Post on 04-Jun-2018
transcript
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
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:EMPRI_Bangalore@yahoo.co.in!Website:www.empri.kar.nic.in
ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE
FOR PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
COMPLEMENTARY PROJECT REPORT
December 2008
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
3/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute i
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
4/84
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
5/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute iii
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
6/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
7/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute v
5.3. Air............................................................................................................................31
5.3.1. Industry sectors concerned...........................................................................31
5.3.2. Impact...........................................................................................................31
5.3.3. Causes ..........................................................................................................32
5.3.4. Monitoring....................................................................................................33
5.4. Noise ........................................................................................................................34
5.4.1. Industry sectors concerned...........................................................................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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
8/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
9/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
10/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
11/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
12/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
13/84
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
14/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
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.
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
15/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 2
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-
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
16/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 3
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
17/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 4
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
18/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 5
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.
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
19/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 6
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
20/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 7
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
21/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 8
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
22/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 9
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
23/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 10
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
24/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 11
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.
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
25/84
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
26/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 13
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
27/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 14
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
28/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 15
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.
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
29/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 16
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.
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
30/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 17
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.
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
31/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 18
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.
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
32/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 19
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.
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
33/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 20
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
Legend Beyond permissible limits
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
34/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 21
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
Source: Water quality monitoring of lakes in and around Bangalore City, KSPCB, undated
Legend Beyond permissible limits
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
35/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 22
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
Source: Water quality monitoring of lakes in and around Bangalore City, KSPCB, undated
Legend Beyond permissible limits
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
36/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 23
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
8/13/2019 Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore EMPRI 2008 12
37/84
Environmental Database for Peenya Industrial Area
Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute 24
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