CHENNAI: The Southern Bench of the National Green Tribunal in Chennai has expressed its displeasure over the delay in filing reports over the recent ammonia gas leak incident in Ennore. The tribunal posed a slew of questions to the Coromandel International Limited (CIL), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board regarding the case.
The NGT had earlier registered a Suo Motu case regarding the ammonia gas leak based on a TNIE report. The tribunal then sought detailed reports from the TNPCB, TNMB and the CIL about the incident.
When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, the tribunal raised questions as to whether the gas leak took place in the pipeline or from the storage chamber. “The leak reportedly took place during the pre-cooling process before unloading. But it is still not clear from where did the leaked ammonia come from,” Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana questioned the counsels for the CIL and TNPCB.
The bench also said the leakage was not restricted to the pipeline alone and it had spread over vast habitat areas. Meanwhile, the counsel for the CIL alleged hostility from the public while attempting to access the pipeline area. “We are yet to ascertain the actual reason behind the leak. We are waiting for the report from the TNPCB. We will cooperate with the regulatory bodies for a fair investigation,” advocate Prasad Vijayakumar, appearing for the CIL, told the bench.
However, the report submitted by the Director of Industrial Safety and Health (DISH) before the NGT stated that the unit (CIL) will identify the exact location and the extent of pipeline damage within a day and will rectify the same before commencing the ammonia transfer.
The bench expressed displeasure over the submissions of the CIL and directed them to file a detailed report. “You are best positioned to ascertain the cause since you are handling the facility,” expert member Satyagopal Korlapati told the counsel for the CIL.
The bench has impleaded the Chief Inspector of Dock Safety in the case. Even as the bench suggested active monitoring of preventive measures, it also questioned whether the lapse was on the part of the company or the monitoring authorities. The bench subsequently granted time to the respondents to file a detailed report and posted the matter for further hearing on February 6.