environmental database for peenya industrial area bangalore empri 2008 12

8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12

1/84

ENVIRONMENT L D T B SE FORPEENY INDUSTRI L RE -B NG LORE

Complementary Project Report

December 2008

Funded byDepartment of Forest Ecology and EnvironmentGovernment of Karnataka

Prepared byEnvironmental Management Policy Research InstituteBangalore


2/84

Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute

Hasiru Bhavana, Doresanipalya Forest Campus, Vinayakanagar Circle, J. P. Nagar 5thPhase, Bangalore 560 078

Tel: 080-2649 0744 /46 /47 !Fax: 080-2649 0745 !Email:[email protected]!Website:www.empri.kar.nic.in

ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE

FOR PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA

COMPLEMENTARY PROJECT REPORT

December 2008


3/84

Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area

Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute i


4/84


5/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute iii


6/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute iv

CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................1

2. OUTPUTS EXPECTED...................................................................................................1

3. PROFILE OF PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA.............................................................2

3.1. Study area .................................................................................................................2

3.1.1. Location..........................................................................................................2

3.1.2. Climate ...........................................................................................................2

3.1.3. Soil and drainage............................................................................................2

3.1.4. Water bodies...................................................................................................3

3.2. Development.............................................................................................................4

3.2.1. Land acquisition .............................................................................................43.2.2. Infrastructure development ............................................................................4

3.2.3. Maintenance ...................................................................................................5

3.3. Layout .......................................................................................................................6

3.4. Employment..............................................................................................................7

3.5. Housing .....................................................................................................................7

4. PROFILE OF INDUSTRIES...........................................................................................8

4.1. Industry base ............................................................................................................8

4.2. Environmental classification...................................................................................8

4.3. Growth and mortality..............................................................................................9

4.4. Industry sectors ......................................................................................................10

4.5. Sampled industries.................................................................................................12

4.5.1. Coverage ......................................................................................................12

4.5.2. Environmental classification ........................................................................134.5.3. Industry sectors ............................................................................................13

5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE.................................................................................16

5.1. Water.......................................................................................................................165.1.1. Industry sectors concerned...........................................................................16

5.1.2. Pressures.......................................................................................................16

5.1.3. Quality of ground water ...............................................................................17

5.1.4. Quality of water bodies ................................................................................20

5.2. Waste.......................................................................................................................23

5.2.1. Industry sectors concerned...........................................................................23

5.2.2. Hazardous waste...........................................................................................23

5.2.3. Electronic waste ...........................................................................................24

5.2.4. Industrial solid waste....................................................................................25

5.2.5. Illegal dumpsites identified ..........................................................................26


7/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute v

5.3. Air............................................................................................................................31


5.3.2. Impact...........................................................................................................31

5.3.3. Causes ..........................................................................................................32

5.3.4. Monitoring....................................................................................................33

5.4. Noise ........................................................................................................................34


5.4.2. Impact...........................................................................................................35

5.4.3. Causes ..........................................................................................................355.4.4. Monitoring....................................................................................................35

5.5. Health......................................................................................................................35

6. MITGATION MEASURES ADOPTED.......................................................................37

6.1. Driving forces .........................................................................................................37

6.2. Water pollution control .........................................................................................37

6.3. Air pollution control ..............................................................................................38

6.4. Selected examples...................................................................................................40

6.5. Summary of selected examples .............................................................................51

6.6. Selected common facilities.....................................................................................52

7. REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED.................................................................................54

7.1. Shortcomings observed..........................................................................................54

7.2. Recommendations ..................................................................................................55

8. SOFTWARE TOOLS DEVELOPED ...........................................................................59

8.1. Database application..............................................................................................59

8.2. Geographical Information System (GIS) on Peenya ..........................................60

ANNEX 1: DETAILED MAPS .............................................................................................61

ANNEX 2: DATA AQUISITION FORM.............................................................................68


8/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute vi

TABLES

Table 1: Key features of the infrastructure development ...........................................................4Table 2: Private industrial areas surrounding Peenya Industrial Area .......................................6

Table 3: Recognised slums at Peenya Industrial Area ...............................................................7Table 4: Classification of industries registered with KSPCB ....................................................9Table 5: Category wise shares of closed industries....................................................................9Table 6: Industry sectors in order of descending share ............................................................10Table 7: Classification of industries assessed ..........................................................................13Table 8: Industry sectors represented in the sample set ...........................................................13Table 9: Key water polluting industries ...................................................................................16Table 10: Water analysis of bore well samples A ....................................................................18Table 11: Water analysis of bore well samples B ....................................................................19

Table 12: Water analysis of Karihobanahalli tank ...................................................................20Table 13: Water analysis of Shivapura tank.............................................................................21Table 14: Water analysis of Dasarahalli tank...........................................................................22Table 15: Main waste generating industry sectors ...................................................................23Table 16: Health effects of e-waste constituents......................................................................24Table 17: Registered DG sets in the study area........................................................................31Table 18: Results of air pollutants monitoring in a single location..........................................33 Table 19: Results of air pollutants monitoring in multiple locations .......................................34Table 20: Key noise polluting industry sectors ........................................................................34Table 21: Prominent diseases in Peenya Industrial Area .........................................................36Table 22: Water pollution control measures adopted overall...................................................37Table 23: Nature of measures taken by sampled industries under the Water Act....................38 Table 24: Air pollution control measures adopted overall .......................................................39Table 25: Nature of measures taken by sampled industries under the Air Act ........................39


9/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute vii

FIGURES

Figure 1: Shivapura tank (left) and Karihobanahalli tank (right)...............................................3

Figure 2: Water bodies in the vicinity of Peenya Industrial Area ..............................................3

Figure 3: Layout of Peenya Industrial Area ...............................................................................6

Figure 4: Share of industry sectors ...........................................................................................11

Figure 5: Coverage of sampled industries ................................................................................12

Figure 6: Share of industry sector groups sampled ..................................................................14

Figure 7: Google Earth satellite image of the site along with an indication of boundaries .....26

Figure 8: Heaps of solid waste (left) and moulding debris (right) ...........................................26

Figure 9: Google Earth satellite image of the site along with an indication of boundaries .....27

Figure 10: A cross section of the site burning (left) and the open drain in between (right).....27

Figure 11: Google Earth satellite image of the site along with an indication of boundaries ...28Figure 12: A side view of construction waste (left) and a drainage flowing nearby (right) ....28

Figure 13: Google Earth satellite image of the site along with an indication of boundaries ...29

Figure 14: Solid waste on the tank embankment (left) and around the tank (right).................29

Figure 15: Google Earth satellite image of the site along with an indication of boundaries ...30

Figure 16: Solid waste burning on the road sides of the tank ..................................................30

Figure 17: ETP tanks laden with dye chemicals ......................................................................40

Figure 18: A side view of the companys ETP (source www.kongovi.in)...............................42

Figure 19: Tanks, pumps and circuitry are lined up in a meticulous arrangement ..................43

Figure 20: Outer walls of the chambers of the sewage treatment plant ...................................45Figure 21: Bottom cones of the bag filter chamber (left) and chimneystack (right)...............46

Figure 22: Wet scrubber along with blowers ...........................................................................47

Figure 23: View of the ion exchange cylinder battery of the chromium recovery plant..........48

Figure 24: The large painting booth installed inside the shed..................................................49

Figure 25: Tank with water-based cleaning agents ..................................................................50

Figure 26: Collection bins (left) and the waste handling site...................................................52

Figure 27: Intermediate storage (left) and disposal facility......................................................53

Figure 28: Launch screen (pre-release) ....................................................................................59

Figure 29: Solid waste data form (pre-release) ........................................................................59Figure 30: Water data form (pre-release) .................................................................................59

Figure 31: Territorial boundaries..............................................................................................60

Figure 32: Green cover .............................................................................................................60

Figure 33: Selected industries ..................................................................................................60

Figure 34: Water bodies ...........................................................................................................60

Figure 35: Layered image.........................................................................................................60


10/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute viii

ACRONYMS

AMC Annual maintenance contract

BBMP Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

BMP Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

BMTC Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation

BOD Biological oxygen demand

BWSSB Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

CETP Common effluent treatment plant

CFE Consent for establishment

CFO Consent for operation

CMC City Municipal Corporation

CNS Central nervous systems

CO Carbon monoxide

COD Chemical oxygen demand

CPCB Central Pollution Control Board

DG Diesel generator

DIC District Industries Centre

EMPRI Environment Management & Policy Research Institute

EOU Export-oriented unit

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

ETP Effluent Treatment PlantGIS Geographic Information System

GoI Government of India

GoK Government of Karnataka

GTZ German Technical Cooperation

HAWA Hazardous Waste Management Project, Karnataka

HW Hazardous waste

IMTMA Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers Association

IT Information Technology

ITES Information Technology Enabled ServicesKIADB Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

KSCB Karnataka Slum Clearance Board

KSPCB Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

KSRSAC Karnataka State Remote Sensing Application Centre

KSSIDC Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation

KUWSDB Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

MIS Management information system

MMSME Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

MNC Multinational companyMoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests


11/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute ix

ND Not detectable

NH National Highway

NOX Oxides of nitrogen

PIA Peenya Industries Association

PICUP Peenya Infrastructure Corridor Upgradation ProjectPM Particulate matter

PPE Personal protective equipment

PPP Public-private partnership

RO Regional Office

RO Reverse osmosis

ROHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances

RSPM Respirable suspended particulate matter

SOX Oxides of sulphur

SPM Suspended particulate matterSSI Small-scale industries

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

SW Solid waste

TCE Trichloroethylene

TDS Total dissolved solids

TSDF Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility

UGD Underground drainage

VOC Volatile organic compounds

YTC Yet to be commissioned


12/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute x

CONTRIBUTORS

Project report Database development GIS application Survey

! Felix Nitz

! Uzra Sultana

! Dr. K.S. Murali

! V. Sreenivas

! B.S. Chandrakala

! Dr. Bakul Rao

! Chandrashekara-swamy M.T.

! Uzra Sultanawith support of

Karnataka State

Remote Sensing

Application Center

(KSRSAC)

! V. Sreenivas

! B.S. Chandrakala

! Uzra Sultana


13/84


14/84


Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 1

1. BACKGROUND

Peenya Industrial Area is one of the largest industrial areas in Bangalore. It has witnessed

rapid growth, leaving tangible impacts on the environment. Observable impacts are a shortageof water, increased air and water pollution, the rise of communicable diseases as well as loss

of green cover. A plan for the systematic improvement of the environment of Peenya In-

dustrial Area is required to address the existing environmental pressure points. Such compre-

hensive plan requires reliable baseline data. Though the data currently available on the in-

dustries located in PIA offers valuable input, the data is too limited to lend itself to the devel-

opment of a comprehensive improvement plan.

The project carried out by EMPRI on Peenya Industrial Area seeks to improve on the dearth

of data. The project aims to achieve this through two complementary instruments: a database

application and this report. The database was developed to permit recording of relevant envi-

ronmental information in future, the project report presents and analyses environmental datacurrently available.

2. OUTPUTS EXPECTED

The following outputs are expected from the project carried out by EMPRI:

1) A report on the status of environment prevailing in Peenya Industrial Area comprising of

a)A compilation and review of environmental baseline data for various parameters suchas ambient air quality, noise, water quality, health, land use and land cover patterns,

housing, industry, solid and hazardous waste management, water supply and sanita-tion, waste water treatment and disposal practices.

b)A compilation of mitigative measures and cleaner production measures currently ad-opted by industries for control of environmental pollution and assessment of the ad-

equacy of these measures.

2) A database application capable of recording, maintaining and reporting of industry spe-cific parameters relevant to environmental pollution on a continuous basis. The database

includes a host of industries and time specific parameters including ledgers showing re-

source utilisation and mitigation measures adopted. This database aims to equip KSPCB

with a tool for the management of information relevant for effective environmental man-agement.

Both the report and the database are complementary instruments which aim to assist decision

making processes with regard to improving the state of environment of Peenya Industrial

Area.

In addition to the scope of work described in the pertaining work order, the set of deliverables

was voluntarily supplemented by the submission of environmental data compatible with a

geographical information system (GIS). The GIS-compatible data links environmental infor-

mation available to specific geographic locations. Its aim is to demonstrate the utility of GIS

as a tool for analysis of environmental parameters and its capacity for environmental man-

agement.


15/84



3. PROFILE OF PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA

3.1. Study area

3.1.1. Location

Peenya Industrial Area is located in Bangalore, about 16 km northwest of the city centre, on

the Bangalore-Pune National Highway (NH 4). Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka, is situ-

ated on the Deccan plateau at an altitude of 920 m above the mean sea level at 1258' northern

latitude and 7735' eastern longitude. Peenya Industrial Area falls in the Bangalore North ta-lukof Bangalore Urban district.

The study area comprises of two areas developed by different state agencies. While one ag-

ency, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), named its portion as Peenya

IndustrialArea, comprising of Phases 1 to 4; Karnataka State Small Industries Development

Corporation (KSSIDC) has chosen the name Peenya IndustrialEstate, comprising of Stages 1

to 3 for the subsequently developed portion. However, the differentiation of two areas interms of language ceased to be observed, especially for the greater public outside the area and

over a period of time the term Peenya Industrial Area became the colloquial synonym forthe entire area. In keeping with the colloquial practice, the term Peenya Industrial Area has

been adopted for the purpose of this study to refer to both Peenya IndustrialArea andEstate.

Wherever the reader needs a clear differentiation of areas it can conveniently be made based

on Phases and Stages.

3.1.2. Climate

The mean annual rainfall of Bangalore City is 859.6 mm. Most of it is received during thesouthwest monsoon between June and September and during northwest monsoon. Statistically

September is the wettest and January the driest month of the year.

Air temperature varies between a minimum of 14C and maximum of 34C. The lowest tem-

perature ever recorded was 7.8C and the highest 38.9C. April is the hottest month of theyear while December to January marks the coldest period. The lowest relative humidity of

30% is noticed during the month of March and the highest between June and October, reach-

ing up to 85%.

Surface winds have seasonal character with westerly components predominating in July and

easterly components in October. High-wind-speed averages of about 17 km/h are observed

during July under westerly winds and low-wind-speed averages of 8 to 9 km/h between Apriland October.

3.1.3. Soil and drainage

Geologically Peenya Industrial Area belongs to Achaean era. Gneiss, granite and dykes are

the major rock types, the former two being found in varying depths. The area is nearly evenly

flat with only gentle slopes and valleys. Predominantly red soil is found in the area overlaying

granite and gneiss from which it is derived. The soil is moderately to severely eroded and ex-

cessively drained. It varies from gravelly to sandy with some clay here and there.

The drainage pattern is governed by granitic ridge, running north-northeast to south-southeast

almost through the middle of the taluk. The eastern side of the drainage is made up of a net-work of nallas, flowing generally from west to east with storage tanks along the path, ulti-


16/84



mately feeding the South Pinakini river on the western side. The western nallas generallyflow from east to west, draining off into Arkavati river.

3.1.4. Water bodies

Prominent water bodies in the vicinity of Peenya Industrial Area comprise of three tanks:

Shivapura, Karihobanahalli and Dasarahalli. Figure 1 below illustrates their locations. All thethree tanks are lying downstream in view of the study area and are fed by a number of streams

running through Peenya Industrial Area.

Figure 1: Shivapura tank (left) and Karihobanahalli tank (right)

Figure 2: Water bodies in the vicinity of Peenya Industrial Area


17/84



3.2. Development

3.2.1. Land acquisition

The development of Peenya Industrial Area followed a structured planning process of the

designated development authorities. Land for the development of the area was acquired solely

by KIADB, an agency owned by the Government of Karnataka (GoK). Acquisition for a totalof 1187 acres for Phases 1 to 4 was completed in 1971. Hereafter acquisition for three addi-

tional areas, Stage 1 to 3, with a total of 298 acres was initiated and completed in 1975.

3.2.2. Infrastructure development

Starting in 1971 KIADB developed Phases 1 to 4 to become Bangalores fourth industrial

area after Ramanagaram (1957), Rajajinagar (1959) and Dyavasandra (1968). Phases 1 to 4

also made for the largest industrial area of Bangalore at that time, twice as large as Dyavasan-

dra (525 acres) and more than 30 times larger than the next in line, Rajajinagar (37 acres).

Land acquired for the forthcoming Stages 1 to 3 was transferred to KSSIDC in 1975 to cater

to the needs of small-scale industries. However, KIADB retained a role in Phases 1 to 3 by

developing plots earmarked for selected larger industries.

An initial network of tarred roads for the entire area was built by KIADB providing access to

the approximately 600 plots. Access to rail, water or air does not exist. In Stages 1 to 3

KSSIDC constructed 1,058 sheds on 238 plots for small-scale industries, making an average

of 4.4 sheds per plot. Phases 1 to 4 were handed over to industries bare and without structures

according to design. A total of around 30 bore wells were drilled for water supply by KIADBand KSSIDC respectively. Phases 1 to 4 were equipped with an underground drainage system

(UGD) for sewage while the later development of Stages 1 to 3 excluded a sewerage system.Here the occupants are required to build septic tanks and soak pits individually. No provision

for management of solid or hazardous waste was made in the development plan. Table 1 pre-

sents the most important characteristics of the infrastructure development at a glance.

Table 1: Key features of the infrastructure development

Features Phase 1 to 4 Stage 1 to 3

Gross area covered 1187 acres 298 acres

Land use (approximately)

Plots

Roads, civic amenities

Open space, parks

72 %

23 %

5 %

68 %

30 %

2 %

Overall development by KIADB KSSIDC

Plots demarcated 362 (approx.) 238

Sheds constructed none 1,058

Water supply through BWSSB, bore wells, tankers

Drainage UGD No provision

Waste management No provision

Housing facilities 100 No provision

Access to road Yes

Access to rail No provision

Access to water transport No provision

Source: KIADB; KSSIDC, BBMP


18/84



3.2.3. Maintenance

The responsibility for maintenance of infrastructural facilities was shared between the City

Municipal Corporation (CMC) with 60% and Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) with

40%. With the establishment of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), in which both

CMC and BMP merged, BBMP assumed the responsibility for Peenya Industrial Areas

maintenance wholly.

Peenyas roads accommodate the entirety of transport requirements for both commutation and

freight. The absence of adequate maintenance rendered roads increasingly unfit for their pur-

pose while they remained the sole lifeline of the area. Severe degradation paired with the ex-

perience of perpetual neglect prompted Peenya Industries Association (PIA) in partnership

with North Bangalore Industries Association and Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers Asso-

ciation (IMTMA) to assume charge of road maintenance in a Public-Private Partnership (PPP)

through the Peenya Infrastructure Corridor Upgradation Project (PICUP). In 2008 PICUP

completed the upgradation of 48 km of roads, costing nearly INR 20 crore (200 million). 75%of the cost is borne by Government of India (GoI), 15% by PIAs members and 10% by GoK.

On the other side, the same roads were dug up by the corporation for laying of electricity ca-bles, leaving trenches with uncompressed sand and damaged tarmac. Heavy goods vehicles

were subsequently found stuck in these trenches and conditions began to resemble their earlier

stage. The uncoordinated intervention of the corporation in question is likely to have caused a

lasting impact discouraging further private engagement in maintenance.

The decline of Bangalores water table over the past two decades did not spare Peenya. Water

supplies, as drawn from about 30 central bore wells, became scarcer as bore wells began to

dry up. The situation was compounded by pollution of water resources through unscientific

discharge of effluents. Of the 18 bore wells of Stages 1 to 3, nine were reported to have dried

up prior to 2004 and the remaining bore wells were contaminated and unfit for drinking pur-

poses. KSSIDC saw itself in no position to maintain the supply of potable water following

which the responsibility was transferred to Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

(BWSSB). However, the inadequacy of water supply continues to be apparent throughout the

area. A large share of industries is reported to rely on their own bore wells drilled to tackle the

supply shortage; commercial water tankers provide for the residual demand. Stakeholdersadmit that the drainage system of Phases 1 to 4 as insufficiently maintained by but no specific

information was available for this study.

Solid waste management by CMC/BMP and, from 2007, by BBMP, emerges as largely ab-

sent. The number and magnitude of illegal waste dumps containing industrial solid waste bearevidence to this fact. The situation remained persistently out of control of civic authorities,

eventually prompting the PICUP project to address this requirement. A 5-acre plot of land is

being developed since 2007 as waste collection and handling centre. The system includeswaste collection from 100 purpose-built concrete bins distributed across Peenya and segrega-

tion into recyclable components to be forwarded to commercial recyclers (refer to chapter 6.5,

Example 1). INR 1 crore (10 million) is being invested in PPP with contributions from GoI,

PIA members and GoK in the same share as indicated for road improvement above. BBMP is

interested in operating the waste management system. Though this is highly desirable, PICUP

wishes to retain a stake to safeguard its functioning. As of October 2008, negotiations in this

regard are understood to continue.

The deficiency of maintenance is a tangible reality and office bearers of both PIA and BBMP

alike have voiced their concerns. It compounds the problem caused by the limitations of infra-

structure and renders the 35-year old Peenya Industrial Area infrastructurally challenged.


19/84



3.3. Layout

Peenya Industrial Area, comprising of Phases 1 to 4 and Stages 1 to 3, spans 1,485 acres (6.0

km2) of interconnected land. It stretches from southwest to northeast, spanning about 5.0 km

at its farthermost points. The widest northwest to southeast expanse is about 2.8 km. The

Bangalore-Pune National Highway, in city limits known as Tumkur Road, passes through the

estate on the north-eastern section, separating Phase 1 and Stage 1. Apart from Tumkur Roadother major access roads include Outer Ring Road and Magadi Road.

Figure 3: Layout of Peenya Industrial Area

Peenya Industrial Area is surrounded by residential areas, private industrial areas, undevel-

oped land and water bodies. Specific mentioning deserves Yeshwantpur Industrial Area and

Yeshwantpur Industrial Suburb. During the course of Peenyas growth, a considerable num-

ber of private industrial estates grew organically adjacent to it. As records of Karnataka State

Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) show, a large number of these industries have obtainedconsent for establishment (CFE) and operation (CFO) and are thus operating legally. Promi-

nent areas include but may not be limited to those listed in Table 2. Infrastructural facili-ties in private industrial areas are far below the level of Peenya.

Table 2: Private industrial areas surrounding Peenya Industrial Area

Adjacent private industrial areas

1. Bhyraveswara Industrial Estate 6. Nadakerappa Industrial Estate

2. Byregowda Industrial Estate 7. Nallagundanalhalli Industrial Estate

3. Doddana Industrial Estate 8. Narayana Gowda Industrial Estate

4. Macksons Industrial Estate 9. Sri Muneshwara Industrial Estate

5. Maruthi Industrial Estate/Town 10. Sri Raghavendra Industrial Estate

Source: KSPCB 2008; City Map of Bangalore, Eicher Goodearth Limited


20/84



Detailed maps of Peenya Industrial Area are presented at Annex 1. These maps were digi-

talised and fed into a Geographical Information System (GIS) by Karnataka State Remote

Sensing Application Centre (KSRSAC). GIS information developed for this study is provided

on a CD ROM accompanying this report.

3.4. Employment

According to PIA it is estimated that the 3,000 industries operating in Peenya Industrial Area

employ about 400,000 to 425,000 workers. The share of women in the workforce is estimated

to be 40%. This makes for an average number of workers per industry between 133 to 142.

This number is large considering that the great majority of industries are small or micro enter-

prises and suggests that large and medium industries present might have a considerable work-

force. This appears plausible considering for instance cases such as the 26 large and medium

scale labour intensive garment industries.

3.5. Housing

Peenya Industrial Area was planned and developed as an exclusively industrial area. The only

exception is formed by housing quarters for about 100 industrial managers established by

KIADB. This approach appears reasonable given the relatively small extent of the estate and

the fact that it is well embedded in the surrounding environment with a sizeable choice of

residential areas in the vicinity.

A number of workers are believed to stay on industrial premises according to BBMP. Some

units are believed to let out unutilised building space to workers, especially those at the bot-

tom end of the income ladder such as workers in garment factories. No estimates about the

number of workers to whom accommodation is being provided exist.

Slums have grown in unutilised corners of the Peenya Industrial Area. As shown in Table 3,three slums have been recognised by Karnataka Slum Clearance Board (KSCB) while basic

amenities have not been provided. The total slum population of below a thousand does not

suggest that slum dwellers at Peenya constitute a significant part of its workforce.

Table 3: Recognised slums at Peenya Industrial Area

Slum Locality Number of huts Population

Gulbraga Slum Phase 2 50 241

Niligiri Thopu Peenya Phase 3 65 180

Siddarthanagara Stage 3 147 309

Totals 261 730

Source: Karnataka Slum Clearance Board, 2008


21/84



4. PROFILE OF INDUSTRIES

4.1. Industry base

As of 2008, PIA estimates the total number of industries present at Peenya Industrial Area to

be approximately 3,000. The majority is believed to belong to small and micro enterprises and

only about 40 to 45 medium and large industries. Only 1,565 industries, a much lesser num-

ber, are registered with KSPCB as of 31 March 2007. According to BBMP, the adjacent areas

surrounding Peenya Industrial Area are believed to accommodate a further 3,000 industries.

Before one dwells on the break-up of industries which could rely on the break-up of regis-

tered industries only and not the overall total one would need to investigate the substantial

discrepancy between these numbers. The Water Act requires industries that discharge sewage

or effluent to apply for consent with KSPCB. Similarly, the Air Act requires prior consent for

industries that generate emissions through, for instance, diesel generator (DG) sets, boilersand processes. Though the criteria laid out appear to cover almost the entire gamut of in-dustrial activities, especially considering the inclusion of sewage generation, in reality there

exists a large number of industries that do not fall into anyone of these categories. Peenya In-dustrial Area is host to a large number of such industries that occupy tiny workshops, often no

more than 10x10 ft, without toilet facilities. These industries do not come under the purview

of Water Act and need to register with KSPCB only should another criteria apply. Quite often

none does. This fact is not surprising considering the operational constraints the size itself

imposes. Such enterprises would chiefly be engineering industries, predominantly engaged in

job work for other, often larger engineering industries. The number of such enterprises in

Peenya Industrial Area may be above 1,000 and in terms of magnitude be nearly comparable

to the number of registered industries. Industries not registered with KSPCB may also includeenterprises evading the consent process. However, these may not constitute a significant share

because KSPCBs inspection officers are vigilant and have regularised the identification of er-

rant industries.

4.2. Environmental classification

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the state agency KSPCB classify industries

based on the pressure they exert on the environment. The pressure depends first and foremost

on the activity and processes undertaken and waste streams associated with these. Based on

predefined categories industries are classified as highly polluting (Red), moderately pollut-

ing (Orange) or less polluting (Green) when seeking consent for establishment (CFE) oroperation (CFO). It should be noted that differences exist between CPCBs and KSPCBs

categorisation of industries. KSPCBs system is understood to have its root in CPCBs but tohave been updated several times based on experiences that provide for a better differentiation

of environmentally relevant activities1. Table 4 shows the consolidated registry of KSPCB for

industries of Peenya Industrial Area.

1Refer to http://kspcb.kar.nic.in/consent_management.htm


22/84



Table 4: Classification of industries registered with KSPCB

Environmental categories

Red Orange GreenSize

Operat-

ingYTC

2

Closed/

shifted

Operat-

ingYTC

Closed/

shifted

Operat-

ingYTC

Closed/

shifted

Sub-

totals

Large 30 0 4 18 2 5 27 1 3 90

Medium 33 2 2 17 2 7 105 13 26 207

Small 309 16 106 77 5 31 583 9 132 1,268

Subtotals 372 18 112 112 9 43 715 23 161 1,565

502 164 899

Share 32.1% 10.5% 57.4% 100%

Operating 372 112 715 1,199

YTC 18 9 23 50

Closed/ shifted 112 43 161 316

Source: Annual Reports of KSPCB RO Peenya and RO North, 2007

Nearly 43% of registered industries belong to the Red and Orange category while Green holds

the majority. In terms of size, the greatest share is constituted by small-scale industries (SSIs),

accounting for 81% of the overall total. Their share would be substantially higher if this

break-up would consider the criteria for classification of SSIs laid down by Ministry of Mi-

cro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MMSME) instead of KSPCBs. MMSME classifies SSIs

as those with an investment up to INR 5 crore in plant and machinery. KSPCB, by contrast,

ads to that also the cost of land or, in cases of rental or lease base, the capital equivalent of aten-year tenure. The inclusion of these additional and often substantial costs lifts a sizable

share of SSIs to the status of medium size enterprises and, presumably, some medium scaleenterprises to large in the eyes of KSPCB. This fact explains as to why PIA following the

generally accepted definition of sizes of MMSME estimated the number of large and me-

dium industries of the area to be about 40-45 while on KSPCBs record lists 297 industries, a

number that is more than six times greater.

4.3. Growth and mortality

A substantial number of industries, 20% overall total, closed down or moved away. This not

only applies for Red and Orange category industries where a more stringent monitoring of en-

vironmental parameters would make this appear likelier; it also includes Green category in-

dustries account for more than half of all closed industries. A look at individual categories re-

veals that closures are with 26% highest in Orange while Red occupies the second place.

Table 5: Category wise shares of closed industries

IndustriesCategory

Total Closed Share

Red 502 112 22%

Orange 164 43 26%

Green 899 161 18%

Source: Annual Reports of KSPCB RO Peenya and RO North, 2007

2Yet to be commissioned


23/84



50 industries are shown as yet to be commissioned (YTC). Their overall share makes amere 3% of the total and they account for less than one sixth of closed industries. This ap-

pears to indicate a decline in the number of registered industries which is an established fact.

However, the ratio of YTCs to closed industries is not an adequate parameter to judge the

overall growth because these headings do not consider similar periods of time. Closed in-

dustries tend to linger on the records for years and are therefore over-represented while YTCindustries constitute a shorter-term projection. Nevertheless, there is a clear net decline of reg-

istered industries. KSPCBs data shows 1,521operating industries in 2005 and only 1,199 in

2007. This represents a remarkable drop by 21% in merely two years. Interestingly, PIA ob-

served a slight but not significant rise of number of industries over the past few years. This

suggests a considerable shift from the registered towards the unregistered segment currently

accounting for nearly half of Peenyas industries.

4.4. Industry sectors

The way in which an industry impacts the environment depends on the nature of its activities

and processes undertaken and the waste streams associated with these. Activities can be

grouped into sectors that encompass industries which undertake similar activities. Neverthe-less, any attempt to group or classify activates requires a certain degree of simplification. The

lesser the number of categories in which industrial activities is broken up into, the higher is

the degree of simplification. The sector attribution presented in Table 6 is based on informa-

tion from the registry of Regional Offices of KSPCB, which included to some degree raw datarequiring a manual classification.

Table 6: Industry sectors in order of descending share

Operating industries

Industry sectorLarge Medium Small

YTCClosed/shifted

Sectortotal

Sectorshare

Engineering: Without plating; Others 64 182 747 48 296 1337 85.4%

Textile: Garments 10 16 35 2 4 67 4.3%

Engineering: Electroplating 10 2 40 3 55 3.5%

Plastic bags 14 4 18 1.2%

Pharmaceuticals 4 4 4 2 14 0.9%

Foundry 1 9 3 13 0.8%

Battery manufacturing 3 7 2 12 0.8%

Pesticides and fertilizers 8 1 9 0.6%

Rubber products 2 2 3 1 8 0.5%

Textile: Dyeing & printing 1 4 2 7 0.4%

Agro products 1 6 7 0.4%

Vehicle servicing 1 1 4 6 0.4%Lead reprocessing 5 5 0.3%

Chemicals 1 1 2 0.1%

Oil reprocessing 2 2 0.1%

Industrial gases 1 1 0.1%

Software 1 1 0.1%

Health Care Establishments 1 1 0.1%

Totals 95 216 888 50 316 1,565 100%

Comparison Totals Table 4 75 155 969

Deviations +20 +61 -81

Source: KSPCB, as of 31 March 2007


24/84



A central observation is the prominence of engineering industries. The breakups key weak-ness is the fact that it does not provide details of sub categories. Together the two engineering

segments account for 89% of registered industries. While it seems apparent that Peenya In-

dustrial Area is first and foremost an engineering cluster, it is feared that many industrial ac-

tivities for which no category has been created such as refractories are simply clubbed

with engineering.80% of operating engineering industries belong to the small scale segment. The coexistenceof 787 SSIs side by side with a 184 medium and 74 large enterprises makes it plausible to as-

sume a tangible degree of vertical integration and interdependency. It is assumed that this ex-

tends also to a large share of unregistered enterprises, the majority of which is believed to en-gage in engineering job work.

The textile sector occupies a discernable but not large share. Garment industries account for

more than 4% of all industries. This number may not appear significant when compared to

engineering but a closer look at this sector is important because garment industries, especiallylarger ones, employ a large workforce and collectively contribute a substantial share of

Peenya Industrial Areas workforce. Large workforces generate sewage of scale, waster waterbeing an area of environmental concern. The dying and printing units, though accounting for

only 0.7% too are highly relevant because the trade effluents generated in chemicals-intensive

wet processes such as scouring, bleaching and dyeing.

More then ten industries exist of each of pharmaceuticals, battery manufacturing, foundriesand plastic bags, the balance being shared between a host of different sectors, each one of

them represented only by a single digit number of industries. Figure 4 illustrates the distribu-

tion of main industry sectors.

Figure 4: Share of industry sectors

A discrepancy exists between the totals of operating large, medium and small industries

shown in Table 4 and Table 6. Table 6 considers a greater number of large and medium in-dustries yet fewer small industries while the sum total of these deviations is zero. It appears

that that the same industries have merely been sized differently in different data sets. The data

presented here has been presented as is and no attempt has been made to tally these records

because the results are unlikely to alter the key observations or conclusions.


25/84


26/84



4.5.2. Environmental classification

To assess the state of environment it is necessary to consider the pressures exerted by in-

dustries on the environment. Pressures are particularly significant for industries classified as

Red or Orange. Out of the 476 industries sampled, 345 (72%) are categorised as either Red or

Orange. This reflects the focus attributed to highly and moderately polluting industries. This

share also accounts for about 53% of the overall total of 655 non-green industries operating in2006, the year in which survey was conducted. A breakup of the industries sampled is pro-vided at Table 7.

Table 7: Classification of industries assessed

Environmental categoriesSize

Red Orange Green UnassignedSubtotal

Large 21 3 9 - 33

Medium 25 26 65 - 116

Small 211 59 56 - 326

Unassigned - - - 1 1Totals 257 88 130 1 476

Share of operat-

ing total in 200654% 49% 15% 30%

Source: EMPRI

4.5.3. Industry sectors

Industries assessed have been attributed to sectors based on products manufactures as shown

in Table 8. This permits a far more precise picture as compared to KSPCBs breakup. How-

ever, its comparability with KSPCB data shown in Table 6 is limited. Though the sample size

accounts for a proud 30%, by design, the share of Red and Orange category industries is over-

represented in the survey. Industry sectors belonging to Red and Orange categories willconsequentially be overrepresented as well.

Table 8: Industry sectors represented in the sample set

Industry sectors Number of industries

Iron and steel based

Engineering - Fabrication 82

Engineering - Metal surface treatment 75

Engineering - Systems and components 59

Foundries & Smelters 25

Engineering - Machine tools 14

Wires & Cables 4Subtotal 259

Chemical and allied

Chemicals & Specialty chemicals 27

Pharmaceuticals 16

Plastics 15

Paints 13

Rubber products 10

Pesticides & Fertilisers 6

Cosmetics 3

Lubricants 3

Subtotal 93


27/84



Industry sectors Number of industries

Textile

Garments 26

Wet processing 3

Laundry 2

Looms 1

Yarn 1

Subtotal 33

Other sectors

Electricals & Electrical equipment 13

Electronics 11

Batteries 10

Ceramics & Refractory materials 7

Paper & Cardboard 7

Food & Food ingredients 6

Trading & Repackaging 5

Furniture 4

Printing press 4Fodder & Fodder supplements 3

Mineral processing 3

Stone products 3

Brewery 2

Leather products 2

Oil and solvent reprocessing 2

Glass 1

Hospital 1

Hotel 1

Incense sticks 1

Industrial gases 1

Medical implants 1

Software 1

Vehicle service 1

Wood products 1

Subtotal 91

Figure 6 shows the weigtage of sector groups. From this it becomes apparent that iron and

steel based industries account for only 54% of the industries sampled as compared to nearly

90% of engineering industries (inclusive of foundries) according to KSPCBs breakup at

Table 6.

Figure 6: Share of industry sector groups sampled


28/84



The primary reason for the limited comparability has been highlighted above. A compoundingfactor is that the boundaries for sector definitions based on products manufactured might not

exactly conform to the criteria applied by KSPCB. As was pointed out in chapter 4.4, KSPCB

is understood to have clubbed a number of non-engineering manufacturing industries with en-

gineering. The sample data suggests that this might extend also to sectors such as paints, pa-

per, leather, food and trading as none of these appear separately in KSPCBs breakup.Among the sectors grouped under iron and steel based industries, the manufacture of systemsand components as well as machine tools are positioned near the top end of the value chain. In

the sample size this layer is about 28% strong, suggesting that a large portion of the remainder

probably the majority - acts as intermediary among vertically integrated industries, provid-ing specific services such as, for instance, casting and metal surface treatment. In the iron and

steel group these intermediary processes are of particular importance as they tend to consist of

processes of greater energy, waste and chemicals intensity compared to other processes. In-

termediary processes exert thus a higher pressure on the environment as compared to mere

product assembly and testing at the end of the process chain. Intermediary services are often

outsourced while the client retains some but limited control over work practices and treatment

of waste streams.

The 93 industries of the chemical and allied industries group account for a considerable one

fifth of the entire sample assessment size. This share is much larger than expected from

KSPCBs breakup at Table 6, which lists only 51 industries of comparable categories. Given

that the assessment deals with a smaller sample size, the subtotal of this group was expected

to approach but certainly not to exceed 51. The fact that KSPCBs total is exceeded by an

enormous 81% implies that grouping boundaries differed significantly, as mentioned before,

while indicating the possibility that many industries belonging to this group have been mer-ged with the engineering sector in KSPCBs breakup.


29/84



5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

5.1. Water

5.1.1. Industry sectors concerned

Industries contribute to water pollution with a wide range of toxic chemicals, lubricants,

pathogens, hazardous compounds, oil and grease, dyes, suspended solids and non-biodegradable matter. Prominent water polluters are large water consumers, which generate

large amounts of liquid waste streams. Sectors generating liquid waste streams in Peenya In-

dustrial Areas include but are not limited to those listed in Table 9.

Table 9: Key water polluting industries

Prominent effluent generating sectors

Electroplating Pharmaceuticals

Chemical Pesticides and fertilizers

Dyeing and printing Food processing

Engineering Automobile servicing

Tanning Fabrication

Prominent sewage generating sectors

Garments IT, ITES and BT

Source: EMPRI 2008

In 2008 BWSSB estimated its water supply to Peenya Industrial Area to be between 84-86

million litres per month. Recipients supplement water supplies with drawings from individualbore wells and commercial tankers. Though no estimate for water from these sources is avail-

able it can be assumed to account for a very significant share in the overall supply.

5.1.2. Pressures

Pressures on natural water resources owe to two key aspects: overexploitation and contamina-tion. The excessive depletion of resources in Bangalore has resulted in a tangible decline of

the water table. A 2008 assessment of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board(KUWSDB) concluded that Bangalores water table dropped from an average of 80-150 feet

to 800 feet in the course of 20 years. This fact is felt in Peenya as well. Bore wells of rela-

tively low depth constructed decades ago have by and large gone dry, including a number of

those drilled by Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation (KSSIDC). A 96feet (29 m) bore well drilled on the premises of a foundry in Phase 4 in 1986 provided good,

potable water. Following the gradual drying up of that bore well, a new well of 290 feet (88

m) was drilled in 2006. Though the new well is capable of delivering water, the water drawn

reportedly bears an objectionable smell and is unsuitable for drinking purposes. Many entre-preneurs residing in Peenya since more than a decade have observed such drastic deterioration

in terms of availability and quality of water. Causes for increasing water contamination are

extremely varied. A selection is presented in the following.

Leakages of

undergrounddrainage systems

Inspections of underground drainage systems (UGDs) are rare and re-

medial actions are generally limited to emergency repairs, undertakenafterthe identification of breakdowns.


30/84



Leachate from

unauthorised

dumpsites

Leachate from unauthorized dumpsites of industrial waste percolatesinto the water table and contaminates the ground water as well as water

bodies. Lack of solid waste management encourages disposal in un-

authorised places and no preventive or remedial actions have been taken

to clear these dumpsites.

Infiltration from

soak pits

Sewage at various degrees of decomposition seeps out of soak pits as

containment is limited by the virtue of nature.

Leakage/overflow

of septic tanks

Poor construction and placement paired with the widespread absence of

maintenance together form and compound leakages. Loading septictanks in excess of capacity invariably results in direct discharge into the

environment.

Improper treat-

ment of effluent

Though many treatment plants appear to be working technically, not all

will produce legislation-compliant results all the time. While analysis

reports occasionally report trespasses, an estimation of magnitude andsignificance would require a much closer monitoring than currently in

place.

Direct discharge

of sewage or ef-

fluent

Direct discharge of waste streams into drainages, lakes, on open land, oreven dried up bore wells though not to be presumed common in

Peenya Industrial Area is not believed completely eradicated. This

problem is brought about by the absence of UGDs, soak pits or septic

tanks, negligent overflow of septic tanks, avoidance of treatment cost,

underlying which is an obvious lack of concern for the environment. In

the case of effluents the potential magnitude of the issue is highlighted

by the discrepancy between the projected effluent generation accordingto the consent documents and quantities actually sent for treatment. M/sEco Green Solution Systems Pvt. Ltd, a CETP operator with about 70

customers in Peenya, reports to have total subscriptions for about 8 lakh

litres per month (800,000) while the utilisation level as of 2008 is just

above 3 lakh litres (300,000). Monitoring is too limited to keep viola-

tions entirely in check.

5.1.3. Quality of ground water

Decades worth of discharge of pollutants under a previously less stringent monitoring regimeas compared to now have put their mark on the quality of todays water. Over time contami-

nants propagated, reaching deeper lying aquifers that remained previously untouched. With

some probability, the percolation of contaminants into deep layers was assisted by more ad-

vanced modes of unlawful effluent disposal such as discharge through dried up bore wells.

This study makes an attempt to quantify the level of water contamination based on a review of

analysis results of bore well water in Peenya Industrial Area. For the purpose of this study

bore well water from ten locations spread across the area was sampled and the findings (see

Table 10) were juxtaposed to similar data of the Department of Mines and Geology (refer to

Table 11). In each of the two data sets the range of parameters differs somewhat while com-

parison is aided by a helpful overlap of essential core parameters. The specific sample loca-tions differ but geographic boundaries and sample period, between 2005 and 2006, coincide.


31/84



Table 10: Water analysis of bore well samples A

Limits as of

IS 10500-1991Results for samples in mg/l

ParametersDesir-

able

Permis-

sibleS1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

Cadmium 0.05 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ND ND ND NDCalcium 75 200 211 175 220 175 122 129 171 128 237 90

Chloride 250 1,000 426 348 552 350 236 224 268 236 572 252

Copper 0.05 1.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Fluoride 0.6 - 1.2 -- 0.27 0.47 0.75 0.11 0.075 0.015 0.29 0.4 ND 0.2

Hardnessas CaCO3

300 600 960 800 932 631 616 635 912 492 1368 436

Iron 0.3 1 0.29 0.19 0.37 0.42 0.19 0.06 0.05 ND 0.05 0.1

Lead 0.1 -- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Magnesium 30 100 105 88 93 47 76 76 118 42 189 52

Manganese 0.1 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 ND 0.14 ND

Nitrate 45 50 8.7 8.3 2.45 6.3 4.8 4.5 19.5 11.9 12.8 9.3

pH 6.5 - 7.5 6.5 - 9.2 7.58 7.63 7.27 7.48 7.48 7.22 7.85 7.65 7.37 7.9

Phenoliccompounds

0.001 0.002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Sulphate 150 400 186 208 122 22 130 94 390 98 307 22

Total

chromium-- -- ND ND ND ND ND ND -- -- -- --

Total solids Not prescribed 1,428 1,320 1,220 1,020 828 838 1380 936 1750 698

Zinc 5 10 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.47 0.32 0.39 0.6

Source: Sampling EMPRI, 2005; AnalysisKSPCB Central Environmental Lab, 2005

Legend and location index S4 Phase 2, KSCMF Ltd., Narayanapura

Beyond permissible limits S5 Phase 2, No. 21, (AT) NTTF Road

Beyond desirable limits S6 Phase 3, BMP Park KIADB Housing Complex Next to open drainS1 Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, behind Slum Clear-

ance Board Next to open drain S7 Stage 2, KSSIDC

S8 Stage 2, BMTC Depot, No. 9S2 Slum opposite Micro Labs Ltd., Road In-dustrial, Suburb area Next to open drain S9 Phase 4, Near NTTF Circle

S3 Stage 2, FFI, 5th Main, Industrial Suburb S10 Phase 3, No. 59

The data presented in Table 10 above points at calcium and magnesium crossing permissible

limits in some cases and for hardness in an alarming eight in ten cases (80%). Furthermore,desirable limits are crossed for a wide range of parameters: Manganese (one in ten cases, that

is 10%), iron (20%), sulphate (40%), pH (50%), chloride (70%) and fluoride (90%). Overall,

only eight out of 15 parameters less than half remain entirely on the green side of both

permissible and desirable limits. A notable point for discussion is the fact that values for leadhave emerged as not detectable (ND). While this would certainly be desirable, this finding

is surprising considering that Peenya comprises of a tangible number of lead recyclers. In thislight the results appear implausible and cast a certain doubt on their veracity.

While these results warrant a degree of concern about the water quality prevailing in Peenya,

the results of Department of Mines and Geology discussed in the following create an even

less optimistic impression.


32/84



Table 11: Water analysis of bore well samples B

2005 2006

Param-

eters

All values inmg/l exceptpH andconductivity

Permissible

limit

CMCwater

Hi-powerequip-

mentsPvt.L

td.,Ef-

fluent

LibraEnterp

rises

(Paragon)

KarnatakaEngi-

neeringEnte

rprises

BiopharmaD

rugs

pharmaceuticals

MultiplexAg

ro

Chemicals

ThirumalaEngineer-

ing

HoneyHillsSynergy

Systems

FinetoolsBW

DigitechInte

grated

MetalsCoats

UniqueInstr

uments

Manufacture

rs

UniqueInstr

uments

Manufacture

rs

Bicarbon-

ate-- 363 49 456 320 348 306 282 245 282 270 294 59

Calcium 200 294 114 133 114 82 256 140 216 232 232 583 808

Carbonate -- Nil Nil 24 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

Chloride 1,000 851 171 246 246 120 420 301 476 448 455 2044 2660

Fluoride 1.5 0.88 2.2 0.46 0.46 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.45 6.09 6.30

Hardness

as CaCO3

600 1,456 344 804 740 516 1,170 660 1,160 1,070 1,340 3,510 4,080

Iron 1.0 0.18 1.4 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.014 0.014 0.31 0.14 0.14 0.024 0.01

Magnes-ium

100 180 15 119 114 78 133 79 155 123 190 513 515

Nitrate 50 55 46 63 31 17 43 28 18 17 48 128 155

pH 6.5-8.5 7.7 7.73 7.82 7.68 7.54 7.24 8.28 7.03 7.23 7.51 6.11 5.74

Potassium -- 10 12 7 7 4 3 5 4 4 3 8 14

Sodium -- 416 74 52 33 28 75 95 125 150 75 84 345

Sulphate 400 817 197 124 190 121 457 203 543 518 602 513 938

Totaldissolved

salts

2,000 2,860 690 1,130 1,000 670 1,670 1,150 1,700 1,680 1,800 4,500 5,590

Conduc-

tivity in!/cm

-- 4,780 1,040 1,880 1,660 1,180 2,700 1,770 2,900 2,830 3,050 7,500 9,800

Source: Department of Mines and Geology, 2005 and 2006

Legend Beyond permissible limits

The conclusions of Table 11 above give reason for serious concern. Permissible limits are ex-

ceeded for allparameters for which limits have been prescribed: Iron (in one out of twelve

cases), chloride and pH (in 20% of cases), fluoride and total dissolved solids (25%), nitrate

(33%), calcium and sulphate (58% each), Magnesium (75%) and hardness (83%). A matter of

interest is also that, contrary to the analysis of Table 10, here also chloride, fluoride, iron, ni-

trate, pH, sulphate exceed the permissible limits. In case of nitrate the discrepancy is evengreater as in the previous data suggested that it was safely within the desirable limit. Regret-

tably, data for lead and chromium were not included in the analysis of Department of Minesand Geology.

For the last sample location, M/s Unique Instruments Manufacturers, values for both 2005

and 2006 are available. Although one should not interpret data from one-time samples

broadly, a substantial increase of contaminants over this one-year period can hardly escapethe readers notice. This includes calcium, chloride, hardness, nitrate, sulphate and TDS. The

pH value has fallen further below the lower limit, which also is a change for the worse.


33/84



In conclusion, there is reason for very serious concern about Peenyas ground water quality.The dissimilarity between data of Table 10 and Table 11 lends support to the doubts raised on

the veracity of the previous data set that was discussed first.

5.1.4. Quality of water bodies

The impact of unrelenting water contamination finds its reflection in the quality of water oflakes and tanks. Prominent water bodies in the vicinity of Peenya Industrial Area comprise of

Karihobanahalli tank, Shivapura tank and Dasarahalli tank. All three tanks are lying down-stream of the study area and are fed by streams running through Peenya Industrial Area. The

results of the analysis of these water bodies are discussed in the following.

Table 12: Water analysis of Karihobanahalli tank

2003 2004 2005 2006Parameter

All values in mg/lexcept pH

Perm

iss

ible

lim

it

30Aug

15Sep

17Ju

l

13Sep

05Sep

08Sep

21Ju

l

21Ju

l

24Aug

08Sep

19Sep

BOD 100 3 2.0 1 2.0 7.0 19 22 16 5 8

Cadmium 0.01 0.020 0.001 -- BDL ND -- ND ND ND ND ND

Calcium 200 -- -- -- 191 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chloride 600 320 384 220 -- 368 316 708 900 -- -- --

Chromium total 0.05 0.062 0.002 0.024 0.02 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

COD 250 99 56 -- -- 27 82 124 166 -- -- --

Copper 1.5 0.02 0.009 -- 0.44 ND ND ND ND 0.022 0.005 ND

Dissolved sol-

ids2,100 1,266 1,112 724 568 1,086 980 1,946 2,130 1,850 2,340 2,142

Hardness asCaCO3

300 -- -- -- 333 365 349 914 -- -- -- --

Iron 0.3 ND 0.670 -- 1.37 0.90 0.17 58.17 0.32 2.465 0.541 0.718Lead 0.1 0.311 -- -- 0.33 ND ND 0.01 0.13 1.43 0.272 0.059

Nickel -- 0.584 -- -- BDL ND ND 2.02 ND ND 0.008 1.465

Nitrate 20 -- -- -- 0.62 1.06 -- -- -- -- -- --

Oil and grease -- ND -- Nil -- -- -- -- -- -- --

pH 5.5-9.0 8 7.1 7.1 7.6 7.9 7.3 6.9 7.5 7.66 7.93 7.3

Phosphate 5 -- -- -- -- ND 0.13 1.44 2 -- -- --

Sodium absorp-tion ratio

-- 4.2 3.8 2.5 -- 5.3 3.25 5.18 5.13 -- -- --

Sulphate 1,000 176 150 68 54 84 53 140 106 -- -- --

Suspended sol-

ids200 4 16 6 18 10 68 116 112 56 54 22

Total Kjeldalnitrogen -- -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Zinc 15 ND 0.14 -- BDL 0.09 ND 7.28 0.07 ND 0.09 0.03

Source: Water quality monitoring of lakes in and around Bangalore City, KSPCB, undated

Karihobanahalli tank samples taken between 2003 and 2006, exceed permissible limits for six

out of the 15 parameters for which limits have been prescribed. This includes cadmium and

chromium (in each case one out of eleven instances, or 9%), chloride (18%), dissolved solids

(27%), lead and hardness (36%) and iron (73%). It is interesting to note that excess of lead

was recorded in four out of eleven instances while the results for bore well samples of Table10 discussed before show lead as not detectable. The increased occurrence of limits being



34/84



exceeded in 2006 for four parameters as compared to the previous years is indicative of in-creasing pressure on water resources. Coliform, a good indicator for the discharge of un-

treated sewage, was not included in the parameter set. However, a visual inspection of Kari-

hobanahalli tank in 2006 suggested that pollution levels could possibly be higher than the an-

alysis results reveal. Particularly the values of dissolved solids, biological oxygen demand

(BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) appear not beyond doubt.Water samples from the Shivapura tank have been analysed between 2003 and 2005 with anidentical set of parameters. Six of the parameters that exceed the prescribed limits correspond

to the results of Karihobanahalli tank but, overall the incidence is lower. Chloride, chromium

and dissolved solids exceeded permissible limits in one out of eleven samples (9% each), leadin two samples (18%) and hardness and iron in 63% of samples. Cadmium does not emerge as

an issue here but copper exceeded limits in 9% of samples and calcium in 27%.

Table 13: Water analysis of Shivapura tank

2003 2004 2005Parameter

All values in mg/l

except pH

Perm

issib

le

lim

it

19Fe

b

30Aug

01Sep

15Sep

22May

17Ju

l

06Aug

13Sep

29Sep

04Aug

08Sep

BOD 100 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 2 2.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 4

Cadmium 0.01 -- 0.004 0.005 ND -- -- ND BDL -- -- ND

Calcium 200 680 -- -- -- -- -- 251 267 146 -- --

Chloride 600 680 368 400 320 330 192 224 -- 140 348 148

Chromium total 0.05 -- 0.062 ND ND -- -- -- 0.04 ND -- ND

COD 250 125 9.0 68 35 -- -- 21 -- 11 57 46

Copper 1.5 ND 0.016 0.004 2.611 -- -- -- ND -- -- ND

Dissolved solids 2,100 3,296 1,516 1,412 1,192 1,328 918 936 838 638 1,000 596

Hardness asCaCO3

300 1600 -- -- -- 310 364 408 310 468 238

Iron 0.3 -- 0.903 0.907 2.037 -- 0.15 3.34 4.22 0.79 -- 0.94

Lead 0.1 -- 0.248 0.250 ND -- -- -- ND -- -- ND

Nickel -- -- 0.560 0.572 0.166 -- -- -- ND -- -- ND

Nitrate 20 0.2 -- -- -- ND 0.6 1.06 5.3 -- --

Oil and grease -- -- ND ND ND ND Nil -- Nil ND -- --

pH 5.5-9.0 7.3 7.5 7.1 6.9 7.8 7.2 7.6 7.2 7.1 7.75 7.2

Phosphate 5 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.05 0.08

Sodium absorp-

tion ratio-- -- 4.9 4.8 2.8 2.7 3.2 -- -- 2.07 -- 2.5

Sulphate 1,000 654 193 43 205 240 187 219 210 219 122 75

Suspended sol-ids

200 -- 36 26 10 16 10 8 34 16 14 24

Total Kjeldalnitrogen

-- -- -- -- 6.2 1.6 5.6 1.68 1.68 -- --

Zinc 15 -- ND ND ND 0.08 -- 2.54 0.06 -- 0.18



Differing from the data of Karihobanahalli tank, in Shivapura tank most incidents of limit ex-

cess occurred in 2003 although the data available does not permit checking on the trend for

2006. Some parameters that are on the safe side throughout appear to have been higher, on


35/84



average, in 2003 than in the following years. That applies to sodium absorption ratio and sus-pended solids. Other parameters vary across samples without revealing a particular trend.

The Dasarahalli tank spans an area of about 80 acres. Though it does not lie within the juris-

diction of KSPCBs Peenya Office it should be considered for this study because it is fed

from streams originating in Peenya Industrial Area.

Table 14: Water analysis of Dasarahalli tank

Results for samples taken on 20-11-2000Parameter

All values in mg/l except

where specifically mentioned

Permissiblelimit

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

BOD 100 210 62 42 42 80

Calcium 200 205 137 796 313 231

Chloride 1,000 428 892 544 380 880

COD 250 416 450 200 272 411

Coliform, faecal in MPN/100ml -- >1600 >1600 >1600 >1600 >1600

Coliform, total in MPN/100ml 0.05 >1600 >1600 >1600 >1600 >1600

Copper 1.5 0.05 0.09 0.05 ND 0.05Dissolved oxygen -- 0.4 4.15 0.8 0.5 0.3

Hardness 300 496 521 873 652 249

Iron 0.3 0.82 1.23 0.94 1.16 0.91

Magnesium -- 291 384 77 339 18

Nickel -- 0.13 ND ND ND ND

Nitrate 20 0.2 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.2

pH 5.5-9.0 8.5 8.6 11.3 7.2 7.2

Phosphate 5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8

Potassium -- 54 59 51 45 66

Sodium -- 195 780 249 219 380

Solids, dissolved 2,100 2096 2718 2614 1208 2624

Solids, suspended 200 50 118 52 228 1372Sulphate 1,000 83 440 232 12 61

Total alkalinity -- 600 569 900 377 294

Turbidity in NTU 10 2.3 30.2 25.2 73.0 128

Zinc 15 0.34 0.73 0.35 0.1 0.3

Electrical conductivity in mS/cm -- 2.3 4.2 2.6 2.1 4.4



A total of nine out of 15 parameters for which permissible limits are defined reached or ex-

ceeded these. Biological oxygen demand and pH exceed limits in only one out of five samples

of the same day, dissolved solids three times (60%). Alarmingly, all of calcium, chemical

oxygen demand, hardness and turbidity exceed the limits in four out of five samples (80%)

and total coliform in the entire set (100%). The data on coliform makes it apparent that the

lake is highly polluted with untreated sewage, a fact that also highlighted in KSPCBs reporton Water quality monitoring of lakes in and around Bangalore City. Table 21 records the

sole instance of a pH outside the permissible bracket. Interestingly, chloride, which exceededthe limits in Karihobanahalli and Shivapura tanks stays within Dasarahalli tank, but is closing

in on the limit in two samples. Lead, regrettably, was not assessed.

Streams or nallasare bearing the brunt of discharges yet are not under the purview of water

body monitoring. Although the situation in Peenya appears better than in many other in-dustrial areas, streams are feared to carry an excess of contaminants into the water bodies they


36/84



are feeding. Two samples of stream water have been analysed under this study but the resultsappear optimistic and implausible and their discussion is hence omitted.

5.2. Waste

5.2.1. Industry sectors concerned

Waste is generated by all industries while substantial differences exist between different in-

dustry sectors. Table 15 provides an overview over key waste generating industry sectors in

Peenya Industrial Area.

Table 15: Main waste generating industry sectors

Hazardous waste Electronic waste Industrial solid waste

Quantities generated (estimate)

33 MT/months (no estimate available) 900 - 1,300 MT/month

Key contributors

Chemical industry IT industry Plastics manufacturer

Pharmaceutical industry IT Enabled Services industry Casting and moulding

Transport corporations Foam industry

Automobile service centres Textile industry

Tiles manufacturing Engineering industries

Dyes manufacturing Stone cutting/polishing

Metal surface finishing Ceramic industries

Food processing

Paint manufacturing

Re-processors

Across industry sectors: Across industry sectors: Across industry sectors:Industries operating effluent

treatment plants (ETP)

Industries with IT infrastruc-

ture

Industries disposing packag-

ing material

Industries/ contractors dis-

posing construction material

Source: KSPCB RO Peenya, 2006; Peenya Industries Association, 2007, EMPRI 2008

5.2.2. Hazardous waste

Until late 2008 Karnataka has had no facility for scientific treatment and disposal of hazard-

ous waste (HW). Only a few technically inadequate incinerators were in operation and storage

and disposal of non-incinerable HW was completely unaddressed. Particularly in small enter-prises storage tends to be inadequate as storage space is scarce and procurement of suitablecontainers is often not attached the necessary priority. The incineration fee levied to producers

of HW cuts into pricing and is a tangible deterrent for adequate treatment. A Treatment, Stor-

age and Disposal Facility (TSDF) developed in Dobbspet is now operational (refer to chapter

6.5, Example 2). Cost might however remain a critical factor that limits participation in safe

disposal compliance with legal stipulations. KSPCB is expected to play a significant role in

ensuring compliance.

The records of KSPCB indicate that 118 industries in Peenya Industrial Area are producing

HW of an estimated 33 MT per month as of 2006. The absence of adequate facilities led to

widespread unsafe disposal practices. A 2004 survey conducted by Karnatakas Hazardous

Waste Management Project found evidence for illegal disposal of HW in one location of


37/84



Peenya. Chemical sludge, oil and grease skimming residues, process dust, textile chemicalresidues and spent oil were identified on a dumpsite measuring approximately 25 acres.

HW interacts directly with the environment in several spheres. Hazards are impacting aquatic

life, the quality of the water table and, indirectly, human health through the water route. Af-

fected are particularly children, women and poorer sections who live in close proximity to

polluted drainage canals and contaminated sites. Also the health of workers of industries gen-erating HW is affected, particularly in small enterprises where processes are unsafe and HWstorage is inadequate.

5.2.3. Electronic waste

Industry sectors such as IT and ITES that intrinsically rely on data processing equipment have

seen rapid growth. The underlying technology is developing rapidly resulting into a high ob-

solescence rates and ever shorter replacement spans. These factors account for the major for-

ces behind the explosive growth of electronic waste (e-waste). E-waste occupies space at a

rapidly growing rate and does not decompose readily. Since it contains a large array of valu-

able constituents, recycling emerges as logical solution and is economically viable.Existing recycling and material recovery is largely in the hands of the informal sector. The

concerns surrounding e-waste are primarily related to occupational health and safety aspects

of recycling workers. Workers are exposed to intolerable health hazards, some of which are

presented in Table 16. The informal sector lacks the capacity to undertake certain processes

without affecting workers health and living conditions of the neighbouring population se-verely. The main reasons are the inadequacy of equipment and processes, the lack of aware-

ness of intrinsic risks among workers and the lack of enforcement of health, safety and envi-ronmental standards. Experts agree that the problem is best addressed by shifting operations

to licensed industries in the formal sector.

Table 16: Health effects of e-waste constituents

Constituent Heath affects

Barium Exposure to fumes and dust may cause damage to

heart, liver and spleen and cause muscle weak-ness.

Beryllium May cause lung cancer and chronic beryllium dis-

ease (beryllicosis).

Brominated

flame retardants

May disrupt the functions of the endocrine system.

Cadmium May cause irreversible toxic effects, malformation

of embryos (teratogenicity) and neural damage(neurotoxicity). Accumulates in kidney and liver.

Hexavalent chromium Cases DNA damage and asthmatic bronchitis.

Lead May cause damage to central and peripheral nerv-ous system, blood stream and kidney. May affect

the brain development of children.

Mercury Causes chronic brain damage in humans. Cases of

environmental database for peenya industrial area bangalore empri 2008 12

Documents