National Green Tribunal
Baasubramanj Charcoal Unit vs The District Environmental Engineer ... on 20 November, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
1
Item Nos.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application Nos. 17, 24, 285,286,287, 288 & 289 of 2013
112 & 184 of 2015, 252 of 2016 & 220 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Original Application No. 17 of 2013
M/s. Balasubramaniam Charcoal Unit,
Rep. by its Proprietor, Balasubramaniam,
Veeranampalayam Village,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1.The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Perundurai, Erode District.
2.Veeranampalayam Panchayat,
Rep. by its President
T. Gandhimathi Thangavel ,
Veeranampalayam ,
Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.
3. The Collector,
Thiruppur District.
(R3 impleaded as per order dt.19.11.2015)
O.A.No.24 of 2013:
Ozone Care Public Welfare Association,
Rep. by P Shathishkumar
Periyakattuthottam,
Bagavathipalayam,
Veeranampalayam ,
Kangeyam , Tiruppur District. ... Applicant(s)
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Tiruppur.
3. M/s. Gee Carbons Charcoal Granulation Unit,
1
2
Arthanaripalayam,
Veeranampalayam Village,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
4. M/s. Gee Carbons Charcoal,
Arthanaripalayam,
Veeranampalayam Village,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
5. M/s. Subbayan & Co,
Veeranampalayam Village,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
6. M/s. United Carbon,
Civiyankadu, Vellaraparai,
Avinashipalayampudur,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
7. M/s.Nature Tech Carbon,
Vellaraparai,
Avinashipalayampudur,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
8. United Carbon Solution Pvt. Ltd.,
Vettamalai, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
9. District Charcoal Manufacturer‟s Society,
Rep. by its President,
Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.
10. The Collector,
Thiruppur District.
(R9 impleaded as per order dt. 26.10.2013)
(R10 impleaded as per order dt. 19.11.2015)
O.A.No.285 of 2013:
M/s. Gee Carbons,
Veeranampalayam Village,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1.The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Perundurai, Erode District.
2. Veeranampalayam Panchayat,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
Rep. by its President,
T. Gandhimathi Thangavel.
3. N. Murugnandha Boopathy,
Kizhakkuthottam,
Veeranampalayam ,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
4. M. Dhanakumar,
Kalathukattu thottam, Ponnalipalayam,
2
3
Veeranampalayam ,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
5. K. Sakthivel,
Naamarathuthottam
Pallavarayanpalayam,
Veeranampalayam ,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
(R3 to R5 impleaded as per order of the
High Court dt. 18.10.2012 ) ...Respondent(s)
Original Application No. 286 of 2013(SZ)
M/s. United Carbon,
Vattamalai,
Pothiapalayam,
Kangeyam Taluk, Thiruppur District.
Rep. by K. Jayanthan ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1.The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Perundurai, Erode District.
2. Pothiapalayam Panchayat,
Kangeyam Taluk, Thiruppur District,
Rep. by its President Eswaran.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kangeyam Taluk, Thiruppur District.
4. The Collector,
Thiruppur District. ...Respondent(s)
(R4 impleaded as per order dt. 19.11.2015)
Original Application No. 287 of 2013 (SZ)
M/s. Gee Carbons,
Arthanaripalayam,
Veeranampalayam Village,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1.The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
3
4
Perundurai, Erode District.
2. Veeranampalayam Panchayat,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
Rep. by its President,
T. Gandhimathi Thangavel.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kangeyam Taluk, Thiruppur District.
4. The Collector,
Thiruppur District. ...Respondent(s)
(R4 was impleaded as per order dt.19.11.2015)
Original Application No. 288 of 2013(SZ)
M/s. Subbayan & Co.,
Veeranampalayam,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District,
Rep. by S. Sivasakthivel. ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1.The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Perundurai, Erode District.
2. Veeranampalayam Panchayat,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
Rep. by its President,
T. Gandhimathi Thangavel.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kangeyam Taluk, Thiruppur District.
4. The Collector,
Thiruppur District. ...Respondent(s)
(R4 was impleaded as per order dt.19.11.2015)
Original Application No. 289 of 2013(SZ)
M/s. Subbayan & Co.,
Veeranampalayam,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District,
Rep. by S. Sivasakthivel. ... Applicant(s)
Vs
4
5
1.The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Perundurai, Erode District.
2. Veeranampalayam Panchayat,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
Rep. by its President,
T. Gandhimathi Thangavel.
3. N. Murugnandha Boopathy,
Kizhakkuthottam,
Veeranampalayam ,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
4. M. Dhanakumar,
Kalathukattu thottam, Ponnalipalayam,
Veeranampalayam ,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
5. K. Sakthivel,
Naamarathuthottam
Pallavarayanpalayam,
Veeranampalayam ,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
6. The Collector,
Thiruppur District. ...Respondent(s)
(R6 was impleaded as per order dt.19.11.2015)
Original Application No. 112 of 2015(SZ)
M/s. United Carbon,
Civiyankadu, Vellaraparai,
Avinashipalayampudur,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Tiruppur.
3. The Collector,
Thiruppur District. .. Respondents
(R3 impleaded as per order dt.19.11.2015)
Original Application No.184 of 2015:
5
6
M/s. United Carbon,
Pothipalayam Panchayat,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District,
Rep. by K. Jayanthan ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.
3. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Tiruppur.
4.The President,
Pothipalayam Panchayat,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District,
5. Ozone Care Public Welfare Association,
Periyakattuthottam, Bagavathipalayam,
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
6. The Collector,
Thiruppur District. .. Respondents
(R6 impleaded as per order dt. 19.11.2015)
Original Application No. 252 of 2016(SZ)
K.L.Mahendraprasath,
1/19, Kailasapuram,
Guddalore, Thennilai,
Aravakurichi, Karur Dt.
Karur District. ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1. The Collector,
Karur District.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Karur.
3. District Block Development Officer (Asst.)
Collectorate, Karur.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Karur. ...Respondent(s)
Original Application No. 220 of 2017(SZ)
6
7
P. Subbaiyan,
97, Kadal Thottam,
Vadapalani, Arachalur,
Erode Dt.Erode District. ... Applicant(s)
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Erode.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.
3. The District Environmental Engineer,
Erode.
4. Boopathi Sundaram,
Kollanvalasu Road,
Vadapalani, Arachalur,
Erode Dt. ...Respondent(s)
Mr. N.S. Sivakumar .. Counsel for applicant in O.A.17/2013
Mr. A. Yogeswaran and
Mr. C. Prakasam .. for applicant in O.A.24/2013 and
R5 in O.A.184/2015
Mr. C.P. Palanichamy .. for applicant in O.A.285, 287 to
289 of 2013 and respondents 3 to 5
8 & 9 in O.A.24/2013
Mr. L.G. Sahadevan .. for applicant in O.A.286/2013
184/2015&
R6 in O.A.24/2013
Mr. Y. Arunagiri .. for applicant in O.A.112/2015
Mr. R.Jayaprakash .. for applicant in O.A.252/2016
Mr. V.S. Kesavan .. for applicant in O.A.220/2017
Mr. Kamalesh Kannan .. for R3 in O.A.17/2013
7
8
R10 in O.A.24/2013
R3 in O.A.112/2015
R6 in O.A.285 & 289/2013
R4 in O.A.286 to 28x8/2013 & 184/2015
R1 in O.A.252/2016 & 220/2017
Mr. C. Kasirajan & Ms.Meena .. for R1 in O.A.17, 24,285 to 289/2013
112, 184/2015
R2 in O.A.24/2013 O.A.112, 184/2015
252/2016, 220/2017
R3 in O.A.252/2016, O.A.220/2017
Reserved for judgment date: 15.9.2020
Judgment pronounced/uploading date: 20 .11.2020
CORAM:
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON‟BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No
Whether the judgment is to be published ji the All India NGT reporter - Yes/No
COMMON JUDGMENT
Pronounced by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member O.A.No.17 of 2013 case was originally filed by the applicant viz., M/s.Balasubramaniam Charcoal Unit as W.P.Noo.29432 of 2012 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras against the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Perundurai and Veeranampalay Panchayat, seeking the following reliefs:
"to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or order or direction in the nature of a writ or any other appropriate writ, calling for the entire records relating to the letter dated 17.8.2012 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2 nd respondent to enable the petitioner to undergo further construction of the coconut shell charcoal unit being put up at Ponalipalayam, Viranampalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District."8 9
2. It is alleged in the writ petition that the applicant had intended to set up a charcoal unit by using coconut shell at Ponalipalayam, Viranampalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. He purchased an extent of 20.61 acres of land in Sy.No.1004 of the said Village. They applied for building permission for setting up a godown and coconut shell burning chamber before the Panchayat and they granted permission to the applicant by their proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.16 of 2011 dated 19.9.2011 under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and under Section 159(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 subject to certain conditions in which one of the condition was that the building should not be used as dwelling house without getting permission under Section 26 and 33 of the Madras Health and Hygienic Act. The unit was intended to be set up in the middle of the entire area for producing coconut shell charcoal, being supplied as raw material to activated carbon industries in Tuticorin, Palladam, Ernakulam etc., for manufacturing activated carbon which is again being used as raw material in manufacturing water purifier, oil refinery industries etc. The procedure for manufacturing of charcoal is by way of putting the coconut shells in the chamber fire and burn the same and after converting the same into charcoal, it will be sold to the carbon industries.
3. By evolving scientific method, the wet scrubber would be used in the chamber as a preventive mechanism of preventing air pollution being caused on account of the functioning of the unit. They intend to adopt different scientific methodology varying from the methodology adopted by other similar charcoal manufacturing units. They obtained „consent to establish‟ from the Pollution Control Board after inspecting the area with the experts and permitted them „to establish‟ fire kiln with certain conditions.
4. They have taken all steps to create green belt by planting 1500 tree saplings in the land intended for the proposed unit. They have also constructed building and made initial preparation to install chamber and also put up chimney spending around Rs.24,00,000/- for different purposes. There were no dwelling houses, schools, water sources, burial ground or other institutions within one kilometre range.
5. They could get electricity only on 21.4.2012. They made representation dated 6.8.2012 to the Panchayat for extension of time for completion of construction work. While so, they received a letter dated 17.8.2012 informing them that due to lot of complaints 9 10 coming from the public regarding the charcoal manufacturing units in that area, they decided to withdraw the permission of such units and directed the applicant to stop its construction activity and proceed with the establishment of the unit. This order was passed without hearing the applicant and that prompted the applicant to file the above writ petition before the Hon‟ble High Court, seeking the relief claimed above.
6. Thereafter, this was transferred to this Tribunal by common order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras and renumbered as O.A.No.17 of 2013 before this Tribunal.
7. The District Collector, Tiruppur was suo motu impleaded as additional third respondent by suo motu order passed by this Tribunal dated 19.11.2015.
8. The first respondent filed counter statement contending as follows:
"The applicant had applied for „consent to establish‟ charcoal manufacturing unit using coconut shell and after inspection on 16.11.2011 „consent to establish‟ was issued as per order dated 26.11.2011. They were permitted to provide 6 nos. of chamber pits with the chimney of height 3.6 m for the discharge of emission generated from the pits with the following conditions:
i.The unit shall provide solar evaporation pans as reported.
ii. Cooling water shall be recycled completed.
iii. The unit shall provide cooling water collection tank.
iv. The unit shall provide 4 nos. of piezometeric wells around the oven pits.
v. The unit shall provide RWH system properly.
vi. The unit shall plant more tree saplings.
vii. The above consent to establish cannot be construed as consent to operate and the unit shall not commence the operation without obtaining the consent to operate.
viii. The industry shall make a request for grant of consent to operate at least thirty days before the commissioning of trial producing.
ix. The unit shall construct compound wall around the boundary of the unit.
x. Samples of water from the wells or any other nearby water sources have to be taken by the unit and get them analyzed by the Board Laboratory to develop base line data to assess the existing water quality.10 11
xi. The unit shall provide an alternate power source along with separate energy meter for the effluent Treatment Plant to ensure continuous operation of the Effluent Treatment Plant.
xii. The consent does not authorize or approve the construction of any physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of any work in any natural water course.
xiii. Any change in the details furnished in the conditions has to be brought to the notice of the Board and got approved by the Board before obtaining consent to operate under the said Act.
xiv. The unit has to comply with the provisions of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 to provide immediate relief in the event of any hazard to human beings other living creatures/plants and properties while handling and storage of hazardous substances xv. Consent to operate will not be issued unless the unit complies with all the conditions of consent to establish.
xvi. In case there is any change in the management the unit shall inform the change with relevant documents immediately and with the following conditions among other conditions under the Air Act:
i.The unit shall provide a common scrubber with a stack to arrest the dust and particulate matter emission during start up time of the pits.
ii. The unit shall flare up carbon monoxide 6 nos. of individual stack.
iii. The unit shall plant trees 25% of the total area in the unit.
iv.The above consent to establish cannot be construed as consent to operate and the unit shall not commence the operation without obtaining the consent to operate.
v. The applicant shall make a request for grant of consent to operate at least thirty days before the commissioning of trial production.
vi. Any change in the details furnished in the conditions has to be brought to the notice of the Board and got approved by the Board before obtaining consent to operate under the said Act.
vii. The unit has to comply with the provisions of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 to provide immediate relief in the event of any hazard to human beings other living creatures/plants and properties while handling and storage of hazardous substances.
viii. Consent to operate will not be issued unless the unit complies with the conditions of consent to establish.
ix. The unit shall provide adequate water sprinklers for the control of dust emission during the loading and unloading of construction material so as to minimise the dust emission.11 12
x. The unit shall provide water sprinklers along the temporary roads inside the premises to avoid fugitive dust emission during the vehicle movements.
xi. The unit shall develop green belt of adequate width around the premises.
xii. In case there is any change in the management, the unit shall inform the change with relevant documents immediately."
In view of the public complaints from Veeranampalayam Panchayat, the Board has formed a High Level Committee and the Committee which after inspecting the similar type of charcoal units in the vicinity of the unit, had made the following recommendations:
i. All the processing chambers are to the above the ground level with visible pipelines of the quenched water beneath the processing chambers to the elevated tank for recycling.
ii. The quenched water shall be recycled for quenching after providing adequate treatment.
iii. To explore the possibility of oxidizing carbon monoxide with other fumes arising in the initial stage of controlled in the dwarf chimney.
iv. Coconut shell charcoal fines to be collected and disposal in a scientific way without public complaints.
v. The wet charcoal drying yards should be made impervious with dwarf walls.
vi. The finished products including the reject fine should be stored under proper roofing system."
The unit shall comply with the above recommendations also before applying for obtaining consent to operate from the Board.
It is further contended in the counter statement that the President of Veeranampalayam Panchayat passed Resolution No.34 dated 15.8.2012 stating that all the charcoal manufacturing units in Veeranampalayam Village should stop their manufacturing activities within 45 days.
The Hon‟ble High Court, Madras in it order dated 7.9.2012 in W.P.Nos.23783 and 23784 of 2012 filed by M/s. Subbayan & Co., and M/s. Gee Carbon respectively had granted interim stay against the orders of Veeranampalayam Panchayat. They prayed for appropriate orders to be passed by the Tribunal.
9. The second respondent filed counter statement contending as follows:
Veeranampalayam Village Panchayat is situated 3 Kms from Kangeyam Town and the population of the Panchayat is about 5,000. There was water scarcity in the Panchayat 12 13 and the available water from the well and borewell is salty in nature and not fit for drinking purpose. The public in the village also complained that water available in the village is being contaminated due to the untreated trade effluents discharged from the coconut shell burning chimney industries situated within Veeranampalayam Panchayat, apart from causing air pollution due to burning of coconut shells. Steps were taken by the Panchayat to dug more borewells and also laid pipe lines to draw water from other villages to this village.
Considering the grievance of the people against these industries, the Grama Sabha was organised by the Panchayat on 15.8.2012 which was attended by the Block Development Officer and Deputy Block Development Officer of Kangeyam Panchayat Union and Members of Veeranampalayam Panchayat a resolution was passed in the meeting to stop the operation of coconut shell burning industries which were causing severe air and water pollution in the Panchayat limits in order to prevent health hazard and provide safety to the residents of the Panchayat within 45 days. As President, he sent the letter of the Panchayat, communicating the resolution passed by the Grama Sabha dated 15.8.2012 with a request to take necessary action on the polluting industries to the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Tiruppur, Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, Tahsildar, Kangeyam and Block Development Officer, Kangeyam and marked the copy to all the industries, including the applicant industry.
The applicant had failed to obtain necessary approval from the Panchayat before obtaining „consent‟ order from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The Panchayat has a duty to provide clean water to the public of the locality for drinking and washing purpose and also provide facilities for safety, health and comfort and inhabitance as per Section 110(g) and Section 111(j) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. As per Section 159(4) of the Act the Village Panchayat shall be the authority competent to grant the licence or refuse to grant it, if they felt that granting of license to such activities is likely to affect the human health or property.
The letter dated 17.8.2012 communicated to the applicant is being challenged before this Tribunal and if such activities are allowed to continue, then it will affect the health of the people in the locality. It is a highly polluting industry and as such the action taken by the 13 14 Panchayat is within its power and necessary for the purpose of protecting the interest of the people. So they prayed for dismissal of the application.
10. A Joint Committee was constituted by this Tribunal to consider the revised technical possibility and design proposal submitted by the charcoal units and the Committee has submitted their report signed by the Committee Members with date 18.4.2016.
11.The second respondent as well as the applicant had filed reply to the Joint Committee Report dated 18.4.2016,agreeing to comply with the recommendations made by the Committee. The Panchayat had filed an affidavit stating that the applicant unitwas not falling within their jurisdiction and provision must be made for compensating the owners of the well whose wells had been contaminated on account of the illegal activities of the charcoal units and for providing potable water for specific areas till the remedial measures to remove the contamination is completed.
12. O.A.Nos.285 and 287 of 2013 were filed by the same applicant originally before the Hon‟ble HIgh Court as W.P.Nos.23784 and 28818 of 2012 respectively. The applicant in these applications is conducting charcoal manufacturing units from coconut shell since 2006 in an area covering 6.52 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.798/2,3 of Veeranampalayam Village with all necessary permissions and „consent‟ from the authorities. It was situated on the outskirts of the Village and residential area, education, religious and other institutions which are available within 1 km of the unit.
13. They challenged the letter dated 22.8.2012 issued by the Panchayat, directing them to stop operation of the unit within 45 days of the receipt of the letter, on the basis of the resolution passed in the Grama Sabha meeting dated 15.8.2012 in O.A.No.285 of 2013.
14. The applicant also filed other writ petition mentioned above which has been re- numbered as O.A.No.287 of 2013 before this Tribunal for granting of police protection to enable them to run the unit in view of the stay order granted by the Hon‟ble High Court in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.23784 of 2012.
15. Additional respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded as per order dated 18.10.2012 by the Hon‟ble High Court and the District Collector, Thiruppur was suo motu impleaded as per 14 15 the common order passed by this Tribunal dated 19.11.2015. These two cases were also transferred to this Tribunal as per the common order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras mentioned above and re-numbered accordingly.
16. O.A.No.286 of 2013 was filed by the unit United Carbon situated in Veeranampalayam Panchayat originally before the Hon‟ble High Court, Madras as W.P.No.28817 of 2012. The applicant in that case was also an existing charcoal manufacturing unit using coconut shell established in the property having an extent of 6 acres in Vattamali Village of Kangeyam Taluk comprised in S.F.No.1175 on the basis of the lease of the year 2008 and having all necessary permission and license from the authorities. On the basis of the resolution passed by the Grama Sabha and without issuing any show cause notice, they were trying to close down the unit and conducting Dharnas and preventing vehicles coming to their unit from 12.10.2012 and they were unable to continue their operation. So the applicant filed the present application for police protection to enable them to run the unit in a peaceful manner.
17. The same applicant has filed O.A.No.235 of 2015 before this Tribunal which was earlier filed as O.A.112 of 2015 before the Vacation Bench for the issue of a direction to the Pollution Control Board to dispose of the renewal application filed by them dated 22.8.2012 in accordance with law, as they were not passing any orders on account of pendency of O.A.No.24 of 2013 before this Tribunal.
18. O.A.No.288 and 289 of 2017 were filed by the same applicant viz., M/s. Subbayan & Co originally before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras as W.P.Nos.28819 and 23783 of 2012 respectively. The applicant is also one of the charcoal manufacturing units functioning with the jurisdiction of Veeranampalayam Panchayat after obtaining necessary permission and approval from the authorities. The W.P.No.23783 of 2012 which was later re-numbered as O.A.No.289 of 2013 before this Tribunal on transfer was filed to quash the letter dated 22.8.2012 issued by the Veeranampalayam Panchayat, directing them to close down their industry and W.P.No.28819 of 2012 which was later re-numbered as O.A.No.288 of 2013 was filed by the same applicant to permit the unit to run on the basis of the stay order granted by the Hon‟ble High Court in W.P.No.23783 of 2012. These two cases were also transferred to this Tribunal along with the other connected matters as per 15 16 the common transfer order in Roc.No.133 of 2013 dated 25.9.2013 and thereafter re- numbered accordingly.
19. Supplemental respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded in W.P.No.23783 of 2012 before the Hon‟ble High Court itself as per order dated 18.10.2012 and the District Collector, Thiruppur was impleaded in O.A.No.289 of 2013 by the common order of this Tribunal dated 19.11.2015 and the District Collector was impleaded as additional fourth respondent in O.A.No.288 of 2013 by the same order.
20. Common counter affidavits are filed by the Panchayat more or less raising the same contentions raised by them in O.A.No.17 of 2013, affirming their right to prevent polluting activities being done by such industries which are causing health hazards in the area.
21.Supplemental respondents 3 to 5 filed common counter statement in these writ petitions stating that these units were causing pollution in their area.They are running the units violating the norms and conditions and also unauthorisedly burning the coconut shell in open coconut pit and discharging Carbon dioxide and untreated effluents causing contamination of water and air pollution in the area and lot of complaints were made regarding their activities and on account of those complaints,a Grama Sabha meeting was held on 15.8.2012 headed by the Block Development Officer, Kangeyam and a resolution was passed to close down these units,as they were causing pollution in the area.It was on that basis,directions had been issued to these units.Further, they had received information under the Right to Information Act that none of the units were complying with the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board and they had not obtained renewal of „consent‟ granted and they had not established necessary green belt as required. The pollution control mechanism provided by them were not sufficient to meet the norms provided by the Pollution Control Authorities. They were burning coconut shell in open pits in violation of the conditions imposed. They were using lot of water for their industrial purpose and discharging the untreated effluents, causing contamination of the ground water in the locality. They had also projected lot of violations committed by the existing charcoal units against the conditions imposed by the authorities. They had also contended that the applications were filed without any bona fide.
16 17
22. In these proceedings, as per the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, a Joint Committee was constituted and they inspected the charcoal units in Kangeyam area and submitted the report signed by the Members dated 27.11.2012 which reads as follows:
"With reference to Board‟s Proc. No.TNPCB/P&D/F-3162/2012 dt. 22.11.2012, coconut shell charcoal units in Kangeyam area were visited by the committee members R. Kumar, Additional Chief Environmental Engineer. S. Selvam, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Monitoring Squad), Coimbatore on 27.11.2012 and investigation carried out. The committee members were assisted by S. Sathiaraj, Assistant Environmental Engineer (Monitoring), Flying Squad, TNPC Board, Tiruppur, P. Sakthivell, Deputy Chief Scientific Officer, DEL, TNPC Board, Tiruppur and C. Vanaja, Assistant Engineer, TNPC Board, Tiruppur.
In Kangeyam Taluk several coconut shell charcoal manufacturing units are existing which are manufacturing coconut shell charcoal which is a basic raw material for activated carbon units. 17 coconut shell charcoal manufacturing units have applied and obtained consents of the TNPC Board. The above applied units are located in Veeranampalayam, Pappini, Alabadi, Veeracholapuram villages etc. There have been several complaints and public protest with regard to water and air pollution caused in and around Veeranampalayam village.
The committee visited the following coconut shell charcoal manufacturing units and investigated the air pollution and water pollution aspects in the industries.
M/s. Cochin Charcoals, Semmankalipalayam village, Kangeyam Taluk Tiruppur District.
The unit does not possess the consents of TNPC Board and further was not in operation.
The unit manufactures coconut shell charcoal 10-20T/day in 6 nos. of brick lined pits (10‟ dia x 15‟ depth). The brick lined pit is constructed in a made up soil which is partially below land rest above the natural ground level.
Quenched water from the brick lined pits are reported to be collected by mobile pumps in a collection tank and reported to be reused for quenching.
„Smoke arising in the form of carbon monoxide, volatile matter etc are reported to be flared and oxidized through a dwarf brick chimney.
In order to ascertain any seepage of quenching water from the multi lined pits there are no piezo meters.
Coconut shell charcoal fines after sieving are reported to be sold.
M/s. United Carbon: The unit possess the consent of TNPC Board and further was in operation during inspection.17 18
The unit manufactures coconut shell charcoal 1500 T/Month in 15 nos. of multi lined pit (16‟dia x 18‟ depth). The multi lined pits are constructed in a made up soil which is partially below and rest above the natural ground level.
Carbon monoxide, particulate matter etc arising initially on controlled combustion are collected under suction and passed through water scrubber and high rise stack. Volatile matter then arising is separately passed through a dwarf chimney under natural draft with flare arrangement.
Waste water arising from the water scrubber is collected and used for quenching of coconut shell charcoal in the multi lined pits. The quenched water from the multi lined pits are collected in a collection tank by gravity and reused for quenching.
In order to ascertain any seepage of quenching water from the multi lined pits, there are no piezo meters.
Coconut shell charcoal fines after sieving are reported to be sold.
Water and waste water samples have been collected respectively from the bore well and from the quenching water recycling tank.
M/s. Gee Carbon: The unit possess the consent of TNPC Board but was not in operation during inspection.
The unit manufactures coconut shell charcoal 600T/month in 9 nos. of multi line pit (6‟ dia x 18‟ depth). The unit has expanded its activity by constructing additional 6 nos of multi lined pits (6‟ dia x 18‟ depth) for which consents are yet to be issued. The multi lined pits are constructed in a made up soil which is partially below land rest above the natural ground level.
The carbon monoxide particulate matter etc arising initially on controlled combustion are collected under suction and passed through water scrubber and high rise stack. Volatile matter then arising is separately passed through a dwarf chimney under natural draft with flare arrangement.
Waste water arising from the water scrubber is collected and used for quenching of coconut shell charcoal in the multi lined pits. The quenched water from the multi lined pits are collected in a collection tank by gravity and reused for quenching.
In order to ascertain any seepage of quenching water from the multi lined pits, there are no piezo meters.
Coconut shell charcoal fines after sieving are reported to be sold.
Water samples has been collected for the bore well which is used for process.
M/s. Subbayan & Co: The unit possess the consent of TNPC Board but was not in operation during inspection.18 19
The unit manufactures coconut shell charcoal 600T/month in 12 nos. of multi lined pits (7.5‟ dia x 15‟ depth). The unit has expanded its activity by constructing additional 6 nos of multi lined pits (7.5‟ dia x 15‟ depth) for which consents are yet to be issued. The multi lined pits are constructed in a made up soil which is partially below and rest above the natural ground level.
The carbon monoxide particulate matter etc arising initially on controlled combustion are collected under suction and passed through water scrubber and high rise stack. Volatile matter then arising is separately passed through a dwarf chimney under natural draft with flare arrangement.
Waste water arising from the water scrubber is collected ad used for quenching of coconut shell charcoal in the multi lined pits. The quenched water from the multi lined pits are collected in a collection tank by gravity and reused for quenching.
In order to ascertain any seepage of quenching water from the multi lined pits, there are no piezo meters.
Coconut shell charcoal fines after sieving are reported to be given to agriculturists. Charcoal fines from this industry are found to be dumped in a nearby agricultural land, inviting public criticism.
M/s. Winners Carbon: The unit does not possess the consent of TNPC Board but was not in operation.
As per TNPC Board proceedings the unit has been closed and power supply was disconnected.
M/s. G.Carbon: The unit possess the consent of TNPC Board but was not in operation.
As per TNPC Board proceedings the unit has been closed and power supply was disconnected.
Water sample has been collected from the bore well which is used for process.
During inspection public from Veeranampalayam village and adjoining areas met the committee member and expressed their grievances.
Water pollution caused from charcoal shell manufacturing industries is reported to have contaminate their wells.‟ Dust arising from the industries have been reported to have impact on agriculture.
Health disorders like respiratory problems.
As per the request of the public, water samples were collected for analysis as the following locations:19 20
K. Sakthivel well at Nagamarathottam, Pallavarayampalayam, A.P. Pudur Post, Veeanampalayam.
Public fountain at Veeranampalaym Village near Peeple Tree.
Based on the above facts, the committee is of the view that the process pits existing water pollution control system, air pollution control system etc are to be improved on the following aspects.
All the processing chambers are to be above the ground level with visible pipe lines of the quenched water beneath the processing chambers connected to the elevated tank for recycling.
The quenched water shall be recycled for quenching after providing adequate treatment.
To explore the possibility of oxidizing carbon monoxide with other fumes arising in the initial stage of controlled combustion in the dwarf chimney.
Coconut shell charcoal fines to be collected and disposed in a scientific way without public complaints.
The wet charcoal drying yards should be made impervious with dwarf walls.
The finished products including the reject fines should be stored under proper roofing system.
It is recommended by the committee that an undertaking shall be obtained from the existing consented units to comply with the above aspects within a period of 6 months. The committee also suggests that in future it shall be made as a pre-requisite for the new units to obtain approval from the Panchayat Union before approach in the TNPC Board for consent under the Water and Air Acts."
23. O.A.No.184 of 2015 was filed by the applicant in O.A.No.286 of 2013 for issuing a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and approve the technology enclosed in the Annexure A-1 to this application with the proposed scientific design for production of coconut shell charcoal and grant permission to the applicant to proceed with the unit after establishing with the new technology as the Pollution Control Board and other authorities were not considering their proposal in view of the pendency of O.A.No.24 and 286 of 2013 before this Tribunal.
24. The fifth respondent has filed a counter statement contending that the proposed technology is not in tune with the understanding arrived at in O.A.No.24 of 2013 as it was agreed that they would apply for fresh „consent‟ along with the design and process verified 20 21 by Experts from reputed institutions like IIT or Anna University. But now they have given their own design which could not be accepted and the prayer could not be allowed.
25. O.A.No.220 of 2017 was filed by one Subbaiyan for a direction to close down similar unit run by the fourth respondent viz., Boopathi Sundaram at Vadapalani, Arachalur Village, Erode District alleging pollution being caused in that area.
26. O.A.No.252 of 2016 was filed by the applicant for permitting him to continue with his charcoal manufacturing unit, using coconut shell in Sy.No.181, Rakkiyagoundanpudur Village, Tennalai East Panchayat, Karur District without insisting for approval or consent from Pollution Control Board.
27. It is alleged in this application that earlier he filed O.A.No.178 of 2016 before this Tribunal, as politician in the locality targeted to close down his unit and that application was disposed of by this Tribunal by order dated 16.9.2016, directing the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders in the application for „consent‟ filed by the applicant. So he filed this application to permit the applicant to run the chamber preparing charcoal from coconut shell in Sy.No. 181, Rakkiyagoundanpudur Village, Tennalai East Panchayat, Karur District without insisting for approval or „consent‟ from the Pollution Control Board as according to the applicant it was not a polluting industry and did not fall under the „consent‟ mechanism of the Pollution Control Board.
28. O.A.No.24 of 2013 has been filed by an Non-Governmental Organisation claiming to be interested in protecting environment. They claimed that their association was formed to safeguard the agriculturists and more over fighting against the units which are causing pollution and preserve the good atmosphere for healthy cultivation and healthy environment to provide good water and air.
29. The respondents 3 to 8 originally impleaded were engaged in coconut shell based charcoal manufacturing unit and charcoal activated carbon industry in Veeranampalayam and Pothipalayam Panchayat areas, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
30. According to the applicant, they were running the units without following the procedure laid down under the pollution laws and other enactments intended to prevent pollution and protect environment . On account of the activities of respondents 3 to 8 21 22 (originally impleaded) the entire soil in the area had been contaminated, affecting the yield of the agriculturists. Further, that was also contaminating the ground water and polluted the air, causing untold hardship to the people in the Village.
31. When the official respondents failed to protect the interest of the people in the locality and take action against such industries in Pollachi area, local people opposed the functioning of such units, the said dispute was taken to the Hon‟ble High Court by way of filing W.P.No.1952 of 2010 and in those cases, respondents 1 and 2 have admitted in their counter statement that such industries were coming under „red‟ category but they had given „consent‟ treating them as „orange‟ category and the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras by judgment dated 2.8.2010 observed that the category of such industries was changed from „orange‟ to „red‟. But they had not considered the application filed by them for „consent to establish‟ or „consent to operate‟ as though it was a „red‟ category but treating them as „orange‟ category only and directed the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass appropriate orders in the application, treating them as „red‟ category, imposing necessary conditions. The Hon‟ble High Court also considered the nature of pollution caused.
32. The smoke emanated from such industries caused air pollution and it contained certain chemicals beyond the permissible limit provided under the Environment Protection Act. Further, such industries which were running in Kerala were closed by the Kerala Government when a study conducted showed that these industries were causing air and water pollution affecting the environment. Further, in the process of manufacturing, certain pollutants were being released. According to the applicant, as per former Chief Environmental Scientist of Kerala State Pollution Control Board submitted a report wherein it had been mentioned that the coconut shells contain lot of polyphenols, oils and other organic compounds. The output of activated carbon is just below 30% of the weight of the original shells during carbonization and on activation the balance 70% is removed from the coconut shell in the form of liquid, gas or dust. These are the main pollutants from the unit manufacturing activated carbon from coconut shell and certain details of the pollutants were also extracted in that report which will go to show that they were excess in level than 22 23 the permissible limit. Further, in the said report it was concluded that there was no technology available in India to bring the ambient air quality in the specified level for residential area in accordance with the Environment Protection Act around the activated carbon unit from coconut shell. Further, they were not following the siting criteria and also conversion of agricultural land for industrial purpose without getting necessary permission from the Village Panchayat. According to the applicant, they have also not obtained necessary building permission from the authorities under the relevant Building Rules and is against the Government Notification O.Ms.No.255 Rural Development (C2) Department dated 18.8.1997 by which Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 was published. Though the Panchayat is having power to stop such functioning of the unit, none of them were taking any action which prompted the applicant to file the present applicant seeking the following relief:
"Direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to give the consent or renew the consent in favour of the respondents 3 to 8"
33. Subsequently, additional 9th respondent was impleaded as per order in M.A.No.221 of 2013 in O.A.No.24 of 2013 dated 26.10.2013 and the District Collector was impleaded as additional 10th respondent by suo motu common order of the Tribunal dated 19.11.2015.
34. The respondents 1 and 2 filed their reply statement contending as follows:
It is respectfully submitted that, the raw coconut shells after the removal of copra from the coconut are available in plenty in and around Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District as there are lot of coconut oil manufacturing units in Kangeyam Taluk. Hence, few charcoal manufacturing units are located in and around Kangeyam Taluk. It is respectfully submitted that, traditionally these coconut shells were subjected to partial burning in the absence of air in open earthen pit and quenched with water to get charcoal which is the raw material for Activated Carbon Manufacturing units. In this crude process there is all possibility for the air pollution and also through seepage of quenched water there could be ground water pollution in nearby wells It is respectfully submitted that, there is no proper scientific manufacturing process was adopted; the TNPC Board took the initiative and evolved certain guidelines such as common hood attached to a scrubber and a tall chimney to treat the smoke and discharge into the atmosphere. Similarly, the water used for quenching and scrubber bleed off is collected in impervious tank and refused for quenching again. This system has already been apprised to the 23 24 Hon'ble High Court, Madras and Hon'ble Court has mentioned the same in its order dated 04.01.2006 passed in W.P No. 27200/2005. Based on the complaint received from the public of Arthanaripalayam, Veeranampalayam Post, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District during the Grievance Day conducted by the District Collector on 27.08.2012 regarding the water and Air pollution caused by the coconut shell charcoal units, the following units were inspected on 08.08.2012, 23.08.2012& 31.08.2012 and the report is submitted below:
1. M/s Gee Carbon
2. M/s Nature Tech Co.
3. M/s Subbayan &Co.
4. M/s Unique Coconut Product
5. M/s G.S Carbon
6. M/s Winners Carbon During inspection, it was found that the above first four units under operation with the consent of the Board.
M/S GEE CARBON Consent was issued to the unit on 18.02.2009 vide proc.
No.DEE/TNPCB/PND/F.533/W&A/2009 dt. 18.02.2009 and the same is renewed and valid up to 30.09.2012. This unit has provided air pollution control measures such as common hood with suction arrangement and the emission is let out through a chimney of height 110 feet after passing through a wet scrubbers. Water used for quenching and scrubber bleed off are again reused for quenching. The unit has submitted application for expansion to include 6 more pits in addition to the existing 9 pits and the same is under process. M/S NATURE TECH CO.
Consent was issued to the unit on 28.06.2012 vide proc.
No.F.TPR1166/OS/DEE/TNPCB/TPR/W&A/2012 Dt.28.06.2012 valid upto 31.03.2013. This unit has provided Air Pollution Control measures such as common hood with suction arrangement and the emission is let out through a chimney of height 80 feet after passing through a wet scrubber. Water used for quenching and scrubber bleed off are again refused for quenching. Further, the unit was instructed to operate the Air Pollution Control measures provided effectively vide this office letter No.F.TPR1166/OS/DEE/TNPCB/TPR/2012 DT.06.09.2012 based on the complaints received from the public.
M/S SUBBAYAN &CO
Consent was issued to the unit on 18.02.2009 vide proc.
No.DEE/TNPCB/PND/410/W&A/2009 dt. 18.02.2009 and the same is renewed and valid up to 30.09.2012. This unit has provided Air Pollution Control measures such as common hood with suction arrangement and the emission is let out through a chimney of height 90 feet after passing through wet scrubbers. Water used for quenching and scrubber bleed off are 24 25 again reused for quenching. The unit has submitted application for expansion to include 6 more pits in addition to the existing 12 pits and the same is under process.
M/s Unique Coconut Product
Consent was issued to the unit on 06.10.2006 vide proc.
No.DEE/TNPCB/ERD/320108/W&A/2006 dt. 06.10.2006 and the same is renewed and valid upto 30.09.2009. However, during inspection, it was noticed that the unit has not installed proper Air Pollution Control measures. Hence show cause notice was issued to the unit to provide the Air Pollution control measures vide this office letter No.F.TPR1060 EE/TPR/AE/2012 dt. 31.08.2012. The unit has furnished reply to the show cause notice. The reply furnished by the unit is not satisfactory as the unit is seeking 3 to 6 months time to provide air pollution control measures. Hence recommendations for directions for closure and disconnection of power supply to this unit under section 33(A) & 31(A) of Water (P&CP) Act.1974 and Air(P&CP) Act, 1981 respectively was sent to the Board and subsequently, the init was sealed in presence of Revenue Officials. M/S G.S CARBON &M/S WINNERS CARBON M/s G.S Carbon and M/s. Winners Carbon are under operation without the consent of the Board. Show cause notices were issued to these units and units have furnished reply. Recommendation for directions for closure and disconnection of power supply to these units under section 33A and 31A of water (P&CP) Act, 1974 and Air (P&CP) Act,1981 respectively was sent to the Board and subsequently, the units were sealed in the presence of Revenue Officials these two units have also provided Air Pollution Control measures and submitted application to the Board on 27.09.2012 It is respectfully submitted that, water samples were collected from four wells, two within the unit's premises and two samples from complainants well and sent for analysis. The well water samples collected from the nearby wells reveals that the water is slightly brownish in colour with the tint of smoke odour and the analysis of the water sample reveal that the well water is not suitable for drinking It is respectfully submitted that Veeranpalayam panchayat is directed to stop the operation of all the charcoal manufacturing units in their panchayat limit within 45 days after exhausting the existing stock of coconut shells.
it is respectfully submitted that, the units of M/s Subbayan &Co and M/s Gee Carbons have filed writ petition (No.23783&23784 of 2012) against the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and Veeranpalayam panchayat and got the interim stay from the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras on 7th September 2012 and the judgment is awaited. These units have applied for renewal of consent.
It is respectfully submitted that, a High Level Committee was formed by the Board and the Committee inspected the charcoal manufacturing units in and around Kangeyam and the Committee suggested its recommendations and the same was submitted to the Hon'ble High Court, Madras.
It is respectfully submitted that, in view of the large availability of raw materials in this area in the form of "Coconut shell" since lot of coconut oil industries are functioning in and around Kangeyam the charcoal manufacturing units have also come up in this area. Initially 25 26 the Charcoal was produced by filling coconut shell in earthen pits and closed the pits after partial burning to recover charcoal. Subsequently in view of public complaints and the size of the industry also growing the TNPC Board insisted these units to provide APC measures such as suction hood followed by wet scrubber to control Air Pollution and also to recover and reuse the quenched water by storing it in an impervious tank and make up water for quenching. Since, no control measures were provided earlier the water used for quenching would have reached the nearby wells through seepage. Also the High Level Technical Committee constituted by the Board after thorough study of these units has come out with their recommendations.
It is also submitted that the industries may be advised to approach some reputed technical institutions like National Productivity Council, IIT or Anna University to study the process and get report to curtail the water and air pollution in and efficient manner and also for source reduction.
10. . It is submitted that the present status of the units are as follows:
Sl.No Respondent Name of the Unit Operation Consent status Whether complied Sl.No. in status as on with High level the affidavit 20.08.13 Committee recommendations
1. 3 Gee In operation Renewed Charcoal Carbons upto 30.09.2013granulation charcoal under both Acts unit, hence Granulation unit does not arise
2. 4 Gee Not inRenewed Not fully complied Carbons operation upto with the charcoal (They 30.09.2012 committee themselves under both recommendations closed) Acts
3. 5 Subbayan &Co. Not inRenewed Not fully complied operation upto with the (They 30.09.2012 committee themselves under both Acts recommendations closed) 4 6 United carbon In operation Renewed Not fully complied Upto with the 30.09.2012 committee under both recommendations Acts 5 7 Nature Not inCTO issued Not fully Tech Company operation valid complied with 26 27 (They upto the themselves 31.03.2013 committee closed) under both recommendations Acts 6 8 United In operation Renewed Activated Carbon upto Carbon Solution 30.06.2014 Manufacturing Private Limited under both unit hence does Acts not arise.
Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal Southern Zone may be pleased to pass such order (or) any other orders as it may deem fit and proper in this case and render justice.
35. The third respondent filed counter statement contending as follows:
"I am the proprietor of the 3rd respondent proprietary firm and as such I am well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case.
At the outset, all allegations raised by the applicant is denied, except those that are specifically admitted herein and the applicant is put to strict proof thereof.
I state that the 3rd respondent Gee Carbons charcoal granulation unit is actively involved in the business of granulation of charcoal, the charcoal produced forms the raw material for the manufacture of activated carbon. Activated carbon which again is being used as raw material in manufacturing water purifier, oil refinery industries etc besides being used in various fields for removing toxins and pollutants from air and water. The process of the unit is that the burnt shells will be separated according to the size i.e., 2 x 10, 3 x 8 and balance fines are collected by poilybags and all the finished products are supplied as raw material to activated carbon industry.
I state that I had established M/s Gee Carbons charcoal granulation unit in the year 2008 in the land measuring the extent of 6.25 acres in S.F.No.798/1B,2, 3 Athanaripalayam, Veeranampalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk. The firm had applied and submitted a building plan for setting up small scale industry of coconut shell burning chamber before the panchayat and by proceedings in No.19/28.9.2010 to 27.9.2011 the panchayat accorded approval under the Tamilnadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and u/s.159(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 subject to certain conditions. Subsequently without violating any conditions, the 3rd respondent firm has constructed building and office in which the concern M/s. Gee Carbons Charoal granulation unit has been established in which charcoal crusher were set up for which the 3rd respondent has applied to the Pollution Control Board for grant of consent and on inspection and having satisfied with the requirements of pollution laws, the District Environment Engineer issued consent order renewed up 30.9.2013. While this is so, due to various disruptive acts at the charcoal units 27 28 the RO, Dharapuram convened a peace meeting on 3.4.2013 and directed the charcoal unit not to be operated pending legal opinion and permitted the operations in the granulation unit by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2685/2012/A. It is humbly submitted that the 3rd respondent had not violate any of the statutory requirements and the prayer seeking not to renew consent could amount to infringement of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India for freedom of trade. It is further submitted that there are sufficient legislations enacted to regulate the industries and monitor the emissions caused by them and in the event of failure/non-compliance Pollution Control Board is empowered to cancel the consent to operate orders as the blanket relief prayed by the applicant is against the principles of natural justice and ultra vires of the Constitution.
It is to be further seen that there are more than 20 units around Kangeyam operating without consent from the Pollution Control Board and about 3 - 4 units operating with consent from the Pollution Control Boar but the applicant has chosen to single out respondent 3 to 8 only to protect the environment and villagers It is pertinent to note even at para 4, page 3 the applicant states that entire village should not suffer due to nine industrialists but the application is only as against 6 units. Further, the existence of few units around Kangeyam operating without consent from the Pollution Control Board has been acknowledged in the representation made to the Hon‟ble Chief Minister Cell.
It is humbly prayed that the applicant may be directed to submit list of other units operating in the area and the nature of action taken against them by the applicant so as exhibit before this Hon‟be Tribunal the applicant‟s bonafide intention in promoting the public cause of protecting the environment.
It is further submitted that besides this industry there are number of spinning mills, stone quarry, stone crushing unit, situated in this area which contribute to the air pollution further number of oil mils situated for decades together also contribute to the ground water pollution and as against this industries the applicant had not chosen to initiate but chosen the respondents 4 to l8 alone which industries in turn produce substance for removal of pollutants caused by various other industries.
Under the above said circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the application with exemplary costs and thus render justice."
36. The fourth respondent filed counter statement contending as follows:
"I state that the 4th respondent Gee Carbons is actively involved in the business of manufacture of charcoal from coconut shell the charcoal produced forms the raw material or the manufacture of activated carbon. Activated carbon which again is being used as raw material in manufacturing water purifier, oil refinery industries etc. Besides being used in various fields for removing toxins and pollutants from air and water. Actually the 28 29 respondent purchases coconut shell in bulk from coppara drying yards in and around Kangeyam.
The process of the unit is that the raw coconut shells will be put into chamber fire burnt to be converted as charcoal and thereafter it will be supplied to the activated carbon industries. A machine called wet scrubber is attached along with chamber. The wet scrubber itself came to be installed in accordance with the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras made in W.P.No.27200 of 2005 on 4.1.2006, the main function of wet scrubber is to remove impurities and regulate the smoke while burning the coconut shell and the non toxic smoke is set out in the air at a height of 120 ft by means of chimney attached to it. The water used for cooling about 4000 litres per day will be saved in the tank near the chamber and it is reused or recycled for the same purpose and as such no water effluent is discharged from the unit causing pollution. It is submitted that coconut shell a bio product under combustion without the aid of any fuel does not discharge any harmful pollutants.
I state that I had established M/s. Gee Carbons in the year 2006 for manufacture of charcoal in the land measuring an extent of 625 acres in SF.No798/1B, 2, 3, Athanaripalayam Veeranampalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk. The firm had applied and submitted a building plan for setting up a small scale industry for coconut shell burning chamber before the panchayat and by proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.12/2006-2007 t. 11.11.2006 the panchayat accorded approval under the Tamilnadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and u/s. 159(2) of Tamilnadu Panchayat Act, 1994 subject to certain conditions. Subsequently without violating any conditions, the 4th respondent firm had constructed chamber building and office in which the concern M/s. Gee Carbon had been established and in which coconut shell burning chimney were set up and for which the 4 th respondent has applied to the Pollution Control Boar for grant of consent and on inspection and having satisfied with the requirements of pollution laws, the District Environment Engineer issued consent order and being renewed periodically. In the said circumstances, some miscreants created nuisance to few charcoal units operating with valid license alleging that the units are polluting the environment and thereby Veeranampalayam Panchayat issued a letter giving the dead line for closure and not permitting or allowing the coconut shell lorry loads in to the 4th respondent‟s premises to unload and orally asked this respondent to run the unit with available stocks. It is submitted that the petitioner filed as writ petition in W.P.No.23784/2012 before the Hon‟ble High Court challenging the letter of closure of its unit by the panchayat raising a substantial legal issue as to whether the panchayat has jurisdiction rather thwarted or exceeded the power of jurisdiction to issue the impugned letter unilaterally to stop and lose down the industry unceremoniously and behind the back and in the event even if the panchayat has jurisdiction without recoursing to adherence to the basic principle of natural justice that too the consent order issued by the Pollution Control Board as in vogue and consequently the same is liable to be unsubstantial in law as right to carrying on trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is infringed and defeated.29 30
It is submitted that on 7.9.2012 this Hon‟be Court was pleased to admit the said writ petition and granted stay of the impugned order so as to enable this respondent to run the unit and the writ petition is pending reserved for orders with the interim order to stay as on date. Thereafter, the respondent has been running the unit without any hindrance an interference by anybody from any angle. In the course of the writ proceedings, three individuals viz. N. Murugananda Boopathyu, M. Dhanakumar and K. Sakthivel filed implead petition and to vacate the stay. The Hon‟ble Green Bench after hearing the petitioner, respondents and impleaded parties ha reserved for orders in the writ petition in the writ proceedings the present applicant Sathish Kumar also filed an implead petition in his individual capacity. At this juncture as already stated and it is to be noted that the Pollution Control Board officials after inspection seen machineries of latest technology having been installed in the unit would cause no pollution and having satisfied issued consent order which was being renewed after having satisfied on taking samples and getting report that the unit does not cause pollution. However, taking into consideration of the grievance of the impleaded parties, the Hon‟ble High Court in te course of the writ proceedings constituted a committee to visit the units and give its suggestions, the committee after inspection suggested for six improvements to be additionally complied in the future. It is submitted that out of the six improvements five had been complied with but the improvement as to all the processing chambers are to be above the ground level with visible pipelines of the quenched water beneath the processing chambers connected to the elevated tank for recycling.
Would not be complied with as the setting up chambers above ground level besides being unfit for heat retention necessary for the manufacture process would also be unsafe for humans to work nearby due to possibility of blast at high temperature. Due to the said reason a representation had been made to the Pollution Control Board praying for an alternate method to be suggested. However, the Board had not responded to the representation at this juncture the respondent prays that the Boar may be directed to appoint an expert committee to study the issue and suggest suitable alternate method to be adopted by the industry.
I state that subsequent to the writ petition the vested interest bent upon closing the unit had continued to create nuisance to the operation of the factory and that of common public by disrupting traffic and sending numerous frivolous petitions to various revenue authorities and the Pollution Control Board after they were unsuccessful in getting closure orders from the Hon‟ble High Court. I state that inspite of orders from the Hon‟ble High Court, I was unable to continuously operate the charcoal unit due to constant threats and intimidation, way laying of vehicles by the applicant men and as such I was constrained to approach the Hon‟ble High Court by means of writ petition in W.P.No.2881/12 seeking police protection and the Hon‟ble High Court was pleased to reserve orders in the same along with W.P.No.23784/2012. While this is so the RDO, Dharapuram convened a peace meeting on 3.4.2013 and directed the charcoal unit not to be operated pending legal opinion an permitted the operations in the granulation unit by the proceedings in 30 31 Na.Ka.No.2685/2012/A. Thereafter the legal opinions were not but however the RDO has been insisting me to get an order as against to permit operation in the 4 th respondent firm. In the meantime, a representation was made before this Hon‟ble Tribunal on 21.8.2013 as if the unit had closed on its own notion.
It is submitted that while the earlier consent was to expired on 30.9.2012 for the 4th respondent, this respondent applied for renewal of consent on 22.8.2012 and the same is pending consideration by the Pollution Control Board even as on today and in the meantime this respondent had been permitted to run the unit adhering to all air pollution control measures on the basis of the Lr.No.F/TPR/0902/DEE/TPR/2012 dt. 19.10.2012 after having been satisfied with the lab reports relating to various samples. It is further submitted that the applicant claims the charcoal industry to be under the category of industrial carbon as red category industry but the charcoal industry as on date of application was classified under orange category and only about a month back reclassified into red category.
It is submitted that this respondent had been complying with all the statutory requirements and had approached the concerned authorities on time for further renew of the consent and also after the required test conducted and the reports obtained thereon did not point to any pollution caused by this respondent.
It is humbly submitted that the 4th respondent had not violated any of the statutory requirements and had approached the concerned authorities on time for further renew of the consent and also after the required test conducted and the reports obtained thereon did not point to any pollution caused by this respondent.
It is humbly submitted that the 4th respondent had not violated any of the statutory requirements and the prayer seeking not to renew consent could amount to infringement of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India for freedom of trade. It is further submitted that there are sufficient legislation enacted to regulate the industries and monitor the emissions caused by them and in the event of failure/non- compliance Pollution Control Board is empowered to cancel the consent to operate orders as such the blanket relief prayed by the applicant is against the principles of natural justice and ultra vires of the Constitution.
It is to be further seen that there are more than 20 units around Kangeyam operating without consent from the Pollution Control Board and about three to four units operating with consent from the Pollution Control Board, but the applicant had chosen to single out respondent 3 to 8 only to protect the environment and villagers. It is pertinent to note even at para 4, page 3 the applicant states that the villagers should not suffer due to nine industrialists, but the application is only as against 6 units. Further, the existence of few units around Kangeyam operating without consent from the Pollution Control Board has been acknowledged in the representation made to the Hon‟ble Chief Minister‟s Cell.31 32
It is respectfully submitted that the targeted attack as against respondent 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 is due to the progress made by respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 jointly promoting the respondent no.8 an activated carbon industry which had turned a soar in the eye of the disgruntled elements and the business rival operating in the area. It is humbly prayed that the applicant may be directed to submit list of other units operating in the area and the nature of action taken against the by applicant so as to exhibit before this Hon‟ble Tribunal the applicant‟s bonafide intention‟s in promoting the public cause of protecting the environment.
It is not out of place here to state that prior to the advent of charcoal industry the coppara after removal of the pulp of the coconut was sold at a throw away price for industrial burning and domestic purpose or burnt in open grounds to be disposed of in primitive methods but with the advent of charcoal industry not only created a market for coconut shell but also the price of coconut to the farmers is being fixed taking into account the price coconut shells procure.
It is further submitted that besides this industry there are number of rice mills, spinning mills, stone quarry stone crushing unit situated in this area which contribute to the air pollution, further number of dying units, oil mills and rice mills situated for decades together also contribute to the ground water pollution and as against these industries the applicant had not chosen to initiate but chosen the respondents 4 to 8 alone which industries in turn produce substance for removal of contamination cause by various other industries. It is submitted that the allegation made by the applicant regarding the pollution caused by the respondent industry is not supported by any material evidence other than the bald allegation by the applicant. It is submitted that the following steps are taken to prevent pollution by the respondent.
Air pollution: Wet scrubber installed attached to the chamber which removes the impurities and regulate the smoke while burning of coconut shell and the non toxic smoke is set out in the air at a height of 12 ft by means of chimney attached to it. Green belt formed around the campus. Water Pollution: Water used is collected cooled and recycled.
The tests conducted by the Pollution Control Board has never found the trade effluent above the prescribed standard. Further, the water sample collected at this respondent‟s borewell and well situated within the unit was found to be safe It is further stated that the lands of Sathish kumar representing the applicant is situated as a distance of about 4 kms alleges his lands being polluted by my unit but whereas my immediate neighbour do not find any unit causing any pollution either to their existence or that of their lands.
It is most respectfully submitted that the applicant and his associates have been abusing the process of law by frivolous petition and litigations before the public authorities an court of law with the sole intention to close own the business of the respondents 3,4,5 6 and 8 32 33 while other unauthorized units continue to flourish without adhering to any statutory formalities.
Under the above said circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss he application with exemplary costs."
37. The fifth respondent who is the applicant in O.A.288 of 2013 and O.A.220 of 2017 filed counter affidavit contending as follows:
"I state that the 5th respondent Subbayan & Co is actively involved in the business of manufacture of charcoal from coconut shell, the charcoal produced forms the raw material for the manufacture of activated carbon. Activated carbon which again is being used as raw material in manufacturing water purifier, oil refinery industries etc besides being used in various fields for removing toxins and pollutants from air and water. Actually the respondent purchases coconut shell in bulk from coppara drying yards in and around Kangeyam. The process of the unit is that the raw coconut shells will be put into chamber fire be burnt and thereafter the burnt shells as charcoal will be supplied to the activated carbon industries. A machine called wet scrubber is attached along with chamber and its main function is to remove impurities and regulate the smoke while burning coconut shell and the non toxic smoke is set out in the air at the height of 120 ft by means of chimney attached to it. The water used for cooling about 4000 litres per day will be saved in the tank near the chamber and it is reused or recycled for the same purpose and as such no water effluent is discharged from the unit causing pollution. It is submitted that coconut shell a bio product under combustion without the aid of any fuel does not discharge any harmful pollutants.
I state that I had established M/s Subbayan & Co lin the year 2006 for manufacture of charcoal in the land measuring the extent of 4.93.5 acres in S/.F.No.732 Athanaripalayam Veeranampalayam Village, Kangayam Taluk. The firm had applied and submitted a building plan for setting up small scale industry of coconut shell burning chamber before the panchayat and by proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.13/2006-2007 dt 11.11.2006 the panchayat accorded approval under the Tamilnadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and u/s. 159(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 subject to certain conditions. Subsequently without violating any conditions, the 5th respondent firm had constructed chamber building and office in which the concern M/s Subbayan & Co had been established in which coconut shell burning chimney were set up and for which the 5 th respondent has applied to the Pollution Control Board for grant of consent and on inspection and having satisfied with the requirements of pollution laws, the District Environment Engineer issued consent order 33 34 renewed upto 30.9.2012. In the said circumstances, some miscreants created nuisance to few charcoal units operating with valid license alleging that the units are polluting the environment and thereby Veeranampalayam Panchayat issued a letter giving the dead line for closure and not permitting or allowing the coconut shell lorry loads in to the 5th respondent‟s premises to unload and orally asked this respondent to run the unit with available stocks. It is submitted that the petitioner filed as writ petition in W.P.No.23783/2012 before the Hon‟ble High Court challenging the letter of closure of its unit by the panchayat raising a substantial legal issue as to whether the panchayat has jurisdiction rather thwarted or exceeded the power of jurisdiction to issue the impugned letter unilaterally to stop and lose down the industry unceremoniously and behind the back and in the event even if the panchayat has jurisdiction without recoursing to adherence to the basic principle of natural justice that too the consent order issued by the Pollution Control Board as in vogue and consequently the same is liable to be unsubstantial in law as right to carrying on trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is infringed and defeated.
It is submitted that on 7.9.2012 this Hon‟be Court was pleased to admit the said writ petition and granted stay of the impugned order so as to enable this respondent to run the unit and the writ petition is pending reserved for orders with the interim order to stay as on date. Thereafter, the respondent has been running the unit without any hindrance an interference by anybody from any angle. In the course of the writ proceedings, three individuals viz. N. Murugananda Boopathyu, M. Dhanakumar and K. Sakthivel filed implead petition and to vacate the stay. The Hon‟ble Green Bench after hearing the petitioner, respondents and impleaded parties ha reserved for orders in the writ petition in the writ proceedings the present applicant Sathish Kumar also file an implead petition in his individual capacity. At this juncture as already stated and it is to be noted that the Pollution Control Board officials after inspection seen machineries of latest technology having been installed in the unit would cause no pollution and having satisfied issued consent order which was being renewed after having satisfied on taking samples and getting report that the unit does not cause pollution. However, taking into consideration of the grievance of the impleaded parties, the Hon‟ble High Court in the course of the writ proceedings constituted a committee to visit the units and give its suggestions, the committee after inspection suggested for six improvements to be additionally complied in the future. It is submitted that out of the six improvements five had been complied with but the improvement as to all the processing chambers are to be above the ground level with visible pipelines of the quenched water beneath the processing chambers connected to the elevated tank for recycling.
Would not be complied with as the setting up chambers above ground level besides being unfit for heat retention necessary for the manufacture process would also be unsafe for humans to work nearby due to possibility of blast at high temperature. Due to the said reason a representation had been made to the Pollution Control Board praying for an alternate method to be suggested.34 35
I state that subsequent to the writ petition the vested interest bent upon closing the unit had continued to create nuisance to the operation of the factory and that of common public by disrupting traffic and sending numerous frivolous petitions to various revenue authorities and the Pollution Control Board, after they were unsuccessful in getting closure orders from the Hon‟ble High Court. I state that inspite of orders from the Hon‟ble High Court I was unable to continuously operate the charcoal unit due to constant threats and intimidation, way laying of vehicles by the applicant men and as such I was constrained to approach the Hon‟ble High Court by means of writ petition in W.P.No.2881/12 seeking police protection and the Hon‟ble High Court was pleased to reserve orders in the same along with W.P.No.23783/2012. While this is so the RDO, Dharapuram convened a peace meeting on 3.4.2013 and directed the charcoal unit not to be operated pending legal opinion an permitted the operations in the granulation unit by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2685/2012/A. Thereafter the legal opinions were not but however the RDO has been insisting me to get an order as against to permit operation in the 4 th respondent firm. In the meantime, a representation was made before this Hon‟ble Tribunal on 21.8.2013 as if the unit had closed on its own notion.
It is submitted that while the earlier consent was to expired on 30.9.2012 for the 4 th respondent, this respondent applied for renewal of consent on 22.8.2012 and the same is pending consideration by the Pollution Control Board even as on today and in the meantime this respondent had been permitted to run the unit adhering to all air pollution control measures on the basis of the Lr.No.F/TPR/1028/DEE/TPR/2012 dt. 19.10.2012 after having been satisfied with the lab reports relating to various samples. It is further submitted that the applicant claims the charcoal industry to be under the category of industrial carbon as red category industry but the charcoal industry as on date of application was classified under orange category and only about a month back reclassified into red category.
It is submitted that this respondent had been complying with all the statutory requirements and had approached the concerned authorities on time for further renew of the consent and also after the required test conducted and the reports obtained thereon did not point to any pollution caused by this respondent.
It is humbly submitted that the 5th respondent had not violated any of the statutory requirements and the prayer seeking not to renew consent could amount to infringement of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India for freedom of trade. It is further submitted that there are sufficient legislation enacted to regulate the industries and monitor the emissions caused by them and in the event of failure/non- compliance Pollution Control Board is empowered to cancel the consent to operate orders as such the blanket relief prayed by the applicant is against the principles of natural justice and ultra vires of the Constitution.
It is to be further seen that there are more than 20 units around Kangeyam operating without consent from the Pollution Control Board and about three to four units operating 35 36 with consent from the Pollution Control Board, but the applicant had chosen to single out respondent 3 to 8 only to protect the environment and villagers. It is pertinent to note even at para 4, page 3 the applicant states that the villagers should not suffer due to nine industrialists, but the application is only as against 6 units. Further, the existence of few units around Kangeyam operating without consent from the Pollution Control Board has been acknowledged in the representation made to the Hon‟ble Chief Minister‟s Cell.
It is respectfully submitted that the targeted attack as against respondent 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 is due to the progress made by respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 jointly promoting the respondent no.8 an activated carbon industry which had turned a soar in the eye of the disgruntled elements and the business rival operating in the area. It is humbly prayed that the applicant may be directed to submit list of other units operating in the area and the nature of action taken against the by applicant so as to exhibit before this Hon‟ble Tribunal the applicant‟s bonafide intention‟s in promoting the public cause of protecting the environment. Further one Raju and four others on the instigation of the applicant had filed a civil suit as against the respondent No.4, 5 and 6 before the District Munsif Court at Kangeyam in O.S.No.352/2012 praying for injunction and the suit is pending without any interim orders.
It is not out of place here to state that prior to the advent of charcoal industry the coppara after removal of the pulp of the coconut was sold at a throw away price for industrial burning and domestic purpose or burnt in open grounds to be disposed of in primitive methods but with the advent of charcoal industry not only created a market for coconut shell but also the price of coconut to the farmers is being fixed taking into account the price coconut shells procure.
It is further submitted that besides this industry there are number of rice mills, spinning mills, stone quarry stone crushing unit situated in this area which contribute to the air pollution, further number of dying units, oil mills and rice mills situated for decades together also contribute to the ground water pollution and as against these industries the applicant had not chosen to initiate but chosen the respondents 4 to 8 alone which industries in turn produce substance for removal of contamination caused by various other industries.
It is further stated that the lands of Sathish kumar representing the applicant is situated at a distance of about 4 kms alleges his lands being polluted by my unit but whereas my immediate neighbours do not find my unit causing any pollution either to their existence or that of their lands.
Under the above said circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the application with exemplary costs"36 37
38. The sixth respondent (applicant in O.A.No.184 of 2015 and O.A.112 of 2015 filed counter statement contending as follows:
At the outset, all allegation raised by the Applicant is denied, except those that are specifically admitted herein, and the Applicant is put to strict proof thereof. I state that the 6th Respondent M/s United Carbon is actively involved in the business of manufacture of Charcoal from Coconut shell, the charcoal produced forms the raw material for t5he manufacture of Activated Carbon. Activated Carbon which again is being used as raw material in manufacturing Water purifier, Oil Refinery Industries, etc besides being used in various fields for removing toxins and pollutants from air and water. The Respondent purchases coconut shell in bulk (lorry loads) from Coppara Drying Yards in and around Kangeyam (which is a major hub for production of coconut oil). The process of the unit is that the raw coconut shells will be put into chamber (constructed with brick lining and concrete) fire and burnt charcoal and thereafter it will be supplied to the Activated Carbon industries. A machines called "wet scrubber" is attached along with the chamber and its main function is to remove impurities and regulate the smoke while burning the Coconut Shell and the non toxic smoke is set out in the air at the height of 120 ft by means of Chimney attached to it. The water used for cooling chamber about 4000 liters per day will be saved in the tank near the chamber and it is reused or recycled for the same purpose and as such no water effluent is discharged from the unit causing pollution.
I state that the partnership firm had taken the land to the extent of 6 acres in Vattamalai Village, Kangeyam Taluk comprised in S.F. No. 1175 on lease in the year 2008, for setting up of industry. Subsequently the firm had applied and submitted a building plan for setting up small scale industry of Coconut Shell Burning Chamber before panchayat and by proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1/2009-2010 dated 03.04.2009 the panchayat accorded approval under Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and approval under section 159(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Panchayat Act,1994 subject to certain conditions. Subsequently without violating any conditions, the respondent firm had constructed chamber building and office in which the concern "M/s United Carbon‟‟ had been established in which Coconut Shell Burning Chimney and crusher were set up and for which the 6 th respondent has applied to the pollution control board for grant of consent and on inspection and having satisfied with the requirements of Pollution Laws, the District Environment Engineer issued consent order in the year 2010 and periodically renewed after being satisfied with statutory test reports. In the said circumstances some miscreants created nuisance to few charcoal units operating with valid license ( more than 35 units continue to operate without any approval from the Pollution Control Board) alleging that the units are polluting the environment and thereby Pothipalayam panchayat is issued a letter giving the dead line for closure and not permitting or 37 38 allowing the coconut shell lorry loads in to the 6th respondent‟s premises to unload and orally asked this respondent to run the unit with available stocks. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P No. 28817/2012 before the Hon‟ble High Court challenging the letter of closure of its unit by the panchayat raising substantial legal issue as to whether the panchayat has jurisdiction rather thwarted or exceeded the power of jurisdiction to issue the impugned letter unilaterally to stop and close down the industry unceremoniously and behind the back and in the event even if the panchayat jurisdiction without re-coursing to adherence to the basic principle of natural justice that too the consent order issued by the Pollution Control Board was in vogue and consequently the same is liable to be unsubstantial in law as right to carrying on trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution infringed and defeated.
It is submitted that on 29-10-2012 this Hon‟ble Court was pleased to admit the said writ petition and granted stay of the impugned order so as to enable this respondent to run the unit and the writ petition is pending reserved for orders with the interim order to stay as on date. Thereafter, the respondent has been running the unit without any hindrance and interference by anybody from any angle. In the course of the writ proceedings three individuals viz, 1.N.murugananda Boopathy, 2.M. Dhanakumar&3. K.Sakthivel and Mr.Sathish kumar in this individual capacity filed implead petition and to vacate the stay. The Hon‟ble Green bench after hearing the petitioner, respondents and impleaded parties had reserved for orders in the writ petition. At this juncture as already stated and it is to be noted that the pollution control board officials, after inspection seen machineries of latest technology having been installed in the unit would cause no pollution and having satisfied, issued consent order which was being renewed after having satisfied on taking samples and getting report that the unit does not cause pollution. I state that subsequent to the writ petition the vested interests bent upon closing the unit had continued to create nuisance to the operation of the factory and the common public by disrupting traffic and sending numerous frivolous petitions to various revenue authorities and the Pollution Control Board, after they were unsuccessful in getting closure orders from the Hon‟ble High Court. It is submitted that while the earlier consent was to expire on 30.09.2012, this respondent applied for renewal of consent on 22.08.2012 and the same is pending consideration by the Pollution Control Board even as on today and in the meantime this respondent had been permitted to run the unit adhering to all air pollution control measures on the basis of the letter No.F:TPR1097/DEE/TPR/2012 dated 19.10.2012, after having been satisfied with lab reports relating to various samples. It is submitted that this respondent had been complying with all the statutory requirements and had approached the concerned authorities on time for further renew of the consent and also after the required test conducted and the reports obtained thereon did point to any pollution caused by this respondent. 38 39 It is humbly submitted that the 6th respondent had not violated any of the statutory requirements and the prayer seeking not to renew consent could amount to infringement of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India for freedom of trade. It is further submitted that there are sufficient legislations enacted to regulate the industries and monitor the emissions caused by them and in the event of failure/non compliance pollution control board is empowered to cancel the -consent to operate orders, as such the blanket relief prayed by the applicant is against the principle natural justice and ultra vires to the constitution. It is to be further seen that there are more than 20 units around Kangeyam operating without consent from the Pollution Control Board and number of units operating with consent from Pollution Control Board but the applicant had chosen to single out the Respondent 3 to 8 only to protect the environment and villagers. It is pertinent to note even at para-4 page -3 the applicant states that should not suffer due to nine industrialists but the application is only as against 6 units. Further the existence of few units around Kangeyam operating without consent from the Pollution Control Board has been acknowledged in the representation made to the Hon‟ble Chief Minister‟s cell, and in the various other documents relied on by the Applicant. It is further submitted initially all actions of the disgruntled elements were targeted as against respondents 4 and 5 and much later this respondent came to be targeted. It is respectfully submitted that the targeted attack as against respondent 3,4,5,6 and 8 is due to the progress made by respondent 3,4,5,6 jointly promoting the respondent No.8 an Activated carbon industry which had turned a soar in the eye of the disgruntled elements and the business rivals operating in the area. It is humbly prayed that the applicant may be directed to submit the list of other units (with and without consent) operating in the area and the nature of action taken against them by the applicant so as exhibit before this Hon‟ble Tribunal the applicant‟s bonafide intentions in promoting the public cause of protecting the environment. It is respectfully submitted that the consent status filed at page no.15 of additional typed set denotes functioning of 18 units to the knowledge of the board and applicant, while so the applicant seeks direction of this Hon‟ble Tribunal that consent ought not be renewal for respondents 3 to 8 and continuous pressure is mounted on the officials for the same purpose, hence the applicant is bound to demonstrate to this Hon‟ble Tribunal as to how the respondents 3 to 8 differ from the other units. It is further submitted that the location map at page no.8 of the additional typed set of the applicant denotes that one winner carbon is within the 2 km radius of Veeranpalayam village whereas fourth respondent is out of 2km radius and this respondent is beyond 4 km radius beyond of Veeranpalayam village. It is respectfully submitted that the various press publications filed in the additional typed set of papers clearly establish the politicizing of the issue. The Google map extracted by the applicant establish the terrain as dry lands and also denotes absence of habitations around the units.
39 40 Under the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the application with exemplary costs and thus render justice.
39. The seventh respondent filed counter statement contending as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the application was filed seeking the prayer to direct the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board not to give consent or renew the consent in favour of the respondent 3 to 8. The above said prayer is not maintainable owing to the reason that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has been exercising the statutory power under the Water Act And Air Act as such the statutory power of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board cannot be freezed by seeking such prayer, therefore application is liable to be dismissed.
It is respectfully submitted that in the event of complying with all the standards prescribed under the Water Act and Air Act by the 7th respondent, the 7th respondent is entitled to get renewal of consent and such a statutory right cannot be freezed by seeking such prayer, therefore Application No.24/2013 is liable to be dismissed. Besides, the averment in the application and prayer sought for by the applicant is general and very vague. It is respectfully submitted that 7th respondent unit obtained valid consent under Water Act And Air Act from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as the 7th respondent unit complied with all the standards prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board from time to time. The consent was valid upto 31.03.2013 and on expiry of the consent; the 7th respondent on its own closed the unit with effect from 01.04.2013 It is respectfully submitted that the 7th respondent unit is situated in Pothipalayam Village, and it is not the case of the Applicant that the Pothipalayam Village people made the grievance in the form of representation to the 1st and 2nd respondents. All the documents filed in the typed test divulged that only the Veeranpalayam panchayat residents preferred representation against the units situated in their panchayat and not against the units situated in Pothipalayam panchayat.
It is respectfully submitted that the document No.1 obtained by the applicant does not contain date and it was not obtained from the statutory bodies. Document No.2 relates to the year 1985 which has nothing to do with present situation owing to the scientific development to arrest the pollution.
It is respectfully submitted that the 7th respondent ran the unit up to 31.03.2013 in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the consent order and there was no complaint either by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board or by any individual against the 7th respondent.
It is respectfully submitted that in view of the prayer sought for by the applicant, the 7th respondent application dated 11.02.2013 for renewal has not been considered till date by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board despite of statutory body entrusted with the 1st and 2nd respondents herein under the Water Act And Air Act It is respectfully submitted that for running the above said unit, the 7th respondent has invested R.s 1.25 Crore and the same has become standstill 40 41 It is pertinent to mention here that the 7th respondent obtained valid building permission and other permission from the competent authorities including consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board so as to run the charcoal unit. Instead of targeting the illegal charcoal units, the applicant has unnecessarily impleaded the 7th respondent which was running with valid consent. The applicant did not take any steps as against the units which have been running without consent and still they are running. Unless this application is dismissed, the 7th respondent would be greatly prejudiced and put to heavy loss and irreparable hardship.
For the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble tribunal may be pleased to dismiss Application No. 24/2013 and thus render justice."
40. The eighth respondent filed counter affidavit contending as follows:
"Activated carbon is the generic term used to describe a family of carbonaceous absorbents with a highly amorphous form and extensively developed internal pores. It is extremely porus with a very large surface area, which makes it an effective absorbent material. This large surface area relative to the size of the actual carbon particle makes it easy to remove large amount of impurities in a relatively small enclosed space. An approximate ratio of surface area is one square meter per gram. The intermolecular attractions in the smallest pores result in absorption. The molecules of the contaminants in the water are absorbed on to the surface of the activated carbon by either physical or chemical attraction. Physical attraction does not alter the absorbate molecular structure, chemical absorption results in changing the absorbate molecular structure. Some like to refer to these two phenomenon‟s as physsiorption and chemisorptions.
The two mechanisms by which the chemicals are absorbed onto activated carbon are either it dislikes water or it attracts into the activated carbon. Activated carbon absorption proceeds through three basic steps.
Substances absorb to the exterior of the carbon surface „Substances move into the carbon absorption pore with the highest absorption energy.
Substances absorb to the interior graphite platelets of the carbon.
Presently world over used as an agent for purification of municipal waste, irony being the product is not being a pollutant rather it is most effective means as on today to remove the pollution in water and air.
History of activated carbon: The use of carbon extends so far fact into history that its origin is impossible to document charcoal was used for drinking water filtration by ancient Hindus in India and the use of activated carbon to remove harmful impurities lie organic contaminants from water has been practiced since Roman times. Carbonized wood was used as a medical absorbent and purifying agent by Egyptians as early as 1500 BC.41 42
In 19th century power activate carbon was first produced commercially in Europe using wood as a raw material which was used in sugar industry. In the United States the first production activated carbon was from black ash. Thereafter in England, activated carbon came to be used to remove undesirable adores and tastes drinking water.
Classification: Activated carbon is classified into different types on the basis of the raw materials, manufacturing methods, shapes and applications as hereunder.
Classified by materials: Wood based activated carbon he raw material being from wood saw dust straw bamboo wood etc. Blood charcoal raw material being animal bone and blood.Coal based activated carbon raw material being various coal. Shell based activated carbon raw material from coconut nut and rubber.
Classified by manufacturing method: Chemical type, steam type.
Classified by appearance and shapes: Powder activate carbon, granular activated carbon.
Application/usage: Activated carbon is used to remove pollutants from air or water streams both in the field and in industrial processes such as spill clean up, ground water remediation, drinking water, filtration, air purification and the capture of volatile organic compounds. Activated carbon is widely used for refinement of various kinds of reagent, pharmacy, sugar plant, food and beverages, beer industry, chemical industry, electric utility, nuclear powder, electroplating, gold refining and environmental protection and latest advancement being in the manufacture of cosmetics.
Water treatment: used in semiconductor/electron fields water purifier, tap water, municipal administration drainage boiler water in power plant, underground water liquid waste water. Used in running water source treatment, purification of tap water source odor control. Used in sewage treatment, like industrial waste water, municipal waste to bring down oganic matter, colour, odor and toxicity.
Air absorption/purification: Industrial gas, waste gas treatment, like gas from industrial chemical, pharmaceutical industry, from food and beverage, hydrogen, nitrogen, chlorine, ozone, hydro carbon butane. Selected coconut shell base activated carbon can remove formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, acrolein from cigarette smoke.
Gold purification & recovery: UCSPL is backed up by very vast experience in manufacturing of gold carbons. The quality requirement quality & quantity requirement to countries such as South Africa, USA and Australia can be met as per their specification. Old carbon products are developed from the initial stage to achieve high hardness, high abrasion resistance and high gold absorption properties. So most of the gold mines experience very low gold lose in their process. Maximum platelet content in the gold carbon products is limited to 2%.
Petrochemical: In the oil gas industry, activated carbon grades are widely used for different applications. In gas scrubbers purifying of gas treatment liquids such as benefield solution, 42 43 MEA etc in hydrocarbon removing purposes catalytic extraction of mercaptans in waste water treatment polishing purposes in vapour recovery processes for recovery of gasoline etc and removal of organic compounds and iron particles in steam condensates in refineries are some of main activated carbon applications in oil and gas industry. VOC, sulfour oxides, Nitrogen oxides, btx, Phenols, heavy metals, oil and gas mixtures etc are various compounds targeted to be removed using activated carbon efficiently and cost effectively.
Solvent recovery: Solvents such as trichloroethylene, Perchloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, Acetone, Carbon disulfide, benzene, Toluene oxylene can be removed using selected activated carbons.
Coconut shells based carbons with its high hardness which give high durability and high absorption desorption performance.
Response to the grounds raised by the applicant: It is submitted that many natural substances are used as base materials to make activated carbon. The most common of these are lignite, bituminous and anthracite coal and peat, wood and coconut shell. Coconut shell base activated carbons are the least dusty. Predominantly micro porous, they are well suited for organic chemical absorption. Coconut shell based carbon has the highest hardness compared to other types of activated carbons which makes it the ideal carbon for water purification.
The respondent company is manufacturing activated carbon from coconut shell through steam type a there is no fuel or chemical used in the process of manufacture. The project was commissioned in July 2011 and the factory is established in a land measuring about 10 acres. Over a period of two years, the company had planted 300 tress to increase green belt around the factory. The respondent company had created employment opportunity for the local population. Presently employing 69 persons directly and indirectly to innumerable persons. Besides contributing revenue to Government by payment of various tax, the company had also contribute towards foreign exchange reserve of the country by its exports.
Besides the activated carbon industry had been playing a vital role in fixation of good price for coconut to the agriculturists since prior to the industry the coconut shell after removal of copra was discarded without any value but with the advent of the industry, coconut shell is purchased at a rate of Rs.6500/- per ton and based on the shell rate the price of coconut is being fixed at a approximate price of Rs.1 per coconut shell.
The respondent company denies that agriculture operations had been affected due to the industry and states that the industry is situate on dry terrain wherein in the vicinity no agricultural operations were carried for the past 3 -4 decades except grazing of cattle.
It is further stated that the allegation that the industry had made the lands unit for carrying cultivation is emphatically denied as the industry in its own premises had 43 44 successfully planted and nurtured 300 trees, which are roughly about 5 to 8 feet further lawns and flower beds ceased in the factory premise sand as ample proof to hold the allegation by the applicant is mere concoction of the applicant. The green belt in the factory premises proves that vegetation in the said terrain has not been spoilt by this industry or any other industry. The respondent states that the terrain being dry and dependent on ground water without any other irrigation source had become an expensive futile exercise and as such agricultural activity had shrunk over the years.
The respondent company states that the company is carrying on manufacturing process only over the past two years whereas oil mills, stone crushing units, granite quarries, copra drying yards, spinning mills, rice mills are situated within vicinity of Kagayam taluk for past 4 to 5 decades. Further, Akilandapuram pond one of the prime source for augmenting of ground water was polluted by the untreated sewage waste of Kangeyam Town and in the context the responsible citizens had been making representation to authorities concerned and got expert advice on their own notion for alternate site for the sewage water but the authorities concerned have not taken step to divert the sewage water away from the pond due to lack of funds. It is submitted that about 200 hectares of agricultural lands were effected due to it. Representation made are filed in the typed set of papers which clearly established that the ground water had been polluted over the past 15 years. It is respectfully submitted in the said issue, affecting the public for two decades, the present applicant, being the association formed to safeguard the agriculturist and more over fighting against the causing pollute industries and to preserve the good atmosphere for cultivating crops and public needs like water and air had not taken any steps to prevent the continued pollution of a major water source.
In the context it is respectfully submitted that there are about 20 charcoal units in Kangayam taluk carrying on manufacture of charcoal adopting primitive ways operating without any consent approval from Pollution Control Board. But the applicant and other vested interest has been continuously targeting to close down the operation of the respondent 3 to 6 and 8 for reasons best known to them. In this context it is pertinent to state that respondents 3 to 6 are the suppliers of charcoal to the 8th respondent company. The respondent no.7 had been presently brought into diligent eye of the applicant only in the present application so as to create an impression that applicant‟s activities are not directed against a chosen few connected with the 8th respondent company.
It is respectfully submitted that all the contentions and allegation regarding the manufacturing process in the application relates only to the charcoal manufacture and the respondent company had been implicated only for the sole reason the success of the industry had become a soar in the eye of the some disgruntled elements.
The respondent states that Thasildar, Kangayam had issued a no objection certificate to the respondent company stating that there is no school, dwelling house, water source, burial ground temples and monument situated with 500 m of the industry. It is submitted 44 45 that Veeranampalayam village which is allegedly affected by the purported pollution of the respondent industry is situated about 4 kms away from the industry.
Process adopted in activation: It is submitted that the respondent adopts kiln method for manufacture of activated carbon whereby charcoal is fed into the rotary kiln through bucket elevator. Than the charcoal is activated by passing the steam resulting in the charcoal exposed to oxygen for oxidation process. On being oxidized the activated carbon is susceptible to absorption the process of surface boning for chemicals which makes activated carbon so good for filtering waste and toxic chemicals out of liquids and gases.
Clearance byTNPCB: The respondent states that the TNPCB had accorded consent orders to the company since the year 2011 onwards after conducting all test under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. The consent order is currently in force. TNPCB authorised with the duty to monitor an grant consent for operation of the industry has been fully satisfied and found no material for closure of the industry while so the applicant had been interfering with the respondent‟s fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(g) for extraneous reasons.
Suppressions made by applicant: The applicant while attributing respondents 1 and 2 have for their personal benefits allowing the respondents 3 to 8 to run the above said coconut shell base industries in the applicant village had failed to mention the undertaking letter obtained from Mr. Kannan, AE, TNPCB, Tiruppur under duress for closure of the industry further the applicant and associates got the Veeranampalayam panchayat to issue Lr. Dt. 22.8.2012 ordering closure of charcoal units of the respondent 4 and 5 which was challenged before the Hon‟ble High Court in W.P.No.23783 and 23784 of 2012. The Hon‟ble High Court by ore t. 0.9.12 had granted stay and thereafter the present applicant filed implead petition and was heard in length by the Hon‟ble High Court and in course of the hearing the TNPCB was directed to renew he consent order if the units had meet all requirements under the pollution laws. Thereafter TNPCB had renewed the consent order on the basis of the quality test reports. Subsequently after hearing all parties and on receipt of the report of the committee constituted by the Hon‟ble High Court the orders in the writ petition came to be reserved.
Under the aforesaid circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the application as devoid of merits with exemplary costs."
41. The 9th respondent filed counter statement contending as follows:
"I state that the expert committee appointed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal had filed its report on 22.9.2014. I state that the finding of the expert committee had held that all the values in the samples analysed are well within the parameters stipulated by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Further, the committee had found about 20 units operating in Kangeyam Taluk and pointed out at last paragraph of page 22 of its report that ozone care public 45 46 welfare association, Kangayam Taluk have included only few charcoal manufacturing units as respondents in the petition which clearly process the vested interest of the applicant association.
The respondent submits that the following submissions of the respondents to the recommendations/action plan of the expert committee.
Recommendation No.1: All the charcoal manufacturing units operating without the consent of the Pollution Control Board and permission from the local body shall be closed.
Submission of the respondents: The respondents 3 to 6 had been operating with consent orders as admitted by the TNPCB in its counters but subsequent to the protests and intimidation of the applicant, the TNPCB has failed to consider the application for renewal of consent orders submitted by the respondents 3 to 6 and had kept in cold storage. However, local body had given the necessary consent for running the respondent 3 to 6 units and the local body is also collecting the panchayat tax promptly every year including this year also.
Respondents Unit operation Consent Renewal Present
permit granted expired on application status of the
By TNPCB on submitted on renewal appln.
Gee Carbons 18.2.2009 30.9.2012 27.8.2012 Pending
Charcoal
Subbayan & Co 31.3.2009 30.9.2012 17.8.2012 Pending
United 10.8.2010 30.9.2012 22.8.2012 Pending
Carbon
Recommendation No.2: The air pollution control systems with scrubber and recirculation of the quench water and scrubber effluent if operated well continuously and efficiently will minimize the potential for air pollution and water pollution from the charcoal units. Thus existing units provided with pollution control systems and with valid consent of TNPCB may be permitted to operate. They shall periodically monitor ambient air quality of the area and the same shall be verified by ambient air quality monitoring by TNPCB based on such monitoring additional control measures, if necessary may be suggested.
Submissions of the respondents: The respondents are ready and willing to install additional control measures that may be periodically suggested.
Recommendation No.3: The units shall ensure that the pits are impervious and the effluent from the scrubber and quench water from the pits are stored in impervious storage tanks of adequate capacity for recycling. Periodic leak test of the charcoal pits and quench effluent collection pit may be done to ensure that the concrete lining provided are adequate and effective. Piezometric monitoring wells around the charcoal pits may help in ascertaining any seepage of quenching water from the pits.46 47
Submissions of the respondents: The respondents undertake to ensure the condition of the pits and dug with Piezometric monitoring wells within the period of 2 months.
Recommendation No.4: The pit method of charcoal production with minimum standardization and controls has evolved from the traditional open pit burning to the current situation and it has scope for improvement. The charcoal industry must try to adopt improved technologies to make themselves more competitive and also more environmentally compatible. For example, the feasibility of setting up charcoal unit above ground needs to be evaluated by setting up a demonstration unit and the technical, environmental land economical feasibility may be evaluated based on field data. An action plan for the same may be evolved involving all interested stakeholders.
Submissions of the respondents: The industry is ready to adopt improved technologies that may be suggested by TNPCB. Although the industry is ready for feasibility of setting up of charcoal unit above ground, the same shall be supported by a qualified technical expertise making into consideration the environmental and economical feasibility besides the quality of the output produced by such method.
In this context, they submitted that there are number of charcoal units situated in the Tirupur District and some of them are setting up or constructed charcoal units above the ground level. The expert committee did not mention anything about the operational viability of the units operated above the ground level. In other words, the expert committee was having no opportunity to visit this type of charcoal units available in Tiruppur District particularly. In fact, the model charcoal units constructed above the ground level as directed by the TNPCB had caused major explosion ad accident during its operations. This system of constructing charcoal units above the ground level cannot withstand the volume of heat which is roughly about 1000 degree Celsius with high level pressure and during the operation due to unbearable pressure and heat there is an imminent possibility of an explosion.
Accordingly in one such model charcoal unit designed by the direction and guidelines of TNPCB high level committee situated in the name of Lakshmi Agencies, Pollachi Road, Thatchchan Pudhur, Kuruppanaickkan Palayam Road, Dharapuram was having operation in the above ground level land during the process of operation the explosion occurred and thereby two labourers working in the said unit sustained thermal flame burns and later on one of the labours by name Shankar died on 9.4.2014 and another labour namely Guna sustained severe burn injuries. This accident had occurred on 3.4.2014 in the unit and later on Dharapuram Police had registered the criminal case for an offence u/s. 337, 338 IPC in Cr.No.216/2014 against the owner of the charcoal unit and after the investigation the charge sheet also was filed in the case. It is further submitted the map prepared in the above criminal case by the investigating officer is filed herewith for the perusal of the Hon‟ble Tribunal and in addition to that the copy of the FIR wound Certificate issued by the Ganga Medical Centre and hospital Private Ltd., Coimbatore an death certificate are also 47 48 enclosed herewith. Therefore, the respondents respectfully submit that the construction of charcoal unit above the ground level is causing danger to the human life It is further submitted that the expert committee‟s report is silent in respect of the operational difficulties and dangerous situation excited in the charcoal unit functioning above the ground level.
Recommendation No.5: Other recommendations of the TNPCB High Level Committee pertaining to improving the drying, handling and storage of finished products to minimise any fugitive emissions must be implemented by all the units.
Submissions of the respondents: The industry will implement the same over a period of time as this Hon‟ble Tribunal is pleased to direct.
Recommendation No.6: Permission for new units/expansions of additional units may not be granted until the feasibility of above ground charcoal unit is established.
Submissions of the respondents: This respondent have no comments over the same Recommendation No.7: Water samples in the well of Sakthivel, Nagamarathottam, Veeranampalayam village observed during the study period was contaminated. The source of contamination may be the historic seepage of quench water from charcoal units operated in the proximity of the affected wells. Since these well waters are the only source of domestic use for the community in these villages, alternate supply of drinking water for a reasonable time period may be considered.
Submissions of the respondents: The respondents respectfully submit if the drinking water is affected as stated by the expert committee‟s report, then the respondents are willing to provide bore well water facility within the limited means. However, the respondents wanted to submit before the Ho‟ble Tribunal the following facts:
The above well is belonging to a private person and using the water for agricultural purpose.
The local panchayat had provided drinking water facility through borewells and using pipe line for domestic usage for the community of the village.
The Kangayam Municipality is dumping its entire waste within a short distance of Sakthivel‟s well for the last 15 years and that may be also a cause for the said seepage.
It is further submitted that the information given by Sakthivel to the expert committee is wrong and motivated and it is a misrepresentation to say that the Veeranamalayam Village community people are using his well water for domestic usage.
It is further submitted that Sakthivel‟s well of Nagamarathottam is situated 3 Km away from houses of the village people 48 49 Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to consider the respondents the application as submissions and pass appropriate orders."
42. As per order dated 21.8.2013, this Tribunal has considered the submission made by the then counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board that respondents 4, 5 and 7 had closed their units as their „consent‟ orders were expired and as regards 6th respondent, though the „consent‟ period was over, they were still under operation., So this Tribunal by this order directed the sixth respondent to close down the unit and directed the respondents 3 and 8 to operate till „consent‟ period is valid.
43. As per order dated 26.10.2013, this Tribunal had constituted an Expert Committee for the purpose of verifying the implementable procedure and process to prevent the pollution alleged to be caused by the charcoal industries in Thiruppur District with Professor T. Swaminathan, Retired Professor of Chemical Engineering, IIT, Madras as the Chairman and Prof. Kurien Joseph, Department of Civil Engineering, Anna University, Chennai as the Member of the Committee to inspect the charcoal units in Thiruppur District to scrutinise and review the earlier report filed by the High Level Committee appointed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and evolve an implementable procedure and process to prevent pollution alleged to be caused by the said charcoal units. The parties were permitted to submit their views before the Committee and the Committee was directed to consider those aspects while submitting the report. The Expert Committee appointed by the Pollution Control Board comprised of Thiru R. Kumar, Additional Chief Environmental Engineer, Coimbatore and Thiru. Selvan, Joint Environment Engineer (Monitoring Squd), Coimbatore, assisted by Thiru S. Sathyaraj, Assistant Environment Engineer (Monitoring) Flying Squad, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thiruppur and P. Sathivel, Deputy Chief Scientific Officer, Thiruppur, Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board and Smt. Vanaja, Assistant Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thiruppur submitted their report dated 18.9.2014. The Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal mentioned above had filed its report which reads as follows:
"Introduction: Kangeyam in Tirupur District of Tamilnadu State is the hub coconut oil production. Coconuts from local production and from neighbouring Kerala State are used for this purpose. Coconut shells the waste products from oil extraction are available in large quantity which has favoured the setting up of several coconut shell charcoal manufacturing 49 50 units around Veeranampalayam, Pappini, Alambadi and Veeracholapuram villages of Kangeyam Taluk. These are small and medium industries with relatively low investment and small workforce. Traditionally these coconut shells are subjected to pyrolysis in brick lined earthen pits of about 3 m diameter and 45 m depth mostly below the ground level. After pyrolysis the carbonized shells are quenched with water to cool it and the product removed is dried in the open. This crude process of charcoal making has the potential for causing significant environmental impacts through air emissions during phrolysis and disposal and seepage of quenched water.
Consequent to a public protest in October 2012 b the villagers of Veeranampalayam Panchayat, TNPCB constituted a committee which inspected some of the units and directed the charcoal manufacturing units to install some air pollution control units and collect the quench water in imperious tanks and reuse for quenching.
In the mean time, a case was filed by Ozone care welfare association before the National Green Tribunal, Southern Bench vide O.A.No.24/2013 seeing a permanent solution to the pollution from coconut shell charcoal manufacturing units. The concerns of the petitioners were that the well water samples are not potable and are slightly brownish in colour with smoky odour, dust and smoke from the charcoal units caused respiratory problems and affected the castle and agriculture. The National Green Tribunal (SZ) constituted an expert committee in October, 2013 to assist the Tribunal in the adjudication of the matter. The committee comprised of Prof. T.Saminathan (Retd.) Professor of Chemical Engineering, IIT, Madras (Chairman) and Prof. Kurian Joseph, Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai.
The Terms of Reference for the committee included the following:
Site visit and detailed inspection of charcoal units in the Tiruppur District.
Preparation of process flow chart.
Identification of sources and types of pollution generated by the industry Preparation of qualitative and quantitative profile of pollutants by the industry.
Review of report submitted by the High Level Committee appointed by the TNPCB.
Preparation of action plan including timeline for implementing procedure processes and measures to present pollution where possible, mitigate the impacts of pollution where applicable and run the industry in an environmentally sustainable manner.
This report presents the findings and recommendations of Expert Committee Site visit and inspection of charcoal units About 20 coconut shell charcoal units are existing in and around Kangeyam. The expert committee consisting of Prof. T. Swaminathan and Prof. Kurian Joseph along with Mr. Manivannan and Mrs. Vanaja from TNPCB, Tiruppur office visited these units making 50 51 charcoal and activated carbon on 17th and 18th December 2013 to assess the environmental issues arising due to the choral making units operation.
The following are the committee‟s observations:
The units are spread out over an area of tropical dry forest consisting of mainly shrubs and grass with few tree species. There is not much agricultural activity and the human habitation is also relatively low, except in a few village like Veeranampalayam. There is no notable industrial activity or social and cultural places of significance in the area, except few spinning mills, stone quarry and crushing units rice mills and oil mills in the surrounding localities.
All the units except one follow the same technology said to have been obtained from Sri Lana of partial underground pit carbonization. Only one Unit M/s. ANA Traders, has adopted the above ground carbonization process for a small capacity production.
The pollution control measures adopted by all the units with minor modifications, consists of a dwarf chimney to burn off the volatile gas emissions and waste water collection pits to collect the quench water which is reused for quenching. Following the directions of TNPCB committed, some units have installed an additional common gas scrubber followed by tall stack to control volatiles during the initial stages of carbonization. The scrubber effluent and the quench water are reported to be reused.
The charcoal units operation seems to be seasonal depending on the availability of coconut shells from Kerala. At the time of visit, some of the units were closed due to court direction and others were either closed or operating at low production relates due to non availability of raw material and labour. The labour requirement of the units was very small land does not seem to provide employment for the local population.
A group of people from Veeranampalayam village met the committee and voiced their concern about the smoke coming out of the chimneys causing water pollution problems an affecting their cattle an agricultural productivity. They also showed some water samples containing black particles and also submitted a report to the committee.
No systematic study of the emissions from the charcoal manufacturing process or the ambient air quality or water quality of the area was available with TNPCB or any other secondary sources.
Charcoal is widely used as a domestic fuel for cooking and raw material for activated carbon manufacture. It is produce by a batch process of carbonization of bio mass like wood and coconut shells. It involves procurement, storage and drying of the bio gas, carbonisation of the biomass to charcoal, screening, packing, storage and transport of the charcoal. The charcoal manufacturing method prevailing in Kangeyam area is by burning coconut shells in traditional earthen pits, which requires only little investment in tools and equipment but lacks any control of the carbonization process. The general steps in the carbonisation process are: Combustion: the raw materials are burnt in the absence of 51 52 oxygen which results in the evolution of volatile gases, oily materials. Dehydration: free water is driven out giving thick moist steam. Cooling: when carbonisation is complete, the kiln cools below 100 C and charcoal is removed for further cooling.
The carbonization process is greatly dependent on the temperature, the moisture content of the biomass and the skill of the producer. The amount of charcoal produced varies with the methods employed to produce it and the sill of the operator.
Charcoal manufacturing is done in earthen pits constructed in bricks and lined with cement mortar. The size and the number of pits depends on the permitted processing capacity of the plant which vary in the range of 10 to 100 t/day. The pits are covered with removable covers with a small opening at the centre to feed the coconut shells. Coconut shells from Koppara drying yards are brought in lorries an stored within the premises Initially about 20% of the pit will be filled manually with coconut shells which will be ignite with fire using oil smoke yarn/sacks. The fire spreads to the coconut shells emanating smoke and heat. It will take about an hour for the fire to establish in the pit.
The smoke from the charcoal pit is forced out using a blower through a duct connected to a common chimney via wet scrubber system which cleans the air before letting into the atmosphere. The scrubber is pace with coconut fibres which trap the oily products. These fibres are also recycled as raw materials for carbonization.
The coconut shells are added periodically till the pit gets filed in few hours. All the openings of the pit except the small central opening are sealed with clay and the coconut shell is allowed to carbonize in an air starved (pyrolytic) condition. As the fire is stabilised in the pit a natural raft is established due to natural ventilation effects upon which the smoke bearing volatile compounds and tarry products of the carbonization process are flared in a dwarf chimney and let into the atmosphere. The temperature in the pit will rise upto 1000 C during the carbonisation process and it will take about a day to complete the carbonization in a pit.
On completion of the carbonization process, as indicated by fall in the natural draft though the dwarf chimney water is sprinkled over the carbonised coconut shells to quench the heat. The charcoal after cooling in the pit is unloaded manually screened packed and sored in open yards.
A portion of the quench water gets evaporated and the remaining gets drained into storage pits and recirculate with or without treatment. There is no data available on the quantum of quench water used residual effluents generated/recirculate. It is learnt that in the beginning the charcoal manufacturing was one in a very crude manner without any pollution control and consent of TNPCB. In the absence of any control measures, the residual quench water would have percolate underground and reached nearby wells resulting in contamination.52 53
It was observed during the site visits that few attempts have been made to introduce innovative changes (lay out modification for provision of a common dwarf chimney for a group of pits mechanical feeding arrangements and above ground charcoal unit) in the charcoal manufacturing process. However such initiatives at small scale remains to be techno economically evaluated, improvised and popularized.
Activated carbon is used for many applications including purification of water, wastewater and air. There is only one activated carbon manufacturing unit in the area namely M/s. United Carbon Solution Pvt. Ltd., which is operating with the consent of TNPCB. The carbon activation is done in kilns by passing seam. The charcoal received from the coconut shell manufacturing units is oxidized under specific conditions for multifold increase in surface area making it suitable or absorption. Physical activation is done using steam so that the volatile compounds are removed leaving behind the carbon with internal pores open Pollution control systems as prescribed in the TNPCB consent conditions are found to be in place and under operation.
Sources and types of pollution generated by the industry: The two pollution sources from the coconut shell charcoal units are the emissions during the carbonisation process and the potential for ground water contamination by the residual quench water/scrubber effluent, if disposed on land. Further, the fine carbon dust and fugitive emissions during charcoal handling process can cause nuisance.
Profile of pollutants and environmental quality. The only data available on the environmental quality of the area was the result of ambient air quality monitoring by TNPCB in the vicinity of United Carbon on 1210.2012.
The AAQ survey data in and around the charcoal units had revealed that all the parameter are within the limits prescribed by the TNPCB. The suspended particulate matter, though within the limits, was on relatively higher side. The analysis reports of the water and waste water samples collected during the inspection of the TNPCB High Level Committee in November, 2012 revealed that the well water samples are not potable but conforms to the inland surface water quality standards.
In order to get clear idea of the environmental impacts of the charcoal making units it is necessary to get proper data on the water and air quality in this area when units are in full operation and compare it with the quality when the units are not in operation. Hence the committee recommended to carry out environmental monitoring during the first week of March 2014 to assess the environmental impacts of the charcoal units. The committee proposed to monitor the ambient air quality at selected locations, based on the predominantly prevailing wind directions in and around the charcoal manufacturing units in Veeranampalayam village when the charcoal manufacturing units are in operation.
Ambient air quality around United Carbon charcoal unit monitored by TNPCB on 12.10.2012:53 54
Sampling location Chimney Distance Height SPM SO2 NOx
direction From From
chimney Ground
Level
Near weigh bridge ENE 66 3 129 <4 10.1
Shell storage area ESE 66 2 85 <4 11.1
Workers quarters SSE 66 2 82 <4 10.2
Granulation building SW 120 2 72 <4 13.0
Fence WNW 120 2 96 <4 12.2
CPCB Limits 100 80 80
PM10
Background ambient air quality will also be monitored when the units are not in operation.
Groundwater quality of wells in the Veeranampalaym village suspected to be polluted are also to be monitored. The studies were carried out by an accredited laboratory under the supervision of TNPCB.
Ambient air quality data and discussion: The analytical results obtained for ambient air quality at selected sites during operation and non operation periods are shown in Annexure
1. The samples were collected continuously for 24 hours on two consecutive day and results of 24 hour average are shown in the data. The consolidated data for all the parameters at different sites are presented in Tables 2 and 3. It could be observed that both SO2 and NOX values at all the sites were generally below detectible limits and hence do not pose any problems. Hence the other three parameters were compared under conditions of non operation and operation. The comparative data are presented in Table 4;
Ambient air quality around coconut charcoal units in Kangeyam when the charcoal units are not in operation Sampling location Date SPM SPM CO ARR carbon plant (sample 1) 2-3 May 2014 70.6 32.7 <1 ARR carbon plant (sample 2) 4-5 May 2014 67.7 28.6 1.58 Pappaniamman traders 2-3 May 2014 68.2 28.6 <1 Pappaniamman traders 4-5 May 2014 69.1 28.6 1.14 United carbon (sample 1) 28-29Apr.2014 67.9 24.5 1.39 United carbon (sample 2) 29-39Apr.2014 68.0 28.6 1.24 Sedangalipalayam temple(sam.1) 28-29 Apr.2014 66.1 24.5 1.19 Sedangalipalayam temple(sam.2) 29-39.Apr.2014 64.8 20.4 1.52 Global Matric School (sam.1) 28-29.Apr.2014 71.1 28.6 1.23 Global Matric School (sam.2) 29-30.Apl.2014 70.8 28.6 1.54 NAAQ standards 100 60 2 54 55 Ambient air quality around coconut charcoal units in Kangeyam when the charcoal units are in operation Sampling location Date SPM SPM CO ARR carbon plant (sample 1) 14-15July 2014 80.2 33.4 1.07 ARR carbon plant (sample 2) 15-16 July 2014 78.9 30.2 2.62 Pappaniamman traders(sam.1) 14-15 July 2014 76.8 30.2 1.21 Pappaniamman traders(sam.2) 15-16July 2014 74.6 29.4 1.22 United carbon (sample 1) 16-17Jul.2014 71.2 26.2 1.39 United carbon (sample 2) 17-18Jul.2014 72.1 25.2 3.57 Sedangalipalayam temple(sam.1) 16-17Julr.2014 70.8 30.2 1.13 Sedangalipalayam temple(sam.2) 17-18.Jul.2014 72.6 31.2 2.44 Global Matric School (sam.1) 16-17Jul.2014 78.8 28.6 <1 Global Matric School (sam.2) 17-18.Jul.2014 80.4 30.2 1.73 NAAQ standards 100 60 2 Comparative analysis of ambient air quality when the charcoal units are idle and in operation Sampling location SPM Opera SPM Opera CO Opera Idle tion Idle Tion idle tion ARR carbon plant (sample 1) 70.6 80.2 32.7 33.4 <1 1.07 ARR carbon plant (sample 2) 67.7 78.9 28.6 30.2 1.58 2.62 Pappaniamman traders(sam.1) 68.2 76.8 28.6 30.2 <1 1.21 Pappaniamman traders(sam.2) 69.1 74.6 28.6 29.4 1.14 1.22 United carbon (sample 1) 67.9 71.2 24.5 26.2 1.39 1.39 United carbon (sample 2) 68.0 72.1 28.6 25.2 1.24 3.57 Sedangalipalayam temple(sam.1) 66.1 70.8 24.5 30.2 1.19 1.13 Sedangalipalayam temple(sam.2) 64.8 72.6 20.4 31.2 1.52 2.44 Global Matric School (sam.1) 71.1 78.8 28.6 28.6 1.23 <1 Global Matric School (sam.2) 70.8 80.4 28.6 30.2 1.54 1.73 NAAQ standards 100 100 60 60 2 2 The results indicate that the values for all parameters, except some values of CO were below the National Ambient Air Quality standards. It was also observed that the operation of the charcoal units resulted only in marginal increase in the pollutant concentrations. The respirable suspended particulate matter at all the sites was generally on the higher side, close to the limits prescribed by the standards. These values are comparable with the results of TNPCB monitoring done in 2012 given in Table 1. The fine particulate concentration was well within the standards but the CO concentrations were very close to the limits even when the units are not operating. The only source of being incomplete 55 56 combustion, this is a matter of concern and needs more investigation Some of the high values of CO when the units are in operation may be due to poor control of combustion. It may be necessary to redesign the dwarf chimneys installed to address this issue.
The results for the analysis of important parameters in the open and bore well water samples collected at various locations around the charcoal units and two samples of quench water collected from two of the charcoal units are given in Annexure II and Annexure III. The results indicated that five out of the eight water samples did not meet the drinking water quality standards of some of the chemical parameters. However, the water samples were within the permissible limits for irrigation use. A comparative analysis of some key parameters for all the water and waste water samples is presented in Tables 5 and 6. A distinct colour was observed in many of the samples which were closed the charcoal units. Even bore well samples which were pumped from over 30 - 40 m depth showed color. The coloured samples also showed relatively higher values of total organic carbon suggesting that the color may be used to organic compounds. However, phenolic compounds were not present in any of the samples.
The quench water samples showed very high concentrations of organics as indicated by high values of COD volatile organics and phenolic compounds. The iron, calcium and magnesium concentrations were also high. Based on these characteristics, it is possible to expect that the source of contamination observed in some of the well water samples may be the quench water disposal. However, the absence of phenolic compounds and the relatively low concentrations of total organic carbon suggest that it may be due to the past practice of uncontrolled disposal of quench water. During the interaction with the people of Veeranampalayam village they had said that the well water quality has improved since the closure of few charcoal units.
Sample No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 pH 7.56 7.81 8.08 7.79 7.75 8.13 7.32 7.62 Turbidity(NTU) 2.0 1.3 4.4 21 6.5 2.5 12 2.2 Colour 2.0 2.0 50 35 40 2.0 25 2.0 Total dissolved 340 1546 892 1412 1306 522 2040 252 Solids Total hardness 144.2 947 469 927 824 230 1545 185 Iron 0.44 BDL 1.57 51 6.2 BDL BDL 0.18 Total organic 6 7.5 15 35 15 16 37.4 BDL Carbon Phenolic absent absent Absent absent absent absent absent Absent Compounds Flouride BDL 1.91 2.79 1.69 1.59 1.89 1.79 0.99
Characteristics of waste water samples from charcoal units Sample no. 1 2 56 57 pH 4.69 5.1 Suspended solids 20.96 344 Colour 1000 500 Total dissolved solids 13920 16730 Total hardness 4120 1133 Iron 119 35 Total organic carbon 7114 3260 Phenolic compounds 461 441 COD 18969 8694 Review of report submitted by the TNPCB High Level Committee:
One of the mandate of the present committee is to review the report of the high level committee of TNPCB, November, 2012 which has considered the potential sources of emissions/effluents from the charcoal manufacturing units and made the following recommendations o addressing the public concerns.
All the processing chambers to be above the ground level with visible pipelines of the quenched water beneath the processing chambers to the elevated tank for recycling.
Quench water to be recycled for quenching after adequate treatment Cement lining the inside walls of the pit to prevent leakage to ground „Air Pollution controls including wet scrubber with blower water circulation system and stacks Installation of facility to collect and recycle the scrubbed effluent and quench waste water.
Ambient air quality to be within national ambient air quality standards Solar pans to dry the residues from the effluent tans Coconut charcoal fines to be collected and disposed in a scientific manner without public complaints Wet charcoal drying yards to be made impervious Finished products including the reject carbon fines to be stored under proper roofing system Local body license to be insisted as a precondition for issue of consent Explore the possibility of oxidizing carbon monoxide with other fumes arising from the initial stage of carbonisation process.
Some of these recommendations such as the additional air pollution control systems and quench water recycling has been implemented by many of the units. However, the air pollution control systems are operated only during the initial stages of carbonization.57 58
One of the major recommendation of the TNPCB committee is to raise all the coconut shell burning chamber to above the ground level with the quench water and effluent circulation lines being visible so that any undesirable seepage of the waste water could be prevented.
The charcoal unit owners fear that the proposal is not viable due to loss of heat retention capacity which is necessary for the manufacturing process, high cost as the chamber is to be constructed in different material of construct ion with adequate foundation and support structures and heat less to the surroundings may cause heat stress to workers.
This committee is of the opinion that though it is technically feasible to raise the combustion chambers above the ground, the economics and the operational difficulties of such a design needs to be evaluated. Since these units are in the small scale category, it may affect the viability of the industry. The other recommendations of the TNPCB committee to reduce the fugitive emissions of coal dust must be implemented by the industries.
The Ozone Care Public Welfare Association, Kangayam Taluk, Tirupur District have included only few charcoal manufacturing units as respondents in the petition It is to be noted that though about 20 charcoal units are operating in the area, complaints have been raised only from a particular locality and against few units. The status of those respondent units at the time of visit by the committee is summarized in Table 7.
Name of the unit Description Status
Gee Carbons charcoal Coconut shell burning chambers Provided with common
& charcoal granulation (9pits) an charcoal granulation Hood with scrubber and
Unit,Arthanaripalayam Unit established in the year 2008 Chimney. Quench water and
Veeranampalayam In 6.25 acres land with Scrubber effluent are
Village Panchayat approval TNPCB Collected and reused for
Consent quenching
M/s.Subbayan & Co Established in the year 2006 in Provided with common hood
Arthanaripalayam 4.9 acres land with panchayat With scrubber and
Veeranampalayam Approval. TNPCB issued consent chimney quench water
Village In the year 2009 for 12 pits and scrubber
Effluent are collected and
Reused for quenching
Nature Tech Carbon, TNPCB issued consent in the Provided with common
Vellaraparai, Year 2012 Hood with scrubber and
Kangeyam Chimney. Quench water
And scrubber effluent
Are collected and reused
For quenching
United carbon solution Manufacturers activated carbon Pvt. Ltd.,Vattamlai From coconut shell carbon Since July 2011 58 59 In the opinion of this committee environmental issues/concerns related to the coconut charcoal manufacturing units in general are as follows:
Whether the wet scrubber system and blowers are adequate to clean the emissions during the initial combustion phase of the pit operation.
Whether the volatile organic matter and carbon monoxide released from the carbonization process stage are effectively destroyed by flaring in the dwarf chimney, especially towards the closure of the combustion stage and cooling stage.
How to control fugitive emissions from the process Whether the ambient air quality of the area is within acceptable limits Whether the brick lined pits are leak proof to hold and drain the quench waste water.
Whether the water demand for the quenching/scrubby operations deplete round water in the locality.
Based on the limited monitoring studies carried out during his investigation, this committee believes that proper implementation of the pollution control systems recommended/installed should be able to maintain an acceptable environmental quality. However, these issues pertain to the competency and integrity of the people installing, operating and monitoring the suggested systems and the monitoring of the performance of the industries by TNPCB.
Recommendations/action plan: Based on the findings of the study the committee makes the following recommendation/ action plan.
All the charcoal manufacturing units operating without the consent of the Pollution Control Board and permission from the local body shall be closed.
The air pollution control systems with scrubber and recirculation of the quench water and scrubber effluent, if operated well continuously and efficiently will minimize the potential for air pollution and water pollution from the charcoal units. Thus existing units provided with pollution control systems and with valid consent of TNPCB may be permitted to operate. They shall periodically monitor ambient air quality of the area and the same shall be verified by ambient air quality monitoring by TNPCB. Based on such monitoring additional control measures if necessary may be suggested.
The units shall ensure that the pits are impervious and the effluent from the scrubber and quench water from the pits are stored in impervious storage tanks of adequate capacity for recycling. Periodic leak test of the charcoal pits and quench effluent collection pit may be done to ensure that the concrete lining provided are adequate and effective. Piezometirc 59 60 monitoring wells around the charcoal pits may help in ascertaining any seepage of quenching water from the pits.
The pit method of charcoal production with minimum standardisation and controls has evolve from the traditional open pit burning to the current situation and it has scope or improvement. The charcoal industry must try to adopt improved technologies to make themselves more competitive and also more environmentally compatible. For example, the feasibility of setting up charcoal unit above ground needs to be evaluated by setting up a demonstration unit and the technical environmental and economical feasibility may be evaluated based on field data. An action plan for the same may be evolved involving all interest stakeholders.
Other recommendations of the TNPCB High level committee pertaining to improving the drying handling and storage of finished products to minimise any fugitive emissions must be implemented by all the units.
Permission for new units/expansion of additional units may not be granted until the feasibility of above ground charcoal unit is established.
Water samples in the well of Sakthivel, Nagamarthottam, Veeranampalayam village observed during the study period was contaminated. The source of contamination may be the historic seepage of quench water from charcoal units operated in the proximity of the affected wells. Since these well waters are the only source of domestic use for the community in these villages, alternate supply of drinking water for a reasonable time period may be considered.
There is only one activated carbon manufacturing unit in the area namely M/s. United Carbon Solution Pvt. Ltd., which is operating with the consent of TNPCB. The carbon activation is done in kilns by passing steam. Committee members are of the opinion that the issues raise in the present case are not relevant to this industry as it is not manufacturing charcoal. Further, adequate pollution control systems as prescribed in the TNPCB consent conditions are found to be in operation."
44. The committee also made certain observations and submitted an Executive Summary of the Report which reads s follows:
"The abundant availability of coconut shells has spurred the setting up of several charcoal units in villages around Kangeyam in Tirupur district of Tamilnadu State. These are small and medium industries with relatively low investment and small workforce. They employ a simple, traditional technology with relatively poor environmental pollution control measures. Following a case filed by a public association vide Application No.24/2013 the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone constituted an expert committee in October, 2013 to assist the Tribunal in the adjudication of the matter The committee consisting of Prof. T. Swaminathan and Prof. Kurian Joseph along with TNPCB officials surveyed the whole area visiting 22 charcoal manufacturing units and had detailed discussions on the technology, 60 61 process operation and operation of pollution control systems. The committee also visited some of the villages and heard the concerns expressed by the local people Due to inadequate data on the environmental quality of the area, the committee decided to collect the necessary environmental data to assess the environmental impacts of the operation of the units. Accordingly, the nine samples of well water in and around some of the charcoal units and two samples of quench water stored in a charcoal unit were collected and analysed for important parameters to indicate potential contamination of the ground water in the area. Ambient air samples were also collected from five sites designed to capture any change in air quality due to the operation of the charcoal units. The samples were analysed for fine and respirable particulates and other primary air quality parameters. All the monitoring and analysis work was carried out by a well recognized third party laboratory SGS India Pvt. Ltd., The water quality of the monitoring well water samples indicated that most of the well waters were contaminated and did not meet the drinking water standards but were within permissible values for irrigation use. The colour and presence of organics in the well water samples pointed out to the possibility of historical contamination due to past practices of land disposal waste waters from the charcoal units.
The ambient air quality monitoring data indicated that there was a marginal increase in particulate matter and CO concentrations due to the operation of the charcoal units. However, the particulate matter concentrations were below the standards prescribed by the TNPCB. The high values of CO, particularly when the units were operating, seems to suggest the need to improve the combustion efficiency or control of emission by the units.
The committee also reviewed the report of the high level technical committee of TNPCB on this matter. The committee observed that most of the units have implemented some air pollution control measures recommended by the TNPCB committee. However, the suggestion of above the ground level pyrolysis, though technically feasible has to be evaluated from economic and operational ease points of view. Other recommendations of the committee to minimize the fugitive emissions due to handling of raw materials and product must be implemented by all the units.
Based on the overall study of the problems posed by the charcoal industry, this committee makes the following major recommendations.
All the units which have installed the pollution control measures recommended by the TNPCB committee and have obtained the consent to operate from TNPCB may be allowed to operate. Those units which have not obtained the consent may be closed. No new units may be permitted till above round pyrolysis design is proved feasible.
TNPCB may initiate environmental quality monitoring program with the help of the units to collect the ambient air quality and water quality at regular intervals along with periodical verification by TNPCB laboratory.61 62
The charcoal units should be asked to pay attention to the technological up gradation. An action plan to study the above ground pyrolysis with adequate pollution control systems may be taken up with involvement of all the stakeholders.
Since the well waters of some of the villages surveyed were not fit for drinking and action plan to provide these villagers with safe drinking water may be taken up by appropriate agencies.
The committee acknowledges the help and assistance of Assistant Engineers Mr. Manivannan and Mrs. Vanaja and District Environmental Engineer Mr. Malayandi from TNPCB , Tiruppur office in conducting this study. We also thank SGS India Pvt. Ltd., for their help in monitoring work."
45. The Pollution Control Board had filed their remarks on the report of the Expert Committee appointed by this Tribunal dated 18.9.2014 which reads as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the recommendations/action plan submitted by the Expert Committee vide item lno.7 on page no.24 of the report:
Sl Recommendations/action plan submitted by the Expert Committee Remarks No 1 All the charcoal manufacturing units operating without the consent of Accepted The Pollution Control Boar and permission from the local body shall Be closed 2 Air pollution control systems with scrubber and circulation of the Accepted Quench water and scrubber effluent if operated well continuously And efficiently will minimise the potential for air pollution and water Pollution from the charcoal units. Thus existing units provided With pollution control systems and with valid consent of TNPCB may Be permitted to operate. They shall periodically monitor ambient Air quality of the area and the same shall be verified by ambient Air quality monitoring by TNPCB. Based on such monitoring Additional control measures if necessary may be suggested. 3 The units shall ensure that the pits are impervious and the effluent Accepted From the scrubber and quench water from the pits are stored in Impervious storage tanks of adequate capacity for recycling. Periodic Leak test of the charcoal pits and quench effluent collection pit may be Done to ensure that the concrete lining provided are adequate and Effective. Piezometric monitoring ells around the charcoal pits may Help in ascertaining any seepage of quenching water from the pits. 4 The pit method of charcoal production with minimum standardization Accepted And controls has evolved from the traditional open pit burning to the Current situation and it has scope for improvement. The charcoal industry must try to adopt improved technologies to make themselves more Environmentally compatible. For example, the feasibility of setting up a Demonstration unit and the technical environmental and economical 62 63 Feasibility may be evaluate based on field data. An action plan for The same may be evolved involving all interested stakeholders 5 Other recommendations of the TNPCB High Level Committee pertaining Accepted To improving the drying handling and storage of finished products to Minimize any fugitive emissions must be implemented by all the units 6 Permission for new units/expansion of additional units may not be Accepted Granted until the feasibility of above ground charcoal unit is established 7 Water samples in the well of Sakthivel, Nagamaathottam, Charcoal Veeranampalayam village observed during the study period was Units may Contaminated. The source of contamination may be historic seepage be directed Of quench water from charcoal units operated in the proximity of the to arrange Affected wells. Since these well waters are the only source of domestic for Use for community in these villages alternate supply of drinking water alternate For a reasonable time period may be considered. supply of drinking water for a reasonable time period to the affected villages 8 There is only one activated carbon manufacturing unit in the area Accepted Namely M/s. United Carbon Solution Pvt. Ltd., which is operating With the consent of TNPCB. The carbon activation is done in kilns by Passing steam./ Committee members are of the opinion that the issues Raise in the present case are not relevant to this industry as it is not Manufacturing charcoal. Further, adequate pollution control systems as Prescribed in the TNPCB consent conditions are found to be in operation It is respectfully submitted that objections file by the applicant Ozone Case Public Welfare Association to the report of the Expert Committee file on 18.9.2014.
Sl Objections filed by the applicant assn before NGT Remarks No 3 It is humbly submitted that in para 7.0(2) in the The charcoal Recommendations/action the expert committee have Manufacturing units Observed that the existing units provided with pollution Those who comply Control systems and the valid consent of TNPCB may be With the TNPCB Permitted to operate. Whereas the expert committee Committee and In para 1.0 in the introduction observed that this crude Expert committee Process of charcoal making has the potential for Recommendations Causing significant environmental impacts through air May be permitted to 63 64 Emission during pyrolysis an disposal and seepage of operate Quenched water. The expert committee in para 5.2 in The water quality data and discussion have observed That the results indicated that five out of eight water Samples do not meet the drinking water quality Standards for some of the chemical parameters. The Expert committee also observed that it is possible to Expect that the source of contamination observed in Some of the well water samples may be the quench Water disposal 4 It is humbly submitted by the applicant assn. that the The charcoal Main reason for the contamination of the wells in the manufacturing units Locality was because of the water seepage of the Must comply with the Quenched water by the respondent charcoal units. The TNPCB committee TNPCB as early as 27.11.2012 in its High Level And expert committee Committee report on air and water pollution aspects Recommendations In the coconut shell charcoal units in Kangeyam area State that in order to ascertain any seepage of Quenching water from the multi lined pits, there are no Piezo meters & the multi lined pits are constructed in a Made up of soil which is partially below and rest above Ground level 5 It is humbly submitted that when the TNPCB itself No remarks Cannot ascertain whether there is any seepage of The quenched water by the charcoal units who is to Monitor the respondent charcoal units. It is observed By the expert committee in 2.0 site visit and inspection Of charcoal units in para 6, no systematic study/ Monitoring of the emissions from the charcoal Manufacturing process or the ambient air quality or Water quality of the area was available with the TNPCB or any other secondary source.
6 It is submitted that even as per the respondent The charcoal Charcoal units contention that there was no seepage Manufacturing units Of quenched water from the charcoal units and that Must comply with the All pollution control measures are in place, then how TNPCB committee Come the expert committee in its 7.0 recommendations/ And expert committee Action plan observed that the source of contamination Recommendations May be historic seepage of quench water from Charcoal units operated in proximity of the affected Wells. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to Appreciate the fact that this respondent charcoal Units have not been operating from the year 2008 and Till date the water has been affected and it cannot be Used for drinking purpose such is the grave 64 65 Environmental damage caused by these respondent Units who have not cared about the environment And people and bothered only about money and money Alone. It is also observed by the Experts that since These well water are the only source of domestic use For the community in these villages, alternate supply of Drinking water for a reasonable time period may be Considered. The respondent charcoal units very well Aware of these contaminations to the water have not Bothered till date to provide water for the villagers.
7 It is submitted that till the respondent charcoal units The charcoal Comply with the one of the recommendation that the Manufacturing units Respondent charcoal units should set up charcoal unit Must comply with the Above the ground level the unit should not be permitted TNPCB committee To operate because it will be impossible to ascertain And expert committee The seepage of quenched water and environmental Recommendations. If Damage will continue. It is pertinent to note that all the Failure to comply, Respondent units consent to operate have expired Erring units shall be During the year 2012 itself and not renewed by the Closed TNPCB and also these respondent charcoal units do Not have any local body permission 8 It is submitted that all around the world more The charcoal Environmental friendly charcoal manufacturing process Manufacturing units Are adopted. The present method adopted by the Must comply with the Respondent units is considered as the process that TNPCB committee Causes most damage to the environment. It is And expert committee Submitted that countries such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia Recommendations. And Philippines used the same obsolete open/closed Pit burning method below ground level land due to the Pollution caused they have abandoned this practice And have adopted a more modern and which is Environmental friendly process called control pit method And a highly successful process cattle as doomed Type brick kiln. Both these processes are above the Ground level and hence the seepage of quenched water Does not arise and hence no pollution of ground water Will be caused. It is humbly submitted that this Applicant has annexed documents relating to new Technologies for efficient and pollution free charcoal Manufacturing units and the same may be considered By this Hon‟ble Tribunal.
9 It is submitted that the respondent charcoal units do not No remarks Want to invest any money on modern technology Wherein the production of charcoal from coconut shell 65 66 Can be carried out without any environmental damage In turn they want to carry on degrading the environment Without adopting any new method and on causing Pollution for which the applicant cannot be a party to 10 It is submitted that this applicant association is not No remarks Against the respondent charcoal units. This applicant is against these units as severe environmental damage Is being caused by them. In the pretext of making Money, they forget that they are socially responsible And even through new technologies are available the Respondent units do not want to implement the same As they will have to spend and they go by the mantra Maximum profit, minimum pollution The TNPCB High committee report also state that these charcoal Manufacturing unit should set up above ground level units and gave them l6 months time to comply but none of the unit complied saying that it is not viable and they continued to pollute. The entire village protested and hence all these respondents were closed down.
No the expert committee has also observed that these Units should set up above ground level units wherein Pollution can be completely eradicated. The Hon‟ble Tribunal should direct each and every charcoal Manufacturing in Tamil Nadu to set up above ground Level units and then they may be continued to operate Or else the entire exercise will prove futile and the Environmental damage will continue unabated and Cause severe hardship to the general public Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) may be pleased to pass such further or other orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
46. As per order dated 22.4.2015 this Tribunal has passed the following order:
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties including the project proponent and the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board. After hearing the detailed argument, we are of the view that the Board which has accepted the expert committee report appointed by the National Green Tribunal of September 2014, has to evolve the method for the purpose of implementation of various recommendations. namely:66 67
1. The cost effect and technology conditions and feasibility of the setting up of Charcoal unit above ground.
2. The restoration of the ground water quality affected by pollution which has resulted in the change of colour of water and also the period before which the same is to be done with adequate scientific method and cost to be incurred in that behalf.
3. Till what time the alternate source of supply of potable water to be made to the people for drinking purpose One.Balasubramaniam Charcoal Unit which is in the proposal stage has come forward with a method of using Super Fire Crete cement in the pit form method. However, the same was not subject matter of scrutiny of the Expert Committee. Therefore, we direct the Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board to convene a meeting of all project proponents including the Balasubramaniam Charcoal unit numbering around 20 and consider the said proposal of the above said three points on mutual discussion and take a decision about the feasibility. A report in this regard shall be filed on the next date of hearing. We also request the Chairman of the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board to have for his assistance the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Monitoring) Coimbatore District at the time of such conference. We also direct the Board to give advance notice to all the 20 units in the District after fixing a date for such conference meeting. We also make it clear that in the meeting Technical Experts including technocrats and structural engineers of the Board and if such officers are not available, experts from the Anna University or I.I.T may be nominated so as to enable the meeting to take an appropriate solution."
47.The Pollution Control Board had submitted a report dated 14.7.2015 which reads as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that as per the orders of the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ), Chennai, the meeting held between the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board officials, experts and the charcoal manufacturing units, including M/s. Balasubramaniam charcoal unit on 3.7.2015 at the corporate office of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was chaired by the Chairman, TNPCB, The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer - IV, TNPCB welcomed the gathering including the proprietors of the charcoal manufacturing units located at Kangeyam Taluk of Tiruppur District and briefed the purpose of the meeting. He explained that the meeting was aimed at examining and adopting „above the ground level method‟ for production of charcoal as per the proposal of the unit M/s. Balasubramaniam Charcoal manufacturers as stated in the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) order.
It is further submitted that the technicalities of operation were discussed. A small sized model charcoal unit was used to understand the above ground level land below ground 67 68 level differences. Besides pollution problems caused and hardships faced by the public living nearby due to the operation of charcoal manufacturing units located at Kangeyam Taluk of Tiruppur District were discussed.
A power point presentation was made by one proponent Arjunan of M/s. A.N.A Carbons which is being operated above the ground level for charcoal manufacturing.
All the unit owners except Arjunan of M/s. AN.A Carbons categorically stated that above the ground level method was not suitable for the following reasons:
Lack of safety for labourers Possibility of explosion due to back firing Possibility of breakdown of entire unit Not a proven method Cost factor escalation Durability of using of iron cladding etc may remain good only for a short period, a year or so.
It is respectfully submitted that Prof. Arul Jeyachandran, Structural Engineering Expert from IIT, Madras, explained that safety aspects and pollution control aspects can be built in to the above the ground level method units as per requirement risk is prevalent in both cases of operation.
It is submitted that the unit owners expressed apprehensions on safety issues. It was mentioned that below the ground level method is still practiced in other parts of India and other nations like Sri Lanka, Indonesia etc and requested not to insist on above ground level method. Further the monitoring of the process from raw material coconut shells to the product charcoal in order to avoid the product getting totally burnt is very crucial land will be difficult in the above the ground level method especially for the labourers.
It is further submitted that in the meeting the views of unit owners to continue below the ground level operation for the time being were generally accepted. However, the units have to produce stability as well as non-pollution proof certificate from competent authority. The other two points of the Ho‟ble NGT order i.e., contamination of nearby wells due to the charcoal manufacturing unit operations and the necessity to provide alternate source of water to the affected people were also discussed. The proponents assured to comply with the instructions of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and experts. After further discussion it was opined that EIA study needs to be conducted to assess the actual extent of damage done to environment.
At the end of the discussion the Chairman, TNPCB summarized the action to be taken by the charcoal manufacturers for submission to TNPCB based on the Hon‟ble NGT direction as follows:68 69
All the charcoal manufacturers (around 20 nos) are instructed to furnish affidavit on or before 10th July, 2015 in non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.50/- with assurance on the following points as below:
To bear the cost towards restoration of ground water quality affected by pollution land has resulted in the change of colour of water.
To produce design cum stability certificate obtained from competent authority for their manufacturing unit/plant.
Acceptance for supply of potable water to be made to the affected people for drinking purposes.
If any design is arrived for the manufacturing of coconut shell charcoal the same to be vetted by the experts either from IIT, Madras or Anna University, Chennai.
The unit representatives accepted that they would comply with all of the above mentioned instructions ad furnish an affidavit for the same before the stipulated time of 10th July, 2015."
This Tribunal by order dated 14.7.2015 directed the Pollution Control Board to convene the meeting of the charcoal manufacturing units and the applicant and submit a report regarding the outcome of such meeting.
48 .Thereafter, they have filed another report dated 30.7.2015 which reads as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that as per the said orders of the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ), Chennai, meeting was held in the presence of TNPCB officials, Technical experts, petitioners of the cases and the proprietors of charcoal manufacturing units on 25.7.2015 at the Corporate Office of TNPCB and the meeting was Chaired by the Chairman, TNPCB.
It is respectfully submitted that the proposed meeting was attended and the petitioner brought around 30 people from Kangeyam Taluk and insisted that all of them should be allowed to participate and to voice their views in the meeting. However, the Chairman explained that this meeting is being held as per direction of Hon‟ble NGT hence only the stakeholders and the persons referred in the Hon‟ble NGT order dt. 14.7.2015 would be permitted to attend the meeting. However, Chairman met all 30 people in his Chamber and patiently heard their views and also received their representations. Five each from petitioners and industry side were permitted to attend the meeting. The petitioners representative brought to the meeting only 1 person from the affected area to speak and 3 people sponsoring the above ground level technology.
It is respectfully submitted that the Chairman, TNPCB welcomed the gathering including the Technical Experts. Petitioners and proprietors of the charcoal manufacturing units located sat Kangeyam Taluk of Tiruppur District and briefed the purpose of the meeting.69 70
The Chairman explained that as directed by the Hon‟ble NGT in its common order dt. 14.7.2015.
It is further submitted that the Chairman invited the applicants and the project proponents to record their main contentions Thiru A. Karthikeyan, the representative of the petitioner (Mr. Sathish kumar of Ozone Welfare Association) expressed the hardships faced by the people of his and neighbouring villages due to the excessive release of pollutant into the environment by the charcoal manufacturing units located at the Kangeyam Taluk of Tiruppur District.
„ Thiru A. Karthikeyan began by stating that all the units should switch over to above the ground level method land implement process control measures favoured by his representatives he brought to the meeting. However, on being specifically asked to state by the Chairman as to whether he was interested in promoting above the ground level technology explained by the persons who came with him and take responsibility for their pollution free operation, he hastily withdrew his support an mentioned that he was not concerned about whether the operation is above or below the ground level but his concern was that the methodology of operation should be pollution free and not cause damage to environment.
He further stated that as the representative of the petitioner either of the methods above the ground level method or below the ground level method is acceptable provided that the industry operates without causing pollution to ground water, surrounding air or soil. As he wanted to show a power point, the Chairman permitted him to do so at the end.
It is further submitted that the second representative from the petitioner side Thiru M..R. Muthukumar, Vice President of the Veeranampalaya Village Panchayat expressed his view that since the units would continue to violate the environmental norms, he was opposed to the very idea of the units resuming operations in the village irrespective of the methodology to be adopted for manufacturing and pollution control. The other 3 representatives brought by A. Karthikeyan stated that his above the ground technology is so far not put up any where and wanted permission to do so. The Chairman stated that he has to make the proposition acceptable by experts and industry.
It is respectfully submitted that when it was stakeholders opportunity to record their contentions. G. Balasubramani of M/s. Gee Carbons confirmed that all the units have agreed to adopt the methodology acceptable to TNPCB and also agreed to comply with the prescribed norms and guidance from experts in this regard. Vikram of M/s. United Carbons stated that after providing SS lining to the charcoal manufacturing pits, the water in the well nearby has restored to normal level and TWAD analysis of the sample collected on 21.5.2015 reveal the same.
It is respectfully submitted that all 20 units have also furnished affidavit stating the following:70 71
Based on the environment impact assessment study to be conducted by the authority for the assessment of any pollution caused by our unit during the manufacturing of charcoal and any direction given by the charcoal Hon‟ble NGT thereon will be complied by the unit.
We will provide potable water to the affected villagers based on the EIA study or as directed by the Hon‟ble NGT.
It is also submitted that the institution of IIT, Madras has also approved the SS 316 liner method which will completely prevent the leaching of quenching water and we are ready to implement the modifications as prescribed by IIT, Madras or as directed by the Hon‟ble NGT.
It is respectfully submitted that expert member Prof. T. Swaminathan stated that at the time of inspection of the units, as a member of the Expert Committee constituted by the Hon‟ble NGT in 2013 that without availability of any baseline data, conclusion could not be arrived at regarding the extent of water pollution caused by the charcoal units. Further, that conducting an EIA is necessary for the purpose. As an expert, he stressed that monitoring and control of environmental pollution is the role of PCBs and the methodology/technology to be adopted was duty of the industries themselves.
He further expressed that setting suitable environmental standards is more important than the kind of methodology adopted as every technology has its known pros and cons conveying that no technology is pollution free. He also stated that it is possible to provide prevention/treatment methods for control of Water/Air/Land pollution in either above the ground level method or below the ground level method as may be adopted.
It is respectfully submitted that all the three expert members were consulted about all the four points raised by Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) in its order dt. 14.7.2015 including the merits and demerits of the charcoal manufacture using above the ground level method and below the ground level method by taking around 12 parameters such as technology mode of operation etc. The experts remarks in this regard are enclosed as annexure. As a final conclusion in respect of the technical discussions they expressed that in both the method prevention of pollution can be established.
It is respectfully submitted that at the end of the discussion, the following technical decisions have been arrived and all the stakeholders present in the meeting have principally accepted.
It is found that the main issue was not whether the type of operation was above the ground or below the ground but to achieve the prescribed environmental standards.
A detailed EIA study is essential to assess the damage and to suggest methodologies for the reclamation of ground water.
The charcoal manufacturers having agreed to all the decisions taken shall submit fresh application for consent to operate along with design and process verified by experts from 71 72 reputed institutions like IIT or Anna University with respect to prevention/control of pollution stability etc. Only application in such complete form will be accepted by the Board.
The charcoal manufacturers have furnished the affidavit mentioning the following points:
Acceptance to bear the cost of conducting an EIA study as well as for the remedial methodology to be carried out based on the environment impact assessment study and any direction given by the Hon‟ble NGT thereon to be complied by the unit.
Acceptance to provide potable water to the affected villagers Acceptance to adopt the process as well as equipments instruments as certified by the institution of IIT Madras/Anna University and any other reputed institution. Accordingly all the charcoal units furnished individual undertaking to the Board of 28.7.2015.
The existing or proposed units shall resubmit fresh applications as per the above mentioned procedure.
TNPCB is a regulatory body and does not enforce the choice of technology to be adopted by the industries for manufacturing. The role of PCBs is more of monitoring to ensure that the industries adhere to the emission, discharge etc standards prescribed under the Water (P&CP) Act, 1974 as amended under the Air (P&CP) Act, 1981 as amended and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as amended thereon from time to time.
The petitioner and the unit representatives accepted that they would comply with all of the above mentioned decisions and furnish an affidavit for the same."
49. It also contains an Expert Report from Dr. Saleem Babu, individual Technical Expert/Consultant dated 18.4.2016 which reads as follows:
"As per the Hon‟ble NGT order the Chairman, TNPCB constituted a committee comprised of Technical Experts Thiru. Jayakumar, T.C. Ethiraju, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Dr. S. Selvan, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer and A. Thangapandian, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer to assess the technical feasibility and design proposals furnished by the units and recommended the following to the incorporated in the report after scrutiny.
The unit shall furnish detailed design report for the modernised elevated pit including all the operations beginning from the loading to unloading of the product.
The unit shall furnish a detailed report on monitoring activities involved in the process such as firing temperature maintenance in the charcoal pit water quenching and mixing of coconut shell in the pit for uniform carbonisation.
The unit shall furnish report with respect to safety aspect in the operation activities.72 73
Accordingly the units have furnished revised project proposals. Based on the reports submitted by the units, the committee scrutinized the proposals and recommended the following improvements.
„ M/s. United Carbon and M/s. Tirupur District Coconut Shell Charcoal Manufacturing Association have submitted same proposal in which it has been noticed that the units have provided modernized charcoal pit which has been elevated to a height of 500 mm above the ground level. Also the units have furnished operating procedure of the charcoal unit with flow chart, drawing with monitoring and safety measures.
Whereas the unit M/s. Balasubramaniam, Charcoal unit has also submitted the proposal with modernized the charcoal pit that has been elevated to a height of 3000 mm above the ground level along with details of process operation monitoring and safety aspects. However the proposal does not contain air pollution control measures in the process.
After scrutinizing the proposals the committee accepted the proposal land recommended the following to be incorporated without fail while applying for CTE.
M/s United Carbon and M/s. Tirupur District coconut Shell Charcoal Manufacturing Association proposal consist of a natural chimney which is the possibility of the hydro carbon to be escaped instead of scrubbing that shall be avoided. If necessary an emergency outlet pipeline may be provide from the charcoal pit to the chimney to avoid fire accident.
The unit M/s. Balasubramaniam charcoal unit shall provide adequate air pollution control measures to the process.
General points to be considered by all the units Electrical ignition system should be provided into the chimney so as to combust the escaped volatile organic compounds present in the flue gas Manual operation should be avoided Final scrubbed water should be used for quenching the charcoal The unit shall get necessary approval from the concerned department for the safety operation of the equipment."
50. Thereafter, the Pollution Control Board also filed another report dated 4.7.2016 which reads as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the Hon‟ble National Tribunal has passed the order on 1.6.2016 inter alia as follows:
The learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submit that once project proposal is accepted in principle and the guidelines are being framed immediately after the 73 74 guidelines are framed by the Board for filing consent to establish which may be useful for the purpose of considering the application in respect of the units.
In so far as restitution of the damages is concerned, the NEERI is yet to give its response and after NEERI is giving its response the restitution will be considered by the Tribunal. We direct the Pollution Control Board to write to the NEERI to expedite the process so that by the next date of hearing the report of NEERI will be available.
The learned counsel appearing for the Board also submits that expenditure for NEERI in this regard will be placed before this Tribunal so that the same can be apportioned among the project proponents by the next date of hearing. Post these applications on 4.7.2016.
It is respectfully submitted that as directed by the Hon‟ble Tribunal in its order dt. 19.11.2015 the units have submitted the proposals to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the proposals have been scrutinized by the committee constituted by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board which is comprised TNPC Board officials. The reports submitted by the units have been scrutinized by the committee on 17.2.2016. After scrutinization, the units were addressed to incorporate certain modification as recommended by the committee. Accordingly, the units have submitted the revised proposals after incorporating the said modification that has been accepted by the committee on 18.4.2016 with certain improvements to be carried out while applying for CTE Regarding the NGT direction to conduct a study for reclamation measures and arrived at a conclusion as to the proportionality of liability to be imposed on all the stake holders, including the project proponents, panchayat other industries, the Board has addressed NEERI to conduct the said study vide Board‟s Lr.dt. 14.1.2016 and 11.2.2016.
Subsequently on 20.5.2016 the NEERI has again been addressed to confirm their acceptance and to inform the time bound schedule for completion of the above study and mail has also been sent to Head, NEERI, Chennai in this regard on 30.5.2016.
It is respectfully submitted that the NEERI, HEAD, Chennai vide his Lr.dt. 3.6.2016 submitted their project proposal for assessment of impact of charcoal manufacturing units on ground water in Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District, Tamilnadu as approved by Director, NEERI, Nagpur and the same is submitted herewith in annexure.
It is respectfully submitted that meanwhile, the NEERI, Head, Chennai has requested the Board to furnish the following details for the purpose of assessment of impact of charcoal manufacturing units at Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. The number and location of charcoal units operated in the vicinity of Kangeyam Taluk First and latest consent orders issued to those units Details of the ells and number of wells affected by the charcoal manufacturing activity. How many complaints have been received in this office Location of map showing wells, habitations and units 74 75 The extent of study area to be carried out Manufacturing process details and process flow sheet including water and air emissions When did the unit stop the operation and details Report of analysis of samples collected/analyzed before and after closure of the units Is there any process modifications carried out by units after closure It is further submitted that the NEERI, Head has fixed the total project cost of Rs.9,20,000/- towards the expenditure to be incurred for the above said purpose. Further, they requested the Board to issue a work order enclosing a demand draft for Rs.6,34,800/- i.e., 60% and its corresponding service tax @ 15% Rs.82,800/-
The NEERI Head, Chennai has requested 8 months duration for the completion of the above said project"
51. They also filed another report dated 9.9.2016 which reads as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, Chennai has passed an order dt. 26.8.2016 inter alia as follows:
"The learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submits that in this matter a policy decision has been taken to accept the mechanism above ground level."
It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the orders of the Hon‟le Tribunal, the proposals of M/s. United Carbon, M/s. Tiruppur District Coconut shell charcoal Manufacturer Association and M.S. Balasubramaniam charcoal unit were scrutinised by the Expert Committee of TNPCB. The details of the proposals submitted by the industries and the comments offered on the proposals are as follows:
M/s. United Carbon situated at 1175 Ciyan Kadu, Vellaraiparai, Dharapuram Road, Kangayam M/s. Tiruppur District Coconut shell Charcoal Manufacturer Association.
Modernisation of elevated charcoal pit - design features: The modernised elevated pit is above ground level of 500 mm from finished floor level.
Provision of thermal insulator to be made in such a way that the first layer of Ceramic fibre blanket of 120 mm has been placed above RCC pillar mat followed by second layer of river sand with 150 mm and third layer of red clay with 50 mm thickness. The 4th layer has been taped with red brick lining, 5th layer of tar liner and the final layer has been finished with SS liner. This thermal insulators support the additional strengthening of lifted pits.
Standard operating procedures: The loading of coconut shells into the pit to be carried out by dozer truck and fed gradually.75 76
Temperature limit to be monitored and ID fans provide for venting out smoke and overhead cranes to be provided to remove the carbonised coconut shells.
Monitoring activities: Digital temperature monitoring system, pipeline to drain out quenched water from the pits and man hold under the modernised elevated charcoal pit with survelliance CCTV camera to monitor and ensure that there is no seepages of quenched water.
Emergency openin to be provided above the pit to protect the employee from the backfire that may cause during the process.
M/s. Balasubramanian charcoal unit:
The caronizer is a vertical cylindrical reactor made up of boiler grade steel with thickness 8 mm along with rolled channel ring stiffener of 100 to 150 mm have been place at regular interval. The reactor is 6200 outer diameter and 6000 mm height. All steel parts are coated on both sides with temperature resistant silica enamel to protect it from corrosion and high temperature.
The total carbonizer structure assembly is to be lifted to a height of 3000 mm from finished ground level on a reinforce cement concrete structure. Inside the carbonizer 150 mm reinforced geopolymer concrete to be provided (as a cool face insulation material) to protect the metal from carbonization gas corrosion and temperature. After this concrete, one layer of (225 mm thickness) burnt end arch clay brick to be provided as a hot face insulation material and the geopolymer mortar to fill up the gap in between the bricks for better bonding and sealing.
In the bottom of the carbonizer, a door is to be provided with water sealing arrangement to retain the material during carbonization and collecting the water during water quenching and to remove the material during material discharge.
Process Monitoring: The temperature measurement is to be provided at various stages of the reactor to ascertain the status of carbonisation.
To restrain the spreading of flame, a separate shed is proposed to be erected above the combustion chamber to a height of 1.5 m The spraying of water to be controlled based on the required temperature.
The differential pressure between the combustion chamber header of the reactor to be measured monitored and controlled by valve position in to stop the flame return due to atmospheric air velocity.
Safety: Provision is to be made at four points to release the pressure at the top surface of the feeding points to prevent explosion and fire hazards.
ii.The header chamber and the burner assembly are to be separately connected to two individual pressure release assembly.76 77
Conveyor belt is to be provided to convey the coconut shell and to dispense with manual labour.
It is respectfully submitted that the Expert Committee of TNPCB accepted the above said proposals ad furnished industry specific recommendations to be incorporated while applying for CTE along with general points that have to be considered by all the units.
M/s. United Carbon and M/s. Tirupur District coconut shell charcoal manufacturing Association proposals consists of a natural chimney, wherein there is a possibility of hydro carbon to be escaped in the absence of a scrubbing mechanism. As a safety measure, an emergency outlet pipeline may be provided from the charcoal pit to the chimney to avoid fire accident.
In the proposal of M/s. Balasubramaniam Charcoal unit, adequate air pollution control measures shall be provided in the process.
Electrical ignition system should be provided into the chimney so as to combust the escaped volatile organic compounds present in the flue gas.
Manual operation should be avoided Final scrubbed water should be used for quenching the charcoal The unit shall get necessary approval from the concerned departments for the safety operation of the equipment.
It is further submitted that in the earlier order dt. 19.11.2015 the Hon‟ble NGT has directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to conduct a study and arrive at a conclusion as to the proportionality of liability to be imposed on all the stakeholders including the project proponent and panchayat other industries. Accordingly TNPCB had requested NEERI, Chennai to conduct the study. As the NEERI had reported that 8 months time period is needed to complete the study.
Subsequently, the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) in its order dt. 8.8.2016 has directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to find out any other agency to take up this study. The TNPCB vide its letter dt. 30.8.2016 has requested the Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University to offer the willingness to carry out the study. The Director, Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University has confirmed their willingness over phone and the letter of willingness is awaited in this regard."
52. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board filed its report dated 28.10.2016 which reads as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) Chennai has passed an order dated 5.10.2016 interalia as follows:
"Directed to file an affidavit regarding the approval of the design specifically about the height of the ground level."77 78
It is respectfully submitted that the Director, Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University has confirmed their willingness vide Lr.dt. 26.9.2016 and the Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University is willing to carry out the technical study on the impact of charcoal manufacturing units in and around Kangeyam Taluk in 2 phase. The phase (1) involves - site visit, one time sample collection from 10 locations in and around charcoal manufacturing units in Kangeyam Taluk, Industrial Trade effluent collection from charcoal manufacturing units (2 nos) and characterization of all above samples for relevant physical - chemical parameters The outcome of Phase (1) study would be to arrive at the current status regarding the nature and extent of contamination due to charcoal manufacturing unit in and around Kangeyam Taluk. It is expected that the study for Phase (1) can be completed within 12 weeks from the date of award of work order along with consultancy fee.
Based on outcome of Phase (I) study the Phase (II) study could be prepared for identifying techniques for restoration of ground water including its cost of remediation.
It is further informed that the total consultancy fee for Phase I only payable to Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai towards as a consultancy work. Technical study on the impact of charcoal manufacturing units in and around Kangeyam Taluk will be Rs.2,50,000 plus service tax (15%) will be Rs.37,500/- totalling Rs.2,87,500/- excluding other miscellaneous expenditures.
It is respectfully submitted that proposals were receive d from the following units:
Balasubramaniam charcoal unit, United Carbon and Tiruppur District Coconut shell charcoal manufacturers association.
While scrutinization the proposals the following are observed:
M/s. United Carbon and M/s. Tiruppur District Coconut shell charcoal manufacturer association have submitted similar proposal in which it has been noticed that the modernized charcoal pit has APC measures of wet scrubber and chimney of 120 ft height from ground level. The modernized charcoal pit is 600 mm above ground level with quench water system. The quenching water is collected in collection tank and fully recycled. This system ensures that no quench water from the charcoal pit flows into ground and also helps for physical monitoring.
Whereas he unit M/s. Balasubramaniam Charcoal Unit has also submitted the proposal of modernized carbonize with header chamber, burner chamber and combustion chamber. The modernized charcoal pit is 3000 mm above ground level. The quenching water is collected in collection tank and fully recycled. This system also ensures that no quench water from the charcoal pit flows into ground and also helps for physical monitoring.
The height of charcoal pit/carbonize above ground level of either 500 mm or 3000 mm is acceptable as long as the quenched water is collected and recycled."78 79
53. After considering the report file by the Pollution Control Board dated 28.10.2016 this Tribunal passed the following order on 28.10.2016 which reads as follows:
"The State Pollution Control Board has filed a report in which it is stated that the proposals and design submitted by the United Carbon and M/s.Tiruppur Coconut Manufacturers Association and M/s.Balasubrmanain Charcoal Unit are acceptable. However, it is not mentioned as to which proposal is found more beneficial to safeguard the environment. Further, the Board has not framed guidelines about the minimum distance to be maintained between the units and design of which of the aforesaid 2, is more suitable apart from incorporating the conditions already stated in the affidavit filed on 09.09.2016 by the Board.
In these circumstances, we direct the Board to file the above details including the more suitable design and detailed guidelines for passing appropriate orders. Such guidelines and affidavits to be filed by the Board shall be circulated to all the respective counsel in advance preferably by 15th of November, 2016."
54. The Pollution Control Board has filed report dated 27.4.2017 which reads as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) Chennai has passed an order dt. 28.10.2016 inter alia as follows:
In these circumstances, we direct the Board to file the above details including the more suitable design and detailed guidelines for passing appropriate orders.
It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the orders of the Hon‟ble Tribunal, the Board has again requested the existing thee member committee to continue and furnish the more beneficial proposal to safeguard the environment and also to frame detailed guidelines for charcoal manufacturing units in Tamil Nadu. The details of the design and guidelines submitted by the committee are as follows;
All the existing consented units of the TNPCB shall implement the proposals submitted by M/s. United Carbon, M/s. Tiruppur District Coconut Shell Manufacture Association dt. 23.5.2016 subject to the following modifications.
The modernised elevated open pit shall be lifted above 1000 mm from ground level land the water quenching tank shall be above ground level of not less than 500 mm. The charcoal pit/pits firing chamber, oil mist eliminator and venue wet scrubber shall essentially have pressure releasing valves.
Suitable non return valves shall be provided in the system to prevent back fire. Ash tray to be provided beneath the chimney to collect ash generated. ID fan attached to chimney to be provided with damper valve Platform with port hold arrangement in the chimney to monitor process emission 79 80 All the existing units which is non consented by TNPCB and proposed charcoal industries in Tamilnadu to adopt continuous process of manufacture with the following guidelines. Siting criteria: No charcoal manufacturing unit shall be allowed within 1 km from approved habitation/ approved layouts.
Charcoal unit shall be allowed 500 m away from National/State Highways and distance shall be ensured from the edge of the metalled road to the physical/administrative boundary of the charcoal manufacturing unit.
No charcoal units shall be located in declared wildlife sanctuaries/reserved forests and its buffer zones declared for the same.
There should be at least 1 km distance between to charcoal manufacturing units from its physical/administrative boundaries.
Air Pollution Control Measures: Flue gas arising from the continuous process shall have water scrubber arrangement attach to a stack of minimum height of 10 meters with necessary platform and port holes for periodic collection of stack emission samples. It is preferable to use the waste heat energy of the flue gas for drying of raw materials and for other purposes.
The assembly of continuous process method shall be house within a closed shed with suitable access.
Loading of raw materials and unloading of finished products shall be mechanized. Fugitive Emission Control: Compound wall shall be provided on all sides of the unit to a minimum height of 4 m from the ground level.
Standards for charcoal units: Emission standards, particulate matter not more than 150 mg/Nm3 National ambient air quality standards - CPCCB Notification No.B-29016/20/90/PCH dt. 18.11.2009 The noise pollution (Regulation and Control) Rues, 2000 as notified by the MoEF S.No.123 (E) dt. 12.2.2000.
Green belt development: The industry should plant three rows of spreading crown & fast growing varieties of evergreen thick foliage tall trees all along the boundary. Other requirements: Stack/ambient air quality/ambient noise level surveys to be periodically conducted and reports should be furnished to TNPCB. Maintain good housekeeping practices where ever possible within the unit premises to control fugitive emission.
80 81 Buffer stock of raw materials of not more than 10 days requirement shall be stored within the unit premises.
Raw materials and finished products shall be stored separately and all steps shall be taken to comply with the fire safety procedures enacted in law.
Adequate measures of safety for workers working in the charcoal units shall be taken. Personally protective devices such as mask, helmet, safety shoes etc shall be provided to workers.
Local body clearance for the establishment and operation of the unit with other statutes. In order to protect the environment and prevent ecological damages all TNPC Board consented charcoal units of open earthen pit shall switch over continuous process of charcoal manufacturing from 1.4.2020 and follow the above guidelines of air pollution control measures. Fugitive emission control standards for charcoal units etc specified in the item (B)."
55. The applicant in O.A.17 of 2013 has filed their response to the report submitted by the Pollution Control Board on 27.4.2017 which reads as follows:
"It is submitted that Expert committee has taken into consideration of design and proposals submitted by M/s. United Caron and M/s Tiruppur District coconut Shell Manufacture Association subject to modifications and framed general guidelines to the existing charcoal units. The report of TNPCB has not provided the deign for the proposed units. The deign/method submitted by the proposed proponent Balasubramaniam Charcoal Unit on 11.4.2016 and 25.4.2016 has not been mentioned in the report.
It is respectfully submitted that Part B of the report set out general guidelines for the proposed charcoal industries requires certain clarification from TNPCB.
"As to whether the proposed proponent shall develop their own design adopting all the modifications and general guidelines given by TNPCB or TNPCB shall prescribe the approved design/method to be given to them.
Modifications: It is submitted that the guidelines stipulated in report of TNPCB also requires some modification in some aspects as follows:
It is submitted that part B(2)(c) of the guidelines in the report stipulate the assembly of continuous process method shall be housed within close shed with suitable access is altogether impracticable unfeasible and unsafe. It is suggested that the unit shall be open with appropriate air ambience control measures.
It is submitted that Part B(3)(a) of the guidelines in the report stipulate the provision of compound wall on all sides of the unit to a minimum height of 4 m from the ground level would be too expensive and unnecessary since the development of green belt area is insisted in the report.81 82
It is submitted that part B(6)(c) of the guidelines in the report states that buffer stock of raw material of not more than 10 days within the unit premises is a very much constricted time limit. The time duration for storing the raw material has to be extended upto 30 days so as to ensure continuous production.
Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be please to direct theTNPCB to furnish the cop of approved design to the Balasubramaniam charcoal unit."
That was considered by the Tribunal on 27.4.2017 and directed the Board to clarify the distance between the pits of two units apart from necessity of putting up of a compound wall in each unit when it is admitted with these units is to be developed
56. The Pollution Control Board has filed a report dated 10.5.2017 which reads as follows:
"REPORT FILED ON BEHALF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS -
TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD I, Charles Rodriquez, Son of A.S Stanislaus Rodriquez, Christian, aged 56 years, having office at 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600032 do hereby solemnly affirm sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai-600 032 and I am filing this Report on behalf of the 1st &2nd respondents and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case from the records.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai by its order dated 27.04.2017 has issued certain directions with regard to the design and guidelines for charcoal units submitted by the Committee.
3. It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the following are submitted:-
Distance between the two pits:
The committee does not recommend open earthen pits of batch type for the manufacture of charcoal. In the revised modernized elevated charcoal pit suggested by the committee, distance between the two charcoal pits suggested by the committee, distance between the two charcoal pit suggested by the committee, distance between the two charcoal pit is not specified, since the requirements of common firing chamber oil mixed eliminator and venture wet scrubber with common chimney arrangements can be economically provided for group of modernised elevated pits.
whether the compound wall is necessary while the green belt is imposed has a condition in the guideline:82 83
Most of the charcoal units in Kangeyam are do not have green thick foliage tall trees to arrest fugitive emissions and hence plantation of green belt and its attainment of height to reach about 10
- 15 feet may take years and thus there is a need for construction compound wall (4.0 meters height) Further the stacking height of raw materials upto 3.0 meters from ground level and safety aspects with regard to fire hazard were also being considered.
Clarification regarding to the Para-c of the Report of the guideline filed by the Board.
The Board endorses the view of committee that all charcoal units from 01.04.2020 shall be operated by the continuous process method, which is the best suitable process design, least impact on water and air pollutions and more beneficiaries to safeguard the environment, in accordance with Hon'ble NGT (SZ) order dated 28.10.2016 Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) Chennai may be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
57. The Pollution Control Board thereafter submitted the report as per the orders passed by this Tribunal on 28.10.2016 before this Tribunal on 9.11.2017 which reads as follows:
"Report of committee on design and guidelines for charcoal units Committee Members: Thiru. Jayakumar C.C.Ethiraju. Addl. Chief Environmental Engineer (Ret.) TNPC Board, Chennai.
Dr. S. Selvan, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, TNPC Board, Chennai.
Thiru A. Thangapandian, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, TNPC Board, Trichy.
Preface: Ozone Care Public Welfare Assn. Tiruppur District filed Application No.24 of 2013 before the National Green Tribunal (SZ) against charcoal units in Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District and Pollution Control Board with regard to environmental pollution and health hazard caused by the charcoal units.
Considering the application with other batch applications, various interim orders have been issued by the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ), Chennai initially the above committee members on 18.4.16 accepted the proposals of charcoal pit, design features submitted by M/s. United Carbon, M/s. Tiruppur District Coconut Shell Manufacturer Association and M/s. Balasubramaniam Charcoal unit to be built above ground level with general points to be considered.
In accordance with Hon‟ble NGT(SZ) Chennai orders dated 28.10.2016 for more suitable design and detailed guidelines, the TNPC Board through Lr.dt. 5.12.2016 once again instructed the above committee to inform which proposals is more beneficiary to safeguard the environment and also for framing detailed guidelines in respect of charcoal manufacturing units.83 84
Background on charcoal sector: Charcoal is the solid carbon obtained following the pyrolysis of carbonaceous raw materials. Charcoal produced from Kangeyam area is mainly used as raw material or activated carbon manufacture.
Charcoal manufacturing can be generally classified by its manufacturing process as either batch or continuous process.
In Tamil Nadu many of the charcoal manufacturers are adopting primitive method of open earthen pit batch operation with raw material of coconut shell wood etc. The use of continuous process for charcoal manufacture is limited.
Environmental Pollution: The charcoal manufacturing unit‟s activities lead to environmental pollution causing water and air pollution apart from fire hazard.
Waste water arises during quenching of red hot coconut shell land when flue gases are subjected to scrubbing. During carbonization emission of volatiles, particulate matter CO, CO2 oily substances etc are being liberated which is about 2/3rd of the raw material feed. The carbonaceous gases under pressure can lead to fire accident.
Open pit batch process The open earthen pits in Kangeyam Taluk of Tiruppur District, Tamil Nadu have less capital investment of being constructed below ground and facilitates easy manual operation. The cycle of operation of a open pit is about 72 hours. In order to cool the red hot shell charcoal, water is spayed from the top of the pit which leads to ground water pollution. The contaminated water has volatiles, COD, suspended solids etc of higher concentration and all possibility of leaching into nearby wells.
Presently the initial smoking gases with dust are naturally dissipated and on stabilization the gases with calorific value are flared and flue gases are being vent out through a chimney with or without a water scrubber. The dense smoke with particulate matter and flue gases arising from the process are likely to have occupation health hazard and influence the nearby habitation also.
Presentation of assessment of secondary data;
Resource data collected from the report of Expert Committee appointed by the Hon‟be NGT to assess the Environmental impacts of the charcoal units at Kangeyam in Tiruppur District, Tamil Nadu (September 2014) and TNPC BOARD ANALYTICAL REPORTS) Water pollution and control measures: Waste water samples collected and analysed by expert committee during quenching of red hot shell charcoal are presented in Table-1:Sample No. 1 2
pH 4.69 5.1 84 85 Suspended Solids (mg/l) 2096 344 Colour(True Colour) 1000 500 Total 13920 16730 Dissolved Solids(mg/l) Total Hardness(mg/l) 4120 1133 Iron(mg/l) 119 35 Total 7114 3260 Organic Carbon(mg/l) Phenolic Compounds 461 441 (mg/l) COD(mg/l) 18969 8694
The waste water generated due to quenching of red hot shell charcoal showed very high on concentrations of organics as indicated by high values of COD total organic carbon and phenolic compounds.
The well water samples collected in Kangeyam area by expert committee are shown in Table -2A.
Table 2 A Characteristics of Well Water Samples from Kangeyam Area Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 pH 7.56 7.81 8.08 7.79 7.75 8.13 7.32 7.62 Turbidity 2.0 1.3 4.4 21 6.5 2.5 12 2.2 (NTU) Colour 2.0 2.0 50 35 40 2.0 25 2.0 (True Colour) Total 340 1546 892 1412 1306 522 2940 252 Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 85 86 Total Hardness 144.2 947 469 927 824 230 1545 185 (mg/l) Iron(as Fe) 0.44 BDL 1.57 51 6.2 BDL BDL 8.18 (mg/l) Total 6 7.5 15 35 15 16 37.4 BDL Organic Carbon (mg/l) Phenolic Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Compounds (mg/l) Fluride BDL 1.91 2.79 1.69 1.59 1.89 1.79 0.99 (mg/l) Note: Below Detectable Limit The well water samples collected in Kangeyam area by TNPC Board on 9.9.2016 are shown in table - 2B Table 2 B- Characteristics of Well Water Samples from Kangeyam Area Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No pH 8.17 8.46 8.04 7.71 8.36 7.26 7.85 8.37 8.06 TSS 8 8 8 4 4 4 12 4 4 Tds 900 868 1268 1644 628 1936 6140 636 708 Chloride245 255 308 322 111 433 1538 120 255 Sulphate277 131 622 936 361 1058 2971 215 167 Iron 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.06 0.7 86 87 Fluoride<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Phonolic<0.00 <0.0 <0.00 <0.00 <0.00 <0.0 <0.0 <0.0 <0.00 Com 05 005 05 05 05 005 005 005 05 pounds Total 76 72 26 42 38 32 60 46 44 Alkalinity Total 460 460 720 1040 370 750 780 280 560 Hardness Calcium 64 52 152 248 48 184 180 44 108 Magne 73 80 83 102 61 70 80 39 70 Sium The results indicate that well water samples did not meet the drinking water quality standards for some of the inorganic chemical parameters such as iron, total hardness, sulphate etc. Air pollution and control measures: The ambient air quality survey conducted in some of the charcoal units in Kangeyam are presented below tables:
Ambient air quality around United Carbon Charcoal unit monitored by TNPCB on 12.10.2012.
Sl. Sampling location Direction Distance Height Pollutant No With from From concentration respect to Chimney ground SPM SO2 NOX Chimney (m) level(m) 01 Near The Weigh Bridge ENE 66 3 129 <4 10.1 02 Shell Storage Area ESE 66 2 85 <4 11.1 03 Workers Quarters SSE 66 2 82 <4 10.2 04 Granulation Building SW 120 2 72 <4 13.0 05 Fence WNW 120 2 <4 12.2 CPCB 100 80 80 Limits(Industrial/Residential 87 88 Area) (PM10) Expert Committee‟s comparative analysis of ambient air quality when the charcoal units are idle and in operation.
Table -4 Expert Committees Comparative analysis of Ambient Air Quality when the charcoal units are idle and in operation Sl.no Sample location SPM(PM10) SPM(PM2.5) CO µg/Nm3 Mg/Nm3 operation Idle operation Idle operation idle 01 ARR carbon 70.6 80.2 32.7 33.4 <1 1.07 plant (sample 1) 02 ARR 67.7 78.9 28.6 30.2 1.58 2.62 Carbon Plant (sample 2) 03 Pappanianiamman 68.2 76.8 28.6 29.4 <1 1.21 traders (sample 1) 04 Pappanianiamman 69.1 74.6 28.6 29.4 1.14 1.22 traders (sample 2) 05 United Carbon 67.9 71.2 24.5 26.2 1.39 1.39 (Sample 1) 06 United Carbon 68.0 72.1 28.6 25.2 1.24 3.57 (sample2) 88 89 07 Sedangalipalayam 66.1 70.8 24.5 30.2 1.19 1.13 temple (sample 1) 08 Sedangalipalayam 64.8 72.6 20.4 31.2 1.52 2.44 Temple (sample 2) 09 Global 71.1 78.8 28.6 28.6 1.23 <1 Matric School (sample 1) 10 Global 70.8 80.4 28.6 30.2 1.54 1.73 Matric School (sample 2) NAAQ standards 100 100 60 60 2 2 The results indicate that values for all parameters except for three values of CO and one value of SPM (PM10) were above the National Ambient Air Quality (NAAQ) standards. Even though the respirable suspended particulate matter are within the prescribed standards they are on the higher side of 70 mg/nm3.
The initial dense smoke with particulate matter and volatiles have to be taken at most case to control air pollution. Thus, a firing chamber of emission eliminator with wet scrubber and stack attached with ID fan becomes essential. Stakeholder meeting was conducted on 5.1.2017 in order to have discussion about the various other technologies adopted for charcoal manufacturing. The committee first visited a continuous process charcoal unit (not operated) at Kanchikovil on 3.2.2017 and then proceeded to Kangeyam to observe charcoal units practicing open earthen pit batch method (not in operation) and to assess the technologies. Literature review: Further, the committee studied literature on the continuous process methodology for the manufacturing of charcoal. (Resource: Unite States Environmental Protection Agency - source assessment charcoal manufacturing state of art) . Dec. 1978. Conclusion: Among the proposals submitted for elevated open pit batch process, proposals submitted by M/s. Unite Carbon, M/s. Tiruppur District Coconut Shell Manufacturer Assn. Dt. 23.5.2018 is more suitable subject to certain modifications. The existing open earthen pit has the following merits and demerits. 89 90 Merits: Low capital investment and low operational cost, scale production achievable and Comparitively a higher yield can be obtained.
Demerits: Raw material feeding into the pit and its distribution is labour oriented and can lead to fire hazard. Queching of hot shell charcoal done randomly without proper assessment of water quantity and temperature control.
Open pits are located below ground level or partially below land its monitoring or process and water pollution control are limited.
No mechanized way for unloading the carbonized product and labour oriented risk in terms of entrapped gas and temperature.
„Clogging of conduits/pipes in air pollution control measures due to generation of oil/tarry materials.
Chance for occurrence of back fire due to pressure of the volatile asses is possible. Operations of the charcoal pits done in open giving rise to suspended particles and fugitive emission of dust due to storage of raw materials/product within the unit can cause higher levels of particulate matter in the premises.
Control of emission from batch process is difficult due to cyclic nature of the process and therefore the emissions.
Complete conversion of coconut shell into charcoal in terms of quality is limited. The continuous process has the following merits and demerits. Merit. The generated volatile ashes with CO would be oxidized within the kiln. Flue gases can be collected and processed for further beneficial used. Continuous production of charcoal is more amenable to emission control than batch process. Being continuous emission composition and flow rate are relatively constant. Better process control to achieve consistent yield.
Developments of pressure and fire hazard during processing are remote. Lower labour requirements Minimum use of water for quenching of carbonized coconut shell land waste water arising can be easily collected and recycled.
Demerits: Higher capital investment and higher operational cost Comparatively production level is lower.
Based on the earlier guidelines issued by the TNPC Board for hot mix plants, stone crusher and other units with the present study guidelines for charcoal units or siting criteria, fugitive emission control, green belt development etc too can be framed. 90 91 Recommendations of the committee: All the existing consented units of TNPC Board adopt open earthen pit can implement the proposals submitted by M/s. Unite Carbon, M/s Tiruppur District Coconut Shell Manufacturer Association dt. 23.5.16 subject to the following modifications:
The modernized elevated open pit shall be lifted above 1000 mm from ground level land the water quenching tank shall be above ground level of not less than 500 mm.
The charcoal pit/pits firing chamber, oil mist eliminator and venture wet scrubber shall essentially have pressure releasing valves.
Suitable non return valves shall be provided in the system to prevent back fire.
Ash tray to be provided beneath the chimney to collect ash emanated.
ID fan attached to chimney to be provided with damper valve.
Platform with pot hold arrangement in the chimney to monitor process emission.
The above modifications undertaken in the plant shall be inspected and certified by an authorized process and safety consultant for the same and efficient working. Further, the following are to be ensured by the unit authorities:
All oily tarry waste collected from oil mist eliminator are disposed scientifically Waste water arising from the venture wet scrubber are collected and recycled Quenching water of the hot shell carbon is collected is filtered and recycled.
The existing consented charcoal units shall operate after obtaining consents from the TNPC Board and other statutes.
Shall apply and obtain authorization under the Hazardous and other Waste (M&TM) Rules, 2016 for the generation of oil/tarry residues.
The unit shall comply with the following standards.
Emission standards particulate matter not more than 150 mg/Nm3.
National ambient air quality standards.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Contol) Rules, 2000.
Each charcoal unit to provide piezometers within the unit premises in all directions to assess ground water quality.
Compound wall shall be provided on all sides of the unit to a minimum height of 3 m from the ground level.
Raw materials within the premises shall not be stacked beyond a height of 3 m from the ground level.91 92
Buffer stock of raw materials of not more than 10 days requirement shall be stored within the unit premises.
Raw materials and finished products shall be stored separately and all steps shall be taken to comply with the fire safety procedures enacted in law.
Green belt of adequate width to be provided in the periphery of the unit to attenuate air and noise pollutions.
Stack/ambient air quality/ambient noise level surveys to be periodically conducted and reports should the furnished to TNPC Board.
Maintain good house keeping practices within the unit premises to control fugitive dust emission.
Adequate measures of safety for workers working in the charcoal units shall be taken. Personally protective devices such as mask, helmet, safety, shoes etc shall be provided to workers.
In order to have sustainable growth of the charcoal industries, safe guard environment, energy efficient etc all non consented and proposed charcoal industries in Tamilnadu to adopt continuous process of manufacture with the following guidelines:
Siting Criteria: No charcoal manufacturing unit shall be allowed within 1 Km from approved habitation/approved lay outs.
Charcoal unit shall be allowed 50 m away from National/State Highways and distance shall be measure from the edge of the metalled road to the physical/administrative boundary of the charcoal manufacturing unit.
No charcoal units shall be located in declared wild life sanctuaries/reserve forests and its buffer zones declared for the same.
There should be at least 1 km distance between two charcoal manufacturing units from kits physical/administrative boundaries.
Air Pollution control measures:
Flue gas arising from the continuous process shall have water scrubber arrangement attach to a stack of minimum height of 10 m with necessary platform and port holes for periodic collection of stack emission samples.
It is preferable to use the waste heat energy of the flue gas for drying of raw materials and for other purposes.
The assembly of continuous process method shall be housed within a closed shed with suitable access. Loading of raw materials and unloading of finished products shall be mechanized.92 93
Fugitive Emission Control: Compound wall shall be provided on all sides of the unit to a minimum height of 4 m from the ground level.
Standards for charcoal units:
Emission standards - particulate matter not more than 150 mg/Nm3 National ambient air quality standards. CPCB Notification No.B-
29016/20/90/PCH/dt.18.11.2009.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 as notified by MoEF.
Green belt development: The industry should plant three rows of spread in grown & fast growing varieties of evergreen thick foliage tall trees all along the boundary.
Other requirements: Stack/ambient air quality/ambient noise level surveys to be periodically conducted and reports should be furnished to TNPC Board.
Maintain good house keeping practices where ever possible within the unit premises to control fugitive dust emission.
Buffer stock of raw materials of not more than 10 days requirement shall be stored within the unit premises.
Raw materials land finished products shall be stored separately and all steps shall be taken to comply with the fire safety procedures enacted in law.
Adequate measures of safety or workers working in the charcoal units shall be taken. Personally protective devices such as mask helmet, safety shoes etc shall be provided to workers.
Localbody clearance for the establishment an operation of the unit with other statutes.
In order to protect the environment and prevent ecological damages all TNPC Board consented charcoal units of open earthen pit shall switch over continuous process of charcoal manufacturing from 1.4.2020 and follow the above guidelines of air pollution control ensures, fugitive emission control standards for charcoal units etc specified in item B."
58.Thereafter, as per the order dated 10.10.2018, this Tribunal had passed the following order:
"Mr. Yogeshwaran, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in Original Application No. 542/2018, however, urges that there are certain deficiencies in the guidelines which has been indicated in his affidavit dated 17.07.2017.
Even if we accept the guidelines framed by the Pollution Control Board which 93 94 we are inclined to do, the question in respect of restoration of the environment and compensation to the affected villagers still remain to be decided. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions:
(i). We direct the State Pollution Control Board to examine the suggestions filed by Mr. Yogeshwaran, learned Counsel for the applicant in Original Application No. 542/2018 and also consider as to whether it can be adopted in the guidelines or not, if not already adopted. In order to facilitate, we direct Mr. Yogeshwaran to serve a copy of the affidavit containing the suggestions to the State Pollution Control Board expeditiously by tomorrow by e-mail.
A Committee of Experts be constituted comprising of Experts from the following: (a). Central Pollution Control Board.
(b). National Environmental Engineering Research Institute.
(c) State Pollution Control Board"
59. On the basis of the directions of this Tribunal the Joint Committee had submitted a report dated 18.2.2019 which reads as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the Hon‟be National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Chennai by its order dt. 10.10.2018 made in O.A.No.541 of 2018 earlier in O.A.No.24 of 2013 (SZ) & others charcoal units batch matter, a committee of experts be constituted comprising of the experts from CPCB, NEERI & TNPCB to assess the damage caused on the soil and water due to charcoal units located in Tiruppur District and submit a restoration proposal and also of damage caused to the adjoining villages by such pollution.
It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the orders of the Hon‟ble Tribunal, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has constituted a committee with the following members vide Board Proceeding dt. 19.12.2018.
Srhi. R. Rajkumar, SEE,CPCB, Bengaluru.
Dr. M. Thirunavukkarau Sr. Principal Scientist NEERI, Chennai K. Gokuldass, JCEE (M), Coimbatore, TNPCB.
The terms of reference of the committee are as follows:94 95
The committee assess the damage caused on the soil and water due to charcoal units located in Kangeyam Taluk, Tirupur District and submit a restoration proposal and also of damage caused to the adjoining villages by such pollution.
The committee while assessing the restoration plan and the damage caused shall take into consideration the fact that the polluting units have been closed since the year 2015 Also the committee shall permit to place the application for representation before the committee and committee shall permit the units also to place suggestions before the committee.
Decision with respect to restoration of the environment an compensation to the affected villagers may be studied.
SPCB shall compete the process of finalizing the guidelines SPCB to examine the suggestions filed by Mr. Yoeshwaran learned counsel for the applicant in O.A.542/2018 and also to consider as to whether it can be adopted in the guidelines or not, if not already adopted.
The entire exercise shall be completed before 31.1.2019 and report submitted to the Tribunal on or before 4.2.2019.
It is further submitted that the above said committee of expert made a preliminary field visit on 8.1.2019 to have an overview of ground reality on various aspects such as present status of charcoal units, place of monitoring, requirement for equipment‟s/kits to carry out monitoring and to make provision to take soil sample.
In this connection the petitioner M/s. Ozone Care Public Welfare Assn. and other charcoal units were intimated about the proposed inspection an sample collection vide DEE, Tirupur (N),TNPCB Lr.dt. 11.1.2019.
Accordingly, the committee carried out joint inspection on 22.1.2019 for collecting samples of soil and ground water in and around the charcoal units listed under this case and nearby residents and status of the units are detailed as follows:
Name of the unit Status of the unit 95 96 M/. United Carbon Not in operation M/s. Gee Carbons Not in operation M/s. Subbayan & Co Not in operation M/s. Balasubramaniam charcoal unit Not yet established (vacant site)
It is respectfully submitted that based on the above, the committee members along with the representatives of the Ozone Care Public Welfare Assn. carried out inspection on 22.1.2019 soil samples were collected at site one M/s. United Carbons site two M/s. Gee Carbons and at site three M/s. Subbayan & Co water samples were collected at M/s United Carbon and M/s. Gee Carbons.
16 numbers of soil samples and 3 numbers of ore well samples were collected and sent to the Assistant Director, Advanced Environmental Laboratory, TNPCB, Coimbatore. The report of analysis are awaited.
It is respectfully submitted that the committee member of NEERI through e-mail dt.
8.2.2019 requested time to complete analysis and to prepare the consolidated report. Also, the committee on 4.1.2019 expressed its difficulties to complete all the activities such as field monitoring, analysis and report preparation within 4.2.2019 expressed its difficulties to complete all the activities such as field monitoring, analysis and report preparation within 4.2.2019 an decided to request Hon‟ble NGT seeking further time for submission of final report.
It is respectfully submitted that the suggestions filed by Mr. Yogeshwaran, the learned counsel for the applicant in O.A.No.542/2018 in earlier O.A.No.24/2013 (SZ) & other charcoal units batch matter, received after the orders of the Hon‟ble Tribunal dt.
10.10.2018 have been perused by the official of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in detail and remarks are submitted as follows:
Para Suggestions/remarks given in the affidavit filed b Board remarks P. Satishkumar 3 It is submitted that the details of the proposal submitted The proposals submitted by by the two entitles (M/s. United Carbon & M/s. the units M/s. United Tiruppur District Coconut Shell Charcoal Carbon and M/s.
96 97 Manufacturer Assn. Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur Tiruppur District Coconut District) have not been submitted to court and to Shell Charcoal The applicant Manufacturer Assn. Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District on 4.4.2016 & 23.5.2016 is submitted Herewith as Annexure I & II 5 It is submitted that the conditions specified in do The committee report of the not address the issue of heat generation and also „design and guidelines for The air pollution that is caused by these units. The The charcoal units‟ on March Fool proof measures to control water pollution have 2017 has elaborated the air To be imposed. However that TNPCB has merely Pollution parameters of Said that the above modifications have to be made PM 2.5, PM 10,CO, SO2 & In the proposal submitted by the two units as NOx..These air pollutants State above without providing he proposal and with heat energy are being Details. controlled while passing through the oil mist elimina- tor, venture wet scrubber and chimney attached with ID fan 6 The TNPCB has in its report also stated that M/s. Gee Carbons, consented charcoal units should change M/s. United their operations to comply with the above stated Carbons,
design and technology by the year 1.4.2020. M/s. Balasubramaniam It is submitted that this time period is very long and charcoal unit Steps to convert an move away from highly M/s. Subbayan & Polluting open pit method have to be Co, M/s. Nature Tech taken expeditiously. It is relevant to note that Carbon, M/s.
several Units including units involved in the present M/s. Unite Carbon Solution Litigation are carrying on manufacturing based Pvt. Ltd., referred in O.A. On open pit method in areas including 24/2013 aree not in operation.
Dharapuram, Palladam, Udumalaipettai etc. Thus a time of 1.4.2020 to Change their operation to 97 98 Comply with the new design And technology is quite Genuine. Further, all the Units in the entire state of Tamil Nadu will be made Mandatory to adopt Continuous process Method a new design and Technology for charcoal manufacturing from 1.4.2020.
7 It is submitted that apart from regulating the The committee report clearly Distance between two charcoal manufacturing Specifies that the non Units, it is necessary to regulate the number of Consented units will be Pits/chambers in each unit. If each unit operates Made to adopt the Several chambers/pits, the cumulative impact of Continuous process Heat, air and water pollution in that vicinity Method and hence the Increases greatly and till south to be prevented by Question of open pit will Specifying the 1 km buffer is allowed to occur. not arise for having a In any case, the distance of 1 km itself is not in Cumulative impact due to Sufficient and ought to be reconsidered. The Heat, air, water pollution.
Distance from habitation also has to be increased Units with existing consent
From 1 km. of Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board would not be
Considered for any
Expansion production and
All charcoal manufacturing
Units would be directed for
Conversion of technology to
Continuous process method
From 1.4.2020. Hence the
Distance between the
Habitation and industry of
One km is sufficient. More
Over in continuous process
98
99
there is no second chamber
Pit. In that only one carboni-
zation chamber will be there
and from there charcoal is
Manufacturing from
Coconut shell continuously.
8 It is submitted that the design of the units has to The committee‟s report
ensure that air and water pollution are not caused. March, 2017 has address The same can be achieved only when the design isthe issues on water, air made known by the TNPCB. It is submitted that if pollution in not possible to give informed comments Detailed wherein the waste and suggestions without knowing the design Water generate is collected and details And reused in the process of the proposals. And emissions of PM 2.5, PM 10, volatile gases CO, SPM, NOx etc are Addressed by air pollution Control measures..
It is submitted that the suggestion filed by Thiru. Yogeswaran have already been dealt in the committee report filed during March, 2017 and no new suggestions are required to be incorporated in the guideline already submitted."
60. Thereafter, this Tribunal taken up the report mentioned above on 13.5.2019 and passed the following order:
"Report of the Committee of Expert constituted vide order dated 10.10.2018 has been perused. Paragraph 7 of the order clearly sets out the Terms of Reference for the Committee according to which the committee was to assess the damage caused on the soil and water, cost of restoration and the damage caused on joining villages resulting from the pollution caused by the charcoal units. These primary terms of reference have not adverted in the Report but have been kept in a limbo as would appear from Para 6 (IV) which states that the restoration plan as well as compensation assessment shall be made after assessment of cause 99 100 and extent of contamination by expert agencies. Thus the principal question referred to the Committee has not been answered.
1. On a perusal of the Report, we find that the Committee has elaborately dealt with the cause of pollution and its extent. In our opinion, the information would have been sufficient for the Committee to assess the damage in terms of money. We, therefore, direct the Committee to proceed further towards assessment of the damages.
2. We permit the Committee to co-opt any Expert as a member who may either be an individual or an institution for carrying out the Task.
3. Let the report be filed within one month by email at [email protected]
61. The Pollution Control Board also submitted an interim report dated 24.6.2019 as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has passed order dated 13.05.2019 made in O.A NO.542 of 2018 earlier in Application NO.24 of 2013(SZ) inter alia as follows.
"We find that the committee has elaborately dealt with the cause of pollution and its extent. In our opinion, the information would have been sufficient for the committee to assess the damage in the terms of money. We, therefore, direct the Committee to assess the damage in terms of money. We, therefore direct the Committee proceed further towards assessment of the damages. We permit the Committee to co-opt any expert as a member who may either be an individual or an institution for carrying out the Task.
2. It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the orders of the Hon'ble tribunal the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has constituted a Committee with the following members
1. Shri. R.Rajkumar, SEE, CPCB, Bengaluru
2. Dr.M.Thirunavoukkarasu, Sr.Principal Scientist & HEAD CSIR-NEERI,Chennai.
3. Er. K . Gokuldass, JCEE(M) Coimbatore,TNPCB.
The Technical Experts Committee members of CPCB, NEERI and TNPCB conducted a meeting on 07.06.2019 at TNPCB Corporate Office to discuss the Hon'ble NGT orders dt. 13.05.2019. During the meeting, the following decisions were taken to proceed further, 100 101 In the earlier committee report dated 10.10.2018, it was stated that the contamination was identified at bore well of Thiru. Sakthivel, but the source of contamination could not be identified since there is no other bore well available nearby. In the report, it was already highlighted that at present there is no contamination identified due to charcoal units and other than charcoal units, leachate generated from illegal dumping of the MSW got sustained in the abandoned quarry which is approximately at a distance of 500 m from Thiru.Sakthivel's bore well Even though, the activity of Charcoal units was stopped since 2015, the chances of impact of contamination may occur due to earlier activity of the charcoal units or from the percolation of the leachate from the MSW dumping site.
Hence, in order to identify the exact source of the contamination, the committee decided to engage an expert from NEERI Nagpur.
In this regard, the committee contacted Dr. Paras Pujari Principle Scientist Water Technology And Management Division CSIR-NEERI , Nagpur The committee requested the Principle Scientist, CSIR-NEERI to submit a DPR on identification of source of contamination, extent of contamination and restoration proposal along with the cost.
The expert member has informed that the report shall be furnished within 3 months after completing the study.
The initial study cost shall be borne by TNPCB and later on cost to carry out the study along with damage will be recovered after identifying the polluter. Meanwhile, the committee decided to collect the ground water gradient details in and around the particular bore well from the year 2015 from the Public Works Department, Erode The committee also decided to collect the details of the Agricultural practices/cultivation in that area for the past 10 years and the source of irrigation from the revenue department Under the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (PB) to grant further 3 months time to complete the task and pleased to pass such further or other orders as it deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
62. On the basis of the order of this Tribunal dated 10.2.2020, the Joint Committee has filed the report dated 19.2.2020 which reads as follows:
"Joint Committee report on the status of ground water & soil quality at Veeranapalayam Village Background:101 102
Hon‟be Tribunal has constituted a Joint Committee to assess the damage caused on the soil and water due to charcoal units and submit a restoration proposal and also of damage caused to the adjoining villages by such pollution.
Accordingly, the committee has submitted the report on the soil and water quality around the units in Veeranayapalayam Village. Further, the Hon‟ble Tribunal directed the Committee to assess the damage in terms of cost and permitted to co-opt the expert.
The Committee has co-opted the expert Dr. B. Jeyaraman, Former Under Secretary, Loss of Ecology Authority, Chennai as per the direction of the Hon‟ble Tribunal.
The Committee has submitted the report on 10th February, 2020 with status of soil and water quality along with recommendation and damage cost. Further, Hon‟ble Tribunal in its order dated 19th February, 2020 has directed "Inspite of time granted the committee has not submitted the report so far. The committee is directed to complete the study ad submit the report as per order dated 1.11.2019 and earlier orders.
The committee is also directed to conduct soil as well as water quality analysis in that area to ascertain as to whether there is any improvement in the quality of soil as well as water on account of the non-functioning of the unit since 2015. If the condition still continues, then committee was also directed to suggest the remedial measures to be taken to resolve the issue. The report is to be filed within a period of two months to this Tribunal through e-mail at [email protected]."
Compliance of the order Soil Quality:
In compliance of the above order, soil samples were collected on 18.3.20 by the Joint Committee at various locations to assess the quality of soil. The soil samples were sent to the Agriculture Department for analysis and due to Covi-19 lock down, the results are yet to be received. However, it has been ensured from previous results of the sample collected on 26.12.2019 that natural restoration has occurred and the same was detailed in the report submitted on 10.2.2020 and it is summarised as:102 103
The soil samples collected from petitioner land and other land as stated by petitioner compared with the unpolluted area. The results are more or less same as in unpolluted area So there is no necessity of reclamation of soil. The soil is having the same character‟s nature as discussed above the Kangeyam Block soil quality nature published data by the Agriculture Department.
Ground Water Quality:
Ground Water Quality was also discussed in the report submitted on 10.2.2020 and the water quality is naturally restored due to no further addition of pollution. So, remedial measures were not suggested.
However to ensure the natural restoration and compliance of the order, the ground water samples were collected by the committee at different locations on 18.3.2020. The analysis result shows that phenolic compound is BDL, which indicated that the ground water quality is naturally restoring:
Sl.No. Sample location Parameters Units Analysis Results
1 Sakthivel‟s borepH@25o C - 8.06
well COD Mg/L 34
Phenolic Mg/L BDL (DL:0.001)
compound
Color Hazen 10
2 Padmarj ThotttampH@25oC - 8.96
bore well COD Mg/L 5
Phenolic Mg/L (DL:0.001)
compound
Color Hazen 5
3 Gandhimathi pH@25oC - 7.84
COD Mg/L 83
Phenolic Mg/L (DL:0.001)
compound
Color Hazen 40
103
104
Periyasamy
borewell
4 pH@25oC - 8.23
COD Mg/L 20
Phenolic Mg/L (DL:0.001)
compound
Color Hazen 50
Conclusion:
It is concluded from the analysis report of the ground water that further remediation is not necessary since natural restoration of water quality is occurring. In order to continue natural restoration, the industries shall not be allowed to operate with the existing underground pit technology because this technology may lead to further pollution.
The Committee has discussed on the status of soil and water quality in the report submitted on 10.2.2020 and with regard to restoration, the Committee has given the recommendations as follows:
1.At present there is no significant damage in the ground water and soil because the industries are closed from the year of 2013 which is a lapse of 8 years. So the natural reclamation/restoration of the original position occurs. So in the head of restoration cost no amount is to be payable.
2. However, regarding the yield loss, the Hon‟ble NGT ordered to find out the past pollution. The Joint Committee finds a very difficult and challenging task with limited resources. So different factors and integrated approach methods are applied to find out past pollution as discussed in economic evaluation of yield loss and arrived in terms of money is as follows:
Sl. Name of the petitioner SFNo Area inMajor cropsTotal aount of No hecctares cultivated compensation payable in Rs.
104 105 1 Sakthivel 917/5 1.215 Coconut &1,35,275 Cholam 2 Raju &917/5 & 7 1.215 Coconut &1,35,275 Balasubramannianm Cholam 3 Tamilselvan 744 3.250 Coconut &83,910 Cholam 4 Padmaraj 577 2.000 Coconut &1,11,340 Cholam 4,65,800
3. Even though the industries were closed for more than eight years, the underground water sources for the purpose of drinking is not potable. Already the pumping water sources were abandoned, as stated by the BDO, Kangeyam. So the cost of relocation of each tank is approximately Rs.600000/-. One tank for the purpose of Adidravidasr habitation of Veeranampalayam hamlet = Rs.600000. Second tank for the purpose of general habitation of veeranampalyam hamlet = Rs.600000. The total cost of Rs.1200000/-
is payble in the restoration of the water sources as replacement cost.
4. The total expenses occurred for the study is about 3.5 lakhs. A. Compensation payable amount for the agriculture = Rs.4,65,800/- B. Restoration/Relocation cost of drinking water of veeranampalayam Hamlet = Rs.12,00,000/-
C. Expenses for the study = Rs.3,50,000/-
Total cost payable by the industry = Rs.20,15,800/-. The total environmental compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- payable by the following industries for causing damage to the agriculture land.
(i)M/s. GEE Carbon
(ii) M/s. Subbayan & Co
(iii) M/s United Carbon 105 106
(iv) M/s. Winner Carbon
(v) M/s. G.S. Carbon
(vi) M/s. Glopal Coco Products
6. The total Environmental compensation imposed on Kangeyam Municipality for illegal dumping of municipal solid waste is around Rs.141.14 lakhs."
63. This report was considered by this Tribunal on 8.6.2020 and passed the following order:
Mr. Yogeeswaran submitted that the committee report did not consider the question of irrigation in proper sense and they have not considered the impact of ash generated while the units were functioning and whether the elevated pipe, as suggested by the committee will expand. Learned counsel also submitted that according to him, the compensation fixed by the committee is very low. However, considering the fact that the matter is pending for a long time, the amount can be considered and appropriate orders may be passed. But further report is required in respect of remediation measures to be taken. Learned Expert Member also suggested that the committee report is vague about the remedial measures and further detailing needs to be done.
Considering all these aspects, we direct the committee to go into the question as to whether the proposed elevation of tank suggested by them will sustain the leachate to be created when the units are functioning. Learned Expert Member also suggested that unless the tank is elevated to a certain extent, it will be not be possible to detect the leachate to be generated to avoid soil degradation in future. This aspect has not been considered by the committee. We also noticed that the committee also has not considered the aspect of technology to be adopted to avoid such damage being caused to soil and water as suggested in the earlier report and feasibility of approval of the alternate technology by TNPCB and the objection raised by the counsel appearing for the applicant in OA.No.24 of 2013 which we directed to be considered by the committee as well as the Pollution Control Board while submitting the report.
So, the committee is directed to consider these aspects as well and submit a further report in this regard and if further modification is required regarding elevation of the tank and implementation of the alternate technology suggested by them in their earlier report, the same may be looked into. The committee is also directed to suggest the overall ash that the units will generate and whether the existing technology has to be changed and to what extent the modification is required for this purpose and submit a detailed report in this regard. Learned counsel appearing for applicant also submitted that in the earlier report submitted during March, 2017 a modified technology was provided by them and this Tribunal has directed Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to consider the same and submit 106 107 a further report. But that aspect has not been considered by the joint committee. So the joint committee is directed to consider this aspect and submit a further report, clarifying this aspect as well. The committee is directed to submit the report to this Tribunal on or before 17.8.2020 by e-mail or e-filing at [email protected].
64. Thereafter, the counsel for parties were heard and reserved for judgment.
65. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(i)Whether the charcoal units, who filed independent applications and the applicant in O.A.24 of 2013 are entitled to get the relief claimed by them in their application?
(ii) Whether the charcoal units are entitled to continue their operation? If so, on what condition?
(iii) Whether the charcoal units are liable to pay any environmental compensation as well as to the affected parties? If so, what is the quantum of compensation payable?
(iv) To what relief the parties are entitled to?
66. Since the dispute regarding the conditions of the charcoal manufacturing units will be depending on the out come of the result in O.A.No.24 of 2013, this Tribunal feels that O.A.24 of 2013 is taken up as a leading case and the rank of the parties in O.A.24 of 2013 can be referred to in this judgment as applicant, official respondents and the charcoal units respectively for convenience sake.
67. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that it is seen from the reports submitted by the committee that by virtue of the operation of the charcoal units, large scale contamination has been caused to the ground water. If it is allowed to continue in the same fashion, then it will affect the environment as such and affect the life of the people. Further, the quantum of compensation fixed by the committee, compared to the nature of loss, is very meagre. According to the learned counsel, if this Tribunal feel that these units shall be allowed to function, then discretion will have to be given to the Pollution Control Board to adopt a proper method by which the process can be converted by the charcoal units.
68. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the charcoal units submitted that the report of the committee will go to show that contamination of water cannot be attributed 107 108 to the operation of the units. Further, if stringent conditions are imposed, it will be difficult for the units to function, as they are small units. On account of the order of this Tribunal and also on the basis of the directions given by the panchayat, the Pollution Control Board is not renewing the „consent‟ application filed. They will abide by any directions of this Tribunal to adopt any method which is environmental friendly while operating their unit.
69. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant in O.A.No.17 of 2013 submitted that they have not started the unit and even if this Tribunal found that on account of the operation of the existing units if any alleged pollution is caused, then the existing units alone will be responsible and no liability can be mulcted on the applicant in O.A.No.17 of 2013 and they are prepared to abide by any condition imposed by this Tribunal to run the unit in an environment friendly manner, without causing any pollution and also adopting any scientific technology suggested by the Pollution Control Board. The learned counsel also submitted that they are intending to use elevated pit and not below ground level pit.
70. The learned counsel appearing for the official respondents submitted that the respondents are entitled to restrain the polluting units from operating in the area till the units are adopting a better method to avoid pollution being caused to the environment.
71. O.A.No.24 of 2013 and O.A.No.220 of 2017 were filed by the persons affected by the operation of charcoal units in Kangeyam and Karur Districts respectively. All other cases were filed either by the existing charcoal manufacturing operators, using coconut shell or by persons who intended to start new unit.
72. The grievance of the applicants who filed applications against the operation of the units was that on account of the operation of the units, large scale pollution, both air and water is being caused, affecting the health of the people and also the agricultural land of the neighbouring owners
73. On the other hand, the charcoal units have filed the applications, challenging the orders passed by the Veeranampalayam Panchayat, directing them to stop functioning of their units and for permission to operate their units.
74. It is an admitted fact that the existing charcoal units were using the technology of constructing the chambers below ground level. According to the Expert Committee, the 108 109 pollution control mechanism provided were not up to the mark. It is also an admitted fact that as has been observed by the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in MADAPPA GOUNDER VS. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, CHENNAI & ORS (W.P.1962 of 2010) that these units are „red‟ category units having more possibility of causing pollution though Environment Clearance is not required under EIA Notification, 2006. But while granting „consent to establish‟ or „consent to operate‟ to such units, the Pollution Control Board is expected to impose conditions, treating them as „red‟ category units, as the possibility of pollution being caused by these units are higher than other type of categories viz., „orange‟ „green‟ and „white‟. Merely because four units were impleaded in O.A.No.24 of 2013, while more than 20 units are functioning in that area, is not a ground to dismiss the applications especially when there are possibilities of contributing to the pollution as joint forfeitures by these units, they cannot be exonerated from their liability, as their liability is joint and several along with other units which were also contributing to the pollution and the applicants are entitled to file application against some of the units namely any of the joint tort-feasors and claim compensation from them. Further, the Association of Charcoal units has also come on record in O.A.No.24 of 2013 and they can represent the interest of other units as well who were not made parties to the proceedings. When once it is found that there was some degradation caused to the environment, then being a contributory to cause pollution, those units who have been made parties are liable to pay environmental compensation, apart from meeting the expenses for restoration of the damage caused to the environment. If the applicants were able to establish that apart from environmental damage, personal damage also has been caused to them on account of the act of the polluting industries, then they are also entitled to get independent compensation which the polluting industries are liable to pay, apart from their liability to pay environmental compensation, as fixed by the Tribunal and the expenses for assessing the degradation caused and the expenses required for restoration of the same as well.
75. It may be mentioned here that the applicant in O.A.No.17 of 2013 viz., M/s.Balasubramaniam Charcoal Unit cannot be mulcted with liability to pay compensation, as they have not started their unit at all and it is in the preparatory stage of establishment of the proposed unit. It is at that time that the Village Panchayat had withdrawn the permission granted to them for establishment of such unit. 109 110
76. As regards other units are concerned, the Committee appointed by this Tribunal as per order dated 26.10.2013 in its report submitted in September, 2014 found that some pollution has been caused on account of the operation of the existing charcoal units. Though in O.A.No.24 of 2013 the prayer was to give direction to the Pollution Control Board not to renew the „consent‟ to the existing charcoal manufacturing units, the Tribunal feels that such relief cannot be granted totally preventing the operation of such units unless the Tribunal is able to come to a conclusive opinion that there is no possibility of any alternate method that can be suggested for these units to operate and inspite of alternate scientific method providing better pollution control mechanism there cannot be any possibility to control pollution which will be irreversible in nature and against the principle of „sustainable development‟ the „precautionary principle‟ and protection of environment. This Tribunal will have to consider the question as to whether there is any possibility of balancing the interest of both the units as well as persons said to have been affected on account of operation of such units vis - a - vis protection of environment.
77. Before going into the facts of the case and also for consideration of the grievance of the parties, this Tribunal feels that it is better to evaluate the judicial pronouncements on these aspects. In the decision reported in HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA (2019) 15 SCC 401 the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the environmental rule of law and the principle of „sustainable development‟ and observed as follows:
"Fundamental to the outcome of this case is a quest for environmental governance within a Rule of law paradigm. Environmental governance is founded on the need to promote environmental sustainability as a crucial enabling factor which ensures the health of our eco system.
Since the Stockholm Conference, there has been a dramatic expansion in environmental laws and institutions across the globe. In many instances, these laws and institutions have helped to slow down or reverse environmental degradation. However, this progress is also accompanied, by a growing understanding that there is a considerable implementation gap between the requirements of environmental laws and their implementation and enforcement - both in developed and developing countries alike.51 The environmental Rule of law seeks to 17-11-2020 (Page 38 of 46) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench address this gap.
The environmental Rule of law provides an essential platform underpinning the four pillars of sustainable development-- economic, social, environmental, and peace.52 It imbues environmental objectives with the essentials of Rule of law and underpins the reform of environmental law and governance.52 The environmental Rule of law becomes a priority particularly when we acknowledge that the benefits of environmental Rule of law extend far beyond the environmental sector. While the most direct effects are on protection of the environment, it also strengthens Rule of law more broadly, supports sustainable economic and social development, protects public health, contributes to peace and security by avoiding and defusing conflict, and protects human and constitutional rights.52 Similarly, the Rule of law in environmental matters is 110 111 indispensable "for equity in terms of the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals53, the provision of fair access by assuring a rights-based approach, and the promotion and protection of environmental and other socio-economic rights."54 Amartya Sen argues for a broadening of the notion of sustainable development which is the most dominant theme of environmental literature, from a need-based standard55 to a standard based on freedoms.56 Thus recharacterized, it encompasses the preservation, and when possible even the expansion of the substantive freedoms and capabilities of people today without compromising the capability of future generations to have similar-or more-freedoms. The intertwined concepts of environmental Rule of law thus further intragenerational as well as intergenerational equity.
Decision 27/9 which was adopted by the United Nations Environment Programme's57 Governing Body at its first universal session in 2013 on 'Advancing Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability' was the first internationally negotiated document to establish the term 'environmental Rule of law.' It declared that "the violation of environmental law has the potential to undermine sustainable development and the implementation of agreed environmental goals and objectives at all levels and that the Rule of law and good governance play an essential role in reducing such violations". It thus urged governments and organisations to reinforce cooperation to combat noncompliance with environmental laws towards achieving sustainable development. It also called upon the Executive Director to assist with the "development and implementation of environmental Rule of law with attention at all levels to mutually supporting governance features, including information disclosure, public participation, implementable and enforceable laws, and implementation and accountability mechanisms including coordination of roles as well as environmental auditing and criminal, civil and administrative enforcement with timely, impartial and independent dispute resolution." Similarly, the first United Nations Environment Assembly in 2014 adopted resolution 1/13, which calls upon countries "to work for the strengthening of environmental Rule of law at the international, regional and national levels."
In 2016, the First World Environmental Law Congress, cosponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and UN Environment, adopted the IUCN World Declaration on the Environmental Rule of Law58 which outlines 13 principles for developing and implementing solutions for ecologically sustainable development:
(i) Obligation to Protect Nature
(ii) Right to Nature and Rights of Nature
(iii) Right to Environment.
(iv) Ecological Sustainability and Resilience
(v) In Dubio Pro Natura
(vi) Ecological Functions of Property
(vii) Intragenerational Equity 17-11-2020 (Page 39 of 46) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench
(viii) Intergenerational Equity
(ix) Gender Equality
(x) Participation of Minority and Vulnerable Groups
(xi) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
(xii) Non-regression
(xiii) Progression Dhvani Mehta's doctoral thesis59 explores this idea of environmental Rule of law in the Indian context by analysing the functioning of the three institutions of the government with regard to environmental law. It develops a framework to assess whether the environmental Rule of law in India is being strengthened or weakened, through an analysis of the legal instruments of each of the institutions of government--statutes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. The indicators on the basis of which this is done are: a) the capacity of statutes to guide behavior (one of the organising principles of the Rule of law) by clearly articulating goals or balancing competing interests; b) the ability of the executive to take flexible but reasoned decisions grounded in primary legislation; and c) the ability of the judiciary to apply statutory interpretation and consistent standards of judicial review to give effect to environmental rights and principles.
In 2015, the International community adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 SDGs60. These 17 goals are:
(i) Eradication of poverty;111 112
(ii) Eradication of hunger;
(iii) Good health and well-being;
(iv) Quality education;
(v) Gender equality;
(vi) Clean water and sanitation;
(vii) Affordable and clean energy;
(viii) Decent work and economic growth;
(ix) Industry, innovation and infrastructure;
(x) Reduced inequalities;
(xi) Sustainable cities and communities;
(xii) Sustainable consumption and production;
(xiii) Climate action;
(xiv) Protecting life below water;
(xv) Life on land;
(xvi) Peace, justice and strong institutions; and (xvii) Partnerships to achieve the goals.
Each of these goals has a vital connection to the others. Together, they provide an agenda for human development: development in a manner which accords adequate protection to the 17-11-2020 (Page 40 of 46) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench environment. The UNEP recognises that the natural environment - forests, soils and wet lands - contributes to the management and Regulation of water availability and water quality, strengthening the resilience of water sheds and complements investments in physical infrastructure and institutional and regulatory arrangements for water access and disaster preparedness.
SDG 13 emphasises the urgent action required to combat climate change and its impacts.
This is based on the recognition that extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, floods and tropical cyclones have aggravated the need for water management, pose a threat to food security, increase health risks, damage critical infrastructure and interrupt the provision of basic civil services. The statistics on climate change indicate that:
(i) Between 1880 and 2012, average global temperatures have increased by 0.85 degrees Celsius;
(ii) Between 1901 and 2010, as ocean expanded, the global average sea level has risen by 19 centimeters;
(iii) Since 1990, global emissions of CO2 increased by almost 50 per cent; and
(iv) Between 2000 and 2010, emissions grew at a more rapid rate than each of the three decades preceding it.
In this backdrop, SDG 16 emphasises the need to protect, restore and promote sustainable use and management of terrestrial eco systems and forests, combat desertification of river lands, prevent land degradation and halt the loss of biodiversity. Terrestrial eco systems provide a range of eco system services including the capture of carbon, maintenance of soil quality, provision of habitat for biodiversity, maintenance of water quality and Regulation of water flow together with control over erosion. Maintenance of eco systems is hence crucial to efforts tocombat climate change, mitigate and reduce the risks of natural disasters including floods and landslides. In this backdrop, promoting environmental justice and ensuring strong institutions is quintessential to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development. SDG 16 therefore construes the promotion of the Rule of law as intrinsic towards implementing multilateral environmental agreements and progressing towards internationally agreed environmental goals.
On 2 October 2016, India ratified the Paris Agreement61 on climate change which reaffirmed the goal of 'limiting global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels'. Article 5 of the Agreement encourages parties to conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, which includes forests. Under its Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement, India made the following three commitments62:
(i) Greenhouse gas emission intensity of its Gross Domestic Product will be reduced by 33-35% below 2005 levels by 2030;
(ii) 40% of India's power capacity would be based on non-fossil fuel sources; and
(iii) An additional 'carbon sink' of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through 112 113 additional forest and tree cover will be created by 2030.
In March 2019, UNEP released the Global Environment Outlook themed 'Healthy Planet, Healthy People'.63 Noting clear 'links between human health and the state of the environment', the report concludes that clean-up and efficiency improvements are not adequate to pursue the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs and achieve the internationally agreed environmental goals on pollution control. Instead, 'transformative change' which reconfigures basic social and production systems and structures is needed. This includes well-designed policies on institutional frameworks, social practices, cultural norms and values along with their implementation, 17-11-2020 (Page 41 of 46) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench compliance and enforcement. In this view, a systemic and integrated policy action63 would ensure that a "healthy environment is a prerequisite and foundation for economic prosperity, human health and well-being"52 The Rule of law requires a regime which has effective, accountable and transparent institutions. Responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making are key ingredients to the Rule of law. Public access to information is, in similar terms, fundamental to the preservation of the Rule of law. In a domestic context, environmental governance that is founded on the Rule of law emerges from the values of our Constitution. The health of the environment is key to preserving the right to life as a constitutionally recognized value Under Article 21 of the Constitution. Proper structures for environmental decision making find expression in the guarantee against arbitrary action and the affirmative duty of fair treatment Under Article 14 of the Constitution."
and held that the regulating authorities must balance the principle of „public trust‟ doctrine, „sustainable development‟, „inter-generational equity‟ and „protection of environment‟ while considering the question of either continuation of the existing polluting industry or establishment of proposed such industries which are more probable of causing pollution to environment and if it is likely to cause irreversible damage to environment, then ‟sustainable development‟ must give way to the protection of environment and establishment or continuation of such industries should not be allowed to come or continue respectively.
78. In the decision reported in LAFARGE UNIAM MINING PVT LTD. VS T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS; UNION OF INDIA & ORS (2011) 7 SCC 338 considered this aspect and observed that the words „environment‟ and „sustainable development‟ have various facets. At times in respect of few of these facets data is not available. Care for environment is an on going process. The time has come to apply the constitutional „doctrine of proportionality‟ to the matters concerning environment as a part of the process of judicial review in contradistinction to merit review. It cannot be gainsaid that utilisation of the environment and its natural resources has to be in a way that is consistent with the principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity but balancing of these equities may entail policy choices. In these circumstances, barring 113 114 exceptions, decisions relating to utilisation of natural resources have to be tested on the anvil of the well recognised principles of judicial review.
79. The same view has been reiterated in the decision reported in KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD V. C. KENCHAPPA (2006) 6 SCC 371 wherin the Hon‟ble Apex Court has considered this aspect as follows:
"The 1972 Stockholm Conference on 'Human Environment' secured its place in the history of our times with the adoption of the first global action plan for the environment. Yet, as increasingly grim statistics indicate, over the past decades our global environment and the living conditions for most of the inhabitants of the planet continue to deteriorate. This process has meant significant setback for both rich and poor. The Declaration of the 1972 Stockholm Conference referred obliquely to man's environment, adding that 'both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the man- made, are essential for his well-being and enjoyment of basic human rights'.
19. In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Ors.
MANU/SC/0037/2004 :
AIR2004SC1834 , this Court aptly observed Stockholm Declaration as "Magna Carta of our environment". First time at the international level importance of environment has been articulated.
(i) In the Stockholm Declaration principle number two provides that the natural resources of the earth including air, water, land, flora and fauna should be protected. The fourth principle of Stockholm Declaration reminds us about our responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife and its habitat.
17-11-2020 (Page 7 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench
(ii) The Court in the said judgment also observed that "this, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in the population together with consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution of water resources and the very air which we breathe. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other."
(iii) In the said judgment, the passage has been quoted from Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India MANU/SC/1189/1996 :
(1996)5SCC281 . We deem it appropriate to reproduce the same. Para 31 at page 296 in the said judgment reads as under:
While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but 114 115 there should be development while taking, due care and ensuring the protection of environment.
The Stockholm Conference recognized the links between environment and development. But little was done to integrate this concept for international action until 1987 when the Brundtland Report, 'Our Common Future' was presented to the United Nations General Assembly. The Brundtland Report stimulated debate on development policies and practices in developing and industrialized countries alike and called for an integration of our understanding of the environment and development into practical measures of action.
Armed with three years of testimony from people at hearings on five continents, the Commission came to one central conclusion:
i) The present development trends leave increasing numbers of people poor and vulnerable, while at the same time degrading the environment;
ii) Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems and, therefore, it is futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality; and;
iii) A new development was required, one that sustained human progress for the entire planet into the distant future and that sustainable development becomes a goal not just for the developing nations but for the industrialized ones as well.
The Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 altered the discourses of environmentalism in significant ways. Sustainability, introduced in the 1987 Brundtland Report - Our Common Future - and enacted Rio agreements, became a new and accepted code word for development. The United Nations Conference on 17-11-2020 (Page 8 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, provided the fundamental principles and the programme of action for achieving sustainable development. Peace, security, stability and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, as well as respect for cultural diversity, are essential for achieving sustainable development and ensuring that sustainable development benefits all. The 1992 Rio Declaration on 'Environment and Development' recognizes the element of integration of environmental and developmental aspects, particularly in principles 3 & 4, which are set as under:
Principle 3 The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. Principle 4 In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.
The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development refers at many points to environmental needs, environmental protection, environmental degradation and so, but nowhere identifies what these include. Interestingly it eschews the term 'entirely' in Principle 1, declaring instead that human beings 'are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature'. One of the few bodies to proffer a definition is the European Commission. In developing an 'Action Programme on the Environment', it defined "environment as the combination of elements whose complex inter-relationships make up the settings, the surroundings 115 116 and the conditions of life of the individual and of society as they are and as they are felt."
Some understanding of what 'the environment' may encompass can be discerned from other treaty provisions. Those agreements which define 'environmental effects', 'environmental impacts' or 'environmental damage' typically include harm to flora, fauna, soil, water, air landscape, cultural heritage, and any interaction between these factors.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development' was held in Johannesburg in 2002. The purpose of the same was to evaluate the obstacles to progress and the results achieved since the 1992 World Summit at Rio de Janeiro. The same was expected to present "an opportunity to build on the knowledge gained over the past decade, and provides a new impetus for commitments of resources and specific action towards global sustainability."
The priority of developing nations is urgent industrialization and development. We have reached at a point where it is necessary to strike a golden balance between the development and ecology. The development should be such as it can be sustained by ecology. All this has given rise to the concept of sustainable development.
The World Conservation Union' and 'the World Wide Fund for Nature' prepared jointly by UNEP described that "sustainable development, therefore, depends upon accepting a duty to seek harmony with other people and with nature" according to 'Caring for the Earth', A strategy for Sustainable Living. The guiding rules are:
17-11-2020 (Page 9 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench
i) People must share with each other and care for the earth;
ii) Humanity must take no more from nature than man can replenish; and,
iii) People must adopt life styles and development paths that respect and work within nature's limits.
The International community expressed its commitment to treat environment and development in an integrated manner and to cooperate "in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable development. This was part of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. [Principle 27; Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development] P. Sands in his celebrated book International Law in the field of Sustainable Development" mentioned that the sustainable development requires the States to ensure that they develop and use their natural resources in a manner which is sustainable. According to him, sustainable development has four objectives:
First, it refers to a commitment to preserve natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.
Second, sustainable development refers to appropriate standards for the exploitation of natural resources based upon harvests or use (examples include use which is "sustainable," "prudent," or "rational," or "wise" or "appropriate").
Third, yet other agreements require an "equitable" use of natural resources, suggesting that the use by any State must take account of the needs of other States and people.
And a fourth category of agreements require that, environmental considerations be integrated into economic and other development plans, programmes, and projects, and that the development needs are taken into account in applying environmental objectives.
Sustainable Development: Contribution of Judiciary and Others 116 117 This Court, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India MANU/SC/0686/1996 : AIR1996SC2715 , acknowledged that the traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other, is no longer acceptable.
Sustainable development is the answer. Some of the salient principles of "Sustainable Development" as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity. This Court observed that "the Precautionary Principle" and "the Polluter Pays Principle" are essential features of "Sustainable Development." Nation's progress largely depends on development, therefore, the development cannot be stopped, but we need to control it rationally. No government can cope with the problem of environmental repair by itself alone; peoples' voluntary participation in environmental management is a must for sustainable development. There is a need to create environmental awareness which may be propagated through formal and informal education. We must scientifically assess the ecological impact of various developmental schemes. To meet the challenge of current environmental issues, the entire globe should be considered the proper arena for environmental adjustment.
17-11-2020 (Page 10 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench Unity of mankind is not just a dream of the enlightenment but a biophysical fact.
In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0106/1991 :
[1991]1SCR5 , this Court has given directions that, under Article 21 of the Constitution, pollution free water and air are the fundamental rights of the people.
2 In the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Nayudu MANU/SC/0032/1999 : [1999]1SCR235 , this Court observed that the right to have access to drinking water is fundamental to life and it is the duty of the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.
The United Nations Water Conference in 1977 observed as under:
All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs.
3 . Similarly, this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India MANU/SC/0640/2000 : AIR2000SC3751 observed as under:
Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India....
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India : (1991)2SCC137 , this Court gave number of directions to reduce the pollution created by vehicles. The need of the hour is inculcating the sense of urgency in implementing the rules relating to environmental protection which are not strictly followed. Its result would be disastrous for the health and welfare of the people. The concept of sustainable development whose importance was the resolution of environmental problems is profound and undisputed. Professor Ben Boer, Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, in his article "Implementing Sustainability" observed as under:
Strategies for sustainable development have been formulated in many countries in the past several years. Their implementation through legal and administrative mechanisms is underway on a national and regional basis. The impetus for these strategies has come from documents such as the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, the World Conservation Strategy, the 117 118 World Charter for Nature of 1982 and the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, our Common Future. The initiatives are part of a world wide movement for the introduction of National Conservation Strategies based on the World Conservation Strategy. Over 50 National Conservation Strategies have been introduced over the past decade, all of which incorporate concepts of sustainable development. The document Caring for the Earth is the chief successor to the World Conservation Strategy.
In the same article, Professor Boer further observed in the said article as follows:
17-11-2020 (Page 11 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench 'Sustainability' is defined in 'Caring for the Earth' as "a characteristic or state that can be maintained indefinitely", whilst "development" is defined as "increasing the capacity to meet human needs and improve the quality of human life. What this seems to mean is "to increase the efficiency of resource use in order to improve human living standards". In 'Caring for the Earth', the term "sustainable development" is derived from a rough combination of these two definitions:
Improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.
32. Adherence to Following Principles is imperative for Preserving Ecology (1) The Precautionary Principle:
This Court in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (supra) has recognized the Precautionary Principle. Again, this principle has been reiterated in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India : (1997) 2 SCC 353. In the said case, the Precautionary Principle has been explained in the context of municipal law as under:
(i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environment degradation.
(iii) The 'onus of proof' is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.
The Precautionary Principle was stated in Article 7 of the Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development in the ECE Region, May 1990, as incorporated in the said article, of Professor Ben Boer. It reads as follows:
Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. The Precautionary Principle can be culled out from the following observations of the Australian Conservation Foundation. (This also has been incorporated in the Professor Boer's said article.) The implementation of this duty is that developers must assume from the fact of development activity that harm to the environment may occur, and that they should take the necessary action to prevent that harm; the onus of proof is thus placed on developers to show that their actions are environmentally benign.
(2) Polluter Pays:118 119
This Court had an occasion to deal with this main principle of sustainable development in the case of Indian Council for Environ-Legal Action v. Union of 17-11-2020 (Page 12 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench India MANU/SC/1112/1996 : [1996]2SCR503 . Carolyn Shelbourn in his article "Historic Pollution - Does the Polluter Pay?" (published in the Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, Aug. 1974 issue), mentioned that the question of liability of the respondents to defray the costs of remedial measures can be looked into from another angle, which has come to be accepted universally as a sound principle, viz., the "Polluter Pays" principle. The Court in the said judgment observed as under:
The Polluter Pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of Government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer. The 'Polluter Pays' principle was promoted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) during the 1970s when there was great public interest in environmental issue's. During this time there were demands on Government and other institutions to introduce policies and mechanisms for the protection of the environment and the public from the threats posed by pollution in a modern industrialised society. Since then there has been considerable discussion of the nature of the Polluter Pays principle, but the precise scope of the principle and its implications for those involved in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been satisfactorily agreed.
This principle has also been held to be a sound principle in the case of Vellore Citizens 'Welfare Forum (supra). The Court observed that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land. The Court in the said judgment, on the basis of the provisions of Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, observed that we have no hesitation in holding that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are part of the environmental laws of the country.
The Public Trust Doctrine:
The concept of public trusteeship may be accepted as a basic principle for the protection of natural resources of the land and sea. The Public Trust Doctrine (which found its way in the ancient Roman Empire) primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of their status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government and its instrumentalities to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public.
This Court in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board II (supra) mentioned that there is a need to take into account the right to a healthy environment along with the right to sustainable development and balance them.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath MANU/SC/1007/1997 :
(1997)1SCC388 , this Court dealt with the Public Trust Doctrine in great detail. The Court observed as under:
17-11-2020 (Page 13 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench 119 120 We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities, who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an* instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.
Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan - proponent of the modern Public Trust Doctrine - in an erudite article "Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law : Effective Judicial Intervention", Michigan Law Review; Vol. 68, Part 1 p. 473, has given the historical background of the Public Trust Doctrine as under:
The source of modern public trust law is found in a concept that received much attention" in Roman and English law - the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature, need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasized. First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property used for those purposes was distinguished from general public property which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties
- such as the seashore, highways and running water - 'perpetual use was dedicated to the public', it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although the State apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available that public rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant government. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority:
Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of 17-11-2020 (Page 14 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench 120 121 uses.
The Supreme Court of California in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County 33 Cal. 3d 419 observed as under: Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right of protection only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust....
In a recent case of Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/8047/2006 : AIR2006SC1350 , this Court has reiterated the importance of the Doctrine of Public Trust in maintaining sustainable development.
The right to sustainable development has been declared by the UN General Assembly to be an inalienable human right (Declaration on the Right to Development) (1986).
Similarly, in 1992 Rio Conference it was declared that human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. Human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of development process and the same cannot be considered in isolation of it.
The same principle was articulated in the 1997 "Earth Summit". The European Court of Justice, emphasised in Portugal v. F.C. Council the need to promote sustainable development while taking into account the environment. (report in 3 C.M.L.R. 331) (1997) (ibid Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, p.283) In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India : (1997) 2 SCC 353 this Court gave a number of directions to 292 industries located nearby Taj Mahal. This Court, in this case, observed that the old concept that development and ecology cannot go together is no longer acceptable. Sustainable development is the answer. The development of industry is essential for the economy of the country, but at the same time the environment and ecosystem have to be protected. The pollution created as a consequence of environment must be commensurate with the carrying capacity of our ecosystem. In any case, in view of the precautionary principle, the environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
40. The directions which have been given in the impugned judgment are perhaps on the lines of directions given by this Court in M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India MANU/SC/1123/1997 : (1997)3SCC715 . This Court observed that the preventive measures have to be taken keeping in view the carrying capacity of the ecosystem operating in the environmental surroundings under consideration. Badkhal and Surajkund lakes are popular tourist resorts almost next door to the capital city of Delhi. Two expert opinions on the record - by the Central Pollution Control Board and by the NEERI make it clear that the large-scale construction activity in the close vicinity of the two lakes is bound to cause adverse impact on the local ecology. NEERI has recommended green belt at one k.m. radius all around the two lakes.
The directions given in the said judgment based on NEERI's recommendations were 17-11-2020 (Page 15 of 17) www.manupatra.com Library Principal Bench capable of proper implementation.
121 122 If the directions given in the impugned judgment are properly implemented then perhaps, the appellant cannot acquire any land for development. This may not have been the underlying idea behind the judgment but it seems to be the obvious consequence of a direction given by the Division Bench in this case. In this view of the matter, the said directions given in the impugned judgment are set aside.
41. We see significant developments when we carefully evaluate the entire journey of judicial pilgrimage from the decade of 1960 till this date. In the decade of 1960s,hardly anyone expressed concern about ecology and environment. The statement of Sir Edmund Hillary quoted in the earlier part of the judgment indicates that Mount Everest was littered with junk from the bottom to the top, and nobody hardly spoke about it or was any serious concern shown about environmental degradation. In the decade of 1970s, a serious concern about the degradation of ecology and environment was articulated. The Stockholm Conference of 1972 was a major watershed in the history of the world. It was realised that for a civilised world both development and ecology are essential.
42. In the Rio Conference of 1992 great concern has been shown about sustainable development. "Sustainable development" means 'a development which can be sustained by nature with or without mitigation'. In other words, it is to maintain delicate balance between industrialization and ecology. While development of industry is essential for the growth of economy, at the same time, the environment and the ecosystem are required to be protected. The pollution created as a consequence of development must not exceed the carrying capacity of ecosystem.The Courts in various judgments have developed the basic and essential features of sustainable development. In order to protect sustainable development, it is necessary to implement and enforce some of its main components and ingredients such as - Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays and Public Trust Doctrine. We can trace foundation of these ingredients in number of judgments delivered by this Court and the High Courts after the Rio Conference, 1992."
80. All these decisions have considered the question of sustainable development, intergenerational equity, precautionary principles, public trust doctrine and the role of courts in applying these principles while considering the question of environment.
81. Further, Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 deals with these principles which reads as follows:
"The Tribunal while passing any order or decision or award apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle."
82. So it is clear from this that this Tribunal will have to consider the question of continuation of such industrial units vis -a - vis its impact on environment, applying the principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle, public trust doctrine and protection of environment and all necessary precautionary measures will have to be taken 122 123 so as to sustain the policy of „sustainable development‟ which has been evolved in the International Covenants, as part of economic development and only in cases where this Tribunal find that there is no possibility of sustainable development of these industries, as the possibility of pollution that is likely to be caused by these industries are irreversible in nature and only in such cases total prohibition of either continuance of such units or even establishment of such units in future can be ordered by this Tribunal. With these principles in mind, the cases in hand have to be considered.
83. There is no dispute that the existing units are operating with a technology of providing chambers below ground level. In order to ascertain the impact of these industries and whether such industries can be allowed to continue their operation or not or any alternate method can be provided to balance the interest of these industries, the people of the locality and environment, the Pollution Control Board itself had constituted a Joint Committee and the Members of the Committee prepared a report signed on 27.11.2012 wherein they have provided better pollution control mechanism and suggested a better mechanism of elevating the pit above ground level and also providing alternate mechanism for quenching of water and disposal of the same and other waste that is likely to be generated by these industries.
84. Thereafter, this Tribunal also constituted a committee by order dated 26.10.2013 to ascertain these aspects and also for verification and suggesting for an implementable procedure and process to prevent pollution alleged to be caused by the charcoal units in Thirupur District comprising of Prof. T. Swaminathan, Retired Professor of Chemical Engineering, IIT, Madras as the Chairman and Prof. Kurien Joseph, Department of Civil Engineering, Anna University, Chennai as the Member of the Committee. On the basis of the order of this Tribunal, the Committee appointed by this Tribunal had co-opted two Expert Members appointed by the Pollution Control Board viz., Mr. R. Kumar, Additional Chief Environmental Engineer, Coimbatore and Mr. Selvan, Join Environment Engineer (Monitoring Squad), Mr. S. Sathyaraj, Assistant Environment Engineering (Monitoring), Coimbatore and Mr. P. Sakthivel, Deputy Chief Scientific Officer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thirupur and Mrs. Vanaja, Assistan Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thirupur. The Committee had submitted their report dated 18.9.2014 wherein the Committee had considered all the aspects and prima facie came to 123 124 the conclusion that Carbon Monoxide emanated from the operation of the units are above permissible limit which is likely to cause air pollution and affect the health of the people and also found that though the other criteria are within permissible limit as per the standard provided but on the higher side of compliance which is also likely to cause pollution. It is also found by the Committee that these units were not in operation and there was better ambient air quality in that area.
85. It is also found by the Committee that the water contamination caused to the wells belonging to residents viz., Sakthivel, Raju Balasubramaniam, Tamilselvan and Padmaraj was due to the unscientific manner in which the quenched water generated during the process of charcoal manufacturing by the units using old technology ie., below ground level. They also found that the quality of water was not potable in nature but they met the standard of irrigation. They also suggested for raising the pits above ground level and also to provide certain improvised technology for collecting and disposal of quenched water and to provide better pollution control mechanism apart from some other points suggested by the Pollution Control Board. So it is clear from this that on account of the existing units, some contamination has been caused to the ground water and due to non operation of these units for quite a long time, it has been improved due to natural remediation process.
86. Further, this Tribunal as per the order dated 22.4.2015 directed the Pollution Control Board to evolve a method for the purpose of implementation of various recommendations viz., The cost effect and technology conditions and feasibility of the setting up of Charcoal unit above ground.
The restoration of the ground water quality affected by pollution which has resulted in the change of colour of water and also the period before which the same is to be done with adequate scientific method and cost to be incurred in that behalf.
Till what time the alternate source of supply of potable water to be made to the people for drinking purpose and also to consider the proposed technology intended to be introduced by M/s. Balasubramaniam Charcoal Unit which is applicant in O.A.Nol.17 of 2013. This Tribunal also directed the Pollution Control Board to issue notice to all the 20 units in the District for consideration of these aspects. The meeting of the Pollution Control Board had come to 124 125 the opinion that all the 20 charcoal manufacturing units were directed to furnish affidavit on or before 10th July, 2015 in non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.50/- and assurance on the following points:
"To bear the cost towards restoration of ground water quality affected by pollution which has resulted in the change of colour of water.
To produce design cum stability certificate obtained from competent authority for their manufacturing unit/plant.
Acceptance for supply of potable water to be made to the affected people for drinking purposes.
If any design is arrived for the manufacturing of coconut shell charcoal the same to be vetted by the experts either from IIT, Madras or Anna University, Chennai."
Though the existing units wanted to continue with the present process of below ground level operation that was not accepted by the Pollution Control Board, considering the possibility of pollution being caused if this is being allowed to continue. Thereafter, as per the directions of this Tribunal several tests have been conducted either by the Committee or by the Pollution Control Board and ultimately came to the conclusion that certain modifications will be required and the Pollution Control Board filed their report dated 10.5.2015 wherein certain recommendations have been made.
87. The matter was again taken up on 25.5.2015 and this Tribunal passed the following order:
"The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board) would submit that the meeting to decide about some of the issues which we have directed in the order dated 22.4.2015 will be convened shortly. Accordingly, the matter stands posted to 14.7.2015.
In Application No.24 of 2013 in respect of the unit named United Carbon in our order dated 21.8.2013, having notified that there was no consent to operate we directed the closure of the said unit. However, the learned senior counsel Mr.A.Natarajan made a mention on the next date of hearing on 22.8.2013 and on the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel that there has been a permission granted by the Pollution Control Board,we have stated that our order dated 21.8.2013 would not apply to the said unit. However, it is now brought to our notice that the said letter dated 20.9.2013 issued by the Board was only a recognition that the unit has complied with requirements and they can be permitted to operate. In as much as there is no consent for operation granted by the Board and the learned counsel appearing 125 126 for the Board now states that there has been are commendation for the closure of the unit made by the DEE, Tripur and taking note of the fact of other similar units have been closed, the closure of the unit in question namely United Carbon shall be affected within one week from today. The learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board shall ensure the implementation of the above said order. We direct that till we take final decision in this caseother units shall also remain closed."
Subsequently several reports have been filed and several directions were given on that basis and ultimately the Joint Committee has filed the report dated 19.2.2020 assessing the damage and also amount required for restoration etc.. Further, the committee report submitted dated 19.2.2020 has given the following recommendation:
"All the existing consented units of TNPC Board adopting open earthen pit (batch process) can implement the proposals submitted by M/s. United Carbon dated 23.5.2016, M/s. Tirupur District Coconut Shell Manufacturer Association dated 23.5.2016 (being one and the same) subject to the following modifications:
The modernized elevated open pit shall be lifted above 1000 mm from ground level and the water quenching tank shall be above ground level of not less than 500 mm.
The charcoal pits firing chamber, oil mist eliminator and venture wet scrubber shall essentially have pressure releasing valves.
Suitable non return valves shall be provided in the system to prevent back fire.
Ash tray to be provided beneath the chimney to collect ash generated.
ID fan attached to chimney to be provided with damper valve.
Platform with port hole arrangement in the chimney to monitor process emission.
The above modifications undertaken in the plant shall be inspected and certified by an authorized process and safety consultant for the safe and efficient working. A copy of the certificate shall be furnished to TNPC Board.
Further, the following are to be ensured by the unit authorities:
All oily/tarry waste collected from the oil mist eliminator are disposed scientifically.
Waste water arising from the venture wet scrubber are collected and recycled.
Quenching water of the hot shell carbon is collected is filtered and recycled.
The existing consented charcoal units shall operate after obtaining valid consents from the TNPC Board and other statutes.
Shall and obtain authorization under the Hazardous and other Waste (M&TM) Rules, 2016 for the generation of oil/tarry residues.
The unit shall comply with the following standards:126 127
Emission standards - particulate matter not more than 150mg/Nm3 National Ambient Air Quality standards - CPCB Notification No.B- 29016/20/90/PCH/18.11.2009.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 as notified by MoEF, S.No.123(E), dt.12.2.2000 Each charcoal unit to provide piezometers within the unit premises in all directions to assess ground water quality.
Compound wall shall be provided on all sides of the unit to a minimum height of 4 m from the ground level.
Raw materials within the premises shall not be stacked beyond a height of 3 m from the ground level.
Buffer stock of raw materials (coconut shells and other biomass) of not more than 10 days requirement shall be stored within the unit premises.
Raw materials land finished products shall be stored separately and all steps shall be taken to comply with the fire safety procedures enacted in law.
Green belt of adequate width to be provided in the periphery of the unit to attenuate air and noise pollutions.
Stack/Ambient Air Quality/Ambient Noise Level survey to be periodically conducted and reports should be furnished to TNPC Board.
Maintain good house keeping practices within the unit premises to control fugitive dust emission Adequate measures of safety for workers working in the charcoal units shall be taken. Personally protective devices such as mask, helmet, safety shoes etc shall be provided to workers.
In order to have sustainable growth of the charcoal industries, safeguard environment, energy efficient etc all non consented and proposed charcoal industries in Tamilnadu to adopt continuous process of manufacture with the following guidelines:
Siting Criteria: No charcoal manufacturing unit shall be allowed within 1 km from approved habitation/approved lay outs.
Charcoal unit shall be allowed 500 m away from National/State Highways and distance shall be measured from the edge of the metalled road to the physical/administrative boundary of the charcoal manufacturing unit.
No charcoal units shall be located in declare wild life sanctuaries/reserve forests and its buffer zones declared for the same.127 128
There should be at least 1 km distance between two charcoal manufacturing units from its physical/administrative boundaries.
Air Pollution Control Measures: Flu gas arising from the continuous process shall have water scrubber arrangement attach to a stack of minimum height of 10 m (from ground level) with necessary platform and port holes for periodic collection of stack emission samples.
It is preferable to use the waste heat energy of the flue gas for drying of raw materials and for other purposes.
The assembly of continuous process method shall be housed within a closed shed with suitable access.
Loading of raw materials and unloading of finished products shall be mechanized. Fugitive Emission Control: Compound wall shall be provided on all sides of the unit to a minimum height of 4 m from the ground level.
Raw materials within the premises shall not be stacked beyond a height of 3 m from the ground level.
Standards for charcoal units: Emission standards - particulate matter not more than 150mg/Nm3 National Ambient Air Quality standards - CPCB Notification No.B- 29016/20/90/PCH/18.11.2009.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 as notified by MoEF, S.No.123(E), dt.12.2.2000.
Green Belt Development: The industry should plant three rows of spreading crown & fast growing varieties of evergreen thick foliage tall tress all along the boundary. Other requirements: Stack Ambient Air Quality/Ambient Noise Level survey to be periodically conducted and reports should be furnished to TNPC Board. Maintain good house keeping practices within the unit premises to control fugitive dust emission.
Buffer stock of raw materials (coconut shells and other biomass) of not more than 10 days requirement shall be stored within the unit premises.
Raw materials land finished products shall be stored separately and all steps shall be taken to comply with the fire safety procedures enacted in law.
Adequate measures of safety for workers working in the charcoal units shall be taken. Personally protective devices such as mask, helmet, safety shoes etc shall be provided to workers.
128 129 Localbody clearance for the establishment and operation of the unit with other statutes. In order to protect the environment and prevent ecological damages, all TNPC Board consented charcoal units of open earthen pit (batch process) shall switch over continuous process of charcoal manufacturing from 1.4.2020 and follow the above guidelines of air pollution control measures, fugitive emission control, standards for charcoal units etc."
88. Merely because the proposed technology of switch over to the above ground level process will have some more expenditure for the units will not be a ground for allowing the units to continue with the present process which will have more impact on environment as well as health of the people. If the expert bodies suggestion for switching over of the technology by providing certain citing criteria, number of chambers to be used instead of continuous batch process, then the same will have to be implemented by the units so as to protect the environment.
89. So under these circumstances, instead of directing them to close down the units permanently, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the units can be directed to adopt the recommendations made by the committee dated 19.2.2020 which was extracted above with modification if any, imposed by the Pollution Control Board and further suggested by the Joint Committee Report as per order dated 8.6.2020 which was received by this Tribunal on 13.8.2020 where they have mentioned in the conclusion portion as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that the design and guidelines for charcoal units recommended earlier by the committee in March, 2017 may be considered for manufacturing of charcoal by following the guidelines and conditions mentioned therein in the report and also having the scope for implementing new guidelines which is being developed by CPCB. It is further submitted that Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board is not issuing consent to such charcoal units operating in open pit method and only charcoal units adopting elevated technology are being issued with consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board."
If such methodology is adopted and the units apply for permission from Panchayat and Pollution Control Board, then they are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Apart from this, this Tribunal also feels that the Pollution Control Board must also conduct carrying capacity evaluation as to how many of such industries can be permitted to operate in a particular area considering its impact with the improvised technology on environment and thereafter restrict such number of industries to operate.
129 130
90. In the committee report dated 19.2.2020 the committee has assessed he compensation as follows:
"However, regarding the yield loss, the Hon‟ble NGT ordered to find out the past pollution.
The Joint Committee finds a very difficult and challenging task with limited resources. So different factors and integrated approach methods are applied to find out past pollution as discussed in economic evaluation of yield loss and arrived in terms of money is as follows:
Sl. Name of the petitioner SFNo Area inMajor cropsTotal aount of No hecctares cultivated compensation payable in Rs.
1 Sakthivel 917/5 1.215 Coconut &1,35,275
Cholam
2 Raju &917/5 & 7 1.215 Coconut &1,35,275
Balasubramannianm Cholam
3 Tamilselvan 744 3.250 Coconut &83,910
Cholam
4 Padmaraj 577 2.000 Coconut &1,11,340
Cholam
4,65,800
3. Even though the industries were closed for more than eight years, the underground water sources for the purpose of drinking is not potable. Already the pumping water sources were abandoned, as stated by the BDO, Kangeyam. So the cost of relocation of each tank is approximately Rs.600000/-. One tank for the purpose of Adidravidasr habitation of Veeranampalayam hamlet = Rs.600000. Second tank for the purpose of general habitation of veeranampalyam hamlet = Rs.600000. The total cost of Rs.1200000/-
is payble in the restoration of the water sources as replacement cost.
4. The total expenses occurred for the study is about 3.5 lakhs. A. Compensation payable amount for the agriculture = Rs.4,65,800/- 130 131 B. Restoration/Relocation cost of drinking water of veeranampalayam Hamlet = Rs.12,00,000/-
C. Expenses for the study = Rs.3,50,000/-
Total cost payable by the industry = Rs.20,15,800/5. The total environmental compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- payable by the following industries for causing damage to the agriculture land.
(i)M/s. GEE Carbon
(ii) M/s. Subbayan & Co
(iii) M/s United Carbon
(iv) M/s. Winner Carbon
(v) M/s. G.S. Carbon
(vi) M/s. Glopal Coco Products
6. The total Environmental compensation imposed on Kangeyam Municipality for illegal dumping of municipal solid waste is around Rs.141.14 lakhs."
91. It was observed by the Committee that there is no data available for assessing compensation for the loss incurred, however, it came to the conclusion that certain amount of compensation has to be paid taking into account the past pollution, economic evaluation of yield loss etc. There are no details as to what are all the criteria that has been taken by the Committee to assess the damage caused to each individual taking into account the extent of their property. However, as rightly pointed out by the Committee, it is difficult to assess the exact amount of compensation payable to those persons and as such we feel that the amount of compensation assessed by the Committee can be accepted as far as those persons are concerned for their individual loss and inconvenience suffered on account of pollution to them viz., Sakthivel Rs.1,35,275/-
Raju Balasubramaniam Rs.1,35,275/- Tamilselvan Rs.83,910/- 131 132 Padmaraj Rs.1,11,340/-
And these amounts will have to be paid by these units viz.,
(i)M/s. GEE Carbon
(ii) M/s. Subbayan & Co
(iii) M/s United Carbon
(iv) M/s. Winner Carbon
(v) M/s. G.S. Carbon
(vi) M/s. Glopal Coco Products as envisaged by the Committee in the latest report submitted on this aspect. Apart from this, the above units are liable to pay the expenses incurred for the study viz., 3,50,000/- and also establishment of water tank for storage of underground water in Kangeyam area in two places viz., Adidravidar habitation of Veeranampalayam and for general habitation of Veernampalayam at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- each. So these units are jointly and severally liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand and Eight Hundred only) and the District Collector has to collect and disburse the compensation amount to those persons mentioned above and take steps to construct water tanks as suggested by the Committee in two places in Kangeyam District in coordination with the Block Development Officer, Kangeyam and appropriate the amount incurred for conducting study by the Pollution Control Board and pay the amount assessed for the study to be paid to Pollution Control Board. Till the technology as directed is implemented and necessary „consent‟ or „permission‟ from the Board and Panchayat are obtained and carrying capacity study has been conducted as directed by this Tribunal, none of the units dealing with manufacture of charcoal can be allowed to operate with the present technology in that area. Further, the same yardstick is to be applied by the Pollution Control Board in other parts of Tamil Nadu and State Government of other States viz., Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry permitting such units 132 133 to operate within their States only after this technology is adopted by them as directed by this Tribunal in these cases.
92. The applications are disposed of as follows:
(i)The charcoal units operating in the State of Tamil Nadu and other southern States are directed to shift over to above ground level technology with the recommendation and the conditions imposed by the Committee which was produced pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal on 19.2.2020 on the basis of the report of even date and the other report dated 13.8.2020 mentioned in the judgment and the design approved either by the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai or Anna University as suggested by the Board and till then they are directed not to operate such units.
(ii) The units mentioned in the conclusion portion of the report filed on 19.2.2020 viz., M/s. GEE Carbon, M/s. Subbayan & Co, M/s. United Carbon, M/s. Winner Carbon, M/s.
G.S. Carbon and M/s. Glopal Coco Products are directed to pay jointly and severally total compensation of Rs.20,15,800/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as arrived at by the Committee namely., Rs.4,65,800/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) to be payable to Sakthivel Rs.1,35,275/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty five Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five only) Raju Balasubramaniam Rs.1,35,275/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty five Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five only), Tamilselvan Rs.83,910/- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten only) and Padmaraj Rs.1,11,340/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Forty only) as personal damage caused to the agriculturists and Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) being the cost of restoration of damage caused to the underground water sources for construction of two tanks mentioned in the report and Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) being the total expenses incurred for conducting study of environmental damage and other methodology to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board within a period of three months and the District Collector, Tirupur District, if not paid, is directed to take steps to recover the amount and pay the individual compensation to the persons mentioned above in the above rate and Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) to be utilised for the purpose of establishment of tanks in coordination with the Block Development Officer, Kangeyam and appropriate 133 134 the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for conducting the study and pay the amount to the Pollution Control Board and submit compliance report to this Tribunal within a period of six months.
(iii) The State Government as well as Pollution Control Board are directed to conduct carrying capacity study before allowing these units to establish or operate in that area so as to ascertain the number of units that can be permitted to operate or how many new such units can be allowed to establish in the area.
(iv) The Pollution Control Board and the respective Panchayats/local bodies are directed to consider the application for „consent‟ or „permission‟ as the case may be, if applied for by the existing units and the proposed units, after complying with the recommendations and conditions mentioned above, as approved by the Pollution Control Board and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and till then such units are restrained from establishing or operating such units in these areas.
(v) As regards the compensation fixed by the committee viz., Rs.141.14 Lakhs (Rupees One Hundred and Forty One Lakhs and Fourteen Thousand only) to be recovered from Kangeyam Municipality for illegal dumping of Municipal Solid Waste which was also a reason for the contamination and high level TDS and other criteria, we feel that the same can not be implemented in these cases, as no details of calculation are given by the Committee so as to arrive at the compensation amount payable by them and they are not parties to the proceedings and this was not raised as a question for consideration as well and no opportunity was given to them to meet this issue.
(vi) We direct the Pollution Control Board to take appropriate action against Kangeyam Municipality for their non implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 which resulted in the alleged damage, after conducting proper study and inspection and considering the directions given by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.606 of 2018, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass orders and take steps to recover the amount from them to be utilised for the purpose of restoring the damage caused to environment in that area.
(vii) The State Governments of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry are directed to implement the directions of this Tribunal in their 134 135 States in respect of operation of such charcoal manufacturing units so as to protect environment.
(viii) The Association of charcoal manufacturing units is at liberty to take initiative to get contribution of the amount of compensation directed to be paid by the above units and other non party units as well and share the responsibility and liability of the units who were made as parties to the proceedings and lessen the burden of these units in satisfying the direction of this Tribunal as there was an understanding given by them in the meeting convened by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board earlier as directed by this Tribunal to resolve the issue.
93. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs of these applications.
94. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, District Collector Tirupur, Veeranamalayam Panchayat and Kangeyam Municipality and the Chief Secretaries of the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry for the compliance of the directions of this Tribunal.
With the above directions and observations, the applications are disposed of.
...............................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ..................................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. Nos.17/2013 20.11.2020- kkr 135