Villagers Unanimously Reject Power Plant Based on Waste Burning

Press Note

Villagers Unanimously Reject Power Plant Based on Waste Burning

Jalandhar Cantt MLA Opposes Dioxins and Mercury Emitting Factory in Jamsher Village

Jalandhar, 30/9/2011: At a public hearing for obtaining environmental clearance for setting up of a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) processing facility in Jamsher village by Municipal Corporation Jalandhar, it emerged that there was unanimous opposition to the project which involved waste burning for generation of electricity. The villagers feared threat to human health and environment from the toxic waste to electricity plant. The villagers from all the adjoining villages who are likely to be adversely affected expressed their bitter opposition to the proposed poisonous power plant.

The Department of Local Government, Government of Punjab has initiated to implement an “integrated MSW management facility for Jalandhar cluster comprising of Jalandhar city and 25 other Urban Local Bodies (ULBs).” This means that wastes from ULBs like Jalandhar, Adampur, Alawalpur, Banga, Begowal, Bhogpur, Bhulath, Dasuya, Dhilwan, Garshankar, Goraya, Hariana, Hoshiarpur, Kapurthala, Kartarpur, Lohian Khas, Mahalpur, Nakodar, Nawan Shehar, Nurmahal, Phagwara, Shahkot, Sham Chaurasi, Sri Hargobindpur, Sultanpur and Umar Tanda will be transferred to the plant site in Jamsher village. The villagers made it clear that come what may they will not allow the cancer causing plant in their region.

It was noted that in the Draft Environment Impact Assessment report prepared by SENES Consultants India Pvt Ltd on behalf of Municipal Corporation Jalandhar, Punjab and Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS)’s Infrastructure Development Corporation that the ‘Municipal Solid Waste Processing Facility’, will use incineration of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) technology. This is a biomass burning technology.

The testimonies observed that Supreme Court’s order dated 16.05.2007 in the Writ Petition (Civil) 888 of 1996 case is being violated. The Court orders had recommended only biomethenation technology. Unmindful of this, the Draft EIA states that “A power plant of 6MW capacity will be installed as part of the MSW processing plant. The boiler of the power plant will designed to be fired with RDF, biogas and CNG…” It also reveals that it is actually a furnace for burning waste.

As per 136 page Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report, “ The facility will comprise of a MSW processing facility at Jamsher village in Jalandhar district for processing the MSW from Jalandhar cluster and an engineered Sanitary Land Fill (SLF) site at Hoshiarpur town in Hoshiarpur district for disposal of processing rejects and other inert wastes generated by the processing facility.” Although it is quite clear that it is an EIA for electricity generation, the public hearing did not reveal it explicitly.

At the public hearing Punjab Pollution Control Board conceded that it does not have the capacity to even test persistent organic pollutants like dioxins. The project developer could not explain how they will segregate heavy metals like lead and mercury from the mixed waste which is to be burnt as per the EIA report.

Jagbir Singh Brar, MLA, Jalandhar cantt, Punjab observed that “the public hearing for “Municipal solid waste processing facility” is quite strange. This is actually a waste burning project. It is a power project based on waste. The question is why has Punjab Pollution Control Board and the project developer hidden this fact from the public. I have learnt from newspapers and research reports that such plants have failed in India, why a failed project is being proposed here. A similar plant has failed in Timarpur in Delhi and in Andhra Pradesh. Delhi High Court had scolded the Govt. for such experimental technology in the past.”

He added, “Project Developer and Punjab Pollution Control Board are trying to confuse the public by not revealing that waste burning is highly polluting. It has not told the public about the health effects and diseases caused by waste burning plants. No health and environmental loving person can allow such polluting and disease causing plant in there place of residence. I am deeply concerned about the health of the villagers from the locality and its impact on the dairy. I on my own behalf and on behalf of the people of Jalandhar urge you to ensure that this Dioxins emitting technology of waste burning in the residential area is not allowed. This plant should not get environmental clearance in view of its adverse impact on public health and environment.” Brar was elected MLA in the last State Assembly election but resigned.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) which was also present at the public hearing noted that while the project has two components comprising of “municipal solid waste processing facility” and an engineered Sanitary Land Fill, this EIA report only dealt with the former. The project has deliberately been broken into two parts to obviate combined resistance from the villagers of Jamsher and Hoshiarpur. This EIA report is misleading both the residents of Jamsher, Hoshiarpur the Jalandhar. The report states that the total area available for development of the “MSW facility is approximately 25 acres”. Why does it exclude Hoshiarpur’s 30 acre? As per the TOR given in the Draft EIA report for the MSW facility, some 20 points out of the 35 points mentioned refer to landfill but this document is silent about it.

It is claimed in the Draft EIA report that the MSW processing plant to consist of burning of RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) plant, biomethanation plant, power plant (optional) and composting facility. The plant will be designed to process 700 Tonnes Per Day (TPD) of Municipal Solid Waste and is expected to generate around 260 TPD of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) in the form of fluff. The fluff is expected to have a Gross Calorific Value (GCV) of 2,500 Kcal/kg to 27,000 Kcal/kg. The plant will also be designed to process 50 TPD of green waste for producing biogas in a biomethanation plant and manure in a composting facility. The biogas generated is expected to be about 2,750 to 3,000 Nm3/day and manure quantity is expected to be about 6-7 TPD. The RDF plant and the biomethanation plant are expected to operate for 330 days in a year. The total cost of the integrated MSW processing facility is estimated to INR 99.21 crores. The project will be made operational in a span of 14 months, it is claimed.
It is confessed in the EIA report that waste collected from various sources in the Jalandhar cluster will have differing calorific values. It is not revealed how Indian waste, which has calorific value of 800-1000 kcal will gain the Gross Calorific Value) of 2,600+ kcal / kg after drying and separation of non-combustible and recyclable fraction and after conversion to RDF.

TWA observed that If the project is to be implemented by companies like Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL), a company of M/s Jindal Saw Group Limited owned by Prithviraj Jindal, which has no previous experience in waste management, it will distort waste management beyond repair.

Given the fact that the project proponent is using RDF technology it is relevant to note that all such experiments based on this technology to treat waste has failed in the country. A similar plant proposal compelled the union Environment Minister to write to Delhi chief minister that there has been violation in basic condition stipulated in environment condition. It violates the recommendation of the environment Ministry. In a White paper on Pollution, it has been underlined that Indian waste is suitable only for Biological Treatment Methods. It violates the recommendation of Supreme Courts committee on Waste to Energy that insisted on segregation of waste its source. Once waste is segregated, compostable waste can be composted and recycled waste can be recycled. In such a scenario, what is the need to burn the waste, TWA questioned, in its submission.

The power generated will be highly expensive. Experts suggest that it is 4-5times costlier than the conventional electricity. The EIA report does not reveal how the project developer will deal with toxic ash which will contain heavy metals like mercury. If such ash is dumped in place like Hoshiarpur, it will adversely affects the health of the people of Hoshiarpur. In 1990’s, a similar waste Energy Plant was shut down in Delhi because the garbage had about 60% organic waste and large amount of silt. The waste of Jalandhar will not be any different.

Indian waste has some 60 % organic waste and some 25 % sand, dust and ash.
Incineration of such waste is inadvisable. It promotes waste generation, what is required is waste prevention and reduction and zero waste system that guarantees returned on investments and healthy communities. There is threat to ground water from ash disposal. Incineration also creates huge amount of Air pollution. It also releases Carbon monoxide, oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, hydrocarbons and particulates in the air. Waste incineration emits Green House Gases as well. This technology has high public health cost. It causes cancers, birth defects in villagers living in the vicinity of incineration.

In view of the above, it is clear to the villagers in Jalandhar that incineration is the most costly waste management option from the point of view of public health environment and natural resources. Therefore, the villagers submitted that project the power plant based on waste should not get environmental clearance. It is also to be noted that Ministry of new renewable energy is damaging waste management in cities like Jalandhar by providing subsidy to such polluting projects. This Ministry should desist from promoting such hazardous projects.

For Details: GOPAL KRISHNA, CONVENER, TOXICSWATCH ALLIANCE, Mb: 09818089660,
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com
 

Read more...

We Are 99%, will no longer tolerate greed & corruption of the 1%

Occupy Wall Street movement for democracy has begun in USA on September 17 with an encampment in the financial district of of New York City, today is the 10th day of the movement.

Its mission is to see 20,000 people to flood into lower Manhattan, set up beds, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months in keeping with the efforts of brothers and sisters in Egypt, Greece, Spain, and Iceland, it plans to use the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic of mass occupation to restore democracy in the USA. It claims to be a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions.

The one thing we all have in common is that "We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." The original call for this occupation was published by Adbusters in July; since then, many individuals across the country have stepped up to organize this event, such as the people of the NYC General Assembly and US Day of Rage. There will be similar occupations in the near future such as October 2011 in Freedom Plaza, Washington D.C.

Read more...

Stop Hazardous Waste to Electricity Plant in Jalandhar

In Jalandhar, Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL), a company of M/s Jindal Saw Group Limited has proposed an incineration of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) based plant to generate electricity. This will set a bad precedent for whole of Punjab. It must be stopped. Prithviraj Jindal is owner of the company. The public hearing for the proposal of a hazardous waste to electricity plant in Jalandhar is scheduled for 30th September, 2011.

Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report of the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) based Dioxins and heavy metals emitting electricity plant provides details of the project. It is also a fraudulent carbon trade project.

Similar plant of Selco International Ltd is lying defunct in Andhra Pradesh for the last 3 years. JUIL's proposal is facing bitter opposition in Delhi's Okhla area since 2005. Jindal's have been able engineer huge delay in the Delhi High Court where there is petition pending against them. This project is coming up in violation of the Supreme Court's order. There is a White Paper of Union Ministry of Environment & Forests against such technology. This paper is available on Ministry's website.

The argument "a city dumping its waste in the village in various disguises is unacceptable and unpardonable". The proposed heavily polluting waste burning project will poison the food chain and affect the present and future generations. The details of hazards of RDF incineration technology and the Supreme Court's order are available at: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

Read more...

Adverse Health Effects of Plastics Being Ignored Central Govt

Note:Studies have found that some plastics have bad health effects. Research has found that phthalates, which are added to PVC to soften it for certain uses, leech out of PVC into the human body. PVC may cause side effects such as decreased lung function, increased weight, increased resistance to insulin, low sperm count, and DNA damage to sperm. It has also been found the exposure to phthalates in PVC may negatively effect the reproductive development of infant males, resulting in undescended testes, smaller scrota, and smaller penises. PVC is used in products such as children's toys, vinyl floors, wallpaper, shower curtains, vinyl bibs, and cosmetics, including lotions, shampoos, and nail polish. It is also used in many medical products including plastic bags for storing blood, plasma and intravenous fluids, feeding, breathing and dialysis tubes, catheters, respiratory masks, and exam gloves.

Another plastic, Polycarbonate contains a chemical called bisphenol A that leeches into the foods that it comes in contact with. This chemical is widely known to mimic the human hormone estrogen. It may increase the risk of miscarriages and polycystic ovarian syndrome, a condition that can cause infertility, ovarian cysts, and baldness in women. In animals, the chemical has been linked to obesity, prostate and mammary gland cancers, early onset of puberty, reproductive-organ defects, reduced sperm counts, altered mammary glands, and difficulty getting pregnant. Polycarbonates are used in products such as baby bottles, aluminum cans, pop cans, nalgene bottles, generic polycarbonate water bottles, sunglasses, eyeglasses, safety glasses, coffee makers, consumer electronics, laptop computers, CDs, DVDs, and dental sealants. It is also used for many other products including car parts, water filters, textiles, and paper, and is a widely used flame retardant.

Gopal Krishna
TWA

Centre, Delhi Govt lock horns over complete ban on plastic bags

The Delhi Government and Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers are at loggerheads over the complete ban of plastic bags despite cabinet approval in the Capital. Earlier, the Union Environment Ministry was not happy with the Delhi Government’s decision to impose complete ban on manufacture, sale, storage and usage of plastic bags.

Due to objections raised by various ministries, the Delhi Government is unable to notify the plastic ban in the city despite cabinet approval in March this year. Under pressure from plastic carry bags suppliers and manufacturers, Neelkamal Darbari, Joint Secretary of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, has shot a note to Chief Secretary PK Tripathi stating that plastics are recyclable and chemically inert substances and do not cause either environment or health hazards. “The presence of hydrogen and carbon in the polymer chains makes it a source for energy recovery. Although various technology options for recycling of plastic waste/scrap are in existence today, it is the indiscriminate littering of plastic material and the lack of organised segregation/collection of plastic waste in urban centres, along with operation of unscientific /unregistered recycling units which appear to be the core of the problem,” the note said. The Ministry has further suggested preparing a shelf of proposals for Plastic Waste Management Centre under of Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission, stating that plastic occupies a unique place in modern society in view of its process ability in complicated shapes, tailor made properties, high strength to weight ratio, energy efficiency and performance convenience.

The Delhi Assembly had passed a Bill to complete ban on manufacture, sale, storage and usage of all kinds of plastic bags including non-woven plastic bags in the Capital and repealing of the existing Delhi Degradable Plastic Bag (manufacturing, sale and usage) and Garbage (control) Act 2000. There are 224 such units in the city.

Upset with the move, in a strongly worded letter to Darbari, Secretary (Environment) cum-Chairman Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) Keshav Chandra made it clear that Delhi Government is not against use of plastic products, but has a concern for Delhi’s environment in view of the nuisance created because of plastic carry bags.

“Plastic carry bags in municipal solid waste not only cause nuisance, but also a number of environmental hazards. The presence of plastic bags in municipal solid waste result in enhancing anaerobic conditions which inhibits the process of composting and natural decay and cause foul smell. Alongwith other solid waste they find their way to surface waters and cause choking of drains/sewerage system and water logging problems. Beside this, stray cattle consume plastic bags which may be fatal to them,” Chandra said in the letter.

Rajesh Kumar, 21 September. 2011

http://www.dailypioneer.com/city/7959-centre-delhi-govt-lock-horns-over-complete-ban-on-plastic-bags.html#

Read more...

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

……Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. ………Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food.

People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. …….The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year.

Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area,radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants. ….. that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.”

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ashis-
more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Read more...

Halt Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant Project: Jayalalitha

“Halt Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant Project” – Letter to Prime Minister from Tamilnadu C.M. Jayalalitha

P.R. No. 561 Date: 19.9.2011

PRESS RELEASE

Text of the D.O. letter addressed to Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India by Selvi J Jayalalithaa, Hon’ble Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu on 19.9.2011 is reproduced below:-

“You are aware that the Nuclear Power Plant at Koodankulam is ready to be commissioned very soon. The last few days have been very agonizing for the people of Koodankulam as they are under great apprehension in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and other similar calamities reported in the press. It is only natural that the people living here fear for the safety of their families and for themselves.

While many welfare measures have been taken by my Government for the benefit of fishermen living along the 1076 KM. long coast line of Tamil Nadu, an issue relating to the Government of India project is disturbing the normal life of the people in the Koodankulam area.

The scope and magnitude of this issue is creating a fear psychosis among the people and villages surrounding Koodankulam. It is surprising to note that till date no responsible Minister or concerned higher authorities from the Government of India have visited the people or even attempted to assuage their misgivings.

It is unfortunate to see that the Centre is abdicating its responsibilities. The Prime Minister should have sent a high level team to allay the fears and misgivings of the people in the Koodankulam area.

It was naturally expected that at least the Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Ms. Jayanthi Natarajan, who hails from Tamil Nadu, would have made an attempt to visit these people. Instead, in an interview to the press, she said that the subject comes under the purview of the Atomic Energy Commission and her Ministry has nothing to do with it, thereby abdicating her duties as a Minister and absolving herself of any responsibility. Her remark that the Government officers would take care of the issue is callous in the extreme.

Since the Atomic Energy Commission is directly under your control, on behalf of the people and villages surrounding Koodankulam, I request you to send the concerned competent authorities to hold discussions with the people of Koodankulam, address their fears and convince the people to their satisfaction.

Since nobody from the Government of India has so far deigned to visit Koodankulam, I propose to send an all party delegation led by Thiru O. Panneerselvam, Hon’ble Minister for Finance, Government of Tamil Nadu, along with representatives of the people to call on you.

I request you to kindly issue suitable instructions to the concerned authorities that further work on this project may be halted, until this issue is settled. I request you to kindly bestow your personal attention on this serious issue and also to indicate your convenience to meet the delegation.”

Issued by : Commissioner, Information-Public Relations, Chennai – 9 Date : 19.9.2011

http://www.nonuclear.in/2011/09/letter-to-prime-minister-from-tamilnadu-c-m-jayalalitha/

Read more...

Jayanthi Natarajan Misled About Alang Beach Pollution

Note: Ship-breaking activity on Alang beach is violating rule in the rule book with impunity but Jayanthi Natarajan, the new Minister of State for Environment and Forests has chosen to give a mechanical reply ignoring facts on the ground. If all the Rules are being complied with how did 27 workers die this year alone. Sooner or later Natarajan will have to realize that there cannot be compliance with Rules on a beach. Both CPCB guidelines and Basel Convention Guidelines on ship dismantling corroborate the same. Natarajan must reject IMO's Convention on Ship Recycling/Breaking and ratify the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention. It seems Jayanthi Natarajan has been misled by her officials about the state of affairs on the Alang beach.

Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance(TWA)

Effect on Environment due to Polluting Chemicals

In order to check pollution of environment, the ship-breaking units are required to obtain authorization from the respective State Pollution Control Boards under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008.

Ship-breaking activity is also required to comply with the rules and regulations notified by the respective State Maritime Boards.

Further, the directions of the Supreme Court based on the recommendations of the High Powered Committee on Hazardous Waste Management in the matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No.657 of 1995, are to be complied with while undertaking ship-breaking activities.

The respective State Pollution Control Boards monitor implementation of the conditions of authorization issued by them as well as the directions of Supreme Court and take necessary action against the defaulting units.

This information was given by the Minister of State for Environment and Forests (independent charge) Shrimati Jayanthi Natarajan in a written reply to a question by Shrimati J. Shantha in Lok Sabha 5th September-2011.

Read more...

Hazardous Substances (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) Rules in the Offing

Union Ministry of Environment and Forests has notified a 170 page draft Hazardous Substances (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2011.

This is different from Hazardous wastes which are covered under Hazardous Wastes (Management,Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 along with two amendments in 2009 and two amendments of 2010.

In India, there are 36,000 hazardous waste generating industries, which generate 62,33,000 tonnes of hazardous wastes per annum. Fifty 50 per cent of this waste generated is recyclable, about 7 per cent is incinerable and 43.78 per cent is land disposable according to a 2009 report of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

Read more...

T Subbarami Reddy Headed Committee to Examine NSRA Bill

The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill was on September 16 referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests.

The Committee, headed by Indian National Congress Rajya Sabha MP from Andhra Pradesh T Subbarami Reddy, has been asked to submit its report on it within three months.

The Bill seeks to establish a legal framework to regulate nuclear and radiation safety and an authority to carry out the task, was introduced in the Lok Sabha in the Monsoon session.

There are 26 members in the committee including the chairperson. There is vacancy for 5 more members. The other members include Dr. Chandan Mitra, Janardan Dwivedi,
Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Jabir Husain, Saman Pathak, Prof. M.S. Swaminathan, Anil H. Lad, Dr. Barun Mukherji, Paul Manoj Pandian, Prataprao Ganpatrao Jadhav, Dr. Rajan Sushant, Pradeep Tamta, Francisco Sardinha, Mansukhbhai D. Vasava, Akhilesh Yadav, Shibu Soren, Prof. Ranjan Prasad Yadav, Bijoya Chakravarty, Gajendra Singh Rajukhedi, Jagdish Singh Rana, Ninong Ering, Kamla Devi Patle, S.S. Ramasubbu, Dr. Anup Kumar Saha and Abdul Rahman.

Read more...

A nuclear regulator without teeth

The proposed Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority will have fewer powers and less independence than the present authority.

On September 7, the government tabled in the Lok Sabha the much-awaited Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011. The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) is being created ostensibly to bring about much-needed independence and transparency in administering the safety oversight of nuclear operations in India. But even a cursory reading reveals that the Bill serves anything but these objectives. The government's intention in creating the NSRA in its present form appears to be merely to effect a “regulatory capture” of the nuclear sector. The NSRA will, in fact, have fewer powers and less independence than the existing Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).

In order to impress upon the public that the government attaches the highest level of significance to nuclear safety, it seeks to establish (Clause 5 of the Bill) a Council of Nuclear Safety (CNS) to oversee and review nuclear and radiation safety policies and connected matters (Clause 7). The CNS will be chaired by the Prime Minister and will have as its members five or more Cabinet Ministers, the Cabinet Secretary, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and an assortment of “eminent experts” nominated by the Central government.

Details of the functions and powers of the CNS can be gleaned from the Bill. One of its first tasks will be to constitute two search committees, one to select the chairperson and the other to select the members of the NSRA (Clause 10). Based on such selection, the Central government will constitute the NSRA. Another responsibility of the CNS is to create, when necessary, an Appellate Authority (Clause 35) to hear appeals on any order or decision passed by the NSRA. Strangely, this Appellate Authority to be created by the CNS will also decide on appeals from the government (Clause 35-5) against the regulatory authority.

The Bill authorises the Central government to give formal directions and orders, some by means of notifications, to the NSRA, which the Authority has to mandatorily obey. At the same time, the government wants to generate a false public impression that it has generously granted total independence to the NSRA by not requiring the Authority or its chairperson to report administratively to any Ministry or government official. What the government is, however, surreptitiously trying to achieve through this Bill and the creation of a high-level council under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister is to have this council act de facto as the “Central government” for the purposes of controlling and curbing the freedom of choice and action of the regulatory authority. To understand the subservient and captive nature of this so-called independent, autonomous regulatory authority, one needs to only examine the Bill and see the ways in which the government intends to interfere with, order about, curb and coerce the NSRA.

International obligations

The NSRA is required to discharge its functions and powers in a manner that is consistent with the “international obligations of India” (Clause 20-q). This could mean, for example, that if the Prime Minister has promised the French President in 2008 that India would buy six European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs), without any safety or economic evaluation, that unilateral and personal commitment given by the Prime Minister will now get labelled as one of “India's international obligations.” Then, according to this Bill, the NSRA cannot question, even on strong safety grounds, the setting up of those six EPR units, since that will violate Clause 20(q) of this Bill. Similarly, the NSRA will be bound by this Bill to approve the setting up of U.S. reactors to be supplied for Indian sites, because under the Prime Minister's instructions the Foreign Secretary had in 2008 made an “Indian commitment” to the U.S. government to purchase at least 10,000 MWe of U.S. reactors, though that commitment was made unilaterally and without any safety or cost assessment. The Bill is thus drafted to give, post-facto, government-enforced safety approval from the NSRA for past acts of over-stepping by the government during 2007-2008. This could turn out to be extremely detrimental to public and environmental safety in the coming years.

Clause 20(e) states: “ – the Authority shall interact with other bodies -- engaged in activities relevant to the functions of the Authority, --- [the NSRA] shall not interact with bodies outside India, without the prior approval of the Government.” This implies that if an engineer or scientist of the regulatory authority wants to correspond on technical safety issues with an expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or the University of Cambridge in the U.K., he or she would first have to get the government's permission.

Sustained coercion

To intensify and sustain coercion on the NSRA, Clause 21 of the Bill requires that “the Regulatory Authority shall not act against the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.” This requirement is repeated in Clause 42, adding the threat that the government may issue directions to the NSRA from time to time as it may deem necessary, and the NSRA shall be bound to comply with any such directions. After the chairperson and members of the NSRA are selected with the direct involvement of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, where is the need to hold out such threats and instructions on matters of good behaviour and responsible citizenship to them through an Act of Parliament? Is there any other regulatory Act in India that holds out similar forewarnings and threats to a regulatory authority, even as it is being created?

The coercion does not end there. The Bill goes on to state: “--- the Central Government may, by order, remove from office the Chairperson or any Member [of the NSRA], if he has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest” (Clause 14-1- e). Who should define “public interest” in such situations — the Prime Minister or Parliament?

Clause 48(1) states: “If, at any time, the Central Government is of the opinion --- that circumstances exist which render it necessary in the public interest to do so, the Central Government may, by notification, supersede the Regulatory Authority for such period not exceeding six months,---. Upon notification, the Chairperson and Members of the NSRA shall vacate their offices as such; --- all the powers, functions and duties --- shall, until the Authority is reconstituted, be exercised and discharged by the Central Government”.

These clauses in the Bill are strong enough reasons to insist that the final appointment of the chairperson and members of the regulatory authority should be made by Parliament, and not by the government. Thus, the removal of an NSRA chairperson or member, and any supersession of the NSRA, must be finally decided by Parliament.

Issues involving the public and national interest can no longer be left solely to the government to decide upon, especially because policy differences could arise between the regulator and the government in matters of life and death — such as the impartial administration of the country's nuclear safety.

A. Gopalakrishnan
September 16, 2011

(The author is a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.)

Keywords: Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, nuclear safety

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2456317.ece?css=print

Read more...

New nuclear safety regulator, playing ostrich

Press Statement

New nuclear safety regulator: old wine in old bottle

For how long can the Prime Minister afford to play the role of an Ostrich?

New Delhi, 15/9/2011: Within a week of introduction of a legislation for the creation of a nuclear safety regulator in the Indian Parliament, the world witnessed yet another nuclear accident in France.

A nuclear plant’s waste facility Marcoule nuclear site near Nimes in southern France operated by Centraco, a subsidiary of French energy company EDF suffered an explosion on September 12, 2011. So far it has come to light that the blast happened in a furnace in the facility that was used to incinerate or melt nuclear waste. This has caused death and injury. This site was once a military site for research into the atom bomb when it opened in 1956. It is spread over 140 hectares in the Languedoc-Roussillon region. This site provided nuclear electricity to France for the first time.

The fact that in France they have a nuclear waste melting or incinerating facility raises a question whether or not India too has similar facilities. Do we know about it? Clause 20 2 (k) of The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill, 2011 refers to “nuclear and radioactive wastes” among other things. Will someone reveal where is a nuclear and radioactive waste facility in India similar to the one in France which Central Government’s proposed NSRA is supposed to regulate? It is high time the Central Government came out with a white paper on how it has dealt with the nuclear waste since 1948.

The NSRA Bill was introduced on September 7, 2011. The Bill’s preamble states that “India has excellent record in nuclear safety and radiation safety” but to make further improvements in its pre-existing perfection, the Bill has been introduced in the Parliament to establish an Authority and “such other regulatory bodies” for regulation of radiation safety or nuclear safety” in nuclear industry. The Hindi and English version of the Bill is attached.

NSRA is meant to “discharge its functions and powers in a manner consistent with the international obligations of India”. It has to apprise, from time to time, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) regarding nuclear safety and radiation safety measures and management of disaster arising from nuclear incident notified under clause 3 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 and coordinate with the said Authority (NDMA) in the case of such disaster and notify nuclear incident as required by clause 3 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.

The Bill’s Statement of Objects and Reasons states, “The Fukushima incident in Japan has led to worldwide concerns and apprehension on safety issues relating to nuclear power. The Government of India attaches highest importance to nuclear safety and considers it expedient to establish statutory regulatory bodies to further strengthen regulation of radiation and nuclear safety in the country. Hon’ble Prime Minister has made a statement on the floor of the Lok Sabha on 14th March, 2011 and assured that India’s nuclear safety regulatory framework would be strengthened.”

This means that in the event of Fukushima like disaster or Marcoule like explosion, NSRA and NDMA will have to coordinate efforts and ascertain ‘nuclear damage’.

Unlike Japan, which decided against nuclear energy, Indian Prime Minister's Office (PMO) through a statement issued on April 26, 2011 made a passing reference to "safety concerns arising out of the nuclear accident at Fukushima in Japan and their impact on India’s overall nuclear energy programme" that is hardly sincere. Following the disaster in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on 11 March 2011, in April this year, the measurement of severity of the disaster was found to be 7 and not 5, the highest rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). The Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 too was measured 7 on the INES.

The NSRA Bill wants “to ensure that the use of radiation and atomic energy in all its applications is safe for the health of the radiation workers, members of the public and the environment”. It is also to establish a Council of Nuclear Safety (CNS) “to oversee and review the policies relating to radiation safety and nuclear safety and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” CNS will consist of the Prime Minister of India as its Chairperson and Union Ministers of Ministry of Environment and Forests, External Affairs, Health, Home Affairs, Science and Technology, Cabinet Secretary and Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission as members besides any other Union Minister to be nominated by the Central Government and eminent experts as may be nominated. The mandate of the CNS is to oversee and review the policies with respect to radiation safety, nuclear safety and other matters. This creates a conflict of interest because customarily, Prime Minister is the head of the Department of Atomic Energy, which promotes nuclear commerce. How can a promoter of nuclear trade and activity be a regulator as well?

As per the Bill, the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) will replace the “Atomic Energy Regulatory Board” which was constituted vide notification of the Government of India in the Department of Atomic Energy dated the 15th November, 1983.

CNS will constitute a Search Committee for the selection of Chairperson and another Search Committee for the selection of Members of the NSRA. The Chairperson of the NSRA will be a member of the Search Committee constituted for the appointment of members. NSRA will consist of a Chairperson, two whole-time Members; and maximum four part-time members. This seems to undermine the independence of the members of NSRA.

The NSRA Bill proposes an “Appellate Authority” to be constituted by the CNS in consultation with the Chief Justice of India or his nominee. This Authority will comprise of a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court and two other Members who are eminent scientists in the field of nuclear or atomic energy. This is to enable the Central Government or any person aggrieved by the order of the NSRA to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority and to provide for the offences and penalties for contraventions of the provisions of the Act once enacted. Thus, NSRA has been made subservient to CNS and the Appellate Authority. In effect, both the chairperson and the members of NSRA will be selected by interested parties and project proponents or promoters.

The Bill provides that “Any person holding any office (whether as an employee or an officer or a director or managing director or secretary or manager or in any other capacity) under the Central Government or State Government or in a company (including a Government Company referred to in clause 617 of the Companies Act, 1956) or in any other institution, organisation, society or University or Board, shall, on his selection as the Chairperson or a whole-time Member, be required to seek retirement or resign from the services of such Central or State Government or company or institution or organisation or society or University or Board, as the case may be, before accepting the employment as such Chairperson or as the case may be, the Member”. But the Bill makes two serious omissions. It does not lay down the same condition for even the part-time members. The Bill also does not reveal whether or not nuclear energy promoters soon after retirement or resignation can become regulators by joining CNS, Appellate Authority, Search Committee or NSRA?

Clause 13 of the Bill provides that the Chairperson or a whole-time Member, ceasing to hold office as such, shall not accept any employment with (a) any person who has been granted consent for any activity under this Act; or (b) any person who has been associated with the person referred to in clause (a); or (c) any person who has been connected with the management or administration of the person.

It provides that the Chairperson or a Member, ceasing to hold office as such shall not, (a) act, for or on behalf of any person or organisation in connection with any specific proceeding or transaction or negotiation or a case to which the Authority is a party and with respect to which the Chairperson or the Member, before cessation of his office, had acted for, or provided advice to, the Authority; or (b) give advice to any person (including his client, business associate or employer) using information which was obtained in his capacity as the Chairperson or a Member and being not available or cannot be made available to the public; or (c) enter into a contract of service with, or accept an appointment to a board of directors of, or accept an offer of employment with, an entity with which he had direct and significant official dealings during his term of office as such, without the approval of the Central Government.

The question is how they undertake such tasks even with the approval of the Central Government. Also what is the remedy for the residual interests of Chairperson or a Member from their previous occupations prior to their employment with NSRA?

After the establishment of the NSRA the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shall stand dissolved and the Chairman and Members of the Board shall be transferred as such to function as Chairperson and Members under this Act and be deemed to be the Chairperson and Members of the Authority under this Act until the Chairperson and Members of the Authority are appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. After the dissolution of the Board, the functions and powers of the Board will get vested in the NSRA.

The jurisdiction of the NSRA “shall extend to all areas to which this Act is applicable and activities relating to production, development or use of atomic energy and radiation in all its applications, or transport (within India or outside India), transfer by sale or otherwise, import, export or storage or disposal of nuclear and radioactive material” except for the exemptions provided in Clauses 25 and 27 for the purposes of national defence and security.

Clause 2 (j) of the Bill defines “radiation worker” as “any person who is occupationally exposed to Radiation”. There are legislations regulating nuclear industry since 1948. Does the Parliament know of the number of “radiation workers” who suffered from radiation induced diseases? If it does not have that data, will its current initiative inspire any confidence? Or is that such data a classified document from the point of view of “national defence and security” that can “not be called in question before any court of law.” Citizens of India deserve to know as whether or not the Central Government has a register of radiation exposed victims and workers.

The fact is radiation workers’ body burden is the first biological indicator of radiation exposure. If this indicator is taken cognisance of members of the public and the environment who suffer exposure when ‘certain activities’ like production of radioactive minerals, storage, disposal, transport (within India or outside India), transfer by sale or otherwise, import, export and use of any nuclear material, radioactive material or any other substance, or equipment used for production or use of radiation or atomic energy takes place, they can be safeguarded and secured.

The NSRA Bill does not seem to have factored in International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources (BSS) that provides a worldwide basis for harmonized radiation protection standards that complement the International Labour Organisation (ILO)’s Convention No. 115 and for the protection of workers engaged in nuclear and radiological emergency operation.

The Bill fails to specify as to how NSRA will deal with events like radioactive contamination of sources of water, agricultural and non-agricultural land.

This Bill has 54 clauses, a note to the clauses and 2 Schedules wherein First Schedule deals with oath of secrecy and fidelity and the Second Schedule provides for four parts, each dealing with proposed amendments in related and pre-existing legislations. Part-I of the Second Schedule provides for amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, Part-II thereof provides for amendments to the Right to Information Act, 2005, Part-III thereof provides for amendments to the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Part-IV thereof provides for amendment to the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. The Hindi version has 24 pages and the English version has 41 pages. Are all nuclear installations only in Hindi and English speaking areas?

As per Clause 20 (c) of the Bill, NSRA’s responsibility is to “ensure transparency by systematic public outreach on matters relating to nuclear safety without disclosing sensitive information and compromising confidentiality of commercially sensitive information of technology holders” wherein the expression “sensitive information” is defined as information pertaining to (i) physical security of nuclear material and facilities, or (ii) reprocessing of spent fuel, enrichment of fissile material or heavy water production technologies; (iii) any information under clause 26 which has been accessed by the Authority or has come to its knowledge or made available to it in the discharge of its functions”.

What to make of these provisions when to begin with the drafting process of the Bill and pre-legislative consultation itself is non-transparent. Will it not be appropriate to send the Bill to the State Governments for their opinion on such a critical issue like nuclear safety? Legislations like these illustrate whether the Central Government draws its mandate from less democracy or more democracy.

This Clause also provides for NSRA to “interact with other bodies and international organisations engaged in activities relevant to the functions of the Authority including nuclear and radiation safety, physical security of nuclear material and facilities, transportation of nuclear and radioactive materials and nuclear and radiation safety and regulation” This has to be carried out subject to the prior approval of the Central Government. It would be in fitness of things to reveal the role of Nuclear Suppliers Group, International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organisation and bilateral agreements in the matter of nuclear commerce instead of keeping it vague as is currently the case in the Bill.

NSRA is given the task to advise the Central Government with respect to measures to implement and coordinate a nationwide programme for environmental surveillance to check any harmful build up of radioactivity in the environment and measures to ensure establishment and maintenance of appropriate mechanisms, plans for preparedness in response to nuclear and radiation emergencies and to notify the limits of radiation exposure to radiation workers and the members of the public.

It is supposed to “develop and notify the standards and codes, and develop and publish other supporting documents for safety in design, siting, construction, commissioning, operation, quality assurance, decommissioning, storage, transportation and other activities related to plants, facilities, nuclear and radioactive wastes, radiation sources and radioactive materials and issue, renew, modify, suspend and revoke consents with specified conditions for conduct of any activity which come under its jurisdiction for the production, storage, disposal, transport (within and outside India), transfer by sale or otherwise, import, export and use of any nuclear material, radioactive material or any other substance, or equipment used for production, or use of atomic energy”. Prior to NSRA, it was Atomic Energy Regulatory Board which was undertaking these tasks.

NSRA has the responsibility of notifying “measures for physical security within the area of main plant boundary, physical protection of nuclear and radioactive materials under storage as well as transport (within and outside India), and nuclear and radiation facilities”. But Clause 20 (3) seems to undo the above provision by providing for exemption “from the applicability of any of the provisions of the safety related regulations or orders issued under this Act” in the matter of “any radioactive material, any class or classes of radioactive material or any radiation generating plant”.

It is strange that NSRA has been put under the obligation to forego truth about nuclear safety issues if its discharge of its powers and functions becomes contrary to “friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.”

The Bill provides for NSRA to “advise the Central Government to take control of the radioactive material or radiation source if owner thereof cannot be identified.” The NSRA can “direct any owner of, or holder of the consent or any person dealing with radioactive material, radiation source or facility to hand it over to the Central Government if, in the opinion of the Authority, continuation of such material or facility under the control of its owner or the holder of the consent or any such person is detrimental to the safety and physical security of such material or facility, or has a potential to be detrimental to the safety of public or the environment”.

It provides that “No authority under the Factories Act, 1948 shall have jurisdiction in respect of functions of NSRA such as enforcement of its provisions, including the appointment of inspecting staff, in any factory engaged in the development, production and use of radiation and atomic energy or any facility engaged in research and development activities related to radiation or atomic energy, and owned or administered by the Central Government or any other authority or corporation established by it or a Government company under the jurisdiction of the Authority or the regulatory bodies, as the case may be.”

The NSRA may by order in writing (a) call upon any owner or any person in charge of or managing director, director, secretary or other officer of radiation or nuclear facility at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating to its activities as the Authority may require to carry out its functions under this Act; or (b) appoint one or more persons to make an inquiry in relation to the affairs of any radiation or nuclear facility; and (c) direct any of its officers or employees to inspect the books or other documents of any radiation or nuclear facility.

The NSRA or any other officer specially authorised by it in this behalf may carry out such inspection or inquiry as may be necessary, enter any building or place where the Authority has reason to believe that any document or object relating to the subject matter of the inquiry may be found, and may seize any such document or object subject to the provisions of clause 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in so far as they may be applicable. And for this purpose it shall have power of access to (a) premises and places, vehicle, vessel or aircraft where radiation is present or used or proposed to be used; and (b) documents, drawings, photographs, plans, models or any other form which relates to or represents or illustrates any existing or proposed plant, used or proposed to be used for the purpose of producing, developing or using atomic energy or radiation.

Clause 41 of the Bill provides for offences by companies. It provides that where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. However, nothing contained in the clause shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. But where an offence under the Act has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer or employees shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

It is noteworthy that the preamble of the NSRA Bill that proposes to set up NSRA also proposes to set up “such other regulatory bodies” but does not explicitly reveal what these entities are. Clause 5 (c) of Bill’s Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill refers to “the establishment of other regulatory bodies for the purpose of national defence and security”.

Clause 25 of the Bill states that “The Central Government may, by notification, specify that the provisions of this Act shall, subject to such modifications or conditions or adaptation as it may specify, apply to such regulatory bodies. Clause 26 (2) states that “No Chairperson or Member or officer or other employees or consultant or expert shall, either during his employment with such regulatory bodies or after cessation of such employment, disclose any confidential information relating to activities falling under the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies.” This reveals that “such other regulatory bodies” too will have their own office bearers but their eligibility, role, responsibility and liability is not disclosed. Clause 27 further clarifies that there will be NSRA and “other regulatory bodies under this Act” but for the purposes of national defence and security, there will be exemption to “any area, nuclear material, radioactive material, nuclear facility or plant from jurisdiction of the Authority or other regulatory bodies”. Clause 44 provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the NSRA or other regulatory bodies are empowered by or under the Act to determine.

In an explicit undemocratic exercise of subordinate legislation, Clause 52 provides that every rule and regulations made under the Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament. This is not sufficient especially in the matter of nuclear safety. The rules and regulations must be presented to the Parliament before its notification and not post event.

Provisions of the Clause 54 appears to be a case of expression of disregard towards the Parliament because it provides for removal of “difficulties” within the legislation on its own by the Central Government within three years from the date of commencement of the Act. It further provides that every order made under this clause shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament. Why should such ‘difficulty removal’ engineering with the legislation and orders passed after such action be presented to the Parliament post event?

This is the case when the preamble of the Bill of the Central Government refers to “continued excellence in nuclear safety and radiation safety in all applications of radiation and atomic energy on a large scale". It pats itself in the back by claiming in the preamble that “such excellent safety record in nuclear safety and radiation safety is required to be sustained for growth in the nuclear energy sector” and categorically states “India has excellent record in nuclear safety and radiation safety.” This is done amidst reference to “international obligations of India” and “international organizations”. Indian National Congress led Central Government’s transparent regime ought to define these obligations and specify these organizations in the Bill itself.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill states “The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 was enacted, after repealing the Atomic Energy Act, 1948, to provide for a legal framework for the development, control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India and for other peaceful purposes” disregarding the considered opinions of at least eight secretaries of Government of India given to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment, Forests, Science & Technology in the matter of Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010.

The views of these senior officials revealed that the “use of atomic energy” is contrary to the “welfare of the people of India”. The Parliamentary Standing Committee had observed that these concerned secretaries were not consulted while drafting the Bill. It had recommended that they should be consulted in future. There is nothing in the NSRA Bill that reveals that these secretaries were consulted. This reveals contempt towards such recommendations of the Parliamentary Committees. In order to rectify such omissions, the Bill must be referred to a reconstituted and conflict of interest free Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare.

As to “other peaceful purposes” of atomic energy, nuclear accidents across the globe from Chernobyl to Fukushima to Marcoule reveal the truth about claims of it being peaceful.

Italian Prime Minister's plans to resume the country's nuclear programme has been voted against, Swiss government is also phasing out nuclear plants, Germany too has decided to abandon nuclear power by 2022 due to wide spread rejection of atomic energy in Europe after Fukushima but our Prime Minister has chosen to adopt an ostrich policy. When threatened, the Ostrich, a flightless bird either hides itself by lying flat against the ground, digs its head in the sand or runs away.

A conflict of interest free nuclear safety regulator is required for existing nuclear installations but proposing it for future nuclear projects is akin to the act of the flightless bird.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), New Delhi, Tel:91-11-65663958, Fax: 91-11-26517814, Mb: 9818089660, Email:krishna2777@gmail.com,Web: toxicswatch.blogpsot.com

Read more...

Laws for a ‘perfect’ property based democracy on the horizon

Why the land acquisition bill is flawed

The Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2011 argues for a perfect land market, unrestrained urbanisation and industrialization, says Gopal Krishna.

On September 7, Jairam Ramesh introduced the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2011 in the Lok Sabha within six days of the end of the public comment period on the bill that is to replace a 116 year old colonial law. This bill argues for a perfect land market, unrestrained urbanisation and industrialisation.

It sounds strange that rural development ministry is working for urban development as if latter is unquestionably the pre-condition for the well being of rural people and their ecosystem . Will the prime minister reveal the role of urban development ministry if what rural development ministry is doing is indeed its mandate?

Will Ramesh explain as to whether what he said as secretary, economic affairs, Indian National Congress remains relevant or not? Ramesh, a representative "of a generation that was created by public investment" and as a key player in developing India's 1991 economic reforms said in 2001 that "in 1715 they (India) accounted for 25 percent of world industrial output, so it's always been an industrial nation in that sense of the term."

Caught in the time warp and frozen with the contested develop-mentality, corporate fund driven political parties and NGOs are out to decisively put the State and the natural resources on sale unmindful of its cognitive and ecological cost and intergenerational inequity that it promotes almost forever. Both ruling parties and most of the opposition parties are hand in glove in this regard.

These anti-citizen entities are acting as if present and future citizens, gram sabhas, panchayats and zilla parishads do not matter. Their responses to enactment of Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and its implementation is a case in point.

The Special Economic Zones and land acquisition by companies are about generating financial wealth with naked political patronage at the cost of natural and human wealth. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been useful for it. It is indeed "painfully evident that the basic law has become archaic". It used to be said that company is an artifact of law, it now appears that law such as this is an artifact of companies. Every act of privatisation of the government through legislations like these is quite painful too.

If that is not the case why should State use its sovereign power to acquire land for companies either partially or fully in the name of industrial and urban development or legislate to facilitate the same? If 'development' wasn't a notorious and negative word why has a benign and positive word 'sustainable' pre-fixed to it unmindful of this the bill cites developmental imperatives with the assumption of its innocence.

The argument of Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs that acquisition of land for industrial and urban development is a necessity -- is driven by corporate funding of ruling and opposition parties since 2003 when the ban on company donations was lifted. Clause 59 of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 deals with the provision of 'penalty for obstructing acquisition of land' that seems to be about punishing the protesters and dissenters.

It reads: "Whoever willfully obstructs any person in doing any of the acts authorised by section 9 or section 15, or willfully fills up, destroys, damages or displaces any trench or mark made under section 15, shall, on conviction before a magistrate, be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month, or to fine not exceeding five hundred rupees, or to both." Ramesh argues that this is required because "Land markets in India are imperfect."

Is it a coincidence that Ramesh who is also a member of the Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues has introduced UID provision in Section 10 and 36 of the Land Titling Bill, 2011?

Will CCEA and CCUIDAI reveal all the proposed legislations that are aimed at creating property based democracy?

Can parliament, all its standing committees, state governments and state's legislative bodies ever exchange notes to unearth the legislative web being woven at the behest of transnational financial institutions before it is too late?

In the backdrop of such unanswered questions, the 70-page LARR Bill has 74 Sections and 3 schedules in its English version to deal with the grievance accumulated since 1894. Clause 69 of the bill deals with the 'Return of Unutilised Land'.

It reads: "(1) The land acquired under this Act shall not be transferred to any other purpose except for a public purpose, and after obtaining the prior approval of the appropriate government, and any change in purpose made in violation of this provision shall be void and shall render such land and structures attached to it liable to be reverted to the land owner.

(2) When any land or part thereof, acquired under this act remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall return to the land owner by reversion;

(3) The appropriate government shall return the unutilised land or part thereof, as the case may be, to the original owner of the land from whom it was acquired subject to the refund of one fourth of the amount of compensation paid to him along with the interest on such amount at such rate, as may be specified by the appropriate government, from the date of payment of compensation to him till the refund of such amount; and

(4) The person to whom the land is returned being the owner of the land shall be entitled to all such title and rights in relation to such land from which he has been divested on the acquisition of such land."

Dr Usha Ramanathan, a noted jurist, asks, "What happens when they (the displaced) are unable to buy it back" when the unutilised land is returned. This section permits the transfer of land for another public purpose. This particular clause is not acceptable and has to be removed from the draft bill. Unmindful of widespread concern in the academia and among citizens, the bill has been approved in a tearing hurry by the Union Cabinet which gives rise to valid questions about player behind the curtain in the backdrop of declaration of assets by billionaire ministers.

Schedule I of the bill deals with "compensation for land owners", Schedule II deals with the "list of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements for all the affected families (both land owners and the families whose livelihood is primarily dependent on land acquired) in addition to those provided in Schedule I and Schedule III deal with "provision of infrastructural amenities" for resettlement of populations "to minimise the trauma involved in displacement."

Referring to schedule II, Ramaswamy R Iyer, former secretary, union water resources aptly concludes that "The principle of 'land for land' has been abandoned" because it is applied for irrigation projects alone that too with a provision that is inferior to the ones made for the displaced in the Sardar Sarovar Project. The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs appears to be under undue influence from the funders of ruling political parties both at the centre and the states to exclude projects for power, mining, flood management, SEZ, urban development and several other 'multi-purpose' projects that cause displacement. So far neither the ministry nor the CCEA has responded to it.

The bill fails to address the question of transfer of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and the implications for food security although it does refer to multi-cropped irrigated land but it is hardly sufficient. It seems to be pursuing the path of regressive Bihar Agriculture Land (Conversion for Non Agriculture Purposes) Act, 2010 which is facing bitter opposition especially in cases where widely acknowledged and awarded fertile lands are being acquired for hazardous asbestos factories amidst paid news journalism and studied silence of opposition parties in the state.

If this is the fate of a state government whose head keeps referring to Ram Manohar Lohia's four tier governance, it is understandable why most of the socialist experiments become an exercise in sophistry. Instead of ensuring that private purchases of agricultural land be subject of state regulation from the point of view of land-use, water-use, soil health and food security, such legislations are indulging in a myopic exercise of according priority to creation of financial wealth at any non-financial cost and risks.

Section 2 of the LARR Bill deal with the definition of the expression "public purpose" includes- (i) the provision of land for strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force and armed forces of the Union or any work vital to national security or defence of India or state police, safety of the people; (ii) the provision of land for infrastructure, industrialisation and urbanisation projects of the appropriate government, where the benefits largely accrue to the general public; (iii) the provision of village or urban sites, acquisition of land for the project affected people, planned development or improvement of village sites, provision of land for residential purpose to the poor, government administered educational and health schemes, (iv) the provision of land for any other purpose useful to the general public, including land for companies, for which at least 80 per cent of the project affected people have given their consent through a prior informed process; provided that where a private company after having purchased part of the land needed for a project, for public purpose, seeks the intervention of the appropriate government to acquire the balance of the land it shall be bound by rehabilitation and resettlement provisions of this Act for the land already acquired through private negotiations and it shall be bound by all provisions of this Act for the balance area sought to be acquired. (v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State". This definition of "public purpose" or common good destroys "the distinction between private use and public use".

In a text "Some notes on the Draft Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Bill 2011", Ramanathan states that "The eminent domain power in India is not, and in any event should not be, so wide" wherein an inverted Robin Hood is created which takes from the poor to give to the rich.

The draconian black law of 1894 which is proposed to be replaced in the backdrop of massive bitter opposition to Special Economic Zones and environmentally damaging projects in Jaitapur, Haripur , Ghaziabad, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Bihar and Goa where lessons have not been learnt from the bloodshed and violence in Nandigram and Singur. The proposal to amend the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 in the aftermath of West Bengal's denunciation of Haripur nuclear power project in the aftermath of Fukushima and abandonment of nuclear power projects in Germany, Japan and other countries is uncalled for. But strangely, the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011 was introduced on September 7 itself without any public comments on the Bill. Both these Bills should be deferred till it provides for moratorium on acquisition of land for nuclear power projects.

Unlike in US, the Supreme Court of India observed, "The Act, which was enacted more than 116 years ago for facilitating the acquisition of land…However, in the recent years, the country has witnessed a new phenomena. Large tracts of land have been acquired in rural parts of the country in the name of development and transferred to private entrepreneurs, who have utilised the same for construction of multi-storied complexes, commercial centers and for setting up industrial units. Similarly, large scale acquisitions have been made on behalf of the companies by invoking the provisions contained in Part VII of the Act. The resultant effect of these acquisitions is that the land owners, who were doing agricultural operations and other ancillary activities in rural areas, have been deprived of the only source of their livelihood. Majority of them do not have any idea about their constitutional and legal rights, which can be enforced by availing the constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution."

If the bills are not sensitive to these observations in a context of corporate funding to political parties even if passed by the Parliament, they can be struck down by the apex court as contrary to the Preamble of our Constitution.

Admittedly, there is "asymmetry of power (and information) between those wanting to acquire the land and those whose lands are being acquired" but the role of futures markets in land within India and the land being acquired in African countries does not find any mention. Also "asymmetry of power and information" is acknowledged only to be ignored as if it's a merely an exercise in lip-service. The bill ignores how acquisition of land affects acquisition of water as well. The ministry has failed to provide a white paper on the impact of 1894 Act since its enactment before independence and after independence. A compensation and rehabilitation regime is needed with "reference not to the nature of the project but to the nature of the impact."

The parliamentary standing committee on rural development must ask for the status of the total land acquired and the total number of internally displaced persons till the introduction of the Bill in Parliament. Without such a paper and data, the ministry's rush to get the bill passed is an act in haste which generations to come will repent and it will be considered a monumental failure of Ramesh if he does not undertake rigorous outreach before arriving at a research based decision.

Has his ministry bothered to send this bill to all the sarpanchs and mukhiyas of the country in their language to ascertain its implications and provide suggestions? The passage of the bill in its current shape must be deferred till this is done. The minister can check with his ministry, there is a precedent in this regard, a rural development minister had written such letters to sarpanchs.

This author was shown one such letter in a panchayat at a gram sabha meeting of Mendha Lekha, Dhanora tehsil in Gadchiroli district in July-August 2001. It would indeed be a sad commentary on the ministry and the standing committee headed by Sumitra Mahajan of Bhartiya Janata Party if they fail to genuinely reach out to villages before finalising the bill. The bill must factor in the provisions of Article 243 (G) of the Indian Constitution and Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996. It must desist from "forced industrialisation" and forced urbanisation.

This is required to deal with an uncertain future being manufactured by real estate, food and water companies to safeguard agricultural land from being grabbed by powerful national and transnational companies that can undermine parliament, state assemblies, gram sabhas, panchayats, zilla parishads and the government for good by depriving us of our food sovereignty. If our legislature can legislate on land use, water use, land acquisition, rehabilitation, resettlement and land titling with the memory of country's past share in world trade, it will be acting to restore the sovereignty of our Parliament and ensure that companies of all ilk remain subservient to its legislative will.

Gopal Krishna
September 13, 2011

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-the-land-acquisition-bill-is-flawed/20110913.htm

Read more...

Blast rocks nuclear plant in France

Explosion rocks French nuclear facility
A nuclear plant in Marcoule in southern France suffered an explosion earlier today.

According to France's Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), the explosion at the plant occurred in a furnace used for melting radioactive scrap metal. Earlier reports from the BBC suggested the fire occurred in a storage space for radioactive waste. The explosion reportedly killed one person. There are conflicting reports on the number of people injured, ranging from three to four at this point.

Local news site Le Midi Libre was first to report on the story.

The Marcoule plant is a major site for nuclear activities. According to the BBC, it doesn't have any reactors, but does produce mixed oxide fuel (MOX) by recycling the plutonium found in nuclear weaponry. The plant also is used to create tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, the CBC says.

Earlier this morning, there was some fear that a radioactive leak could occur at the Marcoule site. However, according to the CEA, the fire occurred "on the edge of the center" of the facility, and was brought under control. Measurements of radioactivity suggest that there has been no leakage outside the facility.

The fire in the Marcoule facility is likely to reinforce concerns about nuclear power, following the Fukushima incident earlier this year. Following a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami, Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant became the focus of the global debate over the viability of nuclear power. In that incident, several reactors started to overheat, and workers exposed to dangerous levels of radiation helped to prevent a more far-reaching catastrophe.

In April, the crisis at Fukushima hit a near-record level, when the severity of the disaster was pushed from a 5 to 7, the highest rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). The 1986 Chernobyl disaster was also a 7 on the INES.

The Fukushima crisis spurred countries around the world, France included, to reassess their preparedness for a similar problem with their own nuclear plants. Over the last several months, France has engaged in testing of its plants to determine whether they are safe from potential disasters.

Exactly how the Marcoule fire will affect France's attitudes towards nuclear plants remains to be seen. According to information from the World Nuclear Association, an organization representing people who work in the nuclear profession, 75 percent of France's electricity is powered by nuclear energy. The country is also the "world's largest net exporter of electricity," thanks to its affinity for nuclear energy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency did not immediately respond to CNET's request for comment on the matter.

Updated throughout the morning with new details.

Don Reisinger

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20104743-17/explosion-rocks-french-nuclear-facility/#ixzz1XkTK9y1F

Read more...

Catastrophe Awaits Dhanbad’s Ecosystem

Press Release

Catastrophe Awaits Dhanbad’s Ecosystem

Independent Team’s Site Visit Verifies Findings of CAG & Parliamentary Committee on Illegal Coal Mines in Dhanbad

Dhanbad, 12/9/2011: An Independent Team visited the sites of Coal India Limited (CIL) by an independent fact finding team in the backdrop of Performance Audit of Coal India Limited by Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.

CAG has revealed that CIL mines are being undertaken without environmental clearance. This has been corroborated even by the Jharkhand Pollution Control Board which ordered the closure of 22 mines operated by Bharat Coking Coal Limited, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Coal India. However, the team was dismayed to note that on 26th August, 2011, the Jharkhand court had ordered a status quo till August 30, 2011 despite this illegal mining is going on with impunity.

As per the report of the Parliamentary Committee on Coal and Steel, the environmental hazards of illegal mining are as under:
(i) ―Illegal mining means removing of coal in an unsystematic manner without following safety and conservation norms as a result of which unpredictable subsidence takes place. This invariably causes damage to surface structures. Such practices carried out in populated areas make these areas unstable and unsafe.
(ii) Illegal mining also leads to occurrence of underground fire on account of spontaneous heating. Open flames can sometimes be seen on the surface along with emission of obnoxious gases. One of the most persistent threats from the fire is land subsidence. As the burning coal turns to ash, hollow pockets are created underground, that leave the surface unstable and prone to sudden collapse, which leads to degradation of land/loss of green cover. This loss of green cover disturbs the ecological balance adversely affecting the flora and fauna.
(iii) Water balance is disturbed in and around the locations of illegal mining.
(iv) There are socio-economic factors involved due to loss of livelihood on account of fire/land subsidence / land degradation resulting from illegal mining.
(v) Due to unsystematic workings, these mines are potential death traps and a potential safety hazard.

The team comprised of Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Shekhar Agarwal, Rajnish Kumar, Gopal Krishna and Ashok Agarwal. The team visited several sites including Ghanuwadih, Boka pahari, Jairampur, Tisra, Siding no. 9, Sudamdih, Patahardi, Lodana, Jharia. The team met activists of Jharia Coalfield Bachao Samiti. The visit happened during September 11-12, 2011.

The team also got an opportunity to meet veteran Parliamentarian, Basudev Acharya who
was here to save RSP College where he studied in 1960-62 due to underground fire region near Bhagatdih. The college was started in 1951. It is believed that the underground fire is about 60 metres from the college and is inching towards it at the rate of 2.2 metres/ month. There is anger among the residents because of the criminal callousness of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), a subsidiary of CIL. The coming 20 months or so appears to be crucial for Jharia which faces an impending ecosystem disaster if central and state government does not act with unprecedented urgency to avert it.

The team witnessed BCCL management’s lackadaisical approach in saving the college by digging trenches at very slow pace. The residents alleged that the company was deliberately delaying the action to get hold of these plots for its mining projects unmindful of human cost. The team met the activists of Jharia Coalfield Bachao Samiti who are demanding that open cast mining be stopped immediately, resettlement and rehabilitation policy of BCCL be revised and all endangered areas of Jharia Coalfileds be urgently stowed and rendered safe.

The team in its preliminary observation feels that CAG should conduct an environmental audit at the earliest and suggest remedial measures to arrest the ongoing decline of the Dhanbad’s ecosystem to avoid catastrophe in near future. The team will release its final observations in the coming days.

Thakurta’s documentary “Hot As Hell” was screened at the auditorium of Industries Association which chronicles illegal mines in Dhanbad.

For Details: Shekhar Agarwal, Member Fact Finding team (FFT) Mb: 9431124467
Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance & Member, FFT Mb: 09818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

Read more...

CIL operates 239 mines without environmental clearance: CAG

State-run Coal India (CIL) is running 239 mines in its seven coal producing subsidiaries without environment clearances, the country's accounting watchdog CAG said today.

"In all, 239 mines in seven coal producing subsidiaries, which existed prior to 1994 ... were working without environmental clearance ... mining activities without prior environmental clearance were in total violation of the instructions of the MoEF," CAG said.

These include 48 open-cast, 170 underground and 21 combined mines.

The Maharatna firm, which is the biggest producer of the dry fossil fuel across the world, has drawn flak from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) at a time when Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoEF), and the Coal Ministry have locked horns over delays in environment clearance to projects.

MoEF in 2009 had categorised 203 coal blocks with potential annual production capacity of 660 MT, as 'no go' mining zone, which is being contested by Coal Ministry. The matter is pending before a Group of Ministers (GoM), formed to
find a solution to address issues hurting production.

In its report, the CAG also pointed out that of the 18 sample open-cast and eight underground mines, ten mines had undertaken capacity expansion without environmental clearances.

The increased output from there was to the tune of 45.70 million tonnes (MT) during April 2002 to March 2010.

The CAG did not buy the CIL management's contention that the production was increased to meet the energy needs of the country, including supply crisis in power plants, and to make up for the shortfall in production in some collieries.

When contacted, CIL Chairman N C Jha said that the applications for clearances to the projects have already been submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

The public sector firm's coal producing subsidiaries are -- Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), West Bengal, Bharat Coking Coal (BCCL), Jharkhand, Central Coalfields (CCL), Jharkhand, South Eastern Coalfields (SECL), Chhattisgarh,
Western Coalfields (WCL), Maharashtra, Northern Coalfields (NCL), Madhya Pradesh and Mahanadi Coalfields (MCL), Orissa.

Besides, it has one more wholly-owned subsidiary - Coal Mines Planning and Design Institute (CMPDIL), Jharkhand.

The company which accounts for over 85% of domestic production, recorded an output of 431 million tonnes (MT) last fiscal.

The performance audit of the CIL and its subsidiaries was conducted by CAG with a view to assess whether the companies were able to fulfil their CSR activities in an efficient manner towards environmental protection, safety requirement, occupational health of workers.

CIL operates 470 mines, including 164 open cast, 275 underground and 31 mixed mines.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/cil-operates-239-mines-without-environmental-clearance-cag_583851.html

Report No. - 9 of 2011-1http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif2 for the period ended March 2010 - Performance Audit of Coal India Limited Corporate Social Responsibility

Preface
Executive Summary
Chapter-l Introduction
Chapter-ll Audit Framework
Chapter-lll Corporate social Responsibility Policy Framework
Chapter-lV Environmental Issues
Chapter-V Safety in Mining
Chapter-VI Community and Peripheral Development
Chapter-VII Conclusion and Recommendations
Annexures

Read more...

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, a Lip Service?

Note: This is "A BILL to establish an Authority and such other regulatory bodies for regulation of radiation safety or nuclear safety and achieving highest standards of such safety based on scientific approach, operating experience and best practices followed by nuclear industry and to ensure that the use of radiation and atomic energy in all its applications is safe for the health of the radiation workers, members of the public and the environment and also to establisih a Council of Nuclear Safety to oversee and review the policies relating to radiation safety and nuclear safety and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS India has excellent record in nuclear safety and radiation safety; AND WHEREAS the Central Government intends to promote nuclear energy to meet shortfall in total energy requirement of the country; AND WHEREAS such excellent safety record in nuclear safety and radiation safety is required to be sustained for growth in the nuclear energy sector; NOW, THEREFORE, it has been considered necessary and expedient to establish
regulators to ensure continued excellence in nuclear safety and radiation safety in all
applications of radiation and atomic energy on a large scale."

New Delhi, Sep 7 (IANS) The government Wednesday introduced a bill in the Lok Sabha to provide a legal framework to regulate nuclear and radiation safety, and to establish an authority to carry out the task.

The bill comes in the backdrop of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assurance in the Lok Sabha during the budget session earlier this year that India's nuclear safety regulatory framework would be strengthened in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear plant accident in Japan.

Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office V. Narayanasamy introduced the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011, Errata which seeks to create the Council for Nuclear Safety (CNS) headed by the prime minister to oversee and review policies relating to radiation safety.

The bill also provides for setting up a Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) to regulate radiation and nuclear safety and achieve the highest standards on the basis of scientific approach, operating experience and best practices followed by the nuclear industry, the statement of objects and reasons of the bill said.

The authority would also ensure the use of radiation and atomic energy in all its applications is safe for the health of the radiation workers, the people and the environment, it said.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster, the largest in Japan and also in the world since the Chernobyl accident in 1986, had been caused by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11 in the Pacific Ocean off Japan which led to a series of equipment failures, nuclear melt down and release of radioactive materials.

The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill also provides for establishment of regulatory bodies for the purpose of national defence and security, apart from seeking to empower the CNS to form an appellate authority to enable the centre or any other person aggrieved by an order of the NSRA to file an appeal.

The government had set up the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, to carry out certain regulatory and safety functions. But the Fukushima disaster forced a rethink on the need to further strengthen regulatory mechanisms for nuclear and radiation safety in the country.

IANS
http://in.news.yahoo.com/n-safety-bill-tabled-lok-sabha-150336458.html

Read more...