National Green Tribunal
V.P. Krishnamoorthy vs Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary ... on 22 June, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.7 to 16
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 176/2013 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 562/2018)(PB)
With
Original Application No. 34/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 563/2018) (PB)
With
Original Application No. 35/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 564/2018) (PB)
With
Original Application No. 36/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 565/2018) (PB)
With
Original Application No. 37/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 566/2018) (PB)
With
Original Application No. 38/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 567/2018) (PB)
With
Original Application No. 39/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 568/2018) (PB)
With
Original Application No. 40/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 569/2018) (PB)
With
Original Application No. 41/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 570/2018) (PB)
With
Original Application No. 42/2014 (SZ)
(Earlier O.A. No. 571/2018) (PB)
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 176/2013 (SZ)
V.P. Krishnamoorthy ....Applicant(s)
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Original
ApplicationNo.34/2014(SZ)
K.S. Jayaraman ....Applicant(s)
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
1
Original
ApplicationNo.35/2014 (SZ)
R. Selvi ....Applicant(s)
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Original Application No.
36/2014 (SZ)
K. Umachandran ....Applicant(s)
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Original Application No.
37/2014 (SZ)
Smt. S. Shanthi ....Applicant(s)
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Original Application No.
38/2014 (SZ)
....Applicant(s)
G. Mahesh Kumar
Versus
....Respondent(s)
The Union of India & Ors.
Original Application No.
39/2014 (SZ)
....Applicant(s)
Smt. R. Vijaya
Versus
....Respondent(s)
The Union of India & Ors.
Original Application No.
40/2014 (SZ)
K. Sampath Kumar
....Applicant(s)
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Original Application No.
41/2014 (SZ)
K. Kamalakannan
Versus ....Applicant(s)
The Union of India & Ors.
....Respondent(s)
Original Application No.
2
42/2014 (SZ)
G. Purushothaman
Versus ....Applicant(s)
The Union of India & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 22.6.2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
Original Application No. 176/2013 (SZ)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Saravanan represented
Mr. A.Yogeshwaran
For Respondent(s): M/s. M. Mani Gopi for R2
Mr. Arjun Suresh and
Mr.Krishna Srinivasan for BPCL.
Mr. D.S. Ekambaram
Mrs. Jayalakshmi for R12
Mr. S. Saravanan represented
Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan appearing for
MoEF & CC
Original Application No. 34/2014 to 42/2014 (SZ)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kandhan Duraiswamy
For Respondent(s): M/s. Abdul Saleem represented through
Mr. S. Saravanan for TNPCB.
M/s. M. Mani Gopi for R4.
M/s. Krishna Srinivasan and
Mr. Arjun Suresh for BPCL.
M/s. M.R. Gokul Krishnan rep.
S. Saravanan for MoEF&CC.
M/s. A.A.V.Partners rep by Saravanan for
IOCL
3
ORDER
As per order dated 18.3.2020, we have considered the earlier orders and also the report made by the counsel and posted the case to 6.5.2020. Thereafter, it was taken up through Video Conference on 9.6.2020 and adjourned to today to consider the objections filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., to the report of Central Pollution Control Board.
2. Today, we have received a request for an adjournment through e-mail dated 21.6.2020 from Mr. Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel for M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., had filed their reply statement to the status report dated 16.3.2020 submitted by Central Pollution Control Board which reads as follows:
"REPLY FILED BY BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD TO THE STATUS REPORT DT. 16.03.2020 OF THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD The 6th Respondent (M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd -BPCL) humbly submits as follows:
Pursuant to the Order dt. 18.09.2019 of this Hon'ble Tribunal, the 12 th Respondent (Central Pollution Control Board -CPCB) filed the Status Report dt.16.03.2020 providing details of the progress of the ICMR Health Study, 4 CPCB's Study on Groundwater Quality and Status of on-going Remediation of Oil contaminated site at Tondiarpet, Chennai. his Reply is filed by BPCL to address certain inaccurate and/orerroneous contents of the Status Report dt. 16.03.2020 and provide the present status of the remediation activities undertaken by BPCL and its consultant namely M/s. Stratus Environmental Inc (Stratus). BPCL reserves its right to file detailed pleadings, if warranted by circumstances. Before addressing the contents of the Status Report dt. 16.03.2020, BPCL provides below the status of the remediation activities from its commencement till date.
In 2015, Stratus carried out a subsurface investigation that included advancement of exploratory soil borings, completion of these borings for either groundwater monitoring or remediation wells, and collection of soil and groundwater samples. A report documenting the findings of this work was prepared and submitted by Stratus on 21.10.2015. Based on the analytical data of soil and groundwater samples, Stratus estimated a contaminant mass of 32,799.12 Kilogram to be present beneath the subsurface. Subsequently, a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) document was submitted on 10.02.2016 comparing viable remedial alternatives and recommending a specific remedial approach. Following approval of the CAP, a catalytic oxidizer and an air compressor were installed at a pre- determined location.
5 Subgrade piping was then connected to the network of vapor extraction and sparging wells and also monitoring wells. SVE remediation was started for continuous operation from 25.05.2016 after the remediation system was connected to the local power grid.
In 2017, CMRL started construction activity (Excavation of soil & Extraction of groundwater) for the construction of metro railway network, which compromised the pipeline network used for remediation. In October 2018, after many months of negotiation with CMRL, BPCL/Stratuswas able to relocate the SVE unit and restart the SVE unit operations. Between February 2018 and October 2018, SVE System operated while extracting only from three wells instead of 14 SVE Extraction wells. In October 2018, only a limited number of wells were connected to the SVE system along T.H Road.
A second SVE system was installed in November 2019 after importing it from USA in August 2019. A great deal of difficulty was faced to operate the large system rated at 500 cfm, since this is the first of its kind in India. Currently, the following wells are connected to the SVE systems: SVE-1, SVE-2A, SVE-3A, SVE-8, SVE-9, SVE-4, SVE-5,SVE-7, MW-16A, AS-4, AS- 5, AS-7, AS-3A andMW 4A. Additional wells need to be installed and connected to the SVE systems to enable operation to full capacity. However, CMRL work still restrict this activity.
Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) Construction Activity: 6 • In 2017, CMRL started their construction activity (excavation of soil and extraction of groundwater) for building a metro railway network involving a combination of above and below ground railway track. • CMRL has excavated and removed 16,461.80-meter cube of soil as of 30.06.2019.
• CMRL has extracted 5,450 KL of water from excavations and transported to BPCL, Tondiarpet as of October 2018. • Mass removed by CMRL activity in the contaminated zone is estimated by two soil borings was 4833.45kgs (Till June 2019). The total mass removed to date is estimated to be 18,418.86 Kgs (SVE- 13,516.41 kg, socs- 69 kg and remediated soil- 4833.45) from the sub- surface. The reduction is calculated to be 56.15% of the total mass estimated in 2015.
Given the constraints at this site associated with residential housing, narrow streets and further complicated by CMRL construction activity, it is submitted that diligent operation of the systems at the site has resulted in significant mass reduction by SVE systems. The SVE systems are operating as designed and expected.
7 Figure: Concentration vs Time 8 Therefore, with regard to the remediation activities, it is submitted as follows:
a) SVE systems are designed and operating per expectations.
b) Operation of the SVE system has been significantly limited due to the lack of extraction wells that were destroyed during CMRL construction activity.
c) Even with the operations limited, nearly 56.15% of the mass has been extracted by SVE systems.
d) The second bigger SVE system has been operational for only two months. With continuous operation of this system, we anticipate the mass removal rates will increase significantly.
e) Most wells available for sampling, indicate greater than 90% reduction in concentrations due to remedial activity by SVE.
Hence, it is submitted that significant progress has been made in reduction of mass in the subsurface by SVE systems, and additional time is required to further reduce the residual mass in the subsurface. Now reverting to the contents of the Status Report dt. 16.03.2020 which has been broadly divided into four points/parts. With regard to Point No. 1 of the Status Report dt. 16.03.2020 (i.e) BPCL awarding the work of conducting the health study to ICMR, it is submitted that BPCL had obtained approval from its management to float the tender. Further, by email dt. 24.04.2020 and 06.05.2020, BPCL has requested for 9 detailed specifications, scope of work, job description, estimate cost item wise, timelines, vendor registration by ICMR and other details from CPCB in order to float the tender. The details are awaited from CPCB.BPCL is awaiting for the reply form CPCB on the details sought for floating the tender.
With regard to Point No. 2 of the Status Report Reportdt. 16.03.2020 (i.e) the findings of the ground water quality study conducted by CPCB and TNPCB, it is submitted that the remedial activity at the site has resulted in reduction of groundwater concentrations. The concentration of chemicals of concern although above laboratory detection limits, are reducing in the wells sampled. Chemicals of concern at this site are DRO, GRO and BTEX. It is important to note that CPCB has not established permissible limits for the chemicals of concern at this site.
With regard to the statement that there is presence of TOC, TPH and DRO in the 4 deep bore wells, it is stated that these wells historically have detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. Similar to the shallow wells, the concentration of chemicals of concern are declining. For example concentration of DRO in well MW-5B was initially reported to be 19.81 mg/l in December 2015, but the current concentration as reported by CPCB is 0.193 mg/l. Further, with regard to the statement that the concentration of mineral oil was found within permissible limit in all monitored wells except in one location (MW-5B), it is stated that the initial concentration of mineral oil in MW-5B was reported to be 9.44 mg/l in 10 December 2016 and the current concentration reported by CPCB is 0.82, indicating a significant reduction in concentration. In addition, presented below is the comparison of analytical data for the two shallow wells with concentration excedences. The analytical data from this data set indicated that there is significant reduction in concentrations.
The statement "The ongoing remediation works have little effect in improving groundwater quality in the area along the abandoned pipelined towards north direction" is unsustainable since the analytical data collected by CPCB has not been made available for examination by BPCL and Stratus. Further, such an interpretation by CPCB of the overall groundwater quality with data from only 3 monitoring well in the shallow zone, out of 22 wells originally used to characterize the lateral extent of impact to groundwater is also unsustainable.Given that groundwater samples have not been collected from the vicinity of the pipeline, it is not clear as to how CPCB is able to make this determination. In addition, presented below is the concentrations in well MW-1A located at the point of 11 release. The analytical data from this data set indicated that there is significant reduction in concentrations.
With regard to Point No. 3 of the Status Report Reportdt. 16.03.2020 (i.e) the status of the remediation activities, CPCB states that the extracted vapors only have GRO. In addition, CPCB states that the SVE system is not effective for reduction of DRO, TPH and TOC from soil or groundwater. The methodology in which CPCB collects the air samples are erroneous. However, this is the best available technology in India. The methodology does not easily allow for analysis of heavier end hydrocarbons and therefore the analytical data from the air samples is not representative. In order to allow for a more consistent and reliable analytical data for heavier end hydrocarbons air samples should be collected using Summa Canisters and analyzed by EPA method 8015 using a gas chromatography- mass spectrometry (GCMS). Analytical data from groundwater monitoring wells in the source area show reduction in heavier end hydrocarbons and therefore the SVE system is effective in removing mass from the subsurface. In addition, soil samples collected from areas where SVE system has remediated the site, (in the vicinity of MW-17A), the concentrations of DRO is low to non-detectable compared to the initial 12 concentrations, indicating that the SVE system has been successful in reducing the concentrations of heavier end hydrocarbons in soil. With regard to the statement that the SVE System was operating at 85.5 cfm against the designated capacity of 250cfm, it is submitted that the SVE system is operating at a lower capacity than the design capacity due a number of factors such as, site geology and hydrogeology, distance of extraction from the SVE system and power and voltage fluctuations. The SVE system operation has not changed since its start up. Similar to the first SVE system, the second SVE system might not operate at max manufacturer identified capacity, due the same reasons identified above. It is pertinent to state that we are concerned with the destruction efficiency of both systems. Both systems are expected to operate at 95% or above destruction efficiency. Over the last 4 years, through CPCB sampling, the fist SVE system has shown to operate at 95% or greater destruction efficiency. The analytical data set for this event, that exhibits a lower destruction efficiency, could be erroneous and might not be representative. Stratus will collect additional air samples to verify the destruction efficiency of both systems.
The statement "Therefore, present system SVE system is not effective for reduction of DRO, TPH and TOC from soil or groundwater" is unsustainable since the analytical data collected by CPCB has not been made available for examination by BPCL and Stratus.In the Status Report dt. 16.03.2020, it is stated that the systems are not running at full 13 capacity and/or connected to all wells and limitation with operational flow rates versus design flow rates. BPCL's consultant Stratus has stated that most of these systems do not operate at the prescribed flow rates. If the blowers were pulling on ambient air only, they would operate at design flow rates. The flow rates from the subsurface are a function of subsurface geology and hydrogeology and usually do not follow laboratory design factors, unlike in an above ground factory operational setting. The flow rates of SVE-1 has not changed since its startup and been very consistent and resulted in significant reduction in groundwater concentrations and removal of petroleum hydrocarbon mass in the subsurface. Therefore, SVE- 1 is performing well. With regard to the SVE-2 system, if the same was connected to the wells in V.P. Koil Street, it would perform better (mass removal) also.
With regard to Point No. 4 of the Status Report dt. 16.03.2020 (i.e) recommendations of CPCB, it is first necessary to state about the compliance of BPCL with regard to the Further Action Plan for Remediation of the Contaminated Site determined by CPCB, TNPCB and BPCL. Pursuant to the Order dt. 08.02.2019 of this Hon'ble Tribunal, a meeting to review the status of the remediation activities and decide on the further action plan for remediation was convened under the chairmanship of Chairman, CPCB. Executives of TNPCB and BPCL attended the said review meeting held on 01.03.2019. During the said review meeting, the Further Action Plan for Remediation of the Contaminated Site determined 14 by CPCB, TNPCB and BPCL which involved 13 action points. The compliance of BPCL with regard to the 13 action points is listed below. This has also been confirmed in the Compliance Status Report dt. 16.09.2019 filed by CPCB.
13 Action Points of the Time Frame/
Further Action Plan as Agency
Sl. No determined in the Status as on 05.06.2020
Review Meeting dt.
01.03.2019
1 BPCL to connect 1 month.
Complied.
remaining 7 wells to
existing SVE system to BPCL
Installed 2 new wells (SVE2a&
increase current rate of
SVE 3a) at TH Road adjacent to
extraction. They shall
CMRL site.The pipeline laying
work out right way to
work completedand reconnected
install pipelines of
the 2 new wells
about 70m length in
(SVE2a&SVE3a) with existing 7
consultation with
wells (SVE-1, SVE-4,SVE-5,
TNPCB. Statutory
SVE-7, SVE-8, SVE-9 and SVE-
Permissions shall be
16A).
taken.
2 After obtaining 30 days after Complied.
15
statutory permission obtaining local
from concerned permission. Now the pipeline are connected.
departments, the
pipelines to be BPCL
connected within 30
working days
3 1 month Complied.
BPCL Identified new site at VP koil
street, Tondiarpet and
BPCL to find alternate executed agreement with the
place to install new land lord on 01-06-2019. The SVE system in 2nd SVE unit is installed on consultation with 31.08.2019. The 2nd SVE TNPCB to speed up the commissioned. The 2ndSVE is remediation activity. connected to well no MW-4A (dual purpose well ) and now in operation also. Air sparge well AS6 is also connected with the same.
4 Local authority shall BPCL to submit Complied. provide a space of 20 x proposal 16 20 sq. ft. government immediately Second unit is already placed land temporarily for at the private land on VP Koil relocating SVE system street. Therefore additional from current location. space may not required now.
5 Upon completion of
structure, if required, CMRL
As BPCL have already obtained
CMRL shall provide
site and installed 2nd SVE unit,
temporary space of
BPCL doesn't need additional
20ft x 20ft on roof top
space for SVE unit.
of its structure.
6 A qualitative health Time given: 3
impact study on the months.
population in affected
area be conducted by TNPCB
obtaining information This is further to BPCL letter
from local government ref: TNP:REMD:19-20 dated
hospitals, primary 09.05.2019. We request you to health centers defer the qualitative health etc.TNPCB may engage impact study on population in any expert or an affected areas the locality is agency who can commercial in nature and the conduct such studies. residents are on tenement 17 The study to be funded basis. Till now no health by BPCL. complications were reported and the affected applicants were suitably compensated, conducting the study may lead to further unknown complications.
A meeting convened on
19.11.2020 at TNPCB, HO,
Chennai, wherein it was
concluded that Indian
Counsel of Medical Research
(ICMR) may undertake field
visit to understand the ground
reality of Oil contaminated site
at Tondiarpet and to submit
detailed proposal including
scope of study, methodology,
procedure for quantification
including cost and time
frame to complete the study on
health hazards in the oil
18
contaminated site at
Tondairpet. As agreed in the
meeting, ICMR submitted the
detailed proposal including cost
estimates to carry out the
study vide ICMR mail to CPCB
dated 28.02.2020.
Further TNPCB advised BPCL
(Vide their mail letter) on
10.03.2020to make necessary
agreement with ICMR to conduct
the study. BPCL received the
necessary management
approval for awarding the job
on single tender basis with
ICMR as advised by TNPCB
vide their email dated
10.03.2020. BPCL requested
CPCBon 24.04.2020 to arrange
detailed specifications and
scope of work and necessary
documents from ICMR to
19
register as vendor also to float
single tender.
7 BPCL to install Soil Gas Time given: 2
Probes to monitor VOCs months, post
in vadose zone of sub- completion of
soil at 3 locations in CMRL works.
affected area, which
shall become part of BPCL
revised remediation
Action will be initiated on
scheme post completion
completion of CMRL works.
of CMRL works.
8 Identify applicable CPCB
standards in monitoring
/assessing remediation Action by CPCB.
works in similar
contamination matrices.
9 Upon completion of soil Time given: 3
excavation works, a Weeks upon
revised Remediation completion of
scheme to be soil excavation
implemented. by CMRL.
20
BPCL
BPCL to submit a Already this scope of work is
Detailed Project Report available in the Tender. Vendor
(DPR) for revised has been informed and aware
remediation scheme of the study. Will be done on
based re-assessment of completion of soil excavation by
site along with site CMRL.
specific target levels
(SSTLs) for remediation
based on human health
risk assessment. It
shall specify committed
duration to complete
the Remediation. A
scope of work for DPR
be submitted to TNPCB
Within 3 weeks.
10 To ensure adequate Time given: 3
storage capacity to Months.
store the extracted
21
water from CMRL site
till finalization of TNPCB
Treatment plan.
TNPCB/CPCB to
Scope is included in the
identify parameters as
tender, will be initiated for
per international
treatment and disposal as
standards for disposal
soon as the parameters are
of treated water
provided by TNPCB / CPCB.
without harming
TNPCB collected water
environment
samples twice and the test
results reveals the
parameters are well "Below
Detection Level. BPCL
sought TNPCB's approval to
dispose within the plant for
internal maintenance use.
TNPCB is yet to respond.
CPCB collected the samples
third time on 13 Feb 2020
and the results are also
Below detection level/ Below
limit of qualification. Lab
22
report enclosed. CPCB
permission awaited for
dispose of water within
plant for internal use.
Adequate storage is
available at location.
11 BPCL to submit BPCL Complied
proposal to TNPCB for
disposal of 7,287 litre Extracted contaminated water
of oil & 2, 07,395 litre has been disposed through ETP
of oil contaminated (Effluent Treatment Plant) of
water presently stored Chennai Petroleum Corporation
in a tank within BPCL Ltd Refinery, Manali.
Storage Depot.
12 Till the time a revised Time given: Till
remediation scheme is completion of
finalised, BPCL to CMRL works.
continue to carryout
assessment and
monitoring of existing
SVE system and CMRL CPCB/TNPCB/ BPCL agreed to continue to
works as per earlier BPCL monitor.
23
recommendations of
CPCB/TNPCB.
13 BPCL shall ensure BPCL Complied.
adequate and quality 18,000 liters of Chennai Metro
of water supply to Water is being supplied
affected population in through tank lorries on daily
contaminated area. basis. This is substantiated by
the Water Supply Report of
Chennai Metro Water.
Now with regard to the recommendations of CPCB contained in the Status Report dt. 16.03.2020, it is submitted that there is a significant reduction in ground water concentration and also improvement in soil condition. SVEs are functioning very consistently. BPCL was unable to start the road cutting works due to permission issues from authorities as a result of one way traffic and rains initially. After which, due to COVID-19 and restrictions, BPCL was unable to arrange the same. BPCL will arrange to get the permissions soon after the lockdown.
Dated at Chennai on this the 8thday of June, 2020 VERIFICATION I, Gururaj Nagappa Sankh, son of Nagappa G Sankh,Territory Manager (Retail) of the 6th Respondent, do hereby declare that what is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 24 Verified at Chennai on this the 8thday of June, 2020 - 6TH RESPONDENT"
4. Central Pollution Control Board also filed their response to the objections filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., by their reply dated 19.6.2020 which reads as follows:
"Reply affidavit on behalf of Central Pollution Control Board (Respondent No. 12) with regard to Objection filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation ltd., w.r.t Status report dated 16.03.2020 of the Central Pollution Control Board.
I, S. Suresh, Son of S.R. Sathyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 57 years, having office at the Regional Directorate (South), Central Pollution Control Board, 1st& 2nd Floors, Nisarga Bhavan, A- Block, Thimmaiah Main Road, 7th D Cross, Shivanagar, Bengaluru - 560 079 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
That I am presently working as Scientist 'E' & Regional Director, Regional Directorate (South), Central Pollution Control Board (hereafter called as CPCB), Bengaluru and have been authorized to file the present compliance affidavit. I am fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence, competent and authorized to depose and swear the present compliance affidavit as under:
That in compliance of Hon'ble NGT order dated 18.09.2019, CPCB coordinated with Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and convened meeting on 19.11.2019 at TNPCB, H.O., Chennai to discuss the scope and 25 modalities of health impact study. The meeting was attended by the officials of CPCB, TNPCB, ICMR, BPCL and representative of M/s Environment Stratus (Consultant for remediation of oil contaminated site). IN the said meeting, representatives of ICMR and BPCL were apprised about the requirement of conducting health studies in time bound manner.
Subsequently, ICMR prepared a detailed proposal comprising scope of work, methodology, procedure for quantification of health impacts including project cost and timelines to complete the study. ICMR submitted the proposal to TNPCB and CPCB on 28.02.2020. Thereafter, CPCB, forwarded the ICMR proposal to BPCL and TNPCB vide letter dated 28.02.2020 with request to expedite award of project to ICMR.
Further,as per the directions of Hon'ble NGT,CPCB and TNPCB have carried out groundwater monitoring as well as performance of Soil Vapour Extraction System installed by BPCL for remediation of oil contaminated site at Tondiarpet. The report was submitted before Hon'ble NGT on 16.03.2020.
That Hon'ble Tribunal heard the matter on March18, 2020, and on the request of Respondent No. 6 (M/s BPCL), adjourned the matter for allowing filing the objections by them. M/s BPCL has filed the objections on June 09, 2020 the same was received through CPCB counsel.
26 That para wise reply from CPCB on the said objections are as below:
Para 1 to 14:
1. It is submitted that with respect to averments made is para 1 to 14 are about General information, on-going remediation work and its status, hence no comments to offer from this Respondent No. 12.
2. Para 15: "With regard to Point No. 1 of the Status Report dt. 16.03.2020 (i.e.) BPCL awarding the work of conducting the Health study to ICMR, it is submitted that BPCL had obtained approval from its management to float the tender. Further, by email dt. 24.04.2020 and 06.05.2020, BPCL has requested for detailed specifications, scope of work, job description, estimate cost item wise, timelines, vendor registration by ICMR and other details from CPCB in order to float the tender. The details are awaited from CPCB. BPCL is awaiting for the reply from CPCB on the details sought for floating the tender."
CPCB Reply:
That as per the direction of Hon'ble NGT, as a committee member CPCB taken lead role to convene the meeting with ICMR and follow-up with ICMR to obtain the detailed proposal comprising scope of work, methodology, procedure for quantification of health impacts including project cost and timeline to complete the study and the same was sent to BPCL vide letter dated February 28, 2020(Annexure -1,2,3) with request to expedite award of project to ICMR. However, no official communication has been received 27 from BPCL, after lapse of fifty-six days CPCB received mail from BPCL, the matter of mail is as below:
"Please help us with following details to float the single tender to ICMR.
1. Detailed specifications of tender
2. Scope of work, job description and estimate cost item wise, time lines for the job, LD clause etc.
3. Vendor registration template in the format (enclosed) duly filled and submit by vendor (ICMR) to register them. (ICMR need to provide their registration / incorporation certificate, GSTN copy and other details as per the format enclosed)"
That it is the responsibility of BPCL to justify placing single tender on ICMR. Since ICMR has submitted the detailed technical and financial proposal, BPCL might have sought required clarifications from ICMR and request CPCB/TNPCB to convene a meeting with ICMR. Further, it is humbly submitted that CPCB may not justify or recommend tendering terms, which may be finalised between ICMR and BPCL following the established procedures of respective agencies.
3. Para 16: "With regard to Pont no 2 of Status Report dated 16.03.2020 (i.e.) the findings of the ground water quality study conducted by CPCB and TNPCB, it is submitted the remedial activity at the site has resulted in reduction of ground water concentrations. The concentration of chemicals of concern although above laboratory detection limits, are reducing in the wells sampled. Chemicals of 28 concern at this site are DRO,GRO and BTEX. It is important to note that CPCB has not established permissible limits for the chemicals of concern at this site."
CPCB Reply:
That in reply to points raised by M/s BPCL at para 16, CPCB submitthe following facts before Hon'ble NGT:
On receipt of complaints dated July 14, 2013 regarding Petroleum impact in bore wells located in the public domain on TH road and VP Koil Street at Tondiarpet, Chennai; CPCB/TNPCB inspected and directed BPCL to discontinue the damaged pipelines carrying petroleum products and also directed to take up detailed study to assess the extent of contamination and its remediation. As per the direction of Hon'ble NGT, BPCL engaged the experts from IIT Madras in November, 2013 and conducted initial evaluation and prepared tender documents, scope of work for the remediation work. Accordingly, BPCL engaged the consultant M/s Stratus Environment in December, 2014 to carryout remediation of oil contaminated site under the supervision of IITMadras. In the remedial works initiated under guidance from IIT, Madras, risk assessment studies were not carried out to derive site specific target levels. While hearing the matter on March 17, 2016, the Hon'ble NGT implead the CPCB and passed an order that " till date no remediation measures worthy of speaking has been taken in the interest of the residents in the area, we discharge the experts from IIT-M from any further supervision 29 over the remediation efforts and directed the CPCB to take up the supervision of remediation work of erasing oil contamination in the water aquifer in Tondiarpet taking into consideration all the reports of experts of IIT-M as well as the Board and file its report by next date of hearing. In this exercise the CPCB is permitted to avail the service and /or expertise from any recognised Organisation/Institute located in the Country. The cost involved for the said purpose shall be fully borne by the BPCL (Annexure-4)".
That in compliance to the aforesaid order, CPCB has inspected the oil contaminated site at Tondiarpet along with the officials of TNPCB on April 05, 2016 and reviewed the status of remediation works. The salient observations vis-à-vis recommendations communicated to BPCL vide CPCB letter dated April 27, 2016 (Annexure -5). The major salient observations are as below:
"(4) The remedial measures initiated are not based on any quantifiable risk reduction. There is need to set standards for remediation based on reduction in risk at the receptor rather than just operating a soil vapour extraction system. It is therefore suggested that the scope of work to the consultant should include a quantitative risk assessment. Tier-1 screening of the soil and groundwater may be carried out using Canadian screening standards and Dutch intervention values.
(8) Based on site specific target levels derived from risk assessment, the consultant shall evaluate multiple remedial options that may be required 30 beyond soil vapour extraction system including proposal for long term plan for assessment and monitoring may be submitted to TNPCB and CPCB within a period of 4 months. Short term findings on performance of SVE system may be included in this report.
(10) Target level for remediation shall be set based on quantitative risk assessment and such target level shall be authorised by TNPCB to monitor the remediation works."
CPCB reviewed implementation of above recommendations and the project status including reasons given by BPCL for not implementation of aforesaid suggestions were submitted to Hon'ble NGT vide status report dated November 16, 2016 (Annexure -6). The extracted paragraph of status report of CPCB dated November 16, 2016 is as below;
"(iii) As per the CPCB recommendations, it is required to set Site Specific Target levels (SSTL) to be derived from quantitative risk assessment using any suitable model based on the human health risk associated with both inhalation and incidental ingestion of specific contaminants at the exposure concentration and SPR (Source-Pathway-Receptor) linkage. M/s BPCL has not made any progress in developing SSTL, however, excavation of contaminated soil for the proposed Metro construction may alter the source pathway receptor considerations for developing the SSTL, therefore it may be appropriate to develop SSTL at later stage. "
It is submitted that as per directions of Hon'ble NGT, CPCB has been monitoring ground water quality and performance of soil vapour extraction 31 system and effectiveness of remediation is reported in comparison to previously observed values. Since excavation works of CMRL are nearing completion in impacted area, M/s BPCL may carry out risk assessment studies by engaging a reputed remediation consultant and proposed Site Specific Target levels (SSTL) may be submitted to TNPCB for acceptance or authorization of remediation standards.
4. Para 17: "With regard to the statement that there is presence of TOC, TPH and DRO in the 4 deep bore wells, it is stated that these wells historically have detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. Similar to the shallow wells, the concentration of chemicals of concern are declining. For example concentration of DRO in well MW-5B was initially reported to be 19.81 mg/L in December 2015, but the current concentration as reported by CPCB is 0.193 mg/L. Further, with regard to the statement that the concentration of mineral oil was found within permissible limit in all monitored wells except in one location (MW-5B), it is stated that the initial concentration of mineral oil in MW-5B was reported to be 9.44 mg/L in December 2016 and current concentration reported by CPCB is 0.82, indicating a significant reduction in concentration. CPCB Reply:
That as per the directions of Hon'ble NGT, CPCB initiated monitoring of groundwater since June, 2016 by selecting 9 monitoring wells installed in core area as well as in boundary of contaminated site and the status 32 report showing fluctuation of concentrations of chemicals of concern in groundwater was submitted to Hon'ble NGT vide CPCB status report dated January 05, 2018 (Annexure-7). The report revealed that "concentration of Mineral Oil and Gasoline Range of Organics (GRO) found less than 0.01 mg/L and 20 µg/L, respectively in most of monitoring well locations. However, concentration of Diesel Range of Organics (DRO), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) and Total Hydrocarbon (THC) in groundwater indicates that the present system of operation of SVE could not establish the satisfactory reduction".
Due to ongoing Metro excavation and seasonal variation of groundwater, monitoring wells identified by CPCB (except MW-5B) were either closed or dried-up. In contrary to claims of M/s BPCL, comparison of TOC, DRO and THC levels in monitoring well MW-5B, in samples collected on 22 November, 2017and 14 February, 2020 indicates clear increment in concentrations values from 14 mg/L, 0.089mg/L&0.272 mg/L to as high as 64 mg/L, 0.193 mg/L &1.01 mg/L respectively, however such increment may be attributed to movement of groundwater and change in hydro-geological conditions due to CMRL works. CPCB monitoring has also indicates that low concentrations in other wells, however over-all remediation efficiency cannot be decided based on monitoring of few wells. Therefore, based on observed groundwater quality CPCB concluded that the present system of operation of SVE could not establish the satisfactory reduction in groundwater contamination. It is therefore necessary to 33 augment SVE system by connecting as many wells as possible and by operating both the SVE systems simultaneously to optimal extraction rate. The observations of BPCL claiming significant reduction in concentration is not acceptable. PRAYER That it is humbly submitted prayed that Hon'ble NGT may issue suitable direction to BPCL to;
1. Issue suitable direction to M/s BPCL to carry out detailed site investigation and risk assessment study to evolve Site Specific Target Levels (SSTLs) for remediation of oil contaminated site at Tondiarpet, Chennai;
2. Direct M/s BPCL to augment SVE system by connecting as many wells as possible and by operating both the SVE systems simultaneously to optimal extraction rate;
This answering Respondent No. 12 shall abide to any direction passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. DEPONENT VERIFICATION It is verified that the content of this reply affidavit is based on office records. Nothing has been concealed therein.
Signed and verified on this 19th day of June 2020 at Bengaluru DEPONENT COUNSEL FOR 12th RESPONDENT"
5. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Mr. S. Saravanan represented Mr. Yogeswaran, counsel appearing for applicant in O.A.No.176 of 2013, Mr. Kandhan Doraisamy, learned counsel represented applicants in O.A.Nos.34 to 42 of 2014, Mr. Mani Gopi represented second respondent in O.A.No.176 of 2013 and fourth respondent in O.A.Nos.34 to 42 of 2014, Mr. D.S. Ekambaram through Mrs. Jayalakshmi represented 12th respondent in O.A.No.176 of 2013, Mr. Gokul Krishnan, through Mr. S. Saravanan represented MoEF 34 & CC, Mr. S. Saravanan represented IOCL, Mr. Abdul Saleem through S. Saravanan represented Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
6. Since the presence of counsel appearing for BPCL is required for hearing, we feel it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the parties for hearing on the status report.
For hearing, post on 8.7.2020 ...................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .............................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. 176/2013, O.A.34 to 42/2014 22.6. 2020 Kkr 35