BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Application No. 19 of 2013 (SZ) (THC)
M.A.No. 173 of 2016 (SZ)
Application No.224 & 248 of 2016 (SZ)
Appeal Nos.51 to 52 of 2017 (SZ)
Applicastion No.19 of 2013
Applicant(s) Respondent(s)
M/s. Meenavargal Membattu Sangam Vs. The Chief Secretary Rep. by its President Government of Tamil Nadu and others Shri K.R. Selvarajkumar
Legal Practitioners for Applicant(s) Legal Practitioners for Respondents
Shri J.P. Solomon Peter Kamal M/s. Abdul Saleem, Vidyalakshmi
Doss and E. Ashok Kumar S. Saravanan for R-1 and R-2
Shri M.K. Subramanian & P.Velmani for R3
Smt . H. Yasmeen Ali for R-4
Mr.K.S.Sri Giri Prasath for R-5
Application No.224 of 2016 (SZ)
Applicant(s) Respondent(s)
Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar 1. The Chief Secretary Rep. by its President M.R. Thiyagarajan Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai
Royapuram, Chennai 2. The State of Tamil Nadu The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Govt Industries Dept, Chennai
3. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Govt Fisheries Dept, Chennai
4. The District Collector, Thiruvalur
5. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Chennai
6. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Govt Highways & Minor Ports Dept Chennai
7. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Monitoring), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Ambattur, Chennai
8. M/s. Tamil Nadu Petro Chemicals Products Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Manali, Chennai (R1 is removed as per order dated 08.11.2016)
Counsel appearing for applicant Counsel appearing for respondents
Mr. K. Mageshwaran M/s. M.K. Subramanian, E.Manoharan
P. Velmani for R1 to 3 & 5
Mrs.Yasmeen Ali for R 4 and 6
Mr.D.Edwin Yovanraj for R7
Application No.248 of 2016 (SZ)
Applicant(s) Respondent(s)
Meenava Thanthai 1. The State of Tamil Nadu K.R. Selvaraj Kumar rep. by its Secretary to Government Rep. by its President Industrial Department, Chennai M. R. Thiyagarajan 2. The State of Tamil Nadu Royapuram, Chennai rep. by its Secretary to Government Environment Department Dept. Chennai
3. The Director, Dept of Environment Saidapet, Chennai
4. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Guindy Chennai
5. The District Collector, Thiruallur
6. The District Environmental Engineer
Ambattur, Chennai
7. M/s. Manali Petrochemiucal Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai
Counsel appearing for applicant Counsel appearing for respondents
Mr.K. Mageshwaran Mr. M.K. Subramaniam
E.Manoharan & P.Velmani for R1,2,3 & 5
Mr. S.Azhagam Perumal for R4 & R6
Mr.K.S.Sri Giriprasadh for R7
Appeal No.51 of 2017
Appellant(s) Respondents
M/s. Manali Petrochemicals Ltd – Plant - I 1. The Central Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Whole Time Director MoEF & CC, rep. by its Chairman G. Balasubramanian, Manali New Delhi 2. The Regional Director Appeal No.52 of 2017 (Zonal Office (South) The Central Pollution Control Board M/s. Manali Petrochemicals Ltd – Plant - II Bengaluru Rep. by its Whole Time Director 3. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control G. Balasubramanian, Manali Board, rep. by its Chairman, Chennai 4. The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corpn, rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai 5. Meenavargal Membattu Sangam, Manali (R5 impleaded as per order dt.7.7.2017)
Counsel appearing for applicant Counsel appearing for respondent/s
M/s. AL. Ganthimathi Mr. D. S. Ekambaram for R1 & R2 L. Palanimuthu Mrs. Yasmeen Ali for R3 Mr. Gnanasekaran for R4
Note of the Orders of the Tribunal Registry Date: 7th July, 2017 Item No.2-6
M.A.No.94 of 2017 in Appeal No.51 of 2017:
M.A.No.95 of 2017 in Appeal No.52 of 2017:
The above M.As are filed by the original appellant for the purpose of impleading Meenavargal Membattu
Sangam, as 5th respondent in the respective appeals. The
M.As are not seriously opposed. Accordingly, M.A.Nos.94 and 95 of 2017 are allowed and the proposed respondent is impleaded as 5th respondent in the main appeals. The
Registry shall make necessary amendment in this regard.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant shall file fresh memo of parties.
Application Nos.19 of 2013, Application Nos.224 &
248 of 2016 and Appeal Nos.51 & 52 of 2017:
This matter relates to the functioning of Manali
Petrochemicals. The complaint made by the applicant in the applications is that the functioning of the effluent treatment system of Manali Petrochemicals has been defective for the past many years, resulting in enhanced
COD and BOD level.
In the said appeals which are against the order of closure, we have directed status quo to be maintained which continues as on date. There have been various inspections made by the State Pollution Control Board as
well as Central Pollution Control Board which revealed a remarkable increase in COD and BOD level in Plants I and
II of Manali Petrochemicals.
In those circumstances, we directed the Central
Pollution Control Board to conduct analysis of COD and
BOD level and file a report. Accordingly, the Central
Pollution Control Board has filed its affidavit on 4.7.2017.
Table No.1 annexed to the affidavit speaks about the quality of treated effluent discharged into the sea. During the course of three inspections made on 31.3.2016,
17.8.2016 and 16.3.2017 and from the report, it is seen that in so far as it relates to the COD level regarding Plant
– I the outlet value of COD on 31.3.2016 was 1536 as against 250. On 17.8.2016 the value was 1673. However, on 16.3.2017 the value has come down to 1045 as against
250. It remains the fact that even the reduced value is four times above the permissible limit.
Likewise in respect of BOD level regarding Plant – I on
31.3.2016 the outlet quantum is recorded as 1258 and that has come down on 17.8.2016 to 783 and on 16.3.2017 it is
349 as against 100 where also it remains the fact that it is
three times more than the permissible limit.
Likewise, in Plant – II the outlet quantity of COD on
31.3.2016 was 1344 and it has increased to 1832 on
17.8.2016 and ultimately on 16.3.2017 it has become 1521 as against 250. In respect of BOD in Plant – II on
31.3.2017 the outlet was 1068 and on 17.8.2016 it has become 833 and on 16.3.2017 it remains on 544 as against 100.
Therefore, it is clear that in all parameters in respect of both the Plants the outlet level was more than the permissible limit. But the only thing which has to be noted is that in the latest analysis on 5.3.2017 there is a slight improvement.
In our earlier order we have directed the Experts from
SASTRA University to be present. Accordingly, the
Experts are present before this Tribunal. They have submitted that SASTRA University has been implementing
Chemical Activity Process for the purpose of reducing the
COD and BOD level.
The Officer of the Central Pollution Control Board would submit that this pipeline is the only facility available
in this country and it is for the project proponent which has to find out proper mechanism for the purpose of reducing
COD and BOD level especially in the existence of modern technology.
The Officer of Manali Petrochemicals Pvt., Ltd, who is present has submitted that the project proponent has approached PRAXAIR who are stated to be Experts in the said field and they have also given a Project and according to the Officer of the project proponent the
Oxidization process is in progress and the same will be completed in a matter of 2 or 3 months and when once it is implemented there is every possibility of further reduction of COD and BOD level.
The typed set of papers filed on behalf of the project proponent shows the scheme formulated by the PRAXAIR which shows that on implementation of the said process there is every possibility of nearly 30 - 40% reduction of
COD/BOD.
In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is not the appropriate time for the purpose of ordering ‘closure’ of these units, especially in the
circumstances that there has been certain improvement.
Applying the principle of sustainable development, we are of the view that one more opportunity must be given to the project proponent for the purpose of implementing the
Technical Experts’ proposal for the purpose of implementing the new technology of Oxidization through
PRAXAIR. The said new tehnology has to be implemented forthwith.
We make it clear that while discharging the treated effluents into the sea, there shall be no connection between the pipeline which carries the treated effluents along with potable drinking water pipeline.
In the mean time, the proposal of SASTRA University shall be continued.
We direct the parties to file status report on the next date of hearing.
We direct the Central Pollution Control Board to have one more inspection and file a status report on the next dated of hearing.
In so far as it relates to Unit – II which is the subject matter of Application No.248 of 2016 there was a show
cause notice issued by the State Pollution Control Board on 16.6.2015 based on the inspection conducted on
20.5.2016 stating as to how the project proponent has proceeded with the expansion when ‘consent’ has not been granted and ultimately it is now stated that ‘consent’ has been granted for the purpose of expansion on
22.7.2016
We have already stated that the activity of the project proponent will be subject to the final result in the application.,
In view of the same, we direct the interim order already passed shall continue.
In Application No.224 of 2016 the State Pollution
Control Board has filed status report, after serving copy to the learned counsel appearing for the other side.
Post all these matters on 22.9.2017.
…...... , JM (Justice Dr.P.Jyothimani)
…...... ,EM (Shri P.S. Rao)