Tannery Pollution and Chromium Contamination: Legal Action

If a tannery is discharging effluent, or its chrome-bearing sludge has been dumped near your village, you can complain to the State Pollution Control Board, ask for testing of your wells and handpumps for total and hexavalent chromium, and press the district administration to provide safe drinking water. If the authorities do not act, the NGT can order the tannery or the cluster's treatment plant to stop the pollution, pay compensation and pay for cleaning up contaminated land and groundwater, under the polluter pays principle. Chromium contamination lasts for decades, so the case is as much about clean-up and safe water as it is about stopping discharge.

This guide is about the particular problems tanneries cause: chromium, salt, sulphides and heavy sludge, and the long tail of contamination they leave in soil and groundwater. It covers testing, complaints, health and drinking water, the NGT, compensation and clean-up, and what tanneries themselves must do.

For the broader law on factory effluent, see our page on industrial effluent and water pollution remedies. If your concern is groundwater more generally, read how to prove groundwater contamination from industry.

The essentials

A tannery is polluting our water. What legal action can we take?

Three tracks, run together. First, stop the pollution: a written complaint to the State Pollution Control Board asking it to inspect the tannery, sample its effluent and the receiving drain, check whether it is sending effluent to the cluster's common effluent treatment plant as required, and act under section 33A of the Water Act. Second, protect people: a letter to the District Magistrate and the water supply department, with test results, asking for safe drinking water and a health check in the affected area. Third, put the cost on the polluter: if contamination has already happened, a claim before the NGT for compensation and restoration.

Tannery cases differ from most effluent cases in one way: the damage outlives the discharge. Even if the tannery stops tomorrow, chromium already in the soil, in an old dumping site or in the aquifer stays there. That is why a good tannery complaint asks not only for the discharge to stop, but for the extent of contamination to be mapped and for someone to be made responsible for clean-up.

In tannery matters that Advocate B.K. Singh has reviewed, the cases that moved were those where residents had water test reports showing hexavalent chromium from several handpumps, plotted on a simple map against the tannery or dump site. That map did more to persuade officials than any amount of description.

What tanneries release and why chromium matters

Turning raw hides into leather is a long chemical process. Hides arrive preserved in salt. They are soaked, limed and treated with sodium sulphide to remove hair, then delimed and pickled in acid and salt. Most Indian tanneries then use chromium salts to tan the hide, followed by retanning, dyeing and finishing. Every stage produces wastewater: the early stages carry salt, lime, sulphides and decaying organic matter; the tanning stage carries chromium.

Chromium used in tanning is mainly in the trivalent form, which is far less toxic. The concern is hexavalent chromium, which is a recognised cause of cancer and of skin ulcers and other harm. Hexavalent chromium can form when chromium-bearing waste is handled badly, and it moves easily in groundwater. Waste from chromium chemical manufacturing, sometimes found alongside tannery clusters, can contain it directly. This is why testing for hexavalent chromium specifically matters, and why a 'chromium within limits' report that measured only total chromium may not answer the question.

Tanneries also produce large quantities of solid waste: chrome shavings and trimmings, fleshings, and sludge from effluent treatment that holds much of the chromium. Chrome-bearing sludge and residues are hazardous waste. Where they have been dumped on open land, in low-lying plots or along roads, they become a long-term source of contamination.

Tannery clusters and the history behind the law

India's tanning industry is concentrated in a few clusters, among them Kanpur (around Jajmau, on the Ganga) in Uttar Pradesh, the Vellore district belt in Tamil Nadu (including Ranipet, Ambur and Vaniyambadi), and the leather complex near Kolkata in West Bengal, with smaller centres elsewhere. Most clusters have common effluent treatment plants, and individual tanneries are required to pre-treat their effluent and recover chromium before sending it to the CETP.

Tanneries are part of how Indian environmental law took shape. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996), a case about tanneries polluting water and agricultural land in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of Indian law. Section 20 of the NGT Act now requires the tribunal to apply both. Kanpur's tanneries have also been the subject of repeated directions over the years from courts, the tribunal and the board, because of their discharge into the Ganga.

In some states and clusters, tanneries have been required to achieve zero liquid discharge, individually or through a ZLD-capable CETP. Our guide on zero liquid discharge rules explains when that applies.

What residents should do, in order

Begin with testing, because in chromium cases the test report is the foundation of everything else.

What to test, and why

Ask the laboratory to report results against the Indian drinking water standard (IS 10500) where the water is used for drinking.

A single private test is a starting point. The strongest evidence is the board's own sampling, or sampling by a joint committee appointed by the NGT, at the points your private tests identified. Our guide on expert and laboratory evidence in the NGT explains when more detailed studies are needed.

Chromium in our handpump: getting safe water now

Do not wait for the legal case to finish before dealing with drinking water. If a test shows hexavalent chromium or chromium above the drinking water standard, stop using that source for drinking and cooking, and tell your neighbours. Then write to the District Magistrate, the water supply or Jal Nigam department and the district health officer, enclosing the reports. Ask for safe water by pipeline or tanker, for contaminated handpumps to be marked or sealed, and for a health survey.

The district administration has the duty and the means to do this, and a written request backed by laboratory results is hard to ignore. Our guide on drinking water contaminated by industry sets out how to frame the request. If the administration does nothing, its failure becomes part of the NGT case, and the tribunal can direct safe water supply as interim relief while the larger questions are decided.

On health, keep records of skin lesions, ulcers, stomach problems and anything a doctor links to water. Health claims are the hardest to prove in compensation cases, but a cluster of similar complaints near contaminated sources, documented at the time, carries weight.

Old chromium waste dumps: who cleans them up?

Many of the worst chromium problems come not from a running tannery but from waste dumped years ago, sometimes by units that have since closed. The law still finds a payer. Under the polluter pays principle, the unit or units that dumped the waste are liable for clean-up, and where they can be traced, the NGT can direct them to pay. Where a cluster is responsible, the cost can be shared among its members or recovered through the board's environmental compensation.

Where the polluter cannot be traced or has no money, the tribunal has directed state authorities to take up remediation and recover costs where possible. Contaminated site clean-up is slow and technical: it involves mapping the extent of contamination, removing or containing the waste, and treating or monitoring groundwater. Our guide on contaminated industrial land and who pays for clean-up covers this in more detail.

If you see chrome-bearing waste being dumped now, that is a fresh and urgent matter. Photograph the vehicle and its number, the waste and the place, and report it to the board and the police at once. Our guide on reporting hazardous waste dumping explains what happens next.

The legal framework in short

What a compliant tannery must have

Most notices against tanneries come back to the same short list. Owners who keep these in order rarely face closure.

• Valid consent. Current CTE and CTO, with production and effluent volume within the consented limits.
• Pre-treatment and chrome recovery. Segregation of chrome-bearing liquor from other streams, chrome recovery, and pre-treatment to the CETP's inlet norms.
• CETP connection or ZLD. A working connection to the cluster CETP with regular inlet testing, or a ZLD system where the consent requires one.
• Salt management. Arrangements to reduce and collect salt from hides and pickling, rather than washing it into the drain.
• Sludge and solid waste. Hazardous waste authorisation, storage within limits, manifests and receipts from an authorised facility for chrome sludge and residues.
• Records. Flow meters, logbooks, chemical purchase records, monthly test reports and returns filed with the board.
• Breakdown procedure. A written plan for what happens when pre-treatment or the CETP connection fails, including informing the board. Our guide on ETP failures explains why this matters.

When the problem is the CETP, not one tannery

In tannery clusters, residents downstream often cannot tell which tannery is responsible, because effluent from dozens of units passes through one CETP and one drain. The legal answer is to look at the CETP. If its outlet fails standards, the operator and its member units share responsibility, and the board can act against the CETP and against members sending effluent above inlet norms. If its outlet meets standards but the drain below it does not, some units are bypassing it.

Ask the board in your complaint for samples at the CETP inlet and outlet, and in the drain above and below the CETP outfall. Ask by RTI for the CETP's own monitoring reports and any notices issued to it. Our guide on CETP compliance explains the obligations of operators and members. Where tannery effluent reaches a river, see industrial discharge into a river for the extra authorities involved.

Mistakes that weaken chromium cases

Testing only for total chromium, or testing one handpump. A single result proves little about source or spread, and without a hexavalent chromium result the urgency is easy to dispute. Collecting samples carelessly is the next problem: dirty bottles, no record of when and where, and long delays before the sample reaches the lab all give the other side something to attack.

Another mistake is focusing only on the running tannery when the real source is an old dump. The complaint should ask about both. And people often ask only for closure. Closure stops new pollution but does nothing for the aquifer or for families drinking contaminated water. Ask for safe water, mapping and clean-up as well, and claim compensation within 5 years. For tanneries, the commonest error is treating chrome sludge as ordinary waste to save on disposal costs. That shortcut tends to come back as a remediation order many times the size of the saving.

Board complaint, DM or NGT: which comes first?

For a running tannery discharging effluent, the board comes first, because it has the power to inspect, sample and close quickly. For drinking water, the DM comes first, because safe water cannot wait for a tribunal. The NGT is the right forum when contamination has spread beyond one unit, when an old dump needs clean-up and nobody accepts responsibility, or when several months of written complaints have not stopped the pollution.

Compensation and restoration claims belong in the NGT under section 15, and they need preparation: test reports over time, a map, and records of loss. Our pages on compensation for pollution damage and filing a case in the NGT explain how such applications are put together.

Before you complain or file