AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this OA filed on 25.04.2015, the applicant had submitted that the Respondent No.1 plant has been manufacturing since 1991 in Mandideep various home products including detergents, baby care products and other products having various chemical compositions. It has been submitted that while manufacturing these products it has been using toxic Savinase Enzyme, STPP, Sulphate, Soda, AC Base, Cellulose Methyl Carboxylate (CMC), Absorbent Gelling Material (AGM) and other hazardous materials.
It has been alleged by the applicant that this industrial unit has undergone massive expansion from 2012 to 2015 and constructions were done without obtaining EC as stipulated under EIA notification dated 24.09.2006 under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It was also alleged that Respondent plant had violated the guidelines on green belt issued by CPCB and had cut down 150 trees without obtaining permission of the Competent Authority. It has further been stated that safety equipments used in the plant are not 100 per cent fool proof and workers are exposed to various toxic enzymes and therefore have been suffering from various fatal diseases. It has also been stated that Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (in short MPPCB) had earlier issued show cause notice to the Respondent plant as it had observed that :
i. Display Board containing the information of hazardous waste details has not been found at the outside of the unit as per directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
ii. During the inspection, it has been observed that filters of DG sets, chemical containers insulating material and rock wool was lying here and there and the representatives of the unit don't even know about the same.
iii. Separate storage for hazardous waste was not found in the unit and hazardous waste was stored in the scrap yard. The description and labeling was also not found on the hazardous waste.
iv. The plastic waste generated from the unit is being given to the other unauthorized vendor M/s Rauf Enterprises Mandideep.
v. Details and quantity were not given to algaecide being used in cooling towers and chemical information on composition and pathways were not provided.
vi. Discharge of waste water outside the premises was found near to gate number 3 and also near the STP.
vii. The discharge from temporary toilets and bathroom was found outside the premises.
viii. Cooling tower, softeners, wash area have not been joint to treatment plant by closed conduit. Waste water was also observed in the waste water drains.
ix. The information on quality of disposal practice of salt and resin used in softener was not provided.
x. The whole area of the industry has been covered as construction area and no place of green belt has been left as per guidelines of CPCB.
xi. No permission has been taken from the Mining Department for the excavation for the expansion program. The details of Environmental Clearance under the EIA notification 2006 have not been given by the industry officials. It seems the mined land is more than 5 hectares.
xii. Operation of the treatment plant was found satisfactory and excess foam was observed in the effluent, moreover separate electricity meter has not been installed for the treatment plant.
xiii. Leaking of diesel from the valve of diesel line was observed which was contaminating the soil of the area.
xiv. Adequate land was not found for the utilization of treated effluent towards the green belt development. The grass of the lawn was found burned because of the use of toxic untreated effluent.
xv. Battery waste which comes under hazardous waste were observed stored with the scrap and ash of the lead acid battery was found on the open area.
xvi. Monitoring reports for DG set and other emission sources have not been submitted as per the condition of the consent.
It has been stated in OA that issues raised in the Show Cause Notice of the PCB have not been complied with and the Respondent plant has been violating the environmental norms pertaining to EC, Hazardous Waste Management, and conditions of Air & Water Act. The applicant, therefore, prayed that this Tribunal may-
a. Direct the closure of the factory operated by the respondent no. 1 & 2.
b. Direct the respondent no. 1 & 2 to restore the area in question to its original form, in the interest of justice and environment.
c. Direct an independent agency other than the MPPCB to evaluate the losses caused to the environment.
d. Direct immediate action under the penal powers of this Hon'ble Tribunal for the continuous violation for the environmental laws by the respondent no. 1 by raising construction without obtaining prior environmental clearance.
e. Direct the respondent no. , 1 not to sell or alienate the property in dispute or create any third party interest in the illegally raised construction of the industry.
f. Impose exemplary penalty on the respondent No. 1 and prosecute respondent no. 1 and prosecute respondent no. 2 for repeated and continuous violations, in accordance to the polluter pays principal.
g. Initiate suitable action against the officials who have failed in ensuring compliance of the orders / rules restraining the construction activities.
h. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem appropriate.
On being satisfied that there was a substantial question connected to and concerned with the ecology and environment, this Tribunal on 29.04.2015 ordered the notices to be issued to the respondents.
On 19.05.2015 the applicant filed his averments wherein it was submitted that all the deficiencies pointed out by the MPPCB in their inspection were rectified and also that there is no discharge from the unit outside. In order to find out any adverse impact on the soil around the plant the Central Ground Water Authority (in short CGWA) was directed on 28.07.2015 to take soil samples from ground around the industrial unit of the Respondent No.1 and particularly from the inhabited areas where ground water may be consumed by the residents of the area for drinking purposes so as to find out its contents and quantity and potability and whether same is safe for being consumed. State of MP was also directed to take the soil samples from points where the various raw materials were received and also stored in case it is in the open as also from the site where the water discharged was being stored in various depressions within the premises of the plant for testing with regard to its contents. The CGWA was asked to submit the details of their analysis with particular reference to the materials which were being used/manufactured in the premises and discharged from the same so as to rule out the possible contamination from any source within the premises of the Respondent No.1.
As regards green belt the Respondent No.1 and 2 submitted on 29.9.2015 that they were required to keep an area of 48,468 Sq. meters as green area and that this condition is being complied with. It was further submitted that felling of trees was carried out after receiving the permission granted vide order dated 07.07.2010 and thereafter, an area of 20 acres of MPAKVN was also brought under plantation by planting 3000 trees.
On 29.05.2015, we also directed the Director (Medical and Health), Government of MP to constitute a Medical Board with at-least two specialists dealing with respiratory diseases and disorder apart from any other specialist that the Director may deem proper to examine the past and present employees whose details and affidavits were furnished and submitted by the applicant on 08.07.2015.
On 07.01.2016, we further directed the Respondent No.1 which is a multinational company producing similar products internationally to submit norms and procedures and safeguards and the conditions under which similar products are being manufactured with similar composition internationally.
It was further alleged by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the Respondent No. 1 Plant is using chemicals and enzymes, AGM, and Sodium Poly Acrelate etc. which are hazardous substances and fall within the category of synthetic organic chemicals requiring prior EC in accordance with the notification dtd. 14.09.2006 of MoEF & CC. Applicant has also submitted that in case of similar products being manufactured by M/s Spectrum Chemicals Industry located at Mahsana in Gujarat, the SEIAA (Gujarat) had considered it obligatory to have EC in terms of item no. 5 (f) of the schedule of the notification dated 14.09.2006as also in the case of M/s RSPL Ltd. located at Sagar in Madhya Pradesh by SEIAA, M.P.
In view of above, this Tribunal had on 29.09.2015 ordered the notices to be issued to MoEF & CC to seek clarification from the Ministry. Since no response was received from the Ministry this Tribunal directed that MoEF & CC to respond on the following issues :
whether the substances, compounds and chemicals used in the manufacturing of their products detergents, diapers and napkins in their plant located at Mandideep, District Raised (M.P.) by the Respondent No. 1 / Company can be termed either separately or collectively as hazardous requiring prior EC in terms of the notification dtd. 14.09.2006 as amended from time to time,
whether in the light of the use of AGM for manufacturing of sanitary napkins and diapers special care needs to be taken in the matter of their disposal as it is alleged that in many countries AGM and some of its constituents have been categorised as hazardous substances,
whether special care and protective gear is required to be used by persons handling such raw material which is used by the Respondent No. 1 / Company for the manufacturing of products,
whether there is any recorded evidence of harmful impact on human as a result of handling of such chemicals particularly respiratory diseases, as it is alleged in the Original Application that some of the workers have suffered such illnesses as a result of handling of such material without proper protective gear,
since in the entire country there is a scheme provided for sanitary napkins on a large scale, whether the issue of their proper disposal has been considered at any stage and whether any guidelines have been issued to State Governments and by the Urban Development Department in turn to the local and municipal bodies for taking such precautions in their disposal, so that environmental hazardous or adverse impact on stray animals such as cows and dogs etc. do not occur.
In compliance of our direction the MoEF & CC filed reply affidavit on 16.012.2016 and made following submissions :
S.N.
Issues raised by Hon'ble Tribunal
MoEF & CC response
1.
Whether the substances, compounds and chemicals used in the manufacturing of their products detergents, diapers and napkins in their plant located at Mandideep, District Raised (M.P) by the Respondent No. 1 Company can be termed either separately or collectively as hazardous requiring prior EC in terms of the notification dtd. 14.09.2006 as amended from time to time
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change considers the project / activities listed in the schedule to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 as amended from time to time for grant of Environmental Clearances as per provisions of the notification.
The EIA Notification, 2006 under entry nol. 5 (f) of the Schedule covers "Synthetic organic chemicals industry (dyes & dyes intermediate excluding drug formulations ; synthetic rubbers; basic organic chemicals and chemical intermediaries). Therefore, the manufacture / production of aforesaid chemicals requires prior Environmental Clearances under the provisions of the notification.
notification. 3. It is submitted that the detergent manufacturing unit uses the synthetic surfactant as basic raw material for enhancing the effectiveness of their product. The synthetic surfactants are synthetic organic chemicals; hence covered under entry no. 5 (f) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006.
The Basel Convention on the control of Trans boundary movement of the hazardous waste and their disposal in Annexure 1 at Serial Y-13 has "wastes from production, formulation and use of resin, latex plasticizers, glues/gells adhesives" as hazardous waste
The non-biodegradable absorbants used in manufacturing of sanitary napkins and synthetic surfactants used in detergents necessitates assessment of its impact on environment and hence EIQ / EMP and appraisal of the project for environmental clearances.
Whereas, the applicability of the EIA Notification, 2006 to the industries using the synthetic surfactant as raw material for making other products like detergents is not clarified in the EIA Notification 2006.
In view of this the Ministry has decided to refer the matter to the Expert Committee, constituted by the Ministry to review the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 for expert opinion
2.
Whether in the light of the use of AGM for manufacturing of sanitary napkins and diapers special care needs to be taken in the matter of their disposal as it is alleged that in many countries AGM and some of its constituents have been categorised as hazardous substance,
Yes. The State Pollution Control Board while issuing Consent to Operate to any industrial unit imposes appropriate conditions for environmental management. If any unit is reported to be in violation necessary action is taken as per prevailing laws.
The hazardous effects of the Absorbent Gelling Materials (AGM) needs thorough examination.
3.
Whether special care and protective gear is required to be used by person handling such raw material which is used by the Respondent No. 1 / Company for the manufacturing of products,
Yes. The occupational workers need special care and protective gear while handling of chemical constituents.
4.
Whether there is any recorded evidence of harmful impact on human as a result of handling of such chemicals particularly respiratory diseases, as it is alleged in the Original Application that some of the workers have suffered such illnesses as a result of handling of such material without proper protective gear,
The toxicity of any chemical depends upon the dose and time of exposure to that chemical. There are some studies indicating skin and respiratory disorders due to long exposure of such chemicals.
5.
Since in the entire country there is a scheme provided for sanitary napkins on a large scale, whether the issue of their proper disposal has been considered at any stage and whether any guidelines have been issued to state governments and by the Urban Development Department in turn to the local and municipal bodies for taking such precautions in their disposal, so that environmental hazardous or adverse impact on stray animals such as cows and dogs etc. do not occur.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has launched Menstrual Hygiene Scheme (MHS) under which one of the major objective is to ensure safe disposal of sanitary napkins in an environmentally friendly manner.
The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has classed this as municipal solid waste. The debate is on regarding treating this as a separate stream of waste. The issue is not settled yet.
The MoEF made further submissions on 18.01.2017 wherein it is stated that as under :
a. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the answering respondent No.1 do not manufacture any of the substance as notified in entry no. 5 (f) of the EIA notification, 2006, and as such, do not require any environmental clearance.
b. The comparison sought to be made by the Applicant with the environmental clearance granted to one M/s Spectrum Chemical Industries and Shri Vinod Khosia (M/s RSPL Limited) is completely out of context and absolutely irrelevant for the instant Original Application. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid two environmental clearances have been relied upon by the Applicant, without even carrying out any basic necessary checks, and whether there is any similarity between the products being manufactured.
c. Category 5 (f) in this regard provides as under:
Synthetic organic chemicals industry (dyes & dye intermediates; bulk drugs and intermediates excluding drug formulations; synthetic rubbers; basic organic chemicals, other synthetic organic chemical intermediates)
d. It is submitted that none of the aforesaid manufacturing operations are being carried out at the Mandideep manufacturing unit of the answering respondent. As such, the question of obtaining environmental clearances by the answering respondent does not arise. On the contrary, a bare look at the environmental clearance granted to M/s Spectrum Chemical Industries would reveal that the application was made specifically for "manufacturing Synthetic organic chemical.. Similarly, the second environmental clearance annexed along with application was in respect of "Optical Brighter" once again a synthetic organic chemical requiring environmental clearance under 5 (f) of the notification.
e. Furthermore, in so far as reference to Basal convention is concerned, the same is once again out of context, inasmuch, the answering respondent do not produce or formulate resins, latex, plasticizers, glue/adhesives hence do not generate hazardous waste arrayed in Annexure 1 at Sr. No. Y-13 under this convention.
f. It is further submitted that for production of detergent the unit is buying all the required Raw materials including the linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid (LABSA) from various vendors. Only Labsa and perfumes which are added as liquid and all other raw materials come in the form of powder or granules. These raw materials in their procured form are mixed in desired proportion for production at plant. LABSA is heated and mixed in a mixer to attain good impregnation into other powdery and granular materials. This mixing also agglomerates the raw materials. The mixed agglomerate after cooling and grinding is sieved to get required mesh size of the powder mix. Post this to impart specific useful characteristics a small quantity of perfumes, enzymes and the like materials are admixed with the sieved powder in another mixer. At this stage the detergent powder is ready for packaging and dispatch.
g. In view of the aforesaid process being followed in the manufacturing unit of the answering respondent, the unit performs no such activity as listed in the schedule to the EIA notification dated September 14, 2006 requiring any prior environmental clearance.
h. The aforesaid fact is also fortified by the reply filed by the respondent No.7, MPPCB, which has stated in its reply very clearly that the manufacturing process adopted and the raw materials used by the answering respondent to not require any prior environmental clearance under hte EIA notification, 2006.
i. Furthermore, the MPPCB has already renewed the Consent to Operate of answering respondent, under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act as well as Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, valid up to 31.08.2017. The said renewal is a further proof of the fact that no prior environmental clearance under the EIA notification, 2006 is required by the answering respondent.
j. In so far as the manufacturing of sanitary napkins and diapers are concerned, around 15 different raw materials are needed such as Dry-lap, Nonwovens, paper poly plastics, elastics, glues and adsorbant & gelling material. The entire process happens with only psychical application and no chemical reaction takes place. All operating unit operations in manufacturing line are akin to machine used for textile and garment production involving cutting, fluffing, gluing, trimming and sizing, etc. post these physical operation the procured raw materials are converted to sanitary napkins or diapers, and are not listed in the schedule to EIA notification, 2006 and therefore, no prior environmental clearance is required.
k. It is further submitted that the answering respondent No. 1 M/s Procter and Gamble Home Product Limited do not manufacture any hazardous substances. The detergent powder, baby diapers and female sanitary napkins do not fall within the list of categorized hazardous products, as provided in the Hazardous Chemical Rules. Even otherwise, the respondent No.1 is only involved in the process of mixing the components/ingredients to reach to the final product known as detergent powder, baby diapers and female sanitary napkins, which are neither categorized as hazardous substance not categorized as chemical substance.
l. The Technical Guidance Manual for Synthetic Chemical Industry, illustrate different types of products, which come within the purview of the EIA notification vis-a-vis Synthetic Chemical Industry, but none of the products manufactured by respondent No.1 fall within the list of Synthetic Chemical Industry. It is further relevant to mention that the manual covers certain set of detergents within the category of synthetic chemicals, but the respondent No. 1 does not manufacture such detergents nor is the formulation of the detergents manufactured by respondent No.1 similar to those covered by the manual. The respondent no.1 is engaged in the production of detergents, which are Linear Alkylbenzene Sulphonic Acid.
m. Furthermore, Environmental clearance is not required as plant is an industrial shed and industrial sheds are exempt from 2006 notification vide clarification issued by MoEF circular issued on 22.12.2014, the same is also supported by the reply of respondent No.7 filed on the records of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
n. Moreover, PCB has regularly issued CTE/CTO to P&G and has never asked P&G to obtain pre-environmental clearance. In 2012, PCB had highlighted that EC is required for DG sets, accordingly, P&G had applied to SEAC for grant of EC. The application was kept pending wherein the MoEF came out with a clarification that EC is not required for DG sets in captive use.
o. It is further clarified that the answering respondent No.1 does not manufacture surfactant or any other raw material which is covered under the EIA notification.
p. The MoEF has not placed on record any report of the Expert Committee as stated to be constituted by it in sub-Para 7. Once the said report is made available to the respondent No.1, the answering respondent No.1 seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble Tribunal to reply to the same.
The Respondent No. 5 MPSEIAA has also submitted that the AGM used by the unit are not mentioned in the hazardous waste chemical list and in any case the Respondent Plant has been obtaining and maintaining due authorization for hazardous substances under the Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Transboundry Movements) Rules, 2016. It has also been submitted that the Respondent Plant follows required safety measures for its employees and contractors and they conduct regular medical test for enzymes monitoring and AGM monitoring.
In compliance of our order dtd. 29.09.2015 the Respondent No. 7 MPPCB had filed inspection report of the plant on 13.11.2015 along with the ground water quality assessment by CGWB, North Central Region Bhopal. It has been stated that before expansion of the plant 62,366 sq. mt. (25.30% of the area) was being maintained as green belt and after expansion the extent of green belt was 54,832 sq. mt. (22.30% of the area). Besides, Respondent No. 1 / Plant had planted 1164 trees along the boundary of the factory premises. Apart from this Respondent No. 1 plant was allotted additional area of 20 acres near NH-12 for plantation and the Respondent had planted 3000 trees in that area. The photographs of the plantation done was also produced before us.
MPPCB has made following observations in their inspection report
a. Consent for the expansion of the plant was granted by the MPPCB on 14.02.2013
b. Unit obtained permission to cut the trees from the competent authorities in the site of expansion of the plant.
c. There is a water pond made by the industry to improve the water table near newly constructed shed but the inspection team did not find anywhere the industry had disposed or discarded surfactant and other products on land and they also did not observe any waste material being buried under ground.
d. ETP & STP with capacity of 100 KLD was found to be operational and no treated / untreated water was seen to be going out of the factory premises.
In the report submitted by the Central Ground Water Board, North Central Region Bhopal on "Ground Water Quality Assessment in and around Procter & Gamble Mandideep, District Raisen" it has been stated that -
"It may be concisely stated that the concentrations of different parameters EC, Carbonate, Bicarbonate, Sulphate, Nitrate, Fluoride, Calcium, Magnesium, Total Hardness,Manganese and Arsenic in water samples collected in and around P & G Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mandideep are within permissible limits of BIS standards for drinking water. However, 3 out of 10 locations (HP1, HP2 and BW6) reported NO3 concentration greater than BIS desirable limit (45 mg/l). At 7 locations the iron concentrations is observed to be more than prescribed desirable limits of BIS (0.3 mg/l)''.
As stated herein above the Applicant had alleged that Respondent No. 1 industry is manufacturing products which are similar to those manufactured by M/s Spectrum Chemicals Ltd. and M/s RSPL Ltd. for which EC was granted by Gujrat SEIAA and MP SEIAA respectively and, therefore, Respondent No. 1 would also require EC under category 5 (f) of the EIA notification of 2006. The Respondent No. 7 MPPCB in their reply filed on 22.04.2016 has in Para 3, 4, & 5 submitted as below :
That, the answering respondent carried out a detailed analysis of the documents enclosed with the Miscellaneous Application and its similarity with the industry of the Respondent No.1. It has been found that the requirement to obtain the Environmental Clearance arises when the chemical LABSA (Linear Alkyl Benezene Sulphonic Acid) is manufactured indigenously. That, M/s Spectrum Chemicals Ltd as well as M/s RSPL Ltd manufacture the Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid (LABSA) chemical in their own factory and thereby are required to obtain Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification 2006.
On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 industry is purchasing all the raw material including Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid (LABSA) from outside vendors and is not manufacturing the same in its own industry. All the raw materials are mixed in a mixer in desired proportions. The LABSA is first healed and then mixed in the same mixer to attain better impregnation.
Therefore, in view of the manufacturing process adopted and the raw materials used by the respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 industry is not required to obtain Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification 2006.
It is further submitted that health, safety and environment audit is carried out on annual basis in every single manufacturing unit of the Respondent Plant. The Respondent Plant has in their reply dtd. 18.01.2017 stated in Para 5 (4) that the MoEF has not pointed out any recorded evidence of harmful impact on human as a result on handling of chemicals.
In terms of our order dtd. 29.09.2015 regarding medical examination of 41 persons who had submitted their affidavits, it has been stated by the Respondent Plant that in complete violation of direction 11 new persons were brought in whose affidavits were neither filed before this Tribunal nor any prior permission was sought by the Applicant before introducing them before the medical board. Name of 11 persons are mentioned below :
Sr. No
Name
1
Guddu Lal
2
Komal Prasad
3
Mahendra Kumar
4
Suni Rai
5
Dharam Das
6
Raj Kumar
7
Deepak Das (17 yrs old)
8
Deepak Sen
9
Balbir Vishavkarma
10
Raghuveer Singh
11
Jitender Sahu
It has been stated that there were no specific details like period of employment in respect of 11 new persons mentioned above.
It was further submitted by the Respondent No.1 that 9 Persons who were there in the original list were not present before the medical board. These 9 persons are as follows:
Sr. No
Name
1
Sanu
2
Supyal Sen
3
Pradeep Nagwanshi (s/o Surat SIngh)
4
Santosh Rajput
5
Sanjay Meena
6
Pradeep Nagvanshi (s/o Bihari Lal)
7
Moolchand
8
Komal Singh
9
Devi Singh
Out of the 41 persons examined only 7 persons were diagnosed with some abnormality. However, cause of such abnormality is not attributable to the Respondent Plant. The remarks of the medical board with respect to these 7 person are as follows :
Name
Father name
Doctor's Analysis
Santosh Rajput
Gopal Singh Rajput
Mild persistent bronchial asthma with Seasonal Allergy. Means that in a particular season the asthma may be aggravated.
Munna Lal
Hardayal
Moderate persistent bronchial asthma with seasonal allergy.
Rajkumar Raj
Hari Singh
Mild persistent bronchial asthma with seasonal allergy.
Ramgopal Rai
Ram Rathan Rai
Mild intermittent bronchial asthma with seasonal allergy. Patient has history of working in Cotton industry at Present. Also, there is family history of nasobronchial allergy among other family member, sibling, brother, wife
Ghanshyam Pal
Nirbhay Singh
Mild persistent bronchial asthma with seasonal allergy.
Guddu Lal
Hardyal Signh
Mild persistent bronchial asthma with seasonal allergy.
Komal Prasad
Pussulal
Mild persistent bronchial asthma with seasonal allergy with history of seasonal urticaria in summer. Patient had been working in alleged company.
In view of the submissions made herein above by the MPPCB, MPSEIAA, Central Ground Water Authority and Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change, Govt. of India it is amply clear that the Respondent No. 1 Plant did not require prior EC for using chemicals, compounds and raw materials in the manufacture of home products, baby care products, sanitary napkins and other products in their plant situated at Mandideep. And also that the plant has been taking all the safety measures for protection of their workers in the plant and that the injuries and diseases suffered by their past and current employees cannot be attributed to the manufacturing process adopted by the Plant. It is also clear that alternate steps have been taken by the Respondent No. 1 Plant with respect to creating and maintaining green belt and that they have taken all the permissions required under law for cutting the tree in the premises of the plant.
Having held so in view of the clear statement of the MoEF regarding the requirement of EC not being applicable in the case of the Respondent No. 1 and that entry 5 (f) of the EIA notification 2006 strictly does not apply, however, in the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the precautionary principle we would direct the MPPCB to suggest in consultation with the Respondent No. 1 precautionary measures as are applicable where entry 5 (f) applies. In view of the fact that the final product of the Respondent No. 1 is manufactured out of some of the components to which an industry manufacturing the same requires EC under entry 5 (f) of the EIA notification 2006. In spite of the fact these are not manufactured or produced by the Respondent No. 1, however, we feel that even in the event of handling of the same precautions need to be adopted and the PCB shall, therefore, suggest to the Respondent No. 1 industry to take adequate precautions.
In addition to the above, it was given out during the course of hearing that for handling of such material out of which the products of the Respondent No. 1 are manufactured labour are engaged through the resource person / contractor engaged by the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 is, therefore, duty bound that such labour which is engaged should be adequately explained the hazards if any that they may encounter while handling such material and further that the labour handling such material should watch out for and report any particular symptoms that would indicate any ill effects of handling of such materials. Needless to say that, by way of abundant precautions, such labour shall be provided by the resource person and / or the Respondent No. 1 protective equipments for handling such material including gloves and masks etc. so as to prevent inhalation or contamination in any manner as some of the persons who were medically examined were found to be suffering from respiratory ailments. We have no conclusive evidence before us to come to the conclusion that these persons have contracted said ailments as a result of the handling of such materials as it may be the case of coincidence as we have no specific evidence before as to the duration for which such persons were engaged for handling such material or whether it was a case of past history or any other cause. Be that as it may, we would still direct that adequate precautions and preventive measures be taken by the Respondent No. 1 as well as the resource persons who provide such labour on contract or in case they are engaged by direct employment by the Respondent No. 1 they shall also be provided such equipments.
Apart from the above, we would further direct that every fortnight such labour which have been engaged shall be medically examined at the instance of the Respondent No. 1 for ensuring that the labour engaged for handling such material which is the raw material for the manufacture of the goods is not in any manner found to be suffering from any of the ill effects of handling such material. In case they are found to be suffering from any such ailments their treatment shall be the responsibility of the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 shall bear the entire cost of the same.
So far as the disposal of sanitary items is concerned, since the sanitary waste has been classed as Municipal Solid Waste by the CPCB / MoEF the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 shall be applicable to the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, we also direct that the Respondent No. 1 shall comply with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 by providing a disposal pouch or wrapper along with the packaged sanitary products for safe and proper disposal of used sanitary napkins and diapers. It shall also be obligatory for the Respondent No. 1 to undertake public awareness measures for disposal of used napkins and diapers in prescribed manner.
In view of the same, no further directions are required to be issued in this Original Application No. 30/2015. Accordingly, the O.A. No. 30/2015 stands disposed of. The MPPCB Respondent No. 7 shall take necessary steps for issuance the directions in consultation with the Respondent No. 1 for taking the aforesaid precautions as directed hereinabove.