Sri Lankan Sulphuric Acid Plant ordered to close down

[Patricia Dines <73652.1202@CompuServe.COM>]

Hi -

Although this story isn't directly about dioxins (that I know of), I find it
encouraging to see related successes (e.g., closing down plants that harm local
populations), both for emotional encouragement and for models about how other
actions might be done.  (And, of course, for that wonderful thing - "precedent"
- that can be so persuasive when asking others to do things, so they don't have
to take the risk to be the first.)  Sounds like the judge was amazingly sensible
in this case!! (Plus some pretty clear ignoring of the law that was perhaps
first ignored by local officials, but was finally used to help justice prevail.)

Hope this info is useful - 

P. Dines

---- FORWARD ---
From: INTERNET:dondes@mihikata.demon.co.uk
To: Patricia Dines, 73652,1202
Sender: o-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu
Date: Sat, Nov 30, 1996, 4:23 PM
Subject: Sri Lankan Sulphuric Acid Plant ordered to close down

Sulphuric Acid Factory in Sri Lanka ordered to close down

by the Mihikatha Institute

Colombo -- A leading Sri Lankan sulphuric acid manufacturing company,
which was causing a public nuisance,  was ordered to close down
recently (15th November 1996), following community and legal action.

The Singa Lanka Standard Chemicals Limited, was established in 1984 in
the village of Ranala, located 35 kilometres north-east of Colombo,
the commercial capital of Sri Lanka. Some 500 people live in the
vicinity of the factory. In 1988, the village community launched a
campaign to  highlight air, water and noise pollution and threats to
health caused by the factory.

The community campaign received support from the Mihikatha Institute,
a leading environmental movement in Sri Lanka, dedicated to advocacy,
communication and legal action. Mihikatha is Sinhalese for Mother
Earth or Gaia.

Mihikatha took the matter on behalf of community the District
Magistrate's court in the area. In their petition and affidavits filed
in court, villagers complained that the  noxious sulphur dioxide fumes
emitted by the factory were causing respiratory difficulties,
headaches and faintness.

The villagers pointed out that the pollutants discharged by the
factory had  adversely effected the ground water in the area,  making
well-water unfit for drinking.

After listening to arguments from both sides, the District Magistrate
and Additional District Judge ,  Justice Ms. P.K. Gunatillaka issued a
conditional order and a show cause notice together with a stay order
restraining the factory from  operating.

The court proceedings revealed a number of discrepancies concerning
the establishment of the company. Factory owners did not posses an
Environmental Protection  License (EPL) -- a  requirement by the
National Environmental Protection Act of Sri Lanka  -- at the time
when the case was filed in court. However,  the company had obtained
the license, issued by  the Central  Environmental Authority (CEA) of
Sri Lanka,  during the inquiry.

The court  summoned the Director General of CEA to give evidence about
the granting of the license.

The court inquiry revealed several discrepancies.  The Environmental
Protection License (EPL)  issued by the CEA in 1996 was based on
inspection visits done in 1994. The authority had failed to carry out
a fresh inspection before granting the license.

Justice Gunatillaka stated that the factory  had  yet not complied
with certain conditions laid down in the  Environmental Protection
License and cited the  occupational hygiene survey carried out by the
Labour Department, which was produced by the factory owners in court.

According to the report,  sulphur was seen stored in the open,
despite a condition in the EPL that it should be stored in a covered area.

The Magistrate further pointed out that  the EPL required the factory
to install  a new sulphur dioxide emission monitor. But the factory
had not done so.

The Magistrate also observed that scientific reports had revealed that
the sulphur emissions from the factory  had exceeding the specified limits.

Justice P.K. Guntillaka,  in her order, said  that a leading soft
drinks manufacturer,  which has it's factory adjoining the sulphuric
acid factory had complained to the Central Environmental Authority of
poisonous emissions which had resulted the stopping of work at the
factory.  The Magistrate summing up said,  that in spite of several
complaints by many people the respondent factory continued to carry on
the operation regardless of the people and their health.

The Magistrate also stated that the factory owners had failed to
obtain the approval of the District Council local authority in the
area, which is a mandatory requirement and a condition laid down in
the license,  for the operation of the factory in the present location.

Justice Gunatillaka ruled that the sulphuric acid factory was a public
nuisance and that it had affected the health of the residents in the
vicinity of the factory.  Accordingly the Magistrate ordered that the
factory be closed down.

Commenting on the court decision, Mr. T. Sirisena, a community leader
who played a major part in the campaign, said: "We are glad that we
have now received permanent relief from environment pollution by the court."

After listening to the court verdict, Shanthilatha, a housewife, who
also participated in the campaign said: "I have been sick since 1985,
after the setting up of the factory.  The residents around the area of
the factory decided to get together and seek redress."

"I am very happy and I can start a new life.  Ever since the factory
started its operations I have had difficulty in breathing due to the
smoke emitted by the factory.  We are very poor and I cannot afford
the medical fees to always go to the doctor."

Attorney-at-Law, Surein Peiris, director of Mihikatha's legal aid
programme, spearheaded legal action of behalf of the Ranala residents.

Commenting on the case,  Mr. Peiris said: "The Sulphuric acid factory
case at Ranala is not a victory only for the people of Ranala but,  it
is a victory for thousands of people in this country who are suffering
in silence due to public nuisance caused by environmental problems.
It is also a good lesson for the large scale industries who do not
have any regard for the people and the environment."

"This case shows the combined effectiveness of communication and legal
action. Community groups can mobilise themselves and use the law to
redress their grievences," he added.

For further information, contact:

Mihikatha Institute
11 Sri Saranankara Road
Dehiwala
Sri Lanka

Tel: 00 94 1 738072
Fax: 00 94 1 500544
Email: mihikata@sri.lanka.net