National Green Tribunal
Commodore (Brig. Rnk) Rakesh Verma vs M/S V. T. Parlesha Llp & Mohite ... on 23 May, 2023
Item No. 9 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No. 92/2022(WZ)
Commodore (Brig. Rnk) Rakesh Verma
.....Applicant
Versus
M/s. V.T. Perlesha LLP & Mohite Associates
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 23.05.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Omkar Chavan, Advocate along-with
Applicant in-person
Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/PP
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-5/Envt. Deptt.,
R-6/SEIAA & R-7/SEAC
Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-9 & 10/MPCB
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-12, 14 & 15/PMC
ORDER
1. This order is being passed in continuation to the previous orders passed by us in this Original Application from time to time since 19.10.2022 onwards.
2. By the previous order dated 17.05.2023, the Applicant, who had appeared in-person, had sought an adjournment on the ground that his Counsel was not there but today learned Counsel for the Applicant has appeared before us and we have heard his argument. The Applicant had also sought permission to file rejoinder against the reply affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 9 & 10/MPCB on 24.03.2023, which has been filed today, the same is taken on record.
Page 1 of 8
3. In the rejoinder affidavit dated 20.05.2023, which is annexed at page nos. 914-915 of the paper book, it is submitted that the Respondent No. 10 has incorrectly shown the road width as 5 meters instead of 6 meters.
4. From the side of Applicant, objection dated 20.05.2023 has also been filed against the Joint Committee Report, which is annexed at page nos. 833 to 841 of the paper book, where-in it is submitted that the Applicant has never disputed the installation of Acoustic Hood, rather dispute is relating to the installation of the "additional metallic acoustic enclosure" and main emphasis has been laid by the Applicant on the word "additional". The Applicant is still suffering from the odour problem, which persists till today despite the incorporation of all remedial measures recommended by the Government Educational Institution, COEP. Despite incorporating all noise reduction arrangement recommended by the said institution, the noise level recorded on 22.11.2022 is higher. The noise pollution recorded on 29.11.2022 is more than recorded on 22.12.2022, which shows that no additional arrangements were made to reduce the noise levels. It is also mentioned that the Joint Committee in its report has recorded that "Acoustic Hood is provided. Room is partially covered with foam sheets and pumps were provided with covers". It is clear from the said report that the work was partially done and motors were not covered with metallic enclosure, therefore, the work should be treated to be only partially completed. The emphasis is laid down by the Applicant in the last para of the Joint Committee Report dated 02.03.2023, where-in it is recorded that "further effective minimization of noise, various mechanical equipment viz. air blower assembly and pumps may be installed on the anti-vibration pads". Page 2 of 8
5. Rejoinder dated 20.05.2023 has also been filed against the reply affidavit of Respondent No. 1 dated 23.03.2023, which is annexed at page nos. 847 to 859 of the paper book, where-in it is submitted that the terms and conditions laid down in the EC dated 21.09.2016, particularly, those conditions mentioned in para no. 3(viii), (ix), (xi), (xii) & (xiii), which are covered under "General Conditions for Post Construction/Operation Phase" have not been complied with.
6. Further, it is mentioned that para no. 3B (ix), (xi), (xii), (xiv) under "OPERATION PHASE" and para no. 3C (iv), (v) of Amended EC dated 03.09.2021 have also not been complied with, which warrants action. Occupancy Certificates were issued by the PMC much in advance even though the STPs were not installed and were not fully functional. Till date, no permission has been obtained by the Respondent No. 1 from the MPCB for operationalizing the STP, which was mandatory. Till date, no Consent to Operate has been taken.
7. During argument main emphasis has been laid down by the Applicant with respect to the bad odour emitting from the STP, which has been set up by the Respondent No. 1.
8. The Joint Committee has submitted its report, relevant portion of which is reproduced here-in below:
"3.0 Observations and Findings The observations & findings of the joint committee are given as below:
i. The STP under reference is commissioned near the boundary wall of the project site. The applicant's residence is situated at 14 m from the STP under reference. The design capacity of STP under reference provided by the project proponent for treatment of sewage from the residential building is 250 m3/day. The STP comprises of primary, secondary, tertiary treatment and during the visit STP was found in operation.
Treated sewage is recycled for flushing and gardening as per CTO conditions. Primary and secondary treatment units are Page 3 of 8 provided in the underground. PP has made provision of common exhaust vent pipe to the primary & secondary treatment units viz. collection cum equalization tanks, aeration tank and setting tank. The exhaust of vent pipe is kept above terrace of residential building.
ii. Tertiary treatment units of STP viz. pressure sand filter & activation carbon filter, air blower assembly and filter feed pumps have been commissioned under the covered shed of reported dimensions of 6 x 3.6 x 3.25 m. Project proponent has provided EP expansion joint sheets for the walls and ceiling of the covered shed, where air blower assembly is installed. iii. 02 no. of air blowers of reported capacity of 280 m3/hr each is provided for aeration purpose to the secondary treatment i.e. (MBBR) biological treatment.
The air blowers unit are enclosed within the acoustic enclosure made of MS sheet assembly of reported dimensions of 2.2 x 1.6 x 1.2 m with a foam insulation (pyramid acoustic foam type, MOC: Acoustic Polyurethane) of 50 mm thickness on the inner sides of the body of MS sheet assembly for reducing the noise generated due to operation of air blowers. Also, the air blower discharge header unit is enclosed within the acoustic enclosure made of plywood sheet assembly of reported dimensions of 2.2 x 0.5 x 1.2 m with a foam insulation (pyramid acoustic foam type, MOC: Acoustic Polyurethane) of 50 mm thickness on the inner sides of the body of plywood sheet assembly for reducing the noise generated due to operation of air blower discharge header unit. iv. Filter feed & transfer pumps (centrifugal pump) of reported capacity of 3 HP each meant for conveying treated sewage into final treated sewage collection tank are enclosed within MS sheet assembly to reduce noise during operation of pumps. 4.0 Conclusions:
The STP under reference is commissioned near the boundary wall of the project site. Primary and secondary treatment units of STP are constructed below the ground. Tertiary treatment units of STP viz. pressure sand filter & activation carbon filter, air blower assembly and filter feed pumps have been commissioned under the covered shed of reported dimensions of 6 x 3.6 x 3.25 m. As per the recommendations of College of Engineering, Pune (COEP), the project proponent has implemented corrective measures to minimize the noise pollution arising from operation of air blowers and pumps of STP.
The project proponent has executed the works related to commissioning of acoustic enclosures through M/s N Safe Technologies LLP vide work order dated 07/06/2022. The project proponent provided EP expansion joint sheets for the walls and ceiling of the covered shed, where air blower assembly and is installed. Further, the air blowers unit are enclosed within the acoustic enclosure made of MS sheet assembly of reported dimensions of 2.2 x 1.6 x 1.2 m with a foam insulation (pyramid Page 4 of 8 acoustic foam type, MOC: Acoustic Polyurethane & noise reduction coefficient of 0.9) of 50 mm thickness on the inner sides of the body of MS sheet assembly for reducing the noise generated due to operation of air blowers. Also, the air blower discharge header unit is enclosed within the acoustic enclosure made of plywood sheet assembly of reported dimensions of 2.2 x 0.5 x 1.2 m with a foam insulation (pyramid acoustic foam type, MOC: Acoustic Polyurethane & noise reduction coefficient of 0.9) of 50 mm thickness on the inner sides of the body of plywood sheet assembly for reducing the noise generated due to operation of air blower discharge header unit. Filter feed & transfer pumps (centrifugal pump) are enclosed within MS sheet assembly to reduce noise during operation of pumps.
In view of the above, it may be concluded that the project proponent has implemented various corrective measures by installation of acoustic enclosures to the air blower assembly and EP expansion joint sheets for the walls and ceiling of the covered shed to minimize the noise arising from operation of air blowers and pumps of STP.
For further effective minimization of noise, various mechanical equipment viz. air blower assembly and pumps may be installed on the anti-vibration pads."
9. The affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos. 9 & 10/MPCB, we have already been taken into consideration during our earlier orders. We did not find the noise level exceeding the permissible limits near the house of the Applicant. The only observation, which was adverse against the Respondent No. 1, was with respect to odour nuisance near the STP.
10. The Applicant has drawn our attention to the Guidelines laid down by the CPCB in the year, 2008, where-in at page no. 199 of the paper book, point 7.0 laid down Odour Control Technologies, which are as follows:-
"7.1 Odour Control from Area Sources For large area sources following methods can be used to reduce odour complaints.
i). Excluding development close to the site Development close to the site is to be excluded. A reasonable "buffer zone" around the area sources has to be determined.
The actual size of the zone depends upon a number of factors, including the size of the area from which odour emanates, the intensity of the odour being emitted, the duration and frequency of the odour emissions, the actual Page 5 of 8 process being undertaken, the topography of the site, the weather conditions that prevails at the site. Green belt development in the buffer zone may help at least partially to mitigate / obfuscate the odour.
ii). Ensuring that the operation is carried out under the best management practices Best management practices (BMP) vary depending upon the industry producing the odour. For all new developments, BMPs starts with the site selection and the building of the facilities.
iii). Nozzles, sprayers and atomizers that spray ultra-fine;
particles of water or chemicals can be used along the boundary lines of area sources to suppress odours. Rotary atomizer is one such technique widely recommended for effective control of odour in case of area sources. The Atomizer uses centrifugal action by a spinning inner mesh to force droplets on to an outer mesh which "cuts" the water into atoms (Figure 4). The rotary atomizer produces millions of microscopic droplets of water -- up to 238 billion from single little droplets that are thinner than a human hair and a fine spray which covers up to 30 metres. This creates a fine mist, which is more effective with minimal use of water and electricity. A typical installation of rotary atomizer is shown in Figure 5.
There are a large number of chemicals and proprietary products that claim to reduce odour when they are applied to area sources. Atmospheric odour that are contained in a restricted area can be oxidized by atomization of the chlorine dioxide. Odour from sources such as holding ponds, lagoons, and sewage pre or post treatment effluent can be controlled by atomized spray of chlorine dioxide.
To reduce odour, chemicals have to be applied over very large area, the cost of materials and labour would be very high. The large quantity of these compounds required could cause pollution. The spray / atomizer techniques are used to conceal/mask odour also from building and fugitive sources."
11. Having pointed out these Guidelines, it was much emphasized by him that these technologies should be adopted by the Project Proponent in order to control bad odour, which is emanating from the STP installed in the project. We do not find it appropriate because the technologies, which are mentioned in it, appear to be for industries and larger establishments and not for the STPs, which are established in small projects.
Page 6 of 8
12. It would be pertinent to mention here that the general standards for discharge of environmental pollutants, which are given in Schedule (VI) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 regarding colour and odour is prescribed here-in that "All efforts should be made to remove colour and unpleasant odour as far as practicable". Therefore, it is apparent that no specific value has been provided to measure the odour.
13. We find from the Joint Committee Report that Project Proponent has already implemented corrective measures to minimize the noise pollution arising during operation of air blowers and pumps of STP and Joint Committee has also recommended that in order to further minimize the noise arising out of various mechanical equipment viz., air blower assembly and pumps may be installed on the anti-vibration pads.
14. We are of the considered view that these steps must be taken by the Respondent No. 1/Project Proponent forthwith in order to contain the noise pollution.
15. From the side of Respondent No. 1, it is stated that after construction of the project, the Society has been formed and the operation of the STP has been handed over to the Society, which is managing it and they have appointed an independent Operator Torrent Filtra Systems Pvt. Ltd., which is now managing the operation and maintenance of the STP.
16. In view of above analysis, we are of the view that this application needs to be disposed of with the following directions:-
(i). Respondent No. 1/Project Proponent shall ensure that anti-
vibration pads are installed in air blower assembly and Page 7 of 8 pumps, within one month from the date of uploading of the order;
(ii). Adequate trained man-power shall operate and supervise the STP in question;
(iii). The Project Proponent shall collect one sample of treated sewage every month for pH, BOD, COD, TSS and Coliform Count and get it analyzed from an accredited lab and send a report of the same to the MPCB. In case any deficiency is found in this regard, the MPCB shall take action accordingly. This process shall be continued for at least six months in order to assess whether the STP is functional appropriately.
(iv). The noise level shall be monitored by the Respondent No. 1/Project Proponent every 15 days and its report shall also be submitted before the MPCB till next six months and appropriate action shall be taken by the MPCB in case of any infirmity.
17. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM May 23, 2023 Original Application No. 92/2022(WZ) P.Kr Page 8 of 8