National Green Tribunal
K.K.Muhammed Iqbal, S/O. Kochu ... vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board, ... on 7 December, 2021
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.5:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 262 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
K.K. Muhammed Iqbal ...Applicant(s)
Versus
Kerala State Pollution Control Board & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 07.12.2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): None.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. V.K. Rema Smrithi for R1, R2.
Mr. D.S. Ekambaram through
Mrs. P. Jayalakshmi for R3.
Mr. Hariraj M.R. for R4.
ORDER
1. As per order dated 23.08.2021, this Tribunal had considered the additional report submitted by the Joint Committee dated 07.07.2021 which was extracted in Para (7) of the order and then, passed the following order:-
"8. The committee wanted three weeks time to finalize the assessment of environment damage caused on account of the activities of the 4th respondent unit.Page 1 of 14
9. Considering the circumstances, we feel that some more time can be granted to the committee to submit the report as directed by this Tribunal.
10. They are directed to submit the report to this Tribunal on or before 30.09.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules.
11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee and also to the official respondents by e-mail immediately so as to enable them to comply with the direction."
2. The case was posted to 30.09.2021 for consideration of further report.
Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time by successive notifications and lastly, it was adjourned to today by notification dated 18.11.2021.
3. We have received the Joint Committee report dated 17.11.2021, e-filed on 18.11.2021 and received on 27.11.2021 which reads as follows:-
"REPORT FILED BY THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION We the Committee constituted by the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal vide order dated 20.01.2020 in O.A.No.262 of 2017. We know the facts and circumstances of the case. The factual submission made here under is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to accept the accompanying report as submitted by the committee constituted by the Honourable Tribunal and it is so humbly prayed in the interests of justice in this case.
Honourable NGT directions The Joint Committee was constituted by the Honourable National Green Tribunal vide order dated 20.01.2020 in O.A.No.262 of 2017. In line with the honourable NGT order dated 20- 01-2020, the three-member joint committee was formed and was assigned with the following directives:
To inspect the industrial clusters of Eloor, Edayar region regarding the efficiency of ETPs and CETPs in operation and also to observe the details of sewage discharge from the industrial clusters of Greater Kochi area which are discharging it into the river Periyar. Along with which the water quality of river Periyar and the status of implementation of ZLD facility by the industries in the region and its efficacy assessment so as to ensure all effluent Page 2 of 14 that is generated gets recycled without discharging the same into river Periyar.
Consideration of the question on damage to environment caused on account of the violation committed by Sreesakthi Paper Mills Ltd for non-disposal of the plastic waste generated by them and keeping it in their premises for a long period and to assess the environmental compensation as per the guidelines given by the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard.
Though, the assessment of efficiency of the ETPs, CETPs and implementation of ZLD in the industrial clusters of Greater Kochi along the banks of river Periyar was a major activity of the committee as per the order dated 20.01.2020; the activity of the joint committee was later limited/ restricted to the dumped plastic waste by M/s. Sreesakthi Paper Mills, in an order dated 29-01-2021 in this matter. As per the directions, the joint committee exclusively investigated the question of potential environmental damage caused/ inflicted by the violation committed M/s. Sreesakthi Paper Mills and to impose appropriate environmental compensation for the violation committed by the industry.
About the industry M/s. Sreesakthi Paper Mills Ltd., IDA, Edayar, Ernakulam. M/s. Sreesakthi Paper Mills Ltd., was a craft paper manufacturing unit situated in the Industrial Development Area (IDA), Edayar, Ernakulam in the state of Kerala. The industry was established in the year 1992 with one unit (Unit-1) and later expanded production by establishing another unit (Unit-2) in the year 2006. The industry was engaged in the manufacturing of craft paper by recycling waste paper and cardboard boxes. The production capacity of unit-1 at the time of establishment was 900-950 tons per month and KSPCB had granted permission for discharging 100 KLD of treated effluent into river Periyar with specific conditions. The following consents to establish (CTE)/ consents to operate (CTO) were issued by KSPCB for applications received from Sreesakthi Paper Mills Ltd.
Consent was issued in the year 2007 during its renewal for increasing the production capacity of unit I to 1500 tons/month (TPM) CTE was issued to unit 2 in the year 2006 for a production capacity of 70,000 tons per annum (TPA).
Consent was also issued in the year 2007 to establish an incinerator with a capacity 400 Kg/day for disposing the plastic waste generating from the process CTO was issued to unit 2 in 2007 (with capital investment 20 crores and production capacity 70,000TPA) with the consent condition to attain zero discharge before 31/12/2007.
CTE for expansion was issued for the installation of 22TPH power boiler for Captive Power Plant (CPP) of 48 MW/day capacity on 29/11/2011 with a validity up to 31.08.2014. The water consumption rate of the CPP was 20 KLD.
The raw materials used in the manufacturing of craft paper were old cartons boxes Page 3 of 14 and waste paper which were collected from both local market and imported from different countries. The consented water consumption limit imposed on the industry was 300KLD. The pollution control measures/ devices provided by the industry during its operation phase were:
ETP for the treatment of trade effluent generated Cyclone dust separator with 30 m stack provided for CPP boiler Wet scrubber cum quenching facility to the 30m stack connected to the incinerator Acoustic enclosure with adequate stack height for DG sets The industry was situated in 8.75 acres of land and about 81 cents of land were utilized for dumping plastic waste, incinerator ash generated from the processes. The solid waste generated from the unit contained steel clips, stapler pins, plastic wastes including plastic labels, plastic laminations, sacks and other plastic wastes. The other wastes generated from the industry were ETP sludge, ash from the captive power plant and incinerator. Waste oil and incinerator ash generated from the industry were brought under the ambit of hazardous wastes. The waste management were done as per the following:
ETP sludge was disposed through the common TSDF M/s. KEIL, Kochi Incinerator waste was dumped in the unit premise/plot. The plastic wastes generated were disposed through the conventional type incinerators installed and later it was sent to co-processing in cement units. Later the plastic waste was disposed to TSDF, M/s. KEIL, Kochi as per the order of the Hon‟ble High Court in the matter of WP(C) 5803/2017.
As per the directions of Honorable High Court of Kerala, the plastic wastes were removed from the site. The quantum of plastic waste removed and disposed to the common TSDF (M/s. KEIL, Kochi) is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R1(a). The reclaimed area is in the process of converting to a parking space for warehouse operated M/s. Cella Space currently established in the location for industrial/ warehousing/ logistics purposes. Consent to Establish (PCB/ESC/IC/CE- 50/2019) was issued to the above unit on 09.11.2019 (valid up to 23.10.2024) and subsequently consent to operate (PCB/ESC/CO/IC-64/2020) was issued on 24.11.2020 (valid up to 31.10.2025). The area in which plastic waste was dumped is now in the process of converting into a parking area of M/s. Cella Space after the removal of dumped plastic wastes.
3.0 Joint Committee meetings and site investigations The first joint committee meeting and site inspection was carried out on 19.02.2020.
In the meeting, decision was taken to collect soil sample to assess the extent of plastic wastes still present in the site. On 19.02.2021, the Joint Committee inspected the site and collected soil samples from the site where plastic was previously dumped. On the day of inspection, it was observed that plastic was spread over the plot and site Page 4 of 14 preparation activities were already initiated to convert the plot into a parking area for trucks. On investigation, it was found that plastic wastes were still present in the soil on the surface and within 1 feet depth. Surface/ top soil samples were collected for the analysis of plastic (ANNEXURE-PHOTOGRAPHS). Soil samples were segregated by progressive sieving of soil samples and were sent to Central Institute of Petrochemical Engineering and Technology (CIPET) on 20.02.2021 for analysis. Weight by weight percentage of plastic present in the soil samples collected is summarized in table: 1.
Table 1: Quantification of plastics in soil samples
S. Total sample Weight of Plastic content
Sample ID % Plastic
No weight (Kg) Plastic (mg) (mg/ Kg)
1 SR1 1.1 90,000 81,818 8.18
2 SR2 2.03 10,000 4926 4.9
3 SR3 1.6 5,000 3125 3.1
4 SR4 1.1 90,000 81,818 8.18
Qualitative assessment of samples using Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) for confirming the presence of plastic in the soil was carried out. As per the analysis of soil samples, the soil is contaminated with Poly Ethylene (PE), Poly Propylene (PP) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) particles/ crumbs. Details of the analysis is given in table: 2 and the analysis result from CIPET is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R1(b). The analysis of soil samples confirmed the presence of plastic particles/ crumbs in the soil samples taken from the plot.
Table 2: Qualitative assessment/ identification of plastics in soil samples S.No Sample ID Test Method Result 01 SR-1 (Coarse Particles) ASTM D 3418 Polyethylene (PE) & Polypropylene (PP) ASTM E1252 Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 02 SR-1 (Fine Particles) Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Once, the presence of plastic waste in the soil was confirmed, the Joint Committee carried out the second phase of soil sampling in the areas adjacent to the Periyar River where site preparation activities was yet to start. Soil samples were collected up to three feet depth at 5 different locations using powered earth augur driller. Photographs of the same is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure R1(c). The soil samples collected were assessed for the extent of plastic wastes by progressive sieving and separation of plastic materials. The macro plastics present in the soil samples was quantified on the basis of percentage (weight/weight). The details of soil investigation are presented in table:
3. Average plastic quantity estimated in the soil sample is 21883.65 mg/ Kg of soil.
Page 5 of 14Table 3: Assessment of plastics in the soil samples collected from the plot Samples Bulk Total Weight % Sampling Plastic Density Weight of Plasticsin Depth Coordinates (mg/kg) ID (Kg/m3) (Kg) Plastic the (Ft) (mg) Samples SS1 1 10° 04' 44.0" N 810.5 0.54 2818 5218.51 0.52 SS1 3 76° 18' 53.6"E 953.7 0.56 NIL NIL NIL SS3 1 10° 04' 43.9" N 808 0.42 5395 12845 1.28 SS3 2 76° 18' 53.4"E 360.5 0.25 35000 140000 14 10° 04' 43.8" N SS4 1 942.4 0.64 NIL NIL NIL 76° 18' 53.4"E SS5 1 10° 04' 43.4" N 564.6 0.40 NIL NIL NIL SS5 3 76° 18' 52.6"E 572.15 0.26 NIL NIL NIL 10° 04' 44.9" N SS6 3 1010 1.4 23808 17005.71 1.7 76° 18' 53.7"E Average quantity of plastic in the soil 21883.65 mg/ Kg Based on above sampling, analysis and assessment, it is confirmed that three types of plastic materials (PE, PP and PET) are still present in the soil as a contaminant. The plastic still present in the site is quantified as illustrated in table: 4.
Table 4: Estimated total weight of plastic remaining in the site S.No Particulars Calculations 1 Total contaminated area= 78 cents 3156.66 m2 (78 x 40.47) 2 Average depth 3 ft = 0.91 m 3 Total volume of contaminated soil 3156.66*0.91=2872.56 m3 4 Average Bulk density 752.73 kg/m3 5 Weight of the contaminated soil 2872.56 x 752.73 (Volume x Average Bulk density) (21,62,262.09 Kg) 6 Average Plastic Content in the soil 21883.65 mg/Kg 7 Estimated total weight of the plastics 47.318 Tons 6.0 Assessment of environmental damage/ cost of plastic pollution One of the directives of the honourable NGT is to consider the question on damage to environment caused on account of the violation committed by Sreesakthi Paper Mills Ltd for non-disposal of the plastic waste generated by them and keeping it Page 6 of 14 in their premises for a long period. Unmanaged or poorly managed plastic wastes have serious implication on the environment. Environmental damages due to specific anthropogenic activities have far reaching effects on various habitats and ecosystems and also impair human‟s consumer & non-consumer values. Environmental damages significantly vary in terms of the damage‟s space, scope, level and magnitude. Due to this, significant indices or markers of environmental damage differ considerably and one of the initial steps of environmental damage assessment is to determine the unique indices or markers which help assess the actual damage. However, due to the complicated conception of ecosystems, it would be a daunting task to understand and assess the extent of environmental damages. In most of the cases, the baseline indices and markers required to envisage the extent of environmental/ ecological/ social costs are not available for the accurate assessment of environmental damages and often the assessment has to be done on 'notional' basis under the ambit of „polluter pays principle‟.
As per the European Parliament study (The environmental impacts of plastics and micro- plastics use, waste and pollution: EU and national measures, 2020), the inherent economic impact due to plastic waste is very vast, with an estimated economic damage to the global marine ecosystems surpassing € 11 billion. The study also put forth that, in Europe, € 630 million are spent every year to clean plastic waste from coasts/ beaches, while the failure to recycle costs to the European economy is € 105 billion. According to WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) International‟s report (Plastics: The costs to society, the environment and the economy; 2021), the impacts of plastic pollution, generate significant costs for society and these costs are not accounted in plastic‟s market price. The lifetime cost of the plastic produced in 2019 will be at least US$3.7 trillion (+/- US$1 trillion) and is more than the GDPof India.
Since the introduction of plastic and its industrial production, the volumes of plastics produced have outpaced those of almost any other material. However, the characteristics that render plastics highly desirable are also those that render them ubiquitous and persistent in the environment, as a large fraction of plastics is designed to be discarded almost immediately after their use. Studies shows that, only 9% of all the plastic ever manufactured has been recycled and most of the plastic waste ends up in landfills and, ultimately, in the environment. Most plastics do not degrade, instead, they slowly fragment into smaller particles, referred to as micro plastics, and, further disintegrate into nano-plastics. These plastic particles, have profound detrimental consequences for ecosystems, biota, and the environment, but also for the economy and human health.
As per the European Union study for Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies (The environmental impacts of plastics and micro-plastics use, waste and pollution: EU and national measures, 2020), approximately two-thirds of all plastic ever produced has been released into the environment, where it continues to impact ecosystems as it fragments and degrades. Only a small fraction of plastic waste is recycled and plastic recycling is considered as an expensive process owing to the inherent complexities of Page 7 of 14 collection, transportation, processing, and re-manufacturing. These considerable costs in combination with the low commercial value of recycled plastic on the one hand and the low cost of virgin polymers on the other seldom renders the recycling process profitable and often requires huge subsidies to sustain.
Improper handling/ disposal of plastic waste/ process sub-products/ raw materials leads to the formation of primary micro plastics and over the period of time secondary micro plastics are generated from the plastic litter/ waste dumps/ or by the abrasions in landfill or dumpsites. In the case of plastics, the term "end of life" does not equate to "end of impact" and the waste plastic materials persist and pollute long after their intended use. Now it is well established that there is no such thing as "end of life"
for plastics and depending on how plastic is handled, it may pose a significant threat to the environment and to the climate when it reaches the waste phase of its life- cycle.WWF International in a report (Plastics: The costs to society, the environment and the economy; 2021) provided an overview on the quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs imposed by the plastic lifecycle. As per the report, the cost imposed by plastic on account of market production cost and waste management are currently quantifiable. However, the cost of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from plastic and unmanaged plastic wastes have both quantifiable and unquantified elements. But the cost of plastic imposed on health are currently unquantified.
In this specific matter, it is the issue of unmanaged plastic waste on the banks of river close to the estuarine/ brackish water ecosystem and the quantifiable cost elements are:
Lost ecosystem service costs of estuarine/ coastal/ marine plastic pollution paid for indirectly by governments and all other stakeholders, given the environmental and economic consequences.
Revenue reductions from fisheries and tourism as a result of estuarine/ marine plastic pollution.
Clean-up costs, containment, remediation activities and restoration cost.
The unquantifiable cost of unmanaged plastic waste is on account of lost ecosystem service costs of plastic pollution on terrestrial ecosystems (any ecosystems which are found on land including rainforests, deserts, and grasslands). In this case, this aspect may not be significant since, the polluted/ contaminated site is in notified industrial area. However, there are chances of spillage and carry forward of plastic particles from the site to the river, then to the estuarine/ brackish water system and ultimately to the marine environment.
In the WWF International‟s report on „Plastics: The costs to society, the environment and the economy; 2021, the GHG emissions from end-of-life processes per tonne of plastic waste is estimated as ~0.53 tonnes of CO2e(Carbon dioxide equivalent) per tonne of waste generated. Associated cost of carbon from GHG is estimated as $ 100.00 per tonne. In another landmark study, the social cost of carbon associated with GHG Page 8 of 14 emissions for India is estimated as $ 86.00@ per tonne of CO2.The plastic waste management cost is estimated as $ 125.68* per tonne of waste as per the WWF‟s report. All the cost estimates are based on the 2019 US consumer price index (CPI). To adopt the above cost factors, it is required to relate the above to the Indian consumer price index. It is suggested that the cost estimates of various factors/ elements based on US CPI shall be related in terms of corresponding Indian CPI. The US consumer price index as on July, 2021 is 273.012 point (https://tradingeconomics.com/united- states/consumer-price-index-cpi) and corresponding CPI of India was 162.9 points(https://tradingeconomics.com/india/consumer-price-index-cpi). For the assessment of potential environmental damage/ cost of plastic pollution, the above cost factors are adjusted to Indian CPI and are summarized in table: 5.
Table 5: Cost elements adjusted to Indian CPI for the assessment of damage.
No. Cost element Estimated cost/ ton Adjusted to Indian CPI 1 Cost of proper plastic waste $ 125.68* $ 74.991 management 2 GHG emissions from end-of-life $ 100.00* $ 59.661 plastic waste.
3 Social cost of carbon emission $ 86.00 @ India specific cost @ 4 Unmanaged plastic waste: $ 3300.00# $ 1,969.031 Ecological cost CPI: Consumer Price Index 1 Cost adjusted to Indian consumer price index (CPI) as on July 2021.
* Plastics: The costs to society, the environment and the economy; published in September2021 by WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland. @ Country level social cost of carbon, Katharine Ricke, Laurent Drouet, Ken Caldeira andMassimo Tavoni, Nature Climate Change, Vol 8, October 2018, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y # Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Beaumont N J, Margrethe Aanesen, Melanie C. Austen, Tobias Börger, James R. Clark, Matthew Cole,Tara Hooper, Penelope K. Lindeque, Christine Pascoe, Kayleigh J. Wyles. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 142, 2019, Pages 189-195, ISSN 0025-326X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022 Based on the above cost factors, indicative environmental damage/ cost of plastic pollution was estimated as summarized in table: 6. The quantifiable cost factor with respect to the market price of plastic waste was not considered as the plastic waste dumped is a waste by- product of kraft paper making process and hence the market price of plastic is not imposed. Cost of plastic pollution on account of health is unquantifiable due to lack of baseline data and relevant health data. The clean-up/ containment cost on account of unmanaged plastic waste may be waived as the proponent is developing a concreted parking space in the site and if the construction is properly engineered to contain the remnant plastic in the site. Revenue reduction with respect to unmanaged plastic waste was not quantified as the site is in notified industrial area and due to lack of relevant Page 9 of 14 data on revenue reduction from tourism and fisheries. The environmental damage/ cost of plastic pollution on account of GHG emissions from end-of-life plastic waste has been estimated to be $ 59.661, however, India specific social cost of carbon was put forth ($ 86.00 @) recently and it is more appropriate to impose the social cost of carbon for the estimated GHG emissions in this scenario.
Table 6: Indicative Environmental Damage Cost due to plastic pollution No. Cost element Unit cost Estimated quantity Damage/ Cost adjusted to Indian CPI 1 Cost of proper plastic $ 74.991 47.32 Tons $ 3,548.53 waste management Rs. 2,61,455.45 2 Social cost of carbon $ 86.00 @ 47.32 Tons (0.53 $ 2156.85 on account of GHG tons of GHG/ ton of Rs. 1,58,916.38 emissions from end- plastic waste). Total of-life plastic waste. GHG emissions 25.08 tons.
3 Unmanaged plastic $ 1,969.031 47.32 Tons $ 93,174.50
waste: Ecological cost Rs. 68,65,097.13
Cost of plastic pollution/ environmental damage: Rs. 72,85,468.96 US $ Exchange rate Rs. 73.68 as on 20-09-2021.
CPI: Consumer Price Index 1 Cost adjusted to Indian consumer price index (CPI) as on July 2021. @ Country level social cost of carbon, Katharine Ricke, Laurent Drouet, Ken Caldeira andMassimo Tavoni, Nature Climate Change, Vol 8, October 2018, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y.
The estimated environmental damage/ cost of plastic pollution was limited to the phase after the removal plastic waste from the site. The environment damage cost of historic plastic pollution due to waste plastic dump in the site and the river is not considered as relevant data on the quantity of waste dumped and the quantum of plastic reached river and adjoining estuary is not available.The joint committee is of the opinion that the environmental damage/ cost of plastic pollution owing to the accumulation of plastic waste in the site from the inception of the industry could not be assessed due to paucity of relevant data. There are no records on the daily generation of plastic waste, the quantum of waste incinerated, daily dumping rate in the dump site and the possible carry over to the river during monsoon period. Since the requisite data are not available, the committee has not ventured in to the environmental damage footprint of the past accumulation/ dumping of plastic waste in the site adjacent to the river.Relevant data and baseline indices are lacking for the quantification of revenue loss/ reduction on account of fisheries and tourism in the affected river and estuary. Thus the cost of plastic pollution with respect to the above are not quantified.
The proponent is in the process of converting the site as a parking lot with impervious concrete/ bitumen surface with compound wall. However, if the proposed construction can be done under the supervision of expert agency and other competent authorities with the objective of containing the contaminated soil and prevent further flow of plastic contaminated soil into the river, the calculated environmental damage/ Page 10 of 14 cost of plastic pollution due to remnant plastic in the site can be utilized/ earmarked for this activity. Authorities have to review the engineering aspect and has to make sure that the construction will secure the site and prevent further flow of contaminated soil into the river without disturbing the natural drainage pattern of the site and without compromising river‟s flood plain zone.
It was also reported that the incinerator ash was disposed in the dump site for several years and there could be possible contamination of soil on account of heavy metals and other organic contaminants. A detailed study is warranted on the contamination status of soil with respect to heavy metals and other organic contaminants as per the schedule II of HWM Rules, 2016 or as per the Guidance Document for Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Site in India, issued by MoEF & CC. During the investigations, the project proponent carried out works in the site and the Joint Committee could not carry out extensive soil sampling to assess the extent of contamination in the site. The COVID-19 pandemic situation also hindered the sampling and inspections. It was learnt that the project proponent has carried out a third party study on the possible contamination in the site through the CSIR institute NIST, Thiruvananthapuram.
Though the above proposed damage calculation was discussed in detail by the committee, representative of NEERI has insisted on recording his views that in consideration of the facts and limitations, most attainable solution is to impose penalty rather than environmental compensation on the unit by the statutory bodies KSPCB/ CPCB in terms of violation caused for unplanned and negligent waste management in its premises. The NEERI representative is also of the opines that the aspect of environmental damage shall be quantified scientifically in terms of facts and data and only after that, the damage cost calculation part may be proceeded. The detailed note by the NEERI representative on his views on the limitations to the existing scenario on environmental damage assessment for the alleged plastic waste storage is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure R1(d) and the para wise justifications to the note by the other committee members are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure R1(e).
7.0 Assessment of Environmental Compensation (EC) As per the records available, the industry violated consented conditions on several occasions and there were several complaints raised against the industries on the grounds of pollution especially about the heaped up plastic garbage/ dump. The joint committee proposed to assess the environmental compensation (EC) from the date of issue of first notice for the removal of plastic dump. First notice was served by KSPCB to the unit on 29.11.2016 for removing the heaped plastic garbage from the premises and removal of plastic waste initiated by M/s. KEIL was on 01.09.2018 only after the intervention of Honourable High Court of Kerala. Thus number of days of violation after serving notice and the first action on removing the waste are 641 days. M/s. KEIL completed the removal of plastic dump on 01.03.2020 and the number of days Page 11 of 14 between the serving notice and completion of transportation/ disposal of plastic waste to common TSDF are 1188 days (Table: 7). Even after the notice, the industry has not taken any action on the notice served on them by KSPCB. The actual removal happened only after the intervention of Honourable High Court, hence the number of days of violations shall be from the first notice to completion of removal, which is 1188 days. Violations prior to the notice served on 29-11-2016 are not considered as the exact period of violations are not available.
Table 7: Number of days of violation
Year Month Days
2016 November 1
2016 December 31
2017 January - December 365
2018 January - December 365
2019 January - December 365
2020 January 31
2020 February 29
2020 March 1
No. of days of violation 1188
Environmental compensation (EC) was assessed based on the CPCB guidelines using the following formula. The descriptors used in the formula and values considered for the descriptors are summarized in table: 8.
EC (Rs.) = PI x N x Rx S x LF
Table 8: EC descriptors and values considered
Components Description Value considered
PI Pollution Index of industrial sector Red category (PI = 80)
N Number of days of violation took place 1188 days
R Rupee factor (100-500) Industrial area (R factor 100)
S Scale of operation (Small/ Medium/ Large) Large (S = 1.5)
LF Location factor Industrial area (LF = 1)
The EC (Rs.) is worked out as = 80 x 1188 x 100 x 1.5 x 1 = 1,42,56,000.00The estimated EC for a violation period of 1188 days is Rs. 1,42,56,000.00 7.0 Summary The estimated financial liability on account of environmental damage/ cost of plastic pollution and environmental compensation are summarized in table: 9.
Page 12 of 14
Table 9: EC descriptors and values considered
No. Components Damage/ EC Remarks
1 Environmental Rs. 72,85,468.96 This component may be utilized for the restoration/
damages/ cost of containment of the site. In case the proponent is
plastic pollution willing to contain/ secure the site with proper
due to the engineered measures, this component can be
remnant plastics utilized for that purpose under the supervision of
in the soil/ site. expert agencies and
other stake holders.
2 The estimated Rs. 1,42,56,000.00 Environmental compensation for not taking action
Environmental for the complete removal/ disposal of accumulated
Compensation plastic waste in the site. Though KSPCB has issued
(EC) for the total notice in 2016, the industry has not taken any
violation period of measure to comply with the notice. Only after the
1188 days. intervention of honorable High Court of Kerala,
the removal of plastic
waste was initiated.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent wanted some time to file their objections to the Joint Committee report and also to address the question of environmental compensation assessed and whether they are liable to pay the same as well.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent further submitted that the 4th Respondent came to know about the same only from the newspaper report, that such a report has been filed. No notice has been given to the parties regarding the same.
6. The policy of the Government is paperless office. All these reports are being either uploaded in the official portal of the regulators or once it is filed before the Tribunal, then it will be uploaded in the official portal of the National Green Tribunal. Once it is in public domain, it is deemed to be a public notice. So, we do not think that there is necessity to address the grievance raised by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent, as people will have to adjust with the technology and equip with the same.
Page 13 of 147. Considering the circumstances, we feel that some time can be granted to the 4th Respondent to file their objections to the Joint Committee report and get ready with the matter.
8. They are directed to submit their objections (if any) to the Joint Committee report on or before 11.01.2022 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules and get ready with the matter on the next hearing date for hearing.
9. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the official respondents by e-mail immediately so as to enable them to comply with the direction.
10. For consideration of report, objections (if any) to the Joint Committee report and also for hearing, post on 11.01.2022.
Sd/-
......................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
.........................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) O.A.No.262/2017 (SZ), 07th December, 2021. Mn.
Page 14 of 14