National Green Tribunal
Meenavargal Membattu Sangam vs The Chief Secretary Government Of Tamil ... on 8 February, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item Nos.08, 09, 10, 11 & 12 :
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 19 of 2013 (SZ) (THC)
& M.A.No. 173/2015 (SZ)
(W.P. No. 6922/2011, Madras High Court)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Meenavargal Membattu Sangam ... Applicant(s)
With
The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai and Others. ...Respondent(s)
Original Application No. 248/2016 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Meenava Thanthai
K.R. Selvaraj Kumar,
Meenavar Nala Sangam. .. Applicant(s)
With
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Chennai and Others.
...Respondent(s)
1
Appeal No. 51/2017 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s. Manali Petrochemicals Limited ... Appellant(s)
With
The Central Pollution Control Board,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India,
New Delhi and Others.
... Respondent(s)
Appeal No.52 of 2017 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s. Manali Petrochemicals Limited ... Appellant(s)
With
The Central Pollution Control Board,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Government of India
New Delhi and Others. ... Respondent(s)
Original Application No. 224 of 2016 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Meenava Thanthai
K.R. Selvaraj Kumar. .. Applicant(s)
With
2
The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai and Others. ... Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 08.02.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
Original Application No. 19 of 2013 (SZ) (THC)
& M.A.No. 173/2015 (SZ)
For Applicant(s): None.
For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Mani Gopi for R3.
M/s. Abdul Saleem & S. Saravanan for R4.
Original Application No.224/2016 and 248/2016 (SZ)
For Applicant(s): Ms. S. Sabitha
For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Mani Gopi for R1 to R3, R5.
M/s. Abdul Saleem &
S. Saravanan for R4, R6.
Appeal No. 51/2017 and 52/2017 (SZ)
For Appellant(s): None.
(In both appeals)
3
For Respondent(s): M/s. Abdul Saleem & S. Saravanan for R3.
(In both appeals) M/s. Vijaya Mehanath for R4.
M/s. Maheswaran for R5.
ORDER
1. This Original Application No. 19 of 2013 was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras as W.P. No. 6922 of 2011 seeking the following reliefs:-
"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to initiate appropriate action against the fifth respondent for disposing the untreated water effluent into the sea thereby polluting the water resources."
2. On account of the operation of the fifth respondent, Petrochemical company both air and water pollution has happened due to non- maintenance of the industry as required by discharging untreated effluents into the sea and unsuppressed smoke emitted from the factories.
3. According to the petitioner there are 21 fishery hamlets located in and around the said area namely, Manali and Thiruvottriyur who are solely depending on the sea for their livelihood. Due to non- maintenance of the pipes laid down by the fifth respondent, same 4 resulted in leakage of chemical effluents across the road and the street causing health hazards to the habitants.
4. On account of the same, the soil as well as ground water has been contaminated. There were no effective steps taken by respondents to remediate the same as well. A committee was earlier formed under the chairmanship of Professor M.S. Swaminathan to examine the issue and submitted a report and recommended to frame draft Coastal Management Zone Notification, 2008 which lapsed and to recommend and strengthen the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notifications 1991.
5. On the basis of the recommendations, draft Coastal Management Zone (CMZ) Notification 2008 was formulated, but it lapsed due to passage of the time. On account of the pollution caused, serious health hazards happened to the members of the public. There was an article published in the "Hindu" on 18.10.2010 regarding the discharge of untreated effluent and non-maintenance of common effluent treatment facility set up by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) Industrial Estate, Cuddalore which has been shut down on the basis of the action taken by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as per the directions of this Tribunal, for the reason
1. The marine discharge from the facility did not confirm to the pollution control norms.
5
2. It was set up without obtaining the mandatory approval from the competent authorities.
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras had taken Suo Motu notice of a report of the SIPCOT area Community Environmental Monitors (SACEM-a form of social activities, environmentalists and the local community) released in 2004 about the inefficient operation of the Common Utilities Limited.
7. Original Application No.248 of 2016 was filed by the same petitioner seeking the following relief;-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to ordered to close the production unit for disposing the untreated waste water effluent into the sea and to issue direction to the 1 to 6 respondents to initiate appropriate action against the 7th respondent for disposing the untreated waste water effluent into the sea thereby polluting the water resources and pass any such further orders as this Hon‟ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
8. The same was also against the functioning of the same petro- chemical limited in respect of which the earlier case was filed. It is mentioned in the petition that the Bio Chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) limit of the treatment plant do not confirm to the norms provided by the Pollution Control Board.
6
9. It is seen from the report that the MPL EFFULENT TREATMENT PLANT REPORT shows as follows:-
PLANT - I PLANT - II
Effluent
Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet
BOD 182 92 471 220
COD 2360 1400 2680 2080
Note: The permissible value for BOD is 100 and COD is 250."
10. The further report of the same Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) is also reiterated in the petition as follows:-
"MPL ETP REPORT by TNPCB and CPCB on 11 & 13.04.2016 PLANT - I PLANT - II Effluent Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet BOD 1463 1258 **** 1068 COD 1744 1536 2960 1345 MPL ETP REPORT by TNPCB and CPCB on 17 & 19.08.2016 PLANT - I PLANT - II Effluent Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet BOD 900 783 1900 833 COD 1832 1673 2876 1832 Note: The permissible value for BOD is 100 and COD is 250."7
11. It may be also seen from the above analysis that the BOD and COD level is very high. According to the petitioner in this case the functioning of the seventh respondent which is the disputed Petro- chemical unit is causing hardships to the public and affects air as well as water quality in that area.
12. Appeal 51 of 2017 was filed by the disputed petro-chemical unit against the order of the Central Pollution Control Board order dated 17.05.2017 asking them to close down the unit where the following deficiencies were noted:-
"For the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of the 1st Respondent herein bearing No. B- 29016/04/06/IPC-I dated in respect of Plant No.1 of the Appellant and pass such further or other orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
13. Appeal No.52 of 2017 was filed against another order passed by the CPCB dated 17.05.2017 directing the closure of the unit where the following deficiency were noted: -
(i) The unit (M/s. Manali Petro Chemical Limited Plant -
II, Manali Village, Tiruvallur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu) has not installed Flow meter to measure the effluent generated from different section.
(ii) The online TOC analyser was not working. 8
(iii) The ETP system was not adequate to meet the prescribed standards of marine disposal.
(iv) In the analysis report it was observed that industry has exceeded the norms with respondent to BOD (544>100 mg/l) and COD (1529>250 mg/l) at ETP outlet.
(v) The unit has not received SMS alerts from server or CPCB due to improper configuration."
14. Original Application No.224/2016 was filed by the same petitioner seeking the following reliefs: -
"To issue direction to the respondent No.1 to 7 to initiate appropriate action against the eighth respondent for disposing the untreated effluent into the sea thereby polluting the water resources and to stop the disposal of the untreated effluent into the sea and initiate action against the eighth respondent in the ends of justice"
15. It was against M/s. Tamil Nadu Petro Chemical another unit. The allegations which are more or less similar namely discharge of untreated effluent from the industries and also causing air as well as water pollution.
16. Replies have been filed by the party respondents denying the allegations. The Pollution Control Board filed a statement contending that there were some deficiency and closure order was issued.
9
17. It is seen from the Order dated 22.07.2014 in O.A. No.19 of 2013, that two member expert committee was constituted with Dr. Palanivelu, Professor of Environmental Chemistry, Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai - 600 025 and Dr. N. Vedharaman, Senior Technical Officer, Chemical Engineering Division, CLRI, Chennai - 600 025 to conduct a study as per the terms of reference to be given by this Tribunal and the terms of reference has been extracted in the report filed during September 2014 as follows:-
(i) To inspect and submit a report regarding methods of treating the effluent in the fifth respondent company, namely M/s. Manali Petro Chemical Limited (MPL) prior to the disposal of the same into the sea in order to ascertain the compliance of the rules and norms by the fifth respondent company.
(ii) To assess the present status of the pipelines through which the effluent is disposed of into the sea.
(iii) To assess the pollution level in the sea water in the area where the fifth respondent plants effluent is mixing.
(iv) To make recommendations for the environmental safety measures keeping in mind the fishermen community in the light of the study findings.
(v) To recommend further studies relevant to the issue, if any."
18. The report shows that the bottom level sample of COD, TDS, Chloride and Calcium are more than the surface sea water 10 sampled. However, it is difficult to strongly conclude that the observed high value is due to industrial effluent alone or not. Hence, conditions monitoring of the sea water in and around the release point may provide more insight about the issue and finding a permanent solution to this problem and thereafter, they have made the following recommendations for environmental safety:-
"Recommendations for the environmental safety:
Specific The units shall have lake detection system and necessary arrangements for immediate repair of the pipe line to avoid soil and ground water contamination.
Sea water samples to be collected (around mixing point, away from point of mixing and at different depth) once in the six months by TNPCB / Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change or by reputed third party organizations in presence of TNPCB officials and analyzed for constitutes.
Appropriate marine studies to be made including disappearance of marine species, if any, in that zone. This continuous monitoring will provide pollution status of this zone.
Toxicity studies should be conducted for the combined effluent before the discharge into sea once in six months.
The MPL units in their process are not using any toxic metals. However, TNPCB may ensure this by 11 analyzing for presence of heavy metals in the treated effluent of units.
General As the metro water pipe line and treated effluent pipe line runs close by in some locations, accidental mix up both may led to contamination of drinking water. This may lead to public health problem. Hence, it is recommended to isolate both the pipe lines to avoid the problem foresee wherever necessary.
Pipe line routes may be marked or identified by suitable means for easy identification and follow up. Necessary arrangements may be made well in advance to replace the pipe according to its life time to ensure environmental safety.
Open area pipe (Canals) may be covered with suitable materials to prevent damage.
Recommendations Specific Short Term (Within three months)
(i) The present ETP established at MPL -1 and MPL -II seems to be ineffective in reducing the organics (COD and BOD) to the permissible levels. Efforts should be made at the earliest to improve the proper working of the ETPs or go for better efficient effluent treatment process to achieve the marine discharge standards.
(ii) The industries should make necessary provisions for the collection of samples from the pipeline after the interconnection point of the treated effluent (down stream point after mixing zone) and near the 12 discharge point. These 3 points (MPL-1 & II, TPL (ECH) and Kothari Petro Chemicals Ltd) and another one before entering sea (near Ramkrishna Nagar) may be covered and locked. One set of key may with the industry for maintenance and another set with TNPCB for sample collection from these four locations. Monthly samples (surprise) may be collected and tested by TNPCB.
Long term In the context of sustainable development, the following may be paid attention
1. M/s. MPL (I & II) should make effort to do away with the present Chlorohydrin route and switch to catalytic process of manufacturing PO. As this process is a sustainable one and eliminates the use of hazardous chlorine gas lime which ultimately end up as waste.
2. M/s MPL (I&II) and other industries should look into possibilities of Zero liquid discharge with suitable technologies like RO to get water and reject for suitable by product recovery. This will eliminate the sea disposal of treated effluent. General Short Term (within six months) Appropriate flow meter for liquid effluent discharge that has been installed should be connected to TNPCB care-Air centre and online monitoring meters for parameters like, PH, Temperature, Electrical Conductivity (TDS), COD, BOD, etc., may be installed and this may also be connected to TNPCB at the earliest by all the units." 13
19. This Tribunal by Order dated 09.02.2015 considered the report and directed the fifth respondent unit in O.A. No.19 of 2013 namely M/s. Manali Petro Chemical Limited, Chennai to implement the short term recommendations at the earliest and regarding the long term measures they were directed to submit an affidavit regarding the implementation of the same.
20. Fifth respondent unit in that case submitted that they have engaged National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) for considering the long term measures recommended by the expert committee and they are awaiting for the report.
21. The National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) submitted the report in August 2015 where the scope of the study and objectives were mentioned as follows:-
"1.1 - SCOPE OF STUDY
(i) Measurement of Pyhsical, chemical and biological water quality, sediment quality and biology measurements in the near field and far field region of the outfall.
(ii) Collection of tide and current data for 4 days at the site during the period of water quality measurement.
(iii) Evaluation of the present scenario and comparison with baseline study (report carried out by MPL for their EIA study) to determine the impact of the marine outfall.
1.2 - OBJECTIVES Objective of the study is to determine the changes of water, sediments and biological quality due to the discharge of treated process water.
14 and they give the summary as follows:-
"SUMMARY The results of selected parameters reveal that there is no spatial variation in the study area. The concentrations of metals show lower values in the offshore location MPL 10, when compared to the other locations. The background concentrations of the study area is significantly high possibly due to the influence of Royapuram fisheries harbour, Chennai Port, Royapuram outfall and several other industries discharging in this area.
From these results it can be concluded that the study area was moderately polluted, which may be attributed to the several sources.
The studies on biological characteristics reveal the following:
(i) The near shore coastal belt shows minor variation in biological characteristics.
(ii) Various discharges along Ennore coast may induce synergistic effect of toxicant on the benthic population in certain station and in depth studies are warranted.
The MPL EIA report does not contain the biological data for comparison. The scope of present term study is too limited to conclude any discernible trends one the possible impact on environment."
22. By Order dated 06.10.2015, this Tribunal has considered the two member expert committee's report and dismissed the application M.A. No.172 of 2015 filed by the petitioner seeking for an appointment of another expert committee. Thereafter, 15 directions have been given to the Pollution Control Board to examine the area in question and find out the status of the water quality in that area and reports were periodically filed and that has been considered and directions have been issued from time to time.
23. The matter was again taken up on 07.07.2017 wherein the following order has been passed.
"This matter relates to the functioning of Manali Petrochemicals. The complaint made by the applicant in the applications is that the functioning of the effluent treatment system of Manali Petrochemicals has been defective for the past many years, resulting in enhanced COD and BOD level.
In the said appeals which are against the order of closure, we have directed status quo to be maintained which continues as on date. There have been various inspections made by the State Pollution Control Board as well as Central Pollution Control Board which revealed a remarkable increase in COD and BOD level in Plants I and II of Manali Petrochemicals.
In those circumstances, we directed the Central Pollution Control Board to conduct analysis of COD and BOD level and file a report. Accordingly, the Central Pollution Control Board has filed its affidavit on 4.7.2017. Table No.1 annexed to the affidavit speaks about the quality of treated effluent discharged into the sea. During the course of three inspections made on 31.3.2016, 17.8.2016 and 16.3.2017 and from the report, it is seen that in so far as it relates to the COD level regarding Plant 16
- I the outlet value of COD on 31.3.2016 was 1536 as against 250. On 17.8.2016 the value was 1673. However, on 16.3.2017 the value has come down to 1045 as against
250. It remains the fact that even the reduced value is four times above the permissible limit.
Likewise in respect of BOD level regarding Plant - I on 31.3.2016 the outlet quantum is recorded as 1258 and that has come down on 17.8.2016 to 783 and on 16.3.2017 it is 349 as against 100 where also it remains the fact that it is three times more than the permissible limit.
Likewise, in Plant - II the outlet quantity of COD on 31.3.2016 was 1344 and it has increased to 1832 on 17.8.2016 and ultimately on 16.3.2017 it has become 1521 as against 250. In respect of BOD in Plant - II on 31.3.2017 the outlet was 1068 and on 17.8.2016 it has become 833 and on 16.3.2017 it remains on 544 as against 100.
Therefore, it is clear that in all parameters in respect of both the Plants the outlet level was more than the permissible limit. But the only thing which has to be noted is that in the latest analysis on 5.3.2017 there is a slight improvement.
In our earlier order we have directed the Experts from SASTRA University to be present. Accordingly, the Experts are present before this Tribunal. They have submitted that SASTRA University has been implementing Chemical Activity Process for the purpose of reducing the COD and BOD level.
The Officer of the Central Pollution Control Board would submit that this pipeline is the only facility available in this country and it is for the project proponent which has to find out proper mechanism for the purpose of reducing 17 COD and BOD level especially in the existence of modern technology.
The Officer of Manali Petrochemicals Pvt., Ltd, who is present has submitted that the project proponent has approached PRAXAIR who are stated to be Experts in the said field and they have also given a Project and according to the Officer of the project proponent the Oxidization process is in progress and the same will be completed in a matter of 2 or 3 months and when once it is implemented there is every possibility of further reduction of COD and BOD level.
The typed set of papers filed on behalf of the project proponent shows the scheme formulated by the PRAXAIR which shows that on implementation of the said process there is every possibility of nearly 30 - 40% reduction of COD/BOD.
In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is not the appropriate time for the purpose of ordering „closure‟ of these units, especially in the circumstances that there has been certain improvement. Applying the principle of sustainable development, we are of the view that one more opportunity must be given to the project proponent for the purpose of implementing the Technical Experts‟ proposal for the purpose of implementing the new technology of Oxidization through PRAXAIR. The said new tehnology has to be implemented forthwith.
We make it clear that while discharging the treated effluents into the sea, there shall be no connection between the pipeline which carries the treated effluents along with potable drinking water pipeline.
In the mean time, the proposal of SASTRA University shall be continued.18
We direct the parties to file status report on the next date of hearing.
We direct the Central Pollution Control Board to have one more inspection and file a status report on the next dated of hearing.
In so far as it relates to Unit - II which is the subject matter of Application No.248 of 2016 there was a show cause notice issued by the State Pollution Control Board on 16.6.2015 based on the inspection conducted on 20.5.2016 stating as to how the project proponent has proceeded with the expansion when „consent‟ has not been granted and ultimately it is now stated that „consent‟ has been granted for the purpose of expansion on 22.7.2016 We have already stated that the activity of the project proponent will be subject to the final result in the application., In view of the same, we direct the interim order already passed shall continue.
In Application No.224 of 2016 the State Pollution Control Board has filed status report, after serving copy to the learned counsel appearing for the other side."
24. It was again taken up on 22.09.2017 and the report of the Pollution Control Board was considered, wherein also it was mentioned that BOD & COD level are not in conformity with the standard provided but there is some reduction. Thereafter the matter was simply adjourned without passing any orders. 19
25. Before disposing the matter, we feel it appropriate to appoint a Joint Committee comprising of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), State Pollution Control Board (SPCB), a senior scientist from National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) and senior scientist dealing with environment engineering (Chemical) from Anna University to inspect the units in question and find out the present status of the functioning of the units namely M/s. Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s. Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and ascertain as to whether they are maintaining and managing all pollution control mechanism and whether the discharge of effluent from these industries to sea confirms with the specified norms prescribed by the PCB and the impact of effluents in the sea water and if there is any deficiency found and the sea water quality has not improved, then suggest the remedial measures by which the quality of sea water can be improved and who has to carry out these remedial measures and also assess the environmental compensation against the defaulting units who are responsible for polluting sea water by applying "Polluters Pay" principle and submit a report to this Tribunal within a period of three months.
26. The remedial measure should contain the short term as well as long term measures to be adopted by the units. They may also consider as to whether the units have complied with 20 the recommendations made by the earlier committee for improvement of the quality of the sea water and if so to what extent that has been complied with and the impact of that compliance in the quality of sea water and if it is not sufficient to suggest more recommendations as a remedial measures to remedy the situation and make the quality of the sea water in conformity with the norms and the time required for completing the remedial measures. They may also conduct a detailed study regarding the effect of contamination caused on the flora and fauna of the aquatic and marine life.
27. Any one of the representative of the petitioner association is permitted to participate in the inspection along with the committee and the committee can consider his suggestion and make necessary observation regarding the same also in the report.
28. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) will be nodal agency for co-ordinating and for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
29. The Committee shall submit the report to this Tribunal through e-mail at [email protected] within that time. 21
30. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the above said officials immediately through e-mail so as to enable them to comply with the direction.
31. State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) is also directed to file their report regarding further action, if any, taken against these units if there was any subsequent violations found and if so with what result.
32. For consideration of report post on 19.05.2020.
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ..................................E.M. (Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.19/2013, 224/2016, 248/2016 & Appeal No.51/2017, 52/2017 08th February, 2020.
Sr. & Mn.
22