KODAIKANAL, INDIA

We are sometimes asked about a breach of our environmental operating guidelines at our former
thermometer factory at Kodaikanal, India.

THE FACTS
Our Code of Business Principles commits us to conducting our operations with honesty, integrity
and openness. In line with these Principles, we have summarised below how this breach of our
guidelines occurred as the facts of this issue are often misunderstood or misrepresented. The
facts are that:

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL)1, did not dump glass waste contaminated with mercury on land
behind its factory. Scrap glass containing mercury had been sold to a scrap dealer about three
kilometres away from the factory, in breach of our guidelines. HUL immediately closed the factory
and launched an investigation.
There were no adverse impacts on the health of employees or the environment. This has been
confirmed by many independent studies. There was limited impact on the soil at some spots
within the factory premises which required remediation.
With the necessary permits from the US and Indian governments, the recovered glass scrap was
sent to the US for recycling in 2003. In 2006 the plant and machinery and materials used in
thermometer manufacturing at the site were decontaminated and disposed of as scrap to
industrial recyclers.
After extensive assessment and testing, final permission for remediation of the soil was granted
in July 2008 by the statutory authority, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). Preremediation work was started in 2009 at the site. However, in 2010, the TNPCB decided to
revalidate the soil clean-up standard in response to NGO requests. Soil remediation work will
commence at the factory site once the final decision is taken on the soil clean-up standard and
consent is given by the TNPCB.
The text below makes clear the steps we have taken to reach this stage.
1

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) was formerly known as Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL)

MERCURY CONTAMINATION AT OUR FORMER THERMOMETER FACTORY, KODAIKANAL,

INDIA
BACKGROUND
The mercury thermometer factory was set up in Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu State, in southern India
in 1983. In 1987, Ponds India came into the Unilever fold through the larger corporate
acquisition of acquisition of Chesebrough-Pond's. Pond's India, and with it the thermometer
factory, merged with Hindustan Lever Limited2 in 1998.
Thermometers were a product line that was not core to Unilever but they were a source of export
earnings to which the Indian government attached high importance. Given Unilever's strategic
decision to exit non-core product activities, the factory's long-term future within the company was
under review some time before the events described below. A decision to exit the thermometer
business had already been made in January 2001.
2

Hindustan Lever Limited is now known as Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL).

March 2001

Activities at the Kodaikanal site became a focus for attention in March 2001 when Greenpeace
and others brought to Hindustan Unilever's attention the fact that glass scrap containing mercury
had been sold to a scrap dealer about three kilometres away from the factory. HUL immediately
closed the factory and launched an investigation.
HUL notified the relevant statutory body, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). HUL
also engaged URS Dames and Moore as independent international environmental consultants to
make an environmental assessment and risk assessment of the site.
Our investigation revealed that 5.3 metric tonnes of mercury-tainted glass scrap (containing
approx. 0.15% residual mercury) had been sold in breach of our established procedures.
The investigation showed that the manufacturing process was safe and had been audited as
such both internally by HUL and by the Tamil Nadu State authorities. There were strict processes
in place for recycling glass scrap containing traces of mercury. It was these procedures that had
been breached and glass scrap containing mercury had gone to recyclers, who should only have
had pure glass scrap.
The Final Report from URS on the assessment for mercury at the site concluded that the Kodai
lake had not been impacted by mercury; the people who had worked at the site had not suffered
adverse health effects due to the factory operations; and remediation of soil was needed at the
site.

June 2001
HUL removed 7.4 tonnes of mercury-bearing glass scrap and the soil beneath the scrap from the
scrap yard to its factory premises for safe storage. HUL also took action to track down any scrap
glass which had left the site over the previous ten years and offered to recover any scrap from
recyclers for safe storage on the Kodaikanal site.

August 2001
Five silt traps were constructed to prevent discharge of soil from the factory site to the Pambar
valley, the only direction into which the water flows out of the site. This task was completed in
time for the 2001 monsoon season.

June 2002
HUL sought permission as early as 28 June 2002 for the clean up or remediation of the land
within the premises of the factory to a high, residential standard known as the 'Dutch standard'
(10 mg/kg).

MarchMay 2003
Hindustan Unilever negotiated with the Indian and US governments for permits to pack and
transport the mercury-containing material to the US for recycling. The consignment consisted of
290 tonnes of materials and included mercury-bearing glass scrap, semi-finished and finished
thermometers, effluent treatment plant waste and elemental mercury. They were packed under
the supervision of TNPCB officials and witnessed by local NGOs, including Greenpeace. The
materials reached New York on 31 May 2003 and were then transported to Bethlehem Apparatus
Inc. for recovery of mercury and its subsequent recycling/disposal.

20042005
HUL continued to pursue with the TNPCB permissions to remediate the soil and also to decontaminate and scrap the thermometer-making equipment at the Kodaikanal site.

On the advice of the TNPCB, HUL engaged with technical experts from the Government of
India's National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and finalised the scope
and timing of the NEERI study and their involvement in the physical decontamination of the
equipment at the site and the soil remediation.

May 2005
The NEERI proposal was approved by the TNPCB.

FebruaryMay 2006
The plant and machinery and materials used in thermometer manufacturing at the site were
decontaminated and disposed of as scrap to industrial recyclers.
The protocol for decontamination was prepared by URS, modified by Professor Shyam R
Asolekar of IIT Mumbai, verified by NEERI and approved by the TNPCB and the Scientific
Experts Committee constituted by the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee to monitor the
remediation measures.

October 2007
For the remediation of the contaminated soil on site, NEERI conducted pilot plant trials at the
factory and its results were considered by NEERI while it recommended a soil remediation
protocol. NEERI recommended soil washing and thermal retorting technologies in this protocol.
NEERI presented the protocol to the TNPCB and the Scientific Experts Committee and the
protocol was accepted. Based on the recommendation of the Scientific Experts Committee, the
TNPCB set soil remediation criteria and asked NEERI to prepare a Detailed Project Report
(DPR) for undertaking soil remediation.
NEERI submitted the DPR to TNPCB and sought permission to commence the remediation
work.

November 2007
The Scientific Experts Committee and TNPCB considered the DPR. They granted in principle
approval for the remediation, asking Hindustan Unilever to incorporate some suggestions and
submit a revised DPR.

May 2008
The Scientific Experts Committee and TNPCB visited the factory site, inspected the pilot plant,
reviewed the revised DPR and cleared the DPR.

July 2008
TNPCB granted permission for remediation to commence and set the remediation criteria of 20
mg/kg of mercury concentration in soil.
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) is the statutory authority in the state of Tamil
Nadu, India to set soil remediation criteria.
It should be noted that India does not have any accepted numerical standards for either
assessing soil contamination or for determining remediation criteria. The Supreme Court
Monitoring Committee directed NEERI to develop the remediation criteria for the site, based on a
Risk Assessment Study. Remediation standards or clean-up criteria will vary from site to site
depending on soil conditions, future land use, the need for the preservation of local ecology and
potential risks.

It is also pertinent to note that screening criteria such as the British and Dutch Intervention
Values do not necessarily mean that these would be applicable as the soil clean-up standard or
remediation criteria. The Dutch Intervention Value for mercury was originally 10 mg/kg in 2001.
Based on new scientific data and models generated by the Dutch authorities, the Intervention
Value was revised upwards to 36 mg/kg in 2006.

May 2009
Pre-remediation work started in May 2009 according to the approved Detailed Project Report.

2010
Some NGOs contested the soil clean-up criteria set by the TNPCB. Remediation criteria based
on a site specific Risk Assessment Study is the internationally recognised procedure for
remediation. As desired by the TNPCB and the Scientific Experts Committee during the project
review meeting in January 2010, additional studies were undertaken by national institutions.
IIT Delhi revalidated the Risk Assessment Study and site specific clean-up standard; National
Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, studied the impact on trees and preservation of trees;
and the Centre for Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Ooty, studied
the impact on soil and soil erosion.

20112014
The findings of these additional studies, conducted by IIT Delhi, National Botanical Research
Institute and the Centre for Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, were
submitted to TNPCB and the Scientific Experts Committee (SEC) in February 2011. The IIT Delhi
study recommended the site specific cleanup standard of 22.4 mg/kg for soil remediation. During
this period, TNPCB and SEC met five times including two site visits to the factory.
Subsequent to the findings of the above three studies, the Scientific Experts Committee, in May
2013, reconfirmed 20 mg/kg as the clean-up standard for soil remediation in the factory. Further
to this, in February 2014, TNPCB has asked the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) of the
Central Government of India to advise on the clean-up standard. In Dec 2014, the CPCB invited
the NGOs for a meeting to understand their concerns on the remediation standard, but the NGOs
did not participate. Now, the CPCB and TNPCB have to take a final decision on the soil clean-up
standard. HUL will commence soil remediation work at the factory site once the decision on the
clean-up standard has been taken and approval to commence the soil remediation work is given
by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
ASSESSING THE HEALTH OF OUR WORKERS
Comprehensive occupational health and safety systems existed at the Kodaikanal factory prior to
its closure in 2001. Internal monitoring within the factory and external audits carried out by
statutory authorities during the operation of the factory showed that there were no adverse health
effects to the workers on account of their employment at the factory.
In addition, many expert studies carried out after the closure all concluded that there had been
no adverse health impacts on ex-employees due to the nature of their work in the factory. These
studies included:

A comprehensive medical examination conducted by a panel of doctors using a questionnaire

developed by the US Department of Labor, Mines, Safety and Health Administration

Studies by the Certifying Surgeon from the Inspectorate of Factories, by Dr P N Viswanathan of

Industrial Toxicology Research Centre (ITRC); by Dr Tom van Teuenbroek of TNO as directed by

the State Pollution Control Board TNPCB; and by the Industrial Toxicology Research Centre
(ITRC) as directed by the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee.
The conclusions from our own occupational health surveillance have also been independently
endorsed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and the National Institute of
Occupational Health (NIOH).
In February 2006, some of the ex-employees of the Kodaikanal factory approached the Madras
High Court seeking directions for conducting a fresh health survey and providing economic
rehabilitation.
In June 2007 the Honourable Madras High Court constituted a five-member expert committee
(including representatives from ITRC, AIIMS and NIOH) to decide whether the alleged health
conditions of the workers and their families were related to mercury exposure. The committee
was also asked to decide whether a new health study was needed.
The expert committee obtained inputs from the petitioners and from Hindustan Unilever Limited
(HUL) and, during a visit to the factory in October 2007 to understand its safety systems and
procedures, also examined some ex-workers and family members of ex-workers.
The expert committee submitted its report in December 2007. Its conclusion was that "The
committee failed to find sufficient evidence to link the current clinical condition of the factory
workers to the mercury exposure in the factory in the past". The Madras High Court appointed
expert committee ruled out the need for any fresh health study.
The Ministry of Labour & Employment (the Ministry) is also a respondent in the matter filed by the
ex-workers of the Kodaikanal factory in the Madras High Court. After almost four years of the
earlier report being put on Court record and without any objections to the report, the Ministry
submitted a report at the end of 2011 to the Honourable Madras High Court.
HUL filed its objections to the Ministry's report in January 2012. Hearings were held
subsequently with the last one taking place in February 2013. At this last hearing, the presiding
judge excused himself and directed the matter to be listed before the Chief Justice of the Madras
High Court. The matter has not yet been placed before the Chief Justice and as such it remains
sub judice.