ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

My arrival at Inchon International Airport, South Korea, was quite an experience; it reminded one of the contrast it presents to Indian airports. The journey at night from the airport to check into Ho-Am Faculty House, at Seoul National University, made me cough several times because the air seemed cleaner than Delhi to which one is accustomed. Our Korean hosts had made superb arrangements; they kept themselves awake even after mid-night for our sake.

The Waste Not Asia (WNA) meeting, 2004, began on June 21 after the welcome remarks made by Jai-ok Kim, Co-Chairperson, Korea Zero Waste Movement Network (KZWMN), Korea and opening remarks made by Manny C. Calonzo, Assistant Coordinator, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Philippines, and Minister of Environment, Korea. The day began with presentations and discussions on ‘Extended producer responsibility -- Holding producers responsible for designing cleaner and safer products: Principles and progress to date”. Beverley Thorpe, Director, Clean Production Action (International), Canada, stood out in her vocal and persuasive presentation on Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR).

The discussion on ‘Zero waste: Going beyond recycling’ was revealing.

Gigie Cruz and Abi Jabines launched GAIA’s Zero Waste Online. Presentations on “Zero waste communities: Making it happen” by Zero Waste Pakistan: Hammad Naqi Khan, Director, Environmental Pollution Unit, WWF-Pakistan, Zero Waste Kamikatsu: Hitomi Azuma, Kamikatsu, Tokushima, Japan and Zero Waste Korea: Park, Seok-Dong, Director, Korea Buddhist Academy for Ecological Awakening, Korea, exposed the participants to diverse ways of how communities are working towards zero waste.

On June 22, there was a special session on Bhopal as an Appeal for Global Action against Corporate Crime. The issue was raised in all its gravity by Hemantha Withanage, Executive Director, Centre for Environment Justice, Sri Lanka, Madhumita Dutta and Tara Buakamsri, Toxics Campaigner, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Thailand.

The workshop on ‘Plastics: Focus on Polyvinylchloride (PVC) -- Issues and Challenges’ revealed the fact that although most of the environmental groups are aware of its hazards, they are not working in proportion to the enormity of the hazard.

My presentation on behalf of Toxics Link on how to campaign against incinerators was quite well received for it brought to light the issue of the involvement of multilateral environmental agreements and World Trade Organisation (WTO). Von Hernandez, Co-Coordinator, GAIA, Philippines, agreed to persuade GAIA to include this issue in the campaign efforts.

To understand the EPR System in Korean recycling companies, visits were arranged, on June 23, to Samyang PET bottle recycling plant, Recom computer recycling plant, Sudokwon refrigerator, washing machine and air conditioner recycling plant.

The cultural night and farewell party at Nak-sung-dae Park was wonderfully conducted by Roy Alvarez, film actor and Vice President, Mother Earth Unlimited, Philippines.

On June 24, reports on regional planning meetings were discussed and evaluated. The day ended with farewell remarks from Korea Zero Waste Movement Network, Korea.

Earlier, journalists had evinced keen interest in Bhopal’s (India) chemical disaster at a press conference at the Korean Official Media Briefing Centre, which was addressed by GAIA, Philippines Toxics Link, Clean Production Action (International), Canada, and a Professor from Japan.

At the WNA 2004, I feel we should have been more strident, vocal and articulate both on policy and on site-specific campaigns. To begin with, I had come with huge expectations about the campaign on EPR and our approach to Corporate Accountability but the issue could not emerge due to paucity of time.

On plastics I sought arguments from everyone at WNA to campaign and fight the onslaught of plastics being used in roads being promoted in India, but I did not get the arguments.

The presentation on EPR by Beverley Thorpe, Director, Clean Production Action (International), Canada was comprehensive. But from a legal point of view, since EPR is a matter of law, the fact remains that even if EPR comes into being it would address the present and future problems and not the problems of the past for law cannot have retrospective effect.

Also it appears to me that at present EPR only envisage damages under torts directly or indirectly. Every injury must have a remedy but there is no remedy in EPR under criminal law. If our homes and houses are trespassed against, it is deemed a crime. How is it that when our bodies are trespassed against, it is not being deemed a crime?

On Corporate Accountability, I wished there should have been strident criticism of the UN Global Compact, and vocal support for the new UN Norms on Transnational Corporations that has emerged from UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, which are mandatory and are facing criticism from the corporations.

On zero waste in India, the fact of it being pursued in the state of Uttaranchal and the support it is beginning to receive in Delhi did not find reflection. It occurred to me that what Zero Waste Kamikatsu's message has for all is that "one city can change the country" deserves utmost attention.

The issue of incinerators being promoted for industrial waste in India somehow remained unaddressed. Setsuko' s presentation was also quite revealing for India where Japanese incinerators are being cited as a solution by the plastic industry.

The visits to the recycling factories provided an opportunity to witness the reality of environmental and occupational safety measures.

The South Asian group met separately to work in collaboration -- it occurred to me that activism was missing and pragmatism was having a field day.

I feel the success of Korea Zero Waste Movement Network is yet to be seen in its complete implementation. Korea's recycling factories are still using incinerators... and the managers told us that they do not know of any alternatives.

I heard about the success of waste management in Lebanon after listening to a presentation about it. It seems one cannot comprehend its success without visiting the country.

Ship Loaded with Toxic PCBs and Asbestos Could “Slip Away in the Night”

Baltimore, Maryland/Seattle, Washington, New Delhi: The global toxic trade watchdog organization, Basel Action Network (BAN), has contacted the US Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Maryland Port Administration to warn that the auction and sale of the old World War II vintage hospital ship now moored at the North Locust Point Marine Terminal, was likely illegal and that the ship may soon be illegally exported by the new owner to the infamous breaking yards of India or Bangladesh.[1]

The 522-foot M/V Sanctuary, built as a US Navy hospital ship in 1944, was auctioned off August 21, 2007 on the Baltimore Court House steps and sold to Nicholas Couchell, of Potomac Navigation Inc. BAN asserts that by the law, the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) was obliged to take the ship back and that the ship is almost certain to be loaded with the toxic compounds polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are illegal to export from the United States under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). PCBs have been found in high concentrations routinely in the gasketry, cables, flooring and paints of ex-naval vessels of WWII vintage.

The Coast Guard office in Baltimore told BAN that the new owner intends to export the vessel to Greece. However, once the ship is out of US waters it can go anywhere in the world, and it will likely sail in the direction of greatest profit – Bangladesh or India.

“The possible motivation for quick export is clear and the authorities must do everything possible to prevent this outcome. The owner can make a cool couple of million dollars if he sails away tomorrow and dumps it in South Asia, rather then first cleaning and removing the PCBs,” said Jim Puckett of the Basel Action Network. “If they find PCBs he will be forced to spend many thousands of dollars to remediate it before further recycling or refurbishment can be done.”

The ship is already known to contain asbestos, which would threaten the health of shipbreakers in South Asia should the ship end up there. It is admitted by the US that asbestos is present on the vessels and “the transferee is cautioned that asbestos may appear in pipes, ducts, boilers, tanks, reactors, turbines, furnaces or structural members etc., or in holds or compartments of the vessel.” [2]

In 2003, BAN and the Sierra Club sued the EPA and MARAD to stop the export of 13 PCB-laden vessels from the James River ghost fleet to the UK. As a result of that lawsuit, MARAD agreed to utilize the rulemaking process of TSCA should a waiver be needed for future export. No ex-naval vessels have been exported since that time. In this instance, BAN has urgently alerted EPA of the possible illegal M/V Sanctuary export and EPA has reportedly contacted the owner’s attorney and asked for permission to board the ship for an inspection to sample for PCBs. BAN has also alerted the Coast Guard of the need for the ship to be delayed and not granted the go-ahead to sail.

According to the Public Law, it appears that the ship should never have been sold to private parties but should have been conveyed back to MARAD[3]. A non-profit called Life International received the ship in 1989 from MARAD for $10 “and other valuable considerations pursuant to Public Law”[4], in accordance with a special agreement which required return of the ship to the government should Life International no longer need the ship for humanitarian purposes. According to the legal filings of the Port of Maryland, after Project Life (the most recent name of the non-profit, which was set up to use the ship as a drug rehabilitation center) defaulted on their moorage agreement with the port, registered letters to MARAD went unanswered and thus the Maryland Port Administration was forced to deal with it through the courts.[5]

“According to the law, this is a federal ship. It appears it was sold illegally, and the Maritime Administration acted improperly by ignoring its responsibility. Now it must be ensured that the US government does not further aid and abet the ultimate crime of dumping this 522-foot toxic time bomb on developing country beaches,” said Ban Asbestos Network of India.

BAN is calling for the ship to be held pending proper inspection and testing, and for all US ships to be safely and properly dismantled in the US. Since the 2003 BAN and Sierra Club lawsuit, more than 40 ex-naval vessels have been delivered to US owned and operated shipbreaking yards.

For more information contact:
Jim Puckett, Basel Action Network: 1.206.652.5555 (office), 1.206.354.0359 (cell). For information from EPA, contact Kelly Hunter, PCB Coordinator, Toxics Programs and Enforcement Branch at: 215-814-2177 (office) or Peter Gold, State and Congressional Liaison at: (215) 814-5236.
Gopal Krishna, Indian Platform on Ship-breaking/Ban Asbestos Network of India Mb: 9818089660
[1] The world’s attention was brought to bear on the horrific operations in India and elsewhere by the a Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles by the Baltimore Sun in 1998. http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/investigative-reporting/works/
[2] According to Appendix B of Contract No. 12459 (MARAD contract with Life International), “the ex-USS Sanctuary (AH-17) may contain hazardous and toxic substances in addition to asbestos.” According to Appendix C, the government asserts that asbestos is present on the vessels and “the transferee is cautioned that asbestos may appear in pipes, ducts, boilers, tanks, reactors, turbines, furnaces or structural members etc., or in holds or compartments of the vessel.”
[3] Public Law 97-360, of the 97th Congress Congress entitled, “An Act to set aside certain surplus vessels for use in the provision of health and other humanitarian Services to developing countries” stipulates as follows: “In the event that LIFE International no longer requires a vessel for the purposes of this Act, that vessel shall be conveyed back to the United States in as good condition as when received, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to the point of original delivery without cost to the United States.”
[4] According to Appendix A of Contract No. 12459 MARAD (contract with Life International), “Bill of Sale”.
[5] According to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, and Renewed Motion for Interlocutory Sale of the M/V Sanctuary (Page 2, para 2): “After the march 26, 2007 publication of the notice of the vessel arrest and action in the daily record, and the MPA’s April 10 and 12, 2007 mailing of registered, return-receipt letters to three judgment creditors of Project Life, and to the Maryland Historical Trust and the Maritime Administration notifying them of the vessel arrest action, and enclosing a copy of the daily record notice, no statements of interest or motions to intervene were filed with the court.”

No, said Supreme Court and Basel Convention. Yes, says Ministry of Environment & Forests

Proposed Hazardous Rules makes India least resistant to global waste flow

Startled by the proposed Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007 of Ministry of Environment & Forests currently headed by the Prime Minister, environment and public health researchers and activists have termed it as a gross act of linguistic corruption to satiate hazardous waste traders’ naked lust for profit.

The proposed Rules propose to redefine "hazardous waste" as "hazardous material", contrary to the definition provided by the Supreme Court.

As per a notification signed by R.K.Vaish, Joint Secretary, Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry of Environment & Forests and dated 28 September 2007, the Ministry has announced its motive to amend the existing Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 that too has been amended from time to time imposed restrictions and prescribed procedures for management, handling and disposal of hazardous wastes as per Supreme Court’s directions.

The notification reads, “after expiry of a period of sixty days form the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette; The objections or suggestions which may be received from any person in respect of the said draft rules before the period specified will be taken into consideration by the Central Government. Any person desirous of making any objection or suggestion with respect to the said draft rules may forward the same within the period so specified to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, Central Government Offices Complex, New Delhi-110003.”

In manifest contempt of court’s directions, the proposed Rules entails exempting the transit countries from providing prior informed consent for all shipments of hazardous waste to India. What is baffling is that the proposal states that as long as a material contains less than 60% contamination by a hazardous constituent, then it is eco-friendly and safe for our ecology. Waste asbestos imports are banned unless they are embedded in the structure. The proposed Rules are a product of those Development fundamentalists who advocate “Economic Growth at any cost”-by poisoning and polluting human body, wildlife and environment- due to the dictates of unbridled market forces and trade.

The apex court in its landmark judgment made the position unambiguously clear. It says, “Hazardous Wastes are highly toxic in nature. The industrialization has had the effect of generation of huge quantities of hazardous wastes. These and other side effects of development gave birth to principles of sustainable development so as to sustain industrial growth. The hazardous waste required adequate and proper control and handling. Efforts are required to be made to minimise it. In developing nations, there are additional problems including that of dumping of hazardous waste on their lands by some of the nations where cost of destruction of such waste is felt very heavy. These and other allied problems gave birth to Basel Convention. The key objectives of the Basel Convention are: “ to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes in terms of quantity and hazardousness; to dispose of them as close to the source of generation as possible; to reduce the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes.”

The court further noted, “…the hazardous wastes situation in India is fairly grim. Hazardous wastes, found dumped in the open environment have been the cause of widespread pollution of ground water, creating drought-like situations in areas traditionally not lacking in water suppliers. Public hearings conducted by the High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes (HPC) in several cities brought forward pleas and representations of distress from affected victims and harsh complaints about lack of response from statutory authorities. The authorities appear to have ignored several warnings, reports, investigations and studies that highlighted zones of ecological degradation due to indiscriminate dumping and disposal of hazardous wastes. The High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes noted that there was a lack of policy and vision at the highest level. This has resulted in a very poor management system. This situation cannot be allowed to continue.”

In effect, the proposed Rules a formal announcement of globalization of the toxic chemical crisis. The co-opted silence and self-serving lip-service of a section of environmental outfits who swear by environmental justice is starkly evident. As long as there is corporate funding to political parties such unjust and barbaric acts of quid pro quo will always be attempted.

It creates a unique moment for all the environment, public health, human rights and civil rights institutions, academicians, activists, NGOs and trade unions to join hands in opposition to toxic trade in toxic wastes, toxic products and toxic technologies, that are sought to be exported from rich countries to India and resist a similar trend within the country as well.

There is no alternative to corporate accountability; waste management through clean production and reduction in the use of toxics chemicals through life cycle assessment, precautionary principle, eco-design, extended producers’ responsibility and polluter pays principle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste follows the path of least resistance

The Environment Ministry, at least since 1995, has been guilty of numerous acts of omission and commission

After hazardous wastes, now it’s municipal and hospital wastes. It is not that we did not know about it but the condemnation from the Union Health Minister is noteworthy since it shows how waste is flowing from the North to the South as a global trend.

This underlines the importance of Prior Informed Consent. Although the custom officials of the Kochi port deserve appreciation unlike the officials at Alang port in Gujarat who have continued to let hazardous waste enter Indian waters with impunity. In Kochi, three containers sent from New York based Belsun Corporation in the name of recycling had medical wastes, municipal, surgical, bio-medical and even e-waste.

As in Kochi, at Alang too the ship named Blue Lady (SS Norway) that was allowed anchorage on humanitarian grounds admittedly has a huge amount of hazardous wastes such as asbestos, radioactive material, incineration ash, ballast water, PCBs, heavy metals.

But due to the lame and hollow excuse of the supposed irreversibility of the ship offered by Gopal Subramaniam, Additional Solicitor General, it remains there, although Prof. M.G.K. Menon, Chairman, High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes, had recommended that it be sent back. In this case the company in question is Star Cruise Ltd that has so far successfully attempted to escape its decontamination cost in the aftermath of boiler explosion of 2003 in Miami.

In March 2007, Bhagvatsinh Haubha Gohil, sarpanch of Sosiya, Tehsil Talaja, Gujarat, filed an application on behalf of 12 sarpanchs and 30,000 people who live within the distance of 1 to 25 km from the ship breaking yard at Alang before the Justice Balakrishnan bench, which listed the matter for hearing before the Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia bench in the Blue Lady case.

These people largely depend on seafood that is under threat from ship-breaking. The ship in question contains a large amount of asbestos that poses a huge risk to the villagers. Their application is yet to be heard although the final orders were passed on September 11. The 45-year old, 315-metre long and 16-storey asbestos laden toxic ship still has radioactive material at more than 1,000 places.

Accident rate

The hazardous waste generating ship-breaking industry is already known to have a higher accident rate (2 workers per 1,000) than the mining industry (0.34 per 1,000). This is considered the worst in the world, and 16 per cent of the workers here are suffering from asbestos related diseases. In its order on September 11, the Supreme Court advanced “the concept of ‘balance’ under the principle of proportionality applicable in the case of sustainable development…” and ruled:

“It cannot be disputed that no development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. A balance has to be struck between the two interests. Where the commercial venture or enterprise would bring in results which are far more useful for the people, difficulty of a small number of people has to be bypassed. The comparative hardships have to be balanced and the convenience and benefit to a larger section of the people has to get primacy over comparatively lesser hardship.”

This is the logic advanced by the Union Environment Ministry that makes India a dumping ground of developed countries. At least since 1995, this Ministry has been guilty of numerous acts of omission and commission that endanger environmental health. It is the respondent in the hazardous wastes case and has been fined by the apex court for dereliction of duty.

By not hearing the matter of gross illegality committed by Riky, the Danish ship and by condoning the entry of Blue Lady in Indian territorial waters in violation of court’s own orders of October 14, 2003 and September 6, 2007, all relevant international laws such as the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal have been violated besides international labour conventions and treaties — that govern the breaking of contaminated ships — to all of which India is a signatory.

The condemnation by the Health Ministry makes a case for the merger of the Environment Ministry with it because it is more concerned about the environmental health of the citizens.

4 November, 2007
The Hindu

In an unprecedented move, the convenor of the Yamuna (removal of encroachments) Monitoring Committee has sought demolition of all permanent structures erected in the Yamuna riverbed by the Delhi Development Authority and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

In a report submitted to the High Court, retired additional district and sessions judge S.M. Aggarwal, the convenor of the committee, has also sought that DDA and DMRC should be penalised for damaging the river's eco-system by undertaking construction of the massive Metro rail yard, a residential complex in 1.85 acres of the river bed, a huge Games Village Metro station along with a mall by Parsvanath Developers and the Commonwealth Games Village.

The report has also recommended exemplary action against the Vice Chairman of DDA for deliberate and willful violation of Delhi High Court order directing that the river bed be maintained as a water body or wetland by the DDA and all other authorities.

The Yamuna Monitoring Committee headed by retired High Court Judge Justice Usha Mehra, was set up on December 8, 2005 to monitor the removal of all unauthorised structures, jhuggis, places of worship and or any other structure, which are unauthorisedly put in Yamuna bed and its embankments.

The committee submitted the report in the court of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rekha Sharma on 30th October when they were hearing a public interest petition.The environmental activists have sought immediate stay on construction in the Yamuna river bed and arguments on this count will be heard on November 20.

Yamuna Pollution

The enormity of achieving 100% treatment of sewage that flows into rivers can be gauged by the fact that in Delhi alone, 3 billion litres of waste water is generated each day which flows into the Yamuna. Despite spending more than Rs 550 crore since July 1993 on cleaning the river, the pollution load in Yamuna has almost doubled over the period.

Yamunotri, which is north of Haridwar in the Himalayan Mountains, is the source of the Yamuna. The river Yamuna, a major tributary of river Ganges, originates from the Yamunotri glacier near Banderpoonch peaks in the Mussourie range of the lower Himalayas at an elevation of about 6387 meters above mean sea level in district Uttarkashi (Uttranchal). Its total length is 1,370 km spread over Uttranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi. Its tributaries are Chambal, Betwa, Sind & Ken. In its first 170 km stretch, the tributaries Rishi Ganga Kunta, Hanuman Ganga, Tons and Giri join the main river.

One of the main causes of pollution of the river is discharge of untreated domestic wastewater and other wastes into the river from the towns located along its banks.The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) initiated a study in 1977-78 to assess the status of pollution of Yamuna river over its 1200 km course. This study examined the topography of the drainage basin, base flow, population, land use pattern, industries, agriculture practices in the basin and wastewater produced by such activities in the basin. Study conducted by the Central Pollution Control Board indicated that a major cause of pollution was discharge of domestic wastewater into the river from nearby towns and habitations which contribute about two-thirds of the pollution load, the remaining one-third being contributed by industries and agriculture activities.

Based on this study the Government of India decided to take up pollution control measures for Yamuna river in continuation of Ganga Action Plan under Phase–II and requested the Government of Japan in December-1990 for a loan assistance for implementation of the Yamuna Action Plan.

Accordingly the Government of Japan sent a fact finding mission in April-1991 to assess the contents of the YAP proposal and its suitability vis-à-vis the actual site conditions. Based on the suggestions of that mission for further inputs in the formulation of the plan, (Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund) OECF of Japan now called the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and decided to arrange for a feasibility study to be conducted through consultants appointed by OECF before agreeing to the request for loan. The feasibility study was conducted by the consultants for about two months from the middle of December 1991 to the middle of February 1992, and the final SAPROF (Special Assistance for Project Formulation) report was produced in March, 1992.

With the objective of improving the Water Quality of River and restoring it to the Desired Bathing Class Yamuna Action Plan was launched in 1993.

To arrest river pollution, certain measures of cleaning river have been taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) of the Government of India (GOI) in 12 towns of Haryana, 8 towns of Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi under an action plan (Yamuna Action Plan-YAP) which is being implemented since 1993 by the National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) is participating in the Yamuna Action Plan in 15 of the above 21 towns (excluding 6 towns of Haryana included later on the direction of the honorable Supreme Court of India) with soft loan assistance of 17.773 billion Japanese Yen (equivalent to about Rs. 700 crore INR) while GOI is providing the funds for the remaining 6 towns added later.

At the request of GOI, Government of Japan agreed to extend the validity period of the loan by two years w.e.f. April 25, 2000. The expiry date of the loan now stands at April 19, 2002. During the extended period, ongoing works will be completed along with some remedial* works to enhance the effectiveness of the project.

The major schemes under Yamuna Action Plan are as follows:

Sewerage Component

# Interception & Diversion Works including Intermediate Pumping Stations
# Main Pumping Station & Rising-Mains
# Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)

Non Sewerage Component

# Low Cost Sanitation (LCS).
# Improved wood based & Electric Crematoria.
# Bathing ghats / River front Developments
# Plantation
# Public Participation

All these works are being implemented by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (UPJN) in U.P, Haryana Public Health Engineering Department (HPHED) in Haryana, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in Delhi under the coordination of National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD). The TEC-DCL Consortium (Indo-Japanese consultants) have been appointed as project consultants to monitor the progress of the schemes on a day-to-day basis.

The main objective of Yamuna Action Plan is to improve the water quality of river and restore it to the desired bathing class.

Pollution from domestic sewage is tackled under Yamuna Action Plan, where as pollution of industries is monitored and controlled under the existing environmental laws. The main focus under YAP is on :

* Laying of trunk & Intercepting sewers, for diversion of sewage outfalling into the river.

* Construction of Sewage Treatment Plants to treat the captured sewage.

* Non point sources of pollution have also been addressed by :
(i) Providing electric / improved wood based crematoria to minimize the river pollution on account of disposal of unburnt dead bodies.
(ii) Constructing low cost toilets so that public resist from resorting to open defaecation.

In addition - activities such as river front development, plantation along the river and public participation and awareness works have been taken up under the programme.

Yamuna Action Plan initially included (a) construction of sewerage systems for interception, diversion and treatment of sewage in the larger towns; (b) provision of public latrines (c) provision of crematoria and improvement of bathing ghats alongside the river; (d) some plantation and beautification works; and (e) education and public awareness in sustaining cleanness of the river. Control of pollution from industrial effluents was to be addressed under the environmental laws. Later in May 2001, an extended phase of YAP was approved which covered major facilities of toilets in Delhi and some left over works of initial phase in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.

India consumes about 86,311 tonnes (t) of technical-grade insecticides annually to cover 182.5 million hectare of its land. Most Indian rivers pass through agricultural areas that use pesticides. This makes leaching from agricultural fields the most serious non-point — unspecified, and therefore, not measurable accurately — source of pollution to the aquatic environment. And now there’s a 1995 study that’s found traces of isomers (a carcinogenic organochlorine) in Indian rivers, including the Yamuna.

About 57 million people depend on Yamuna waters. With an annual flow of about 10,000 cubic metres (cum) and usage of 4,400 cum (of which irrigation constitutes 96 per cent), the river accounts for more than 70 per cent of Delhi’s water supplies. Available water treatment facilities are not capable of removing the pesticide traces. Waterworks laboratories cannot even detect them. Worse, Yamuna leaves Delhi as a sewer, laden with the city’s biological and chemical wastes. Downstream, at Agra, this becomes the main municipal drinking water source. Here too, existing treatment facilities are no match for the poisons. Thus, consumers in Delhi and Agra ingest unknown amounts of toxic pesticide residues each time they drink water.

The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), on its part, had found endosulphan residues — alpha and beta isomers — in the Yamuna in 1991. An earlier study by H C Agarwal (Delhi University) had traced ddt residues amounting to 3,400 nanogram per litre (ng/l). However, later cpcb studies showed reduced ddt levels. To gauge the immensity of the threat, it is necessary to trace the river’s flow — divided in five segments on the basis of hydro-geomorphological and ecological characteristics — down to its final reaches.

Upper segment

HARYANA FACTOR: Yamuna’s pollution starts from Tajewala in the upper segment. Here two canals, the Western Yamuna Canal (WYC) and the Eastern Yamuna Canal (EYC), divert river waters — save in the three monsoon months — into Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (UP). The WYC crosses Yamuna Nagar, Karnal and Panipat before reaching the Haiderpur treatment plant (which supplies part of Delhi’s water), receiving wastewater from Yamuna Nagar and Panipat.

Drain Nos ii and viii branch off the WYC augment the water in the river. Another augmentation canal branches out of the WYC at Yamuna Nagar, and rejoins the canal about 80 km downstream at Karnal. All domestic and industrial discharges from Yamuna Nagar are let out into this canal. Water from the augmentation canal is used for irrigation. However, when excess water from the wyc is let into it, pollutants are flushed into the wyc downstream at Karnal. Thus, a few times a year, there is a sudden and massive increase in pollution loads when the water reaches Haiderpur.

Furthermore, at Panipat, discharges from the Panipat sugar mill and distillery are let out into a disused canal, which has a kutcha dam across it. Sometimes, when the effluents cross the dam, it results in a major increase in biological oxygen demand (BOD) loads in the WYC. A CPCB inspection report estimated that there were 1,00,000 cum of effluents in the disused canal, having a bod level of 1,380 mg/l. According to the report, when this water enters the WYC, it carries with it a total of 125 t of BOD and the BOD levels reach 17 mg/l at Haiderpur; the acceptable bod levels for raw water meant for treatment are three mg/l.

Haryana’s vast agricultural fields are also significant contributors to pollution. The consumption of pesticides in Haryana in the years 1995-96 was to the tune of 5,100 t. Out of this, benzene hexachlorides (BHC) accounted for 600.24 t, malathion 831.48 t and endosulphan, 263.16 t. The state department of agriculture estimates that 12.5 per cent of the Yamuna basin has forest cover, 27.5 is wastelands, 53 per cent is agricultural land; the rest are villages, towns, cities and roads. There are plans to bring 27.5 per cent more under agriculture: this means more abstraction from the river and also greater use and subsequent runoff of fertilisers and pesticides.

Delhi : Biggest Culprit

Yamuna enters Delhi at Palla village 15 km upstream of Wazirabad barrage, which acts as a reservoir for Delhi. Delhi generates 1,900 million litre per day (mld) of sewage, against an installed wastewater treatment capacity of 1,270 mld. Thus, 630 mld of untreated and a significant amount of partially treated sewage enter the river every day. The Wazirabad barrage lets out very little water into the river. In summer months especially, the only flow downstream of Wazirabad is of industrial and sewage effluents. Lesser discharge means lesser river flow and thus, greater levels of pollution. From the Okhla barrage, which is the exit point for the river in Delhi, the Agra canal branches out from Yamuna. During the dry months, almost no water is released from this barrage to downstream Yamuna. Instead, discharges from the Shahadara drain join the river downstream of the barrage, bringing effluents from east Delhi and Noida into the river. This is the second largest polluter of the river after the Najafgarh drain.

The main problem lies in undetected and untreated pesticide residues. Waterworks officials in Delhi and Agra point out that pesticide traces cannot be removed with conventional treatment. "Organic substances can be assimilated in freshwater, provided there is enough freshwater in the river," states R Dalwani, scientist, ministry of environment and forests (MEF). "But for micropollutants such as pesticides, only more freshwater can reduce the percentage of traces in water. These cannot be dissolved or assimilated, but certainly can be diluted to an extent." The river has a dilution requirement of 75 per cent, which implies that for every 100 litres of wastewater, 75 litres of freshwater is required. Scientists state that with the flow of water, pollutants (especially organic pollutants) degrade to a large extent. But at every step, this purified water is abstracted, and ever larger loads of pollution make their way into the river.

Treatment technologies : Not Cheap
Water treatment technologies in practice in the West are expensive, something which India can ill-afford. Besides, it is now widely acknowledged that conventional water treatment processes, based on chemical coagulation and filtration or biological slow sand filtration, have little capacity to remove water-soluble pesticides.

Western researchers are coming to the conclusion that protecting the catchment from chemical contamination — by switching to organic or biological farming methods and curtailing the use of pesticides and fertilisers — is possibly the best way to deal with the problem. According to Centre for Science and Environment researcher Sangeeta Agarwal, who spoke to officials of the Sacramento department of utilities, at California, US, which faced problems with pesticide contamination from rice fields upstream: "The problem was resolved by persuading polluting farmers to use pesticides in such a manner that it does not enter surface water."

What now?
In India, public opinion over the issue is growing. Numerous public interest litigations have forced the MEF into an alien arena: that of accountability. This has made the CPCB, the Haryana SPCB and other agencies take note of what is getting into the river and the ways and means of lessening such entry. Several polluting units which discharge into the river, and the canals and drains that lead to it, have been forced to instal water treatment facilities. However, cpcb officials admit that high operational and maintenance costs of the facilities and the apathy of individual units limit their usage.

Another issue is that of appropriate property rights. Maybe things will change when the people of Delhi get the right to sue Haryana for polluting their drinking water and the people of Agra get the right to sue both Haryana and Delhi together.

Perhaps much-needed and urgent change will come if the one who consumes the dread water — Delhi’s citizens or indeed Agra’s — refuses to ingest such deadly poisons, and demands the legitimate right to clean drinking water. Who does the Yamuna belong to, after all?

On March 3, 2003, the Delhi High Court had observed: "Yamuna river has been polluted not only on account of dumping of waste, including medical waste as well as discharge of unhygienic material, but the Yamuna bed and its embankment have been unauthorisedly and illegally encroached by construction of pucca house, jhuggies and places for religious worship, which cannot be permitted any more... We, therefore, direct all the authorities concerned, that is, DDA, MCD, PWD, DJB as well the Central Government to forthwith remove all the unauthorised structures, jhuggi es, places of worship and/or any other structure which are unauthorisedly put in Yamuna bed and its embankment within two months from today."

This order was flouted for over two years by the concerned authorities, provoking a Division Bench, headed by the then Chief Justice, to rule that the river bed was a water body (wet land) and had to be preserved as such. Here is the relevant excerpt.

"...it is required to be maintained as a water body by the DDA and all other authorities. If the water body is not maintained as such and construction illegally goes on unhindered, then it is high time to take the officers of the DDA to task." As per the court directive, all encroachments on the river bed were to be removed by the DDA and other empowered agencies. But, the follow-up remained tardy.

On December 8, 2005, the court appointed a committee, headed by retired Justice Usha Mehra, to enforce the orders passed in this regard by the High Court since 2003. The Yamuna -- Removal of Encroachments Monitoring Committee, as it came to be known, was meant to monitor the removal of encroachments on the river bed and flood plains, specifically within 300 metres of the river banks. Acting on this order, the committee got slum clusters removed expeditiously. But Government-authorised structures were left intact.

So far as the Games Village is concerned, the original plan was to erect temporary structures, in keeping with the recommendation of the Environment Ministry. This was based on the 'Environmental Management Plan for Rejuvenation of River Yamuna in NCT', submitted to the DDA by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute in October 2005. It was prepared at the DDA's behest. The section, 'General Guidelines for Development of Riverbed', stated that "no residential or industrial facilities requiring permanent structures should be provided on the river bed".

Yet, in contravention of court orders and the NEERI report, the DDA bought 31,542 acre from the Uttar Pradesh irrigation department for Rs 61.5 lakh per acre for its own use. Some of it (110 acre) was meant to build the Games Village. The pre-condition for the deal was that half the profits would be paid to the Uttar Pradesh Government in the event that this land was exploited commercially after change of land use. The Environment Ministry cleared the permanent Games Village.

Meanwhile, the convener of the Yamuna Monitoring Committee, Mr SM Aggarwal, retired additional district and sessions judge, has sought the removal of all structures on the river bed, built by the DDA and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The committee's report, submitted to the division bench hearing the Yamuna case, also seeks to penalise the DDA and its Vice-Chairman, and DMRC for their lapses such as sanctioning a proposed residential project, Games Village, Metro rail yard and Games Village station, and a privately built mall.




Mathura oil refinery blamed for Yamuna pollution

The Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the Central Pollution Control Board have blamed the release of petroleum waste from the Mathura oil refinery into the Yamuna for the death of fish in the river.

The Yamuna's water was tested for pollutants after thousands of fish were found dead in the river on Nov 5, creating near panic among fishermen and those living close to the riverbanks in Mathura and Agra.

The death of the fish despite the fact that dissolved oxygen level was found to be normal persuaded environmentalists and government officials to look for other causes.

Releasing a report by the pollution control boards, Agra district magistrate Mukesh Meshram Wednesday said petroleum by-products were found in the Barari drain which flows from the Indian Oil Corporation's oil refinery to the Yamuna. Large-scale growth of water hyacinth was also found in the river at the Gokul barrage in Mathura.

N. Shiv Kumar, Mathura oil refinery's corporate media manager, Wednesday denied the charges that harmful pollutants were being released into the Yamuna.

"All effluents and wastes are treated within the refinery before release," he told reporters.

Earlier reports by several other organisations, including the US-based Yamuna Foundation for Blue Water, have also mentioned finding traces of petroleum hydrocarbons, which are believed to be carcinogenic, in the Yamuna water.

Local environmentalists say the pollution level in the Yamuna has crossed all safety parameters and the water is unfit for bathing, let alone drinking.