National Green Tribunal
Kalinga Nagar Paribesh Surakhya Samiti ... vs Regional Officer Odisha State ... on 5 August, 2021
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH,
KOLKATA
............
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 149/2017/EZ
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kalinga Nagar Paribesh Surakhya Samiti,
Represented by is President Mr. Aswini Kumar Dhal,
At/PO/Ps-Jakhpura,
District-Jajpur, Odisha - 755026,
....Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Regional Officer, Odisha State Pollution Control Board,
Common Facility Centre, JCD,
Kalinga Nagar, Jajpur, Odisha,
Pin - 755026,
2. Member Secretary, Sate Pollution Control Board, Odisha,
A/118, Nilkanthanagar, Unit VIII, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha - 751012,
3. Additional Chief Secretary,
Forest and Environment Department,
Govt. of Odisha,
Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha - 751001M
4. Managing Director,
M/s Brahmani River Pellets Ltd.,
Kalinganagar, Jajpur,
Odisha - 755026,
....Respondent(s)
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT:
Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, Advocate
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :
Ms. Papiya Banerjee Bihani, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1&2,
Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, ASC for Respondent No.3,
Mr. Sambit Rath, Advocate for Respondent No.4,
1
JUDGMENT
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA (EXPERT MEMBER) __________________________________________________________________ Reserved On:-30th July, 2021 Pronounce On:- 05th August, 2021 __________________________________________________________________
1. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the net? Yes
2. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter? Yes JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking inter-alia a direction to the Respondent No.1, Odisha State Pollution Control Board to produce the detailed status report on the action taken by the unit of Respondent No.4, M/s Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. for the period from 14.07.2017 to 10.08.2017 for control of water pollution and further to comply with the conditions of Environmental Clearance as well as Consent to Operate by the unit of Respondent No.4, and for a direction to order closure of the defaulting unit in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent No.4, M/s Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. produces iron ore pellets for subsequent use in iron and steel plants for production of hot metal and is situated in Kalinganagar Industrial Complex, District-Jajpur, Odisha. The unit of Respondent No.4 has been granted 2 Environmental Clearance by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of India, with a manufacturing capacity of 4 million tonnes per annum (hereinafter referred to as 'TPA') also with a stipulation that 'zero' pollution discharge shall strictly be followed and no waste water shall be discharged outside the premises. It is stated that the unit of Respondent No.4 produces pellets from iron ore slurry which is prepared in its beneficiation plant at Tonto, Keonjhar, Odisha, which is the feeder plant to the Pellet Plant at Kalinganagar. This iron ore in slurry form is pumped into Tonto to Kalinganagar through pipeline which traverses more than 200 kilometers. It is also stated that high concentrated solid (about 60%-65%) is transported with about 35%-40% water and the solid material after being separated from water at Kalinganagar is then used for production of pellets which takes about 1.6 tonnes of slurry to produce 1 tonne of pellets. The filter water from the slurry is then used in the Kalinganagar Plant for different purposes and about 100 m3/hr. of water remains as surplus. It is also stated that a Techno-Economic feasibility Report prepared by M/s Mecon for the unit of Respondent No.4 Pellet Plant at Kalinganagar indicated that the total requirement of water in the plant is met from the treatment of slurry water received from the Beneficiation Plant at Tonto and there is a surplus of about 105 m3/hr. of water available in this plant. It is also stated that earlier the surplus water at Kalinganagar was being supplied to M/s Mid East Steel Company but at present that unit is not in operation and that there is no facility for this surplus water to be sent from Kalinganagar Plant to 3 Tonto Plant with the result that this water has to be discharged from the Kalinganagar unit. It is also alleged that the Tonto plant intermittently pumps pressurized water to clear the slurry pipeline and the required water for this purpose is about 400 m3/hr. Thus, there is in total 500 m3/hr. of surplus water in the Kalinganagar Plant and since this process continues for about 10 hours a day, about 5,000 m3 of water is generated as surplus in the Kalinganagar Plant each day, and since this water is no longer supplied to M/s Mid East Steel Company, it is being discharged outside the plant through an underground pipeline from the Kalinganagar Plant of Respondent No.4. It is stated that this discharge of untreated slurry water outside the plant was brought to the notice of the Odisha State Pollution Control Board, stating that this water was causing pollution in the 'Ganda Nallah' which is a tributary of the 'River Brahmani'. It is also stated that this fact was also noted by the Regional Officer during his visit to the unit at Kalinganagar. It is also alleged that on 23.07.2017 a fatal incident occurred in the Tonto Plant of Respondent No.4 and the Plant had to be sealed by the Directorate of Factories and Boilers and the operation of the plant was discontinued from 24.07.2017 to 08.08.2017 and, therefore, during this period there was no production of slurry. The Plant at Tonto re-started its operation from 08.08.2017 and after about 24 hours it again started pumping slurry to the Kalinganagar Plant and the Kalinganagar Plant became re-operational from 10.08.2017. The officials of the State Pollution Control Board visited the Plant on 11.08.2017 and thereafter submitted a report on 4 16.08.2017 (Annexure-8 to the Original Application) reporting full compliance by the unit of Respondent No.4 and that the water pollution control measures and the air pollution control measures of the unit of Respondent No.4 were satisfactory.
3. An inspection was carried out on 11.08.2017 by the Regional Officer, Jajpur Odisha, and the inspection report was submitted on 16.08.2017 to the Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, (at page no. 54 to 58 marked as Annexure-8 of the paper book) which clearly mentions that during the visit no waste water was observed being discharged from the factory premises to the outside and that the additional Effluent Treatment Plant is under- construction and will be completed by 15th November, 2017.
4. An affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.2, Odisha State Pollution Control Board, on 23.10.2017 bringing on record the inspection report of the unit of Respondent No.4 which was inspected on 17.10.2017 in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal dated 22.09.2017. The relevant extracts of this report are reproduced herein below:-
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
5. As per the inspection report, the unit in question has a Primary Effluent Treatment Plant (PETP) to treat the process water; no water/waste water discharge to Ganda Nallah was observed during the visit which is confirmed by the analysis report of the waste water collected from upstream and downstream of the Ganda Nallah with respect to the unit of Respondent No.4. In the report it was recommended that the unit should ensure achieving zero discharge as stipulated in the Consent to Operate order under all circumstances.
6. The Respondent No.4, M/s Brahmani River Pellet Limited, also filed its objection to the Original Application on 25.10.2017 denying the allegations of the Original Application.
12
7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Applicant on 15.11.2017 wherein it is stated that the slurry pipeline Design and Operation Reports for Respondent No.4, prepared by the Design Agency, Pipeline System Inc., PSI known as Ausenco, USA, clearly indicates that about 410 m3/hr. of water is required as per the design to flush the pipeline when slurry is not pumped continuously. Iron ore slurry pumping is done for 16 hours a day and water flushing (410 m3/hr. of water) is done for total 8 hours a day.
8. Another affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.4 in reply to the rejoinder affidavit of the Applicant.
9. Thereafter an inspection report has been filed by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board on 01.07.2021 which is stated to be in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 15.06.2021 calling for a revised report as to whether 'zero liquid discharge' has been achieved by the unit of Respondent No.4 or not. This inspection was carried out on 24.06.2021 and its report reads as under:- 13 14 15
10. The Applicant has also filed a response affidavit on 02.07.2021, again questioning the inspection report and the contents of the affidavit filed by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board. The main ground for assailing the inspection reported dated 24.06.2021 is that it mentions therein that the quantity of process waste generation is about 260 m3/hr. and that the unit of Respondent No.4 has installed two Waste Water Treatment Plants of capacities of 250 KLD and 150 KLD (Kilo Litre Per Day) which is inadequate to treat the waste water as it works out to 16.6 m3/hr. (conversion of 400 KLD to Cubic Metre/hour). The grievance of the Applicant in reply is also that the total treated water supplied to the unit of Respondent No.4 and IDCO was 150 m3/hr. during March; 172 m3/hr. during the month of April; and about 196 m3/hr. during May, 2021 which is against the figure of 77 m3/hr. as mentioned in the Environmental Clearance order. It is further stated that the combined capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Plant-1 & 2 is 400 m3/hr. which is much higher than the quantity of waste water generation of 260 m3/hr.
11. The Tribunal, therefore, vide its order dated 06.07.2021 directed the State Pollution Control Board to carry out a fresh inspection of the unit of Respondent No.4 and submit its report. This report has been brought on record through affidavit which reads as under:-
16 17 18 19
12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as the learned Counsel for the various Respondents.
13. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the inspection report of the unit of Respondent No.4 pertaining to inspection carried out on 17.10.2017 clearly mentions that the unit has only a primary Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) to treat process water and that no water/waste water is discharged into the Ganda Nallah as observed during the site visit but there is a recommendation that the unit should ensure achieving 'zero discharge' as stipulated in the Consent to Operate. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the conditions mentioned in the Consent to Operate were violated and that the unit of Respondent No.4 had not achieved 'zero discharge' and, therefore, untreated slurry discharge water was being allowed to be pumped into the Ganda Nallah and from there into the River Brahmani and this was enough to shut down the unit of Respondent No.4 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Counsel also referred to the note-sheet filed at page no. 141 marked as Annexure 12 to the paper book to the Applicant's rejoinder affidavit and submitted that the Regional Officer, Kalinganagar had recommended closure of the unit of Respondent No.4 since there is discharge of waste water from the plant premises to the outside without meeting the effluent parameters and that the unit had not installed any Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) for treatment of this water. This note-sheet 20 also mentions that in view of the above, 'if decided', we may revoke the Consent to Operate so granted in favour of the industry and issue a closure direction based on the recommendations of Regional Officer, Kalingangar in line with order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The learned Counsel submits that in spite of this note-sheet and recommendation of the Environmental Engineer and Senior Environment Scientist, L-I (PCP), the unit of Respondent No.4 was not closed down. He further submits that the inspection report with respect to the inspection conducted on 24.06.2021 (page no. 191 marked as Annexure R-2/3 of the paper book, filed by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board) mentions that the unit of Respondent No.4 has installed two Waste Water Treatment Plants of capacities 250 KLD and 150 KLD which is incorrect since the capacity to treat the process water of the unit of Respondent No.4 is 260 m3/hr. of waste water.
14. The Tribunal, therefore, vide its order dated 06.07.2021 again directed the Odisha State Pollution Control Board to get a fresh inspection of the unit of Respondent No.4 done and submit a fresh report. Accordingly, the unit was again inspected by the Officers of the Odisha State Pollution Control Board on 20.07.2021 and a fresh report was filed which is at page 238 to 240 of the paper book already reproduced hereinabove.
15. In the affidavit filed on 26.07.2021 by the Odisha Pollution Control Board, it has been clarified in para 3 thereof that in the previous report inspection conducted on 24.06.2021, the capacity of 21 Waste Water Treatment Plant-1 & 2 were mentioned as 150 KLD and 250 KLD (Kilo Litre Per Day) which should actually have been 150 KLH and 250 KLH (Kilo Litre Per Hour) respectively but due to typographical error in the report it was mentioned as 'KLD' instead of 'KLH'. These typographical errors have been corrected and clarified in the subsequent inspection report carried out on 20.07.2021. The fresh inspection report also clearly mentions that there are two Water Treatment Plants viz., Water Treatment Plant-1 & Water Treatment Plant-2, and there is one more Water Treatment Plant-3 of 150 KLH which was omitted to be mentioned in the previous report for the reasons that it was lying as stand by unit but the factual aspect is that there was also a third Water Treatment Plant, thus the total capacity of Water Treatment Plant-1 is 150 KLH and Water Treatment Plant-2 is 250 KLH which comes to 400 KLH and the Respondent No.4 unit has a capacity of 400 KLH at any given point of time which is much higher than the load of 260 KLH. Even in a worst case scenario, if Water Treatment Plant-2 (250 KLH) is shut down, there is still available capacity of 300 KLH between Water Treatment Plant-1 & Water Treatment Plant-3 which is also adequate to meet the requirement.
16. From a perusal of this inspection report dated 26.07.2021 inspection of which was conducted on 20.07.2021, we find that the total capacity of Water Treatment Plant-1 is 150 m3/hr., Water Treatment Plant-2 is 250 m3/hr. and stand by Water Treatment Plant-3 is 150 m3/hr., total 550 m3/hr., therefore, we find that if 22 one of the Water Treatment Plants is closed down for any emergency, the remaining two Water Treatment Plants would still have adequate capacity for treatment of waste water generated. The subsequent inspection report further mentions that the unit of the Respondent No.4 has installed water treatment facility of adequate capacity supported by standby treatment arrangement to take care of any exigencies. It is also stated that the treated process waste water is supplied to IDCO water supply grid and Tata Steel Limited after meeting the plant requirement thereby ensuring compliance of 'zero liquid discharge' conditions.
17. The learned Counsel for the Applicant consistently referred to the note-sheet at page no. 141 marked as Annexure-12 to the paper book and submitted that the Regional Officer, Kalinganagar had strongly recommended for closure of the unit of Respondent No.4 for the reason that it was not meeting the pollution parameters and had not installed any Effluent Treatment Plant for treatment of waste water but no action had been taken by the State Pollution Control Board in this regard.
18. We may note here that even though in the note-sheet, there was a recommendation by the Regional Officer for closure of the unit of Respondent No.4 but it was never acted upon and any discussion in the note-sheet cannot take the place of final order. The decision to close down the unit or not for reasons stated therein has to be contained in an appropriate formal order. The inspection carried out on 24.06.2021 at page no. 191 marked as Annexure- 23 R2/3 clearly mentions that the unit of Respondent No.4 had completed the installation of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) on 23.12.2017 and it was observed that the industry was complying with the concept of 'zero liquid discharge'. The subsequent inspection report dated 23.07.2021 pertaining to the date of inspection of 20.07.2021 also clearly mentions that the unit of Respondent No.4 had established three Waste Water Treatment Plants viz., Water Treatment Plant-1, Water Treatment Plant-2 & Water Treatment Plant-3 (a standby plant), and the total capacity of the three Water Treatment Plants was 550 m3/hr., and, therefore, even if there was a break-down of any one of the Water Treatment Plants then in such an emergent situation, the other two Water Treatment Plants had adequate capacity for treatment of waste water. This report also notes that the unit of Respondent No.4 had achieved 'zero liquid discharge' conditions.
19. Since the revised Environmental Clearance dated 17.05.2019 has been furnished with regard to MoU with all interested nearby industries and IDCO for supply of treated water and ensuring zero effluent discharge by the unit of Respondent No.4, we are of a firm view that the Plant of Respondent No.4 has complied with the requirement of 'zero liquid discharge' and has adequate functional Waste Water Treatment Plants and, therefore, the question of giving any directions for closure of the Respondent No.4 unit does not arise. We are fortified in our view by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 575 (Sterlite Industries (India) 24 Limited Vs. Union of India). We also would not have hesitated in directing the Respondent No.4 unit from paying compensation for past derelictions but we find that in none of the inspection reports has it been stated that the Respondent No.4 unit was causing gross pollution or pollution beyond permissible limits in the Brahmani River. Given the fact situation, in our opinion, awarding compensation against the Respondent No.4 unit would not be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
20. This Original Application is accordingly dismissed.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
........................................
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JM ........................................
SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EM Kolkata 05th August, 2021 Original Application No.149/2017/EZ AK 25