Fighting against POLLUTION to Save Environment

SUPREME COURT MONITORING COMMITTEE

  1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various orders has made suggestions for:

    1. Gradual reduction in TDS load but reduction nonetheless;
    2. Expediting the work of laying of 18 km pipeline to carry treated effluents from PETL to Amberpet STP.
    3. Segregation of high and low TDS effluents by member industries, and member industries required to put up their own secondary treatment plant if they were generating more than 40 KLD of effluents. The non-degradable wastes are to be evaporated or solidified for disposal to TSDF.
    4. CPCB in its affidavit filed in March, 2001 had submitted to the Supreme Court that where STP is not having biological treatment facility, the effluent to be discharged into sewer should be treated to the standard for inland surface water disposal. The Amberpet STP does not have such a facility.
    5. Providing pretreatment by member industries to meet inlet standards without resorting to fresh water dilution.

  2. The analysis report of the samples collected at the outlet of the CETP during the months of September, 2005 and October, 2005 shows that the parameters – the total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, chlorides, sulphates, COD, BOD and Pb – exceed the standards stipulated for disposal into surface water courses
  3. As stated above, there have been several orders from the Supreme Court and recommendations of the Fact Finding Committee constituted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which have gone unheeded by both the member industries and PETL.
  4. In response to the Board’s order dated 05.08.2005, PETL finally made a representation on 30.08.2005 informing the Board that:

    1. It would bring down the TDS level at the inlet to 12,000mg/ltr by 1.11.2005, and that it will further be brought down to 10,000 mg/ltr by 01.01.2006.
    2. It claimed there is no viable technology for achieving TDS (inorganic) of 2100 mg/ltr at the outlet of CETP, Patancheru.
    3. It also claimed that it is a worldwide practice that treated effluent is mixed with sewage water for final disposal, etc.
    4. PETL further argued that the pipeline project be allowed for the transfer of treated effluent to Amberpet sewage treatment plant as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as it was the only available realistic practicable solution for the disposal of the treated effluent to sewer standard.

  5. As can be seen from the facts related above, there were virtually no serious efforts made by PETL to comply with the various orders made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, except to place all their hopes on the construction of the 18 km pipeline which was getting delayed on account of various problems and which would basically involve transfer of pollution from one site to another. The Board could not continue to allow partially treated effluents to be discharged into Manjeera River through Isukavagu/Nakkavagu, as Manjeera River water is used for drinking water purposes for villages in the downstream. It is important that PETL gets serious and take all efforts to meet the standards prescribed by APPCB in its order dated 05.08.2005.These standards have been notified by the MoEF, Govt. of India, for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of environment and preventing/ abatement of pollution and as these standards are achievable.
  6. The worldwide practice relating to the use of sewage by ETPs has been to stipulate standards for the treated industrial effluents before letting these into the sewage treatment plant. This would ensure that there is no shock loading in the sewage treatment plant by the industrial effluents, which was not being done by PETL before 05.08.2005. It is only after 05.08.2005 that a standard has been prescribed in conformity with EPA norms for the outlet of PETL.
  7. Today M/s PETL continues to discharge partly treated effluents into Isukavagu/Nakkavagu, which is a surface water body. These wastes contain high TDS and are transferring hazardous wastes through water route to public water bodies with all the negative consequences. Therefore, in the event of non-completion of 18-km pipeline, the Amberpet STP not being upgraded, the standards of surface water disposal are applicable to the CETP.
  8. After repeated meetings with the Board, and demands for more stringent implementation from the SCMC, and considering the practicalities and time scale involved and intent of the parties to improve practice, the Board issued fresh orders on 26.12.2005 in which it imposed limits for discharge of influent and effluent with TDS norms to be met by the CETP and by the individual industries by April 1, 2006. (A similar order was also issued for JETL and industries linked to it.)
  9. The earlier orders of this Hon’ble Court in WP.No.1056/90 require the PETL to continuously reduce its TDS load. Since TDS load is related to generation of hazardous wastes from CETP, the duty of the CETP is to extract the TDS to the extent required by law and to have it transported to the TSDF. Thus, the two orders of the apex court are perfectly in harmony. The environment is securely protected. It improved vastly in 1998 pursuant to the orders passed in that year. There is now the prospect of full compliance with EPA norms in 2005/6, pursuant to the directions given in the order dated 14.10.2003.
  10. The recent test results have shown that the PETL has significantly improved its effluent discharge despite its protestations that nothing can be done. With further pressures from the board, we are confident that the PETL will be able to meet the norms, if necessary with the inclusion of additional technology. In its respectful opinion, the SCMC feels there is no need at this stage for any interference in this matter by this Hon’ble Court.

    11. Issues in the JETL petition:
  11. The case of the JETL is on a different footing from the PETL.
  12. While the PETL had made serious efforts to restrict TDS at the plant inlet at 15,000 mg/l, the JETL, firmly convinced that it was not covered by the orders of 1998, went completely out of control. It did two things that are unwarranted in the eyes of this Committee.

    1. It allowed at the inlet effluents with TDS in excess of 15,000 mg/l, often going to a high of 100,000 mg/l and sometimes 150,000 mg/l TDS;
    2. The CETP did not treat its effluents. On the contrary, it merely diluted its effluent with sewage. If the PETL used effluent to sewage in the ratio of , the JETL used tonnes of sewage for every tonne of effluent. The PCB has found that there was no difference in the quality of the effluent after it was allegedly treated and before it was mixed with sewage.

  13. Thus it is clear that the JETL was being used by a few large industries as practically a primary effluent treatment plant for their untreated effluents which violated the basic concept of a CETP which requires primary treatment to be done at the industry level. Treatment was non-existent in the face of widespread dilution. After this, the effluent with still high TDS was being dumped into public sewers. This was a violation of the EPA norms, which do not permit the discharge of effluents in this manner.
  14. The 1998 apex court orders required steady reduction of TDS. However, the JETL claimed they are not a party to the orders. Thus, the SCMC was being asked to believe that while the PETL was required to conduct its activities within norms, the apex court had allowed JETL to violate these with impunity. In fact, there is no CETP in the country at large with such high TDS discharge on land or surface waters as JETL. It would have gone on had it not been for the order dated 14.10.2003 and the shock treatment administered by the SCMC.
  15. It appears that JETL has been singled out for special favours from the authorities. While PETL was fined whenever its discharges exceeded the norms, JETL was never fined despite the fact that it violated the norms in a more significant way than PETL.
  16. The first No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the AP Board to JETL in April 1988 clearly stipulated that “the industry shall treat the effluent to the standard laid down in IS 2490 (Part I), 1981 second revision, to surface water standards.” After 1988, the first CFO under the Water Act, 1974 was issued in November, 2000. It clearly stipulated that “JETL shall discharge the treated effluents after meeting inland surface water standards into public sewers which do not have secondary treatment (biological treatment) facility as per Annexure I, Item – 14 of the General Standards for discharge of environmental pollutants, issued by the MoE&F, GOI. The issue will be reviewed by the CFO Committee after six months and if JETL fails to achieve the standards, the consent will be withdrawn without any notice.”
  17. A supplementary report in respect of the functioning of the Jeedimetla Effluent Treatment Plant (JETL) was submitted by the Central Pollution Control Board as of October, 1998 as per the order of Hon’ble Court dated 12.05.1998. Subsequently, the following directions were given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 10.11.1998 as recommended in the said report:

    1. There will be no new member and no additional industrial load from outside Jeedimetla area allowed in the present CETP at Jeedimetla.
    2. Neighborhood concept and single membership issue shall be sorted out in consultation with other CETPs.
    3. There will be periodic monitoring by the State Pollution Control Board of JETL effluent at the outlet of CETP; and in the event of violation, fines may be imposed as per norms fixed by the said Board.
    4. The State Pollution Control Board in consultation with JETL management shall evolve a programme for gradual reduction of total dissolved solids (TDS) either at individual industry level or at combined level so as to ensure that the microbial activities at aeration tank is not perturbed and also from the point of view of desirable limit of combined waste water discharge at Amberpet Sewage Treatment Plant considering the beneficial uses of receiving water body (canal / river).
    5. The State Board shall instruct the JETL management for proper storage of ETP sludge at its own premises till the common TSDF facility is developed.

  18. In the year 2000, the Technical Committee of the AP Board recommended that a Multiple Effect Evaporator (MEE) be installed to deal with the high TDS. In compliance with the above orders, the APPCB issued directions to M/s. JETL on 08.12.2000 to take several steps to reduce TDS and to go in for multiple effect evaporator for accepting high TDS loads from December, 2001. While issuing this direction on 08.12.2000, it was brought to the notice of JETL that they were exceeding the values of phenols, ammoniacal nitrogen and TDS levels of treated effluents which were ranging from 17831 mg/l to 34305 mg/l. Thus it is clear that the JETL has been continuously violating the standards stipulated by the Board as well as SC orders. On 21.02.2000, the JETL assured the Board that it would improve its treatment so as to conform to the Board’s standards for its treated effluents. Despite this assurance made by JETL on 21.02.2000 regarding the direction dated 08.12.2000, no effort was made by JETL to meet its commitment, which was evident from the results of samples collected by the Board on 10.03.2000, 18.04.2000, 06.05.2000, 17.06.2000 and 04.08.2000.
  19. The consent issued in November, 2000 came up for review in 2001 and a revised CFO was issued in July, 2001 where for the first time the standard to be met was fixed as public sewer standard. This revision was done, in view of the proposal finally made by JETL to install a Multiple Effect Evaporator (MEE) by the end of 2001 in order to reduce the TDS load in the effluent at the outlet of JETL. It is clear that this revision was done as a stop gap arrangement to give reasonable time to JETL for installation and commissioning of MEE by end of 2001.
  20. It is pertinent to note that JETL failed to commission the MEE within the stipulated time stated above. As the installation of MEE by JETL was delayed, the consent for operation was renewed with the same conditions for one more year i.e. up to 30.04.2003, on a request made by JETL so that it could meet the commitment. It can be seen that APPCB had been accommodating the requests made by JETL for delaying installation of the MEE. In the opinion of the SCMC, this accommodation was not warranted since it meant that large quantities of hazardous wastes were being discharged into the environment, with the Musi river as the final destination. The people running JETL obviously have political clout and are able to continue chasing their profits despite being unable to meet the norms.
  21. The MEE was finally commissioned during January 2003 for disposal of high TDS effluents. However, the system was not properly stabilized and was not in continuous operation. It was not operated at full load, i.e. 200 KLD due to some technical problems like corrosion of tubes, etc. The Board issued directions dated 31.01.2003 to have the MEE system stabilized by 15.05.2003. However, no bank guarantees were taken by the Board as proof of intent to operate the system with commitment.