By Video Conferencing)

Item No. 09 Court No. 1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

(By Video Conferencing)

Appeal No. 11/2018

Rohit Choudhary Appellant(s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 14.08.2020

Date of uploading of order on Website: 18.08.2020

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

ORDER

1. This appeal has been preferred against grant of Environmental

Clearance (EC) for setting up Bamboo based Ethanol Project at village

Owguri Chapori Gaon, Mouza Morong, Tehsil & District Golaghat

(Assam) by M/s. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.

2. The matter was earlier taken up by a different Bench. Vide order dated 02.08.2018, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. It was found that the EC was granted on 08.11.2017 while the appeal was filed on 05.02.2018 which was not only beyond period of 30 days but also beyond further 60 days upto which Tribunal could extend the limitation. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.

11941/2018 observed that delay beyond 30 days was 59 days which the

Tribunal could condone. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the matter was taken up for consideration on merits, after

condoning the delay. The parties were required to file their respective pleadings, which have been filed. After retirement of the Presiding Judge in the other Bench, matter has been listed for hearing before this Bench.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the MoEF&CC and the project proponent. We have also perused written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant on

17.08.2020.

4. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the project in question is within ‘no development zone’ in terms of

Notification dated 05.07.1996. Further submission is that there is non- compliance of Terms of Reference (ToR) with respect to water consumption and additional ToR on cumulative impact of air emissions from the project. Fresh water requirement for the project will be in excess of permissible. No study has been undertaken with regard to the air pollution.

5. As against the above, the stand of the MoEF&CC in its affidavit filed on 03.02.2020, in continuation of earlier affidavit filed on

27.12.2019 is that the Notification is for protection of the Kaziranga

National Park and prohibition applicable to the No Development Zone is against expansion of industrial or other such activities which leads to pollution and congestion. The Environmental Clearance (EC) has been granted after satisfaction that the present activity will not lead to pollution or congestion. Water consumption and air pollution aspects have also been duly considered. It will be appropriate to reproduce the stand of the MoEF&CC which is as follows:

“6. That the said Notification dated 05.07.1996 is not prohibitory in nature but regulatory in order to achieve the object as elaborated in para 5 herein above. It only provides that “.... on and from the date of publication of this notification the expansion of industrial area, township, infrastructures facilities and such other activities which could lead to pollution and congestion shall not be allowed within No Development Zone specified in the Appendix to this notification except with the prior approval of the Central Government.”

7. That the Expert Appraisal Committee has, inter-alia, deliberated the issues pertaining to water and air pollution and observed that the Project Proponent has conducted the baseline monitoring studies during October-December 2016 and the Ambient air quality (AAQ) monitoring was carried out at 8 locations during October to December, 2016. The baseline data indicates that ranges of concentrations of PM 10 (32.5-64.2 µ/m3), SO2 (4-6.8 µ/m3) and NO2 (9.0-17.3 µ/m3) respectively. AAQ modelling study for point source emissions indicates that the maximum incremental Ground Level Concentrations (GLCs) after the proposed project would be 0.5 µ/m3, 1.4 µ/m3 and 1 µ/m3 with respect to PM10, SOx and NOx respectively. The resultant concentrations are within the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The total water requirement is 2,764 m3/day of which fresh water requirement of 2,224 m3/day and will be met from River Dhansiri using existing water intake facility. Total effluent generation is 540 KLD, which includes 58 KLD effluents from spent wash treatment and 34 KLD domestic. Entire effluent of 540 KLD will be treated through existing effluent treatment plant of Numaligarh Refinery based on Zero Liquid discharge system.

8. That the Expert Appraisal Committee also observed that there is no National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Biosphere Reserves, Tiger/Elephant Reserves, Wildlife Corridors, etc., within 10 km distance of the project. River Dhansiri is flowing at a distance of 1.6 km in North West direction.

9. That upon detailed examination and deliberations on the EIA Report submitted by the project proponent it was inferred by the Expert Appraisal Committee that the EIA/EMP Report was prepared in compliance of the ToR issued for the project, reflecting the present environmental concerns and the projected scenario for all the environmental

components. The project proponent has duly addressed the issues raised during the public hearing.

10. It is submitted that Answering Respondent has followed due procedure of law for appraisal of the project as prescribed under the EIA Notification, 2006, as amended from time to time. It is further submitted that the composition of the Committee of experts, as per the Notification of 2006, includes persons from various disciplines including eco-system management, air/water pollution control, water resource management, ecologists, social sciences particularly rehabilitation of project outset and representatives from other relevant fields. These members are well qualified and have requisite expertise in various sectors to examine and appraise the projects and recommend them for grant of Environmental conditions to ensure sustainable environmental management.

11. That the Environmental Clearance dated 06.11.2017 granted to the project in question, inter-alia, stipulates various general and specific conditions to be implemented by the project proponent to ensure environment protection. The Environmental Clearance may be revoked or suspended if any of the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance are not reported to be satisfactory.

12. That the Ministry has examined the recommendations of EAC and the EC was granted on 06.11.2017 to the M/s Numaligarh Refinery for bamboo based bioethanol project and considering the EIA/EMP report and the Ministry has stipulated various mitigation measures to protect the environment.”

6. On behalf of the Project Proponent, it is pointed out that ethanol blending using bamboo as raw material is a National programme to generate renewable green fuel. It will not add any pollution. Thus, the prohibition in the Notification dated 05.07.1996 is not a prayer. As regards the compliance of the ToRs, it is submitted that the water consumption has been duly assessed and impact of air pollution has also been considered.

7. Summing up of the stand of Project Proponent is as follows:

“10. The proposed project does not fall within the ‘No Development Zone’ of the Kaziranga National Park and the ‘No Development Zone’ as notified by the MoEF & CC vide Notification dated 05.07.1996 was for notifying a radius of 15 kms around the Numaligarh Refinery as a no-development zone. In fact, this project is more in the nature of extension and expansion of NRL activities with common infrastructure such as the ETP, water source, etc. just for the record, the Nambor Dolgrung Sanctuary is 19.9 Km away and the Kaziranga National Park is 22.5 km away and the Garmpani Wildlife Sanctuary is 22.5 km away from the project site. The fact that the NDZ Notification needs to be considered, has already been submitted in the EIA/EMP Report on page 2-2 of the EIA/EMP Report which has been duly considered by the MOEF & CC in the granting of EC. 11. The Respondent No.3, NRL submits that the project does not suffer from any infirmity and has obtained all the requisite clearances under the law especially environmental law. Thus, the project of the Respondent No.3, NRL:

a. Has complied with the rigorous EIA process and the same is not fraught with any illegalities;( para 5, pgs 335-342A of the Reply by Respondent No.3, Numaligarh Refinery Limited).

i. Has complied with the ToRs specifically ToR 2 relating to details of raw material such as grains and bamboos and their availability (pg 336, para 5(i), ToR 4 relating to process water generation (pg 338, para 5(ii)), ToR 6 relating to fresh water consumption (pg 339, para 5 (iii)), ToR 8 with regard to ground water (pg 340, para 5(iv)), ToR 11 relating to odour (pg 341, para 5(v))and Additional ToR No. 2 relating to air emissions (pg 342, para 5 (vi) of the Reply Respondent 3 Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.)

ii. In brief : ToR 2- Details of bamboo availability has been given. Annexure XI of the EIA/EMP Report gives details of feedstock assessment.

iii. ToR-4- Detailed calculation of waste water/KL of ethanol have been given which as per global standards. iv. ToR6-Water consumption has to be assessed given the multiple products that will be produced in the said Project such as Bioethanol, Furfual, Acetic Acid and 20 MW of power, for which water consumption is quite moderate. This has been ignored by the Applicant.

v. ToR 8- there is no possibility of ground water pollution as the small quantity of effluent that will be generated will be treated by the existing ultra modern ETP of NRL. Monitoring protocol has also been prescribed to check any kind of ground water contaminated.

vi. ToR 11- Control of all kinds of fugitive emissions including Odour have been dealt with in the Section 4.4. of the EIA/EMP Report.

vii. Additional ToR No. 2 - There are permanent Air Quality Monitoring Stations to measure cumulative air quality. And the conclusions are not based on one time data.

viii. Also as per the allegations in the rejoinder, line source and emissions from storage tanks have also been considered on pg 10-3; point no. 10.3.2.1 specifically. Similarly with regard to VOC emissions there is an attempt to mislead this Tribunal which has again been responded in the EIA/EMP at page 7-5 at Table No. 7.5.

b. Has conducted Air pollution studies in detail and has an environment management plan in place (para 7, pg 343-345 of the Reply by Respondent No. 3, Numaligarh Refinery Limited). c. Has considered various parameters for baseline water quality studies and has an action plan in place (para 11, pg 340 of the Reply by Respondent No. 3, Numaligarh Refinery Limited). d. Has done water sourcing assessment (para 12, pg 46- 347 of the Reply by Respondent No. 3, Numaligarh Refinery Limited). e. Is not located in the NDZ Area (para 13, pg 347-349 of the Reply by Respondent No. 3, Numaligarh Refinery Limited). f. Has made no misrepresentations in Form-I and the EIA Report (para 19-20, pg 345-55 of the Reply by Respondent No. 3, Numaligarh Refinery Limited). g. Has conducted public hearing in accordance with law (para 21, pg 356-358 of the Reply by Respondent No. 3, Numaligarh Refinery Limited). Infact the news report now filed along with the rejoinder needs to be disregarded as it is dated and an afterthought, which is not permissible.”

8. We are unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the

Appellant for the reasons explained by the MoEFCC as well as the project proponent. The Notification dated 05.07.1996 does not place absolute prohibition for setting up or expansion of industrial activities. However, such activities must not result in any pollution or congestion without approval of the Central Government. In the present case, the project in

question is for substituting fossil fuel by generation of renewable green fuel. EC has been granted after due consideration and does not suffer from any illegality on that count. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) has also duly examined the aspect of potential of air pollution and consumption of water. On this ground also, we are unable to accept the plea of the appellant.

The appeal is dismissed.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

S. P. Wangdi, JM

Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM August 18, 2020 Appeal No. 11/2018 SN