National Green Tribunal
M/S Sri Mahalakshmi Hatcheries vs State Environment Impact Assessment ... on 13 August, 2024
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.5:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 13th day of August 2024.
(Through Video Conference)
Appeal No.68 of 2021 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
1) M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Hatcheries
Rep. by its Proprietor
Mr. D. Sagar Reddy
S/o. D. Venkata Ramana Reddy
Office at Srinivasa Satram,
Kothapatnam Village, Kota Mandal,
Sidavaram Post, Nellore - 524 411.
2) Mr. Pernati Shyam Prasad Reddy
S/o. Pernati Chenchurama Reddy
Residing at Allampadu Village,
Molaganuru Post, Kota Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District,
Andhra Pradesh - 524 411.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1) State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Rep. by its Chairman
No.33-26-14 D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital,
Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamavari Street,
Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada - 520 010.
2) Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Rep. by its Member Secretary
No.33-26-14 D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital,
Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamavari Street,
Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada - 520 010.
3) M/s. Divis Laboratories Limited
Rep. by its Managing Director
303, DIVIs Towers, Cyber Hills,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032.
...Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s): Mr. Abdul Saleem, Sr. Adv. a/w.
M/s. V. Purushotham, R. Vinayaga Vishnu,
K.M. Mrithunjayan and S. Balaganesh.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R1 & R2.
Mr. Raghul for R3.
Page 1 of 27
Judgment Reserved on: 15th May, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.
1. The above appeal is directed against the Environmental Clearance granted to the 3rd Respondent viz., M/s. Divis Laboratories Limited by the 1st Respondent / State Environment Impact Assessment Authority - Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh') vide Order No. SEIAA/AP/VSP/IND/07/2020/1971/157.09/153.11-318 dated 28.06.2021
2. The 1st Appellant herein is a proprietary enterprise engaged in the business of livestock and shrimp seed production under the name and style of „M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Hatcheries‟ and the 2nd Appellant is a leaseholder and operator engaged in a similar business under the name and style of „M/s. Tecknomin Aqua Exports (I) Limited‟.
3. It is alleged by the appellants that the 3rd Respondent is engaged in the manufacturing of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and intermediates. The 3rd Respondent Company was incorporated in the year 1990 and subsequently established its manufacturing units viz., Unit - I at Hyderabad and Unit - II at Vishakhapatnam in the year 1995 and 2002 respectively.
4. Subsequently, the 3rd Respondent had also proposed to establish its third unit as a commercial facility for manufacturing active pharmaceutical ingredients and intermediates products, which is classified as a Synthetic Organic Chemical Industry requiring prior Environmental Clearance from Page 2 of 27 the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC). However, due to widespread agitation and protests by the villagers against the proposed unit, the construction of the unit was temporarily put on hold by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Consequently, the 3rd Respondent proposed for expansion of its production unit as a commercial facility, for which, they had purchased lands spread across Survey Nos.397, 401, 402, 403, 446, 676, 681, 682, 683, 700 to 709 of Kothapatnam Village, Kota Mandal, Krishnapatnam Industrial Park area, SPSR Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd Respondent also applied for the Environmental Clearance to the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh under the ‗B2' Category which exempts from public hearing and the Environmental Clearance dated 28.06.2021 was also granted to the 3rd Respondent, which is now impugned in this appeal.
6. The 3rd Respondent project is located near the Krishnapatnam port. The site abuts Buckingham Canal (NW4) and stands bounded towards the East by KPIL land (towards the sea at a distance of 2.2 Km), West by road, North by KPIL land and reserve forest and South by village road. The site was earlier owned and possessed by one M/s. Krishnapatnam Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (KPIL) who engaged in the business of developing SEZs and industrial infrastructure. The designated site is in close proximity to the notified Aqua Zone of SPSR Nellore district. The project site abuts 3 fully operational hatcheries registered with the Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) at a radius of 2.5 Km and 21 registered hatcheries within the zone. However, the peripheral area of the site comprises more than 3000 Hectares of shrimp farms at a radius of 10 Km.
7. The appellants have stated that the project site circumscribes several eco-sensitive areas within a radius of 15 Km from the site viz., Buckingham Canal, Coastal Belt, Upputeru River Estuary, Yeruvu Cheruvu, Swarnamukhi River Estuary and Pennaki Cheruvu. As the manufacturing process of API and Intermediates involves various raw materials and chemical reactions and usage of chemicals like acids, alkalies, solvents, Page 3 of 27 etc., it would result in the emission of carbon dioxide, ammonia and acids. The said hazardous waste generated from the proposed production will include process residues, ETP salts, ETP sludge, used catalysts, used batteries, etc. The total water requirement for the project is approximately 3243 KLD which is to be met through bore wells, Kandaleru reservoir and nearest surface water bodies. The post-production wastewater generation is estimated at 2470 KLD, of which, 743 KLD would be recycled and treated through Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Multiple Effect Evaporator (MEE). The solid waste generation per day also would involve several metric tons, which would severely pollute the groundwater and rather than the same is unfit for drinking and agricultural purposes. In this regard, several newspaper reports have confirmed the presence of illegal solid waste dumping in tons in the water bodies causing pollution. Originally, the standard ToR and specific ToR for conducting the EIA study for establishing the synthetic organic chemical unit was issued in accordance with the proposal. The Specific ToR by the MoEF&CC initially stipulated for the adoption of the ZLD Scheme, whereas the 3rd Respondent proposed for amendment to the specific ToR by requesting to discharge the treated effluents into the sea through a dedicated marine discharge. Subsequently, the 3rd Respondent also obtained Consent to Establish for marine outfall to discharge the treated effluents into the sea for its proposed unit on 28.10.2020. Based on that, the maximum wastewater generation from the 3rd Respondent unit was apportioned and the total wastewater is 2470 KLD, of which, 743 KLD would be recycled and the remaining 1727 KLD would be discharged through dedicated marine outfall after the treatment.
8. In view of the above, the appellants have apprehended that the activity of discharging the effluents should be streamlined to be a continuous and everyday process. It is stated that the threat to biotas (Aqua Species) present in the sea would be enlarged as pharmaceutical discharge contains constituents of different heavy metals, phenols, drugs, antibiotics and other chemical compounds in the process. Therefore, treatment of wastewater discharged through ETP & MEE would Page 4 of 27 not render 100% of the removal of pharmaceutical metabolites. The appellants also allege that the 3rd Respondent, in its Vishakapatnam unit, had illegally discharged 850095 KLD of effluent into the sea clandestinely through a parallel discharge pipeline, resulting in exceedance of COD standards and other parameters specified.
9. The appellants further contend that 3,000 Hectares of shrimp farms located within 10 Km radius draw water from the coast for shrimp seed production, brood stock holding and shrimp farming. The viscosity of the effluent discharged tends to affect over 9 - 17 Km radius of the coast. Hence, shrimps and aquatic products made out of the treated discharge invariably lead to poisoning and other health issues and cause damage to human tissues when food sources are contaminated with the treated discharge.
10. The appellants also relied upon the reports of the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) dated 28.02.2020 and also the Joint Committee report regarding the Musi River, wherein it was found that the extent of antibiotic pollution in the water samples contained extensively drug- resistant, higher category pathogens. Hence, the Consent to Establish ought not to have been issued to the 3 rd Respondent. According to the appellants, even the proposed scheme of disposal by the 3rd Respondent (Unit - IV) undertakes to incinerate process residues and mixed spent solvents, it would cause secondary pollution, as if the solid waste produced by the disposal of medical and pharmaceutical wastes including fly ash and cinder are released to the environment directly and they would still exist potential risks to human health, besides incinerating solid waste due to air quality indicates and the suspended particulate matter.
11. On the above contentions, the appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the grant of Environmental Clearance dated 28.06.2021 on the ground that the 1st Respondent had accepted the recommendations of the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh without objectively considering the case of the Page 5 of 27 appellants. The hatcheries present in the vicinity of the 3rd Respondent unit draw water from the coast of Krishnapatnam for shrimp seed production. Therefore, any discharge of treated wastewater and emission of fumes from the proposed unit would contaminate the oceanic nutrients and the water essential for breeding shrimps or other aquatic species. Secondly, it is assailed on the ground that the discharge of effluent through the marine outfall leads to increased incidences of antibiotic resistant bacteria in aquatic environments.
12. The 1st Respondent failed to consider the fact that the coastal wetland of Krishnapatnam is famous for being critical ecosystems that support the vibrant variety of species of flora and fauna. However, the marine resources of this area have been steadily deteriorating over the years due to anthropogenic factors. Hence, the appeal is filed for setting aside the impugned Environmental Clearance dated 28.06.2021.
13. The 1st Respondent, who is the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh, had filed its counter through the Member Secretary - SEIAA dated 01.02.2022, wherein it is stated that the 3rd Respondent had filed a proposal on 01.07.2020, which was appraised in the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh meeting held on 08th - 11th December, 2020. The SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh referred to the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh to examine the same after receipt of the CRZ Clearance. The Andhra Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Authority (APCZMA), on 04.02.2021, communicated the NOC under the provision of the CRZ Notification, 2011 with certain specific conditions. Thereafter, the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh in the meeting held on 04.03.2021 and 05.03.2021, examined the EIA Report, EMP, Pre-Feasibility Report, Form - I and Form - II of the proposal. The committee after examining the project proposal, presentation and other recommendations, recommended for issuance of the Environmental Clearance to the 3rd Respondent to manufacture bulk drug and intermediates for the production quantity of 10483 TPA and the CRZ Clearance for the proposed project to discharge the treated effluent of 1727 KLD into sea through a dedicated pipeline. The said recommendation of the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh was examined by the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh, which Page 6 of 27 decided to issue the Environmental Clearance for the production of bulk drugs and intermediates for the production quantity of 10483 TPA.
14. The 2nd Respondent, who is the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB), in its report, has stated that the 3rd Respondent industry proposes to discharge its treated effluent into the sea through marine outfall at a distance of 1 Km from the shore. The proposed activities come under synthetic organic chemicals. Hence, a prior Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory. The unit was also required to obtain the CRZ Clearance under the CRZ Notification, 2011 for laying the pipeline for disposal of the treated effluent into the sea. The 3rd Respondent had applied for a grant of Consent to Establish/NOC for obtaining CRZ Clearance for laying a marine outfall facility to discharge the treated effluent. After the inspection by the Board, the matter was placed before the CFE Committee which recommended that the meeting be convened with the President and Secretary of All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association, Members of the Joint Inspection Committee constituted by the District Collector, SPSR Nellore and representatives of the industry to discuss the issue and to take a decision. All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association had expressed their concern over the presence of traces of antibiotics in the effluents discharged from the industry into the sea and the presence of the antibiotics in the shrimp may lead to rejection of the consignments of shrimp by the importing countries. The 3rd Respondent submitted a study report prepared by M/s. Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd., Chennai, wherein it is reported that the effluent gets diluted to the order of 50 times at a distance of 250 m from the proposed outfall during fair weather. During the South-West monsoon and North-East monsoon periods due to the combined action of wind and turbulent waves, it is observed that the effluent gets diluted to the order of 50 times within a distance of 50 m from the proposed outfall. After considering the objections from the Association and reports, etc., the CFE committee recommended for issuance of NOC and obtaining CRZ Clearance for the establishment of a marine outfall. The APPCB had issued the Page 7 of 27 NOC for marine outfall and not for the establishment of the industry and the industry has not yet started the laying of the marine outfall pipelines and also not yet started construction activity pertaining to the bulk drug industry except for construction of compound wall all along the periphery. The APCZMA also had given the CRZ Clearance under the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011, after which, the 3rd Respondent also obtained Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh on 28.06.2021.
15. Regarding the appellants' case, the APPCB has reported that the proposed industry is located adjacent to the Krishnapatnam Industrial North Node (Industrial area). The appellants' hatchery sea water intake point is at about 2.2km from the marine disposal point of the proposed industry. The distance between the proposed site of the Project Proponent and the appellants' hatchery is about 2 km. There are two more hatcheries existing nearer to the appellants' hatcheries, which are also located at a distance of about 2.2 Km from the proposed industry site. The rest of the hatcheries are located at a distance of about 10 km from the proposed site. The APPCB has mentioned that there are nine reserved forests existing near the proposed industry as per the EMP submitted, including the Kottapatnam Reserve Forest, Momidi Reserve Forest, Tammenapatnam Reserve Forest, Udatavaripalem Reserve Forest, etc. The nearest habitation to the proposed site is Yemadinnepalem of Kothapatnam located at a distance of about 200 m towards Eastern Side.
16. The 3rd Respondent, who is the Project Proponent viz., M/s. Divis Laboratories Limited, in their counter affidavit dated 10.11.2021 has stated that the Environmental Clearance granted on 28.06.2021 was after due consideration and thorough examination of the proposal submitted by them, which is based on the recommendations made by the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that the appeal is filed by the Aquaculture industry only to divert the attention of the regulatory authorities to their violations and an attempt to shift the blame with regard to the Page 8 of 27 violations by the aquaculture industry and the impact it has had on the environment.
17. The Project Proponent originally established their unit in the year 1990 in Hyderabad with two manufacturing units and is a supplier of generic API, intermediates and nutraceutical products. The Krishnapatnam Industrial area was identified by the respondent for the purpose of establishing the commercial facility for manufacturing API and intermediates, as it is a notified industrial corridor. Along with this respondent proposed manufacturing industry, many other industries are proposed to be established in the Krishnapatnam Industrial Node area. The 3rd Respondent denies the fact that the location of the proposed area as prescribed by the appellants is misleading and incorrect, as the same does not abut the Buckingham Canal nor any surrounded or abutted by any reserved forests as contended by the appellants. The proposed area is a notified industrial corridor i.e. Chennai Bangalore Industrial Corridor and Vishakapatnam Chennai Industrial Corridor and this is surrounded by four announced industrial projects. Therefore, the claim of the appellants that the 3rd Respondent's project is situated in an environment protected area is completely without basis.
18. Similarly, the claim of 21 hatcheries which are registered and located within the proposed area is far away from truth and there are only 3 hatcheries located within 3 Km of the proposed area. Of the 3 hatcheries, only one is operating, another is rarely operating and the third one is non-operational. Further, 14 of the hatcheries are located 12 - 15 Km away from the proposed area and they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Kota Mandal but form part of Vakadu Mandal.
19. Regarding the discharge of treated effluents into the sea, the Project Proponent has an absolutely fail-proof mechanism being implemented, wherein the treated effluents would be stored in guard ponds which are duly facilitated with a lock and seal system in accordance with the norms prescribed by the APPCB. The whole activity pertaining to the discharge of the treated effluents would be done in the presence of the officials of the APPCB only after receiving the necessary confirmation based Page 9 of 27 on the treatments and standards prescribed by them. The marine outfall point was chosen by the Project Proponent considering the various parameters like Dispersion modelling study, rate of dilution, marine environment, all based on the marine EIA studies carried out by M/s. Indomer Hydraulics (P) Limited, Chennai, which is an accredited body of the MoEF&CC. As per the recommendations of the aforementioned study, the treated effluents can be discharged into the sea at a distance of 1000 Meters and a depth of 8 Meters from the landfall point, where the treated effluents attain the maximum dilution. Further, the effluents will be treated in a diversified manner to ensure that they adhere to the standards prescribed by the APPCB and are not directly discharged. As per the SOP issued by the APPCB, the industries that are permitted with marine outfall systems shall install OCEMS to verify the status of the treated effluents being discharged into the sea, which in turn, is further linked with the CPCB and APPCB website.
20. According to the Project Proponent, the treated effluents shall be stored in guard ponds, whose outlet pumping system is guarded under a local and key facility by the APPCB and analyze the guard ponds for its compliance with the norms of the Board and only after ensuring that the treated effluents are following the marine discharge standards prescribed by the Board, the discharge into the sea is carried out in the presence of APPCB Officials. Online cameras focusing on the guard ponds are installed and are connected to the APPCB/CPCB servers for 24x7 surveillance. The Project Proponent shall conduct the Bio - Assay tests for analyzing the toxicity level of treated effluent discharges from marine outfalls as per the MoEF&CC and CPCB Guidelines and the analysis reports will be sent to the APPCB every six months. The test species being used is Danio Rerio (Zebra Fish) which is very sensitive and broadly used for acute toxicity tests. The Project Proponent has a scheme for disposal of other residue products like incineration ash, process salt and residue, used oil, spent acids, catalysts, etc. is only indicative of the fact that the Project Proponent has taken environmentally viable measures by sending such wastes to Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) or by sending them to the duly Page 10 of 27 authorized re-processors / recyclers or agencies. Therefore, adequate mechanisms are put in place to monitor air pollution as well. The Project Proponent has also obtained necessary clearance from the authorities viz., the APCZMA, APPCB for laying of marine outfall facility to discharge treated effluents.
21. The Project Proponent has further clarified in the report that as part of the manufacturing, no production of antibiotic products is envisaged in the proposed manufacturing unit, to have apprehension about the potential threat of antibiotic threat, API being present in the discharge waste. The other solid waste will not and cannot sent to the sea and they will be duly sent to the TSDF/ co-processers/ recyclers/ authorized vendors.
22. Regarding the marine discharge, the Project Proponent states that the pre-analysis of treated effluents shall be carried out at both levels i.e. inhouse by the Project Proponent and externally by the PCB Zonal Laboratory prior to discharge. The effluents shall be treated in sophisticated facilities until they attain the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration of 4 ppm.
23. The 3rd Respondent has specifically stated that during the CFE Meeting convened by the APPCB for determining a marine outfall facility to discharge treated effluents, the committee recommended for having a meeting with All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association, and Members of the Joint Inspection Committee and representatives of the industry. The Joint Director - Fisheries and Deputy Director - Industries Department also attended the meeting. The views, apprehensions and suggestions of the Joint Committee members and All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association were duly heard by the CFE Committee. The only concern expressed was the presence of traces of antibiotics in the effluents discharged from pharmaceutical manufacturers in the area into the sea. This aspect was also adequately responded to by the authorities while granting the CFE. Therefore, the averments advanced by the appellants that any such industrial discharge into the sea will have an adverse effect on the production and farming Page 11 of 27 undertaken in the hatcheries, is misconceived and is denied by the 3rd Respondent.
24. As the impugned order is only granted after detailed scrutiny in the meeting by the authorities and based on the recommendations of the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh, the challenge to the same is unwarranted and the same is not sustainable. All the grounds and allegations raised in the appeal are already duly examined by the CFE committee of the APPCB, APCZMA and the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh and the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh should have laid down the standard safety program, which is to be adhered to by the Project Proponent. Hence, the 3 rd Respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
25. The question that arises for determination is whether the Environmental Clearance dated 28.06.2021 granted to the 3rd Respondent is liable to be set aside on the above pleadings.
26. The 3rd Respondent unit is situated in an extent of 202 Acres of land at Yamadinnepalem of Kothapatnam Gram Panchayat, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The Gram Panchayat has a population of about 250 people and the proposed site is at a distance of 150 Meters. There is also another village viz., Naravaripalem of Chillakur Mandal having a population of 50 Nos. adjacent to the site. The sea of the Bay of Bengal is at a distance of 2.2 Km from the proposed site. There are also 17 Nos. of hatchery units in Vakadu and Kota Mandal and the aquaculture ponds over an extent of 500 Hectares exist within the vicinity of a 10 Km radius. The apprehension of the owners of the hatcheries is that if the industry is established, the discharge of effluents through marine outfall will affect their aquaculture, as the hatcheries and some of the aqua culturist use the seawater as a source of water supply for producing healthy post larvae, which would be free of any toxic chemicals, contaminants, pollutants, etc. It is also stated that in the hatchery segment of the livestock business, every parameter is very essential for successful production levels. To be noted is that 30% of shrimp seeds are being produced in the Nellore District. As stated earlier, the main source of water being from the sea, hatcheries are always located away from the industrial Page 12 of 27 area to avoid any industrial discharge which will have a strong influence on the production of seed as well as a farming area.
27. The appellant also had produced a communication from the Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) dated 20.11.2020 addressed to the District Collector - SPSR Nellore District. Based on the representation received from the All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association, the CAA stated that the State of Andhra Pradesh is a hub of the coastal aquaculture operation with 42% of the total farm area of the country. The State of Andhra Pradesh contributes 68% of the total annual produce of India. 78.3% of the shrimp seeds required for coastal aquaculture in the country are located in Andhra Pradesh. The CAA has further stated that aquaculture is going through a difficult phase due to the presence of harmful pharmacological substances and antibiotics that are detected in the exported products at the importing destinations and the consequent rejection of containers of shrimp produced from the various parts of the globe. It was suspected that the source-water pollution due to effluent discharges by industries particularly the pharmaceutical industries is considered as a potential cause. The high quality of source water is a vital factor for a safe and successful aquaculture production. The discharge of effluents that contain pharmacologically active substances, chemicals, antibiotic residues, etc. are detrimental to the coastal aquaculture practices and eventually cause severe damage to aquaculture production, resulting in employment and livelihood opportunities for the rural population. Hence, the CAA requested to take necessary precautions and due diligence to be adopted to protect the coastal environment and aquaculture while permitting industries with the potential to pollute the fragile coastal ecosystem.
28. In this regard, the Commissioner of Fisheries also had addressed to the Special Chief Secretary, Fisheries Department, as early as on 03.02.2021, based on the representation from All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association about the establishment of the 3rd Respondent unit. The tenor of the said communication is that the objective of the CAA is to protect the coastal environment and to achieve the sustainable Page 13 of 27 development of coastal aquaculture. While so, the establishment of projects with effluents can potentially pollute the coastal environment with antibiotics and other pharmacologically active substances which will ultimately eradicate the highly sensitive aquaculture sector from the coastal area considering the potential of the sector. Necessary precautions and due diligence have to be adopted to protect the coastal environment and aquaculture while permitting industries with the potential to pollute the fragile coastal ecosystem. Hence, the Commissioner
- Fisheries Department has stated that the release of effluents from pharmaceutical industries even after the treatment in the ETP into the seawater would adversely affect the quality of the seawater and be detrimental to the existence of shrimp hatcheries. If the shrimp hatcheries become extinct, the related sectors i.e., shrimp farming and its ancillary business operations like feed plants, farm equipment, post-harvest industries like processing plants, cold storage, etc. and also the exports, employment and rural economy will suffer. Therefore, the Commissioner - Fisheries Department requested the Government to consider the said aspect.
29. Whether the above representations were considered before the impugned Environmental Clearance was granted has to be examined.
30. The 3rd Respondent, who is the Project Proponent, in their additional report, stated that the EIA studies were carried out by M/s. Ramky Enviro Services Private Limited, an accredited EIA Consultant by the National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (NABET), Quality Council of India (QCI), MoEF&CC. Separate Marine Environmental Impact Assessment Studies were carried out by M/s. Indomer Coastal Hydraulics Private Limited along with Indian Remote Sensing, Anna University, an authorized agency of MoEF&CC for the demarcation of the coastal regulation zone, including HTL and LTL. The said project of the proposed bulk drug manufacturing was sought to established under ‗B2' Category as per the Office Memorandum issued by the MoEF&CC vide Notification S.O.1223 (E) dated 27.03.2020 and O.M. dated 13.04.2020, wherein "All proposals for projects/activities in respect of active Page 14 of 27 pharmaceutical ingredients, received up to 30.09.2020, shall be appraised, as „B2‟ Category projects provided that any subsequent amendment or expansion or change in product mix, after 30.09.2020, shall be considered as per the provisions in force at that time". The application by the Project Proponent was made on 01.07.2020 in the Parivesh Portal. The Project Proponent also submitted an application to the APCZMA for CRZ Clearance for the discharge of treated effluent by laying of treated effluent discharge pipeline for the proposed bulk drug manufacturing unit. The Project Proponent also had applied for Consent to Establish (CFE-NOC), by its application dated 26.09.2020, to the APPCB for marine outfall to discharge the treated effluent by laying of discharge pipeline.
31. The Project Proponent has specifically mentioned that in the CFE Committee Meeting held on 30.09.2020, the Joint Director - Fisheries Department, Deputy Director - Industries Department and representatives of All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association were present and their remarks were heard. The Project Proponent also provided clarification on the remarks, explained about the marine discharge process and assured that there is no scope for any pollution due to the manner the effluent treatment and discharge has been proposed and that they shall follow the procedures stipulated by the APPCB Marine Discharge SOP. After several deliberations and discussions, the CFE Committee recommended for issuing the NOC to the 3rd Respondent for the establishment of a marine outfall duly considering the apprehension received from All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association and also the joint inspection conducted by the District Collector. After obtaining CFE issued by the APPCB, it was submitted to the APCZMA for considering the CRZ application which was already submitted on 25.08.2020. The APCZMA members discussed the marine impact and identified the proposed mitigation measures as per the Marine EIA and noted that the study shows that the impacts due to the discharge of treated effluents from the industry on the marine environment would be insignificant. Hence, it was recommended that the treated effluent from the industry be discharged into the open sea after meeting the marine discharge standards. After the Page 15 of 27 APCZMA issued the CRZ Clearance on 04.02.2021, the same was communicated to the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh, who is the 1st Respondent, for considering the 3rd Respondent's proposed bulk drug manufacturing unit and discharge of treated effluent of 1727 KLD by laying a treated effluent discharge pipeline. Based on the APCZMA's recommendation on the CRZ Clearance, the Environmental Clearance application of the 3rd Respondent was considered by the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh. The Project Proponent's consultant also had given a detailed presentation on the EIA, identified impacts and mitigation impact, risk assessment study and detailed EMP. Only after examining the project proposal, the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh decided to recommend the project for consideration of the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh in its meeting held on 20.06.2021. Accordingly, the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh accepted the recommendation of the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh and recommended the issuance of the Environmental Clearance.
32. Regarding the discharge of effluents, it is stated that, A) The Project Proponent was allowed to discharge only if the ratio to Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) and Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC) is less than 1 ppm and those effluents having more than 1 ppm will be directly subjected to Forced Evaporation Systems.
B) A pre-analysis of treated effluents will be carried out both inhouse and externally by the APPCB zonal laboratory for various parameters prior to discharge.
C) The Project Proponent has to install guard ponds with a storage capacity of seven days of effluent capacity and the treated effluents will be stored in the guard ponds. In case of any damage to the pipeline, the entire discharge process should be stopped. Importantly, the guard pond outlet pumping is under a double lock and key facility. The APPCB officials will have one key and the Project Proponent is having another key for locks.
Page 16 of 27D) The effluents will be discharged only during the day time. After analysis of effluents by the APPCB officials in the guard ponds and only when they comply with the marine discharge standards, the Board will allow the discharge into the sea in the presence of the Board officials.
E) The Project Proponent has to install Online Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) cameras with night vision focusing guard ponds and connected to the APPCB and CPCB server for 24x7 surveillance.
F) The Project Proponent has to install Online Continuous Effluent Quality Monitoring System connected to the APPCB and CPCB server to verify the status of the treated effluent being discharged. G) The Project Proponent also has to install the display board where the data of the marine outfall i.e., quantity and quality of the treated effluent discharge through the marine outfall, pH, Suspended Solids, and COD values on the Board installed near the main gate for public access. H) The APPCB entrusted the project to the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) to assess the impact of treated effluent generated through marine outfall from the industries situated in the coastal region and the NIO has concluded that there is no impact on the marine ecosystem.
33. When the stand of the appellant is that the marine outfall would certainly impact the hatcheries and aquaculture, it would be appropriate to see how the APPCB's CFE Committee had dealt with the same.
34. First of the CFE Committee Meeting was held on 01.09.2020, which had recorded that as per the request of the Joint Director - Fisheries Department, Nellore to the District Collector - Nellore District in connection to the instruction received from the Commissioner of Fisheries to conduct a joint inspection along with the APPCB based on the complaints made in the representation. Accordingly, a Joint Inspection by the Page 17 of 27 Joint Director - Fisheries Department, Deputy Director - District Industries, Centre, Deputy Inspector of Factories and APPCB - Nellore District have inspected the proposed project site of the 3rd Respondent/Project Proponent. During the interaction with the representatives, it was informed that if the industry is established and the effluents are discharged through the marine outfall, the hatcheries will be affected and therefore, they objected to the consent to be given. The Committee has found that there was a large extent of sandy land available around the project site. If the Project Proponent explores the possibility to acquire additional lands for utilizing the treated effluents for land applications instead of disposing through the marine outfall, the apprehensions of the Hatcheries Association may be avoided. In view of the above conclusion, the Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, APPCB had recommended NOT TO ISSUE CFE to the 3rd Respondent for laying of the pipeline to discharge the effluents through the marine outfall.
35. This recommendation was assailed by the Project Proponent stating that, A) The Bio - Assay test is being conducted for testing treated effluents.
B) The discharge through marine outfall will be diluted 250 times within 500 Meter distance.
C) Few hatcheries are situated within 10 Km and most of them are away from the proposed site.
D) The proposal is in consonance with the latest ‗Industrial Policy - 2020' announced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, where the Government assured issuance of necessary clearances within the timeline stipulated.
36. In view of the above, a meeting was proposed with the representatives of the All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association before the issuance of the CFE. Accordingly, as per the recommendations of the CFE Committee Meeting held on 30.09.2020, the representatives of the All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association, the members of the Joint Inspection Committee and the Project Proponent participated in the CFE Page 18 of 27 Committee meeting held on 22.10.2020. The impact of the effluent discharge into the sea and how it adversely affects the aquaculture activity in the area were discussed, particularly the prawns exported to foreign countries were returned due to the presence of antibiotic residues in the prawns. It was also stated that when the aquaculture units are site-specific and can be located only near the sea, whereas the bulk drug units can be established anywhere in the State, it would be appropriate not to grant them permission near the coast which would destroy an important industrial sector.
37. However, the Chairman of the APPCB had clarified that the antibiotic residues present in the processed aqua products were collected from several farmers cultivating the aquaculture in different ponds. The presence of these antibiotic residues in the prawns was only due to the usage of antibiotics by the farmers themselves to prevent widespread diseases in the aquaculture ponds. The Government of India also had already taken steps to create awareness among the farmers to avoid using such antibiotics and appropriate SOPs are also formulated and in place.
38. It was also further stated that the samples collected from the guard ponds by the APPCB officials will be tested in the lab and only if the samples comply with the standards prescribed by the Board, the treated effluents will be allowed to discharge into the sea through the marine discharge outfall in the presence of the officials of the APPCB. The APPCB also entrusted the project to the NIO to assess the impact of treated effluents generated through the marine outfalls from the industries situated on the coast. The NIO also has concluded that there is no impact on the marine ecosystem. So, based on the above, it was recommended to issue the NOC to the Project Proponent.
39. The APCZMA also had done the technical evaluation of the marine outfall capacity and there are no mangroves observed along the shorefront where the landfall point is proposed. Therefore, the impact on mangroves will not be in the context of the proposed treated effluent outfall. There are also no seaweeds in a radius of 10 Km. There are also no coral or Page 19 of 27 any associated reefs reported along the coastal side of the project region. Therefore, it was concluded that the impact due to the discharge of the treated industrial effluent from the industries on the marine environment would be insignificant. The discharge effluent study also has overruled any kind of impact on Zooplankton, Benthic Animal Community and intertidal fauna. In the case of the 3rd Respondent, the effluent consists of pH, TSS, TDS, COD, BOD, Phenolic compound and SAR within the standards stipulated by the CPCB. The quantity of discharge is also very low i.e. 1727 KLD and it also undergoes higher dilution of 250 times in 500 Meters distance. Hence, the above impacts during the operation phase would be very less. So, based on the above and also considering the M/s. Indomer Coastal Hydraulics Private Limited, Chennai, who had explained about the impact of the project on the environment and mitigation measures, it was decided to send the recommendation of NOC to the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the APCZMA issued its NOC on given specific and general conditions.
40. Based on the APCZMA's Clearance and the CFE issued by the APPCB, the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh in its 157th Meeting held on 05.03.2021 recommended for issuance of the Environmental Clearance to the 3rd Respondent for manufacturing of bulk drug and intermediates for the production quantity of 10483 TPM and the CRZ Clearance for the proposal to discharge the treated effluent of 1727 KLD into the sea through the proposed pipeline.
41. On the very same date, one M/s. Potluri Laboratories Private Limited was also recommended for issuance of the Environmental Clearance, which is also to be established in Kothapatanam Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh for the very same purpose of bulk drug and intermediates manufacturing and Co-generation Power Plant. The said Project Proponent had withdrawn their marine discharge and opted for the ZLD facility. As the marine outfall was withdrawn, it did not require the CRZ Clearance and the said proposal was also given the Environmental Clearance.
Page 20 of 2742. When the Project Proponent was questioned why it could not be switched to ZLD, it was replied that as per "Analysis of flow and energy aspects of ZLD technology in treatment of tannery effluents in Tamil Nadu, India", prepared by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, a comparative study of energy consumption and cost and CO2e emissions were calculated for RANITEC CETP with their conventional Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Treatment (PST) against additional ZLD stage installed to met the ZLD system. As per the said report, the impacts of the additional ZLD compared to the conventional treatment were as follows:-
(1) The consumption of electrical energy went up nearly three times.
(2) The overall energy consumption went up to 15 times.
(3) Share of the ZLD energy in total energy consumed is about 93%.
(4) Total Co2e emission per year is 20,686 tons/year, the share of the ZLD stage alone is 17,298 Tons/year.
(5) The ZLD stage has increased Co2e emission in the RANITECH CETP plant by six times.
(6) Salt residue represents a very serious environmental challenge, the quantity generated by the RANITECH CETP plant is 5043 Tons in just one year.
43. The above case study was cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Project Proponent and trying to impress upon to state that in the ZLD system, there will be an enormous increase in the carbon footprint and additional mixed salt loads compared to the conventional treatment. He also added that the ZLD system is usually implemented by an industry that is located in a landlocked area near rivers and lakes, where there is a chance of groundwater contamination, location of critical and over-exploitation of groundwater and to reduce the groundwater bore well intake. According to him, the entire treated effluent is not discharged into the sea, it is only proposed to discharge the excess treated effluent left after Page 21 of 27 using/recycling the treated water in the industry as per the requirements and possibilities. Therefore, there cannot be any negative impact on the environment due to the proposed marine discharge activity. Allowing an industry to be located near the coastal area to discharge the excess treated water into the sea after meeting the marine discharge standards as stipulated by the APPCB and CPCB would only create a positive impact on the environment by reducing carbon footprint, greenhouse gas, hazardous waste like rejected salts, which would eventually end in landfills.
44. It was further pointed out the learned counsel appearing for the Project Proponent that three hatcheries are present in the 10 Km radius of the proposed site, of which, only the appellant is functional which is located around 2.5 Km away from the proposed site. Only the appellant hatchery has installed a pump house for the intake of sea water in the sea shore which is located 2.5 Km away from the proposed marine discharge landfall point. It was further argued that despite the main goal of ZLD being the reduction of water pollution and improving water sustainability, the application of ZLD also results in unintended environmental impacts like the additional waste generation in ZLD system like additional MEE salts, ATDF salts, ETP sludge due to treating of RO rejects and more chemicals are used to treat the waste water for reusing. The ZLD system also consumes a larger amount of energy leading to significant emission of greenhouse gas and Co2 emissions. As additional energy is required for operating the ZLD Treatment plant, the carbon footprint from additional energy, fossil fuel consumption and electricity consumption is still higher than the captive effluent treatment with disposal option.
45. The learned counsel appearing for the Project Proponent also highlighted the sea water contamination not necessarily through the discharge of pharmaceutical companies but even from the aquaculture industries also.
Page 22 of 2746. Even presuming for a moment that the argument of the 3rd Respondent is acceptable, there is no answer for noting the CFE Committee Meeting held on 01.09.2020, wherein it is specifically stated that there is a large extent of sandy lands available around the proposed pharmaceutical project site. If the Project Proponent explores the possibility to acquire additional land for utilizing the treated effluents for land applications for the establishment of pharmaceutical units rather than to dispose of through the marine outfall, it can get rid of the apprehensions of the surrounding aqua culturist of water pollution. In fact, for that very reason, the CFE was recommended to be rejected at the first instance.
47. The question that remains to be addressed is whether consent from the CAA should have been obtained before granting permission to let the treated trade effluents through the marine outfall.
48. The CAA is to regulate the activities connected with coastal aquaculture in the coastal areas and the matters connected therewith. The intention of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 is that the Central Government shall take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the regulation of coastal aquaculture by prescribing guidelines, to ensure that coastal aquaculture does not cause any detriment to the coastal environment and the concept of responsible coastal aquaculture contained in such guidelines shall be followed in regulating the coastal aquaculture activities to protect the livelihood of various sections of the people living in the coastal areas. The other department that operates for the welfare of the shrimp hatcheries is the Fisheries Department.
49. Admittedly, the applicant and other fully operational hatcheries within 2.5 Km radius are registered with the CAA. As early as on 20.11.2020, the CAA had requested the District Collector - SPSR Nellore District to take necessary precautions and due diligence to be adopted to protect the coastal environment and aquaculture while permitting the industries with the potential to pollute the fragile coastal ecosystem. The said letter also referred to the representations received from Nellore Page 23 of 27 chapter of All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association. Further, on 03.02.2021, the Commissioner of Fisheries had addressed a letter to the Special Chief Secretary to Government - Fisheries Department regarding the risk of collateral damages to the aquaculture sector due to effluents from the proposed pharmaceutical unit to save the coastal ecology and livelihood of farmers and hatcheries.
50. When the apprehension of the Fisheries Department as well as the CAA was already expressed and when the matter relates to the coastal zone, the SCZMA - Andhra Pradesh should have made the Fisheries Department or the CAA as one of the members when the Environmental Clearance was issued, which would have clearly indicated the risk of marine discharge and its effect on the aquatic life. That apart, at least, in the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh meeting which was held on 04.03.2021, the representatives either from the CAA or from the Fisheries Department should have been made a member before the appraisal was taken up. As the CAA is not consulted by the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh, their recommendation is not complete in all aspects.
51. Section 27 of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 provides as follows:-
―27. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause
(v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment Forests (Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife) No. S.O. 114 (E), dated the 19th February, 1991 (hereafter referred to in this section as the said notification), in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (xiii), the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted and shall always be deemed to have been inserted with effect from the 19th day of February, 1991, namely:--
―(xiv) nothing contained in this paragraph shall apply to coastal aquaculture.‖ (2) The said notification shall have and shall be deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if the foregoing provisions of this section had been in force at all material times and accordingly notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, no coastal aquaculture carried on or undertaken or purporting to have been carried on or undertaken shall be deemed to be in contravention of the Page 24 of 27 said notification and shall be deemed to be and to have always been for all purposes in accordance with law, as if the foregoing provisions of this section had been in force at all material times and notwithstanding anything as aforesaid and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court for the enforcement of any direction given by any court of any decree or order directing the removal or closure of any coastal aquaculture farm's activity or demolition of any structure connected thereunder which would not have been so required to be removed, closed or demolished if the foregoing provisions of this section had been in force at all material times.‖
52. A reading of the above would go to show that the CAA is independent of the above. The guidelines for regulating coastal aquaculture entail managed farming or culture of organisms in saline or brackish water areas for the purpose of enhancing production, both for domestic and export markets. These guidelines are to ensure the orderly and sustainable development of shrimp aquaculture in the country. The guidelines specifically prescribe the quality of the water available in the site has a strong influence on the success of the shrimp farm. Water quality parameters like pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen and the presence of toxicants/ pollutants should be ascertained. The water source should be free from any industrial/ agricultural pollution.
53. Therefore, when the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 specifically protects the interest of coastal aquaculture and prescribes guidelines for regulating coastal aquaculture which also specifies industrial pollution, the CAA is the appropriate authority should have been consulted before issuance of the Environmental Clearance. It cannot be said that the SEAC - Andhra Pradesh lost sight of the existence of the CAA, as it is evident from the material papers available that even the CFE was rejected for the first time, considering the importance of the coastal aquaculture. Thereafter, representations were made to the Fisheries Department as well as to the District Collector - SPSR Nellore District.
Page 25 of 2754. On the very same day, another proposal of M/s. Potluri Laboratories Private Limited was considered by the SEAC
- Andhra Pradesh for issuance of the Environmental Clearance for production quantities of bulk drugs and intermediates. Though the said Project Proponent had originally intended to do the marine discharge, later it withdrew and opted for the ZLD facility. Even another Project Proponent viz., M/s. Saketh Laboratory dealing in the production of quantities of bulk drugs and intermediates had agreed to implement the ZLD system for treatment and disposal of the industrial effluents as prescribed in the Environmental Management Plan. The SEAC - Andhra Pradesh while considering various proposals of the Project Proponents, directed them to examine the ZLD and finally, the Project Proponents were agreeable for the same. The said exercise was not done for the Project Proponent herein, but simply based on the CRZ Clearance issued.
55. So under such circumstances, the proposal of the Project Proponent herein requires re-examination in the presence of the CAA who protects the interest of the applicants and other similar hatcheries. The SEIAA/SEAC - Andhra Pradesh should also examine the need for imposing a condition to adopt the ZLD system as imposed as a condition for two other pharmaceutical units rather than choosing the easy option of permitting discharges into the marine ecosystem, which can have serious implications for the fauna and flora of the ecosystem.
56. In light of the above, the appeal [Appeal 68 of 2021 (SZ)] is disposed of as follows:-
(I) The Environmental Clearance dated 28.06.2021 granted to the 3rd Respondent viz., M/s. Divis Laboratories Limited is set aside and remanded back to the SEIAA/SEAC - Andhra Pradesh for re-appraisal of the proposal in the presence of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority and Fisheries Department.Page 26 of 27
(II) The SEIAA/SEAC - Andhra Pradesh should also examine the need for imposing a condition to adopt the ZLD system for treatment of industrial effluents.
(III) Let the said exercise be completed as
expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM
Internet - Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No
Appeal No.68/2021 (SZ)
13th August, 2024. Mn.
Page 27 of 27