Gurgaon Waste Plant to use Hazardous Technology

Contrary to the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s National Action Plan on Climate Change that supports only Biomethanation Technology for electricity from waste, approval given to it by the ministry of environment and forests and the Pollution Control Board to the proposed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) facility for Bandwari village, Gurgaon is fraught with adverse environment and health consequences.

The MSW facility with waste recycling plant is planned at a 30-acre site in Bandwari village at Gurgaon-Faridabad road. The reason for the harm to residents comes from the waste recycling plant based on refuge derived fuel (RDF) that is also proposed with the MSW facility. Incineration of RDF emits pollutants that have intergeneration effects.

The proposed facility aims to use about 400 metric ton solid waste everyday that is generated in Gurgaon. The residents produce 375 gram of waste per capita per day.
It appears that Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon, in conjunction with Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) has kept the residents in dark.

Read more...

Waste-to-energy plant: RWAs to cite Agra case

NEW DELHI: Residents of Sukhdev Vihar and Haji Colony, who have been staunchly opposing a waste-to-energy plant in their area, received a boost to their campaign. A similar plant being set up in Agra, UP, might be scrapped after the UP government made it clear that it was not willing to fund the refuse derived fuel (RDF) component of the project.

According to sources, the announcement came after the government received objections to the plant in terms of its environment impact. “The RDF is an expensive component and by refusing to fund it, the government, it seems, wants to distance itself from it,” revealed sources.

Sukhdev Vihar and Haji Colony residents intend using this before the Delhi government as an example. “Residents met the MCD commissioner earlier this month and were given assurances that the plant would not pose any environmental hazard. However, the incineration technology is flawed and there is no way that emissions can be prevented from it,” said Gopal Krishna, an activist who is opposing the plant.

Residents had earlier taken out a protest march and refused to let the land handing over ceremony take place. Their basic contention is that the plant should not be set up in a residential area. “We will get in touch with residents in Agra, who opposed this plant,” said Anil Misra, member of the Sukhdev Vihar RWA.


Neha Lalchandani
22 September, 2008
The Times of India

Read more...

Battery Recycling in Europe, not a model for India yet

Note:While in India, Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001 remains a paper work, even European community legislation on batteries that applies to all batteries (except batteries used in equipment connected with the protection of Member States' essential security interest and batteries in equipment designed to be sent to space)leaves a lot to be desired.

The EU Directive on Batteries aims at minimising the negative impacts of batteries and accumulators on the environment and also harmonising requirements for the smooth functioning of the internal market. To achieve these objectives, the Directive introduces measures to prohibit the marketing of some batteries containing hazardous substances. It contains measures for establishing schemes aiming at high level of collection and recycling of batteries with quantified collection and recycling targets. The Directive sets out minimum rules for producer responsibility and provisions with regard to labelling of batteries and their removability from equipment.

In India, all actions so far have remained limited to shifting the recycling units from one place to another as a knee jerk reactions as if it is a remedy to deal with the occupational and environmental health hazards.

EU warns nations who fail on battery recycling

European Union headquarters threatened legal action against member nations who fail to impose rules for collecting and recycling batteries which are due to come into force on September 26, 2008.

The rules impose targets for collecting defunct batteries to limit pollution caused when they are incinerated or buried in leaky landfill sites, but only seven of the 27 EU countries have written them into national legislation.

So far only Estonia, Spain, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria and Slovenia, have implemented the new rules, said EU spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich. Ireland, Lithuania, Poland and Finland say they are close to doing so.

The new rules impose targets for collecting defunct batteries ranging from regular AA batteries to those used in mobile phones and laptops. By 2012, a quarter of all batteries sold must be collected once they run out and recycled. By 2016, the target will rise to 45 percent.

Distributors will be required to take used batteries and accumulators back at no charge. The rules also determine how batteries must be recycled once collected. Use of mercury and cadmium in batteries is restricted under the rules and dumping car and industrial batteries in landfill sites is banned.

The EU's high court can impose hefty daily fines on nations that fail to implement European laws.

New EU-wide rules to boost the collection and recycling of used domestic batteries has come into force to reduce the environmental and health hazards posed by mercury, lead, cadmium and other metals.

The targets, already agreed by member states, are the collection of 25 percent of discarded household batteries by 2012 rising to 45 percent in 2016.

By 26 September 2009 all batteries collected should be recycled, with leeway in certain circumstances.

So far only seven of the 27 EU member states -- Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain -- had brought their national legislation in line with the new EU directive.

Finland. Ireland, Poland and Lithuania have said the legislation is prepared but not yet in force.

The European Commission sees the "batteries directive" as an important step on its wider goal of a greener society.

Officials are concerned about the environmental and health hazards posed by batteries being dumped in landfill sites.

The responsibility for making sure the new rules work lies with the producers, according to the rules.

Mercury, lead and cadmium are by far the most problematic substances in the battery waste stream. Batteries containing these substances are classified in Europe as "hazardous waste."

The new rules also cover industrial and vehicle batteries, ensuring that users have the possibility of returning used batteries for collection.

However even under current practice, the collection of industrial and automotive batteries is already close to 100 percent due to their recycling value.

The new rules also include restrictions on the use of mercury in all batteries and on the use of cadmium in portable batteries.

In 2002, 75,515 portable batteries were used in the then 15-member EU, almost half of which ended up in landfill sites or incinerators.

Full relevant EU documents are available on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/index.htm

As per the Indian Rules, It shall be the responsibility of a manufacturer, importer, assembler and re-conditioner to

(i) ensure that the used batteries are collected back as per the Schedule (mentioned in the Rules) against new batteries sold excluding those sold to original equipment manufacturer and bulk consumer(s);

(ii) ensure that used batteries collected back are of similar type and specifications as that of the new batteries sold;

(iii) file a half-yearly return of their sales and buy-back to the State Board in Form-I latest by 30th June and 31st December of every year;

(iv) set up collection centers either individually or jointly at various places for collection of used batteries from consumers or dealers;

(v) ensure that used batteries collected are sent only to the registered recyclers;

(vi) ensure that necessary arrangements are made with dealers for safe transportation from collection centers to the premises of registered recyclers;

(vii) ensure that no damage to the environment occurs during transportation;

(viii) create public awareness though advertisements, publications, posters or by other means with regard to the following-

(a) hazards of lead;

(b) responsibility of consumers to return their used batteries only to the dealers or deliver at designated collection centers; and

(c) addresses of dealers and designated collection centers.

(ix) use the international recycling sign on the Batteries;

(x) buy recycled lead only from registered recyclers; and

(xi) bring to the notice of the State Board or the Ministry of Environment & Forests any violation by the dealers.

5. REGISTRATION OF IMPORTERS. –

The importer shall get himself registered with the Ministry of Environment & Forests or an agency designated by it by submitting details in Form-II.

6. CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF IMPORTS OF NEW LEAD ACID BATTERIES.-

Customs clearance of imports shall be contingent upon -

(i) valid registration with the Reserve Bank of India(with Importer’s Code Number);

(ii) one time registration with the Ministry of Environment & Forests or an agency designated by it in Form-II;

(iii) undertaking in Form-III; and

(iv) a copy of the latest half-yearly return in Form-IV

7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEALER.–

It shall be the responsibility of a dealer to -

(i) ensure that the used batteries are collected back as per the Schedule against new batteries sold;

(ii) give appropriate discount for every used battery returned by the consumer;

(iii) ensure that used batteries collected back are of similar type and specifications as that of the new batteries sold;

(iv) file half-yearly returns of the sale of new batteries and buy-back of old batteries to the manufacturer in Form-V by 31st May and 30th November of every year;
(v) ensure safe transportation of collected batteries to the designated collection centers or to the registered recyclers; and

(vi) ensure that no damage is caused to the environment during storage and transportation of used batteries.

8. RESPONSIBILITIES OF RECYCLER. –

Each recycler shall

(i) apply for registration to the Ministry of Environment & Forests or an agency designated by it if not applied already, by submitting information in Form VI;

(ii) ensure strict compliance of the terms and conditions of registration, however, those already registered with the Ministry of Environment & Forests or an agency designated by it for reprocessing used batteries would be bound by the terms and conditions of such registration;

(iii) submit annual returns as per Form VII to the State Board.

(iv) Make available all records to the State Board for inspection;

(v) Mark ‘Recycled’ on lead recovered by reprocessing; and

(vi) Create public awareness through advertisements, publications, posters or others with regard to the following –

(a) hazards of lead; and
(b) obligation of consumers to return used batteries only to the registered dealers or deliver at the designated collection centers.

9. PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION/RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION OF RECYCLERS. –

(1) Every recycler of used lead acid batteries shall make an application in Form VI along with the following documents to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests or any officer designated by the Ministry or an agency designated by it for grant of registration or renewal.

(a) a copy of the valid consents under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as amended;

(b) a copy of the valid authorisation under Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 as amended;

(c) a copy of valid certificate of registration with District Industries Centre; and
(d) a copy of the proof of installed capacity issued by either State Pollution Control Board/ District Industries Centre.

(2) The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests or any officer designated by the Ministry or an agency designated by it shall ensure that the recyclers possess appropriate facilities, technical capabilities, and equipment to recycle used batteries and dispose of hazardous waste generated;

(3) The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests or any officer designated by the Ministry or an agency designated by it shall take decision on application for registration within 120 days of receipt of application form with complete details;

(4) The registration granted under this rule shall be in force for a period of two years from the date of issue or from the date of renewal unless suspended or cancelled earlier;

(5) An application for the renewal of registration shall be made in Form VI atleast six months before its expiry. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests or any officer designated by the Ministry or an agency designated by it shall renew the registration of the recycler granted under sub rule(4) of this rule, after examining each case on merit;

(6) The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests or any officer designated by the Ministry or an agency designated by it may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the applicant of being heard, refuse to grant registration;

(7) The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests or any officer designated by the Ministry or an agency designated by it may cancel or suspend a registration issued under these rules, if in his/her opinion, the registered recycler has failed to comply with any of the conditions of registration, or with any provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder after giving him an opportunity to explain and after recording the reasons therefor;

(8) It shall be the responsibility of the State Boards to monitor the compliance of conditions prescribed while according registration; and

(9) An appeal shall lie against any order of suspension or cancellation or refusal of registration passed by the Joint Secretary to the Ministry of Environment & Forests or any officer designated by the Ministry or an agency designated by it. The appeal shall be in writing and shall be accompanied with a copy of the order appealed against and shall be presented within 30 days of passing of the order.

10. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONSUMER OR BULK CONSUMER. –

(1) It shall be the responsibility of the consumer to ensure that used batteries are not disposed of in any manner other than depositing with the dealer, manufacturer, importer, assembler, registered recycler, re-conditioner or at the designated collection centers.

(2) It shall be the responsibility of the bulk consumer to -

(i) ensure that used batteries are not disposed of in any manner other than by depositing with the dealer/manufacturer/registered/recycler/importer/re-conditioner or at the designated collection centers; and

(ii) file half-yearly return in Form VIII to the State Board.-

(3) Bulk consumers or their user units may auction used batteries to registered recyclers only.

11. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUCTIONEER. –

The auctioneer shall -

(i) ensure that used batteries are auctioned to the registered recyclers only;

(ii) file half-yearly returns of their auctions to the State Boards in Form-IX,; and

(iii) maintain a record of such auctions and make these records available to the
State Board for inspection.

12. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. –

The prescribed authority for ensuring compliance o the provisions of these rules shall be the State Board. And, it shall file an annual compliance status report to the Central Pollution Control Board by 30th April of every year.

13. DUTIES OF CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. –

The Central Pollution Control Board shall compile and publish the date received every year from the State Boards. It shall review the compliance of the rules periodically to improve the collection and recycling of used lead batteries and apprise the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

14. COMPUTERISATION OF RECORDS AND RETURNS. –

Ministry of Environment and Forests or an agency designated by it shall develop a system for computerised tracking of -

(i) distribution and sale of batteries;
(ii) collection, auction, transport and re-processing of used batteries;
(iii) sale of re-processed lead by registered recyclers; and
(iv) sale of lead from all domestic producers or importers.

Read more...

Contaminated milk kills Babies

China is once again rocked by a baby milk formula scandal. Four babies have died and at least six thousand are suffering from kidney stones, which has led to acute kidney failure in many of the sick children. Originally, only the San Lu brand was thought to be contaminated, but it has since transpired that twenty other brands have been tested positive for melamine. The World Health Organisation has called on the Chinese authorities to explain how the scandal was allowed to develop.

Baby milk inspection in ChinaAnd while hospital waiting rooms across China are filling up with worried parents and babies with kidney stones, TV commercials promoting baby formula are still on air:

"This is a TV commercial for formula. A special ingredient makes this formula easier to digest - specially designed for your baby's delicate digestive system. Nestle Grow Formula Number 3 - for babies growing the healthy way."

The text for this commercial typifies the kind of claims made by the marketers - they emphasise the special quality attributed to their brand. Aggressive advertising campaigns like this have led to a sharp decrease in the number of women breast-feeding their babies.

And now the magic formula has been found to contain melamine, a chemical used in the manufacture of durable household products like plastic dinnerware and cutlery. Suppliers - be it the farmers or the dairies - are suspected of diluting milk to cut costs, then adding melamine to make it appear higher in protein. More protein means more money.

Kidney stones
It also means more babies - thousands of them - with kidney stones. John Foreman, an American paediatrician and kidney specialist:

"We know that melamine can form stones, and presumably that's what's happening to those children. They are getting stones in their kidneys and that's blocking the flow of urine, which is backing up in the kidneys and causing them not to function properly."

The San Lu Group knew that melamine was being added to formula for three years, but opted to remain silent. Local authorities also chose not to investigate the affair, for fear of bad press just when the spotlight was on Beijing for the Olympic Games.

The Chinese media released the information about the contaminated San Lu milk on 11 September. On 16 September, it was revealed that 21 other brands had the same problem, including Olympic Games sponsor Yili.

Confidence waning
Now the public has little or no confidence in any of the popular dairy products. In a supermarket at the Workers' Stadium, an old woman is looking up and down the shelves:
"I wouldn't dare buy [Yili] anymore. Only foreign milk; that should be alright."

Imported milk is three times more expensive, but many are prepared to pay to be safe. On an internet forum for mothers, 94 percent of those questioned have said that they will not use Chinese brands. And now, not even regular milk is an alternative. On Friday, it was announced that liquid milk from three of China's largest dairies was tainted with melamine.

The current milk crisis is the last in a series of food scandals in China. Eggs, steamed sandwiches, animal feed and prawns have all featured in the string of health scares. Three years ago, 13 babies died in the Anhui province as a result of malnutrition. They had been fed a kind of fake formula containing no nutrition.

Indeed we need to reach far beyond the actual consumers of baby milks. This is a case of Globalised Contamination.

The hue and cry around the Sanlu baby milk tragedy in China is focusing very narrowly on the quality of the milk produced by one Chinese company. This detracts from the fact that formula feeding regardless of brand and origin has inherent risks. What is also being overlooked is the large number of babies dependent on formula feeding at an age when breastfeeding should be the norm. The fact that aggressive marketing may be one key factor that is tilting the balance against breastfeeding
is also not being addressed.

China has had regulations that implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes since 1995. The regulations are incomplete and have regrettably never been fully implemented or enforced despite ICDC's past and recent efforts. Maybe this latest episode of babies dying and suffering as a result of formula feeding will get the Chinese authorities to sit up and give breastfeeding the support it deserves. They must act to protect their children. It is the least they can do. There will doubtlessly be more muck-ups with milks but the harm will be
minimised if breastfeeding is made popular and routine.

Until that time, foreign companies selling formula in China will be gloating over increased sales.

Read more...

ORISSA FLOOD DISASTER COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED:

ORISSA FLOOD DISASTER COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED: WRONG OPERATION OF HIRAKUD DAM RESPONSIBLE

The wrong operation of Hirakud Dam is majorly responsible for the current flood disaster in Mahanadi basin in Orissa. The Hirakud dam operators have kept the water level way above the rule curve recommended for the dam in 1988, ever since Aug 1, 2008, when the rule curve for current year comes into operation. Had the dam operated in a way to keep the level below the recommended level, the current flood disaster could have been avoided.

The water flow in Mahanadi basin at Mundali barrage is 14.6 lakh cusecs (cubic feet per second), way above the safe limit of 10 lakh cusec, as recommended by the August 2007 report of "the High Level Committee to Study Various Aspects of Water Usage for Hirakud Reservoir", appointed by the Government of Orissa. Out of the 14.6 lakh cusecs flowing in Mahanadi, over 4.62 lakh cusecs is released by Hirakud dam. If Hirakud Dam had not released the water when the downstream areas were experiencing heavy rainfall, the amount the flow at Mundali barrage would have remained within the safe limit of 10 lakh cusecs as recommended by the High Level Hirakud Committee (HLHC), and there would have been no flood disaster.

The Hirakud dam operators are forced to release over 4.62 lakh cusecs, because the water level at Hirakud dam has already reached the Full Reservoir Level of 630 feet on Sept 18, 2008, which should have been reached that level twelve days later on Sept 30, 2008. And the water level at Hirakud has reached the full level so fast because the operators had consistently kept the water level very high, way above the recommended level.

For example, on Aug 1, 2008, the recommended water level at Hirakud dam was 590 feet, but the actual water level on that date was already way high at 607.5 feet. On Aug 13, 2008, the water level was 618.5 feet, against the recommended level of 606 feet. On Sept 10, 2008, the water level was 627 feet, just three feet below the full level, when the recommended level was only 623 feet.

Hirakud dam is one of the few dams of India where flood control cushion has been provided in its storage capacity. The idea is that the flood cushion portion of the storage should not be filled right till the end of the monsoon, which is in the first week of Oct. By filling up the reservoir to full capacity before the end of monsoon, the dam operators have destroyed the flood control role of the Hirakud dam and thus brought an avoidable flood disaster on the people of Orissa. This disaster could have been avoided, had they operated the dam keeping in mind the flood cushion role of the reservoir.

Here it may be added that the Central Water Commission (CWC) of the Government of India has been using completely outdated figures of reservoir capacities. For example, for Hirakud, while the HLHC has said that the live storage capacity of Hirakud in 2007 was down to 4.647 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM) (down from 5.818 BCM at the time of start up in 1957), CWC's reservoir storage website (http://www.cwc.gov.in/Reservoir_level.htm) says the Hirakud's live storage capacity is 5.378 BCM. This is higher than that given by even CWC's own 1995 study of Hirakud siltation, which said the live capacity by that year had gone down to 4.934 BCM. It is also shocking to note that CWC's flood forecast site first time (during the current phase) mentioned the Mahanadi floods only on September 19, 2008, after the news was already out in the media. What is the value of such forecasts of CWC?

The Orissa government needs to answer to the people of Orissa, why this shocking manmade disaster was allowed to happen and what it would do to ensure that those who are responsible for the wrong operation of the Hirakud dam are held accountable?


Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com, Ph: 27484655; Mobile: 99682 42798)
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in)

Read more...

High court challenge to stop toxic French ship arriving in Britain

On September 18, 2008, The Telegraph reported that Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is making inquiries into an accident at a dockyard in Graythorp.

The site of the accident was the Teesside Environmental Reclamation and Recycling Centre, owned by Able UK.

It was recently awarded a contract for the dismantling of asbestos-contaminated French vessel Le Clemenceau. Able will also be launching an investigation into the accident. Groups such as Friends of Hartlepool have launched a high court challenge to prevent the toxic "ghost ship" Clemenceau being dismantled at the site.

Concerns about the risk of asbestos contained by ship, which is estimated to be 700 tonnes, are a motivating factor in the opposition.

High court challenge to stop toxic French ship arriving in Britain

A High Court challenge has been launched to stop a French aircraft carrier being broken up in Britain after it was deemed too toxic to be taken apart in India.

By Sarah Knapton
3 September, 2008, The Telegraph

The 27,000 tonne Clemenceau, which contains 700 tonnes of asbestos, is set to be dismantled by Able UK in Hartlepool after the company was granted a licence by the Health and Safety Executive.

But Jean Kennedy, of the Friends of Hartlepool group, is taking legal action against the HSE to prevent the ageing aircraft carrier being brought to British shores.
"The HSE have made a special exception to allow this toxic ghost ship and its deadly cargo into our local community," she said.

"We feel that it is a deep injustice to force a small town, which has already disproportionately suffered the ill-effects of polluting industries and has one of the highest cancer rates in the UK, to accept France's toxic waste."

Clemenceau, often affectionately called "le Clem'", was the lead ship of her class, and the 8th aircraft carrier of the French Navy, serving from 1961 to 1997.

The ship was due to be broken up in India but an embarrassed Jacques Chirac was forced to recall the ship after socialist opposition in France accused the president of sending waste abroad while "lecturing the world on the environment."
But the French finally struck a deal with Able UK earlier this year to the anger of local residents.
Hartlepool campaigner Iris Ryder said: "The legal challenge is the beginning of a new stage in the fight by Hartlepool residents to prevent our community from becoming the international toxic waste dumping ground of choice of both governments and polluting industries.

"Toxic waste should be disposed of close to where it is produced, not transported around the world to be buried in our community."

The French have struggled to find a final resting place for The Clemenceau since December 2005 when she first set sail for India. Protests by Greenpeace led the Supreme Court of India to temporarily deny access.

When the ship reached Egypt in January 2006, she was boarded by two Greenpeace activists and denied access to the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities.
Although she was eventually allowed to pass, Chirac ordered Clemenceau to return to French waters and remain on standby at the naval port of Brest where she has been for the past two years until the deal was struck Able UK.

An Able UK spokesman said they expect the ship to arrive from France imminently. A hearing is expected to take place at the Royal Courts of Justice later this month.


Fight to stop scrapping of French vessel Clemenceau
GazetteLive, UK, 5 September

A LEGAL challenge has been mounted to stop a French aircraft carrier being scrapped by Able UK. The Hartlepool-based firm behind the so-called ghost ships plan wants to dismantle the 32,700-tonne Clemenceau at its Graythorp TERRC facility.

But the Friends of Hartlepool group have raised concerns about the vessel which contains asbestos. Legal firm, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) acting on behalf of Jean Kennedy of the environmental group, has launched a legal challenge against the Health and Safety Executive’s decision to grant a certificate, allowing the import of the ship.

Mrs Kennedy said: “We feel that it is a deep injustice to force a small town - which has already disproportionately suffered the ill-effects of polluting industries and has one of the highest cancer rates in the UK - to accept France’s toxic waste.”
Phil Shiner from PIL said: “When the facilities exist within France to dispose of the toxic waste aboard the Clemenceau, the HSE has a duty to consider these alternatives.”

A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive said they could not comment until after the hearing, which is expected to take place later this month.
But Able UK hit back, stating the claims by Friends of Hartlepool are “riddled with inaccuracies deliberately designed to smear our company and mislead the public again”.

“Able, as a named interested party, does not believe that the arguments put forward have merit and questions the justification for further public money being incurred on such a damaging exercise,” said an Able UK spokesman.

“One has to ask the question as to why a small number of activists continue to take up the time of the UK legal system, costing Hartlepool taxpayers’ money, constantly costing UK taxpayers’ money, in a desperate effort to maintain the totally discredited scaremongering.

“The contract for the Q790 (Clemenceau) will provide in excess of 50 direct jobs for a year and around 26,000 tonnes of steel scrap material for recycling.”
Dismantling of the Clemenceau would take place alongside the other vessels already berthed at TERRC - including the four ‘ghost ships’ from the American National Defence Reserve Fleet and three UK ships.

It would be the biggest ship recycling project so far handled by any European yard.

Read more...

One Month After Kosi Deluge

Drainage Crisis of North Bihar & Nepal Remains Unattended

All talk about seeking review of Kosi agreement that created the rationale for embankments and dams on the Kosi river seems like empty rhetoric. No political party both within the state and at the center can be absolved of acts of omission and commission that has brought perennial misery Kosi region.

The transformation of flood dependent agrarian regimes into flood vulnerable landscapes was primarily driven by the need to secure private property in land, which was a key concern of the colonial powers. It “soon disrupted natural flow regimes and ended up aggravating flood lines and thereby opening up the deltas to enhanced flood vulnerability. Constructed a network of roads, railway lines, and bridges, which by running in the east- west direction ended up interrupting natural drainage lines that mostly dropped from north to south. These structures, in time, not unexpectedly, began to unsettle a complex and fragile arrangement for drainage.” (Rohan D'Souza, 2008) Thus, North Bihar has been deprived of the most fertile land in the world. The Royal Commission of Agriculture had blamed lack of adequate drainage for it. A Fact Finding Mission that visited Kosi region in March 2008 corroborates that the situation has worsened over several decades.

The drainage congestion crisis is not about perennial waterlogging alone, it’s an invitation for an unimaginable proportion of public health crisis. Things have to such a pass that everyone including women, children and old age people have to take recourse to boats even to answer nature’s call on a daily basis. Governments in New Delhi, Kathmandu and Patna have refused to provide remedy for this heartrending situation. The Kosi agreement that has created this mess was signed in 1954 and amended in 1966 is caught in a time warp. The agreement is a declaration of both the countries to conquer nature and tame Kosi river despite evident failure. The eighth breach in the structural solution that happened on August 18 is unlikely to be repaired before March 2009.

Instead of solving this glaring crisis, an an act of manifest insincerity Kosi High dam is being proposed in a highly geologically unstable and earth quake prone area - a recipe for a catastrophe. Besides the inherent dangers, there is also a growing evidence of dam-induced seismicity that is being completely overlooked.

The rulers will have people believe that completing the projects (although a dam will take about 20 years for completion) especially a dam) tame the Kosi and solve the flood problem. It is being suggested to the Nepal Prime Minister that the Saptakosi high dam project besides Sunkosi diversion scheme and the Kamla dam project at a combined estimated cost of Rs. 38,000 crore would address the crisis in Bihar and Nepal. These claims need to be summarily rejected. It is noteworthy that the proposed dam is supposed to be for multiple purposes (irrigation, power-generation, flood-control, etc), and there is an in built conflict of according priority in-built into such a project.

The Kosi High Dam proposal measures against what the National Flood Commission, 1980, had noted, "The flood problem being more acute in the basins of rivers originating from the Himalayas, the reservoirs for flood moderation have to be sited in the Himalayan region, where there are complex problems to be dealt with in putting up large dams due to geological, seismic and topographical constraints. Because of narrow valleys, capacities of reservoirs on Himalayan rivers are not very large. Also, the rivers carry very large silt charge. The factors limit the economic life of the reservoirs, which, in turn, affects the economic feasibility of the project."

The idea of 269-metre Kosi dam was first mooted in 1937 and has been projected to have a lifespan of no more than 37 years, owing to about 90 million cubic meters of silt being carried by the river each year. Thanks to faster-than-expected silting of the reservoir of the proposed dam, neither will it produce the promised power nor provide intended irrigation benefits. The learned public representative must know that the existing East Bank Kosi canal is heavily silted and delivers just 7 per cent of its irrigation potential.

In the context of the proposed dam, it must be remembered that it is the same area where earthquake-measuring 8.3 on the Richter scale hit Nepal/Bihar in 1934. The real crisis of North Bihar is not floods but drainage, which the UPA's Common Minimum Programme acknowledged. But did you hear anyone talk about responding to the drainage crisis, which has rightly been diagnosed as the real problem.

Kosi belongs to the ecosystem and all of society. The river must be allowed to perform its role in maintaining a natural evolutionary balance and continuing with its land building work.

Read more...

Open Letter to Mayor & Chief Minister of Delhi

To

Ms Arti Mehra
Mayor of Delhi
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Mayor's House
Town Hall
Delhi – 110006

Subject-Objections with regard to the proposed Waste to Energy plants based on non-renewable technology options for misplaced resources (garbage)

Madam,

Pursuant to the meeting of K.S. Mehra, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)
with the Residents Welfare Associations of Sukhdev Vihar on September 9, 2008, Delhi Campaign for Safe Environment (DCSE) to express its anguish and objection to the proposed Dioxins emitting waste to energy plant in the residential areas. Residents of the area are protesting vociferously in full media glare for several months but to no avail.

We wish to draw your attention to the initiative by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (ILFS) for the installation of a municipal solid waste (MSW) to energy plant in Okhla, based on incineration of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). We would like to state our concerns about this venture.
The proposed plant is located inside dozens of densely populated residential colonies like Harkesh Nagar and Johori Farm, when the policy of the government is to shift or relocate all existing industries whatsoever from the residential areas. Besides this the site is in proximity of hospitals like Holy Family, Fortis-EScorts and Apollo.
Inhabitants of colonies like Gaffar Manzil, Sukhdev Vihar and Hazi Colony are rightly alarmed at the prospect of a Dioxins emitting incinerator plant from coming up in their vicinity.

We understand that the MCD is installing waste to energy technologies, under the name of RDF for disposing off 2000 –3000 metric tonnes (mt) of MSW per day. While we do appreciate the outstanding effort of the MCD in showing leadership on the issue of waste in India by undertaking many unusual initiatives such as the release of the Waste Master Plan, 2020, we do think that the move to install RDF plants in Delhi is an environmentally unsustainable solution. It raises serious concerns about the health and safety of the residents, which we believe such a technology, will jeopardise.

We object to the fact that unmindful of the public protest, New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) had permitted Jindal Urban Infrastructure Ltd to set up this plant. This company has secured a contract from New Delhi Waste Processing Company Limited, a joint venture between the Delhi Government and Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS), to produce 16 MW power from 2, 000 Metric Tonnes of municipal waste. The raw material would be supplied to the company by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

In fact the MCD’s Master Plan Report (2020) itself says, ... “RDF is often an option when emission standards are lax and RDF is burned in conventional boilers with no special precautions for emissions.” We are surprised that despite this observation the report then goes onto suggest RDF. We are also surprised to note that the consultants were hired by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which has been central to the Stockholm Convention, and discourages the use of incineration. In fact the MCD report itself says that RDF is another form of incineration.
Besides we are also concerned that such a master plan has been drawn up with no consultation with the residents and civil society members.

RDF and Incineration
RDF is a thermal and combustion technology, mainly used to prepare waste for mass incineration. The reason for making pellets is to both get the waste in a dry combustible form besides making it ready for those types of incinerators, which can handle RDF. As such all controls which are necessary for incineration need to be in place for RDF, which is not a stand-alone technology, but only another stage for a type of incineration. All such technologies go under various names such as RDF, incineration, pyrolysis, gasification etc.

Needless to say, if mixed waste is burnt, it will create problems of very toxic compounds such as dioxins and furans, heavy metals and other pollutants. The calorific value for the waste comes from materials such as plastics and metals. Plastics, especially chlorinated plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) when combusted gives rise to these highly toxic pollutants. In fact PVC plastic combustion is banned in India by regulation both in the municipal and bio-medical waste handling rules. In the case of hazardous waste India has developed a very stringent standard, which follows the European standard for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs).

Toxics are created at various stages of such thermal technologies, and not only at the end of the stack. These can be created during the process, in the stack pipes, as residues in ash, scrubber water and filters, and in fact even in air plumes which leave the stack. There are no safe ways of avoiding their production or destroying these once produced, and at best they can be trapped at extreme cost in sophisticated filters or in the ash. The ultimate release is unavoidable, and if trapped in ash or filters, these then become hazardous wastes themselves. On the other hand other methods of MSW treatment, which are non-thermal and do not create any such problems.

Pelletisation causes special problems. Since pellets, to burn need plastics and paper in them, these when used in household stoves or industrial furnaces which are scattered in communities, release toxics in completely uncontrolled environments to which communities are directly exposed.

Cost concerns
Such technologies cannot be justified either from the point of view of energy generation or for safe waste abatement. For example the cost of a typical 5-mw waste-to-energy project is about Rs 40 crores, with each mw of electricity consuming about 150 tonnes of urban waste. This amounts to an investment of Rs 8 crores per mw, or twice the cost of conventional thermal power. The subsidy alone to sustain such projects, especially for demonstration projects, exceeds 50% of the project cost, an unjustifiable public investment of Rs 20 crores for 800 tonnes of urban waste disposal.

All over the developed world, almost half the investment of their cost is put in emission control systems only to reduce emissions, some of which are very deadly (as mentioned earlier), such as mercury and dioxins and furans, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals like lead, cadmium, mercury, that waste incinerators. For example a 2000 mt per day incinerator can cost upwards of USD 500 million in Europe, half of the cost being put into emission control.

Indian garbage has an average calorific value of about 800 cal / kg. For combustion technologies to succeed they would need about 2000 to 3000 cal / kg, other wise auxiliary fuel has to be added. This makes the process more uneconomical and polluting than it already is.

Overall environmental impacts:
The impacts of incineration or of RDF are wide. The pollutants, which are created, even if trapped (at astronomical expense), reside in filters and ash, which need special landfills for disposal. Besides in case energy recovery is attempted then it requires heat exchangers, which operate at temperatures, which maximise dioxin production. If the gases are quenched, it goes against energy recovery.
International Legislation
At the international level India is party to the Stockholm Convention, which we are on the verge of ratifying. This Convention deals with very toxic chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants (POPSs), which include dioxins and furans. These are largely the result of waste combustion or thermal treatment of municipal and medical wastes, especially involving chlorinated plastics such as PVC.

The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has evaluated that that incinerator emissions are the primary source of dioxin, and major sources of mercury, lead, arsenic, particulate, and other pollutants. The ash that results from burning trash is even more toxic. These effects have been recognised worldwide

Inventories of releases of such emissions, such as dioxins, heavy metals etc. have put municipal waste incinerators to be amongst the highest sources of such pollutants worldwide. Of course these are global pollutants but have drastic short term and long-term health effects. Various conventions have stated concerns about this.

The incineration of pellets made from Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) violates several international laws such as:
a) Kyoto Protocol: As per Annexure A of the Protocol waste incineration is a green house gas emitter.

b) Stockholm Convention on POPs: Calls for improvements in waste management with the aim of the cessation of open and other uncontrolled burning of wastes, including the burning of landfill sites. States that “ when considering proposals to construct new waste disposal facilities, consideration should be given to alternatives such as activities to minimize the generation of municipal and medical waste, including resource recovery, reuse, recycling, waste separation and promoting products that generate less waste. Under this approach, public health concerns should be carefully considered, as per Annexure C of the Convention.”

c) Recommendations of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)'s Global Assessment on Mercury. The Global Mercury Assessment Working Group recommended measures to address global adverse impacts of mercury at the global, regional, national and local levels. The options include measures such as reducing or eliminating the mercury emission from waste incineration because unlike other heavy metals, mercury has special properties that make it difficult to capture in many control devices.

National Legislation
In fact all recent waste policies of the Government of India, which include the Supreme Court’s High Powered Committee report of Urban waste, the Shukla Committee report of the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, as well as the MSW national regulations issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, do not recommend the use of incineration. Further regarding Schedule IV of the Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2000, it is our understanding that the signatories of the agreement have not sought any approval from the Delhi Pollution Control Board or Central Pollution Control Board, as is mandatory.

The proposed plant is not in line with national legislations and guidelines such as:

a) MSW Rules, 2000 because according to the MSW Rules it is illegal to incinerate chlorinated plastics (like PVC) and wastes chemically treated with any chlorinated disinfectant. The reason to ban incineration of chlorinated products is to stop formation and emission of dioxins, one of the most toxic substances known to human beings.

b) Recommendations of the Supreme Court constituted committee on waste management. The Burman Committee recommended that composting should be carried out in each municipality. Local bodies are cautioned not to adopt expensive technologies of power generation, fuel pelletisation, incineration, etc until they are proven under Indian conditions.

c) Delhi High Court order because the court had directed the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to conduct an inquiry into the failure of the Timarpur plant. The high court order came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2000 by B L Wadhera.

d) MCD’s own Feasibility Study and Master Plan for Optimal Waste Treatment and Disposal for the Entire State of Delhi of March 2004 because it says, “Incineration of RDF is considered waste incineration.” (Page 25, Appendix D, Technology Catalogue). It also says the costs of RDF are often high for societies with low calorific value because energy is used to dry the waste before it becomes feasible to burn it.

e) ‘White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan’ prepared by Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. It says, “The experience of the incineration plant at Timarpur, Delhi and the briquette plant at Bombay support the fact that thermal treatment of municipal solid waste is not feasible, in situations where the waste has a low calorific value. A critical analysis of biological treatment as an option was undertaken for processing of municipal solid waste in Delhi and it has been recommended that composting will be a viable option. Considering the large quantities of waste requiring to be processed, a mechanical composting plant will be needed.”

Health Impacts and Concerns
Based on the appraisal of all the sources of pollutants, the pathways of exposure and the receptors, it has been found that the technology, which is being, suggested increases pollution in air, water and land leading to food chain contamination and disease hazards. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that incineration is a cause of ill-health:
a) Although communities living in the immediate vicinity of incinerators are most at risk from the emissions, explosions etc., the contamination is not restricted to a specific locality.
b) Test have shown areas as far as 1,000 miles are impacted directly by the chemical particulates, metals, dioxin, products of incomplete combustion etc., from it. Every resident of Delhi in particular would be exposed to the toxins emitted by incinerators via the food chain through fish, milk and other dairy produce.
c) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) have recognised long term toxic effects, which transfer from one generation to another, through mother’s breast milk, and at extremely low and minute exposures. These are global pollutants.
d) What is of grave concern to civil society groups, doctors and scientists is that the womb offers little protection to the unborn child as many of these chemicals can pass through the placental wall and interfere with hormone behaviour during foetal development.
e) Even breast fed infants would be affected as its by-products also contaminate their mother’s milk. By installing such a technology the citizenry stand at great risk of such contamination and health effects.

Concerns about recycling
The installation of these technologies, which combust or thermally change materials which are otherwise being recycled, goes against the whole ethos of recycling. Hundreds of thousands of people seek their livelihood through recycling in India. Approaches to waste management should lead to socially acceptable solutions and helping already marginalized sectors.

Alternatives
Also from our understanding, RDF or incineration is completely inappropriate for Indian urban waste, which is largely biodegradable in nature, but also that they ext5ract a very high cost for the energy which they claim to generate. The cost, which is largely subsidised by various schemes, does not however include the environmental and health costs caused by their toxic releases, and which are externalised. These technologies also use valuable resources which can be recycled, such as plastics and metals, and which support a massive recycling sector in the country. On the other hand Indian municipal waste is fit for composting and biomethanation treatment processes.

In fact we feel that such high cost routes must be avoided and instead only appropriate methods such as bio-methanation, composting and proper recycling propagated. Incentives and subsidies should be offered in areas of `cold’ technologies alone, which are suited to our country economically, socially and also to our wastes.

Therefore, adopting alternative cleaner methods of waste disposal is deemed sane and sustainable. The need for low-cost solutions presents significant difficulties, but it is not an impossible task. The ideal resource management strategy for MSW is to avoid its generation in the first place. This implies changing production and consumption patterns to eliminate the use of disposable, non-reusable, non-returnable products and packaging.

The alternative waste disposal methods include:
i. Waste reduction
ii. Waste segregation
iii. Reuse and extended use
iv. Recycling
v. Biomethanation technology
vi. Composting
vii.Vermicomposting

We urgently urge you to discard any proposal, which does not adopt any of the above-mentioned methods to dispose of Delhi's municipal wastes. Suryapet, Andhra Pradesh has adopted it. It can set a precedent for the whole country. We would be happy to provide you information or clarification on this issue.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully

Cc/
Sheila Dikshit, Chief Minister, Government of NCT of Delhi
Rajerdra Kumar, Secretary (Power), Government of NCT of Delhi
& Chairman and Managing Director, Delhi Transco Limited

Read more...

Pachauri reelected chairman of IPCC

Environmentalists Critical of Rajendra Pachauri's cosyness with corporations

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) elected new leadership last week in Geneva, Switzerland, unanimously re-electing the Indian economist Rajendra Pachauri as chairman but choosing new heads of the three working groups that coordinate the writing of its massive reports.

The most significant race was for the leadership of Working Group I, which evaluates the basic science of climate change. Swiss climate modeller Thomas Stocker came out ahead after two initial votes narrowed a field of four to him and Francis Zwiers, a senior scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Toronto.

Stocker heads the climate and environmental physics unit at the University of Bern and has been a coordinating lead author in Working Group I during the past two assessments. He sees plenty of work to do in assessing sea-level rise, carbon-cycle feedbacks, and regional impacts. Qin Dahe, who heads the China Meteorological Association, stays on as co-chair representing a developing nation.

"The value of the IPCC is utterly dependent on top scientists such as these as co-chairs to lead the assessment process," says Susan Solomon of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, who served as lead co-chair of Working Group I for the most recent assessment in 2007.

Working Group II, which assesses impacts and adaptation, will be chaired by Chris Field, an ecologist who heads the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California. His co-chair will be Vicente Barros, an oceanographer at the University of Buenos Aires.

For the next assessment, Field says he wants to further integrate the sciences pertaining to impacts and adaptation. He also wants to drill down to "the levels of processes" instead of just listing the types of changes that can be expected under climate change. He will also push for a separate chapter on oceans to look at acidification, warming and loss of ice cover.

Working Group III, which assesses mitigation options, will be headed by Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. He says he wants to give business people and policy-makers a larger role and "be a bit more precise" about the advantages, costs and risks of different options.

All the co-chairs support further integration among the three working groups (ses 'Spending the Nobel prize'). They differ in their attitude to special reports — targeted assessments to address pressing policy questions. Edenhofer favours their use; Field and Stocker don't emphasize them as much. The panel is currently preparing a special report on renewable energy, and Edenhofer says he has secured an agreement from the German government for additional resources for such purposes.

In a departure forced by a tight vote and procedural complications, Edenhofer will have two co-chairs: Ramón Pichs Madruga, an economist at the Center for Research on the World Economy in Havana, and Youba Sokona, a Malian environmental scientist who heads the Sahara and Sahel Observatory in Tunis.

"It was a political compromise allowing everybody to save face," says new IPCC vice-chair Jean-Pascal Van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. "It was not perfect, but it in the end it was accepted by everybody."

Pachauri's environmental credentials are suspect

R K Pachauri headed UN climate group has proposed solutions like “a major expansion in nuclear power, use of GM crops to boost biofuel production, and reliance on unproven technologies…” to mitigate adverse climate change. Such solutions have put the group on a collision course with those who argue that simply replacing one set of technologies with another set of technologies won't work. Nuclear reactors are dangerous and land clearance and chemical pesticides and fertilisers used to grow fuel crops can cause huge environmental damage. Pachauri is also a known supporter of Interlinking of Rivers project involving massive land use change-a listed cause of climate change as per Kyoto Protocol.

It is shocking to note that Pachauri headed The Energy Research Institute (TERI) is advising the Government of India to undertake polluting incineration technology based municipal waste to energy projects that has failed in US and Europe. Rationalising the same, he says, "The stress is on India because we are a developing nation so we need energy more. But developed countries shouldn't be pointing fingers at us because they have done their bit to pollute the environment. So they should set their own house in order first." TERI in its study done for Indian Environment Ministry estimates that municipal solid waste to energy projects have the largest potential of around $400,000 every year.

In fact TERI itself in one of its other studies on solid waste management in India has pointed out that the techno-economic feasibility of such projects is not established. Therefore, their recommendation to undertake the same is baffling given the fact that waste incineration is mentioned in the annexure A of the Protocol as a source of green house gas emissions. Although by now it is fairly well known that carbon trade does not alleviate poverty, Pachauri remains a votary of this trade in the name of poor.

It must be remembered that Pachauri, an Indian engineer and an economist had replaced Robert Watson, a US atmospheric scientist in 2002 as the Chairman of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Watson has been the chairman of IPCC since 1996. Pachauri received 76 votes as a result of George Bush administration’s reported campaign against Watson who got only 49 votes. At the behest of fossil fuel lobby, the US campaign worked on a strategy for Watson’s removal to ensure industry friendly officials at IPCC. The world's biggest oil company, Exxon-Mobil among others had proposed this strategy in liaison with oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia. His industry friendly approach manifested itself in all the seminars, conferences and workshops he organized either as IPCC or TERI by taking sponsorship from all those corporations who are known for heinous corporate crimes. When the Indian Ministry of Water Resources Resolution dated 24 February, 2003, made him a member of the Task Force on Interlinking of Rivers project constituted “with a view to bringing about a consensus among the states,” it became evident that he represents corporate interest and not the public interest that has rejected the mega project. A December 2002 resolution of Government of India has presented it as a panacea of all water problems that cannot be questioned.

Mukesh Ambani, Chairman and Managing Director, Reliance Industries Limited in his speech “Transforming India Towards a New Development Model” on 21st August 2007 said, “We can converge civil engineering and agriculture to build a trans-India water resources system. This can be done by linking rivers on an unprecedented scale. It can result in adequate water resources for agriculture, particularly to put marginal land to productive use and benefit marginal farmers.” He was speaking at the sixth Darbari Seth Memorial Lecture organized by TERI.

Pachauri, TERI, Ambani and others who support the ecologically disastrous networking of rivers project ignore the way it would contribute to global warming by replumbing of the earth and rewriting of geography. Among other environmentally destructive consequences, it is noteworthy that Prof V. Rajamani of Jawaharlal Nehru University had brought out consequences of the proposed project on the South West monsoon. Unmindful of the fact that one of the major outcomes of `development' is water-scarcity, according to Pachauri this mega project would flood proof and drought proof the country, improve agriculture through canal irrigation, provide alternative transport, additional electricity, higher GDP growth, employment etc. What he does not pay attention to is that these projects cause near total removal of suspended sediment load from the stream flow, which would otherwise get deposited on land through flooding. Consequently, irrigation water would become nutrient depleted and this would necessitate the extensive use of chemical fertilizers for agriculture.

Connecting the rivers is an engineer's dream but Pachauri chooses to remain oblivious of massive human displacement, disappearance of villages, water logging of millions of hectares of agricultural land for the benefit of contractors, engineers and industrialists. According to a report of earth scientists, “The benefits of the monsoon rainfall to the entire ecology of India as well as to the human-centric economy need no reiteration. The adverse effects of reduced run-off to the Bay of Bengal because of river linkages appear to be real.” This report was co-authored by earth scientists such as Prof. Rajamani, U. C. Mohanty, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, R. Ramesh, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, G. S. Bhat, P. N. Vinayachandran and D. Sengupta, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India; Prasanna Kumar, National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, and R. K. Kolli, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune and published in Current Science.

Is it believable that likes of Pachauri, TERI and Ambani do not know about these grave ramifications of their megalomania- a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence?

TERI’s varsity campus not all that ‘green’

New Delhi, September 12 As President Pratibha Patil was inaugurating the new ‘green and cool’ campus of The Energy Resources Institute (TERI) on Thursday, a group of environmentalists were up in arms against what they called “lack of environmental responsibility” in the construction of the university building on the protected ridge area in Vasant Kunj.

A memorandum has also been sent to the President requesting her to put a stop on any further constructions on this 640-hectare ridge area.

“This ‘green building’ was built on the Capital’s most sacred natural heritage, the ‘gloriously pristine’ Delhi Ridge, as it is described in the Masterplan. It is a subterfuge to have a green building that destroys the Green Ridge — our oldest natural heritage”, reads the memorandum .

TERI’s spokesperson Rajeev Chibber contested the argument. He said the new campus is not on the protected area, but just behind it. “The new building is just off the ridge,” he said. “Ours is the first ‘green’ campus in Delhi, which is actually enhancing the whole system with its underground water management system. It enhances the use of renewable sources of energy,” he said.

The area is protected as ridge in the Masterplan: it was demarcated so by the Geographical Survey of India, 1997; as a forest by the Environment Protection and Control Authority, 1999; and as a pure water recharge ‘notified’ area by the Central Groundwater Authority in 2004.

“We find it irresponsible on part of an organisation that talks of combating climate change but does the reverse at home. It is misusing the word ‘green building’ to mislead the public. A green building can never replace a green ridge,” said Diwan Singh of the Ridge Bachao Andolan.

“It is also a vital water recharge area with an ability to recharge up to 80 per cent of rain that falls on it (according to a 2004 CGWA report). It can give USD 2 billion worth of pure mineral water to the city if preserved,” said Dr Vikram Soni, Research Scientist with the National Physical Laboratory.

Read more...

Kosi Deluge: The Worst is Yet to Come

Not only has Delhi got its flood action plan consistently wrong over the years, so has Patna. Consequently, it becomes convenient to transfer the entire blame on Kathmandu that was party to a mistake when it was first conceived in 1954. The Fact Finding Mission was aghast to observe that neither central nor Bihar government `conducts any survey to assess the effect of flood control measures on socio-economic condition of the society'. The same holds true for Nepal as well.

The Fact Finding Mission Report "Kosi Deluge: The Worst is Still to Come", asserts that embankments are the root cause of the present crises. It seeks firm policy decisions to remedy the situation. Though considered unlawful, trapped communities have time and again engaged in creating artificial breaches for draining their accumulated water from their surroundings. The general perception favours removal of embankments provided the act of demolishing does not create undesired conditions.

There is a precedence of embankment demolition in India. The embankments created along a length of 32 kilometers on river Damodar in 1854 were demolished in the year 1869. The British had soon realized that far from controlling floods, the embankments were submerging fertile lands for which the colonial rulers were forced to provide compensation. The first-ever compensation of Rs 60,000 on account of submergence due to embankment failure was given to a farmer in 1896 in then Bardwan district.

After their failure to tame rivers Rhine and Meuse, the Dutch hydrocracy has now adopted spatial flood protection measures called `room for the river'. The new approach not only warrants informed public debate but is based on broad political support. It is measures like these that need to be discussed and negotiated with communities in north Bihar, but not before the political stables in Patna (and in Delhi) get cleansed of their misconceptions!

Unless the erring officials and institutions are held accountable, not only will the folly of the past get repeated but fresh approaches and strategies would be hard to implement. It is clear from the origin, functions and constitution of the institutions dealing with water resources. They are all structured for planning, design and implementation of large projects. It is also clear that they do not even intend to be participation oriented or open bodies. These institutions have failed to encompass the needs, resources and priorities of whole river basin. Therefore, a complete overhaul of the existing institutions is a dire necessity.

Any judicial or executive probe that does not fix criminal liability is suspect because the fate such commissions and committees are a foregone conclusion. It is a routine exercise of no consequence. However, since the terms of reference of Justice Rajesh Balia Commission are clearly focused on Kosi High-Level Committee, a multilateral body, it merits some attention. But the biggest limitation of any such Commission is that it does not and cannot question the institutional status quo that is guilty of perpetuating the crisis. Hundreds of such reports prepared by Commissions of all ilk gather dust and are moth eaten. At most they become campaign tools during elections. Thus, one does all the running with all of one's might just to stay where one has always been.

A look at the statements of the Indian Prime Minister, the Nepalese Prime Minister and the Bihar Chief Minister demonstrates how they remain dedicated to the technocentric approaches that caused the calamity in the first place.

After the breach in the embankment at Kusaha in the Kosi region, Bihar Chief Minister requested India's External Affairs Minister on 19 August, 2008 to approach Nepal Government to ensure law and order as per Kosi Agreement in order to repair the breach that took place in Nepal. On 16 August, 2008 an FIR was lodged in Laukahi Police Station in Sunsari district of Nepal against anti-social elements who created such as situation that all the engineers had to run away from their pots.

On 20 August, 2008, Nepal Minister took stock of the post-calamity situation in the Kosi region and said "Koshi agreement was a historic blunder" and "People are suffering due to this agreement". The agreement led to the construction of embankments and proposals for a high dam.

Following an aerial survey of the flood affected areas of Bihar by the Indian Prime Minister on August 28, 2008, termed the flood crisis as "a national calamity" and announced immediate release of Rupees 1000 crores to the Government of Bihar for rescue and relief.

It is noteworthy that National Common Minimum Programme of the Government of India announced in 2004 made a solemn pledge to the people of the country to undertake "Long-pending schemes in specific states that have national significance, like …flood control and drainage in North Bihar (that requires cooperation with Nepal as well)." More than four years have passed since the Indian Prime Minister made the promise and now in August 2008 he has declared, "A high-level team would be set up to coordinate matters with the Government of Nepal." He also promised "necessary material and technical assistance to the State Government to prevent further deterioration in the embankments and protective structures." Such dangling of carrots and providing Band Aid remedies are manifestly insincere and it has been going on for over 60 years.

Earlier, Indian government has provided grant assistance to Nepal for the construction of river embankments and emergent works in Nepal in response to the request made by the Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of Nepal on 7 July, 2008.

All this clearly demonstrates how although the more things change on the ground, the more they remain the same. While the repairs works are underway and will most likely be completed by March 2009 as an immediate protection measure, the Fact Finding Mission on Kosi that visited the flood affected parts of North Bihar and Nepal demands a white paper on the current deluge and drainage in the Kosi basin in particular and North Bihar & Nepal in general in order to address the drainage congestion crisis that has resulted from current policies. It must diagnose the problem and the adverse consequences of the so-called solutions that have caused huge increase in the flood prone area.

The report argues that while flood control measures like dams, embankments and their repairs can provide temporary respite. It is a phenomenon that needs long term careful micro level study of the factors causing shift in the course of the river. There has to be an acknowledgement that even if one fills the breach in the dam/embankment the problem does not get solved forever. Even when one chooses to ignore changing morphology, the estimated lifespan of a dam and embankment is 25 years and 37 years respectively underlines the transitory nature of technocentric interventions.

Following the eighth breach in th embankments, besides 4 panchayats in Nepal, four North Bihar districts- Saharsa, Supaul, Madhepura and Araria- got worst affected by floods. In addition to these twelve districts -- Purnia, Katihar, Khagaria, Muzaffarpur, West Champaran, Saran, Sheikhpura, Vaishali, Begusarai, Bhagalpur, Patna and Nalanda are affected by the floods as well. An estimated 35 lakh people have suffered due to the flood crisis. As per Bihar government own reports, last year 48 lakh people in 22 districts were in need of assistance due to flood. Clearly, it is not the extent but the unpredictable intensity of the crisis that makes it a catastrophe. The primary function of floodwater is to drain out excess water. It has not been allowed to perform its functions due to engineering interventions. The same fate awaits Bagmati and Mahananda region.

No embankment has yet been built or can be built in future that will not breach. The collapse of the Kosi river embankment and the rationale for proposed high dams was created by the previous Nepalese and Indian governments that did not realize that Kosi cannot be tamed.

Given its distinct geo-morphological features and complicated hydrological characters, the Kosi is one of the Himalayan rivers that has yet to be understood in its entirety. It is high time policy makers gave up their outdated "conquest over nature" paradigm and acknowledge `we shall have to learn to live with floods'.

Read more...

Environmental Regulation Lagging Behind

The 141 page Report of THE STEERING COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS SECTOR
FOR THE ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN (2007-2012)prepared by Planning Commission
in March, 2007 deals with Environment and Development and refers to "The regulatory challenge" and states:

"In the past some years, intensive economic growth, which has increased economic
wealth, has led to massive pollution and degradation of the natural environment. One of the main reasons for this is that the regulatory and Institutional framework to control pollution and degradation of natural resources is unable to keep pace with the rapidly changing economic, social and environmental situation in the country."

"The number of polluting activities -- and the quantum of pollution generated -- has increased in the last several years. Furthermore, newer and newer environmental challenges are thrown up – from solid waste disposal, to disposal and recycling of hazardous waste, to toxins like mercury, dioxins and activities like ship-breaking to management of vehicular pollution."

Read more...

Officials in dock for dumping waste in lake

LUCKNOW: Expressing deep anguish on the dumping of municipal solid waste in an ancient lake situated in the Smriti Upvan, a memorial constructed in the memory of Kargil war martyrs on Kanpur Road, the high court on Wednesday directed parade of top officials of the Mayawati government.

The division bench, comprising Justice Pradeep Kant and Justice Ved Pal, summoned the vice-chairman of Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and municipal commissioner on Friday to explain the apathy and disrespect shown to the memorial, a project undertaken by former chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav in 2006.

Irked at the functioning of LDA, the judges passed strong remark against it saying that "it has made the capital city a mess". The judges wanted to know from the state government as to who was the exact authority responsible for the dumping in the ancient lake.

The orders came on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition preferred by 1971 war Veer Chakra awardee Lieutenant Colonel (retd) RP Chaturvedi and Colonel (retd) Satyaveer Singh Yadav. Samajwadi Party leader and senior lawyer Virendra Bhatia, assisted by IP Singh, argued that the present government in an autocratic manner was adamant on destroying the ancient Akhal Lake' situated within the ‘Smriti Upvan' set up in the memory of Kargil war martyrs.

Bhatia said that the lake was being levelled up with municipal solid waste ignoring the fact that it might harm the quality of ground water. The PIL, which was based on a news item published in the September 6 edition of ‘The Times of India', pleaded that the state government was ignoring the contribution of Kargil martyrs by dumping garbage at the spot dedicated to their memory.

TOI

Read more...

Bill to curb plastic bags use in Delhi

Note: A committee, set up at the behest of High Court, comprising members from Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) had also not favoured degradable plastics bags observing that “there were no BIS standards for such quality.''

Plastic bags are not bio-degradable whatever the thickness is. There is also no such thing as degradable plastic. The solution lies in complete ban on plastic bags to prevent plastic waste from choking drains and land. In its report, the committee said “the chaos and problems caused by the use of plastic bags in the city are primarily on account of waste generated by plastic bags which needs efficient handling by the authorities.''


NEW DELHI: The city government has approved four bills, including one on controlling use of degradable plastic bags, which will be presented in the forthcoming session of the Delhi assembly.

The Delhi legislative assembly begins its session Sep 10 and the bills to be tabled are: Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions Bill 2008; Delhi Degradable Plastic Bag and Garbage Amendment Bill 2008; a bill for setting up University for Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research; and a bill for Establishment of Delhi Higher Education Council.

"The main aim behind introduction of Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions Bill 2008 is to stop incidents leading to violence and damage in the hospitals these days," a Delhi government spokesperson said after a cabinet meeting.

"The increase in incidents of violence has resulted in unrest among medicare personnel and disruption of medicare services and inconvenience to members of general public," added the spokesperson.

The cabinet decided to introduce during the forthcoming assembly session the Delhi Degradable Plastic Bag (Manufacture, Sales and Usage) and Garbage (Control) (Amendment) Bill, 2008.

The amended bill provides that no person shall manufacture, stock, distribute or sell plastic bags made of virgin or recycled, degradable or non-degradable plastic bags, which are less than 20cm X30 cm in size and with thickness less than 40 microns.

"It also provides that the plastic bag manufactured out of virgin plastic shall be of natural or white colour," the spokesperson further said.

"The University for Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research would facilitate and promote teaching, research, incubation and extension work in pharmaceutical sciences and its application domains," the spokesperson added.

Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit said the cabinet decided to introduce the Delhi Higher Education Council Bill 2008 in the assembly with an aim to achieve globally competitive standards of higher education in the national capital.

Small plastic bags, big fines

9 Sep 2008

NEW DELHI: The small coloured polybags, a common sight at your neighbourhood corner shop or at the stalls of vegetable vendors in your colony market, may soon disappear. Also, violation of norms under certain sections of the draft Delhi Degradable Plastic Bag (manufacture , sales & usage) and Garbage (Control) Amendment Bill 2008 approved by the Delhi cabinet on Monday can attract a penalty ranging between Rs 500 and Rs 5000 and a prison term upto 15 days.

In keeping with the directions of Delhi High Court and suggestions made by the Lieutenant-Governor , the Delhi cabinet on Monday put its stamp of approval on the draft Bill that lays down a more stringent code for manufacturers and users. The draft Bill will be tabled before the Delhi assembly in the three-day session that begins on Wednesday.

The draft stipulates that no person shall manufacture, stock, distribute or sell plastic bags made of virgin or recycled, degradable or non-degradable plastic which are less than 20x30 centimetres in size and with thickness less than 40 microns . It further lays down that plastic bags manufactured out of virgin plastic shall be of natural or white colour.

The restriction on size seeks the end of small thin polybags that are the most commonly used plastic bags and a big threat to environment since they are disposed of in large numbers daily and are non-biodegradable . A large number of plastic bags that are in circulation in the small colony markets are thinner than 40 microns and mostly manufactured at illegal units. There are hardly any degradable plastic bags in use.

By ensuring that the bags have to be at least 40 microns thick, Delhi government hopes to reverse the trend of using plastic bags. According to officials , the thick and large bags are not disposed of quite often and are easily picked up by ragpickers when they are finally discarded.

The condition that bags made of virgin plastic (firsttime manufactured bags that are not recycled) should be of natural or white colour is to guard against coloured plastic that poses a threat since the additives in colour can be toxic.

Besides this, the draft lays down that no licence granted upto now shall entitle any person to start or carry out the business to manufacture for sale or use any recycled plastic bags for storing, carrying or packing of foodstuff within Delhi.

For ensuring proper disposal of biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes, the Bill not only proposes separate garbage depots but also calls for inclusion of samagri (religious materials) in the category of disposables.

As far as recycled bags go, the Bill states that they should be coloured in accordance with the stipulated norms. Such bags will bear the name of the manufacturer and state clearly that they cannot be used for carrying edible stuff.

DRAFTING A TOUGH LAW

In 2000, Delhi assembly enacted the Delhi Plastic Bag (manufacture, sales and usage) and Nonbiodegradable Garbage (control) Act 2000. The Act was amended in 2004

In keeping with Delhi High Court's orders and the Lieutenant-Governor's directions, further amendments were sought. Name changed to Delhi Degradable Plastic Bag (manufacture, sales and usage) and Garbage (control) (Amendment) Bill 2008. To be tabled before the assembly for approval this week

The amendment seeks to make small, thin and coloured polybags extinct

Violation of norms under certain sections of the draft Bill can attract penalties ranging between Rs 500 (for first offence) & Rs 5000 for second offence. One can also go to jail for up to 15 days

The draft Bill says no person shall manufacture, stock, distribute or sell plastic bags made of virgin or recycled, degradable or non-degradable plastic which are less than 20x30 centimetres in size and have thickness less than 40 microns

It also lays down that plastic bags manufactured out of virgin plastic shall be of natural or white colour.

Read more...

UK High Court action launched to prevent toxic French ship coming

Posted: 2008/09/04

A local environmentalist group Wednesday launched a legal challenge to prevent a toxic French aircraft carrier from being imported into the UK to be dismantled.

Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), on behalf of the Friends of Hartlepool, said the ship was contaminated with an estimated 760 tonnes of asbestos and 330 tonnes of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

It is 'one of the largest and the most infamous toxic ships in Europe and has long been the source of embarrassment for the French government', PIL said.

The legal challenge at the High Court in London comes after the government's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) HSE granted toxic ship-breaking company, Able UK, based in Hartlepool, northeast England, an exemption to import the toxic ship in June.

Three years ago, France caused international outrage when it attempted to illegally export the aircraft carrier, named The Clemenceau, to be broken up in India.

It was not until after a widespread global campaign that the plan was abandoned. The Clemenceau was even refused permission to be towed through the Suez Canal back to France.

"We feel that it is a deep injustice to force a small town -- which has already disproportionately suffered the ill-effects of polluting industries and has one of the highest cancer rates in the UK -- to accept France's toxic waste," Friends of Hartlepool said.

Iris Ryder from the campaign group said the legal challenge is the 'beginning of a new stage in the fight by Hartlepool residents to prevent our community from becoming the international toxic waste dumping ground of choice of both governments and polluting industries'.

"Toxic waste should be disposed of close to where it is produced, not transported around the world to be buried in our community," Ryder said.

Able UK itself was prosecuted by the UK's Environment Agency last year for unlawfully dumping asbestos after being found to have imported toxic American warships into Hartlepool in 2003 without the required planning permission.

Phil Shiner of PIL, who is UK Solicitor of the Year, said the legal challenge raises 'significant public-interest environmental issues and is a case where the HSE have clearly failed to follow their own policy on granting exemptions'.

"When, as in this case, the facilities exist within France to dispose of the toxic waste aboard the Clemenceau, the HSE has a duty to consider these alternatives before allowing the ship and it's carcinogenic cargo to be imported," Shiner said.

In recent years, Pil has become renowned for raising human rights cases against the British government, especially over its conduct of the Iraq war. --IRNA

Mathaba.Net

Read more...

Britain dumps its garbage on Indian soil

LONDON/NEW DELHI: Garbage is literally flying and hitting the roof thousands of kilometres away. A TV report about household waste collected weekly across Britain for recycling being shipped and dumped in India has the green brigade up in arms.

As part of Britain's efforts to go green and improve the environment, UK councils ask households to carefully separate waste into different categories: plastics, metal, paper and glass so that they can be recycled.

But, according to an investigation by a British TV channel, these bags are shipped to India on the waste black market, which is cheaper. It costs up to £148 (Rs 12,000) to recycle a tonne of rubbish once it is separated but only £40 (Rs 2,800) to ship it to India.

The investigation found that a receipt put into a paper recycling bin in Essex turned up at the top of a stinking rubbish mound in Tamil Nadu. It was traced to the Walton-on-the-Naze home of Geoff Moore.

His receipt for CDs was found by investigators at a sprawling rubbish heap in Tamil Nadu. They also found juice cartons, British newspapers, Walkers crisp packets, UK school reports and plastic bags.

"International waste follows the path of least resistance just like water. India has little resistance to imports of waste," said Gopal Krishna, environmental health researcher at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. "In fact in India there has been an attempt to alter the very definition of waste in order to keep the waste streams flowing. In the last meeting of the Basel Convention, which bans export of hazardous waste from rich to poor countries, the Indian government said that it encouraged trade in recyclable 'metal scrap'. They defined the problem in a way as to justify its continuation."

India has still not ratified the Basel Convention (Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal) which would have made it mandatory for India to change its domestic laws and stop this nefarious and dangerous trade.

Syamala Mani, director of waste and resource management group at the Centre for Environment Education describes it as dangerous and harmful. "In the garb of municipal waste we end up with dangerous chemicals like plastics and containers that have been used for hazardous chemicals."

Mani said unscrupulous traders grind this and reproduce recycled containers that could then be used to carry food items causing immense risk to public health.

"Biomedical waste and heavy metals too find their way into India through this waste. And we don't even have a single formal metal recovery waste unit in India. All of it is done cheaply in the unregulated sector, which releases the polluting by-products in the air we breathe and the water in our rivers."

Groups in Tamil Nadu have been trying to fight imported waste that’s steadily piling up in the state.

According to a report, about 180 tonnes of US waste was dumped into farm wells near Coimbatore and another 1,000 tonnes is rotting in Tuticorin port. Two cases relating to waste dumping have come up in TN courts recently — one challenging a panchayat decision to cancel a license given to White Star Fibres Ltd for sorting waste paper.

All UK councils are required to recycle. But after householders separate their rubbish and bin workers collect it, councils pass it on to waste firms, who in turn use subcontractors. They are under no obligation to reveal what they actually do with it.

European Union bans sending waste abroad for dumping but allows it to go overseas if it has already been separated and provided that it is actually recycled.

After the TV report, Britain's Environment Agency promised to investigate the matter. Paul Bettison of the Local Government Authority Environment Board called for a change in the law and said, "If a contractor refuses to reveal where materials are being sold it can undermine the whole process."

9 Sep 2008
The Times of India

Note: India has ratified Basel Convention. But it does not have much value because it has not ratified the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention that effectively banned as of 1 January 1998, all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to all non-OECD countries

Brief: Following its adoption in 1989, the Basel Convention was denounced as an instrument that served more to legitimize hazardous waste trade rather than to prohibit what many felt was a criminal activity.Finally, in 1994, a unique coalition of developing countries, and some from Eastern and Western Europe managed to pass by consensus what has come to be known as the Basel Ban (Decision II/12).

This victory for international environmental justice was achieved despite powerful opposition from such countries as the United States, Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom.

The Basel Ban decision effectively banned as of 1 January 1998, all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to all non-OECD countries.

Following this decision, opponents of the ban argued that the 1994 decision was not legally binding unless it became part of the Basel Convention through amendment. Thus in 1995 the ban decision had to be fought and won again despite massive opposition from such countries as the United States, South Korea, Australia and Canada and a very vocal industrial lobby. The second decision to amend the Convention (Decision III/1) was also passed by a consensus of the Basel Convention Parties.

Unfortunately,the Basel Ban is still under serious attack and needs to be vigilantly protected against further efforts at sabotage primarily by the United States, Australia, Canada and such industrial lobby groups as the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the International Chamber of Commerce. Further, in order for the amendment to enter the force of law it will need to be ratified by 62 of the Basel Parties.

Pursuant to a the phrase "Parties having accepted them" found in Article 17, paragraph 5 of the Basel Convention, it is clear that the Parties intended a "fixed time" approach, regarding entry into force of amendments. Thus three-fourths (3/4) of the Parties that accepted the amendment at COP3, need to deposit their instrument of ratification, approval, formal confirmation or acceptance with the Depositary for the amendment to enter into legal force.

82 Parties were present at the Third Conference of Parties (COP3) of the Basel Convention when the ban amendment was accepted by consensus decision. 3/4 of 82 Parties is 61.5, or 62 Parties. Therefore, 62 Parties that were present at COP3 need to deposit their instrument of ratification with the depositary for the ban amendment to enter into force.

Currently 63 Parties have deposited their instrument of ratification of the ban amendment with the depositary. However, of these 63 Parties, 44 of them were present at COP3 when the ban amendment was accepted and adopted. Consequently, 18 additional Parties present at COP3 need to ratify the Ban amendment for its entry into force.

Read more...

Delhi residents oppose waste-burning power plant

The Associated Press
September 1, 2008

NEW DELHI: India's capital has a lot of garbage and far too little power.

This is a city where many neighborhoods go without power for hours
every day and where enormous piles of garbage mix with summer
temperatures that can soar to 113 degrees Fahrenheit (45 degrees
Celsius), creating a stew of putrid smells and swarming flies.

So a decision by the New Delhi government to build a 2 billion rupee
(US$45.5 million) power plant that would burn thousands of tons of
garbage every day and produce some of that much-needed electricity
seemed like the ideal solution to both problems.

Except, critics say, there is little chance anything will come from
this plant but noxious fumes and wasted money.

"It's just a knee-jerk response to not being able to handle municipal
waste. And we're a power-hungry country," said Kushalpal Singh Yadav,
a coordinator with the independent Center for Science and Environment,
one of India's most respected environmental groups. "I'm very, very
skeptical that this kind of technology will ever work."

While garbage-to-energy plants have worked elsewhere around the world,
they have failed repeatedly in India, where residents sell most of
their waste to recyclers. That leaves household garbage largely made
up of moist food waste and un-recyclable — and often dangerous —
products like used batteries.

At best, such garbage is poorly suited to the hot fires needed to
produce electricity, critics say. At worst, it's dangerous.

"It creates a cocktail of toxins which have in the past led to health
problems ranging from cancer to skin rashes to stillbirths," said
Gopal Krishna, an environmental health expert working with several
residents' groups that oppose the project.

Yadav noted that New Delhi had a failed plant that used similar
technology in the late 1980s, and another plant in southern Andhra
Pradesh state is also stalled.

Then there are the problems most obvious to the low-income and
middle-class neighborhoods that surround the area where the plant is
slated to be erected.

"The smell of the garbage is already overwhelming," said Arif Khan, a
resident of the Gaffar Manzil neighborhood, which shares a boundary
wall with the site and is already home to a garbage recycling
facility. "When 2,000 tons of garbage arrives in trucks here every
day, I don't know how we'll manage."

From the balconies of the small homes that crowd the periphery of the
proposed plant site, the view is a sea of rotting garbage. The stench
and swarms of flies make it hard to even open your mouth.

So why build the plant, which is expected to start working in early 2010?

India's economy has grown at an average of 8.8 percent for the last
five years, according to government data, and more power is
desperately needed, both by its growing middle class and industry.

During peak hours, demand outstrips supply by as much as 25 percent in
some parts of the country, causing frequent outages and forcing
shutdowns at factories and business establishments.

The country, which depends mostly on coal-fired generating stations,
needs hundreds of new power plants over the next five years to end the
massive electricity shortages that threaten to derail the quick clip
at which its economy is growing, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said
last year.

"If we expect our economy to keep growing at 9 percent to 10 percent
annually, we need a commensurate growth in power supply," Singh said
at a government meeting.

By 2012, India will need to generate at least 200,000 megawatts of
power to eliminate shortages, Singh said. Currently, the country has a
total capacity of 130,000 megawatts.

India's power production is mostly run by cash-strapped state
governments. Although the power sector was opened to private
investment more than a decade ago, few companies have built new plants
because of regulatory bottlenecks.

The New Delhi government, for its part, insists the garbage-to-power
project will work — and that environmental and health assessments make
clear the project is safe.

"We had done an impact assessment survey before the project, and we
have taken due precautions that it doesn't impact the ecology or
environment of the neighborhoods," said Deep Chand Mathur, a spokesman
for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which is one of the government
departments behind the project.

"The site itself was identified after a lot of studies," he said.

Of the plant's proximity to homes, Mathur said the city is very short
of suitable land.

Residents, though, say the city simply ignores them.

Last week, hundreds of residents staged a rally to protest the plant,
but are still stonewalled by officials. Khan said that after dozens of
letters and appeals the protesters were waiting for a meeting to be
scheduled with officials senior enough to make a difference.

"No one from the government has so far met us to hear our complaints,"
he said.

International Herald Tribune

Read more...