a guideline to deal with expansion proposals which are received under para 7(ii)(a) of EIA Notification, 2006 in respect of the developmental projects listed in the Schedule to the said notification seeking prior-EC involving expansion with increase in 37 production capacity within the existing premises/ mine lease area; or expansion due to modernization of an existing unit through change in process and or technology or involving a change in the product-mix; or enhancement of cargo handling capacity in ports 86 harbors, widening of roads; or enhancement in built-up area, subject to the fulfilment of the following criteria:
i. The project should have gone through the public hearing process, at least once, for its existing EC capacity on which expansion is being sought, except those category of projects which have been exempted as per para 7 III (i) of EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments.
ii. There should not be change in Category of the project from 'B2' to 'B 1' or 'A' due to proposed modernisation or expansion.
iii. There is no additional land acquisition or forest land diversion involved for the proposed expansion or there is no increase in lease area with regard to mining vis-a-vis the area mentioned in the EC, based on which public hearing has been held earlier.
iv. The proposed expansion shall not be more than 50% of production capacity as mentioned in the prior EC, issued on the basis of public hearing held and the same shall be allowed in minimum three phases.
v. Predicted environmental quality parameters arising out of proposed expansion/modernization shall be within the prescribed norms and the same shall be maintained as per prescribed norms.
vi. The proposed expansion should not result in reduction in the greenbelt area as stipulated in the earlier EC, or if the existing ratio of greenbelt is more than 33%, after expansion it should not reduce below 33%.38
vii. The project proponent should have satisfactorily complied the conditions stipulated in the existing EC(s) and satisfactorily fulfilled all the commitments made during the earlier public hearing/ consultation proceedings and also the commitments given while granting previous expansion, as may be applicable. This shall be duly recorded in the certified compliance report issued by the IRO/CPCB/SPCB, which should not be more than one year old at the time of submission of application.
viii. Public Consultation shall be undertaken [if applicable as per table below] by obtaining response in writing, as per para 7 III (ii) (b) of EIA Notification 2006, except those category of projects which have been exempted as per para 7 III (i) of EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments.
ix. Effluent monitoring including air quality monitoring systems as specified in the existing EC, if stipulated, should have been installed.
5.Subject to the fulfilment of the conditions at Para 4 (i) to (viii) above, following procedure shall be adopted for processing the application for considering expansion of proposed project up to 50% of capacity as mentioned in the existing EC, in minimum three phases under para 7(ii)(a) of EIA Notification, 2006.
Scenario Intended Requirement Requirement Requirement Whether
change of revised of Certified of fresh reference
through EIA/EMP Compliance Public to
modernization/ Report Consultation Appraisal
change of Committee
product mix/ is
expansion required
I Projects which Yes Yes No Yes
involve
modernization/
change of
product mix
without increase
in production
capacity but with
increase in
39
pollution load.
II Up to 20 percent Yes Yes No Yes
based on
environmental
safeguards
conditions.
III Up to 40 percent Yes Yes No Yes
based on
successful
compliance of
previous
environmental
safeguard
conditions
related to
expansion of 20
percent.
IV More than 40 Yes Yes Yes Yes
percent but less
than 50 percent
based on
successful
compliance of
previous
environmental
safeguard
conditions
related to
expansion of 40
percent.
6. Project Proponent shall apply in the requisite form on the PARIVESH Portal under para 7(ii) of EIA Notification 2006, along with EIA/ EMP reports based on standard ToRs and Public consultation report, if applicable. The concerned EAC/SEAC shall appraise the project proposal and it may prescribe additional sector specific and/or other environmental safeguards after due diligence, as required.
7. Other statutory requirements like Consent to Establish/Operate, Clearance from CGWA, approval of Mining Plan, Mine Closure Plan, Mine Closure Status Report, approval of DGMS, Forest Clearance, Wildlife Clearance, etc., if applicable, are to be satisfactorily fulfilled at the time of application.
40
8. The projects that do not qualify with the above requirement shall continue to be considered on a case-to-case basis by the concerned EAC/SEAC as per the provisions of para 7(ii)(a) who will decide whether Environment Impact Assessment and public consultations need to be carried out.
9. Those projects which involve modernization/change of product mix with increase in production capacity shall be considered as per Scenarios-II to IV of the table above.
10. This O.M. is issued in supersession of OM J-11015/224/2015-IA.II (M) dated 15.09.2017 and O.M. No. IA3-22/23/2021-IA.III[E167077] dated 20.10.2021 and with the approval of the Competent Authority."
33. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the revised EIA Report was submitted by the Respondent No.2, Project Proponent, on 03.08.2021 on which date the O.M. dated 11.04.2022 was not in existence and that date there was no exemption from Public Hearing after submission of the Revised EIA Report. However, from the documents on record, we find that the Revised EIA Report was submitted to the EAC on 03.08.2021 which was considered by the EAC in its MoM of 42nd Meeting of the Re-constituted EAC (Industry-I) held on 12th - 13th August, 2021 after which certain non-compliances to the existing Environmental Clearance conditions were noted in Para-42.7.18 and 42.7.19, after the deliberations, the Committee in Para-42.7.20 recommended that Show Cause Notice be issued to the Project Proponent for not complying with the conditions prescribed in the EC letter dated 11.06.2008 and proposal be returned in its present form and the same be considered by the EAC after compliance of the existing EC conditions has been achieved by the Project Proponent. The non-compliance noted by the EAC in Para-42.7.18, 41 Para-42.7.19 and Para-42.7.20 and the recommendations are as under:-
"Certified Compliance report from Regional Office 42.7.18 The status of compliance of existing EC was obtained from Integrated Regional Office (IRO), Bhubaneswar vide letter no.101-405/EPE/1620 dated 24/12/2020. As per the report, following are the non-compliances to the EC conditions.
i. the fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant is presently at 10.78 Kg/T A1, which is not in compliance to Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) guideline. Fluoride consumption shall be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 kg/t.
ii. Utilization of spent pot lining waste by the cement and steel industries are yet to be implemented.
iii. Project proponent has only achieved green belt development in 27% of the total area as against the 33% requirement.
iv. Rain water harvesting has not been carried out at the site by stating that the ground water table is high in the area and establishment of rain water harvesting structures may lead to flooding in the area.
v. Prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project has been obtained till date.
vi. All the recommendation stated in the Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection with respect to Aluminium sector is yet to be complied by the proponent.
Observations of the Committee 42.7.19 The Committee observed the following:
i. The 16 LTPA smelter with 1215 MW CPP is in operation since 2008. The 2400 MW coal based TPP established through separate EC adjacent to the smelter complex is in operation since 2010.42
ii. No tangible effort has been taken by the proponent to comply with the following EC conditions even after the lapse of 13 years of operation.
The fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant is presently at 10.78 Kg/T A1, which is not in compliance to Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) guideline. Fluoride consumption shall be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 kg/t.
Utilization of spent pot lining waste by the cement and steel industries are yet to be implemented.
Project proponent has only achieved green belt development in 27% of the total area as against the 33% requirement. Rain water harvesting has not been carried out at the site by stating that the ground water table is high in the area and establishment of rain water harvesting structures may lead to flooding in the area.
Prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project has been obtained till date. In addition to the above, PP also yet to comply with the following:
Significant quantity of legacy ash stocks is still stored in the ash pond located at three different locations in the vicinity of the project site. No effort has been taken to quantify the legacy ash stocks and utilize the same.
SLF is provided inside the smelter complex. SLF is being implemented in two phases. Phase I of 5000 m3 capacity started in 2010 was capped in Sept 2013. Phase II of SLF is ow in operation. It started in May 2014 and has 5285 m3 space. No details of the material filled in SLF or the capacity available were provided. No information on plan for post expansion of SLF capacity, once the Phase II site is filled shall be furnished.
There are three ash pond sites I operation and PP has proposed to acquire large area for ash disposal in spite of new 43 Fly Ash notification to utilize 100% ash. Further, PP mentioned that they were utilizing 100% ash since 2018 and the pond ash shall be liquidated in next five years. In view of this, seeking additional and for ash disposal found to be no justifiable.
iii. Kharkhari Nala passes in between the boundary of smelter-1 and smelter-2 and joins Bheden River towards southwest of plant premises. The HFL of Kharkhari Nala is 192.5m, above mean sea level near confluence of Kharkhari Nala with Bheden river and as per the hydrogeology study conducted, the site comes under no risk zone as the elevation at plant site ranges between 198-216 m above mean sea level.
iv. Plantation all along the periphery of the project site is hardly visible from the KML file and photographs made available by the proponent.
v. EMP cost of 77.3 Cr for a CAPEX of 1240 Cr in Aluminium Smelter is far less (6.2%) than the World benchmarks of 15-20% of CAPEX on Environment Management.
vi. Performance monitoring of Pollution Control Devices is not included in monitoring schedule.
vii. EMP budged in Table 8.25 is generic and not monitorable. The table shall be resubmitted.
viii. Mitigation measures given in Table 10.2 are generic and not quantified. The 6.2% of CPEX cost towards mitigation measures seems to be adhoc as stated in the document.
ix. Baseline data collected by the consultant organizations (M/s Vimta Labs and M/s Global tech are not comparable.
x. As per Ministry's O.M. No.J-11015/286/2007-IA.II(I) dated 07/02/2020, any specific non-compliance singled out while the project is being appraised by the EAC, the concerned sector shall issue Show Cause Notice 44 Recommendations of the Committee 42.7.20 In view of the foregoing and after detailed deliberations, the Committee recommended the following:
i. Show Cause Notice shall be issued to the proponent for not complying with the conditions prescribed in the EC letter dated 11/06/2008.
ii. Proposal to be returned in its present form and the same would be considered by the EAC after the compliance to the existing EC conditions has been achieved by the Project Proponent."
34. In pursuance of the recommendations of the EAC, we find that a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 on 01.09.2021, page nos.642-644, pointing out the deficiencies noted by the EAC in compliance of the EC conditions of the EC dated 11.06.2008 and why the same be not revoked. The Show Cause Notice reads as under:-
"F. No.J-11011/29/2007-1A.II(1) 'Government of India Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Impact Assessment Division) Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jor Bagh Road, Aligang, New Delhi - 110003 E-mail:[email protected] Tel:011-24695304 Dated 1st September, 2021 To Shri Deepak Prasad, COO-Metal, M/s Vedanta Limited, Village-Bhurkamunda, PO Kalimandir, District-Jharsuguda, Orissa - 768202, Tel: 06645-666634: E-mail: [email protected] Sub: Aluminium Smelter (from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA): CPP (1215 MW) by adding 2 LTPA plant by M/s. Vedanta Limited located at Village Bhurkamunda, P.O. Kalimandir, District-Jharsuguda, Odisha - Show cause Notice (SCN) issued under section 5 of the Environment 45 (Protection) Act, 1986 for violation of provisions of EIA Notification 2006 -reg.
Sir, Whereas Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change (MoEF&CC) vide letter no. J-11011/29/2007-IA II (1) dated 11th June 2008 accorded Environmental Clearance (EC) to M/s Vedanta Limited (herein after referred to as Project Proponent] for the project titled "Expansion of Aluminium Smelter (2.5 to 16 LTPA) and Captive Power Plant (675 MW to 1350 MW) at Bhurkamunda/Brundamal, Jharsuguda, Odisha by M/s. Vedanta Aluminium Limited" under the provisions of EIA Notification 20065.
2. Whereas, the project proponent vide proposal no.1A/OR/IND/70259/2017 dated 03/11/2017 made online application along with the application in prescribed format (Form-1), copy of pre-feasibility report and proposed ToRs for undertaking detailed EIA study as per the EIA Notification, 2006 for the project titled "Aluminium Smelter (from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA): CPP (1215 MW) by adding 2 LTPA plant by M/s. Vedanta Limited located at Village Bhurkamunda, P.O. Kalimandir, District Jharsuguda, Odisha."
3. Whereas, based on the recommendations of the Reconstituted Expert Appraisal Committee (REAC) (Industry-I), this Ministry granted ToR to the expansion proposal cited above vide letter of even no. dated 20.12.2017 to the project proponent.
4. Whereas, the Regional Office of the MoEF&CC at Bhubaneswar vide letter no.101-405/EPE/1620 dated 24.12.2020 furnished the certified compliance report with respect to the conditions prescribed in the EC dated 11/06/2008. As per said report, the project proponent is yet to comply with the following conditions:
i. The fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant is presently at 10.78 Kg/T A1, which is not in compliance to 46 Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment protection (CREP) guideline. Fluoride consumption shall be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 kg/t.
ii. Utilization of spent pot lining waste by the cement and steel industries are yet to be implemented.
iii. Project proponent has only achieved green belt development in 27% of the total area as against the 33% requirement.
iv. Rain water harvesting has not been carried out at the site by stating that the ground water table is high in the area and establishment of rain water harvesting structures may lead to flooding in the area.
v. Prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project has been obtained till date.
vi. All the recommendation stated in the Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection with respect to Aluminium sector is yet to be complied by the proponent.
5. Whereas, the project proponent vide proposal no.1A/OR/IND/222980/2017 dated 03/08/2021 made online application along with copy of EIA/EMP report, Form-2 and certified compliance report of Regional Office dated 24/12/2020 seeking EC under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 for the expansion proposal mentioned above.
6. Whereas, the expansion proposal cited above was considered during the 42nd meeting of the Re-constituted EAC (Industry-1) held on 12-13th August, 2021 and the REAC Committee recommended the following:
i. Show Cause Notice shall be issued to the proponent for not complying with the following EC conditions prescribed in the EC letter dated 1/06/2008 as stated below:47
The fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant is presently at 10.78 Kg/T A1, which is not in compliance to Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) guideline. Fluoride consumption shall be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 kg/t.
Utilization of spent pot lining waste by the cement and steel industries are yet to be implemented.
Project proponent has only achieved green belt development in 27% of the total area as against the 33% requirement. Rain water harvesting has not been carried out at the site by stating that the ground water table is high in the area and establishment of rain water harvesting structures may lead to flooding in the area.
Prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project has been obtained till date. In addition to the above, PP also yet to comply with the following:
Significant quantity of legacy ash stocks is still stored in the ash pond located at three different locations in the vicinity of the project site. No effort has been taken to quantify the legacy ash stocks and utilize the same.
Secured Land Fill (SLF) is provided inside the smelter complex. SLF is being implemented in two phases. Phase I of 5000 m3 capacity started in 2010 was capped in Sept 2013. Phase II of SLF is now in operation. It started in May 2014 and has 5285 m3 space. No details of the material filled in SLF or the capacity available were provided. No information on plan for post expansion of SLF capacity, once the Phase II site is filled shall be furnished.
There are three ash ponds sites in operation and Pp has proposed to acquire large area for ash disposal in spite of new Fly Ash notification to utilize 100% ash. Further, PP mentioned that they were utilizing 100% Fly ash since 2018 48 and the pond ash shall be liquidated in next five years. In view of this, seeking additional land for ash disposal found to be not justifiable.
ii. Proposal to be returned in its present form and the same would be considered by EAC after the compliance to the existing EC conditions has been achieved by the Project Proponent.
7. Whereas, as per the Ministry's O.M. No.J-
11015/286/2007-1A.II(1) dated 07/02/2020, any specific non- compliance is singled out while the project is being apprised by the EAC, the concerned sector shall issue Show Cause Notice (SCN) or take any other necessary action, as appropriate.
8. Whereas serious non-compliances of the stipulated environmental conditions mandate commensurate action: and
9. Now, therefore, under Section '5' of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, you are hereby directed to show cause within 30 days of receipt of this notice as to why the EC and ToR accorded to M/s. Vedanta Limited vide letter no.J- 11011/29/2007-1A.II(1) dated 11/06/2008 and 20/12/2017 should not be revoked. In your response, it may also be clearly stated whether a hearing is required by the project proponent before a final order is passed by this Ministry. It may also be noted that if no response is received within 30 days, appropriate orders, as may be deemed fit, will be passed and issued under the circumstances of the case without any further notice to you. Also, this show cause is without prejudice to any other legal action which may be taken against you.
10. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
Yours Faithfully, (Sundar Ramanathan) Scientist 'E' 49
35. We further find from the documents on record that the Respondent No.2 submitted its reply to the Show Cause Notice vide its reply letter dated 29.06.2021, page no.645-653 of the paper book. The Show Cause Notice dated 01.09.2021 and reply thereto dated 29.09.2021 are extracted herein below and read as under:-
VL/MoEF/006/2021-027 September 29, 2021.
To The Scientist 'E', Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (Impact Assessment Division- I) 2nd Floor, Vayu wing Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi -- 110 003 Sub.: Reply to the Show-Cause Notice dated 1st September 2021.
Ref.: 1) Show Cause Notice dated 1st September, 2021 (Bearing Ref. No. F. No. J-11011/29/2007-IA.11(1) issued by MoEF&CC, New Delhi.
2) Our Earlier Letter no. VL/MoEF/006/2021-024 dated 26.08.2021 regarding submission of Action Plan.
3) Minutes of Meeting dated 25.08.2021 of the 42nd meeting of REAC held on 13th August 2021.
4) Examination of Reply No. 101-405/EPE/91 dated 18th January 2021 issued by the Eastern Regional Office, Bhubaneshwar of the MoEF&CC.
5) Our Action Taken Report submitted to Regional Office, MoEF&CC vide Letter No. VL/Mo EF/006/2021-001 dated 05.01.2021.
6) Terms of Reference (TORs) accorded by MoEF&CC vide Letter No. F.No. J11011/29/2007-IA-11(1)) dated 20.12.2017 to Vedanta Ltd.
7) EC No. J-11011/29/2007-IA. 11(1) dated 11.06.2008
8) EC No. J-11011/144/2006-1A.11(1) dated 07-03-2007 Respected Sir, We are in receipt of the Show Cause Notice dated 1st September, 2021 bearing Ref. No. F. No. J-11011/29/2007-1A.11(I) issued 50 by the Impact Assessment Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India. under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
It is humbly submitted that we are committed to the best Environment Management Systems including Air, Water and Solid Waste Management. We have adopted the Vedanta Sustainability Framework (VSF) comprising of best environment practices as is being followed by leading Natural Resources Companies in India and abroad. Our e Environment Management, Energy Conservation and Sustainability practices have been recognized by the Government and also by the various trade bodies/associations. We have also laid down procedures and standard operating practices regarding Water, Air and Waste Management in line with international standards in our Integrated Management Systems (IMS) comprising of ISO 9001 (Quality Management System), ISO 14001 (Environment Management System) and OHSAS 18001 (Occupational Health and Safety Assessment System).
It is also submitted that we have embarked on sustainability journey more than a decade ago and as a part of overall design and framework, we recognize Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) as an important pillar that guides our business decisions. We aim not only to be ESG compliant but aspire to become an Industry leader in having sustainable operations and governance. ESG is our organization's biggest priority, and we wish to make this a foundation for all our decision making effectively embedding it into our DNA. As a socially responsible entity, we have endeavoured to promote living standards and cultural development and several initiatives have been implemented to bring about a tangible positive difference in the spheres of health, education, livelihood, infrastructure, women empowerment, sports, and culture. The outreach of the various programs has benefited over 69 villages from 3 blocks of District Jharsuguda. In 51 addition to our contributions to economy through our products and services, we have also contributed an amount of Rs.8489 Crores to the State and Central exchequer during the past 3 financial years. Moreover, the Company has an overall employment impact on around 16,000 people with 4,000 direct employees and around 12,000 contractual employees. Out of the same, around 5195 persons have been employed from Jharsuguda and local affected villages and more than 90% of our unskilled workforce is from Odisha. We have also awarded around 200 contracts to local people amounting to a value of Rs. 503 Crores.
We have submitted detailed response on the observations made by REAC on 26.08.2021, vide Letter bearing Ref. No. VL/MoEF/006/2021-024 along with a detailed time-bound action plan for redressal of the non-compliance. In view of the specific concerns and issues pointed out in the Show Cause Notice, and the directions under Para 9 thereof, we are hereby submitting following para wise reply and also seeking an opportunity of a personal hearing before a final order is passed by the Ministry:
1. The fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant is presently at 10.78 Kg/T Al, which is not in compliance to Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) guideline. Fluoride consumption shall be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 kg/T. Response:
Over the last three years, we have reduced our specific fluoride consumption from 12.26 to 10.78 Kg/T AI. We are currently achieving Specific Fluoride consumption of less than 9 Kg/T Al in 4 out of 6 Potlines by improving operational efficiency, bath temperature control, optimized thermal modelling and improved pot redressing practices.52
In addition to this, we have already commenced the following 2 projects and work is under implementation to bring down the overall fluoride consumption to less than 10 Kg/T Al across 6 potlines. (Target Completion -- August 2022) A. Smart Pot implementation through GE.
B. Development of latest pot controller, 1st time in India by LMRC, Auckland, New Zealand.
It is important to mention that the proposed expansion of 66 pots is aimed at modernizing the technology used in the potline and include the abovementioned Smart Pot and Pot Controller technology. This addition of 66 pots will in turn bring down the fluoride consumption and also the pollution load per ton of metal produced.
Further, we are also in advanced stages of discussion with our OEM regarding revamping of one Fume Treatment Plant (FTP) on a trial basis to reduce AIF3 consumption for which the contract will be placed by 25th October 2021. Consequently, the revamping of other FTPs shall be taken up based on the successful completion of the aforementioned trial.
2. Utilization of spent pot lining waste by the cement and steel industries are yet to be implemented. Response:
Spent Pot Lining (SPL) consists of 2 parts - SPL Carbon and SPL Refractory. At present, we have a stock of around 40,000 MT of SPL Carbon and have already awarded a contract for disposal of 40000 MT of SPL Carbon to M/s Green Energy Resources which is the only authorized re-processor for SPL Carbon in the State of Odisha. Around 10270 MT of SPL Carbon has already been disposed till date. Moreover, disposal has been stepped up in last the 2 months at the average rate of 2000 MT per month against current generation of 53 1500 MT per month. It is further being expedited for faster disposal and utilization.
For SPL Refractory, there is no such approved disposal methodology and we have received permission to store it in covered sheds till an approved disposal mechanism is in place. M/s Ramky TSDF is conducting one such trial for disposal of SPL Refractory part pursuant to obtaining trial run permission from Odisha State Pollution Control Board.
Furthermore, as per the Minutes of Meeting of the 20th Technical Expert Committee of the CPCB held in July 2020 for "Evaluation of proposal for utilization hazardous and other wastes as per the Hazardous and Other Waste (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (HOWM Rules, 2016)", it has been clarified that SPL from Aluminium Smelters for co- processing in cement industries shall be carried out as per CPCB "Guidelines for pre-processing and co-processing of hazardous and other waste in cement plant. In reference to the aforementioned clarification, we sought permission from the OSPCB on 08.03.2021 for disposal of SPL to Cement Plants. However, the OSPCB vide Letter No. 6620 dated 26.04.2021 has denied permission for sending SPL to cement plants citing reason that our industry has not been authorized to dispose Carbon/ Refractory portion of SPL in cement plant by this board for co-processing. We are actively pursuing the matter with the OSPCB for obtaining permission in this regard. We are also pursuing this issue through industry associations as all Aluminium Smelters are suffering from the same issue.
We have tied up with Ambuja Cements, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh for disposal of 5,000 MT of SPL for coprocessing and order is in place, while we are awaiting the permission from OSPCB for the same. It must also be noted that Cement Plants in Odisha are yet to receive authorization for co-processing of SPL. We are independently and collectively engaging with Cement Plants to obtain authorization for utilization of SPL. It is humbly submitted that the disposal rate of SPL shall substantially increase once the authorization is granted.54
We have also sought an in-principal approval from OSPCB vide letter dated 22.09.2021 for setting up of SPL treatment facility in our plant premises by M/s Green Mac Technologies, Raipur as per approved procedure of CPCB for detoxification and further utilization by cement and steel industries.
3. Project proponent has only achieved green belt development in 27% of the tote/ area as against the 33% requirement.
Response:
We have achieved 27% Green Plantation comprising of 3,64,267 trees within our premises over 229 Ha out of required 275 Ha. Additional plantation of 3,50,000 nos. of saplings is being executed at the site for which we have sourced saplings from the Odisha Forest Department. Till date, we have received a supply of 1,65,720 Saplings from the Forest Department out of which about 1,60,895 saplings have already been planted. Few photographs of the recent plantation is enclosed herewith as Annexure D). Balance 1,89,105 saplings will be planted by 15th November 2021. Additionally, a contract has also been placed for care and maintenance of the abovementioned plantations to achieve and sustain more than 95% survival rate. It is further to be noted that we are planting local species i.e. neem, karanj, sissoo, Bakul, Phasi, Kadam, Arjun, Bela, Alstonia, Mahaneem, Jamun. Etc.
4. Rainwater harvesting has not been carried out at the site by stating that the ground water table is high in the area and establishment of rainwater harvesting structures may lead to flooding in the area.
Response:
It is humbly submitted that we have already commissioned one rooftop rain-water harvesting facility which is in operation since March 2021 and the water collected is being 55 treated and reused in the process. Furthermore, we are constructing additional 6 nos. of rooftop rain-water harvesting facilities vide Purchase Order (PO) No. 5600001928 dated 26.08.2021 & 5600001932 dated 01.09.2021, of which 3 nos. of rainwater harvesting facilities will be completed by 30th October 2021 and the balance 3 facilities will be completed by 30th November 2021. A schematic diagram of the rooftop rain-water harvesting facility is annexed herewith as Annexure E.
5. Prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project has been obtained till date.
Response:
The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha has approved the site-specific wildlife conservation plan on 30.04.2021 with a financial forecast of Rs. 610.894 lakhs to be spent for implementation by the Forest Department for this plan.
Accordingly, as per the demand raised by the District Forest Officer, Jharsuguda, an amount of Rs. 530.904 lakhs have been deposited on 17.05.2021 towards implementation of the abovementioned plan over a period of 10 years. The plan is under implementation by office of DFO.
6. Significant quantity of legacy ash stocks is still stored in the ash pond located at three different locations in the vicinity of the project site. No effort has been taken to quantify the legacy ash stocks and utilize the same.
Response:
We have been achieving an average of 115% Fly Ash utilization over the past 3 financial years wherein 37 Lakh MT of Legacy Ash has also been utilized along with current generation. Around 127 Lakh MT of Legacy Ash is stored in the Ash ponds located at Kurebaga, Katikela 56 and Siriapalli, for which the utilization is targeted to be completed within next 6 years in phased manner with more than 100% ash utilization including current generation.
For FY 2021-22, we will be utilizing around 120 Lakh MT ash against the expected annual generation of 90 Lakh MT in different avenues such as;
a. Cement Plants - 2.5 LMT
b. Brick manufacturing - 1.2 LMT
c. Infra projects - 2.5 LMT
d. Mine filling - 20.0 LMT
e. Reclamation of Low-lying area - 93.8 LMT
It is to be noted that we have already identified the low-lying areas for reclamation with ash and have been granted the requisite permissions/consents from OSPCB for the same. Simultaneously, we are continuously following up with MCL and OSPCB to grant us permission to fill up their Mines void at Brajarajnagar, Odisha which is at a distance of 30 km away from our plant premises.
7. SLF is provided inside the smelter complex. SLF is being implemented in two phases. Phase I of 5000 m3 capacity started in 2010 was capped in Sept 2013. Phase 11 of SLF is now in operation. It started in May 2014 and has 5285 m3 space. No details of the material filled in SLF or the capacity available were provided. No information on plan for post expansion of SLF capacity once the Phase 11 site is filled shall be furnished. Response:
The secured landfill (SLF) has been implemented at our site in 2 phases. Phase 1 of the SLF was majorly filled with Spent Pot Lining (SPL) which got exhausted in September 2013 and was subsequently capped.
We have disposed around 2063.709 MT of hazardous waste in SLF Phase 2 from 2014 onwards till March 2021. The details of the same are as follows:
57
Details of Hazardous Wastes Disposed to SLF Hazardous UO 2020- 2019- 2018- 2017- 2016- 2015- 2014-
Wastes M 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 SPL (Cathode MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residue) ETP Sludge MT 0 0 0 0 0 27.443 28.500 Housekeeping MT 69.450 315.10 230.05 Waste 0 0 0 339.60 Rejected Filter MT 0 0 0 0 0 Bags 0 0 Rejected AIF3 MT 0 0 0 0 Bags 0 0 0 Coke Dust MT 0 0 0 0 218.29 95.000 0.000 Spent Resin MT 0.722 12.547 2.162 0 0.024 1.349 15.958 Shot Blasting MT 0 0 0 0 7.990 234.23 161.00 Dust Drain Cleaning MT 0 0 0 0 173.04 51.303 79.500 Sludge Ladle cleaning MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.450 residue Total Quantity MT 0.722 12.547 2.162 69.450 714.446 639.374 625.008
However, we have stopped sending SPL to SLF from 2104 onwards and the same is being stored under covered sheds for disposal to the authorized re-processors. Similarly, other hazardous wastes such as ETP Sludge, Housekeeping Waste, Drain Cleaning Sludge, Shot Blasting Dust are being sent to Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) operated by M/s Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd at Sukinda, Dist -- Jajpur, Odisha.
At present, only a small quantity of hazardous waste such as Spent Resin is being sent to the SLF Phase 2. The present SLF Phase 2 has sufficient capacity to cater to the requirement of the current project and hence no further expansion of the SLF is required as most of the hazardous wastes are being sent to the Common Hazardous Waste TSDF operated by M/s Ramky at Sukinda.
8. There are three ash ponds sites in operation and PP has proposed to acquire large area for ash disposal in spite of new Fly Ash notification to utilize 100 % ash. 58 Further, PP mentioned that they were utilizing 100 % Fly ash since 2018 and the pond ash shall be liquidated in next five years. In view of this, seeking additional land for ash disposal found to be not justifiable.
Response:
We are not proposing for any new land parcel as Ash Pond as we are currently achieving more than 100 % ash utilization. Further, there is no expansion with respect to power plant capacities in the current expansion proposal. We have proposed a 100 MW Solar power project at the earmarked land parcel of Gudigaon for generating green energy and reducing our carbon footprint.
Apart from above, we are also proposing to close Kurebaga Ash Pond -1 by the end of Financial Year 2021-22 and reclaim the same with plantation to reduce the ash pond area, increase the green belt cover and reduce the burden of legacy ash.
Conclusion We conclude by firstly stating that the Show Cause Notice has been issued without taking into account two critical documents which should have been duly considered, namely
a) The Examination of Reply of the Regional Office of the Ministry dated 18.01.2021; and b) Our Letter dated 26.08.2021 responding to the observations made in the 42' EAC Meeting and apprising the Ministry of the remedies adopted by us to effectively comply with the conditions of the EC Conditions. It is requested that the MoEF&CC considers the expedited actions undertaken by us and the representations made which evidence the firm commitment by us to ensure compliance.
Secondly, in view of the aforesaid response, we humbly state that we have endeavoured to take tangible efforts to substantially comply with the EC conditions which have been 59 adumbrated in the Show Cause Notice. In fact, the Monitoring Report of the Regional Officer of the Ministry, had inter alia noted that many of the conditions of the previous applicable EC were being complied with and/or partially complied. We would like to reiterate that Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda has taken necessary steps for ensuring compliances, incurring huge Capex and Opex to the quantum of Rs. 1,259 Crs in the last five years. Through our sustained efforts and cohesive operational scrutiny, we are certain that we are diligently examining and complying with the environmental norms which are applicable on us vide the EC and the TOR, ensuring that there is no laxity on our part. We humbly request you to re-consider the above-mentioned time bound action plan for redressal of compliances which are being scrupulously adhered by us and kindly cessate from taking any further coercive steps in this regard. We once again re-assure and re-iterate our commitment on zero tolerance towards non- compliances and addressing the same within the time frame as submitted.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly requested that the Show Cause Notice dated 1st September 2021 issued under Section 5 of the Act may kindly be withdrawn and there be cessation of any further coercive action against us.
Request for Hearing: We also request that an opportunity for personal hearing before the concerned authorities be granted to validate our submissions and produce any additional document/information to establish our case before any final order is passed by the Ministry.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Vedanta Limited"
60
36. A perusal of the Show Cause Notice with regard to the non-
compliances noted in the EAC held on 12-13.08.2021 with regard to fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant notes that at present it is 10.78 Kg/T AI, it is not in compliance to charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) Guideline and should be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 Kg/T. The response of the Project Proponent in its reply dated 29.09.2021 on the said issue is that over the last three years the Project Proponent has reduced its fluoride consumption from 12.26 to 10.78 Kg/T AI and at present the Project Proponent is achieving specific fluoride consumption of less than 9 Kg/T AI in 4 out of 6 Potlines by improving operational efficiency, bath temperature control, optimized thermal modelling and improved pot redressing practices. The stand of the Project Proponent further is that the proposed expansion of 66 pots is aimed at modernizing the technology used in the potline and include the abovementioned Smart Pot and Port Controller Technology which in turn will bring down the fluoride consumption and also the pollution load per ton of metal produced.
37. With regard to next query regarding utilization of spent potline waste by the cement and steel industries yet to be implemented, the response of the Project Proponent is that the Spent Pot Lining consists of 2 parts - SPL Carbon and SPL Refractory and the Project Proponent at present has a stock of around 40,000 MT of SPL Carbon and has already awarded contract for disposal of 40,000 MT of SPL Carbon to M/s Green Energy Resources which is the only authorized re-processor for SPL Carbon in the State of Odisha and around 10270 MT of SPL Carbon has already been 61 disposed of till date and disposal has been stepped up in the last two months at an average rate of 2000 MT per month against current generation of 1500 MT per month.
38. In the same context, it is also mentioned that in the MoM of the 20th Technical Expert Committee of the CPCB held in July, 2020, it has been clarified that SPL from Aluminium Smeltes for co-
processing in cement industries shall be carried out as per CPCB Guidelines; the Project Proponent sought permission from the Odisha State Pollution Control Board on 08.03.2021 for disposal of SPL to cement plants but the Odisha State Pollution Control Board vide its letter dated 26.04.2021 denied permission for sending SPL to cement plants.
39. With regard to the issue of Green Belt development in 27% of the total area as against 33% requirement, the response of the Project Proponent is that it has achieved 27% Green Belt plantation comprising of 3,64,267 trees within its premises over 229 Ha. out of the required 275 Ha.; additional plantation 3,50,000 saplings is being executed at the site for which saplings have been sourced from the Odisha Forest Department and till date, it has received a supply of 1,65,720 samplings from the Forest Department out of which 1,60,895 saplings have already been planted; balance 1,89,105 saplings will be planted by 15.11.2021; the plant species comprise of Neem, Karanj, Sissoo, Bakul, Phase, Kadam Arjun, Bela, Alstonia, Mahaneem, Jamun etc.
40. As regards the issue of rainwater harvesting not being carried out, the response of the Project Proponent is that it has already commissioned one rooftop rain-water harvesting facility which is in operation since March, 2021 and the water collected is being 62 treated and reused in the process; the Project Proponent is also constructing additional 6 rooftop rain-water harvesting facilities of which 3 rain-water harvesting facilities will be completed by 30.11.2021 and the balance 3 will be completed by 30.11.2021.
41. As regards prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project being obtained till date, the response of the Project Proponent is that the Principle Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha has approved the site-specific wildlife conservation plan on 30.04.2021 with the financial forecast of Rs.6,10,894 lakhs to be spent for implementation by the Forest Department for this plan and as per the demand raised by the District Forest Officer, Jharsuguda an amount of Rs.530.904 lakhs has already been deposited on 17.05.2021 towards implementation of the aforesaid plan over a period of 10 years and the plan is under implementation by the Divisional Forest Officer.
42. With regard to legacy ash stocks still stored in ash pond located at three different locations in the vicinity of the project site and non-
utilization of the same, the response of the Project Proponent is that the Unit has achieved an average of 115% Fly Ash Utilization over the last three financial years wherein 37 lakhs MT of legacy ash has been utilised along with current generation; around 127 lakh MT of legacy ash is stored in ash ponds located at Kurebaga, Katikela and Siriapalli for which the utilization is targeted to be completed within the next six years in a phased manner with more than 100% ash utilization including current generation. It is also stated that for the financial year 2021-22, the Project Proponent will be utilizing around 120 lakh MT ash against the expected 63 annual generation of 90 lakh MT in different avenues such as Cement Plants, Brick manufacturing, Infra Projects, Mine filling and Reclamation of Low-lying area as already stated in its response letter.
43. As regards Secured Landfill (SLF) provided inside the smelter complex, the response of the Project Proponent is that the SLF has been implemented at the site in two phases, Phase I of SLF being majorly filled with Spent Pot Lining (SPL) which got exhausted in September, 2013 and was subsequently capped; the Project Proponent has disposed of around 2063.709 MT of hazardous material in SLF Phase-2 from 2014 till March, 2021, the details of which as given in response letter have already been extracted hereinabove. It is also stated that the Project Proponent has stopped sending Spent Pot Lining (SPL) to SLF from 2014 onwards and the same is being stored under covered sheds for disposal to authorised re-processors and other hazardous wastes such as ETP Sludge, Housekeeping Waste, Drain Cleaning Sludge, Shot Blasint Dust are being sent to Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) operated by M/s Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd. at Sukinda, Dist.-Jajpur, Odisha. It is stated that at present only a small quantity of hazardous waste such as Spent Resin is being sent to SLF Phase-2 which has sufficient capacity to cater to the requirement of the current project and hence no further expansion of SLF is required.
44. With regard to the proposal of the Project Proponent to acquire large area for ash disposal and liquidation of 100% pond ash in the next five years, the response of the Project Proponent is that there is no proposal for any new land parcel as the Ash Pond in existence 64 is currently achieving more than 100% utilization and there is no expansion with respect to power plant capacity in the current expansion proposal. It is also stated that the Project Proponent has proposed a 100 MW Solar Power Project at the earmarked land parcel of Gudigaon for generating green energy and reducing the Project Proponent's carbon footprint. It is also stated that the Project Proponent is proposing to close the Kurebaga Ash Pond-1 by the end of the financial year 2021-22 and reclaim the same with plantation to reduce ash pond area and increase the green belt cover and reduce the burden of legacy ash. We find from the documents on record i.e. page nos.654-658, the Project Proponent has also submitted the status and action plan which is commensurate to their reply to the Show Cause Notice vide their letter dated 26.08.2021. The letter dated 26.08.2021 is extracted herein below:-
"VL/MoEF/006/2021-024 August 26th, 2021.
To The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (Impact Assessment Division- I) 2nd Floor, Vayu wing Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi -- 110 003 Sub.: Submission of Action Plan w.r.t observation made in minute of meeting of 42nd EAC on Environmental Clearance of Expansion of Smelter Plant from 16 to 18 LTPA, 1215 MW CPP of M/s Vedanta Limited at Bhurkamunda Village, PO -- Kalimandir, Dist-Jharsuguda, Odisha.
Ref.:1. Expansion Proposal No. IA/OR/IND/222980/2017 dtd. 03.08.2021, File No. J-11011/29/2007-IA.I1(I)
2. Minutes of Meeting of 42nd EAC dated 13th August 2021 on expansion of Smelter plant.65
3. Our letter no. VL/ MOEF/ 006/2021-023 dated 17th August 2021.
Respected Sir, Vedanta is committed to the best Environment Management Systems including Air, Water and Solid Waste Management. It has adopted the Vedanta Sustainability Framework (VSF) comprising of best environment practices as is being followed by leading Natural Resources Companies in India and abroad. The Environment Management, Energy Conservation and Sustainability practices of the Vedanta Limited have been recognized by the Government and also by the various trade bodies / associations. We have also laid down procedures and standard operating practices regarding Water, Air and Waste Management in line with international standards in our Integrated Management Systems (IMS) comprising of ISO 9001 (Quality Management System), ISO 14001 (Environment Management System) and OHSAS 18001 (Occupational Health and Safety Assessment System). Vedanta embarked on its sustainability journey more than a decade ago and as a part of overall design and framework, we recognize Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) as an important pillar that guides our business decisions. We aim not only to be ESG compliant but aspire to become an Industry leader in having sustainable operations and governance. ESG is our organization's biggest priority, and we wish to make this a foundation for all our decision making effectively embedding it into our DNA.
With reference to Minutes of meeting of 42nd EAC dated 13th August 2021 regarding our proposal for expansion of Aluminium Smelter from 16 to 18 LTPA at Jharsuguda, Hon'ble EAC committee has made few observations on compliances of conditions of existing Environmental Clearance dated 11/06/2008.
In this regard, in continuation to our earlier letter dated 17th August 2021 (Copy enclosed with annexures), we 66 would like to submit our detailed response on each of the observations raised by the EAC hereunder:
SI. EAC Observations Status and Action Plan
No.
1 The fluoride consumption in Four Projects pertaining to improving hooding
the Smelter Plant is presently efficiency, bath temperature control, optimized
at thermal modelling and improved pot
10.78 Kg/T Al, which is not in redressing practices in order to reduce the
compliance to Charter on Fluoride consumption have already been
Corporate Responsibility for executed In four potlines where we are
Environment Protection (CREP) achieving 8.5 Kg/T and is being implemented
guideline. Fluoride in rest of the 2 potlines.
consumption shall be brought
down to CREP standards of In addition to this, we are executing the
less than 10 kg/t. following 2 projects to bring down the
fluoride consumption to less than 10 Kg/T;
a. Smart pot implementation through GE by December 2021.
b. Development of latest pot controller, 1st time in India by LMRC, Auckland, New Zealand by August 2022.
2 Utilization of spent pot lining We have sought permission from OSPCB on waste by the cement and 08.03.2021 for disposal of SPL to Cement steel industries are yet to be Plants. (Copy of the Letter enclosed). implemented. However, OSPCB vide Letter No. 6620 dated 26.04.2021 has denied permission for sending SPL to cement plants citing reason that our industry has not been authorized to dispose Carbon/ Refractory portion of SPL in cement plant by this board for co-processing. We are pursuing the matter with OSPCB for permission in this regard. We are also pursuing this issue through industry associations.
In parallel to above, Contract has been placed with Ambuja Cements, Bhatapara to dispose 5,000 MT SPL for co-processing in cement plant. We are actively engaging with other cement plants for utilization of SPL.
Additionally, contract has been awarded for disposal of 40,000 MT of SPL Carbon Part to M/s Green Energy Resources out of which they have already lifted 6,000 MT of SPL carbon. It is being expedited for faster disposal and utilization. (Copy of Contract enclosed).
Ramky TSDF is conducting Trial Run for disposal of SPL Refractory Part pursuant to permission of OSPCB. Full Scale operation permission is targeted by December 2021.
Green Mac Technologies, Raipur is in process to set up SPL treatment facility in our plant premises based on approved SOP of CPCB.
3 Project proponent has only So far we have achieved 27 % Green belt achieved greenbelt comprising of 3,64,267 nos of trees within development in 27% of the our plant premises over 229 Ha out of total area as against the 33% required 275 Ha. requirement. Additional 3,50,000 nos plantation being executed through firm contract vide Agreement/PO dated 17.08.2021 on 67 Forest Department, Govt of Odisha and plantation is under progress for completion by Oct 2021 to fulfill 33% requirement.
Around 20000 tree saplings have been planted in last 5 days.
4 Rainwater harvesting has not As per the CGWA guidelines, recharge of water been carried out at the site by into the ground is not permitted for our type of stating that the ground water industry. So, in order to comply, we are table is high in the area and constructing 6 roof top rain water harvesting establishment of rainwater structures vide PO no. 5600001928 dated harvesting structures may 26.08.2021 which will be operational by March lead to flooding in the area. 2022. One such structure is already in operation and the water collected is being treated and reused in the process.
5 Prior permission from the State PCCF (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Department regarding Odisha has approved site-specific wildlife impact of the existing project conservation on 30.04.2021 with a financial has been obtained till date.
forecast of Rs. 610.894 lakhs to be spent for implementation by the Forest Department for this plan.
Accordingly, as per the demand raised by DFO, Jharsuguda an amount of Rs. 530.904 lakhs have been deposited on 17.05.2021 towards implementation of this plan. The plan is under implementation.
6 All the recommendation stated All the recommendation stated in the Charter in the Charter on Corporate on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Responsibility for Environment Protection w.r.t Aluminium Sector is complied Protection with respect to except for SPL Disposal and Specific Fluoride Aluminium sector is yet to be consumption, against which detailed action complied by the proponent plan has been submitted as above.
7 Significant quantity of legacy Ash utilization of more than 100% is being ash stocks is still stored in the done from 2017-18 onwards wherein 3.7 ash pond located at three million Ton of legacy ash has been utilized. different locations in the vicinity of the project site. No effort has Rest -- 12.7 Million Ton of legacy ash is been taken to quantify the stored in the Ash Ponds located at 3 different legacy ash stocks and utilize the locations, for which the disposal is targeted to same. be completed within next 6 years in phased manner with more than 100% ash utilization.
For FY 2021-22, we are utilizing ash (legacy + present) in different avenues such as;
Cement Plants - 2.5 LMT
Brick manufacturing -- 1.2 LMT
Infra projects - 2.5 LMT
Mine filling- 20.0 LMT
e. Low lying area filling -- 93.8 LMT
8 SLF is provided inside the As per the permission of OSPCB, SPL along
smelter complex. SLF is being with other Hazardous wastes were disposed
implemented in two phases. in SLF Phase-1 having capacity of 5,000 m3,
Phase I of 5000 m3 capacity which got exhausted in September 2013 and
started in 2010 was capped in subsequently capped.
Sept 2013. Phase II of SLF is
now in operation. It started in We have disposed around 2063.709 MT of
May 2014 and has 5285 m3 Hazardous waste in SLF Phase II from 2014
space. No details of the onwards till March 2021. About 4000 m3 out material filled in SLF or the of total capacity of 5285 m3 is further 68 capacity available were available for disposal of Hazardous wastes.
provided. No information on Year wise details of Hazardous wastes
plan for post expansion of SLF disposed to SLF II is as mentioned below as
capacity, once the Phase II site ##;
is filled shall be furnished.
However, pursuant to Hazardous Waste
Rules, 2016, we stopped sending SPL to SLF and the same is being stored under covered sheds for disposal to Authorized re-
processors. Similarly, other Hazardous wastes such as ETP Sludge, Housekeeping waste, Drain Cleaning Sludge, Shot blasting dust are being sent to Common Hazardous wastes TSDF operated by Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd at Sukinda, Dist -- Jajpur, Odisha.
At present, a small quantity of hazardous waste such as Spent resins is being sent to SLF. The present SLF phase II has sufficient capacity to cater to the requirement of the complete project and hence no expansion of SLF is required.
##. Details of Hazardous Wastes Disposed to SLF Hazardous UO 2020 2019- 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014-
Wastes M -21 20 -19 -18 -17 -16 15
SPL MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(cathode
Residue)
ETP MT 0 0 0 0 0 27.443 28.500
Sludge
House- MT 0 0 0 69.450 315.100 230.049 339.60
keeping 0
Waste
Rejected MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Filter
Bags
Rejected MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AIF3
Bags
Coke MT 0 0 0 0 218.290 95.000 0.000
Dust
Spent MT 0.722 12.54 2.162 0 0.024 1.349 15.958
Resin 7
Shot MT 0 0 0 0 7.990 234.230 161.00
Blasting 0
Dust
Drain MT 0 0 0 0 173.042 51.303 79.500
Cleaning
Sludge
Ladle MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0450
cleaning
residue
Total MT 0.722 12.547 2.162 69.450 714.446 639.374 625.008
quantit
y
9 There are three ash ponds sites We are not proposing for any new land parcel
in operation and PP has as Ash Pond as we are currently achieving
proposed to acquire large area more than 100 % ash utilization. Further,
for ash disposal in spite of new
there is no expansion with respect to power Fly Ash notification to utilize 100 °A) ash. Further, PP plant capacities in the current expansion mentioned that they were proposal. Apart from above, we are also 69 utilizing 100 % Fly ash since proposing to close Kurebaga Ash Pond -1 and 2018 and the pond ash shall be reclaim with plantation on the same to reduce liquidated in next five years. In the ash pond area, increase the green belt view of this, seeking additional cover and reduce the burden of legacy ash. land for ash disposal found to be not justifiable.
In view of the above, we would like to reiterate that Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda has taken necessary steps for ensuring compliances, incurring huge Capex and Opex to the quantum of Rs. 1259 Crs in the last five years. Through our sustained efforts and cohesive operational scrutiny, we are certain that we are diligently examining and complying with the environmental norms which are applicable on us, ensuring that there is no laxity on our part. It may also be considered that in the current expansion from 1.6 to 1.8 MTPA, we are spending Rs. 1240 Crs. out of which Rs.157 Crs. is exclusively being spent towards the implementation of environmental management plan.
We humbly request you to consider the above-mentioned time bound action plan for redressal of compliances which are being scrupulously adhered to by Vedanta we urge your good office to kindly refrain from issuing any show cause notice to Vedanta Limited and cessate from taking any further coercive steps in this regard. We once again re- assure and re-iterate our commitment on zero tolerance towards non-compliances and addressing the same within the time frame as submitted.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Vedanta Limited Deepak Prasad Dy. Chief Executive Officer"
45. We find that earlier O.A. No.151/2016/EZ, Non Violence Again & Anr. Vs. Vedanta Limited & Ors., had been filed in the Eastern Zone Bench, National Green Tribunal alleging that the Respondent No.2 70 had used 246.74 acres of forest in Khata No.108 illegally for its ash pond in Burkhamunda village in Jharsuguda District. The said original application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 13.11.2017 with a categorical finding being recorded that the District Magistrate and Collector, Jharsuguda in his affidavit had stated that Plot No.188, is area Ac.48.66 dec. surrounded by Ash Pond of Vedanta Ltd. and the plots are contiguous to Plot No.188 which have been acquired by the company through IDCO for their ash pond. A finding was also recorded that the Respondent No.1 (therein), Respondent No.2 herein, has also stated that after filling of Plot No.188 and completion of plantation work, no work is undertaken by them and the plot in question is a free land from any form of encroachment.
46. The Odisha State Pollution Control Board in its affidavit dated 18.10.2023 has stated that the Respondent No.2, Unit, had submitted application for Public Hearing on 12.02.2020 before the Board with respect to expansion of Aluminium Smelter Plant from 16 LTPA to 18 LTPA, CPP-1215 MW by adding 2 LTPA Smelter Plant at village Burkhamunda, PO-Kalamandir, District Jharsuguda, Odisha. The Collector and District Magistrate, Jharsuguda, fixed 30.09.2020 for Public Hearing and the Public Hearing was conducted on the said date.
47. The Appellant has filed three rejoinder affidavits reiterating the contents of his Memo of Appeal referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
48. Reference has also been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 15 SCC 401, Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union of India, and it is reiterated that no Public Hearing was 71 held after the revised EIA Report had been submitted. Referring to Paragraph-126 of the said judgment which is an extract of Para-8 Clause (vi) of the EIA Notification, 2006, which states that deliberate concealment and submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that while considering the EAC in its MoM of 28th Meeting held during 18th - 20th January, 2021 had recommended in Para-28.7.20 that in view of the observations cited above and after detailed deliberations, the Committee to return the proposal in present form as consultant has drafted poor EIA. EMP report and intentionally tried to mislead the EAC. The Consultant was warned not to mislead the Committee and not try to do such things in future. In case of further occurrence of the same, action against the consultant would be recommended.
49. The Respondent No.2 had submitted the earleir EIA Report through its consultant M/s Vimta Lab, Hyderabad, Environment Consultant. The Revised EIA Report submitted by the Project Proponent was prepared through consultant M/s GlobalTech Enviro Experts Pvt. Limited, Bhubaneswar. It has been submitted by Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the re-constituted EAC in its 48th MoM held on 11th - 12th November, 2021 has simply accepted the EIA Report without considering the same. This is factually not correct since the re- constituted EAC had returned the proposal in its present form with the observations that the same would be considered by the EAC 72 after compliance of the existing Environmental Clearance conditions had been achieved by the Project Proponent. The re- constituted EAC in Para-48.14.18 has noted that the status of compliance of earlier Environmental Clearance was obtained from the Regional Office of the MoEF&CC, Bhubaneswar vide their letter dated 24.12.2020 in which some non-compliances were detected and pointed out; Action Taken Report was submitted by Vedanta Limited on 05.01.2021; based on the Action Taken Report, the Regional Office issue another examination report vide letter dated 18.01.2021 mentioning that the conditions may be treated as complied or are in the process of compliance; the Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Bhubaneswar, issued another examination of reply dated 27.10.2021 mentioning that all the conditions have been complied with. The relevant extract of Para- 48.14.18 to 49.19.7 read as under:-
"Certified compliance report from Regional Office 48.14.18 The Status of compliance of earlier EC was obtained from Regional Office of MoEF&CC, Bhubaneswar vide letter no.101-405/EPE/1620 dated 24.12.2020 in which some non- compliances were detected and pointed out. Action Taken Report was submitted by Vedanta Limited to MoEF&CC, Regional Office on 05/01/2021. Based on the action taken report submitted, the Regional Office issued another examination report vide Letter No.101-405/EPE/91 dated 18/01/2021 mentioning that the conditions may be treated as complied or are in the process of compliance. The Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Bhubaneswar issued another examination of reply vide Letter No.101-405/EPE/1335 dated 27/10/2021 mentioning that all the conditions have been complied with.73
The details of the observations made by RO in the report dated 27.10.2021 along with its re-assessment/present status is given as below.
Sl. Non-compliances Observations of Condition no. Re-
No. details RO (abridged) assessment
EC date Specific by RO
1 The fluoride The Project 11/06/2008 Specific The condition
consumption in authorities have condition has been
the Smelter Plant initiated action for vi & xvii complied with
is presently at reduction in the
10.78 Kg/T A1, fluoride
which is not in consumption by
compliance to increasing the
Charter on proportion of low
Corporate sodium alumina.
Responsibility for By this, it is
Environment contemplated by
Protection (CREP) the project that the
guideline. Fluoride fluoride
consumption shall consumption would
be brought down come down to 9.78
to CREP Kg/T from the
standards of less present value of
than 10 kg/T. 10.78 Kg/T A1 by
Dec 2021. Further,
as per action plan
with
implementation
schedule, the
project is to achieve
a gradual decrease
in the fluoride
consumption over
the next two years
and finally achieve
8.88 Kg/T of A1 by
end of April 2023.
2 Utilization of As reported by the 11/06/2008 Specific The condition
spent pot lining project authorities condition has been
waste by the that SPL generated ix complied with
cement and steel is being sent to an
industries are yet agency M/s Green
to be Energy Resources,
implemented. which is authorized
74
for handling and
recycling
Hazardous Wastes
for detoxification of
SPL. This is in
accordance with
the SOP issued by
CPCB. After
detoxification, the
agency in turn
would send the
material to various
industries
including cement
and steel
industries for its
utilization. From
the action plan, it is
noted that the
project has
contemplated the
utilization of SPL
and the project is to
achieve complete
utilization of all the
stock of SPL by end
of Sept 2023.
3 Project proponent The project has 11/06/2008 Specific The condition
has only achieved carried out condition has been
green belt plantation of xiii complied with
development in 3.32.893 saplings,
27% of the total which have been
area as against procured from the
the 33% nurseries of OFDC,
requirement. Jharsuguda and
have planted over
an area of 46.24
Ha within the
industrial complex
and around the
ash pond. The
density of
plantation within
the industrial
complex is also
75
undertaken. All
this has been
undertaken to
achieve green belt
of more than 27%.
4 Rainwater From the report, it 11/06/2008 Specific The condition
harvesting has is noted that condition has been
not been carried developing xv complied with
out at the site by rainwater
stating that the harvesting
ground water recharge structures
table is high in the especially by the
area and industries which
establishment of fall under red
rainwater category for which
harvesting aluminium smelter
structures may is one of them, is
lead to flooding in not recommended
the area. as per CGWA
guidelines issued
in Sept 2020.
However, as a
measure of water
conservation and
re-use the project
authorities have
developed facilities
for roof top
rainwater
harvesting system
which are seven in
number within the
complex with a
total capacity of
harvesting 10000
cubic meter water.
One of the facilities
have been
commissioned, the
rest 6 numbers of
rainwater
harvesting are to
be completed by
Nov 2021, so as to
facilitate rainwater
76
harvesting from
next monsoon
season.
5 Prior permission It is noted that 11/06/2008 Specific The condition
from the State project authorities condition has been
Forest Department have submitted the xix complied with
regarding impact site-specific wildlife
of the existing conservation plan
project has been to PCCF Wildlife
obtained till date. and Chief Wildlife
Warden which has
been approved by
the authority on
30.04.2021 with a
financial outlay of
Rs.610.894 lakhs
to be spent for
implementation by
Forest department
(both Jharsuguda
and Sambalpur
Forest division) for
this plan. Out of
this amount,
Rs.530.904 lakhs
has already been
deposited with
DFO, Jharsuguda
on 17.05.2021
towards the
implementation of
the Wildlife
conservation Plan
for a period of 10
years. It is also
stated that the
mitigation
measures for
balance amount of
Rs.79.99 lakhs will
be executed by
M/s Vedanta Ltd
directly by March
2022.
77
6 Significant From the report Condition has
quantity of legacy submitted, it is been complied
ash stocks is still noted that the with
stored in the ash project authorities
pond located at have been utilizing
three different 115% Fly Ash
locations in the utilization from the
vicinity of the year 2017-18
project site. No onwards. It is also
effort has been noted that there
taken to quantify are 3 no. of Ash
the legacy ash Ponds currently
stocks and utilize operational at
the same. Katikela, Kurebaga
and Siriaplli
catering to both
CPP 1215 MW and
TPP 2400 MW. It is
also submitted by
the project
authorities that the
ash being sent for
utilization is
stored/disposed to
Ash Ponds by
sending it through
High Concentration
Slurry Disposal
(HCSD) system.
Around 127.45
Lakh MT of Legacy
Ash is stored in the
Ash ponds for
which the
utilization is
targeted to be
completed within
next 5 years. The
project authorities
have submitted
and 5 year action
plan for the fly ash
being generated
presently and also
stored as legacy
78
ash which is to be
completed by the
year 2026.
7 SLF is provided In the action taken The condition
inside the smelter report, the project has been
complex. SLF is authorities have complied with
being submitted that no
implemented in further expansion
two phases. of SLF is required
Phase I of 5000 as all the wastes
m3 capacity are being sent to
started in 2010 RAMKY TSDF
was capped in located at Sukinda.
Sept 2013. Phase It is also submitted
I of SLF is now in that the disposal in
operation. It this SLF is
started in May proposed to be
2014 and has evacuated and
5285 m3 space. disposed to
No details of the authorized agency
material filled in for detoxification.
SLF or the
capacity available
were provided. No
information on
plan for post
expansion of SLF
capacity once the
Phase II site is
filled shall be
furnished.
8 There are three It is submitted by The condition
ash ponds sites in the project has been
operation and PP authorities that a complied with
has proposed to proposal for
acquire large area acquiring
for ash disposal in additional land for
spite of new Fly ash pond to be
Ash notification to located at
utilize 100% ash. Gudiagaon village
Further, PP has been approved
mentioned that by MoEF&CC in
they were utilizing 2018 Amendment
100% Fly ash to EC for 2400 MW
since 2018 and TPP (not for the
79
the pond ash shall aluminium
be liquidated in smelter). The land
next five years. In has already been
view of this, acquired by the
seeking additional project. It is
land for ash submitted by them
disposal found to the ash pond has
be not justifiable. not yet been
developed at this
location and there
is no plant to
develop in future.
48.14.19 The project proponent had earlier applied for EC vide proposal no.IA/OR/IND/222980/2017 dated 03/08/2021. The project was considered during 42nd meeting of the Re-constituted EAC (Industry-I) held on 12 - 13th August, 2021 wherein the Committee, after deliberations, recommended to return the proposal in present form. The observations and recommendations of the committee during the 42nd meeting are as follows:
Observations of the Committee during 12 - 13th August, 2021 meeting:
48.14.20 The Committee observed the following:
i. The 16 LTPA smelter with 1215 MW CPP is in operation since 2008. The 2400 MW coal based TPP established through separate EC adjacent to the smelter complex is in operation since 2010.
ii. No tangible effort has been taken by the proponent to comply with the following EC conditions even after the lapse of 13 years of operation.
The fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant is presently at 10.78 Kg/T A1, which is not in compliance to Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) guideline. Fluoride consumption shall be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 kg/t.
Utilization of spent pot lining waste by the cement and steel industries are yet to be implemented.
Wastewater is being discharged outside the plant premises during monsoon season.
Project proponent has only achieved green belt development in 27% of the total area as against the 33% requirement. 80 Rain water harvesting has not been carried out at the site by stating that the ground water table is high in the area and establishment of rain water harvesting structures may lead to flooding in the area.
Prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project has been obtained till date. In addition to the above, PP also yet to comply with the following:
Significant quantity of legacy ash stocks is still stored in the ash pond located at three different locations in the vicinity of the project site. No effort has been taken to quantify the legacy ash stocks and utilize the same.
SLF is provided inside the smelter complex. SLF is being implemented in two phases. Phase I of 5000 m3 capacity started in 2010 was capped in Sept 2013. Phase II of SLF is now in operation. It started in May 2014 and has 5285 m3 space. No details of the material filled in SLF or the capacity available were provided. No information on plan for post expansion of SLF capacity, once the Phase II site is filled shall be furnished.
There are three ash ponds sites in operation and PP has proposed to acquire large area for ash disposal in spite of new Fly Ash notification to utilize 100 % ash. Further, PP mentioned that they were utilizing 100 % Fly ash since 2018 and the pond ash shall be liquidated in next five years. In view of this, seeking additional land for ash disposal found to be not justifiable.
iii. Kharkhari Nala passes in between the boundary of smelter-1 and smelter-2 and joins Bheden River towards southwest of plant premises. The HFL of Kharkhari Nala is 192.5 m, above mean sea level near confluence of Kharkhari Nala with Bheden river and as per the hydrogeology study conducted, the site comes under no risk zone as the elevation at plant site ranges between 198 - 216 m above mean sea level.
iv. Plantation all along the periphery of the project site is hardly visible from the KML file and photographs made available by the proponent.81
v. EMP cost of 77.3 Cr for a CAPEX of 1240 Cr in Aluminium Smelter is far less (6.2%) than the World benchmarks of 15-20 % of CAPEX on Environment Management.
vi. Performance monitoring of Pollution Control Devices is not included in monitoring schedule.
vii. EMP budget in Table 8.25 is generic and not monitorable. The table shall be resubmitted.
viii. Mitigation measures given in Table 10.2 are generic and not quantified. The 6.2% of CAPEX cost towards mitigation measures seems to be adhoc as stated in the document.
ix. Baseline data collected by the consultant organizations (M/s. Vimta Labs and M/s. Global tech) are not comparable.
x. As per Ministry's O.M. No. J-11015/286/2007-IA.II(I) dated 7/2/2020, any specific non-compliance singled out while the project is being appraised by the EAC, the concerned sector shall issue Show Cause Notice.
Recommendations of the Committee during 12 - 13th August, 2021 meeting:
48.14.21 In view of the foregoing and after detailed deliberations, the Committee recommended the following:
i. Show Cause Notice shall be issued to the proponent for not complying with the conditions prescribed in the EC letter dated 11/6/2008.
ii. Proposal to be returned in its present form and the same would be considered by the EAC after the compliance to the existing EC conditions has been achieved by the Project Proponent.
48.14.22 The project proponent has submitted the revised application vide proposal no.IA/OR/IND/236646/2017 dated 03/11/2021 and the proposal is placed before the REAC (Industry-I) in its 48th meeting held on 11 - 12th November, 2021.
48.14.23 The Ministry as well as the EAC members was in receipt of a public representation alleging that the unit is 82 disposing of the fly ash in the nearby agricultural fields and causing pollution. In this regard, a case bearing no. 10/2021 is pending before the Hon'ble NGT, Eastern Zone.
48.14.24 The observations and recommendations of the committee is as follows:
Observations of the Committee 48.14.25 The Committee observed the following:
i. BOD in Surface Water quality has been indicated as 0.8 to 1.6 mg/l, the method used for analysis the BOD shall be furnished.
ii. EAC noted that the public representation mentioned at para 48.14.23 quoted a NGT court case (O.A. 10/2021/EZ) National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata. The case is arising out of disposal of fly ash in the nearby agricultural land by the proponent causing damaging on the agricultural land. As per the Hon'ble NGT Order dated 2/09/2021, the inspection report filed by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board shows several violations of Consent conditions. In this regard, the Hon'ble NGT directed to file an affidavit inter-alia the Environmental Compensation assessed on account of damage caused to the environment.
iii. PP did not provide the information of said court case in Form 2 application and also not disclosed during the presentation.
EAC opined to seek an explanation from the PP in this regard. iv. Project proponent has undertaken a study on the impact of the project on nearby agricultural fields.
v. Show Cause Notice was issued to the unit 1/09/2021 and as per the reply furnished, the unit is yet to comply with the following. Further, MoEF&CC is yet to take final view on the SCN issued to the unit.
a. Current fluoride emission is at 10.78 Kg/T Al production and sought time till December 2021 to achieve reduced level. b. SPL refractory stock is 85,108 MT which is being stored in covered sheds as there is no mechanism is in place for disposal of SPL refractory stock.
83 c. Ash stock of 124 Lakh Metric Ton is unutilized and sought additional time for its liquidation by 31/03/2027. d. Only one Roof Top Rainwater Harvesting (RTRW) has been commissioned and 6-RTRH, the construction activities are reported to be under progress.
e. Green belt development covering 33% of the project area will be achieved by Dec, 2021.
Recommendations of the Committee 48.14.26 In view of the foregoing and after detailed deliberation, the committee recommended to defer the proposal and sought for following additional information.
i. Ministry may forward the public representation to the project proponent. PP shall submit the point wise reply to the said public representation received on 12/11/2021 along with the requisite supporting documents. The details of environmental compensation made if any, shall also be submitted. ii. Project proponent shall explain the reasons for not disclosing the court case details in Form 2 application (or) during the EAC presentation.
iii. PP shall submit the recommendation of interim report on impact of project on the crop by the plant and action plan to mitigate the impact on crop damage shall be submitted. iv. PP shall submit the action plan for the liquidation 85000 MT SPL refractory waste inter-alia standard operating procedure for disposal of the same.
v. BOD in Surface Water quality samples have been reported as 0.8 to 1.6 mg/l, the method used for analysis the BOD parameter shall be furnished.
....... ........ ...... .......
49.19.1 M/s Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda has made an online application vide proposal No. IA/OR/IND/222980/2017 dated 03/08/2021 along with copy of revised EIA/EMP report and Form-2 seeking Environment Clearance (EC) for the proposed expansion of Smelter Plant Capacity from 16 to 18 LTPA, 1215 84 MW CPP at Bhurkamunda village, District - Jharsuguda, Odisha under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 for the project mentioned above.
49.19.2 The proposal cited above was considered by the EAC in its meeting held on 12-13th August, 2021 wherein EAC recommended to return the proposal in its present form and also recommended for issuance of show cause notice on account of following non-compliances to the prescribed EC conditions. i. The fluoride consumption in the Smelter Plant is presently at 10.78 Kg/T Al, which is not in compliance to Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) guideline. Fluoride consumption shall be brought down to CREP standards of less than 10 kg/t.
ii. Utilization of spent pot lining waste by the cement and steel industries are yet to be implemented.
iii. Project proponent has only achieved green belt development in 27% of the total area as against the 33% requirement. iv. Rain water harvesting has not been carried out at the site by stating that the ground water table is high in the area and establishment of rain water harvesting structures may lead to flooding in the area.
v. Prior permission from the State Forest Department regarding impact of the existing project has been obtained till date. vi. Significant quantity of legacy ash stocks is still stored in the ash pond located at three different locations in the vicinity of the project site. No effort has been taken to quantify the legacy ash stocks and utilize the same.
vii. Secured Land Fill (SLF) is provided inside the smelter complex. SLF is being implemented in two phases. Phase I of 5000 m3 capacity started in 2010 was capped in Sept 2013. Phase II of SLF is now in operation. It started in May 2014 and has 5285 m3 space. No details of the material filled in SLF or the capacity available were provided. No information on plan for post expansion of SLF capacity, once the Phase II site is filled shall be furnished.
85 viii. There are three ash ponds sites in operation and PP has proposed to acquire large area for ash disposal in spite of new Fly Ash notification to utilize 100 % ash. Further, PP mentioned that they were utilizing 100 % Fly ash since 2018 and the pond ash shall be liquidated in next five years. In view of this, seeking additional land for ash disposal found to be not justifiable. 49.19.3 Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to proponent on 1/09/2021. PP submitted the response to the SCN on 29/09/2021. Further, additional submissions were made on 23/10/2021.
49.19.4 Meanwhile, M/s Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda made a revised online application vide proposal no. IA/OR/IND/236646/2017 dated 03/11/2021 along with copy of revised EIA/EMP report and Form-2 seeking Environment Clearance (EC) under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 for the project mentioned above.
49.19.5 The revised proposal was considered by the EAC in its meeting held on 11-12th November, 2021. The observations and recommendations of EAC are as follows:
Observations of the Committee held during 11-12th November, 2021 The Committee observed the following:
i. BOD in Surface Water quality has been indicated as 0.8 to 1.6 mg/l, the method used for analysis the BOD shall be furnished.
ii. EAC noted that the public representation mentioned at para 48.14.23 quoted a NGT court case (O.A. 10/2021/EZ) National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata. The case is arising out of disposal of fly ash in the nearby agricultural land by the proponent causing damaging on the agricultural land. As per the Hon'ble NGT Order dated 2/09/2021, the inspection report filed by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board shows several violations of Consent conditions. In this regard, the Hon'ble NGT directed to file an affidavit inter-alia the Environmental Compensation assessed on account of damage caused to the environment.86
iii. PP did not provide the information of said court case in Form 2 application and also not disclosed during the presentation.
EAC opined to seek an explanation from the PP in this regard. iv. Project proponent has undertaken a study on the impact of the project on nearby agricultural fields.
v. Show Cause Notice was issued to the unit 1/09/2021 and as per the reply furnished, the unit is yet to comply with the following. Further, MoEF&CC is yet to take final view on the SCN issued to the unit.
a. Current fluoride emission is at 10.78 Kg/T Al production and sought time till December 2021 to achieve reduced level. b. SPL refractory stock is 85,108 MT which is being stored in covered sheds as there is no mechanism is in place for disposal of SPL refractory stock.
c. Ash stock of 124 Lakh Metric Ton is unutilized and sought additional time for its liquidation by 31/03/2027. d. Only one Roof Top Rainwater Harvesting (RTRW) has been commissioned and 6-RTRH, the construction activities are reported to be under progress.
e. Green belt development covering 33% of the project area will be achieved by Dec, 2021.
Recommendations of the Committee held during 11-12th November, 2021 In view of the foregoing and after detailed deliberation, the committee recommended to defer the proposal and sought for following additional information.
i. Ministry may forward the public representation to the project proponent. PP shall submit the point wise reply to the said public representation received on 12/11/2021along with the requisite supporting documents. The details of environmental compensation made if any, shall also be submitted. ii. Project proponent shall explain the reasons for not disclosing the court case details in Form 2 application (or) during the EAC presentation.
87
iii. PP shall submit the recommendation of interim report on impact of project on the crop by the plant and action plan to mitigate the impact on crop damage shall be submitted. iv. PP shall submit the action plan for the liquidation 85000 MT SPL refractory waste inter-alia standard operating procedure for disposal of the same.
v. BOD in Surface Water quality samples have been reported as 0.8 to 1.6 mg/l, the method used for analysis the BOD parameter shall be furnished.
49.19.6 In addition to the aforementioned ADS, information has also been sought on environment impacts occurred due to the non-compliances reported at para no. 49.19.2 above along with the remedial measures undertaken by the proponent on account of the said environment impacts.
49.19.7 The proponent submitted the ADS reply through PARIVESH on 02/12/2021 and 9/12/2021. The said ADS replies as well as the reply submitted with respect to the Show Cause Notice dated 1/09/2021 was placed before the EAC for taking appropriate view on the expansion proposal and the show cause notice.
50. The EAC upon consideration of the revised EIA Report recommended the proposal of the Respondent No.2 for grant of Environmental Clearance under provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 subject to specific conditions and general conditions. The observations and recommendations of the Committee read as under:-
"Observations of the Committee 2.15.36 The Committee noted the following:
i. The Committee noted that the EIA/EMP report is in compliance of the ToR issued for the project, reflecting the present environmental concerns and the projected scenario for all the environmental components. The Committee also 88 found the baseline data and incremental GLC due to the proposed project within NAAQ standards.
ii. The EAC also deliberated on the certified compliance report of RO and action taken report submitted by PP, written submissions, public hearing issues as well as action plan to address the issues raised during public hearing and found it satisfactory.
iii. The EAC found that the response submitted by PP on additional detail sought by EAC in earlier meeting was satisfactory.
iv. Affidavits and a point wise reply to the public representations submitted by PP were satisfactory.
v. The Committee also deliberated upon the reply submitted by the proponent against the show cause notice 01/09/2021. The committee satisfied with the SCN replies.
vi. The committee noted that there are schedule 1 species present in study area for which PP has obtained approved conservation plan dated 30/04/2021 with a budget of Rs. 610.894 lakh for its implementation over a period of 10 years.
vii. The Committee noted that M/s. Vedanta Limited engaged to IIT, Kanpur as the competent agency for carried out the impact study of Fluoride, SPL, Legacy Ash and Fluoride Mass Balance at Vedanta limited, Jharsuguda. After completion of study IIT, Kanpur made recommendation as given below:
a. Detoxify the stored SPL and utilize (value recovery or other means) in a time-bound manner.
b. Enhance the utilization of legacy fly ash in a time-bound manner in line with the new notification 31st December, 2021. c. The area of sampling and analysis of fluoride in soil and forage should extend up to 10 kilometers radius of plant premises covering upwind and downwind directions. Further 89 fluoride sampling and analysis should be taken quarterly at the nearest irrigated lands growing crops, vegetables, and other products of human consumption.
d. The major emissions are from the pot room roof. The sampling frequency should be increased, and sampling is done at multiple locations.
e. The Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda should continuously explore advanced technologies, operations, and quality of raw material to further reduce the fresh fluoride intake (less than 10 kg/t of Al) and emissions.
Recommendations of the Committee 2.15.37 In view of the foregoing and after detailed deliberations, the committee recommended the instant proposal for grant of Environment Clearance under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 subject to the stipulation of following specific conditions and general conditions as per the Ministry's Office Memorandum No. 22-34/2018-III dated 9/8/2018 pertaining to Aluminum smelter based on project specific requirements. Further, the EAC also recommended that SCN issued to project proponent on 01/09/2021 may be withdrawn.
A. Specific conditions i. The project proponent shall abide by all orders and judicial pronouncements, made from time to time in OA No. 10/2021/EZ pending before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone, Kolkata.
ii. The poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from the carbon plant (anode bake oven) shall not exceed 2 mg/Nm3. The data on PAH shall be monitored quarterly and report shall be submitted regularly to the Ministry/Regional Office at Bhubaneshwar and Odisha Pollution Control Board. 90 iii. A nallah is passing through the project site, PP shall maintain the nallah in its natural form and provide the green buffer zone of 10 m on both side of the nallah.
iv. Particulate fluoride emissions shall not be more than 0.65 mg/Nm3 and fugitive particulate fluoride emissions from pot room shall not be more than 1.85 mg/Nm3.
v. Project proponent shall maintain the Fluoride consumption less than 10 kg/tone of Aluminium production by April, 2022 and reduce further at 8.0 kg/t by April, 2023 as committed by PP.
vi. Three tier Green Belt shall be developed in a time frame of one year covering 33% of total area with native species all along the periphery of the project site of adequate width and tree density shall not be less than 2500 per ha. Survival rate of green belt developed shall be monitored on periodic basis to ensure that damaged plants are replaced with new plants in the subsequent years. This shall include development of green belt of 50 width from the project site towards the Jharsuguda village located at 0.2km from the site. In addition to this, following activities shall also be undertaken as committed by the proponent:
Green cover on reclaimed ash ponds over an area of 40 Ha shall be developed by June 2022.
PP shall undertake plantation over 37.5 ha outside plant premises in consultation with DFO, Jharsuguda.
vii. Present stock of SPL carbon (36320 T) and legacy SPL stock shall be liquidated by Sep, 2023 as committed.
viii. Refractory SPL stock (40000 T) stored in covered shed on concrete floors shall be disposed of Dec, 2025 as committed.
ix. PM levels shall be less than 30 mg/Nm3 for all units under expansion. In case of older units, PP shall initiate retrofitting/modification action to achieve the PM emission level of 30 mg/Nm3 by October, 2024.91
x. Wastes shall be sent to RAMKY TSDF located at Sukinda. Further, waste disposed in this SLF shall be evacuated and disposed to authorized agency for detoxification as committed by PP.
xi. PP shall use Roof Top Rainwater Harvesting systems with a total capacity of around 10000 m3 of rainwater and re-use the water in the plant.
xii. All the recommendations made in the Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) for the Aluminium sector shall be strictly implemented.
xiii. PP shall utilize 100% ash as per Fly Ash Notification 2021 and its subsequent amendments. Further, legacy ash shall be utilized completely by 31/05/2027 as committed by PP.
xiv. Dust Suppression measures such as water sprinkling through mobile tankers is being carried out especially during the dry season. Ash laden trucks are covered with tarpaulin to avoid spillage.
xv. Regular monitoring of Air, Water & Soil quality shall be carried out in the Ash Pond area.
xvi. Performance monitoring of pollution control equipment shall be taken up yearly and compliance status in this regard shall be reported to RO.
xvii. The recommendations of the approved Site-Specific Conservation Plan / Wildlife Management Plan shall be implemented in consultation with the State Forest Department. The implementation report shall be furnished along with the six-monthly compliance report to the concerned Regional Office of the MoEF&CC.
xviii. The area of sampling and analysis of fluoride in soil and forage should extend up to 10 kilometers radius of plant premises covering upwind and downwind directions. Further, 92 fluoride sampling and analysis should be taken quarterly at the nearest irrigated lands growing crops, vegetables, and other products of human consumption.
xix. The major emissions are from the pot room roof. The sampling frequency should be increased, and sampling is done at multiple locations. The laser-based advance technology shall be adopted to continuously monitor gaseous fluoride emissions from pot rooms on real time basis by March, 2023.
xx. Wheel Washing mechanism shall be provided in entry and exit gates with complete water recirculation system xxi. Greening and Paving shall be implemented in the plant area to arrest soil erosion and dust pollution from exposed soil surface B. General Conditions I. Statutory compliance:
i. The Environment Clearance (EC) granted to the project/ activity is strictly under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments issued from time to time. It does not tantamount/ construe to approvals/ consent/ permissions etc., required to be obtained or standards/conditions to be followed under any other Acts/Rules/Subordinate legislations, etc., as may be applicable to the project.
II. Air quality monitoring and preservation i. The project proponent shall install 24x7 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) at process stacks to monitor stack emission as well as 4 Nos. Continuous Ambient Air Quality Station (CAAQS) for monitoring AAQ parameters with respect to standards prescribed in Environment (Protection) Rules 1986 as amended from time to time. The CEMS and CAAQMS shall be connected to SPCB and CPCB online servers and calibrate these systems from time to time according to equipment supplier specification through labs 93 recognized under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or NABL accredited laboratories.
ii. The project proponent shall monitor fugitive emissions in the plant premises at least once in every quarter through labs recognized under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
iii. The project proponent shall provide leakage detection and mechanized bag cleaning facilities for better maintenance of bags.
iv. The project proponent shall ensure covered transportation and conveying of ore, coal and other raw material to prevent spillage and dust generation; Use closed bulkers for carrying fly ash;
v. The project proponent shall provide wind shelter fence and chemical spraying on the raw material stock piles;
vi. Ventilation system shall be designed for adequate air changes as per the prevailing norms for all tunnels, motor houses, and cement bagging plants.
vii. Sufficient number of mobile or stationery vacuum cleaners shall be provided to clean plant roads, shop floors, roofs, regularly.
viii. Adopt measures to recover fluoride gas from electrolytic cells and recycle the same in the process.
ix. Practice use of low-Sulphur tars for baking anodes.
x. Make efforts to increase the life of pot lining through better construction and operating techniques.
xi. Design the pot roofs with louvers and roof ventilators III. Water quality monitoring and preservation i. The project proponent shall install 24x7 continuous effluent monitoring system with respect to standards prescribed in 94 Environment (Protection) Rules 1986 (G.S.R 742 (E) dated 30thAugust 1990 and further amended vide G.S.R 46 (E) dated 3rd February 2006(Aluminium); S.O. 3305 (E) dated 7th December 2015(Thermal Power Plants) as amended from time to time and connected to SPCB and CPCB online servers and calibrate these system from time to time according to equipment supplier specification through labs recognised under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or NABL accredited laboratories.
ii. The project proponent shall monitor regularly ground water quality at least twice a year (pre and post monsoon) at sufficient numbers of piezometers/sampling wells in the plant and adjacent areas through labs recognised under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and NABL accredited laboratories.
iii. Sewage Treatment Plant shall be provided for treatment of domestic wastewater to meet the prescribed standards.
iv. Garland drains and collection pits shall be provided for each stock pile to arrest the run-off in the event of heavy rains and to check the water pollution due to surface run off.
v. Water meters shall be provided at the inlet to all unit processes in the cement plant.
vi. The project proponent shall make efforts to minimize water consumption in the cement plant complex by segregation of used water, practicing cascade use and by recycling treated water.
IV. Noise monitoring and prevention i. Noise quality shall be monitored as per the prescribed Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and report in this regard shall be submitted to Regional Officer of the Ministry as a part of six-monthly compliance report.
V. Energy Conservation measures 95 i. The project proponent shall provide waste heat recovery system (pre-heating of combustion air) at the flue gases.
ii. Provide solar power generation on roof tops of buildings, for solar light system for all common areas, street lights, parking around project area and maintain the same regularly;
iii. Provide LED lights in their offices and residential areas.
VI. Waste management i. Used refractories shall be recycled.
ii. Oily scum and metallic sludge recovered from ETP shall be mixed, dried, and briquetted and reused.
VII. Green Belt i. The project proponent shall prepare GHG emissions inventory for the plant and shall submit the Programme for reduction of the same including carbon sequestration including plantation.
ii. Project proponent shall submit a study report on De- carbonization program, which would essentially consist of company's carbon emissions, carbon budgeting/ balancing, carbon sequestration activities and carbon capture, use and storage and offsetting strategies. Further, the report shall also contain time bound action plan to reduce its carbon intensity of its operations and supply chains, energy transition pathway from fossil fuels to Renewable energy etc. All these activities/ assessments should be measurable and monitor able with defined time frames.
VIII. Public hearing and Human health issues i. Emergency preparedness plan based on the Hazard identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) and Disaster Management Plan shall be implemented.
ii. The project proponent shall carry out heat stress analysis for the workmen who work in high temperature work zone and provide Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) as per the norms.96
iii. Occupational health surveillance of the workers shall be done on a regular basis and records maintained.
IX. Environment Management i. The project proponent shall comply with the provisions contained in this Ministry's OM vide F.No. 22-65/2017-IA.III dated 30/09/2020. As part of Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) activity, company shall adopt nearby villages based on the socio-economic survey and undertake community developmental activities in consultation with the village Panchayat and the District Administration as committed.
ii. The company shall have a well laid down environmental policy duly approve by the Board of Directors. The environmental policy should prescribe for standard operating procedures to have proper checks and balances and to bring into focus any infringements/deviation/violation of the environmental / forest / wildlife norms /conditions. The company shall have defined system of reporting infringements /deviation / violation of the environmental / forest / wildlife norms / conditions and / or shareholders / stake holders. The copy of the board resolution in this regard shall be submitted to the MoEF&CC as a part of six-monthly report.
iii. A separate Environmental Cell both at the project and company head quarter level, with qualified personnel shall be set up under the control of senior Executive, who will directly to the head of the organization.
X. Miscellaneous i. The project proponent shall make public the environmental clearance granted for their project along with the environmental conditions and safeguards at their cost by prominently advertising it at least in two local newspapers of the District or State, of which one shall be in the vernacular 97 language within seven days and in addition this shall also be displayed in the project proponent's website permanently.
ii. The copies of the environmental clearance shall be submitted by the project proponents to the Heads of local bodies, Panchayats and Municipal Bodies in addition to the relevant offices of the Government who in turn has to display the same for 30 days from the date of receipt.
iii. The project proponent shall upload the status of compliance of the stipulated environment clearance conditions, including results of monitored data on their website and update the same on half-yearly basis.
iv. The project proponent shall monitor the criteria pollutants level namely; PM10, SO2, NOx (ambient levels as well as stack emissions) or critical sectoral parameters, indicated for the projects and display the same at a convenient location for disclosure to the public and put on the website of the company.
v. The project proponent shall submit six-monthly reports on the status of the compliance of the stipulated environmental conditions on the website of the ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change at environment clearance portal.
vi. The project proponent shall submit the environmental statement for each financial year in Form-V to the concerned State Pollution Control Board as prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, as amended subsequently and put on the website of the company.
vii. The project proponent shall inform the Regional Office as well as the Ministry, the date of financial closure and final approval of the project by the concerned authorities, commencing the land development work and start of production operation by the project.
viii. The project proponent shall abide by all the commitments and recommendations made in the EIA/EMP report, 98 commitment made during Public Hearing and also that during their presentation to the Expert Appraisal Committee.
ix. No further expansion or modifications in the plant shall be carried out without prior approval of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC).
x. Concealing factual data or submission of false/fabricated data may result in revocation of this environmental clearance and attract action under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
xi. The Ministry may revoke or suspend the clearance, if implementation of any of the above conditions is not satisfactory.
xii. The Ministry reserves the right to stipulate additional conditions if found necessary. The Company in a time bound manner shall implement these conditions.
xiii. The Regional Office of this Ministry shall monitor compliance of the stipulated conditions. The project authorities should extend full cooperation to the officer (s) of the Regional Office by furnishing the requisite data / information/monitoring reports.
xiv. Any appeal against this EC shall lie with the National Green Tribunal, if preferred, within a period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010."
51. We may note that during this time W.A. No.711/2021, Subrat Bhoi, Jharsuguda and Another vs. State of Odisha and Others, was pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack wherein an order had been passed on 15.12.2021 that if no environmental clearance has been granted as of today, it shall not be granted till next date. The re-constituted EAC was of the view that the Respondent No.2 had suppressed material with regard to the order 99 passed in W.A. No.711/2021 and therefore, observed in Para-
49.19.11 that the Project Proponent shall submit explanation regarding the suppression of the information regarding status of the court case in the Odisha High Court (W.A. No.711/2021) and all other court cases.
52. The final order passed in W.A. No.711/2021 dated 10.01.2022 has already been extracted hereinabove which shows that the writ appeal filed by Subrat Bhoi, Jharsuguda and Another vs. State of Odisha and Others, had been disposed of as withdrawn on the request of the Appellant therein, and, therefore, there was no impediment for the EAC to proceed with consideration of the EIA Report of the Project Proponent.
53. We have already noted hereinabove that Show Cause Notice had been issued by the MoEF&CC to the Project Proponent on 01.09.2021 outlining the non-compliances and the recommendations made in the 42nd Meeting of the re-constituted EAC (Industry-I) held on 12th - 13th August, 2021 to which reply has also been submitted by the Project Proponent which has been extracted hereinabove along with Status and Action Plan vide Project Proponent's letter dated 26.08.2021.
54. We have gone through the replies of the Project Proponent as well as its Status and Action Plan and do not find that any query or non-compliance of the re-constituted EAC has not been satisfactorily replied by the Project Proponent. The Appellant has not been able to show to the Court from the documents on record that the queries raised by the re-constituted EAC have not been satisfactorily replied by the Project Proponent, Respondent No.2. As already stated hereinabove the main thrust of the submission of 100 the learned Counsel for the Appellant was that after submission of the Revised EIA Report, no fresh Public Hearing was held. The revised EIA Report was submitted on 03.08.2021 whereas in between the time of the submission of the revised EIA Report and the recommendations by the EAC for grant of Environmental Clearance to the Project Proponent on 05.05.2022, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India, had already brought the Notification dated 11.04.2022.
55. Though the Appellant insists on that Public Hearing should have been done after the revision of EIA Report, he has not mentioned any specific issue which is different in Revised EIA and could have influenced the result of Public Hearing. Nor he has referred to any technical detail which could have different environmental implication for the grant of Environmental Clearance. Thus, the Appellant has not bene able to raise any substantial issue of environment either in his pleading or during hearing of the case.
56. We are, therefore, of the view that at the time that the EAC had made the recommendations on 05.05.2022 for grant of Environmental Clearance to the Project Proponent, it was bound by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India, Notification dated 11.04.2022 which categorically mentioned that for expansion up to 50% within the existing premises/mining lease area, for granting Environmental Clearance fresh Public Consultation is not required. We are satisfied that on the facts of the present case the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Paragraph-118 of the judgment in 101 Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra) which states which the EAC is under a mandate to conduct the process of appraisal in "a transparent manner" and on the conclusion of the proceedings the EAC has to make "categorical recommendations" to the regulator authority either for:
(i) The grant of a prior environmental clearance on stipulated terms and conditions; or
(ii) The rejection of the application.
57. In the present case on the facts narrated hereinabove and the documents on record it cannot be said that the Expert Appraisal Committee has not apprised the EIA Report or the revised EIA Report in a transparent manner before making its recommendation for issuance of Environmental Clearance to the Project Proponent. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the Environmental Clearance dated 05.05.2022 or the appraisal of the Revised EIA Report by the EAC.
58. We have gone through the other judgments referred by the Appellant in his compilation of judgments which are as under:-
Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
(i) A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718;
(ii) A.P. Pollution Control Board II vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62;
(iii) Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401;
(iv) Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401;
(v) Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 321;
(vi) Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405;
(vii) V. Rajeshwari vs. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551;102
(viii) Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99;
(ix) IL&FS TRamil Nadu Power Co. Ltd. vs. T. Muruganandam, (2023) 6 SCC 585;
Before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
(x) Utkarsh Mandal vs. Union of India, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3836;
Before the National Green Tribunal
(xi) T. Murugandam vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests, 2012 SCC OnLine NGT 18;
(xii) Save Mon Region Federation vs. Union of India, (2013) 1 All India NGT Reporter 1; and
(xiii) T. Muruganandam vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests, 2014 SCC OnLine NGT 7161;
59. We find that these judgments are on their own facts and have absolutely no application to the facts of the present case.
60. On a conspectus of facts of the case and submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and the documents on record and perusal of the judgments on record, we do not find any merit in the present Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
61. I.As. if any, stand disposed of.
62. There shall be no order as to costs.
.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM March 24, 2025, Appeal No.24/2022/EZ MN 103