Search on for Bhopal Waste Disposal Site

GoM nod for shifting Bhopal waste disposal site

NEW DELHI: The ministerial panel on the Bhopal gas tragedy decided to change the site for disposal of toxic waste from Pithampur in Madhya Pradesh following protests from local residents.

"The toxic waste from the Union Carbide Company will not be disposed of at Pithampur. The government of Madhya Pradesh and the Centre will hold discussion to decide on the alternative site," MP Urban development minister Babulal Gaur said.

He was briefing reporters on the meeting of the Group of Ministers (GoM) on the Bhopal gas tragedy which is headed by home minister P Chidambaram.

The GoM reviewed the progress made by various ministries on its recommendations to the Union Cabinet three months ago.

Gaur said the GoM also decided to sanction additional compensation of Rs 72 crore for those who died in the tragedy but were left out from the list earlier.

The defunct Union Carbide factory has 347 metric tonnes of toxic waste which has to be disposed of.

In June, the Union Cabinet had accepted all the 22 recommendations of the GoM and decided to push for extradition of former Union Carbide chief Warren Anderson and ascertain the liability of Dow Chemicals besides announcing a Rs 1265.56 crore package for relief and remediation.

In August, the CBI had filed a curative petition before the Supreme Court seeking restoration of stringent charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which attracts maximum punishment of ten-year jail term, against the accused in the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy case.

Besides Chidambaram, other members of the panel include law minister Veerappa Moily, health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, urban development minister S Jaipal Reddy, road transport minister Kamal Nath, poverty alleviation minister Kumari Selja, chemicals and fertilisers minister M K Alagiri, environment minister Jairam Ramesh and minister in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan. Gaur is also a member

Toxic waste not to be dumped in Dhar. The group of ministers (GoM) on Bhopal gas disaster has vetoed the move to dump around 347 metric tonnes of toxic waste of the Union Carbide’s Bhopal plant at Pithampur-based Treatment Storage Disposal Facility (TSDF) in Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh. Bombay Economic Times, India. 28 September 2010.

Read more...

Toxic Synthetic pyrethroids Used for Commonwealth Games Sites

Press Release

Human carcinogen by the oral route

New Delhi/ 25/9/2010: Amidst several crises faced by Commonwealth Games, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is spraying synthetic pyrethroids, potent lipophilic insecticides for mosquito control at the Commonwealth Games sites due to the dengue scare, unmindful of exposure due to inhalation
of ambient air that is also possible after these compounds have been used.

The use of these products can lead to both dermal and inhalation exposure. The fact is that pyrethroids are synthetic analogs and derivatives of the original pyrethrins and represent a diverse group of over 1,000 powerful insecticides. The synthetic pyrethroids are released to the environment due to their use as insecticides.

These compounds are biodegraded in soil and water and can also undergo hydrolysis under alkaline conditions. Since these compounds adsorb strongly to soils, they are not taken up substantially by the roots of vascular plants. These compounds bio-accumulate in aquatic organisms and are extremely toxic to fish.

An expert panel that studied the proposal of spraying synthetic pyrethroids gave its nod to use the particular chemical exclusively at the Commonwealth Games venues to control mosquito breeding. This panel erred in not examining non-toxic measures. For instance, an inch of rain water at the bottom of a cup left outdoors can produce 1 000 mosquitoes every week! Since mosquitoes breed in stagnant water that should have been dealt with.

MCD officials who say that it is safe to use pyrethroids in India as they are considered to be one of the least toxic insecticides to humans and are quickly deactivated by metabolic processes are misleading and have misguided Delhi's Health Minister to approve this proposal. MCD’s Health Department has been quoted as saying that mosquitoes will not breed for about three months after synthetic pyrethroids are sprayed on the walls.

It is being incorrectly argued that synthetic pyrethroids are relatively safe. The general population is primarily exposed to pyrethrins and pyrethroids from the ingestion of foods, particularly vegetables and fruits.
Almost all systemic effects are related to the action of pyrethrins and pyrethroids on the nervous system. Direct skin contact may cause temporary paresthesia (abnormal cutaneous sensations such as tingling, burning, stinging, numbness, and itching) that is limited to the area of contact.

Limited animal data indicate that transfer of pyrethroids across the placenta to the fetus may occur. Although pyrethroids have not been identified in human breast milk, very low levels of pyrethroids (<1% of an
orally administered dose) are excreted into milk of lactating animals. Some animal studies indicate that exposure to pyrethroids may result in other less overt signs of neurotoxicity, such as changes in startle and avoidance responses, altered levels of spontaneous motor activity, and changes inoperant conditioned responses.

As to possibility of Cancer, increased incidences of thyroid follicular cell tumors were reported in male and female rats administered pyrethrins (57.57% pyrethrum extract) in the diet for 2 years. The female rats also exhibited increased incidences of hepatocellular adenomas and combined adenomas and/or
carcinomas. In a review of this rat carcinogenicity study, a Cancer Assessment Review Committee for pyrethrins attributed the increased incidences of thyroid and liver tumors to pyrethrum treatment and classified pyrethrins as “likely to be a human carcinogen by the oral route.” Available data does indicate that pyrethrins may be a carcinogenic concern to humans.

Over the years, first the chemical extracts of pyrethrum, and then more recently, the specific synthetic chemical analogs have been produced. The six active insecticidal compounds of pyrethrum are called pyrethrins. The six individual pyrethrins are pyrethrin I, pyrethrin II, cinerin I, cinerin II, jasmolin I, and jasmolin II. Pyrethrum is the natural extract that occurs in the flowers of Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium and Chrysanthemum cineum. Pyrethrum is recognized as possessing insecticidal properties of
their causing rapid paralysis of flying insects.

The spraying of synthetic pyrethroids must be stopped immediately and biological and other creative methods must be used for achieving the same end. The authorities should consider ways of warding off adult mosquitoes that did come to be by using many herbs that repel mosquitoes such as cedarwood, garlic, lemongrass, frankincense, cinnamon, geranium, eucalyptus, basil, rosemary, cloves, peppermint, lemon balm, onions, feverfew, thyme and marigold.

*For Details*: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Web:www.toxicswatch.com, toxicswatch.blogspot.com



.



--

Read more...

NEAA SUSPENDS ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE FOR NIYAMGIRI MINING PROJECT OF VEDANTA

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY (NEAA) SUSPENDS ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE FOR NIYAMGIRI MINING PROJECT OF VEDANTA PLC

The National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) on 16-9-2010 has suspended the environmental clearance granted to the Niyamgiri mining project of M/s Orissa Mining Corporation and Vedanta Ltd. This was granted by the MoEF on 28-4-2009. The order came as a result of appeal filed by the 25 Dongria Kondhs and others.

The NEAA found fault with the approval granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests since the whole public hearing process was undermined. The contention of the Appellant was that the Public hearing was held in 2003 whereas the project was approved on the basis of an EIA prepared in 2005. The law requires that the EIA document should be prepared before the Public Hearing for public comments but no such opportunity was provided to the affected communities. The NEAA is its judgement held that:

“It is clear that the Vimta Labs EIA report of 2005 on the basis of which the EC was granted was never in public domain for people to express their views/ concerns during the two public hearings held during 2003, leading to non compliance of Ministry’s notification. Further a perusal of the rapid EIA by Vimta Labs reveals that it lacks analysis in respect of human miseries which the project is likely to inflict”

“The authority therefore remits the matter to the Ministry with directions to revisit its environment clearance including the aspect of public hearing and take appropriate action. Till this process is over, the Environment Clearance stands suspended”

This is an important decision given that Ministry of Environment and Forest had overlooked the crucial issue of public participation. The Appeal is also significant given the fact the MoEF had been found at fault for approving the project without considering the crucial issue of participation of the Dongrai Kondhs who are a vulnerable tribal community.

Read more...

India Unmasks America's Nuclear Liabilities

Private companies should insure themselves, not ask Delhi to do it for them.

By HENRY SOKOLSKI
India's parliament last week gave the U.S. nuclear industry the legal equivalent of a Bronx cheer: It passed a law that denied American firms legal immunity from being sued in the event of a nuclear accident. Besides upsetting executives at General Electric and Westinghouse, the law's passage destroys one of the 2008 U.S.-Indian nuclear deal's key pitches—that it would energize the "world's largest democracy" with up to $150 billion in U.S. reactor sales.


The U.S. is up in arms, so to speak, because private American firms can't take on such risk—but their French, Russian and other state-backed competitors can. U.S. diplomats preparing for President Obama's planned November visit to New Delhi are lobbying their counterparts furiously to "fix" the situation. It's unclear if they'll succeed. But for everyone's sake, I hope they won't.
Indians have little to gain from caving to U.S. pressure. Having suffered thousands of fatalities from the 1984 Bhopal incident and having received a pittance from Union Carbide in compensation, Indians are not just making an anti-imperialism point in protesting attempts to shield U.S. nuclear firms from accident liability. They are protecting their population's security.

New Delhi's policy makers also understand that the demand for such immunity is coming from Washington. France and Russia have voiced some concerns but ultimately they and other foreign nuclear suppliers know that any Indian litigant would face impossible odds if they tried to secure compensation from government-backed firms through their court systems. That's not to say they wouldn't grant India an out-of-court settlement—after all, expressly protecting the right of Indians to sue foreign nuclear vendors, as the current laws does, gives life to a legal claim. On the other hand, granting immunity to foreign nuclear vendors as Washington wants would risk forfeiting even that, as well as prohibiting Indians from ever getting into corporate America's deep pockets.
Then there's the ugly truth that India has little or no need to buy American. Russia, France, Japan and even China have competitive nuclear companies. India also can build its own fast and heavy-water nuclear reactors. Finally, despite India's ambitious plans for nuclear expansion, nuclear electricity is still one of the most uneconomical ways for it to meet its near and mid-term power requirements. As a Dalberg Global Development Advisors study recently noted, India's economic and energy-security targets through 2035 could easily be reached without significantly increasing nuclear power. The most cost effective way for India to reduce its carbon emissions is to invest in clean coal technologies, demand-side management systems and renewable energy.
Rather than afford India more help on these fronts though, the White House and U.S. State Department officials are now straining to figure how to work around India's new law. One idea is to get President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to trump it by striking a bilateral agreement in which India would pledge to indemnify all foreign nuclear firms.
Another is to get Mr. Singh to nullify the law using former U.S. President George W. Bush's favorite ploy—a presidential signing statement explaining how he intends to ignore certain provisions.
Finally, some analysts have suggested that India's sole nuclear operator, India Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., could end run the law by signing all foreign nuclear contracts and promising to assume any foreign firms' liabilities.

All of these options may be clever but if any were seriously pursued, they would do more to poison U.S.-Indian relations than any problem the original nuclear deal was designed to address. It would also be a difficult political decision for President Obama, who would in effect be stepping in at the behest of two of America's largest corporations.
Instead, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama should focus on what both countries need and want most: For India, more U.S. student and business visas for India along with lower U.S. tariffs on Indian goods; and for the U.S., Indian business and legal reforms that would make American investment in India safer and easier. What's needed most is for both governments to get out of the way of increased people-to-people contacts and trade.
For America's nuclear industry, India's nuclear-liability law ought to be seen as a helpful wake-up call. U.S. nuclear firms have been trying for years to get the international community to grant all nuclear vendors accident liability immunity by promoting the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, an International Atomic Energy Agency initiative. Despite 13 years of jawboning, though, most major nuclear operators are still not on board. More important, domestic U.S. legal nuclear liability caps will sunset in 15 years and leave firms totally exposed in the case of a nuclear accident. That's not much time. Rather than play politics, India's law ought be seen as the necessary prod to get U.S. industry moving now on increasing its self-insurance levels.
Washington officials, meanwhile, should see the law as India intended it—a graceful way to change the focus of U.S.-Indian relations to more important non-nuclear topics.

If Washington fails to seize on this, it won't be India's fault, it will be America's.

Mr. Sokolski is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, D.C.

Read more...

India Faces Threat of Waste Imperialism from Japan

Government of India’s delegation (from Ministry of Commerce and Industry) in Tokyo has agreed “in-principle” to a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Japan negotiations for it started in 2007. . The CEPA will formally be signed by the Prime Minister next month during his visit to Tokyo. Environmental health groups are opposed to such agreements also known as Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) including one with the European Union (EU). Indian Government is highly secretive about the agreements with Japanese government and EU. ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has been campaigning against the India-Japan FTA that entails hazardous waste trade.

It is noteworthy that Japan launched a new waste initiative and venue at the G8 summit in 2004. The aim of this initiative is contrary to the prime objectives of the Basel Convention that sought minimization of transboundary movement of hazardous waste, Japan’s 3R Initiative calls for lifting of trade barriers for waste and for the free movement of recyclable materials, including toxic wastes, within a regional context. Using its financial muscle it has dictated the agenda of the 3R Initiative to promote regional waste trade schemes. Its interest in hazardous waste treatment facilities and ship-breaking yards at Alang Beach is illustrative of the same.

Japan is on a prowl to kill the Basel Convention through its Economic Partnership Agreements. In 2008, it signed ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement to promote waste trade hold in the region. ASEAN is 13 member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The same is being replicated in India.

At the last Conference of Parties to UN’s Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes, Japan proactive role to stop the crucial Ban Amendment, 1995 from coming into force was intriguing. With the unfolding of Japan’s FTAs with other Asian countries, it is clear that it wants to re-define toxic waste as non-waste. It’s a case of linguistic corruption. A similar Partnership Agreements has been challenged in the Supreme Court of Philippines.

It has reliably been learnt and reported that the Commerce Ministry will seek the Cabinet's approval soon for the India-Japan free trade agreement (FTA) likely to be signed during the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's forthcoming visit to Tokyo in October. Singh is expected to attend the India-Japan Summit scheduled on October 25. "The negotiations have been completed and we want to take the Cabinet nod by the month-end" an official told Press Trust of India. The Prime Minister headed Trade and Economic Relation Committee has already cleared the market opening pact with Japan, with which India has a bilateral trade of $ 10.4 billion.

For India, the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan would be its third such pact. India has already signed similar agreements with South Korea and Singapore. The two sides have recently reached at an in-principle agreement for the pact.

Japan-India FTA will makes it difficult for India to impose a trade ban on toxic wastes which is an expressed right enjoyed by any sovereign state and is acknowledged by the Basel Convention. India must ratify Basel Ban Amendment instead of making itself vulnerable to toxic waste imports.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail-krishna2777@gmail.com

Read more...

New Companies Bill

TheReport of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on The Companies Bill, 2009 was presented to both the houses of parliament on 31 August, 2010. It was referred to the committee chaired by Yashwant Sinha. There are 29 members of this committee.

The members are:

1 Shri Yashwant Sinha

2 Dr.Bali Ram

3 Shri Sudip Bandyopadhyay

4 Shri C. M.Chang

5 Shri Harischandra Deoram Chavan

6 Shri Bhakta Charan Das

7 Shri Khagen Das

8 Shri Gurudas Dasgupta

9 Shri Nishikant Dubey

10 Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab

11 Shri Mangani Lal Mandal

12 Smt. P. Jaya Prada Nahata

13 Shri Sambasiva Rayapati Rao

14 Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy

15 Shri Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy

16 Shri Sathyanarayana Sarvey

17 Shri Gowdar Mallikarjunappa Siddeswara

18 Shri N.Dharam Singh,

19 Shri Manicka Tagore

20 Dr. Munisamy Thambidurai

21 Shri M. Anjan Kumar Yadav

22 Shri S.S. Ahluwalia

23 Shri Raashid Alvi

24 Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar

25 Shri Mahendra Mohan

26 Dr.Mahendra Prasad

27 Shri Moinul Hassan

28 Shri K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao

29 Shri Y. P. Trivedi

The 375 page report

The committee at their sitting held on 21 January, 2010 heard the views of the representatives of Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FICCI) and Confederation of Indian Industries (CII).

At the sitting held on 24 May, 2010 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (ICWAI) presented their views before the Committee. On 31 May, 2010, the Committee heard the views of the representatives of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

The committee also heard the views of Dr Ashok Haldia – Former Secretary, ICAI & Member, Appellate Tribunal set up for ICAI, ICSI and ICWAI, Shri M. R. Umerji – Chief Advisor Legal, Indian Banks Association, Shri Pradip N. Kapadia – Vigil Juris, Advocate, Solicitors and Notary, Shri LVV Iyer, Corpoarte Lawyer, Shri Virendra Jain – President, Midas Touch Investors Association at the sitting held on 15 June, 2010

Read more...

CVC Refers to Environmental Costs of Corruption

Comments or suggestions are invited on the 50 page Draft National Anti-corruption Strategy by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) by 20th September, 2010.

Its preface says, "The National Anti-Corruption Strategy represents a blue print for commitment and action by the various stakeholders to the governance process. It aims at systematic and conscious reshaping of the country’s national integrity system. The strategy recommends a set of action to be taken by the government and a set of action by the political entities, judiciary, media, citizens, private sector and civil society organisations.

To ensure that the strategy does not remain a mere document, it is envisaged to ensure its effective implementation by developing suitable parameters for evaluating and monitoring the progress of its implementation. The CVC would review the progress on an annual basis and submit a report to the Parliament."
For any clarifications please contact:

Shri K. Subramaniam
OSD to CVC
Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkta Bhawan, INA,
New Delhi - 110023
Tel.: 24651085
e-mail: subramaniam.k@nic.in

At page 5 and 6 it refers to the IMPACT OF CORRUPTION AND THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGY.
Globally, there is a general consensus amongst most academics and policy makers that the debilitating effects of corruption permeate through all aspects of public life. Several studies have shown that corruption not only stifles growth, it also perpetuates inequalities, deepens poverty, causes human suffering, dilutes the fight against terrorism and organised crime, and tarnishes India’s image globally.

The impact of corruption is multi fold, encompassing: political costs, economic costs, social costs, environmental costs and issues of national security.

(a) Political Costs: The political costs of corruption are manifested in weakened public trust in political institutions, reduced political participation, perversion of the electoral process, restricted political choices available to citizens and loss of legitimacy of the democratic system.

(b) Economic Costs: Corruption reduces economic efficiency by misallocation of resources in favour of rent seeking activities, increasing the cost of public transactions, acting as an additional tax on business thereby reducing investment, reducing genuine business competition.

(c) Social Costs: The effect of corruption on the social fabric of society is perhaps the most alarming damage of all. It undermines people's trust in the political system, in its institutions and its leadership. Corruption distorts the value systems and wrongly attaches elevated status to occupations that have rent seeking opportunities. This results in a disillusioned public, a weak civil society, which attracts unscrupulous leaders to political life. Eventually, there is a risk that demanding and paying bribes could become the norm.

(d) Environmental Costs: Environmental degradation is an indirect but serious consequence of corrupt systems. Environmentally devastating projects are given preference in funding, because they are easy targets for siphoning off public money into private pockets.

(e) Issues of national security: Corruption within security agencies can lead to a threat to national security, including through distortion of procurement, recruitment of ineligible persons, providing an easy route for smuggling of weapons and terrorist elements into the country and money laundering

Read more...

Send N-bill back to Parliament for reconsideration: Experts

Updated on Thursday, September 02, 2010, PTI

New Delhi: An environmental health researchers' forum has requested President Pratibha Patil to send the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill back to Parliament and Union Cabinet for reconsideration, claiming that the legal design of the proposed legislation is "flawed".

"I solemnly and earnestly urge you to send the Bill back to Parliament and Union Cabinet for reconsideration," founder and convenor of Toxic Watch Alliance (TWA) Gopal Krishna said in a petition to the President.

"I submit that the legal design of the Bill is flawed as it favours nuclear suppliers and nuclear exporters but not the victims," he added.

Except for the appointment of Claims Commissioner and the constitution of a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission to adjudicate and award compensation for nuclear damage within a period of three months, there is no other feature in the Bill that will protect the interests of the "victims of disaster", Krishna claimed.

On behalf of TWA, Krishna had also filed a petition with NHRC recently and sought its intervention, alleging that drafters of the Bill had ignored recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on radiation protection.

In his petition to the President, he urged her to order an "open and transparent" review of how nuclear power installations, including uranium mines have been operating in the country before proceeding with new nuclear power plants.

"A White Paper on the current status of nuclear installations is a must for undertaking future operations," Krishna said.

He demanded setting up of a committee to study effects of nuclear damage in India "before rushing through the Bill."

"This Committee should consist not only of nuclear scientists and engineers, but also economists, agricultural scientists and public health experts," he said.

Krishna contended that many other countries have unlimited liability and capping the liability of the operator of the plant at a very small level of Rs 1, 500 crores here is "uncalled for".

"The total liability for each nuclear incident remains capped at 300 million SDR, that is, Rs 2122.40 crores or USD 455 million as per clause 6 (1). The amount is less than even the Bhopal settlement of USD 470 million, which has been acknowledged as grossly inadequate by the Government itself," he contended.

Such a cap on liability will also have an impact on the safety of nuclear installations in the country, he added.

PTI
http://www.zeenews.com/news652458.html

Read more...

N C Saxena's response to Orissa Government's letter on Vedanta

Letter from Saxena Committee in response to State Government's letter

Dear Sri Jairam Ramesh,

We have gone through the representation of the Orissa government dated 18 August. There is no specific point in the representation that needs rebuttal. The Committee's mandate was to examine the issue in its entirety and the Attorney General's view was clear that the Supreme Court's decision did not come in the way of examination of legal and technical issues involved.

As regards the implementation of the Forest Rights Act in places other than the proposed mining lease (PML) area, we have expressed our appreciation of the efforts of the Orissa government in our report. However, in this case too, while Orissa has done well in granting individual rights, it has done little to recognize community and habitat rights. Sri Vinod Kumar, Special Secretary, Govt of Orissa admitted in the Chief Secretary’s meeting on July 10 that so far only one case of habitat rights had been recognized for the Mankadia PTG, a nomadic tribe in district Mayurbhanj. In Rayagada district, not a single case of community rights had been formalized till 30 June, 2010.

However, the intention of the Orissa government to implement FRA in the PML area is
highly suspect. This area has been the habitat of the PTGs and is being used for collecting various MFPs, a fact which has been recognized in various documents, including Forest Working Plans. Despite strong oral and written evidence of the fact that the PML area is the PTG’s community resource and habitat, the district officials have not only discouraged the recognition of their rights, but have gone to the extent of denying the applications that the communities have on their own given to the administration requesting for recognition of community and habitat rights over the PML area.

The two Collectors have given a certificate in March 2010 stating that, ‘It is certified that the complete process for diversion and settlement of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 has been carried out for the entire forest area … proposed for diversion.’ Further the certificate stated, ‘It is revealed from the records that, so far there are no claims of individual or community rights under the ST. & Other Traditional Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 over the above …area proposed for diversion’.

Both parts of the certificate are false. The process of recognition of rights under FRA has hardly begun, and applications are still being received in both the districts (see section 3.C.iv.2 of the report). As I write this letter to you, news is pouring in that the gram sabha of village Lakpadar (visited by the Committee) has sent its claim to the SDLC over the PML area.

The Chief Secretary, Orissa in a general direction dated 24 October, 2009, to all District Collectors, had instructed that proposals for diversion of forest land should be put before the Gram Sabhas, and their consent or rejection should be attached. This directive was ignored by the district administration of Rayagada and Kalahandi: the letters from the Gram Sabhas were not obtained or attached with the certificates given by the Collectors. On the contrary, our Committee received written resolutions as well as oral submissions from several Gram Sabhas in the area stating that they were firmly opposed to diversion of forest lands. All these facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that the state government has failed to uphold the law
in this case.

The state government's act in allowing the company to occupy 26.123 ha of forest lands enclosed within the refinery compound is a serious violation of not only FCA but is a criminal act of giving away public lands under use by tribals, dalit and other rural poor to a private company. The company has surrounded these forests within its high walls. To claim that they are only protecting these lands to allow the forests to grow is a travesty of facts. Before this "protection" the tribal and other villagers had access to these forest lands from all sides and they were using these village forest lands for meeting their needs. It must be noted that the
purpose of these village forest lands was only to meet the forest-based needs of the villagers.

There is no access to these lands by the villagers now, as the Committee found during its investigation. By allowing the company to enclose these lands and thereby deny villagers access to their own forests, the state government has been complicit in the illegal takeover of village forests without due process of law and for the benefit of a private company. This is a corrupt practice and all the guilty in this act need to be prosecuted under the PCA by a central agency.

I would also invite the attention of MoEF to the last lines of Annexure 2, where the state government official has admitted that, ‘Besides the above, Ac.2.17 De. Vide Kh.no. 52, plot No. 7 kissam, revenue forests is bounded by Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, Lanjigadh’, thus clearly establishing that the factory has encroached upon another piece of forest land without GOI’s permission (see section 4.A of the report).
There was also an oft repeated complaint by many tribal villagers that the patches being shown as the village forest under "protection" by the company were not the actual village forests but are the lands that the company found convenient to keep under tree cover after constructing its factory. This can be easily checked by the survey numbers of the original village forest lands and the MoEF must take further action on this line.

The committee went largely by the views of the state government and its officials as well as of the Wildlife Institute of India in coming to the conclusion that the land in question was important as a wildlife habitat in general and for elephants in particular because it was the state government itself which had designated the site as an important elephant habitat and proposed it for a wildlife sanctuary before suddenly and inexplicably changing its views.

The company has, without getting environmental clearance, expanded its refinery capacity six times from 1 Mtpa to 6 Mtpa of aluminium and would thus now need to process 18 Mt of bauxite ore per year. Given this increased demand, the total reserve of 72.897 Mt ore in the PML area will only last for 4 years. If the state government illegally prioritizes the short-term interests of a private company by sacrificing a sensitive ecological and hydrological area that is rich in biodiversity, and an ecosystem that supports the livelihood and culture of the Dongaria Kondh and Kutia Kondh Primitive Tribal Groups, it will be violating the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes under the FRA as well as the Environment Protection Act and the Forest Conservation Act.

Finally, neither the state government nor the Collectors have cooperated with the Committee in sending information available with them. Collector Kalahandi sent the desired information to the Forest Secretary, but not to the chairperson. I personally spoke to Mr Behera, Principal Secretary of Forests & Environment Department of Orissa, and also sent him a mail, but he too did not send the information that he admitted having received from the district. The state government’s attitude of deliberate non-cooperation should be taken into account while deciding their application under the FCA.

regards,
NC Saxena
23 Aug 2010

Read more...

Letter to President on Nuclear Disaster Liability Bill & Lessons from Chernobyl

Her Excellency,
Mrs. Pratibha Patil
President of India
Rashtrapati Bhavan
New Delhi – 110 004
E-mail: presidentofindia@rb.nic.in

Date: 1st September, 2010

Subject- Nuclear Disaster Liability Bill & Lessons from Chernobyl
Date: 1st September, 2010

Your Excellency,

This is with reference to the passage Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on 25th August and August 30, 2010 respectively and how “In the end, we all live near Chernobyl”.

Pursuant to my application to National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and written and oral testimony to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests regarding environmental hazards from radioactive radiation and nuclear wastes, now that Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have passed the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, I solemnly and earnestly urge you to send the Bill back to the Parliament and the Union Cabinet for reconsideration.

On behalf of ToxicsWatch Alliance and public interest groups and individuals who are deeply concerned about the possible devastation of human life and ecosystem due to nuclear disaster, nuclear radiation and nuclear wastes, I respectfully ask that you order an open and transparent review of how nuclear power installations including uranium mines have been operating in the country before proceeding with new nuclear power plants. A White Paper on the current status of nuclear installations is a must for undertaking future operations.

I submit that the legal design of the Bill is flawed as it favours nuclear suppliers and nuclear exporters and not the victims. Except for the appointment of Claims Commissioner as provided in clause 9 and the constitution of a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission as provided in clause 19 to adjudicate and award compensation for nuclear damage within a period of three months, there isn’t any other feature in the Bill that will protect the interests of the victims of disaster.

I submit that Union Cabinet must be asked to take steps to prevent the human cost of industrial disasters by recommending unlimited liability for companies in both Nuclear Liability Bill and the proposed Companies Bill, 2009. A beginning can be made by making these legislations victim centric and legal-artificial persons accountable to our legislatures. Neither Nuclear Liability Bill nor the proposed Companies Bill, provide for tracing the Companies or suppliers which become invisible or hide behind corporate veils after disasters or may not be in business after that.

I submit that before deciding on this pro-supplier Bill passed by the Parliament due to an unholy collaboration, Hon’ble President must consult experts like Dr. V. Maitreyan, an oncologist, former Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests and currently Member, Rajya Sabha. Dr Maitreyan was trained by Dr. Robert Peter Gale, the world renowned medical oncologist who did bone marrow transplants on the Chernobyl nuclear accident victims. In his speech on 30th August in the Parliament he quoted Dr. Robert Peter Gale book "Final Warning -- The Legacy of Chernobyl" saying nuclear accidents happen, "In sum, accidents happen. This is why the nuclear industry continues to insist upon laws limiting its liability for damages arising out of nuclear accidents". At the conclusion of the Chapter, Dr. Gale says: "As for Chernobyl, it may be that the greatest contributions made at Hospital Number 6 were not the lives saved but the lives lost. For the failure to save lives demonstrated how deadly nuclear power can be and how helpless the world is when radiation rages wild. In the end, we all live near Chernobyl."

I submit that incidents such as the leaky valves and malfunctioning of pumps and fuel bundles had almost shutdown one of India's first nuclear reactors at Tarapur in 1973, as has been claimed by The Week magazine in one of its recent cover stories, have remained outside the parliamentary scrutiny. "In September 1973, the inevitable happened. The malfunctioning of pumps, valves and fuel bundles at TAPS (Tarapur Atomic Power Station) led to the radioactive levels rising far greater than those laid down by the International Commission for Radiation Protection." The then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had summoned Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Homi Sethna and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) Director Raja Ramanna to convey her "acute concerns" on the matter. "Eminent scientists, both pleaded with her not to pronounce what would have been a death sentence on the credibility of the country's nuclear programme," the report said quoting Ashok Parthsarathi, then the Scientific Assistant to Gandhi. A High Powered parliamentary team should be given the task of examining such pitfalls so as to incorporate lessons from them in the Bill.

I submit that Union Cabinet should agree to set up a committee to study the effects of nuclear damage on India before rushing through the Bill. This Committee should consist not only of nuclear scientists and engineers, but also economists, agricultural scientists and public health experts. As has been admitted by the Government of India that, “in a sense the elected political class of the country let down the victims of Bhopal," because we did not have adequate liability laws, the passage of Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill appears to be doing the same again through this “insurance for the protection of suppliers and operators in the case of a nuclear accident” and through signing Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage although there is no need for India to join it which has been ratified by only four out of thirty nuclear power countries.

I submit that many other countries have unlimited liability, capping the liability of the operator of the plant at a very small level of Rs.1, 500 crores is uncalled for. The Government of USA forced BP to set aside an amount of USD 20 billion in an escrow fund to settle claims. Indeed a serious nuclear accident will have consequences that are much more severe than this oil spill. Does Government of India believe that Indian lives and property are less precious than lives of those of citizens of USA? The total liability for each nuclear incident remains capped at 300 million SDR, that is, Rs.2122.40 crores or $455 million as per clause 6 (1). The amount is less than even the Bhopal settlement of $470 million, which has been acknowledged as grossly inadequate by the Government itself. Such cap on liability will also have an impact on the safety of nuclear installations in the country. This is because the cost of a single nuclear reactor can be as high as Rs.30,000 crores as in the case of the reactor planned at Jaitapur by AREVA, a French public multinational industrial conglomerate headquartered in the Tour Areva near Paris.

Consequently, the cost of a reactor can be 20 times the maximum amount of liability. It means that it might be cheaper for the operator to take the risk of paying the maximum liability than to spend, say, 10 per cent extra in adding safety features to the plant. The Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha includes a right of recourse for the operator but the liability of the supplier is limited to Rs.1,500 crores which is the maximum third party damage that the operator will have to pay. The supplier may sell a plant for Rs. 30,000 crores but will be liable for a maximum of only 5 per cent of that amount.

It is submitted that the preparations for the visit of President of United States of America (USA) occupied Union Cabinet so much that it failed to consult the secretaries of ministries/departments of government of India on the draft nuclear liability bill. The Parliamentary Standing Committee referred to how not consulting the secretaries of ministries of health & family welfare, agriculture, labour & employment, food & public distribution, etc. in the drafting of the Bill was a very serious lapse of the Union Cabinet. Starkly enough, none of the concerned Chief Secretaries or Chief Ministers of the relevant states been consulted either. The Parliamentary Standing Committee, therefore, recommended that “the government should consult all such ministries/departments which are even remotely concerned with the provisions of a proposed legislation", the same has not been done. Not only that the submissions of secretaries of home ministry, water resources, ministry of health, agriculture ministry, department of food and public distribution etc have not been incorporated by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Notably, Secretary, ministry of health said, “Since the response system to deal with any kind of emergency of such type, the hospitals are not well-equipped, it is natural that mortality and morbidity due to multiple burn, blasts, radiation injuries and psycho-social impact could be on very high scale and medical tackling of such a large emergency could have enough repercussions in the nearby areas of radioactive fallout. She also mentioned that in the entire bill, there is not a single clause which speaks about taking health care during radiological emergencies. It reflects only about payment of compensation due to health impacts of such radiation. She suggested while setting up nuclear plants consideration may also be given to the fact that there should be a hospital having trained doctors near such establishments and arrangements should also be made for free treatment of people who are affected by serious nuclear fallout." She confessed that “her ministry is nowhere to meet an eventuality that may arise out of nuclear and radiological emergencies.” Similar testimonies from secretaries of other ministries provide a chilling and prophetic forewarning.

In compliance of the suggestion of Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee during my testimony on August 3, 2010 and pursuant to my written submission dated July 7, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) had specifically drawn the attention of the committee with regard to the narrow definition of the word 'installation' and conflict of interest ridden existence of the AERB. In a letter to the committee dated August 12, TWA has highlighted the backdrop of the deliberations on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. TWA has questioned the merit of centralised power stations given 35-40 percent transmission and distribution loss from power grids. The Secretary, financial services, ministry of finance submitted before the committee that "any increase in premium of insurance will lead to increase in the cost of production of electricity for nuclear power. It is argued that higher the liability limit higher will be the insurance premium and subsequently higher will be the cost of electricity production." It has been noted in the Rajya Sabha that as far as the cost difference between hydro, thermal and all the available options vis-à-vis nuclear electricity is concerned, the cost difference is 1:3. If the objective of wanting to generate 40,000 MW of nuclear power in the next two decades is considered, the cost difference between conventional and nuclear electricity would be more than Rs. 3,00,000 crores (Rs. 3 lakh crores) . This amount can build 20,000 hundred-bedded modern hospitals all over the country and 2.5 lakhs of Navodaya Vidyalayas with boarding facilities for 100 students all over the country.

Testimony after testimony before the committee had asked for deletion of the word terrorism from the bill but the same is not reflected in the committee's report despite the fact that Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar categorically stated, "under different layers of protection, nuclear assets including nuclear installations are being protected through defence. However he admitted that absolute and fool proof protection cannot be guaranteed for any nuclear or other assets in the country during peace or war." Exceptions for acts of terrorism can easily be used by the supplier and the operator to wash their hands off any nuclear disaster.

I submit that section 46 of the Bill suggests that existing criminal laws can be used only against the operator. The existing criminal laws, including section 304 and section 304A of the India Penal Code should be applicable to the supplier as well.

Earlier responding to the question about the need for Indian Parliament to pass a liability agreement in the matter of nuclear cooperation with US, the prime minister said: 'We will do that. Our Cabinet will be taking a decision. I do not see any difficulties in honouring our commitments.' He said so in an interview conducted by EG Weymouth, editor-at-Large of Newsweek treasured on Prime Minister’s website on November 16, 2009.

The reason for such tearing hurry and nervousness in passing Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill can be traced to the visit of President of United States of America to India and in a press release from the Indian Embassy in Washington which notes, "The historic bilateral cooperation agreement for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the 123 Agreement that we signed two years back provided for reprocessing of US obligated nuclear material in an Indian national facility under IAEA safeguards." A letter written by the then Foreign Secretary to the US Under Secretary on 10th September, 2008 says, "India also recognizes the importance of establishing an adequate nuclear liability regime and it is the intention of the Indian Government to take steps to adhere to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage." This letter was quoted in Rajya Sabha on 30th August, 2010. Further evidence is visible, in an interview on 10th March, 2010 the US Secretary of State says, "Our interests are to ensure that the Bill that is ultimately enacted is complaint with the international standards in this area which is a Convention on Supplementary Compensation. That is our chief interest." That is why the clause 7(a) in Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, where it says explicitly, "If there is an explicit contract between the operator and supplier....". This merits high level of parliamentary scrutiny. These are certain things which still required to be considered, keeping in mind the plight of those persons who are, finally, going to be the sufferers if some nuclear disaster takes place. The press release from Washington observes, "The government of India has already designated two sites for nuclear power plants to be established in cooperation with the US and the companies of the two countries are now engaged in discussions" as a follow up of the Strategic Dialogue and the meeting of the CEO's Forum prior to the visit of President Barack Obama to India in November, 2010.

I submit that the influence of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)’s draft of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill and Union Cabinet’s preparations for the visit of Barack Obama, President, United States of America to India in November, 2010 did not provide sufficient time to dwell adequately on even the submissions of secretaries in the event of a nuclear disaster of the Chernobyl type. The Union Cabinet has ignored that since 1980, the United States of America has not added a single megawatt of nuclear power in their country taking lessons from The Three Mile Island nuclear accident.

I submit that in order to complete the journey which the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh had undertaken to USA five years ago most concerns have disregarded due to the role of FICCI which is the largest and oldest business organisation of the country claiming to be a "non-government, not-for-profit organisation" with direct membership from the private as well as public sectors, including MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 83,000 companies. Clearly, with the passage of this Bill FICCI’s efforts on its own and on behalf of the multinational nuclear companies have succeeded despite India’s exemplary poor safety record with no database of radioactive radiation victims who appear to be deemed collateral damages for ‘development’ any cost based on nuclear power at any exorbitant cost.

In such a grim context, Hon’ble President may consider sending the Bill back to the Parliament for recommending re-consideration, formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee sans conflict of interest to examine the current liability regime for nuclear disaster in the world besides constituting a high-powered trans-disciplinary independent experts committee to study true economics of nuclear power at leisure so that present and future generations and their ecosystem doesn’t suffer due to the myopia of FICCI, Union Cabinet and their unsound business sense.

Thanking You
Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
Founder-Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
Website: www.toxicswatch.com
Blog: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

Cc
-Mrs Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, National Advisory Council, Government of India & MP, Lok Sabha, E-mail: soniagandhi@sansad.nic.in
-Mr Rahul Gandhi, General Secretary, Indian National Congress & MP, Lok Sabha,
E-mail:gandhim@sansad.nic.in, office@rahulgandhi.in

Read more...