AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
One, S.M.Govindasamy, Secretary, People Health and Development Council, Sottaiyampalayam, Erode District filed both these applications against the 5th respondent industry Unit-I in Application No.243 of 2014 and Unit-II in Application No.244 of 2014. The averments as well as grounds and prayer made in these two applications are similar except that it deals with two separate units of the same respondent industry. It is the case of the applicant that due to the activity of the 5th respondent processing Unit I and Unit II health and safety hazards have been created besides damaging the environment and therefore the said units should not be allowed to re-function, otherwise, it will cause enormous damage to the environment and severely affect the human health. The Processing Unit I and Processing Unit II of the 5th respondent are situated at Ellapalayam, Periasemur (Post) and Sadaiyan Thottam, Villarasampatti, Periasemur (Post), Erode District, respectively and obtained consent from the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (Board) on 20.04.2012 for the unit-I to generate 475.4 KLD of trade effluent and to produce the following products.
i) Bleached & finished knitted fabrics - 5.6 tons per day
ii) Bleached & finished woven fabrics - 17 tons per day
iii) Printed and finished fabric - 4 tons per day
In case of Unit-II, consent was obtained on 1st April, 2003 to generate 120 KLD of trade effluents and to produce bleaching and printing of cotton fabrics 50 tons per month. In both the cases, the 5th respondent Industry has not followed the conditions prescribed by the Board and breached every regulation from the starting of the industry itself. Untreated effluents were discharged into the nearby Pitchakaranpallam odai leading to Cauvery river.
It is further stated by the applicant that the residents and farmers who suffered due to the pollution caused by the units, have started agitating against the 5th respondent and due to their continuous struggle, the Board directed the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Coimbatore and Environmental Engineer (FS), Erode to inspect the 5th respondent units.
Accordingly, the above officers inspected the Units on 13.05.2014 and reported various violations committed by them which are as follows:
"Unit I
i) A soft flow machine for producing bleached and finished knitted fabrics has not installed.
ii) RO plant is not under operation during the time of inspection and also found to be not in continuous operation
iii) Mechanical evaporator was not in operation
iv) Salt balance with respect of TDS level and percentage of recovery of RO is not balancing
v) Unit is not operating the RO plant properly and discharging untreated/ partially treated trade effluent outside the premises in to nearby drain Pitchakaranpallam Odai leading to Cauvery River.
vi) In Pitchakaranpallam odai chemical sludge deposits were noticed and that odai joins with Cauvery River with TDS value of about 7000 mg/L nearest to the Veerappanchatram pumping station and Erode main pumping station at the right bank of River Cauvery. And TDS in the intake water for water supply to Erode is noticed to be 440 mg/L.
vii) The unit has obtained authorization under HW (M, H& TBM) Rules for generation of 30 T/year, but at the time of inspection the accumulation in the unit is 47.63 T. And it is estimated that the unit may generate 0.5 T per day of Chemical sludge and it may generate 215 T of chemical sludge per year. For that the unit has not obtained authorization.
viii) The accumulated sludge quantity is found to be less and the unit has not operated the ETP continuously and effectively and the unit is discharging the untreated trade effluents in to Pitchakaranpallam odai.
ix) The waste salt residue from the solar pan has not stored separately and the unit has not fully recovered the salt from the solar pan which is a hazardous waste chemical residue.
Unit II
i) The unit has provide ETP and machines of capacity 100 Kg *14Nos. Jiggers and 150 kg*12 Nos. Jiggers. From the above machines a maximum of 120 L/month and which shall produce about 144 KLD of trade effluent from bleaching section. It is over and above the quantity mentioned in the consent order.
ii) The partially treated trade effluent was found to be stored in the secondary clarifier tank with sludge floating and causing foul odour during the time of inspection.
iii) The TDS of the effluent in the collection tank is about 5900mg/L and final outlet is 4100 mg/L and the unit has not treated the trade effluent and the quality of the treated effluent reveals that it cannot be reused.
iv) The unit has discharged untreated/partially treated trade effluent for open percolation on its land which reaches the nearby drain Pitchakaranpallam odai leading to Cauvery River.
v) In Pitchakaranpallam odai chemical sludge were noticed and that odai joins with Cauvery river with TDS value of about 7000mg/L nearest to the Veerappanchatram pumping station and Erode main pumping station at the right bank of River Cauvery. And TDS in the intake water for water supply to Erode is noticed to be 440mg/L".
The applicant further states that taking into account the violations made by the Industry, the inspecting officials recommended closure and disconnection of electricity supply. Based on the said recommendations, the 2nd respondent, Member Secretary of the Board issued closure order as well as directions to disconnect the power supply vide Proceedings dated 14th May, 2014. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has disconnected the power supply to both the units of the 5th respondent. Meanwhile, the Ellapalayam People Welfare Association who has been impleaded as 6th respondent in both the applications, has filed a grievance petition to the 4th respondent District Collector on 27.06.2014 and in the case of Unit-I the District collector directed the industry to dispose the chemical sludge buried inside the premises to Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF), Gummidipoondi and the District Collector informed that no further action is required since both the units are already closed and not functioning.
Subsequently, the applicant has sent representation to respondent Nos.1 to 4 with a request not to permit the units of the 5th respondent from re-opening in the interest of public health and environment. Finally, the applicant has made a similar prayer in both the applications viz. (a) to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate action for permanent closure of the units, (b) to restore the areas polluted by the 5th respondent and clean up all damages due to the functioning of the units and also (c) to direct respondent No.5 to pay compensation for the restoration of the areas polluted and to clean up all the damages caused.
The 2nd and 3rd respondent Board has filed a common reply affidavit in both the cases stating that the respondent units are small scale textile printing and bleaching units. The Unit-I initially obtained 'consent to operate' on 21.07.2008 for the printing of cotton cloth/hosiery cloth -75 T/M and to generate trade effluent - 75 KLD and for disposing the effluent on their own land for irrigation in the name of Rajalakshmi Printers. Subsequently, the Unit-I has applied for expansion for a) Bleached and Finished Knitted Fabric- 5.1 T/Day, b) Bleached and Finished Woven Fabric - 16 T/Day and c) Printed & Finished Fabric - 4 T/Day with a generation of trade effluent 470.25 KLD (Reused in the process) and 5.15 KLD (Reject into SEP) and the Unit has provided ZLD system including Reject Management after the expansion. At present the Unit is having provision for installing machinery for the products as stated above except for Bleached and Finished Knitted Fabric - 5.1 T/Day but the machines for the said process have not been installed.
With regard to Unit-II, the respondent Board has not given any specific particulars except stating that it is located in the same area where Unit-I is already functioning and there is a complaint against Unit-II about the drawl of water from Ellapalayam tank for industrial purposes which reduces the storage of water affecting the agricultural activities of the farmers in the vicinity. The units were inspected by JCEE (MS), Coimbatore and EE (FS), Erode on 13.05.2014 and based on the inspection; the units have been served with closure order as well as disconnection of power supply on 14th May, 2014.
The Board further stated that subsequently a request was made by the respondent Industry for revocation of closure directions and restoration of power supply intimating that HDPE membrane has been laid over the Solar Evaporation Pan (SEP) area as the hazardous waste has been disposed. Considering the above request, the units were inspected on 18. 08.2014 and based on the recommendations, the Unit-I has been issued with suspension of closure order and restoration of power supply with a consent valid upto 30.06.2015 after obtaining a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10 lakh vide Board Proceedings dated 18.09.2014, subject to the following conditions:
"The unit shall operate and maintain the ETP followed by ZLD system and to use the same for process as reported.
The unit shall close the open pits in the nearby vicinity so as to avoid further complaints.
The unit shall comply the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.5494/ 98 & 30153/ 2003.
The said Bank Guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- will be forfeited in case of non compliance of the above said conditions".
With regard to Unit-II, a detailed inspection was carried on 9th June, 2014 by DEE, Erode and the Executive Engineer, PWD, Groundwater Division, Salem was addressed to monitor the Ellapalayam Tank for non usage of water other than for agricultural use as the Unit-II is drawing water from the well located within the premises and River Cauvery with the permission of the Chief Engineer, PWD. Based on the instructions, the Unit-II has also disposed the Hazardous and other waste materials dumped in the pits in the premises by transporting to TSDF, Gummidipoondi and furnished the particulars of disposal.
The Board has further stated in their reply that after the suspension of closure order dated 18.09.2014, the Unit-I was inspected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode and District Environmental Engineer, Erode along with A.E. Erode on 8th October, 2014 during which it was observed that the Unit-I was under operation and only CBR (Continuous Bleaching Range) and part of the jigger machines were under operation and no dyeing and printing operations were found going on. The ETP along with Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant followed by mechanical evaporator, were also under operation. Whereas Unit-II was not under operation. During the subsequent joint inspection made on 13th November, 2014, it was found that the said unit is also under operation and no violation of the conditions imposed in the suspension order dated 18.09.2014, was noticed. However, the said unit is yet to close the open pits located in the vicinity and the same was found to be filled with rain/ seepage water from the nearby fields. Another inspection was carried out on 18th December, 2014 and samples were collected from ZLD system and also from well water and analysis results are awaited.
Another common reply dated 31st October, 2016 was filed by the respondent Board stating that initially the Unit-II has obtained 'consent to operate' on 1st April, 2003 for the Bleaching and printing of cotton fabric - 50 Tons/ month and to generate trade effluent -120 KLD (100 KLD on land for irrigation and 20 KLD recycling to process). Subsequently, the Unit has obtained 'consent to operate' dated 21st September, 2015 for production of Bleached Woven Fabric - 206.70 T/Month and for the generation of trade effluent 120 KLD and the consent has been renewed on 11th August, 2016 which is valid upto 30th June, 2017. The unit is operating ZLD system. The Unit was inspected on 18th December, 2015, 15th September, 2016 and 17th October, 2016 and found that it is being operated duly following the consented activities only.
It is further stated that the unit is presently having about 7 tons of sludge generated from the treatment of wastewater arising from the Bleaching operation in polythene bags and stored in a shed inside the premises. However, the unit has obtained authorisation under Hazardous Wastes and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary) Rules, 2016 (HWM rules) vide Board Proceedings dated 25th October, 2016 for the disposal to TSDF, Gummidipoondi.
The reply of the Board lists the details of the conditions prescribed in the 'consent orders' issued from time to time as well as remarks passed during inspection and compliance made by the industry in respect of both the Units.
The Board has also filed copies of various inspection reports both in respect of Unit-I and Unit-II. The dates of inspection of Unit-I are 10. 06.2015, 22.09.2015, 18.12.2015, 09.06.2016, 14.06.2016, and 30. 11.2016, whereas the inspection of Unit-II was carried out on 10. 06.2015, 18.12.2015, 15.09.2016, 05.10.2016 and 30.11.2016. The inspection reports which are given in a tabular form, list various conditions imposed in the consent orders as well as closure revocation order and replies furnished by the units on various directions given by the Board.
The respondent Unit I in Application No. 243 of 2014 filed counter statement dated 29.12.2014 denying the allegations levelled by the applicant. It is true that on 13th May, 2014, the Board passed closure order and thereafter surprise check was conducted by the officials of the respondent Board and it was found that the unit was not under operation and ultimately the closure order was implemented on 27th May, 2014. Thereafter, the respondent Unit-I rectified the defects noticed by the Board and made an application for revocation of closure order. Based on the inspection made by the officials of the Board, closure order was suspended with certain conditions and thus the unit started functioning again. It is further stated that the unit is maintaining ZLD system and re-using the same for process and therefore the allegation of posing safety hazards is false. The Unit is running printing and bleaching activities as per the norms and no damage is caused to the environment.
Likewise, the 5th respondent industry Unit II also filed counter statement on the same day viz., 29.12.2014 with similar averments. In the combined reply, the 5th respondent industry who operates both the units, stated that the industry owns 40 acres of land but carrying industrial activity only in 10 acres and the remaining 30 acres is under agricultural operations. Though initially closure order was issued by the Board on 14. 05.2014, it was revoked on 18.09.2014 after the units have taken steps to maintain effluent treatment by ZLD system and there are no health hazards or environmental damages due to the operation of the units. The Board is also constantly making inspections and satisfying about the compliance made by the 5th respondent. The averments made by the impleaded 6th respondent viz., Ellapalayam Pothu Makkal Nala Sangam alleging that the Members of the Sangam are affected by the operations carried on by the 5th respondent and their agricultural activities are affected, are all false.
The respondent industry strongly opposed the reliance placed by the applicant on the report given by one, Mr. N.K. Kuttiappan stating that he has not visited the site even once and it is not known on what capacity the applicant is placing reliance on the said report. The same applies to another report given by one, Prof. K.K. Krishnamurthy on which the applicant has relied that the agricultural fields of the farmers got affected due to the pollution caused by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent stated that the members of the 6th respondent Association are carrying on their normal agricultural operations and no pollution is caused by the 5th respondent units and there is no damage to the environment. It is further stated by the 5th respondent that the Board which is vested with the powers under various Environmental laws and regulations, is regularly supervising the activities and inspecting the 5th respondent units and renewing the consent from time to time having satisfied that the units are following the norms fixed by the Board.
In the reply to the counter statement of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents, the applicant has filed a common rejoinder contending that the applicant's claim of damages to the nearby agricultural lands due to the activities of the units have been proved in the report of the Professor Dr. K.K. Krishnamurthy, Former Dean, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the soil and water analysis results made available by Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. The 5th respondent Units - I and II are situated on the banks of Pitchakaranpallam odai and located adjacent to the Ellapalayam irrigation tank. The river Cauvery and Lower Bhavani canal are within a radius of 5 km. and allowing the units to continue their operations is endangering the water bodies besides affecting the adjacent agricultural lands.
In support of his claim that the units are causing the pollution in the area, the applicant has filed a detailed technical opinion given by one, Mr. N.K. Kuttiappan who worked in the National Productivity Council. The opinion critically analyses the successive inspection reports of the Board and points out various shortcomings in the functioning of the units and failure on the part of the Board in not doing any quantitative analysis of data on various processes and not projecting the deficiencies. The opinion comes to an end with a cryptic remark that if the court considers such qualitative reports of the Board as acceptable and concludes that the environment is protected, then there is no remedy for public at large to have safe water, safe air and safe soil for the next generation to imbibe values.
Discussion and conclusions
Initially the respondent industry has been issued with the closure order on 17-06-2010 for violating the conditions prescribed in the consent order viz. discharging untreated/partially treated effluent outside, not installing EMFMs at various processing units, not maintaining ZLD system etc. Subsequently closure order was temporarily suspended in four spells, first for the period upto 30-11-2010 and later on, upto 06-09-2011, 09-02-12 and 08-06-12. On 14-05-2014 both the units were again issued with a closure order for the same reasons. This shows that, the unit was frequently violating the conditions prescribed in the consent order by discharging untreated/partially treated wastewater outside the premises affecting the nearby lands and water bodies by the percolation of hazardous constituents discharged from the units, as claimed by the applicant as well as the impleaded 6th respondent Association. Therefore, it is clear that the 5th respondent unit has violated the consent order. Otherwise, there is no need for the Board to take such drastic action of giving directions to close the industry.
The record placed before us further shows that the capacity of the processing machines installed in the units was above the consented value. RO I of unit - I has a designed and operational capability of 600 KLD (30 Nos. RO I* 20 hr/d= 600) when the consented capacity is only 475 KLD. Similarly for unit-II the consented capacity of the RO I system is 120 KLD but the design capacity is 400 KLD. It is mentioned that the unit - I has obtained consent for bleached and finished knitted fabrics but the machinery for the same was not yet installed. It is clear that the machinery and equipment were permitted to be installed with excess capacity and allowed to function beyond the consented values in both the units. Therefore there is a clear chance to misuse the excess capacity of these machines by the 5th respondent and discharge more quantity of effluents than what is permitted. More discharge of improperly treated effluent means more pollution.
Generation and storage of hazardous waste in the pits was not in accordance with the authorization under HWM rules. The industry has obtained authorization under HWM rules on 21-10-2013 with validity up to 20. 10.2018 for collection, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste of 30 T/Y. The maximum time permitted for storage of hazardous waste in the premises of the unit is only 90 days and it needs to be transported to common TSDF within 90 days, but the unit had accumulated an amount of 52.5 MT of hazardous waste in the pit as on 31-08-2013 while applying for authorization. The unit has stored the waste for more than 90 days (from the date of issue of consent order) within the premises. This is a clear violation under HWM rules. In the Board report it has been pointed out that the unit has disposed around 89.585 Tons of waste to common TSDF, Gummidipoondi by 30.7.2014 and another quantity of 22.095 Tons of waste was disposed by 8-6-2015 and presently there is no sludge stored in the pits. Though the disposal of sludge was reported at various instances, the date and quantity of sludge generated and stored at each unit was not inspected and not recorded by the Board. From the above, one has to nothing but conclude that the 5th respondent unit produced more than consented quantity of hazardous waste and violated the norms prescribed by the statutory authority and caused damage to the environment by storing hazardous waste for a longer period of time than permitted to be stored within the premises.
After the initial closure order in the year 2010 and also after subsequent closure order in 2014 the Board on various occasions inspected the units when they were allowed to function with certain conditions and made the following observations:
Inspection report of unit I
Date of inspection
Observations
17-06-2014
The unit is installed with ZLD system followed by RMS
No chlorination system for colour removal for the printing operation.
The unit has provided EMFM at following points 1) ETP inlet 2) ETP outlet 3) RO feed 4) RO I stage feed 5) RO II stage reject 6) RO III stage reject 7) IV reject 8) all permeate9) MEE feed 10) MEE condensate 11) MEE reject 12) makeup water 13) printing effluent. The EMFMs are sufficient to validate the ZLD system operation for reuse.
8-10-2014
The unit was under operation. Only CBR and part of jigger machineries were under operation
No printing operation was carried out
The unit is not carrying out other activities such as dyeing, tie and dye etc.
The Effluent Treatment Plant along with RO plant followed by MEE were under operation
The Unit II of the said unit was not under operation
TDS measured by hand held meter was observed to be
Primary clarifier 5600 ppm
Secondary clarifier 4400 ppm
Permeate from RO I 240 ppm
Combined permeate 260 ppm
IV stage reject > 20000 ppm
(Above detection limit)
MEE reject 62000 ppm
The unit is maintaining the log book with necessary entries such as chemical composition details etc.
The unit is reusing the treated recovered water for the process and disposed the reject in to the solar evaporation pan.
The unit has furnished the form 13 for the disposal of the hazardous solid waste disposed to M/s Tamil Nadu waste management ltd, Gummidipoondi and observed that all sludge produced and recovered were found to be disposed
The unit is at present using groundwater for makeup
The unit has furnished the water drawl permission from PWD for the makeup water also.
There is no bypass or pipe line arrangements were observed.
The Ellapalayam tank was also inspected
1) The tank was full of seepage from Lower Bhavani canal
2) Land located adjacent to the tank was found to be under irrigation using water from tank.
3) The unit authorities stated that they were also having agri. lands located in western side of plant was under cultivation
4) It was stated by the unit authorities that they have four water drawl well (with water service connection) located adjacent to the tank which according to the unit were in use for more than 15 years.
10.06.2015
The unit was in operation
ETP and air pollution control measures were also in operation
The unit has so far disposed 30.7.2014- 89.58T and 8-6-2015-4.35T of hazardous waste to Tamil Nadu waste management limited Gummidipoondi.
At present 0.32T of hazardous sludge is stored in the pit.
The unit has laid HDPE geo membrane sheet over the entire area of solar evaporation pan to prevent the seepage of RO reject.
The unit has provided 14 piezometric wells around the SEP areas to monitor groundwater quality.
22.09.2015
The unit is in operation
All the components of ETP were in operation
RO plant and combined MEE were also in operation
No discharge of effluent outside the premises was noticed.
The unit II was not in operation due to disconnection of power supply.
Subsequently the odai and nearby drains were inspected on 27.09.2015 between 3.00 am to 5.00 am and no discharge of effluent outside the premises from the above unit was noticed.
18.12.2015
The unit was in operation
All the components of ETP were in operation.
RO plant and combined MEE were also in operation
No discharge of effluent outside the premises was noticed.
All the EMFMs installed at the various points of ETP with ZLD system operation.
Based on the inspection Board suggested some actions to be implemented by the unit.
Directions given by the Board
ETP and ZLD system shall be operated efficiently and continuously.
Optimum MLSS shall be maintained in the aeration tank
Logbooks shall be maintained properly for the operation and maintenance of ETP and ZLD system.
The unit shall continue to develop green belt within the premises.
The roof rain water collection gutters shall be provided in all the industrial sheds.
Either treated or untreated effluent shall not be discharged outside the premises.
The salt from SEP shall be collected and stored in a closed shed till disposal.
The hazardous waste of ETP sludge shall be disposed then and there without accumulation inside the premises.
9-6-2016
The unit was in operation carrying out bleaching and printing activity
All the components of ETP and ZLD system and APC measures were in operation.
The unit is not carrying out other activities such as dyeing, tie and dye etc.
The optimum MLSS was observed in the aeration tank
RO- I, II, III stages and MEE were also in operation.
The RO permeate is reused in the process and final reject is evaporated through solar evaporation pan.
All the EMFMs installed in the various locations of the ETP and ZLD system were under operation.
The unit maintains the logbook for operation of ETP and ZLD system
The unit has provided HDPE sheet in all the SEP.
14 piezometric wells have been provided near SEP.
No bye pass line was noticed and no discharge of any trade effluent outside the premises was noticed.
No excess machineries were installed
The unit has assured to operate the ETP and ZLD system efficiently and continuously.
The unit has so far disposed 22.095T of hazardous waste to TSDF. At present no sludge is available within the premises.
The unit has analyzed the soil samples collected on 17-06-15 and 13-10-2015 in advanced environmental laboratory, Tamil Nadu pollution control Board, Salem.
The report of analysis reveals that the parameters such as Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, Ni and total Cr are below the threshold limits prescribed in the schedule II of hazardous waste rules 2008.
Hence the unit requested District Collector and TNPCB to give permission to close the above said pits 1, 2, 3and 4 and also unused open well.
On 8-1-16 the pits and unused well was closed.
The unit has proposed to install new components in ETP to enhance the process.
Anaerobic digester - 1No- 28*6*6m
Aeration tank - 1No- 28*12*6m
Existing aeration tanks will be converted as equalization tanks
8.10*7.90*4.65m- 1No
8.70*8.80*5.10m- 1No
6.50m dia* 4.10m- 1No
Construction of additional Anaerobic digester may improve the quality of treated effluent for reduction of BOD, COD, suspended solids and turbidity.
The unit has proposed to construct new aeration tank with 28m*12m*6m dimension to maintain uniform dissolved oxygen and MLSS ratio
The unit has informed that the temperature of the effluent generated from the continuous bleaching range comes at 60 degree.
In high temperature the consumption of chemicals become more comparatively in low temperature and also coagulation of effluent is not proper during treatment.
The unit has decided to implement the diffused aeration in the equalization tank so that the effluent is uniformly well mixed and temperature becomes reduced to optimum level.
The unit has taken necessary arrangements· to carry out the proposed construction work without affecting the existing ETP for treating the trade effluent
14-06-2016
The unit was in operation
All the components of ETP and ZLD system were in operation
RO permeate is reused in the process and final MEE reject is evaporated through SEP
The unit is maintaining the log books for the operation and maintenance of ETP and ZLD system.
The EMFM provided in various location of ETP and ZLD system and same were in operation.
No discharge of any trade effluent outside the premises was noticed.
No excess production was noticed. No excess machineries were installed.
ROA of the samples collected on 29.02.2016 shows that the ZLD system was operated satisfactorily.
APC measures were in operation
The unit has analyzed the soil samples collected on 17-06-15 and 13-10-2015 in advanced environmental laboratory, Tamil Nadu pollution control Board, Salem. The report of analysis reveals that the parameters such as Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, Ni and total Cr are below the threshold limits prescribed in the schedule II of hazardous waste rules 2008. Hence the unit requested District Collector and TNPCB to give permission to close the above said pits 1, 2, 3and 4 and also unused open well. On 8-1-16 the pits and unused well was closed
30-11-2016
The unit was in operation
The ZLDs comprising of primary treatment system, RO plant and MEE were in operation
The RO permeate is reused in the process. The MEE reject is discharged to the SEP lined with HDPE sheets.
The report analysis dated 31.10.2016 of piezometric wells located near the solar evaporation pan revealed that the TDS is between 400-848mg/L only
The report of analysis of AAQ/ SM survey conducted on 15.11.2016 revealed that the parameters are within the tolerance limit prescribed by the Board.
The above inspection reports on unit I show that the unit has complied with the conditions imposed by the Board as observed by the Board itself during successive inspections, but still there are various shortcomings in the functioning of the unit which the Board failed to point out during the inspections.
The report dated 8-10-2014 shows that TDS level of RO reject IV measured with handheld meter was above detection level. In general, salt build up of RO system increases from one stage to other which in turn increases TDS level of the reject. It is evident that the Board failed to measure the TDS of 4th stage by any other more accurate method, as it is one of the important factors to find out the performance of the RO system.
Report on 9-6-2016 indicates that the unit has proposed for construction of new ETP components and some modifications in operating conditions for better effluent treatment. The justification given by the unit for the proposal clearly shows that configuration of biological aeration tank was not properly designed before installing the ETP plant and there were some flaws in the operating system. It is clear that the effluent was not treated properly so as to meet the standards leading to pollution.
One more issue that requires attention is that the Biological treatment process produces high quality effluent with high sludge production. Since the configuration of reactor was not properly designed it is evident that the process would have definitely produced low quality effluent containing high amount of untreated bio-degradable constituents leading to increase in BOD level and consequent pollution. This may be the reason for less quantity of sludge that got accumulated in the unit. Reuse of such partially treated effluent in the process would reduce the efficiency of RO membrane because of formation of bio-film. This in turn reduces the performance of RO membrane leading to discharge of effluent with high TDS and BOD levels.
Though the unit has proposed for replacement of ETP component, the effluent produced all these years would have certainly contained untreated constituents beyond the permissible levels which are hazardous to environment and for human beings. The unit itself confessed that the ZLD system was implemented only after 2013 for bleaching activity, which means the partially treated water containing high level of pollutants would have been discharged into the land before the implementation of ZLD. Here it is appropriate to mention the inspection report of the Board dated 9-6- 2016 wherein the Board has quoted the undertaking given by the 5th respondent in their letter dated 27-4-2016 that the unit has proposed to install the components of ETP which gives credence to the fact that the ETP is working below the required efficiency leading to improper treatment of the effluent.
"The unit in its letter dated 27-04-2016 informed that the unit has proposed to install the following components in ETP
i) Anerobic digester - 1No - 28*6*6m ----- proposed
ii) Aerobic tank - 1 No - 28*12*6m ----- proposed
iii) Existing aeration tanks - 8.10* 7.90*4.65m - 1No ----- will be converted as (new) Equalization tank
The unit has proposed for upgradation of effluent treatment plant by implementation of additional construction of Anaerobic digester to improve the quality of treated effluent for reduction of BOD, COD level, suspended solids matter and turbidity. After up gradation the biological system will function in a good manner and the operation of the tertiary treatment will be more efficient to achieve zero liquid discharge, performance of RO plant will also be increased and due to implementation of above treatment of system will reduce the chemical consumption also considerably.
Further, the unit has informed that at present the unit have 3 aeration tanks of biological treatment system so as to maintain the MLSS. Due to variation of depth in the aeration tanks, its performance is not up to optimum level. the unit has proposed to construct the alternative new proposed aeration tank at size 28m*12m*6.0m for the equal volume of the existing aeration tanks to maintain uniform dissolved oxygen as well as MLSS ratio. The existing aeration tanks will be utilized as equalization tanks".
In the inspection report dated 13-05-2014 as well as in the closure order dated 14-05-2014 the Board has pointed out that there was deposition of sludge in the odai. However the status report on the odai was not submitted by the Board. The characteristics and quantitative analysis of sludge was also not reported. As the sludge from the textile industry is quite hazardous since it contains heavy metals, the Board has not explained as to why it didn't check the presence of such sludge in the surface water. These water sources are used for agriculture and drinking purposes. The health hazard on human beings, cattle and aquatic species of that area was not considered by the Board.
Salt balance of the process and recovery of permeate was not quantified by the Board. In fact that was one of the reasons for issuing closure order. The reject from the MEE is directly sent to SEP for evaporation. If crystallization unit was installed in the process the percentage recovery of salts from SEP would have increased. In the absence of crystallizer some alternative modification in MEE could have been done to increase the salt recovery. But this was not done. Moreover, the Board failed to inspect the surface water and groundwater and conduct water and soil analysis in and around the unit when there is a clear chance of runoff / seepage from water filled pits into surrounding area.
Most of the inspection reports reveal that the Board got satisfied with the mere assurances given by the unit. Process analysis like raw materials, water and chemicals consumed, product produced and quantity of effluent generated from each process, percentage of salt recovered and sludge produced were not taken into account. Without these details the performance of ZLD and RMS cannot be evaluated which the Board has failed to do. This gives an indication that the Board has not properly conducted quantitative analysis of the activities of the unit.
Unit II
Unit - II has obtained consent to produce bleached woven fabric of 206 TPM and to generate 120 KLD of wastewater per month on 21st September, 2015. The unit has provided ETP, RO system (stage I, II, III) and combined MEE and SEP facilities for maintaining ZLD. The Board on several occasions has inspected the unit and made certain observations which are as follows
Inspection report
Date of inspection
Observations
10-06-2015
The unit was found to be not in operation due to disconnection of power supply.
Effluent treatment plant and air pollution control measures were also found to be not in operation. However, they are under operational condition.
The unit has laid HDPE geo membrane sheet over the entire area of solar evaporation pan to prevent the seepage of RO reject
The unit has provided 14 piezometric wells around the SEP areas to monitor the ground water quality.
18-12-2015
The unit was in operation
All the components of ETP were in operation
RO plant and combined MEE were also in operation.
No discharge of effluent outside the premises was noticed.
All the EMFMs installed at the various points of ETP with ZLD system were in operation.
15-09-2016
The unit was in operation
All the components of ETP and ZLD system were in operation
RO permeate is reused in the process and final reject is evaporated through SEP.
No discharge of effluent outside the premises was noticed.
All the EMFMs installed at the various points of ETP with ZLD system were in operation.
The unit maintaining the log books for the operation and maintenance of ETP and ZLD system.
No excess production was noticed.
APC measures were in operation.
05-10-2016
The unit was in operation and carrying out bleaching activity.
All the components of ETP were in operation.
Optimum MLSS was maintained in aeration tank.
RO I,RO II, stages and combined MEE were in operation
The RO permeate and MEE condensate are reused in the process and final reject is evaporated through SEP
The APC measures were in operation
The unit has already provided the HDPE sheets over the entire area of SEP provided at ground level.
The unit has provided piezometric wells (14Nos) inside the premises of unit I and unit II
At present the unit has packed 7.0T of sludge in polythene bags and stored in the closed shed within the premises.
The unit has assured that they will not discharge trade effluent outside under any circumstances.
30-11-2016
The unit was in operation
The ZLDs comprising of primary treatment system RO plant and the MEE were in operation.
The RO permeate is reused in the process. The MEE reject is discharged to Solar evaporation pan lined with HDPE sheets
The reports of analysis dated 31.10.2016 of piezometric wells located near the solar evaporation pan revealed that the Total dissolved solids is between 400mg/L- 848mg/L only.
The report of analysis of AAQ/SM survey conducted on 15.11.2016 revealed that the parameters are within the tolerance limit prescribed by the Board.
Inspection reports show that the unit has complied with the directions mentioned in the closure order. But the performance of ZLD system which depends on the quantity of effluent treated, percentage of reusable water obtained and percentage of solid and salt recovered from the process, was not analyzed by the Board. No quantitative assay was reported. The time period from storage to disposal of hazardous waste was not mentioned in any of the reports.
The unit has obtained consent for producing 206 TPM of bleached woven fabric with a generation of trade effluent of 120 KLD. The water requirement for the production is met by drawing a makeup water of 1.8 KLD from the groundwater and using recycled process water of 118.2 KLD. The 5th respondent has justified that the water requirement for the production of 206 TPM of fabric can be reduced by installing jumbo jigger machines of high capacity with the fixed material to liquor ratio. The M: L ratio fixed for Erode District for bleaching activity is 1:3. Thus water consumption for the production of 7950 kg/day fabric comes to 119.25 KLD. Therefore one has to accept the contention of the 5th respondent as jumbo jigger machines of high capacity with low ML ratio help in less water consumption for bleaching activity. Accordingly we do not agree with the averments of the applicant on this particular point. However, boiler with a capacity of 4 T/hr for 20 hr/day is used in the process of producing steam. A demand of 80 KLD of feed water is required for boiler. This was not mentioned in the consent order. The quantity of effluent generated by boiler blow down is 0.2 KLD. The effluent generated by boiler blow down cannot be 0.2 KLD when its capacity is 4T/hr. Hence this leads us to conclude that the consumption of water is more than permitted quantity with respect to the functioning of the boiler.
For both the units the Board has not conducted analysis on chemical characterization of effluent generated, sludge composition, type and concentration of chemical used and energy meter reading of the process.
Field analysis of the agricultural lands was done by Professor K.K. Krishnamurthy on 1st march 2015 in the villages around Erode based on the complaint made against the dyeing, bleaching and printing industries located in this area and the following observations were made:
"The unit has polluted water, soil and air of the area. The irrigation and drinking water have become saline, alkaline (loaded with toxic materials from the untreated effluent discharged from factories) and they are unusable for drinking household purposes, cattle and irrigation of crops. The soil is polluted with water and has become saline and alkaline with very severe sodium hazard, sodium adsorption hazard and sodium carbonate hazard rendering soil infertile and unsuitable for cultivation of crops. The damage done to the soil is rather irreversible. Pollution has affected the crop yield to a considerable extent. The number of farm families seriously affected by the industries is about 300. Total cultivable area affected is 1000 acres".
From the above report one can observe that soil and water around the plant is contaminated with sodium and chloride salts. Soil pH has risen above 8.5 making it alkaline in most of the agricultural lands. This may be due to the percolation of salts used in the process through the land. In general high alkalinity and salinity of soil will have an impact on the growth of plants, as it decreases the availability of micronutrients in the soil and also inhibits the activity of symbiotic organisms. As per the report though there is a considerable reduction in the crop yield, yearly analysis and the period from which this problem has arisen are not reported by the Professor. And also this analysis report is not enough to substantiate the requirement of individual compensation for the farmers.
On the other hand, learned counsel for 5th respondent has mentioned that the agricultural lands located near their units are fertile and cultivable. He produced extract of Adangal maintained by the Revenue department which shows that crops like paddy, sugarcane, maize, coconut are cultivated in the area. Moreover, tthough the applicant has claimed damage to the crops, particulars with regard to decrease in yield are not given. 39. The averments made by the applicant and respondent are contradictory. The exact magnitude of soil contamination caused by the unit is not determined either by the applicant or the Board. Since one of the major issues raised against the unit is contamination of agricultural land, the Board should have collected soil samples and conducted analysis to verify the facts. With this information it is difficult for us to say how much damage has been caused to the agricultural lands. But it can be said that activity of unit might have affected characteristics of land to some extent as it was violating the norms earlier by discharging partially treated effluent. And also it has violated the HWM rules by storing hazardous waste in the pits for a longer period within the premises giving a chance for seepage.
Natural impurities extracted from the type of fabric being prescribed along with the chemicals used in the process are the two types of pollutants produced in the textile processing industry. The trade effluent generated in the process consists of sulphur, naphthol, vat dyes, nitrates, enzymes, chromium compounds, heavy metals like copper, arsenic, lead cadmium, mercury nickel and cobalt constituting high BOD, high TDS and high temperature of wastewater. When wastewater is discharged into water bodies it reduces the oxygen transfer mechanism at air - water interface as the colloidal matter present along with colours and oily scum increases the turbidity of the water.
Reactive dyes used in the process can cause respiratory and skin irritation problems to humans. Reactive dye when binds with human serum albumin forms conjugate, which induces the release of histamine, causing allergic reactions in body. When organic compounds like formaldehyde (dye fixing agent), chlorinated stain removal, hydrocarbon softeners and non biodegradable dyeing chemicals react with disinfectant like chlorine it produces Dibutyl Phthalate (DBPs) which is a carcinogen. The unit has failed to consider the impacts of such hazardous chemicals on human health and environment.
The applicant has relied upon the reports of Mr. Kuttiappan and Prof. K.K. Krishnamurthy which is strongly objected by the respondent industry. We agree with the respondent as these reports are filed neither based on the orders of this Tribunal nor given by any responsible govt. authority though most of the observations drawn in these two reports strengthen our conclusions which we derived based on the analysis of the facts and figures found in the record placed before us. Nevertheless, this Tribunal, being a special court constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to exclusively deal with the disputes in which a substantial question relating to environment is brought to its notice and having in-house technical expertise, has got powers to derive conclusions on its own based on the scientific processes and technologies that are adopted by any particular industry and can't shut its eyes when such glaring discrepancies are pointed out by the applicant and also as observed by the Tribunal in various paragraphs after going through the record. Careful analysis of the information and documents produced before us makes it absolutely clear that the 5th respondent industry has consumed more water and let out more effluent than what is permitted that too improperly treated effluent which definitely causes soil and water pollution. In the process it results generation of more sludge which is hazardous in nature and most of it is not accounted for. Even the accounted sludge was stored in the premises beyond the prescribed period before it was despatched to TSDF. Thus the above factual position indicates that the respondent industry indulged in negligence, violated the pollution control norms thereby causing pollution to the adjacent land and waters and also caused nuisance and health hazard.
Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the 5th respondent industry is responsible for causing damage to the environment. The contention of the respondent industry that there are a number of similar type of industries situated in the vicinity but the 5th respondent industry alone was targeted by the applicant with ulterior motive, cannot be an excuse to ignore the shortcomings/lapses on the part of the industry that we have narrated in this judgment. No doubt, presently advanced technology has been adopted which will minimise the pollution, the industry cannot escape from its responsibilities on the past activities.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its path breaking judgment in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India 1992 Supp (2) SCC 85 observed as under:
"We are conscious that environmental changes are the inevitable consequence of industrial development in our country, but at the same time the quality of environment cannot be permitted to be damaged by polluting the air, water and land to such an extent that it becomes a health hazard for the residents of the area".
Again the Hon'ble Apex court in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath 1997 (1) SCC 388, the Apex Court also laid emphasis on the 'Polluter Pays' principle and held that one who pollutes the environment must pay to reverse the damage caused by his actions. It is also relevant to mention here that this Tribunal in the case of Court on its own motion v. State of HP and others reported in the All India NGT Reporter 2014 (1) Part 3, held that:
"The other relevant principle is the 'Polluter Pays' principle which can be applied to prevent as well as control further environmental damage in the area. The 'Polluter Pays' principle is one which is aimed at ensuring that the costs of environmental damage caused by the polluting activities are borne in full by the person responsible for such pollution. It is said that this principle means that the polluter should pay for the administration of the pollution control system and for the consequences of the pollution, for example, compensation and clean up. Under this principle, the Government alone cannot be held responsible for preventing and controlling the environmental pollution. If this fiscal incident in its entirety is shifted to the Government, then it would amount to unduly burdening the common tax payer, for none of his fault, for taking anti-pollution, preventive and remedial measures. The actual polluter thus must be held liable for the damage done. This doctrine has been accepted in larger parts of the world as the fundamental principle on environmental matters and has been one of the underlying principles for action programme on the environment".
Also in the Tirupur Dyeing Units Factory Owners Association vs. Noyyal River Protection Association on 06.10.2009 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case has made the following observation:
"Therefore, the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by it to villagers or other affected persons of the area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, the industry is bound to take all necessary measures to prevent degradation of environment and also to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected area. As the liability of the polluter is absolute for harm to the environment it extends not only to the victims of pollution but also to meet the cost of restoring the pollution free environment."
In the case of Krishnakant Singh vs. National Ganga River Basin Authority 2014 ALL (1) NGT Reporter 3 Delhi 1, the Principle Bench of the National Green Tribunal directed Simbhaoli Sugar Mills which had opened without consent of the concerned Board for a long period and had polluted the environment, Phuldera drains as well as the underground water, to pay a compensation of Rs. 5.00 Crores. The compensation was imposed for flouting the law and for causing the pollution.
Considering all the above facts the respondent industry deserves to be imposed with penalty under 'Polluter Pays' principle. However, at this stage it is not possible to quantify the exact extent of damage caused to the environment. But considering the original date of commencement of the activities of the units, nature of activities, quantity of the products permitted to be produced and their location near the water bodies and agricultural fields, we impose the respondent industry with a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakh only) under 'Polluter Pays' principle for violating the norms and consent orders prescribed by the Board and for its careless attitude towards the protection of environment and for discharging improperly treated effluent and not maintaining the records including log books, energy and flow meters etc. and initially operating the industry without consent and also for not accounting the effluent and sludge for a longer period. The amount shall be credited to the account of Environment Relief Fund established under Section 24 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 within one month from the date of this judgement. In this context we agree with the contentions raised by the applicant. The Board has utterly failed to point out all these shortcomings and glaring violations. However as prayed by the applicant, we restrain from giving directions to the Board for permanent closure of the units considering that the respondent industry has switched over to modern technology and has taken authorisation under HWM rules and presently disposing the sludge at the authorised TSDF.
The remaining prayers of the applicant that the respondent industry should be made to pay compensation to restore the affected areas and also pay damages will not be able to be considered unless specific and authentic data is produced before us. The affected farmers may file separate appeals with foolproof evidence on the damage caused to their agricultural fields affecting their crops, if they so desire.
However, to prevent such damages in future the respondent industry is directed to follow the directions given below:
a) The 5th respondent along with the Board should demarcate the contaminated area in around the unit by conducting various chemical and physical analyses of soil, water and agricultural land.
b) The contaminated area once identified should be remediated with suitable technology.
c) Open pits where sludge was stored should be sealed to prevent further contamination.
d) ZLD system along with RMS should be maintained properly.
e) The water consumption for each process should be determined and source from which water is drawn should be reported to the Board.
f) Salt, chemical, water and energy balance and production rate should be reported and logbooks should be maintained for the same and made available for inspection by the inspecting authorities.
g) ETP components should be properly maintained.
h) Sludge should be disposed to TSDF within 90 days of storage.
i) Readings of Flow meters and energy meters should be regularly noted and log books and registers for all the input and output processes should be maintained which will enable the Board to verify.
The following directions are given to the Board:
a) As pointed out by the 5th respondent that there are many such textile units situated closer to odai and Ellapalayam tank other than unit I and unit II of the respondent industry. Therefore, the Board should constantly inspect whether any untreated textile effluent is being discharged into odai or any other water resources by these textile units situated in Erode district.
b) Board should ensure that textile units which have not implemented ZLD system should be issued with closure order.
c) TDS level of water sources in and around the odai should be examined. And a report containing physical and chemical characteristics of water should be periodically recorded and uploaded on the website of the Board for public reference.
d) The Board should undertake proper verification of the working of the units during the inspections before giving consent for these industries especially when the unit is located nearer to water bodies and agricultural fields in future.
With the above directions, the applications are disposed. No order as to costs.