Ammonia storage facility and safety standards. CASE

Law Society of India v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travencore Ltd., AIR 1994 Ker 308. Varghese Kalliath and K. J. Joseph, JJ.

The petition was a PIL. It has challenged the operation of a 10,000 tonne Ammonia storage tank by the first respondents as being dangerous. It was contended that the Tank regularly causes air pollution and is thus causing serious damage to the environment. If a leak was to develop in the plant, it could exterminate all living things in the Cochin area.

The first respondent if a public sector undertaking producing 4.24% of the entire fertilizer consumed in our country .Ammonia is used as a raw material in the production of a number of fertilizers. In its counter affidavit, the company explained the use and storage of ammonia in the Storage Tank. It identified the various safety measures, which were in place. All the required permission had been obtained for setting up the Tank.

The Court then considered the history of the Storage Plants, wood gasification plant, oil gasification plant and so on. Finally, in 1973 the Company had set up a capralactum plant. The new storage tank was required not only to provide ammonia to this plant but also to provide ammonia to the Cochin plant instead of importing ammonia. They also proposed to set up a 900 TDP Ammonia plant. Once it was established, their import of ammonia would be reduced and their use of the Storage Tank too. However, the government had taken unduly long to grant sanction, which was finally secured in May, 1993. The respondents expected the plant to be fully operational by July, 1998.

The Ministry of Environment, 5th respondent argued in favour of the TDP plant. Relocation of the storage tank would take 3 yrs and building the new plant 4 Y2 yrs. They suggested that the amount of ammonia stored should be reduced or stopped completely by increasing capacity of plant.

The Port Trust Authority, 2nd respondent, argued that on the request of the first respondent, to prepare a contingency plan, the then Chairman had set up a task force. The task force had reported that the Tank posed a grave danger, they could formulate no contingency plan, and public sentiment was against it and had recommended re siting of the Tank without further delay. A letter was also filed by the employees of the Port alleging that leak of Ammonia is making life difficult for them.

The report of the 3rd respondent submitted that the proximity of the Tank to the airport and defence cargo berth increases the risk of damage to the Tank to an unacceptable limit. During course of trial it was brought to light that a minor explosion had occurred on 6th June, 1989 near the tank.

The affidavit of the 4th respondent, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board submitted that sufficient precautions were not in place. A task force was set up to formulate a plan for comb acting any major leak. The task force expressed its inability to do so and concluded that in case of an accident, whole city would be affected. They suggested that any interim storage must be done on the factory premises itself.

The 6th respondent, the District Collector suggested that the only viable option was that the 900 TDP plant must be established with all haste and the Tank be decommissioned. The State of Kerala recommended shifting of the Tank. Other respondents contended that decommissioning the Tank will have multifarious consequences, such as a number of people losing their jobs, the fertilizer production falling short of demand, etc.

The question before the Court was two-fold. Firstly, consequences of an incident at the Tank and secondly the possibility of such an accident. To answer the first question, the Court considered the following points-

( 1) physical properties of ammonia

(2) toxic effects of ammonia

(3) possible sources of ammonia leaks and likely consequences -small leaks, major leaks

(4) hazards

(5) siting of the ammonia storage tanks

(6) construction of the foundation and its failure

The Court appointed 2 Commissioners, who are considered environmental experts by the international community, to investigate the vocational hazard and potential danger posed by the Tank. Mr Campbell, one of the experts, submitted detailed reports on all the various points and concluded that a plant for production of ammonia at Udyogmandal is the only solution to avoid catastrophic risk element involved in the continuation of the storage tank at Willingdon Island. The Court accepted this opinion as sound.

The Court also considered the opinion delivered by IIT, Madras on 17/6/1985 on the soundness of the foundation of the Tank but rejected it as it felt the report was tainted with indifference and slovenliness. The Court considered the development of environmental rights in this country. The Report of Neeri and the Findings of the Pollution Control Board were placed before the Court. It held that it could not conclusively determine whether the leak from the ammonia storage tank was causing air pollution in the surrounding area.

The Court then considered general principles in International Environmental law starting from the Stockholm Declaration to the various global summits which have been held. It also reviewed the various environmental disasters such as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. It then considered the various Acts applicable to environmental preservation in India. These include the Factories Act, 1948, Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure, Travancore-Cochin Public Health Act, 1955, Panchayat Act, 1960, Municipalities Act and Corporation Act. Art. 48 A and 51 A of the Constitution., Environmental Protection Act, 1986, Public Liability Insurance Act, Finally, it concluded that the constitution of the Ammonia Storage Tank was in violation of Art. 21 of our Constitution. The Tank posed a devastating danger to the surrounding areas and the Court felt such a risk did not come within the risks a country must bear in the interests of industrial development. The Court ordered that the tank be decommissioned and that it be emptied within 3 months.