National Green Tribunal
Bonani Kakkar vs Oil India Limited on 10 March, 2023
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 05 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Hybrid Mode)
Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ)
(with report of the Committee dated 31.12.2021)
Bonani Kakkar Applicant
Versus
Oil India Limited & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 10.03.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Advocate
Respondents: Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Petal Chandhok & Mr. Ranjan Mishra,
Advocates for Oil India Limited
Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv. for CPCB
Mr. Debojit Bonkakati, Advocate for the State of Assam
Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra, Advocate for Ministry of Petroleum & Natural
Gas
ORDER
Scope of proceedings in the light of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court
1. The matter has been taken up in pursuance of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.01.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2201 of 2021, Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited & Ors., remitting the matter back to this Tribunal for further consideration in the light of the said order which is reproduced below:
1"1. This appeal arises from an order of the National Green Tribunal1 dated 19 February 2021. The cases relates to the damage and destruction caused to the biodiversity of Dibru Saikhowa National Park and Boisphere Reserve due to a blow-out which took place from the Baghjan 5 Oil Well on 27 May 2020. Oil India Limited was in control and possession of the oil well.
2. The NGT constituted a Committee of experts. A preliminary report was submitted on 24 July 2020 after which on 31 October 2020, the Committee submitted a progress report. The NGT, by its impugned order, constituted three committees :
(i) A six member Committee to fix the responsibility for the failure of the individuals present at the incident and lay down a road map for ensuring compliance with safety protocols;
(ii) A seven member committee to enquire into the non-
compliance of statutory provisions;
(iii) A ten member Committee to assess the damage to and restoration of the Dibru Saikhowa National Park and wet land and to take over all surviving issues from the earlier committee.
3. When the appeal was moved before this Court, in an order dated 1 July 2021, two specific grievances of the appellants were recorded. The grievances were set out in paragraph 5 of the order which extracted below :
"5 The precise grievance is two fold. Firstly, the earlier Committee had submitted a comprehensive report before the NGT: initially, a preliminary report which was followed by a progress report and, hence, the constitution of three new Committees will only delay the process. Secondly, for the determination of damages and compensation and for the restoration of the National Park and Wetland, a ten-member Committee has been constituted headed by the Chief Secretary, Assam in which the Managing Director of the Oil India limited has been inducted as a member. It has been submitted that this will be in breach of the principles of natural justice since the conduct of Oil India Limited is basically in issue and, hence, the Managing Director ought not to be a member of the Committee in any case."
4. In a subsequent order of this Court dated 2 September 2021, the Court took note of the findings of the expert committee, which was initially appointed by the NGT, in its preliminary report dated 24 July 2020 as well as the findings in the subsequent report dated 31 October 2020. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order of this Court are extracted below :
"4. The Expert Committee found that (i) OIL did not possess mandatory consent to establish and operate under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 when it started operations in Baghjan 5 Oil 1 "NGT"2
well in 2006. (ii) OIL does not have the requisite consent under the law to carry out drilling and testing of hydrocarbons in the specified well except for the years 2008-09, 2012-13 and 2018- 19; and (iii) OIL does not possess authorization under Rule 6 of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016, which constitutes a violation of the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance dated 11 May 2020.
5. By a subsequent progress report dated 31 October 2020, the Committee detailed widespread damage to the flora and fauna of the region, including:
(i) Thirty five varieties of fish species belonging to thirteen families, many of which had been completely wiped out; and
(ii) (ii) A drastic decline in water oxygen content which has resulted in a high rate of destruction of marine life."
The Court also noted that the report had recommended a comprehensive impact assessment alongwith a plan for bio- remediation of hydrocarbons polluting the soil and the wet land.
5. In its order dated 2 September 2021, this Court reconstituted the third committee constituted by the NGT. The third Committee, as reconstituted was directed to consist of the following members :
"(i) Justice B P Katakey, former Judge of the Gauhati High Court ...Chairperson
(ii) Dr Ritesh Kumar, Director, Wetlands International South Asia
(iii) Mr G S Dang, ex-Deputy Director, Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun
(iv) Mr Qamar Qureshi, Professor, Wildlife Institute of India
(v) Mr Bedanga Bordoloi."
The Court directed that the Committee shall make an interim determination of damages upon which suitable directions could be issued to Oil India Limited to deposit the amount for facilitating remedial measures.
6. The Committee appointed by this Court submitted its report dated 20 October 2021. A final report of the committee was submitted on 31 December 2021.
7. On 1 September 2022, this Court clarified that the pendency of the proceedings shall not come in the way of the disbursement of compensation to the affected villagers in accordance with law.
8. In view of the above narration of facts, it is evident that as a result of the interim directions of this Court, the third committee which was constituted by the NGT for the purpose of assessing the damage to the environment and restoration measures including measures for restoration of the Dibru Saikhowa National Park and the wet land stands superseded by the expert committee which has been constituted by this Court.
39. The Court is apprised of the fact that the other two committees are yet to commence their work in view of the stay granted by this Court on 1 July 2021. The petitioner has no grievance in regard to the constitution of the other two committees.
10. With the above factual background, it would be appropriate to remit the proceedings back to the NGT which shall take up the proceedings on the basis of the reports of the expert committee which was constituted by this Court. The reports of the expert committee shall be considered by the NGT. The NGT shall hear such objections as the parties in the proceedings have, before issuing necessary directions on the aspects including restoration of the environment, reparation of environmental damage and compensation.
11. The other two committees, which have been constituted by the NGT, shall proceed to complete the task which has been assigned to them. In terms of the earlier directions, it is clarified that the pendency of the proceedings before the NGT shall not affect the disbursement of interim compensation to the affected villagers. The NGT shall, it is clarified, be at liberty to pass further directions in regard to assessing the compensation payable and for its disbursement to all the affected persons.
12. We keep open all the rights and contentions of the parties.
13. The order of the NGT dated 19 February 2021 shall stand modified to the extent of the constitution of the third committee in terms of the previous orders of this Court. The report of the third committee, as noted above, shall now form the basis of further proceedings by the NGT in regard to the canvass which has been covered by the committee on the assessment of damages to the environment and restoration measures including measures, for restoration of Dibru Saikhowa National Park and Maguri Motapung Wetland. The NGT shall proceed ahead on the basis of the report of the expert committee appointed by this Court, without awaiting the conclusion of the proceedings before the two other committees.
14. NGT is at liberty to issue appropriate directions for determining the modalities for the adjudication of final compensation and its disbursement, after taking due account of the interim compensation which has been fixed in that regard.
15. The disbursement of the interim compensation should be effected expeditiously and within a period of two months from the date of this order."
2. In view of above, scope of further consideration before the Tribunal mainly is consideration of reports submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the 'third committee', hear such objections as the parties in the 4 proceedings have and issuing necessary directions about restoration of the environment, reparation of environmental damage and compensation.
Other 'two committees', earlier constituted by the Tribunal under order dated 19.2.2021, have to now proceed in terms of directions of the Tribunal.
Substance of earlier order of the Tribunal dated 19.2.2021
3. Before proceeding further on above lines, we consider it necessary to extract parts of order dated 19.2.2021 for continuity of this order:
"1. The issue for consideration in these matters is the remedial steps for restoration of the environment and compensation to the victims on account of damage resulting from the incident of oil blowout on 27.05.2020 from the oil well belonging to the Oil India Limited (OIL) which released huge amount of toxic gases and, other consequential events, including fire incident 09.06.2020 that followed, at Baghjan in Tinsukia District of Assam. The fire was finally put off on 15.11.2020, after almost six months and well killing operations were successfully completed on 03.12.2020, after six months, as per version of the OIL filed before this Tribunal on 16.12.2020. Adverse impact of the incident on human beings and environment was large. As per affidavit dated 27.07.2020 filed by the OIL, more than 9000 persons were displaced and sheltered in 12 relief camps, (with 750 persons in each), 10 camps immediately after 27.05.2020 incident and 02 camps added after 09.06.2020 incident. As on 22.07.2020, 07 camps were still continuing with 5758 occupants. 3000 affected families were paid Rs. 30,000/- each as one-time compensation, apart from the compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs each to 11 families whose houses were burnt. A sum of Rs. 11.17 crores was spent on the relief camps as on 23.07.2020. According to the OIL, more than Rs. 151 crores was required towards operational cost for controlling the blowout. By a subsequent letter dated 02.12.2020, the OIL has accepted its liability to pay Rs. 68.05 cores further amount to 600 affected families (Rs. 15 lakhs each to 161 families where damage to the houses is total and Rs. 10 lakhs each to 439 families where damage to the houses is severe). OIL has proposed to the District Collector, Tinsukia that it will pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each to 612 families who have left the camp for rental, accommodation, food and other facilities, as stated in the report dated 10.12.2020 of the Committee appointed by this Tribunal (paras 4 and 5). A sum of Rs. 90.796 crore stands deposited by the OIL with the District Collector.
2. xxx .............................................xxx.............................xxx
3. With a view to obtain an authentic independent version, while issuing notice to the OIL, the Tribunal constituted eight-member 5 Committee headed by a former Judge of Gauhati High Court with representatives from CPCB, CSIR, Guwahati University, State Bio-diversity Board, ONGCL, State PCB and the District Magistrate, Tinsukia District with liberty to the Committee to co- opt any other expert or institution. The mandate of the Committee was to ascertain the cause of the incident, persons responsible for the incident and for the failure to prevent the same, extent of damage to the human life, wildlife, Dibru-Saikhowa National Park (DSNP), the Maguri-Motapung Wetland (MMW), assessment of proposed compensation to the victims and for restitution of the property and the environment, remedial measures, including steps to prevent recurrence.
xxx .............................................xxx.............................xxx
20. We have given due consideration to the reports of the Committee dated 31.10.2020 and 10.12.2020 as well as to the objections of the OIL and of the applicant and heard learned Counsel for the appearing parties. There are four aspects for consideration:
a) Compensation to the victims of the incidents for the damage to the houses, trauma, loss of earning and health cost incurred etc.
b) Accountability for the failure of OIL to follow safety protocols in preventing the incident and remedial steps to prevent such incidents in future
c) Accountability for non-compliance of statutory norms under the Water, Air and Environment laws and remedial action
d) Assessment of damage to the Environment and restoration measures, including measures for restoration of Dibru-Saikhowa National Park and the Maguri-Motapung Wetland Observations and Findings
21. On consideration of the entirety of the matter, we are in agreement that further studies are required for assessment of damage to the environment and the restoration measures by an inter-
disciplinary Committee. Accordingly, we propose to appoint an expert Committee for the purpose. The issue of compensation stands sorted out substantially. The remaining aspects of remedying the causes leading to the incident and statutory compliance will require further consideration by the statutory and departmental authorities in the first instance for which we propose to appoint joint Committees. Our observations and directions on different aspects follow.
Re: a) Compensation to the victims
22. We note that the incident in question is a massive one as the blowout resulted in fire which continued for almost six months inspite of efforts of all the Experts, hired by the OIL. Well killing operations, to avoid further damage, have taken more than six months. The damage caused is extensive. The statistics furnished by the OIL itself 6 are that 3000 families were affected and 9000 persons were displaced from their houses and accommodated in 12 relief camps. 10 relief camps were set up as a result of first incident dated 27.05.2020 and two more camps after the incident dated 09.06.2020. Each camp had 750 persons. Though number of claims were put forward, major part of the issue stands resolved in terms of tri-partite arrangement between the victims, the OIL and the Deputy Commissioner, as per letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.9.2020 and letter of the OIL dated 2.12.2020. The OIL has admitted its liability to 600 families to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs each for 161 families and Rs. 10 lakhs each to the 439 families which runs to about Rs. 68 crores. It has already paid Rs. 30,000/- each to 3000 persons i.e. Rs. 9 crores and Rs. 12 lakhs each to 11 families i.e. Rs. 2.2 crores. Further, Rs.50000/- each has been paid to the families who have left the camps to meet the cost of rent, food etc. According to the OIL, it has spent about Rs. 11 crores on the camps and also incurred expenditure on managing the blowout which is said to be about Rs. 151 cores.
23. While the Committee has suggested payments towards compensation to be treated as interim, the OIL does not accept any further liability. In view of substantial number of victims having been compensated upto a reasonable level, the issue will have to be taken as concluded as far as the present proceedings are concerned. This Tribunal cannot enter into further adjudication in absence of the victims and authentic data. While floor level compensation can be directed to be paid even on some guesswork, higher compensation claims require adjudication, based on evidence of loss. As already observed, in absence of relevant data, we are unable to determine the claims for higher compensation, beyond the amounts already paid or conceded by the OIL.
24. The principle of absolute liability is attracted to such incidents in accordance with law laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 395 and thus the victims are entitled to compensation atleast on principle of restitution without proving negligence. However, evidence of extent of loss suffered by each of the claimant is required, except for some sort of compensation to be awarded by applying rule of thumb. To this extent compensation appears to have already been paid during these proceedings with the intervention of the Committee and the authorities. Thus, while requiring the OIL to pay whatever compensation is undisputed forthwith, we propose to leave the rest of the matter to be decided in appropriate remedies of the victims. However, we propose to lay down mechanism to deal with some of the issues emerging from the report of the Committee. It is made clear that this order will not debar any victim of the occurrence who is aggrieved by denial of compensation or inadequacy of compensation to take remedies for such claim before any appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Re: b) Accountability for failure to follow safety protocols and remedial measures to prevent such incidents in future:
725. The Committee has prima facie found the concerned officers of OIL responsible for their failure in preventing the incident, as safety protocols were not duly followed. The OIL has pleaded its innocence and shifted the liability to the Contractor. It is stated that some action taken against the contractor (debarring for two years). The fact remains that the OIL cannot disown its responsibility by shifting the blame on the contractor. Since it is not found necessary to finally determine this issue by the Tribunal, the same is left open to be gone into in any other appropriate proceedings - departmental or judicial.
26. We prima facie agree with the report of the Committee that there was failure of the OIL in taking safety precautions and there is need for ensuring that such incidents do not recur. We direct this aspect to be gone into by a six-member Committee headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in consultation with the D.G. Hydrocarbon and D.G. Mines Safety, DG Oil Industry Safety and PESO, Chief Controller of Explosives, New Delhi within three months from today. The said Committee may review the situation and take appropriate remedial measures, including fixing responsibility for the failures of the concerned individuals in the present incident. It may also lay down the road map for ensuring compliance of safety protocols by all similar installations. Effective execution of such road map may be ensured by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The Committee may also suitably take into consideration the observations in the reports of the Committee appointed by this Tribunal.
Re: c) Accountability for non compliance of statutory norms under the Water, Air and Environment laws and remedial action
27. The Committee has found that there are non-compliances of statutory provisions of the Air Act, Water Act, the EP Act, including the Hazardous Waste Rules, framed thereunder, the requirement of EC in terms of Notification dated 14.09.2006 and compliance of EC conditions. OIL has submitted its stand disputing the findings of the Committee. We direct that the issue of accountability for the past compliances and the remedial action therefor be looked into by a seven-member joint Committee comprising MoEF&CC, CPCB, State PCB, SEIAA Assam, Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam, Member Secretary, Biodiversity Board, Assam and Member Secretary, State Wetland Authority Assam. MoEF&CC will be nodal agency and the Committee may complete its work within three months. The gaps identified may be duly addressed by the OIL which may be overseen by the statutory regulators. The Committee may also suitably take into the observations in the reports of the Committee appointed by this Tribunal.
Re: d) Assesment of damage to the Environment and restoration measures, including measures for restoration of Dibru-Saikhowa National Park and the Maguri-Motapung Wetland
28. Last aspect is assessing the damage to the environment and remedial restoration plan, including Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, 8 the Maguri-Motapung Wetland. We direct this aspect to be looked into and remedial measures planned by the ten-member Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Assam, nominees of MoEF&CC and CPCB, Assam Wetland Authority, State Biodiversity Board of Assam, SEIAA Assam, State PCB (all through their Chairmen), Chief Wildlife Warden Assam, District Magistrate, Tinsukia, and Managing Director, OIL. This Committee will also take over the available record and data from the Committee constituted by this Tribunal, headed by Justice Katakey and deal with all surviving issues as far as possible within six months. As regards budgetary allocation for the restoration work, the cost of restoration is to be born by the OIL. The Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Assam may make an estimate on which the OIL will deposit the amount so estimated to meet the cost of restoration of the environment. Initial deposit will be on adhoc estimation of minimum amount required and any further amount becomes necessary for execution of work for restoration, as may be finally determined by the ten-member Committee, such further deposit will be made by the OIL. The restoration plan may be duly executed by the OIL which may be overseen by the concerned statutory regulators. The OIL may forthwith pay the honorarium payable to non-official members of the Committee constituted by this Tribunal which may also be ensured by the Chief Secretary, Assam who may determine the amount payable, if the issue needs any clarification.
29. All the above Committees will be free to co-opt any other Expert or institution. The applicants or any other stake holders are free to give their respective suggestions, if any, to the above Committees. The Committees may hold their first meetings preferably within two weeks which may be ensured by the Secretary of MoPNG, the Secretary of MoEF&CC and the Chief Secretary, Assam respectively."
Consideration of the matter by the Tribunal today and directions Preliminary Observations
4. Order dated 19.2.2021 shows that the Tribunal considered four issues - compensation to victims, accountability of individuals, non compliances by the Project Proponent (PP) and its accountability in that regard, restoration of Dibru Saikhowa National Park/Dibru-Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve (DSBR) and Maguri Motapung Wetlands (MMW) and other affected area. On first aspect, it was noted that the PP had paid a sum of Rs.151 crore for rehabilitation of victims and a settlement had been reached. Thus, the said issue was taken as concluded except for consideration of any particular specific claim at any appropriate forum.
9Other three issues were left to be dealt with by three committees - first, a six member Committee headed by Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum to go into issue of accountability of individuals, second, a seven member committee, headed by Secretary MoEF&CC to go into compliances and accountability of the PP in that regard and the third a ten member Committee to go into the issue of restoration of DSBR and MMW. First two have now to proceed, as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per order of the Tribunal dated 19.2.2021 while constitution of the third was modified, as noted earlier and its reports are to be considered to determine further course of action.
Consideration of the reports, submissions of the Applicant and objections of the PP
5. We are of the view that since final report of the modified Committee dated 31.12.2021 has been submitted, it will suffice to refer to the same.
Submissions of the Applicant are in support of the report and objections of the PP are in terms of its affidavit dated 25.7.2022.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appearing parties and perused the record with the assistance of learned Counsel.
7. Executive summary of the report is as follows:
"Executive Summary
1. The Baghjan accident took place in a highly ecologically fragile Eastern Brahmaputra Landscape. The Dibru Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve, alongside which the blowout took place, provides habitat for thousands of species including the iconic One-horned Rhinoceros, the globally threatened bird Bengal Florican and White-winged Wood Duck, a migration corridor for elephants, as well as a crucial link and staging ground for the East and Central Asian Flyway for migratory birds. The Baghjan accident was not just a failure on the part of OIL in ensuring necessary health, safety and environmental safeguards, but equally responsible are:
a) Complete and comprehensive violation of the principles of eco-
sensitive zone notification by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, leading to dangerous concentration of oil and gas producing wells in a 10 highly environmentally sensitive and fragile area of Dibru Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve
b) Absence of any meaningful baselines and management plans for Maguri Motapung Wetlands and Dibru Saikhowa National Park, and a lackadaisical approach to' management of these biodiversity hotspots
c) Ineffective ecosystem monitoring systems to assess ecosystem health, and absence of infrastructure even at the state level to monitor contaminants related with oil and gas industry
d) Lack of any mechanism for covering risks to human health, livelihoods and assets located within the vicinity of oil and gas production areas
e) Overlooking the risks posed by oil and gas industry in disaster risk reduction planning
f) No investment in capacity development (including site and situation specific Standard Operating Procedures) for handling the risks of oil and gas production related accidents
2. The blowout accident resulted in severe damage and contamination of the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands and parts of Dibru- Saikhowa National Park, as is indicated by the following facts discerned from surveys and assessments carried during February- June 2021:
a) The concentration of Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons in water, soil and sediments of Lohit, Dibru and Maguri-Motapung were significantly higher than those reported in other Indian and global studies on similar accidents. The drastic lowering of Dissolved Oxygen at many locations of the rivers, streams, Maguri-Motapung and other wetlands, in combination with high concentration of Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons resulted in large-scale mortality and morbidity of aquatic fauna. Patches of oil still surface in parts of wetland despite several flood pulses in the landscape.
b) The blowout caused serious sound pollution, way beyond the set standards, making the overall environment unsuitable for normal life for prolonged periods, and affecting several birds and mammal species.
c) Vegetation in a large area around Baghjan oil well#5 was sprayed with condensate. Morbidity and death of livestock, damage to crop fields and grasslands were recorded.
d) Abnormalities in feeding and behavior patterns of Hollock Gibbons were observed, including the unfortunate death of a young one.
e) Dolphin abundance during declined by 89% in area surrounding Baghjan oil well#5. One dolphin was found dead in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands due to poisoning by condensate.
f) Bird richness declined by 59% in grassland and 85% in wetlands. The counts of migratory birds in the Maguri-
Motapung wetlands is yet to recover to the pre-accident levels.
11g) Fish richness declined by 71% and abundance by 81%. Large scale death, excess mucous secretion descaling and bleeding was observed in fishes.
h) Species richness of odonates and lepidopterans declined by 26% and 48% respectively.
i) Herpetofauna loss was significant, 177 carcasses of 4 species were recorded upto 4 km from the accident site. No evidence of tadpole presence was recorded, in spite of the incident time being the breeding period of several species of herpetofauna indicate deaths of neonates.
j) Orchid Lowering was severely delayed.
k) Fishers of the area reported a 70 - 80% decline in fish catch from the river and Maguri-Motapung Wetlands till date, severely impacting livelihoods.
3. The Baghjan accident poses two fundamental challenges for ecological restoration. Firstly, the concentration of environmental contaminants released by the blowout need to be brought to the levels which are safe for biota as well as communities dependent on the ecosystem. The interventions require taking into account the lack of baseline data on ecological communities present within the Dibru- Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve, especially those within the aquatic environs on Maguri-Motapung Wetlands, and the likely response to restoration. Secondly, the damage to ecosystem components and processes (such as death and injury to species, disturbance to habitats, altered migration pathways) need to be restored, which are likely to take a much longer time frame. Various studies on insects, herpeto-fauna, fish, birds and mammals indicated it will take 2 to 21 _years for species population to recover from losses due to condensate impact.
4. The condensate from Baghjan well #5 spread in a 2 km radius, and contaminated the surrounding environment. Less than 2% of this area has been remediated, without systematic site characterization, and with focus largely on soil dimensions. The ongoing remediation sites are unprotected and not- demarcated, posing severe health and environmental hazards. Following recommendations are made for restoration of the accident site and its surroundings:
a) Restoration needs to be guided by a Conceptual Site Model indicating the area of influence of the contaminant, and the relationship between contaminant source, pathways, and receptors. The model should be updated with new information from site monitoring.
b) All enabling works like topographic survey, site characterization, waste and debris segregation and removal, installation of groundwater monitoring wells etc. prior to any remediation works need to be completed by OIL.
c) OIL needs to pursue a risk-based clean-up approach adopting best available remediation technologies (biopiling, landfarming, volatilization and other non-invasive methods to remove LNAPLs, tree based phytoremediation combined with nature based methods etc.) to bring down the level of contaminants in all contaminated mediums. OIL and Pollution 12 Control Board, Assam may conduct bench scale, field trials of various remediation technologies options, risk assessments, operability studies, cost-benefit and sustainability analysis before designing the remediation strategy .
d) It is recommended that OIL engages with national regulators and other stakeholders as early as possible in the process of site investigation and development of remediation strategies.
Participatory approaches, with specific emphasis on community involvement should be ensured via a digital collaboration platf9rm with all restoration related data.
e) In cases where remediation is not feasible or where the polluted area has high ecological or scientific value, OIL must determine the best site management and adaptation strategy to mitigate the risk to public health and the environment viz. monitored natural attenuation or exclusion.
f) Afforestation needs to be taken up in the area of influence (soon after remediation of the contaminated mediums), using native species, in consultation and participation of local communities.
g) An office of `Contaminated site remediation and technology innovation' under PCBA may be established by the Government of Assam. The Office may be entrusted with the responsibility of management of the hazardous waste sites as per CPCB Guidelines to protect the environment and the health of the public at large.
5. Ecological restoration of DSBR should be targeted at assisting the recovery of the ecosystem that has been degraded and damaged by the Baghjan accident (while injury has been established, extent and pathways need to be further investigated through systematic studies). At the same time, abundant caution is advised prior to venturing into physical interventions for ecological restoration given the high ecological fragility of the Dibru Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve. The Committee therefore recommends:
a) Systematic studies and monitoring to determine the current level of contamination within various components of the wetland and terrestrial area (water, sediment, vegetation).
b) Assessing the ecological restoration baseline (by involving expert agencies and with full stakeholder engagement) which would be tasked with: (a) Systematically defining a `reference ecosystem condition' which would serve as a guide for ecological restoration; (b) Systematically defining ecological restoration indicators which would serve as a basis of assessing restoration effectiveness over long term; (c) Identifying restoration options --with specific focus on nature-
based solutions which use native species; (d) Identifying monitoring indicators for all major ecosystem attributes (physical condition, species composition, ecosystem function) as well as threats and external exchanges; (e) Projecting resource requirement and institutional arrangements to implement restoration measures.
c) Constituting an `ecological restoration steering committee' which would be tasked with reviewing and approving an ecological restoration plan, and monitoring the progress of implementation. The Committee may be set up under the District Commissioner (Tinsukia) and have representation of all major stakeholders (such as Pollution Control Board 13 Assam, OIL, Forests, Fisheries, Tourism, Eco-Development Committee, local tour operators) and also have external restoration specialists on board .
d) Undertaking systematic monitoring to ascertain that in multiple use areas the wetlands products (from buffer zone) are safe for human consumption. In case the studies determine that any of the wetland products are unsafe for human consumption, its harvest should be banned for a period as suggested by the study, and the dependent communities fully compensated for the loss.
e) Conducting epidemiological studies within the communities living in and around the DSBR to determine the effect of exposure to contaminants. The studies must take a long-term view -- such as health risks created by carcinogens released by the accident. Accordingly, a system of comprehensive health insurance for all persons living in the zone of impact (we may consider all communities residing around the Maguri- Motapung Wetlands and Dibru Saikhowa National Park, as well as those residing within 5 km radius of the Baghjan well#5) may be put in place so that the health risks are covered. Similarly, the livestock may also be insured.
6. For the gains of restoration to persist overtime, it is essential to put in place effective management arrangements for Dibru Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve which can ensure that the full range of biodiversity and ecosystem services of the biosphere reserve are delivered in perpetuity by limiting and managing impact of human-induced adverse change in the ecosystem. Within the aegis of Biosphere Reserve planning, following recommendations are made:
a) The management plan of Dibru-Saikhowa National Park needs to be updated taking into account the diversity of habitats, the interconnectivity of the park with river, wetland ecosystems, other protected areas and the risks posed by developmental activities such as oil and gas production. The management may be structured to meet the following objectives: i) Secure National Park boundaries, ensuring its connectivity with landscape;
inventory of biodiversity of DSNP; iii) Maintain and improve habitat quality to support diversity.; iv) Reduce people's dependence on resources from National Park by providing alternatives; v) Provide livelihood opportunities to stakeholders through engagement in eco-tourism activities; and, vi) Adaptive management.
b) The management of Maguri-Motapung Wetlands should strive to achieve `Conservation and wise use of the wetland ecosystem to sustain and enhance its full range of ecosystem services and biodiversity'. The purpose is to: a) manage the wetland complex in entirety as an ecologically and regulatory harmonized unit; b) maintain and improve the habitats to sustain biodiversity including migratory waterbirds, as well as ecosystem services such as buffering against extreme events and support wetland-dependent livelihoods in a sustainable manner; and c) develop institutional arrangement at the site, district and state level to address and manage regulatory and policy-related issues. Management may be guided by following objectives: i) Maintain naturalness of wetland shoreline; Maintain hydrological regimes connectivity aligned with key ecosystems processes (such as maintenance of habitat diversity); iii) Maintain and improve habitat quality 14 to support diverse wetland-dependent species; iv) Maintain non-declining harvest of fishes, aquatic plants and other species of economic use derived from wetland and its surroundings; v) Provide livelihood opportunities to stakeholders through engagement in wetland based- tourism activities; vi) Maintain compliance with all extant regulation; and, vii) Proactive stakeholder engagement in wetland management enabled by Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness Actions.
7. The Maguri Motapung Wetlands and its zone of influence must be delineated and notified as per the provisions of Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. This responsibility rests with the Assam State Wetlands Authority.
8. The District Commissioner may be entrusted with the responsibility of designing the Maguri-Motapung Management Plan as per the guidance of the National Programme for Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems of the MoEFCC, seeking support of expert agencies and with engagement of stakeholders. The Eco- Development Committee may be extensively consulted to ensure that the views, tights and capacities of local communities are built within the management plan. The management plan must inter alia define responsibilities of concerned line departments, research organizations, non-government organizations and community-based organizations in implementing various activities. Periodic monitoring of the management plan may be carried out by the Tinsukia District Wetlands Committee constituted under the aegis of Assam State Wetlands Authority.
9. The current District Disaster Management Plan of Tinsukia does not identfy oil and gas production related risks in hazards, and ecosystems, such as Maguri Motapung Wetlands and Dibru Saikhowa National Park as elements of risk reduction. The plan needs to be urgently updated, with a &tailed Hazard-Capacity- Vulnerability-Capacity Assessment being the basis, and healthy ecosystems considered as an integral part of the disaster resilience building interventions.
10. Given the high density of oil and gas operations in Eastern Brahmaputra Landscape, it is recommended that Standard Operating Procedures specifically for addressing oil and condensate spills in wetlands, terrestrial systems and ecologically sensitive areas such as DSNP is prepared in consultation with experts, and also drawing on international expertise.
11. Redressing the damage inflicted by Baghjan accident and also putting in place systems and institutional mechanisms so that the future risks for oil and gas related accidents are minimized, will require a cost of Rs. 1,196 crores. These include: a) the costs of ecological restoration of the accident site: Rs. 139 crore; b) ecological restoration of Dibru-Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve: Rs. 432 crore; and
c) addressing livelihood and socioeconomic aspects related with restoration: Rs. 625 crore. The costs at a) and c) are directly attributed to the Baghjan accident and may be borne by OIL. The costs related with restoration of DSBR may be shared between the Government of Assam (as the ultimate custodian of the ecological assets with a direct responsibility of upkeep of these) and OIL (as a direct beneficiary of healthy ecosystems and an important stakeholder in ecosystem management)."
158. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the report and recommendations for restoration of environmentally sensitive DSBR and MMW and other incidental issues should be accepted and its compliance overseen by MoEF&CC. The assessed cost of Rs. 1196 crores be required to be deposited.
9. As against above, Oil India Limited (OIL) in its response to the report of the Committee filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.07.2022 has submitted that assessment of compensation of Rs. 1196 crores is uncalled for. Out of the said amount, Rs. 625 crores is for livelihood and socio-
economic aspects of victims though issue of compensation to the victims has been closed under settlement and a sum of Rs.151 crore spent by the PP. The Committee has wrongly taken up the issue of restoration of entire DSBR running into 755 sq. km, while the area of influence of working of the project is limited to 3.8 sq. km. The Committee has relied upon secondary data for computing compensation without study of its own. The committee has ignored the restoration measures already taken by the PP in the light of advice of specialized agencies of national and international repute. The PP does not wish to evade its responsibility for restoration measures but arbitrary assessment is not justified. The PP will take such measures as may be necessary. The report of Shri M.K. Yadava, IFS, Additional PCCF, Wildlife and Chief Wildlife Warden, submitted on directions of PCCF (HoFF), Assam on 02.06.2020 is incomplete as it does not consider the remedial measures already taken and the same has been wrongly relied upon by the Committee.
10. Studies undertaken by the PP and restoration measures taken for remediation have been listed as follows: -
16Studies A. ASSESSMENT OF AIR QUALITY IN THE VICINITY OF BAGHJAN WELL NO. 5 BY ARIHANT ANALYTICAL LABORATORY PVT. LTD. VIDE REPORTS DATED 29.05.2020 TO 12.06.2020 B. ASSESSMENT OF AIR QUALITY AND NOISE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF BAGHJAN WELL NO. 5 VIDE REPORT DATED 05.08.2020 BY THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE ("TERI") C. GEOPHYSICAL STUDY CONDUCTED VIDE REPORT DATED 21.08.2020 BY THE COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ("CSIR") -- NORTH EAST INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ("NEIST") D. MEASUREMENT OF THERMAL MAPPING OF STRUCTURE AND SONIC BOOM VIDE REPORT DATED 28.08.2020 BY IIT GUWAHATI E. CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF CONDENSATE SAMPLE EXTRACT REPORT DATED 08.06.2020BY CHEMICAL LABORATORY, CHEMICAL DEPARTMENT, OIL INDIA LIMITED, DULIAJAN, ASSAM F. AMBIENT AIR AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN AND AROUND THE WELL NO.5 OF OIL, BAGHJAN, TINSUKHIA, ASSAM BY THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VIDE REPORT DATED 29.10.2020 G. DRINKING WATER ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 03.11.2020 BY THE DISTRICT LABORATORY, TINSUKIA, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE) DIVISION, TINSUKIA, ASSAM H. REPORT DATED 20.07.2021 OF THE TEAM OF EXPERTS BY ASSAM AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY VISIT TO BAGHJAN GAS BLOWOUT AREA OF BAGHJAN I. E F F LU EN T P IT WA TER S A M PL E A N AL YS I S R EP O R T DATED 1 0.1 1. 20 21 BY C H EM IC A L L AB OR ATO RY , CHE M I CA L DEPARTMENT, OIL INDIA LIMITED, DULIAJAN, ASSAM J. LETTER DATED 13.11.2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER, TINSUKIA, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM K. LETTER DATED 15.11.2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TINSUKIA, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM L. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF SOIL AND VEGETATION FINAL REPORT BY TERI VIDE REPORT DATED 21.02.2022 M. INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY BY INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE ("IUCN") SUBMITTED TO ASSAM BIODIVERSITY BOARD N. RESTORATION REPORT DATED 06.05.2022 SHOWING THE VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE AREAS PREPARED BY THE HSE TEAM OF OIL, THE ANSWERING RESPONDENT 17 Restoration measures with details of expenditure incurred:
"III. RESTORATION AND BIO-REMEDIATION MEASURES A. PICKING UP OF SPILLED OIL CONDENSATE MANUALLY AND BY TURBO PUMP ( a) T h at af te r th e in c id e n t o f b l o wo u t, s e v e r al b u n d h s we r e c o n s tr u c te d ar o u n d th e ar e a o f b l o wo u t to ar r e s t t h e spilled oil condensate flowing to the nearby water bo d ie s. T h e o il ar r es te d i n s id e th e bu n d h s we r e p ic k e d u p by m an u al ef f orts in d r um s an d tr an sf er re d to th e E P S-B ag h j an. T u rb o p u m p s d r i v e n by w ate r j e t we r e al so u se d f or l if ti n g s p il l e d o il con de ns ate .
(b) T h a t o n 3 1 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 0 , M / s D e e p C o n s tr u c t i o n w a s e n g ag e d b y th e A n s we r i n g R e s p o n d e n t v i d e L O A d a te d 31.05.2020 b e ar i n g no.
O IL / C O N T / L O A / G / 9 8 / 2 0 2 0 - 2 1 f o r c a r r y i n g o u t th e f o l l o w i n g wo r k s :
(i) C l e an i n g s e r v i c e s of o il s p il l ag e f r o m r o o f , w al l , tr e e s , g r o un d s u rf ac e e tc .
( i i) Fix ing an d re pl ac em en t of roof , p ain ting of r o of and w all .
( i i i) O i l p i c k u p , c ar r i ag e , tr an s p o r t a t i o n , s to r a g e etc. ( i v ) S u p p l y of g r av e l , s p r e ad i n g , l e v e l l i n g i n c l u d i n g e x c av a to r s e r v ic e s .
( v ) S u p p l y , er e c ti o n o f b o u n d ar y f e nc in g .
( v i) E ar th cu t t in g , f il l ing , d re s s i ng , le v el l ing e tc . ( v ii ) D e v e l o p m e n t o f v a r i o u s v i l l a g e r o a d s , s a n d begging etc. ( v ii i ) C u t ti n g , tr i m m i n g an d u p r o o ti n g o f tr e e s . ( i x ) S e r v ic e o f b o at f or o il p ic k u p & m an p o we r in c l u d in g s u p p l y o f d ie s e l , e tc .
( x ) M i t i g a t i o n o f a n y o th e r c o n t i n g e n c ie s .
Reference for the Copy of LOA dated
31.05.202, bearing number
O IL / C O N T / L O A / G / 9 8 / 2 0 2 0 - 2 1 is s u e d by
An s we r in g Re s p o nd e n t to M / s D e e p C on s tr uc tio n c a n be d r awn on P ag e 4 3 6 - A nn ex ure R 15 of th e Doc um en ts an n e x e d wi th th e A f f i d av i t f il e d b y th e A n s we r i n g R e s p o n d e n t o n 0 9 . 0 5 . 20 2 2 .
(c) It i s r e s p e c tf u l l y s u b m i t te d t h a t f o r th e p u r p o s e s o f c ar r y i n g out bioremediation services ar o u n d B ag h j a n W e l l N o . 5 , T E R I w as e n g ag e d b y th e A n s we r i n g R e s p o n d e n t, w h o c ar r i e d o u t th e wo r k i n t wo p h as e s s t ar t i n g o n 2 1 . 0 6 . 2 0 2 0 ; ( i ) P h as e N o . I f o r a to t al a r e a o f 1 , 6 0 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e m e t e r s an d ( i i ) P h as e N o . II f o r a to t a l ar e a o f 6 9 , 8 3 3 s q u a r e meters.
18 B. BIOREMEDIATION WORK BY TERI
PHASE-I: IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION OF OILY SLUDGE
BY TERI FOR AREA AROUND THE BAGHJAN
WELL NO.5
(d) It i s h umbl y subm i tted th at T ER I was eng aged by th e
An s we r ing R e spo n den t v ide Con tr ac t No . 6114 4 7 8 d ated 06. 06.202 0 f o r biorem e di ation of oily so il an d wa te r at B aghj an Wel l No .5 f or a to t al are a if 1,6 0,000 sq u ar e me ters. Th e to tal are a f o r remed iation was d iv ided in two z ones -- L and an d W ater, f o r the p eriod 21.0 6.2020 to 07.09. 2020. Th e Biorem ed iati on of the Ph ase No. I w as co mp le ted b y TER I o n 0 4. 12.2 020. Ref erence for the c opy of th e jo in t s ite r ecce b y A ns we r ing Res p onden t and T E R I c an b e dr awn o n P age 43 9 -- A n nexure R1 7 of th e Doc umen ts ann e x ed with th e Affidavit filed by the Answering Respondent on 09.05.2022. A copy of the Report of the Project bearing P roj ec t Code 2020 BR 01 comp le ted o n
04. 12.202 0 b y TER I f or c arry ing o u t b io- remed i a ti o n services o f contam in ated so il & water b od ies du e to oil sp ill age resul ting f rom blo w o u t of wel l num be r BGN #5 is ann exed h ere with an d m ark e d a s Annexur e-R 11.
PHASE-II: IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION OF OILY SOIL AND WATER BY TERI AT THE BAGHJAN WELL NO.5 PLINTH (e ) Th at th e An s wer ing R esp on de n t mo s t h um b l y sub m i ts th at af te r bl o wo u t was con tr oll ed an d th e B ag hj an W e ll No. 5 w as k il l ed, s te p s we r e und er tak en to f ur th e r b i or e me d i ate th e p l in th o f th e B ag hj an W el l N o. 5. H o we ver , o wi n g to l aw- an d -o r d e r con ce rns , e v en th e m ac h i ne r ie s an d eq u ip m e n t of th e An s we r in g Re sp o n de n ts co uld n o t b e co ll ec te d b y th e An s we r in g Re spo nde n t wi th o u t th e d ue su pp or t an d as s i s t an ce o f t he l aw e nf orc e m en t an d d is tr i c t ad m in is tr at iv e au th or i tie s . A c op y of th e Re po r t of th e P roj ec t be ar in g P r oj ec t Cod e 202 1 8 R 0 3 com pl e te d o n 14. 0 3. 20 22 b y TE R I f or c arr y i ng o u t b io -re m e d i ati o n s er v i ces of c on tam in ate d s o il & wa te r bo d ies d ue to o i l sp il l ag e re sul ti n g f r om bl o w ou t of we ll n u m ber BG N# 5 of the p l in th ar e a i s an n ex ed he re wi th an d m ar k ed as An n e x ure - R 12 .
(f) That it was only on 10.08.2021 that the A n s w e r i n g Re sp ond en t co u ld c ol l ec t i ts e q u ip m e n t an d m ac h i n e ry a t th e B ag h j an W e l l N o . 5 s i te a n d h av e th e c o n tr o l an d p o s s e s s io n o f th e s i t e , d u e t o th e r e as o n s c i t e d h e r e in a b o v e i n th e p r e c e d i n g p ar as o f th e in s t an t C o u n te r A f f i d av i t. In v i e w o f th e af o r e s a i d , th e b io r e m e d i a ti o n wo r k a t t h e p l i n t h o f B a g h j an W e l l N o . 5 S i te c o u l d c o m m e n c e o n l y i n th e l a t t e r h al f o f th e y e ar 2 0 2 1 .
19(g) T h at o n 1 3 . 1 0 . 2 02 1 , th e C o n tr ac t d ate d 1 3 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 1 b e ar in g n o . 6 1 1 6 3 0 6 was e x e c u te d b e tw e e n th e A n s we r i n g R e s p o n d e n t an d T E R I v id e wh i c h th e s e r v ic e s o f T E R I we r e f ur th e r e x te n d e d f or a p e r i o d o f 0 1 ( o ne ) y e ar f o r In - s i tu B io r e m e d i a ti o n o f o i ly s l u d g e / o il c on t a m in a t e d s o il / w a te r o f v ar i o u s p r o d u c t io n In s t al l atio n s , f ie l d s an d wat e r b o d i e s i n A s s am an d A r u n a c h al P r ad e s h f ie l d s . T h er e af te r , b io r e m e d i at i o n w o r k o n th e m ai n b l o wo u t s i te p l i n t h f or an ar e a o f 6 9 ,8 3 3 s q u ar e m e te r s was u n d e r ta k e n an d c o m p l e te d . R e f e r e n c e f o r th e c o p y o f t h e A m e n d m e n t N o . 1 d at e d 2 3 . 0 3 . 2 02 1 to th e C o n tr a c t N o . 6 11 4 4 7 8 / PD N O / 2 0 2 0 c an b e d r awn o n P ag e 4 4 6
-- A n n ex u r e R 2 0 o f th e D o c u m e n ts an n e x e d w i th th e A f f i d av i t f il e d by th e A n s we r i n g R e s p on d e n t o n 0 9 . 0 5 . 2 0 22 .
C. HANDLING AND PROCESSING OF OILY SLUDGE (h) That on 29.09.2020, the Answering Respondent
had engaged M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. vide Letter of Award dated 29.09.2020 bearing reference no. OIL/CONT/LOA/S/394/2020-21, towards hiring services of h an d l i n g an d p r o c e s s i n g o f o il y s l u d g e f o r a d u r a ti o n o f t we n t y - four (24) months.
D. AFFORESTATION ( i) It is r e s p e c tf u l l y s u b m i tte d th a t th e A n s we r i n g R e s p o n d e n t h as e x e c u te d a M e m o r an d u m o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g d a te d 2 1 . 0 7 . 20 2 2 wi th th e P o l l u t i o n C o n tr o l B o ar d o f A s s am f o r th e p u r p o s e s o f pl an t i n g tr e e s th r o u g h " M od i f ie d A k ir a M iy aw ak i " m e th o d f o r c ar b o n s e q u e s tr a t io n an d b io l o g ic al r e c l am at i o n / r e s to r a ti o n o f d eg r ad e d l an d i n B a g h j an W e l l N o . 5 p l in th ar e a i n T i n s u k i a D is tr ic t, A s s am . A c o p y o f th e M e m o r an d u m of Un d e rs t an d i n g dated 2 1 . 0 7 . 2 0 22 e x ec u te d b e twe e n th e A n s we r i n g R e s p o n d e n t an d P C B A i s an n e x e d h e r e wi th an d m ar k e d as A n n e x u r e -- R 1 3 .
E. EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ANSWERING RESPONDENT ON RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION MEASURES
(j) It is most respectfully submitted that the Answering Respondent has incurred a total expenditure for an amount of INR 28,68,34,852.12/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Crores Sixty-Eight Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Two and Twelve Paise Only) expenditure till date on restoration and bio-remediation measures and various engagements undertaken by the Answering Respondent.
20(k) T h a t th e c a t e g o r i s a t i o n o f e x p e n d i tu r e o n th e b a s i s o f t i m e l i n e s an d b r o ad h e ad s i s e n u m e r a te d i n th e t a b l e b e l o w:
(i) From 27.05.2020 (date of the blowout incident) till 08.12.2021 (date on which the expenditure incurred by the Answering Respondent was submitted to Retired Hon'ble Mr Justice B.P. Katakey) .
S. PARTICULARS EXPENDITURE INCURRED
NO.
Bioremediation of Oily Rs. 2,22,41,820/-
1. Sludge, Soil, Water, during (Rupees Two Crores Twenty-
blowout by TERI Two Lakhs and Forty-One
Thousand Eight Hundred
and Twenty Only)
For hiring various I NR 50, 1 4,7 5 0/-(Ru pees
services for management F if ty L akh s F ou r teen
to Blowout Control Th ou san d Seven Hu n dred
Operations by an d F if ty On l y)
M/s Deep Constructions
Hiring services of Handling INR 24,81,62,260/-
and processing of Oily (Rupees Twenty-Four Crores
Sludge by M/s Balmer Eighty-One Lakhs Sixty-Two
Lawrie & Co. Ltd Thousand Two Hundred and
Sixty Only)
2. Skimming of oil, pickup, INR 64,52,000/-
cleaning, carriage, ( R u p e e s S i x ty - F ou r L ak h s
transportation, etc. F i f ty - T wo T h o u s an d O n l y )
TOTAL Rs.28,18,70,830/-
(Rupees Twenty-Eight
Crores Eighteen Lakhs
Seventy Thousand and
Eight Hundred and Thirty
Only)
(j) Expenditure incurred by the Answering
R e s p o n d e n t af te r 0 8 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 1 o n b io - r e m e d i a t i o n wo r k :
S.NO. STEPS UNDERTAKEN BY OIL COST INCURRED
1. T h i r d - p a r ty b i o r e m e d i a ti o n INR 33,81,880/-
contractor, TERI carried (Rupees Thirty-Three out th e assessment of Lakhs Eighty-One environmental quality of soil Thousand Eight and vegetation in th e Hundred and Eighty v i c i n i ty o f W e l l B a g h j a n # 5 , Only) A s s a m wh i c h h a s n o w b e e n successfully completed.
21Third-party bioremediation INR 15,82,142.12/-
2. contractor, TERI carried ou t (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs the bio- remediation Eighty-T wo Thou sand services of con tamin a te d One Hundred Forty-
soil & water bodies du e to Two and T welve Paise
oil spill ag e resul ti n g f rom Only)
bl ow ou t of wel l number
BGN#5 of the pl inth wh ich
has now been successfully
compl eted.
TOTAL INR 49,64,022.12/-
(Rupees Forty-Nine
Lakhs Sixty-Four
Thousand Twen ty-T wo
and T welve Paise Only)
(k) Way forward:
'S.NO. PARTICULARS EXPENDITURE
1. Pl an ting of trees through INR 31,61,500/-
"Modified Akira Miyawaki" (Rupees Thirty-O n e
me thod for carbon Lakhs Six ty-O n e
seques tration an d biolog ical Thousand and Five
recl amation / res toration of Hundred Only)
degraded land in Baghjan
Well No.5 plin th area in
Tin sukia Dis trict, Assam by
th e Pollu tion Con trol Board of
Assam "
Our findings and directions
11. On due consideration of rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and consideration of the report as well as well as response of the PP, we find that restoration and preventive action for de-contaminating of the affected sites/areas, stocking and rearing of native lost flora and fauna and other required mitigative measures is required which even the PP acknowledges. The Committee has observed that so far only 2% of the affected area has been remediated. The affected area is reported to be about 2 Km radius. Eco restoration of the DSBR and MMW cannot be wished away, even if affected area is, according to the PP, lesser than the area considered by the Committee and even if measures already taken are taken into consideration. Management plan for the area has to be updated including the conservation measures for restoration of the wetland which 22 may also involve habitat restoration, monitoring of environment, particularly with reference to Residual/Total Hydrocarbons and other necessary conservation measures.
12. We are however unable to accept the entirety of report at this stage with regard to recommendations as well as assessment of cost of restoration measures. In our view right course will be to require adhoc amount to be set apart in the first instance with further direction to pay whatever cost of restoration becomes necessary. Such assessment and monitoring has to be on continuous basis by an independent Committee which should include experts as well as concerned high level Administrative officers. The Committee can report to the Tribunal and surviving grievance can be considered by the Tribunal as and when necessary. Restoration measures can be finally determined by the Committee on further studies, site visits and interaction with stake holders, including the PP.
13. We also find merit in the stand of the PP that assessment of expenditure of Rs. 625 crore towards livelihood and socio-economic aspect proposed is against the view already taken by this Tribunal vide order dated 19.2.2021 which needs to be reiterated.
14. Thus, as against the assessed cost of Rs. 571 Crores for restoration the accident site, the DSBR and MMW, which is certainly responsibility of the PP, a sum of Rs. 200 Crores be initially set apart by the PP in a separate account to be spent as per recommendation of the Committee. Any further deposits will depend upon the recommendations of Committee. The on-
going restoration work, if any, may continue. If any dispute arises, either party can move this Tribunal again.
2315. We direct constitution of nine member Committee to prepare a final action plan and to oversee its execution to be headed by Additional Chief Secretary, Environment and Forest, Government of Assam. Other members of the Committee will be Deputy Director General, Forest, Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Guwahati, Regional Director, CPCB, Shillong, Wetland Authority, Assam, Member Secretary, State PCB, Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam, District Magistrates Tinsukia and Dibrugarh and IIT Guwahati. The Member Secretary, Assam State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Committee may meet within one month from today, take stock of the situation by visiting the site, interacting with the stakeholders and considering report of the Committee dated 31.12.2021, findings/observations of earlier Committees on the subject to the extent found relevant for the purpose. The goal should be to complete restoration measures within one year. The progress may be reviewed preferably on monthly intervals, unless shorter intervals become necessary. Status of progress so far may be given by the PP in the first meeting of the Committee to enable the Committee to initially identify the scope of pending work. The Committee may furnish first report with regard to progress as on 31.07.2023 by August 15, 2023 with the Registrar General, NGT by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. If any further direction is found necessary, he may place the matter before the Bench.
The Application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, MoPNG, Secretary, MoEF&CC, GoI, Additional Chief Secretary, Environment and Forest, Government of Assam, Deputy Director General, Forest, Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Guwahati, Regional Director, CPCB, Shillong, 24 Wetland Authority, Assam, Member Secretary, State PCB, Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam, District Magistrates, Tinsukia and Dibrugarh and IIT Guwahati by email for compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM March 10, 2023 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) DV & AB 25