Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The Unit of Respondents No. 3 started its commissioning between 1994 and 1996 with capacity of 600 MW units. Thereafter it has been expanded from time to time. The power plant is dumping ash slurry into Buckingham Canal and the backwaters for several years. Though it was brought into notice of the Pollution Control Board several times, no action was taken in this regard. According to the applicant, the ash generated by the Thermal Power Plant (fly ash and bottom ash) are serious pollutants apart from containing metals like Nickel, Cadmum, Antimony, Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Mercury etc. As per the environmental clearance granted to such units, there is a responsibility caused on the Thermal Power Plant to utilise and dispose of the fly ash in a scientific manner without causing pollution in that area but that is being violated by the unit in this case. On account of unscientific manner in which fly ash is being handled by the unit, it affects not only the area within which the unit is situated but also affect the entire area and extends upto the mangroves situated in the CRZ I.

1. Location of ash ponds, their storage capacity, present storage levels, their present condition and steps taken to avoid leakage and consequent pollution from the ash ponds.
2. Quantity of fly ash generated by both the units from the beginning of the production in the units, present quantity stored in the ash ponds and quantity utilized duly verifying the records.
3. Unaccounted quantity of fly ash.
4. Quantity of fly lash that leaked/discharged/dumped into the water bodies and present approximate quantity lying in the water bodies.
Mr. Abdul Saleem, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that they intend to get analysis of the water, including the ground water alone from another laboratory and also the fly ash, as the presence of the heavy metals noted in the report is not correct and in any case presence of heavy metals is not due to the activity of the respondents 2 and 3 alone as it is also caused by the nearby polluting industries. The learned counsel also submitted that a proposal is being sent to the government to use the fly ash in preparing bricks, making it mandatory to use such bricks in all government buildings. The learned counsel also submitted that drinking water is to be supplied by the local civic bodies and in any case the pollution is not caused solely by the respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel also submitted that there is sufficient space in the existing ash pond to enable the deposit of the fly ash which would be removed from the area.
Considering the fact that the main pollutant is the fly ash produced by the respondents 2 and 3, the principle of ‟polluter pays" shall necessarily to be applied with regard to supply of drinking water to the people of the locality. The people of the area cannot be directed to drink contaminated water and suffer the consequences, which would adversely affect not only the existing generation but also the future generations to come.
In such circumstances, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to provide sufficient drinking water to all the nearby residents, if the local bodies are not supplying sufficient drinking water to them. It is made clear that the water to be supplied should be of drinking water, quality and every household should be supplied with drinking water, in case there is no supply of sufficient quantity of potable drinking water by the local body. It is made clear from the report and the admitted facts that the existing ash pond is not lined. In such circumstances, adding further fly ash removed from the area into that pond would only aggravate the position. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to provide properly lined ash pond on adhoc or permanent basis, so that the fly ash to be removed could be accommodated there. Even if the government mandates that the fly ash is to be used for all brickmanufacturing units and such bricks shall be used for construction of all government buildings, it will take time and till then they are to be stored also. In such circumstances, respondents 2 and 3 shall provide ash pond permanent or adhoc with proper lining. The report also shows that the Kosasthalaiyar River Main Channel is heavily silted with fly ash and that is to be desilted for free flow of water. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to dredge the Kosasthalaiyar Main Channel to remove the fly ash with the aid of respondent no.8. The respondent no.8 shall take steps to desilt the fly ash at the expense of respondents 2 and 3. It is also made clear that once the fly ash is dredged, its removal shall be by the respondents 2 and 3 and it shall be kept in a ash pond with proper lining.