Waste to Energy Case

The matter of waste to energy is once again coming up before the Delhi High Court on 27/11/2009. Earlier, the case W.P.(C) 9901/2009 and CM No. 8154/2009 was heard by Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Manmohan Singh. The order was paased on 12.08.2009.

The order reads: "Learned Additional Solicitor General inform us that the project in question is one of the pilot projects recommended by the Expert Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and two similar projects at Vijayawada and Hyderabad as recommended by the Committee have started functioning. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that so far as the present
project is concerned, all the necessary permissions have been taken from the concerned authorities and the technicalities adopted for this project is similar to the projects at Vijayawada and Hyderabad. In our view, it is not possible for this Court to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition and application are dismissed."

Now a review petition has been filed which is slated for hearing tomorrow.

Read more...

Rage over waste

A village asks Bengaluru civic body to shut illegal landfill

A MEETING between the residents of Mavallipura village in Karnataka and Bengaluru municipal officials on October 7 ended in a row when the residents refused to let the officials go unless they promised to close down a waste dumpsite in the village. They alleged the illegal landfill, used to dump Bengaluru city’s waste, is contaminating their waterbodies, fouling paddy fields and making them ill.


The officials were released after police intervention and cases have been lodged against several villagers. Two leaders of the agitating group, Dalit Sangarsh Samithi (DSS), were arrested the next morning and later released on bail. B Srinivas, one of the arrested villagers, said the corporation has been illegally dumping Bengaluru’s waste 20 km away in Mavallipura since 2003 after a village resident, Bylappa, gave the corporation some 16 ha on lease. Bylappa claimed the land belonged to him. In 2005, an enquiry by Environment Support Group (ESG), a non-profit, revealed the land is forestland. “The corporation’s contract with Bylappa was illegal,” said Leo Saldanha of ESG.

Following this revelation in 2007, the corporation identified a 40 ha land adjacent to Bylappa’s land and gave it to Ramky Enviro Engineers, a waste management company in Hyderabad, to develop a landfill facility. “The new landfill is also illegal,” alleged Srinivas. It is the community grazing field of the village. Moreover, Ramky’s landfill does not conform to waste management rules: it is not lined at the bottom and leachate (liquid discharged from landfill) often contaminates groundwater, he said. The villagers grew angry when in early October the leachate pond breached its boundary and fouled waterbodies and farmlands in the village. Most villagers now suffer from water-borne and respiratory diseases, said Dhanraj of DSS. The pollution has also affected seven other villages where kidney failure, cancer and meningitis have become common, said Dhanraj.

Saldanha added: The region is a critically-polluted area in Karnataka. Tests conducted in 2006 showed high-levels of toxins in water; 100 trucks used to dump waste in the landfill every day (see box). In the past three years, the number of trucks dumping waste has doubled. And the toxin levels must have gone up several times. Executive director of Ramky Enviro Engineers, M G Reddy, said the landfill is scientifically managed; a lining prevents leachate from fouling the groundwater.

Municipal commissioner B L Meena acknowledged the pollution. As per his order, insecticides were sprayed across the village and doctors visited for health check-ups. But the villagers want the landfill to be closed for ever. They also want the corporation to compensate and rehabilitate those suffering from diseases caused by years of pollution.

Nidhi Jamwal
Down To Earth

Read more...

Radioactive cargo & steel

MV Garlan, a Maltese-registered vessel is being checekd after reports that it could be carrying radioactive material, the Press Trust of India said this morning. The MV Garlan was on its way from Vishakapatnam and docked in the Chennai Port limits. "Experts from Kalpakkam nuclear plant are expected to make a thorough check to ascertain whether it is carrying radioactive material," officials were quoted as saying. Among other inquiries they would use the current version of the "Geiger counter" which is called the halogen counter. It measures ionizing radiation. Geiger counters can detect photons, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, but not neutrons.

In India adequate safeguards have not been built against dangers of radiation poisoning, a form of damage to organ tissue due to excessive exposure to ionizing radiation. This can result in both acute and chronic problems. The clinical name for radiation sickness is acute radiation syndrome (ARS). The chronic radiation syndrome has been observed among workers across the globe. The radiation exposure is normally expressed as a committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE). It has been found in radiation biology experiments that if a group of cells are irradiated, then as the dose increases, the number of cells which survive decreases. It has also been found that if a population of cells is given a dose before being set aside (without being irradiated) for a length of time before being irradiated again, then the radiation causes less cell death. The human body contains many types of cells and a human can be killed by the loss of a single type of cells in a vital organ. For many short term radiation deaths (3 days to 30 days), the loss of cells forming blood cells (bone marrow) and the cells in the digestive system (microvilli which form part of the wall of the intestines are constantly being regenerated in a healthy human) causes death.

Radiation exposure can also increase the probability of contracting some other diseases, mainly cancer, tumours, and genetic damage. These are referred to as the stochastic effects of radiation, and are not included in the term radiation sickness.

The use of radionuclides in science and industry is strictly regulated in most countries (in the U.S. by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). In the event of an accidental or deliberate release of radioactive material, either evacuation or sheltering in place are the recommended measures.

While investigations are on, it would be relevant to examine the phenomenon of radioactive steel. Most recently, the issue of radioactive material in the US ship named Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) was recognized by the Union Environment Ministry but so far no prevent steps have been taken to avoid such cases in future.

Does any one know about the radioactive contaminated lift buttons from India making French workers suffer? And similar incidents being reported from Russia and Sweden.

Hazardous wastes case came up for final hearing for disposal on October 19, 2008 in the Supreme Court wherein I had raised the issue of radioactive materials in the shipbreaking industry. But the hearing did not proceed further.

Pollutants of all ilk are passengers without passports. Howsoever, the free trade fundamentalists may try, cost externalisation of pollution gets internalised in myriad ways.

Lift buttons made of scrap steel were being used by Otis elevators, which was being handled by a French firm. Some 30 workers of their suffered radioactive radiation. Radioactive steel gets produced when radioactive sources containing cobalt gets amalgamated with scrap steel such as the ones sourced from ship-breaking industry and other secondary steel production sources. French nuclear safety authority informed our Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and all other
nuclear countries.

The buttons has been traced to factories near Pune. ERB has issued a letter asking all port agencies to use radioactive monitors but while French workers who suffered are identified, the Indian workers who suffered are yet to be traced. The lift button were contaminated with
Cobalt 60, a by product of nuclear reactors. The radiation was measured between 1 to 3 on a International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

There are 7 levels on the INES scale; 3 incident-levels and 4 accident-levels.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) introduced INES in 1990 in order to enable prompt communication of safety significance information in case of nuclear accidents. The scale is inspired on the Richter scale for earthquakes, each increasing level representing an accident ten times more severe than the previous level. However, compared to earthquakes, where ground elevation is relatively easy to assert, the level of severity of a Man made disaster, such as a
nuclear accident, is more subject to interpretation, and often the INES level of an incident is only assigned well past the incident occurrence. Therefore the scale cannot aid immediate appropriate disaster-control deployment.

When the French ships such as radioactive material laden SS Blue Lady (SS France, SS Norway) and Danish ship RIKY got dumped purportedly for scrap metal in India, the European ship owners must have heaved a sigh of relief because they managed to escape decontamination cost. Little did they realize that the scarp metals would end up in their backyards as lift buttons made of the same contaminated steel.

The French France's Nuclear Safety Authority has detected that the steel lift buttons brought from India contained traces of radioactive Cobalt 60. It has alerted the Indian authorities about the radioactive buttons. The original complain was from Otis firm, a French subsidiary of the US company. The factory belonging to Mafelec company, which delivers the buttons to Otis noticed in early October. Nuclear Safety Authority classed the incident at a factory of the Mafelec firm in the east-central town of Chimilin at level two on the seven-level International Nuclear Event Scale. It said that of 30 workers exposed, 20 had been exposed to doses of between one mSv (milli-Sievert) and three mSv. The maximum permitted dose for workers in the non-nuclear
sector is one mSv.

Radioactive cobalt-60 was discovered in the late 1930's in the US. Gamma rays are produced following the decay of radioactive materials such as cobalt-60.

Because it decays by gamma radiation, external exposure to large sources of Co-60 can cause skin burns, acute radiation sickness, or death. Most Co-60 that is ingested is excreted in the feces; however, a small amount is absorbed by the liver, kidneys, and bones. Co-60 absorbed by the liver, kidneys, or bone tissue can cause cancer because of exposure to the gamma radiation. The magnitude of the health risk depends on the quantity of cobalt-60 involved and on exposure conditions such as length of exposure, distance from the source (for external exposure) and whether the cobalt-60 was ingested or inhaled. Medical test can determine exposure to cobalt-60 but it requires special laboratory equipment that are not routinely available in hospitals.

Radioactive Co-60 is produced commercially through linear acceleration for use in medicine and industry. It is also a byproduct of nuclear reactor operations, when metal structures, such as steel rods, are exposed to neutron radiation.

Otis Elevator Company. lifts in France has been traced to a foundry in Maharashtra. There is a foundry near Khopoli on the way to Pune from Mumbai called Vipras, which melted this scrap. French firm Mafelec delivered thousands of lift buttons to Otis. Otis has said it is now in the process of removing the buttons, after the Nuclear Safety Authority announced on Tuesday that 20 workers who handled the lift buttons had been exposed to excessive levels of radiation.

The components used by Mafelec were supplied by two Indian firms, which purchased the inputs from SKM Steels Ltd, which in turn worked with foundry Vipras Casting Foundry. Vipras was provided scarp by SKM Steels to convert into bars. Currently, it is not mandatory for Indian foundries to install radiation detectors to check scrap metals.

It may be remembered that although the factory explosions of October 2004 in the missile scrap metal imported without detection by the Bhushan Steel Ltd in Ghaziabad, UP had compelled governmental responses at the highest level both in the state and at the centre but it has been to no avail. No visible police action or remedial action was taken beyond routine posturing. In this case too in all likelihood it would meet the same fate.

Scrap metal and its contamination comes under the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, but this incident and several others in the recent past illustrate that the Rules offers no resistance to transboundary movement of hazardous
and radioactive contaminated scrap materials. According to the Rules, it does not matter if contaminated "recyclable scarp metal"/hazardous waste comes without prior decontamination in the country of export although it is in manifest contempt of Supreme Court's directions in
its order dated 14 October, 2003 in Writ Petition (Civil) 657 of 1995.

Radioactive contamination is dealt under Radiation Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules, 1987 that deals with the radioactive waste, not with radioactive contaminated finished products. The framers of both the Rules were oblivious to a situation where hazardous waste (recyclable metal scrap, according to Environment Ministry) and the products made out of it would be contaminated with radioactive materials.

Hazardous Waste Rules lays down the procedure for import of hazardous waste and how it would facilitate the same by providing administrative mechanism to ensure that even Port and Customs authorities ensure compliance when hazardous waste is imported by paying lip service seeking "safe handling". After creating the loophole it says, Custom authorities would take samples as per Customs Act 1962 prior to clearing the assignments. Technical Review Committee of Ministry of
Environment & Forests as noted in the Rules should now show its sense of purpose by finding out where did the radioactive materials come from in the lift buttons made of scrap steel.

The case illustrates how even the new Rules remain full of loopholes. One would have been surprised, had it not been so because the Ministry defines hazardous waste as recyclable metal...and then asks agencies Customs and Atomic Energy Regulatory Board to probe the onsequences of the flawed Rules. The Hazardous Waste Rules do not apply to radioactive waste as covered under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962) and rules made there under. Consequently, Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules, 1987 apply to it.

But neither the Hazardous Waste Rules nor the Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Rules seem to have foreseen a situation where metal scrap products are found to be contaminated with radioactive materials although while providing the definition, the Radioactive waste Rules, it says, "radioactive waste" means any waste material containing radionuclides in quantities or concentrations as prescribed by the competent authority by notification in the official gazette".

Read more...

Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill on the Anvil

The legislative and financial items identified by the Government for being taken up during the Winter Session--the third of the 15th Lok Sabha and the 218th session of the Rajya Sabha--include the Rubber (Amendment) Bill, the National Green Tribunal Bill, the National Commission for Minorities Educational Institutions (Amendment) Bill, the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill and the Land Ports Authority of India Bill, allof which are pending in the Lok Sabha.

Bills pending in the Rajya Sabha include the Seeds Bill, the Pesticides Management Bill, the Legal Metrology Bill, the National Commission for Heritage Sites Bill, the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Bill, the Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill and the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill.


Note: India’s liability bill is likely to be modeled after a draft prepared by FICCI’s nuclear task force, comprising key beneficiaries namely NPCIL, Tata, Reliance, Larsen & Toubro and Gammon India. FICCI's Working Group on Civil Nuclear Energy –2009 was chaired by Dr. S.K. Jain, CMD, Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd. One get copies of the report from
Mr. Vivek Pandit
Director
FICCI
Phone: 23354801
E-mail:vpandit@ficci.com

Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill on the Anvil

The Government will introduce in coming parliament session the controversial Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill which has raised serious questions over the plans to give access to foreign nuclear companies, particularly those of the United States, without any effort to put them in dock in case of any nuclear accident. The bill will reopen the debate over the nuclear deal and the compensation regime as it is being introduced at the 25th anniversary year of Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

The Bill is seen by its critics as a sell out to the US as it transfers liability on non-operators (the foreign companies) to the operators (the Nuclear Power Corporation). The recent US-India agreement ended a 34-year US moratorium on nuclear trade announced following Inida's first nuclear test in 1974. The deal opens up business opportunity for the US and other foreign companies to sell nuclear technology and equipment to India. India has already selected two sites for the US companies and they can eventually build nuclear power reactors which would result in contracts for companies such as GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse Electric Co.

The US companies are expecting Indian Government to limit liability of private nuclear companies in case of nuclear accidents. The critics of the Bill say that the legislation would lead to "privatization of profit and socialisation of risk." An accident in a nuclear plant could take place because of faulty design or substandard equipment and many argue that the supplier also should be held liable. The department of atomic energy (DAE) will move the Bill in both Houses of Parliament.

*A Time Bomb We Await*

*Hillary Clinton was here to urge a dangerous deal — that the US never has to clean up another Bhopal mess*

THE FALLOUT of Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to India could be dangerously nuclear, literally. Clinton’s India visit had an important agenda – to urge India to pass a law to ensure that a Bhopallike disaster does not trouble its victims for as long as the 25-year-old tragedy has. There is one twist, though. Bhopalis are not the subject of this proposed legislation. Rather,
the ‘victims’ that the two Governments are committed to helping are US multinationals like GE that are champing at the bit to supply nuclear equipment and lure India’s $175 billion nuclear market. India expects to set up 40,000 MW of nuclear power plants over the next 20 years.

The poor little rich American corporations are petulant. State-owned companies like France’s Areva SA and Russia’s Rusatom are already in the race to supply equipment to India. But private sector players like GE and Toshiba Westinghouse say they will not invest until India ratifies the
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSCNL) and installs a domestic civilian nuclear liability regime. They want no part of the liabilities arising out of a Bhopal-like disaster. Rather, they say, the entire liability in the event of a catastrophe should be borne solely by the Indian operator of the facility. Like his predecessor, President Obama is
pushing India to guarantee that the Union Carbides of the nuclear world suffer no losses regardless of the role that may have been played by their equipment or technology in causing the disaster.

Exclusive liability for operators of facilities and supplier immunity may have been the norm in earlier nuclear liability conventions adopted by some nations. “But then, no other nation has suffered a Bhopal like disaser,” states Kanyakumari-based anti-nuke activist S.P. Udayakumar. Indeed, Union Carbide’s decision to deploy flawed design and untested technology contributed substantially to the magnitude of the disaster.

An unnamed minister quoted in a June 27 Business Standard article says the Government has a draft nuclear liability bill ready. “What this will do is indemnify American companies so that they don’t have to go through another Union Carbide in Bhopal,” he said. Local operators, on the other hand, will have to raise $450 million up-front to cover post-disaster compensation costs. Additional costs will have to be borne by Indian taxpayers. The Price-Andersen Act in the US also imposes a similar burden on the American taxpayer. According to Cato Institute, the free market think-tank, this could translate into a subsidy of 2 to 3 US cents for every unit of electricity generated. Another estimate places the annual subsidy extended by the Price Andersen Act to the industry at about $3 billion.

Ironically, the liability cap — $450 million — is exactly what Union Carbide paid for the Bhopal disaster. Whittled down from the original $3 billion that the Government estimated as the cost of compensation, the final settlement when spread across 6 lakh victims amounted to a paltry $500 per
victim – insufficient even to cover a year’s medical bills, leave alone pay for treating sick children born after the disaster.

BHOPAL ACTIVISTS are “disgusted” by the attitudes of the Indian and US Governments. “A nuclear disaster will have far greater impact than Bhopal had. Environmental contamination will spread farther. Bhopal has taught us that $450 million is woefully inadequate to deal with a disaster’s
fallouts,” said Rachna Dhingra of The Bhopal Group for Information and Action. In 2006 and 2008, Bhopal survivors, including children, walked 800 km to Delhi to demand for economic, medical and environmental rehabilitation, provision of clean drinking water, and punishment of the guilty corporations from the Prime Minister. On both occassions, the PM conceded the demands, albeit after making them wait for months on the streets of Jantar Mantar, and suffer police torture. Till date, he has not delivered on his promises.

Contrast this with the speed at which the UPA and the US Governments are moving to appease corporate interests. During his visit to Washington in March 2009, India’s special envoy Shyam Saran told the Americans that progress was being made on the liability law. In April, he said the internal processes for India’s accession to the CSCNL were complete and promised that the law would be enacted after the national elections. During Clinton’s visit, this was a significant point on the agenda.

A panel discussion organised on the eve of Clinton’s visit to New Delhi was openly critical of the proposed liability regime. But the organisers – the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace and the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal – clearly stated that they were not opposed to the concept of a liability regime. “But such a law should be informed by the experiences of disaster victims, rather than be influenced by the interests of corporate perpetrators of such disasters,” a statement by the two organisations clarified.

Such progressive legislation is not without precedent. Post-Chernobyl, the trend in civilian nuclear liability law began tilting towards unlimited liability, and non-exclusive liability. Non-exclusive liability would allow victims to recover compensation from operators under dedicated nuclear liability laws, even while keeping their options open to asserting claims from other defendants under other statutes such as product liability laws. Countries like Japan, Austria, Germany and Switzerland have already done away with the cap on liability.India is asking future victims to make do with a little compensation from their own tax money

Austria, through a 1999 law, additionally opened up liability to suppliers and service providers. None of these countries have ratified any of the international conventions relating to liability because these laws do not adequately address victims’ needs.

India’s liability bill is likely to be modeled after a draft prepared by FICCI’s nuclear task force, comprising key beneficiaries namely NPCIL, Tata, Reliance, Larsen & Toubro and Gammon India. Strangely, all this talk about disaster liability, and the normal tone in which these discussions are being held hides a sinister possibility: That despite all assurances given by
India’s nuclear proponents that a nuclear disaster will not happen, the fact is that the nuclear industry is already negotiating to cut its losses in the event of a such a calamity. Private industries want the business, but don’t want to bear the risks. The Indian nuclear establishment wants the technology, even if it means exposing Indians to the risk of being hurt by a nuclear disaster. Even worse, it is asking future victims to make do with what little compensation may be on offer from their own tax money in order to ensure that private equipment suppliers are not inconvenienced. If these are the costs, is nuclear power even worth it?

*NITYANAND JAYARAMAN
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=cr010809a_time.asp

Read more...

Bhopal Survivors burn Dow in effigy at their office in Noida

In the lead up to the 25th anniversary, of the 1984 Union Carbide gas tragedy, more than 300 Bhopalis Dow Chemical in effigy in front of their office in Noida, near New Delhi, declaring that protests to force Dow to Quit India will continue till the American multinational accepts its liability in Bhopal. Survivors demanded that Dow Chemical produce its subsidiary Union Carbide in the ongoing criminal case in Bhopal and pay for clean up of toxic contamination and consequent health damage.

Survivor organisations pointed out that while Dow proclaims its innocence to the media it continues to run away from dialogue with its victims. In Europe, over the past month, two Dow offices – Dow Benelux and Dow Sweden – promised to meet a delegation of Bhopal survivors and supporters. Both cancelled in the last minute after receiving instructions from the head office in Midland, Michigan.

Supporters from more than 80 locations in 20 states around India, in addition to 50 locations in 17 countries have expressed their intent to take action in support of the Bhopal survivors this year. Dow offices in several parts of the world will be the target of demonstrations by supporters in the week beginning 3 December, 2009. Countries where solidarity activities are planned include Germany, Italy, France, United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Israel, Switzerland, Thailand, China, Philippines, Cambodia, Hongkong, South Africa, Canada and the United States. More registrations are expected to come in by 25 November.

“The Bhopal survivors asserted that because of their and their supporters struggle, Dow Chemical has not been able to make any significant investment in the country after it took over Union Carbide in 2001. And now that the second generation of survivors have also joined the struggle things will only go worse for Dow Chemical,” said Hazra Bee, long time leader of the survivors.

Just in the last three years, Dow sponsorship and jobs have been rejected by students and faculty from Indian Institutes of Technology in Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai, Kharagpur and Kanpur. Earlier this Month, The Hindu newspaper returned sponsorship money taken from Dow Chemical for a music festival and apologized for their mistake. Earlier Indian Oil Company cancelled a contract with Dow Chemical when they found that the technology being sold to them was actually developed and owned by Union Carbide.

Last year, protests in Maharashtra stopped the construction of Dow global Research & Development Center near Pune. In 2007, Dow Chemical was fined $325,000 by the US Securities & Exchange Commission for having paid more than $200,000 in bribes to Indian agriculture ministry officials. Survivors also expressed victory on the letter issued by 27 US congressman asking Dow Chemical to clean up Bhopal. The Bhopal survivors demanded that the CBI initiate immediate action on the basis of its investigations into this bribery matter.

Read more...

Green India 2047 Report

After the report of State of Environment -2007 of Development Alternatives, an NGO for environment ministry, which offered no alternatives, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and Dr. RK Pachauri has now released TERI's report ‘GREEN India 2047’ on India's environment depletion and solutions to combat Climate Change in India toady in the present of Dr Vijay Kelkar, Chairman, 13th Finance Commission.

In 1995, TERI embarked on a major project called GREEN (Growth with Resource Enhancement of Environment and Nature) India 2047 to look at "what business as usual would imply if we continued another 50 years." This project was completed on the eve of Independence Day 1997 and presented to the then Prime Minister of India as well as his cabinet colleagues in a major public event organized for this purpose. TERI’s assessment on that occasion achieved extensive media coverage and I.K. Gujral, the then Prime Minister of India actually stated that the findings should “jolt us into action”.

Now TERI has come up with an updated and forward looking study which evaluates the current state of management of the country’s natural resources, and how choices need to be made for the country to embark on a path of truly sustainable development.

The report which was released in New Delhi claims to be a comprehensive assessment report on the current state of management of the country’s natural resources, and a roadmap for India to embark on the path of sustainable development.

Read more...

Ex- CJI quits TERI jury over dubious environmental award to NHPC

In eye of green storm

FORMER Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Verma has resigned as chairperson of the jury of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) Corporate Awards following the institute’s reluctance to withdraw the award given to the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC) for environmental excellence as recommended by the jury.

The jury had convened an extraordinary meeting on September 11 following complaints by civil society groups that NHPC was given the award despite shoddy work on the environment front.

In this meeting, the jury decided to withdraw the award to NHPC and a letter to this effect was also drafted. But instead of sending the letter to NHPC, the institute chose to set up another sub-committee of its own officials.

When informed about the formation of a sub-committee by TERI official R.K. Narang recently, Justice Verma was shocked. He said he was not aware of “any other authority to sit in appeal over the jury’s decision (to withdraw the award)”.

Justice Verma conveyed his decision to resign from the jury to TERI as well as to other jury members. The development took place when Verma was in the UK. Following Verma’s resignation, a few other members of the jury have also resigned. Ravi Agarwal of environmental NGO Toxics Link confirmed that he had resigned in view of the stand taken by TERI on the issue.

The public sector ‘ mini- ratna’ was given the award for its environment and social management during the 480 MW Uri hydropower project, which was commissioned in 1997.

The award was for the ‘ exemplary’ work NHPC is supposed to have done in catchment area treatment, compensatory afforestation, muck disposal, resettlement and construction of an effective fish ladder.

But an investigation by environmental action groups showed that these tasks were not completed before 1997, when the project was commissioned.

These groups then wrote to the jury asking it to withdraw the award.

In the September 11 meeting, the jury discussed the issue in detail and also listened to the technical team from TERI which had evaluated details supplied by NHPC. TERI director general Rajendra K. Pachauri, who is also a member of the jury, was present and supported the decision to withdraw the award to NHPC. The letter prepared during this meeting was not sent to NHPC. Instead, Pachauri set up another panel to review the jury’s decision.

The entire episode has left civil society activists, who had raised the issue, fuming.

“ Not only has NHPC presented a misleading picture to claim the award, it is also guilty of bringing disrepute to the jury panel and the award. Since the President of India conferred this award, NHPC is also guilty of dragging that high office into controversy,” said Himanshu Thakkar of South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People.

Thakkar said TERI is also guilty of misleading the jury.

“ The TERI case study of NHPC put up on its website shows shoddy understanding of the timing, relevance and details of the various claims made by NHPC. The TERI staff seems to have unquestionably accepted all the claims of NHPC,” he added.

Activists have also raised the issue of conflict of interest since TERI has received over Rs 1 crore of funding from NHPC in recent years.

“ This conflict of interest is not relevant to independent jury members, but is certainly relevant in the context of the TERI staffers sitting on the jury and the TERI officials doing due diligence,” Thakkar said.

A TERI spokesperson confirmed that Verma had resigned, but did not clarify if the award to NHPC had been withdrawn or not. The award website continues to list NHPC as the winner.

By Dinesh C. Sharma in New Delhi
MAIL TODAY, November 12, 2009

Read more...

Govt Committee on Hazardous Wastes

Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, Hazardous Substances Management Division has constituted a committee to examine dispute/clarification/import-export applications relating to Hazardous Waste Management.

The constitution of the Technical Review Committee has been done to examine the proposals and issues of any dispute and other related issues relating to Hazardous Waste Management including import – export applications and give recommendation to the Ministry for consideration. The Committee can co-opt an expert as desired.

The composition of the Committee is as follows:
(i) Shri R.K. Garg (Former MD Indian Rareearths) - Chairman
(ii) Director – NEERI. - Member
(iii) Mr. H.G.Joglekar, - Member
(Former Dy. Director, NCL-Pune)
(iv) Dr. A. Bandhopadhayay, Deputy Director ,- Member
National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur
(v) Member-Secretary-CPCB - Member
(vi) Shri K.P. Nyati, Expert - Member
(vii) Shri G.S. Dang, Expert - Member
(viii) Shri N.K. Verma,Expert - Member
(ix) Dr Saroj, Director(HSMD) - Member-Convenor

Read more...

Comments Invited on Draft Plastics (Manufacture, Usage and Waste Management) Rules

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS NOTIFICATION
Plastics (Manufacture, Usage and Waste Management) Rules, 2009
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2009

The notice is hereby given that the said draft notification (attached as well) shall be taken into consideration on or after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date on which copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India are made available to public;

Objections or suggestions to proposals contained in the draft notification, if any, may be addressed, within the period so specified, to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110 003 or electronically at e-mail: secy-moef@nic.in


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2009
•
S.O. 2400(E).- The following draft of certain rules, which the Central Government proposes to issue in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) and clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 6 and sections 8 and clause (b)' of sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) and in supersession of the Recycled Plastics Manufacture and Usage Ruies, 1999 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, is hereby published for the information of public likely to be affected thereby; and the notice is
hereby given that the said draft notification shall be taken into consideration on or after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date on which copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India are made available to public;

Objections or suggestions to proposals contained in the draft notification, if any, may be addressed, within the period so specified, to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110 003 or electronically at e-mail address:secy-moef@nic.in;

The objections and suggestions which may be received from any person with respect to the said draft rules before the expiry of the period so specified shall be considered by the Central Government.
Draft notification
Short title and commencement-.
1. (1) These rules may be called the Plastics (Manufacture, Usage and Waste
Management) Rules, 2009.

(2) They shall come in to force on the date of their final publication in the Official
Gazette.
2. Application.-
(a) the provisions of rule 5 shall not apply to the manufacture of carry bags
exclusively for exp!Jrtpurposes, against an order for export received by the
owner or occupier of the concerned manufacturing unit; .
(b) the manufacturer shall ensure that there shall not be any plastic bags in
the market other than those of the specified thickness, size and quality as
referred to in rule 5.
3. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) "Act" means the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);
(b) "Biodegradable plastic" means compostable plastic;·
(c) "carry bags" means the plastic bags which have self carrying features for
carrying commodities;
(d) "Commodities" includes articles; but not limited to, such as vegetables,
fruits, pharmaceuticals, food grains, etc;
(e) "Compostable plastic" means plastic that undergoes degradation by
biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic
compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other known compostable
materials and does not leave visible, distinguishable or toxic residue;
(f) "consent" means the consent to establish and consent to operate from the
concerned State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee
granted under the Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution), 1974 (60 of
1974), and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution), 1981(14 of 1981);
(g) "Container" means flexible or rigid containers made of virgin plastics or
recycled plastics or biodegradable plastics with or without lid used to store,
carry or dispense commodities;
(h) "disintegration" means physical breakdown of a" material into very small
fragments;
(i) "food-stuffs"means ready to eat food products, fast food, processed or
cooked food in liquid, powder, solid or semi-solid form;

(j) "Manufacturer" means any person who is involved in manufacturing of non-
degradable or degradable plastic carry bags, containers, multilayered or
metallic packaging, pouches, etc.;
(k) "post-consumer means any plastic product such as carry plastic waste" bag or container or pouch or multilayered packaging, which is discarded after use or after its intended life is over;
(I) "registration" means registration of units manufacturing carry bags and
containers made of virgin or recycled or biodegradable plastics with
concerned State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee, as
the case may be;
(m)"user" means any person who uses carry bags or containers or pouches or
multilayered packaging for carrying, storing or dispensing of commodities;
(n) "Vendo.r" means a person who sells commodities in plastic carry bags or
containers;
(0) "Waste Management" means scientific reduction or reuse or recycling or
disposal of plastic wastes;
4. Prescribed Authority.- Prescribed authority means the authority
(a) for enforcement of the provisions of these rules related to manufacture and
recycling shall be the State Pollution Control Boards and the Pollution
Control Committees in respect of Union territories;
(b) for enforcement of the provisions of these rules related to the use,
collection, segregation, transportation and disposal of post consumer
plastic shall be the concerned municipal authority;
(c) to verify the Bureau of Indian Standards' specifications for carry bags and
containers made of plastics shall the State Pollution Control Board or
Pollution Control Committee, .as the case may be.
5. Conditions.- During course of manufacture, sale, stock, distribution and use
plastic carry bags, containers, pouches and multilayered packaging the following
conditions shall be fulfilled, namely: -

(a) "carry bags and. containers made of virgin plastics shall be in natural
shade;
(b) no person shall use carry bags or containers made of recycled plastics or
biodegradable plastics for storing, carrying, dispensing or packaging of
food stuffs;
(c) carry bags and containers made of recycled or biodegradable plastics and
used for purpose of other than storing and packaging foodstuffs shall be
manufactured using pigments and colorants as per the Bureau of Indian
Standards' specifications: IS 9833: 1981 entitled "List of pigments and
colourants for use in plastics in contact with foodstuffs,pharmaceuticals
and drinking water";
(d) no person shall manufacture, stock, distribute or sell carry bags made of
virgin or 'recycled plastics or bio-degradable plastics, which are less than
12x18 inches (30X45 cms) in size and less than 40 microns in thickness;
(e) no person shall manufactute carry bags or containers or pouches or
multilayered packaging from biodegradable plastics unless these meet the
Bureau of Indian Standards' specifications: ISIISO 17088:2008 entitle1
"Specifications for Compostable Plastics"·.
(f) no person shall manufacture; stoCk, distribute or sell non-recyclable
laminated plastic or metallic pouches, multilayered packaging's, and other
non-recyclable plastics.
6. Recycling.- Recycling of pl~stics shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with
the Bureau of Indian Standards'specification: IS 14534: 1998 entitled" The
Guidelines for Recycling of Plastics"
7. Marking or codification.- Every manufacturer shall code or mark each carry bag
or container made of plastics, so as to ascertain whether it is made of "virgin
plastic" or "recycled plastic" or "bio-degradable plastic" as per the following
namely:-

(a) the manufacturer of recycled carry bags or container shall code or mark each
carry bag and container as per the Bureau of Indian Standards' Specification: IS 14534: 1998 entitled "The Guidelines for Recycling of Plastics" and the end product made of recycled plastics shall be marked as "recycled" along with indication of the percentage of use of recycled material;
(b) each carry bag or container made from biodegradable plastic shall bear a code/mark as per Bureau of Indian Standards' Specification: ISIISO 17088:2008 entitled "Specifications for Compostable Plastics" and the end product made of biodegradable plastics shall be marked "compostable" or "biodeg~dable during composting";
(c) each carry bag or container shall be printed bilingually (English, Hindi or Local
language) with the following information namely:-
(i) Name and address of the Manufacturer'
(ii) Registration number granted by the concerned State Pollution Control
Board or Pollution Control Committee;
(iii) Size and thickness of the carry bag or container.
8. Protocols for plastic materials.-Determination of biodegradability and the
degree of disintegration of plastic material shall be as per the protocols of the Bureau of Indian Standards listed at the Annexure to these rules.
9. Registration.- The grant of registration certificate will be subject to the following
conditions, namely:-
every occupier manufacturing or proposing to manufacture carry bags or containers made of virgin plastics or recycled plastics or biodegradable plastics shall make an application in Form 1 appended to these rules to the State Pollution C.ontrol Board or Pollution Control Committee of the Union territory concerned for grant of registration or renewal of registration for his
unit, as the case may be;

on or after the commencement of these rules, no person shall manufacture carry bags or containers irrespective of its size or thickness or quality unless the occupier of the unit has registered his unit with the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee, as the case may be, prior to the commencement of production;

the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee shall not issue or renew the registration certificate to a unit unless the unit possesses a valid consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981) as per the requirements laid down by the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee, as the case may be;
every State Pollution Control Board o'r Pollution Control Committee shall grant (iv) registration within thirty days of receipt of application, complete in all respects.

the registration granted under this rule shall, unless revoked/suspended or (v) cancelled earlier, be valid for a period of three years:

Provided that the certificate of registration shall not be revoked or suspended or cancelled unless the manufacturer shall be given an opportunity of hearing;

every application for renewal of registration shall be made in the Form 1 appended to these rules at least sixty days before the expiry of the validity of registration.
[F. No. 17-212001-HSMD]
RAJIV GAUBA, Jt. Secy.

P.S.:
There are annexures to the Draft Rules titled
"Protocols for determination of biodegradability and the degree of disintegration of plastic materials(see rule8)"and FORM -I [See rules 9(i) and 9(vi)]

Read more...

Ryots against land acquisition for SEZ

MADURAI: Various farmers’ forums have come together against the State Government’s attempt to acquire around 1,500 acres of “farming” land to set up a special economic zone (SEZ) at Sivarakottai in the district.

Addressing reporters here on Saturday, D. Gurusamy, State president of Bharat Krishak Samaj, said that the move was against the SEZ Act, 2005. The samaj, along with Federation of Tamil Nadu Farmers’ Association, Erode, and Madurai District Farmers’ Association would intensify campaign against land acquisition in the villages of Sivarakottai, Karisalkalanpatti and Swamimallampatti.

Alleging that the district administration had suppressed the facts on “cultivation” of the identified land in its affidavit before the High Court, Mr. Gurusamy wanted the court to take suo motto action against the officials. He also charged that the documents with details of cultivation in those villages were destroyed. Farmers’ associations would stage a demonstration in front of the Collectorate here on November 23 pressing the Government to give up its move to acquire the land.

Secretary of the federation, C. Nallasamy, criticised the Government for injustice rendered to cane farmers by procuring sugarcane at a lower price. “For every tonne of sugarcane, the sugar mills paid Rs. 1,200, when the price of sugar was Rs. 15. But now, should the farmers be not paid Rs. 3,600 for a tonne of cane when the price of sugar has gone up to Rs. 36,” he said.

Complaining that those in power and the sugar mills were making huge profits at the cost of suffering farmers, he wondered why the Centre and State were not willing to implement the recommendations of Commission of Agricultural Costs and Prices. Besides producing sugar, the mills were using the cane for extracting molasses and for co-generation.

The Hindu, 8 Nov 2009
http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/08/stories/2009110857640300.htm

Read more...

GM food can cause cancer

French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified brinjal, almost approved for commercial production in India. He shared with Savvy Soumya Misra his findings on Bt brinjal and Roundup Ready soybean

On the data submitted on Bt brinjal by Mahyco for approval from the Indian government

The data submitted to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (geac) of the Union environment ministry is not valid; it has not been signed by the scientist who conducted the tests. What is more scandalous is that the studies on the effects of Bt brinjal were conducted for just three months. If the product is to be consumed by humans, the tests should have been for a period of at least two years—the lifespan of a rodent.

Worse, Mahyco tried to cover up the side-effects by jumbling data on various types of brinjal in a way that it was hard to compare Bt brinjal with normal brinjal. I am sorry to say people in the geac did not carefully assess the data. It is also not clear how the geac overlooked the fact that Bt brinjal has a protein that induces resistance to antibiotics. Mahyco has not studied hormonal impacts of Bt brinjal—Bt toxin found in it could lead to reproductive health problems.

On his findings on Roundup Ready soybean that tolerates herbicides

Our study found that even minute doses of Roundup (a natural herbicide) disrupt sex hormones like androgen and estrogen. The inert ingredients in Roundup Ready (RR) soybean like polyethoxylated tallowamine kill human cells and disrupt the synthesis and action of human sex hormones. The research was published in this year’s July edition of the journalToxicology. Some pregnant women who consumed RR soybean developed disorders. This combined with certain studies on animals in labs (conducted by others) made us conclude that Roundup is an endocrine disruptor.

On claims that GM plants reduce the need for pesticides

This is a false projection. Bt plants, in fact, are designed to produce toxins to repel pests. Bt brinjal produces a very high quantity of 16-17mg toxin per kg. They affect animals. Unfortunately, tests to ascertain their effect on humans have not been conducted. RR soybean that makes up 63 per cent of GM plants in the world contains high amounts of Roundup. The US food and drug administration (usfda) has allowed up to 400 ppm Roundup residues in animal feed. It is much more than what we recommended. There was a paper published in June in Scientific American saying usfda would review the approval accorded to RR soybean because of our study.

On other tests that were needed

Apart from increasing the period of trial, tests should be conducted to ascertain the effect of such food on hormones. For studies on health impact, the quantity of GM crop in the diet given to rodents should be specified. The tests should be conducted on a higher number of animals.

On the health impact of herbicide-tolerant crops like RR soybean

Toxins in GM plants can cause cancer, hormonal and reproductive problems and disorders of the nervous system. These chronic diseases are exploding all over the world and to our knowledge bacteria or viruses are not causing them. They may be due to chemicals contained in food. So, we definitely do not need food full of synthetic chemicals.

On the effect on bees and butterflies

GM food will affect pollinators. The genetic pollution that artificial foods will usher will multiply many times over with passing time. The whole ecosystem will get polluted as all GM plants either contain or produce toxins.

On GM feed reaching humans through cattle and swine

Animals fed on GM food may have immunological defects and other problems that can affect humans who consume their meat. These animals should be labelled; Europe is preparing to label animals fed on GM crops. Labelling is important to trace the origin of animal products so that they can be recalled, if necessary.

On Monsanto, the biotech giant that licensed Mahyco to develop Bt brinjal, criticizing your study on its blog

The Monsanto blog said my choice of cells for the study was not biological but political. This argument is void. The blog said we used high concentration of Roundup residue. This is incorrect. We tested different Roundup formulations on fresh placenta, embryonic cells, umbilical cord cells and hepatic cell lines. Even when the formulations were diluted almost 100,000 times, the cells were destroyed. The actual concentration in GM food and feed is much higher than what we tested. Consuming it can even lead to defects in newborns.

Nov. 03, 2009
Source: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/fullprint.asp

Read more...