IN THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
IMtScAPPL|CAT|ON NO 286 OF 20151 IN
o.A NO. 15c/F 2014 IN THE MATTER OF;
HIM JAGRITI
UTI-AMNCHAL
\A/ELFARE SOCIETY
INTERVENER
VERSUS UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
RESPONDEryTS
AND IN THE MATTER OF; Organization of plastics processors of lndia Through its AuthorLed Signatory Sh. C. Bhaskar S/o. Late B. Chandra Sekharan Having its Head Office at; 4U/5, Golden Chamber,s New Link Road, Andheri
West Mumbai-400053
INTERVENER
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENER ORGANIZATION OF PL ASTICS PROCESSORS OF INDIA
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL AND HIS COMPANION MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL THE HUMBLE \A/IIITTEN SUBMISS ION OF THE APPLICANTABOVE NAM ED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1.
;
That the Applicant /intervener above named have filed the M A No 2g6 of 2015 in OA no 15 OF 2015for impleadment as party respondent. That the said application
was disposed off iby the Honorable Tribunal vide order dated 08.M.2015 with following
directions:,,
l
"we have heard the Leamed counsel appeaing for parties. we arc of t he considered view that itisnof necessa ry for th6 Tibuna: to impteadZtt these applications as party Respondents-in the main Appticatioi. -However, we dispose of allthese Apptication with liberly to ail the Applic ants to interuene and addrcss the Tibunal on the mafter in issue A,tt'the se interuenerc are permitted to submitWitten Submissrbns within three weeks f_rom today accompanied by the mateial that they may wish to pt ace before the Tibunal for its consideration. These submrbsrbns shouid be circulated in advance to attthe Leamed Counsel appeaing infhrs cas e without exception."
tl6+
d_
Thus vide the said orderthe applicantwas made intervener in the OA no 15 of 201 5 and in view of the direction the association / applicant is submitting the present wri tten submissions.
2'
That the Applicant above named is a bonafide and law abiding registered association consists of the individuals, companies enterprises, firms, etc, engaged in va* rious activities connected with trading, dealing, shop keeping, stocking, manufact uring etc. including the activities involved in sale, usages, storage, and manufacturing of the various products of plastics including plastic packaging materials con sisting of Multi layered plastics / PET etc. That it is direcfly relevant to mention tha t the Association and its members are at the same time producers, manufacture s, retailers as well ,b tn" user and consumers of the plastic products including th plastic e bags of virgin and recycled type and also the sachets/ multi-layered plas tic packaging materials/ pet bottles made up of plastic which are to be used for th
e packaging of various products. That it is also"submitted that the Applicant is th e body of all lndia recognition in terms of their membership, spread and recogniti on and therefore also they are fit to be impleaded in the present petition as party respondent.
a)
That by way of the present affidavit Applicant is submitting before this Honorable
court various research papers and reports of the committees and recommendations to support the view that the Plastic is not a threat to Environment rather it is the most eco friendly materialwhich can be put into use and that the real issue is not the ecological nature and character of plastics
the
butthe issues of waste management. WHAT IS PLASTICS/ PET
3'
The dffierent plastics are made from dffierent monomers. The polyethylene is made from ethylene, polypropylene is made from propylene and polyvinyl chloride is made from vinyl chloride through polymerization reaction. All the ihree monomers are gasses at room temperature and pressrire. PET - is a plastic resin and the most common type of polyester recyclable up to 100%, which does not require any additives, plastickers or pigment during conversion, Non leachable, non toxic, inert with the environment as well as mntents.ln food packaging, the effects of plastics which are in direct contact with food are evaluated by
scientists, technologists and competent authorities. The food grade polystyrene has appropriate specifications. List below gives some of the lndian Standards for plastics in direct contact with food, pharmaceuticals and drinking water. lt mvers Polystyrene, (pS), poly vinyl chloride, (PVC), Polypropylene, (PP), Poly ethylene terephthalate, (pET), polyethylene, (pE),
Poly carbonate, (PC), and many others .Low carbon footprints of pET are found to be immensely eco friendly. The true copy of a report titled Energy and carbon Emission how do rrra 1^^^^E+ ;^ nr-r- :^
r
is being made. Dioxins are NOT formed at temperatures where the packed material used or stored.
Bisphenol
b)
A is a raw
material for manufacturing Polycarbonate. After
poymerisation reaction, BisphenolA content in the product is in ppm / ppb
Ievel as permissible by Standards set by BIS and other lntemational
Standards. However FSSA
list of approved plastics
materials for
packaging of foodstuffs does not include PC. HDPE, LDPE and PET do not contain any bisphenolA in the manufacturing process. c) Thermoset piastics such as melamines are not used in packaging' d)
The pigments used in printing on packaging are carefully selected. The lead, cadmium and chromium based pigments are phased out over the years. The colorants used in packaging materials for food or pharmaceutical products are approved by mmpetent authorities. The relevant list of standards is already glven below
e)
.No migration of additive is involved
and lt is hereby submitted that the entire
area regarding the migration of additives from PET bottles are well documented in lndian Standards as well as FDA and European Union Directives. There are conclusive evidences, which show that within the standards prescribed by the
law in force the PET bottles are absolutely safe for use for primary packaging of
foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals and drinking water. afest available. That
it
is
submitted thatthe manufacturing of PVC or PET is done as perthe safety norms
followed intemationally. The storage conditions are mentioned on the package. Many PET bottles are to be crushed after use as per the instructions on the bottle'
Toys also are as per the standards. Since children put toys in mouth, reputed manufacturers do not use the ingredients extractable by saliva. Even the shape and profile design of toys have to be without sharp edges or corners' These are
lnternational standards.
Sub standard material
is no! used for toy
manufacturing.The list of lndian standards for toys and playground equipment is attached here. The true typed copy of lndian standards for toys and playground equipment, true copy of the indian standard packaging code lS 10106, Article bearing title plastics for food packaging national and intemational standards, the copy of list of indian standards for plastics in direct contact of food pharmaceutical
and drinking water, and various test reports and certfficates including that of Central. Food Technological Research lnstitute Mysore, CIPET, lndustrial Toxicology Reseach Centre, lndian lnstitute of Packaging etc are annexed as Annexure A.2. collY.
0
The submissions of applicants regarding Phthalates in PET is misleading. The fexible PVC containing some specific phthalates is not used for packaging of drinking water or food items. Some other specific types of Phthalates are used for
manufacturing Blood Bags used for critical patients. This is permitted as per
extractable. No Phthalates are formed from PET or its wastes.The concerned papers on the manufacturing of phthalates are attached herewith. The true typed
copy of the papers on the manufacturing of phthalates as taken from Encyclopaedia of lndustrial Chemistry by Ullmann,
6th edition
Vol. 26 is annexed
aSANNEXUREA3,
g)
lt is to be noted that Phthalates such as
Dop or DEHp, DBp, DlNp etc are used
in flexible PVC products as plasticizers. These phthalates are not used in poly ethylene terephthalate. The DOP based products coming in contact with drinking
water, toys etc have been dismntinued long ago. The medical journals have studied the effect of impurities in DOP on health issues. The PVC blood bags do
not contain any extractables. They meet all the standards which are very stringent. ln line with principle of "extended producer's responsibility,,, introduced
for the first time in lndia, the new rules have underlined the role of Municipal bodies in not only ensuring safe collection and disposal of plastic wastes but also in engaging agencies or groups working in waste management including waste
pickers." lt has never said or suggested that pET botfles or other packaging materials are harmful or should be banned. That in one of the annexure , use
over prolonged time and also storage at the higher temperatures is mentioned.
As per law, any packs should display date of packaging,shelf life and storage cpnditions. Hence this is not going to affect health envisaged in this case. As explained earlier PET does not have any relation with phthalates usbd as plasticizers.The phthalates such DEHP (DOP), DBP etc are used as plasticizers in flexible PVC. These are not manufactured from phthalic acid. The phthalates
as normally understood, are produced by reaction between phthalic anhydride and corresponding alcohol such as butyl alcohol (for DBP) or 2ethyl hexanol also known as octyl alcohol (for DoP). Phthalates do not form porymers.
h)
Thus essentially,PET (Poly Ethylene Terephthalate), a polymer is manufactured by reacting terephthalic acid with ethylene glycolwhich has two hydroxyl groups orfunctionality of two. The terephthalic acid also has two carboxyl groups. Due to this, the polymerization is possible. The annexure clearly shows (on P 417) that
the results on concentrations of phthalates and the storage conditions were not consistent. This annexure is
a review or commentary on number of research
papers. The study rgfened to in the annexure has incubated different PET bottles containing water and soda at 45 C for nine months! This is much beyond the
stipulated time and storage conditions.
lt
may be conect that
dffierent
manufacturers may be using different grades and different amounts of recycled
materialapproved under US laws. The conclusions drawn also mnfirm additional research in this area is needed. The applicant by adding some annexure of misleading nature in their original application is giving only partial conclusions and misleading the results of the arlicle. The conclusion says that evidenre may
suggest the ill effects. lt does not mnclude as scientific evidence. The full text of
tll o
s
yield endocrine disruptor under conditions of common use particularly with prolonged storage and elevated temperatures. lmportant questions for further research include the following: Wrat substances in the water ur" ,"rpJnrible for the estrogenic effects obserued in the bio assays
and
/
-
is it one or more of phthalates
or antimony as yet unidentified substances? How do variations in the
composition and manufacture of PET influence the leaching of these substances into the contents of the bottle? (e.g., Pennarun et al 2004), ortransportation under
controlled{emperature conditions
- minimize the leaching
of these substances
into the contents? Because of widespread use of PET plastic worldwide in containers for water,soda, beverages, and condiments, the safety of PET under conditions of common use certainly merits further investigations." The study is indicating that options should be studied so that even arcidently heavy metals do
not come into packed product. Wrthout prejudice, even assuming for the sake of argument the veracity of annexures the same has never concluded that PET
bottles are unsafe and harmful and therefore these should be banned. The views of many noted authorities on this issue of safety of PET bottles are attached herewith and marked as
Annexure A4 COLLY. ' That again the true
.copy of the indain standard lS 14537:1998 PET BOTTLES FOR PACKAGING OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS AND SPECIFICATIN and other reports showing that the use of PET is perfectly safe in use of alcohol bottling and medicine is annexed as Annexure A 5 GOLLY
.
ln allthe bottles examined, theantimony concentration was well belowthe guidelines recommended for drinking water by wF{o ( 20 ppb ) , u.s. EPA,
Canada and Germany
( p 1563 )
Surprisinglynocomparison of antimony
glass is a leaching from other packaging materials such as glass bottles. fl-he mixture of inorganic oxides.) is being studied or presented'
k)
The leaching rates are high only if the temperature is above 60 C. The levels of antimony are well below permissible limits at lower temperature. The results of this study suggest that "bottled water manufacturers should consider the shipping / storage conditions of the bottled water, and possibly selectthe plastics which do
not leach antimony (e.g., PET using different type of catalyst such as titanium or
germanium). Future tests should determine if relationship exists between the quality of water in the bottles (e.g., conductivrty, major ion composition and private antimony leaching rates. Antimony leaching rates should be of mncern to manutacturers, wholesalers and retail stores as well as to publicwater utilities that
over often botle water for public events, disasters or even resale. Due to concem both acute and chronic health issues connected with Antimony, the authors that contemplate over conditions such as type of plastic or storage temperature, promote deterioration of water quality (increase of antimony concentration over at time) should be avoided. The aim of paper was to determine effect of storage l-,i^h ramnararr rra nn loanhinn ratcq nf antimonv so as to reCOmmend femedial
tnt
using incomplete information and is misleading.
Their are standards for migration tests for PET bottles as well as other packing forms. The levels prescribed for the various elements are as per the lntemational levels. The levels of antimony are high only when bottles are stored at 45 C for 90
days. The storage is not recommended to be at 45 C. The levels are higher for
IMFL as mmpared to country liquor only for storage at 45 C for 90 days' The true copy of the repo( commission directive 2002J721EC DATED 06'08'2002 with relating to the plastic material and articles intended to come into contact foodstufb, its amendments dated 28.01.2A11 vide commission directives 2011181
for EU, lnternational life science institute's report titled packaging materials PET food packaging applications are annexed as Annexure A6...COLLY. RULES/ REGUI.ATIONS / STANDARDS FOR THE USE OF PET position ln the originalAffidavit, MoEF, on behalf of Union of lndia, clarified the
of the Food
to food and to Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) in consolldating the laws relating science based establish the food safety and standards authority of lndia for laying down affdavit). standards for articles of foods including its packaging (Para 17 of the
a. Union of lndia through MoEF also submitted that "Food Safety and that Standards (packaging and Labelling) Regulation, 2011 specifies container made of plastic material shoutd conform to lndian Standards
Specifications
('BlS Standards") which include specific Standards
with in relating to polyethylene and various other plastic materials contact
foodstufb,, (para 18
of the affidavit).lt
Standards (packaging
and
is observed that Food Safety and
Labelling) Regulations, Ndtified by
2.1.1 of 2'1), Goveinment of lndia in 2011, in the chapter 2 (clause 2 of conform to the declares that "Containers made of plastic materials should
following lndian Standards Specifications, used
as
appliances or
food articles receptacles for packaging or storing whether partly or:wholly, namely:-
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) ("i)
(viD (viii)
(ix) irt
lS 10146 (for PolYethYlene) lS 10142 (for PolYstYrene) lS 10151 (for PVC) lS 10910 (for PolYProPYlene) lS 11434 (for lonomer Resins) lS 11704 (for EthyleneAcrylicAcid mpolymeQ tS 12252 (for PET) lS 12247 (for NYlon 6) lS 13601 (for EVA) lS 13576'(for Ethylene Methacrylic Acid EMAA)
-
etc.
b.
lt is thus clear that PET, Polyethylene etc plastic materials are per the relevant approved for use in contact with foodstufb as about Govemment Regulation and hence there is no ambiguity health tlre posrtion of Union of lndia represented by MoEF vis-a-vis
ll'12
*&
foodstufb. These plastics materials are approved worldwide for food contact applications
The 'categorical stand' of APPLICANTS in the main
petition
contradicts the FSSA declaration that for storing or packaging of
foodstuffs, plastic materials should conform BIS Standards as mentioned in
the 'Food Safety and Standards (Packaging
and
Labelling) Regulations, 2011. \Mren certain plastic material is
approved
for use in direct
contact with foodstuffs and
pharmaceuticals and drinking water, as declared by BIS which is a
Member of lnternational Organisation for Standardisation (lSO),
which is followed by 163 countries worldwide, it is evident that
these are safe packaging materials. Thus Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling
) Regulations
2011 which
approves the use of plastics in contact with food stufb provided
those plastics conform to the respective BIS Standards. lt has been alieady informed that PET and other plastics which are used in contactwith food stufls are approved as per BIS Standards.
It is also observed that Food Safety and Standards (Packaging
and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, in the Chapter 2 (clause 2 of 2.1.1 of 2.1) declares that "Containers made of plastic materials
should conform to the following lndian Standards Specifications,
used as appliances
or
receptacles for packaging or storing
whether partly orwholly, food articles namely:-
(xD lS 10146 (for Polyethylene) (xii) lS 10142 (for Polystyrene) (xiii)
lS 10151 (for PVC)
: (xiv) lS 10910 (for Polypropylene) (xr) lS 11434 (for lonomer Resins)
(xvi) lS 11704 (for EthyleneAcrylicAcid (wiD tS 12252 (for PET) (wiii)
(xix)
()c0
copolymer)
1512247 (forNylon 6) lS 13601 (for EVA)
IS 13576 (for Ethylene Methacrylic Acid
- EMAA)
etc. It is thus clear that PET, Polyethylene etc plastic materials are approved for use in
c
ontact with foodstufls. There is thus no ambiguity about the position of Union of lndi
a represented by MoEF vis-i-vis health safety aspects of use of these plastic materi als in contactwith foodstufls. the lndian Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (1945) and the ln
dian Pharmacopoeia (2010) provide adequate safeguard to ensure that PET contai ners can be safely used for packaging Pharmaceutical products. Pharmaceutical in dustry is governed by strict norms set by the lndlan and other governments for contr olling the quality of the PET bottles that are used for packaging liquid and other form
ulations. (e.g. lP, BlS, USP, EP, BP, etc.). PET containers are permitted for use as naekaoino of Pharmacuetical formulations bv various reoulations as exola
lt1 e
-q,.
1)
Pharmacopeia:
a) lndian Pharmacoeia2014 (lP 2014), General Chapter 6, "Containers"
o
6.2.3. "Plastic Containers and Closures"
b) US Pharmacopeia - Chapter 661 "Containers - Plastics" 2) 3)
US FDA 21 CFR $177.1630 - Polyethylene phthalate polymers. FSSA Act establishes the creation of Food Safety and Standards Authority of lndia (FSSAI)
4)
BIS Standards:
a) lS 984S1998:
Determination of Overall Migration of constituents of P/asfibs Mateiat and Afticles intended to come in contact with Foodstuffs- Method of Analysis.
b) lS 12252-1987'. Specification
for Polyall<ylene Terephthalates (PET & PBI) for their safe use in contact witlt Foodstuffs, Pharmaceuticals and DinkingWater.
c)
lS 14537-1998: PET bottlesforPackinging of Alcoholic Liquors
dl lS 10171-1999: Guide on Suitability of Plasticsfor Food Packaging. 5)
ISO 22000:2005: Food Safety Management System (FSMS) for'Manufacture
and dispatch of Polyethylene Tercphthalate (PEQ as ruw mateial for food packaging applications'
.
PET is globally recognized as safe for use in packaging of both food an$ drugs. The United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that as long as the materials meet certain specffications, specific PET polymers "may be safely used as, or components of plastics (films, articles, orfabric) intended for use in The U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) Chapter <661> contact with food" Containers - Plastics establishes "standards for plastic materialsz [including PETI and components used to package medical articles (pharmaceuticals,
I.
biologics, dietary supplements, and devices)."
Furthermore, PET is authorized for use in Europe for packaging of both food
and drugs. The European Pharmacopoeia (EP) (Sections 3.1 .15, 3-2-2.1, 2 3.2.2) and lndian Pharmacopoeia also contain monographs for the use of PET containers in pharmaceutical packaging. PET and other plastics used in food and drug packaging are strictly regulated to ensure that there is no potential for migration of substances to the stored food or pharmaceutical products at levels thatwould be harmfulto humans. Dilgence exercised by the Pharmaceutical lndustry,Stability Studies
Ensure Compatibitity Between PET Packaging Components and the Stored Drug Formulations,The lndian Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1?[0, as amended ("Drug and Cosmetics Acf), states under Schedule M, "Good Manufacturing Practices
and Requirements of Premises, Plant
and
Equipment for Pharmaceutical Products," Section 16.10, that the quality
control department of
a
manufacturer
of pharmaceutical products
"shall
conduct stability studies of the products to ensure and assign their shelf life at
.
ll"tlI
-{*
the prescribed conditions of storage.,, Further, Appendix r of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, "Data required to be submitted with application for permission to maket a New Drug," requires that applications for marketing authorization of new drugs include stabilrty data that support the proposed shelf life. The lnternational conference on Harmonisation of rechnical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (lcH) stability guidelines Q1A - Q1F define the stability data package that should be submitted in new drug product registration applications These stability guidelines have been adopted in many regions worrdwide incruding the U.s, Europe, and Japan.
3.
Thus, drug product stability information generated in one region that is consistent with ICH guidelines, is mutually acceptable in other global regions.
The ICH guidelines recognize that the different climate zones of various countries may impact the standard temperature and humidity conditions in which drugs will be stored during normal use. Therefore, different longterm stability conditions are recommended depending on the climate zone in which a drug is intended to be marketed. Perthe World Health Organization (V\4-lO)
"Long-term stability testing conditions as identified by WHO Member States, 4,, it is recommended that drug products intended for maketing in lndia undergo
longterm stabirity testing at 30
"c
andTooh Rerative Humidity (RH). stabirity
testing under thele conditions will ensure that drug products are stable under hot and humid conditions.
i'
Longterm stability studies conducted on oral drug product formulations stored in PET packaging components establish that the active pharmaceutical ingredient, and drug product formulation
is compatible with the
chosen packaging materials. Such btaOitity testing monitors the quality of the drug product over time under the influence of a variety of environmental factors
such as temperature, humidity, and light. Throughout
a
stability study,
physical, chemical, biological, and microbiologicaltests are conducted on the drug product at routine time-points. specifically, the purity profile of the drug product is monitored to determine any increase in impurity levels arising from either degradation of the drug product or interaction of the drug product with
the packaging materials. The heavy metal content of such drug products is also monitored. PET is chemically inert and therefore unlikely to react with any active pharmaceutical formulations; however, in the unlikely event that PET were to affect the quality of a drug product, such interaction would be
detected during the course of
a
stability study, long before the product
receives marketing authorization.
j'
Due to the rigorous and time consuming studies needed to establish the stability and compatibility of a drug product in a particular packaging mnfiguration, it is rikery that drug product manufactures will be unable to
ltt;
{_ qualiflT packaging alternatives
to PET. To comply with the Rule in the
Notification, manufacturers of the affected products would need to select new
packaging materials and conduct additional stability studies on the drug productformulations in the new packaging. Per ICH guidelines, a minimum of 12 months of stability data at long-term stability conditions, conducted in the planned commercial packaging is typically required prior to submission of a marketing authorization application. Thus, drug product manufacturers may be forced to withdraw the product from the market for the patient populations
Rule. Such action would result in decreased access to potentially critical medications of already sensitive and at-risk patient
specified in the
populations.
k.
Thus PET Meets National & lnternational Regulations:Many countries have their own regulations burt are mutually aligned. Out of these USFDA and EC Regulations are considered exhaustive. Bureau of lndian Standards (BlS), the
goveming body
in
India ftames lndia specffic regulations considering international regulations. The US Food & Drug Administration (USFDAJ Regulation is covered in 'Code of Federal Regulations
- Food and Drugs 21,
Parts 170-179'. The clause 1771630 specifically deals with PET resins. BIS standards "ls: 122s2,\s: 12229 & ls: gg45" as well as USFDA 177.1630 stipulates the raw materials/chemicals that can be used in the production of
PET resins and overall migration limits. The stimulants as stipulated in global migration tests represent wide variety of food / pharmaceutical stuff Repeated
tests measured substantially low migration values
(-s
ppm) from pET
compared to the allowable limits (60ppm). This assure PET suitability and safety to contents undoubtedly.
l.
Thus PET is considered a safe polymerfor packing Food and Pharmacer.rtical Products. PET is chemically inert and therefore unlikely to react with any
active pharmaceutical formulations. PET complies with all National & lntemational Rules & Regulations governing use of containers for Food and Pharmaceutical packaging and This original Aplication relies in large part on
faulty information and misrepresentations, and is inconsistent with the recommendation of the Drugs Technical Advisory Board,s (DTAB) own Expert committee. The July 7,2013, DTAB Expert committee, which was convened to discuss claims raised in the HIM JAGRITI petition, concluded that the information contained in the Petition was "not sufficient enough to
establish
a
definite mrelation
pha rmaceutica I prod ucts
a
of
causality
of plastic mntainer[s]
for
nd adverse health effects.,,
RULES/ REGUI.ATIONS / STANDARDS FOR THE USE OF PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN GEN
ERAL:.
:
*
/ t?-t
_{-
Act '1986 and the Rules framed thereunder:-There has been numerous studies and material available on the areas of pollution or for specific categorization of Hazards substances. Under Environment Protection Act 1986 and Rules framed their under various areas have been regulated and proper arangements have been made with the core view that development and Environment should go hand in hand to lead the country
into a world of sustainable development. Some of the Rules and Acts which have been framed and enacted with the said pupose are mentioned as below:-
. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1 986(29 of 1 986)
* The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 as amended in 2007 * The Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 * The Manufacture, Storage and lmport of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 * The BioMedicalWaste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 {. The Plastics Manufacture, Sale and Rules, 1999 * The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 * The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 * The Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001 * The Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control)Rules,2000 as amended in2007. and finally * The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2011 b)
That in order to protect the animal also there has been hosts of laws and Rules in force e.g.the prevention of Cruelties against Animals Act( PCA), 1960 and by taking recourse to section 38 of the PCA 1960 the Central Govemment has framed several Rules including: (a) The Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules, 1965 (b) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Licensing of Fenies) Rules, 1965
(c)The Performing Animals Rules, 1973 (d)The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 (e) The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 (0 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Application of Fines) Ruies, 1978 (g) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Registration of Cattle Premises) Rules,
1
978 (h) The Prevention of Cruetty to (Capture of Animals) Rules, 1979 (i) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ,
flransport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001
which prevents transportation of animals on foot.
0 The Prevention of CrueltytoAnimals
(Slaughter House) Rules,2001
(k) The Prbvention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishmbnt and Regulation of Societie s for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001
(l)The Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1968 , exclusively for the protection of animals
6.
fom different type of cruelties and atrocities.
t
That the argument that the cattle dies because of eating plastic products is altogether baseless. lt is submitted that firstly the fact of a stray animals on Road ,hl;^
i^ i*aal{ io a oarinr ro rrinlalinn nf larrr anA if ic *ha manrla{nnr
@
g control and stop them and that the incidences of flocking a stray
^^r^ur{{ro1 garbage disposal areas and consuming garbage because of- non delivery by the civic agency is indubitably a serious form of animal cruelty which needs to be stopped immediately without any further delay and that the owners of such animals or the persons who happened o_r found to be responsible for the same must be held arcountable and must be dealt with a detenent punishment so that such act of negligence should not take place. That because of the fact that owneE of the animals are not controlling their cattle/animals and the civic agency of the state is not putting control upon the astray animals and their ownem cannot supply a basis for the reasoning that plastic bags which may also be put to the use for carrying of food products and thrown in this way in the garbage dispooal sites are inherently dangerous/hazardous for environment and ecology. That it is
most respectfully submitted that it can very easily be seen that the many animals of astray nature are being killed everyday in road trafiic accident everywhere on
the roads within as well as out of the cities on high ways etc and that many incidences of such nature can be seen in the protected forest areas also e.g. in
the national forest areas or reserve forests or biosphere reserves through which roads or raihvay lines passes. Such incidences and accidents are no doubt highly atrocious towards the animals and undoubtedly points to the grave and serious negligence of the owners of such animals or of the concemed department of state
but ceftainly on basis of the same the driving can not be prohibited and on the similar theory the plastics can not be mndemned which other wise qualifies on the
all parameters of ecological consideration as a best eco friendly product..lt
is
submitted that under these Regulations, Rules and Acts and Enactments the use of Plastic including the use of Plastic carry bags is perfectly safe and eco friendly.
SUPREME COURT,S VIEW ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND VARIOUS COMMIT TES REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7. That issues relating to waste management has been dealt by Honorable Supreme court of lndia with much seriousness in various cases e.g: Dr.B.L. Wadehra v. Union of lndia (1996) 2 SCC 594, and thatthe issues havefurther dealt in much detail in theAlmitra Patelseries of Judgments reported vide
i)
Almitra H.Patelv. Union of lndia, (2010) 15 SCC 619 (06/05/2005).
ii)
Almitra H. Patelv. Union of lndia, (2004) 13 SCC 538 (O4t1OtZOO4l
iii) Amitra
H. Petelv. Union of lndia, (2004)13 SCC 536(26tO7ZOO4l
iv) Almitra
H. Patel v. Union of lndia, (2003) 12 SCC 254 (14t0112003)
v)
Almitra H. Patelv. union of tndia, (2000)
vi) Almitra
8 scc 19 (z4tostzooo)
H. Patelv. Union of lndia, (2000) 2
ScC
67g(15tOZt2OOO)
vii)Almitra H. Patelv. Union of lndia, (2000) 3 SCC 575(11lO1l2OOOl
x)
l/ lt
Almitra H' Patel v. union of lndia (1g9g) 2 scc 416(16t01t19g8) wherein supreme court has issued detailed guidelines in the direction of the waste
management.
a'
That vide order dated 16.01'1998 passed in wp(c) No g8g/19g6 ,.tifled as ALMITRA PATEL AND ANR vs uNroN oF rNDrA AND oRS, whire taking cognizance of the grim situation of the municipal solid waste management in the class I cities of lndia in particular' a committee was mnstituted by the Honourable supreme court of lndia for suggesting improvement in solid waste management practices in class one cities in lndia under the chairmanship of Mr. Asim Barman[municipal commissioner calcutta municipal corporationlwhich submitted its report in March lggg with various proposals but none says about the ban. The true copy of order dated 16.01.199g passed by supreme court in \A/PC No 888/1996 and copy of Asim Barman committee Report is annexed herewith and maked as Annexure A7 colly. lt is pertinent to mention that neither in the directions/ recommendations issued by the task force which was constituted in 1997 northere in the Bls guidelines and northere in the Asim Barman committee and in central RJes of lggg (now Rules of 2011) there were any discussion or provision regarding the ban of any character upon the pET bottles or other things made up of Plastic. That a report published by central pollution Control Board also ,rightly suggested that the solution lies not in banning the use of Plastic bags altogether but in best waste management because the ban would bring a negative impact which can stop any further development in this area. Many of the reports and publications are of this view. That in pursuance of that and in wake of all these developments the central Government in exercise of powers confened by section 3(2XviiD read with section 25 of the EPA 1986 , in orderto regulate the manufacture, sale' stock and use of Plastics carry bags and containers notif,ed in year 1ggg,,The Plastic Manufacture, sare and tJsage Rules lggg" and in exercise of the powers confened by section 3, 6, and 25 of the EPA 1g80, in orderto regulate the management and handling of the municipal solid waste "The Municipal sotid waste [Management And HandlinglRules 20oo'were notified and various provisions were chalked out in terms of Rules, Regulations, responsibilities of concemed authorities and management of the related and concemed issues etc .lt is further submitted that in order that the issues regarding the Plastic, its usage ,sale and manufacture ,plastic waste disposal and various other research and development in the fields of plastic and its En,)ironment
b'
impact assessment would take place smoothly and effectively the Task Force(1gg7) also recommended the setting ol the"lndian centre for plastics in Environment,,(lCpE) an autonomous institution which was duly established immediately thereafter and has been diligently performing its task by carrying out various research works in the areas specified to it from their own wards and besides this, the lcpE is also conducting number of public awareness programs in the area of plastic waste manaoement
ll6t
{
the chairmanship of Sh Rangnath Mishra(former Chief Justice of lndia, and Member of Parliament, and member, parliamentary consultative committee on Environment and forests) was assigned the task of examining the Regulations on plastics waste and to suggest appropriate measures for mllection, segregation, treatment and disposal of the
Plastics wastes, The committee submitted its report in February 2OO2 and oulined various measures to regulate the usage of Plastic and the management of waste and disposal of it in the way that the Environment may not get affected to the de*iment but not at all suggested or even talked about any thing regarding the ban or prohibition on
the use, sale and storage of the Plastics. The true copy of Sh Rangnath Mishra( former chief Justice of lndia ) is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure Ag...... That in puEuance of the directions passed by Honourable High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) NO 6554 OF 2004 dated 19.1 1.2007 a committee was constituted with
the direction to study the issues regarding Environmental hazards including health hazards arising out of the use of Plastic bags in the city of Delhi under the chairmanship
of
Justice
R.c. chopra which,
submitted
its findings on
14.os.2oog. That
notwithstanding anything the said committee in its ultimate analysis, did not recommend for imposition of any kind of ban on the manufacturing sale and usage of plastic bags in the Tenitory of Delhi. The true typed copy of the report of Sh R C Chopara Committee is annexed herewith and
maked as Annexure A g.
That in the same month of August 2008 the Central Pollution Control Board came up with the *Druft Final Report on Establishment and lmpact of Biodegrudable Plastics on EnvircnmenttFood
"
in which it was clearly highlighted that the complete switchover to
the biodegradable Plastic is not feasible at this stage of time and that the biodegradable Plastics have its own Environmental and economic ramifications and consequences and therefore it cannot be inducted as the substitute of degradable and non degradable Plastic bags. That further areas of concern are as below: The Central Pollution Control
Board Report titled Drafi Final Repoft on Establishment and lmpact of Biodegradabte P/asfibs on Environment/Food is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A10.
'
Biodegradable Plastic have still not been identified as a major areas of research
'
Promoting Bio{egradable Plastic will overalr increase
lndia's
plastic
consurnption and it is opined that the major cause of mncem would be to
segregate between non- Biodegradable and degradable
/
Bio-
degradable Plastics in the waste stream of MSW
'
Besides various other risks have been ouflined in the said report indicating that even a slight negligence may cause difficufties in terms of
green house gas emissions, destabilizing COD and BOD parameterc
and problems of rodents etc which will become exremely difficult to manage if not checked at the initial stage.
4 biodeg radable plastics will disappear quickly.
t/$t
ISSUES DEBATED AROUND PIASTICS
8.
That the major issues so far against the Plastic products (including the present Original application) have been OeniteOfrigh lighted are as follows:-
a. Plastic products are non-degradable and harmfulforthe Environment. b. stray cattle eat Plastic bags in an around,garbage dumps. c. Plastic products chock the drains. d. Plasticwastage is seen littered around in public places/parl</open fields/drains e. Burning of Plastic wastage produces toxic gases.
b)
Despite various positive attributes of plastics, there are some issues which have
been sunounding the material ever since its growth rate increased and those issues are principally the issues relating to waste management arisen due to non delivery by the civic agencies of the state. EFFECT OF PROPOSITION OF BAN ON THE ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT IMPACT A SSESSMENT OF PROBABLE ALTERNATIVES AND SUBSTITUTES:.
9.
That the Applicant also submits that the imposition of ban of the nature prayed by the
Applicant, is going
to produce anomalous and chaotic results in municipal
waste
management area because the use of Plastics can not be banned in all avenues where it has to be in use. This will cause the mixing and mingling of the biodegradable and non biodegradable Plastic MSW in the landfill sites as it is not possible to distinguish the two wastes through the naked eye until the wastes would be subjected to the laboratory tests
and this mixing and mingling will frustrate the end result of Environmental safety in the
way that, when mingled, the degradable and non degradable Plastic will loose its character of recyclability which is being encouraged throughout the world as one of the
best eco ftiendly measure to tackle not only the waste management issue but also as
one of the top ten measures for the chmking of the problem of the green louse gas emission and thus the whole Plastic constituent of the MSW will start adding into the volume of the totalwaste. This doesn't make Environment as well as economic sense as
more and more land will be required for arcommodating the ever increasing MSW whereas the world over efforts are on to reduce landflls.
a.
That the Applicant also submits that the applicant has prayed for the direction for
imposition of ban on the use of all kinds of Plastics products including plastic packaging materials/ PET bottles and bags without providing any alternatives. This leaves following alternatives for the common people for use (
1f
we take for
example the bags only)- Paper bags, Jute Bags and Cotton / Textile Bags and
Glass bottles if PET bottles are to be replaced These alternatives are highly dangerous to environment ic rlnna
if
the life cycle analysis / complete environment impact
ltg\
t_ b.
That Regarding the issue of biodegradability, the misconception that paper, jute and cotton textile materials would biodegrade naturally of ib own in a short span
of time, if discarded in the open, and thus. requires no human intervention for managing the waste created by these materials, is not factually conect. A series
of Life Cycle Analysis conducted in the USA and in the EU, found that" Paper in
today's landfill does not degrade or breakdown at a substantially faster rate. ln fact nothing completely degrades in modem landfills due to the lack of water, light,
oxygen and other important elements that are necessary for the degradation process to be completed". As an evidence of this, a photo of a newspaper buried in an Arizona landfll and dug up after more than three decades, showed clearly
the printed matters. This is a scientific phenomenon. This is technically true for
any otl'rer place, also. Other biodegradable materials also require intervention for
human
a process called 'Composting' for ultimate degradation of the
biodegradable products brought to the landfill for conversion in to natural soil. This process of composting has been laid down in clear terms in the manuals of the
Municipal Solid Waste Management department and the basic features are described in the Report of the Committee Constiluted by the Hon Supreme Court
of lndia
- March 99, on Solid Waste Management
in Class I Cities in lndia
(Chapter 3, page 50, 53 and other pages). Unless this methodology is followed, it would take years forthis waste to decompose, if at allthey do. Hence it is evident that human intervention is a mustforappropriate management of
he MSW-be
it
biodegradable or not.
That in the case of Biodegradable Plasti&, it is submitted trat such rnaterial do not degrade in landfill either. ln order to breakdown as intended, biodegradable Plastics must be sent to an industrial or food composting facility, rather
han to
baclqard piles or municipal centres.These biodegradable Plastics would nct degrade and vanish of their orun. There are different types of biodegradable \j-
Plastics
viz.
photodegradable, thermal degradable, biodegradable ard
internationally, the definition of Compostable Plastics has been accepted by
authorities
as biodegradable Plastics. ln India, ISO 17088:2088 has
tte
been
adopted by Bureau of lndian Standard. As on date only Central lnstitr.rte cf Plastics Engineering and Technology (CIPEI), \^/hich under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers
b a Govemment lnsilitrE
- DepaftTent
of Chemicab and
Petochemicals (DCPC), has the testing faolrty in its Chennai Centre, which can
17088:2088.
ffi per the rcpted
of lSO The availability is also very funited. lr/lore orrer identification d fris
test the biodegradability of Plastics
type of Plastics in the market place is not reveals
pmble. A hief
protocol
review on the bsue
trat biodegradation is not an EnvironrnenHly safe process as it a,oh,es
the green house gases
-
carbon dioxile
applications are limited to certain niche and
rd
methane.
Vlbrlifllb,
spert*eO applicatiors -
E<e
its
rnedllal,
t
I t8)
biodegradable Plastics from those of non-biodegradable packaging waste for the
recycling process. Normal Plastics recycling system will biodegradable Plastlcs waste gets fixed up with
PLASTICS
vs JUTE , corroN,
be affected
if
it.
PAPER, GLASS : coMpARATtvE
sruDtES
10' (a)The Applicant (impleaded) submits that the Applicant has not provided any basis for making the sweeping statement regarding the ecological nature and character of plastics.
The scientific fact is that
- Plastics are most safe and Environment
friendly packaging
materials used for packaging an aray of products including
* *
Sensitive Medical Equipments
.i.
Milk products
* *
Pharmaceutical -Tablets & Liquid Formulations
lntravenous Fluids Blood Bags
.i.
Foods including Ready to Eat & Drink Foods
*
Food grains
..'.
Edible Oils
* * * * *
Cosmetics Fertilisers
Chemicals
Cement Various lndustrial Products
-
to name only a few of them.
(b) That apart ftom that Plastics save the Environment from a much greater damage compared to the damage caused by altematives due to the following basic
*
properties:
I
Plastics consume least energy for conversion compared to alternatives like
-
metals,
glass and paper Plastics emits least CO2 e gases called Green House Gases into the atnosphere red ucing the GlobalWarming effectto a greatextent.
*
Energy consumption and Air and Water emissions are the least in case of production and transportation of Plastics raw materials and finished products. 1
(c)Thatforthe kind perusal of the Honourable courtthe applicants are extracting some s cientific facts based upon some researched materials published by the institutes of exce llence and global repute.
i.
Plastics mnsume least energy for production
I\/lafarial I Fr,ro".rv Ponr riramanf
I
u. 13.9
ltgv
i.g 11 5;1
Ref:
Scott, G and Gilead, D., editors, Degradable polymers, principles and Application, Chapman & Hall, London, 1gg5
Energy saving reduction of pollution for packaging of 1 lakh litters of Milk in plastic L Pouch vs. Glass Botfle
Energy in Giga Jules Energy consumption in GJ for Production of Packaging Raw Materials, production of Gla ss Bottles / Plastic Pouches, Filling and Distribution firansportation) of Milk and waste M anagement / Recycring of the Grass Botfles / prastic pouches: Plastic Pouch
-
Glass Bottle
291
cJ
2.195
cJ
Energy saving by piastic (direct)
1904GJor
Energy Remvery fom plastics Waste-
20 GJ
-
BG%
per 1 lakh litres of Mitk (l-here is no
energy recovery from waste glass)
* * *
u.
COD and BoD values are at least 15 to 20 times higher in case of glass botges Ieading to dangerous Environmentar impact apartfrom heafth hazard. Transportation of milk in glass bottles leads to use of g2g litres of excess fuel and 2317 kgs of excess emissions.
The report from the lndian institute of technology Delhi on the life cycle analySis of the Plastic packaging materials may kindly be refened which is annexed with the present affidavit.
Energy saving for packaging of 1 lakh MT of Atta
in plastics vs. Jute
Irgr * tat'
*
(Reference llT Delhi report on
Plastic bag
*
Jute bag
Packasins Raw Materiars,
63 Giga Jutes 330 Giga Jules
.:. Energy saving 6y phstic
iv'
of plastics in packaging _)
F:il3[,.fJnTT[t "$./l],,f*, fil,'anuracturins
*
t
LCA
bag
g1%
Energy Recoveryfrom plastics bag Waste
35 GJ
Environmentar burden during production of raw materiars and
finished bags
ic & Jute
- plast
I
Environmental Burden in kg
Jute Bag
Plastic Bag
54.3
0.6
66i10 2*
760*
134.8
5.2
' $fl'.{;-'
4;8:
,CI.l4
39s
17 -\
HCL
tr. .)
Air Pollution
co SOx
D,ust
ffit:B$lt$.*i1,$ii
* * *
*
(Reference
llr
Q.Z
\,,. J
0
67.6
1.4
352.3
0.2
4535.s
A,.1,
i*
Derhi report on
LCA of prastics in pr"krging
-
Emission of carbon Dioxide due to Jute Bags is more than eight times than that of Plastics Bags. Emissions of other Green House Gases - Nox and cH4 arso are 14 and l2times higher respectivery by Jute compared to prastics.
\ Environmentar burden during transportation of the finished bags
i Em
Grn/k
ission
,
Excess
t:
ission for jute Bags
Em
l:j:rri:.l; t:":rjil.,r
[jic,,oz,,
tt 8 6 :
Plastic
Bags
,.'V87* 4.s
Taken as Basis
51 Total Regulatecl
nirpip" * * *
Effi]f,
13
96
19B
s
Taken as Basis
(Reference llT Delhi report on LCA of plastics in pact<aging _)
The excess emissions of carbon Dioxide and other Voratire organic compounds (vocs) during transportation are hundred or even thousand times more in the case of Jute compared to plasticl
vi
Plastics have least carbon Footprints in the atmosphere causing least Green House Gas effect:-Green House Gas emission prastics saving by packaging
* A study conducted by
McKinsey for the Intemational council of chemical Associations (lccA), the report of which was submitted during the copenhagen Earth summit in 2009, revealed that in the year 2005 the Earth,s atmosphere could save an arcumulation of a total amount of 220 Million Tons of co2 equivalent due to the use of Plastics in the Packaging plastics packaging is sector. one of the top ten most GHG saver in the Earth's Atmosphere. The study compared the emissions with artematives rike Grass, Thin steer, Aruminium, corrugated Box,
*
tata
,
paper, Card Board, Wood, Beverage Carton etc.
Bottles
Others
t ;
Y
ltg+ .i ,ni*
|
ft
i
S' Flexible Packaqino ,
v5
**
*;rr*uteerTnr-
c;;;il;;;'il;il,
* n
t * *
Source: McKinsey Reporl Carbon LCA Study for lntemational CouncitotCfremicat Associations and anarysed by
rcpE may
# Plastics are very rightweight
stiil very strong, inert and safe
kindry be referred.
# Plastics offer the highest product to package ratio resulting in enormous amount of resource
* oi-
ln addition Plastics are the cheapest among the
alternatives.
r
# processing of Plastics does not emit any untoward gases beyond the permissible limits.
Ernissions
Iluri
Processing of Plastics
Poly'rner
(t'oressed
\'0('as
rrt tcrull FCI)
Yol:rtile (h.grrnic Clornporurds (VOt-'s) rrrrd IAps (p1nn)
I Forrnic I Itoirn,rtd- | H;,dr.och_ per'-{STAI J -Lci(I. -{ceric I elrr.rte 1Ir1, I toilt ,rcirt D-.1.6,16 1-rcirr. lSpertr.op_l1r-.rrtori_
(GC) lAcet:rllehyle I hotornetrl) |
rnern,)
LDrE
(170-?r)5 DC) Extrrrsi on.hrj t' c tiou
nlorrklitg LLDPE (ts0-2{0b(,) Extrtsiorr..'hrjertion Xloulding HDPE (2r0-2J5bC) Extmsiontlrrjertiorr h'Iouklilg PP (210-2:0pc) , f, xtmsiorr,'hrjectiotr
l\'Iorrftlilg
:
PVC (r50-250I,C) Extnlsiou..{rrje(tior I\loulrling PS (190-210pc:) [-rt l'ttsiolr,:hrje rtiou
1\'Ioulling
c. .
Ptastics are inert and non toxic
and,*
rfi?lffii:ffJ#L3tl[*,*
rood, pharmaceutica products I and drinking water, Plastics save energy, Plastics causes least green house gas and o therVOCs emissions, Plastics processing does not cause any untoward emissions, plastics offe r highest product to package ratio then how Plastics packaging can be termed as hazardous to Environment? ln fact plastics packaging save the environment. Globally, plastics packaging
save
C]
2?O J\rln Tnnc nf (lf.,t?a /r/f,rmn LJ^, ,-^ /'f^^^^\
:
AA^F
t-
Ir gt *
The summary.report tifled as "the rmpact of prastics on the rife cycre energy consumption and green house gas emissions in Euiope dated June 2010 is worth refening report thatlstabtished the -th e scie n ce of p tistics. rh ;i Lp ".orogi.rt r r. Xtlr_gf herewith and marked as Annexur a " ",tl.
:::*
ti
;;y
*"0
d' That lt is submitted that before embarking upon criticizing any particularthing one has to do the mmplete life cycle analysis and Environment lmpact Assessment vis-d-vis its possible and prob able substitutes and replacements.-lr ls submitted that lt is the convenience of packing the milk i n pouches' which has enabled the country to achieve the position of No. 1 milk producing nation i n the world' The milk packed in pouches has enabled faster and convenient transportation, enha nced storage capability, prevents breakage as well as adulteration and to top it all has made milk available to the poor man who can pay for2oo / 500 ml of milk for his daily need and get a small pouch' Thus milk packed in white film has triggered progLr. of the country. This nm iJnrry;.;" lable and there are number of recyclerc across the country that recycle the milk pouch waste in to Barcati Film, which provide shelter to millions of people especially during the rainy season, Any other mode of packing milk would not have made it possible. The other aspect which is mentione d in the table hereunder mentions the amount of saving in terms of fuel and other energy require ment which otherwise would have gone into manufacturing, packaging and transporting and stori ng.the milk. Also the wastage of mirk isprevented prastic by using pouch.
Life Gycle Data for Different Materials used for packaging one Lakh Litres of Mitk Pl.rstic Pouches
Phase I: Productior-r of
Raw Material Phase II:
!
Production of Bottles/Pouches 3-2&2-Ns.
Phase
IfI:
Filling and Distribution
Energy* -!ingle IReturn] LL4,75
[213.43]
Energy* !!ngle [Return] 6?,.73
[106.64]
*\-
ln1 Life cycle Data for Different Materiars used for packaging one Lakh Litres of Mitk Phase IV:
Waste Managenrent
- neiviiing -
Glass
Plastic pouches
Energy Consumption*
Energy Consumptionx
501.67 401.34 301.oo 250.83
4.56
100o/o B0o/o
60olo 50o/o
Reuse
Energy
(Including
2.74 2.28 Water
Tr{nsDortfftlnh\
Consumption
95o/o
277.8
509.1
BAo/o
457.5
60o/o
697.0
675.4 897.2
Incineration
Consumption
Energy
Consumption 143.4 (Now Plastic Pouches)
Eqergy Recovered Not Applicable
100o/o
80%
Watgr Consumption 25.6 (New Plasric Pouches)
lV.t 5
Energy uJ), water (Thousand Litres), Fuel ( Litres)
L6.58
Summery:
.
Energy Saving _ Milk packaging Glass Vs Plastic For One Lac Lifters of Milk
Energy consumption in GJ for Manufacture of Raw material & packaging Material Transportation
Botile 2195
Glass
plastic pouch 2s1
. Energy saving 80% . Energy recovery- with plastics - 20 GJ
Ref: LCA Study Report of ltT
-
Dethl
Life Cycle Analysis on plastics canied out by many reputed lnstitutions in the world show
that Plastics Packaging saves generation of Green House Gases and thus restricts the e ffect of Global Warming to a large gxtent. A Carbon Life Cycle Analysis by McKinsey in 2 005 shows that plastics are among top savers of Green house Gas Emissions. ln Food Packaging and Shopping Bags Sectors, Plastics Packaging saved globalGreen House Gas Emissions to the tune of 220 Mn Tons compared to atternate packaging materials li ke Paper, Glass, thin Steel, Aluminium, Card Board and Wood. Annll.r^'
I l.\n
L-,----r
r
ltlo
b-
stics Association) demonstrate that both energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GH G) emissions would increase significantly, if plastic products were to be substituted to a
t
heoretical maximum by other materials. ln otherwords plastic products, having substitut
ed more traditional materials are helping save energy and reducing greenhouse gas (G HG) emissions. For example, substituting plastics in the case studies throughout Europ e (EU27+2) in2A07 would increase the life-cycle energy consumption by around 2.140 million GJ peryearand the GHG emissions
would increase by 110 Mt CO2equivalents per year. It is thus clear that if there is an attempt to ban use of plastics in large application sector li ke packaging, there would be substantial increase in the Green House Gas emission wh ich will increase the Global Warming threat to a higher degree, at a time when whole wor ld is trying to find out how we muld contain the menace of Global Warming! (McKinsey Reporl & GUA Report are enclosed).
e.
There is another Myth which has created lot of confusion. In a report CPCB stat
ed that lndia generates 5.6 Million
lons of plastics waste per year out of which 2.24
Mn Tons of plastics waste remain uncollected ! W-rile aniving at the figure of 5.6 Milli
on Tons per anum, CPCB made a 'consideration' that 70 % of plastics generates w aste. For 8 Mn Tons of Plastics Production in lndia, CPCB arrived at a figure of 5.6 M n Tons as waste, which is absolutely a unprofessionalapproach!
Major applications of plastics are:
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture Healthcare / Medical
Education Pipes forWater, Gas and Sewerage Building & Construction - Flooring / Doors & Wndows / Drainage Pipes, Water Storage Tanks, Construction Linings etc
Cables Electricals & Electronics Equipments Thermallnsulation Automobile, Aviation & Raitways packaging
Household Furniture Toys & Many Others
Packaging constitutes about 35% olplastics applications out of which fexible packaging is the component which generates waste in the short time. All other applications are Oot h long term or very long term and do not generate waste in the short term basis. Hence the consideration of 70% as estimated by CPCB appears to be grossly overestimated During a study conducted by an NGO in Mumbai in 2009 at Deonar landfill it was obser ved that the MSW brought to the landfillwas 6.9% plastics waste. However, out of this 6 .9% most of the quantity was retrieved by the waste pickers for selling to.the plastic recy clers leaving only 0.3% plastics waste mainly consisting of laminates and EPS in the lan d-fiil.
Plastic recycling in 2008 was 3.6 million tons which included waste from both industrial as well as MSW Hence on the recycling front India's figure is not very poor. In fact % of lnrlia rccrrcloq iq nne nf fho hinhacf in tho tarndd Ranar rco nf fha hinh rricihilihr tha nlacfin
Itql
Even with the addition of un-collected plastic waste on the roadside, the total plastic was --l te will not be as high as estimated by
CpCB.
PET BOTTLE CASE STUDIES:. f. . SO FAR AS PET ARE CONCERNED:-
' ' ' ' ' ' . '
Polymer as
doesn't require any plasticizers or additives during conversion. Up to 100% of a pET package can be made ftom recycred pET, and the materialcan be recycled again and again. PET bottle weights have come down by 58% from lggg_200g compared to Glass by 11o/orrom2000-2012 with potentiar of breakage. PET has economic varue and fetches more than rNR 30 per KG. Per capita pET consumption in lndia is 4-s KG against g0_100 KG in Developed World. 1 it
I
The collection rate in lndia are more than Tsoh over 1.6 million waste
collectors( approximately ) earn 30% more with pET which is used into making Fiber/ Strapping fortextiles in lndia, etc. PET is wellwithin the defined limits of Food Safety. Bisphenol-A is a raw materialfor manufacturing one type of engineering plastic
-
Polycartonate and
it has nothing to do with pET or
polyetnylene or
Polypropylene. And hen@, as per FSSA| 2011 poryc,arbonate is not approved plastic for food packaging
'
'
1U
The chemistry of PET is such that the manufacture of the pET resin and its further processing into bottles does not involve nor needs the use of phthalates and Bisphenol-A' ln fact, no chemicals otherthan its safe constituents (pTA, IpA and MEG) are involved in the use of the base resin. Therefore pET containers
do not leach out and do not act as endocrine disruptors and carcinogens. the structure of PET resin is such that the Antimony catalyst (used
in e1remely small amounts) cannot easily leach out of the strong polymer molecules in which it remains entrapped. ln a worst case scenario, certainly no more antimony will be exuded than that allowed by any of the strictest regulations prevailing around the world. ln the manufacture of the pET resin, there is no need for the use of any other heavy metal. Hence, the possibility of their presence and, much less of their leaching, is nil. And therefore the ailegations that PET containers leach out antimonay and other heavy metals ( e.g. Lead cadmium, chromium)are not conect. ,
'
The allegation that PET containers are the source of xenoestrogenic activrty w1h its contents are wrong because No estrogens are used norlet g"n"rri"d in
the manufacture or processing of pET containers. Neither
.
conclusive evidence to state the above fear. Thus il can safely be concldded that pET
o o o o
o o o
ii there any
Does not contain Bisphenol-A does not contain phthatates (e.g. di-(2-ethythexyt)phthatate (DEHP) does not contain amines, or any epoxy compounds
does not contain lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium, arsenic or any
additive
other , does not involve any solvents is thermally stable
Converting PET resin into bottles is done by injection stretch blow moulding, a purely thermomechanical process, without involving any chemicalchanges
)t i*,/
llqg--
processing of PET
colorants needed to make coloured pET botfles for packaging pharma products are FDA approved The processing of PET is a globaily standard2ed conditions The manufacture'of pET botfles to be used for packaging liquid formulations is done stricfly as per the specifications of pharma companies (ref. Shree Naina, Sunpet, , ) PET is stable at the processing temperatures The PET bottles for packaging of liquid pharmaceutical formulations has
o
o
o
to be in compliance with USp, lp, BIS All study repofts indicate the reaching of Antimony from pET botUes in to drinking water arefar below the permissible limits specified by \Afl-lo, US
EPA and EU.
Antimony leached from PET containers do not pose any health hazards to humans even if the studies performed on drinking water are extrapolated for Pharmaceutical packing. Antimony trioxide (cAS: 1309â&#x201A;Ź4.4), is used as a polymerisation cahlyst in the manufacture of PET and other polymers at the maximum percentage of 0.035% (as sb).
Sr
Antimony Limit s (ppb)
N ame of Authoity/ Agency
No. 1
Wold Health Organisation
2
US Environmental Protection Agency (EpA)
<6
3
Heafth Canada & Ontario Ministryof Environment
<6
4
German Federal Ministry of Environment
<5
o
WO)
Oestrogen reactivity is not related with
<20
pEf
No specific chemical substance which can be linked with pET was identified as Endocrine disruptors in any of the
study
I
o
Oestrogens are omnipresent, in the air and in water bodies
o
Their causes are multiple and unavoidable
o
All studies indicate that it is difficurt to pin-point any xenoestrogenic activity to the material of container (glass or pET)
o
EEQ values
in rhineral water from grass and pET
botfles are
comparable o
Acetaldehyde generation is totally controlled in the pET processing
o
There are no health concâ&#x201A;Źms associated with Acetaldehyde
o
Acetaldehyde in present in fruits and other items of daily consumption in much higher quantities than the possible traces in pET containers
The colourants conform to any one or ail of foilowing regulations on colourants for food mntact materials. US Federal Food, Drug, and cosmetic Act, U.s. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), council of Europe (CoE) Resolution AP f89) 1 t)n thc r rca nf nnlnranfc in nracria
hL
lr 13
.._.",
materials and articles intended to come into contact with food,Thesp regulations limit the concentration of Heavy metals, Aromatic amines, sulphonated aromatic amines, Polychlorobiphenyrs (pcBs) and other toxic substances in colourants. The regulations also ensure Migration fastness of the mlourants from plastic materials 5.
11. ALTERNATMES AND SUBSTITUTES: GOMPARATIVE STUDTES:.PET VS GI+ ss:a) As with all highly concentrated industries, glassworks suffer from
moderately high local environmental impacts. Compounding this is that because they are mature market businesses, they often have been
located on the same site for
a
long time and this has resulted
in
residentialencroachment. The main impacts on residential housing and
cities are noise, fesh water use, water pollution, NOx and
sox
air
pollution, and dust.
b)
Noise is created by the forming machines. Operated by compressed air,
they can produce noise levels of up to 106dBA , which can damage the eardrums to the extent of no recovery. Hence the Health of the workers
working in Glass factories is a big question mark .The noise is carried into the local neighborhood and can cause a native protest.
c)
Another factor in noise production is truck movements. A typical factory will process 600T of material a day. This means that some 600T of raw
material has to come onto the site and the same off the site again as finished prdduct. Both loading and unloading cause immense noise pollution.
d) Huge amount of water is required
in a glass factory. Water is used to
cool the fi.rrnace, compressor and unused molten glass. Water use in factories varies widely; it can be as little as one tonne water used per melted tonne of glass. Of the one tonne, roughly half is evaporated to
provide cooling, thereby dimishing the water resources in the vicinity, the rest forms a unusable wastewater stream, discarding which is again
of great concem discarding it in rivers can pollute the river water
of fishes and other water living creatures,The reason of the water pollution is factories use water
drastically and endbnger the life
containing an emulsified oil to cool and lubricate the gob cutting shear blades. This oil-laden water mixes with the water outflow stream, thus
polluting
it.
Factories usually
have some kind
of water
processing equipment that removes this emulsified oil but not completely, only to various degrees of effectiveness.
e)
The oxides of nitrogen'are a natural product of the burning of gas in air
and are
nrodr
rcnd in laroe
nr
rantiticq hrr aeq-firor{ fr rrnanpq Snme
Itq\
L
factories in cities with particular air pollution problems will mitigate this by using liquid oxygen, however the logic of this given the cost in carbon of (1) not using regenerators and (2) having to liquefu and transpor-t oxygen is highly questionable. The oxides of sulfur are produced as a result of
the glass melting process, which is the mmmon cause of
lifelong
breathing ailments for ttre workers in the factory as well as persons living deep in the neighbourhood.
The raw materials for glass-making are all dusty material and are delivered either as a powder or as a finegrained material. Systems for controlling dusty materials tend to be difficult to maintain, and given the large amounts of material moved each day, only a small amount has to escape for there to be a dust problem. culletis also moved about in a
glass factory and tends to produce fine glass particles when shovelled or
broken. The dust thus generated when inhaled can impair the vital breathing organs and reduce life span considerably. s) Glass industries are not being permitted in many countries who,are
encouraging other altematives like pET, Tetrapack, and
rin cans
for
use as containers. h) Then immediate alternate
is Glass Botfles, this wilt result in a severe shoftage of medicine and foodstuff - illustration as below:-cunent pET Bottle consumption
in lndia is 650,000 metric tons per year for
packing
Beverages, pharmaceuticals and food products. This means about 1800 metric
tons of empty PET Botfles are being used every day in lndia.To replace this requirement about 16,000 MT/day of glass is required considering the fact glasJ bottles are 9 times heavier than PET. This additional empty Glass botfles will be
over and above existing demand of empty Glass botfles in lndia.
Glass bottles are fragile and cause frequent breakages.cunenfly 9305MT per day of Glass Bottles are used in lndia.
As a norm, 15% of Glass Botfles break during various stages of usage right from .This means in lndia every day 13g6MT of broken glass particles k) r)
cause health injuries to the citizens of lndia. Even smallest splinter of 1 gram of glass piece cause open wound and bleeding. Every day 1.40 billion grams of broken glass pieces harm 1.3 billion population of lndia .lf open wounds caused by Glass particles are not treated with retanus injection then tetanus toxins released by Tetani bectaria cause tightening of the muscles all over the body , and can lead to the locking of the jaw which prevents the victim from opening their mouth. lf not treated on time, then Lockjaw is a serious disease which may result in death.
m) ILLEGAL SILICA SAND MINING
a.
To produce 1 metnc ton of Glass around 0.7 metric tons of Silica sand
b.
cunently glass industry is already responsible for depletion of precious
c.
sand resouree of lndia. To produce 14778 metictons of Glass every day in lndia '10,s00 metric tons of silica sand is mined all over lndia.
d.
This means every Vear around 4 million tons of silir:a iq heinn atraartrr
is required.
ltqr
'ih L-.-.J
sand mining in India and iilegalities involved in mining the sand. f.
-
Further, sand is very low cost material Rs. 200 per ton. Hence, transportation cost of sand is generally higher than the cost of the sand itself' This aggravates illegality of sand.mining exponentiaily. rn order to
save
g.
transport cost, mining is canied out at rivers and coastar areas where licenses are not issued by the Government. lf PET Bottles are banned, then to produce additional 17262 metnc tons of glass bottles every day , sand mining wiil increase by 100% from cunent rate of 4 million tons to g million tons every year.
Gomparison of Packaging Materials used for pharmaceutical packaging Sr. Polyethylene Tere Parameterc Glass No. phthalate(PET) 1 Origin Synthetic Synthetic 2 Safety 2.1
2.2
Leaching: Antimony (Sb) Lead (Pb) Arsenic (As) Other Metals
Below MCL Not Present Not Present Not Present
Below Below Below Below
MCL MCL
MCL MCL
Physical:
Breaking
Non-fragile
3 Gonvenience Density (g/n1) 3.2 Weight for 330m1 botUe (g) 3.1
1.35
Fragile, Shattering creates sharps 2,5 to 8.0
24
200 t'Fioht timeq haernr\
3.3
Squeezability
Easily Squeezable a nd allows controlled
Glass is Rigid
dispensation 3.4 Cost
Glass bottles are2Ti mes costlierthan PE T bottles
4 Environmental lmoact 4.1
4.2
Biodegradability Carbon Foot Print in NorthAmera
No
No
315
500
3255
4227
30000
18000
ica
GHG Emission/ 1000 CSD units (lbs)
4.3
Energy Consumption/ 1000 CSD units (MJ) Transportation 1 00ml bottles/ truc k
(Nos)
i
Conclusions: 1.1. Afternatives (Glass) are Txheavier 1.2. More transportation, hence higher burning of fossil fuels/generation of pollutants/EDCs
1.3. PET is more Environmentallyfriendly compared to Glass Handling of PET bottles and scrap is saferfor handling
a) To give an elaborative
| l1fi scientific evidence
to
illustrate how plastic packaging is
mnsidered beneficial and safe for packaging of food products, copy of a compendium on -'Plastics in Food Packaging'presented bythe Indian lnstitute of packaging, set up in 1966 by a joint effort by the Government of lndia - Ministry of Commerce and allied
lndustries and published by lndian Centre for Plastics in the Environment (lCpE) an Autonomous National Body, set up on the recommendation of a Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The compendium Plastic in food packaging prepared by lndian Institute of packaging, Mumbai would be submitted by the applicants in its original form as and when it is required by the Honorable couft or at the appropriate stage of the case.
-
b) The compendium
discusses the positive attributes, which have clearly established 'preferred' status for Plastics in packaging. It states that the 'safety and Hygiene,factors
have voted Plastics 'in'for food packaging. The compendium also clears many myths about the misconceptions including the one alleging plastics contributing to Environmental pollution. National and lnternational standards on plastics for Food Packaging have also been covered. 11' That it is submitted that before holding any product or chemical injurious to ecology it is essential to know the impact of a particular product or chemical on the Environment, and for that the accepted and scientiflc method is to carry out the Life Cycte Anatysil of plastic and Plastic products' The Life Cycle Analysis of Plastics vis-d-vis paper, jute and texti6,
as evidenced by the various studies, clearly indicates that Plastics products are by far more Environment friendly than those of paper, jute and textile in terms of
i'
consuming lesser energy for production of basic raw material as well as for subsequent processing to end product.
ii. creating lesser burden on the Environment by way of emissions to air, water or soil. iii' consuming much lesser fuel for transportation
of the manufactured products from the
place of production to the places of use
iv'
consuming much lesser amount of energy for recycling mmpared to recycling of paper (ute and textile are not recyclable)
v. Recovering
energy from the end-of-life waste where recycling is difficult or not feasibb. Moreover, Plastics products reduce the number of trees to be fallen for manufacturing
paper, thus preventing deforestation.
vi.
Plastics are 100 % recyclable via various routes: Mechanical recycling: plastics can be recycled into economically useful low cost non+ritical products e.g. Footwear, mats, cloth hangers / clips, flower pots, mugs and buckets, soap cases, tarpulins etc. Mixed Waste
Plastics
/
comingled Plastics, are also recycled without sortinq into svnthetic tumber
'L,,-
ttqT
scalping products etc' Plastics can be thermally recycred /incinerated to recpver energy. Plastics can be chemicaily recycred to recover monomerfor reuse.
vii' ln generar, prastics, which are used for major packaging apprications, are made from
Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP) Polystyrene (ps). Allthese plastics materiats are duly approved by the National standards (Bureau of lndian
standard
- Bls) and other
Regulatory Authorities for use in contact with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals and drinking
water
viii' Plastics are hipolymers which consist of mainly carbon & hydrogen. polyethylene (pE) and Polypropylene(PP) are the predominant Plasilcs materials which are used for packaging applications' \Men PE and PP are bumt under controlled conditions, these releases similar gases as released by all natural organic materials like cotton, wood, textile etc' Burning of paper also releases same gases as pE does. ln the presence of sufficient oxygen, burning of paper, wood, cotton etc rerease carbon dioxide and water vapour- same component-s found in the airwe exhale when we breathe.
ix. Plastic is not the culprit for acid rain which is caused direcfly by the contribution of emission from the thermal power station, municipal incineration and motor vehicles, which togetherconstitute gg.g %.
x'
The issue of condemning Plastic on account of its non biodegradable character does not make any sense because evep glass and metal are also not biodegradable. Even paper does not biodegrade if it does not get suitable composting Environment in the presence of sufiicient air and water. More than 40 years' old newspaper had been dugged out of Ianfill area, which could be read clearly. The biodegradation in landfill sites requires the controlled Environmental parameters in terms of temperature, air and moisture which is not available in the landfill sites and therefore the Newsp aper ltelephone directories found in landfills even after 40 years and that leaves and lumbers found in landfills even after 25 years' lt is further submitted that rhe famous study on excavation of New york,s landfills by the University of Arizona, u.s.A. reveals that food it9ms, such as beef-stakes,
com-on-cob, news papers- things which one might expect to biodegrade in a few years, are in recognizable form after io y.ro. This is because; anaerobic biodegradation (in the absence of air and sun-light) is an extremely slow process. This process also generates methane gas frorn landfills- which for its 'greenhouse" effect is worce than carbon dioxide.
xi'
lf Plastic products/ packaging material are replaced with traditional materials like paper, cloth, jute, metal, etc', it would lead to additional Environmental burden and also cause
malor penalty on the emnomic system. Phenomenal increase would be affected in increase
of
Weight of packaqino
o/.
I
ll1$ Volume of waste
-160 %
Energy Requirement
-110
o/o
Cost of Packaging
-214
o/o
Just to establish the eco friendly nature of the Plastic a case study is worth mentioning for
the kind perusal of the Honourable court by Comparing bags made up of Plastics to paper grocery bags, Plastic grocery bags:- that the Plastic bags in comparison
'
Consume 40 percent less energy than paper (1.M million MJ Vs 0.58 million MJ for 1 million bags),
. Generate B0 per cent less solid waste, . Produce 70 per cent fewer atmospheric emissions, and . Release up to 94 percent fewer waterborne wastes, I
'
Plastic bags generate 60 % less greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted
paper bags and 79 % iess greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper
bags. The Plastic bags generate 3,097 tons of CO2 equivalents per 100 millions bags, while uncomposted paper bags generate 7,621 tons, and composted paper bags generate 14,558 tons, per 100 million paper bags.
'
Plastic bags consume less than 4 % of the total water that is needed to make paper bags. lt takes 5,527 cubic meters of water to produce 100 million Plastic
bags, versus 145,729 cubic meters of water to produce 100 million paper bags.
.
Plastic grocery bags consume 40 % less energy during production and generate 80 % less solid waste than paper bags. Significantly, even though traditional disposable Plastic bags are produced from fossilfuels, the total nonrenewable energy consumed during their lifecycle is no greater than the non renewable energy consumed during the life cycle of paper and biodegradable Plastic bags.
.
Paper sacks generate 70 ok more air, and 50 times more water pollutions, than Plastic bags,
.
lt takes 91 % Iess energy to recycle a pound of Plastic than it takes to recycie a
pound ofpaper.
. After three uses, reusable
Plastic bags are superior to all types of disposable bags- paper, polyethylene and mmpostable Plastic- across all significant Environmental indicators
.
Transportin'g
15O,OOO
nos. Plastic carry bags of minimum stipulated size (20 x
30 cms)of 40 micron thickness (weighing - 600 kgs)would
require one small
tempo, whereas similar size and number of paper bags would require more
'L*
/,'11 '
one ton of unquoted virgin printing and office paper uses 24 trees and
'
1
. '
.
'
ton of uncoated virgin (non+ecycled) printing and offce paper uses 24 trees.
1 ton of 100 % virgin (non+ecycled) newsprint uses 12 trees
A "pallet' of copier paper (20-lb. sheet weight , or 2o#) contains 40 cartons and weighs 1 ton. Therefore, 1 carton (10 reams) of 100 % virgin copier paper uses, 6 trees
1 tree makes 16.67 reams of copy paper or g,333.3
uses 6
o/o
.
sheetsl ream (500 sheets)
of atree 1 ton of coated, higher-end virgin magazine paper (used for
magazines like NationalGeographic and many others ) uses a little more than
15 trees (15.36X ton of coated, lower-end virgin magazine paper (used for newsmagazines and most catalogs) uses nearly g trees (7,6s).
so it can
simply be calculated that how much additional trees are going to be cut in order to meet the increased demand of papers to meet to substitute the plastic bags.
'
In all class I cities of lndia on an average Plastic as a whole mntribute nearly 6 ?
of total municipal solid waste out of which the contribution of Plastic bags/ packaging materials are less than 1 o/o. ln developed economies with disposable lifestyle, Plastics contribute only 8 % by weight to Municipal Solid
waste (MSW The rest consists of organic matters, paper, wood, metal, glass etc. That for'information the Applicants submit that the contribution of organic material is 33 %, paper and board 30
o/o,
glass 8 %, metal g % and others 13
in total municipal solid waste of these developed economies.
MUNICIPAL WASTE DATA AND MANAGEMENT
4.
lt is further submitted that'preliminary findings of a study conducted by the Central pollution Control Board (titled as "Assessrnent and Quantification
of Ptastic Waste in 60 major
cities" indicate that Plastic wastes constitute approximately 10-15 % of the municipal and solid waste generated in a city, including multilayered and metalized pouches. However, after the generation of the Plastic waste, the waste pickers collect a mnsiderable quantity of Plastic waste for selling to the waste dealers who ultimately resale those to actual recyclers.
Ultimately only about 5 to 7% Plastics
wastes only reaches the
Study in Mumbaiafterthe MumbaiDeluge in 2005.
landfill
- as ppr NEERI
oz
-i
l7n Percentage of quantities in the waste at Gorai {landfilt in Mumbai) Compostable Matter 334/"
Plastlc 5Y"
Miscellaneous ($and, Silt, Debris, etc.) 52%
NEERI Report 3n
*rporition of MSW in Mumbai
landfill in 2005 submitted to the
Mumbai High CourtA considered approach to the problem would be the implementation
of a system for proper Plastic waste management rather than a complete ban
on
packaging.The said reports as mentioned above makes it categorically clear that the problem solely and exclusively is that
of waste management and for the effmtive waste
management various committees and studies have all ready been organized and that municipal solid waste (Management and Handling Rules 2000) has already been notified
with effect from 25.09.2000 where under it has been made the mandatory responsibility of every Municipal authority to implement the provisions of Rules within its tenitorial area
and to develop the infrastructure for collection storage, segregation,, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste including Plastic waste. b) That
An independent study conducted by an NGO in Mumbai supported by ICPE and
permitted by the Mumbai Civic Authorities, revealed that although the amount of Plastics
waste brought to the landfill area
- Deonar in Mumbai was about 6.9% of total MSW, the
ultimate quantity of Plastics waste remained in the landfillwas less than 0.3%, balance
being collected by the waste pickers for recycling purpose. Such a small percentage of Plastics waste cannot be the cause of all the health problems on the earth. The Applicants associated cadmium and lead as integral part of Plastics without specif,Ting the details of the type of Plastics, which could contain those elements and that too in excess
of permitted amount. These type allegations of unspecified in nature is categorically rejected. AII waste including Plastics waste is required
to be handled appropriately for
which specific laws exist in the form of Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 of Government of lndia. lt is required that all of us work together to
implement the said Rules effectively for the benefit of the society at large and for the
/>ol
\
dangerous wasfe in the atmosphere in the form of Green House Gases and other toxic
VOCs, which cannot be seen by naked eyes nevertheless would harm the entire humanity and the eafth's climate in an unconttotlable manner.
Kg.
o/o
26.8
6tC v4,v
i
ii6.9
Plastics
Plastics Waste
:
-_ -i 1
/afr l
in the l-
CHARACTERISATION OF TOTAL WASTE
PIastics, 6.9o/o
Non-Plastics, 4.3a/o ,../'
345 kg (6.60/o) for Recycling
tt
DryWaste,
t\
1B kg (0.3%o) remains in tlre Landfill
11.20/o
.D eonar- Mumbai ln any case, Plastics being chemically inert cannot cause pollution or poisoning of water bodies, as alleged. 4.1. That Banning Plastics is nothing but a complete ignorance of the scientffic reality.
From Disposable Plastic Syringes, Plastic lV Bottles and Plastic Blood Bags, which
save the lives of millions every day, to Plastic milk pouches, which delivers fresh
milk to over 50 million lndians daily
-
Plastics provide LIFE to humanity. The
scientific facts prove that Plastics save life and Plastics
the Environment.
tAax
o'*.,*
manufacturing Plastics may be of some hazardous in nature. Ethylene, propylene, Vinyl Chloride and Benzene etc can be taken as hazardous chemicals and are the
basic raw materials for manufacturing commodity Plastics. But the real fact is that theses hazardous chemicals are basic raw materials for many other important products including paints, detergents, synthetic fabrics, industrial alcphols and solvents, pharmaceuticals, synthetic rubbers used for automobile tyre and a host of
other
products. And one cannot imagine today's world without the presence of
these basic chemicals. However these basic chemicals are handled by a select and limited large international scale organised companies using modern technologies and abiding by the National and International Regulations including those of the lndian Government and Pollution Control Boards and are completely
safe in their production process ensuring safety to people as well as the Environment. This is the practice not only in India but elsewhere in the world over.
And when these hazardous chemicals undergo the chemical reactions in the modern manufacturing facilities to produce the Plastics materials (and other products such as synthetic rubber), these bemme completely safe for handling and
further processing in to various finished products of daily use including plastics packaging materials.lt is like Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (CD two aggressive chemicals, which are required to be handled very carefully, to avoid any adverse
-
effect on their arcidental direct exposure to human beings or the Environment, However when these two aggressive chemicals react together to form Sodium
chloride (Nacl)
- which is 'common salt', one take it with our food daily.By
imposing ban upon the Plastics the respondent government has proved its ignorance of the conect scientific and technical reality. There are lntemational and
National Standards for the Recycling and Recovery of Plastics Waste. lS 14534 specifications of BIS
-
Guideline for Recovery and Recycling of Plastics, which is
cunenfly under the process of adopting the lntemational Standard ISO 15270:2008 of the same title, clearly describes that recycling and recovery of Plastic waste is a scientific and Environmentally safe process.
4.2. Here it is to apo reqirired to be submitted that Plastics waste is not desired to be taken to the landfill. This is not the desired option. Plastics waste is to be recycled or
the energy is to be recovered or to be converted to industrialfuel. This can also be used for the construction of asphalt roads. However, even if Plastics waste is dumped in the landfill, this cannot pollute the ground water level- as alleged. ln fact Plastic sheets / films are used for the construction of exclusive Hazardous Waste Management sites. Uncpntrolled burning of Plastics waste in the open, or for that
matter, burning of any dry waste including dry plant leaves, is prohibited by law. However, arcidental burning of most common Plastic material like polyethylene
emits similar types of gases as released when any natural organic material including wood is burnt. There is no added toxicity in the air. That the burning of polytherlene is like burning a candle. Wax is a low molecular weight polyethylene.
tAnS Plastic form a small % of the dumped waste. other objects like waste tyres & rubber products, discarded leather footwear, metal cans, bricks, mortar and garbage have been found dumped in drains & sewers leading to chocking of drains. That the solution lies in proper waste management & timely cleaning of sewers & drains before monsoons and not by covering the negligent performance of duties of the civic agencies by banning the use of any materialwhich can produce the municipalwastes.
That industry has already formed lndian Centre for Plastic in the Environment (lCpE), an autonomous national body registered under Societies Act, with a seed capital of Rs. 2 Crores on recommendation of a Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF)to handle all issues related to Plastics and Environment in the country.lcpE helps sustain an Environment-friendly image of Plastics by highlighting the positive role of Plastics in conseruing resources and its 1oo % recycrabirity. 7.
That lt is important to recognize that Plastics use less than 4 % of the world's hydrocarbon resources' Approximately gt) % is consumed for transportation, power generation and heating' Plastic waste is predominantly eco-neutral or inert. lt does not generate toxic leachates which contaminate the soil or ground water resources, on the contrary, those products which do biodegrade with by-products may result in contaminating ground water resources.
L
That According to
a UNICEF report, in our muntry an estimated 2,500 children die every
day of dianhea diseases, caused by polluted drinking water and lack of sanitation. Those who survive continue to sufferfrom water borne diseases and the country loses a staggering 1,800 million man hours per year and these all figures point to the negligent performance of the duties of our Municipal agencies. That the results show that the total life-cycle energy needed to produce, use and recover Plastic products in Westem Europe is 3.900 Mill GJ/a and the total life-cycle GHG emissions are 172 Mt/a' Furthermore the results show that substitution of plastig products up to a maximum would need 600- 1.400 Mill GJ/a more energy (or about 26 o/o more energy) than needed in the total life- cycle of all Plastic products today. ln the same way, substitution of Plastic products up to a maximum would cause 58 -13S Mt or about 56 % more GHG emissions than the total life-cycle of all Plastic products today, ln otherwords, the Plastic products on the market today have enabled savings of energy to an extent of 6001'400 Mill GJla , equivalent to 22 Mill tonnes of crude oil carried by 1g0 ultra large crude oil tankers' The GHG emissions saved are equivalent to the total CO2 emissions of portugal
(60 Mt in 2000) oi Belgium (120 Mt 2000) and are also equivatent to 30 % ofthe EU- 15 Kyoto target regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The statement that "plastic waste is disposed of either by burning or by taking it to the landfill site or left in the Environment, proves that
the respondent is willfully trying to mislead the Honourable Supreme
Burning of Plastics waste
is definitely not a disposal option, neither is it practiced. Burning
any dry waste, including tree leaves, paper fha Pr rla
Court.
of
etc. in uncontrolled way in the open is against
llot'l
fill. ldeally Plastics waste should not go to the dump yard. lt is to be recycled. lndid Standard
lS 14534: 1998 which specifically mentions the suggested applications of recycled Plastic carry bags (PE). Plastics waste including Plastics cany bags
of any size shape, size or
thickness is 100% recyclable. That there has been full fledged provision made by the appropriate govemment also by which detail list has been prescribed for the pigments which can be used as colorant safely in the Plastic products which are to be put into use for Plastic
to be used in contacts with food stuff pharmaceutical and drinking water. The said list offers a complete guide on suitability of Plastics for food packaging. lt was adopted for the proper packing of food stuff and pharmaceuticals and to avoid contamination and to maintain hygienic condition and to ensure that there should not be any toxic hazards on consumption.
The prescribed pigments are absolutely toxicologically safe and Environmentally safe and the Rules of 2011 categorically refer them to be used for the manufacturing of cany bags (vide Rule 5(a) of the Rules 2011). The true typed copy of the lS 14534: 1998 lndian Standard- Guidelines for Recycling of Plastics and the international draft standards for the
are l2colly(....
recycling
annexed herewith
and maked as
ANNEXURE A-
..............). AND The true typed copy of the
list given in lndian
standard 9833-1981 reaffirmed in 2003 and again in 2008, tifled "list of pigment and colourants for use in Plastic in contact with 'food stuff'"pharmaceuticals and drinking watef' is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
A13.....
11. That the Plastic products or any use of Plastic does not give emissions of methane gas. Methane gas is evolved during the degradation process of biodegradable/compostable products including plant and vegetable waste, jute, cotton, waste food etc. Compositing of biodegradable materials generates methane- a strong Green House Gas, about 21 times
stronger than carbon dioxide, which is also evolved during biodegradation/ compositing process, Conventional Plastics do not degrade in the landfill and hence there is no question of methane gas generation
fom
Plastics bags in landfill.
12. lt is further submitted that the Plastics recycling including Plastics bag recycling are an established process intemationally,as well as in lndia. There are international draft standards,
ISO/FDIS 15270 titled "Plastics- Guidelines for recovery
and
recycling of Plastics waste",
This is at the final stage of adoption. The true copy of the intemational draft standard: ISO/FDIS 15270, titled "Plastic- Guidelines for recovery and recycling of Plastics waste" is already annexed.lt is further submitted that lndia has its own standard- lS 14534:1998, title "Guidelines for Recycling of Plastics" to deal with the issue which is already annexed . lt is
further submitted that Plastics carry bags
help
reduce the Green House Gas Emission
many times more if compared to paper Bags. Mckinsey report clearly quantified that 67
million tons of emission of GHG in carbon dioxide equivalent term was saved by Plastics film, in
which
Plastics carry bags were compared against paper carry bags. Green House
l2or
L-
Tons. lt is true that paper bags also can be recycled like Plastic bags. However,
it
takes 91%
in less energy to recycle a kilogram of Plastic than a kilogram of paper. Recycling of Plastics
general and plastics products in particular is not prohibited by any Regulation in the world including lndia. There are different types of Plastics products which can be and are being reused,
13. That it has not been taken into account that the Plastic not only qualify all parameters of the effective waste management viz reducâ&#x201A;Ź, reuse, recycle but also one more important attribute which is 'Recover'. This means that at the end of the intended life of the product, we should be able to remver the energy from the waste. Plastics have more calorific values than even mal. ln fact heat content of Plastics waste is more or equivalent to heating oil. The values for the Plastics and heating oil are in the range of 40 MJ / KG while for paper, wood
and MSW (without Plastic, of course) are much lesser than 20 MJ/Kg. Energy can be and
are being recovered from Plastics wastes. And in this respect recovery of energy from Plastics waste is the highest among the comparable materials. As per LCA study, Plastics are more Environment friendly than paper, jute glass, tin etc. That the energy frbm the crude is stored in plastic while in fuels it is burnt, Thus energy from the plastic can be recovered after its life cycle is over. Thus use of plastics saves energy during its usage as described earlier and the calorific value due to its hydrocarbon nature can be used after its use is over.
Thus plastic is giving much more value than just the fuels.
14. That it is further submitted that all types of Plastics waste can be co'processed in cement kilns to recover the energy ftom the Plastics. This serves two purposes- Plastics waste can
be
scientifically disposed of in
an
Environment friendly manner and also the
demand for coal- a fossilfuel can be reduced to a great extent. Hence it is categorically established that Plastic are best on all the attributes of
-
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and
Recover.
15. That the Applicants most respectfully submit that the latest trend of global research clearly suggests in favour of recycling and thus recovery of energy from the all kind of municipal
wastes including the Plastics and as the research suggest Plastic qualifies as the best product and best material to be found in municipal wastes on the parameters of recyclability as well as recovery of energy and resource from the wastes. The Applicants further submit
that biodegradable Plastics are also in long run proved to be less than Environmentfriendly if compared with the Plastics on drcountof recyclability and recovery.
16. That the American Chemistry Council has also conducted a deep research and a proper Environmental research assessment on the issue of life cycle assessment for three types of
glossary bags recyclable Plastics, compostable biodegradable Plastics and recycled and recyclable pape6 and they also found the recyclable Plastics much much better than other options. lt is further submitted that said report was also supported by the datas taken from US Depaftmentof EnergY,
17. The Boustead report Establishes that the standard polyethylene Plastic bag uses between 1 A-a Afimes, tess enerov than the compostable and paper baq system respectively, and its
tqo
(
h_ compostabtebagsystem,andonvariousparametersi'e'useofgrossenergybyactivity'
potential' solid waste production' global warming consumption of gross fossil fuel, municipal friendly etc' Ptastic is many times Environment gross fresh water resources consumption than PaPer or comPostable bags
'
remvery of all possible doubts that the recycling and 18. That lt is also established beyond
energyandresourceftomthesolidwasteshasbeenthemosteffectivewayofmunicipal under upheld by the flnal report conducted disposal and the same view is also wastes
-2010 tired as Environmentar benefts of recycling wastes and resources action programme that Plastic Kingdom, That it is categorically denied update conducted in context of United as factorfor totar municipar sorid waste can be taken which has ress than 5 % contribution in
thegrowthofsolidwasteandaprobleminM.S.W.management.ltisfurthercategorically
deniedthatrecyclinginaccordancewithprescribednormsisnotexpansiveratheritis rewardingphenomenonbywhichtherich(Manufacturersandtraders)andpoor(therag so far as violation of Rules are pickers and kabadi walas ) are equally benefited 'ln
concemedthathasbeendealtwithbylawenforcementmachineryandincidenceof violationcannotbelegallyallowedtobemadethebasisofcurtailmentofstatutoryand fundamental rights'
A.Thechapter6i.e'Summaryandconclusionsofthefinalreport concernedwiththewesternEuropetitledas..contributionofPlastic productstoresourceefficiencydatedJanuary2005"'(pages203-208)' the saving of energy and The said report highlights the estimation of greenhousegasemissionachievedbythetotalmarketproductmade pro.iection based on a of plastic in western Europe by means of sufficient number of examPles'
B'ReportonBPpolyethylenelowdensityandlinearlowdensity,repott industrial research on the Plastics conducted by the shriram institute for !,
l
processing.andEnvironmentalaspectsdatednil,(',..'Thisreportout
linesthatlowdensitypolyethylenearechemicallyunreactiveand biologicallyinert,whichdoesnotreleaseanynoxiousfumesatambient
temperatureorduringthestageofprocessingincontrolled parameters' Environment under prescribed
C.TheULSreportdate0l'06.200Ttifledasreviewoflifecyctedata relatingtodisposablecompostable,biodegradableandreusable grocery bags,
D.ThereportpublishedintheTlMEsLondondatedmarch8,2008titled
plastic bag into globat vittain ...'The said as Series of Blunders tumed
reportrejectedonthestrengthofsufficientevidencesthepleaand
lea+ E.
Mckinsey report dated july 2009, (fhe report presented a life cycle quantification of carbon abatement solutions enabled by the chemical industry and the said report was duly approved by lnternational council
wde
voice of the chemicar
industry. This exhaustive report made ready
by OKO- lnstitut of
of chemical Association which is a world
Germany with Mckinsey
& company which
established that there
would have been B-11 % more emission in 2005 in world without the chemical industry and that the chemical industry ( of which prastics is
an integral component) saves the Environment and reduces green house gas emission.
F.
scottish Govt report on the comparison of plastic and paper, (ln 2005 the scottish Govt, issued full Environmentar rmpactAssessment Report on the effect of a proposed Plastic bag fee. Admittedly this is the most comprehensive Environment report ever conducted comparing plastic
bags and paper bags which concluded that paper bag has a more adverse impact than a Plastic bag for most of the Environment issues
considered I
Biotech report published by ULS
oN THE comparison of plastic and
paper,
The report of copenhagen conference on climate change as
justiflting
t.
the eco fiendly nature and
character
cop
of
15
plastic,
A report dated 30.05,2010 justifying the contribution of prastic in the green house emission, (pages
J.
Report published in the ECo-ECHOES(a periodicar)tifled as "disposat of Plastics waste through co-processing in cement kilns,,
The true mpy of research conducted by shriram rnstitute for lndustrial
research titled as Plastic Processing
& Environmental aspect.
report clearly concluded that Plastics play
a
.The
crucial role in the
development of man kind and they help in conservation in resources
and saving its energy. (and that
it does not generate any
volatile/hazards gases till 300 centigrade of temperature. Thai in the
processing range no emission of formic acid, acetic acid, HCL and acitaldehyde were observed, and that the Plastic processing industry can be safely classified as save Environmental industry which does not pose any adverse effect on the Environment (Page No.
on Page ........it is
...... and that
clearly recommended that "based on the
experimental date since no emissions are involved during plastic
processinq, Plastic processinq industrv should
be
classified as
/2e8
4$.
Repoft of the central food technological research institute Mysore on evaluation of high density polyethylene for food contact application
dated December 2006,). The report concluded that prastic is a Environmentally safe for food contact applications and migration of chemicals from the packaging Plastic to the food content is well within the limit specified in the respective specification. M.
The true copy of the life cycle ananlysis of PP-HDpE woven sacks vis a vis jute/ paper sacks in terms of the Environment studies conducted by
IIT DELHI , Centre for Polymer Science
and
Engineereing is annexe
which suggests that the plascti woven sacks are best available altemative for bulk patckaging material. N.
The true copy of the research paper published by Centre for polymer Science and Engineering , llT Delhi tittled LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF
PLASTICS lN PACI(AGING suggesting plastics as best material for the packaging of goods in comparison with its alternatives,
o.
The true.copy of
the research
paper published by the llT DELHI, titled
Plastics for Environment and sustainable development ouflines the values of plastics as indispensable ingredients towards the sustainable Development. P.
The true copy of the classification done by the Ministry of Environment and forest declaring plastic industries as Green category indisutry.
o.
The true copy of the MoEF report on plastics submitted before the Supreme Court of lndia in Ankur Gutkhs case bearing SLP(C) no 16308 of2007.
True copy of the report Plastics for Food Packaging by lndian lnstitute of Packaging( llP - Mumbai). S.
The true copy of the document Indian Plastics lndustry
-
Vision 2012 -
A report by CRISIL T.
True copy of the report Plastics in Food Packaging by CFTRI
U.
True copy of the report of Scott, G and Gilead, D., editors Degradable Polymers, Principles and Application, Chapman & Hall, London, 1gg5
The true copy of the relevant extracts from the final report conducted under wastes and resources action programme published on March 2010 bearing title Environmental benefits of recycling.
These all reports and studies are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXU RE R14 GOLLY
/2oq
il 19. That solution lies not
in the imposing ban but undertaking curative exercises which involves
lmplementation of the recommendations made in the Dr.B.L. Wadehra v. Union of lndia (1996) 2 SCC 594, and in the Almitra Patel series of Jud
gments reported vide
a. Almitra H.Patelv. Union of lndia, (2010) 15 scc 619 (06/0s/200s) b. Almitra H. Patelv. Union of lndia, (20M) 13 SCC S3A (U\|ODOM)
c.
f.
g. h.
Amitra H, Patel v. Union of lndia, (20M) 13 SCC 936 (26/0720M) Almitra H. Patel v. Union of lndia, (2003) 12 SCC ZU (14t01t2003) Almitra H. Patelv. Union of lndia, (2000) SCC 19 (24108t2000) Almitra H. Patelv, Union of lndia, (2000) 2 SCC OZg(15t0Z/2000) Almitra H. Patelv. Union of lndia, (2000)3 SCC STS(11101t2000) Almitra H. Patelv. Union of India, (2000)2 SCC 106 (24t11l1999)
i.
Almitra . PatelH.Patel v. Union of
d. e.
8
lndia (2000) 2 SCC 689 (15/10/1999)
Almitra H. Patel v. Union of lndia (1998) 2 SCC 416(16t01t1998) wherein Supreme Cour t has issued detailed guidelines in the direction of the waste management Wl.ric[r has bee n dulytaken into account in the Mr.Asim Burman committee vide its report of March 1999 I
a.
lmpleamentation
of the recommendations of the commiftee constituted under
the
chairmanship of Sh Rangnath Mishra(former Chief Justice of lndia, and Member of Parliament, and member, parliamentary consultative committee on Environment and forests) who was assigned the task of examining the Regulations on Plastics waste and
to suggest appropriate measures for collection, segregation, treatment and disposal of the Plasticswaste,
b.
That the Applicant also submits that For deciding between various approaches in Solid Waste Management, following are the most accepted scientific options:
a. First step is to reduce the Solid Waste generation b. Second step is to reuse material for the purpose for which it was originally intended orto recycle the materialthat cannot be reused
c.
Third step is to recover, in an Environmentally friendly manner, energy from solid waste that cannot be economically and technically reused or recycled, and
d.
Fourth step is to dispose of the solid waste that is not being reused, recycled or
fom which energy is not being recovered, by land burial or other approved
methods. This is as per the New
Yok State Environment Conservation Law
27 -016.1and is applicable in any urban city in the world, including Delhi, And that the Use of Plastics bags is most Environments ftiendly as per the above concept.
20. That it has to be taken into arcount that the Plastic not only
qualifrT all parameters of the
effective waste management viz reduce, reuse, recycle but also one
more important
attribute which is 'Recover'. This means that at the end of the intended life of the product, we should be able to recover the energy from the waste. Plastics have more calorific values than
arran
aaal
l2to
Lt.--*'
22.
enunciated in the MoEF Rules 2011in light of the parameters set in the MSW Rules 2000 whereby the Industry should be invited to participate in the overall waste management. Most countries have adopted two bin cultures- segregating dry and wet waste at the source. Plastics industry in lndia has been pleading with local governments for proper segregation
systems and provision of bins. This will help avoid littering and ensure recycling of waste Plastics' lndustry has already donated Plastic bins in cities like Delhi and Kotkata. lCpE along with government is committed to launch public education campaigns to enhance civic
sense. Government should consider harsh penalties and deterrents
for
littering.
lnfastructure and system support is a must for proper waste management. lt is to be taken into accountthat, Plastics do not litter but people do.
23.
Plastics recycling including Plastics bag recycling in accordance with standards in force in
lndia and world For the effective waste management based on all above studies the Applicant is submitting the following models for the kind consideration of the Honorable court
which may kindly be considered and duly implemented within the territory of State of Himachal pradesh.The true copy of the research paper prepared by lCpE tiled waste Disposal/ waste managernenl , Zero waste project started at New Motibagh Area, New
Delhi by the Green Planet waste Management (P) Ltd under the guidance of ICpE, The
Brihan Mumbai initiative i.e. Waste Management System at Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation model, Compacting Project undertaken at Mumbai Central Station, Western Railway, Scottish Plan modal for plastic waste, The Model of dry waste management of Cuffe Parade, Mumbaiwhich was also followed at Matheran, Plastic Waste management Model in force in Germany, Model for the effective Plastic Management as developed by the
OPPI are annexed herewith for the kind perusal of the Honorable court and marked as ANNEXURE A 15 COLLY
24. That the applicant in the maln
petition could not submit before court about the waste management and recyclability of the PET bottles. lt is submitted that:-lt is also a Sustainable Solutions for Waste Management. The value chain for PET recycling already exists and country has enough capacity for recycling of PET. Pet bottle scrap can be recycled into Polyester Fibre (RPSF), Yam and r-Pet T-shirt.PEf is recyctabte and in fact is a lucrctive busrness. Hence, the PET bottles are readity and extensively collected for using to make non-bottle grade PET (e.9. fibres, filaments, pillow mateial, s/raps) as Irs a miore profitable venturc than reconvefting into bottles. Hence, PET is increasingly difficult to be sent to
landfills.
to make black fibres or filaments of other mlours.
Suggestions
1)
Conduct an exhaustive study: on standard quality of water, PEG400, sorbitol, alcohol, glycerine (the most common media of liquid formulations)
' . . . .
2)
bottled in PET bottles made from representative
convertors
I
having plastic and metalcaps covering all parts of lndia covering allseasons
Govemance issues cannot be tackled by banning. lnstead, install effective
l2n
&b)
first place unlikely, given the strictness prevailing in the pharma industry.
Similariy, impact of non-standard exposures to pharmaceuticals is more likely to happen during their transportation and storage, resulting' in mutations to the onginal formulation. This poses a much higher risk than an imaginary fear of leachants from pET bottles.
3)
Focus on more chronic and epidemicthreats to health E.g. paan-masala, ghutka, etc.
25. Besides the intervener has also submitted its views before the MoEF Mde its reprlentation dated 17.10.2014 in the matter reference " notification titled :- prohibition of use of pET or Plastic Vontainers for primary packaging or Drug fromutaions for using in certain cases Rules 2014 GSR -701(E) dt 29.09.2014. The notification dated 29 September 2014 is annexed as Annexure
A
16. The True copy of the representation dated 17.10.2014 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A 187 Applicant also refers here for the kind perusal of honorable tribunalthe Representations submitted by lCpE dated 2g.10.2014to
the Ministry of Environment and Forest which is annexed and marked Annexure A1g.lt may kindly consider that Subsequently ICPE delegation had made representation to the Secretary, Mo H & FW, and suggested to constitute an Expert Committee mmprising Academician and Professional in the field of Polymer Science and Technology to examine the issue. A letter was written by ICPE on 4h December and again on 14.01.2015 also to that effect which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexurre
A 19 COLLY. However as
a matter of fact no decision yet was taken on the same. That even theThe Society of the Plastics Industry, lnc. (SPl),1 the American Chemistry Council (ACC)2, and the Canadian
Plastrcs lndustry Association also submitted their representations and opposed the proposed notification dated
26. What
1
7.1 0 .2014.
is significantthat lN wake of an RTI response from the West Bengal Pollution control
board and Central Pollution Control Board it becam clear that the Board has not even conducted any studies on the Environment lmpact Assessment so far and therefore the ldea of Ban is not advisable at this stage. The RTI applications and responses of CpCB and
West Bengal Pollution Control Board are annexed herewith and maketl as Annexure A20COLLY. The true copy of the representations dated 05.11.2014 submitted by the the American Chemistry Council (ACC)2, and the Canadian Plastics lndustry Association is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE 21 COLLY.
27. Thatit
is also notable it'lr,
rn. test reports upon which the Him Jagriti case is based are not
tfe test reports approved by the NABL ( National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories ) which is accreditation body of laboratories and therefore no -rt^^r nrarlihla rrclt rac chnr rld ha aflanlraal {n {l-.^ +^^+
&-
/(rt
PMYER:
It is therefore most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to;
(D
Take the written submission along with documents filed vide
AnnexureA (iD
*
.....onremrd. Pass any other or fufther order(s/direction(s) which the Hon'ble court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly
Through
A'fffi:[._#:lfi (Supreme Court of lndia) Kundan Mishra Law Offices 37 ( First Ftoor) Sector-15A, NOIDA UP-2O13O1,INDIA
.
: c
E
LL- oos 1 -e,
Ch.No.80,Lawyerc' Chambers Sup
11
5:?[%1e#f;;9#J5116/;
I )*,
12t7
IN THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
lMrscAppLrcATtoN
NO.
....oF20151
IN
o.A NO. 15c/F 2014 IN THE MATTER OF;
HIM
JAGRII UTTAMNCHAL WELFARE SOCIETY
APPLICANT
VERSUS UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS
AND IN THE MATTER OF; Organization of Plastics processors of lndia
AFFIDAVIT
l,
sh. c. Bhaskar , s/o. Late V. chandrasekharan, aged abo,t 5g yearc, authorized representative of the organization of plastics processors of lndia, ,Having its Head office at;4a4ls,Golden chambe/s,New Link Road, Andheri,west Mumbai- 400053 do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare and state
on
oath as
follows:-:1.
That I am the INTERVENER in the above mentioned matter and I am wellacquainted with the facts of the case, as such r am competentto swearthis affidavit. That I state that the averments in the wRlrrEN suBMlssloNS are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
That the Annexure are true copies of their respective originar documents. I say that the facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge, no part of it is fa
rse and
vERTFTED
Ar
n
oth
i
n
s
m ate ria I
n't
*"]m1:l;fi*-
$-*H;,
â&#x201A;Ź-'@'.''B"oPffi*.*o**' ?Bhi#F
Zy
NEW DELHI oN rHrs ftf 201s that the contents mentioned in the above mentioned affidavit are true and conect to the best of my knowledse and berief and that nothins materiathas been *n*il*fli.;.i$i$li**ro,** *v"' PR0uts)urr vr
"'")).
PLASTICS
k__,-(---
tor ORGANIZATl0t'pf
/(-/
A.,THoRtsEoslGNAToRIt