National Green Tribunal
Avvs Subrahmanyam vs Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt Ltd Rep. ... on 11 March, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 06 of 2019 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
AVVS.Subrahmanyam
S/o. A. Satyanarayana
R/o H.No.4-73,
Tundurru Village, BimivaramMandal,
West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh - 534 207.
... Applicant(s)
WITH
1. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Part Pvt. Limited
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Bheemavaram, West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh - 534 207.
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change,
Indira ParyavaranBhavan,
Jorbagh, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Food Processing Industries,
PanchsheelBhawan,
August KrantiMarg
Khelgaon, New Delhi - 110 049.
4. Central Pollution Control Board,
Through Member Secretary,
PariveshBhawan, CBD cum Office Complex,
East Arjun Nagar, Delhi - 110 032.
5. State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Interim Government Complex,
Velagapudi, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh - 522 503.
6. State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Industries, Food Processing &
Sugar, Interim Government Complex,
Velagapudi, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh - 522 503.
7. National Institute of Oceanography
Rep. by its Regional Director,
176, Lawsons Bay Colony
Vishakhapatnam - 530 017.
8. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
D.No.33-26-14-/D2,
Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Center
Chalamvari Street, Kasturibaipet,
Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 010.
9. District Collector and Magistrate
Eluru, West Godavari District - 534 006,
Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondent(s)
Judgment Reserved on: 12th February, 2020
Order/ Judgment pronounced on: 6th March, 2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): M/s. Sravankumar
For Respondent(s): M/s. A.D.N. Rao for R1
M/s. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R2
M/s.G. Karthikeyan
Asst. Solicitor General of India for R3
M/s. R. Thirunavukarasu for R4
M/s. H. Yasmeen Ali for R5, R6 & R9
M/s. T. Saikrishnan for R8
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
ORDER/ JUDGMENT
JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above application was filed with allegation that first
respondent namely M/s.Godavari Mega Aqua Food Part Pvt. Limited
is going to be established at Tundurru, Jonnalagaruvu and
K.Bethapudi villages in West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh.
According to the applicant, their operation involves lot of probable
pollution causing activities. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control
Board without verifying the ground situation and without getting an
Environment Impact Assessment granted the consent to establish to
the project proponent. The particulars mentioned by them in the
application are also not correct. The quantity of water required as
mentioned in their application is not correct. They require more
water than what is mentioned therein.
2) Further they intend to discharge the effluent water into deep
sea without obtaining necessary CRZ clearance or no objection from
the authority as required under the CRZ Notification, 2011.
3) Major portion of fund is being provided by Government for
laying the pipe line for discharging the effluent into the deep sea
without getting any assessment of damage being caused to aquatic
life.
4) The activities of the first respondent is being carried out
ignoring the objection raised by the local people. Water is allowed to
be drawn from Tundurru Branch Channel for industrial purpose. If
huge quantity of water is drawn from the channel then it will create
scarcity of water for irrigation purpose which in turn will affect the
right of the agriculturist in that area.
5) The report of the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department
of Andhra Pradesh dated 04.03.2015has noted the impact of the
project as follows:-
"In the proposed factory area, a wide storage pond
is being dug to a depth of 12 feet. I have enquired
and learnt that they intend to store fresh water in
it. Even after digging for 12 feet, I have noticed
thick black clayey soil even in deeper zone. It is
impermeable layer, prevents percolation. The
area is totally saline. The nearest piezometer is
situated at Matsyapuri which is 4.5 Kms away. It
contains poor quality of Ground water and
analytical details of the Ground water sample are
given below:-
Location Total DWL pH Sp. Cond at TDS Remarks
Depth m.bgl 25' in Sp.
(M) Microsiemans Cond.
X
0.64
Matsyapuri 36.0 9.15 2.2 22600 14464 High
Saline
True copy of the Letter written by Deputy Director,
Ground Water Department of Andhra Pradesh to
Environmental Engineer of Andhra Pollution
Control Board, West Godavari District vide
Lr.No.GWD/Elr/TS/713/2014-15, dated 04.03.2015
is annexed as Annexure A-12."
6) Further as per Annexure - 11, the Executive Engineer of
Ground Water Division has informed that while granting permission
to draw 105 Kilo Litre / day of water through pipe number of 52 of
Tundurru Branch Channel at KM 6.323, it was noted that during the
Rabi and scarcity period the drawn of water is subject to availability
and prior permission from the Engineer, incharge of channel.
7) On the basis of the objection raised by the local people in the
public meeting held, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had
constituted a three member committee and that committee had
made the following observations regarding the impact of the unit:-
(i) "The category of the proposed project comes
under Orange Hazardous
(ii) The waste water generated is easily
biodegradable and not toxic
(iii) The nearest human habitations are
Tundurru, K. Bethapudi and Jonnlagaruvu
villages which are at a distance of about 450
meters from the proposed site.
(iv) The waste water contains organic matter
with traces of Chlorine, Phosphate etc.,
(v) The waste water characteristics are pH=6.9-
7.5; TDS=232-442 mg/l; BOD=539-782 mg/l;
COD=1053-1600 mg/l.
(vi) For production of 1 Tonne of processed
fish/prawn, about 4 KLD of waste water is
generated.
(vii) The industry proposes to produce 60 Tonnes
per day of processed fish/prawn and hence
the waste water generation will be about 240
KL per day.
(viii) The industry need to treat this waste water
to BOD=30 mg/l as stipulated CPCB and use
the treated water for onland irrigation.
(ix) As per the norms, 10 KL of waste water can
be used in an area of one acre per day.
(x) For this industry, as the waste water
generation is 240 KLD, it requires minimum
of 24 acres of land. Whereas, as of now, the
industry has a total area of 17 acres, which
include built up area of around 4 acres.
Hence the net area available for on land
irrigation is 13 acres, which is not sufficient
to use the treated waste water. The industry
need to acquire another 11 acres of land for
using the treated waste water for on land
irrigation.
(xi) Alternatively, the industry can go for Zero
Liquid Discharge by installing ETP
(Biological Effluent Treatment Plant), RO
(Reverse Osmosis Plant), MEE (Multiple
Effect Evaporator) and ATFD (Agitated Thin
Film Drier) of suitable capacities. In such
case, the existing area in sufficient.
(xii) As per the industry, the total Ammonia under
circulation as to refrigerant for ice blocks and
cold storage is about 10 Tonnes. Out of this
10 Tonnes, about 5 Tonnes will be in 2 Nos.
of storage vessels, 3 Tonnes will be in Low
pressure receivers and 2 Tonnes will be in
pipe line. The industry should follow all
safety norms in vogue.
(xiii) The industry shall follow good manufacturing
practices and also shall develop thick green
belt all along boundary of the project to
contain the odour.
(xiv) The industry shall store the solid waste in
chilled offal room and dispose once in 6
hours to shrimp head meal manufactures.
This waste shall be transported in industrial
trucks.
Recommendations:
It is suggested that the industry should
follow the above measures to control the
pollution generated from the Project to the
standards of the Board and shall submit
proposals accordingly."
8) The Government also spent huge amount for the purpose of
drawing the pipeline for discharging the waste water generated into
the sea with the following ratios:-
(i) Central Assistance/ APPCB : 50%
(ii) State Government/APIIC : 25%
(iii) Proponents' share : 25%
9) It is also mentioned in the application that instead of laying
pipe line directed to sea, the first respondent and official respondents
have diverted the pipe line through the Yanuman drain which has
become totally polluted. The drain water will discharge into the sea
without treatment and that will affect the aquatic and marine life in
the sea. The authorities have not considered the impact of
establishment of the first respondent unit as has been envisaged in
the decision reported in S. Jagannath Vs. Union of India 1997 (2)
SCC 87 by the Apex Court. So, the applicant filed this application
seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Direct the respondent No.1 to conduct
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and
prepare Environment Management Plan
(EMP) under EIA Notification of 2006 as per
the steps suggested by Andhra Pradesh
Pollution Control Board before proceeding
with the operations of the project,
(ii) Direct the enforcing authorities to conduct
detailed inspection on the misrepresentation
of facts, illegalities committed by the
respondent No.1 for obtaining Consent Order
from APPCB and to initiate appropriate action
by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iii) Direct the official respondents to conduct
detailed inspection on pollution by Aqua
processing and other industries on
Yanamanduru drain and Gonteru drain in
West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh,
(iv) Direct the National Institute of Oceanography
and other appropriate agencies to conduct
study on impact on sea due to discharge of
industrial waste by the respondent No.1.
(v) Direct the project proponent and the State
Government authorities to consider the setting
up of Aqua research institute proposed in dry
lands by the respondent No.1 at the disputed
site to utilize the infrastructure and find an
amicable solution,
(vi) Direct the official respondents of State of
Andhra Pradesh to implement the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.
JagannathVs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 2
SCC 87 in State of Andhra Pradesh,
(vii) Pass any such order, as the Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
10) As per order dated 22.04.2019, this Tribunal directed
the second respondent, Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change (MoEF& CC) to submit their views in respect
of the issue in the matter as to whether Environmental
Clearance is required for the unit before establishing the
same and whether for the purpose of discharging the effluent
from the unit to deep sea clearance or no objection under
CRZ Notification is required or not and whether the functioning
of the unit can be allowed to continue without getting the
Environmental Clearance and CRZ clearance.
11) On that basis, second respondent filed their response
dated 18.06.2019 and submitted that Standalone Food Parks
are not covered under the Schedule to the Environment
Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 and its
amendments. As regards the requirement of Environmental
Clearance for Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP), it is
submitted that MoEF& CC vide Notification No.S.O.6250 (E)
dated 19.12.2018 has exempted Environmental Clearance for
CETP set up for or within projects or activities which do not
require Environmental Clearance and if any of the existing or
proposed member units of the said CETP produces or
proposes to produce any product requiring Environmental
Clearance, then CETP shall need Environmental Clearance.
They also stated that as regards the requirement of CRZ
clearance, it is submitted that Aqua Food Park is a non
permissible activity in CRZ area and pipelines for discharge of
treated effluents into the deep sea requires CRZ clearance
following due procedure as laid down in CRZ Notification,
2011. If pipe line for discharge of treated effluent into sea is
in operation without obtaining prior CRZ clearance, it would
constitute a violation of CRZ notification.
12) After getting this response, this Tribunal in the order
dated 01.07.2019 mentioned that the first respondent entered
appearance through counsel namely Mr.A.D.N. Rao and
noted the submissions that the project does not fall within
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and industry is a zero liquid
discharge industry and further observed that this fact was not
disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant
but it is stated that pipe lines have been laid for discharge of
effluent from industry into deep sea. It is also mentioned in
the order that in view of the specific statement made on behalf
of the MoEF& CC, there is no need to obtain any
Environmental Clearance for the first respondent industry to
start. It is also observed in the order that necessity to obtain
CRZ clearance for the project also does not appear to be
necessary in view of the categorical statement made by Mr.
A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent that it is not falling in the CRZ regulated/ restricted
area. However, since the amount for implementation for
proposal of laying of said pipe lines have been made by the
industry on the basis of the decision of the Government of
Andhra Pradesh dated 30.10.2017 that the Government had
decided to lay the pipe lines from the park to the sea coast at
Chinagollapalem and the cost of which has to be borne at
50% each by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and
the Project Proponent and expressed our surprise as to how
the State Pollution Control Board had been made to provide
fund for this purpose as they being the regulating authority
and also expressed our desire that it should rectify this aspect
. That order directed the State Pollution Control Board, State
of Andhra Pradesh, State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority (SEIAA), Andhra Pradesh and National Coastal
Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) to file affidavit as to
whether the requisite procedure have been complied with in
the interest of environment.
13) Further, as per order dated 28.08.2019 this Tribunal
has constituted a committee comprising of Senior Member of
the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State
Pollution Control Board to inspect the area in question and file
a report as to whether the conditions of consent to operate
and other things are complied with and if there is any pollution
caused on account of operation of the unit in that area, then
what is the remedial measure to be undertaken by them and if
any serious violation the action taken if any, etc.,
14) On the basis of the order dated 28.08.2019, Joint
Committee constituted by this Tribunal inspected the unit as
well as surrounding villages in question on 11.09.2019 and
submitted the joint committee report through email on
21.09.2019 showing the location of the unit, on going activities
in compliance with the conditions of the Consent for Operation
(CFO) and suggested remedial measures as follows:
9. Solid matter is carried along with waste water and gets removed in screening,
hence the unit has to ensure that the effluent is properly screened and the
screenings has to be removed within 24 hrs.
10. All the process water shall be disinfected before discharging.
11. The unit shall furnish time bound action plan to APPCB on management of
treated effluent during rainy season. APPCB shall ensure that the unit has to
either stop its production or dispose the treated effluent as per the action plan
submitted.
12. Under any circumstances, APPCB shall not permit the unit to discharge the
effluent into yenamaduru drain. If the unit obtains necessary approvals from all
concerned departments then APPCB shall examine the disposal of treated
effluent through marine outfall (deep sea disposal) under lock & key
arrangement.
13. The unit shall carry out monthly monitoring through NABL accredited tab to
monitor the treated waste water quality and ambient air quality for all the
parameters notified in the consent for a minimum period of two years so as to
build confidence among the public and the monitoring results shall be submitted
to APPCB and also made available to the public.
14. The unit shall also install online continuous effluent meter to monitor pH and
TSS and establish connectivity to APPCB server. The results shall also be
displayed at main gate of the industry for public display
.
15. The unit shall have alternate power arrangement for offal storage room STP & ETP so that deterioration does not happen which leads to emanation of foul odour.
16. Before establishing new industries in the mega aqua park, permission shall be obtained from APPC. APPCB shall grant permission for establishing new industries in the aqua park after ascertaining the treatment systems and availability of land for utilization of treated effluents. "
15) On the basis of the joint inspection report, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) submitted that they initiated proceedings by order No.3775/APPCB/ZO-
VSP/ELR/2019 dated 26.10.2019 and sent for approval to take action on the basis of the observations and recommendations made by the joint committee against the first respondent which reads as follows:
"Order. No.3775/APPCB/ZO-VSP/ELR/2019 - Date. 26.10.2019 To, The Member Secretary, AP Pollution Control Board, Board Office, Vijayawada.
Sir, Sub: APPCB - ZO - VSP - M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd, Narsapauram road, Tundurru (V), Bhimavaram (M), West Godavari District - Recommendations of the joint inspection committee- Non Compliance of CFO order conditions- Directions under Section 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988 - Request of the industry to hold the levy of the Environmental compensation - Report submitted - Reg.
Ref: 1. Consent Order No: 3775- ELR/APPCB/ZOVSP/CFO/2018,Date:20.11.2018.
2. Joint Inspection Committee inspected on11.09.2019.
3. B.O Mail dated 27/09/2019 communicated the Hon'ble NGT Order dated 23.09.2019 in OA No.06/2019.
4. T.O SCN No.3775/APPCB/ZO-VSP/ELR/2019 dated 30/09/2019.
5. T.O. Order No.3775/APPCB/ZO-VSP/ELR/2019 dated 01/10/2019.
6. Industry letter dated 07.10.2019 for waiver on levy of Environmental Compensation.
7. Industry request letter seeking CFO amendment dated10/10/2019.
8. The External Advisory Committee (Task Force) meeting held on
17.10.2019 at Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam.
9. T.O. Order no. 3775/APPCB/ZO-VSP/ELR/2019 dated26.10.2019.
M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd located at Narsapauram road, Tundurru (V), Bhimavaram (M), West Godavari District and engaged in processing of Fish/ prawn was issued Consent for operation and Hazardous Waste Authorizations valid upto 31.10.2019 by stipulating certain conditions and discharge standards.
A Case was filed by Sri AVVS. Subrahmanyam, Tundurru Village, Bimivaram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh against M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd in the Hon'ble NGT, New Delhi.
The Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 28.08.2019 in the OA No 06/2019 directed the CPCB and APPCB to jointly inspect the area and to file a report. The committee comprising of Sri.T.Rajendra Reddy, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, APPCB and Smt. Mahima T, Senior Environmental Engineer, CPCB was constituted as per the directions of Hon'ble NGT. The committee inspected the industry and its surroundings on 11.08.2019 and submitted the report to the Hon'ble NGT. The Hon'ble NGT vide order dt 23.09.2019 directed the APPCB to consider the observations and recommendations made by the committee regarding the short comings and to take appropriate action after giving opportunity to the project proponent.
The copy of the orders of the Hon'ble NGT order dated 23/09/2019 was communicated to this office vide reference 3rd cited above.
The Board vide reference 4th cited above issued notice to the industry directing to submit the information / action taken report / time bound action plan on the recommendations and suggestions made in the report by 10.10.2019.
The Board, as per the recommendations of Joint Inspection report and directions of Hon'ble NGT issued order vide reference 5th cited above levying Environmental Compensation of Rs.29,62,500/- to the industry for violation of consent conditions and scheduled a hearing on 17/10/2019 to give an opportunity to the industry to seek any clarification regarding the levy of Environmental Compensation.
The industry vide reference 6th cited above requested the Board to withdraw the levy of Environmental Compensation submitting that they have not caused any environmental damage except discharging the waste water quantities more than the consented quantities which was represented to the Board several times.
The industry vide reference 7th cited above requested the Board for issue of CFO amendment with regard to quantities of water consumption and effluent generation i.e water consumption from 143 KLD to 320 KLD and waste water generation from 103 KLD to 280 KLD.
The Board held the External advisory committee on 17/10/2019 at 3.00 P.M to hear the industry. The EAC committee reviewed the reply of the industry with respect to the issues mentioned in the notice given to the industry as per the recommendations and suggestions made in the Joint inspection report. The representative of the industry attended the meeting and submitted the following clarification on all the issues mentioned in the notice point wise:
a. The industry submitted that water consumption per Kg of head on shrimp processed would be around 8 liters and would generate around 6 liters of water per kg of head on shrimp processed and other varieties consume much lesser quantity of water and generation of wastewater would be considerably less. The industry further informed that they would install dedicated flow meters in each section to record actual water consumption and wastewater generation.
b. The industry informed that 90 Metric tons of raw material (head-on) would yield 60 Metric tons of processed shrimp and other varieties would yield upto 90% to 100% of raw material and only when the fish is processed 200 metric tons of would yield 60 tons of processed fish.
c. The industry informed that they have installed latest state of art technology machinery where the water consumption and wastewater generation is reduced when compared to the present conventional equipment and would further upgrade the systems to further reduce water consumption and wastewater generation.
d. The industry informed that they would construct lined pond of 1000 KL capacity for storage of treated effluents within 1 month and would dismantle the existing two unlined bio-ponds after completion of lined pond.
e. The industry informed that they have 72 acres of land in their possession and the copies of the documents would be submitted within 2 days along with the layout plan plotted to the scale.
f. The industry informed that the sensitivity of ammonia sensor was set to 0.5 PPM and they have provided colour coding to the pipelines as per OSHA regulations.
g. They have provided necessary screening arrangement for coarse and fine solids from the ETP inlet to reduce the BOD load on the ETP and the solid waste collected would be removed on hourly basis and transported to sister concern unit for poultry and fish feed.
h. They have issued purchase order for procurement and installation of Ozonator for disinfection of treated effluent which would be installed in one month time.
i. They would provide a lined pond of 4000 m2 of area with 2 mts depth to store treated effluents during rainy season and for utilization on greenbelt during non rainy days. They would restrict their production depending on the situation.
j. They would engage the services of a NABL accredited laboratory to carryout monthly monitoring of treated effluent quality and quarterly monitoring of ambient air quality and would submit monthly reports to the Board k. They have already released purchase order for procurement of Online Continuous Effluent Meter to monitor pH and TDS for pH / conductivity and would connect to APPCB server after installation.
l. They have 100% backup power arrangements in place and the total DG set capacity 2380 KVA.
Further, the representative of the industry submitted to the committee that they have not caused any pollution to the environment and requested to waive the levy of the environmental compensation of Rs.29,62,500/-.
The committee informed the representative of the industry that Environmental Compensation was levied on the industry as per the guidelines of CPCB and as per the recommendations made in the joint inspection report with regard to the established fact that the industry has violated CFO conditions w.r.t. water consumption and effluent generation and hence the levy of environmental compensation by the Board is justified. The representative of the industry requested the Board to put the Environmental Compensation on hold till the legal proceedings in the Hon'ble NGT are completed.
The committee after detailed discussions recommended to issue the directions to the industry and to obtain Bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/- towards ensuring the compliance of the Board directions.
Accordingly the Board vide reference 8th cited above issued the following directions to the industry:
1. The industry shall install dedicated flow meters in each section to record actual water consumption and wastewater generation within 15days.
2. The industry shall adopt water conservation methods and best practices and so as to minimize the specific water consumption.
3. The industry shall provide a tank with impervious lining of maximum two days storage capacity within one month and dismantle the existing bio-ponds within two month.
4. The industry shall set the sensitivity of ammonia sensor to measure the concentration of0.5ppm.
5. The industry shall properly label & provide separate color coding for pipes carrying the ammonia gas as per OSHA standards.
6. The industry shall ensure that the effluent is properly screened and also ensure that the screenings shall be removed within 24hrs.
7. The industry shall ensure that the process water is disinfected before discharging for onland for plantation.
8. As committed, the industry shall construct a new lined bio-pond with 4000 Sq.mts x 2 m depth to store the treated waste water during rainy season only. The industry shall keep the pond empty during the non-rainy season. The industry shall restrict the production during rainy season as committed.
9. The industry shall carry out monthly monitoring through NABL accredited lab to monitor the treated wastewater quality and ambient air quality for all the parameters notified in the consent for a minimum period of two years.
10. The industry shall install online continuous effluent meter to monitor pH and TSS and establish connectivity to APPCB server within 1 month. The results shall also be displayed at main gate of the industry for public display.
11. Under any circumstances the industry shall not discharge the effluents into Yanamaduru drain / any other water body / outside the industry premises. If the industry resorts to illegal discharge it will be closed without any notice.
12. The industry shall restrict its production to maintain the maximum generation of waste water to 103 KLD till the industry obtains Amendment to CFO order.
13. The industry shall submit the Bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/- with two years validity towards ensuring the compliance of the above directions and CFO conditions within 15 days.
As per the recommendations of the External Advisory Committee of Zonal Office in the meeting held on 17/10/2019, the representation of the industry with regard to the with hold the order issued vide reference 5th cited above levying Environmental Compensation of Rs.29,62,500/- till the legal proceedings in the Hon'ble NGT are completed is herewith submitted. It is requested that legal opinion may be obtained for taking appropriate decision in this regard.
Submitted.
Yours faithfully, RajendraReddy Thuraka JOINT CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER"
16) The Tribunal by order dated 04.11.2019 directed the Pollution Control Board to file action taken report on the basis of the observations and recommendations made by the joint committee and not to produce the proceedings as extracted above and posted the case to 10.12.2019 for further action taken report and also objections if any, to be filed by the first respondent as well as the applicant.
17) On the basis of the above order, the Pollution Control Board had submitted an action taken report dated 07.12.2019 and filed before this Tribunal on 09.12.2019 wherein they have submitted as follows:
10 The industry shall install online continuous Not Complied. effluent meter to monitor pH and TSS and establish connectivity to APPCB server within 1 month. The results shall also be The industry issued Purchase order for displayed at main gate of the industry for installation of online continuous effluent meter public display. to monitor pH and TSS parameters and th informed that it will be installed by 10 December, 2019..
Copy of PO is enclosed as Annexure-XI.
11. The industry shall not discharge the Complied.
effluents into Yanamaduru drain / any other water body / outside the industry premises, At the time of inspection, No effluent under any circumstances. If the industry discharges were observed to the outside resorts to illegal discharge it will be closed premises. The industry storing the treated without any notice. effluents in Bio-pond and using for on land for gardening.
12 The industry shall restrict its production to Complied.
maintain the maximum generation of waste water to 103 KLD till the industry obtains The Board issued CFO order dated 09.11.2019 Amendment to CFO order. to the industry permitting the industry to increase the wastewater generation from 103 KLD to 270 KLD after verification of water consumption and waste water generation.
13 The industry shall submit the Bank Complied.
guarantee of Rs.25,00,000/- with two years validity towards ensuring the compliance of The Industry submitted bank Guarantee of the above directions and CFO conditions Rs.25.00 Lakhs for two years valid upto within 15 days. 01.11.2021.
18) First respondent had filed their objections to the action taken report as well as the joint committee report wherein they have denied the allegations made against them regarding the use of excess water than discharge quantity as stated in the consent order and also challenged the method of calculation of environmental compensation. They also reiterated their stand that 45 no Environmental Clearance is required and this Tribunal had already come to the conclusion on the basis of the reply submitted by MoEF& CC that Environmental Clearance is not required under EIA Notification, 2006. This Tribunal also observed that in view of the submission made on behalf of the first respondent , the project was not constructed within the prohibited or restricted or regulated Coastal Regulation Zone under CRZ Notification, 2011, no Coastal Regulation Zone Clearance is also required. But, as regards the drawing of the line to discharge effluent from the unit area to sea, CRZ Notification, 2011 will apply and without getting clearance from the Coastal Regulation Zone that activities should not be proceeded with. They have further contended in the reply statement that though the Government had decided to provide a facility to discharge effluent from the unit area to sea that project has not been implemented. Further they are Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) unit and as such they are not using the pipe line drawn by the Government for that purpose and regarding the project of the Government to lay pipe line for industrial units to take water to reach CETP and thereafter to discharge the same into sea in respect of industries starting from upstream of Tanuku Town, first respondent has nothing to do with the same. First respondent unit does not have any outlet to discharge effluent 46 from their unit to the above said pipe line. None of their activities are causing any pollution. The observation made by the committee that there is excess water used than permitted is not correct as it was assessed on the basis of imaginary method stating that 4 litres per kg will be required for Fish processing whereas so much quantity is not really required.
19) Another violation noted was that effluent generated is varying between 160 KLD to 190 KLD against the consented limit of 103 KLD and water consumption is varying from 192 KLD to 220 KLD as against the consented limit of 143 KLD. The Committee has not taken into account the communications between unit and the Pollution Control Board dated 12.10.2016, 15.10.2017, 26.06.2018, 11.05.2019, 11.06.2019 and 04.09.2019 requesting them to permit the unit to generate 240 KLD daily discharge which shall be used for recycling within the industry for various activities and produced those communications as Annexure R1/ 2 along with their reply.
20) As per the revised Consent Order No.3775- ELR/APPCB/ZOVSP/CFO/2019 dated 09.11.2019, the Pollution Control Board had permitted the unit a daily discharge of 280 KLD 47 evidenced by Annexure R1/ 3. It is also alleged in the counter that they have provided two unlined ponds each of 2.5 acres with a depth of 3 meters having more than three months holding capacity. Whereas, the requirements was only for providing tanks which would store for a period of two days only. However, in order to obviate any controversy, the answering respondent has developed a new pond with impervious lining of maximum two days storage capacity evidenced by Annexure R1/4 photograph.
They have also stated that as per requirement, they will have to maintain Green Belt of over and above 33 percent. The committee itself noted that the unit has maintained a Green Belt of more than 33 percent . However, the Committee has said that the unit has partially complied with the same, even though having noted that the unit has maintained a Green Belt of more than 33 percent. According to them, they have maintained a Green Belt having an area more than 37 percent.
21) The Consent Order No.3775- ELRE/APPCB/ZOVSP/CFO/2019 dated 09.11.2019 specifically provides:
The industry shall be disposed of solid waste (Non Hazardous) as follows:48
S.No. Name of the Solid Quantity Disposal
Waste
1 Shrimp head waste 750 Tons Shall be disposed
/ Month to fish / prawn feed
2 Shrimp shell 375 Tons manufacturing
waste / Month units/ chitin
manufacturing units
through closed
containers.
3 Fish Waste 210 Tons Shall be disposed to Fish
/ Month meal manufacturing units
4 ETP Sludge 300 Tons through closed containers.
/ Month
22) In furtherance of the Joint Committee‟s suggestion
regarding remedial measures, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) vide Communication dated 01.10.2019 called upon the answering respondent to submit the Information/ Action Taken Report/ Time Bound Action Plan evidenced by Annexure R1/5. In response to the Notice dated 01.10.2019, respondent, vide Communication dated 09.10.2019, informed the Pollution Control Board about the steps taken by it to meet the remedial measures suggested by the Joint Inspection Committee.
They have further carried out an inspection to verify the compliance of the remedial measures. The report is awaited.49
23) On the basis of the order of this Tribunal dated 23.09.2019 the Pollution Control Board had issued Annexure R1/ 6 vide Order No. 3775/APPCB/ZO/Vsp/ELR/2019 dated 01.10.2019 without taking note of the fact that the Unit is not causing any Environmental Pollution and imposed a compensation of Rs.29,62,500/- (Twenty nine lakh sixty two thousand five hundred rupees) by calculating the excess utilization of water for a period of 158 days.
24) Respondent filed their representation for withdrawal of environmental compensation evidenced by Annexure R1/ 7. But the Board vide Communication dated 26.10.2019 called upon the respondent to furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/-
(Twenty five lakhs) towards ensuring the compliance of the Board conditions and the respondent had complied with the same and furnished a Bank Guarantee accordingly. The Communication dated 26.10.2019 is evidenced by Annexure R1/8.
25) It is mentioned in the reply statement that though the Communication dated 26.10.2019 refers to the request of the respondent dated 07.10.2019 for withdrawal of imposition of environmental compensation and substituted the same by calling 50 upon to produce Bank Guarantee of Rs.25 lakhs. However, as per Annexure R1/ 9 Communication dated 06.11.2019, the Board had called upon the respondent to deposit the Environmental compensation of Rs.29, 62,500/- (Twenty Nine Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Rupees) as a pre-requisite for issuance of renewal of Consent for Operation (CFO) and so they were compelled to deposit the amount of environmental compensation imposed apart from furnishing a Bank Guarantee.
26) The Board had issued renewal of consent and authorization dated 09.11.2019 for a further period of 10 years by permitting the maximum daily discharge of 280 KLD per day.
According to the respondent, respondent unit is not causing any pollution and as such imposition of environmental compensation is unjustifiable and wanted the Tribunal to direct the Pollution Control Board to withdraw its Communication dated 01.10.2019 as they have paid the amount under duress as without payment of the same the renewal order will not be issued.
27) Eight respondent filed an affidavit in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 01.07.2019 wherein they have stated as follows:
51" I respectfully submit that the 1stRespondnet M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd., is an integrated aqua unit consisting of processing of Fish/Prawn, cold storage and Ice Manufacturing unit in the area of 17.01 Acres with a project cost of Rs. 101.45 crores. This type of industry falls under the orange category. The total land area for establishment of Food Park is 57.80 Acres. The Mega Food Park projed5 is being implemented with the assistance of the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India.
I respectfully submit that this Respondent Board issued the Consent for Establishment (CEF) on 26.05.2014 with conditions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to manufacture the following products:
(i) Processing of Fish/Prawn - 60 Tonners per day (or) 18000 Tonners per annum;
(ii) Ice blocks - 25 Tonners per day (or) 7500 Tonnes per annum
(iii) Cold storage - 3000 Tonners per annum.
I respectfully submit that the setting up of Mega Food Park does not require Environment Clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment notification dated 14.09.2006. The application submitted by the industry for consent was duly scrutinized by the CFE Committee at Zonal Office of this Respondent Board in the Meeting held at Visakhapatnam on 17.05.2014. As per the decision of the CFE Committee, this Respondent Board issued the Consent for Establishment by imposing various conditions for observance 52 by the industry keeping in mind the factual ground situations and after taking into consideration the surroundings, physical and topographic features.
This Respondent further submits that the M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd., construction was completed and the Consent For Operation (CFO) was issued to the unit on 20.11.2016 with conditions.
It is respectfully submitted that the CFO has been issued with the main condition that the effluent generation shall not exceed 103 KLD under any circumstances and if required the production shall be apportioned, i.e. reduced to limit the waste water generation to 103 KLD.
The industry has provided effluent treatment plant consisting of following units:
Bar screen chambers -2 Nos. (1.5 m x 1.25 m x 1m each) Receiving tank : 3.0 m x 3.0 m x 3.0 m Flash Mixer: 1.3 m dia, 1.0 m height Flocculator : 2.20m x 2.20 m x 1 m Dissolved Air Floatation system (DAF) : 10 m x 10 m x 2m Primary Clarifier : 7.1 m dia, 2.0 m height Equalization tank : 33.6 m x 14 m x4 m Aeration tank : 25.75 m x 21.85 m x 3 m Secondary Clarifier : 7.1 m dia x 2.5 m depth Filtration system Sludge holding tank : 4 m x 4 m X 2.5 m Bio pond: 20000 Sq. Mtrs, 4m depth (80,000 KL) 53 The industry is operating the effluent treatment plant and treated effluent is disposed into bio pond before utilizing for plantation in the plant premises.
I respectfully submit that though conditions have been laid that thee shall be no discharge from the M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd., and that the entire treated effluents shall be used for onland application within their premises for gardening etc., it is to allay the fears of the public that the effluents will be let out in the open, that it was decided by the Government to lay the pipeline from the Park to the Sea coast at Chinnagolapalem vide G.O.Ms.No.1245, dated 30.10.2017 of Industries & Commerce (Programme.III) Department, GoAP with the sharing pattern of APPCB-50% & Project Proponent- 50%. The Pollution Control Board as well as the M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd., were directed to deposit their share in to instalments with the District Collector. The entire work is to be carried out under the supervision and sanction of the District Collector.
I respectfully submit that subsequently the State Government issued clarification to the District Collector starting that the laying of pipeline shall be upto Yenamadurru drain at Dirusumarru (V) instead of Chinnagolapalem. The cost of this project was Rs. 4.00 crores and the length of the pipeline is about 15 Kms. The State Government clarified to the District Collector, Eluru that in the 2nd phase, depending on the sanction and execution of CETP and Pipelines on Yanamaduru drain, the pipeline work of Tundurru either can be laid upto the sea or connected to the CETP pipeline.
54I respectfully submit the details of proposed CETP and pipelines CETP and pipelines as below:
There exists the Yenamadhurru drain in the West Godavari District originating at Duvva Village, near NH-5 and travelling for a distance of 65 Kms before joining Bay of Bengal via Uppurtheru at Pathapadu Village, Bhimavaram (M). There are 21 industries and 2 Municipalities along this route. I further submit that the while reviewing the status of the M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd., the State Government had instructed to prepare proposals for construction of a Common Effluent Treatment Plant(CETP) with a pipeline into sea to discharge treated effluents form industries located along the Yenamadurru drain. Accordingly, studies were conducted through National Environmental Engineering Research Institute(NEERI), Nagpur and NEERI suggested a CETP and pipeline to sea.
The proposals are as follows:
a) All effluents from industries after primary treatment, starting from the upstream of Tanuku Town would be carried through a pipeline to be laid along with the Yenamadurru drain upto CETP for further treatment to meet the marine discharge standards.
b) The treated sewage from Tanuku Town would be taken through a separate pipeline to be laid parallel to the pipeline carrying industrial effluents to join the marine pipeline downstream of CETP. The sewer from Bhimavaram town would be treated in STPs to the required standards and shall be disposed into the marine disposal pipeline downstream of CETP.55
c) The marine disposal shall be appropriately located to carry and dispose all the treated effluents from the industries and treated sewage from Tanuku and Bhimavaram Town.
A special Purpose Vehicle is to be formed by State Government for execution, sourcing of funds and for obtaining necessary approvals including CRZ Clearance as required. I submit that the District Collector ,EluruWeat Godavari district issued the administrative sanction for laying of the pipeline from Tundurru ETP to Yenamadurru drain at a project cost of Rs. 4.00 crores and also directed this Respondent Board to deposit 50% of the cost, i.e. Rs. 2.00 crores to the RWS & S Department Kovvur, As of now, the Board has paid Rs. 1.00 crore as contribution and the laying of pipeline is under progress. But, discharge of effluents by the M/s. Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt, into the pipeline is not permitted, till necessary clearances are obtained ,including CRZ Clearance.
I respectfully submit that the pipeline from the M/s. Godavari Mega Food Park Pvt. Ltd., is not laid straight into the sea. Presently, this pipeline is not connected for discharge. There is no discharge of waste water from Food Park to Yenamadurru drain. The Respondent Board Permitted the industry to utilize the treated effluents for onland for gardening /Plantation within the industry premises only."
28) State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) filed an affidavit for compliance of the directions issued by this Tribunal order contending as follows:
56"I respectfully submit that the APPCB issued the consent for establishment (CFE) on 26.05.2014 with conditions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to manufacture the following products:
(i) Processing of Fish / Prawn - 60 Tonnes per day (or) 18000 Tonnes per annum;
(ii) Ice blocks - 25 Tonnes per day (or) 7500 Tonnes per
annum
(iii) Cold storage - 3000 Tonnes per annum.
I respectfully submit that the setting up of Mega Food Park does not require Environmental Clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment notification dated 14.09.2006. As such this Authority did not receive any application in this regard. The APPCB has issued the consent for establishment by imposing conditions in the interest of safeguarding the environment. "
29) National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) filed an affidavit as directed by this Tribunal by order dated 01.07.2019, wherein they have stated as follows:
" That in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, Ministry of Environment and Forest had notified the 57 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 on 19th February, 1991, which inter-alia, provided classification of Coastal Regulation Zone areas (hereinafter referred to as CRZ areas) and norms for regulating developmental activities therein.
It is submitted that this notification was subsequently superseded by the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 issued vide S.O. No.19 (E), dated 6th January, 2011. It is also submitted that the extent CRZ Notification was issued with the objective to conserve and protect the coastal stretches by regulation of developmental activities along the coastal stretches and to ensure livelihood security to the fisher communities and other local communities, living in the coastal areas.
It is humbly submitted that this said CRZ Notification, 2011 was amended from time to time based on representations received and a need was felt overtime to undertake a comprehensive revision of the notification on the basis of number of representations from various Coastal States and Union Territory Administrations, besides other stakeholders.
It is humbly submitted that as per para 4(ii)d of the CRZ Notification, 2011 laying of pipelines in the CRZ areas for discharging treated effluent into deep sea requires prior CRZ clearance after following due procedure as laid in the said notification.
It is further humbly submitted that installation / operation of the pipeline for discharge of treated effluent into sea within the CRZ without a prior CRZ clearance, as alleged in the 58 present application constitutes violation of CRZ regulations and the State Coastal Zone Management Authority is duty bound to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
It is humbly submitted that for the purpose of implementation and enforcement of the provisions the CRZ Notification, 2011 and compliance with the conditions stipulated there under, the powers either original or delegated are available under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with the State Government and the State Coastal Zone Management Authority (SCZMA). The composition, tenure and mandate of State / UT CZMAs, have been notified from time to time by the Ministry.
It is further humbly submitted that the CRZ Regulations are to be implemented and monitored (including violations thereof) by the concerned State Coastal Zone Management Authority in accordance with the approved CZMPs of the respective state.
It is respectfully submitted that the answering respondent without prejudice reserves his right to file an additional affidavit at a later stage, if so necessary. "
30) Ninth respondent filed an affidavit contending as follows:
I submit that the eighth respondent submitted that first respondent is an integrated aqua unit consisting of processing of Fish/Prawn, cold storage and Ice manufacturing unit established in the area of 17.01 Acres, estimating with a 59 project cost of Rs.101.45 crores. This type of industry falls under the orange hazardous category. The total land area owned by the first respondent is about 71.08 Acres and the land allocated for establishment of Food Park is 55.70 Acres.
I submit that it is verified that eighth respondent issued the Consent For Establishment(CFE) on 26.05.2014 with conditions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 and under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to manufacture the following products:
(i) Processing of Fish/Prawn - 60 Tonnes per day(or) 18000 Tonnes per annum;
(ii) Ice Blocks - 25 Tonnes per day (or) 7500 Tonnes per annum.
(iii) Cold Storage - 3000 Tonnes per annum.
I submit that the eighth respondent submitted that the setting up of Mega Food Park does not require Environmental Clearance, as per the Environmental Impact Assessment notification dated 14.09.2006. The application submitted by the 1st Respondent, for consent was duly scrutinized by the CFE Committee at Zonal Office of 8th Respondent, and in this Connection a meeting was held at Visakhapatnam on 17.05.2014. As per the decision of the CFE Committee, 8th Respondent issued the Consent For Establishment by imposing various conditions for observance by the industry keeping in mind the factual ground situations and after taking into consideration the surroundings, physical and topographic features.
60I submit that eighth respondent have inspected the Mega Aqua Food Park Construction which is completed and the consent for Operation (CFO) was issued on 20.11.2018 with conditions valid upto 30.11.2019 and recently renewed upto 30.11.2029.
I submit that it is verified that there exists the Yenamadurru drain in the West Godavari District originating at Duvva village, near NH-5 and travelling for a distance of 65 Kms before effluents are discharged into Bay of Bengal via Upputheru at Pathapadu Village, Bhimavaram (M). This majordrain passed through Bhimavaram town and 15 Villages enroute from Duvva to pathapadu village. This apart, another drain by nameGosthani also joins Yenamadurru drain at at the upstream of Bhimavaram town at Gollalakoderu. Industries at Tanukku area in the catchment of Gosthaniriver/ drain are mainly waste paper/straw based paper units. Waste Paper unit by name, M/s. Delta paper Mills Limited Contributes 12.5 MLD of waste water discharge into Gosthani. The Tanukku municipality also discharges 2/3rd of Municipal waste water into sathyavada drain which joins Gosthani river/drain. The Bhimavaram Municipality waste water of 10 MLD also joins Yenamadurru drain. There are prawn processing units in the catchment of Yenamadurru drain in addition to the above aqua culture discharges and agricultural runoff also contributes to pollution load of Yenamadurru drain.
I submit that the eighth respondent submitted that while reviewing the status of the first respondent , the State Government had instructed to prepare proposals for construction of a Common Effluent Treatment Plant(CETP) 61 with a pipeline into sea to discharge treated effluents from industries located along the Yenamadurru drain and also located upstream of Yenamadurru drain (uptoTundurru) that are finally discharging into Yenamadurru drain. Subsequent thereto, 8th Respondent took the following measures:
(1) NEERI carried out studies of Yenamadurru drain, Sathyavada drain, Gosthani drain and suggested setting up of a Common Effluent Treatment Plant for the industries along with the drains at a cost of Rs.50.00 crores.
(2) Survey with drones was conducted for Sathyavda drain / Yenamadurru drain and the field survey was conducted and the process data is yet to be submitted by the agency concerned.
(3) National Institute of Oceanography is carrying out the studies of marine outfall for discharge of treated effluents from the proposed Common Effluent Treatment Plant.
(4) The land of an extent of 27 Acres at Kothapusalamarru village of Bhiavaram (M0 has been identified for construction of ECTP of 35 MLD capacity. The land acquisition process is yet to be initiated and completed.
A special purpose vehicle (SPV) is to be formed by the Andhra Pradesh Industries and Investments Promotion Council for execution of the work.
(5) Under the scheme by which, the MoEF shares the collection in the water cess amount with the SPCBs for taking out such measures to meet out and reduce the water pollution, this Respondent took initiatives for 62 setting up of the CETP and obtained Environmental Clearance on 01.03.2019 and the CFE was issued for the CETP.
In pursuance of the above measures, the proposal made by eighth respondent are as follows:
(a) All effluents from industries after primary treatment, starting from the upstream of Tundurru Town would be carried through a pipeline to be laid along with the Yenamadurru drain upto CETP for further treatment to meet the marine discharge standards.
(b) The treated sewage from Tundurru Town would be taken through a separate pipeline to be laid parallel to the pipeline carrying industrial effluents to join the marine pipeline downstream of CETP. The sewer from Bhimavaram Town would be treated in STPs to the required standards and shall be disposed into the marine disposal pipeline downstream of CETP.
(c) The marine disposal shall be appropriately located to carry and dispose all the treated effluents from the industries and treated sewage from Tundurru and Bhimavaram Town.
(d) To carry out the above works, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) shall be formed.
I submit that it is stated that 8th Respondent inspected that in spite of conditions have been laid that thee shall be no discharge from the Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd., and that the entire treated effluents is being used for on land application within their premises for 63 gardening, etc., it is to allay the fears of the public that the effluents will be let out in the open. In view of that, the Government has suggested to lay the pipeline from the first respondent Park to the Sea coast at Chinnagollapalem vide G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 30.10.2017. Therefore, a detailed project report (DPR) was prepared by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Water and Sanitation Department, Eluru Circle as per the directions of ninth respondent and the salient features of the said project report is as follows:
(a) To lay a pipeline of length of 26.5 Kms to dispose 3.00 Lakhs Litres per day of treated water from the effluent treatment plant from the first respondent Park to the Sea coast at Chinnagollapalem.
(b) The designed life line of the pipeline is 20 years. 8 hours of pumping with 2 Nos. Of 25 hp open well submersible pump sets. Total head required is 9.14 M., 250 mm dia, HDPE, Class 8 pipelines to be used for 26.5 Kms length. ETP at Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Ltd., shall be constructed by the management itself.
I submit that the then ninth respondent also proposed the cost sharing pattern for the approval of the State Government as:
(i) Central Assistance / APPCB-59%
(ii) State Government /APIIC- 25%
(iii) Project Proponent share - 25%
64
After detailed discussions on the proposal in the meeting held on 03.10.2017 by the Secretary to Government, Food Processing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, a conclusion was arrived at to get the pipeline laying project to be executed in the following cost sharing pattern:
(i) APPCB (Central Assistance) - 50%
(ii) Project Proponent - 50% I submit that after the above discussions, the Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned the said laying of the pipeline by G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 30.10.2018. As per the same, the work has to be executed through one of the Engineering Departments of the Government and the eighth respondent as well as first respondent were directed to deposit their share in two instalments with ninth respondent.
The entire work is to be carried out under the supervision and sanction of the ninth respondent.
I submit that subsequently the State Government issued clarification to the then ninth respondent stating that the laying of pipeline shall be upto Yenamadurru drain at Dirusumarru (V) instead of Chinnagollapalem through Tundurru ETP. The cost of this project was Rs.4.00 crores and the length of the pipeline is about 15 Kms. I submit that the then ninth respondent issued the administrative sanction for laying of the pipeline from Tundurru ETP to Yenamadurru drain at a project cost of Rs.4.00 crores and also directed eighth respondent to deposit 50% of the cost, i.e. Rs2.00 crores to the RWS&S Department, Kovvur. As of now, eighth respondent has paid 65 Rs.1.00 crore as contribution and the laying of pipeline has been completed. But, no pumping of effluents by first respondent, into the pipeline has commenced.
I respectfully submit that the pipeline from the first respondent is not laid straight into the sea. The outlet point of this pipeline is into Yanamadurru drain Dirusumarru (V) and it is in CRZ area because the said Yenamadurru drain is affected by backwaters from the Sea. As such, an area of about 100 Metres of either side of the drain come under the CRZ area. Laying of pipeline in this area though a permitted activity requires the CRZ clearance and as such the pipeline shall not be put to use without the CRZ clearance. Presently, this pipeline is disconnected. There is no discharge of waste water from the first respondent to Yenamadurru Drain and using the treated effluents on land preserved by the first respondent for gardening within the premises without any objections from the surrounding people. "
31) Applicant had filed reply affidavit to the report of the Joint Committee reiterating his contentions in the original application stating the necessity for getting Environmental Clearance. According to the applicant, it will fall under clause 7(c) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 where he had reiterated the alleged similar projects for which Environmental Clearance is required.66
As per the EIA Notification of 2006, the activity relating to Leather/ Skin/ Hide processing comes under 4(f) which is an A- category project. Besides that Section 7(c), 7(e), 7(h) and 8(b) sections attracts to the activity in question implemented by respondent No.1. The above Sections of EIA Notification of 2006 are reproduced as under:
Project/Activity Category-A Category-B Conditions 4(f)) Leather/skin/hide New projects outside All new expansion of "General as well as processing industry the industrial area or projects located within a specific condition shall expansion of existing notified industrial apply".
units outside the area/estate
industrial area
7 (c) Industrial estates/ Parks/ If at least one Industrial estate housing"General as well as as
complexes/areas, export industry in the at least one Category Bspecial conditions shall
processing proposed industrial industry and area< 500apply. Note:
zones(EPZs), Special estate falls under the ha. 1. Industrial Estate of Economic Zones Category A, entire area below 500 ha. And (SEZs), Biotech Parks, industrial area shall Industries estate of not housing any industry Leather complexes. be treated as area>500 ha. And not of Category „A‟ or „B‟ Category A, housing any industry does not require irrespective of the belonging to Category A clearance.
area. or B. 2. If the area is less than Industrial estate with 500 ha. But contains area greater than building and 500 ha and housing construction project > at least one Category 20000Sq. mts. And or B industry. development area more than 50 ha it will be treated as activity listed at serial no. 8(a) or 8(b) I the Schedule, as the case may be."
67
7(e) "Ports, harbours, break ≥ 5 million TPA of < 5 million TPA of cargo
waters, dredging." cargo handling handling capacity and/or
capacity(excluding ports/harbours ≥ 10,000
Fishing harbours) TPA of fish handling
capacity
7(h) Common Effluent All Projects General condition shall
Treatment apply
Plants(CETPs)
8(b) Townships and Area Covering an area ≥ 50 ha ++ All projects under
Development Projects and or built up area ≥ item 8(b) shall be
1,50,000 sq.Mts ++ appraised as Category
B1
. The above table shows that the activity initiated by
respondent No.1 requires Prior Environment Clearance as it falls in more than one category of the above mentioned projects. Because 30 units (as per the map placed in page 105 of Application) are coming up in the respondent No.1 premises and the activities involved with the above mentioned categories. Hence the project must be assessed under EIA Notification, 2006 and the project proponent has to take appropriate approvals from the authorities
32) According to the applicant, the following illegalities were ignored by the Pollution Control Board as narrated:
(i) The Activity is very near to the habitations.
(ii) Irrigation channels are flowing through the proposed industry.
(iii) Requirement of water is very high but it was shown very low by the project proponent. As per the modified Consent for Operation granted on 9.11.2019 for only one 68 unit, the total waste water discharge is 270 KLD (Page 19 of the Affidavit of respondent No1). But as per the application filed by respondent No.1 dated 8.5.2014 (Page 101 of Volume-II of O.A), the total waste water generation is only 52 KLD (and total water consumption is 105 KLD) which is Five times less than the present approval. Based on the request made by the Project Proponent, the APPCB recommended Consent for Establishment on the same day (Page 106-109 of Volume-II of OA). After obtaining Consent for Establishment on 8.5.2014, respondent No.1 submitted additional details on 19.5.2014 stating that waste water generation would be 103 KLD. This shows clear collusion.
(iv) APPCB states in para 6 of its Affidavit that after keeping the factual ground situation in mind and considering the surrounding physical, topographical features. This is totally incorrect.
(v) Inaction on providing in correct/ misleading information by Respondent No.1.
(vi) Granted Rs. 1 crore for laying pipeline from Respondent No.1 to Yenamadurru drain which will merge with sea.
(vii) Inaction on violations of conditions in Consent for Operation till the Joint Inspection report placed before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
That the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board granted approvals though the Respondent No.1 activity is much higher than the application made for CFE and CFO because there 69 would be 30 similar food processing units are expected to setup in the Food Park."
According to the applicant, establishment of Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) requires Environmental Clearance.
33) According to the applicant, the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) sludge and screening as per consented quantity for the park was 2 TPA. The report shows that for 10% production rate itself, the sludge generated was 144-180 TPA which is more than 77-90 times than the consented quantity and if the park functions at the full capacity, the sludge generated will be 770-900 times the consented quantity. Applicant also contended that the quantity of water to be collected and required to its source were not properly considered. The industry is situated 80 meters from the habitations and they have failed to mention that fact, but only stated that there are no siting guidelines for setting up of Aqua Food Parks. They have not considered the impact of the functioning of the unit in its full capacity. He also mentioned that first respondent has been releasing their industrial waste water into Gonteru stream which supplies water for drinking, agriculture and fishing. Even during the process of setting up of the unit, five workers died due to 70 poisonous gases generated from the Ananda Group of Companies which was published in the newspaper and first respondent is one of the promoters of the same. So, he anticipates similar such things in this unit as well.
34) According to the applicant, following issues are required to be considered regarding the functioning of the unit which is enumerated as follows:
" In the above circumstances it is humbly submitted that following issues may be considered:
(i) Whether there are illegalities in granting approvals for Respondent No.1 by the authorities ?
(ii) Whether the industry/ Aqua food park can continued below 80 meters from habitations ?
(iii) Whether the Food Park with 30 units can run without Environment Clearance by MoEF or SEIAA ?
(iv) Whether the water bodies such as Yanamandurru, Gontheruetc polluted in West Godavari District ?
(v) Whether Aqua cultivation has caused environmental pollution such as land pollution, water pollution and loss of livelihood ?
35) Applicant wanted to direct the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board to inspect the unit again and file a fresh report as according to the applicant, 71 the inspection was done in a casual manner without going into the allegations made in the application.
36) Heard Mr. Sravankumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff learned counsel appearing for first respondent MoEF & CC, Mr G. Karthikeyan, Assistant Solicitor General of India, learned counsel appearing for third respondent, Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu, learned counsel appearing for fourth respondent, Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali, learned counsel appearing for sixth and ninth respondents, Mr. T. Saikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for eighth respondent and Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for project proponent.
37) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that considering the nature of activities involved in the first respondent unit, it cannot be said that it does not require any Environmental Clearance and it may fall under clauses 4(f), 7(c), 7(e), 7(h) and 8(b) of EIA Notification, 2006 and since the line has been drawn through Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), it requires prior clearance and also Environmental Clearance and without the same the Pollution Control Board should not have 72 granted the Consent to Establish / Operate. Further, before granting consent, the Pollution Control Board has not conducted any Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the industrial unit as such, even one industry functioning is consuming lot of water which is taken from a public water body. The impact of collection of sludge while treating the effluent was not taken into account properly. So, according to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the function of the unit cannot be permitted to continue as it will have great environment impact on the neighbouring villages and it will also affect the water body.
38) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the project proponent submitted that the applicant wants to expand the scope of the enquiry in this application. The grievance is that without the Environmental Clearance and CRZ clearance the first respondent should not have started operation of the unit. The authorities have categorically stated that as far as first respondent is concerned both are not required as they are not using the pipeline proposed to be laid by the Government to discharge trade effluent from the Industrial Estate to the Sea.
Further, no part of the activities is falling within the Coastal 73 Regulation Zone and as such the unit does not require any clearance.
39) The Pollution Control Board had inspected the unit and found that it is a complaint unit and there is no serious violation and environmental compensation imposed has been paid. He had also argued that Pollution Control Board had granted revised consent enhancing the permission to have effluent discharge quantity to 280 KLD.
40) The official respondents have reiterated their stand raised in their reply statements.
41) The points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether the first respondent unit requires prior Environmental Clearance and CRZ clearance before starting the unit ?
(2) Whether the first respondent unit is directed to be closed for any of the reasons stated in the application?
(3) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any other relief as claimed in the application ?74
42) Point Nos. 1 to3: It may be mentioned here, the main case of the applicant in the application was that first respondent unit requires prior Environmental Clearance and CRZ clearance and without that they are not entitled to operate. They also contended that the Pollution Control Board had issued consent without considering the impact of the load of pollution that is likely to arise on account of the operation of the unit. They also alleged that if the unit is allowed to function, there is a possibility of water scarcity.
43) Even at the time before admitting the matter, since this Tribunal had some doubt regarding the question as to whether first respondent unit requires any prior Environmental Clearance as required under EIA Notification, 2006 and CRZ clearance as required under CRZ Notification, 2011, we called for report from the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF& CC) regarding this aspect and they have categorically stated in their reply that this being only a Food Park, there is no necessity for any environment clearance as they will not fall under any of the categories provided in the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006.
As regards the CRZ clearance is concerned, for the purpose of drawing the pipeline to discharge trade effluent into Sea, CRZ 75 clearance is required and without that they cannot operate. As regards the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) is concerned, they have stated that as per Notification of MoEF& CC S.O. 6250 (E) dated 19.12.2018, the requirement of Environmental Clearance for CETP has been exempted for those setup for or within projects or activities which do not require Environmental Clearance and if any of the existing or proposed member units of the said CETP produces or proposes to produce any product requiring Environmental Clearance, then the CETP shall need Environmental Clearance.
44) Further, a perusal of the industries mentioned by the applicant in his reply to the report of the Central Pollution Control Board, it will be seen that first respondent unit does not come under any one of the categories. It is not a leather/ skin/ hide processing industry as mentioned in clause 4(f), Industrial estates/ parks/ complexes/ areas, Export Processing Zones (EPZs), Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Biotech Parks, Leather Complexes as mentioned in clause 7(c), Ports, harbours, break waters, dredging as mentioned in clause 7(e), Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) as mentioned in clause 7(h) and Townships and Area Development projects as mentioned in 76 clause 8(b) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006. When the nature of unit do not fall under any one of the categories mentioned in Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006, then there is no necessity for any Environmental Clearance. Further, it is in a way admitted by both parties that the area where first respondent unit is situated does not fall under Coastal Regulation Zone and as such for starting the project no CRZ clearance is required under CRZ Notification, 2011. So, under such circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that first respondent unit requires Environmental Clearance and CRZ clearance is without any substance.
45) As regards issuance of Consent to Operate is concerned, it is an appealable order and no appeal has been filed by the applicant challenging the same as well. So, he cannot adopt an indirect method to challenge the same before this Tribunal by filing an application under Section 14, 15 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Though, the unit does not require any Environmental Clearance or CRZ clearance and it was having necessary Consent to Operate under law, we thought to find whether a unit is functioning in compliance with the conditions imposed and report has been obtained. The report reiterated in 77 the earlier paragraphs shows that there was some violation and for that violation environmental compensation has been imposed and the same has been remitted by the first respondent. Though it was mentioned in the reply statement of ninth respondent that it was remitted under duress under the threat of non-issuing renewal of Consent to Operate, unless it is challenged before the appropriate forum, this Tribunal cannot go into the same in this matter. Further, though first respondent had shown a lesser amount of water required for the purpose of obtaining the consent, if practically more water is required it will increase the discharge quantity then the amount of compensation imposed by the authorities cannot be said to be unsustainable as well.
46) Since the compensation has already been imposed for the violation found, it is also seen from the reply statement of the ninth respondent that subsequently fresh Consent to Operate has been granted enhancing the effluent discharge quantity to 280 KLD, that deficiency has also been set right. As such, this cannot be a ground for taking action against first respondent unit. Since for the time being, there is only one unit working in the industrial area, we need not go into the question regarding the quantity of water required, if the entire units are proposed to have started 78 functioning in that Food Park. Merely because there was some violation found in the unit of which first respondent is also a promoter as alleged in the application cannot be taken as a ground to come to the conclusion that the same violation will be committed by first respondent in respect of the operation of the present unit as well.
47) Since all the issues raised in the application have already been considered by this Tribunal, the applicant is not entitled to expand the scope of the enquiry any further. If there is any future violation found, they are at liberty to approach this Tribunal in accordance with law. Further, it is for the Pollution Control Board to conduct a carrying capacity evaluation before issuing further permission for other units and regarding the restriction of units in the Park after taking into account the total quantity of water required, the source of water and total pollution load that is likely to arise etc., and thereafter, to issue the necessary Consent to Operate and it is for the Pollution Control Board to decide the manner in which those things will have to be evaluated before issuing Consent to Operate and this Tribunal cannot issue any direction as to how they should exercise their statutory duty / 79 power in such matters which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
48) The dictum laid down in the decision of the reported Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Jagannath vs. Union of India and others (1997 (2) SCC 87) relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in his application is not applicable to the facts of this case. That case pertains to the establishment of a Shrimp processing unit, whether it can be established in the Coastal Regulation Zone was considered and in that decision it was held that it is an impermissible activity. In this case, the unit is not operating within the Coastal Regulation Zone and as such that question does not arise. Thus, point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.
49) In view of the discussions made above and also in view of the action taken by the Pollution Control Board and compliance of the recommendations by first respondent, this Tribunal feels that there is no further order is required at present in this case and the application can be disposed of accordingly. It is also made clear that the Pollution Control Board is at liberty to conduct periodical inspection of the unit to ascertain whether the first 80 respondent unit is complying with the conditions imposed, and if there is any violation found to take appropriate action against the unit in accordance with law.
50) In the result, with the above observations and directions, the application is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .................................E.M. (Sri SaibalDasgupta) O.A. No.06/2019, 6th March, 2020.
Kr 81