S. Baskar vs Chairman And Ors

1) We have heard the counsel for the applicant as well as the respondents. The applicant, who is stated to be one of the residents of Pappankuppam Village, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District, has filed this application with a prayer for a direction against the 5th respondent, project proponent to comply with the directions given by the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents in their proceedings dated 27.4.2011, 10.3.2013, 10.9.2013 and 18.9.2013 within the time stipulated. The applicant has stated that the 5th respondent is a leading manufacturer of furnace Grade Carbon Black and doing manufacturing work for the past 16 years and it is also stated that necessary consent order under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and under Section 25(4) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 has been granted to the 5th respondent by the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (Board) and as on date admittedly the consent is in existence in favour of the 5th respondent. However, according to the applicant, the 5th respondent has violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ground Water Development and Management Act. That apart in this case, in spite of various directions given by the Board in the year 2011 and 2013, the 5th respondent has not complied with various requirements by providing environmental measures as directed by the Board. The Board has given various directions to the 5th respondent in the above said proceedings dated namely 27.4.2011, 10.3.2013, 10.9.2013 and 18.9.2013.

2) In the reply filed by the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent has raised preliminary objection stating that exactly similar prayer was earlier made by the people of Pappankuppam Village including the present applicant and they have filed an application 2 in Application No.152 of 2013 and that application came to be dismissed by this Tribunal in the order dated 14.8.2014 clearly holding that the 5th respondent has been complying with all the directions given by the Board during the relevant period of time. Therefore, according the 5th respondent, filing this application is only an abuse of the process of law and it is barred by the principle of Res-Judicata. The 5th respondent has given full details as to how the various directions have been complied with and the same came to be informed to the Board and the Board was satisfied on various occasions. In fact it is also informed that the Board has given show cause notice about the non-compliance in the year 2013 and thereafter the 5th respondent has filed nine requirements and after having satisfied, the Board has given renewal of consent. The 5th respondent however stated in the reply that the 5th respondent will be always complying with the necessary directions given periodically by the Board.

3) In the reply of the respondents 1 and 2, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, it is stated that for the control of air pollution the unit has provided bag filters and stacks from reactors, purge gas section, dryer, batching and mixing mill. Stacks are attached with the Diesel Generator Sets. It is also stated that the consent has been renewed and consent for establish for expansion has been issued to the unit to increase the carbon black manufacturing capacity to 18750 T/M and Electric power using Waste Heat Recovery Boilers to 47 MW in the proceedings dated 11.2.2013. It is stated that during April 2000, there was a puncture in a bellow and carbon particles got escaped and settled in the nearby village. A study was conducted by Centre for Environment Studies, Anna University and based on their recommendation, the unit rectified the defects. The Board has also stated that the industry has provided online monitoring systems with connectivity to CARE Air Centre and operating only nine reactors as imposed in the direction dated 29.8.2013. The other directions are also complied with/ being complied with. Therefore, the Board has stated that considering the action taken the consent orders to the 5th respondent unit were renewed which was valid up to 31.3.2015.

4) The 1st and 2nd respondents have also specifically denied the allegations made by the applicant that the 5th respondent has not followed the suggestions made by the Anna University in their report and not replaced the damaged portion. It is also stated that the 5th respondent unit is operating the sewage treatment plant continuously and to the standards prescribed by the Board. Further, it is stated that the 5th respondent is implementing the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and action will be taken as and when the industry is violating the provisions of the said Acts.

5) The Board has also stated in the reply that the Ambient Air Quality Survey conducted in the vicinity of the 5th respondent on 6.2.2014, revealed that Ambient Air Quality standards are met in all six stations. While it is the contention of the counsel for the applicant who reiterated what is stated in the application that the 5th respondent has not complied with various directions given by the Board, it is the specific case of the Board that the 5th respondent has been continuously complying with the various requirements and in fact the fresh inspection was conducted on 24.2.016 and the inspection report is filed on 29.2.2016. It is found in the report that the 5th respondent unit was under operation with eight reactors and STP, ETP with ZLD System and APC measures were under operation. The unit has provided continuous online monitoring to stacks attached to boilers and connected all the stack monitors to Care Air Centre. The unit has provided two numbers of continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations also.

6) The counsel for the 5th respondent based on various reports of the Board, would submit that filing of this case is an abuse of process of law. It is specifically contended that while on earlier occasion many village people including the present applicant have approached this Tribunal and the Tribunal having discussed the issue in detail fully satisfied, and dismissed the applications with costs.

7) After hearing both sides and going through the pleadings and documents filed by both sides, the only issue to be decided in the present application is whether the 5th respondent unit has complied with all the requirements as recommended by the Board or not.

8) Before going into the said aspect, the counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that on earlier occasion 10 village of Pappankuppam village which includes one, Sri.S. Bhaskar Pandi who is stated to be the present applicant which fact is denied by the counsel for applicant has filed an application in Application No.152 of 2013 praying for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 7th respondent for causing the pollution. This Tribunal has passed final order in that application on 14.8.2014 and indicated in the order the reply given by the Board that the project proponent is not discharging any effluent outside the premises and has also provided air pollution control measures in all possible sources of emission stands good answer to the above contention. Therefore, the Tribunal has found that the allegations of pollution made by the applicants against the project proponent are devoid of merits. However, the Tribunal has directed the Board to make periodic inspection and monitor the implementation of preventive and precautionary measures in respect of air and water pollution so that pollution free environment is ensured in and around the unit of the project proponent.

The relevant portion of the order dated 14.8.2014 reads as follows:

"The reply given by the Board is that the 7th respondent's unit is not discharging any effluent outside the premises and has also provided air pollution control measures in all possible sources of emission stands good answer to the above contention. Hence, the allegations of pollution made by the applicants against the project proponent are devoid of merits. The 1st respondent / Board is directed to make periodic inspection and monitor the implementation of preventive and precautionary measures in respect of air and water pollution so that pollution free environment is ensured in and around the 7th respondent's unit. "

9) Even if the applicant is not a party in the previous application, that application having been filed by 10 persons on behalf of the village, the order passed by this Tribunal is certainly binding on the present applicant also. When we make this observation it does not mean that an order is passed by this Tribunal, Project Proponent can be allowed to carry on its operation against the pollution norms in future. But on the facts and circumstances of the present case it is clear that even after order passed by this Tribunal there was an inspection conducted by the Board on 24.2.2016 and the report was filed on 29.2.2016. The Board has clearly stated that not only pollution norms have been adhered to by the 5th respondent, Project Proponent but also they have been involved in CSR activities. The opinion given by the Board in this regard is as follows:

" The unit of M/s. Hi-Tech Carbon Limited, located a Plot No.K- 16, Phase II, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District is engaged in the process of manufacturing of Carbon Black-13250 T/Month and Unvulcanized Rubber Compound-750 T/Month. The unit is also generating electric power of 12000000 KWH using the waste heat from the process. The main Raw material used is Carbon Black feed stack, which is thermally cracked at high temperatures in specially designated reactors.

The manufacturing activity will not give rise to any wastewater, however waste water is generated from utilities like Demineralization plant, Boiler, Cooling Tower and from floor washing. The waste water generated is treated an effluent treatment plant (ETP) and the treated effluent ETP is further treated in a tertiary treatment plant consisting of three stage Reverse Osmosis Plant and Triple effect Mechanical Evaporator and the RO permeate and condensate from evaporator recycled in the process for utilities. The rejects from the mechanical evaporator is solar evaporated in impervious solar evaporation pans.

The unit has provided bag filters (mainly used for product recovery in carbon black unit) and stacks for the control of air pollution from reactors, purge gas section, dryer, batching and mixing mill.

Consent has been issued for manufacturing 112500 T/M of carbon black, 750T/M of unvalcanised rubber compound in sheet and 12000000 KHW of power through WHRB. The above consent has been renewed to the unit for the period up to 31.3.2016. Meanwhile, consent for establishment for expansion has been issued to the unit to increase the carbon black manufacturing to 18750T/M and power to 47 MW vide Board Proc. Dated 11.02.2013 and extended up to 9.9.2017.

The Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai in its order dated 17.2.2016 in respect of application No.43 of 2014 (SZ) has directed the Board to make a fresh inspection after giving notice to parties and the Ambient Air Quality Survey Report in the next date of hearing which is posted on 1.3.2016.

Based on the order, the Unit was inspected on 24.2.2016 after giving notice to parties and AAQ/SM survey was also conducted on the same day.

During the inspection, the unit was under operation with eight reactors. STP, ETP with ZLD system and APC measures were under operation. The unit has provided continuous online monitor to stacks attached to boilers I, II, III, Dryers, PGFs and PBF and connected all the stack monitors to Care Air Centre. The unit has provided two numbers of continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations and connected the same to CARE Air Centre. The ROA of the treated sewage trade effluent samples collected between April 2015 and January 2016 revealed that the all parameters are meeting the standards prescribed by the Board. Report of analysis of AAQ Survey conducted by TNPC Board's laboratory on 24.2.2016 for 24 hours at five locations in and around the unit and one location at Pappankuppam village reveals that all parameters are within limits prescribed by Board. Report of Analysis of Stack Monitoring and Noise level conducted on the same day for 24 hours also reveals that all parameters are within limits prescribed by the Board.

Further, the unit has conducted performance study report on the Air Pollution control measures as per the directions of TNPC Board dated 12.6.2015 through IIT, Bombay. In the performance study report, it is inferred that the air pollution control measures implemented by the unit to all emission sources are found to be performing satisfactorily. It is reported that the data has been collected during the site visit through interviewing employees, plant logs and third party reports. It is also reported that the systems are well integrated into the operational protocols of the plant and required training have been provided to the monitoring and maintenance personnel. Internal checks and controls are in place for provocative air pollution control with a focus on continuous improvement."

10) This fact has also been given in the report of the concerned Engineer of the Board. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there is absolutely nothing on merit in this case to enable this Tribunal to interfere in this matter. However, we make it clear that as it was already reiterated in the earlier order of the Tribunal, the Board shall continue to monitor the activities of the 5th respondent and give appropriate directions as and when required and ensure that the directions are complied with by the 5th respondent. In view of the same, the application stands dismissed. No costs.