SCMC visit to west bengal
Report of discussions with WBPCB and of visits to HW units on May 24, 2004.
1. We first took up the issue of imports of hazardous wastes. During the HPC visit to Kolkatta, several instances of illegal import of hazardous wastes through the Port had been noticed. Was there any difference in the situation now?
2. The PCB officials informed me that no imports of banned hazardous wastes including batteries had taken place since then. They had not processed any application. Only recently, because of changes in the HW Rules (2003), they had received two applications for import of lead acid batteries. One (from Associated Pigments Ltd) they had rejected because of non-compliance by the unit concerned with earlier directions by the Board; the second (from Leadstone Energy Ltd) they had approved for onward transmission to MoEF. These are the first cases that have come up since the order of the apex court in 1997 banning the import of all such wastes.
3. The Board informed me of a case of illegal import of zinc wastes (flux and skimmings) impounded by Customs on the Indo-Bangladesh border. The consignment had less than 65% zinc and more than 9% lead. However, no steps were taken by the Customs to return the wastes to the sender. Instead, precious time has been lost in correspondence, indicating the relevant authorities are still unsure of what to do in such cases. (Compare this with the illegal import of 40 containers of garbage to India from Ireland. The consignment was impounded at Rotterdam by the Dutch authorities who checked the position thereafter immediately with the Indian government. After receiving a categorical no from India, the containers were sent back to Ireland).
4. A second case of illegal import involved a trader who landed a consignment from the UK (loaded in Germany) of stainless steel melting scrap with attachment of copper at 3% from old transformers. Total copper scrap was 768 kgs and the steel, 24832 kgs. Some samples tested through the Customs were found positive for PCB and PCT. This consignment violated the actual user requirement of the HW Rules. Instead of having the consignment sent back, much time was again lost in clarificatory correspondence. SCMC may note these cases and consider issue of necessary directions.
5. We discussed the lead acid battery and zinc recyclers and processors of used oil. The Board assured me that the situation had vastly improved since the last occasion when the HPC visited. All authorised units had the necessary pollution control equipment, even though the majority were small-scale. I asked them whether we should not take blood samples of people from the communities surrounding these units since the PCB now has the facility to do such testing in-house. The results of such sampling would enable us to further decide on whether these small units could be tolerated from the public health point of view. SCMC may consider issuing the necessary orders in this respect. (I later visited two lead processing units and was not impressed by the measures taken to prevent exposure of the workers to lead in various forms, from air emissions to lead slag and broken battery wastes).
6. The Board stated that it had decided that no further secondary smelters would be allowed within municipal limits. Neither would they allow any new unit for this kind of processing without a rotary furnace. I feel these could be implemented elsewhere in the country as well, as far as all new units are concerned. The officials however produced several sample analyses of ferro silicate slag from the larger units to caution against the view that these materials pass the TCPLP test.
7. As for the implementation of the Battery Rules, 2000, the position was still quite hopeless with Exide reporting a collection rate of 16% after three years. The Board expressed the view that there was a contradiction between the collection system and the permission granted to bulk consumers to auction their wastes albeit to registered recyclers. It stated that auctions be replaced by buy-back. Buy-back rates had also been recently enhanced. This situation will not improve unless some drastic action is taken.
8. We discussed the wastes containing chrome from the leather tanneries. Since this matter is under judicial review in another writ petition before the Supreme Court, the Board provided details of the new unit coming up at Karaidanga (24 Parganas). No unit has been granted authorisation and hence they are not part of the list of HW units provided by the Board.
9. We also discussed implementation of the Plastic Rules.
10. As far as inventory of HW in the state, the Board stated that the quantities were taken from the application letters and did not reflect actual quantities. They were now getting a grant from a development bank for conducting the exercise. The inventory was as per the 2000 Amendment. They felt that not even Form IV data may be correctly provided by the units concerned.
11. We visited three non-ferrous recycling units after the discussions in the afternoon. Two units, Kamala Metachem and Ranjan Industries, were next to each other and located in Kulai village, Howrah Dt. None had boards erected outside their gates. Neither had Metacon (Benaras Rd, Howrah) which we visited later. This is extremely poor implementation of the Court’s order. PCB should be worried. If such an elementary direction cannot be implemented, it is doubtful if claims of carrying out more difficult directions are made.
12. In none of the three units was the documentation available on site: authorisation, registration, papers from Customs for import, etc. These units are dealing with hazardous wastes. Such lackadaisical conduct cannot be excused. These units must be told to have a separate file with all the relevant papers and permissions which is maintained always at the site (and not in some office somewhere else in the city).
13. Kamala Metachem was dealing with zinc wastes imported from China via Singapore and from New Zealand, also imported via Singapore. There was no documentation available to indicate these consignments were allowed after they were found to have met the norms.
14. Ranjan Industries was not in operation at the time of visiting. Metacon, which had been found importing zinc wastes below 65%, did not have any papers at site.
15. All three companies were asked to be present at WBPCB office with their relevant papers on May 25, 2004.
16. Overall, looking at the documentation provided by Board officials, I found a remarkable improvement in the implementation of the HW Rules since the visit of the HPC. On paper, at least, the Board appears to have a firm grip on the issues relating to HW in the State, including the setting up of engineered landfills. I also visited the uptodate laboratory facilities. (The WBPCB should remain on guard to ensure that the kind of industries that have created havoc in Gujarat and AP are not granted consent to operate in the State.) On the ground, however, it appears that units generating or dealing with HW are not being visited as frequently as they should be. This, if remedied, would lead to far better implementation of the apex court’s directions.
May 24, 2004
Claude Alvares
Member, SCMC
Report of visits to HW units and discussions with Customs, Kolkata, on May 25, 2004
1. We began with a visit to Berger Paints. We met Safety Manager, S Dara and Senior Industrial Relations Manager M.K. Sen. According to the data sheet provided us by the WBPCB, the unit concerned generated 200 tonnes of process waste and a marginal quantity of ETP sludge. When we actually discussed the matter with the officials of the company, they denied these figures completely. Only the ETP sludge figure appeared to be approximate. The only wastes they sent out of the factory (they claimed) were around 20 barrels of irredeemable solvents. They had no authorisation for this, but believed it was not necessary since they were sending the solvents to a sister concern (BAICL) though located in another district.
2. This ISO 14001 company had constructed three raised tanks for the ETP sludge (150 kgs per year). They were storing it in this condition for several years. Apparently, NEERI had certified that it could be used as a fertiliser/soil conditioner in their garden, but the WBPCB had rejected the solution. So the sludge remained. The tanks were open to the sun so that the sludge could dry. However, it was also open to the rain so that it could get wet all over again.
3. The unit did not have authorisation for the large quantities of drums in which it received some 151 hazardous chemicals. They were sent after washing (not decontamination) to an authorised receiver. I asked the WBPCB to check whether these drums were being decontaminated as required by the receiver and whether he had the facility to do so. Chemically contaminated drums are Schedule I items.
4. We checked the board allegedly put up by the company outside the factory gate. The board was not in required size and merely contained xerox copies of the authorisation and registration orders. There was also a printout of the 151 chemicals being used within the factory. The factory officials they would rectify the situation and put up the information clearly on a 6x4 board. They said this would be done in Bengali and English. Compliance in 7 days. PCB to check.
5. We thereafter drove to ICI, a unit producing rubber chemicals. We met company officials including the GM. We were informed that 540 tonnes of hazardous wastes were being removed from three approved landfills and were being despatched to the Bayer incinerator in Mumbai with the consent of both the WB and Maharashtra PCBs. To my knowledge, these hazardous wastes (old stock) do not figure in any list of such wastes given to the SCMC by the PCB. The WBPCB ought to look seriously into providing the SCMC with a detailed picture of old stocks of hazardous wastes (lead, chrome in West Bengal)) and recommend a rehabilitation or evacuation plan (as was being done by ICI). ICI stated they were spending close to Rs.2 crore on the incineration.
6. According to the data sheet provided by the WBPCB, the unit was generating 143 tonnes of process wastes, 82 tonnes of ETP sludge and 54 tonnes of distillation residue. Again, these figures did not match the data provided by the unit to the PCB in form IV. ICI stated they had already sold off their paints unit to Berger (now BAICL), knocked off some production lines and reduced their hazardous waste generation overall. However, their wastes in 2002-3 were the same in quantity as wastes generated the previous year. The PCB’s figures in any event did not reflect the data provided to it in Form IV.
7. I find this discrepancy between the data provided by the Board and the units in their Form IV declarations (or on the ground) quite unsettling. This has also proven to be the case in Maharashtra. PCBs continue to use data provided in ancient applications for authorisation when they have ready access to data provided in Form IV. This practice has to change before the inventories proceed further. The reliability of these inventories based on applications is completely in doubt since they do not reflect what is actually happening on the ground.
8. I also noticed that the authorisations issued by the WBPCB nowhere state a) the quantities of hazardous waste generated by the unit and b) the precise destinations or units approved for disposal or re-use of such wastes. If such data is not made available in the authorisation, how will the PCB implement section 8 (ii) of the HW Rules (2000)? All other boards, in my experience, provide quantities in their authorisation orders. The present method of offering total freedom to despatch these wastes to unnamed “authorised recyclers” is bound to impede any scientifically based effort to track the movement of such wastes.
9. We thereafter returned to the Board office where we met the owners of the units visited on May 24, 2004 who had come with their papers. The owners of Kamala Metachem agreed to install the required board outside the factory providing the detailed information within 7 days. They also provided a list of zinc skimming consignments they had received over the year 2003 from different parts of the world. Ranjan Industries stated they imported lead wastes, but had not brought their import invoices with them. They were asked to produce them on May 26.
10. We asked Metacon about its illegal import of zinc wastes through the Indo-Bangladesh border. (The consignment had been impounded by customs). The owners flatly denied they had anything to do with the consignment and claimed they were being made the target of some unscrupulous trader who had perhaps got a copy of their authorisation.
11. We met P.P. De, Director General of the Directorate General, Commercial and Intelligence Statistics (DGCIS) and requested him to assist the SCMC in tracking down through their computer information system details of imports of hazardous wastes from all the Ports and ICDs in the country. Dr Hosabettu is to write an official request.
12. We took the data provided by one of the importers to Custom House where we met Custom officials M.K. Kedia and Dr I Marianna. We asked both officials whether lab tests had been conducted on the zinc skimming consignments: without such tests, how did the Customs determine that the zinc component was more than 65% and the lead and cadmium less than 1.25% and 1% respectively? We were informed at first that there was probably no testing done at all. Subsequently, we were informed that a circular had been received from a high level functionary within the organisation to release all such consignments even before the test results of samples taken were received. The officials also admitted that till date they were not aware if any test reports had been received of all the consignments that had been already released. They agreed to look for further details and took down the numbers of the Bill of Entry for the consignments listed and promised to get back to the Board/SCMC with the lab tests, if any.