National Green Tribunal
Meenavargal Membattu Sangam vs The Chief Secretary Government Of Tamil ... on 22 March, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item Nos. 01 to 03:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 19 of 2013 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Meenavargal Membattu Sangam ... Applicant(s)
Vs
The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai and Others. ...Respondent(s)
With
Original Application No. 224 of 2016 (SZ)
Meenava Thanthai
K.R. Selvaraj Kumar. .. Applicant(s)
Vs
The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai and Others. ... Respondent(s)
With
Original Application No. 248/2016 (SZ)
Meenava Thanthai
K.R. Selvaraj Kumar,
Meenavar Nala Sangam. .. Applicant(s)
Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Chennai and Others
...Respondent(s)
Judgment Pronounced on: 22.03.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
O.A. No.19/2013:
For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4.
Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Adv. along with
Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi for R5.
Mr. A.R. Ramanathan for R6.
O.A. No.224/2016:
1
For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3 & R5.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4 & R6.
Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Adv. along with
Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi for R7.
Mr. A.R. Ramanathan for R8.
O.A. No.248/2016:
For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3 & R5.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4 & R6.
Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Adv. along with
Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi for R7.
Mr. A.R. Ramanathan for R8.
ORDER
1. Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. Applications are disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of, in view of the disposal of the Applications.
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) O.A. No.19/2013(SZ), O.A. No.224/2016(SZ), O.A. No.248/2016(SZ), 22nd March, 2022.AM 2 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Original Application No. 19 of 2013 (SZ) & Original Application No. 224 of 2016(SZ) & Original Application No. 248 of 2016(SZ) (Through Video Conference) IN THE MATTER OF Meenavargal Membattu Sangam, Rep by its President, Mr. K.R. Selvaraj Kumar, Having Office at Old No. 97/2, New No. 199, S.N. Chetty Street, Royapuram, Chennai- 600 013 ....Applicant(s) Versus
1. The Chief Secretary Govt of Tamil Nadu, Government of Tamil Nadu, New Secretariat, Chennai- 600 005
2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 005
3. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur,
4. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No. 75, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032
5. M/s Manali Petrochemical Ltd, Having its Principal Office at, Ponneri High Road, Chennai- 600 068
6. Kothari Petrochemical Limited, Rep by its Vice President Operations, Mr. P. Premapriyan Thorivottiyur-Ponneri High Road, 3 Manali, Chennai- 600068 (R6 impleaded as per order of Tribunal dt: 23.03.2021 in I.A. No. 123 of 2020) ... Respondent(s) With Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar, Meenavar Nala Sangam, Rep by its President, M.R. Thiyagarajan, S/o Late C. Rajalingam, Office at No. 15/8, A.J. Colony, Royapuram, Chennai- 600 013 ....Applicant(s) Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 005
2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government Fisheries Department, Fort St. George Chennai- 600 009
3. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur,
4. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No. 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032
5. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government Highway and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009
6. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, (Monitoring), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 77A, South Avenue Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai- 600 058
7. M/s Tamil Nadu Petro Chemical Products Limited, 4 Rep by its Managing Director, Having its Principal Office at, Manali Express Highway, Manali- Chennai- 600 058
8. Kothari Petrochemical Limited, Rep by its Vice President Operations, Mr. P. Premapriyan Thiruvottiyur-Ponneri High Road, Manali, Chennai- 600068 ... Respondent(s) With Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar, Meenavar Nala Sangam, Rep by its President, M.R. Thiyagarajan, S/o Late C. Rajalingam, Office at No. 15/8, A.J. Colony, Royapuram, Chennai- 600 013 ....Applicant(s) Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 005
2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government Environment Department, Fort St. George Chennai- 600 009
3. The Director, Department of Environment Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai- 600 032
4. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No. 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032
5. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur, 5
6. The District Environmental Engineer, 77A, South Avenue Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai- 600 058
7. M/s Manali Petrochemical Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, Having its Principal office at, Ponneri High Road, Chennai- 600 068
8. Kothari Petrochemical Limited, Rep by its Vice President Operations, Mr. P. Premapriyan Thorivottiyur-Ponneri High Road, Manali, Chennai- 600068 ... Respondent(s) O.A. No.19/2013:
For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh. For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4.
Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Adv. along with Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi for R5.
Mr. A.R. Ramanathan for R6.
O.A. No.248/2016:
For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3 & R5.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4 & R6.
Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Adv. along with Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi for R7.
Mr. A.R. Ramanathan for R8.
O.A. No.224/2016:
For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3 & R5.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4 & R6.
Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Adv. along with Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi for R7.
Mr. A.R. Ramanathan for R8.
Judgment Reserved on: 1st February, 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 22nd March, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER 6 Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
1. O.A. No. 19 of 2013 was filed by the applicant organisation, supposed to be one working for the benefit of the fishermen community, regarding the pollution caused on account of the activities of the 5th respondent (M/s Manali Petrochemical Ltd.).
2. It is alleged in the application that the said company is a public limited company incorporated under provisions of Companies Act on 11.06.1986 situated in Manali, Chennai engaged in the business of manufacturing the petrochemical products i.e. Propylene oxide, Propylene Glycol and Polyols, intermediates with applications across a spectrum of industries including those of pharmaceuticals, polyurethane, resins, fragrances, food, refrigeration, oil drilling and others.
They have been allowed to drain the treated water effluent from their plants into the sea through the pipe lines as per the prescribed method and process.
3. As per the norms laid down by the 4th respondent and the concerned Ministry, the unit must treat the waste water effluent emanated from its plant during the course of the said petrochemical products production and drain or dispose the same to the sea particularly at Thiruvottriyur, Chennai 7 through the pipe lines laid beneath the earth which is having a distance of 7 km.
4. There are 21 fishery hamlets located in and around the area and they were totally depending on the sea food for their livelihood. Their survival depended upon the survival of the marine organisms and if there was any damage caused to marine ecology it would affect the marine organisms which in turn affect the income of the fishermen community. People in that locality were experiencing hardship due to discharge of effluents by the 5th respondent unit which endangers the marine ecology and aquatic life. They were discharging the effluents containing the hazardous chemical substance without proper treatment resulting in death of marine organisms. They were not maintaining the pipes properly, as a result, there is leakage of chemicals across the road and street and causes health hazards to the people of the locality.
5. They had also not provided proper mechanism to control the pollution that was likely to be caused and they had not provided necessary mechanism to treat the hazardous sludge in a proper way and that resulted in great damage to the environment. Fumes that were coming up mixed with the air causing air pollution. The water resources in that area had been polluted including the sea water on account of their illegal activities causing health hazards to the people.
6. A team constituted by the Coastal Management Zone Notification, 2008 under the chairmanship of Professor M.S. 8 Swaminathan conducted examination of the area and submitted a report under the title "Final Frontier" on 16.07.2019 which recommended to have a Coastal Management Zone Notification, 2008 and also recommended to strengthen the Coastal Management Zone Notification, 1991. Though a Coastal Management Zone Notification, 2018 was proposed, the same could not be passed but lapsed.
7. During 2010 due to critical pollution situation in SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Cuddalore a moratorium was declared and new industries were not allowed and the Hon‟ble High Court also had taken suo motu case in this regard and certain directions have been issued. Though lot of representations were made, no proper action had been taken and that prompted the applicant to file this application seeking following reliefs:
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to pass an order interim direction against the respondents 1 to 4 to constitute an expert committee in order to:
a) Inspect and submit a report regarding the adopting methods of treating water effluent in the 5th respondent company prior to the disposal of same into the sea, in order to ascertain he compliance of the rules and norms by the 5th respondent.
b) Find the present status of the pipe lines fully through which the effluent are disposed into the sea.
c) Test the pollution level in the sea water in the area where the 5th respondents plant‟s affluent are mixing and
d) Make recommendations for the safety measures and welfare of the fishermen community which undergo various problem due to act of the 5th respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and thus render justice.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to initiate appropriate action against the 5th respondent for disposing the untreated water effluent into the sea thereby polluting the water resources or 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.
9
8. The application was originally filed as writ petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras as W.P. No.6922 of 2011 and thereafter as per order dated 14.12.2012 of the Hon‟ble Chief Justice of Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in ROC No. 20 of 2013 dated 05.02.2013, the same was transferred to this Tribunal and thereafter it was re-numbered as O.A. No. 19 of 2013.
9. 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the application. They contended that they being a public limited company involved in manufacturing and sale of pharmaceuticals products, they were conscious and cautious about the environmental issues and they were taking all necessary steps not to discharge any hazardous matter into sea that would harm the marine life and fishermen at large.
10. They obtained necessary approvals from all the concerned authorities for laying the pipeline and discharge of the treated effluent and they were discharging the duly treated effluent into the sea as per the norms and conditions stipulated by the authorities for more than 20 years now. They were properly carrying out the periodical maintenance work for the pipelines and as and when defects were found or repairs were required, they were being attended immediately and they ensured high standards of treatment before this being discharged into sea and as such their activity will not affect the marine ecology or aquatic life. They have not discharged any hazardous or toxic substance into the sea through these pipelines and they were 10 discharging the same after fully complying with the norms and standards prescribed by the Pollution Control Board. The industry is being periodically inspected by the authorities and whenever any deficiencies or improvement was suggested they were carrying out the same as well.
11. In the presence of Revenue Divisional Officer, a meeting was conducted on 10.04.2010 and representatives of 20 out of 21 villages participated and it was explained to the villagers by the officials of the 5th respondent about the treatment methodology that is being adopted by them and also explained that they were not discharging any hazardous or dangerous material into the sea without complying with the norms prescribed for the same and on account of their activity, there was no possibility of any danger being caused to the aquatic life. The explanation given by the company was accepted by the villagers and the Revenue Department and Pollution Control Board officials conveyed the no objection for laying the replacement of the pipeline for discharge of the treated effluent into the sea.
12. They were also taking steps under the corporate social responsibility to protect the interest of the local people. They were not party to the report submitted by the Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor M.S. Swaminathan. They were not aware of any recommendation of the said Committee to the Central Government and subsequent action taken on this aspect. The action taken by the Hon‟ble High Court or its finding in the suo motu case in respect of SIPCOT Industrial 11 Estate, Cuddalore was not applicable to the case in hand. Since they are following all the procedure and complying with the conditions and without any specific case of any damage caused to environment, the application is not maintainable.
13. The question of Zero Liquid Discharge does not arise as this being a chemical processing industry the treated effluent has to be discharged in a safer manner as provided under Rules by discharging into the sea only. There is no toxic material pumped by the 5th respondent into the sea to affect the marine life. In order to avoid any mishap only, they have agreed for replacement of the old pipelines and they were extending full cooperation for the direction given by the Pollution Control Board so as to protect the environment. Whatever directions given were being complied by them. They were strictly adopting the standards provided for protection of environment by various authorities and they have also obtained ISO 9000 and also ISO 14000 certifications from DNV which signifies the process followed by the company as per the norms and the environmental requirements are also complied with. It is being renewed from time to time and the certification is being issued by an independent agency.
14. The recent Marine Impact Study carried out by an independent agency also confirms that there was no hazard to marine life and the concerned villagers have also echoed the view that effluent line does not pose any threat whatsoever and 12 as such the application is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. 4th respondent filed reply affidavit contending that the applicant has filed the writ petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras as W.P. No.6822 of 2011 which was transferred to this Tribunal.
16. Manali Petrochemical Limited was promoted by Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation and it was having two production plants at Manali Industrial area for the manufacturing of Propylene Oxide (P.O), Propylene Glycol (PG) and various grades of Polyol and formulations.
17. The construction of MPL plant-I was commenced in 1988 and commercial production started in the year 1990. Plant-I was set up with the technology of Atochem for Propylene Oxide and Propylene Glycol and the basic engineering was done by Technip of France and the detailed engineering was executed by Engineers India Ltd. The said technology was provided by ARCO, USA through Technip.MPL plant-I is capable of manufacturing of 18000 MT of Propylene Oxide, 10,000 MT of Propylene Glycol and 25000 MT of Polyol.
18. Plant-II was promoted by UB group and TIDCO and this was incorporated in 1896. The commercial production was started in the year 1990 and it was taken over by M/s SPIC in the year 1995 and named as M/s Spic Organics Limited and then merged with MPL in the year 2000 and again the name has been changed as M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited Plant-II. It 13 is having a capacity of manufacturing 18000 MT of Propylene Oxide, 10,000 MT of Propylene Glycol and 25000 MT of Polyol. The Propylene Oxide is an intermediate product produced and is utilised for conversion into Propylene glycol and Polyol. Propylene Glycol is widely used for pharmaceutical formulations, in food flavour and fragrance industries and in the manufacturing of unsaturated polyester resins, as the raw material. The Polyol is the raw material for manufacturing of Polyurethanes. Polyol of different grades react with Isocyanates of different grades to produce several products of Polyurethane with distinctively different, desired properties. Major supplier of the raw material is Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. There are no other manufacturers of Propylene Oxide, Propylene glycol and Polyol in India.
19. The latest consent was issued from the Board to the unit of Plant-I on 28.03.2002 for the production of the following products, namely, Propylene oxide 1-1000T/month, Propylene Glycol- 520 T/months, Poyol- 500 T/month and Propylene Glycol Mono Methyl Ether- 225 T/month. Consent was issued for generation of sewage effluent of 15 KLD and the trade effluent of 3400 KLD. The unit has received consent with a condition that the treated effluent shall be disposed of into the sea. The unit has provided the ETP to treat the trade effluent of 3400 KLD which consists of Clariflocculator, Thickener, Cooling Tower, Bio reactor-6 nos, Nutrient Tank, Mass culture tank and Rotary vacuum Filter and treated effluent storage tank. The 14 consolidated ROA of the treated effluent reveals that the parameters such as pH, BOD and COD are in excess of the standards prescribed for the marine coastal areas prescribed by the Board.
20. The consent was subsequently renewed to the unit under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 vide proceedings no. T5/PET/TNPCB/62402/RL/W/11 dated 11.10.2011 and under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 vide proceedings no.
T5/PET/TNPCB/62402/RL/A/11 dated 11.10.2011 with certain conditions and validity period up to 31.03.2012.
21. They also issued directions by proceedings no. T5/TNPCB/PET/F. NO. 62402/TLR/W&A/11 dated 11.10.2011 under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981to carry out the following:
1. The unit shall restrict the production quantity as per the consent order issued.
2. The unit shall improve the Effluent Treatment Plant to achieve the standards within three months.
3. The unit shall conduct study to ensure any contamination soil and ground water due to landfill facility.
4. The unit shall furnish details of low lying areas to dispose the sludge and to conduct survey to have baseline data.
5. The unit shall furnish log book extract on the disposal of sludge to brick manufacturers.
6. The unit shall provide online ambient air quality/emission with the connectivity to care air centre.
7. The unit shall implement the action points for critically polluted area.
8. The unit shall connect the gas detector/sensor to ascertain the fugitive emission with the connectivity to care air centre.
9. The unit shall have leak detection and repair system.
10. The unit shall implement online monitoring of effluent treatment plant/sewage treatment plant with a connectivity to care air centre.
11. The unit shall make provisions to collect samples at the discharge point.
12. The unit shall conduct impact study periodically. 15
22. The consent was issued by the Board to the M/s Manali Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Plant-II for production of the following products namely, Propylene oxide 1-1000 T/month, 2. Propylene Glycol-650 T/month, 3. Poyol-1000 T/month, 4. Propylene Di Chloro Propane- 175 T/Month 5. Di Propylene Glycol- 80 T/month and 6. Tri Propylene Glycol- 10 T/month. Consent was issued for the generation of sewage effluent of 15 KLD and the trade effluent of 4500 KLD.
23. The unit has provided the ETP to treat the trade effluent of 5400 KLD which consists of High rate thickener, Flocculation Tank, Rotary drum vacuum filter, Effluent collection tank, Primary clarifier, cooling tower, aeration tank, secondary clarifier and Treated effluent sump. The consolidated ROA of the treated effluent reveals that the parameters such as pH, BOD and COD are in excess of the standards prescribed for the marine coastal areas prescribed by the Board.
24. The consent was renewed under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 vide proceedings no. T5/PET/TNPCB/19637/TVLR/RL/W/11 dated 11.10.2011 and under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 vide proceedings no. T5/PET/TNPCB/19637/TVLR/RL/W/11 dated 11.10.2011 with certain conditions and validity period up to 31.03.2012. They have issued certain directions to the vide proceedings no. T5/TNPCB/PET/ F.No.42913/TLR/W&A/11 dated 11.10.2011 to carry out the following:
1. The unit shall restrict the production quantity as per the consent order issued.
16
2. The unit shall improve the Effluent Treatment Plant to achieve the standards within three months.
3. The unit shall conduct study to ensure any contamination soil and ground water due to landfill facility.
4. The unit shall furnish details of low lying areas to dispose the sludge and to conduct survey to have baseline data.
5. The unit shall furnish log book extract on the disposal of sludge to brick manufacturers.
6. The unit shall provide online ambient air quality/emission with the connectivity to care air centre.
7. The unit shall implement the action points for critically polluted area.
8. The unit shall connect the gas detector/sensor to ascertain the fugitive emission with the connectivity to care air centre.
9. The unit shall have leak detection and repair system.
10. The unit shall implement online monitoring of effluent treatment plant/sewage treatment plant with a connectivity to care air centre.
11. The unit shall make provisions to collect samples at the discharge point.
12. The unit shall conduct impact study periodically.
25. The unit has laid separate pipeline of 0.25 diameter and 6 km length from their units into coastal area of Ennore and disposed into Sea at Ramakrishna Nagar East Side, Ennore Coastal area. When Writ Petition was filed during 2011 the unit was laying new pipeline instead of old one for discharging the treated effluent into the sea.
26. The allegation that unit used to drain the waste water effluent into sea water without adopting proper method of treatment, thereby toxic items mixed in the sea water is false and hence denied. They have provided necessary effluent treatment plants for treating the effluent before discharging into the sea. There was no leakage of effluent from the marine outfall pipelines as alleged by the applicant. The allegations that the high concentration of metallic effluent flow in the roadside, thereby affects biological metabolism, causes diseases is false and hence denied. Samples of treated effluents discharged again reveal that the levels of metallic pollutants are generally within the standards prescribed for marine discharge. The Pollution 17 Control Board is discharging a constitutional obligation and responsibility in order to check the activities of the 5th respondent who was indulging in disposing the hazardous substances and endanger the life of the common people is also not correct. The allegation of the applicant that they are not discharging the responsibility is not correct. They were continuously monitoring the industries and the discharge made by it. Whenever certain non-compliance were noticed, directions were issued and the further action were issued for compliance and further action would be examined in accordance with merits.
27. The allegations that they have not maintained any transparency of these aspects are not correct and hence denied. The standards of discharge of treated effluents into the environment viz. Inland surface waters, sewer on the land for irrigation and marine coastal areas are very well available in the website of the respondent as well as in the website of Central Pollution Control Board. They were conducting periodical inspection of the unit and they were monitoring the compliance of the conditions and taking samples of the treated effluent being discharged into the sea water. The pipelines were re-laid in 2011 and thereafter there was no leakage of effluent happened. So they prayed for passing appropriate orders.
28. 2nd respondent filed counter contending that none of the Government orders of Industries Department was challenged by the petitioner in this case. The questions of treatment of waste 18 water effluent etc are to be considered by the 4 th respondent Pollution Control Board. 2nd respondent (Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department) is not a necessary party to the proceedings as M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited was not under their control and they were not involved in the decision making process of the management of the said unit. So, they prayed for accepting their contention ad passing appropriate orders.
29. The applicant filed rejoinder to the counter filed by the 5th respondent denying the allegations made therein and also relied on certain observations made by the Joint Committee regarding the deficiencies in the treatment facility provided. They also contended that they are using outdated technology for treatment which is not sufficient to meet the standards. The ETP etc was established only during 1988-1990 which was long after the establishment of the units. They reiterated their contentions and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was not correctly evaluating the functions of the unit and they have not identified any of the shortfalls identified by the Expert Committee appointed by this Tribunal. So they prayed for allowing the application.
30. 5th respondent filed affidavit wherein they have stated that the plants were established in the year 1988-1990 and ETP was designed with then available technology and in order to maintain COD at desired levels MPL has been in the lookout for newer methods to improve the efficiency of the treatment 19 process and get reduction of the COD. They have taken the following efforts even prior to the observations of the Expert Committee appointed by this Tribunal:
a. Aerobic and anaerobic treatment with culture through VNS ENVIRO BIOTECH PVT LTD.
b. OZONE treatment technology through TECHOZONE ENVRIONMENTAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.
c. MBR Biomembrat 5- BM5 through Thermax Limited. d. Ozone and EMP Technology through Udaja Technologies Pvt Ltd and Enesavyasa Technologies Pvt Ltd.
31. Some of the above were successful in large scale but fails in the ETP. Actions were being continued to identify better technology to improve the ETP efficiency and reduce COD to the stipulated level based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee. They approached IIT Madras and SASTRA University who have recently developed bio species for water treatment for guidance. The study by Thermax has commenced in MPL plant-I in 2nd week of January, 2015 evidenced by Annexure-1 produced along with the affidavit. The interim report furnished by them is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. Earlier MPL had approached the IIT Madras for suggesting improvements to the Effluent Treatment Plant with suitable cost effective technology for COD/BOD reduction and letter of intent had been given on 7th January, 2015 copy of which was produced as annexure 3. The IIT Madras had already taken up the study and they by letter dated 17.03.2015 informed them that the work was in progress and they would recommend a best state of art treatment system in about six months. The said letter of IIT Madras dated 17.03.2015 was produced as annexure 4.
20
32. SASTRA University had already started the studies on the samples collected from their plants and informed that results were encouraging evidenced by their letter produced as annexure 5. MPL undertook that they would implement the suggestions of the Experts to ensure consistency in the ETP operations. The Expert Committee in the report submitted that the unit should have leak detection system and arrangements for immediate repair of pipeline in the event of any leak. They are already having dedicated team of engineers to attend any emergency/leak at any time.
33. Further, in compliance with the recommendation of the Committee, the MPL inspection team were daily checking the entire length of the pipeline physically upto sea and taking samples reports of inspection evidenced by annexure 6. The samples were taken by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control and study will be completed shortly. The Expert Committee report suggested to have appropriate marine study to be conducted including the disappearance of marine species. Accordingly the marine environmental study for the combined treated effluents discharged into the sea through the effluent pipeline was conducted by M/s Hubert Envrio Care System Pvt. Ltd, Chennai during September, 2012 and the study reports states as follows:
Water quality test indicates that the water is well oxygenated nutrient rich and biologically productive at primary and secondary levels. The study on various oceanographic parameters indicates that coastal water is clean and highly productive. Results shows that the waste water undergoes dilution of the order of 500 times in 60m distance from the outfall and it further get diluted to 1000 times at a distance of 21 200 m in shore normal direction. Further it is concluded that the waste water will not reach the shore and have negligible impact on the marine environment.
34. Though, the COD and BOD were not within the specified parameters, there was no impact on marine environment. The Committee had made this suggestion to monitor the pollution status of the zone and they will extend all necessary cooperation to the authorities for this purpose. They have already entrusted NIOT with an assignment to monitor and NIOT had already taken up the work and the copy of service order issued to NIOT is produced as annexure 7.
35. The Expert Committee suggested conducting of toxicity studies for the combined effluent before discharge into sea once in six months. The MPL is not using any toxic metals which have been recorded by the Committee itself in the report. They will render all cooperation to the authorities in implementing the recommendations of the Committee. The report submitted by M/s SGS is produced as annexure 8 where it was seen that there was no toxic metal present in the effluent discharge. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is regularly analysing the heavy metals in the treated effluents and the values are within the limits. The report given by SGS also shows that there was no presence of heavy metals. They also given the nature of pipeline and its quality and assured that there was no possibility of any leak. They have made the identification of the pipeline route as suggested by the Expert Committee.
36. On the basis of the Expert Committee report that an open area lines (canals) may be closed with suitable material to avoid 22 damage has already been covered and a new structure had been erected at Sathyamoorthy Nagar during 2015. Photographs are produced as annexure 9 and 10 along with the affidavit. It is also suggested in the Committee report that provisions have to be provided for collection of samples at four points viz. Downstream point after mixing zone of MPL, TPL and KPL and near the sea discharge point. These are to be covered and locked and one set of keys held with MPL and the other with Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The said recommendation has been implemented and it is evidenced by photographs produced as annexure 9 and 10.
37. They also mentioned that most of the recommendations made by the Expert Committee have been complied with. Apart from the efforts made by the IIT Madras, SASTRA University. M/s UDAJA Technologies private limited by letter dated 12.03.2015 informed that they were in a position to offer technology to bring BOD and COD to the desired level evidenced by their letter produced as annexure 11. Long term and short term measures were provided and they also suggested to go for catalytic process and to explore possibilities of zero discharge with suitable technologies for recovery of by-products which will eliminate discharge of effluent to sea and this was a long term proposal and would be considered at an appropriate time subject to feasibility and availability of technology and other related matters. The flow meter was provided and it was connected to DCS at control room evidenced by annexure 12 23 photographs. The vendors have been identified and actions are underway for connecting the same to CARE-AIR Centre and that will be completed shortly. There were suggestions to install online monitoring device for parameters like PH and temperature, TDS, COD, BOD etc and that to be connected to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board centre at the earliest. The same have been installed but due to high salinity of the devices available in the market are not reliable for assessment of TDS, COD and BOD levels. MPL had taken action to identify suitable devices for the same, which may take some time. They have given the conclusion of their action taken in the affidavit which reads as follows:
Conclusion:
The pipeline is intact and there has been no leakages reported. The EC report also supports this.
The effluent contains high COD which is due to the Propylene Glycol. The product is not harmful and is extensively used in pharmaceutical applications and food fragrance industry. Out of the 20 parameters tested by the EC, 18 are within the prescribed norms.
MPL has taken various actions in addressing the issues referred in the EC Report and is sincere in its efforts as could be seen from the various documents and photographs furnished. In the light of the above the petition is to be dismissed.
38. In view of the subsequent developments, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
39. O.A. No. 224 of 2016 was filed by the same applicant in O.A. No. 19 of 2013 alleging pollution on account of the activities of 8th respondent, namely, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Company Act, 1956 and engaged in manufacturing of petrochemicals products i.e. Propylene Oxide, Propylene Glycol 24 and Polyols and they were permitted to discharge the treated effluent into sea through pipelines without prescribed methods and process for the last 25 years.
40. The waste water from the unit contained gross amounts of oil and suspended solids and if it is discharged into the sea without proper treatment, it will have adverse impact on marine ecology and aquatic life due to its contamination. The treatment must provide such mechanism and process prior to release into the environment. The different types of contaminated waste water required a variety of strategies for removal of contamination i.e. solids removal, oils and grease removal , removal of biodegradable organics by activated sludge process and tricking filter process, acid and alkalis treatment, toxic treatment, toxic materials treatment etc. On account of discharge of untreated sewage into the sea, it had affected the marine vertebrates and invertebrates and also affected the human health. It was also alleged that "the high concentration of metallic effluents generated from the production of the said petro chemicals flows in the road side also caused health hazardous as it may affect enzyme activities and formation of white blood cells and harmful effects in human. There may be a tendency to interfere with the microbial diseases skeletal abnormalities caused by impeding calcium metabolism of fish and also clog the respiratory organ of fish causing it impossible to survive".
25
41. The fishermen community who are totally depending upon the aquatic flora and fauna are being affected on account of these aspects. They filed application before this Tribunal and this Tribunal directed the Pollution Control Board to inspect the said M/s. Manali Petrochemical Ltd. and the report of the Central Pollution Control Board showed the level of pollution caused by the 8th respondent herein as the COD level is not inconformity with the prescribed norm. The inlet and outlet norms of the ETP maintained by 8th respondent unit is not inconformity with the standard provided and the COD limit was 1152 and continuous emission of same level into the sea and surrounding areas has resulted in continuous pollution. Though complaints were made to the authorities, they were not taking care of these aspects and without directing them to adopt better scientific disposal matters they are allowing such units with the obsolete and outdated technology which affects the environment. So the applicant filed the application seeking the following interim as well as final reliefs:
Interim Relief:
i) It is respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to grant of interim direction directing the 8th respondent to deposit a liquidated sum per month before this Hon‟ble Tribunal till the date of disposal of this main application. So that the amount may be disbursed to the victim fishermen.
ii) It is respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to constitute expert committee in order to inspect and submit a report regarding the adopting methods of treating the water effluent in the 8th respondent company prior to the disposal of the same into the sea in order to ascertain the compliance of the rules and norms of the 8th respondent and to test the pollution level in the sea water in the area where the 8th respondent factory effluent is mixing.
iii) To direct the 7th respondent to frequently inspect the 8th respondent company and to monitor the inlet ETP and out let ETP and the sea disposal in the company and to file a report.26
Main relief prayed for:
It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue direction to the respondents 1 to 7 to initiate appropriate action against the 8th 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 8th respondent in the ends of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
42. 8th respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable. They denied the allegations made in the application. They also narrated the nature of products that are being manufactured by them and also the methodology adopted by them for treatment of the effluent before it is discharged into the sea. They denied the allegation that they were discharging the untreated effluents into the sea that results in pollution of marine ecology. The effluent generated from 8th respondent (TPL Heavy Chemicals Divisions) is treated in the Effluent Treatment Plant at HCD and disposed of to sea through pipelines. Further they were following the given below method of effluent and disposal, namely:
a. All the effluents are collected in main effluent pit. b. The collected effluent is neutralized using either acid or alkali depending on pH.
c. Treated effluent from TPL-HCD plant is pumped to treat effluent sump existing in ECH plant for marine disposal. d. Treated effluents are being monitored at the inlet and outlet regularly before pumping to sea and shall be pumped upon confirmation of compliance with prescribed marine standards. The TPL- HCD has been obtained approval from TNPCB for disposal of effluent into sea through pipeline which has been enclosed in the typed set of papers as annexureno.1. Therefore the respondents states that the quality of the treated effluent are well within the prescribed marine standards.
43. The efficiency of the treatment plant is being monitored by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and they have produced the result of such analysis done by Pollution Control Board as 27 annexure 2 along with the counter statement. The 8th respondent company‟s Epichlorohydrin plant was not in operation since April 2013. HCD plant which is merely running is a chlor Alkali plant which manufactures Caustic soda, chlorine, hydrogen, hydrochloric acid, ammonium chloride and sodium hypochlorite. They employ electrolysis of pure brine (sodium chloride) using membrane cell to produce 32 per cent Lye and >99 per cent pure chlorine and Hydrogen gases as by- products. The 32 per cent caustic soda Lye is further concentrated to inorganic in nature and no oil waste and biodegradable organics were generated from the process. The effluent mainly contains sodium chloride. Further, the effluent generated in the plant is treated in a dedicated effluent treatment plant at HCD plant and it is being discharged only after meeting the prescribed standards before it is being let into the sea. So they denied the allegation that it contains oil and other toxics items.
44. In the HCD process which handles only brine solution (sodium chloride) and electricity and the effluent COD cannot go higher than 100 mg/L at any point of time. In any ETP process there will be a COD reduction from inlet to outlet. However, the report which is produced by the applicant shows vice versa results. The reason could be sampling error at the outlet of ETP or erroneous analytical result so the same will have to be rechecked. The analysis report conducted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is produced as annexure 4 which will 28 go to show that it conforms with the standards. There is no merit in the application and the applicant is a seasoned litigant filing various litigations. So they prayed for dismissal of the application.
45. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, namely, respondents 5 and 7 filed their counter affidavit contending that the 8th respondent unit of M/s Tamil Nadu Petro chemical products Limited-LAB plant is situated at S.F. No. 267, Manali Village, Thiruvattiyur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. Their unit was in existence since 1987 in an extent of 16.18 ha with a work force of 490 employees and with an investment of 91828.39 Lakhs. They engaged in manufacture of liner alkyl benzene- 10000 MT/month using kerosene and benzene as the primary raw material. In their operation the industry would also produce heavy normal paraffin- 1000MT/month and heavy alkylate- 1667 MT/month as by-products, normal paraffin- 7841.6MT/months as intermediate product. They obtained consent from the Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 which was subsequently renewed up to 31.03.2017.
46. The 8th respondent unit activity involves kerosene which consists of saturated hydrocarbons (alkanes-also called paraffins) is fractionized to get C9 to C13 alkanes, which contain both normal paraffin and non-normal paraffin, which are separated by molecular extraction process. From normal 29 paraffin one hydrogen atom is removed to convert them into alkenes (olefins) which are reacted along with benzene, heavy alkalyte mixture and heavy normal paraffin mixture which are separated by distillation. The industry generates 60 KLD of sewage which is treated in common sewage treatment plant, provided at ECH plant premises and the treated sewage is used for gardening and tree plantation purposes. They generate trade effluent of 1164 KLD from its utilities and from floor and machinery washing activity. The trade effluent is treated in an Effluent Treatment Plant and the treated effluent is discharged in to sea, along with treated effluent from M/s Manali Petro Chemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petro Chemicals Limited through the common marine out fall pipeline provided by the M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited who is the 5th respondent in O.A. No. 19 of 2013. The entire trade effluent would be recycled as and when ECH plant commence its operation of manufacturing propylene oxide for which the unit had obtained Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification 2006 and applied for consent for establishment for expansion to the Board and the unit was requested to resubmit the application along with Environmental Clearance amendment for the disposed of treated effluent into the sea through pipeline of M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited.
47. The report of analysis of the treated effluent samples collected from the plant during the period of March 2016 to September, 2016 reveals that the parameter analysed generally satisfy the 30 standards prescribed by the Board. They also provided air pollution control mechanism such as stack attached to the pacol sodium heater, hydrotreater, flare emergency head, flare normal head, boiler, pacol and hot oil unit, D.G. sets. They also provided HF scrubbing system in the HF section to avoid escape of HF vapours into the flare header and other places. The Ambient Air Quality survey conducted in the vicinity of the industry on 09.11.2016 through Board laboratory reveals that the parameter analysed satisfy the standards prescribed by the Board. The stack emission survey conducted on the same day reveals that parameter analysed satisfy the standards prescribed by the Board.
48. The respondent industry had provided one continuous ambient air quality monitoring station to monitor PM 2.5, PM 10, SO2, NOx, CO and Benzene and connected the same to care air centre. The same got damaged completely during the flood in December, 2015. The industry had placed order for a new set of analyser for the said parameters and it was informed that the delivery is reportedly expected by January, 2017. They also provided online monitoring station for DG stacks and connected to Care Air Centre. They also provided OLMS in hot oil heater as well as pacol heater which were also damaged and they informed during inspection that OLMS with connectivity for the four left over stacks, other than flare stacks shall be provided during the financial year. The industry had provided detectors/sensors to monitor chlorine, hydrofluoric acid 31 vapour, LPG and Hydrogen at appropriate locations to measure their levels. The industry also provided OLMS for effluent parameters (pH, TSS, BOD COD and Flow) and made connectivity with water quality watch of the Board. The unit had obtained authorization for handling of hazardous waste by proceedings and that was valid up to 17.02.2020.
49. During inspection it was revealed that a common sewage treatment plant and effluent treatment plant were in operation and the treated effluent is discharged into sea through the marine out fall pipeline provided by the M/s Manali petrochemical limited. The heavy chemical division of M/s Tamil Nady Petro products limited is located at R.S. No. IA 38, Manali Village, Thiruvottiyur, Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The unit is in existence since 1978 in an extent of 12.31 ha with a work force of 208 and with an investment of 20209.54 Lakhs. They are engaged in manufacturing of products such as caustic soda- 6875 MT/month, liquid chlorine- 4166 MT/month, Hydrochloric acid- 4125 MT/month, ammonium Chloride- 1788 MT/month, Liquid Hydrogen- 104 MT/month and sodium hypochlorite- 344 MT/month by using raw material viz sodium chloride and ammonia. They have obtained consent from the Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 which they were renewing from time to time and last one was renewed up to 31.03.2017.
32
50. They generate 100 KLD of sewage which is treated in common sewage treatment plant, provided at ECH plant premises and the treated sewage is used for gardening and tree plantation purposes. They generate trade effluent of 310 KLD which is treated in an Effluent Treatment Plant and it is discharged in to sea along with the treated effluent from from M/s Manali Petro Chemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petro Chemicals Limited through the common marine out fall pipeline provided by the M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited.
51. They have conducted the treatment effluent analysis during the period March 2016 to September, 2016 and the report indicates that the standards prescribed by the Board are satisfied. The parameter of COD could not be ascertained due to interference during analysis. The unit had provided air pollution control measures. The ambient air quality conducted on 11.11.2016 reveal that they satisfy the standard provided. The stack emission also showed that they conform to the standards provided. They obtained authorisation for handling of hazardous waste from the Board. They have installed continuous ambient monitoring stations and they are connected to Care Air Centre, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Guindy. They installed online monitors in the stack attached to waste air dechlorination plant (WAD) for monitoring chlorine and the monitoring data has been connected to Care Air Centre, Guindy. They also installed online monitor attached to hydrochloric acid production unit for monitoring HCL vapour 33 and it was connected to Care Air Centre, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Guindy. They also provided detectors/sensors to monitor hydrogen at appropriate locations. They further stated that the unit has provided common sewage treatment plant and effluent treatment plant and the treated effluent is discharged into sea through the common marine out fall pipeline provided by the M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited.
52. The 8th respondent also established Epichlorohydrin plant located at R.S. No. 254/3 part, 259/2, 260/2, 261/2, 262/2, 263/2A, 265/1A1, 265/1A2, 266/1A. 1A1B (part), 266/1A1B/2B1A2 (part) of Manali Village, Thiruvotriyur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The unit was in existence since 1995 and established in an area having an extent of 15.66 ha with work force of 275 members by investing 16034.17 Lakhs. They were manufacturing ephichlorohydrin of 909 T/M as main product and hydrochloric acid- 518 T/M and chlorinated organics- 400t/M as by-products. They obtained consent from the Board which was renewed up to 31.03.2011. The operation of the plant was stopped on 31.03.2013 due to poor demand for the product, and thereafter there was no activity in the said unit. Subsequently, the unit had decided to switch over to the manufacturing of propylene oxide by utilizing the infrastructure already available with industry and obtain Environmental Clearance from the MoEF&CC vide F.No. J-11011/280/2013- IA-II(I) dated 15.05.2015 for manufacture of propylene oxide of 45 T/Day and chlorinated organic of 6.75 T/Day and applied 34 for consent for establishment for expansion to the Board and they were requested to resubmit Environmental Clearance amendment for the disposal of treated trade effluent into sea through existing pipeline of M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited. During inspection on 02.01.2017 it was revealed that there was no activity in the said unit.
53. The applicant had filed O.A. No. 19 of 2013 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal by order dated 29.07.2016 directed Central Pollution Control Board and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to effect fresh joint inspection in respect of M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited, M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemicals Limited. The Joint inspection was made on 17.08.2016 and 18.08.2016 and the report was submitted to the Tribunal. The CPCB had submitted the following suggestions based on its earlier joint inspection on 30.04.2016 made along with Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board before the Tribunal on various improvement measures to be carried out by the units as noted below:
35 36
representative samples.
xi.All units are required to conduct toxicity studies for their effluent and also for combined effluents. The results shall be submitted to TNPCB including species used for the study.
54. The unit was again inspected on 04.04.2017 and the status report of the 8th respondent unit regarding compliance with the suggestions given and they have noted the following: 37 38
55. They prayed for accepting their contentions and pass appropriate orders.
56. 3rd respondent filed counter contending that 25 fishing villages located in and around the Ennore area and the inhabitants are entirely dependent on fishing and allied activities for their livelihood. The quality of the treated effluent that is being discharged into the sea are to be monitored by the Pollution Control Board. They have not received any complaint either from the applicant or from the fishermen community alleging any health ailments or conditions due to the pollution, if any, caused to sea water on account of the activities of the 8th respondent unit. They prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
57. The 7th respondent filed more or less reiterating the same contentions raised by respondent 4 and 5.
58. M/s Kothari Petrochemical Pvt Ltd was impleaded as 8th respondent in this matter and also in O.A. NO. 19 of 2013 and O.A. No. 248 of 2016 as per order passed in I.A. No. 123 of 2020 dated 23.03.2021. The 1st respondent was removed from 39 the cause title as per order dated 08.11.2016 and the rank of the original respondents were rearranged accordingly.
59. After impleading the additional 6th respondent (Highways and Minor Ports Department), they filed reply in the form of affidavit stating that they are unnecessary party and wrongly impleaded.
Further another case was filed as O.A. No. 248 of 2016 and that was also posted along with O.A. No. 19 of 2013 and O.A. No. 224 of 2016. They were not impleaded in O.A. No. 19 of 2013 and O.A. No. 248 of 2016. According to them, they are unnecessary party to the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the application.
60. O.A. No. 248 of 2016 was also filed by the same applicant against the 7th respondent unit, namely, M/s Manali Petrochemical Ltd reiterating their earlier contentions made against them regarding the pollution that is being caused on account of discharge of untreated trade effluents in an unscientific manner into the sea. They have reiterated the report submitted by the expert committee which was appointed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 19 of 2013 by order dated 30.07.2014 wherein they have extracted the Manali Petrochemical effluent treatment plant report which is as follows:
MPL EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT REPORT Effluent Plant-I Plant-II 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 40
61. It is also mentioned that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued the show cause notice by their proceedings dated 16.06.2015 to the said unit to control the over production of plant-I and II. The report submitted by the Joint Committee consists of Central Pollution Control Board and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board officers reported that the COD and BOD are too high, which is extracted as follows:
MPL ETP REPORT by TNPCB and CPCB on 11 and 13.04.2016 Effluent Plant-I Plant-II Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet BOD 1463 1258 *** 1068 COD 1744 1536 2960 1345 MPL ETP REPORT by TNPCB and CPCB on 17 and 19.08.2016 Effluent Plant-I Plant-II Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet BOD 900 783 1900 833 COD 1832 1673 2876 1832
62. The 7th respondent unit had made an application for expansion of production of Plant- I and II and they have granted permission on 22.07.2016 for MPL plant-I and on 25.07.2016 for MPL plant-II to increase the production to 150 per cent in addition. The 7th respondent had to ensure that the water pollution and environmental pollution caused by the 7th respondent has to be permanently stopped by providing permanent solution as prevention is better than cure instead of directing the 7th respondent not to cause obstruction to water bodies and other natural resources. Since they anticipated the expansion and possible pollution, the applicant filed this application seeking the following interim and final reliefs:
Interim relief:
i) It is respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to appoint a advocate commissioner to inspect and submit a 41 report in the 7th respondent company. So that to fix compensation on the basis of doctrine of polluter pays.
ii) It is respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to grant of interim direction directing the 1 to 6 respondent to withdraw or cancel the permission given by the Member Secretary, TNPCB for expansion of production in Plant-I and plant-II
iii) It is respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the 7th respondent company and to stay for discharge the effluent into the sea which is to be opened in the due course of time until the disposal of the main application.
Main relief prayed for:
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 issue direction to the 1 to 6 respondent to initiate appropriate action against the 7th respondent for disposing the untreated waste water effluent into the sea thereby polluting the water resources or pass any such further order as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
63. The Pollution Control Board, namely, respondents 4 and 6 filed their counter affidavit contending that M/s Manali Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd is having two manufacturing facilities, plant I at 266 part and 275/1 part, Mathur Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvallur District and Plant II at 1/6, 1/8, 23 to 30 and 30/3, Manali Village, Thiruvottiyur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
64. As regards plant-I is concerned, it is located at 266 part and 275/1 part, Mathur Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvallur District and that was established in the year 1990 located in an extent of 14.77 ha. with work force of 450 numbers and with an investment of 137.9 crores. They engaged in manufacturing of Propylene Oxide- 18000MT/year, Propylene Glycol- 10000 MT/year, Polyol- 25000 MT/year and Propylene Glycol Mono Methyl Ether- 2700 MT/year and by product of DCP-Dichloro Propane - 3600 MT/year, Tri-propylene Glycol-120 MT/year, Di 42 Propylene Glycol- 1120 MT/year and Di Propylene Glycol Mono Methyle Ether-DPGMME- 460 MT/year by using raw material viz. Propylene, Chlorine, water, Caustic, Ethylene Oxide, S-
orbital, KOH, Glycerine, sugar, Di Propylene Glycol, Methanol, HCI, Furnace Oil, TEA and Lime. They obtained consent for this unit by proceedings dated 22.07.2016 valid up to 31.03.2017.
65. They meet their water requirement from CMWSSB-1200 KLD, M/s Madras Fertilizer Ltd. (MFL), RO reject- 900 KLD and treated sewage from Kodungaiyur STP- 600 KLD. They utilize 81.8 KLD for its domestic activities, 308.78 KLD for cooling and boiler needs and 2280 KLD for its process. The unit generates sewage of 15 KLD and trade effluent 2399 KLD. They provided combined effluent treatment plant to treat the sewage and trade effluent. The treated combined effluent is pumped, discharged into sea through a marine out fall pipeline. They provided air pollution control measures such as wet scrubber attached to lime slacker outlet and lime charging hopper (each), common stack attached to the boiler (2 nos.)- 18 MT/hr, stack attached to the HC1, HC2 flare and BAF-BAD air flare and stack attached to the DG sets (3 nos) each with capacity of 1500 KVA- 2 Nos and 550 KVA-1 Number. They obtained authorization for handling of hazardous waste by the Board which is valid up to 20.04.2020.
66. The plant-II of M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited is located in S.F. No. 1/6, 1/8, 23 to 30 and 30/3, Manali Village, Thiruvottiyur Taluk, Tiruvallur District and it was established 43 in the year 1990 located in an area having an extent of 17.632 ha with work force of 350 members and with an investment of 123.77 crores. They are engaged in manufacture of propylene oxide-18000MT/year, Propylene Glycol- 10000 MT/year, Polyol- 25000 MT/year and by product of DCP-Dichloro propane- 3600 MT/year, Tri-propylene Glycol-168 MT/year and Dipropylene Glycol- 1320 MT/year by using raw material viz. Propylene, chlorine, water, caustic, ethelyene oxide, sorbital, KOH, Glycerine, sugar, Di propylene glycol, HCI, furnace oil and lime. They obtained consent for this unit by proceedings dated 25.07.2016 valid up to 31.03.2017.
67. They meet their water requirement from CMWSSB-1400 KLD, M/s CPCL,), RO reject- 240 KLD and tertiary treated sewage from Kodungaiyur STP- 1200 KLD. They utilize 64 KLD for its domestic activities, 298 KLD for cooling and boiler needs and 2475 KLD for its process. The unit generates sewage of 15 KLD and trade effluent 25599 KLD. They provided combined effluent treatment plant to treat the sewage and trade effluent. The treated combined effluent is pumped, discharged into sea through a marine out fall pipeline. They provided air pollution control measures such as wet scrubber attached to lime slacker outlet & EO/PO Blow down unit, common stack attached to the Boiler (3nos.) and lime charging hopper (each), common stack attached to the boiler (2 nos.)- 18 MT/hr, stack attached to the HC1, HC2 flare and BAF-BAD air flare and stack attached to the DG sets (3 nos) each with capacity of 1500 KVA-2 Nos and 44 550 KVA-1 Number. They obtained authorization for handling of hazardous waste by the Board which is valid up to 28.07.2020.
68. The same applicant filed O.A. No. 19 of 2013 before this Tribunal and by order dated 29.07.2016, this Tribunal directed the Central Pollution Control Board and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to jointly conduct fresh inspection and the joint inspection was made on 17.08.2016 and 18.08.2016 and the report was submitted to this Tribunal. They have suggested following improvement measures to be carried out by the units:. 45 46
69. The Central Pollution Control Board also submitted the following suggestions based on the joint inspection conducted on the above dates, which reads as follows:
1. The unit found complied with 6th recommendation only, partially complied with 1st and 7th recommendation and not found complied with 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th recommendation. However, the unit has taken initiatives to implement the 2nd recommendation but the same was not found adequate to meet the prescribed standards of marine disposal.
2. Suggested to direct the unit to take immediate action with respect to non complying recommendations and time bound commitment to implement the above mentioned recommendations of earlier joint inspection.
70. The same applicant also filed another application no. 224 of 2016 and this unit was inspected on 03.01.2017 and they noted the following at the time when inspection was conducted which reads as follows:
47
71. The unit had carried out the following improvements on the basis of the suggestions made by the Central Pollution Control Board and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as follows: 48
72. They prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
73. The 7th respondent had filed a reply statement more or less reiterating their contentions raised by them in O.A. No. 19 of 2013 and also the efforts taken by them by engaging different consultants and nature of improvements made by them. They also contended that their activity had not resulted in any pollution or contamination. A detailed marine study was carried out by the Government of India and they submitted the report to this Tribunal. The report of NIOT only shows that the marine environment around the discharged area of trade effluent remains unaffected on account of their activities. They are fully complying with the conditions imposed. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
74. As per order dated 22.07.2014, this Tribunal had appointed an Expert Committee consists of Dr. K. 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 inspect the unit in question to consider the Terms of Reference:
(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.
49
(v) To recommend further studies relevant to the issue, if any." and directed the committee to submit a report. The Joint Committee had filed a report signed by the Chairman of the Committee on 29.09.2014 which reads as follows: 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
"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 57 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 12 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 13 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 58 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."
75. In the meantime, the applicant filed M.A. No. 172 of 2015 to appoint an Expert Committee. After considering the objections raised by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since already an Expert Committee was appointed and they had gone into the question, there was no necessity for further Expert Committee to be appointed and on the basis of the observations made by National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was clear that the Expert Committee had given conclusion that the study area is moderately polluted which has to be attributed to several sources which would be indicative of the fact that the pollution cannot be attributed solely to the 5th respondent. Apart from that, from the report it was clear that the samples were taken not from the place or two but from 10 places and out of the analysis it was contended by the 5th respondent that short term action plan is put to implementation and so far as long term plan is concerned reports are further awaited. So, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no necessity to appoint another committee at that stage and dismissed the application by order dated 06.10.2015.
76. 5th respondent had appointed a consultant, namely, National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai for conducting the 59 study and they have conducted the study and submitted the report. After making various analysis and study, they have given 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."
77. That too only in respect of short term study and they observed that it is necessary to have further study on this aspect.
78. The Expert Committee had conducted the inspection again and gave the status update of the observations of the Expert Committee report which reads as follows:
60 61
79. They had relied on the report submitted by the IIT Madras SASTRA University, Thermax and M/s Udaja technologies.
80. IIT Madras in their Interim Report-II which was relied on by the Expert Committee for submitting the status updated observation report concluded as follows:
62
Conclusions:
Further experiments are in progress to identify the best combination of UV and H2O2 for the maximum COD removal from the MPL wastewater. Since ready-made UV units are available in the market, the identified UV power required for MPL waste water treatment can be supplied through the ready-made UV units and it can be installed very quickly. In additions, two more options of Membrane Bio reactor, and combination of H2O2 with other treatment systems are being studied and the best performing options will be recommended for implementation.
81. SASTRA University in respect of alternative treatment method for Propylene oxide and Propylene Glycol contaminated effluent at Manali Petrochemical Ltd gave their initial finding and further course of action as follows:
3.Initial Findings Prelimianary studies using metallic nanomaterial based advanced oxidation process provided the following results:
1. Treatment of the MPL effluent sample by advanced oxidation process resulted (using a bimetallic nanomaterial and oxidant) in 30-50 % decrease in COD content.
2. Lower removal was likely due to the presence of salts in the effluent sample. Since this was proof of concept testing, very low amount of reactants/catalysts were used for higher removals, higher amounts of the nanomaterial catalyst will be used.
4.Further Course of Action Based on our assessment of the MPL wastewater, MPL waste water treatment plant and initial finding from our study the following action are proposed:
1. Further testing of the bimetallic based advanced oxidation technology will be pursued optimize conditions and maximize removal of COD from the effluent.
2. In addition, biochemical based treatment will also to investigated to enhance COD removal within the existing aerobic bioreactors.
3. Additional possible methods of COD removal will also be investigated.
4. Technologies the best available technology will be recommended.
82. Theromax Limited also gave their interim report which reads as follows:
63
83. 5th respondent has filed their objections to the status updated observation report which was received on 06.11.2015 in the form of tabular form which reads as follows: 64 65 66 67
84. Apart from submitting their objections in the tabular form, they also filed detailed objection stating nature of action taken by them.
85. On 31.03.2016, this Tribunal had directed the Central Pollution Control Board along with State Pollution Control Board to conduct inspection of the 5th respondent unit and submit a report. The said Committee had inspected the unit and submitted the report dated 02.05.2016 and gave the overall finding and specific observations as follows: 68 69 70 71
86. In the meantime, Pollution Control Board had issued closure order of both the units of M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited. The same was challenged by the said unit by filing appeals 51 of 2017 and 52 of 2017 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal had ordered status quo of the functioning of the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited as various inspections conducted by Central Pollution Control Board as well as Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board revealed that there was some improvement and this Tribunal also considered the various reports produced by the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited by engaging Sastra University and the Tribunal also considered the submissions made by the Experts were directed to appear and noted that they were implementing chemical oxidation process for the purpose of reducing COD and BOD levels from the treated effluents and the Tribunal also noted that this was the only unit available for manufacturing of particular product and they were taking steps to improve the conditions. The Tribunal opined that closure would not be appropriate remedy by applying the principle of Sustainable Development gave an opportunity to the project proponent, namely, M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited to improve the conditions by implementing the proposal given by the experts for the purpose of implementing new technology of oxidation through PRAXAIR and that will have to be implemented forthwith.
87. The Tribunal also made it clear that while discharging the treated water into sea, there shall be no connection between the 72 pipelines which carries the treated effluents along with potable drinking water pipes. The proposal of Sastra University was directed to continue and parties were directed to file their status report and Central Pollution Control Board was directed to conduct further inspection. The above three cases along with the appeals by the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited were considered together by the Tribunal. The above said order was passed on 07.07.2017. Thereafter, there was no effective orders have been passed in the matter.
88. On 08.08.2020, this Tribunal had considered the pleadings in all the three cases and also the appeals no. 51 of 2017 and 52 of 2017 which were filed against the order of closure passed by the proceedings of Central Pollution Control Board dated 17.05.2017 and also considered the reports and recommendations and the compliance so far taken place.
89. This Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee consisting 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 were maintaining and managing all pollution control mechanism and whether the discharge of effluent from these industries to sea confirms with the specified 73 norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board and the impact of effluents in the sea water and if there was any deficiency found and the sea water quality had not improved, then suggest the remedial measures by which the quality of sea water can be improved and who had to carry out these remedial measures and also assess the environmental compensation against the defaulting units who were responsible for polluting sea water by applying "Polluters Pay" principle and submit a report to this Tribunal within a period of three months.
90. This Tribunal also directed that the remedial measure should contain the short term as well as long term measures to be adopted by the units. They were also directed to consider as to whether the units have complied with 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 were also directed to conduct a detailed study regarding the effect of contamination caused on the flora and fauna of the aquatic and marine life. one of the representative of the applicant association was permitted to participate in the inspection along with the committee and the 74 committee can consider his suggestion and make necessary observation regarding the same also in the report.
91. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was designated as nodal agency for co-ordinating and for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
92. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 11.06.2020 and this Tribunal extracted the order dated 08.02.2020 in Para 1 and considered the interim status report submitted by the Joint Committee through e-mail dated 18.05.2020 which was extracted in Para 3 of the order which reads as follows: 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
93. This Tribunal had granted the time as sought for in the interim report. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time 85 to time either by notification or at the request of the Committee members for submission of the report.
94. The Joint Committee has filed a report dated 28.10.2020, e- filed on 19.03.2021 in O.A. No. 19 of 2013 which reads as follows:
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
95. They have annexed various analysis report and also marine outfall survey report along with this report.
96. The 6th respondent who has been newly impleaded in this matter filed their objection to the Joint Committee report dated 28.10.2020 wherein they have categorically stated that the applicant in both the cases have no complaint against their 98 unit. The unit was inspected by the Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal on 06.03.2020 and at that time they have informed that they were not party to the proceedings but the pipeline to discharge the treated effluent from all the three units is one and the same and the said pipeline has been installed by MPL and the inspection was carried out in respect of KPL also along with MPL and TPL.
97. On 06.03.2020, the sampling team of the Joint Committee visited the factory and took the RO rejects sample at the KPL‟s discharge point into the pipeline as well as the air samples from the discharge emission in CPP stack. They also examined the online data transmission to air care and water care centres of the Pollution Control Board and did not observe anything violative of the norms. They also did not point out any issues of pollution or deficiencies on account of the operation of the KPL at the time of inspection. Before the Joint Committee inspection this Tribunal also did not issue any notice.
98. Since nothing was mentioned by the Committee at the time of inspection regarding their operation, they were under the impression that there was no possibility of any adverse opinion being given against them. Immediately after the inspection due to Covid-19 pandemic lockdown was announced and the unit had to be shut down from 24.03.2020 to 23.04.2020. When they came to understand that the Joint Committee had made certain observations against KPL. So, they wanted to come on record and filed I.A. No. 123 of 2020 before this Tribunal and 99 they had been impleaded in all the three cases as additional respondents. It was also mentioned in the objection that from the Joint Committee report, they were directed to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 24 Lakh. They gave details regarding their nature of products of their manufacturing and quantity and obtaining of necessary consents from the Pollution Control Board both under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
99. It is further mentioned in the objection that KPL trade effluent were treated through HRCC, Ultra filtration and thereafter it was sent through three stage Reverse Osmosis process in its factory. The permeate water from the RO-01, RO-02 and RO-03 was collected and recycled back to process plant and the final RO-03 reject water called as RO reject was disposed to marine disposal and they established this technology by spending Rs. 2.5 Crores. The treated effluent, namely, the RO reject from their unit was discharged into sea through a common marine pipeline established by MPL. They were permitted to pump its RO reject through the existing marine pipeline of MPL and they were only discharging very less quantity of treated effluent in terms of volume as compared to MPL and other users of marine pipeline, namely, TPL. The said pipeline was established by MPL at their cost for discharging their trade effluent into the sea. By virtue of the agreement between them titled as "Agreement for usage of treated effluent pipeline" dated 29.06.2011, 6th respondent was 100 permitted to pump its treated effluent, namely, the RO reject through the common marine pipeline on mutually agreed commercial terms and conditions as contained in the said agreement.
100. The 6th respondent had complied with the recommendations as when made by the authorities and also incurred following expenditure of Rs. 27,72,761/- as detailed below:
S. No. Analyser Installation Month Value in Rs.
1. Effluent Analyser-BOD, Feb-18 1239000 COD, TSS Analyser
2. PH Analyser Jan-16 100000
3. Magnetic Flow Meter Jan-16 & Sep-20 283761
4. Emission Analyser- Sox, Jan-16 950000 Nox, CO Analyser
5. SPM Analyser Jan-16 200000 Total 2772761/-
101. It is a small unit having its production capacity of 2000 MT/month of Polybutene and discharges an average quantity of 30-40 KL of RO reject into the common marine pipeline per day after treating the same which is periodically inspected by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the discharge point and stacks are connected with online monitoring system with data transfer to the servers established by Central Pollution Control Board and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and water care centre with remote calibration facility.
102. They have extracted certain portion of the observations and methodology of calculation of Environmental Compensation by the Joint Committee in Para 14 of their objections. They have collected samples only on 06.03.2020 and this unit was not party to proceedings at the time of collecting the samples or at any time of filing of Joint Committee report. It was mentioned in 101 the Joint Committee report that the sulphate found in RO reject of treated effluent of KPL is in excess of marine disposal standards i.e Inlet sample (effluent before treatment) on 06.03.2020 was found to be normal and within the limits. However, the outlet sample (RO reject after treatment) on 06.03.2020 is found to be in excess in marine disposal standards by 739 mg/L. Similarly the Ammonia as Nitrogen is found in inlet sample on 06.03.2020 to be normal within limits but the outer sample was found to be in excess in marine disposal standards by 41.1 mg/L. The other main parameters like pH, TSS, COD, Chromium, phenol etc are found to be well within the limit in the inlet and outlet of effluent treatment plant of KPL.
103. The excess found on the date of sample collection may be due to erroneous sampling and that alone cannot be taken as criteria to come to the conclusion that they were discharging the effluent against the standard provided. It was only a marginal excess. The report regarding other aspects, namely, PM is in excess of 1.8mg/Nm3 and they have treated this as a thermal power plant category and calculated the PM with oxygen content of 6 per cent as basis in the stack outlet. Usually KPL won‟t check the oxygen in their stack emission as it is a petrochemical category. They have combined the stack of 20 tonnes per hr, husk boiler (CPP), TP10 (TP means Thermopac,) and 8 TPH husk fire boiler and the prescribed parameters are complied properly. They have 102 produced the reports prior to 06.03.2020 and after 06.03.2020 evidenced by annexure 2.
104. The calculation was done on the basis of the sampling conducted on 06.03.2020 and result based on that and proceeded on the basis that it was continued till 15.05.2020 except for the lockdown period of 24.03.2020 to 23.04.2020 for about 31 days and the calculation was arbitrary and the amount calculated in not correct. They also proceeded on the basis that even after re-opening of the factory after 23.04.2020 to 15.05.2020, the same situation continued and assessed the compensation on that basis without conducting any further examination after the industry was reopened on 24.04.2020. The calculation made for 24.04.2020 to 15.05.2020 and 07.03.2020 to 23.03.2020 as a basis for period of violation is not correct. The quantity of effluent depends upon on the period of operation and the production capacity and those aspects have not been properly considered. They further contended that the compensation fixed is highly excessive and they prayed to reject the report to the extent of their liability.
105. The applicant filed common objection to the reports and according to them, there was not much improvement as regards to TPL and MPL are concerned and the quantum of compensation assessed is also not proper as they were discharging the huge quantity since long time and instead of relying on the report obtained from the private laboratory, they requested that the analysis should be done through the 103 laboratory of the Central Pollution Control Board or Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and re-assess the amount of compensation and they also wanted the industry to pay damages to the fishermen community in that vicinity.
106. The Manali Petrochemicals Limited and also TPL have filed their objections to the Joint Committee reports alleging that the method of calculation is not correct and merely because there was some variation at certain point of time alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that they are continuously violating the environmental norms so as to assess the compensation. They also made a comparative study of compliance status of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the year 2016 and also the latest report of 2020 which reads as follows: 104 105 106 107 108
107. They also produced certain photographs and analysis test reports showing the improvements.
108. Tamil Nadu Petrochemicals Limited also produced the toxicity study report conducted by Hubert Enviro Care Systems Pvt. Ltd. and their toxicity study and conclusion is as follows: 109 110 111 112
109. As per order dated 16.06.2021, this Tribunal had disposed of the appeals 51 and 52 of 2017 filed by the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited against the closure order passed by the Central Pollution Control Board on the basis that the closure order have been subsequently revoked by Central Pollution Control Board by their order dated 11.02.2019 and dismissed the appeals as closed as nothing survives in the appeals filed against the closure order.
110. Heard the Learned Counsel Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh for the applicant, Mr. Sai Sathya Jith, Learned Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Learned Senior 113 Counsel along with Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi appearing for M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and Mr. A.R. Ramanathan for newly impleaded party, namely, Kothari Petrochemicals Limited.
111. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in all these cases submitted that as far as M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited are concerned, it will be seen from the reports that the BOD level and other criteria of marine discharge was not in conformity with the discharge norms provided by the Pollution Control Board. Further from the inception there was no mechanism for them to control the same. Even when the application was filed, the system was not adequate to meet the requirements, only on the basis of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee and directions issued by this Tribunal that they have improved the system and thereby same was brought to some control.
112. Further, the report of the Joint Committee along with the NIOT, Chennai will go to show that they have only conducted a temporary study for the purpose of meeting the present situation and to ascertain the actual damage caused, they will have to conduct a detailed study which may require 5 years considering the nature of study to be conducted to assessed the impact of activity on marine ecology. If that be the case, the amount of compensation assessed as regards these two institutions are concerned is very less and the period of default has to be taken from the date of their inception and not from the date of 114 detection and compliance. The ultimate quantum of compensation can be assessed only on the basis of the detailed study to be conducted by NIOT, Chennai or any other expert agency to be appointed by this Tribunal.
113. Applying the „Polluter Pays Principle‟ those units are liable to pay compensation to restore the damage caused to the environment and considering the nature of damage caused and also production capacity of the unit, the total quantum of compensation assessed is very meagre and that will have to be revisited by this Tribunal. Further, the authorities were relying on the report of the private laboratory entrusted by the Committee which should not have been relied on as there was no evidence to show that it was an accredited laboratory as required under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. No legal sanctity can be given for such private study. Most of the recommendations made were not carried out by the project proponents.
114. Further, the impact of the activity of these two units are concerned the Committee ought to have considered the impact on the marine life and also the life of the fishermen who are depending upon the same and these aspects have not been considered at all.
115. As regard the newly impleaded respondent is concerned in O.A. No. 248 of 2016 according to the applicant, originally there was no complaint against them for the applicant as they were carrying on their unit without causing any pollution but during 115 the inspection, it was found that Sulphate and Ammonium Nitrate was not in conformity with the standards provided and as such they are also liable to pay compensation as assessed by the Committee. As the Committee has only taken the short period and does not require any interference. They had relied on the decisions reported in M. C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors1, Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. vs Union Of India and Ors 2, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors 3 and Indian Council For Enviro- Legal vs Union Of India And Ors4 in support of his case.
116. The Learned Counsel also argued that the Committee had suggested zero liquid discharge system for the chemical affluent as well to avoid marine discharge to affect the marine ecology and merely because there was some expenditure required for this purpose is not a ground to exempt the units from implementing that recommendation which was required for protection of the environment. He had relied on the decision reported in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors5 for this preposition.
117. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that as regards M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited is concerned, they are having two units, namely, unit-I and unit-II and they have established the effluent treatment plant since inception and discharging only the treated affluent into the sea. 1 2002 (3) SCC 653 2 2013 (4) SCC 575 3 1996 (5) SCC 647 4 1996 (3) SCC 212 5 2017 (5) SCC 326 116 They have established the effluent treatment plant with the maximum available technology at the relevant time, as and when it was required they were upgrading the same and they have also engaged several consultants for the purpose of reducing the COD and BOD level in a phased manner and they have spent more than Rs.17 crores for the purpose of meeting the situation both in M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited.
118. They have also provided online emission monitoring system and that is connected to the Pollution Control Board and they were monitoring the same. BOD/COD, pH, temperature and TSS servers are in place and they are continuously monitoring the same. The effluent contains high calcium chloride and due to this the COD analysis deviation was there and the analysis could not be carried out for some times. The deviation in COD/BOD analysis due to chloride interference was studied by NEERI for MPL effluent and devised a modified method which proved to be successful and gave consistency in COD results which is clear from the documents produced by the units. Central Pollution Control Board also approved the modified method of COD determination and the method was validated by various institutions and NABL accredited laboratories and the results from the laboratories which go to show the improvement. The Pollution Control Board is also regularly monitoring the same.
119. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that there is no possibility of Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) being introduced for chemical 117 effluent treatment and the best method is to discharge the same into the sea after achieving the standards provided for marine discharge. Further, the study conducted by the agencies engaged by the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited will go to show that the ZLD is not feasible and practicable for such industries. The effluent discharged by these units did not contain any hazardous substance or toxic metals. No untoward incidents or mishap had been reported so far on account of operation of the units. They were spending huge amount under the corporate social responsibility to help the local people in that area which they will continue to spend as well. None of the affluent discharged by these units will have impact on aquatic life and that will not affect the marine ecology as well. So according to the Learned Senior Counsel, there is no merit in the applications and they are not liable to pay the compensation as well.
120. Learned Counsel appearing for M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited submitted that in none of the original applications, they were impleaded as a violating unit causing any pollution in that area. Only when the Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal inspected the area in question and the Petrochemical industries there on 06.03.2000, Joint Committee inspected by this Tribunal inspected their unit as well. It was found that the Sulphate and Ammonia as nitrogen level discharge is slightly in non- conformity with the standard provided and it is on that basis, 118 they have been directed to pay Environmental Compensation of Rs. 24 Lakhs.
121. It was also argued that their trade effluent is treated at an effluent treatment plant located inside their factory through HRCC, Ultra Filtration and thereafter, it is sent through three stage Reverse Osmosis (RO) process in its factory. The permeate water from RO-01, RO-02 and RO-03 is collected and recycled back to process plant and the final RO-03 reject water called as "RO Reject". It is discharged into sea through a common marine pipeline established by MPL by virtue of an agreement entered between them. They established the effluent treatment plant by spending Rs. 2.5 Crore. It is only a small unit with production capacity of 2000 metric tonne and discharges an average quantity of 30-40 KL of RO reject into the common marine pipeline per day. Their inlet standard of the effluent in the effluent treatment plant was found to be normal and within limits. But however, Sulphate found in the outlet sample on 06.03.2020 was found to be in excess of the marine disposal standards by 739 mg/L. Similarly Ammonia as nitrogen in outlet sample was excess in marine disposal standards by 41.1 mg/L.
122. They have further mentioned that overall BOD load dumped into the sea will be 0.8kg/day as per the Joint Committee report. Other parameters like pH, TSS, COD, Chromium, Phenol etc were found to be well within the limit in the inlet and outlet of effluent treatment plant. The BOD level is also very minimal. Neither on the previous reports or subsequent reports indicates 119 any deficiency in the standard of the outlet of the ETP. So according to the Learned Counsel it could be only due to some deficiency in the sample collection or the testing method. Subsequent inspection and the collection of samples and analysis will go to show that it was within the limit.
123. Further the Joint Committee was not justified in taking the entire period from 06.03.2020 till date of assessment as a non compliant unit is not correct. Further, the unit was operating during lockdown, namely, between 24.04.2020 to 15.05.2022 (22 days) with less than 30 per cent production with lock down guidelines in force so the quantity of effluent will be less. The period of default or violation was taken as 40 days which is not correct and at least 22 days when they were operating only with less capacity ought to have been deducted while assessing the compensation. The total compensation assessed, as per the Learned Counsel for respondent is concerned is very high and he prayed for exonerating them from payment of compensation and assured that they will take all necessary steps to prevent pollution being caused on account of their unit as even now there was no pollution in their unit and in future also they undertake that they will not cause any pollution to the environment.
124. We have considered the pleadings in all the cases, submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents produced and written submission made.
125. The points that arise for consideration are: 120
i) Whether was any pollution committed by the petrochemical industries in all these cases, namely, M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited?
ii) Whether any damage has been caused to environment on account of the operation of these units?
iii) What is the quantum of compensation payable by these units for the damage caused to environment and violations, if any, committed of non-fulfilling the directions issued by the authorities?
iv) What are all the further direction to be given by applying „Precautionary Principle‟ to protect marine environment to be carried out by the petrochemical industries, namely, M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and Kothari Petrochemical Limited?
v) Relief and costs?
Points
126. O.A. No. 19 of 2013 was filed by the applicant against the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited alleging that the trade effluents were discharged into sea without fulfilling the standard provided and thereby causing damage to marine environment.
127. O.A. No. 224 of 2016 was filed by the same applicant against the M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited alleging more or less same allegations of violations of marine discharge and its consequential damage to environment.
121
128. O.A. No. 248 of 2016 was filed by the same applicant against M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited in respect of their 2nd unit for non-compliance of the recommendations and directions issued thereby causing further environmental damage and seeking for environmental compensation and also for restoration of the damage caused to environment.
129. Admittedly, in all these cases, originally Kothari Petrochemical Limited was not impleaded. When a Joint Committee was appointed by this Tribunal to inspect the petrochemical industries in that area, this unit was also inspected by the Joint Committee and on the date of inspection and on the basis of sample collected, they found some deficiencies in the outlet discharge not conforming the standards in respect of Ammonia into Nitrogen and Sulphate and on that basis a report was filed before the Tribunal assessing a compensation of Rs. 24 Lakhs. This on that basis they got themselves impleaded in all these cases by filing a single application as I.A. No. 123 of 2021 and this Tribunal on payment of necessary fees allowed that application and permitted them to come on record as additional respondent no. 6 in O.A. No. 19 of 2013 and 8 in O.A. No. 224 of 2016 and O.A. No. 248 of 2016.
130. All these petrochemical companies have filed their reply contending that they were taking all necessary steps and high level technology was used for the purpose of treating the trade effluent and that never exceeded the limits and no untoward 122 incident happened and they were spending huge amount under Cooperate Social Responsibility.
131. Further, M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited have submitted that they have engaged IIT Madras and Sastra University and also other agencies for the purpose of studying the situation for reduction of BOD and COD in the outlet which is found to be in excess and on the basis of the direction given, they are making out the necessary improvement in the systems and thereby lot of improvement happened in the discharge level as well.
132. This Tribunal in O.A. No. 19 of 2013 appointed a Joint Committee comprising of Dr. K. Palanivelu, Professor of Environmental Chemistry, Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai and Dr. N. Vedharaman, Senior Technical Officer, Chemical Engineering Division CLRI, Chennai to inspect M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited with following reference of study:
I. To inspect and submit a report regarding the method of treating the effluent in the 5th respondent company, namely, M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited prior to disposal of the same into the sea in order to ascertain the compliance of the rules and norms by the said 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 5th respondent plants effluent is mixing. 123 IV. To make recommendation for the environmental safety and 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.
133. On that basis, the Joint Committee had inspected that unit and verified the effluent treatment system available in that unit and also analysis of the ETP reports. It was observed in that report that during inspection it was noticed that pipeline for drinking water, it was punctured at one place and later, it was rectified. The combined treatment effluent collected from the air vent point before disposal, it was noticed that COD value was above the permissible value and that indicate that units connected to the disposal lines are not treating their effluent properly for mandatory COD removal. It was also mentioned in the report that compares to MPL-I the performance for ETP for MPL-II is very poor with respect to BOD and COD removal and that should be rectified to meet the compliance independently.
134. As regards the MPL-I is concerned, it was mentioned that the present ETP facility in not capable to reduce the COD below the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board norms and that should be rectified to meet the compliance immediately. The sea sampling was also conducted and the analysis showed that the bottom sampling of TDS, COD, Chloride and calcium are more than the surface sea water sampled. But they had come to the conclusion that it was difficult to strongly conclude that the observed high value was due to industrial effluent alone or not and hence 124 continuous monitoring of the sea water in and around the release point may provide more insight about the issue and finding a permanent solution for this problem.
135. They have also given the following recommendations specific and general:
"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 12 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 13 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.125
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."
136. They have also provided short term measures as follows:
"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." So it is clear from this that the BOD and COD level maintained are not proper and that does not conform to the standards provided and that requires further improvements of the ETP provided in respect of M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited.
137. It is on the basis of this the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited engaged IIT Madras, Sastra University and M/s Thermax for conducting further studies to make some improvements in the treatment plants and on the basis of the suggestions given by them they were making certain changes and to some extent it 126 has given some improvements which is seen from the subsequent reports.
138. National Institute of Ocean Technology also conducted some study in respect of M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and they gave summary as follows: "The results of selected parameters reveal that there was no spatial or temporal variation in the study area. The concentrations of metals showed lower values in the offshore location MPL 10, when compared to the other locations. The background concentrations of the study area was 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 could be concluded that the study area was moderately polluted which may be attributed to the several sources. The study on biological characteristics revealed the following: the near shore coastal belt showed minor variation in biological characteristics. Various discharges along Ennore coast might have induced synergistic effect of toxicant on the benthic population in certain stations and in depth studies are warranted.
The MPL EIA report did not contain the biological data for comparison. The scope of present short term study was too limited to conclude any discernible trends on the possible impact on environment." So, it is clear from this, they wanted a further study to be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the impact of the discharge effluent into sea.
127
139. Subsequently, another report was obtained by the same Expert Committee appointed by this Tribunal earlier in respect of M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and that short term measures had been complied with by them but at the same time the long term measures are in progress. This report was of the year 2015.
140. It is seen from the interim report submitted by professor S. Mohan and Dr. S. Mahadav Kumar regarding the performance analysis of M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited waste water treatment plant. They came to the conclusion that further experiments were in progress to identify the best combination of UV and H2O2 for maximum COD removal from MPL waste water. Since, readymade UV were available in the market, they identified the UV power required for MPL waste water treatment could be supplied through the readymade UV units and it could be installed very quickly. In addition two more option of membrane bioreactor and combination of H2O2 with other treatment systems were being studied and best performing option would be recommended for implementation.
141. The study conducted by Sastra University also showed that due to certain methodology adopted on the basis of the recommendations, there was some reduction in COD level and additional possible method for COD removal would have to be investigated and that would have to be introduced on the basis of the outcome of the study. Various reports had been filed by the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited to show the nature of 128 action taken by them on the basis of the recommendations and improvement achieved by them.
142. Subsequently, this Tribunal had constituted a Joint Committee as per order dated 08.02.2020 comprising of the Central Pollution Control Board, State Pollution Control Board and Senior Scientist from National Institute of Ocean Technology and Senior Scientist dealing with Environment Engineering (Chemical), Anna University to inspect the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and assess the compensation if there is any damage caused and they filed a report dated 28.10.2020 where they have inspected the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited unit I and II, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited and the report in respect of the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited are concerned that except the BOD and COD all other criteria are in compliance with the norms. As regards the Kothari Petrochemical Limited is concerned except Sulphate and Ammonia Nitrogen remaining parameters were meeting the standards. But the same is found to be within limits after confluence with treated effluent of other industries.
143. Ultimately, they have calculated the Environmental Compensation for the violations for Kothari petrochemical Limited at Rs. 24 Lakhs taking the number of violations days as 40 days from 06.03.2020 to 15.05.2020 (date of sampling till compliance). They have deducted the period from 24.03.2020 to 129 24.04.2020 as the unit was not functioning during that period. But according to the M/s Kothari Petrochemical limited, even from 24.04.2020 to 15.05.2020 they were operating only with 30 per cent production capacity and that aspect has not been properly considered. The fact that there was some excess found in the outlet of the RO reject which may have some impact on environment, it cannot be said that they were not causing any pollution at all. But at the same time, considering the fact that the test was conducted only on one day and even on the previous occasions, there was no complaint of any pollution being caused or non-compliance of any of the direction or violation of any conditions or norms, we feel that some leniency can be shown as regard M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited is concerned.
144. So, considering the overall circumstances, we feel that fixing the compensation payable at Rs. 10 Lakhs will be sufficient as far as M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited is concerned and we are reducing the compensation payable to Rs. 10 Lakhs are regards this unit.
145. The Joint Committee has considered the previous recommendations made by the Committee in respect of M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and given the short term and long term suggestions:
130 131
146. As regards M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited are concerned, though it was found that there were some deficiencies and for certain time M/s 132 Manali Petrochemical was closed for non-compliance of the direction by issuing closure orders against which Appeal Nos. 51 and 52 were filed and since subsequently the closure orders had been revoked, this Tribunal had disposed of the appeals as infractous leaving open the liability of payment of compensation to be considered in the pending original applications. The Committee has not imposed any compensation for the violations committed. It is seen from the reports from the beginning that the BOD and COD levels were not inconformity with the marine discharge standards as far as M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited are concerned. By virtue of the technological improvements made as suggested by the Committee that there was some improvement in the reduction of BOD and COD limits. Further from the beginning, it was categorically mentioned by all the Committees that the ETP established by M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited were not adequate to meet the standards required for marine discharge of BOD and COD after treating the effluents discharged from the units and they required upgradation and directed them to conduct further studies and it was on that basis that they had engaged IIT Madras , Shastra University and Thermax to look into the issue and all of them had mentioned that it is only a short term measure that the studies have been conducted and procedure provided and for the purpose of ascertaining the possibility of Zero Liquid Discharge system for effluent treatment from these 133 petrochemical units, some studies will have to be conducted to ascertain about the feasibility of the same and all of them have suggested that ZLD is the best method by which the marine discharge can be avoided to avoid pollution to marine ecology.
147. It is also mentioned in the report that whatever study conducted by them to ascertain the marine pollution in that area are all only short term studies and detailed long term study is required for the purpose of ascertaining the same and sources of pollution and the methodology of remediation. It was also mentioned in the report that the area was moderately polluted, though it was mentioned that the discharge from these units alone could not be said to be the sole reason for the same but they have not ruled out the possibility of marine pollution being caused on the deficiencies found in the discharge system from these units. So under such circumstances, the submission made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited as well as the M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited that ZLD is not possible cannot be accepted as ZLD if done within a phased manner applying the latest technologies available in this regard, nothing is impossible in view of the improvement in the technology. So under such circumstances, there is some force in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the Committee was not justified in not imposing any compensation for the past violations committed.
134
148. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the applicants that the analysis report which was obtained from private laboratories cannot be accepted. There is no evidence produced on the side of the applicant to show that this was not an accredited agency. Further when the Central Pollution Control Board as well as State Pollution Control Board are getting report from some laboratories, it cannot be said that they were not aware of the nicety of the procedure for getting reports to ascertain the real nature of the pollution and standard of the effluent discharge made by the units. So under such circumstances, unless there is some contra evidence adduced on the side of the applicant to show that the analysis result is not correct, there is nothing to disbelieve the analysis made by the private laboratories which were selected by the regulators themselves and relying on those analyses in giving their report before this Tribunal. So under such circumstances, we feel that the Committee was not justified in not imposing any compensation against M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited for the past violations, especially when it was seen from the reports that from 2014 onwards, when the Committee was appointed certain deficiencies were noted in M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and from 2016 onwards certain deficiencies were found in the case of M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited, especially when they have imposed compensation against M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited for the 135 one time deficiencies found that Sulphate and Ammonia in Nitrate level is excessive of the standard prescribed. So under such circumstances, we feel that certain compensation has to be imposed on these two units applying the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M. C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors6, M/s. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors 7 , Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Rohit Prajapati and Ors. 8 , Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. vs Union Of India and Ors 9 , Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors 10 and Indian Council For Enviro- Legal vs Union Of India And Ors11 applying the Polluter Pays Principle as it cannot be said that there was no pollution caused on account of the activities of these units.
149. Since final assessment will have to be done on the basis of the long term study to be conducted, we feel that interim compensation of Rs. Two Crore for M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited and Rs. One Crore for M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited can be imposed and those amounts will have to be paid by those units to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board within a period of three months and that amount can be utilised by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for improving the marine ecology in that area by providing the remediation process without absolving the polluters from exercising their responsibility to carry out the remediation process that is likely 6 2002 (3) SCC 653 7 (2018) 18 SCC 257 8 2020 (5) SCJ 531 9 2013 (4) SCC 575 10 1996 (5) SCC 647 11 1996 (3) SCC 212 136 to be recommended by the Committee. We also feel that the Committee comprising of Central Pollution Control Board, the State Pollution Control Board and National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai shall conduct the long term study as well and that expenses will have to be met by M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited and ultimately if it is found that they were also responsible for causing pollution, then the Committee is directed to suggest the remedial measures to be taken by each unit for restoring the damage caused to environment and if any other source is found during the course of study, then the regulators, namely, the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board are directed to take appropriate steps against those units which were also found to be contributing for the pollution on account of the deficiencies in the marine discharge system that is being adopted by them they are also directed to assess the damage caused to environment and also the environmental compensation payable by each unit including M/s. Manali Petrochemicals Limited, M/s. Tamil Nadu Petrochemicals Limited and M/s. Kothari Petrochemicals Limited for such damage caused to environment. So under such circumstances, we feel that the applications can be disposed of with following directions:
i. The various reports submitted by the Committee appointed by this Tribunal are received, accepted and recorded. 137 ii. M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited are directed to pay an interim Environmental Compensation of Rs.2 Crore, Rs. 1 Crore and Rs. 10 Lakh respectively and that amount will have to be paid to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board within a period of three months from today and if the amount is not paid within that time, then the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to initiate recovery proceedings against these units for recovery of the amount by making a request to the District Collector to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and realise the amount in accordance with law. iii. M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited are directed to implement the recommendations made in the various reports of the Joint Committee in its letter and spirit and the State Pollution Control Board is directed to monitor the same and if there is any non- compliance, then they are directed to take appropriate action against these units which are not carrying out the same in its letter and spirit in accordance with law.
iv. M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited are directed to appoint a consultancy, namely, NIOT, Chennai and NEERI to conduct the study regarding the feasibility of introducing ZLD for discharge of effluent 138 generated within their unit to avoid marine discharge to protect marine environment in a phased manner as suggested by the Committee. That expense will have to be shared by them for this purpose in proportion to the quantity of marine discharge made by them. The Study can be conducted under the supervision of the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board.
v. The State Pollution Control Board is directed to monitor the units periodically to ascertain marine discharge is meeting the standards or not till the alternate method of Zero Liquid Discharge system is introduced or till it achieves the standards provided and if there is any deficiencies found, then they are directed to initiate action against those units which are not conforming to the standards and take action against those units including imposition of Environmental Compensation for the violations and damage caused in accordance with law.
vi. The Committee appointed by the Tribunal, namely, Central Pollution Control Board, State Pollution Control Board and National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai is directed to conduct the long-term study for the remediation process after assessing the damage caused to the environment and assess the environmental compensation for the damage caused to the environment against the units responsible for the same including the units involved in these cases and also suggest the remedial measures to be carried out by the units 139 including the units involved in these cases and the Committee is directed to file their periodical report regarding the long term study once in six months before this Tribunal by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules and the expenses for carrying out this study has to be shared by M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited in proportion to the quantity of marine discharge made by them, on getting intimation from the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard and once the study is completed and recommendations are made, the units whom found responsible including the units in these cases are directed to implement the same in its letter and spirit.
150. The points are answered accordingly.
151. In the result, the applications are allowed in part and disposed of with following directions:
I. The various reports submitted by the Committee appointed by this Tribunal are received, accepted and recorded.
II. M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited are directed to pay an interim Environmental Compensation of Rs.2 Crore, Rs. 1 Crore and Rs. 10 Lakh respectively and that amount will have to be paid 140 to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board within a period of three months from today and if the amount is not paid within that time, then the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to initiate recovery proceedings against these units for recovery of the amount by making a request to the District Collector to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and realise the amount in accordance with law.
III. M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited are directed to implement the recommendations made in the various reports of the Joint Committee in its letter and spirit and the State Pollution Control Board is directed to monitor the same and if there is any non- compliance, then they are directed to take appropriate action against those units which are not carrying out the same in its letter and spirit in accordance with law. IV. M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited are directed to appoint a consultancy, namely, NIOT, Chennai and NEERI to conduct the study regarding the feasibility of introducing ZLD for discharge of effluent generated within their unit to avoid marine discharge to protect marine environment in a phased manner as suggested by the Committee. That expense will have to be shared by them for this purpose in 141 proportion to the quantity of marine discharge made by them. The Study can be conducted under the supervision of the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board.
V. The State Pollution Control Board is directed to monitor the units periodically to ascertain marine discharge is meeting the standards or not till the alternate method of Zero Liquid Discharge system is introduced or till it achieves the standards provided and if there is any deficiencies found, then they are directed to initiate action against those units which are not conforming to the standards and take action against those units including imposition of Environmental Compensation for the violations and damage caused in accordance with law.
VI. The Committee appointed by the Tribunal, namely, Central Pollution Control Board, State Pollution Control Board and National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai is directed to conduct the long-term study for the remediation process after assessing the damage caused to the environment and assess the environmental compensation for the damage caused to the environment against the units responsible for the same including the units involved in these cases and also suggest the remedial measures to be carried out by the units including the units involved in these cases and 142 the Committee is directed to file their periodical report regarding the long term study once in six months before this Tribunal by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules and the expenses for carrying out this study has to be shared by M/s Manali Petrochemical Limited, M/s Tamil Nadu Petrochemical Limited and M/s Kothari Petrochemical Limited in proportion to the quantity of marine discharge made by them, on getting intimation from the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard and once the study is completed and recommendations are made, the units whom found responsible including the units in these cases are directed to implement the same in its letter and spirit.
VII. Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application. VIII. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the Committee and also to the, Central Pollution Control Board, State Pollution Control Board, NIOT and NEERI for their information and compliance of the direction.
IX. As and when the reports are filed, the office is directed to place the same before the Bench for consideration and further directions.
143
152. With the above directions and observations the applications are disposed of.
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) 153. ................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) O.A. No.19/2013(SZ)& O.A. No. 224/2016(SZ)& O.A. No. 248/2016(SZ) 22nd March, 2022 AM.
144