National Green Tribunal
M S Raja vs Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary on 16 November, 2022
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 08 of 2022 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
M.S. Raja,
4/1, Saraswathi Amman Kovil Street,
Puthukudi- 628 621,
Srivaikundam,
Thoothukudi District.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Union of India
Rep. By the Secretary of Government,
Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change,
Government of India,
Parivesh Bhawan,
Shahdra, Delhi- 110003.
2. The Member Secretary,
State Level Envrionment Impact Assessment Authority,
Panagal Maligai,
Chennai- 600 015.
3. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Environment,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai- 600003
4. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai- 600032.
5. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Thoothukudi, District,
Thoothukudi- 628 002
6. M/s. V.V. Titanium Pigments Private Limited,
Rep byr its Managing Director,
Sipcot Industrial Complex,
Thoothukudi- 628 002.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Thirumalai Raja
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 and R2.
Dr. D. Shanmughanathan for R3.
Mr. Sai Sathya Jith for R4 and R5.
M/s, Kingsly Solomon for R6
1
Judgment Reserved on: 11th October, 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 16th November, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has challenged the establishment of a Captive Thermal Power Plant of 6 megawatt established by the 6th respondent in their unit without obtaining necessary Environmental Clearance and other permissions.
2. The case of the applicant is that already the 6th respondent had established and operating a Titanium pigment producing factory for more than two decades. While so in the year 2016, the 6th respondent had installed a 06 Megawatt (6MW) of Captive Thermal Power Plant in Meelavittan part 1 Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
3. The 6th respondent had applied for an Environmental Clearance before the 2nd respondent on 12.02.2016. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had inspected the factory and found that the 6 th respondent was preparing for the 6MW Captive Thermal Power Plant without Environmental Clearance and without any prior consent. Therefore, the 5th respondent, Pollution Control Board issued show-cause notice under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as the EIA Notification, 2006 requires any thermal power plants with the capacity of more than 5MW to obtain prior Environmental Clearance. The 6th respondent ought to have obtained Environmental Clearance as it is a coal based thermal power project of 6MW coming within the purview of EIA Notification. Hence, the applicant has moved this Tribunal seeking a direction to stop the unlawful operation of 6MW Captive Thermal Power Plant and take steps to compensate and remedy the social and environmental damages caused due to the illegal establishment.
4. At the time of admission, this Tribunal appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) a Senior Officer from the MoEF&CC, Chennai, (ii) a 2 Senior Officer from the State Level Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu and (iii) District Environmental Engineer of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the area and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there were any violations.
5. The 1st respondent, MoEF&CC had filed a reply stating that the Joint Committee had already filed its report before the Tribunal on 30.03.2022 and Joint Committee had observed that the 6th respondent had commenced the fabrication and construction works before obtaining the prior Environmental Clearance or before CTE obtained. However, it had stated in the report that the industry in question had downsized the capacity from 6MW to 4.5MW to obtain 'Consent to Establish' and 'Consent to Operate' from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The MoEF&CC had further stated that the coal based thermal power plants having electricity generation capacity of more than 5MW only requires prior Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notifications, 2006.
6. The project proponent, namely, the 6th respondent had applied for Environmental Clearance under B1 category of EIA Notification, 2006. The SEIAA, Tamil Nadu also had issued standard Terms of Reference (ToR) on 17.05.2016. However, the project proponent had withdrawn the Environmental Clearance on 16.10.2017. As the 6th respondent had downsized the capacity from 6MW to 4.5MW, it does not require approval from the MoEF&CC as it will not come within the ambit of EIA Notification.
7. The 2nd respondent, who is the Member Secretary, SEIAA had also filed the counter affidavit wherein also it is stated that the 6 th respondent had applied to the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil Nadu seeking Terms of Reference for the proposed 6MW coal based captive power plant within the existing pigment manufacturing unit. The said proposal was placed in the 75 th Meeting on 13.05.2016 wherein it is observed that the said project comes under category B(1) Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006. The Committee also decided to prescribe standard ToR as per annexure-I with public consultation, though the project was to be located within the SIPCOT area.
8. In the 174th meeting of the SEIAA on 17.05.2016 the recommendations of SEAC was accepted and decided to grant standard Terms of Reference 3 along with public consultation on 17.05.2016. But in the meanwhile, the 6th respondent had addressed a letter to the SEIAA, Tamil Nadu on 16.10.2017 informing that it had dropped the proposal of 6MW CPP as they have finalised installation of 4.5MW CPP to meet the plant's power demand. As the proposed CPP of 4.5MW does not require prior Environmental Clearance and public consultation as per MoEF&CC Notification, the 6th respondent withdrew the application for prior Environmental Clearance for 6MW CPP and also the application submitted before the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for conducting public hearing.
9. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board also had filed a report dated 13.03.2022. The Pollution Control Board in their report has stated that the SEIAA based on the appraisal of the SEAC had issued standard Terms of Reference on 17.05.2016 for preparing EIA report with public consultation. However, the 6th respondent had not continued with the further process of the Environmental Clearance but continued with the fabrication and construction works. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board issued a show-cause notice and issued directions to stop further work. In the meanwhile, the project proponent had withdrawn the Environmental Clearance application in SEIAA on 16.10.2017. The 6 th respondent also had made a fresh application to the Pollution Control Board on 01.11.2017 to obtain 'Consent to Establish' for 4.5MW coal based thermal power plant at the same place. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued 'Consent to Operate' on 27.06.2019. The Pollution Control Board has specifically stated that the company had avoided obtaining Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 for 6MW thermal power plant and downsized its capacity to 4.5MW by altering the machinery components. It further stated that the downsizing the plant was apparently to avoid the public consultation and the EIA Notification.
10. As the 6MW thermal plant has not been in existence, the pollution control mechanism could not be studied. However, it is stated that the conditions stipulated by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in its 'Consent to Establish' and 'Consent to Operate' with regard to 4.5MW thermal plant like electro static precipitator, ETP and RO plant, water sprinkling, use of imported coal, not using plastics, development of green belt etc., have been complied with.
411. As the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has specifically stated that the 6th respondent had avoided taking Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 for 6MW plant and downsized their plant to 4.5MW capacity by altering the machinery components. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was directed to ascertain whether the machinery installed were of higher capacity for producing more than the permitted capacity and whether they are making such production. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board filed another report dated 10.08.2022. In the said report the following observations were made:
The downsizing has been done by replacement of Governor Lift and Throttle Valves of reduced capacity to reduce the flow of high pressure steam to turbine.
Further, all the operational and safety relays on electrical generation and distribution side have been reset and locked at reduced system parameters suiting to 4.5MW power generation.
By this arrangement it is not possible for production of power generation more than 4.5MW.
12. However, the Pollution Control Board was directed to file yet another report after a spot inspection of the industry on 15.09.2022. Thereafter, the Pollution Control Board had filed yet another report dated 11.10.2022 stating that though originally the 6th respondent had installed machinery for 6MW coal fired thermal captive power plant. Subsequently, the capcity was downsized to 4.5MW by adopting the following technology:
The downsizing has been done by replacement of Governor Lift and Throttle Valves of reduced capacity to reduce the flow of high pressure steam to turbine.
Further, all the operational and safety relays on electrical generation and distribution side have been reset and locked at reduced system parameters suiting to 4.5MW power generation.
The industry informed that due to the above mentioned arrangements it is not possible for production of power generation more than 4.5MW. Even though the steam turbine has been installed for the generation of power of 6MW, the same has retrofitted to generate power to the maximum level of 4.5MW. The steam Governor has been reported to have replaced to have reduced steam flow, which is reported in the letter dated 01.07.2016 of M/s. TEKO'NER Projects & Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Coimbatore, who are the consultants for the industry. Further, the chief Electrical Inspector, Chennai in his letter dated 13.10.2017 has granted approval for operating the equipments, in which the Turbine Rating is mentioned as 4.5MW. It is also informed that the Director of Industrial Safety and Health has granted plan approval for Captive Power Plant of 4.5MW vide letter dated 25.01.2018.5
3. It is respectfully submitted that the industry also stated that out the total power generated from the 4.5MW Captive Power plant, 3.5MW will be used for captive consumption and 1.0MW will be exported to their sister concern through grid, which comes under the purview of TANGEDCO. The Chief Electrical Inspector, Chennai and the TANGEDCO are the competent authority to ensure that the said power plant is operated within 4.5MW capacity.
13. From the above report, it is very clear that the 6th respondent had downsized the plant's capacity from 6MW to 4.5MW and the machinery installed presently cannot take more than 4.5MW capacity. Though, originally the 6th respondent had applied to the SEIAA, Tamil Nadu for 6MW capacity power plant, they have applied for the Environmental Clearance, subsequently, they have withdrawn the said application in the year 2017 and downsized their plant to 4.5MW which does not require Environmental Clearance and public hearing as per MoEF&CC notification S.O.1834(E) dated 06.07.2015. Let the State Pollution Control Board asses compensation payable as per the guideline in vogue in O.A. No. 606 of 2018, if any, for the deliberate violation of installing the machinery for Coal based Captive Thermal Power Plant even before obtaining 'Consent to Establish'.
14. In view of the above, it is clear that the 6th respondent plant is well within the norms which do not require an Environmental Clearance, the objections raised by the applicant are not sustainable. The complaint of the applicant is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.08/2022(SZ) 16th November, 2022. (AM) 6 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) O.A. No. 08 of 2022 M.S. Raja Vs. Union of India and Ors.
O.A. No. 08/2022(SZ) 16th November, 2022. (AM) 7