ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

Press Release

Need to Save Workers in Nuclear, Shipbreaking & Asbestos Industry

Recommendations of Inter-ministerial committee for Safety Measures for Alang Workers Ignored

New Delhi 28/4/2012: On International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured or Day of Mourning, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) remembers all the workers workers who got killed, disabled, injured or made unwell by their work in the nuclear, ship breaking and asbestos industry and appeals for legal remedy and justice for these workers.

Asbestos is banned in 55 countries. Nuclear power industry is being phased out in the post Fukushima world. The workers condition in these two industries besides shipbreaking is among the worst in the industrial sector. TWA demands that asbestos should be phased out, non-nuclear sources of energy be adopted and shipbreaking industry be taken away from the Alang beach in the interest of workers environmental and occupational health rights.

TWA seeks a register of workers who work in the hazardous industries so that they can claim compensation for the occupational injuries and diseases they suffer. The recommendations contained in the minutes of the Interministerial committee is attached. These recommendations for safety measures for Alang Workers has been ignored.

The hazardous wastes/shipbreaking case Writ Petition (Civil) 657/1995 is coming up for hearing on May 3, 2012. An application has been filed in the Supreme Court has prayed for ban on end-of-life ships without prior decontamination in the country of export as per this Hon’ble Court’s order dated October 14, 2003 and an inquiry by an independent trans-disciplinary investigating agency to ascertain the circumstances of 'Oriental Nicety' (ex-Exxon Valdez), the dead US ship’s arrival in Indian territorial waters and to make concerned officials accountable for their acts of omission and commission and seek a detailed report on more than 1200 ships broken in last 5 years and more than 5924 ships broken since 1982 and for compliance with the recommendations of the Hon'ble Court constituted Inter-ministerial committee (IMC) on ship-breaking.


TWA demands provision of asbestos free housing facilities for workers of both the unorganised and organsied sector workers. It demands the list of workers suffering occupational diseases for enabling the struggle for occupational and environmental health justice.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), New Delhi, New Delhi, Phone: +91-11-2651781, Fax: +91-11-26517814, Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif

Press Release

Alang beach remains a security concern, 5924 end-of-life ships beached so far

Ex- US toxic ship entry in Indian waters challenged in Supreme Court

New Delhi 27/4/2012: An application has been filed in Supreme Court in the matter of a hazardous end-of-life vessel named 'Oriental Nicety' (formerly Exxon Valdez, Exxon Mediterranean, Sea River Mediterranean, S/R Mediterranean, Mediterranean, and Dong Fang Ocean) which has been purchased by Best Oasis Company, (a subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt Ltd) in the Indian waters in the name of dismantling and recycling. The minutes of the court constituted Inter-ministerial committee (IMC) on shipbreaking and a sensitive document that has been filed in the court reveal the repeated security concerns which remain unaddressed.

The hazardous wastes/shipbreaking case Writ Petition (Civil) 657/1995 is coming up for hearing on May 3, 2012. The application is attached.

The following are the prayers in the application.

A relevant sensitive document (that is corroborated by recent minutes of IMC's 14th meeting dated February 2012) is
(i) Direct the Union of India to ensure that no end-of-life ship should be allowed without prior decontamination in the country of export as per this Hon’ble Court’s order dated October 14, 2003,

(ii) Direct the Union of India to send back all hazardous wastes laden end-of-life ships entering/ or have entered the Indian territorial waters without prior informed consent and without prior decontamination keeping in view the environmental principles,
(iii) Direct inquiry by an independent trans-disciplinary investigating agency to ascertain the circumstances of the dead US ship’s arrival in Indian territorial waters, to make concerned officials accountable for their acts of omission and commission and seek a detailed report on more than 1200 ships broken in last 5 years and more than 5924 ships broken since 1982;
(iv) Direct Union of India to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the Hon'ble Court constituted Inter-ministerial committee (IMC) on ship-breaking

The illegal traffic of this dead ship must be stopped besides investigating the possibility of fake documents which came to light in the earlier case of Platinum II, a US ship. The Ministry of Environment & Forests has invoked the Precautionary Principle and directed that granting permission for beaching and breaking, purposes of the ship will not be advisable in the case of Platinum II. It may be mentioned that precautionary principle is the basis of UN conventions, such as Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). India is a signatory to these conventions and has ratified them as well. The ex-Exxon Valdez is violating these international laws besides the court's order.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), New Delhi, New Delhi, Phone: +91-11-2651781, Fax: +91-11-26517814, Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com

दिल्ली | भोपाल गैस त्रासदी अभी हम भूले नहीं हैं। बिना प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड की मंजूरी के ओखला बिजली संयंत्र चालू हो गया है। वहीं नरेला-बवाना और गाजीपुर में बिजली संयंत्र निर्माणाधीन है। अगर यह तीनों बिजली परियोजनाएं दिल्ली में बनी तो भोपाल जैसा दूसरा हादसा दिल्ली में भी हो सकता है।

सरकार सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश का उल्लंघन जिंदल जैसी कंपनियों को अनुदान देकर कर रही है। ऐसे संयंत्रों को तुरंत बंद किया जाना चाहिए। अन्यथा हमें दूसरे भोपाल गैस कांड के लिए तैयार रहना चाहिए।’ -टॉक्सिक वॉच के संस्थापक गोपल कृष्ण

बिना किसी तकनीकी जांच और प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड मंजूरी के बिना चीन की कचरा से बिजली बनाने वाली तकनीक से दिल्ली के ओखला स्थित संयंत्र में बिजली बनाई जा रही है। इस तरह कचरा जलाकर बिजली बनाने में डाईऑक्सीन नामक खतरनाक गैस निकलती है। दुर्भाग्य यह है कि इस दुष्प्रभाव को जानते हुए भी दिल्ली सरकार दिल्ली वासियों और संयंत्र के मजदूरों के स्वास्थ्य के साथ खिलवाड़ कर रही है। इसका खुलासा 22 मार्च, 2012 को आए केंद्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण आयोग के एक रिपोर्ट से हुआ है। वहीं हाल ही में पर्यावरण मंत्री जयंती नटराजन का कहना है कि ओखला का कचरा से बिजली बनाने वाली संयंत्र पूरी तरह सुरक्षित है। ऐसे में जनता किसकी बातों पर भरोसा करे- पर्यावरण मंत्री जयंती नटराजन की बातों पर या केंद्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण आयोग की रिपोर्ट पर?

केन्द्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण आयोग की इस रिपोर्ट से यह भी पता चलता है की कचरा आधारित बिजली संयंत्र से होने वाली त्रासदी के लिए अबतक दिल्ली सरकार ने कोई तैयारी नहीं की है। भोपाल गैस कांड इसका उदाहरण है। इस बाबत केंद्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण आयोग ने ओखला बिजली संयंत्र के जिंदल एकोपोलिस कंपनी के अधिकारियों की कड़ी आलोचना की है। आश्चर्य तो यह है कि कंेद्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण आयोग की रिपोर्ट आने से पहले (जनवरी माह से) ही इस बिजली संयंत्र का चालू होना, कई सवाल खड़े करता है। केंद्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण आयोग की रिपोर्ट के बिना यह संयंत्र चालू कैसे हो गया? दूसरा आयोग की रिपोर्ट इतनी देर से क्यों आई? ऐसे कई गंभीर सवाल सरकार पर भी खड़े होते हैं।

बताते चलें कि कूड़े जलाने से जो गैस निकलती है वह जीवन व पर्यावरण के लिए बेहद खतरनाक है। यही कारण है कि सभी विकसित देशों ने अपने यहां ऐसी परियोजनाओं को बंद कर चुकी है। गौरतलब है कि भारत में पहली बार दिल्ली के तिमारपुर में कचरा से बिजली बनाने की परियोजना 1990 में लगाया गया जो असफल रहा। ऐसे में यह सवाल उठता है कि क्या हमारे पास वैसी तकनीक है जो कचरे से सुरक्षित बिजली पैदा कर सके? अगर नहीं तो दिल्ली वासियों के जान जोखिम में डालकर इस चीनी तकनीक से बिजली पैदा करने की क्या आवश्यकता है? बताते चलें कि ओखला के अलावा ऐसा ही बिजली संयंत्र दिल्ली के नरेला-बवाना और गाजीपुर में निर्माणाधीन है।

यही वजह है कि पर्यावरण मंत्रालय ने 1997 में जारी अपने श्वेत पत्र में यह बात स्वीकार की है कि जिस तरीके से शहरी कूड़े को जलाया जा रहा है वह तकनीक सही नहीं है। यहीं सवाल यह उठता है कि अब वह तकनीक सही कैसे हो गया? दूसरी तरफ सन् 2005 में संसदीय समिति ऊर्जा के अध्यक्ष रहे गुरूदास कामत ने कूड़े से बिजली बनाने का यह कहते हुए विरोध किया था कि इस प्रकार की तकनीक नुकसान दायक है। इसलिए इसे बढ़ावा नहीं दिया जाना चाहिए। वहीं भारतीय जनता पार्टी के दिल्ली विधान सभा में विपक्ष के नेता विजय कुमार मलहोत्रा ने सांसद रहते हुए 27 जून, 2008 को दिल्ली के लेफ्टिनेंट गवर्नर तेजेंदर खन्ना को एक पत्र लिखा था जिसमें उन्होंने ओखला प्लांट कोे वहां के वासियों के लिए प्रदूषणकारी बताया था। अब भाजपा के विजन डाक्यूमेंट 2025 में दो और कूड़े से बिजली बनाने वाली संयंत्र बनाने का वादा है। क्या अब यह नुकसानदायक नहीं रही? या विजय कुमार मलहोत्रा सत्ता मोह में इस बात को भूल गए हैं।

इताना ही नहीं तत्कालीन पर्यावरण राज्य मंत्री जयराम रमेश ने भी इस बाबत दिल्ली की मुख्यमंत्री शीला दीक्षित को 1 अप्रैल 2011 को एक पत्र लिखा था। उस पत्र में जयराम रमेश ने ओखला बिजली संयंत्र को खतरनाक बताते हुए लिखा था कि इस तरह के संयंत्रों के पर्यावरणीय मंजूरी की प्रक्रिया में ही गड़बड़ी है। प्रक्रिया में गड़बड़ी भी सरकार के मंशा को बताता है कि कैसे पर्यावरण और स्वस्थ्य के लिए नुकसान दायक होते हुए इस परियोजना की मंजूरी दी गई? कहने का अर्थ यह है कि दिल्ली सरकार भी इस परियोजना के नुकसान दायक पहलुओं को अनदेखा कर रही है। स्पष्ट है, दोनों पार्टियां सत्तालोलुप है। इसलिए उन्हें दिल्ली की जनता की स्वास्थ्य से ज्यादा उन्हें अपनी कुर्सी चिंता सता रही है।

बताते चलें कि ऐसे बिजलीघर न तो कूड़ा निपटाने के लिए बनते हैं और न ही बिजली पैदा करने के लिए। इसके पीछे का कारण कुछ और ही है। इसके अनेक कारणों में से एक कारण यह है कि प्रति मेगावाट की दर से केंद्र सरकार बिजली बनाने वाली कंपनी को डेढ़ करोड़ का अनुदान देती है। गौरतलब है कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने ऐसी योजनयाओं को अनुदान देने पर रोक लगा रखी है। लेकिन सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश का उल्लंघन कर केंद्र सरकार इस कंपनी को अनुदान दे रही है। इस तरह केंद्र सरकार भी सवालों के कटघरे में है। टॉक्सिक वॉच के संस्थापक गोपल कृष्ण के अनुसार, ‘‘सरकार सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश का उल्लंघन जिंदल जैसी कंपनियों को अनुदान देकर कर रही है। ऐसे संयंत्रों को तुरंत बंद किया जाना चाहिए। अन्यथा हमें दूसरे भोपाल गैस कांड के लिए तैयार रहना चाहिए।’’

दूसरी तरफ यह परियोजना कचरा आधारित रोजगार को भी समाप्त करता है। दिल्ली को रौशन करने के नाम पर इस परियोजना को हरी झंडी दिया गया है। गौरतलब है कि दिल्ली में लगभग 80 प्रतिशत क्षेत्र के काम को प्राइवेट कंपनी के हाथों में सौंप दिया गया है लेकिन उसके बावजूद भी समस्या का हल नहीं हो पा रहा है।

बताते चलें कि दिल्ली में कचरे की छंटाई के काम में असंगठित क्षेत्र के लगभग 3.5 लाख मजदूर शामिल हैं। इनके द्वारा 20 से 25 प्रतिशत कचरे की छंटाई के बाद 30 प्रतिशत ऐसे कचरे की छंटाई हो जाएगी जो कच्चे माल के रूप में दुबारा इस्तेमाल होगा। साथ ही 50 प्रतिशत वैसा कचरा होगा जिसे जैविक कूड़ा कहते हैं। उससे खाद बनाया जा सकता है। इस तरह कचरे के 80 प्रतिशत भाग का निपटारा तो समुदाय के स्तर पर ही हो सकता है। ऐसे में कूड़े से बिजली बनानेवाली संयंत्र लगाने की आवश्यकता लगभग नहीं है।

संयंत्र कूड़ा बिजली उत्पादन स्थिति
ओखला 2050 मेट्रिक टन 20 मेगावाट चालू है
नरेला-बवाना 4000 मेट्रिक टन 36 मेगावाट निर्माणाधीन
गाजीपुर 1300 मेट्रिक टन 10 मेगावाट निर्माणाधीन

इस परियोजना से हानि

कचरे जलाने से डाईऑक्सीन नाम गैस निकलती है। यह कैंसर के लिए सबसे ज्यादा खतरनाक रसायन है। कचरे में मौजूद खतरनाक रसायनों को यह तकनीक कई-कई रूपों में वायु प्रदूषण, जल प्रदूषण और पर्यावरण प्रदूषण से हमारे भोजन चक्र का हिस्सा बना देता है। यह जहर केवल धरती या पानी में ही नहीं बल्कि हवा में भी तैरने लगता है। क्योंकि शहरी कूड़े में प्लास्टिक के अलावा पारा भी बहुतायत में मिलता हैं। वैज्ञानिक और व्यावसायिक बुद्धि को किनारे रख दें तो भी क्या हमें यह समझने में दिक्कत है कि प्लास्टिक और पारा के जलने से जो धुंआ निकलता है क्या वह हमारे लिए लाभदायक है?
-संजीव कुमार
http://thepatrika.com/NewsPortal/h?p=mainPage

India, China Headed for Asbestos Catastrophe: Experts

By Sujeet Rajan: Subscribe to Sujeet's RSS feed

April 12, 2012 8:58 AM EDT

India and China are headed for "an absolute catastrophe of death and disease" because of likely massive jump in asbestos-related diseases in the coming decades, says a report written by Pulitzer winning journalist Gary Cohn.

Citing numerous scientific studies and two of the world's most prominent experts on public health and asbestos exposure, Cohn writes in a news blog for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance that India and China are the two countries where the consequences are going to be felt the most in Asia, where cancer from asbestos is going to ravage economies.

Cohn, who is currently a professor of journalism at the USC Annenberg School of Journalism, has also won the Barlett & Steele Awards for Investigative Business Journalism and the George Polk Award for environmental reporting.

"What we can expect is very predictable - an absolute catastrophe of death and disease" for India and China, Dr. Arthur Frank, chairman of environmental and occupational health at Drexel University, has been quoted as telling Cohn.

This is primarily because India, China, and other countries on the continent continue to use - or in some cases, even increase - their dependence on asbestos for cheap roofing insulation, in cement, and other widespread applications.

An estimated 107,000 people worldwide die each year from asbestos-related diseases, a number that will continue to grow if efforts to curb its usage fail. While already substantial, this assessment is probably low, according to leading public-health experts, as it is difficult to categorically track deaths from asbestos-related diseases in Asia because India, China and other countries do not to keep reliable data on them, says Cohn.

Another expert, Dr. Amir Attaran, a scientist, lawyer and acknowledged expert on global health issues, said that the consequences of continued heavy use of asbestos will be felt particularly hard in India, a growing nation of 1.2 billion people with few limits or controls on the use of asbestos.

"It's a scientific failure, a clinical failure, and a social and moral failure of India. It is a failure of culture and science," Attaran tells Cohn.

When asked about the consequences of the country's widespread use of asbestos, Attaran, a leader in the fight to stop exports of the material to Third World countries, says: "In disease terms, incalculable. India has no public health controls. They will pay dearly for this with an epidemic of mesothelioma."

Cohn notes that asbestos has historically been used as cheap insulation material in construction, ships and cars. In the United States and Europe, it has been banned for most uses because of its clear-cut links to mesothelioma and other diseases, but it is still widely used in Asia and other nations because it is effective, yet relatively inexpensive.

In Asia, it is used primarily for cheap roofing insulation, and in cement and power plants. The health hazard of exposure is compounded by the fact that Asian workers often toil in factories with poor ventilation.

A few Asian nations, such as Japan and South Korea, have banned asbestos, but they are the exceptions.

In recent years, numerous studies have documented the anticipated rise in mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases over the next several decades in Asia. One recent study, in the Journal of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology, said that Asia, where there are many large, developing countries, currently accounts for about 64 percent of the world's asbestos use. This represents a steady increase - the continent accounted for a 33 percent share from 1971 to 2000, and 14 percent from 1920 to 1970.

Medical experts say that it generally takes people 20 to 50 years after exposure to asbestos to develop mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. This timetable clearly forecasts that Asia's current rate of usage is likely to lead to a huge hike in asbestos-related diseases in the coming decades, Cohn says.

Ken Takahashi, the lead author and acting director of the World Health Organization Collaborative Center for Occupational Health, has said that Asia can anticipate an "asbestos tsunami" in the coming decades.

In response, WHO has identified asbestos as one of the most dangerous occupational carcinogens in the world, and says there is an urgent need to stop asbestos use in order to curtail the enormous associated health damages.

Cohn himself got a first-hand view of the problem in the late 1990s while investigating India's notorious shipbreaking facilities in Alang, where thousands of unprotected workers worked on large, retired vessels with high asbestos content. (Global India Newswire)

Follow @raymondronamai

To report problems or to leave feedback about this article, e-mail: r.ronamai@ibtimes.com
To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/327191/20120412/india-china-catastrophe-death-disease-asbestosdiseases-cancer.htm

A court in Osaka, Japan recently ruled that the government was liable for the asbestos-related illnesses developed by 50 former factory workers and their families.

The asbestos lawsuit brought by the workers – who were exposed to asbestos by running the fiber through spinning mills while working for a transport company – claim that the government was aware of the dangers associated with asbestos by 1959. However, it did not take action to require proper safety measures and ventilation devices to be put into place until 1971.The asbestos lawsuit resulted in a ¥180 million (approximately $2.1 million) settlement for the workers, The Japan Times.

In a somewhat similar situation currently unfolding in India, 50 mine workers from Rajasthan recently held a sit-in protest in front of the National Institute of Occupational Health regarding concerns that they may be suffering from asbestosis.

Having not received free health check-ups from the institute since 2005 – which are required for the confirmation of an asbestosis or mesothelioma diagnosis before the worker can move ahead with free treatment and perhaps an eventual asbestos lawsuit – many of the workers are demanding new check-ups so they can get the care they feel they deserve.

Kurt Achin | New Delhi

Alang beach in India's Gujarat province is one of the world's biggest shipping graveyards, an access-restricted, mafia-controlled funerary ground for hulking steel-container vessels marooned for demolition.

Eighty percent of the world's international trade crosses the globe by ship, and each year hundreds of these massive retired freighters are physically dismantled in ocean-shoreline breaking yards.

Two reports released in New Delhi this week are renewing focus on the industry's near total lack of environmental or labor oversight, and its connection to organized crime.

According Federico Demaria, an Italian economist affiliated with New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, even gaining permission to watch shipbreaking in progress can prove extremely difficult.

"Access to Alang is not permitted for foreigners, for journalists, for researchers, for anyone who can actually find out what is going on on the ground," he says, explaining that he got a glimpse of Alang in 2009, only after posing as a scrap trader.

"You are supposed to ask permission, [and] I have been waiting for it for three years now, and I've [still] not got it."

What he did get, however, was first-hand exposure to an aspect of trade and international commerce that few ever hear about.

A surreal scene
At Alang, he says, defunct trans-oceanic vessels stand like decrepit, abandoned city skyscrapers that have washed ashore, awaiting the arrival of laborers who, armed with torches, enter the structures to manually deconstruct them.

On any given day, he says, one might see a two- or three-ton slab of steel fall to the beach below, or sometimes onto workers.

Anonymous
Critics: Gujarat shipbreakers lack rights, India, 2009.
While advocates of Indian shipbreaking say the industry recycles cheap steel into the economy, fueling development and providing jobs, critics object, citing lack of health care, adequate housing or compensation for debilitating accidents that frequently befall its labor force.

"How much do you count for a worker's life?" Demaria asks. "For example, I was not allowed to enter one ship in the Alang beach explicitly because the shipbreaker told me, 'If an accident happens, you'll be too expensive. I can't pay you.'"

Yet compensation for Indian workers, he says, is cheap. "If they [compensate their own employees for work-related injuries], they would give something like $1,000 to $2,000, which is insignificant."

A formerly regulated trade
Shipbreaking used to take place mainly in Europe, under more controlled conditions, but globalization has opened the market for unregulated operations like those in Alang, where shipping companies sell older vessels to intermediary companies that exist only on paper, who then sell the steel structures to shipbreakers.

Gopal Krishna, an Indian environmental activist, says the industry is hazardous not only to laborers, but to the entire ecosystem and people whose livelihoods depend on it.

"Most of the ships, which are 25-30 years old, are asbestos-laden. They are laden with persistent organic pollutants like PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls; with waste oil; with ballast water," he says, none of which is managed in an environmentally sound manner.

Prying eyes of industry observers, he adds, are shielded by local mafias driving the enterprise.

"It is a source of black money in the country, one of the least acknowledged sources of black money," says Krishna. "There is collusion between the ruling party and the opposition party. Business interest, the profit motive alone, guides the political parties, which provide patronage to shipbreakers. There is no rule of law in Alang."

Demaria and Krishna warn that the industry's lack of oversight could impact the West in the form of contaminated and radioactive imports wrought of improperly treated steel.

New Delhi's failure to regulate and modernize shipbreaking, they say, will probably cause India's share of the industry to be subsumed by China's shipbreaking market within a decade.


Find this article at:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Reports-Focus-on-Indian-Shipbreaking-147969395.html

Press Release

Environmental groups demand Asbestos Free Himachal

Ban use and manufacture of asbestos products

Shimla/New Delhi: Himalaya Niti Abhiyan and ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) have demanded immediate stoppage of Delhi based Vardhman Roofings Private Ltd’s proposed lung cancer causing Asbestos Cement Sheet Plant at Trilokpur Road, Village: Kheri, Tehsil: Nahan, District: Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. Environmental groups also demand that the state government should take step to make the state asbestos free because asbestos is banned in over 55 countries. TWA has sent a letter to the Chief Secretary in this regard.

State government should take note of the notice sent by National Human Rights Commission in the matter of incurable asbestos related diseases on July 6, 2011 to the Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh. (Reference: http://nhrc.nic.in/dispArchive.asp?fno=2334)It is a fact that central government does not favour new asbestos plants in the country. "The Government of India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos."

It has noted that "Asbestosis is yet another occupational disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to evolve strategies to curb this menace". A concept paper by Union Ministry of Labour revealed this at the two-day 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational Safety and Health” on 19th and 20th September, 2011.(Reference: http://www.labour.nic.in/lc/Background%20note.pdf).

It is strange that on the one hand Union Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health (Para 4.3.1) reads: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”, on the other hand the asbestos project was given environmental clearance on May 10, 2011. (Reference:http://moef.nic.in/divisions/cpoll/envhealth/visenvhealth.pdf)

It is noteworthy that Union Ministry of Chemicals has rightly disassociated itself from asbestos producing countries like Russia and Canada on June 22, 2011 at a UN meeting. Government of India has taken a position that it considers chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance.

State government should pay heed to World Health Assembly Resolution on cancer prevention that urges countries to pay special attention to cancers for which avoidable exposure is a factor, including exposure to chemicals at the workplace.

In 2005, the World Health Assembly requested WHO to carry out a global campaign for the elimination of asbestos-related diseases.

The resolution of the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference of ILO in June 2006 stated, "Considering that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are classified as known human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a classification restated by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (a joint Programme of the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme), it resolves that: (a) the elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of asbestos currently in place are the most effective means to protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related diseases and deaths; and (b) the Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162), should not be used to provide a justification for, or endorsement of, the continued use of asbestos."There are grave concerns about asbestos exposures resulting in public health crisis world over.

This has compelled 55 countries to ban use of asbestos. In the absence of environmental and occupational health infrastructure, the passivity of the state governments cannot be deemed acceptable.In view of the above, state government should take immediate and urgent steps to prevent environmental and occupational exposure to asbestos' besides non-occupational exposures to asbestos. Asbestos related material like asbestos cement sheets, asbestos cement pressure pipes and joints, asbestos cement flat sheets, asbestos cement building boards, asbestos cement cable conduits and troughs etc must be phased out.

Himachal Government ought to stop such hazardous plants to save residents of the state from incurable lung diseases. There should be a moratorium on asbestos based hazardous industries and steps should be taken to phase out asbestos use and take immediate steps to ban this killer fiber to save the present and future citizens of the state and the country.

For Details: Guman Singh, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Shimla Mb:09418277220 E-mail: gumanhna@gmail.com Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, New Delhi, Mb: 09818089660, E-mail: krishna1715@gmail.com, Web:toxicswatch.blogspot.com

Have banned dangerous pesticides: State to NHRC Following directions from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in respect of growing cancer incidence on account of indiscriminate use of pesticides in Punjab, the state government has banned the manufacture, import and use of pesticides injurious to health. Responding to the NHRC orders, the Punjab Government has informed the commission that it has “banned the manufacture, import and use of pesticides which are very injurious to health, withdrawn registration of some such pesticides and restricted the use of other hazardous pesticides.” The state also told the commission that it was educating farmers on the judicious use of pesticides. The state’s response follows NHRC's suo motu cognizance of reports that excessive use of pesticides was causing cancer among the farmers of Punjab’s Malwa region who had to travel to Bikaner in Rajasthan for treatment. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120421/punjab.htm#5 Don't dump debris on Hindon river bed: Tribunal The National Green Tribunal has banned the dumping of debris and waste material on the Hindon riverbed resulting in hindrance to the natural flow of water near the site of a new bridge over the river in Ghaziabad, a lawyer said Sunday. The petitioners have alleged that the construction of an artificial embankment for the bridge was causing environmental damage by adversely affecting the normal flow of the river water. "Considering the submissions made and the allegations levelled, we feel, in order to protect the biodiversity and pollution it would be just and proper to direct the authorities to prohibit dumping of any debris and waste materials on the river bed, thereby causing hindrance to the natural flow of water," the tribunal said in its order April 18. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/Dont-dump-debris-on-Hindon-river-bed-Tribunal/articleshow/12827279.cms Uranium not responsible for dying fish: Meghalaya The Meghalaya government on Friday denied a report that fish in the State's Ranikor river were dying due to exploratory drilling for uranium ore and claimed the water had turned toxic from substances used by local people for fishing.“The fish have died not due to exploratory drilling for uranium ore but due to the toxicity of the river where local people use toxic substances for catching fish,” Deputy Chief Minister Bindo M. Lanong said.“If uranium radiation was the cause of the deaths, all other aquatic life forms there would have also been affected and there would have been lesions on the fish,” Mr. Lanong, who looks after the mining and geology department, said following an interim report submitted by two geologists.Thousands of dead fish have been found floating in the Ranikor since April 13, prompting the government to conduct an inquiry. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3337722.ece 80% city hospitals flout bio-waste disposal norms Hazardous waste, that’s so dangerous it needs to be incinerated at 900 degrees Celsius, is not segregated at source ♦ Disposal agency official says they hardly receive used syringes and saline bottles, raises fears that these are recycled in the marketweek after Mirror reported how medical waste from a hospital ended up on a Byculla footpath, the nodal agency for collecting hazardous materials has revealed that the problem of improper disposal pervades nearly the entire hospital system. BMC-appointed SMS Envoclean claims 80 per cent of Mumbai's hospitals (public and private) don't segregate their refuse - from syringes, blood-soaked gauze pieces to intravenous drips - seriously compromising efforts to keep infections away from the city's streets and citizens.Waste from clinics and hospitals, where infections and drug-resistant bacteria are becoming increasingly common, poses serious health risks. http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?page=article§id=15&contentid=2012041520120415205345578a8a99f3f

Note: Gasification of refuse derived fuel (RDF) heats materials at very high temperatures to create hydrogen and carbon monoxide, also known as synthetic gas that can be used to power a gas turbine or steam power generator. It is wrongly claimed that the waste-to-energy process reduces volume of waste and provides an alternative to fossil fuel. The gasification process produces harmful air pollutants like POPs, heavy metals, particulate matter (opacity), acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide) and fugitive gas emissions which are harmful to human health and environment.

The proposed technology for waste management at Chandrapur emits varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium, nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels. Gasification is a co-incineration process. Instead of solving the waste problem, it complicates it because highly toxic fly ash generated in the process must be safely disposed of. This will require hazardous waste landfill elsewhere.Prevention, waste minimisation, reuse and recycling of waste should all be preferred to incineration according to the waste hierarchy. The real need is to adopt zero waste approach that encourages recycling and segregation at source and saves waste resources instead of sacrificing it for negligible amount of energy production. Chandrapur Municipal Corporation (CMC) should desist from adopting such polluting technologies that distorts waste management beyond repair.

Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 9818089660


Chandrapur Municipal Corporation plans solid waste management project

CHANDRAPUR: The Chandrapur Municipal Corporation (CMC) has proposed a solid waste management project for disposal of its 100 tongarbage daily. Chandrapur being second most polluted place in country, CMC has been shouldered with the task disposal of its solid waste in eco-friendly manner under action plan meant for curbing of pollution.Evaluation of the project is in final stages. CMC is dealing with a German-based company to rope in its services to construct garbage disposal plant on bypass road. "It will be a solid waste based power project. The plant will utilize refuse derived fuel (RDF) through waste gasification technology to generate power.

CMC will ensure supply of 100 ton of garbage per day to the waste management project," said chief officer Ravindra Deotale.CMC has well-equipped garbage collection mechanism. While door-to-door garbage collection system is in place in town, it has recently added number of garbage collection vehicles to its fleet. At present over 80 tons of garbage are collected from the town every day. Once solid waste management project is in place, CMC will ensure 100 tons of garbage supply to the plant.

"The project will come up at garbage dumping site on bypass road. It will facilitate the treatment of solid waste in eco-friendly way. The existing garbage on the site will also be disposed off in the same project," he said. He held that it would be first of its kind project in Vidarbha where solid waste will be utilized for power generation.Implementation of solid waste management project is part of pollution control action plan in Chandrapur.

While MPCB is looking over the overall execution of the plan, CMC has been shouldered with the responsibility of the project. With Rs 250 crore approved for CMC development under Chandrapur penta-centenary celebrations, the project may not face much hurdle.

Apr 22, 2012
The Times of India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Chandapur-Municipal-Corporation-plans-solid-waste-management-project/articleshow/12816692.cms

To

Ms. Neel Kamal Darbari

Joint Secretary

Bhopal Gas Cell

Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers

New Delhi

Subject- Contamination of ground water in Bhopal due to Union Carbide gas tragedy

Madam,

This is to draw your attention towards Supreme Court’s direction asking the central government to file a comprehensive affidavit on the "character and content" of reported contamination of ground water in Bhopal. It wanted to know the steps taken by the government in "ensuring that that uncontaminated water is available to the residents of the area in and around the Plant, and also as to the steps taken for decontamination of the ground water in the area".

I submit that while the State of Madhya Pradesh is supposed to file an affidavit on the supply of fresh drinking water to the areas in and contiguous to the Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal. The Hon’ble Court has directed, “In the affidavit to be filed by the State of M.P., details should be provided as to what steps have been taken by the City Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Bhopal, M.P., in ensuring that uncontaminated water is available to the residents of the area in and around the Plant, and also as to the steps taken for decontamination of the ground water in the area.”

The order reads: “The Central Pollution Control Board, which has been added as party to these proceedings, and is represented in Court today, shall also file a report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where the Union Carbide factory/plant is situated.” The order is attached.

In view of the above and in view of the fact that you are the focal point for issues related to Bhopal disaster, it would only be appropriate if Bhopal Cell can constitute a committee to examine the health impact of the chemical exposure from contaminated drinking water instead of waiting for the court’s directions for the same.

Thanking You

Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance
New Delhi-110016
Mb: 9818089660

To

Shri A L Jarhad
District Collector
District Magistrate
Thane
Maharashtra

Subject-Grave health hazards from exposure to asbestos fibers

Sir,

This is to draw your attention towards the fact that Union Government is publicly revealing that it does not favour new asbestos plants in the country. "The Government of India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos." It has noted, "Asbestosis is yet another occupational disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to evolve strategies to curb this menace". A concept paper by Union Ministry of Labour revealed this at the two-day 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational Safety and Health” on 19th and 20th September, 2011. (Reference: http://www.labour.nic.in/lc/Background%20note.pdf).

I wish to inform you about the Union Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health (Para 4.3.1). It reads: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”. (Reference:http://moef.nic.in/divisions/cpoll/envhealth/visenvhealth.pdf). The grave health hazards from exposure to asbestos fibers is not limited to workers alone. It poses a huge threat to consumers of asbestos based products, to the general public and those living in the vicinity of asbestos based plants.

I submit that National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)‘ has sent a notice to Chief Secretary, Maharashtra in the matter of incurable asbestos related diseases on July 6, 2011. (Reference: http://nhrc.nic.in/dispArchive.asp?fno=2334)

I submit that Union Ministry of Chemicals, Government of India has rightly disassociated itself from countries like Russia and Canada on June 22, 2011 who derailed the international consensus that categorizes chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance under the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. India has taken a position that it considers chrysotile asbestos (white asbestos) as a hazardous substance.

I submit that World Health Assembly Resolution 58.22 on cancer prevention urges Member States to pay special attention to cancers for which avoidable exposure is a factor, including exposure to chemicals at the workplace. In 2005, with Resolution 60.26, the World Health Assembly requested WHO to carry out a global campaign for the elimination of asbestos-related diseases. (Reference: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs343/en/index.html)

I submit that the resolution of the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference of ILO in June 2006 stated, "Considering that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are classified as known human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a classification restated by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (a joint Programme of the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme), it resolves that: (a) the elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of asbestos currently in place are the most effective means to protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related diseases and deaths; and (b) the Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162), should not be used to provide a justification for, or endorsement of, the continued use of asbestos." (Reference: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_gb_297_3_1_en.pdf)

I submit that Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)'s 'Guidelines for safe use of products containing asbestos' is outdated. There are grave concerns about asbestos exposures resulting in public health crisis world over that has compelled 55 countries to ban use of asbestos. In the absence of environmental and occupational health infrastructure in our country, the passivity of the state government cannot be deemed acceptable. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) should be asked to re-examine the 'Recommendations for safety and health requirements relating to occupational exposure to asbestos' besides examining non-occupational exposure to asbestos and standards for asbestos related material like asbestos cement sheets, asbestos cement pressure pipes and joints, asbestos cement flat sheets, asbestos cement building boards, asbestos cement cable conduits and troughs etc.

I wish to draw your attention towards ”New Delhi Declaration Seeking Elimination of all forms of asbestos including chrysotile from India that was adopted and endorsed by eminent scientists and doctors on 24th March, 2011 at a Round Table which happened immediately after the conclusion of International Conference on “Emerging Trends in Preventing Occupational Respiratory Diseases and Cancers in Workplace”. The conference was organised by Centre for Occupational Health, New Delhi supported by Union Ministry of Labour & Employment, ESI, DGMS and DGFASL in collaboration with Drexel University, US at Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi from 22-24 March. The conference was deeply concerned about asbestos related diseases and the alarming rise of asbestos in India.

I submit that sounding the alarm bells for Indians, Dr Alec Farquhar, Managing Director, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada said in a written statement, “We now have around 500 asbestos cancer cases every year in Ontario from a population of 13 million. If you (India) continue on your current path, you will multiply our death count by 100 times. That would be 50, 000 Indian workers dying every year from asbestos. In Ontario, we learned that safe use of asbestos is impossible. I urge you from the bottom of my hear, please do not make the same mistake as we made in Canada. Stop using asbestos and use a safe alternative.”

I submit that deeply disturbed by the state of affairs in India with regard to asbestos consumption, Professor Elihu D Richter MD MPH, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Medicine, Israel said in a written statement, “All form of asbestos kill. India should bury asbestos, not people. Here is a case for examining whether those countries which export asbestos to India are committing a crime against humanity, because they are engaging in willful neglect. India should not repeat the mistakes of going back some 70 years which will kill tens of thousands of workers and their families.” Richter called on experts in human rights to reframe the carcinogen as a human rights violation to ban asbestos.

I submit that “No matter what mis-information comes of Canada or the Indian asbestos industry about Chrysotile, there is no question that science has shown that Chrysotile causes asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. This is the conclusion of World Health Organisation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, and other organizations that have no bisases except for protecting people’s health,” opined Prof. Arthur L Frank,PhD, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University School of Public Health, US at the conference.

I submit that delegates like Dr T K Joshi asked, "why does Canada apply strict measures domestically to protect the health of Canadians handling asbestos and yet exports asbestos to developing countries such as India, where the capacity to implement and monitor the application of similar precautionary measures is inadequate?" Dr. T.K. Joshi is a Fellow, Collegium Ramazzini, Italy, an independent, international academy founded in 1982 by Irving J. Selikoff, Cesare Maltoni and other eminent scientists. The academy comprises of 180 internationally renowned experts in the fields of occupational and environmental health. The mission of the Collegium Ramazzini is to advance the study of occupational and environmental health issues and to be a bridge between the world of scientific discovery and the social and political centers which must act on the discoveries of science to protect public health.

I submit what Prof (Dr) Qamar Rahman, fellow of National Academy of Sciences, Dean, Integral University, Lucknow & former Deputy Director, Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, Lucknow said at the conference. She asserted, “This is high time that Government of India should ban the use of asbestos in India. It has been proven scientifically that asbestos based articles such as roof ceilings, storage tanks will release fibers. The asbestos fibers will be the cause of exposure to our coming generations.”

I submit that “It is well known around the world that asbestos is hazardous to human health, and that there is no such thing as “safe use” of asbestos, just like there is no “safe cigarette”. The government of India would do better to aim for growth through development of safe industries, and to lower the prices of substitutes, rather than promote use of this hazardous substance,” according to Dr Yael Stein, MD, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University, Israel.

I submit that Lyle Hargrove, Chairperson, Occupational Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada informed, “I believe that it is real Black mark on my Canada for exporting ASBESTOS to India. We have cities devastated by Asbestos Manufacturing in the sixties and 70s. Workers were dying from Asbestos diseases and others were Sick including people that work in the plants, their family was getting sick as well. I demand that Canada quit exprting Asbestos to India and quit mining in Quebec. Asbestos is too dangerous to work with and I believe there is no safe level.”
In view of the above, Maharshtra Government ought to stop such hazardous plants to save residents of the state from incurable lung diseases. There should be a moratorium on asbestos based hazardous industries and steps should be taken to phase out asbestos use and take immediate steps to ban this killer fiber to save the present and future citizens of the state and the country.

I will be happy to share more documents and academic papers to enable to take a considered view of the emerging public health crisis due to expsoure from killer fibers of asbestos of all kinds including whiet asbestos.

Thanking You

Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Phone: +91-11-2651781, Fax: +91-11-26517814
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com

Cc

Shri, Prithviraj Chavan, Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra
Smt Valsa Nair Singh, Environment Secretary, Government of Maharashtra
Shri Hemant Panchal, Member, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI), Dahanu, Maharashtra

To

Shri Harinder Hira

Chief Secretary

Government of Himachal Pradesh

Shimla

Subject-Stop Cancer Causing Asbestos Plant in Nahan, Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh

Sir,

This is to draw your urgent attention towards the fact that Vardhman Roofings Private Ltd has proposed to set up lung cancer causing Asbestos Cement Sheet Plant (200 MT per day) at Trilokpur Road, Village: Kheri, Tehsil: Nahan, District: Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. The project is estimated to cost Rs.300 million. The project was given Environmental Clearance on May 10, 2011.

We submit that Union Government is publicly revealing that it does not favour new asbestos plants in the country. "The Government of India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos." It has noted that "Asbestosis is yet another occupational disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to evolve strategies to curb this menace". A concept paper by Union Ministry of Labour revealed this at the two-day 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational Safety and Health” on 19th and 20th September, 2011. (Reference: http://www.labour.nic.in/lc/Background%20note.pdf).

We wish to draw your attention towards Union Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health (Para 4.3.1) that reads: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”. (Reference:http://moef.nic.in/divisions/cpoll/envhealth/visenvhealth.pdf)

We wish to draw your attention towards the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)‘s notice to you in the matter of incurable asbestos related diseases on July 6, 2011. (Reference: http://nhrc.nic.in/dispArchive.asp?fno=2334)

We submit that Union Ministry of Chemicals, Government of India has rightly disassociated itself from countries like Russia and Canada on June 22, 2011 who derailed the international consensus that categorizes chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance under the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. India has taken a position that it considers chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance.

We submit that World Health Assembly Resolution 58.22 on cancer prevention urges Member States to pay special attention to cancers for which avoidable exposure is a factor, including exposure to chemicals at the workplace. In 2005, with Resolution 60.26, the World Health Assembly requested WHO to carry out a global campaign for the elimination of asbestos-related diseases.

We submit that the resolution of the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference of ILO in June 2006 stated, "Considering that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are classified as known human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a classification restated by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (a joint Programme of the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme), it resolves that: (a) the elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of asbestos currently in place are the most effective means to protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related diseases and deaths; and (b) the Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162), should not be used to provide a justification for, or endorsement of, the continued use of asbestos."

We submit that Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)'s 'Guidelines for safe use of products containing asbestos' is outdated. There are grave concerns about asbestos exposures resulting in public health crisis world over that has compelled 55 countries to ban use of asbestos. In the absence of environmental and occupational health infrastructure in our country, the passivity of the state governments and the concerned ministries like yours appears cannot be deemed acceptable.

In view of the above, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) should be asked to re-examine the 'Recommendations for safety and health requirements relating to occupational exposure to asbestos' besides examining non-occupational exposure to asbestos and standards for asbestos related material like asbestos cement sheets, asbestos cement pressure pipes and joints, asbestos cement flat sheets, asbestos cement building boards, asbestos cement cable conduits and troughs etc.

We submit that Himachal Government ought to stop such hazardous plants to save residents of the state from incurable lung diseases. There should be a moratorium on asbestos based hazardous industries and steps should be taken to phase out asbestos use and take immediate steps to ban this killer fiber to save the present and future citizens of the state and the country.

Thanking You

Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Phone: +91-11-2651781, Fax: +91-11-26517814
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com

Note: The villages adversely affected by the construction of Ramky's Narela-Bawana Waste to Energy Incinerator boycotted the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections because both BJP led MCD and Congress led Delhi government has been callous towards the adverse effects of garbage dump and the upcoming plant.

Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance

No development, so three villages say no to polls

New Delhi Polling stations at three Delhi villages did not register a single vote on April 15.

Sannoth Village in Alipur, Ladpur near Kanjhawla and Khera village near Kazipur boycotted the municipal polls, protesting various MCD decisions, or the lack of it.

In Sannoth, which has a vote base of 3,000, villagers huddled up at a meeting point, happy with the effectiveness of the boycott.

“We are tired of complaining about the sorry state of affairs in the village. We do not get the basic amenities. Our taps run black, impure water and the entire village stinks because of the huge garbage dump near the waste-to-energy plant here,” Mange Ram (85) told Newsline.

Dayanand Sharma (73) said, “We approached all officials concerned and have written to every agency related to our problems. We also approached the Chief Minister, but to no avail. This was our last resort.”

Villagers were unmoved even after the sub-divisional magistrate of the area visited and tried to convince them to vote.

Bimla Devi (52) said, “Who do we vote for? Has anyone listened to us so far? So many children and elders of the village have fallen sick due to the stench in the area. If our voice has not been heard so far, what is the point in voting?”

In Kazipur, residents protested outside the polling stations with banners announcing boycott of polls. Here, too, villagers complained of lack of basic amenities and refused to vote. The village is said to have at least 1,200 voters.

Ladpur near Kanjhawla too refused to vote protesting the poor state of civic amenities.

Locals in all three villages said panchayats were held over the last few weeks and all villagers agreed to boycott the polls hoping that the authorities will finally take note of their grievances.

Sweta Dutta
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/no-development-so-three-villages-say-no-to-polls/937225/

Note:Obsolete ship owners from US, Japan and developed countries of Europe are guilty of transferring harm to Indian waters on Alang beach as an act of waste colonialism.

Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)

Alang yard sets ship dismantling record

In the fiscal period of 2011-12, Asia's largest shipbreaking yard -
at Alang in India - recorded its highest-ever number of ships arriving for
recycling, according to the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB).

A total of 415 ships were dismantled at the Alang facility, averaging 38.6
million tonnes of light ton displacement (LDT) against 28.2 million tonnes
LDT in 2010-11. In an official statement, the GMB attributes these results
partly to the 'key infrastructure' for toxic storage and disposal
facilities serving both hazardous and non-hazardous waste.

The board goes on to explain that despite the struggling global economy
during 2011-12, the non-major ports in Gujarat saw traffic rise 12%,
resulting in 259 million tonnes of shipbreaking volume versus 231 million
tonnes in 2010-11. At the same time, traffic handling capacity increased
roughly 14% from 284 million tonnes per annum to 323 million tonnes.

But the facility's full potential has yet to be reached, believes GMB's
Vice Chairman and CEO Pankaj Kumar, revealing expectations that by 2015-16
the Gujarat ports will be able to handle over 500 million tonnes per year
and quite possibly 1 billion tonnes by 2020.

Source: Recycling International. 13 April 2012

http://www.recyclinginternational.com/recycling-news/6196/ferrous-metals/india/alang-yard-sets-new-ship-dismantling-record

Phthalates used as plasticizers in products for children, such as toys and childcare articles, have been of concern. Following assessment of the risks under Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances1, and the evaluation of CSTEE and SCHER of such assessments 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, Directive 2005/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 prohibits the marketing and use of the following phthalates9:

– Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) in all toys and childcare articles;

– Di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) and di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) in toys and childcare articles which can be placed in the mouth by children.

A further plasticizer, di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP), was banned from toys and childcare articles which can be placed in the mouth by children on the basis of a CSTEE evaluation on the risks of phthalates in general10.

[1 OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.
2 Opinion on Phthalates in Toys, SCTEE, 24 April 1998.
3 Opinion on Phthalate Migration from Soft PVC Toys and Childcare Articles, 6th SCTEE plenary meeting, 26/27 November 1998.
4 DINP: Opinion on the results of the Risk Assessment of: 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich and di-"isononyl" phthalate. Report version (Human Health Effects), 27th CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 30 October 2001.
5 DEHP: Opinion on the results of the Risk Assessment of Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). Report versions: Environment / Human Health, September 2001. Opinion expressed at the 29th CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 09 January 2002.
6 DIDP: Opinion on the results of the Risk Assessment of: 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid di-C9-11-branched alkyl esters, C10-rich and di-"isodecyl"phthalate - Report version (Human health effects): 24th CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 12 June 2001.
7 DBP: Opinion on the results of the risk assessment Report of DIBUTYLPHTHALATE, 23rd CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 24 April 2001.
8 BBP: Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks opinion on: Risk Assessment Report on Benzyl Butyl Phthalate (BBP) Human Health Part CAS No.: 85-68-7 EINECS No.: 201-622-7. Adopted by the SCHER during the 3rd plenary meeting of 28 January 2005.
9 OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 40.
10 See: Opinion on Phthalate Migration from Soft PVC Toys and Childcare Articles, 6th SCTEE plenary meeting, 26/27 November 1998.]

Study of the Danish Environmental Protection Agency

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently analysed phthalates in school supplies such as school bags, play bags, pencil cases and erasers. In addition, the Danish EPA identified DEHP (and small amounts of DBP) in a pencil case. It furthermore found phthalates, without identifying them individually, when screening other school supplies such as pencil cases, toy bags and school bags.

The Danish EPA concluded that “In general, the content of the above-mentioned substances [isophorone, Butylated hydroxytoluene, cyclohexanone, phenol, toluene, DIBP, DEHP, 2-heptanone, tert-butyl alcohol, methyl propionate, p-xylene] in the tested products does not present any health risk at normal use of the products; neither in the individual products nor if children are exposed to several products at once - for instance through use of pencil case, eraser and school bag - at exposure via both inhalation and migration for artificial sweat".

However, "Some of the studied erasers are made of PVC (9 of 26) and four of these erasers have a content of DEHP as plasticizer. Daily intake of a small amount (cube of approx. 4 mm) of eraser with a content of DEHP during a longer period may represent a health risk. Correspondingly, it may represent a health risk if a child daily sucks on an eraser with a high content of DEHP during a longer period.", and)”, "The calculations are generally based on the analyzed values for a few selected school bags, toy bags, pencil cases and erasers. It cannot be excluded that there may be products with a higher content than found in the products tested in this project. Furthermore, there may be other sources to the same chemical substances in the child’s surroundings which will contribute to the total exposure."

For an additional plasticizer identified in the school supplies but not covered by Directive 2005/84/EC, Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP), the Danish EPA considered that "All the calculated MOS [Margins of Safety] of the individual products are significantly above 100 and this assessment is thus they do not represent any health risk with regard to DIBP. Exposure to DIBP both by inhalation and through skin absorption from several products at the same time is not estimated to represent any health risk for the examined products."

Finally, in a separate assessment of DINP, the Danish EPA concludes that "the exposure to phthalates through erasers is unacceptable."

Separate from the Danish study, there are claims that phthalates other than those banned are used in consumer products, however without sufficient knowledge about their risks. Although such claims are unconfirmed so far, it appears plausible that such phthalates may be used in order to avoid a conflict with the ban.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions/en/phthalates-school-supplies/l-3/1-concern.htm#0p0

Factual links
1. Information on health risks due to phthalates in school supplies

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency published the results of a study analysing the possible harmful impacts from substances being emitted from school bags, toy bags, pencil cases and erasers. The summary and the full study are available at:
www.mst.dk/Udgivelser/Publications/2007/08/978-87-7052-547-3.htm
The opinion by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) on phthalates in school supplies assessing the Danish study on this topic is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_106.pdf

2. Links addressing phthalates and health risks to children

The European ban of the use of six phthalates in soft PVC toys and childcare articles by a Commission decision in 1999 followed by a directive in 2005. More information at:
http://ec.europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l32033.htm
The European Commission issued a guidance document on the interpretation of the concept “which can be placed in the mouth”, which is often referred to in risk assessments of phthalates in toys and childcare products:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/markrestr/guidance_document_final.pdf
Upon request by Directorate General Enterprise of the European Commission a report on "The Availability of Substitutes for Soft PVC Containing Phthalates in Certain Toys and Childcare Articles" was prepared by RPA Ltd. in association with the Research Institute for Toxicology (Utrecht University). The report is available at: www.rpaltd.co.uk/documents/phthalates_000.pdf
Opinions of the E.U. Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE):
1998 opinion on "Phthalate migration from soft PVC toys and child-care articles", available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/health/ph_risk/committees/sct/documents/out12_en.pdf
2001 opinion on the RPA Report on "The Availability of Substitutes for Soft PVC Containing Phthalates in Certain Toys and Childcare Articles", available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/sct/docshtml/sct_out92_en.htm
The Canadian government has taken actions to increase the safety of consumers, especially children with regard to the presence of phthalates. More information at:
www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/interest-interet/phthalates_e.html

3. Institutions addressing phthalates in general

The formerly known European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) published risk assessment reports on several phthalates including five of the most widely used ones: DEHP, DBP, DIDP, DINP and BBP. Summaries by GreenFacts are available at: www.greenfacts.org/en/digests/phthalates.htm
The opinions of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) on the results of the ECB risk assessment of different phthalates are posted at:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/sct/sct_opinions_en.htm
for DEHP
for DINP
for DIDP
for DBP
The European Commission published two communications on phthalates in 2006:
on risk reduction measures for different phthalates
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:104:0045:0047:EN:PDF
on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for those substances:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:090:0004:0028:EN:PDF
The Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gives its opinion on the use of the phthalate DEHP in food contact materials at: www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/ScientificPanels/AFC/
for DBP
for DIDP
for DINP
for DEHP
for BBP
The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (DVFA) published a report in 2003 on "Human exposure to selected phthalates in Denmark”:
http://gl.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/FDir/Publications/2003015/Rapport.pdf
The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides general information on phthalates and more specific information on different kinds of phthalates at:
www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/results_06.htm

Hindi Release given below

Press Release

Residents, Environmentalists and Workers Demand Scrapping of Chinese Waste to Energy Incinerator

Construction of Incinerators in Okhla, Ghazipur and Narela-Bawana in Contempt of Supreme Court

CPCB Report Condemns Jindal Ecopolis, Reveals Disaster Management Plan Missing

April 12, 2012, New Delhi: Ongoing construction of waste incineration based power plants is an irresponsible way of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi government and central government to mask today's waste problems and pass the toxic burden they release on to future generations.

Environmental, resident and labour groups demand that all governments to start eliminating all Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). This means stopping all existing POPs sources, including dioxins. To achieve this, all existing incinerators must be closed, any plans for new incinerators must be scrapped and investment made into other, safer methods of waste disposal.

The 31 page report of the Union Environment Ministry constituted Technical Experts Evaluation Committee of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant was communicated on March 22, 2012. The which is owned by Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant by Prithivraj Jindal’s JITF Urban Infrastructure Limited (Jindal Ecopolis) has violated every rule in the rule book including environmental clearance conditions. It revealed to the Experts Committee in September 2011 that it is using untested and unapproved Chinese incinerator technology in complete violation all laws and environmental clearance of 2007 including its own project design document and environment impact assessment report. The CPCB report, its critique and a Letter to the Prime Minister is attached.

During MCD elections underway, it has come to light that both Bhartiya Janta Party led MCD and Indian National Congress led Delhi government are colluding for the construction of three Dioxins emitting municipal waste incinerator based power plants for 66.9 MW power in Delhi unmindful of disastrous public health consequences disregarding bitter opposition from the residents of Okhla, Ghazipur and Narela-Bawana. In manifest contempt of Supreme Court’s order, Central government’s Ministry of New & Renewable Energy is providing Rs 1.5 crore/MW subsidy under its waste to energy policy.

MCD, Delhi government and central government has shown unpardonable callousness towards hazardous emissions from municipal incinerators that cause serious environmental and health problems both to people living near them and thousands of kilometres from the source. These projects are destroying the livelihood of about 3.5 lakh waste recycling workers and valuable resource material for compost that is required to be treated by composting/anaerobic digestion/vermin composting/other biological processing for stabilization as per Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules.

A 14 page critique of the CPCB’s report was released at the Press Conference. The weakest point about the report is that it has done the technical evaluation of the plant after it has become functional. It should have been done prior to granting of permission for construction of waste incinerator based power plant. Representatives of GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) led by Dr. Juergen Porst, Senior Advisor stressed the need for a Disaster Management Plan in the very first meeting of the CPCB’s Technical Expert Committee. This does not find mention in the recommendations of the report. This finds reference in the minutes of the meeting annexed with the report. It underlines the possibility of disaster from the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant, which is situated in a residential area. It is noteworthy that a hazardous plant in Bhopal’s residential area that led to world worst industrial disaster in 1984 also did not have any disaster management plan.


In the report, Dr A B Akolkar, Director, CPCB emphasized that as per Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules ‘biodegrdable waste’ is to be treated using biological method rather than deriving RDF or by incineration as is being done by Jindal Ecopolis. This clearly demonstrates that the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant violates the Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules framed under Environment Protection Act, 1986.

The Review of Technical Evaluation by Anant Trivedi, Member, Technical Evaluation Committee, CPCB reads: "The Okhla plant has a capacity of 2050 tpd of domestic waste input. However the plant design allows upto 10,000 tpd of input for incineration. Toxic bottom ash quantity produced will be 20-30% of input. This amounts to at least 410 tpd rising to a maximum of 3,000 tpd. Additionally there will be toxic flyash of about 10% of the bottom ash.None of the landfill sites have the capacity to take in so much toxic waste and mulba has been dumped every where including all public spaces." He asks, "so what is proposed to safeguard public health from this toxic substance?

The report apprehended that the information that is submitted to the experts committee of CPCB might be used in the on-going case in the Delhi High Court. It makes a shocking revelation that although High Court has been hearing the case since 2009, the project proponent did not inform the court about gross deviations from the project design plan envisaged in the EIA report. As per the minutes of the second meeting of the technical experts committee, non-cooperative approach of the senior officials of Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant was condemned on August 11, 2011. Representatives of GTZ underlined that there was lack of transparency with regard to environmental and health impact on the neighborhood residents. It was also noted that the fugitive emissions and the expected emission of Dioxins and Furans has not been quantified. The characteristic of ash and required standards was not mentioned. Prof. T R Sreekrishnan, Department of Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology stated that disposal option for incineration instead of bio-methanation proposed for green waste is in violation of what was mentioned in the EIA report.

CPCB report steers clear of the fact that fiscal incentives for projects of power generation from MSW through new technologies violates Supreme Court’s Order: The court has put a stay on subsidy for waste to energy projects except 5 pilot projects based on Biomethanation technology. It has come to light that none of Delhi’s three projects are based on biomethanation technology and are not the pilot projects approved by the court. The Timarpir-Okhla project is getting incentives from the government although the apex court has put a stay on subsidy. Although the court’s order applies to Delhi’s other waste to energy incinerator projects as well but plants in Narela-Bawana and Ghazipur are under rapid construction by Ramky Company and GMR Company for generating 36 MW from 4000 tons of MSW in two phases and 10 MW from 1300 tons of MSW respectively with impunity. The speakers at the Press Conference were Prof. SS Khanna, former Senior Advisor, Planning Commission, Dr Usha Ramanathan, Noted Jurist, Kavita Krishnan, Member, Central Committee, CPI(ML) Liberation & Editor, Liberation, Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Shashi Bhushan Pandit, All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh (AIKMM), Dr Kehar Singh, Secretary, East Delhi, CPI and CBR Nair, General Secretary, Residents Welfare Association, Ghazipur.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, Email: krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com, Shashi Bhushan Pandit, All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh (AIKMM), Mb: 9968413109, Asha Arora, Okhla Anti-incinerator Committee, http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/ghoslaokhla

चीन की जहरीली कचरा जलाने की तकनीक से बिजली बनाने पर रोक की मांग

ओखला, नरेला-बवाना और गाजीपुर में कचरा आधारित बिजली घर सुरिम कोर्ट की अवमानना

केंद्रीय प्रदुषण नियंत्रण आयोग जिंदल एकोपोलिस कम्पनी के अधिकारियों भर्त्सना की, औद्योगिक त्रासदी प्लान नदारद

बिना किसी तकीनी जांच के और पर्यावरण सम्बन्धी मंजूरी के चीन की कचरा जला के बिजली बनाने वाली तकनीकि की बदौलत दिल्ली के ओखला में जो बिजली घर है वह डाईआक्सीन का उत्सर्जन कर रही है. ऐसी तकनीकि के दुष्प्रभाव से अनजान दिल्ली वासियों के रिहायसी इलाके में इसका प्रयोग किया जा रहा है. इसका खुलासा केंद्रीय प्रदुषण नियंत्रण आयोग के एक रिपोर्ट से हुआ है जिसे मार्च २२, २०१२ को सामने लाया गया. इस रिपोर्ट से यह भी पता चलता है की कचरा आधारित बिजली घर से होने वाली त्रासदी के लिए कोई तैयारी भी नहीं है. केंद्रीय प्रदुषण नियंत्रण आयोग ओखला बिजली घर के जिंदल एकोपोलिस कम्पनी के अधिकारियों कड़ी आलोचना की है मगर इस रिपोर्ट का ऐसे समय में आना जब जनवरी महीने से कचरा आधारित बिजली कारखाना शुरू चूका है गंभीर सवाल खरे करता है.

ऐसा ही बिजली घर दिल्ली के नरेला-बवाना और गाजीपुर में निर्माणाधीन है. डाईआक्सीन कैंसर के लिए सबसे ज्यादा खतरनाक प्रदुषणकारी रसायन है. कचरे में मौजूद खतरनाक रसायनों को यह तकनीकि कई-कई रूपों में वायु प्रदुषण, जल प्रदुषण और भोजन चक्र का हिस्सा बना देता है. अब यह जहर केवल धरती या पानी में ही नहीं बल्कि हवा में भी तैरने लगता है. शहर के कूड़े में प्लास्टिक के अलावा पारा भी बहुतायत में निकलता हैं. पर्यावरण मंत्रालय के अपने श्वेत पत्र में यह बात स्वीकार की गयी है कि जिस तरीके से शहरी कूड़े को जलाया जा जा रहा था वह तकनीकि सही नहीं थी. अब वह सही कैसे हो गया.

दिल्ली के ओखला में २०५० मेट्रिक टन कूड़े से २० MW बिजली का कारखाना के अलावा नरेला-बवाना में ४००० मेट्रिक टन/३६ MW का और गाजीपुर में १३०० मेट्रिक टन/१० MW के कारखाने का निर्माण जारी है. सरकार दिल्ली में ३ कचरा से बिजली बनाने के परियोजना को लागु कर रही है जिससे पर्यावरण और स्वस्थ्य को भारी मात्रा में नुकसान होता है और यह कचरा पर आधारित रोजगार को ख़तम कर देता है. दिल्ली लगभग 80% एरिया के काम को प्राइवेट कम्पनी के हाथों बेच दिया गया है लेकिन उसके बावजूद भी समस्या का हल नहीं हो पा रहा है दिल्ली में कचरे क़ि छंटाई के काम में असंगठित क्षेत्र के लगभग 3.5 लाख मजदूर शामिल है. कचरे का लगभग 20 से 25 प्रतिशत क़ि छंटाई हो जाती है. इनके द्वारा 30% कचरे क़ि छंटाई हो जाएगी जो कच्चे माल के रूप में दुबारा इस्तेमाल होगा और साथ ही 50% वैसा कचरा है जिसको जैविक कूड़ा कहते है उससे खाद बनाया जा सकता है. 80% भाग को समुदाय स्तर पर ही निपटारा हो सकता है.

ऐसे बिजलीघर न तो कूड़ा निपटाने के लिए बनते हैं और न ही बिजली पैदा करने के लिए. कारण कुछ और हैं. इन कारणों में एक कारण यह भी है कि प्रति मेगावाट की दर से केंद्र सरकार डेढ़ करोड़ का अनुदान देती है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने ऐसी योज्नावो को अनुदान देने पर रोक लगा रखा है. मगर कोर्ट के आदेश का खुलेआम उलंघन कर इस योजना पर कार्य जारी है.
सभी विकसित देशों ने ऐसी परियोजना को बंद कर चुकि है इसके मूल कारण रहे है क़ि इससे जहरीली गैस निकलती है जो जीवन व पर्यावरण के लिए काफी खतरनाक है और कचरे में वैसी जलने क़ि क्षमता नहीं है जिससे बिजली का उत्पादन किया जा सकता है भारत में पहली बार दिल्ली के तिमारपुर में कचरा से बिजली बनाने क़ि परियोजना 1990 में लगाया गया जो असफल रहा.


For Details: Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, Email: krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com, Shashi Bhushan Pandit, All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh (AIKMM), Mb: 9968413109, Asha Arora, Okhla Anti-incinerator Committee, http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/ghoslaokhla

Critique of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)’s Report on Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant of Prithivraj Jindal’s JITF Urban Infrastructure Limited (Jindal Ecopolis)*




Waste Burning at Jindal’s Okhla Site: 2050 tons per day
Source of Waste: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) & New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC)

Delhi’s Waste generation per day: 22526.265 tons per day (2008 CPCB study)
Generation of waste in the whole country: 362716.098 tons per day (2008 CPCB study)

April 2012
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi

*Review of CPCB report by Anant Trivedi, Member, Technical Experts Evaluation Committee, CPCB is annexed
Critical Analysis of report of the Technical Experts Evaluation Committee, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant

• The 31 page report of CPCB communicated on March 22, 2012 does not provide complete background of the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant of Prithivraj Jindal’s JITF Urban Infrastructure Limited (Jindal Ecopolis). The report is based on three meetings of the Technical Experts Evaluation Committee held on April 26, 2011, August 11, 2011 and September 22, 2011 under the chairmanship of Prof. S P Gautam, Chairman, CPCB.
• The weakest part of the report is that it has done the technical evaluation of the plant after it has become functional. It should have been done prior to granting it permission. Representatives of GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) led by Dr. Juergen Porst, Senior Advisor stressed the need for a Disaster Management Plan in the very first meeting but it does not find mention in the recommendations of the report. This finds reference in the minutes of the meeting annexed with the report. It underlines the possibility of disaster from the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant, which is situated in a residential area. It is noteworthy that a hazardous plant in Bhopal’s residential area that led to world worst industrial disaster in 1984 also did not have any disaster management plan.
• In the second meeting of the committee non-cooperative approach of the senior officials of Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant was condemned. Representatives of GTZ underlined that there was lack of transparency with regard to environmental and health impact on the neighborhood residents. It was also noted that the fugitive emissions and the expected emission of Dioxins and Furans has not been quantified. The characteristic of ash and required standards was not mentioned. Prof. T R Sreekrishnan, Department of Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology stated that disposal option for incineration instead of bio-methanation proposed for green waste is in violation of what was mentioned in the Environment Impact Assessment report. Dr A B Akolkar, Director, CPCB emphasized that green waste refers to ‘biodegrdable waste’ and as per Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 such wastes requires to be treated by composting/anaerobic digestion/vermin composting/other biological processing for stabilization rather than deriving RDF or by incineration. This clearly demonstrates that the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant violates the Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules.
• At the third meeting the project proponent apprehended that the information that is submitted to the experts committee of CPCB might be used in the on-going case in the Delhi High Court. At this very meeting, in a shocking instance of ad hoc manner in which the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant has been pursued, the project proponent introduced the representatives of Chinese technology providers from Hangzhou New Century Company Ltd of Hangzhou Boiler Group namely, Bian Jun, Zhang Xing Qun, Sun Diting and Zhou Yue and stated in his technical presentation that “ Ash generation shall be 10-15 % of the feed to the boiler and as per the agreement with the MCD the ash shall be disposed in Okhla MSW dumpsite.” There is reference on page 28 of the report that project proponent presented point wise clarification to the issues raised by the expert committee. This clarification does not respond to several issues raised at the earlier meetings of the expert committee such as a disaster management plan, the reason for change of technology after environmental clearance.
• On page 29 of the report, decisions of the expert committee are stated. It records that project proponent’s point wise clarification will be reviewed by the experts committee members. It sought further technical observations within a period of 2 weeks beginning September 22, 2011. After that it concluded that a technical document along with the recommendations shall be forwarded to the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests. It is not clear from the CPCB’s report that project proponent’s point wise clarification has been reviewed by the experts committee members.
• It does not reveal as to on what date was the report submitted to the Union Environment & Forests Ministry. The report admits that it “does not evaluate the requirement or compliance of various clearances from the respective agencies” It disappoints by stating that it is “only based on the information provided by the project proponent”. It does not disclose the Terms of Reference of the Technical Evaluation Committee. Had this been indeed the case then this report would have appeared to be no more than a brochure or publicity material of the company in question. At many places the report appears incoherent because of inconsistent testimony of the project proponent, Jindal Ecopolis but makes several disclosures about the Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant which was not known earlier.
• The report is inconclusive with regard to the comparison between energy exported from the process and the energy that the process itself requires for its operation. It wants the project proponent to provide plant potential figure by dividing the exported (e.g. sold) energy minus the imported energy by the total energy demand for waste incineration process. Its calculation of the energy efficiency of the controversial plant is yet to be done. The report refers to production of 16 MW (not 20.9 MW) from RDF and biogas but while elaborating it discloses that the plant is not following the RDF and biogas route.
• Its recommendations states, “The proposed WtE plant is located in an urban agglomeration adjacent to populated areas.” It recommends that a provisional consent to operate for three months for trial run only which may initially be given so as to demonstrate that it complies with emission standards as claimed by the project proponent during deliberations before the expert committee at CPCB”. It emerges that these standards are ad hoc because it is based on the promise of the project proponent. CPCB further recommends, “Manual monitoring of stack emissions shall be carried out regularly for a period of 6 months, for parameters such as PM, HCL, SO2 and NOX to cross check with the online emissions values being reported”. It seems CPCB has been persuaded to believe that after 6 months the protest by residents, environmental groups and waste pickers will become silent; therefore, it need not be monitored after 6 months. These recommendations make it appear as if residents of Okhla will have to accept the fate of living in the hazardous environment of the waste to energy incinerator.
• The report reveals that the waste to energy incinerator facility has been designed to handle 10, 000 tons of municipal waste whereas the consumption is expected to be 1400 tons per day. Out of which about 1050 tons of segregated waste is being fed as fuel in the Waste to Energy boilers and the rest is sent to recycling industry or disposed at municipal landfill. On page 8, it is stated that “the rejects from MSW is approximately 253 TPD.” The report does not specify where recycling industry and municipal landfill are located, implying that the project proponent, Jindal Ecopolis has not provided any information about it. On page 3 of the report, it is admitted that the waste will be turned into Refuse Derived Fuel and then it will be combusted or incinerated at a temperature of more than 850 degrees C in order to arrest formation of Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) or dioxins, a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant environmental pollutants. But it does not explain how it be ensured that PCDD formation has indeed not happened. Members of the PCDD family bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and may cause developmental disturbances and cancer. It became well known as a contaminant of Agent Orange, a herbicide used in the Vietnam War by USA. Prof. B. J. Alappat, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi underlined that incineration at lower temperature like 850 degrees C will lead to high concentration of volatile organic compounds in flue gases. He complained that the cross section of the boiler furnace was not provided that could have enabled understanding of of the path of flue gases and temperature profiles across the boiler.
• The CPCB report appears oblivious of the 254 page National Implementation Plan (NIP) prepared by Government of India in order to meet its obligation under Article 7 of the UN’s Stockholm Convention on POPs dated April 2011. On page 16 of this NIP, it reads: “The major contribution of PCDD/DF emission is from waste incineration and ferrous and non-ferrous metal production categories followed by heat and power generation sector. Waste incineration has 66.75% share of the total annual releases.” It further states, “The highest amount of PCDD/DF is released into residues 63.12%, followed by air emission which accounts for 32.66% of the total releases” The main source categories include waste incineration.” On page 96 of the NIP, it is stated, “There is no municipal solid waste incinerator operating in India.” It means the municipal waste plant at Okhla is the first of its kind. The NIP admits, “India has limited experience in the environmentally sound disposal of POPs.”The CPCB report fails to recommend “necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment” as has been done in the EU Directive on Incineration of Waste. It is noteworthy that CPCB was one of the institutions involved in the preparation of the NIP.
• This report is based on the testimony of Jindal Ecopolis. It admits that the toxic leachate will be evaporated and the bottom ash will be land filled. Essentially, both means dumping of cocktail of pollutants in the land and in the air. Is this really a solution to waste management or is just a case of shifting surface waste into underground waste and airborne waste?
• The report is factually incorrect in stating:"In European countries, there are about 460 MSW incinerators with installed capacity of about 50 million tonnes per annum covering about 25 % of MSW generation. Some countries have set up facilities to treat more than 65 % MSW in incinerators" in the CPCB report. The fact is that they annot use incinerators (or even have to shut them down) because of high recycling rates, meaning 35 % by weight. The total amount of waste incinerated was 22% according to Eurostat in 2010. It is decreasing rapidly. There is no country that incinerates 65 % of its waste. The fact is that European Parliament has passed an unanimous resolution to eliminate use of this technology for MSW. The Council of the European Union “reiterated its conviction that waste prevention should be the first priority of any rational waste policy in relation to minimising waste production and the hazardous properties of waste” that finds mention in the EU Directive on the incineration of waste. MCD, Delhi Government and Union Urban Development Ministry do not have any waste prevention policy. EU Directive further states, “The distinction between hazardous and non-hazardous waste is based principally on the properties of waste prior to incineration or co-incineration but not on differences in emissions. The same emission limit values should apply to the incineration or co-incineration of hazardous and non-hazardous waste but different techniques and conditions of incineration or co-incineration and different monitoring measures upon reception of waste should be retained.” The project proponent claims that it is complying with EU standards but it is using the emission limits of the outdated EU Incineration Directive. The new EU directive on incineration IPCC 2010/75/EU has stringent norm in part 3 of annex VI. These standards could be more stringent if there is political will. This means that waste incineration in Delhi is unsafe. The report fails to underline that post incineration the distinction between hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste like municipal waste is lost with adverse environmental health consequences.
• The report indicatively but conservatively discloses the potential threats from numerous toxins that will be emitted. It reads: "The system proposed at Okhla is based on complete oxidative incineration where the input MSW is mainly converted into flue gas (containing gases & fly ash) and bottom ash/residues. The main constituent of flue gas is water vapour, nitogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen. The flue gas also contains particulate matter (fly ash) along with smaller amounts of CO, HCI, HF, NOX, SO2, VOCs, PCDD/F, PCBs and heavy metal compounds. A typical MSW incinerator generates bottom ash of about 10 % by volume (and approximately 20 to 30 % by weight) of the solid waste input. Fly ash quantities are generally much lower compared to bottom ash." At the second meeting of technical experts, Ravi Agarwal of Toxics Link submitted that “Fly-ash collected from air pollution control devices will attract the provisions of hazardous waste management. On page 5, the report reveals that although the environmental clearance was obtained for a plant based on incineration of RDF technology, the same has been abandoned and modified. Earlier, there was a pretention that biomethanation technology is also being used. That pretence has now been given up. “Since no provision has been made for installing bio-methanation plant, the facility shall not be able to handle green waste,” report reveals on page 6. This is a case of violation of environmental clearance conditions which were based on EIA that did its assessment based on in RDF incineration technology. This is blatant deviation from what was claimed in the Detailed Project Report.
• The report reveals that the project proponent is incoherent and inconsistent because while it submitted it has abandoned RDF on page 6, it continues to talk about 1047 TPD of RDF on page 11.
• The CPCB report categorically states on page 5 that the reciprocating stoker type boilers are installed which are designed for incineration of low calorific value municipal waste. The efficacy of such reciprocating stoker type boilers are not known for Indian conditions and requires to be verified. But it does not go further than this as it does not state when and how will the evaluation of its efficacy and its verification be done. The project proponent has claimed that installation of 3 WTE boilers of 45 ton/day will ensure smooth function. Article 3 (4) of EU Directive on Incineration of Waste defines incineration: “‘incineration plant’ means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of wastes with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated. This includes the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma processes in so far as the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated. This definition covers the site and the entire incineration plant including all incineration lines, waste reception, storage, on site pretreatment facilities, waste-fuel and air supply systems, boiler, facilities for the treatment of exhaust gases, on-site facilities for treatment or storage of residues and waste water, stack, devices and systems for controlling incineration operations, recording and monitoring incineration conditions”. This definition includes boilers.
• The report states that the auxiliary power consumption to run the plant is 3 MW to 3.5 MW.
• It discloses that in case of forced shut down of the boilers, no measures have been provided for vetting the odorous gases from storage and processing areas.
• The report does not reveal that the technical evaluation of the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator plant was undertaken after the site visit by Union Environment & Forests Minister on March. 31, 2011. The Minister promised irate residents of Okhla who gathered at the plant site that he would inquire into how no resident or civil society people turned up at a public hearing conducted by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) before the construction of the plant was begun. The proceedings of the fake public hearing drafted by DPCC were given to the Minister. The Environment Impact Assessment was not made available to the public until March 2011.
• The first environmental clearance was given in 2007. The Union Environment Minister asked Chairman, CPCB present at the site to examine these concerns in front of the residents. Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) officials present admitted to in front of the Minister that only two of their own staffers were present for the hearing conducted in 2007.
• The CPCB report is callous towards the residential colonies, including Sukhdev Vihar, Haji Colony, Gaffar Manzil, Jasola Vihar, Noor Nagar, Masih Garh, Johri Farms, and Sarita Vihar, hospitals such as Holy Family, Fortis-Escorts, Apollo Indraprastha, the Okhla Bird Sanctuary and the Assola Wildlife Sanctuary that fall within 10km radius of the waste to energy incinerator plant site. The report appears to be protecting the interest of Jindal Ecopolis company that is pursuing unsound technological paths with total disregard towards the health of the citizens although the company does not have any previous experience in waste management or energy generation from waste.
• It fails to underline that energy generated from waste incineration cannot be deemed renewable energy. It is does not reveal that waste incineration is a green house gas emitter as per Kyoto Protocol. '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, currently Chief of the Energy Branch, Division Technology, Industry and Economics for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Waste to Energy is non-Renewable Energy-
• The report does not situate the issue in its right context. Sixteen years after the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) shut down its waste-to-energy power incinerator plant at Timarpur, the Timarpur Waste Management Company Private Limited (TWMCL), a subsidiary of the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (ILFS) proposed to built a plant based on the failed Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) technology. A Memorandum of Understanding between MCD and ILFS was signed by D K Mittal, IAS the CEO of TWMCPL and Rakesh Mehta, the then Commissioner of MCD on 14 March 2005.
• After the MOU, the Unique Waste Processing Company, a subsidiary of ILFS in collaboration with the Andhra Pradesh Technology Development Center (APTDC) incorporated the Timarpur Waste Management Company Limited (TWMCL) in April 2005. TWMCL, a special purpose vehicle entered into a 25-year concession agreement with the MCD and NDMC under a Public Private Partnership framework to set up a 650 tons-per-day (TPD) Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) processing facility, a 50 TPD bio-methanation plant, a 6 MW power plant, and a 6 million gallons per day sewage treatment plant at a total cost of Rs. 591.27 million.
• The report does not explain how project proponents expanded their activity to include Okhla in south Delhi. In December 2006, the TWMCL changed its name to Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Company Private Limited (TOWMCL). The waste is to be supplied by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). It does not state that consequent to the Competitive Bidding process, Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL) was selected as the successful bidder and TOWMCL was transferred to JUIL. The project operation contract was awarded to JUIL), a subsidiary of Jindal SAW Ltd on January 1st 2008. JUIL announced that it will use all the power generated from the project for captive use. JUIL said, “We intend to use the entire power generated by TOWMPL for Captive Power Consumption for manufacturing units of our parent company M/S Jindal SAW Ltd. at Mundra, Gujarat by having access to wheeling facility” in its letter dated October 20 , 2008 to the Union Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). At the second meeting of technical experts, A K Dussa, Director, MNRE misled the members by stating that similar projects are operated near the population in the countries.
• CPCB report’s glaring failure lies in its inability to take note of the MNRE’s File Notings dated 3.2.2010 that reads: “The Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) also has a clause according to which M/S TOWMCL can use the entire power for its captive use. This clearly is not in accordance with the tender/bidding conditions according to which entire power was to be sold to the Delhi Transco at quoted tariff.” This makes the project doubly illegal.
• The report states that JUIL was renamed JITF Urban Infrastructure Limited which is branded as Jindal Ecopolis, which has taken the project from TOWMCL on BOOT (Build, Operate, Own and Transfer) basis.
• The report fails to take cognizance of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that was meant for a 650 tons-per-day (TPD) processing plant to generate 225 tons of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and a 50 TPD bio-methanation plant at Timarpur, North Delhi, a 1300 tons-per-day processing plant for generating 450 tons of RDF per day, a 100 TPD bio-methanation plant and a 16 MW power plant at Okhla, South Delhi. Together it claimed to manage 2,050 TPD of mixed municipal waste. The project has been expanded to process 643,500 tons of MSW per year and produce 222,750 tons of RDF per year and 5000 m3 of biogas daily. The revised project is Rs. 204 crores. It was Rs. 174.26 crores earlier. These glaring deviations and alternations in the project design from the EIA report and the conditions laid down while granting the environmental clearance should have been examined by the CPCB report. This has not been done.
• The report ignores that Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)'s Waste Master Plan 2021 wherein it is categorically mentions, Incineration of "RDF is often an option when emission standards are lax and RDF is burned in conventional boilers with no special precautions for emissions". Pradeep Khandelwal, Superintendent Engineer, MCD stated that the proposed Waste to Energy Plant has been planned for a capacity of 1300 MT/day in his submission on September 22, 2011 before the Experts Committee. The project proponent states that it will deal with 2050 MT of waste per day. The discrepancy in these figures is quite glaring.
• The report does not deal with Waste incineration -- including waste pelletisation or RDF, pyrolysis, gasification systems -- technologies that produce pollutants which are detrimental to health and the environment. Incineration is expensive and it does not eliminate or adequately control the toxic emissions from chemically complex municipal discards. The latest incinerators too release toxic heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants like dioxins. In fact the US Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) has in its Dioxin reassessment stated that "dioxin is carcinogenic to humans" and the "risk of getting cancer from dioxin is ten times higher than reported in 1994." Dioxins and furans’ means all polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans including Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, Pentachlorodibenzodioxin, Hexachlorodibenzodioxin, Hexachlorodibenzodioxin, Hexachlorodibenzodioxin, Heptachlorodibenzodioxin ,Octachlorodibenzodioxin, Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, Pentachlorodibenzofuran, Pentachlorodibenzofuran, Hexachlorodibenzofuran, Hexachlorodibenzofuran, Hexachlorodibenzofuran, Hexachlorodibenzofuran, Heptachlorodibenzofuran, Heptachlorodibenzofuran and Octachlorodibenzofuran. The report does inform that “Flue-gas from MSW incinerator may contain trace quantities of halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic carbons, benzene, toluene and xylene and PCDDs/F. These are formed from precursor compounds generated in the furnace during incineration of wastes containing chlorinated hydro carbons already present in the waste or formed in the furnace. These compounds are formed through de-novo synthesis in the low-temperature range (400-250 degrees C) during cooling phase in the presence of particulate matter.
• The report is silent on how waste incineration transfers the hazard characteristics of waste from the solid form to air, water and ash. It also releases new toxins through the process of breakdown of existing compounds and the formation of new ones which were previously not present in the original waste stream, besides making others like heavy metals mobile and more leachable. Far from eliminating the need for a landfill, waste incinerator systems produce toxic ash and other residues. On page 13, it is stated that “concentrate residue is proposed to be incinerated along with MSW”. It is also stated that “The total ash generation in the boiler is expected to be 15 % of the feed quantity i.e. 1047 X 15 % = 157 tons per day (TPD) of which generation of fly ash (40 % OF 157TPD) would be about 63 TPD.” The CPCB observes that “quantity of bottom residue may be more than the reported figures.” On page 5, it has been stated, “A typical MSW incinerator generates bottom ash of about 10 % by volume (and approximately 20 to 30 % by weight) of the solid waste input.” It is also observed that “ETP sludge will be generated from treatment of water for which the proponent has not made any arrangement for handling, storage and disposal of the same”. These projects disperse incinerator ash throughout the environment and subsequently enter our food chain.
• CPCB observes that “The proponent could not provide study details with respect to the environmental aspects on movments of feet of vehicles used to carry 1300 MTD of MSW besides transportation of recyclables, inert materials etc and incinerator residues. The same needs to be evaluated besides availability of parking space, storage, loading and unloading etc.” It does not state when this evaluation will be done. Like company’s design document, the CPCB report deals with emission of dioxins and heavy metals sketchily. It 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 does not refer to the failure of a similar incinerator-cum-power generation plant at Timarpur, Delhi. It required waste with a net calorific value of 1462.5 kcal/kg. The calorific value of the waste used was 600-700 kcal/kg. The Jindal Ecopolis plant is designed to work for a waste which has calorific value of 1000- 1400 Kcal per Kg, as per the CPCB report. The report does not explain how the calorific value has increased dramatically to meet the designed capacity. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG)’s annual report of March 1990 observed, “The Refuse Incinerator-cum-Power Generation Plant installed by Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources in March 1985 remained inoperative since its installation. The Ministry failed to utilise or dispose off the inoperative plant and incurred an expenditure of Rs 1.25 crore (US$ 278,000) on maintenance and insurance of the plant.” The project was officially scrapped in July 1990. It became a symbol of the colossal failure of MCD and Ministry of New & Energy (MNRE), formerly called Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources. The plant was demolished in 2006 to escape continued embarrassment faced by the authorities that continue to promote waste to energy policy.
• The report fails to recall the order of Delhi High Court in April 2001 on the plant's failure. The court had taken issue with the procurement of the incineration plant at a cost of Rs 20 crores from a Danish firm Volund Milijotecknik in 1985 and said, "No order should have been placed for procurement of the plant unless its utilities were completely known." The CPCB report feigns ignorance about it.
• CPCB ignores the “White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan' prepared by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The relevant part of the paper reads:"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.”
• The CPCB report is silent on how the project violates UN conventions to which India is a party. It violates the Stockholm Convention on POPs because it calls for elimination of incineration technologies because they emit POPs.
• The report ignores the recommendations of the Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Energy who wrote to the Union Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (now renamed as Ministry of New & Renewable Energy) on June 14, 2005 seeking review of Waste to Energy Programme and supporting ban on economic incentives for such projects. The PSC was headed by Gurudas Kamat. The current Chairman is Mulayam Singh Yadav.
• The report appears influenced by the incineration industry in choosing not contest reference to term waste incinerators as 'renewable energy' projects is not only fraudulent but also dangerous. 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. The advocates of incinerators prefer to pre-empt segregation and recycling efforts being made by municipalities and communities around the world.
• CPCB forgot about how the earlier Timarpur waste to energy incinerator plant too was based on a technology imported from Danish firm Volund Milijotecknik. The plant was designed to incinerate 300 tonnes of municipal solid waste every day and generate 3.75 mw of power. But the waste didn't have enough calorific value and the plant was shut after 21 days of operation. The calorific value of the waste remains the same.
• The CPCB report fails to dwell upon the current project’s journey of claims from 6 MW, 15 MW, 16 MW to 20.9 MW. Initially, TWMCPL had planned to generate 6 MW of electricity from the project at Timarpur, Delhi using the same failed technology in its new incarnation as a technology developed by the Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC), Ministry of Science & Technology.
• The CPCB report feigns ignorance about the failure of this technology in Andhra Pradesh. SELCO International Ltd’s Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) incineration technology based waste to energy project at Elikatta village, Mahbubnagar, Andhra Pradesh lies defunct. A 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 of TWA, New Delhi visited the plant site on August 1, 2011 to ascertain it and witnessed the rusted and non-functional condition of the plant.
• CPCB report steers clear of the fact that fiscal incentives for projects of power generation from MSW through new technologies violates Supreme Court’s Order: The court has put a stay on subsidy for waste to energy projects except 5 pilot projects based on Biomethanation technology. The Timarpir-Okhla project is getting incentives from the government although the court has stayed it. This applies to waste to energy incinerator projects in Delhi’s Narela-Bawana and Ghazipur being constructed by Ramky Company and GMR Company of 36 MW from 4000 tons of MSW and 10 MW from 1300 tons of MSW respectively.




















Annexure
Okhla Timarpur Waste To Energy Plant






Review of Technical Evaluation






Anant Trivedi
Member, Technical Evaluation Committee
Central Pollution Control Board



April 2012




Review of Technical Evaluation
The technical evaluation report poses a few pertinent questions of worry which the citizens need to have addressed before we go too far into the project. Some of these are listed below.
Disposal Of Toxic Waste
- The Okhla plant has a capacity of 2050 tpd of domestic waste input. However the plant design allows upto 10,000 tpd of input for incineration.
- Toxic bottom ash quantity produced will be 20-30% of input. This amounts to at least 410 tpd rising to a maximum of 3,000 tpd.
- Additionally there will be toxic flyash of about 10% of the bottom ash.
- None of the landfill sites have the capacity to take in so much toxic waste and mulba has been dumped every where including all public spaces – so what is proposed to safeguard public health from this toxic substance?
- Rag picker community will continue to work in the landfill site unaware of the danger to their health. How are they proposed to be protected?
- This is highly toxic waste and should be buried for a long period in a landfill site – about 50 years. Since the nearest landfill is about 12 km from the site, this will be transported in open trucks and thus cause a lot of pollution during the journey for vehicles following and then it is most likely to be dumped in the open in landfill site. What is proposed to prevent ash flying around in the air during the journey to landfill site?
- Tughlakabad landfill has been consumed by dumping mulba illegally. So where will this go? MPD 21 clearly says where landfill sites are allowed.
- For toxic waste which is sold to for brick making, what safeguards are incorporated for safe transport, and for the workers who will work with this material. Are we looking at another Asbestos type disaster? With another 3 plants proposed Delhi will be ringed with a ring of highly toxic waste.
Disposal of waste water from leachate
The plant will use upto 2400m3 of water, as per the declared figures on a plant capacity of 2050 tpd. This figure would rise to 8500m3 of water, at full design capacity of 10,000 tpd. After treatment in the onsite plant, this waste water will be fed back into the DJB system for purification. This water will contain toxic heavy metals and other harmful substances. DJB does not deploy technology for removal of any of these substances and hence these will get released into the domestic drinking water system. What safeguards are proposed to safeguard public health from this dangerous drinking water?

Plant Capacity Increase
All estimates of inputs and waste output and transportation plans must be based upon the design capacity of a plant. The design capacity must have built in components which can handle the maximum stated design capacity. Project proponents must show how they will cope with upto 10,000 tpd of MSW and all the pollutants resulting from it. The figures quoted are: 2050 tpd (EIA), 1400 tpd (report), upto 10,000 tpd.
- The authorised capacity can be different, but there must be clear rules to say how a plant’s capacity will be increased i.e. after fresh authority It cannot be left to the project operator to increase at will?
- The plant is supposed to produce 16 mgw of energy of which 2.5 is said to be for internal consumption (a variance from EIA which said 50% usage). This is based on 1400 tpd. So much more energy will be produced from 10,000 and will this not be an incentive for the proponent to generate and sell more without permission? Will the Min Renewable Energy subsidy (1.5 cr/Mw energy) be an incentive to burn more?
Estimates of pollutants released into air
The estimates are very lose since there are no standards laid out by CPCB. They say 30 spm level is guaranteed. Similarly very attractive figures are quoted for NOX, SO2, Heavy metals….How will this be monitored and compliance enforced? Delhi’s ambient is yet to be defined, but spm levels are already far in excess of quoted in any day. The pollution released into the air, will be a frightening amount affecting a catchment area of about 2 km radius resulting in a slow destruction of the respiratory system with the young and elderly most vulnerable.

Analysis of flue/ stack gases
Which are the designated laboratories for testing of samples collected during commissioning (presently going on)? How and where will dioxin and furan samples be tested? This needs to be clearly stated.
- What standards are specified for testing of the samples by these labs?
- So far no monitoring equipment has been installed in neighbourhood areas, as stipulated in the report, to monitor the pollution released. When will this happen and how will the samples from these be monitored?
- There is no independent body set up to oversee the monitoring and testing process. This cannot be left to DPCB as they have proved repeatedly that they are vulnerable to influence by plant proponents (e.g. common biomedical plant monitoring).
- CPCB specifies procedures for upto 6 months when ‘proving’ of the pollution controls is taking place. What happens after this if there is no independent agency with citizen involvement to ensure compliance?
Safety for personnel at the site
The report says that many rag pickers will be trained to remove plastics and other pollution causing items from a moving grate in an environment which will be enclosed and will be a reasonably high temperature to enable drying of waste.
- They propose to spray a deodorant in the area to prevent foul smell.
- Is there any free medical care provided at the factory? Are their arrangements at nearby hospitals to take care of accidents suffered by rag pickers and other workers? Is there any medical insurance cover provided for the workers and their families??