Advertise

Monday, March 29, 2010

No ministerial panel for green clearance: Jairam Ramesh

1 comments
New Delhi, March 26 (IANS) Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh denied Friday that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had set up a ministerial panel to give environment clearances and said his ministry would continue to give approvals to infrastructure projects.

No Group of Ministers (GoM) has been formed to decide on environmental clearances as claimed by a section of the media, Ramesh told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu here.

The minister's comment followed reports that Manmohan Singh had asked the Planning Commission for suggestions for fast track clearances following complaints from ministers that the environment ministry had held up their infrastructure projects.

Indo-Asian News Service
Mar 26th, 2010

Newspapers like Indian Express had reported on 23rd March that Minister of Road Transport and Highways Kamal Nath has accused him of blocking key highway projects by stalling his Ministry’s clearances. Nath has asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to intervene and ensure that the Environment Ministry fast-track clearances within a fixed time period. In his letter to the PM, Nath has given details of road projects waiting for approvals from the Environment Ministry which has claimed that these projects are detrimental to wildlife and forest cover.

Sources said Kamal Nath’s letter mentions three projects in Maharashtra and at least four in Assam among others. These include the stretch on National Highway 7 that passes through the Pench National Park in Madhya Pradesh — near Kamal Nath’s constituency of Chhindwara.

This stretch on NH-7 — connecting Jabalpur to Nagpur — is proposed to be widened but the Environment Ministry has been against it because it would entail cutting of trees in a dense forest.

In his letter, Nath is said to have suggested that in cases where there was no need for land acquisition, clearances should be given within 30 days. In other cases, approvals should not take more than two months, he is said to have suggested. The Prime Minister, on his part, is learnt to have forwarded the letter to Ramesh for his ministry’s comments.

Sources said Ramesh has already discussed the matter with the Prime Minister. Ramesh has also had several rounds of discussions with various state governments over the issue of construction of roads in ecologically sensitive areas.

Jairam’s green nod gets harder to come

By Ranjit Bhushan Mar 21 2010

RIL, L&T & Vedanta among 120 projects stuck

Environmental clearances for big industrial projects may no longer be as easy as before.

In the wake of the Copenhagen summit and the widening global debate on carbon emissions and global warming, India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, has told his officials to put these projects through a tough scrutiny, instead of issuing blanket no-objection certificates. The results are already evident.

Sterlite’s Vedanta Aluminium is just one of 120 industrial and mining projects hanging fire for want of environmental clearance.

While steel majors like Posco and ArcelorMittal have finally managed to get their clearances after years of lobbying and resultant media glare, there are many others who are still facing the environmental stonewall.

Among them are Reliance’s petrochemical project, Larsen & Tubro’s industrial estates and mining projects of Jindal Steel, JP Associates, Gra-sim Industries and Tata Chemicals.

Among top public sector undertakings whose projects too are stuck are SAIL and NTPC. Their applications have been pending since April last year or before.

Environmentalist lawyer Sanjay Parikh supports the ministry’s toughness. “Environmental clearance has become a bit of a joke with as many as 100 projects being cleared in a day. Now for the first time, environment clearance is not in the hands of lobbies -- from the steel or the mining sectors,” he says.

To buttress his point, Parikh says that between September 2006 and September 2008, every industrial project for which approval was sought was cleared: 952 industries approved, none rejected. In this period, 134 thermal power plants faced no environmental hiccups, though it is well-established that such carbon-intensive plants contribute significantly to global warming.

Even an influential group such as Reliance has been made to wait. Its proposal for a petrochemical project at Jamnagar in Gujarat was first made in July 2008, put up for consideration around June 2009; then again in August (but the meeting was not held), and yet again in October; this meeting only deferred the proposal. Another meeting in November did not reach any decision for want of further information.

Jindal Steel and Power’s 11 million-tonne integrated mining project and a 2,600 mw captive power plant with a total investment of Rs 30,000 crore in Jharkhand were first taken up in March 2009. Based on additional information, it was taken up again in July. A third meeting in August deferred the decision and kept it open ended.

Ditto with HPCL’s diesel hydro-treating facility in Mumbai, which was first considered in May 2009. Additional information was sought and the proposal reconsidered in July before being consigned to the files.

Affected companies are hesitant to give details. Says an HPCL official, “The projects that require environment clearance are sent for approval to the government and each project requires different lengths of time to get the clearance. Every project has different levels of clearance based on statutory norms. We cannot divulge details on our proposed projects.”

However, the company is looking at investing over Rs 20,000 crore in a greenfield project in Raigad or Ratnagiri in Maharashtra in the face of its inability to expand its Mumbai plant. “In view of the constraints in the expansion of the Mumbai refinery, we plan to build one close by,” said an official.

None of NTPC’s captive coal blocks in Jharkhand have received the environmental clearance. This will impact the company’s efforts at securing coal supplies, according to a senior official of the Central Electricity Authority.

Some SAIL projects too, like the underground coal mine project at Sitnala in Bokaro in Jharkhand, are held up. Says a SAIL spokesman, “Environmental clearance for Sitanala is in progress. He says that after the approval of the terms of reference by the ministry, an environmental impact assessment report and an environmental management plan have been prepared. Also, public hearing (a prerequisite for environmental clearance) was successfully held in January 2010. The ministry now awaits recommendations of the state government. It will then be considered by the expert appraisal committee.

Are environmental procedures taking too long? According to an official of the ministry, who prefers anonymity, the rules have been tightened since Jairam Ramesh became minister. In recent meetings the minister made it clear that clearances should not be given in a hurry.

A more recent case hitting the headlines is Vedanta. Despite being granted clearances by Orissa’s environment department, Ramesh’s ministry has taken a contrarian view. A committee set up by his ministry has indicted Orissa Mining Corporation and Vedanta for infringing the rights of the tribal population of Lanjigarh where its bauxite mining project is coming up. The report also said the promoters of the project had violated the Forest Rights Act and started work without obtaining necessary government clearances.

“When land was acquired for the project, the villagers were promised jobs. Now these people have not only lost their land but have no access to jobs. To add to their woes, they are constantly exposed to pollutants,” Usha Ramanathan, a legal expert at the Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), who headed the three-member ministry probe, said in the report submitted to the ministry.

Ramesh told reporters last week that according to law, the company should have obtained clearances to work both in the forest and non-forest areas. However, it started work in the non-forest areas though it did not have the necessary sanctions.

Ramanathan’s report, prepared following a site inspection, gives details of the impact of the project on the livelihood and deteriorating health of the tribal population — and the increasing pollution they are exposed to. “This is a disturbing state of affairs and needs to be checked if the neutrality of the state is to be maintained,” she concluded in her 37-page report.

(with inputs from Amit Mudgill)

http://www.mydigitalfc.com/economy/jairam%E2%80%99s-green-nod-gets-harder-come-312
Read more...
Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Civil Liability Tribunal for Environmental Damage

1 comments
National Green Tribunal Bill that has been envisaged as a single tier Tribunal which is proposed to sit at 5 places initially so far as the powers of the Tribunal are concerned, these shall have the same powers irrespective of their location. Among other things the time frame of approaching the Tribunal is highly confusing and it has no power to stop damage to environment before it occurs.

Why should this Tribunal not have the power to act for the protection of environment, cancel environmental clearances if necessary and to provide incentives to individuals of civil society who are working as eyes and ears of nature and wildlife instead of penalizing them as is the case as of now? Why should it not have the power to issue contempt of court notices.

The 29 member Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests headed by Dr. T. Subbarami Reddy (Indian National Congress) submitted its report in late November, 2009 and had suggested 12 changes in the Bill of which the government has accepted ten and rejected two. This Parliamentary Standing Committee was constituted on 31st August, 2009. The committee presented its report on the Bill to the parliament on 24th November, 2009. The parliamentary committee errs in letting the Tribunal deal with only cases of civil nature excluding environmental crimes of criminal nature.

As per the report “The Committee feels that it would be in the interest of fairness if one year period to bar members of the tribunal from being employed by a company that appeared before them in the tribunal be extended to two years.” This is not sufficient; members of the Tribunal should be banned from taking assignments with the beneficiary company.

It is quite problematic that the Green Tribunal Bill only deals with the point sources of pollution ignoring non-point sources of pollution and fails to make companies criminally liable for their acts of omission and commission such as Bhopal's industrial disaster or any nuclear accident. The Bill does not have enough teeth to deal with corporate crimes among other things. This Bill comes in response to the 186th Report of Law Commission of India on the Proposal to Constitute Environmental Courts in September 2003. This report had noted, "the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) constituted under the NEAA Act, 1997, for the limited purpose of providing a forum to review the administrative decisions on Environment Impact Assessment, had very little work. It appears that since the year 2000, no Judicial Member has been appointed. So far as the National Environmental Tribunal (NET) Act, 1995 is concerned, the legislation has yet to be notified despite the expiry of eight years. Since it was enacted by Parliament, the Tribunal under the Act is yet to be constituted. Thus, these two Tribunals are non-functional and remain only on paper." The Green Tribunal Bill is meant to replace NEAA Act of 1997 and NET Act of 1995. Broadly, there are problems like restrictions on who can approach the Tribunal, appointment of experts, limiting the period of accountability, implicit threat to petitioners and exclusion of non-point sources of pollution.

Among the recommendations accepted by the government are notifying the tribunal for the Centre and all States and Union Territories simultaneously, parity between number of judicial and expert members on the tribunal. Another recommendation of the Parliamentary committee that the government has accepted is ensuring a balance between expert members and judicial members while taking a decision; to this end it had suggested that the number of expert members not exceed that of judicial members in a bench or sitting. The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) has not accepted the recommendation that every amendment to Schedule I of the Bill be voted by Parliament. The Parliamentary Committee has rightly argued that vesting the “such an overriding power in the Ministry undermines the supremacy of Parliament.” It had therefore recommended that “any basic change from the concept of the Bill should be done only through an amendment passed by Parliament and not by notification.” By not accepting this sane recommendation, the CCEA has once again belittled the significance Parliament and parliamentary committees. The power of subordinate legislation has consistently been misused by the CCEA despite the fact that institutional accountability of Bhopal and Kaiga like disasters rests with them. Civil Society groups support this recommendation of the committee.

Private companies who want to do business with India have been seeking a liability law that protects them. Foreign companies wanting to supply nuclear reactors and other equipment have been pressing India for the speedy passage of this crucial Bill. Indian government is required to make some changes in its Atomic Energy Act as well. In such a context, the report of the investigative commission appointed by US President Jimmy Carter immediately following the accident must be studied by the drafters of Green Tribunal Bill and the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill. President Jimmy Carter had appointed a 12-member commission which submitted its Report of the President's Commission on The Accident at Three Mile Island-The Need for Change: The Legacy of TMI in October 1979. It is advisable to learn from the blunders of the past.

The National Green Tribunal Bill and the Nuclear Liability Bill must take note of the environmental hazards from the nuclear facilities and potential nuclear accidents and incorporate stringent criminal and civil liability provisions taking lessons from worst accident at a civilian nuclear power plant in Three Mile Island (TMI) occurred on March 28, 1979 in US and the Chernobyl disaster, a nuclear reactor accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

This nuclear accident led to a cessation of new nuclear plant construction in the US. Indian government and the parliament must take lessons from these tragedies and accidents to avoid legislative and future judicial disasters through these Bills which does not have the power to prevent Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl & Kaiga like accidents. These Bills must make special provision for transnational corporations and 64 heavily polluting industries in the Red category according to the Central Pollution Control Board. Parliamentary deliberations in countries like Canada and Germany on liability and nuclear energy issues in particular must be factored in before admitting any Bills under the influence from FICCI and other vested interests in supreme public interest.

Also visit:
Red flags over green tribunal

Not enough teeth in Green Tribunal Bill
Read more...

Comments Invited on Draft EIA Manuals

0 comments
Inviting comments on EIA Sector Specific Manuals prepared by ASCI & IL & FS Ecosmart Ltd

Draft EIA Manuals for Sectors Under EIA Notification, 2006

1. OM On Draft EIA Manuals

2. Draft EIA Manuals prepraed by ASCI
(1) Mining
(2) Ports and Harbours
(3) Airports
(4) Mineral Beneficiation
(5) Asbestos

3. Draft EIA Manuals prepraed by IL&FS
(1) Thermal Power
(2) Cement
(3) Ship Breaking Yards
(4) Chemical Fertilizers
(5) Sugar
(6) Distillieries
(7) Tanneries
(8) Offshore & Onshore Oil & Gas Exploration, Development & Production
(9) Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs)
(10) Industrial Estates
Read more...

India: Fire at Bayer CropScience Plant

1 comments
Toxic gas leaked / one employee killed

A fire broke out on March 11, 2010 at a Bayer CropScience pesticide plant in India. Toxic gases mercaptane and phosphorus tri-chloride leaked from the factory near Ankleshwar. A 27 year old plant engineer was killed. The gases escaped the plant and could be smelled in nearby areas. The reason what caused the fire is still not known.

According to rescue workers the fire occurred in the Ethoprophos plant. The gases leaked for about 90 minutes. Ethoprophos, classified as “extremely toxic” (class 1) by the World Health Organization WHO, is the ingredient of Bayer´s insecticide Mocap. The chemical severely affects the functioning of the nervous system. Ethoprophos causes tremors, nausea and weakness at low exposures, and paralysis and death on exposure to high doses.

Philipp Mimkes from the Coalition against Bayer dangers, which has been monitoring the company for more than 30 years, says: “Bayer is the world market leader for pesticides, many of which account for pollution and poisonings all over the world. Only a few weeks ago we demanded a withdrawal of all WHO class 1 pesticides, among them Ethoprophos”. Already in its 1995 Annual Report Bayer promised to “replace products with the Classification 1 of the World Health Organisation with products of lower toxicity”. Until today the company failed to keep its promise.

Police speaker M S Shukla said towards the Times of India: "Upon receipt of several complaints, air monitoring was initiated which confirmed that in the morning hour there was a high concentration of gases in air. Due to bad odour many complaints were received of nausea and vomiting. The situation became normal after 9 am onwards."

In August 2008 a storage tank exploded at an American Bayer CropScience plant near Charleston. Two workers lost their lives. The tremors were felt in a radius of more than 10 miles. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), after analyzing the incident, criticized "faulty safety systems, significant shortcomings with the emergency procedures and a lack of employee training". According to a US Congress investigation the region narrowly escaped a catastrophe that could have surpassed the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Congress investigators found that the explosion "came dangerously close" to compromising an MIC storage tank. Had the exploded residue treater hit the MIC tank, "the consequences could have eclipsed the 1984 disaster in India."

see also:

* Article Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/Fire-gas-leak-at-unit-claims-engineers-life-/articleshow/5669079.cms
* Deadly explosion at Bayer CropScience plant at Institute/US: www.cbgnetwork.de/2877.html
* BAYER URGED TO WITHDRAW WORST PESTICIDES: www.cbgnetwork.de/3226.html
* MOCAP: Onion smell sickens residents

Coalition against BAYER Dangers (Germany)
www.CBGnetwork.org
CBGnetwork@aol.com
Fax: (+49) 211-333 940 Tel: (+49) 211-333 911
Read more...
Monday, March 15, 2010

Clinton Climate Initiative Supports Polluting Technology

0 comments
A Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) report on Waste Management Program refers to a waste to energy project in Delhi wherein it is claimed that it will reduce green house gases (GHG) emissions to the tune of 96,000 tons/yr CO2e. Its following contention is questionable:


Karen Luken, Director of CCI’s Waste Management Program says, “The challenge is in getting cities to look at alternative ways of using garbage, and then working with them to close the margin between finding the cheapest way and the most sustainable way.”Delhi’s new system closes that margin successfully. It will process 1,000 tons of waste a day, converting organic waste into compost and recycling plastics and paper to create a refuse-derived fuel product. Both are potential sources of revenue that can offset costs. Other materials will go to a state-of-the-art landfill that meets the highest environmental standards.

The report is avaialble here: http://www.clintonfoundation.org/what-we-do/clinton-climate-initiative/i/profile-cci-waste-project-breaks-ground-in-delhi

The failure on the part of Clinton Climate Initiative to realize the dangers from promoting energy recovery from plastics and paper merits attention. Clearly, it does not know about the consisitnet failure of incineration and Refuse Derived Fuel technology for municipal waste and the fact that Indian garabage is not suitable for energy generation.
Read more...

Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill Deferred

0 comments
LIST OF BUSINESS of LOK SABHA (Serial No. 19) for March 15, 2010 shows that PRITHVIRAJ CHAVAN, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office was supposed "to move for leave to introduce" Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 "to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage, appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." This was not done.

UPA government has been forced to defer the contentious Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. The bill was scheduled to be tabled in Lok Sabha today. The Opposition BJP and Left parties are opposed to it. The bill was included in the list of business for the day. However, the Opposition strongly protested against this and demanded to move a motion for the withdrawal of the bill from the agenda.

Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar said that the government does not intend to introduce the bill in the house today. Dr Manmohan Singh wanted this bill to be passed in Parliament ahead of his US visit in April 2010. The bill pegs the maximum amount of liability in case of each nuclear accident at Rs 300 crore to be paid by the operator of the nuclear plant.

This is a requirement of the 123 Civil Nuclear Agreement between India and the US.
MAJORITY PROBLEMS
Parties unlikely to back the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Bill
BJP: 116
Left: 24
BSP: 21
JD (U): 20
Shiv Sena: 11
AIDMK: 9
Rashtriya Lok Dal: 5
Telugu Desam Party: 6
Akali Dal: 4
Janata Dal S: 3
Telengana Rashtriya Samiti: 2
total: 221
UPA allies likely to back the bill: 271
'WILD CARD':
Trinamool with 19 seats
The Bill needs 272 votes to pass in the 543-member House
The UPA allies have 271 seats between them but within these, the Trinamool Congress with 19 seats is considered a wild card and the support of various independent parties is uncertain.

The Union Cabinet had cleared the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill on November 19, 2009 and passing the Bill will allow the country to join the international convention on civil liability for nuclear damage.

The Bill is designed to insulate suppliers from the risk of law suits by channeling legal liability for an accident entirely to the nuclear power plant operator and granting Indian courts sole jurisdiction over accident-related cases.

The Bill places a limit on the compensation to be paid in the case of an accident at a nuclear site and places responsibility for paying this compensation on the operator and not the suppliers or foreign companies installing the reactors in India (power plant operators, however, have a right of recourse against the suppliers).

Those who oppose the Bill say it has been designed to keep from the reach of Indian courts, American reactor suppliers who want legal protection from a Bhopal-type situation — where the victims of India's worst industrial accident filed multi-million dollar claims against Union Carbide Corporation in India and the US.

Several large American companies like GE and Westinghouse besides French major Areva plan to supply reactors to India.

The BJP’s opposition to the Bill is also based on the low liability level. Swaraj described the "Rs 500 crore limit" on the liability of private service providers in case of accidents as “offensively low”.

Nuclear power has been a contentious issue in India for several years. In mid-2008, the first UPA government faced and narrowly survived a vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha after the Left parties, which supported the government from outside at the time, opposed the signing of a civil nuclear agreement with the International Atomic Energy Commission.

The agreement opened India to foreign nuclear technology subject to international monitoring and a separation of civil and military nuclear facilities sans genuine concern for public interest. The Left and several other parties objected to the latter two conditions.
Read more...
 
ToxicsWatch Alliance © 2011 DheTemplate.com & Main Blogger. Supported by Makeityourring Diamond Engagement Rings

You can add link or short description here