Cancel Jaitapur Nuclear Project!

The proposed 9900-MW nuclear power park at Madban, situated near the port of Jaitapur in the southern part of Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra. It would be the largest single location nuclear power project in the world. It is based on the import of six nuclear power plants from AREVA. In the first phase, two plants are to be built between 2012 and 2017.

It has come to light that in the matter of the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (JNPP) a rigorous and scientific environment impact assessment and cost benefit analysis has not been performed.

Minister of Environment and Forests, in the presence of Chief and Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra officially announced “conditional” environmental clearance granted to Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park. The citizens of Maharashtra and India are demanding answers to questions regarding Approval, Rehabilitation and land acquisition, Costs, Radioactive byproducts, Reprocessing of spent fuel and disposal of radioactive wastes and Civil nuclear liability limits that remains unaddressed. It must be answered by the Indian government.It is widely felt that its a Vedanta and POSCO kind of clearance given in haste.

All the organisations and individuals campaigning against the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant have decided to have a Protest Morcha in the Parel- Lalbaug, Mumbai on 4th December, 2010.

Their slogans are:

Cancel Jaitapur Nuclear Project!

Struggle for a people-oriented development!

Imperialism destroys the environment!

Sarkozy Go Back! We dont need your nuclear plants!

Say NO to Nuclear Power!

Konkan Bachao Samiti (KBS) and Janhit Seva Samiti (JSS) have been spearheading a campaign against this nuclear power project. There is reliable information, it has been claimed, that the European regulatory authorities from three countries, Finland (STUK), France (ASN) and UK (HSE) have jointly written to Areva, raising certain serious objections to the current design of control and instrumentation for vital safety aspects of EPR plant.

It has also been learnt that only last month the US regulator (NRC) has written to Areva expressing similar concerns.

Local residents are opposed to the JNPP and have refused to accept any compensation, nor have they demanded raise in the compensation.

The biodiversity report prepared by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) formed the basis for the 35 environmental conditions set by the environment ministry while giving the green signal for the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant in Ratnagiri district on 28th November. The report recorded the presence of plant and animal life on land and marine both at and around the plant site. BNHS has also mapped 407 hectares of mangrove vegetation around a 10km radius of the nuclear plant as well in some of the affected villages.

BNHS report contradicted the official 1200 page environment impact assessment (EIA) report prepared by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and made public in April, 2010.

The NEERI report had described the land surrounding the nuclear plant as “rocky and barren land with no habitation and vegetation” and hence ruled out any adverse ecological impact in the area. The same area was surveyed during the monsoon by BNHS, which found 134 species of plants on the plateau.

In July, 2010 the BNHS conducted a rapid impact assessment of the biodiversity of the region and found the Madban plateau to be rich in plant and animal diversity with very good marine diversity in adjacent sites of Ambolgad and Kasheli.

BNHS found 1,000 plant species, NEERI couldn’t find even 500 species. Indeed if the project proponents are assigned to conduct EIA, the report cannot be objective. Therefore, once again NEERI report is flawed. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), the project proponent, an undertaking of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE had commissioned NEERI to prepare the EIA report for the Jaitapur plant in 2005.

Earlier, in a letter to the President of India dated September 1, 2010, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) pointed out that "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."

It is submitted that the preparations for the visit of Nicholas Sarkozy, President of France occupied Union Cabinet so much that it failed to consult the secretaries of ministries/departments of government of India on the ramifications in terms of liability from the nuclear plant. The Parliamentary Standing Committee referred to how secretaries of ministries of health & family welfare, agriculture, labour & employment, food & public distribution, etc. who were ignored in the drafting of the Nuclear Liability Bill was a very serious lapse of the Union Cabinet.

It has been found that NEERI's EIA Report is unscientific. This EIA report was made available only a month prior to the public hearing on May 16, 2010. It has been alleged on factual grounds that the EIA report reads as if it was authored by the Public Relations department of NPCIL or Areva.

It may be noted, “The accident at Chernobyl released into the atmosphere an amount of radioactivity equivalent to 400 bombs of the Hiroshima variety. The Nuclear Power Project of Jaitapur is about 10 times the size of the Chernobyl Power Plant. The huge radioactive accumulations at the plant site are the principal causes of concern which must be addressed.”

NEERI did not have the competence to assess the project. It entails issues of radioactive radiation. NEERI contends that the project meets Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) norms and standards without conducting any independent assessment, relying completely on the AERB. But AERB reports are not part of the EIA.

Unmindful of its admitted incompetence to assess radioactive risk, NEERI certifies the safety of the plant saying, “Through individual event sequence analysis for different initiating events, it is estimated that the plant is provided adequate safety features and measures to mitigate or minimise any unsafe consequences”.

The same EIA report reveals the following, “All the above scenarios explained, namely Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) and Beyond Design Basis Accidents (BDBAs) are thoroughly studied and detailed reports are generated as Preliminary Safety Analysis Reports (PSAR) and these reports will be submitted to Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) for review and approval for construction of Nuclear Power project at Jaitapur.” Clearly implying that the safety approval by the AERB is yet to be obtained and despite this it certified the adequacy of the safety of the plant against “any unsafe consequences”.

The threat of terrorist attack on nuclear plants in India is also considered credible is clear from the specific exclusion in clause 5 (ii) in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill (2010) which has been passed by the Indian Parliament and awaits President's assent. It reads: “An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage where such damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to – an act of armed conflict, hostility, civil war, insurrection or terrorism”.

After the 9/11 terrorist attack in the USA, the possibility of terrorist attack on nuclear power plants is considered quite

credible and substantial by US authorities. DAE has ignored the complete text of a 2009 report presented to the US Congress: on “Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities”.

Consequently, amendments were made in US law to require nuclear plant design to address this risk but the Indian legislation on Nuclear Liability does the contrary.

Misplaced expression of satisfaction by NEERI with NPCIL's claim of safe storage for 100 years for 100 years is shocking. This constitutes less than one per cent of the lethality lifetime of the spent fuel. There is no explanation as what will happen to the radioactive waste after 100 years. It is a known fact that India does not have a geological repository for nuclear waste and there are no sites in India suitable for building one.

The EIA report is flawed because of the absence of a specific plan for decommissioning as well. No new nuclear plant can be built in Europe or the USA without such plan. The EIA report is untenable.

The cost of electricity generated from JNPP would be in excess of Rs 9 per unit. This does not include the costs of managing radioactive waste and decommissioning. The current cost of electricity is about Rs 4 per unit.

In its last report in 2010, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment & Forests, had 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. This recommendation has been ignored in the case of Jaitapur nuclear plant as well.

It nay be noted that Secretary, Union 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 a written submission dated July 7, 2010, 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.

The groups which will participate in the Protest Morcha to oppose Jaitapur nuclear power plant are: Konkan Bachao Samiti, Konkan Vinashkari Prakalp Virodhi Kruti Samiti, Jan Hit Seva Samiti, CITU, TUCI, Prerana, CRBS, Janvadi Mahila Sangathana & some others.There are hundreds of such groups who oppose nuclear plants and have expressed solidarity with the Protest Morcha.

P.S: The total installed generating capacity in India as on June 30, 2010 was 1,62,367 MW, comprising 64% from fossil fuel, 23% from Hydro, 3% from nuclear and balance 10% from renewable energy sources.

Read more...

At play in the fields of the lord

DMK’s stint at the Environment Ministry straddled two coalitions and three terms: within it lie clues to the unraveling the real 'scam of the decade’, which puts the 2G scam to shame BY GOPAL KRISHNA  Delhi It is ironic that the same headline-grabbing story of the 2G or second-generation spectrum scam that alerted people to the curious fact of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s (DMK) 12-year uninterrupted stint in Delhi, straddling two coalitions and three terms, has managed to hide the fallout of this fact despite the 24-hour media glare. There is an unacknowledged and irreparable loss to India’s ecological and natural resources due to decisions taken by DMK ministers TR Baalu and Andimuthu Raja during their terms as environment ministers. If a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) is ever formed, which looks unlikely as of now, it should probably be examining the environmental and pollution crimes committed by the two with as much vigour as it investigates the spectrum scam. It may be recalled that Baalu was the Union Minister for Environment and Forests from October 13, 1999, to December 21, 2003, during the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance government. He was succeeded by Raja, who was in charge of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) from May 23, 2004 to May 17, 2007. It was during his tenure as MoEF minister that the Raja-Niira Radia relationship blossomed in January 2006, which made environmental clearances for various projects of Radia’s clients easier. Radia's influence in the ministry was an open secret. Actually, the roots of the present scam can be traced back to Raja’s incarnation as environment minister when environmental clearances for various projects brought companies across sectors closer to him. With the assistance of RK Chandolia, then a director, planning and coordination, in the ministry, and Radia, clearances were granted at a supersonic speed. During the terms of the DMK ministers, the MoEF had almost decided to grant a self-certification option which would have exempted project expansion and modernisation proposals from seeking environment clearances, through one of the major amendments proposed to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, 2006, which delineates a legal process for the grant of environment clearances to industrial and infrastructure projects. Raja’s tenure as environment minister has been termed by environmental groups as the “death certificate” of the MoEF. EIA notifications were first issued in 1994 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In the 20 years from 1986 to 2006, the MoEF cleared 4,016 projects. According to the 2009 report by the environmental group Kalpavriksh, entitled ‘Calling the Bluff: Revealing the state of Monitoring and Compliance of Environmental Clearance Conditions’, the MoEF cleared 80 to 100 projects every month with a range of environment and social impacts. Under the new EIA 2006 Notification, 2,016 projects were cleared between 2006 and 2008 in just two years. The MoEF chose to have no database on the extent of compliance of the projects it cleared. Those projects which were cleared under his regime now merit rigorous scrutiny. Besides, the appointments for the Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs) and their conflicts of interests also need to be examined and their decisions reviewed. Under the EIA notification of 2006, the EACs’ role at the fourth stage of environment clearance (after the EIA report and the public hearing) is of enormous significance on sectors such as river valley and hydel/thermal power projects, industries, mining, infrastructure, etc. By 2005, out of 64 members in the various EACs, almost two-thirds of the members were from the National Capital Region and Tamil Nadu. It is as if most of the expertise on environment must come from DMK’s legislative constituencies so long it is in power. The story of P Abraham, the former secretary, Ministry of Power, who was appointed in April 2007 by Raja, reveals the rot that set in during the DMK (mis)rule. Even though he was a proponent of hydropower projects, he was appointed to chair the EAC on River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects. After this was exposed by environmental groups, he was made to resign by the present environment minister. But no investigation has happened into all the clearances granted under Abhraham’s tenure. If Raja’s tenure at the MoEF was a disaster for the environment, under his predecessor, Baalu, it had assumed a surreal garb. Instead of making every firm liable for their environmental crimes, Baalu launched the (mouthful) “Government's Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Protection” (CREP) on March 13, 2003, while arbitrarily choosing 17 out of the 64 heavily polluting industries under the highly polluting “red” category. A MoEF official, on condition of anonymity, had then commented that this done to attract funds for fighting elections which were then around the corner. A Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) official revealed anonymously that in order to prepare this charter, some 17 meetings were held almost between 5 December 5, 2002, and January 10, 2003. In fact as many as four meetings took place in a day on some occasions. The “negotiations” for even this effete charter continued till March 12, 2003. Even though the issue of monitoring and implementation was left unaddressed, Baalu had told the media, “We will not punish any industry if it fails to implement the charter, as such an act would be against the spirit of voluntary compliance.” Both A Raja (left) and TR Baalu had headed the Environment Ministry earlier Showing remarkable innocence, Baalu had the said that the pollution control boards and the industry would work together to check pollution. The (voluntary) CREP is applicable to 2,098 units in 17 categories of major polluting industries, including sugar (525 units), pharmaceuticals (397 units), distilleries (232 units), leather (150 units), pesticide (150 units), cement (126 units), fertilizer (111 units), dyes and dye intermediates (100 units), pulp and paper (96 units), thermal power plants (83 units), petrochemicals (51 units), caustic soda (35 units), refineries (17 units), iron and steel (8 units), aluminium (14 units), copper (6 units) and zinc (4 units). It recommended toxic technologies like incinerators, which emit harmful dioxins, to deal with hazardous waste of all kinds. In fact, to facilitate this move, there was at that time a proposal to make import of incinerators duty-free. Meanwhile, the 150 units belonging to the pesticide industry suggested segregation, detoxication and treatment of highly toxic waste streams by standards set up by the industry itself. Unlike the pesticide industry, the cement industry was unable to come to a consensus on the exact radius of the area around a cement plant that is vulnerable to pollution. When they were unable to decide whether the belt under threat of pollution around the project should be fixed at 3 or 7 km, the then special secretary, MoEF, VK Duggal, using remarkable mathematical genius, fixed a 5 km limit, it being the average of the two contending limits. For other disagreements that any industry body had with the charter, the ministry had a simple solution – it simply deleted the problematic clauses. One clause in the charter required “all the major tannery units to obtain ISO 14000 certification by December 2004”. This was deleted. The section on tanneries exploring the possibility of “sulphur recovery (for reuse) from sulphide-bearing effluents, by December 2005,” was also removed from the charter. The chlor-alkali industry benefited the most from such omissions. The draft charter had proposed shutting down all chlor-alkali plants based on mercury cell technology by December 2005 and had directed them to adopt membrane technology. The deadline was removed from the charter. Had the timeframe for compliance been retained, it would have seemed consistent with the incentive given in that year’s Union budget to encourage the shift to membrane cell technology. The incentive related to a 10 per cent reduction in customs duty on components of membrane cell technology. This was to make their import cheaper. The charter requires the industry to reduce mercury consumption to below 50 gm for every of product manufactured, which is still very high. As of now, mercury-based chlor-alkali units are being allowed to release approximately 25-30 tonnes of mercury annually to produce 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes of caustic soda, in comparison to best-practices of Western Europe, where only 9 tonnes of mercury is consumed to produce 6 million tonnes of caustic soda. Although the petrochemical sector and refineries is included in the list of highly polluting industry, it was treated with notable softness. When asked about punishing the industries which do not comply, Baalu had once said that the charter incorporates voluntary initiatives and the industry would self regulate. Needless to say, there was no civil society consultation in drafting CREP. The two-day seminar at Ashoka Hotel, Delhi, where the charter was released, resembled a corporate launch. Not surprisingly, less than 50 per cent of the projects cleared in 2003 had monitoring reports generated by the MoEF, and only 150 of the 223 projects cleared in 2003 had at least one compliance report submitted by project authorities. Clearances by the DMK environment ministers ignored issues like soil erosion and land degradation for projects impacting about 146.82 million hectares of the country’s total geographical area of 328.60 million hectares, besides generation of 4.4 million tonnes of hazardous waste across the country during this period, and poisoning of the food chain as evidenced in Punjab where 287 toxic chemicals were detected in the umbilical cord blood in a mother’s womb. The resulting human costs due to callous and corrupt decision-making put the financial loss in the spectrum scam to shame.

Read more...

Adverse Consequences of DMK’s Regime at Environment Ministry

Press Release

National Borders compromised with rampant hazardous waste trade  

Raja permitted toxic ships with fake flags to enter Indian waters

Allowed controversial dead ships like Le Clemenceau, Riky & Blue Lady  

New Delhi 26/11/2010: A Raja- Nira Radia relationship blossomed during Raja’s tenure as environment Minister which made environmental clearances for Radia’s clients easier since 2006. Radia's influence at Environment Ministry was an open secret.  Actually the roots of the present telecom scam can be back traced to Raja’s incarnation as the environment minister when environmental clearances for projects brought companies across sectors nearer to him. With the assistance of R K Chandolia, then a Director, Planning & Coordination in the Environment Ministry and Radia, clearances were granted at a supersonic speed. 

The country is still handling the sins committed by him. Currently, 17,000 explosives weighing 200 quintals are being detonated in Ludhiana, Punjab. These explosives came in 2006 the containers of scrap waste/hazardous in the name of recycling. These were part of the same consignments that had caused explosions in the Bhushan Steel plant in Sahibabad-Gaziababd area that killed several workers in 2006.

Since November 16, the Army’s Bomb disposal Unit commenced its 75-80 day work to detonate these bombs near the Mattewara forest area in Ludhiana, Punjab. The residents of the villages in the vicinity have been evacuated from Sekhewal, Kalewal and Haider Nagar villages and were directed to move to temporary shelters on the bed of the Sutlej near Selkiana and Borreh villages.

So far only visual inspection has been done on a large variety of explosives ranging from small bombs to artillery shells. There are unexploded bombs as well. The scrap consignments have come from the Persian Gulf countries, they were perhaps used in the 1991 Gulf War. Moreover, the presence of unexploded bombs and war materials like artillery shells hints at their link with that war. Expressing security concerns, senior officers of the unit said there should be proper measures in place to check import of war materials from other countries to avoid a similar situation in the future. "This time the explosives came along with scrap unknowingly. Next time they could land up in India by design. We need to be very careful with imports. Raja Ministry allowed this. This requires probe.

There is an unacknowledged and irreparable loss to India’s ecological and natural resources due to decisions taken by DMK ministers during their term as Environment Ministers T R Baalu and Andimuthu Raja. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) should examine the environmental and pollution crimes of DMK Ministers while they handled Environment Ministry.

First, a ship with dubious credentials leaves the shores of Denmark. Then a month later, India allows it to beach at Alang, Gujarat's massive shipbreaking yard, for scrapping. In between, it gets a new name and rules are flouted to let it in Riky, the Danish ship unlike Le Clemenceau, the French ship (recalled by French court), sailed through the law despite a letter from the Danish Environment Minister to Raja warning him about the hazardous ship which had escaped from Denmark. The ship sailed in under the flag of Roxa, a non-existent "country". The case is pending in the Supreme Court. 

(For complete story see: http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/mar/env-riky.htm)

In the case of Blue Lady ship, Raja’s ministry presented a fait accompli to the Supreme Court, compelling it to pass judgment on fake technical grounds instead of legal grounds in order to permit the dismantling of the dead ship by reversing key milestones in environmental jurisprudence like it own landmark order, precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle.

It may be recalled that T R Baalu was the Union Minister of Environment & Forests from 13th October 1999 to 21st December 2003. He was succeeded by Andimuthu Raja who was the Minister from 23rd May 2004 to 17th May 2007. During the DMK regime, the Ministry had almost decided to grant a self-certification option to project proponents so that project expansion and modernization proposals can be exempt from seeking environment clearances through one of the major amendments proposed to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, 2006 which delineates a legal process for the grant of environment clearances to industrial and infrastructure projects.

At the time of grating environmental clearance, a set of general and specific conditions are laid out for companies which are project proponents to comply with. This is done to ensure that adverse impacts on environment and communities can be minimized or mitigated. Despite manifest acts of omissions and commissions during the tenure of DMK ministers, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) has so far failed to take cognizance of the fact that non-compliance of environmental clearance conditions like non-adherence of pollution reduction measures or dumping of industrial wastes, construction debris etc into rivers or farms have severe adverse impacts on the communities and the environment. The environmental clearances granted during the DMK ministers’ regime must be re-examined.   

Raja’s Exploits as Environment Minister

If one examines Raja’s tenure as environment it’s a story of what compelled environmental groups to issue a Death Certificate to the Environment Ministry? EIA Notification was first issued in 1994 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In 20 years from 1986 to 2006 the ministry cleared 4016 projects. According to the 2009 report by the environmental group Kalpavriksh entitled ‘Calling the Bluff: Revealing the state of Monitoring and Compliance of Environmental Clearance Conditions’, the Ministry of Environment clears 80 to 100 projects every month with a range of environment and social conditions. Under the new EIA 2006 Notification (issued when Raja was the minister at least till May 2007), 2016 projects were cleared between 2006 and 2008 in just 2 years. The Ministry chose to have no database on the extent of compliance of the projects it cleared.  Those projects which were cleared under his regime now merit rigorous scrutiny.

Unscrupulous behavior was rampant even during his term as Environment Minister. Besides the projects, the appointments for the Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs), their impudent conflicts of interests also need to be examined and their decisions reviewed.  It may be note that under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, 2006, the EACs’ role at the 4^th stage of environment clearance after the EIA report and the public hearing is of enormous significance on sectors such as river valley and hydropower projects, industries, mining, thermal power, infrastructure etc. It has been noted that in 2005 that out of 64 members in EACs, almost two-thirds of members were from the National Capital Region and Tamil Nadu. Is it that if there is a DMK minister, most of the expertise on environment must come from its legislative constituencies.   

The illustrative case of P Abraham (former Secretary, Ministry of Power), thechairperson of the EAC on River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects who was appointed in April 2007 by Rajareveals the rot that had set in. Even though he was a project promoter for hydropower projects, he was appointed to Chair the EAC on River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects. After it got exposed by environmental groups, he was made to resign by the present Environment Minister. But is this sufficient? Why has Minister not yet ordered any investigation into all the clearances granted under Abhraham’s tenure? 

Besides EAC on river valley and hydropower projects, EACs on industries, mining, thermal power, infrastructure etc also need to be probed if they are Raja’s appointees and their decisions with regard to environmental clearance need to be revisited and if need be cancelled as is being proposed in the matter of 2G licenses.

Let us also examine the tenure of T R Baalu. Nowhere in the world are rules to deal with thieves, defaulters and criminals made in consultation with the culprits but environment ministry under Baalu undertook the same unthinkable step to outline norms and action points with the consent of the heavily polluting and defaulting industries making mockery of the very notion of norms. Instead of making companies liable for their environmental crimes, Baalu launched Government's Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Protection (CREP) on March 13, 2003 in New Delhi. The charter was prepared in an "immoral collusion and unholy partnership' with the companies for 17 highly polluting industries. He had arbitrarily chosen 17 industries out of the 64 heavily polluting industries under the Red category (highly polluting industries). In private conversation, one Environment Ministry official said, this is just an exercise to attract funds for fighting elections which is round the corner.  

A Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) official revealed anonymously that in order to prepare this impotent charter some 17 meetings were held almost within a month during December 5, 2002- January 10, 2003. In fact as many as four meetings took place in a day on some occasions.  The "negotiations' for even this effete charter continued till March 12, 2003.

While the issue of monitoring and implementation has also been left unaddressed, Baalu said, "We will not punish any industry if it fails to implement the charter, as such an act would be against the spirit of voluntary compliance.' In an illustration of remarkable innocence, Baalu said, the Pollution Control Boards and the industry together will check the pollution as if the industry will concede that it is polluting the environment. This amounts to giving the industry the license to pollute.

This voluntary Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Protection (CREP) is applicable to 2098 units in 17 categories of major polluting industries. These include sugar industry (525 units), pharmaceuticals (397 units), distilleries (232 units), leather (150 units), pesticide industry (150 units), cement (126 units), fertilizer industry (111 units), dyes and dye intermediates (100 units), pulp and paper (96 units), thermal power plants (83 units), petrochemicals (51 units), caustic soda industry (35 units), oil refineries (17 units), iron and steel (8 units), aluminum (14 units), copper (6 units) and zinc (4 units). It recommended toxic technologies like incinerators to deal with waste and hazardous waste of all kinds. In fact there was a shocking proposal of making import of incinerators duty free. Incinerators are dioxins emitting machines. Take the case of Pesticide Industry, with 150 pesticides manufacturing units, the industry agreed to take up segregation of waste streams for appropriate treatment and detoxication and treatment of highly toxic waste streams will be taken up as suggested by the industry itself. If the industry knew that segregation of and its appropriate treatment was desirable, why have they been waiting for the charter to be prepared?

In the matter of cement industry there was lack of consensus on the exact radius of the area around a cement plant which is vulnerable due to pollution. When conflict arose as to whether 3 km belt would be severely affected or 7 km zone was likely to be under threat of pollution, the then special secretary, Environment Ministry V K Duggal fixed a limit of five km arbitrarily without any scientific basis. The Environment Ministry and CPCB simply deleted wherever companies disagreed with something in the charter. One clause in the charter required "all the major tannery units to obtain ISO 14000 certification by December 2004'. This was deleted. There was a section on tanneries exploring the possibility of "sulphur recovery (for reuse) from sulphide-bearing effluent by December 2005', it was also removed from the charter.

The chlor-alkali industry benefitted the most from such callous omissions. The draft charter had proposed shutting down of all chlor-alkali plants, based on mercury cell technology by December 2005 and had directed them to adopt membrane technology. The deadline was removed from the charter.  Had the time-frame for compliance been retained, it would have seemed consistent with the incentive given in that year's Union budget to encourage the shift to membrane cell technology. The incentive related to a 10 per cent reduction in customs duty on components of membrane cell technology. This was to make their import cheaper.

In the charter, there was the condition about the industry needing to reduce mercury consumption below 50 gm of product manufactured which is still very high. Approximately mercury-based chlor-alkali units are being allowed to release 25-30 tonnes of mercury annually to produce 5-6 lakh tonnes of caustic soda whereas only 9 tonnes of mercury is consumed in western Europe to produce 60 lakh tonnes of caustic soda.

Although the petrochemical sector and refineries is included in the list of highly polluting industry, it was treated with notable softness. When asked what will be the punishment for the industries, which do not follow the charter, Baalu said, the Charter incorporates the voluntary initiatives and actions by the identified categories of industries to ensure total compliance with pollution control norms and standards by the industry and it does intend to punish industries.

Environment Ministry under Baalu expected the media and the civil society to believe that these heavily polluting industries are mature enough and they do not need punishment to mend their polluting practices.

There was no civil society consultation in the drafting of CREP. The two-day seminar at Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi where the charter was released was akin to a market place where bargaining for lax environmental standards by the industry to the detriment of vulnerable natural capital had the field day.

Not surprisingly, less than 50% of the projects cleared in 2003 had monitoring reports generated by the Environment Ministry and only 150 of the 223 projects cleared in the year 2003 had at least one compliance report submitted by project authorities.

Way Ahead

Such clearances by the regime led by DMK environment ministers did not take into account issues such as soil erosion and land degradation of about 146.82 million hectare area of country's total geographical area of 328.60 million hectares which is about 45 per cent of the country's total geographical area, generation of 4.4 million tonnes hazardous waste generated in the country, poisoning of the food chain as evidenced in Punjab and detection of some 287 toxic chemicals in the umbilical cord blood in the mother’s womb, The resulting human costs due to callous and corrupt decision making agencies like the one led by Baalu and Raja are bigger than the financial loss in the spectrum scam.

If for no other reason at list for the sake of intergenerational equity, these clearances require rigorous environmental auditing and inquiry to set matters right for future. For this to happen, the environment ministry must be given enhanced budgetary allocation for rejuvenating the decaying institutional infrastructure in the aftermath of the debris left by Baalu and Raja. Underlining the same, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests said the CPCB has been 'reduced to a near-defunct body'. It is high time environmental regulation keeps pace with environmental crimes. Even Interpol has a Pollution & Environment Crime Working group; India too needs one. The weak environmental regulation must be strengthened to stop transboundary movement of polluting technologies, hazardous wastes and to create an inventory of chemicals and wastes besides conducting an environmental health audit along with the ministry of health to ascertain the body burden through investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and chemical pesticides in umbilical cord blood. 

A JPC on environmental crimes during DMK’s period at environment ministry must recommend publication of a database of environmental criminals and fugitives with their photographs and profiles with the name of the companies which fall under the 64 heavily polluting industries under the Red category (highly polluting industries), 34 moderately polluting industries ('Orange' category) and 54 'marginally' polluting units ('Green' category). Also publish a list of India's Most Wanted Environmental Criminals with wanted posters.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, New Delhi, Mb: 9818089660

E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com , Website: www.toxicswatch.com,

Blog: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

Read more...

Govt's Opposition to Ban on Endosulfan Unfortunate: K.C. VENUGOPAL

Re: Need to ban the production and use of Endosulfan, a pesticide affecting human health in the country

SHRI K.C. VENUGOPAL (ALAPPUZHA): Endosulfan is a deadly pesticide which is produced and used in India. But seventy-three countries have phased out or banned this insecticide and many other countries are on the way to ban it. But it is unfortunate that India opposed the ban citing economic losses at the sixth meeting of Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee to the Stockholm Convention.

Kerala is a largely affected state by use of Endosulfan as it is causing distress among people of Kasargod district as this pesticide is being used in the Government owned plantations through aerial spraying. A large number of natives of Kasargod and southern bordering parts of Karnataka are severely affected by physical deformities, disorders of the central nervous system, psychiatric problems, mental retardation, cerebral and genetically abnormalities and cancer due to Endosulfan.

The appointment of a new head of a six member central team to study the environmental problems created by Endosulfan gave favourable report on Endosulfan earlier which invited wide criticism. In 2004, a committee headed by the same person recommended to continue the use of Endosulfan after re-analyzing the report by O. P. Dubey Committee. He submitted the report underlining the opinion of Dubey Committee and the pesticide company representatives. Dubey Committee also submitted a favourable report for using the pesticide.

Now, the public outrage is high, but the Government has appointed the same person to re-analyze the problem. So, I request the Government that the appointment may be re-examined and instead a new committee may be appointed which will be capable to enquire facts without any injustice.

I also, request the Government that this deadly pesticide should be banned with immediate effect as it is a chlorinated insecticide that is chemically similar to DDT which was banned nearly 40 years ago and negatively affected environment, human beings and wildlife.

Note on Endosulfan

Endosulfan is a deadly insecticide banned in over 68 countries. Health effects from endosulfan include birth defects and mental retardations. It has a smell like turpentine. Endosulfan is a broad spectrum,
non-systemic organochlorine insecticide. It is used to control a number of insects on food crops such as grains, tea, fruits, and vegetables and on non-food crops such as tobacco and cotton. It is also used as a wood preservative.

Endosulfan applied to crops usually breaks down in a few weeks, but Endosulfan preferentially binds to soil particles and may take years to completely break down.

Like other POPs chemicals, Endosulfan does not dissolve easily in water and will preferentially bind to aquatic sediments. Similar to other POPs chemicals,Endosulfan will bioaccumulate into the tissues of animals living in endosulfan-contaminated water.

Other POPs include endrin, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene, chlordecone, pentachlorobenzene and perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS).

India is the world’s largest producer, consumer and exporter of endosulfan. The insecticide is one of 5 most commonly used insecticides in the world.

Kerala government banned it in 2002. It was banned following a scientific report by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH). The report showed that hundreds of people in Padre village of Kasaragod district, Kerala suffered from fatal diseases because of aerial spraying over cashew plantations during the 1970s- 1990s. Rising incidence of congenital anomalies, delayed puberty, mental retardation, abortions and cancer was noticed by local medical practitioners.

In the period from 1998 and 2002, health and toxicological studies in Kasaragod established neuro-behavioural disorders, congenital malformations in girls, abnormalities of reproductive tract in males
and increased rate of cancers.

Kerala government set up an Endosulfan Victims Relief and Remediation Cell in 2007. In the bordering state of Karnataka too endosulfan induced health crisis compelled Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa to
announce a compensation of Rs 50,000 to each victim in February 2010.

India has been exporting endosulfan to over 70 countries especially in the last 5 years.
Endosulfan was developed in the 1950s and won Hoechst AG (now Bayer CropScience) approval of USDA's for endosulfan in the US.

In the year 2000, in US home and garden uses of this insecticide was terminated by USEPA. In 2007, Canada announced that endosulfan is under consideration for phase-out and Bayer CropScience voluntarily pulls its endosulfan products from the US market. Endosulfan is acutely neurotoxic to both insects and mammals, including humans. The US EPA classifies it as Category I "Highly Acutely Toxic".

It is a known endocrine disruptor. The endocrine hormone system plays a key role in growth and sexual development. It consists of the endocrine glands, including the testicles, the ovaries, the thyroid,
the pancreatic and adrenal glands, the parathyroids and the pituitary gland (which controls the other endocrine glands). These glands secrete substances known as hormones, which are chemical messengers released directly into the bloodstream, where they travel to and stimulate other organs (or receptors). The pancreas, the thyroid, the parathyroids and the pituitary secrete protein hormones; the adrenal glands and the gonads secrete steroid hormones.

Hormones are crucial to morphology, metabolism, blood circulation and the nervous system (which itself affects hormone secretion), and thus help maintain the individual’s physiological balance.

When hormone secretion is disrupted, a physiological imbalance occurs that can lead to such problems as obesity, diabetes and decalcification of the bones. The natural or artificial substances that may cause this imbalance are described as endocrine disruptors.

Endocrine disruptors are divided into three categories:

Mimics – These disruptors are perceived by the body as genuine hormones because they elicit the same chemical reactions as natural hormones.

Blockers – These disruptors, by blocking the cell receptors, prevent naturally occurring hormones from affecting cells in the usual way.

Triggers – These disruptors elicit unusual or abnormal reactions in cells.

If one looks at the development of a child from an embryonic stage to birth, the entire process is regulated by specific chemical messengers that are programmed to be released at one point and taken up at
another in precise concentrations and at specific times. If a chemical interferes with these messengers, irreversible damage can result at some stage. The effects may include changes in the development and
function of the reproductive system, which in turn produces abnormalities, including deformities.

The effects of endocrine disruptors are not limited to male or female sex hormones; they also affect other endocrine glands that play a role in growth, development and reproduction.

It has potential to disrupt hormones and have reproductive and developmental toxicity among males in particular. Endosulfan is a very persistent chemical which may stay in the environment for lengthy periods of time, particularly in acid media and has relatively high potential to bioaccumulate in fish.

Endosulfan can travel long distances from where it is used.

In 2009, the committee of scientific experts of the Stockholm Convention on POPs concluded that "endosulfan is likely, as a result of long range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse
human health and environmental effects such that global action is warranted."

The most likely way for people to be exposed is by eating food contaminated with Endosulfan. Endosulfan has been found in some food products such as oils, fats, and fruit and vegetable products. People
have also been exposed to low levels of Endosulfan by skin contact with contaminated soil or by smoking cigarettes made from tobacco that has Endosulfan residues on it. Well water and public water supplies
are not likely sources of exposure to Endosulfan. Workers can breathe in the chemical when spraying the pesticide on crops. Exposure can occur by breathing the dust or via contact with skin. Accidental
spills and releases to the environment at hazardous waste disposal sites are also possible sources of exposure to endosulfan. The most likely exposure to Endosulfan for people living near hazardous waste sites is through contact with soils containing it.

Endosulfan affects the central nervous system, preventing normal function. Hyperactivity, nausea, dizziness, headache, or convulsions have been observed in adults exposed to high doses. Severe poisoning may result in death.

Studies of the effects of Endosulfan on animals suggest that long-term exposure to Endosulfan can also damage the kidneys, testes, and liver and may possibly affect the body's ability to fight infection.
However, it is not known if these effects also occur in humans. It is unknown whether Endosulfan can cause cancer in humans. Studies in animals have provided inconclusive results.

Gopal Krishna

Read more...

Review the construction of Subansiri Dam: RAMEN DEKA

Need to review the construction of Subansiri dam in Arunachal Pradesh keeping in view its potential threat to the ecology of the region.

SHRI RAMEN DEKA (MANGALDOI): A lot of controversy has been generated in Assam due to construction of a mega dam at lower Subansiri which is supposed to generate 2000 MW. It clearly emerges from the opinion of the experts that mega dams are not feasible for the geologically and seismological sensitive area like North East India. It is learnt that 132 dams are proposed to be constructed in Arunachal Pradesh and out of these 23 are mega dams. The construction of 2000 MW dam will destroy the aquatic life, including the endangered species like Gangetic river dolphin.

The threat of these dams is larger than that which we think. It may wipe out the entire Brahmaputra civilization. In view of this, I urge upon the Government to review the project of Upper, Middle and Lower Subansiri project and to assure people of Assam that they are safe from any major catastrophe.

The statement above was made in the Lok Sabha on 10 November.

Read more...

Ban Endosulfan in the country: P.T. THOMAS

On 9th November, P. T. Thomas raised he issue of "Need to ban the production and use of Endosulfan, a pesticide affecting human health in the country". He made the following statement in the Lok Sabha.

SHRI P.T. THOMAS (IDUKKI): It has been reported that Endosulfan, the most toxic pesticide is responsible for many fatal pesticide poisoning incidents around the world. It has been banned in sixty-three countries. However, our country is the world’s largest user of this pesticide. Several studies have revealed that Endosulfan can affect human body as well as the development of the other activities. In the Kasargod district in Kerala, the continuous use of Endosulfan in cashew plantations caused the death of many people and hundred are suffering from severe diseases and abnormalities.

It is being used in India by other plantation growers also. Endosulfan contaminates air, water, plants and speedily
spreads to other places. I request the Government to take immediate measures to ban the production and use of Endosulfan in the country. I also request the Government to extend help to those people who are the victims of Endosulfan, especially in Kerala in the Kasargod district. Thank you.

Read more...