ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

More than a decade has passed since the notification for fly ash use was passed. It has been estimated that about one acre per MW of land is needed for ash disposal. Union Ministry of Environment & Forests had issued a notification dated September 14, 1999 for use of fly ash. This appears to be a myopic step that disregards environmental and health concerns of the present and future generations.

Fly Ash Utilisation Programme, a Technology Project in Mission Mode of Government of India commissioned during 1994, is a joint activity of Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Power and Ministry of Environment & Forests, wherein Department of Science & Technology is the nodal agency and Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) is the implementing agency.

The Mission was converted into a programme called Fly Ash Utilization Programme in 2002. In 2007, the programme was shifted to Department of Science and Technology.

The apprehension that the ash laden with hazardous components being used for bricks will leach out of the bricks remains valid. It appears to be a case of transferring the present problem on the future generation.

A December 2008 Maryland court decision levied a $54 million penalty against Constellation Energy, a Baltimore, Maryland based energy producer, trader, and distributor that operates over 35 power plants in 11 states which had performed a "restoration project" of filling an abandoned gravel quarry with fly ash; the ash contaminated area waterwells with heavy metals. C&EN/12 Feb. 2009, p. 45. Groundwater contamination

It is a fact that coal contains trace levels of arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, thallium, selenium, molybdenum and mercury, its ash will continue to contain these traces. Therefore it cannot be dumped or stored where rainwater can leach the metals and move them to aquifers. The bricks will face rain water for sure.
In December 2008 the collapse of an embankment at an impoundment for wet storage of fly ash at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant resulted in a major release of 5.4 millon cubic yards of coal fly ash, damaging 3 homes and flowing into the Emory River. Cleanup costs may exceed $1.2 billion. This spill was followed a few weeks later by a smaller TVA-plant spill in Alabama, which contaminated Widows Creek and the Tennessee River, USA.

Fly ash contains trace concentrations of heavy metals and other substances that are known to be detrimental to health in sufficient quantities. Potentially toxic trace elements in coal include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, radium, selenium, thorium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. Approximately 10 percent of the mass of coals burned in the United States consists of unburnable mineral material that becomes ash, so the concentration of most trace elements in coal ash is approximately 10 times the concentration in the original coal.

A 1997 analysis by the US Geological Survey (USGS) found that fly ash typically contained 10 to 30 ppm of uranium, comparable to the levels found in some granitic rocks, phosphate rock, and black shale.

A revised risk assessment approach may change the way coal combustion wastes (CCW) are regulated, according to an August 2007 US EPA notice in the Federal Register. ^ Environmental Protection Agency (August 29, 2007). Source: "Notice of Data Availability on the Disposal of Coal Combustion Wastes in Landfills and Surface Impoundments" (PDF). 72 Federal Register 49714.

In June 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives held an oversight hearing on the Federal government's role in addressing health and environmental risks of fly ash. House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources (June 10, 2008). Source: "Oversight Hearing: How Should the Federal Government Address the Health and Environmental Risks of Coal Combustion Wastes?"

The US National Academy of Sciences noted in 2007 that "the presence of high contaminant levels in many CCR (coal combustion residue) leachates may create human health and ecological concerns." Source: Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines, Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Wastes, National Research Council of the National Academies, 2006.

In the light of the above, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests needs to revisit its notification dated September 14, 1999 whereby it allowed “use of fly ash, bottom ash or pond ash in the manufacture of bricks and other construction activities and utilisation of ash by Thermal Power Plants and provided specifications for use of ash-based products.

A amended Notification was been issued on 27th August, 2003, extending the geographical coverage upto a distance of 100 km from Thermal Power Stations. A High Level Committee (HLC) has also been constituted with representatives from concerned Ministries, Technical Institutions and All India Brick and Tile Manufacturers Federation to review the implementation of the provisions of fly ash notification. Besides monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Notification, the Committee will also provide policy guidance on utilization of fly ash in various sectors/developmental activities including incentives/disincentives required. HLC primary task was to promote fly ash.

From the above sub-ordinate legislations, the Ministry had made use of fly ash bricks mandatory within 100 km radius of coal or lignite based thermal power plants. Now a trans-disciplinary inquiry team must be constituted to examine its environment and health impact to ascertain the situation.

Press Release

Waste to Power Plant in Delhi’s Narela-Bawana endangers public health & environment

Dioxins emitting waste burning factory akin to peacetime use of war chemicals

New Delhi: The proposal of waste incineration to power plant at Narela- Bawana disregards its adverse impact on public health and environment. The construction of these plants is in violation of Supreme Court's order because it had permitted subsidy only for Biomethanation technology for five pilot projects. The court order is attached.

The proposal entails burning of some 4000 tonnes per day (TPD) of municipal solid waste in two phases; In Phase-I, it will process 1000 TPD of waste will compose of a material recovery Facility to reclaim metals and recyclables, and sort out organic and combustible material for composting and RDF facilities. In phase-II, a power plant based on Mass-burn technology will process 3000 TPD of waste. It is claimed that a total of approximately 12, 86,260 tonnes of solid waste shall be disposed off in this facility up to closure of the facility that has been planned for 25 years. The total project cost is Rs. 70 Crores for Phase – I and Rs. 378 Crore for Phase – II. The project area is 100 acres.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) visited the site of waste to power plant near Sannaut village with a Nagrik Samiti of Narela- Bawana which is opposed to the polluting plant. The site is accessible through Narela Bawana Road. Old Delhi Railway Station is about 14 km away from the site. Bawana reserve forest is within 2.5 km radius, Sri Krishna Sultanpur reserve forest is within 4.5 km radius and Haryana state boundary is within 5 km radius.

The current proposal is to establish a waste to energy plant based on incineration of Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) for generating 36 MW using MSW processing capacity of 3000 TPD. The public hearing for the project faced angry opposition.

A Fact Finding team visited the plant site in Andhra Pradesh on August 1, 2011 of SELCO International Ltd’s Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) incineration technology based waste to energy project at Elikatta village that lies defunct. The same fate awaits Delhi’s waste to power plants.

The Preliminary Fact Finding Survey Report states, "On 10th August, Citizens of Vietnam remember the anniversary of the first use of nearly 80 million liters of Dioxins laced Agent Orange as chemical weapon against Vietnam from 1961 to 1971 that has wrecked havoc crippling people and causing hitherto unknown diseases for last 50 years. The Dioxins emitting waste to energy incinerators in residential and ecologically fragile areas or elsewhere tantamount to peace time use of chemical weapon against one’s own citizens and their ecosystem." The Fact Finding Survey team comprised of K Babu Rao, former scientist at the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, Narasimha Reddy Donthi, Chief Advisor, Chetana Society, Hyderabad and Gopal Krishna, Convener, TWA, New Delhi.

The report takes note of the statement of Mark Radka, Chief of the Energy Branch, Division Technology, Industry and Economics for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) saying, waste to energy is non-renewable energy- 'Municipal solid waste is not considered to be a renewable energy source since it tends to be a mixture of fuels that can be traced back to renewable and non-renewable sources'.
It is significant to note that a White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan' prepared by Union Ministry of Environment and Forests cites a study by National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur saying, "The experience of the incineration plant at Timarpur, Delhi and the briquette plant at Bombay support the fact that thermal treatment of municipal solid waste is not feasible, in situations where the waste has a low calorific value. A critical analysis of biological treatment as an option was undertaken for processing of municipal solid waste in Delhi and it has been recommended that composting will be a viable option. Considering the large quantities of waste requiring to be processed, a mechanical composting plant will be needed."

The White Paper is available at http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/cpoll/delpolln.html
A 40 page report titled "An Industry Blowing Smoke" released by eight national environmental groups saying, the core impacts of all types of incinerators remain the same: They are toxic to public health, harmful to the economy, environment and climate, and undermine recycling and waste reduction programs. It has rightly been argued that "Incinerating the nation's trash is a dirty, damaging and short-sighted non solution to the waste management problem". It is a robust report with 216 references. The report recommends Zero Waste approach that TWA strongly endorses. Zero Waste means striving to reduce waste disposal in landfills and incinerators to zero, iIvesting in reuse, recycling and composting jobs and infrastructure requiring that products are made to be non-toxic and recyclable, ensuring that manufacturers of products assume the full social and environmental costs of what they produce, ensuring that industries reuse materials and respect worker and community rights, preventing waste and reducing unnecessary consumption.

The report was co-released by Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League www.bredl.org, California Communities Against Toxics www.stoptoxics.org, Clean Water Action www.cleanwateraction.org, Energy Justice Network www.energyjustice.net, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice www.environmental-justice.org, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives www.no-burn.org, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice www.greenaction.org, Toxics Action Center, www.toxicsaction.org

The idea of waste to energy plants based on a tried, tested and failed incineration technology in Narela-Bawana, Okhla, Timarpur and Gazipur is anti environment, anti-workers and anti-people. These projects are facing bitter opposition. Letters have been sent to UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board complaining about a similar waste to power plant in Delhi. The letters are attached.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

To

Mr. Patrice Coeur-Bizot
UN Resident Coordinator & UNDP Resident Representative
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
55 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003

Subject- Objection against CDM Projects like Delhi’s Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy project

Sir,

I wish to draw your attention towards the Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 9901/2009 in the Delhi High Court against a large Clean Development Management (CDM) project for waste incineration based power plant proposed by Mr Prithviraj Jindal of Delhi’s Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Co Pvt Ltd (TOWMCL) of M/s Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL), a company of M/s Jindal Saw Group Limited is scheduled for hearing on November 1, 2011. There have been incessant demonstrations and protest rallies against this project. There is an ongoing campaign on Facebook too at www.facebook.com/ghoslaokhla

It is noteworthy that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has withdrawn from the Rs 200-crore waste-to- energy project at Okhla in south Delhi. The bank had promised about Rs 10 crore to the plant under the Asia Pacific Carbon Fund. ADB has not specified any reason for withdrawing from the project. The plant, being built is 150 m from the residential areas. The area has a bird sanctuary, a university and three hospitals within a radius of 10 kilometres. All will be adversely affected by toxic fumes of the plant.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) had written to the ADB. In an email reply, ADB external relations officer Ms Usha Tankha wrote: “Asia Pacific Carbon Fund is no longer associated with TOWMCL integrated waste-to-energy project in Delhi and no funds were released to this project” besides that it has also decided to stop providing technical assistance to the project.

The TOWMPCL had submitted its CDM Project Activity Registration through Siddarth Yadav of Société Générale de Surveillance (currently known as SGS), a Switzerland and United Kingdom based Designated Operational Entity (DOE) on March 3, 2007. The project Registration Date is mentioned as November 10, 2007 and its Reference No. 1254. It is crediting period is mentioned as 01 April 2009 - 31 March 2019. At the time of the approval of the registration, CDM Executive Board had Mr Rajesh Kumar Sethi as its member. Mr Sethi was elected for two years in 2006 as a member. He became the Chair of the Executive Board that regulates the CDM projects in January 2008. Prior to that Mr Sethi was the Vice-Chair of the Board and had served as Chairman Methodologies Panel of the Board as well from January 2006 – January 2007.

It may be noted that on May 15, 2007, Mr Sethi in his role as Director, Climate Change Division, Indian Ministry of Environment & Forests and Designated National Authority had given Host Country Approval to the project in question to an Indian Administrative Service Officer who was officiating as Chairman, Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Co Pvt Ltd (TOWMCL). The letter of Host Country Approval is attached.

In the light of the widely reported revelations by Wikileaks which quotes Mr R. K. Sethi, the then chairman of the CDM’s Executive Board and member-secretary of the Indian CDM Authority, admitting that the authority only “takes the project developer at his word for clearing the additionality barrier”, I seek your intervention to review the registration granted to the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy project. WikiLeaks website has revealed that most of the CDM projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment.

Having studied these projects and their impacts, I submit that Executive Board ought to devise ways to stop such hazardous projects from being designated as CDM projects. I submit that the project in question is one of the 35 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) projects approved by India’s Designated National Authority (DNA), National CDM Authority. (List attached) I am familiar with 11 of these projects. All the waste incineration based projects mentioned in the list are based on the claimed success of a failed Dioxins emitting waste to energy incinerator plant for 6.6 MW that lies defunct at Elikatta Village, Shadnagar Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, Andhra Pradesh by SELCO International Ltd, which is also mentioned in the list of 35 projects.

I recollect the original plan of Timarpur Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (TWMCPL), a subsidiary of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS) was to generate 6 MW of electricity to earn carbon credits based on Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs). The project got listed before the Executive Board on 23 May 2006, and the Board had sought comments until 21 June, 2006 after TWMCPL had submitted its project design document. I had submitted adverse comments on it but to no avail.

I submit that for a project to qualify as climate change mitigating project it is necessary that it excludes waste incineration -- including waste pelletisation or RDF, pyrolysis, gasification systems -- technologies. Incineration produces pollutants which are detrimental to health and the environment. Incineration is expensive and does not eliminate or adequately control the toxic emissions from today's chemically complex municipal discards. Even the latest incinerators release toxic metals, dioxins, and acid gases. Far from eliminating the need for a landfill, waste incinerator systems produce toxic ash and other residues. Such projects disperse incinerator ash throughout the environment and subsequently enter our food chain.

I submit that the Project Design Document deliberately chose not to mention emission of dioxins and heavy metals and thus does not mention the method to deal with such emissions. Dioxins are the most lethal Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) which are associated with irreparable environmental health consequences. It did not reveal that the project is situated in an ecologically fragile residential area.

I submit that promoting waste to energy projects based on burn technologies is that it violates Kyoto Protocol. Waste combustion is a toxic activity and a contributor to global warming but CDM may end up becoming a vehicle to promote it in developing countries as a sustainable activity. Promoting waste incineration under various names such gasification and pyrolysis as renewable energy is an unpardonable environmental sin. Energy drawn from projects that use resource incineration processes is a non-renewable energy and it cannot be used for certified emissions reductions. The fact that waste incineration leads to global warming is acknowledged in the Kyoto Protocol itself where it is listed as one of the sources of green house gases. It is true that the Kyoto Protocol mentions waste management, but what is really happening is that investors and promoters of incineration technologies into India are taking advantage of Article 10(c) of Kyoto, which seeks to facilitate transfer of or access to environmentally sound technologies pertinent to climate change.

I submit that the CDM Executive Board, while deliberating over the criteria for small-scale project activities with a maximum output capacity equivalent of up to 15 megawatts has defined renewable energy as "a project activity that uses partly or in its entirety sources of energy that do not use up the earth's finite mineral resources and that is replaced rapidly by the natural processes". Waste incineration does not meet the criteria of renewable energy but what is emerging is that organic waste as a fuel for electricity generation through combustion processes is being termed a renewable process. This is a gross attempt to twist scientific facts to suit vested interests. It makes a farce of CDM, which encourages renewable energy technologies (RETs) to reduce carbon emissions and not otherwise.

I submit that failure of a similar plant Andhra Pradesh has established that RDF incinerator is a failed technology. It is linked to rising cases of skin rashes, asthma, respiratory problems and some cases of stillborns in the region to the presence of plant. Incinerator based interventions in the waste stream distort waste management beyond repair. Waste to power plants cost cities and municipalities more and provide fewer jobs than comprehensive recycling and composting. It prohibits the development of local recycling-based businesses.

I submit that the Executive Board should promote biological methods instead of hazardous technologies to deal with waste management through material recovery and by recycling. India’s Inter-Ministerial Task Force on Integrated Plant Nutrient Management did not encourage WTE policy and instead recommended setting up of 1000 compost plants all over the country. There is need to provide incentives and subsidies to cold’ technologies alone, which is suited our country economically, socially and also our wastes.

I submit that a Fact Finding team visited the plant site in Andhra Pradesh on August 1, 2011 of SELCO International Ltd’s Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) incineration technology based waste to energy project at Elikatta village. The Preliminary Fact Finding Survey Report is attached. The Report's preliminary inference states, "On 10th August, Citizens of Vietnam remember the anniversary of the first use of nearly 80 million liters of Dioxins laced Agent Orange as chemical weapon against Vietnam from 1961 to 1971 that has wrecked havoc crippling people and causing hitherto unknown diseases for last 50 years. The Dioxins emitting waste to energy incinerators in residential and ecologically fragile areas or elsewhere tantamount to peace time use of chemical weapon against one’s own citizens and their ecosystem." The Fact Finding Survey team comprised of K Babu Rao, former scientist at the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, Narasimha Reddy Donthi, Chief Advisor, Chetana Society, Hyderabad and Gopal Krishna, Convener, TWA, New Delhi.

The report takes note of the statement of Waste to Energy is non-Renewable Energy- 'Municipal solid waste is not considered to be a renewable energy source since it tends to be a mixture of fuels that can be traced back to renewable and non-renewable sources,' said Mark Radka, Chief of the Energy Branch, Division Technology, Industry and Economics for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

I wish to draw your attention towards the White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan' prepared by Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. It says, "The experience of the incineration plant at Timarpur, Delhi and the briquette plant at Bombay support the fact that thermal treatment of municipal solid waste is not feasible, in situations where the waste has a low calorific value. A critical analysis of biological treatment as an option was undertaken for processing of municipal solid waste in Delhi and it has been recommended that composting will be a viable option. Considering the large quantities of waste requiring to be processed, a mechanical composting plant will be needed."

I reiterate that incineration of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) violates Kyoto Protocol. As per Annexure A of the Protocol waste incineration is a green house gas emitter.
I submit that the issue was examined by the India’s Supreme Court’s Committee on Waste to Energy: Based on Committee’s recommendations, the Court rejected this technology and approved Biomethanation technology that too only for five pilot projects.

I submit that fiscal incentives for projects of power generation from MSW through new technologies violates Supreme Court’s Order: Supreme Court has put a stay on subsidy for waste to energy projects except 5 pilot projects based on Biomethanation technology. These projects already had incentives from the government which the court stayed.

I wish to draw your attention towards the website of New and Renewable Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, a state government company, it is mentioned under the Success Story section that SELCO INTERNATIONAL LTD is “segregating and processing the heterogeneous garbage and generating Electricity from RDF through municipal solid waste process under waste to energy sector. This Project have produced 6.6 MW Electricity from RDF for the first time in the Country and synchronized with Grid on 8th November-2003 and generating Electricity since then.” It was sanctioned on June 5, 2000. New and Renewable Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd was earlier named the Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd (NEDCAP). It is clear that the subsidy regime underlines that the project in question is a business as usual project and does not meet the additionality criteria as well.

I implore the intervention of the Executive Board to ensure that this project and similar projects mentioned in list of 35 projects should be disapproved. More such projects are in offing in Delhi’s Narela-Bawana and Gazipur and in other cities like Patna, Bangalore, Chennai, Pune etc and they are likely to meet the same fate as the Andhra Pradesh plant. A similar letter has been sent to the Board as well.

I submit that RDF incineration technology which is being used for waste to energy projects is a thermal and combustion technology, mainly used to prepare waste for mass incineration. Also if mixed waste is burnt, it creates problems of very toxic compounds such as dioxins and furans, heavy metals and other pollutants. The calorific value for the waste comes from materials such as plastics and metals. Plastics, especially chlorinated plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) when combusted gives rise to these highly toxic pollutants. In fact PVC plastic combustion is banned in India by regulation both in the municipal and bio-medical waste handling rules.

In the light of the above facts, there is need for the Executive Board to send an Inquiry Team to visit the site of the Timarpur-Okhla Waste based Power Plant near Sukhdev Vihar in New Delhi and Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Project at Elikatta Village, Shadnagar Mandal, Mahboobnagar district in Andhra Pradesh to ascertain facts for themselves along with representatives from media and environmental groups.

I will be happy to share more information.

Thanking You

Yours Faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Tel:91-11-65663958, Fax: 91-11-26517814, Mb: 9818089660
Email: krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

Cc
Ms. Kiran Mehra-Kerpelman, Director, United Nations Information Centre (UNIC)
Ms. Caitlin Wiesen, Country Director, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Ms. Karin Hulshof, Representative, United Nations Children’s Fund, (UNICEF)
Dr. Gavin Wall, Representative, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Dr. Samlee Plianbangchang, Regional Director, World Health Organization (WHO)
Dr. Nata Menabde, WHO Representative to India
Ms. Sonam Yangchen Rana, Director, India Operations, United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)
Mr. Roberto Zagha, Country Director, World Bank
Mr. Hun Kim, Country Director, Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Mr. Christopher Juan Costain, Regional Team Leader, WB-WSP (World Bank Water & Sanitation Programme, South Asia)

Press Release
Objections filed against Delhi’s questionable carbon trade (CDM) project
Delhi High Court to hear case against waste burning based power plant on 1st Nov.

New Delhi27/10/2011: Writ Peition (Civil) NO. 9901/2009 against Waste Burning based power plant proposed by Prithviraj Jindal of Delhi’s Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy plant of M/s Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL), a company of M/s Jindal Saw Group Limited is scheduled for hearing on November 1, 2011. An objection letter has been sent to Martin Hession, Chairman, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) Secretariat, Bonn, Germany expressing serious concerns against CDM Projects like Delhi’s Rs.200 crore Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy project on October 26, 2011 with a copy to Rajiv Kumar, Member Secretary, the National CDM Authority, the Designated National Authority (DNA). The letter and relevant documents are attached.

This Timarpur-Okhla carbon credit project was registered on 10th November, 2007 with a claim to reduce greenhouse gases by a Board which was conflict of interest ridden. The letter explains.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has been arguing that the carbon trade was a fake solution for the climate crisis. Incineration of waste violates Kyoto Protocol which describes waste incineration as a greenhouse gas emitter.

A RDF based waste to energy plant failed in Delhi’s Timarpur in 1990. Recent experiments Andhra Pradesh have also failed. A waste incinerator in Detroit and South West Wales was shut down in October and December 2010 respectively.

Failure of these plants has established that incinerator is a failed technology. It is linked to rising cases of skin rashes, asthma, respiratory problems and some cases of stillborns in the region to the presence of plant. Incinerator based interventions in the waste stream distort waste management beyond repair.
Waste to power plants cost cities and municipalities more and provide fewer jobs than comprehensive recycling and composting. It prohibits the development of local recycling-based businesses.

Notably, the Prime Minister’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) also refers to Biomethanation technology, a biological treatment method for waste to energy. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)’s Feasibility Study and Master Plan for Optimal Waste Treatment and Disposal for the Entire State of Delhi of March 2004 says, “the costs of RDF are often high for societies with low calorific value because energy is used to dry the waste before it becomes feasible to burn it”.

Instead of hazardous technologies, biological methods should be adopted to deal with waste management through material recovery and by recycling. The Inter-Ministerial Task Force on Integrated Plant Nutrient Management did not encourage WTE policy and instead recommended setting up of 1000 compost plants all over the country.
There is need to provide incentives and subsidies to cold’ technologies alone, which is suited our country economically, socially and also our wastes.

Waste incineration plants are aimed at earning carbon credits as a solution for climate crisis unmindful of its impact on livelihood options of poor waste pickers and propagation of small-scale bio-methanation, composting and proper recycling for better waste management.

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. Union Environment Minister has written 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.
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.

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.

CDM Executive Board and Dr Farooq Abdullah headed Ministry of new renewable energy is damaging waste management through such misplaced projects providing fiscal incentives to such polluting projects. They should desist from promoting such hazardous projects.

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

To

Mr Martin Hession

Chair

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) Secretariat

Bonn, Germany

Subject- Objection against CDM Projects like Delhi’s Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy project

Sir,

I wish to draw your attention towards the Writ Peition (Civil) NO. 9901/2009 in the Delhi High Court against a large Clean Development Management (CDM) project for waste incineration based power plant proposed by Mr Prithviraj Jindal of Delhi’s Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Co Pvt Ltd (TOWMCL) of M/s Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL), a company of M/s Jindal Saw Group Limited is scheduled for hearing on November 1, 2011.

The TOWMPCL had submitted its CDM Project Activity Registration through Siddarth Yadav of Société Générale de Surveillance (currently known as SGS), a Switzerland and United Kingdom based Designated Operational Entity (DOE) on March 3, 2007. The project Registration Date is mentioned as November 10, 2007 and its Reference No. 1254. It is crediting period is mentioned as 01 April 2009 - 31 March 2019. At the time of the approval of the registration, CDM Executive Board had Mr Rajesh Kumar Sethi as its member. Mr Sethi was elected for two years in 2006 as a member. He became the Chair of the Executive Board that regulates the CDM projects in January 2008. Prior to that Mr Sethi was the Vice-Chair of the Board and had served as Chairman Methodologies Panel of the Board as well from January 2006 – January 2007.


It may be noted that on May 15, 2007, Mr Sethi in his role as Director, Climate Change Division, Indian Ministry of Environment & Forests and Designated National Authority had given Host Country Approval to the project in question to an Indian Administrative Service Officer who was officiating as Chairman, Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Co Pvt Ltd (TOWMCL). The letter of Host Country Approval is attached.

In the light of the widely reported revelations by Wikileaks which quotes Mr R. K. Sethi, the then chairman of the CDM’s Executive Board and member-secretary of the Indian CDM Authority, admitting that the authority only “takes the project developer at his word for clearing the additionality barrier”, I seek your intervention to review the registration granted to the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy project. WikiLeaks website has revealed that most of the CDM projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment.

Having studied these projects and their impacts, I submit that Executive Board ought to devise ways to stop such hazardous projects from being designated as CDM projects. I submit that the project in question is one of the 35 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) projects approved by India’s Designated National Authority (DNA), National CDM Authority. (List attached) I am familiar with 11 of these projects. All the waste incineration based projects mentioned in the list are based on the claimed success of a failed Dioxins emitting waste to energy incinerator plant for 6.6 MW that lies defunct at Elikatta Village, Shadnagar Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, Andhra Pradesh by SELCO International Ltd, which is also mentioned in the list of 35 projects.

I recollect the original plan of Timarpur Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (TWMCPL), a subsidiary of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS) was to generate 6 MW of electricity to earn carbon credits based on Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs). The project got listed before the Executive Board on 23 May 2006, and the Board had sought comments until 21 June, 2006 after TWMCPL had submitted its project design document. I had submitted adverse comments on it but to no avail.

I submit that for a project to qualify as climate change mitigating project it is necessary that it excludes waste incineration -- including waste pelletisation or RDF, pyrolysis, gasification systems -- technologies. Incineration produces pollutants which are detrimental to health and the environment. Incineration is expensive and does not eliminate or adequately control the toxic emissions from today's chemically complex municipal discards. Even the latest incinerators release toxic metals, dioxins, and acid gases. Far from eliminating the need for a landfill, waste incinerator systems produce toxic ash and other residues. Such projects disperse incinerator ash throughout the environment and subsequently enter our food chain.

I submit that the Project Design Document deliberately chose not to mention emission of dioxins and heavy metals and thus does not mention the method to deal with such emissions. Dioxins are the most lethal Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) which are associated with irreparable environmental health consequences. It did not reveal that the project is situated in an ecologically fragile residential area.

I submit that promoting waste to energy projects based on burn technologies is that it violates Kyoto Protocol. Waste combustion is a toxic activity and a contributor to global warming but CDM may end up becoming a vehicle to promote it in developing countries as a sustainable activity. Promoting waste incineration under various names such gasification and pyrolysis as renewable energy is an unpardonable environmental sin. Energy drawn from projects that use resource incineration processes is a non-renewable energy and it cannot be used for certified emissions reductions. The fact that waste incineration leads to global warming is acknowledged in the Kyoto Protocol itself where it is listed as one of the sources of green house gases. It is true that the Kyoto Protocol mentions waste management, but what is really happening is that investors and promoters of incineration technologies into India are taking advantage of Article 10(c) of Kyoto, which seeks to facilitate transfer of or access to environmentally sound technologies pertinent to climate change.

I submit that the CDM Executive Board, while deliberating over the criteria for small-scale project activities with a maximum output capacity equivalent of up to 15 megawatts has defined renewable energy as "a project activity that uses partly or in its entirety sources of energy that do not use up the earth's finite mineral resources and that is replaced rapidly by the natural processes". Waste incineration does not meet the criteria of renewable energy but what is emerging is that organic waste as a fuel for electricity generation through combustion processes is being termed a renewable process. This is a gross attempt to twist scientific facts to suit vested interests. It makes a farce of CDM, which encourages renewable energy technologies (RETs) to reduce carbon emissions and not otherwise.

I submit that failure of a similar plant Andhra Pradesh has established that RDF incinerator is a failed technology. It is linked to rising cases of skin rashes, asthma, respiratory problems and some cases of stillborns in the region to the presence of plant. Incinerator based interventions in the waste stream distort waste management beyond repair. Waste to power plants cost cities and municipalities more and provide fewer jobs than comprehensive recycling and composting. It prohibits the development of local recycling-based businesses.

I submit that the Executive Board should promote biological methods instead of hazardous technologies to deal with waste management through material recovery and by recycling. India’s Inter-Ministerial Task Force on Integrated Plant Nutrient Management did not encourage WTE policy and instead recommended setting up of 1000 compost plants all over the country. There is need to provide incentives and subsidies to cold’ technologies alone, which is suited our country economically, socially and also our wastes.

I submit that a Fact Finding team visited the plant site in Andhra Pradesh on August 1, 2011 of SELCO International Ltd’s Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) incineration technology based waste to energy project at Elikatta village. The Preliminary Fact Finding Survey Report is attached. The Report's preliminary inference states, "On 10th August, Citizens of Vietnam remember the anniversary of the first use of nearly 80 million liters of Dioxins laced Agent Orange as chemical weapon against Vietnam from 1961 to 1971 that has wrecked havoc crippling people and causing hitherto unknown diseases for last 50 years. The Dioxins emitting waste to energy incinerators in residential and ecologically fragile areas or elsewhere tantamount to peace time use of chemical weapon against one’s own citizens and their ecosystem." The Fact Finding Survey team comprised of K Babu Rao, former scientist at the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, Narasimha Reddy Donthi, Chief Advisor, Chetana Society, Hyderabad and Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), New Delhi.

The report takes note of the statement of Waste to Energy is non-Renewable Energy- 'Municipal solid waste is not considered to be a renewable energy source since it tends to be a mixture of fuels that can be traced back to renewable and non-renewable sources,' said Mark Radka, Chief of the Energy Branch, Division Technology, Industry and Economics for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

I wish to draw your attention towards the White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan' prepared by Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. It says, "The experience of the incineration plant at Timarpur, Delhi and the briquette plant at Bombay support the fact that thermal treatment of municipal solid waste is not feasible, in situations where the waste has a low calorific value. A critical analysis of biological treatment as an option was undertaken for processing of municipal solid waste in Delhi and it has been recommended that composting will be a viable option. Considering the large quantities of waste requiring to be processed, a mechanical composting plant will be needed."

I reiterate that incineration of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) violates Kyoto Protocol. As per Annexure A of the Protocol waste incineration is a green house gas emitter.

I submit that the issue was examined by the India’s Supreme Court’s Committee on Waste to Energy: Based on Committee’s recommendations, the Court rejected this technology and approved Biomethanation technology that too only for five pilot projects.

I submit that fiscal incentives for projects of power generation from MSW through new technologies violates Supreme Court’s Order: Supreme Court has put a stay on subsidy for waste to energy projects except 5 pilot projects based on Biomethanation technology. These projects already had incentives from the government which the court stayed.

I wish to draw your attention towards the website of New and Renewable Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, a state government company, it is mentioned under the Success Story section that SELCO INTERNATIONAL LTD is “segregating and processing the heterogeneous garbage and generating Electricity from RDF through municipal solid waste process under waste to energy sector. This Project have produced 6.6 MW Electricity from RDF for the first time in the Country and synchronized with Grid on 8th November-2003 and generating Electricity since then.” It was sanctioned on June 5, 2000. New and Renewable Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd was earlier named the Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd (NEDCAP). It is clear that the subsidy regime underlines that the project in question is a business as usual project and does not meet the additionality criteria as well.

I implore the intervention of the Executive Board to ensure that this project and similar projects mentioned in list of 35 projects should be disapproved. More such projects are in offing in Delhi’s Narela-Bawana and Gazipur and in other cities like Patna, Bangalore, Chennai, Pune etc and they are likely to meet the same fate as the Andhra Pradesh plant.

I submit that RDF incineration technology which is being used for waste to energy projects is a thermal and combustion technology, mainly used to prepare waste for mass incineration. Also if mixed waste is burnt, it creates problems of very toxic compounds such as dioxins and furans, heavy metals and other pollutants. The calorific value for the waste comes from materials such as plastics and metals. Plastics, especially chlorinated plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) when combusted gives rise to these highly toxic pollutants. In fact PVC plastic combustion is banned in India by regulation both in the municipal and bio-medical waste handling rules.

In the light of the above facts, there is need for the Executive Board to send an Inquiry Team to visit the site of the Timarpur-Okhla Waste based Power Plant near Sukhdev Vihar in New Delhi and Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Project at Elikatta Village, Shadnagar Mandal, Mahboobnagar district in Andhra Pradesh to ascertain facts for themselves along with representatives from media and environmental groups.

I will be happy to share more information.

Thanking You

Yours Faithfully

Gopal Krishna

Convener

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)

New Delhi

Tel:91-11-65663958, Fax: 91-11-26517814, Mb: 9818089660

Email: krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

Cc

Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Member Secretary & Designated National Authority (DNA), National CDM Authority

RTI activist Shehla Masood was shot dead outside her residence in Bhopal on August 16, 2011

Shehla Masood, the RTI activist who was shot dead in front of her house last month, appears to have paid the price for exposing illegal diamond mining in Madhya Pradesh's (MP) Chhattarpur district.

It has now come to light that Shehla probably knew about the involvement of politicians and bureaucrats in the illegal work being carried out by one of the world's leading mining companies in the state's Bunder region, which is considered one of the largest diamond reserves.

Interestingly, the foundation stone of the company in MP was laid by CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan himself.

"I strongly believe Shehla's murder is linked to a mining deal for which some politicians and bureaucrats were lobbying. Five days before her death, she had told a friend that she had information which could shake the BJP government in the state," Ayesha, Shehla's sister, said.

She added: "My sister was a threat to many politicians, including the CM, bureaucrats and some IPS officers. Her murder was planned." Gopal Krishna, founder of the New Delhi- based organisation ToxicsWatch, said he and Shehla had agreed to bring to light the issue of illegal mining in Bunder.

"Shehla was planning to challenge the illegal Bunder mining project in the high court and had planned to launch an agitation outside the court. She had been raising a lot of questions about the project. Our aim was to save the watershed of the Panna Tiger Reserve and the Shyamri River, which is one of the cleanest in the country," Krishna said.

The company involved in the Bunder mining project claims it has complied with all the laws, including environmental norms.

Despite several attempts, the company refused to respond to Mail Today's queries on the allegations levelled by the Masood family.

Anup Dutta, India Today

URL for this article :
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/shehla-masood-murder-mp-diamond-mafia-hand-suspected/1/152932.html

From the screening of entry of hazardous waste into the country, to enacting poor safety and management laws on its handling, there is much to be said about them. Environmental and occupational health researcher Gopal Krishna minces no words in an interview with Newsclick editor, D. Raghunandan.

PRESS RELEASE

TWA Welcomes Breakthrough in Cartagena, Colombia on UN Hazardous Waste Treaty

INDIA SUPPORTS BAN AMENDMENT TO TREATY ON HAZARDOUS WASTE

UN MEET FOR BAN ON HAZARDOUS WASTE EXPORT TO POOR COUNTRIES

New Delhi October 22, 2011 – Incessant diplomatic efforts resulted in the world witnessing a turning point at the 10th Conference of the Parties of the UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, as 178 countries which are Parties to it agreed to allow an early entry into force of law of the Basel Ban Amendment that prohibits all exports of hazardous wastes, including electronic wastes and old obsolete ships from rich to poor countries like India.

This happened as a result of an initiative by Indonesia and Switzerland with the support of environmental groups. Now if 17 more Parties from those countries that were Parties during COP3 ratify the Ban Amendment, it will enter into force.
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) urges Government of India to take the lead in ratifying it and persuading other relevant countries to do so prior to the next Conference of Parties. So far 71 countries have ratified the amendment. Prior to COP10, TWA had written to Ministries of Environment, Commerce and Steel to support Ban Amendment. In a letter to Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry of Environment and Forests, it had demanded that India should ratify the Ban Amendment to ban hazardous waste trade

China, the European Union, and developing countries strongly supported the Ban Amendment. Traditional opponents of the amendment like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and India changed their stance for the entry into force of the 1995 treaty. The USA has also opposed but is not a Party of the Convention. Ahead of the upcoming hearing in the Supreme Court, Government of India’s support for Ban Amendment is a step in the right direction.

Basel Convention has regained its original mandate to regulate shipbreaking not the International Maritime Organisation’s Hong Kong Convention given the fact that rate of disposal of end of life ships on Alang beach, Gujarat, Chittagong beach, Bangladesh and Gadani, Pakistan has gathered momentum unmindful of the death of migrant, casual and vulnerable workers and the ongoing contamination of South Asian beaches.

It is hoped that it will pave the way for eliminating all hazardous waste through adoption of substitutes of hazardous materials, Green Design, Clean Production based on Life Cycle Assessment.

The Basel Ban Amendment was originally adopted in 1995 as a proposed amendment to the Basel Convention but has recently been stalled due to uncertainty as to how to interpret the Convention. Now following a diplomatic working group known as the Country Led Initiative, it has been decided that the Ban Amendment will go into force when 68 of the 90 countries that were Parties to the Convention in 1995, ratify the agreement. Currently, 51 of these have ratified the amendment, leaving just 17 more needed. At present there are 178 Parties to the Convention.

“Finally, the blockade has been lifted and the Basel Ban that has been held hostage now for many years is liberated,” said Jim Puckett, Executive Director of the Basel Action Network who was present in Cartagena. “The Ban Amendment ensures that developing countries are not convenient dumping grounds for toxic factory waste, obsolete ships containing asbestos, or old computers coming from affluent countries. It enforces the Basel Convention obligation that all countries manage their own hazardous waste.”

It is important that Parties disagreed that the International Maritime Organization’s Hong Kong Convention on ship recycling, provided an equivalent level of control to that of the Basel Convention. The Hong Kong Convention has no motive of minimizing the movement of hazardous ships to poor countries. The Basel Convention ought to act proactively to prevent the dumping of end-of-life ships on the beaches of poor countries like India.

As of now 33 of the 41 developed countries to which the hazardous waste export ban applies have implemented it nationally. Commenting on the Indonesian-Swiss country-led initiative to improve the effectiveness of the Basel Convention, USA had argued ‘whether it is appropriate for a Convention body to seek to define terms such as “second hand goods” and “used goods” and its reference to “specific arrangements that can be applied to used and end of life goods” while expressing its support to combat illegal traffic in wastes, and had suggested that term "vulnerable countries” be replaced with “certain countries”.

COP-10’s decision will exert diplomatic pressure on countries such as USA that never ratified the treaty. They will have to accept the ban as an integral part of the Convention after its entry in to force.

Earlier, Waste without Frontiers: Global trends in generation and transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes (http://www.basel.int/pub/ww-frontiers26Jan2010.pdf), a 36 page study by Basel Convention Secretariat provided a glimpse of the global trends on the generation and transboundary movements of hazardous and other wastes produced under the Convention in its first 21 years of existence. TWA hopes that waste will stop following the path of least resistance due to this treaty.

Dr. Frank Pearl, the Colombian Environment Minister, the host reminded that the next generation will at some point come knocking at our door. Responding to it, we have heard the knock, we have opened the door, we have looked into the faces and eyes of our future progeny and we have answered their plea. The Draft Cartagena Declaration on hazardous wastes and other wastes is attached.

TWA appreciates the work of BAN and other environmental organizations which worked towards this end.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, TWA, Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com,
Web: toxicswatch.blogpsot.com
Jim Puckett in Cartagena: Phone: +57 3155483958, E-mail: jpuckett@ban.org
For background Documents on COP10 Basel Meeting: Visit: ban.org (Meetings, COP10 Section), basel.int

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Press Release

CBI Should Probe Hazardous Wastes Trade: Supreme Court Monitoring Committee

UNEP attempts to create a regime for free trade in waste, condemnable

10th Meeting of UN’s Basel Convention to Concludes today

Supreme Court to hear Hazardous Waste Case on November 15

New Delhi/21/10/2011: Global hazardous waste trade treaty’s 10th conference of parties (COP 10) dwelt on a path forward on the Ban Amendment to UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal but under tremendous influence of hazardous waste traders it emerged that it wants to “turn wastes into valuable resources” in order to make it a “non new good” contrary to Supreme Court’s order.

On October 18, 2011, India called for further discussions of the legal interpretation of Article 17(5) in a contact group instead of calling for voting on the issue to ensure that Ban Amendment comes into force. EU’s support for the Ban Amendment appeared suspect as it continued to support International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s treaty on Ship Recycling/Shipbreaking (Hong Kong Convention) that does not ban imports of hazardous wastes laden end-of-life vessels and India-EU Free Trade Agreement on October 19. Both Indian environmental groups and Indian shipbreaking industry oppose IMO's treaty as anti-worker and anti-environment but Government of India seems to be representing someone else in this regard.

The Supreme Court’s bench of Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice H L Gokhale passed an October 11, 2011 saying, “...many of the directions given and contained in the judgment delivered on 14th October, 2003, reported in (2005)10 SCC 510, along with the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee which had been constituted by this Court by virtue of the said judgment, are yet to be complied with, we direct the respondent, Union of India/Government of India to consider the report of the Monitoring Committee prepared by Dr. D.B. Boralkar and Dr. Claude Alvares, the directions contained at page 541 of the aforesaid judgment and a copy of the submissions filed on behalf of the writ petitioner on 21st September, 2011, and to prepare a note as to what steps have been taken to implement the directions and, if the same have not been implemented, as to why the same have not been implemented. While considering the aforesaid report and judgment, the Government of India shall also consider the other judgment in the same matter reported in (2005) 13 SCC 186. Let this matter be adjourned till 15th November, 2011...” The order is attached. The Basel Convention which has been adopted by the Supreme Court of India seeks national legislation, national reporting and enforcement to mitigate illegal trafficking of hazardous wastes.

The report of Boralkar and Alvares, the members of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes has recommended investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to get to the bottom of the ongoing trade in hazardous wastes. The report and pictures are available here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6179856/SCMC%20BC%20March%203%202007.pdf
It is noteworthy that Interpol has a Pollution & Environment Crime Working group, India also needs one. World Customs Organisation enforces six multilateral environmental treaties with its help.

It has been reported that Article X-15 of the India-EU Free Trade Agreement negotiations about ‘non-new goods’ (an euphemism for waste), which is expected to be concluded by the end of this year. Government of India has been ignoring Parliament of India in these matters. In a complete contrast on March 5, 2009, the European Parliament voted on 140 tabled amendments to the draft report on the FTA between India and the European Union (EU). Has Parliament in our country been given any such opportunity for instance, to take a considered view on hazardous waste trade? Meanwhile, the 1083 page India-Japan Free Trade Agreement legitimizes waste trade for good. Like Germany and UK, Japan too has been a consistent opponent of the Basel Convention.

The status of Ban Amendment to Basel Convention is the same as Kyoto Protocol is to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Basel Convention is a global environmental treaty dealing with hazardous and other wastes. It has 178 members and aims to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of the generation, management, transboundary movements and disposal of hazardous and other wastes.

In the matter of trade obligations and commitments of generators of hazardous wastes is quite clear. It is a sad day for global environmental movement that at time when exporters, importers and waste processers have ganged up against human health and environment in collusion with UNEP, there is a disturbing silence from the NGOs of the richer countries in particular and donor driven NGOs of the poorer countries.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) strongly disapproves of Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director at the Basel COP 10 meeting attempts to legitimize “moves forward in establishing a regime for countries who wish to trade in waste”, thereby dividing the world into those love trade in hazardous waste and those who do not and to create a “balance” between them.

Senior Advisory Group of Experts to the Executive Secretary of the Basel Convention Secretariat met from 18 to 19 January 2011 to subvert the definition of waste and turn it into non-waste in the name of exploring the economic potential of the extracting resources from waste. After the meet, the Basel Convention Secretariat and Ms. Katharina Kummer Peiry, Executive Secretary of the Basel Convention circulated a non-paper titled “SHIFTING PARADIGMS: FROM WASTE TO RESOURCES”. This appears to be a scandalous act that tantamount to an unpardonable environmental sin by Basel Convention Secretariat and United Nations Environment Programme under Executive Director, Achim Steiner. It was under the influence of hazardous waste traders that COP10 attempted to dedicate itself to the controversial theme of ‘recovery, of wastes’ in order to promote fake green business and dirty, degrading and dangerous job opportunities, while paying lip service to human health, livelihood, and the environment. The non-paper is attached.

Basel Convention Secretariat under Ms. Peiry and UNEP under Steiner’s leadership seems to have adopted regressive Lawrence Summers principle under the influence of countries like USA, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Korea and Japan in general and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses, International Chamber of Commerce, US Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), the international trade federation representing the world’s recycling industry. These entities were opposed to principles of Basel Convention at least since 1992 when the treaty was adopted unlike India. Since Kamal Nath’s tenure as Union Environment Minister, later as Union Commerce Minister and now with Anand Sharma, as Union Commerce Minister there is been noticeable reversal in India’s position against public health and environment. Notably, in February 2002, the Supreme Court had fined the Ministry of Environment & Forests Rs.10, 000 for not having complied with its orders regarding the disappearance of hazardous waste oil from major ports in the country. Prior to that the court had ordered on May 5, 1997, "no authorisation or permission (for hazardous waste) would be given to any authority ... which has already been banned by the Union government or by any order made by any court or any other authority...(In addition to this) no import would be made or permitted … under the Basel Convention."

In such a backdrop, TWA welcomes the step of Parliament of Republic of Malta, a Southern European country which has approved the ratification of the amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-Frontier Movements of Hazardous Waste on October 19, 2011. The amendment is aimed at prohibiting exports of hazardous waste to developing countries. TWA hopes that Parliament of India too will prevail on Government of India to ratify the Ban Amendment to prohibit hazardous waste trade that is being promoted by its Commerce Ministry under the undue influence of traders.

The Third meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP3) to the Convention in Geneva in September 1995 an Ban Amendment was adopted. This bans the export of hazardous wastes for final disposal and recycling from rich countries to poorer countries. This amendment was to enter into force following ratification by 62 parties as per Article 17 (5) of the Convention. The Ban Amendment has not entered into force despite the fact that 70 parties have ratified it because Basel Convention Secretariat appears to have surrendered under the influence of powerful hazardous waste traders. The parent treaty, the Basel Convention that adopted in 1989 entered into force on 5 May 1992 has been ratified by 175 countries.

It is quite sad that after acknowledging that “Trade in hazardous wastes has grown significantly between developing countries, a trend unforeseen when the Convention was adopted more than two decades ago”, UNEP and the Basel Convention Secretariat incorrectly state, “such trade is not addressed by the Ban Amendment, which was adopted in 1995 and has 70 Parties.” Both these agencies have failed in not putting the issue of a long-standing dispute over how to calculate the requisite number of ratifications needed which has defied resolution by consensus to vote. It is an act of dereliction of duty.

In a year prior to the 20th anniversary of the Rio Conference on Environment and Development and the 40th anniversary of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, UNEP appears subservient to hazardous waste traders. The 5 -day UN meeting from 17 to 21 October 2011 in the city of Cartagena, Colombia concludes today. TWA had written to Ministry of Environment and Forests, Commerce and Steel Ministers to adopt its original position of 1992 articulated in Piriapolis, Uruguay in December 1992, by A. Bhattacharja, Head of the Indian delegation saying, "You industrial countries have been asking us to do many things for the global good -- to stop cutting down our forests, to stop using your CFCs. Now we are asking you to do something for the global good: keep your own waste." It is hoped that both Supreme Court and Parliament will act in time to set matters right before it is too late and ask the rich countries and their waste traders to keep their own waste, our own waste is too much to handle.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Mb: 9818089660, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com, www.basel.int

Writ Peition (Civil) NO. 9901/2009 against Waste Burning based power plant to be heard in COURT NO. 1 before the DIVISION BENCH-1 of HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Mr A K SIKRI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW.

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. Union Environment Minister has written 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, ToxicsWatch Alliace (TWA) has long held in its submissions.

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.

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.

Dr Farooq Abdullah headed Ministry of new renewable energy is damaging waste management through such misplaced projects providing subsidy to such polluting projects. This Ministry should desist from promoting such hazardous projects.

Press Statement

Diverting Rivers for Linking, a Catastrophic Idea

Aggregated cost of Linking Rivers, Rs 1, 25, 342 crore at 2002-3 prices

Centre and few state governments outwitting Court with intra-state links

New Delhi: Supreme Court heard the Networking of Rivers Case (Writ Petition Civil 512 of 2002) on October 17, 2011 which entails diversion of rivers for linking them in both Himalayan and peninsular India. Environmental groups in India in particular and South Asia in general are opposed to such projects because it will lead to Aral Sea like ecological disaster and will endanger the life of rivers for good. Diversion of two Siberian rivers led to drying up of Aral Sea.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) welcomes the precautionary approach adopted by the three-judge bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar by seeking to know its financial viability and possible displacement due to land acquisition for the mega project. Environmental groups have contended for long that diverting rivers for linking inevitably involves acquisition of both land and water. The court posted the matter for further hearing in January 2012.

Earlier, Supreme Court had suggested that this project should be completed by the year 2016. Since then Union Ministry of Environment & Forests has opposed the project and Kerela, Punjab and West Bengal have rejected this project.

It is noteworthy that National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) did a study on “Economic Impact of Interlinking of Rivers Programme” in April 2008. The Foreword to the study admits, “Economic impact of certain benefits such as mitigation of drought and floods to a certain extent, increased revenue/income from fishing, picnic site and amusement park are not taken into consideration.” If one looks at NCAER itself observes saying “interlinking of rivers programme (ILR) programme is aimed at linking different surplus rivers of country with the deficient rivers so that the excess water from surplus region could be diverted to deficient region,” it is clear drought, flood and livelihood from activating like fishing ha snot been considered. This is the outcome of the study was meant to assess the macro impact of the ILR programme on Indian economy both at short- as well as long-term.

This is the study on the basis of which Ministry of Water Resources claims that the ILR project is viable has revealed that drought and flood is a non-issue as far as economic impact of ILR is concerned. The fact is that the interlocutory application that was filed in the Maili Yamuna case in the Supreme Court was turned into a Public Interest Litigation by the then Chief Justice B N Kripal on the premise that the ILR project would lead to drought proofing and flood proofing of the country. The Court’s order for ILR project was based on the assumption that there is consensus among the states for this project. Subsequently, it has been found that both these premises do not exist.

The NCAER study observes that the cost of the overall ILR programme was estimated by the task force/NWDA as Rs 5,60,000 crore at 2002-03 prices. This estimate suffers from two infirmities. First, the cost of 30 links has been taken, whereas there are only 29 links. Jogigopa–Tista–Farakka (JTF) is an alternative link to Manas–Sankosh–Tista–Ganga (MSTG) and only one of these two links will be constructed.

It is noteworthy that in the meeting of Government’s Experts Committee on Interlinking of Rivers that since, Manas and Brahmaputra rivers were discussed. It was contended that they are international in nature, planning of water resources of the region need lot of care with respect to international dimensions. It has also been contended that there are problems presently in sharing of Ganga waters and this type of problem may also arise in Brahmaputra and Manas regions in additions to the environmental and ecological issues attached to the regions. Therefore, it is better to give up the MSTG link under ILR.

The study considers two alternatives of cost estimates taking into account alternative links (MSTG or JTF). The new aggregated cost of entire programme with MSTG link is estimated as Rs 4, 44, 331.20 crore at 2003-04 prices. The new aggregated cost is Rs 1, 15, 668.20 crore or 20.7 per cent lower than the earlier aggregate cost estimate of Rs 5,60,000 crore at 2002-03 prices. The new aggregated cost of entire programme with JTF link is estimated as Rs 4, 34, 657.13 crore at 2003-04 prices.

The study cites experience of Pakistan in the area of interlinking of river could be an inspiration for India arguing that if it can complete the interlinking of its river in 10 years, it should not be difficult for India to complete the task of interlinking of rivers.

The study feigned ignorance about the relevant recommendations of the two volume Report of the National Commission for Water Resource Development set up by the Union Ministry of Water Resources that was submitted in September, 1999. Volume-I of the report says: "The Himalayan river linking data is not freely available, but on the basis of public information, it appears that the Himalayan river linking component is not feasible for the period of review up to 2050." The report underlines that the problems are in the entire plan of linking the Himalayan rivers.

With regard to the Peninsular river component, the National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development states, "there is no imperative necessity for massive water transfer. The assessed needs of the basins could be met from full development and efficient utilisation of intra-basic resources except in the case of Cauvery and Vaigai basins. Some water transfer from Godavari towards the south should take care of the deficit in the Cauvery and Vaigai basins."

Unmindful of the above recommendations of the High Powered Commission headed by Prof S R Hashim, Feasibility Studies of the links in the Peninsular Component of the Interlinking of Rivers project has already been prepared by National Water Development Agency (NWDA), Government of India. These links include: 1. Krishna (Almatti) Pennar Link, 2. Inchampalli Nagarjunasagar Link, 3. Inchampalli Pulichintala Link, 4. Ken Betwa Link Project, 5. Nagarjunasagar Somasila Link, 6. Parbati Kalisindh Chambal Link Project, 7. Srisailam Pennar Link, 8. Cauvery Vaigai Gundar Link, 9. Damanganga Pinjal Link, 10. Mahanadi Godavari Link Project, 11. Pamba Achankovil Vaippar Link, 12. Par Tapi Narmada Link, 13. Pennar Palar Cauvery Link and 14. Polavaram Vijayawada Link. The map of the peninsular component is attached.

As to Himalayan Component, NWDA has completed the pre-feasibility studies of fourteen links in the Himalayan component. These include: 1. Manas-Sankosh-Tista – Ganga (MSTG) link, 2. Jogighopa-Tista-Farakka link, 3. Ganga-Damodar-Subernarekha link, 4. Subernarekha-Mahanadi link, 5. Farakka-Sunderbans link, 6. Gandak-Ganga link, 7. Ghaghara -Yamuna link, 8. Sarda-Yamuna link, 9. Yamuna-Rajasthan link, 10. Rajasthan-Sabarmati link, 11. Chunar- Sone Barrage link, 12. Sone dam-Southern tributaries of Ganga link, 13. Kosi- Ghaghara link and 14. Kosi-Mechi link. The feasibility Studies of Ghaghara-Yamuna Link and Sarda-Yamuna Link has been prepared. The map of the Himalayan component is attached.

Besides the above, Union Ministry of Water Resources has approved to identify Intra-State links in the States like Bihar and to prepare pre – feasibility / feasibility reports of these links by NWDA. The Government of Puducherry has send a proposal for one interstate link namely Pennaiyar – Sankarabarani link instead of intra state link proposal. The States Governments of Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa, Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu have proposed intra-state proposals within their respective states. NWDA is preparing the pre – feasibility reports of the intra state links. The list of intra-state links is attached.

In Bihar, the proposed links include: 1. Kosi – Mechi, 2. Barh – Nawada, 3. Kohra – Chandravat (Lalbegi), 4. Burhi Gandak – None – Baya – Ganga Burhi Gandak 5. Bagmati [Belwadhar]and 6. Kosi – Ganga. The pre-feasibility report of Kosi – Mechi, Kohra – Chandravat (Lalbegi) and Burhi Gandak – None – Baya – Ganga has been completed and sent to the state government. It shows that centre and the state government refuse to learn from the embankment disaster and drainage crisis in the Kosi basin.

In Rajasthan, there are two links proposed namely, Mahi – Luni link and Wakal – Sabarmati – Sei – West Banas – Kameri link. Is it irrational to suggest that centre and state government should learn its lessons from the flash floods of August 2006 in the usually drought prone Barmer district and desist from such endeavors?

In Jharkhand, the links include South Koel – Subernarekha, Sankh – South Koel and Barkar – Damodar – Subernarekha. Their pre-feasibility report has been completed and sent to the state government. The centre and the state government have chosen to discard the lessons from the failure of the hydro projects in the Damodar valley. In Tamil Nadu, there is a proposal for Pennaiyar – Palar link.
In Maharashtra, there 15 links which include 1. Wainganga (Goshikurd) – Nalganga (Purna Tapi) [Wainganga – Western Vidarbha & Pranhita – Wardha links merged and extended through Kanhan – Wardha link], 2. Wainganga – Manjra Valley, 3. Upper Krishna – Bhima (system of Six links). 4. Upper Ghat – Godavari Valley, 5. Upper Vaitarna – Godavari Valley, 6. North Konkan – Godavari Valley, 7. Koyna – Mumbai city, 8. Sriram Sagar Project (Godavari) – Purna – Manjira, 9. Wainganga (Goshikurd) – Godavari (SRSP). 10. Middle Konkan – Bhima Valley, 11. Koyna – Nira, 12. Mulsi – Bhima, 13. Savithri – Bhima, 14. Kolhapur – Sangli – Sangola and 15. Riverlinking projects of Tapi basin and Jalgaon District. Clearly, centre and Maharashtra government has not learnt its lessons from disrupting Mithi river in Mumbai.

In Gujarat, the proposal of Damanganga – Sabarmati – Chorwad link is facing people’s resistance. Will the centre and the government pay heed? In Orissa, the links included Mahanadi – Brahmani but its prefeasibility study concluded that it was not techno economically feasible. Other links in the state include Mahanadi – Rushikulya (Barmul Project) and Vamsadhara – Rushikulya (Nandini Nalla project).

Since 2005 a committee of environmentalists, social scientists and other experts on Interlinking of Rivers has been meeting infrequently at the whims and fancies of its chairman to deliberate on the impact of this project. The Committee was constituted by the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India in December 2004. There are 14 members in the committee with two special invitees but given the conflict of interest in the Committee which is headed by the Secretary, Union Ministry of Water Resources it is subservient and with no independence of its own. It is high time the members from civil society resigned from it since their voices do not have any impact on the fate of the adverse environment impact project in question.

According to NCAER, the new aggregated cost is Rs 1, 25, 342.87 crore or 22.4 per cent lower than the earlier aggregate cost estimate of Rs 5, 60, 000 crore at 2002-03 prices. The study refers to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Tennessee Valley and Tennessee River in the USA and efforts at controlling floods, improving navigation, and producing electrical power and how Damodar valley development project in Jharkhand emulated facets of the TVA’s development but forgets to mention its disappointing non-performance. It refers to Indira Gandhi Canal project but fails to articulate its ecological and human cost. It mentions Colorado River Canal System in southwest US but ignores how its ecosystem is severely truncated and degraded by transbasin diversions to advocate ILR project and still claims to “oversee a water management regime based on a river basin approach.”

The ILR programme is aimed at providing additional irrigation in about 30 million hectares and net power generation capacity of about 20,000 to 25,000 MW. These claims have been debunked by several experts. As to mitigation of flood and drought to a certain extent, fishing at dams and reservoirs, they are mentioned in passing as “fringe benefit of programme. Thus, all claims of drought proofing, flood proofing and dilution of pollution through linking rivers as argued by the lawyer who filed the application 2002 is insincere, an exercise in sophistry and totally misplaced.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has been campaigning against this world’s biggest project since October 2002, when the then Chief Justice of India was misled into passing seemingly executive orders for its execution.

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

Press Note

Theme of UN treaty’s meet on hazardous wastes, anti-environment & human health

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) Calls for Voting on Ban Amendment to Basel Convention to ban hazardous waste trade

Colombia Should Desist from Compromise on Ban Amendment

New Delhi: The process of writing the obituary of UN treaty, Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal at its Tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP 10) during October 17-21 in CARTAGENA, Colombia has commenced. The theme of COP 10 that focuses on “recovery of wastes” is anti-environment and human health.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) expresses its strong disagreement with the statement of Achim Steiner UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director who said, “If managed in an environmentally sound manner, the extraction of valuable secondary raw material from wastes can create green business opportunities and decent jobs for millions of often young people throughout the developing world, thus playing a part in eradicating poverty.” TWA contends that UNEP is speaking in the language of the Bureau of International Recycling, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and World Bank. This is contrary to Rio principles under the unhealthy influence of business interests especially from the US and Japan. US is the world’s largest generator of hazardous waste.

Steiner’s argument underlines that world’s poor should pay the price for the disposal of the world’s hazardous waste with their environment, health and lives. This is quite a regressive step for the UNEP. TWA call on him to enforce the Convention’s Party to non-Party ban to apprehend hazardous waste exports coming from non-Parties like USA to Parties instead of promoting it in myriad disguises. UNEP under Steiner is promoting the status quo and is conniving at the UNEP’s monumental failure in documenting the effects of cost externalization and internalization of pollution.

There is only one touch stone be to determine whether or not COP 10 can stand up to pressures from the international recycling business enterprises which whether not there is voting on the Basel Ban Amendment. The amendment seeking ban on hazardous waste trade will enter into force if India alone or group of countries call for a vote on the question of interpretation of Article 17 of the treaty. TWA calls for voting on the Basel Ban Amendment.

TWA agrees with the assessment that Basel Ban Amendment is already a great success story even before global entry into force, 33 of the 39 countries it applies to have already implemented it in a legally binding manner. Rich countries are indeed appear quite a suspect legally as they are sending wastes to developing countries unmindful of the fact that they have officially reported the desired prohibition to the Basel Convention Secretariat or not.

The seventh session of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) of the Convention that took place in Geneva, Switzerland during 10-14 May 2010 deliberated on cooperation between the Basel Convention and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and cooperation on the environmentally sound dismantling of ships among others issues.

South Asian beaches in Chittagong, Bangladesh, Gadani, Pakistan and Alang, India have seceded from their respective countries and have become the properties of rich ship owning companies and countries of US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia and China. These countries and their transnational shipping companies are instrumental in legitimizing hazardous waste trade with the connivance of the Basel Convention Secretariat. Between January 2011 and October 2011, 27 workers have died in Alang, the Secretariat is guilty of not proving them legal remedy. Similar situation exists in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

TWA expresses its dissatisfaction with the manner in which Basel Convention Secretariat is showing deference towards the anti- environment and anti-worker stance of the IMO that appears to be acting as a mouthpiece of shipping companies of Europe and Japan by paying mere lip-service to equivalent level of control for pollution related issues in the matter of shipbreaking/recycling in South Asia in particular. Shipbreaking is just the tip of the ice berg, the hazardous waste traders seem to have managed to hijack the global treaty against hazardous waste treaty that was adopted after years of hard work by environmental groups globally.

In such context, the studied silence of NGOs linked to European funders is deafening.

TWA appeals to global environmental organizations to recollect their pledge for environmental justice and take urgent steps to put the UN treaty on the right course so that the Secretariat does not become subservient to World Trade Organisation for good.

TWA was present at the simultaneous extraordinary Conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions were held from 22-24 February 2010 in Bali, Indonesia and was disappointed to note the indulgence shown to bitter opponents of the Ban Amendment. TWA demands UNEP to study of the totality of externalities involved in the trade in hazardous wastes from rich to poor countries to provide true data on the economic perversion effect of waste trade and its true costs to importing countries. Government of India should take note of the human and ecological cost of current hazardous waste trade and take steps to ban and criminalize it.

It is heartening that Colombia considers the Ban Amendment to be the centerpiece of the Basel Convention but if few countries are not supporting it, it should support a voting on the issue. TWA calls on the Colombian government which is hosting the COP10 to desist from compromising on the issue of ban on transboundary waste shipment as has been indicated by Paula Caballero Gomez, an official with the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

ISRI Electronics Recycling Study Interpretation Irresponsible

Seattle, WA. October 17, 2011. -- A recent claim by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries that e-waste exportation from the US to developing countries is no longer a problem is “sadly mistaken” according to the toxic trade watchdog Basel Action Network (BAN). BAN claims that ISRI first obtained badly compromised data from the study and then manipulated that to make their case, rather than report what is obvious to everyone in the business and in journalism who has seen the global e-waste dumping grounds in China, Nigeria, India, Ghana and elsewhere.

“The ISRI-sponsored report doesn’t pass the smell test,” says Jim Puckett, BAN's Executive Director. “Basic analysis reveals it to be even worse than a case of garbage in, garbage out. ISRI puts its fingers on the scale of even the flawed data. The resulting conclusions are both inaccurate and irresponsible.”

The report, paid for by ISRI but conducted by the International Data Corporation, is based on a voluntary survey of 182 companies, mostly recyclers. Part of the survey asked recyclers if they export e-waste, but according to BAN, any voluntary survey asking respondents to report shameful or illegal activity will not produce reliable data.

“It's like asking people if they cheat on their taxes and then expecting an accurate result,” said Puckett. “If it were that easy, the EPA would not be spending more than a million dollars right now to try to quantify volumes and waste flows from the US, and the extensive Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (2008) would have provided the figures at that time.”

But even assuming the responses were all honest, BAN notes that ISRI conveniently misinterprets the IDC data. ISRI’s Eric Harris presented the survey results stating that only 20 percent of recyclers claimed export and “78.66% of respondents say their output was traded, sold and/or transferred within the US – and that 'much of this output is further sold into the US and global marketplace.'” He falsely concludes that “electronics are recycled in America, not ‘dumped’ overseas.” What he fails to mention, and what ISRI’s subsequent press release also omits, is that the 78.66% figure could easily include exports that move via US middlemen.

Understanding how e-waste moves in the United States and how it is then exported to developing countries is key to understanding how ISRI manipulates the data and comes to false conclusions. Most exporting recyclers either use brokers with a US address, or they sell to another US company which then uses a broker. When a US recycler resells e-waste to a US broker, it does not mean the e-waste is "recycled in America" as ISRI falsely claims. Why? Because the broker simply turns around and ships the e-waste to a developing country. It's a common practice used by irresponsible US recyclers to disguise the fact they are dumping overseas.

Mr. David Daoud, the IDC author of the report, confirmed that any number of these respondents could use such brokers to export e-waste and still remain in this 78.66% slice of the pie. The practice was most recently documented in the case of Intercon Solutions, a large midwest recycler that BAN exposed as using brokers as "cloaking agents" to export the material to Hong Kong. (BAN alerted Hong Kong authorities to the Intercon export, and these authorities turned back the shipments.)

In sum, most or all of the 78.66% volume that ISRI claims is "recycled in the US" could simply have been exported by brokers. Add that to the 20% of recyclers who already claim they export, and this same study can be interpreted as showing that up to 100% of respondents’ e-waste was exported.

ISRI’s press release on the report contains other distortions. ISRI reports that 70% of end-of-life electronics is processed in the United States and sold at home or in the global marketplace as “commodity grade scrap.” However, “commodity grade scrap” is not a meaningful term when it comes to judging how much hazardous e-waste is being exported to developing countries. Much of ISRI’s so-called “commodity grade scrap” is in fact hazardous waste under international law.

It is clear the report data has little statistical value for reaching valid conclusions about the export of hazardous e-waste to developing countries from the United States. While there is no reliable trade data on e-waste, there is very significant anecdotal evidence (see Appendix below) indicating a very serious export problem remains. It is foolish and irresponsible to ignore the problem or deny it exists in the absence of comprehensive figures.

“If a doctor were to observe a massive hemorrhaging of a patient brought to the hospital, he would not wait to act until he had the numbers of how many liters of blood were lost,” said Puckett. “The responsible thing to do would be to take emergency action to staunch the flow. It is abundantly apparent that we need US legislation to end this despicable global dumping."

BAN and many environmental organizations have joined Dell, Apple, HP and Best Buy in supporting the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act now before Congress to prohibit export of hazardous e-waste to developing countries.

For more information contact:

Jim Puckett, Tel: 206-652-5555, email: jpuckett@ban.org

Mike Enberg, Tel: 206-652-5555, email: menberg@ban.org


APPENDIX

Sample evidence of mass exportation of e-waste from the United States to developing countries

Mr. Gary Tam, of the Environmental Protection Department of Hong Kong, reported to INTERPOL that Hong Kong intercepted 322 illegal shipments – full containers – of hazardous e-waste from 2007 to 2009. The three-month average weight of intercepted illegal hazardous e-waste, at the end of that period, was about 150,000 tons. This is a fraction of the likely e-waste flow as only a small number of containers moving into Hong Kong are inspected.

Likewise, the US EPA has been counting and collecting evidence. Along with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security, the EPA filed criminal charges against Executive Recycling for at least 300 incidents of illegal exporting of e-waste to developing countries between 2005 and 2008.

The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) set up fictional brokers in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Singapore and Vietnam, and caught scores of US recyclers illegally exporting e-waste. The GAO's 2008 report provides irrefutable evidence, and little has changed since publication to decrease opportunities for exporting.

Credible investigative news programs such as Frontline/World's Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground and CBS’s 60 Minutes offer convincing photos and eye-witness accounts of ample of e-waste dumping in developing countries by US and European businesses.

In the past three years, BAN itself has tracked 325 containers, 250 (or 77%) of which were exported from North America to Hong Kong, Vietnam and other developing countries. BAN has documented those containers leaving e-waste recycling facilities and informed competent authorities in country. In most cases, the governments have rejected these containers of e-waste as illegal for import into their countries.

PIL petitions Supreme Court against Government of India to -
a. Direct that an expert body, which is independent of the government and the nuclear establishment, conduct a thorough safety reassessment of all existing and proposed nuclear facilities in the country and of all the mining facilities of uranium and other nuclear fuel in the country
b. Direct such an expert independent body to conduct a thorough health and safety review of the uranium mining regions in the country
c. Direct an independent expert body to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of all proposed nuclear facilities and a thorough comparative cost-benefit analysis vis-à-vis other sources of energy
d. Direct the Union of India to set-up an expert nuclear regulator, independent of the government
e. Declare the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 as unconstitutional and void ab initio.
f. Declare that in the case of a nuclear accident, all nuclear operators and nuclear suppliers, would be jointly & severally, and absolutely liable for civil damages, and their financial liability would be unlimited
g. Issue an appropriate writ cancelling clearances given to proposed nuclear power plants and staying all proposed nuclear power plants till requisite safety assessment studies, thorough comparative cost-benefit analysis and meaningful public hearings are carried out by or under the supervision of an independent expert body.
h. Declare all the agreements signed between the Government and private companies, for supply of nuclear reactors & equipment, based on private negotiations, without any competitive process/bidding/tender, without proper technical & safety evaluation, without transparency as void ab initio.
i. Declare that in future all agreement for purchase of nuclear reactors and equipment would only be made only after proper technical & safety evaluation, with competitive process/bidding and with full transparency.
j. Direct that all information regarding previous safety audits, radiation, past accidents & near accidents, costs in all forms, power generation, fuel spent, all agreements signed between Government & nuclear suppliers and all other information concerning public safety and interest, of all existing & proposed nuclear facilities be put in the public domain & on the website of Department of Atomic Energy.
k. Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon’ble court may deem proper in the interest of nuclear safety and clean environment.