environmental assessment jasodharpur industrial area kotdwar,...

1

Environmental AssessmentJasodharpur Industrial Area

Kotdwar, Uttarakhand

Centre for Science and EnvironmentNew Delhi

© 2012 Centre for Science and Environment

Material from this publication can be used, but with acknowledgement.

Prepared by: Centre for Science and Environment41 Tughlakabad Institutional AreaNew Delhi – 110 062, IndiaPh: 91-11-2995 6110, 2995 5124, 2995 6394, 2995 6499Fax: 91-11-2995 5879, 2995 0870Email: [email protected] Website: www.cseindia.org

2

3

ContentsExecutive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Jasodharpur Industrial Area.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Location........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

2. Technology .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Induction Furnace......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Reheating Furnace........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

3. History of Protests..............................................................................................................................................................10

4. Monitoring and Enforcement status: UEPPCB..................................................................................................................11

5. CSE Visits .............................................................................................................................................................................13

5.1 People’s Concerns.........................................................................................................................................................................13

5.2 Factory Visits.................................................................................................................................................................................13

5.3 Conclusion and Recommendations...............................................................................................................................................23

Annexures ...........................................................................................................................................................................26

References ...........................................................................................................................................................................88

4

Jasodharpur Industrial Area (JIA) of the StateInfrastructure and Industrial DevelopmentCorporation of Uttarakhand (SIDCUL) has about

20 factories producing steel using inductionfurnaces. Situated near Kotdwar town of PauriGarhwal district in Uttarakhand, JIA was set up in1996-97.

Since 2008, the local communities have beencomplaining and agitating against the pollution fromfactories in the JIA. Their main concerns are airpollution and improper solid waste disposal. Afterprotests in 2008 and 2009 also the UttarakhandEnvironment Protection and Pollution Control Board(UEPPCB) allowed the factories to operate with noconcrete action. In December 2011, the peopleaggrieved by the increasing pollution levels, decidedto come on the streets. They blocked the road to theindustrial area and refused to move till theirdemands were met. One of the demands of thepeople was to get an environmental assessment ofthe area done by the New-Delhi based NGO Centrefor Science and Environment (CSE).

The UEPPCB in December 2011 requested CSE tocarry out an environmental impact assessment ofJIA. CSE agreed to do the study. The CSE studyinvolved a preliminary visit to JIA, collection ofinformation from various sources, comprehensivesurvey of the operating factories and interactionwith various stakeholders.

The key findings of the CSE study are:� The factories in JIA are operating without a

consent to operate and hence are operatingillegally. The UEPPCB is not granting consentsto these factories but still allowing them tooperate which is beyond our understanding.This situation is clearly untenable: allowing thefactories to operate without a consent and thenasking them to meet standards

� The pollution control equipment in thesefactories is highly inadequate causing massivepollution

� Solid waste disposal is a major problem and thecurrent slag dumping site on the bank of riverSigaddi Srot at Sigaddi is unplanned and willlead to huge water and land pollution duringrainy season.

Our main recommendation is that these factoriesshould not be allowed to function without a consentto operate. All illegal factories should be shut downwith immediate effect till the UEPPCB gives them theconsent. UEPPCB should grant them consent onlywhen it is sure that these factories will be able tomeet the pollution norms. Simultaneously, factoriesshould be given three months to upgrade theirpollution control equipment to meet the norms.CSE’s assessment identifies that currently none ofthe factories at JIA can meet the norms due to highlyinadequate pollution control equipment. Within thesame three months a common effluent treatmentplant should also be set up at JIA to treat the effluentfrom wet scrubbers of all the factories. As much aspossible the slag should be reused and additionalthree months should be used to set up a landfill sitefor the slag being generated in these factoriesdifferent from the present one.

Also, electricity meters should be installed at allpollution control equipment to keep a tab on theirelectricity consumption. UEPPCB and SIDCULshould ensure proper disclosure of the pollutionstatus of the area due to the JIA factories. Thosewho comply to conditions within this time frame should be allowed to operate and othersshould be closed.

CSE offers to survey the status of the imple -mentation of recommendations of its report in sixmonths time.

Executive Summary

5

The Uttarakhand Environment Protection andPollution Control Board (UEPPCB) vide LetterNo.: UEPPCB/ROH/Misc./2011/2004 dated

December 12, 2011 asked the Centre for Science andEnvironment (CSE) to carry out an environmentalimpact assessment (EIA) of Jasodharpur IndustrialArea (JIA) near Kotdwar town in Pauri Garhwaldistrict of Uttarakhand (Annexure I: Copy of theUEPPCB letter). CSE replied by stating that instead of an EIA, it will carry out an environmental assessment of JIA to understand theground realities.

The methodology adopted for the assessmentstarted with a preliminary visit to the area tounderstand the situation and familiarise with theissues around the JIA. A CSE representative visitedthe area in December 2011 for this preliminarysurvey. Then data and information was collectedfrom the UEPPCB about the industrial area likenumber and capacities of factories, showcause/closure notices served, complaints filed, etc.Following the analysis of the information obtainedfrom UEPPCB and the preliminary visit report, a finalvisit to the area was carried out. The second CSEvisit was in March 2012 when the team carried out acomprehensive study visiting every operationalfactory, the slag dump area at Sigaddi, affectedpeople and the UEPPCB in Dehradun.

Environmental Assessment of Jasodharpur Industrial Area

Final Report

1. Introduction

Jasodharpur Industrial Area in Kotdwar

KA

NC

HA

N K

UM

AR A

GRA

WA

L / CSE

This final report is a compilation of the preliminarysurvey, information from UEPPCB, stakeholderperception and the final survey.

1.1 Jasodharpur Industrial Area

The Jasodharpur Industrial Area was set up inKotdwar in the year 1996-971. The JIA was under theUttar Pradesh State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation when it was established2. It was only inthe year 2011 that the same was transferred to theState Infrastructure and Industrial DevelopmentCorporation of Uttarakhand (SIDCUL). As per theUEPPCB, there are 24 factories in the industrial areaspread over 90 acres. The UEPPCB pegs the numberof operational factories as 18 (see Table 1: List offactories in Jasodharpur Industrial Area). The factoriestogether have a capacity of 13,930 metric tonnes permonth (MT/m) of MS Ingot and 8,450 MT/m of bar.This amounts to 1.67 lakh MT/annum for ingot and1.01 lakh MT/annum for bar. At the time of site visit inMarch 2012, only 17 factories were operational3.

All the factories at JIA which are producing MSingots use induction furnaces. In March 2012,

fifteen of the visited factories were producingingots. Each of these have two furnaces but at thetime of inspection only one was operational andone was on stand-by. The factories that producebars have reheating furnace. At the time of visit inMarch, only two of the operational factories hadreheating furnaces. Slag produced in thesefactories was originally dumped within theindustrial area but is now being dumped at adesignated site near Sigaddi4. This site wasdesignated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)of Kotdwar following the December 2011 protests(Annexure III: Copy of permission to dump slag at Sigaddi).

1.2 Location

Kotdwar is a small town located at the border ofUttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. JIA is located near Kotdwar tehsil of Pauri Garhwal district. JIA lies between 78.420E, 29.770N and 78.430E, 29.770N.

The maximum temperature recorded in the monthof June is 45°C at Kotdwar. Temperature descends toa minimum of 1.3°C in January, and mean monthly

6

Source: Information provided by UEPPCB (Annexure II)

Name of the factory Product Capacity (in MT/m)

Kukreti Steel MS Ingot 750

Shree Sidhbali Sugar, Unit I MS Ingot 1200

Shree Dhanvarsha Steels MS Ingot 70

Sant Steels & Alloys MS Ingot 600

Uttaranchal Iron & Ispat, Unit I MS Bar 1800

Uttaranchal Iron & Ispat, Unit II MS Ingot 2160

Kotdwar Steels MS Ingot 1300

Sumo Steels MS Ingot 1500

Himgiri Ispat MS Ingot 950

Pushkar Steels MS Ingot 1000

HRJ Steels MS Ingot 550

Jai Mateshwari Steels MS Ingot 750

Poddar Alloys MS Ingot 850

Bhagyashree Steels & Alloys MS Ingot 900

JN Ispat MS Flat, Angle, Tee Barete 400

Amritvarsha Udhyog MS Ingot 600

PL Steels MS Ingot 750

Shree Sidhbali Sugar, Unit II TMT Bar 6250

Table 1: List of factories in Jasodharpur Industrial Area

temperature for the region ranges from 25°C to 30°C5.Rainfall is recorded from mid-June till mid-Septemberand the average annual rainfall is 218 cm6.

Rajaji National Park is at a distance of about 34 kmand Jim Corbett National Park at 18 km from JIA(see Figure 1: National parks around JIA). The areais also a declared elephant corridor – the Rajaji-

Corbett corridor which has two forest ranges:Laldhang and Kotdwar7. The corridor lying nearthe Kotdwar town, connects the elephantpopulation of Rajaji and Corbett National Parks(see Figure 2: Elephant Corridor near Kotdwar)8.The Kotdwar-Lansdowne road and the heavytraffic along with the difficult topography of thearea prevent elephants from crossing9. The JIA

7

Figure 1: National parks around JIA

Source: Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi

Figure 2: Elephant Corridor near Kotdwar


Rajaji National Park

Jim Corbett National Park

Industrial EstateElephant Corridor

Elephant corridor

Kh

oh r

iver

Kotdwar

JIS’s dump area

JIS (JasodharpurIndustrial Estate)

Lansdowne

Kotdwar-Lansdowne roadSigaddi srot

Rajaji NationalPark

Jim Corbett National Park

8

falls within the elephant corridor as does the slagdump site at Sigaddi. The dump area Sigaddi isabout three km from the industrial area (see Figure3: Slag dump area - Sigaddi). The dump area is closeto the Sigaddi growth centre – another industrial

area. The slag is being dumped in a designated plotwhich is at the river bank and very close to theriver bed. The river Sigaddi Srot is a seasonal rain-fed river and is also a tributary of River Ganga10.

Sigaddi dump site next to the river bank

Figure 3: Slag dump area – Sigaddi


SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

3 km

Industrial Estate

Sigaddi srot

Slag dump area

degrees

9

2.1 Induction Furnace

Induction furnace is an electric furnace in whichmetal is heated using induction. Althoughinvented in 1877, the wide use of induction

furnace started only after 192711. The heat neededto melt the raw materials is generated usingelectricity and its electromagnetic effect. The rawmaterial which may range form scrap to spongeiron is fed into the furnace. The capacities of an induction furnace range from about a kg to a 100 tonnes but the popular capacity range is: 1-5 tonnes.

There are two types of induction furnaces:

Coreless: This kind of induction furnace hascopper coils through which electricity is suppliedto create the desired amount of heat. The coils arecovered by a material that has a high melting pointwhich is in turn covered by a pot of a heat resistantmaterial. The raw material is fed into the pot andthe heat from copper coils melts it. All the factoriesat JIA are using coreless induction furnaces.

Core/Channel: The working is similar to thecoreless induction furnace. The only difference isthe presence of a heated core.

After melting, the metal is poured into a mould.This may be done in two different ways – the tilting

type furnace or the lower tap furnace. The formeris where the furnace is tilted on a one-sided hingeto pour the molten metal into a mould and thelatter is where the furnace is fixed and a tap is openat the bottom of the furnace to pour the moltenmetal into the mould. At JIA, all the inductionfurnaces are tilting type ones.

The selection of a proper power rating for thefurnace is very important for achieving the propermelting temperature. The power depends onmaterial and capacity to be melted, desired cycletime, etc12. Specific power consumption norm ininduction furnace is 620 kWh/tonne of liquidmetal13. Practically achievable optimum value ofspecific energy consumption is 625–650 kWh/tonne14. Specific power consumption of a typicalcoreless type induction furnace is 500 kWh/tonneof liquid metal produced15. At JIA about1,100–1,200 kWh/tonne of electricity is beingused leaving huge scope for improvement. TheUttarakhand government should design aprogramme to upgrade technology in thesefactories to reduce electricity consumption.

2.2 Reheating Furnace

This is the main equipment in a rolling mill. Theraw materials are billets, ingots, slabs, etc. Fuelused is either coal, gas or oil and the furnaces canbe bottom fired or top fired.

2. Technology

Labourers at work at an induction furnace in Kukreti Steels at JIA

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

10

The JIA is near the residential area. Theindustry claims that the residential area hasgrown in size only after the industrial cluster

was established. People complained of healthissues due to air pollution and adverse impact dueto disposal of slag in agricultural fields in 2008. Thegovernment says that it was helpless as the landon which the industrial estate was present did notbelong to Uttarakhand government at that time. In2008, the land was under the UPSIDC which gottransferred to SIDCUL only in December 2011. Agroup was formed to resolve the matter. The grouphad public representatives and people fromindustries and the government. After the protest,the factories made certain promises like installinga stack, marking out a slag dumping zone,developing a green belt, not using coal illegally intheir reheating furnaces to avoid air pollution, etc.This group was to inspect and check whether thesepromises are fulfilled or not. People allege that themovement and the group thus formed was foiledby the industry and the government.

In December 2008, the Kissan MahasabhaSangharsh Samiti of Kotdwar filed a complaint withthe UEPPCB about pollution from factories at JIA.Local residents staged another protest inNovember 2011 after they found that repeatedcomplaints also were not being met withappropriate action. People from affected villagesassimilated at the entrance of the industrial clusterfor the dharna. Trucks carrying raw material werenot allowed to enter the industrial area as the localresidents blocked the road. The protest went

strong from November 27 to December 6. Thepeople of villages Maganpur, Haldukhata,Jasodharpur were present in dharna at the time ofthe visit. Main demands/concerns of the protestingpeople were:

● Centre for Science and Environment (CSE),New Delhi should carry out an environmentalassessment of the area.

● The SDM should order all such factories shutthose found flouting pollution norms duringhis inspection.

● Till the UEPPCB submit their report, the JIAfactories should remain shut.

● Factories using coal illegally should be shut.● These demands will be considered accepted

only when the SDM gives a written acceptance.● The JIA should be moved from the densely

populated area.● Legal cases filed against those protesting

should be withdrawn.

Dharna got lifted on December 6 when thegovernment agreed to certain demands raised bythe people. One of agreed demand was that CSEshould be the agency that should be given theresponsibility of conducting an environmentassessment of the area. The SDM’s assessment andsubsequent closure of the factories was alsoagreed with. Although request for shutting offactories which were causing pollution and usingcoal illegally was also made to the government theindustries have not been shut. Nor has the demandthat the JIA be moved away been met.

3. History of protests

Residents protest against the pollution from JIA in December 2011

ISHIK

AA

SHA

RMA

/ CSE

11

In February 2009, the UEPPCB carried out adetailed inspection of the JIA based oncomplaints of pollution (Annexure IV: Copy of the

complaint letter)16. The complaint was filed by theKissan Mahasabha Sangharsh Samiti Kotdwar inDecember 200817. The inspection was carried outby SDM Kotdwar, District Industrial AssociationKotdwar, UEPPCB Dehradun and factory ownersalong with the representatives of the SangharshSamiti18. The team carried out the inspection for 16factories, 13 out of these were operating eitherwithout a consent under air or water act.

Most of these factories had not even applied for theconsent while a few had applied but not received it(see Table 2: UEPPCB Inspection in February 2009).But the UEPPCB did nothing to rectify this illegalityof operating without consent. All of them did nothave any proper slag disposal and stacked thecrushed slag within their premises. Fifty per cent of

the inspected factories, had non operational wetscrubbing systems and more than 50 per cent hadsmall hood size leading to improper suction of airemissions. Also in 50 per cent of the inspectedfactories, particulate matter (PM) was found morethan the prescribed standard of 150 mg/Nm3. Thereis a big question mark on the PM data. PMmonitoring has been shown for factories that didnot even have a stack according to the UEPPCB’sown inspection for instance, Sant Steels and Alloys.

Some factories exhibited excessive fugitiveemissions within the premises while three of theinspected factories, did not have a stack. The onlyaction taken was that the consent application of theflouting factories was declined but without closingdown these factories which defies the very purposeof a consent to operate. It was merely mentioned inthese inspection reports that action should betaken but no records were provided by the UEPPCB

4. Monitoring and Enforcement status: UEPPCB

Source: UEPPCB Inspections - February 2009 (Annexure V)

Name of Water Improper Proper Air consent Water consent PM Small Stack Miscfactory scrubber suction slag (mg/ Hood

operational disposal Nm3)

Himgiri Ispat No No Declined Declined 220.65 Yes Fugitive emissions

JN Ispat No Yes No Not applied Not applied No

Kotdwar Steels No Yes Declined Declined 105.95 Yes Yes Fugitive emissions

Poddar Alloys Not applied Not applied 215.38 Yes Yes Fugitive emissions

Uttaranchal Yes Yes No Declined Declined 121.63 Yes YesIron & Ispat II

Uttaranchal No Declined Declined NoIron & Ispat I

Sumo Steels No No Not applied Not applied 181.2 Yes

Jai Mateshwari No Not applied Not applied Yes Shut during Steels inspection

(since 3 months)

Sant Steels & Yes Yes No Not applied Not applied 128.86 Yes No Fugitive Alloys emissions

Pushkar Steels Yes Yes No Applied Applied 145.75 No Yes

Amritvarsha Yes No No Declined Declined 199.39 Yes YesUdhyog

Shree Sidhbali No Applied Applied 137.39 YesSugar I

Kukreti Steels No Yes No Not applied Not applied 178.63 Yes Yes

Shree Yes No No Not applied Not applied 204 Yes YesDhanvarshaSteels

Bhagyashree No No Not applied Not applied 189 Yes YesSteels & Alloys

HRJ Steels Yes No Applied Applied 90.45 Yes

Table 2: UEPPCB Inspection in February 2009

12

to prove that any action was taken following theFebruary 2009 inspections.

Following the December 2011 protests, sevenfactories were given show cause notices onDecember 7 and they had to file their replies byDecember 22 (Annexure VI: Copies of show causenotices). All of them were served notices underSection 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Controlof Pollution) Act 1981 based on pollutioncomplaints. Although the inspections for thesefactories were carried out on August 11, 2011 theywere served notices only in December after theprotest. Factories that were served show causenotices and inspection findings are given below:

� Pushkar Steels: The factory did not haveproper hood collection and suction system forcollection and disposal of fumes. The air pollutioncontrol devices were not operational and there wasno arrangement of proper disposal of slag.� HRJ Steels: - The factory did not have properhood collection and suction system for airpollution control. Also, other control devices werenot operational and there was no arrangement ofproper disposal of slag.� Kotdwar Steels: The factory did not haveproper hood collection and suction system forcollection and disposal of fumes. Also, the airpollution control devices were not operational andthere was no arrangement of proper disposal of slag.

� Himgiri Ispat: The factory did not have properhood collection and suction system for collectionand disposal of fumes. Also, the air pollutioncontrol devices were not operational and there wasno arrangement of proper disposal of slag.� Shree Sidhbali Sugar, Unit II: The factorychanged its reheating fuel from furnace oil to coalwithout prior permission of the UEPPCB.� Poddar Alloys: The factory installed areheating furnace without the prior permission ofthe UEPPCB and was using coal as the fuel.� Uttaranchal Iron & Ispat: The factory did nothave proper hood collection and suction systemfor air pollution control. Also, other controldevices were not operational and there was noarrangement of proper disposal of slag. Thefactory has installed a gasifier plant without thepermission of the UEPPCB.

According to UEPPCB, none of these factories havea consent to establish or operate at present. AnRTI filed in 2008 reveals that these factories weregranted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by theUttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Lucknowthe copy of which was not available with theUEPPCB (Annexure VII: Copy of RTI response).According to the UEPPCB, they are unable to granta consent to operate as none of these factories inthe JIA is meeting their standards satisfactorily19.The UEPPCB informs that these factories apply fora consent every year but fail to meet theirstandards leading to a ‘no consent’ situation.Essentially, all the factories are operating illegally.But the UEPPCB is solely responsible for thissituation where factories without a consent tooperate are functioning without any deterrencewhen they should be shut down immediately. Thelax attitude of the UEPPCB is responsible for thepresent pollution situation of JIA.

Factories visited say that pollution is not as big a problem in the area as it is being made out to be. They allege that when the industrial area was set up, there was no population around but with economic opportunities that the JIA has brought, people have shifted nearby only in recent years. On the other hand, a number of villagers claim to be living in the area for more than 30 years. The factoryowners do acknowledge that no one wants to live near the industrial area due to noise and pollution.

Dangerous and unhealthy working conditions at JIA

KA

NC

HA

N K

UM

AR

AG

RAW

AL

/ CSE

13

CSE visited the Jasodharpur Industrial Areafirst in December 2011. During this visit,affected people presented their concerns

and demands to CSE. Also, the CSE representativevisited about three factories and the slag dumparea. CSE also visited the outskirts of the RajajiNational Park where some slag dumps were found.The visit confirmed people’s allegations that airpollution and solid waste disposal is an issue.

In March 2012, CSE did a more comprehensive visitand factory inspection of JIA. The representativevisited the Sigaddi slag dump site and found thatslag was still being dumped there unscientifically.The dump site will cause immense water pollutionduring rains as a lot of slag is also being stacked onthe river bed of the seasonal river. A number of slaghills were observed scattered at various placesnear JIA and Sigaddi. However, no slag was seendumped on the outskirts of the Rajaji National Parkwhere road construction work was going on.People informed that all the previously dumpedslag has been utilised to build roads in that area.

5.1 People's Concerns

Most of the people complained of air pollution,noise pollution and improper solid waste disposal(Annexure VIII: Testimonials). People allege that theair pollution has created a number of respiratorydisorders like cough and asthma. People claim thatthere is so much dust and smoke from the factoriesthat even during summers they cannot open theirwindows for some fresh air. Another concernbrought forward was that some bird species havecompletely vanished from the area.

Others claim that the air and solid waste pollutionis affecting the agricultural fields. The slaggenerated in the factories comes to their fields withrains and has destroyed the fertility. One personsaid that where initially 800 m2 of land gave about0.2 tonnes wheat20, today not even 0.05 tonnes isbeing produced. People also point out that due toloud noise from the factories they are unable tosleep at night. Some people allege that because ofpollution from factories handicapped children arebeing born. Many residents claimed that they havebeen residing in the area for more than 30 years.

People allege that the level of air pollution is sohigh in the area that visibility becomes an issue,

especially in the morning hours. Many claim thatthere is no toilet facility for workers in thefactories because of which they defecate in theopen. During rains, this flows down into thevillages and is a great hygienic, health andaesthetic concern.

Some people claim that about 40 per cent of thearea's population is engaged in the factory byeither being directly or indirectly employed. Also,owing to the industrial area, a number of localshops like milk vending, kiryana, vegetable andfruit shops, etc., have come up and are providingsteady income. Also, these shops have translatedinto better accessibility to things for localresidents as well. People say that these factoriesdo not follow the standards laid down by thegovernment on pollution. If compliance to thesestandards can be ensured then the factories willfurther help in improving the economic and livingstandards of the residents. Some people allege thatabout 50 labourers have died in different accidentsin the factories in the last 4–5 years without anyaction from the government or industry.

5.2 Factory Visits

Each of the operational factories was inspected bythe CSE team. One inspection of JIA was done at4.30 am on March 26, 2012. Day inspections werecarried out on March 26 and 27, 2012.

Air pollution was observed during the dayinspection but the air pollution observed in the early morning visit was huge. There wasrampant flouting of norms by emitting smoke through the roofs of the factories. Thepollution extent was so high that the visibility wasaffected and remained so for a long time. The common observation on visiting thesefactories was that most of them do not have any technical staff looking after the factory which are being managed by accountsmanager, labour contractor or linesman. Therewere 17 operational factories at the time ofinspection (see Figure 4 : JIA Layout). The factorieswere asked to fill out a questionnaire asking themdetails of production, water and electricity use,raw material use and sourcing, slag generation, etc. Most companies did not have proper records of all these parameters and gaveapproximate information.

5. CSE Visits

14

Emissions escaping through the roof of a JIA factory

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

Non-operational suction device at a JIA factory

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

Poor housekeeping and unorganised work conditions – a characteristic of factories at JIA

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

15

Conventional wet scrubber systems, mostly non-operational, a common pollution abatement equipment at JIA factories

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

High visible fugitive emissions within the factory premises

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

CSE visit brings out the fact that factories at JIAare operating in a highly unorganised way. Inboth the CSE visits, immense air pollution levelswere observed. Stacks were seldom seen to be

used. Most of the emissions were being emittedfrom the roofs of the factories which implied thatthe emissions were not being captured by thepollution control equipment. Also, the airpollution within the factory premises was hugemaking the working environment extremelyunhealthy. The air pollution levels imply that thepollution control equipment in all the factories,even if present, is highly inadequate. Details of theinformation from the questionnaires andinspection are given below:

1. Shree Sidhbali Sugar, Unit II: This factory,established in 2009, has one reheating furnace withan annual capacity of 70,000 tonnes per annum(TPA) while the permissible annual capacityaccording to UEPPCB is 75,000 TPA21. The furnaceuses 8,000–10,000 litres (l) of furnace oil per day toproduce 200–250 tonnes22 of product. The factoryhas a wet scrubbing system. The factory has 85 fulltime staff. The factory has its own dumping sitewithin the industrial area (opposite Pushkar steel).About 2.5–3 per cent waste is generated in thefactory but the process manager had no estimate ofthe quantity of waste generated everyday.Housekeeping within the factory is extremely poor.The factory was the one that was served a show

16

1. Jay Mateshwari Steels2. Amritvarsha Udhyog3. Kukreti Steels4. Kalal Ghati Police Station5. Sant Steels & Alloys6. Uttranchal Iron & Ispat - Units 1 & 27. Slag dump 18. Rana Casting

9. P L Steels10. Kotdwar Steels11. Poddar Alloys12. Himgiri Ispat13. HRJ Steels 14. JN Ispat15. Bhagyashree Steels & Alloys16. Shree Dhanavarsha Steels

17. Pushkar Steels18. Slag dump 319. Slag dump 220. Sumo Steels21. Shree Sidhbali Sugar, Unit 122. Shree Sidhbali Sugar, Unit 2

Entrance

Hydrilroad

road

road

road

road

road

Water Tank

Temple

Figure 4: JIA layout

Shree Sidhbali Sugar, Unit II

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

17

cause notice for using coal illegally in their reheatingfurnace. The company however, denied this duringthe inspection. The scrubbing system was foundoperational at the time of inspection but nothingwas being emitted from the chimney which puts aquestion mark on whether the emission capturingthrough the suction hood is happening or not.

2. Kotdwar Steels: Established in 1997, it coversan area of about 5,180 m2. The factory has twoinduction furnaces of five tonne capacity each but at a given time only one of the furnaces is operational. One cycle/batch/heat is for threehours and the factory operates about four heats per day implying a capacity of about 8,000TPA while the permissible capacity is 15,600 TPA23.

The factory has a hood suction system and a wet scrubbing system in place for pollutionabatement. Sponge iron, scrap and cast iron are used as raw material in the furnace in the ratio of 50 per cent, 25 per cent and 25 per cent, respectively. At the same time, the companyclaims that for every tonnes of steel production, it uses 0.3 tonne of sponge iron, 0.25 tonne of cast iron and 0.7 tonne of scrap which gives a ratio of 56 per cent scrap, 20 per cent cast iron and 24 per cent sponge iron. While the sponge iron is being sourced from Chhattisgarh, Jharkhandand Madhya Pradesh, scrap and cast iron are from Ghaziabad and Delhi.

Close to six tonnes of slag is produced each daywhich is being dumped in the land near Sigaddi.The company claims that if the raw material is of'bad' quality then smoke will be emittedthroughout the cycle. For producing one tonne ofproduct, the company uses 1,300 units (kWh) ofelectricity. About 25,000–50,000 l of water is usedper day which includes water for cooling,plantation, domestic consumption, etc., and this isbeing sourced through one tube well of thecompany. The company employs 80 peopleincluding daily wage labourers out of which it isclaims 80 per cent are locals while 20 per cent arefrom Bihar. The company states that when theindustrial area was set up, there was no populationaround the area and only in the last 2–4 yearshouses have come up.

At the time of inspection, although the hood andscrubber were operational, there was a hugeamount of smoke/pollutant escaping the hoodleading to high fugitive emissions. This points tothe inadequacy of the pollution control equipment.Housekeeping was very poor at the factory.

3. PL Steels: Is operating since April 2009 andcovers an area of 4,050 m2. The factory has twoinduction furnaces of three tonne capacity eachbut only one is operational at any given time. Oneheat period is 2.5–3 hours and the factory operatessix heats per day implying a production of 6,500

Uncontrolled emissions at Kotdwar Steels

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

PL Steels operates sans proper pollution abatement

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

18

TPA while the permissible production is 9,000TPA24. Raw materials used are 90 per cent scrapand rest is cast iron. Sponge iron is sometimesused depending on availability and price. Scrap issourced from Ghaziabad and Delhi. One tonne ofraw material gives 0.8 tonne of product. Thefactory produces one tonne of slag per day and thisis disposed off in the land near Sigaddi. Thecompany pegs its water requirement at 5,000 l perday through its own tube wells/bores. It uses 1,100units of electricity to produce one tonne of steel.The company employs 32 workers in all. Theplacement of the hood was not correct at the timeof inspection and most of the emissions were goingaway from the hood causing immense fugitiveemissions within the work zone. Housekeeping isvery poor within the factory premises and thescrubber was not operational.

4. Uttaranchal Iron and Ispat, Unit I: Establishedin 1997, the factory was originally called RL Steeland belonged to a different owner. It was namedUttaranchal Iron and Ispat in November 2002. Thefactory produces TMT bars only and has areheating furnace of capacity 30,000 TPA or 110TPD while the permissible production is 21,600TPA25. Fuel used is furnace oil (FO) @(65–70) l ofFO/tonne of product. MS ingots produced by Unit IIof the same company is utilised by this factory formaking TMT rods. The factory also has topurchase some raw material from outside. The

factory has a wet scrubbing system in place forpollution abatement whose operation status couldnot be ascertained. Spread over an area of 90,000m2, the factory employs about 80 workers. Thecompany agrees that it was using coal as thereheating furnace fuel before November 2011 sinceit was cheaper. However, after the local protest inDecember 2011, they have only been using FO.

5. Uttaranchal Iron and Ispat, Unit II: Establishedin April 2005, the factory has two inductionfurnaces of six tonnes capacity each and is spreadover an area of 13,000 m2. At a given time only oneis operational while the other remains on stand-by.The annual production of the factory is 22,000 TPAwhile the permissible production is 25,900 TPA26.Each heat cycle lasts for (3.5–4) hours and thefactory operates about three heats per dayimplying a production of about 24 tonnes per dayor about 9,000 TPA. Thus there is some problemwith the data provided by the company. Thefactory uses scrap (80 per cent), sponge iron andcast iron (together 20 per cent) as raw materials.For producing one tonne of steel 1.16 tonne of rawmaterial is fed in. The scrap is sourced from Delhiand Ghaziabad. The factory uses 1,000 units ofelectricity per tonne of product produced.

There is a moving hood suction system and wetscrubber in place at the factory for pollutionabatement. The factory produces about threetonnes of slag everyday and the same is beingdumped at the Sigaddi dump site which thecompany has not seen. The factory employs 35workers out of which 30 are permanent. Duringinspection it was observed that the hood was inplace and operational as was the scrubber. But thefugitive emissions within the factory premisesraise concerns about the inadequacy of thepollution control equipment. Housekeeping wasextremely poor in the factory.

6. Sumo Steels: The factory was established in2005 and has two induction furnaces. Each with acapacity of five tonnes/heat, one remains onstand-by while the other is operational. One heatperiod is about (3–4) hours and the factoryoperates four heats/day. The annual capacity ofthe factory is 7,200 tonnes and the permissibleannual production is 18,000 TPA27. Scrap (80 percent), sponge iron and cast iron (together 20 percent) are used as raw materials. To produce fivetonnes of product six tonnes of scrap is to be fedin the furnace. Scrap is sourced from Delhi andUttar Pradesh. The factory produces 0.5 tonne of

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

FO tanker at Uttaranchal Iron & Ispat, Unit I

slag everyday which is being dumped at theSigaddi site. The factory has wet scrubbing and amoving suction hood system installed forpollution abatement. It uses 5,000 l of water perday from tankers and uses 700 units of electricityto produce one tonne of product. There are 34workers in the factory out of which 12 arepermanent. The area of the factory is 5,600 m2. Atthe time of the inspection, the hood was not overthe furnace and it was alleged that some repairwork is being undertaken. The furnace was beingoperated without any pollution abatementequipment causing all the emissions to escapeinto the atmoshpere and causing fugitiveemissions. Housekeeping at the factory is dismal.

7. Jai Mateshwari Steels: Established in 2004, thefactory has two induction furnaces of threetonne/heat capacity each making the annualproduction 6,500 tonnes and the permissibleproduction limit is 9,000 TPA28. Area of the factoryis 4,032 m2. Each heat period is about 2.15 hoursand the factory operates six heats in a day. Rawmaterials used are sponge iron (50 per cent) andscrap (50 per cent). For producing three tonnes ofproduct, 3.5 tonnes of raw material is fed in. Whilethe scrap is sourced from Delhi and Uttar Pradesh,sponge iron comes from Chhattisgarh (Raigarhand Raipur). The factory produces three tonnes of

slag every day which is dumped at the Sigaddi site.The factory employs 40 workers out of whom 25are permanent. Four thousand litres of water isused everyday drawn from company’s own borewells and 1,300 units of electricity is used pertonne of product. In spite of a hood and scrubberin place, the emissions inside the factory near thefurnace were very high indicating that theequipment was non operational or inadequate.Housekeeping was poor.

8. Sant Steels and Alloys: Established in 1996, thefactory covers an area of 4,000 m2. It has twoinduction furnaces of 3.8 tonnes capacity each.Each heat period is (3-3.5) hours and the factoryoperates seven heats per day which implies annualcapacity of about 9,500 tonnes while thepermissible capacity is 7,200 TPA only29. Rawmaterials are sponge iron (50 per cent) and scrap(50 per cent). The sponge iron is from Chhattisgarhand the scrap is from Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. Forproducing 3.8 tonnes of product, 4.75 tonnes of rawmaterial is fed in. The factory produces 2.7 tonnesof slag everyday which is being dumped at theSigaddi site. Pollution control equipment at thefactory includes a moving hood suction systemand a wet scrubber. There are 32 workers and dailywage labourers employed by the factory. It uses1,400 units of electricity to produce one tonne of

19

Sumo Steels – no hood for air pollution control

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

product. The factory could not provide any data onthe water use and there were visibly high fugitiveemissions inside the factory premises pointing tothe inadequacy of the pollution control equipment.The factory has poor housekeeping.

9. Pushkar Steels: The factory has been inoperation sine 1997. There are two inductionfurnaces in the factory with four tonnes/heatcapacity each and the annual production is 6,000tonnes and the permissible annual production is12,000 TPA30. Each heat period is (2.5-3) hours andthe factory operates three heats a day. The factoryuses scrap (70 per cent) and sponge iron (30 percent). The former is from Delhi and the latter fromChhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. For producingfour tonnes of product, five tonnes of raw materialis fed in. The factory produces one tonne of slageveryday which is dumped at the Sigaddi site.

Covering an area of 6,000 m2, the factory employs98 workers which includes 30 daily wage labourers.The factory uses 3,000 l of water per day and 1,400units of electricity to produce one tonne of product.Pollution control equipment is wet scrubber and amoving hood suction system and although foundoperational, their adequacy is a big question giventhe fugitive emissions inside the factory premises.Poor housekeeping observed at the factory.

10. Amritvarsha Udhyog: Established in 1997, thefactory has two induction furnaces of fourtonne/heat capacity each. The factory uses scrap(50 per cent) and sponge iron (50 per cent) as rawmaterials. For four tonnes of product, five tonnesof raw material is needed. Pollution controlequipment at the factory consists of a movinghood suction system and a wet scrubber. Thefactory did not have a stack at the time ofinspection and the hood suction system was notworking leading to heavy fugitive emissions. Nofactory representative was available at the time ofinspection. The annual permissible capacity is7,200 TPA31. Housekeeping is poor at the factory.

11. Shree Sidhbali Sugar, Unit I: The factory wasestablished in 2003 and has two induction furnacesof five tonne/heat capacity each. One heat period isthree hours and the factory operates eight heatseveryday which means 40 tonnes of production/day and 14,400 TPA. The permissible productionlimit is 14,400 TPA32. Raw materials are sponge iron(50 per cent) and scrap (50 per cent). The former

20

Amritvarsha operates without a stack

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

High fugitive emissions at Sant Steels & Alloys

KA

NC

HA

N K

UM

AR

AG

RAW

AL

/ CSE

is from Chhattisgarh and the latter from UttarPradesh. The factory produces three tonnes of slageveryday which is being dumped at the Sigaddisite. The factory covers an area of 5,500 m2 andemploys 80 workers. There is a moving hoodsuction system and a wet scrubber for pollutionabatement. But the hood suction system was notfunctional at the time of inspection which resultedin high fugitive emission in the factory premises.The factory uses 3,000 l of water per day from itsown bore well and 1,300 units of electricity forproducing one tonne of product. Housekeepingwith the factory is very poor.

12. Kukreti Steel: Was established in 1997. Thefactory has two induction furnaces of fourtonne/heat capacity each. One heat period is threehours and the factory operates six heats per daywhich means 8,600 TPA and the permissible limit is

9,000 TPA33. Scrap (80 per cent) and sponge iron (20per cent) are used as raw materials. For producingfour tonnes of product, five tonnes of raw materialis fed in. The factory produces five tonnes of slageveryday which is dumped at the Sigaddi site.Covering an area of 8,000 m2, the factory employs80 workers (all of which are not permanent). Thefactory uses 1,500 l of water per day (own borewell) and 1,400 units of electricity per tonne ofproduct. Pollution control equipment are wetscrubber and moving hood suction system. But thehigh fugitive emissions in the work zone point to

the inadequacy of these equipments. Housekeepingat the factory was observed to be very poor.

13. Shree Dhanvarsha Steels: The factory startedits operations in 1997 but remained shut for aperiod of four years. It has two induction furnacesof five tonne/heat capacity each. Each heat periodis four hours and the factory operates five heatsper day implying a production of 9,000 TPA while the sanctioned capacity is 12,000 TPA alleges thecompany. However, as per UEPPCB, the sanctionedlimit is 840 TPA34. Raw materials used are spongeiron (50 per cent) and scrap (50 per cent). Forproducing five tonnes of product 5.75 tonnes of rawmaterial is fed in. The factory produces threetonnes of slag everyday which is dumped at theSigaddi site. There is a moving hood suctionsystem and a wet scrubber for pollutionabatement. The factory uses 5,000 l of watereveryday (own bore well) and 1,300 units ofelectricity per tonne product. The factory coversan area of 5,000 m2 and employs 80 workers out ofwhich 20 are daily wage labourers. The lastUEPPCB visit to the factory was in December 2011.The pollution control equipment, althoughoperational, were ineffective leading to fugitiveemissions within the factory premises.Housekeeping at the factory was extremely poor.

14. HRJ Steels: The factory has two inductionfurnaces of 3.8 tonne/heat capacity each. Each heatcycle is three hours and the factory operates sixheats per day implying 8,000 TPA production whilethe permissible limit is only 6,600 TPA35. Spongeiron (50 per cent) and scrap (50 per cent) are usedas raw materials. For producing four tonnes ofproduct, five tonnes of raw material is fed in. Slagproduction in the factory is one tonne everyday.For pollution control, the factory has a movinghood suction system and a wet scrubber. At thetime of inspection, both the pollution controlsystems were not operational causing very highfugitive emissions. Housekeeping is dismal at thefactory. The factory could not provide any data onwater and electricity use. It employs 80 workers.

15. Bhagyashree Steels & Alloys: The factory wasestablished in 1997 and has two induction furnacesof 3.8 tonnes/heat capacity each. One heat periodis three hours and the factory operates seven heatsper day implying a capacity of 9,600 TPA and thepermissible limit is 10,800 TPA36. Scrap is the rawmaterial used and is sourced from Gujarat andMaharashtra. For 3.8 tonnes of product, 4.5 tonnesof raw materials is fed in. The factory produces one

21

Inadequate pollution control at Kukreti Steels

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

tonne of slag everyday which is dumped at theSigaddi site. There is a moving hood suctionsystem and a wet scrubber for pollutionabatement. Spread over an area of 6,400 m2 thefactory employs 40 workers most of whom are notlocals. It uses 6,000 l of water everyday from thecompany’s own bore well and 1,500 units ofelectricity per tonne of product. Although foundoperational at the time of inspection, the pollutioncontrol equipment proved highly ineffective given

the escaping emissions from the furnace and thefugitive emissions in the factory. Poor house -keeping was observed.

16. Poddar Alloys: Started operations in 1996 butwas shut and started again in 1999. The factory hastwo induction furnaces of 3.75 tonnes/heat capacityeach. One heat cycle is three hours and the factoryoperates eight heats per day implying 9,500 TPAcapacity and the permissible limit is 10,200 TPA37.Scrap (70 per cent) and sponge iron (30 per cent)are used as raw materials. Scrap is sourced fromDelhi and sponge iron from Chhattisgarh. Forproducing 3.75 tonnes of product, 4.5 tonnes of rawmaterial is fed in. Slag production is 2.5 tonnes perday which is dumped at the Sigaddi site. Pollutionabatement equipment includes wet scrubber and amoving hood suction system. Covering an area of8,000 m2 the factory employs 60 workers. Waterused in the factory is 6,000 l/day from own tubewells and 1,300 units of electricity is used forproducing one tonne of product. The factory wasserved a show cause notice in 2009 after which itchanged the motor for operating the suctionsystem and replaced the hood. But none of thisseems to have helped the factory which stillexhibited fugitive emissions even with operationalpollution control equipment. Housekeeping waspoor at the factory premises.

17. Himgiri Ispat: Was established in May 2005.The factory has two induction furnaces of five

22

Poor housekeeping at Himgiri Ispat

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

Inadequate pollution control equipment at Poddar Alloys

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

High fugitive emissions at Bhagyashree Steels

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

23

tonne/heat capacity each. Each heat period isthree hours and the factory operates six heatseveryday implying 10,500 TPA capacity while thepermissible capacity is 11,400 TPA38. Rawmaterials used are scrap (80 per cent) and spongeiron (20 per cent). The former is from Delhi andUttar Pradesh while the latter is fromChhattisgarh. For producing five tonnes ofproduct, eight tonnes of raw material is fed in. Thefactory produces seven tonne of slag everydaywhich is dumped at the Sigaddi site. There is amoving hood suction system and a wet scrubberfor pollution abatement. There are 40 workersemployed by the factory out of which 28 arepermanent. The factory covers an area of 3,632 m2.It uses 15,000 l of water per day from own borewell. Thousand units of electricity is used toproduce one tonne of product. The factory wasserved a show cause notice by the UEPPCB inMarch 2012 after which they replaced the hoodand installed a motor with higher power rating butaccording to the company this has not improvedthe situation and air pollution still persists. But thefactory exhibited relatively less fugitive emissionsand the workers wore helmets and shoes eventhough they looked new.

5.3 Conclusion and Recommendations

1. Illegal operations: As informed by the UEPPCB,these factories are operating without a consent tooperate. This is the most surprising scenario wherethe UEPPCB seems to be not doing its taskproperly. The UEPPCB is allowing the defaultingfactories to operate without a consent and causehuge pollution without taking any strict actionagainst them. What is more surprising is the factthat these factories apply for a consent every yearwhich is rejected by UEPPCB on the grounds of notsatisfying conditions. This reflects the lax attitudeof the regulator which has played its part in theenvironmental degradation of the area.

Recommendations:� All factories working without a consent

should be shut down with immediate effecttill the time the UEPPCB grants them aconsent to operate.

� UEPPCB should grant the consent to operateto factories which they feel will be able tomeet norms.

2. Factories at JIA are polluting: As evident fromthe factory inspection, air pollution controlequipment was found either non functional or

inadequate leading to high levels of pollution. Also, the wet scrubbers installed were notoperational in most of the factories. Even thoughrepeated notices have been issued to thesefactories and protests have happened in the area,the problem persists.

Recommendation:� The JIA factories should be asked to upgrade

their pollution control equipment within aperiod of three months to meet the norms(Annexure IX: Technology Options). TheUEPPCB is to provide technical assistance forupgradation of pollution control equipment ineach factory. Installation of stacks, properhoods and wet scrubbers should be mademandatory in all the factories.

3. Pollution control equipment non-operational:Many of the factories were not using their pollutioncontrol equipment at the time of inspection.

Recommendations: � To ensure that the pollution control equipment

is being used, separate electricity metersshould be installed at all the equipment. Theelectricity consumption from these metersshould be monitored by the UEPPCB.

� SIDCUL should set up a facility to monitorambient air quality in and around JIA, withina period of three months. They shouldmonitor ambient air quality in JIA as well asresidenrial areas regularly. The monitoringstation should be located taking intoconsideration the prominent wind directionand residential areas.

� Regular and rigorous monitoring of thesefactories needs to be undertaken by theUEPPCB. Surprise night inspections need tobe increased as most of the residentscomplain that the factories cause most airpollution at night which was also verified byCSE’s visit. Those found flouting norms shouldbe dealt with severely by means of heavy fines,closure, etc.

� A Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP)needs to be set up within the industrial areato ensure that the effluent from the individualscrubbers is treated. The treated effluentshould be reused within the factory premises.A time period of three months should begiven for setting up the CETP at JIA.

4. Slag disposal is leading to massive pollution:Slag was found dumped within factory premises at

a number of places. Within JIA also there are twobig dumps of slag. When questioned, thecompanies shrug the responsibility of handlingthis slag claiming it is ‘old slag’. Following theDecember 2011 protests, slag is being dumped atSigaddi in an unscientific manner. This is beingdone irresponsibly with companies outsourcingtransportation of slag from JIA to the Sigaddi site.Villagers claim that these trucks often dump slaganywhere on their way to the dump site to ensurethey get more trips and hence more income.

Recommendations:� It is important that solid waste (slag) be

reused as much as possible. Common uses ofsteel slag are as construction material afterblending with fly ash and lime, construction fill,etc39. This can also be used as an aggregate inconcrete40. The Australian (iron and steel) SlagAssociation puts forth the following uses ofsteel slag41: sealing aggregate, asphaltaggregate, rail ballast, pavement base and subbase layers, engineering construction fills,subsoil drains and grit blasting. The IndianBureau of Mines (IBM) counts uses of steel slagas a barrier material remedy for waste siteswhere heavy metals tend to leach into thesurrounding environment42. Steel slag forcesthe heavy metals to drop out of solution inwater runoff because of its high oxide mineral

content. IBM further states that steel slag hasbeen used successfully to treat acidic waterdischarges from abandoned mines43.

� For the rest of the slag, it is imperative to have adesignated land for landfilling till the time anappropriate use for the same is found. Thus thedistrict administration should identify analternate piece of land for storing slag. Sixmonths should be given for designing a newand scientific landfill site.

� The old slag lying at JIA needs to be removedfrom JIA. This should be either reused ordisposed in the new landfill site.

5. Disclosure: The status of pollution in thesurrounding areas of JIA should be made public.

Recommendations:� UEPPCB should disclose the quarterly

inspection reports and electricityconsumption data of the factories.

� SIDCUL should ensure that the ambient airquality data is put in public domain everymonth.

6. Poor raw material quality leading to moreemissions: Poor raw material was seen to becausing a lot of air pollution at JIA. The quality ofraw material used depends on the furnace used.Most of the factories in the JIA use scrap as raw

24

Slag generated as waste in the induction furnaces is being stacked unscientifically within and outside the JIA

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

25

material and some also use sponge iron. The scrapbeing purchased for factories in JIA is fromkabadies. Hence, the quality of the scrap is verypoor leading to high pollution. Using scrap isenviron mentally sound provided that adequatecontrol equipment is put in place to avoid andminimise air pollution.

Recommendation:� Proper quality control of raw material being

used at the factories is to be carried out.

7. Other Recommendations: � Unpaved roads in JIA are adding to the already

high levels of air pollution. These need to beblack topped to avoid fugitive emissions.

� Water consumption in these factories is veryhigh and unaccounted for. Everyone hasindividual tubewells. Water consumptionneeds to be controlled and optimised. Watermeters should be installed in all factories.

� Energy consumption is very high. It can bereduced by one–third by giving propertechnical assistance to factories. This shouldbe done by JIA and Uttarakhandgovernment.

� Proper sanitation facilities should beprovided to the workers at JIA.

CSE offers its services to check the environmental status of JIA and the status of

implementation of the recommendations of its report after six months.

Use of sub-standard raw material use at the JIA factories is causing massive air pollution problems

SUG

AN

DH

JU

NEJ

A /

CSE

26

Copy of the UEPPCB letter

Annexure I

27

Information provided by UEPPCB

Annexure II

29

Copy of permission to dump slag at Sigaddi

Annexure III

30

Copy of the complaint letter

Annexure IV

31

UEPPCB inspections - February 2009

Annexure V

35

Copies of show cause notices

Annexure VI

42

Copy of RTI response

Annexure VII

44

Testimonials

Annexure VIII

84

Air Pollution Control Equipment

All the factories operating in JIA have installed amoving suction hood and wet scrubber as pollutioncontrol equipment. But the design of the hood issuch that it does not capture most of the emissionsbecause of which fugitive emission is a huge problemin the area. Also, the furnace operators and slagremovers demand putting up a huge fan behindthem while they are working to provide relief fromthe high temperatures in the area. This causes thepollutant to blow away from the hood and causesfugitive emission and poor suction. Anotherhandicap that the factories admitted to was the needto access the furnace every now and then during acycle to feed raw material which means the hoodshould be moved and should be at a certain distancefrom the furnace.

Hoods are the first component of the air pollutioncontrol system and are of critical importance. If theyfail to capture the pollutant, the overall collectionefficiency of the system is reduced. Pollutants notcaptured by hoods become fugitive emissions (seeDiagram 1: Importance of Hoods). Slight changes inthe ability of the hood to capture pollutants canhave a large impact on the total fugitive and stackemissions released into the atmosphere39.

Hoods are distinguished in different ways. Onedepends on the enclosure they provide over thefurnace: enclosing and non-enclosing hoods. Non-

enclosing hoods are used where access to thefurnace is required. Another common classificationis – enclosing, receiving and capturing. Enclosinghoods surround the point where the contaminantsare generated (see Diagram 2: Enclosing hood). It ispreferred whenever possible. Receiving hoods aredesigned to receive or catch the emissions from asource that has some initial velocity or movement(see Diagram 3: Receiving hood). Capturing hoodsare located next to an emission source withoutenclosing it (see Diagram 4: Capturing hood). Forinduction furnaces, receiving hoods are the mostappropriate.

Hoods are generally designed to operate undernegative static pressure implying that the pressureoutside the hood should be greater than thepressure inside the hood. The fan, locateddownstream from the hood, creates the suctionthat draws the air into the hood. Since air from alldirections moves toward the low-pressure hood,it must be as close as possible to the processequipment in order to capture the pollutant-laden air and not just the surrounding air40. Theshape of the hood and its size, location, and rateof airflow each play an important role in designconsiderations. In order to optimise hood design:

● Hood should be located as close to the source(furnace) as possible.

● Hood should be placed in a way that it doesnot allow the pollutant to deviate from its

Technology Options

Diagram 1: Importance of Hoods

Source: Anon, Control of Particulate Matter Emissions – Student Manual, Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, US, pg. 3

Annexure IX

Hood

Processequipment

Capturedemissions

Capturedemissions

Correctedemissions

Air pollutioncontrol device

Fan

Stack emissions

Stack

Captured emission

Fugitiveemissions

Hood

natural path as much as possible.● Hood should be larger or of the same size as

the source to prevent any pollutant escape.● Air jets can be placed to improve performance

of the hood (see Diagram 5: Hood with airjets/curtains).

● Flanges can be used to block the movement ofunwanted air into the hood (see Diagram 6:Hood with flanges). Recommended width of theflange is equal to the square root of the hoodarea. Flanges help to block the movement ofclean air into the hood and also prevent crossdraft of air which disturbs the intended path of

pollutant into the hood. The hood and flangesshould encompass or cover the source ofpollutant.

● The hood should be located in a way that theoperator is never between the contaminantsource and the hood. (See Diagram 7:Operator's Position).

● The air should travel from source of thecontaminant and into the hood with enoughvelocity to adequately capture the contaminant.

The most effective hoods are those that use theminimum exhaust air flow rate so that there is

85

Diagram 4: Capturing hood

Source: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/prevention/ventilation/hoods.htmlas viewed on May 1, 2012

Diagram 5: Hood with air jets/curtains

Source: ftp://ftp.demec.ufpr.br/disciplinas/TM184/VENTILACAO_LOCAL_EXAUSTORA/INDUSTRIAL%20LOCAL%20EXHAUST%20SYSTEMS.pdf as viewed on May 2, 2012

Diagram 3: Receiving hood

Diagram 2: Enclosing hood

Fan

Fan

Contaminantsrising from hot process

Fan

Diagram 6: Hood with flanges

Source: http://www.epa.gov/apti/bces/module5/hoods/principle/principle.htm#capture as viewed on May 2, 2012

Equal velocity zones

Hood diameter

Hood

Duct

Air

Air

AirAirAir

Air

Per cent hoodcapture velocity

~ 100.0%~ 60.0%~ 30.0%~ 15.0%~ 7.5%

maximum pollutant control. The hood effective -ness depends on capture velocity which is the airvelocity at any point in front of a hood or at a hoodopening necessary to overcome opposing aircurrents and to capture the contaminated air at thepoint by causing it to flow into the hood41. Typicalcapture velocities in different conditions mayrange from 0.254 m/s to 10.16 m/s (see Table 1:Capture Velocities).

Generally, a high toxicity pollutant released from asmall source into rapidly moving air current,requires high capture velocity. For estimation, theequation that can be used is42:

Q = Vh (10X2 + Ah)

where, Q = actual volumetric flow rateX = distance from hood to sourceVh = hood capture velocity at distance XAh = area of hood opening = π d2 / 4 (d = diameterof the hood opening)

In case of a flanged hood, the following equation isto be used43:

vc = 1.33 vo A / (A + 10 x2)vc = 1.33 q / (A + 10 x2)

where, q = air volume flowA = duct areavc = capture air velocity at distance x from exhaust

outletvo = air velocity at the exhaust outlet openingd = diameter of exhaust outlet x = distance from exhaust outlet

Area of the hood depends on the shape and size ofthe hood and thus flow rates change with differentsized hoods (see Table 2: Hoods and air volume). Canopy hoods are the most widely used hoods atJIA. In the canopy hoods, volume will depend onperimeter of the hood, distance from thepollutant source and the velocity of air betweenthe source and the hood (see Diagram 8: Canopyhoods).

86

Table 2: Hoods and air volume

Source: John E Mutchler, Local Exhaust Systems, ACGIH, pg. 602

Source: Anon, Control of Particulate Matter Emissions – Student Manual, Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of CleanAir Agencies, US, pg. 3.

Condition of material release Capture velocity (m/s)

With no velocity into quiet air 0.254 – 0.58

At low velocity into moderately still air 0.58 – 1.016

Active generation into zone of rapid air motion 1.016 – 2.54

With high velocity into zone of very rapid air 2.54 – 10.16

Table 1: Capture Velocities

Plain 0.2 or Greater Q = Vopening and round (10 x2 + A)

Flanged 0.2 or Greater Q = 0.75 VOpening and round (10 x2 + A)

Booth To suit work Q = VA = VWH

Canopy To suit work Q = 1.4 PVDP = PerimeterD = Height

Flanged slot 0.2 or Less Q = 2.8 LVX

Slot 0.2 or Less Q=3.7

Hood type Description Aspect Airratio volume3__

L

Diagram 7: Operator's Position

Source: ftp://ftp.demec.ufpr.br/disciplinas/TM184/VENTILACAO_LOCAL_EXAUSTORA/INDUSTRIAL%20LOCAL%20EXHAUST%20SYSTEMS.pdf as viewed on May 2, 2012.

Plating tankPlating tank

Good

Slot

Bad

Water Scrubbers

Wet scrubber is a device where the flue gases arepushed against down falling water (liquid) current.The particulate matter along with water dropletsfall down and get removed. In JIA, the wetscrubbers installed by the factories were found tobe inadequate. CSE is recommending thatfactories change their wet scrubber design.

National Productivity Council (NPC), Chennai hascome out with a cost effective design of wetscrubbers after a detailed investigation of theemissions from the furnaces at Coimbatore, TamilNadu. The characteristic of the process gas forwhich it has developed the wet scrubber is similarto the gas being released from induction furnacesin JIA.

The NPC wet scrubber (see Diagram 9: NPC wetscrubber design) is simple in fabrication andinstalled on-line with the process. The water spraywet scrubber is designed concurrent to gas flowrate at the exit of the cupola furnace. A set of waterspray nozzles scrub the dust laden gases. Thescrubber water is collected in a sump to allowsettling and separate the sludge and the clearwater is re-circulated to the scrubber bycentrifugal pump. Periodically, the settled sludgeis collected dried and disposed. The operating costis only the power consumption. A separate metercan be installed to check whether the wet scrubberis operating or not.

According to NPC, the performance efficiency ofthe scrubber is high and can easily meet theparticulate emissions norms of 150 mg/NM3. Theperformance efficiency of the scrubber in Cupolafurnaces of Coimbatore is given in table 3.

87

Diagram 8: Canopy hoods

Source: John E Mutchler, Local Exhaust Systems, ACGIH, pg. 606

Q = 1.4 PDVwhereQ = Rate of air exhausted, cfm.P = Perimeter of source, ft.D = Vertical distance between source and canopy, ft.V = Required average air velocity through area betweensource and canopy, fpm.

Tank

Canopy

Diagram 9: NPC wet scrubber design

Source: VSS Bhaskara Murty, Low Cost Air Emissions Control System For CupolaFurmaces - Success story, National Productivity Council, Chennai, pg. 3

Table 3: Scrubber efficiency values

Source: VSS Bhaskara Murty, Low Cost Air Emissions Control System For Cupola Furnaces – Success story, National Productivity Council, Chennai, pg. 4

1. As per conversations with local residents, industryrepresentatives, Uttarakhand EnvironmentProtection and Pollution Control Board on March24-28, 2012

2. http://www.upsidc.com/search_action3.php asviewed on March 30, 2012

3. JN Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was not operational.4. Land alloted by SDM, Kotdwar after December 2011

protests.5. http://pauri.nic.in/pages/display/55-the-land as

viewed on April 19, 20126. ibid7. AJT Johnsingh & AS Negi, Operation Eye of the Tiger

– India, Final Report submitted to the Save TheTiger Fund For the period April 1996 – June 2003,pg. 10

8. AP Singh & R Chalisgaonkar, 2006, Restoration ofCorridors to facilitate the movement of wild Asianelephants in Rajaji-Corbett Elephant Range,Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh State IrrigationDepartments, Roorkee, pg. 7

9. ibid10. AJT Johnsingh & AS Negi, Operation Eye of the

Tiger – India, Final Report submitted to the SaveThe Tiger Fund For the period April 1996 – June2003, pg. 10

11. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-induction-furnace.htm as viewed on April 19, 2012

12. MM Ahmed, M Masoud & AM El-Sharwaky, 2009,Design of a Coreless Induction Furnace for MeltingIron, ICCCP, pg. 1

13. ht tp : / / foundr y in fo - india .org/ images/pdf /57ifctp12.pdf as viewed on April 26, 2012

14. ht tp : / /www.energymanager tra in ing .com/Documents/success/casestudy21.pdf as viewed on April 26, 2012

15. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/industries_technologies/metalcasting/pdfs/

doebestpractice_052804.pdf as viewed on April 26, 2012

16. UEPPCB Letter No.: UEPPCB/ROD/Complaint/Misc/09/4324 dated February 7, 2009

17. ibid18. ibid19. As informed by Mr PK Joshi, RO, UEPPCB20. One bigha = 800 m2 and 1 quintal = 0.1 tonne21. UEPPCB letter no. UEPPCB/ROD/Misc/2011-12/2546

dated March 5, 201222. Depends on power availability23. UEPPCB letter no. UEPPCB/ROD/Misc/2011-12/2546

dated March 5, 201224. ibid25. ibid26. ibid27. ibid28. ibid29. ibid30. ibid31. ibid32. ibid33. ibid34. ibid35. ibid36. ibid37. ibid38. UEPPCB letter no. UEPPCB/ROD/Misc/2011-12/2546

dated March 5, 201239. http://www.nationalslag.org/appmatrix.htm as

viewed on May 9, 2012.40. http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Patel%20Jigar

%20P.pdf?csu1229627352 as viewed on May 9, 201241. http://www.asa-inc.org.au/steel-furnace-slag.php as

viewed on May 9, 2012.42. ibm.nic.in/slagironandsteel.pdf as viewed on May 9,

2012.43. ibid.

References

88