National Green Tribunal
National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs Union Of India Rep. By Its Secretary ... on 22 April, 2022
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 229 of 2020 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Tribunal on its own motion-SUO MOTU
Based on the News item in the New Indian Express Newspaper,
E-paper Edition dated 03.10.2020,"Gas turbine explodes at
Power plant, 15 injured."
Versus
1) Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) Central Pollution Control Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
„Parivesh Bhawan‟, East Arjun Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
3) The Principal Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka,
Forest, Environment and Ecology Department,
Government Secretariat, Room No.708,
7th Floor, Gate No.4, M.S. Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4) Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
"Parisara Bhawan", #49, 4th & 5th Floor,
Church Street, Bangalore - 560 001.
5) Karnataka Power Corporation Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.82, Shakti Bhavan,
Race Course Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
6) The Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate,
Bengaluru Urban District,
Kempegowda Road, Behind Kandaya Bhavana,
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru - 560 009.
7) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Rep. by its Commissioner,
Head Office, Corporation Circle,
Hudson Circle, Bangalore - 560 002.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Suo Motu
For Respondent(s): Ms. M. Sumathi for R1
Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R2
Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R4.
Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Sr. Adv. along with
1
Mr. Ajay J Nandalike for R5.
Mr. Pranava for R8
Mr. S.M.V. Vivekanandh for R9
Judgment Reserved on: 12th April, 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 22nd April, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Justice Smt. Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. This Original Application is registered by way of the suo motu proceedings initiated by this Tribunal taking clue from the newspaper report published in The New Indian Express, E-paper edition dated 03.10.2020 captioned: "Gas turbine explodes at power plant, 15 injured" and after hearing the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7, admitted by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2020 holding that there arose a substantial question of environment which requires the interference of this Tribunal for resolving the same.
2. A perusal of the said order coupled with the newspaper report shows that an undetected oil leak caused a blast and the resultant blaze in the gas turbine chamber at Yelahanka Gas power Plant of the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (in short, "KPCL) causing injuries to fifteen employees present therein, of whom, three succumbed to the injuries. M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) was executing the work on behalf of KPCL and General Electric Power Limited (in short, "GE") was the supplier of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) to the project, which was suo motu impleaded by this Tribunal as eighth respondent in this application vide order dated 09.09.2021. GE sub contracted the said work to Field Core Services Solutions India Private Limited, which was also suo motu impleaded as ninth respondent vide order dated 28.02.2022.
3. By virtue of the said order dated 20.10.2020, this Tribunal appointed a Joint Committee to inspect the area in question and submit a 2 factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as follows:
"10. So, in order to ascertain the nature of damage caused, how far it has affected an environment and what are all the defaults committed by the 5th respondent in carrying out the project, violations if any, committed and what are all the action taken by the regulating authorities in respect of the incident and also giving suggestions and recommendations for avoiding such incident in future and if there is any violation, what is the action taken including the imposition of environmental compensation, we feel it appropriate to appoint a joint committee comprising of 1) a Senior Scientist from Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Regional Office, Bangalore,
2) a Senior Scientist from Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Regional Office, Bangalore, 3) a Senior Scientist from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), 4) a Senior Engineer dealing boiler technology from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Bangalore, 5) the District Collector, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru or a Senior Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector or Sub Divisional Magistrate deputed by the District Collector and 6) a Senior Professor dealing with Boiler Technology Engineering from National Institute of Technology (NIT), Surathkal, Karnataka and 7) a Senior Scientist from Central Power Research Institute (CPRI), Regional Office, Bangalore to inspect the area in question and submit a factual 6 as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found.
11. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) will be the nodal agency for co-ordination and for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose.
12. The committee is directed to submit the report to this Tribunal on or before 26.11.2020 by e-filing along with required hard copies to be produced as per rules."
4. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Tribunal.
5. A perusal of records would go to show that the first meeting of the Joint Committee so constituted was convened on 23.11.2020 through video conferencing followed by site visit on 04.12.2020 in the presence of officials of the fourth and fifth respondents and also the officials of the BHEL. The Joint Committee, after ascertaining the background of the KPCL Power Plant, Yelahanka, and having had discussions with the stakeholders, and also based on the site visit and inspection, e-filed a report on 16.04.2021 and the same was received on 24.04.2021, for which, the fifth respondent also filed their response dated 22.06.2021 and e-filed the same on 14.07.2021 and the same was received on 26.07.2021.
6. In paragraph 4.2 of the said report captioned "what are all the defaults committed by the fifth respondent in carrying out the project, violations, if any, committed", the following findings were recorded:
"The Committee feels that, even though completely eliminating the possibility of such accidents in large scale industrial and engineering 3 installations might not be practically possible, the lack of following standard operating procedures, some of which are noted below, intensified the damage caused in the incident. The onsite emergency plan envisages marking of emergency exit path during a fire incident; however the fact that plant personnel gathered near the danger zone instead of safe assembly point led to the human injuries and loss of precious lives. Lack of proper awareness and strict adherence to the safety protocol have intensified the damage caused to human life by the incident.
The fact that the gas turbine enclosure door, which was kept closed and latched during the operation of the unit, was opened due to manual interference has caused the deflagration outside the enclosure leading to human injuries. This also affects the efficiency of fire protection system by CO2 discharge and limiting oxygen supply for arresting the fire."
7. After recording the action taken by the regulating authorities, which includes Department of Factories, Boilers Industrial Safety and Health, Government of Karnataka and the fourth respondent (KSPCB), in respect of the incident at paragraph 4.3, the Joint Committee made certain suggestions and recommendations in paragraph 4.4, which reads as follows:
"4.4 Suggestions and recommendations for avoiding such incident in future:
As submitted earlier, this Committee also supports the recommendations and suggestions made by the expert RCA Committee, which has the technical expertise in the field. Some of the suggestions and recommendations of the Committee for avoiding such incidents in are given below;
The locking arrangement for the enclosure doors provided to the turbine and generator compartments shall be reviewed and modified, if required to ensure that the doors cannot be opened by unauthorized personnel from the outside during unit operation to ensure minimum manual interference affecting the system performance.
The safety protocols shall be strictly maintained and dedicated exit paths and safe assembly area shall be identified in case any emergencies.
The onsite emergency plan shall be revisited and based on the experience of the fire incident, additional safety protocols and control measures shall be incorporated. The possibilities of technical modifications in the lube oil circulation system, ensuring more leak and temperature detectors for early detection of such oil leaks shall be explored in consultation with the design team, so as to minimise the damages caused by such mishaps.
During the visit, the Committee members observed that the exit paths from the gas turbine chamber enclosure are not obstruction free and some pipelines are passing across the same. An obstruction free exit path shall be identified by the unit for all such major installations where fire hazard is identified. Advanced Electronic Control Management system should be adopted in the plant including CCTV cameras and voice recording system. Unit shall explore feasibility in consultation with the design team to make provisions and install the necessary lube oil leakage sensors adjacent to all the bearings including the bearing no. 2, where the leakage occurred presently."
8. Paragraph 5.0 of the Joint Committee Report captioned as "Conclusions and recommendations" reads as follows:
"5.0 Conclusions and recommendations:
The point wise conclusions and findings of the Committee with respect to the ToRs given by the Hon'ble Tribunal has already been provided in 4 the above sections. The summary of the conclusions and recommendations are given below;
The incident can be treated as fire accident which broke out in the Gas Turbine enclosure of the power plant during the commissioning/trial run operations and lasted approximately for two hours and caused some fatal injuries to the personnel working in the plant.
A total of 15 personnel from M/s. KPCL, M/s. BHEL and M/s. GE Ltd, engaged in the commissioning activities of the plant sustained burn injuries, out of which three people succumbed to their injuries and lost their lives in the accident.
The general fire protection system provided by the plant consists of hydrant system for different areas of the plant, high velocity water spray protection system for transformers, medium velocity water sprays system for cable galleries, portable extinguishers and hand appliances for extinguishing small fires in different areas of the plant. Unit has provided sufficient fire detectors and carbon dioxide fire protection system for the gas turbine unit, which extinguishes fire by reducing the equivalent oxygen content of the air. A high-level RCA Committee, comprising of representatives from BHEL, KPCL & GE under the chairmanship of former Member (Thermal)), CEA was constituted to analyse the root cause of the accident and suggest remedial actions to avoid reoccurrence of such incidents in future. The report has been submitted, as detailed in earlier sections.
The unit shall comply with all the recommendations of the RCA report in a time bound manner.
KPCL shall be asked to provide thick green belt consisting of tall growing trees (preferably Miyawaki method) towards residential areas around the plant to arrest sound nuisance/ any hazard including proving permanent high range sprinklers towards residential area all along the periphery of the plant.
The concerned authorities such as Urban Development Authority, Town planning etc. shall strictly ensure that sufficient buffer in the form of green belt is available while approving plan for residential apartment/layouts around already existing industries/units with probable accident hazard.
The Committee feels that, even though completely eliminating the possibility of such accidents in large scale industrial and engineering installations might not be practically possible, the lack of following standard operating procedures intensified the damage caused in the incident.
The onsite emergency plan envisages marking of emergency exit path during a fire incident; however the fact that plant personnel gathered near the danger zone instead of safe assembly point led to the human injuries and loss of precious lives. Lacks of proper awareness & strict adherence to the safety protocol have intensified the damage caused to human life by the incident.
The fact that the gas turbine enclosure door, which should have remained closed, was open due to manual interference has caused the deflagration outside the enclosure leading to human injuries. This also affects the efficiency of fire protection system by CO2 discharge and limiting oxygen supply for arresting the fire. The safety protocols shall be strictly maintained and dedicated exit paths and safe assembly area shall be identified in case any emergencies.
The onsite emergency plan shall be revisited and based on the experience of the fire incident, additional safety protocols and control measures shall be incorporated.
The Committee estimates that the major effect of fire accident on the surrounding environment shall be largely limited to the emissions released to the environment by burning of materials and increase in the ambient noise levels during the incident.
The CO2 emissions from the lube oil burning during the incident is estimated as, 449.68 Tonne of CO2.
The unit shall be liable to pay the environmental price of Rupees 10.1178 lacs as the environmental compensation estimated based on the CO2 emissions made to the environment due to the fire incident."5
9. It is to be stated that after the alleged incident, on 08.10.2020, a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Committee comprising of representatives from BHEL, KPCL and GE under the Chairmanship of Former Member (Thermal) Was Constituted by BHEL to analyse the root cause of the accident and suggest remedial actions to avoid recurrence of such incident in future. The RCA arrived at the following conclusion in the report dated 28.12.2020:
"Conclusion Inadequacy of evidence (lack of CCTV footage, incorrect operating data due to uncalibrated/unconnected instruments, inconclusive and inconsistent dispositions by eye witnesses, incomplete RFR report made available by GE (only the summary of RFR was given), etc) from the day of event severely constrains the RCA evaluations. The Committee is forced to rely on circumstantial evidence. From the quantum of oil leak (close to 10,000 lit) only during the last run (disposition by site engineers confirming that no leaks were seen in the prior runs is considered) indicates that it was a High volume low duration leak. This is possible only by a restriction in the drain line. Photographic evidence found, points to this as the prime reason for the oil leak.
Site management to investigate about the removal of mesh in oil drain line after the incident.
Since the unit was run at FSNL for 20 min prior to fire detection, adequate temperatures were available in the exhaust flue gas flow path to cause auto ignition of the lube oil and resultant fire in the bearing tunnel and exhaust compartment.
Disruption to the operation of the fire suppression system by opening of doors led to a deflagration.
Quality of supervision from GE under the TDI service appeared inadequate. All activities and communications were not logged and escalated properly.
BHEL site engineers should ensure systematic commissioning of the unit with proper documentation and protocols. Inability to grasp the consequences of leaving the mesh in the drain line by the GE TFA and BHEL engineers mistake of not removing the mesh after oil flushing appears to be main reason for this incident. Inadequate EHS standard followed at site and the inadequate safety training to personnel involved at site (including customer personnel). GE to again relook at the adequacy of the system philosophy to address the high oil leakage in a very short span of time leading to such incidents. BHEL to incorporate any changes/improvement, if suggested by GE."
10. The first respondent filed the reply affidavit dated 25.02.2022 and the same was taken on record by this Tribunal on 28.02.2022, in and by which, it was submitted by the first respondent that the suggestions/recommendations made by the Joint Committee may be considered by this Tribunal for issuing appropriate directions.
10.1 A Similar stand was taken by the second respondent-Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in the reply affidavit dated 14.07.2021.
10.2 The third and sixth respondents have chose to file neither any report nor reply affidavit.
611. In the meanwhile, this Tribunal vide order dated 01.06.2021, issued the following direction to the first respondent:
".....7. The 5th respondent is also directed to give their response regarding the amount of compensation paid to the deceased persons as well as injured persons and what are all the further steps taken by them to mitigate the situation as well in future. They are also directed to mention as to whether any policy has been taken under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and whether any steps have been taken for getting payment from the insurance company in this regard to their affected employees covered under the scheme."
11.1 Pursuant to the said direction, the Learned Counsel for the fifth respondent filed response dated 22.06.2021 annexing the letter of the fifth respondent dated 11.02.2021 addressing to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Department of Energy, Bangalore, with respect to payment of ex-gratia to the deceased employees. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said response are extracted for better appreciation of the instant application in the following manner:
"12. Re Compensation details in respect of deceased employees and employees injured in the Fire Accident that occurred on 02.10.2020 at Yelahanka Combined Cycle Power Plant:
a. The respondent no. 5 has completely covered the medical expenditure of all 11 of its personnel who were injured in the accident. The total medical expenditure met by the respondent no.5 in respect of all its affected employees till date is around 56,62,990/-.
b. With respect to the dependents of its two deceased staff, the respondent no.5 has provided employment on compassionate grounds as per KPCL Service rules. The dependants of the deceased employees have been employed as regular employees at the Kali Hydro Power Project, Ambikanagar, Uttara kannada district, Karnataka.
c. With respect to ex-gratia payment to the two deceased staff of respondent no.5, a recommendation has been sent to the Energy Department, Government of Karnataka for its consideration by way of a Letter dated 11/02/2021. The letter sent by the respondent no.5 has been produced herewith as Annexure R4. d. With respect to the injured personnel of the respondent no.5, they were given sanctioned leave with pay for the period of treatment and rest, till the date of re-joining.
e. The respondent no.5 have been informed that M/s. BHEL has granted leave with pay for the period of treatment and rest for its injured employees and has covered the total medical expenditure incurred for their treatment.
f. The details of compensation of the affected GE employees were not furnished to the respondent no.5 by GE in spite of repeated requests/follow up by the respondent no.5.
13. Re Future steps taken by KPCL to mitigate the situation in future:
a. The respondent no.5 will be implementing the standard protocol and pre-checks prior to the restart of pre-commissioning and commissioning of Gas Turbine and its accessories as per the recommendations of the Original Equipment Manufacturer, M/s General Electric ("GE"). Presently restoration works are under progress at the power plant.
b. The respondent no.5 is implementing the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for all types of operations pertaining to Gas 7 Turbine as per GE and BHEL recommendations. All measures recommended by the RCA committee and Joint Committee herein will be strictly followed.
c. Awareness has been created among all the working personnel about the On-site Emergency Plan of the Power Plant and safe evacuation measures in case of fire. Safety training has been provided to all personnel working at the plant. The respondent no.5 is regularly conducting onsite emergency mock drills. d. The respondent no.5 is strictly implementing the Standard Maintenance Procedure (SMP) as per the recommendation of Original Equipment Manufacturer, M/s GE.
e. Only trained operating staff will be deployed for regular operation of the Power Plant.
f. Access Control (entry for authorised personnel only) has been implemented at specified places like Gas Turbine, Gas Booster Compressor, Gas Conditioning Skid, Turbine Generator hall, control room etc. Uses of mobile phones have been restricted at the above specified areas.
g. Vital safety tools such as Safe Assembly Point and Emergency Exit Path depicting a pictorial view of plant have been displayed at conspicuous places throughout the Power Plant site to create awareness on safe evacuation measures in case of fire at the plant.
11.2 Paragraph 2 of the letter dated 11.02.2021, wherein, the fifth respondent discussed about the payment of ex-gratia, reads as follows:
"2.In the case of similar fire accident at Srisailam Left Bank Hydro Power Plant (SLBHES) of Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd (TSGENCO) on 20.08.2020, they had sanctioned Rs. 75 lakhs each as Ex-gratia to the dependent family of seven (7) deceased Employees of State Govt. and also provided employment to the spouse or other eligible dependent family member of the deceased Employees to the post of AE/PO/Assistant/JA/Junior Plant Attendant as a special case considering their service, dedication and loyalty to the organization at the cost of their lives. They also granted 5 (five) year's time to acquire the prescribed qualification in case the spouse or dependent of deceased employee who do not have such prescribed qualification."
11.3 The Learned Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent filed the typed-set of documents dated 11.04.2022, pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal on 25.03.2022. The relevant portion of the Additional Compliance Affidavit of the fifth respondent reads as follows:
Additional Compliance Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.5 I, Mr. D.R. Kabade aged 50 years, S/o R.Y. Kabade, working as Assistant General Manager (Law), Office of the Head (Legal Services) and authorised signatory of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, having office at Shakthi Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangalore-560 001, do swear and state on oath as under:
1. I am the Assistant General Manager (Law) of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., the 5th respondent in the present proceedings, and as such I am well aware of the facts of the case and competent to swear to this affidavit.
2. It is prayed that the Response to the Report dated 22/06/2021 and the Compliance Affidavit dated 25/02/2021 be read as part and parcel of this Affidavit.
3. I state that with regard to the employees who lost their lives due to the Fire Accident that occurred on 02.10.2020 at Yelahanka Combined Cycle Power Plant the Respondent No.5 has taken the following steps:
i. The family of each of the two deceased staff of Respondent 8 no.5, Mr. Krishna Bhat and Mr. Manjappa have been given Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) as ex-gratia payment. A copy of the Approval (including translated copy) is produced herewith as Annexure R5 and the acknowledgment of receipt of amount is produced herewith as Annexure R6. ii. The Respondent No.5 has also provided employment on compassionate grounds as per KPCL Service rules to the dependents of the two deceased employees. The dependants of the deceased employees have been employed as regular Employees at the Kali Hydro Power Project, Ambikanagar, Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka.
Wherefore, it is prayed that the instant Affidavit be taken on record and the instant matter be disposed of accordingly.
12. Since, there was no response from GE for the query qua the payment of compensation to its employee, as indicated above, it was impleaded as a party to this application, i.e., eighth respondent. The eighth respondent submitted before this Tribunal that none of its employees was present at KPCL at the time of incident, as it subcontracted the work to the ninth respondent.
13. The ninth respondent in its affidavit claimed that it had paid a total sum of Rs.82,44,787/- to the dependants of its deceased employee and it had taken care of the medical expenses of the injured staff members and given medical leave to them while undergoing treatment. A set of documents to prove the bona fide of the said contention is also produced before this Tribunal.
14. From the above narration, it is clear that for the loss of valuable human lives, compensation is paid to the dependent family members, besides providing to one of the family members a regular employment opportunity on compassionate grounds.
15. Coming to the core issue, that concerns this Tribunal, viz., environmental impact and how to compensate the same, it is to be stated that the Joint Committee, as extracted above, in tune with RCA Committee held that the major impact on environment due to the incident is the estimated CO2 emissions to the environment on account of the lubricating oil burnt during the incident. Following the orders of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 134 of 2020 (PB), in which, the Joint Committee therein had assessed environmental prices in INR for major environmental pollutants and submitted a report, as has been accepted by the Hon‟ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal, the total environmental prices is assessed at Rs. 10.1178 lacs. Accepting the said report of the Joint Committee, the fifth respondent is directed to 9 deposit a sum of Rs. 10.1178 lacs with the fourth respondent within a month from today. Though it is submitted that 4th respondent has been taking steps to comply with the suggestions and recommendations of the Joint Committee, the same shall be done in its letter and spirit.
16. The Registry is directed to forward the copy of this order to all the respondents by e-mail for ensuring the compliance of the suggestions and recommendations of the Joint Committee.
17. With the above observations and directions, the Original Application stands disposed of.
.....................................................J.M. (Justice Smt. Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.229 of 2020 22nd April, 2022. AM.
10