Conducting a study with regard to significant impact of the activities that are not covered under the EIA Notification, 2006 March 2014 Funded by Department of Ecology and Environment Government of Karnataka Prepared by Environment Management and Policy Research Institute Bangalore F O R E W O R D Withhighdevelopmentimperativesononesideandthe importanceofEnvironmentalConservationontheother,the Environmentalclearanceshavebecomeoneofthemostcontroversial subjects.ThisreportAstudywithregardtosignificantimpactofthe activities that are not covered under EIA Notification 2006 is an excellent attemptatexaminingthesituationandgivingremediesinorderto strengthen Environmental Governance in Karnataka. The report has traced the origin of SECC and has gone ahead to showthattheclearancesrequiredmoretransparency,accountability, publicparticipationanddecentralizationthanwereactuallycarriedout bySECC.InfactthoughthemandateofSECCwastogiveclearanceto thoseprojectswhichwerenotcoveredby2006notification,ithasin some cases given clearance to the project which should have been cleared underSEIAAandSEAC.Insomecasestheyhavetakenclearancefrom SECC and then again from SEIAA & SEAC. The report has done a study of the447projectsthatweregivenclearanceunderSECCfrom2001to 2012.About10%oftheprojectswerechosenanddetailedstudy including visit to the field was done. InthemeanwhilethestateGovernmenttookactionto discontinuetheStateEnvironmentClearanceCommitteethroughaG.O. No.FEE19ENV(Part)Bangalore2013dated07/02/2014.Thishas createdavoidintheenvironmentalclearanceandregulatoryregime; thoughitcanbearguedthatmultiplicityofinstitutionscancause confusionwithregardtojurisdictionandcompetenciesofinstitutions giving environmental clearances.The report has also identified activities whichhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironmentbutarenotcovered byEnvironmentImpactAssessmentNotificationof2006.Someofthese projectswerehithertoclearedbySECC.Awayforwardcouldbeto include these activities which have been identified in this report in the list ofactivitiesunder2006notificationofGovernmentofIndia.This togetherwiththeSupremeCourtsdirectiontoestablishanindependent environment regulator at the centre with Offices in the state would bring about a better environmental clearance system. Bangalore (Ritu Kakkar) 19.03.2014Director General E M P R I ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TheEnvironmentalManagement&PolicyResearchInstitute, BangaloreisthankfultotheDepartmentofEcology&Environment DepartmentforentrustingthetaskofconductingStudywithregardto thesignificantimpactoftheactivitiesthatarenotcoveredunderEIA Notification2006andforprovidingthefinancialsupportand encouragement for this study. WethankShSridharan,IAS,formerPrincipalSecretary,Forest, Ecology&EnvironmentDepartment,&formerChairman,Governing Board,EMPRI,fortakingspecialinterestinpreparingthetermsof reference for this study and his support and guidance. We thank the authors and members of the team which carried out the studyandpreparedthisreportnamelyShAbhayRaj,MsBhargavi,Sh, LeoFSaldanha,MsJayalakshmi,MsNehaPai,DrPapiyaRoy,MsNisha ShettyandMsReethuSinghfortheirhardwork,enthusiasm, commitment in bringing out this excellent report. WethankDrSJVikas,ProjectDevelopmentOfficer,EMPRIforthe hardworkandperseveranceinobtainingthenecessaryfilesand documentsfromvariousgovernmentdepartments.WealsothankSh Girish,MsPragathiBadrinath,MsShashikalaandShDavisfortheir support rendered in carrying out the field work and getting information and data from various sources. We thank Dr MK Ramesh, Professor, National Law School University of India, Bangalore, for taking up a detailed review of the entire report and offering his valuable suggestions. Wethankallthe39projectproponents,whosefacilitieswerevisited byourteamduringthecourseofthisstudy,forprovidinguswith information during the visits and with feedback on their case studies. WearealsothankfultotheofficialsofKarnatakaForestDepartment andKarnatakaStatePollutionControlBoardinthedistrictsofHassan, Mangalore,Belgaum,Bellary,ChitradurgaandMandya,fortheirhelp and support during the field visits of the study teams. WearealsothankfultoDr.MHBalakrishnaiah,SpecialDirector (Technical),DepartmentofEcology&EnvironmentBangalore,ShM Natesh,EnvironmentalOfficer,KarnatakaPollutionControlBoard,for providing their valuable suggestions during the workshops. WealsothankmembersofResearch,TrainingandAdvisory CommitteeofEMPRI,forgivingtheirsuggestionsandguidanceduring thestudy.WeareespeciallygratefultoShRMNSahai,IFS,Former Director General, EMPRI, Sh Vijaya Kumar, Member Secretary, KSPCB, Dr MH Balakrishnaiah, Special Director (Technical), Department of Ecology & Environment, Bangalore, Prof Subramanya, Post Harvest, University of AgricultureSciences,Bangalore,ProfMSMohanKumar,Departmentof CivilEngineering,IndianInstituteofScience,BangaloreandShSuresh, Zonal Officer, Central Pollution Control Board, Bangalore for the same. WearealsothankfultoProjectReview&MonitoringCommittee, EMPRIcomprisingMsRituKakkarIFS(Chairperson)andShG.S. Kariyappa,IFS,ManagingDirector,KarnatakaHandicraftsDevelopment Corporation,ShVipinSingh,IFS,DirectorEMPRIandShKHVinaya Kumar,IFS,Director(Research)fortheirsupportinconductingthe study and for reviewing and editing of the report.

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

ANNEXURE-13APPLICATION FORM FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE(To be submitted to the Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Ecology andEnvironment (E&E), th Floor, !"S" #uilding, #angalore $ %&' ''( in triplicate))art *+ General( ,ame & *ddress of the pro-ectproponent . occupier(for correspondence) ,ame & *ddress of pro-ect site*ddress+Telephone ,o"Fa/ ,o"*ddress+Telephone ,o"Fa/ ,o"0 Status of organi1ation+ (Tic2 appropriate bo/) Govt" Semi Govt")ublic Sector 3nderta2ing)rivate4 )ro-ect details+ (Tic2 appropriate bo/),e5Diversification (change over or adding ne5 product)E/pansion(increasing 6apacity of e/isting product)!oderni1ation(7uality improvement, process change,e8uipment upgradation)IANNEXURE-A149 :b-ectives of the pro-ecta);tems of manufacture < E/isting)roposedb)#y products < (=ist may be enclosed separately)% Total investment on the pro-ect in =a2hs (>s")