Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

This article is more than 4 years old

South Africa

UPL fire: here’s the full inventory of chemicals in the destroyed Cornubia warehouse

The long list of deadly pesticides, herbicides and intermediate products in the burnt-down warehouse contains hundreds of entries totalling over 6,000 cubic metres. Among the chemicals are several banned in the EU and other countries, ranging from China to Sri Lanka.
UPL fire: here’s the full inventory of chemicals in the destroyed Cornubia warehouse Clean-up crews have been working on the site from day one, while residents wait for test results from UK laboratories. (Photo: Mlungisi Mbele)
Susan Comrie and Dewald van Rensburg for amaBhungane
By Susan Comrie and Dewald van Rensburg for amaBhungane
18 Aug 2021
Facebook
22



The chemical giant UPL has been tight-lipped about the contents of the warehouse torched during July’s unrest, emitting a choking blanket of smoke over surrounding communities and poisoning an adjacent river and wetland. 

Four months ago, agrochemical giant UPL quietly moved into a newly built warehouse in Cornubia, Durban.  (Photo: Mlungisi Mbele)



On Tuesday, amaBhungane revealed much of the extremely toxic contents, piercing the persistent secrecy. Today we are making the full inventory of the warehouse available to readers.

See amaBhungane’s article in Daily Maverick: Here it is: the toxic stockpile of chemicals in torched United Phosphorus Limited Durban warehouse

Get the full inventory 

A perusal of the inventory shows that UPL was storing large quantities of chemicals that are banned elsewhere in the world but not in South Africa. 

Among these products banned in the EU and elsewhere are:

  • More than 40,000 litres of paraquat-based herbicides which have been banned in more than 50 countries including the UK, China, Switzerland and Thailand; 

  • Roughly 150,000 litres of atrazine-based products and another 30 tonnes in dry form. Atrazine is banned in 31 countries including the EU;

  • 36,000 litres of chlorpyrifos-based products which are banned in the US and EU;

  • Almost 92 tonnes of mancozeb-based products which are banned in the EU;

  • 141,000 litres of 2,4-D-based products and 51 tonnes in dry form, banned in Vietnam, Norway and Mozambique;

  • More than 37 tonnes of products using maleic hydrazide which is banned in the EU except under exceptional circumstances and also banned in India; and 

  • More than 26 tonnes of methomyl-based product banned in India and used under severe restrictions in the US.


Clean-up crews have been working on the site from day one, while residents wait for test results from UK laboratories. (Photo: Mlungisi Mbele)



UPL publishes all the safety data sheets (also called Material Safety Data Sheets) for their products on its website. One can search according to the product name or the active ingredient. The safety data sheets provide information about the hazards associated with the products, and both the short- and long-term health and environmental impacts of the products. DM

Comments (5)

Deon Braun Sep 20, 2021, 11:36 AM

Thank you Daily Maverick team for your excellent reporting. Is there a Facebook or other social media group to allow people affected by this disaster to rally together and even support one another? I've asked a friend with ties to various activist groups and it appears not. Individuals and civil society need to collect and record as much data as possible for future litigation against UPL and the SA government. I think that a FB group will be invaluable to do this.

MD L Aug 19, 2021, 10:35 AM

Question: How did UPL get the EIA passed for this facility when there was no retention berm around the facility ? One can see this clearly from the drone photo of this article, with a bird's eye view of the site. The idea of a bund or a berm (either a moat or high walls around the perimeter of the site) is that, if and when there is a fire or a spill of toxic compounds, then the toxic compounds shall be retained within the facility, together with any water sprayed onto the fire to extinguish the fire. It is a basic EIA requirement globally for all sites storing toxic compounds. So how did they get permission to move into this site without meeting this basic requirement ?

Charles Parr Aug 19, 2021, 05:48 PM

Management and the relevant authorities are the only people that can answer your questions. It is suffice to say that every rule in the book was broken/waived. Their insurers must be waiving their policy requirements at someone.

Wilma du Plooy Aug 19, 2021, 10:17 AM

While it is understandable that there is a lot of fear and resentment regarding agrochemicals, use of such compounds in responsible and regulated societies ensures that the hundreds of types of monocultures by which we humans feed ourselves, are secured. This atrocity is not in the fact that agrochemicals need to be used by farmers, but in the fact that the storage facility did not meet safety requirements. All commercial farming units in South Africa today are audited out of their minds by various regulating bodies to ensure compliance with food safety regulations. We should keep our emotions in check when we have insufficient understanding of the full picture. Also consider that many of the products destroyed were not in their final (application) format. It is highly likely that South Africa was not the end point for some of the chemicals that were stored at this facility. In which case, once again, we were probably the easy entry into other destinations due to politically blind eyes...

Wilma du Plooy Aug 19, 2021, 10:16 AM

While it is understandable that their is a lot of fear and resentment regarding agrochemicals, use of such compounds in responsible and regulated societies ensures that the hundreds of types of monocultures by which we humans feed ourselves, are secured. This atrocity is not in the fact that agrochemicals need to be used by farmers, but in the fact that the storage facility did not meet safety requirements. All commercial farming units in South Africa today are audited out of their minds by various regulating bodies to ensure compliance with food safety regulations. We should keep our emotions in check when we have insufficient understanding of the full picture. Also consider that many of the products destroyed were not in their final (application) format. It is highly likely that South Africa was not the end point for some of the chemicals that were stored at this facility. In which case, once again, we were probably the easy entry into other destinations due to political blind eyes...

Stephen Theron Aug 19, 2021, 10:15 AM

A positive of the rioting. Exposing this abuse. Time for SA law makers to get with the program.