CCHHAAPPTTEERR 55

PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION IN

INDUSTRIES IN KERALA - AN EVALUATION Name of the local body

Categories of the sample unit Classification of the sample unit

Air pollution control maintenance staff in the units Number of technical staff in the unit Non-technical staff in the sample unit

Air pollution control consultant in the sample unit Source of emission in the sample unit

Air pollution control measures provided in the sample unit Consent obtained from pollution control board

Air pollution control act 1981 applied in the sample unit Compliance of conditions of air pollution control act

Periodic ambient air quality survey conducted Periodic inspection carried out by pollution control board

Complaint regarding pollution Details of action taken by pollution control board

Details of solid waste in the sample unit Methods of using solid waste in the sample unit

Habitation details in the sample unit Number of population around the unit

Development of green belt

146

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 55

PPRREEVVEENNTTIIOONN AANNDD CCOONNTTRROOLL OOFF AAIIRR PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONN IINN

IINNDDUUSSTTRRIIEESS IINN KKEERRAALLAA-- AANN EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN

Historically, the efforts of air pollution control in India date back to

the mid of nineteenth century. Many of these acts deal with environmental

regulation in a piecemeal manner were indicated in nature and proved

ineffective in reducing the levels of pollution. The landmark in the recent

times in environmental regulation was the passing of the Water (prevention

and control of pollution) Act 1974 and Air (prevention and control of

pollution) Act, 1981. The Water act 1974 resulted in the institunaliation of

pollution control machinery by establishing the central pollution control

board (CPCB) and state pollution control boards (SPCB). The significance

prevailing in India concerning air pollution is that most of the industrial

units are located in highly populated area. Industrial estates and complexes

have been located closely to the residential area without considering of the

consequence of the environmental pollution. Emission from such industrial

units close to residential area damages to human and animal life. It is

observed that emission rate from Indian industries when compared to other

countries indicated that (refineries, cement factories, steel, coal based power

plant, oil based power stations, sulphuric acid units and petrochemical

industries) emit considerable quantity of pollutants in to atmosphere.

Air quality has been undertaken in some of the industries in India

shows that Indian industrial chimneys and powerhouses emit pollutant to air

such as SPM (suspended particulate matter) smoke, dust, sulphuric dioxide,

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, fluorides, silicon, tectraflurides etc. In big

industrial centers where huge number of industries exits, the environmental

preservation activity can make as group task by the industries. Emission

147

whether it is from particular industries or from a group of industries all in

fact pollutes the atmosphere. The available resources and know how should

be utilized by every industries to the optimum extent in order to bring down

the effect of environmental pollution. An attempt has been made to find out

to what extent the study unit complied with the provision of air pollution act

1981 in order to prevent and control air pollution in state industries. The

information gathered, analyzed and presented below.

TTAABBLLEE 55..11

NNAAMMEE OOFF TTHHEE LLOOCCAALL BBOODDYY

Local body Number of units Percentage

Panchayat 40 80.0

Municipality

8 16.0

Corporation

2 4.0

Total

50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the above table 5.1 it can be seen that among the total

number of 50 units 40 are located in panchayat, 8 are located in municipality

and the remaining 2 of them are located in corporation. Hence, it can be

concluded that the major portion of the study units are located in panchayat.

148

TTAABBLLEE 55..22

CCAATTEEGGOORRIIEESS OOFF TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Categories (unit ) Number of units Percent

Public sector 19 38.0

Private sector 25 50.0

Joint sector 6 12.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.2 it is clear that 50 percent of the sample Units are private

sector, 38 percent of the sample units are public sector and the remaining 12

percent of the sample units are joint sector.

149

TTAABBLLEE 55..33

CCLLAASSSSIIFFIICCAATTIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Classification (unit)

Number of units

Percent

Chemical 10 20.0

Agro 10 20.0

Cement 8 16.0

Rubber 10 20.0

Other 12 24.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

The table 5.3 reveals that among the total number of 50 Sample units 10 are

chemical industries, another 10 units are Agro industries, 8 units are cement

industries, 10 units are rubber and the remaining 12 units comes under other

category. (That is clay, paper and pulp, crusher, and wood based industries).

150

TTAABBLLEE 55..44

NNUUMMBBEERR OOFF AAIIRR PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONN CCOONNTTRROOLL

MMAAIINNTTEENNAANNCCEE SSTTAAFFFF AAPPPPOOIINNTTEEDD

IINN TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITTSS

Response

Number of units

Percent

Yes 28 56.0

No 22 44.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

The table 5.4 pictures that, the majority (56 percent) of the units had

appointed air pollution control maintenance staff; where as the remaining,

44 percent of the units did not appoint air pollution control maintenance staff

in the sample units. Therefore, it is clear that majority of the units appointed

air pollution control maintenance staff in the units, to prevent and control the

level of air pollution.

151

TTAABBLLEE 55..55

NNUUMMBBEERR OOFF TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL SSTTAAFFFF AAPPPPOOIINNTTEEDD

IINN TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Technical staff

Number of units

Percent

Up to 5 members 25 50.0

6 - 10 members 19 38.0

above 10 members 6 12.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.5 it is clear that, out of the total number of 50 sample units

25 units have appointed technical staff up to a maximum of 5 members,

where as 19 units have appointed up to 6-10 members and remaining 6 units

have appointed more than 10 numbers as technical staff. Hence, it is clear

that all the units have appointed technical staff in connection with air

pollution, but it is evident that most of the units have not appointed

sufficient number of technical staff to control the level of pollution in the

units.

152

TTAABBLLEE 55..66

NNUUMMBBEERR OOFF NNOONN--TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL SSTTAAFFFF AAPPPPOOIINNTTEEDD

IINN TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITTSS

Non technical staff

Number of units

Percent

Up to 25 members 35 70.0

26 - 50 members 10 20.0

Above 50 members 5 10.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

The table 5.6 clearly states that majority (70 percent) of the units have

appointed a maximum of 25 non technical staffs, 20 percent of the units

have appointed non technical staff up to a minimum of 26 and a maximum

of 50 staff, and the remaining 10 percent units have appointed more than 50

non technical staff in the units. Hence, it is clear that most of the units have

appointed more non-technical staff than technical staff, which results in to

an adverse effect to the pollution control.

153

TTAABBLLEE 55..77

AAVVAAIILLAABBIILLIITTYY OOFF AAIIRR PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONN CCOONNTTRROOLL

CCOONNSSUULLTTAANNTT IINN TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Response

Number of units

Percent

Yes 23 46.0

No 27 54.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

The table 5.7 reveals that, 54 percent of the units have no air pollution

control consultant in the sample unit, whereas 46 percent of the sample units

have appointed air pollution control consultant in the units. This shows that

the sample units do not emphasis on air pollution control by taking active

advises from the specialized agencies.

154

TTAABBLLEE 55..88

AAVVAAIILLAABBIILLIITTYY OOFF SSOOUURRCCEE OOFF EEMMIISSSSIIOONN

PPRROOCCEESSSS IINN TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Response Number of units Percent

Yes 35 70.0

No 15 30.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.8 it is clear that, majority (70 percent) of the sample units

have a proper emission process where as 30 percent of them do not have a

proper emission process. Hence, it can be concluded that the majority of the

sample units are having proper emission process to prevent and control air

pollution.

155

TTAABBLLEE 55..99

AAVVAAIILLAABBIILLIITTYY OOFF

AAIIRR PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONN CCOONNTTRROOLL MMEEAASSUURREESS IINN TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

((MMUULLTTIIPPLLEE RREESSPPOONNSSEESS))

APC measures

Number of units

Percent

Cyclone separator 15 30.0

Scrubbers 8 4.0

Bag filters 21 42.0

Dust extraction system 10 20.0

Fly ash arresters 8 4.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.9 it is clear that 42 percent of the sample units have Bag

filters, 30 percent of the sample units have Cyclone Separator, 20 percent of

the sample units have dust extraction system, 4 percent of the sample units

have scrubbers and another 4 percent of the sample units have fly ash

arresters. Hence, it can be seen that all the sample units have taken APC

measures to control air pollution by using different air pollution control

equipments.

156

TTAABBLLEE 55..1100

CCOONNSSEENNTT OOBBTTAAIINNEEDD FFRROOMM PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONN CCOONNTTRROOLL BBOOAARRDD BBYY

TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Response

Number of units

Percent

Yes 46 92.0

No 4 8.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.10 it is clear that 92 percent of the Sample units obtained

consent from pollution control board, whereas 8 percent of the units did not

do so. Hence, it is clear that the majority of the units have obtained consent

from pollution control board.

157

TTAABBLLEE 55..1111

IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN OOFF AAIIRR PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONN CCOONNTTRROOLL AACCTT 11998811 IINN

TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Response Number of units Percent

Yes 30 60.0

No 20 40.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.11 it is evident that the majority (60 percent) of the sample

units have implemented air pollution control act 1981, where as 40 percent

of the units failed to implement the air pollution control act 1981. Hence, it

can be concluded that a substantial portion of the sample units did not meet

with the requirement of air pollution control act 1981.

158

TTAABBLLEE 55..1122

CCOOMMPPLLIIAANNCCEE OOFF CCOONNDDIITTIIOONNSS OOFF AAPPCC AACCTT 11998811

Response

Number of units

Percent

Complied 18 36.0

Yet to comply 32 64.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

The table 5.12 Exhibits that 64 percent of the sample units are not complied

with the air pollution act 1981 and the remaining 36 percent of the sample

units are complied with APC Act 1981. This means the majority of the units

did not comply with the conditions of air pollution control act so far.

159

TTAABBLLEE 55..1133

AAMMBBIIEENNTT AAIIRR QQUUAALLIITTYY SSUURRVVEEYY CCOONNDDUUCCTTEEDD

BBYY TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITTSS

Response

Number of units

Percent

Yes 18 36.0

No 32 64.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.13 it is clear that the majority (64 Percent) of the units did

not conduct ambient air quality survey, where as 36 percent of the units

conducted ambient air quality survey. These show the majority of the units

did not conducted ambient air quality survey as per rules, in the units.

Hence, it can be concluded that pollution control board is not inspecting the

units in regular interval.

160

TTAABBLLEE 55..1144

PPEERRIIOODDIICC IINNSSPPEECCTTIIOONN CCOONNDDUUCCTTEEDD

BBYY PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONN CCOONNTTRROOLL BBOOAARRDD

Response

Number of units

Percent

Yes 18 36.0

No 32 64.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.14 it is clear that the majority (64 Percent) of the industries

were not inspected by PCB where as only 36 percent of the units were

inspected by PCB periodically. This shows a huge set back in the

performance of the state pollution control board, in connection with

prevention and control of air pollution in state industries.

161

TTAABBLLEE 55..1155

CCOOMMPPLLAAIINNTTSS RREEGGAARRDDIINNGG PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONN

Response

Number of units

Percent

Yes 38 76.0

No 12 24.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.15 it can be seen that among the total number of 50 sample

units there is no complaint against 12 sample units regarding air pollution,

where as against 38 of the sample units complaints are received. Hence, it is

clear that complaint regarding pollution is received against majority

industries, which, means the major portion of the units did not fulfill the

requirements of air pollution control act to prevent and control of air

pollution.

162

TTAABBLLEE 55..1166

DDEETTAAIILLSS OOFF AACCTTIIOONN TTAAKKEENN BBYY PPCCBB

AAGGAAIINNSSTT SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITTSS

Particulars Number of

units Percent

Notice given 10 20.0

Asked to provide air pollution

control measures 28 56.0

No action 12 24.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

The table 5.16 indicates that out of the total number of 50 sample units 28

units are asked to provide air pollution control measures, where as 10 of the

sample units are given notice, and no action has been taken against 12 units.

Hence, it is clear that the pollution control board against the defaulters has

taken legal action.

163

TTAABBLLEE 55..1177

QQUUAANNTTIITTYY OOFF SSOOLLIIDD WWAASSTTEE

IINN TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Solid waste

Number of units

Percent

Up to 1 ton /day 30 60.0

1- 2.5 ton /day 10 20.0

Above 2.5 tons /day 10 20.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.17 it is clear that among the total number of 50 sample

units 30 of the sample units solid waste is with a maximum of 1 ton per day,

where as 10 of the units have the output, with a maximum of 2.5 ton per day

and the remaining 10 of the sample units have the output above 2.5 tons per

day.

164

TTAABBLLEE 55..1188

MMEETTHHOODDSS OOFF UUSSIINNGG SSOOLLIIDD WWAASSTTEE

IINN TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Particulars Number of units Percent

Treated 15 30.0

Not treated 35 70.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.18 it can be interfered that 70 percent of the sample unit’s

solid waste is not treated, whereas 30 percent the sample unit’s solid, wastes

are treated. Hence, it is clear that the majority of the units do not carry out

solid waste treatment.

165

TTAABBLLEE 55..1199

HHAABBIITTAATTIIOONN DDIISSTTAANNCCEE OOFF TTHHEE SSAAMMPPLLEE UUNNIITT

Distance Number of units Percent

.25 km 5 10.0

.50 km 16 32.0

1 km 18 36.0

Above 1km 11 22.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

The table 5.19 clarifies that 36 percent of the units is 1 km away from the

habitation, 32 percent of the units are half km away from the habitation

while 22 percent of the units are above 1 km away from habitations and the

remaining 10 percent of the units are nearer to the habitation. Hence it can

be concluded that three fourth of the units are nearer to the habitants which

may adversely affect the habitation around the unit.

166

TTAABBLLEE 55..2200

NNUUMMBBEERR OOFF PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN AARROOUUNNDD TTHHEE UUNNIITT

Population

Number of units

Percent

Below 1500 19 38.0

1500 – 3000 12 24.0

3000 – 4500 4 8.0

Above 4500 15 30.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.20 it can be interfered that below 1500 populations are

residing near to 38 percent of the industries, above 4500 populations are

residing near to 30 percent of the industries, whereas 1500-3000 populations

are residing near to 24 percent of the sample units and the remaining 8

percent of units are surrounded by the population between 3001-4500.

Hence, it is clear that the major portions of the population are residing nearer

to the industries, where there is a chance for affect of air borne diseases.

167

TTAABBLLEE 55..2211

DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT OOFF GGRREEEENN BBEELLTT

Response

Number of units

Percent

Yes 28 56.0

No 22 44.0

Total 50 100.0

Source: primary data

From the table 5.21 it can be identified that 56 percent of the units have

developed green belt with in the industry and 44 percent did not developed

green belt with in the factory. That means more than half of the sample units

have developed green belt as precaution to prevent air pollution.

168

TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS:

To test the hypothesis chi-square test applied and the result is given below:

Null hypothesis 1: The air quality survey in industries will not be

depending on the type of industries

TABLE 5.22

Type of the unit * periodic air quality survey conducted in the industries

Cross tabulation Count

Periodic air quality survey conducted

Total

Yes No Chemical 10 10

Agro 8 2 10 Cement 8 8

Type of the

unit Rubber 10 10 Other 12 12

Total 18 32 50

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df P-value

Pearson Chi-Square 43.056 4 .000

(Significant at 1% level)

Since the variables are nominal, a chi square test done, and the cross

table count indicates that, 10 chemical industries carried air quality survey.

Of the total 10 agro, industries 8 carried out the air quality survey and the

remaining 2 industries did not do so, but cement, rubber and other industries

did not carry out the air quality survey to control air pollution in the

industries. It may see that the chi square value of 43.056, with four degrees

of freedom, is significant. Hence, hypothesis is rejected. In other words, the

air quality survey conducted in the different type of industries is same.

169

Null hypothesis : The type of unit does not influence the usage of safety

equipment among the employees in the industries.

TABLE 5.23

Type of industry * usage rate of safety equipments

Cross tabulation count

Usage rate of safety equipments Total

Yes No Chemical 100 100

Agro 100 100 Cement 80 80 Rubber 22 78 100

Type of industry

Others 120 120

Total 302 198 500

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df p-value

Pearson Chi-Square 428.256 4 .000

(Significant at 1 percent level)

A chi square test applied to identify the significant association

between two variables, and the cross table count indicates that in chemical

industries, agro industries and in cement industries all the respondents are

using the safety equipments, In rubber industries only 22 respondents are

using safety equipments, where as in other industries no persons are using

safety equipments to safeguard themselves. From the table it is clear that the

calculated value (428.256) of hypothesis is more than the table value with 4

degrees of freedom is significant. Therefore, the hypothesis rejected. Hence,

it can conclude that the usage of safety equipments in the industries depends

upon the type of industries.