3.1.1 Centre for Envotech & Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneshwar

Transcription

1 NATIONAL ACCREDITATION OARD FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING QUALITY COUNCIL OF INDIA QCI Office, 2 nd Floor, Institution of Engineers uilding, SZ Marg, New Delhi Accreditation Scheme EIA Consultant Organizations Minutes of Accreditation Committee Meeting (XLV) held on July 19, 2011 from 1400 to 1730 Hrs Present 1. Dr. Prodipto Ghosh Chairman 2. Prof. C. K. Varshney Member 3. Prof... Dhar Member 4. Mr. K. P. Nyati Member Leave of absence was granted to Mr. Chandra hushan, Dr.. Sengupta & Dr. S. Devotta. Technical Committee was represented by Mr. Paritosh C Tyagi. NAET was represented by: Mr. A. K. Ghose Principal Advisor, Mr. Abhay Sharma Executive and Ms. Sakshi hargava The following were discussed/ decided: 1. The minutes of the Accreditation Committee Meeting XLIV held on July 12, 2011 were considered and. 2. It was decided to organize one meeting of AC in a month exclusively to discuss the representations/ appeals received by NAET in respect of the EIA Accreditation Scheme. Such meetings will be in addition to the regular meetings and would normally be held on the second Friday of every month. NAET would put up the representation cases in the same chronology as received. A list of representations received would be posted by NAET on QCI website. Personal hearing will be given to the concerned individual/ organization making the representation, if they so desire. 3. Cases covering clarifications/ balance functional areas / representations 3.1 Cases clarifications Centre Envotech & Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., hubaneshwar Minutes of AC Meeting XLV: July 19, 2011 Page 1

2 Clarifications sought from CEMC vide AC meeting XXXIII dated May 3, 2011 were received and considered EIA Coordinator Empanelled Expert Sakya Sinha 1 Pattnaik applied 3 3 (Irrigation only) Mitcon Consultancy Services Ltd., Pune Clarifications sought from Mitcon Consultancy vide AC meeting XXXVI dated May 24, 2011 were received and considered. applied 1 Kavita Suresh Zog E E A - 2 Praveen Gathe E E (Flora) - 3 Chaithanya Sathe SHW Ind. Solid Waste only A LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Clarifications sought from LASA vide AC meeting XXIX dated March 22, 2011 were received and considered applied Municipal SW 1 Pushpanathan SHW A - only 2 A K Mohinta HG HG A - LU A LU, AP, AQ, 3 Satish Damodra AQ NV Noise In Situ Enviro Care, hopal Not AP and Vibration due to inadequate The case was partially discussed in the AC meeting XLIV dated July 12, Clarifications sought details of FAEs were received and considered. The complete decision is now given as follows. Minutes of AC Meeting XLV: July 19, 2011 Page 2

3 EIA Coordinators In-house Expert applied 1 Ajay Mohan 1, 4, 8, 22, Not recommended sectors 8 and 22 due to inadequate Not sector 1 due to inadequate sectoral The candidatures of proposed EIA Coordinators Ms. Nishi Narayani and Mr. Sanjay K Srivastava were withdrawn by applicant. applied 1 Ajay Mohan LU, HG, GS 2 Nishi Narayani WP, E, SE 3 Satish K Tiwari 4 Gopi Mishra Krishna AP, WP, RH SE, HG Geology WP E SE Minutes of AC Meeting XLV: July 19, 2011 Page 3 AP, WP, SHW Solid waste Not recommended LU on Not Soil due to inadequate Not recommended SE on Not recommended RH due to inadequate Candidature withdrawn AP & WP Not AP & WP due to inadequate in air & water pollution control Hazardous waste due to inadequate 5 Anitha Patnaha SE SE - 6 Not recommended AP Niladri Sekhar AP None - due to inadequate Roy 7 S P Chaube AP None - Not AP due to inadequate in air pollution control 8 hanu K LU A Not Soil due to LU, GS Srivastava Geology inadequate Empanelled Experts Mr. Srivastava is a full time employee of another 9 Sanjay K organization, hence cannot LU, RH, NV None - Srivastava be accepted as an empanelled expert In Situ.

4 10 Manoj Kumar 11 Shalabh Saha applied LU, NV, HG, GS LU, HG, GS, NV None - None - Mr. Manoj Kumar is a full time employee of another organization, hence cannot be accepted as an empanelled expert In Situ. Ms. Saha is a full time employee of another organization, hence cannot be accepted as an empanelled expert In Situ. The candidatures of proposed FAEs Mr. Anand Yadav and Mr. Nadeem Abassi were withdrawn by applicant. The assessors have reported that the following experts were not present during the Office Assessment, hence, not considered: 1. Vijay Sahu 2. Yasmeen Fatima Pervez 3. Ram Milan Pathak For experts mentioned at s.no. 9, 10, 11 of the above table, In Situ may propose alternate experts meeting Scheme s requirements the same functional areas, if so desired. To meet the requirements of the scheme, the applicant is required to induct in-house experts AP & HW and also in-house/empanelled expert/s AQ, Soil, NV & RH having the complete compliment of the experts accreditation within three months and approach NAET approval. Final accreditation is subject to the fulfillment of the above requirements Shrusti Sewa, Nagpur The case was discussed in the AC meeting XLI dated June 21, Clarifications received in respect of mismatch in details in CV of Mr. Shantanu Puranik and other experts were received and discussed. Explanations provided by Shrusti Sewa mis-match of inmation in the CV of Mr. Shantanu Puranik submitted Shrusti Sewa as in-house expert and Anacon as an empanelled expert were discussed by AC. The explanation were not found convincing enough. In view of this, his candidature EC and FAE were not. The decision in respect of Application of Shrsuti Sewa is as follows. EIA Coordinators In-house Expert applied Minutes of AC Meeting XLV: July 19, 2011 Page 4

5 applied 1 Shantanu Puranik 1, 4, 6, 9, 34 None - 2 N K Prasad 1, 3, 4, 6 1 A Empanelled Experts 3 Rajesh Shrivastava 4, 6, 8, 26, 38 None - 4 Dilip Sawarkar 1, 3, 9, 34 None - 5 Shriniwas Katiyar 1, 6 None - 6 Ganesh Naigaonkar 4, 6 None - 7 Umanand Shah 4 None - Not reasons mentioned above. Not recommended 3, 4 & 6 due to inadequate Not because he is full time employee of another organization overall EIA overall EIA overall EIA overall EIA applied 1 Ashutosh Joshi AP, AQ, WP None - 2 Rajesh Thaokar LU, WP None - 3 Umakant Rode AQ, WP, HG None - 4 Asawari Naware WP, E, SHW WP A 5 Vaishali Gomase SE None - 6 Shantanu Puranik AP, WP None - 7 N K Prasad HG, GS HG A Empanelled Experts 8 Dinesh Kshirsagar WP, E, SHW WP A functional area on area due to inadequate area on qualification grounds Not recommended E & SHW due to inadequate Not recommended SE due to inadequate EIA Not reasons mentioned above. Already assessed and HG Not recommended GS due to inadequate Not recommended E on Minutes of AC Meeting XLV: July 19, 2011 Page 5

6 applied 9 Rajesh Puranik SE SE A 10 P K Gandhi AP, E, SE None - 11 S M Dandekar GS Geology A 12 H R Kalihari LU, NV, RH None - 13 P K Jha AP, WP, NV Noise A 14 Mohan Rahangadale 15 Vijay Shende SE 16 Vinod Mavlankar SE HG, GS None - Decision pending Decision pending 17 Sumit Mehta SE None - 18 Rakesh Choubey 19 Aswin adge 20 Rajesh Shivlal Shrivastava E, GS, SHW, HG AP, WP, AQ, RH Geology Decision pending HG on None - AP, WP None - 21 S N Katiyar RH None SHW due to inadequate Not recommended E & SE on qualification grounds AP due to inadequate EIA Not Soil due to inadequate Not recommended LU & RH on qualification grounds NV due to inadequate knowledge of the FA Not recommended WP on Not AP & Vibration due to inadequate Not recommended HG & GS due to inadequate knowledge in the FAs Further clarifications needed on specific in SE Further clarifications needed on specific in SE Not recommended SE on Not recommended E & SHW due to inadequate Further clarifications needed on specific in HG Not soil due to inadequate area due to inadequate overall Not any FA due to inadequate Not recommended RH on The assessors have reported that the following expert was not present during the Office Assessment, hence, not considered: 1. Aarti Nandi 2. Shashikant Khante 3. hagyashree Deshpande Minutes of AC Meeting XLV: July 19, 2011 Page 6

7 4. Manoj Raoot Only two in-house experts have been Shrusti Sewa. In view of the requirement of an organization to have minimum 3 in-house experts, their application is not accepted. The organization may apply afresh and re-join the queue, if they so desire, after ensuring that they meet the minimum requirements of the Scheme. 4. Cases put up consideration of the Committee i. SNC LAVALIN, Noida ii. Louis erger Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon iii. Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune 5. Cases considered i. SNC Lavalin, Noida Mr. Rao Mohammad Nadeem, a full time employee of another organization was proposed as empanelled EC & FAE by SNC Lavalin, Noida. In line with the minutes of AC meeting XL dated June 14, 2011 the candidature of Mr. Nadeem was not accepted. SNC Lavalin may propose alternate expert/s the sectors and functional areas shown Mr. Nadeem at the earliest, not later than 3 months. The decision on accreditation of SNC Lavalin, Noida shall be taken on receipt of above. These cases will be taken up in the next meeting ii. iii. Louis erger Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair. Vipin Sahni Director NAET Minutes of AC Meeting XLV: July 19, 2011 Page 7