The counsel for the company informed a two-judge green bench of the Madras high court that steps to prevent condensation of moist gas, cleansing of vented gas through a cleaning system and discontinuation of by-pass for converter gas will be implemented within 24 hours.

The company, he said, will increase the frequency of air-monitoring by means of on-line monitors attached to stacks from current once a week to twice a week. Additinally, the company will constantly maintain sulphur-di-oxide levels below the stipulated level of 4 kg per tonne.

The effluent-treatment plant, the counsel said, has been undergoing upgradation in the last two weeks and steps will be taken to ensure that arsenic levels in the effluents do not exceed the level in the water sourced by the company.

On reducing the size of the search-pond to one-fifth of its actual size, Sterlite's counsel argued that it was based on the company's plan to increase its capacity to one-lakh-tonne per annum. He pleaded that this factor should not be held as a pre-condition for reopening the plant.

Sterlite has also promised that designing of a green belt will commence immediately even as it appoints an agency for carrying out comprehensive environmental-impact assessment and for securing land-fill within the next two months.

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, which drew flak on the Sterlite issue, maintained that the company neither polluted the water nor the air. The board is monitoring the plant's functioning closely and is yet to grant permission to the company to increase its capacity, the board's counsel said.

The bench, however, criticised the board for not conducting an independent study to evaluate the environmental impact, despite complaints. It was also surprised that the plant was working even though the board's consent to operate the plant expired on March 31, 1998.

The amicus curiae, appointed by the bench to assist it on the matter, putforth three conditions. One, whether the consents given were so flawed prima facie that they are illegal and unreliable, second, whether the plant operation reveals serious failure to comply with pollution-control requirements and, third, whether the court was reasonably satisfied that there is no real and clear large-scale danger both to the employees and public.

He said that if the answer to any of these questions were negative then the plant's closure is justified. He was also surprised that even though there was a stipulation that the plant be set up beyond 25 km distance from the ecologically-fragile area, the company managed to put up the unit in violation of that clause. Moreover, the company had not even approached any agency seeking relaxation of the norm. Hearing on the case will continue on Monday.