National Green Tribunal
M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. ... vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 12 April, 2021
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item Nos. 07 to 11 (Court No. 1)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 23/2020
(With report dated 19.02.2021)
M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Member Secretary U.P. Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
WITH
Appeal No. 24/2020
M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Member Secretary U.P. Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
WITH
Appeal No. 25/2020
M/s Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Member Secretary U.P. Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
WITH
Appeal No. 28/2020
M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Appellant
1
Versus
Member Secretary U.P. Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
WITH
Appeal No. 29/2020
M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Member Secretary U.P. Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 12.04.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Tarun Khurana, Advocate
Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for UPPCB
ORDER
1. These appeals have been preferred against orders of the UP State PCB assessing environmental compensation for violation of environmental norms on polluter pays principle, for the period specified in the respective impugned orders.
2. The matter was last considered on 03.09.2020 with reference to the contention of the appellants that there were procedural irregularities in collecting samples and that the appellants were infact compliant.
Accordingly, the Tribunal directed an independent joint Committee to 2 ascertain the compliance status by the appellants. The operative part of the order is as follows:-
"1.....xxx..................................xxx........................................xxx
2. Main ground of challenge is that sample was taken by IIT Roorkee in violation of the Section 11 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with rules 6 and 8 of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Samples were not divided in two parts, not sealed in presence of the appellant, part of the report was not handed over to the appellant. In violation of Rule 8 (4) the report was never shared with the appellant. The appellant got sample analyzed from accredited lab on the next date of the visit of the IIT Roorkee and according to the said test report the appellant was compliant.
3. We are of the view that without prejudice to the consideration of the above contention after giving opportunity to file response to the State PCB, the issue whether the appellant was compliant during the relevant period may be independently ascertained by the joint Committee of CPCB and State PCB within one month and till then the impugned orders may not be given effect. The State PCB will be nodal agency for compliance. The State PCB may also file response to the appeal before the next date.
4. The report of above determination may be furnished to this Tribunal before the next date by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF."
3. Accordingly, the joint Committee has conducted an independent inspection and filed its report on 19.02.2021, which has been on the website of this Tribunal since 20.02.2021, accessible to all. No objection has been filed. It is orally stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants did not find the report on the website. This statement cannot be accepted being against record. As per administrative order of this Tribunal dated 20th February, 2021 (already on the website), 3 procedure for accessing reports submitted to this Tribunal is notified as follows:-
"Procedure for taking copy of a report furnished to National Green Tribunal With the approval of the competent Authority, it is hereby directed that:
A report or other document received in a pending matter will be uploaded on the website of the NGT at the earliest. All concerned shall be at liberty to take its print and peruse it. Non-availability of such report with party shall not be accepted as denial of opportunity or a ground for adjournment."
4. We find from the independent report of the joint Committee dated 19.02.2021 that an independent joint inspection was carried out on 22.12.2020 in respect of one of the units. The Committee observed a drain outside the unit had odour. It was found that ETP was not functional and there was a bypass channel from the ETP. There was thus clear non-compliance. Once there was a bypass channel from the ETP inlet and ETP was non-functional, the said unit was certainly misleading the authorities. In such situation, the objection that procedure was not followed at the time of earlier inspection or that the unit was infact compliant cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned order qua the said unit. The observations of the joint Committee are reproduced below:
"2.0 Inspection of M/s Rudra-Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bilaspur, District- Rampur, U.P. on 22.12.2020 by Joint Committee of officials from CPCB & UPPCB In compliance to the Hon'ble NGT order dated 03.09.2020 inspection of M/s Rudra-Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bilaspur, District- Rampur, U.P (hereinafter referred 4 as 'the unit') was carried out on 22nd December, 2020 by a joint team comprising of the officials from Regional Office, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Delhi.
Prior to the entry into the sugar mill premise, the joint team visited the surrounding areas and nearby fields around M/s Rudra-Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bilaspur, District- Rampur, U.P and had interactions with the local residents of the area.
The joint team observed a drain located outside the Unit, along the boundary wall of the sugar mill. There was odour and visible color of effluent in the drain. The team surveyed the area along the boundary of sugar mill till the interior locations in the adjoining agriculture field to trace the origin/final discharge point of the drain. Sample was collected from the drain flowing outside the boundary wall of the unit for further physico- chemical analysis. Analysis results are presented in Table-1.
The joint team then inspected the unit's manufacturing operation, wastewater management system and verified their logbooks.
During inspection the unit was found operational however its ETP was not fully functional. The team observed bypass channel from ETP inlet which was extending beyond the spray pond and towards the boundary wall. Thus, the entire volume of raw effluent as well as spray pond overflow was being bypassed instead of reaching the ETP. The samples were collected from ETP inlet and bypass after spray pond. Analysis results are presented in Table-1 The ETP was made operational only after team's arrival and no flow was observed at ETP outlet. Hence no sample could be collected from ETP outlet.
Based on the observations made and analysis result of samples collected from ETP inlet, bypass channel after spray pond and drain outside the Unit premise, it can be concluded that the Unit is not operating its ETP properly, instead it is bypassing the raw untreated effluent and spray pond overflow through the drain outside the Unit premise.
Detailed observation and recommendations of the joint inspection are enclosed herewith.
xxx.....................................xxx................................xxx "4.0. OBSERVATIONS 5
1. The unit has valid Consent to Operate for cane crushing under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Consent no. 7649432) which is valid up to 31.12.2021 (Annexure-1) and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Consent No. 7649479) which was valid up to 31.12.2020 (Annexure-2).
2. The unit has applied for obtaining Hazardous Waste Authorization for storage and disposal of hazardous wastes (Annexure-3).
3. The unit could not provide any document of the application to CGWA for NOC.
4. Display board for Hazardous Waste generation and disposal was not observed at the main gate of the mill.
5. The unit is engaged in production of white crystalline sugar by double sulphitation method. The unit has started its crushing season 2020-21 on 23rd November, 2020. The unit was found operational at the time of inspection.
6. The unit is having ETP with capacity of 400 KLD. ETP comprises of bar screen, oil skimmer &, equalization tank, pH correction tank (Lime dosing), primary clarifier, aeration tank (02), secondary clarifier (02), chlorine contact tank (NaOCl), MGF, Activated Carbon Filter (ACF), sludge sump and centrifuge.
7. At the time of inspection, the unit's officials informed that the ETP was not in operation before the joint team arrived because of some mechanical fault but was made operational after the team's arrival. However, following components of the ETP were found nonoperational during inspection:
Oil & Grease trap Spray pond overflow Tertiary treatment units i.e. ACF & MGF (they were in corroded condition) Primary and secondary clarifier Aeration Tank Empty/dry storage lagoon Thus, only the lime dosing, equalization tank and surge tank were operational at the time of inspection.
8. At the time of inspection, the spray pond overflow treatment system was also not in operation and flow meters were not installed at inlet and outlet of spray pond over flow.
9. The inspection team observed that the raw effluent generated in the process was reaching the ETP inlet from where it was diverted through a bypass channel which was extended beyond the spray pond 6 such that spray pond overflow could also be discharged into the same channel. The channel appears to be reaching all the way till the boundary wall however the immediate vicinity of the boundary wall inside Unit premise was not approachable due to thick over growth of vegetation. A similar channel/drain was observed outside the boundary wall and flowing along it till the agriculture fields and beyond.
10. The Joint team collected Samples from a.) ETP inlet, b.) portion of the channel after the spray pond overflow leading towards the boundary wall and c.) from the drain outside the Unit premise flowing along unit's boundary wall. The analysis result of the samples is presented in Table-1.
11. The ETP was only partially operational and no flow was observed at ETP outlet. Hence no sample could be collected from ETP outlet.
Table: 1 Analysis results of sample collected from Outside of unit, ETP Inlet and By-Pass after Spray pond overflow.
S. Sample Analysis pH COD BOD TSS TDS Color Sulphur/ No. (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (Hz) Sulphate ( mg/L) 1 Outside of unit along 3.9 4335 2535 248 2040 34 253 the boundary wall 2 ETP Inlet 3.5 8234 5100 762 2908 36 300 3 By-Pass after Spray 4.1 614 333 87 1068 8 -
Pond 4 Prescribed standards for surface water 5.5 discharge [as per the to 250 30 30 2100 - -
Consent granted by 8.5 UPPCB]
12. The analysis results of bypass effluent collected from the drain outside the unit (flowing along its boundary wall) shows non-compliance w.r.t. pH-3.9 (against 5.5-8.5), COD 4335 mg/l (against 250 mg/l), BOD- 2535 mg/l (against 30 mg/l), TSS- 248 mg/l (against 30 mg/l) for surface water discharge.
13. The analysis result of sample collected from ETP inlet shows the value of pH-3.5, COD 8234 mg/l, BOD- 5100 mg/l, TSS- 762 mg/l.
14. The analysis results of effluent collected from bypass channel after spray pond shows non- compliance w.r.t. pH-4.1 (against 5.5-8.5, COD- 614 7 mg/l (against 250 mg/l), BOD 333 mg/l (against 30 mg/l), TSS- 87 mg/l (against 30 mg/l) for surface water discharge.
15. As per the analysis report, the characteristics of sample collected from ETP inlet (pH-3.5, colour-36 Hz) was comparable to the sample collected from the drain outside Unit's boundary wall (pH-3.9, colour-34 Hz). The sample collected from the bypass channel after the spray pond indicates comparatively lower COD- 614 mg/l, BOD-333 mg/l, TSS 87 mg/l, TDS- 1068 mg/l, Color- 8 Hz while pH was 4.1.
16. On the basis of analysis results, it can be concluded that untreated effluent was being sent to the ETP inlet from where it was discharged through bypass channel which was connected to the drain outside the boundary wall of the Unit. Untreated effluent which flowing through the bypass channel, beyond the spray pond, was also diluted with fresh water to avoid detection of bypass.
17. The unit has not maintained logbook record of total waste water (effluent) generation i.e. waste water generation from process area, Spray pond overflow and usage of treated effluent etc. Therefore, Wastewater generation could not be estimated.
18. At the time of inspection, the lagoon having capacity 6000 m3 for storage of treated effluent was found completely empty and dry. Thus, it can be deduced that the Unit is not operating the ETP properly and bypassing the untreated effluent instead of holding treated water for the irrigation purpose as per the conditions of consent.
19. The unit has not maintained the logbook for generation and disposal of sludge.
20. There is no arrangement made by the Unit to supply treated effluent to the farmers although as per irrigation management plan, 45 hectare of farmer's land area shall be irrigated by the Unit.
21. During the inspection, Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) sensor found installed at the outlet of secondary clarifier however as there was no overflow in clarifier, therefore the sensor was not fully submerged in water.
22. Inaccurate OCEMS reading were observed w.r.t. Flow- 0.09 m3/hr, COD- 90.9 mg/l, BOD-12.5 mg/l, TSS-28.3 mg/l during the visit.
23. The unit has maintained the log book w.r.t daily readings of Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System. (Annexure- 6).
824. Ground water is abstracted from one bore-well installed in the unit premise. Average fresh water abstraction is 410 KLD.
25. Joint team has also taken the samples for groundwater from the hand pump of residential area of the unit. The analysis results are presented in Table-2.
Table : 2 Analysis results of sample collected from Ground water Parameters, mg/l except pH, Color in Hazen and Conductivity in μmbo/cm Sampling Locations Sampling Point Groundwater sample- (Acceptable limit) Drinking (Permissible limit in the absence of hand-pump inside the water standards (BIS) alternate source) Drinking water residential area DRINKING standards (BIS) of the unit WATER-SPECIFICATION DRINKING WATER-
(Second Revision) SPECIFICATION
IS 10500:2012 (Second Revision)
Color BDL 5 15
pH 7.6 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
Conductivity 364 --- ---
TDS 242 500 2000
COD 05 --- ---
BOD BDL --- ---
Total Hardness 315 200 600
SO4 10 200 400
Heavy Metal Analysis
As BDL 0.01 0.05
Cd BDL 0.003 NR*
Co BDL --- ---
Cr BDL 0.05 NR*
Cu BDL 0.05 1.5
Fe 0.43 0.3 NR*
Mn BDL 0.1 0.3
Ni BDL 0.02 NR*
Pb BDL 0.01 NR*
Sb BDL --- ---
Se BDL 0.01 NR*
V BDL --- ---
Zn 0.06 5 15
NR* = No Relaxation
26. The analysis result of groundwater collected from hand- pump at residential area of sugar mill indicates COD- 5mg/l and Iron (Fe)- 0.43 mg/l, levels are exceeding the acceptable limit of Drinking Water Standards (BIS) IS 10500:2012.
927. The unit has separate environmental laboratory facility for analysis of daily parameters of ETP effluent, however the required equipments for analysis and lab analysis log book were not maintained properly.
28. As discussed with mill representatives, around 120 people are residing in the mill premises, however no Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) was installed for the treatment of domestic sewage generated from the residential area.
29. The joint team observed leakages in the overhead pipes in the mill house and mill staff were observed working without personal protective equipment.
30. Wet scrubber was found installed as Air Pollution Control Device (APCD) to control the particulate matter (PM) in the mill premises and surrounding area, however it was not in operation during the inspection.
31. Housekeeping of the mill was poor. The joint team also observed littering of bagasse in the air around the mill premises.
32. Flow meters for hot water recycling system at Mill house were installed at imbibition water, sugar melting, pan boiling, molasses conditioning. But the readings of the flow meters were not accessible because the location of installed flow meters were unapproachable. Flow Meters were also not installed at cold water recycling points.
33. Press mud dumping in an open area near the bypass channel after spray pond was observed and the concerned log book was not maintained.
34. The unit has one low pressure boiler having capacity of 20 kg/cm2.
35. The unit has not stored boiler ash according to CPCB/SPCB guidelines and log book for the same not maintained.
36. No hazardous tank was observed by the joint team at the time of inspection.
37. Flow meters were not installed at outlet of mill house, boiling house as well as outlet of steam generation house.
38. The roads inside the unit premises was found unpaved and full of dust and no water sprinkling was observed.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS:-
1. The unit shall immediately dismantle the bypass channel from ETP inlet, after spray pond overflow and outside its boundary wall.
2. The unit shall maintain the functioning of each treatment units of ETP system in order to operate the ETP properly.10
3. The unit shall maintain the documents related to waste water generation and treated waste water discharge along with ETP logbooks.
4. The unit shall maintain the record/log book w.r.t. spray pond overflow.
5. A display board for Hazardous Waste generation and disposal shall be placed at the entry gate of the mill.
6. The unit shall install the flow meter at ETP outlet and shall repair the dysfunctional flowmeters at ETP inlet.
7. The unit shall upgrade the environmental laboratory for daily analysis of parameters and maintain record for the same.
8. The unit shall install OCEMS sensor at final outlet of ETP and shall maintain the calibration record for the same.
9. The machineries inside the mill house and boiler house needs rigorous maintenance and refurbishment as leakages were observed in mill house during the inspection.
10. Wet scrubber needs maintenance in order to control the particulate matter (PM) in the mill premises and surrounding area.
11. The unit shall relocate the flow meters inside the Mill House at accessible places.
12. The unit shall make sure that the staff working inside the unit specially the mill house must wear the protective gears as it is unsafe to walk inside the unit.
13. The unit shall improve its overall housekeeping.
14. The unit needs to make a proper management of bagasse and arrangements shall be made to feed the bagasse via closed chute into boiler.
15. The unit shall make proper arrangement for disposal of press mud in a proper way and keep proper log book for the same.
16. The unit shall maintain Hazardous Tank for collection of wash water generated during chemical/mechanical cleaning of evaporator tubes along with the logbook of the same.
17. The various passages inside the industry needs to be paved to reduce dust and subsequent air pollution.
18. The unit shall submit the analysis report of ground water by the NABL accredited laboratory periodically.
19. The unit shall install Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for treatment of generated domestic waste water from the residential colony within the premises."11
5. Accordingly, as far as Appeal No. 25/2020 is concerned, the same will stand dismissed. The State PCB may take further action for preventing pollution and remedial steps against the violations found.
6. However, we find that the joint Committee, except for inspection of M/s Rudra-Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bilaspur, District-
Rampur, U.P. has not independently inspected other units but given a report based on earlier inspection by the State PCB. Thus, with regard to Appeal Nos. 23/2020, 24/2020, 28/2020 and 29/2020, the joint Committee may now conduct independent inspection and give a further report of the compliance status before the next date by e-mail at judicial-
[email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
List Appeal Nos. 23/2020, 24/2020, 28/2020 and 29/2020 for further consideration on 08.07.2021.
A copy of this order be forwarded to CPCB and State PCB by e-mail for compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Brijesh Sethi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM April 12, 2021 Appeal No. 23/2020 DV + A 12