Public Accounts Committee Invites Suggestions on Prevention of Water Pollution

Parliament's Public Accounts Committee has invited suggestions from all concerned on the issue of prevention of water pollution with specific focus on participatory management. The submissions are to be sent by September 15.

It is noteworthy that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India for the year that ended in March 2011 undertook the Performance Audit of Water Pollution in India. It reviewed whether:

Inventory of water sources has been prepared and whether the overall status of
quality of water in rivers, lakes and groundwater has been adequately assessed in
India;

Risks of polluted water to health of living organisms and the impact on environment
have been adequately assessed;

Adequate policies, legislations and programmes have been formulated and effective
institutions been put into place for pollution prevention, treatment and restoration of
polluted water in rivers, lakes and ground water;

Programmes for pollution prevention, treatment and restoration of polluted water in
rivers, lakes and ground water have been planned, implemented and monitored
efficiently and effectively;

Funds were utlised in an efficient and economic manner to further the aim of reduction
of water pollution;

Adequate mechanisms have been put in place by the government to sustain measures
to tackle water pollution; and

Programmes for the control of pollution had succeeded in reducing pollution levels in
ground water and surface water and restoring water quality.

CAG has observed that Water pollution has not been adequately addressed in any policy in India, both at the central and the State level. In the absence of a specific water pollution policy which would also incorporate prevention of pollution, treatment of polluted water and ecological restoration of polluted water bodies, government efforts in these areas would not get the required emphasis and thrust.

It has observed that MoEF and a number of States:

did not undertake complete inventorisation of rivers/lakes and keystone species associated with them.

did not carry out identification of existing pollution levels in rivers and
lakes in terms of biological indicators.

had not identified and quantified contaminants in rivers, lakes and ground water.
were yet to identify and quantify human activities that impact water quality.

had not assessed the risks of polluted water to health and
environment.

had not adopted the basin level approach for control of pollution.

had not developed water quality goals, corresponding parameters for
each river/lake and failed to enforce these.

As such, overall planning for the control of pollution on part of MoEF and the
States falls short of an ideal situation. This would have repercussions on
implementation of programmes for control of pollution and their outcomes
as discussed later in the report.

With regard to implementation of programmes for control of pollution of
rivers, lakes and ground water, it was observed that:

Current programmes for control of pollution of rivers, lakes and
ground water were insufficient.

Institutional set-up to manage programmes for control of pollution in
rivers, lakes and ground water was inadequate.

Inclusion of rivers and lakes into National River Conservation Plan and
National Lake Conservation Plan (NLCP), respectively, was flawed.

Performance of projects undertaken under NRCP was unsatisfactory.
82 per cent of the projects were completed after the scheduled date
of completion. 28 projects costing ` 251.27 crore were constructed
but not utilised as yet. States implementing the projects faced
problems in land acquisition, getting requisite permissions, especially
forest clearances, technical problems, problems from contractors etc.

NLCP as a programme has been ineffective in achieving the objective
of conservation and restoration of lakes in India. Only two of the
sampled 22 projects had been completed and the rest were either
continuing beyond the sanction date of completion or had been
abandoned. Problems like resistance from locals over proposed
construction of STPs etc., dispute over site, inability to arrest
sewageflow, non-availability of land etc., have contributed to
non-completion of the projects.

Thus, programmes to control pollution of rivers and lakes in India have not
had the desired results.

Inspection and monitoring of projects being implemented under NRCP and
NLCP was inadequate at all three levels, i.e., local level, State level and
Central level.

There was paucity of network for tracking pollution of rivers, lakes and
ground water as there were inadequate number of monitoring stations, no
real- time monitoring of water quality was taking place and the data on
water quality had not been disseminated adequately.

As such, monitoring of programmes was inadequate which points to weak
internal controls existing at all levels of government.

River cleaning and control of pollution programmes for our polluted rivers
are being implemented since 1985. The programmes seek to address
pollution from point and non-point sources through construction of Sewage
Treatment Plants, low cost sanitation, electric crematoria etc. However, the
data on the results of these programmes are not very encouraging.
Ganga in certain stretches, Yamuna, Gomti, Godavari, Musi, Cauvery,
Cooum, Mahananda, Khan, Kshipra, Vaigai, Chambal, Rani Chu, Mandovi,
Sabarmati, Subarnarekha, Bhadra/Tungabhadra, Pennar, Pamba, Betwa,
Krishna, Sutlej etc., continue to be plagued by high levels of organic
pollution, low level of oxygen availability for aquatic organisms and
bacteria, protozoa and viruses which have faecal-origin and which cause
illnesses.

Most lakes in India are under threat from nutrient overloading which is
causing their eutrophication and their eventual choking up from the weeds
proliferating in the nutrient-rich water. Implementation of NLCP in
conserving these lakes has had no discernible effect.

Pichola, Pushkar, Dimsagar, Banjara, Kotekere, Bellandur, Veli Akkulam,
Shivpuri, Powai, Rankala, Twin lakes, Bindusagar, Mansagar, Mansiganga,
Rabindra Sarovar, Mirik, Kodaikanal lake, Dal lake, Durgabari lake,
Laxminarayanbari Lake, Dimsagar Lake etc., have shown poor water quality.
However, there have been some success stories like Nainital lake, Kotekere
lake, Sharanabasaveshwara lake and Mansagar where water quality has
improved after completion of conservation programmes.

Funds available for control and prevention of water pollution and
restoration of wholesomeness of water were not adequate.

CAG's overall conclusion reads:
"We began the audit of Water Pollution in India with certain audit objectives (in Page 5) which sought to examine the broad contours of policy, programmes, institutions and initiatives taken by MoEF to address water pollution in India. We also sought to examine availability of data regarding water pollution, assessment of risks to health and environment
and sustainability of measures to address water pollution in India. Finally, we also examined whether the efforts to clean up rivers and lakes in India have lead to any improvements in water quality. Our audit examination extended to 140 projects across 24 polluted stretches of rivers, 22 lakes and 116 blocks across 25 States of India.

After examining the findings, CAG concluded:
Inventory of water sources has not been prepared and the overall status of quality of water in rivers, lakes and groundwater has not been adequately assessed in India;

Risks of polluted water to health of living organisms and the impact on environment have been not been adequately assessed;

Adequate policies, legislations and programmes have not been formulated and effective institutions have not been put into place for pollution prevention, treatment and restoration of polluted water in rivers, lakes and ground water;

Programmes for pollution prevention, treatment and restoration of polluted water in rivers, lakes and ground water have not been planned, implemented and monitored efficiently and effectively;

Funds were not utlised in an efficient and economic manner to further the aim of reduction of water pollution;

Adequate mechanisms have not been put in place by the government to sustain measures to tackle water pollution; and

Programmes for the control of pollution have not succeeded in reducing pollution levels in ground water and surface water and restoring water quality.

CAG recommends

MoEF/States, in the policy on water pollution, need to specifically take into account
prevention and control of water pollution as well as ecological restoration of degraded
water bodies.

MoEF/CPCB should initiate steps, along with Ministry of Water Resources and all the
States to draw up a comprehensive inventory of all rivers, lakes and ground water
sources in India. It should also undertake a survey to list all the keystone species
associated with each river and lake in India. This should also be placed in the public
domain.

MoEF/CPCB should intensify its efforts in developing biological indicators which would
shed light on whether the functional integrity of aquatic ecosystems are safeguarded.

MoEF should take into account the basin approach while planning for reduction of
pollution of all rivers and lakes in the country.

With respect to lakes, all three attributes of the lake, i.e., the basin, the water body and
the command area need to be conserved instead of the present focus of NLCP on the
water body only.

MoEF needs to establish enforceable water quality standards for lakes, rivers and ground
water that would help protect human and ecosystem health. Penalties need to be levied
for violations of water quality standards. Further, MoEF, in conjunction with Ministry of
Agriculture, needs to develop standards for pollutants like nitrogen, phosphorus etc.,
which arise from agricultural practices, use of pesticides and fertilisers as pollution from
agricultural sources is one of the biggest non-point source of pollution.

The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission is already funding sewerage
projects in some of the same States where funds are being provided by MoEF for the
same purpose. It needs to focus on projects which seek to regenerate and conserve the
river instead of those which focus largely on treatment of sewage. MoEF/States should
conceive programmes which address different sources of pollution flowing into rivers,
lakes and ground water with focus being not only on prevention of pollution but also
conservation and ecological restoration of our water bodies.

Right now, there are multiple agencies involved in river and lake conservation, right from
planning to implementation and monitoring. There is a need to consolidate all these
functions under an umbrella agency for better coordination and accountability.

In conjunction with the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), MoEF and the State
should plan drainage for the city as a whole instead of piecemeal approval of random
STPs and I&Ds. Further, funding for these projects should come from MoUD as the
implementing agencies work under the control of MoUD. MoEF should be involved in the
design stage and in monitoring the treated effluents if they are being discharged into the
river.

MoEF/States need to ensure that projects for source control of all kind of pollutants
entering the lakes is included in projects for conservation and restoration of lakes,
especially sewage and agriculture runoff which leads to nutrient over-loading of the lake.

MoEF should ensure that all lakes facing encroachment and resultant filling up are
included in NLCP. Further, all State governments should declare bio-conservation zones
around lakes so that encroachment of shoreline is prevented.

The Water Quality Assessment Authority at the central level and the Water Quality
Review Committee in the States should be revitalized and strengthened so that it can act
as a cross-sectoral nodal body for water pollution issues.

States should involve citizens in proposing and monitoring programmes to control
pollution of rivers and lakes. This will help in mobilizing support in civil society for the
proposed projects and thus the projects will face less resistance from local people.
Citizens Monitoring Committee and Local level lake monitoring committees need to be
constituted to provide feedback for more effective implementation.

MoEF/CPCB, in conjunction with the States, should conduct a city-wise assessment of
the levels of pollution in our rivers and lakes. They should also evaluate the success of
projects undertaken under NRCP in terms of pre-defined indicators developed by
MoEF/CPCB. Such impact assessment should be done in a continuous manner so that
data is generated to judge whether the programme is meeting its stated objectives.

What was the response of Ministry of Environment and Forests to CAG's recommendations?

MoEF in May 2011 constituted a Committee to consider the recommendations/observations
made in the report by Audit and prepared a roadmap for implementation of
recommendations/observations accepted. The Committee consists of representatives of CPCB
and representatives from Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Urban Development and a
representative of CAG. The Committee proposed, inter alia, a time-bound action plan to
address capacity issues related to sewage treatment, an amendment to the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 to link penalties for contravention of the Act, strengthening of Water
Quality Assessment Authority and constitution of a State-level Monitoring Committee.

Read more...

China Aims to Minimize Reliance on Coal, Invests Billions on Energy

China Aims to Minimize Reliance on Coal, Invests Billions on Energy Conservation, Anti-Pollution Measures

By EW News Desk Team | August 27, 2012 12:04 PM EST

The Chinese government has set aside up to 2.37 trillion yuan ($373
billion) for investment into energy conservation and anti-pollution
projects over the next three-and-a-half years, claimed a report by Reuters
on Wednesday, with $155 billion of the money already earmarked for energy
efficient projects that could reduce the nation's reliance on coal.

According to a report by China's State Council, the nation is likely to
reduce the amount of energy it uses to produce every unit of gross domestic
product by 16 percent from 2010 to 2015, while the Ministry of Industry and
Information Technology (MIIT) has also set an overall 21 percent energy
intensity reduction target for industry over the same period.

If all the energy projects work out, the world's second-biggest economy
could also be set for energy savings equal to nearly 670 million tons of
standard coal equivalent energy, added the State Council, who cautioned
numerous industries - including steel and cement manufacturers - to reduce
their energy use per unit of production.

Previously, the Chinese government had also said that it intended to cut
the amount of carbon it emits per unit of economic output by 40-45 percent
by 2020 from 2005 levels. China is the world's largest emitter of
greenhouse gases, producing close to 9.7 billion tons of carbon emissions
last year, or 29 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.

Government officials said they expect China's greenhouse gas emissions to
peak around 2030, as the economy continues to grow.

The latest measures though are seen to improve energy and emission
efficiency, though the total amount of energy used and carbon emitted is
still likely to increase.

Wei Wei, an analyst at West China Securities in Shanghai, told
Bloombergthat the State Council's announcement could see a surge in shares
of environmental protection companies.

"The environmental protection industry is one of the few areas that have
good growth potential in China as the government is increasing investment,"
he said. "Stocks in the sector will do well in a scenario where most
industries are slowing down."

On Wednesday, shares of Hebei Sailhero Environmental Protection High-tech
Co, a leading manufacturer and integrator of environmental monitoring
instrument in China, jumped by the 10 percent daily limit to the highest in
a month in Shenzhen. Shares in Dalian East New Energy Development Co. also
gained by as much as 9.2 percent on the same day, while Hunan Yonker
Environmental Protection Co. saw a 5.9 percent increase in its share price.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/377569/20120827/china-aims-minimize-reliance-coal-invests-billions.htm#.UDz00db8vTB

Read more...

Chlorpyrifos as a possible global POP

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide with a wide variety of crop and non-crop uses. Modelling studies indicate that chlorpyrifos meets Stockholm Convention criteria for persistence under Arctic conditions and it has been found in Arctic ice dating back to 1971. Chlorpyrifos persists in termiticide treatments using high application rates and in freshwater sediment under anaerobic
conditions.

Chlorpyrifos exceeds Stockholm Convention criteria for bioaccumulation with most reported values of log Kow meeting or exceeding 5.0. Chlorpyrifos undergoes long-range transport and has been measured consistently in the Arctic, in ice, snow, fog, air, seawater, lake sediment, fish and vegetation. It is amongst the pollutants with the highest concentrations present in the Arctic, in excess of most legacy POPs pesticides. Chlorpyrifos is highly toxic to aquatic organisms and a potent developmental neurotoxin at low levels of exposure, below those that trigger foetal cholinesterase inhibition.

Chlorpyrifos is an endocrine disrupter with anti-androgenic and oestrogenic properties and reduces serum levels of cortisol and thyroid hormone T4. Exposures in utero and in early childhood can lead to behavioural anomalies in adolescence and adulthood. Epidemiological studies in humans found delayed cognitive and psychomotor development, and reduced IQ. Chlorpyrifos has been detected in human breast milk, cervical fluid, sperm fluid, cord blood, and the meconium of newborn infants.

Chlorpyrifos is released directly to the environment when it is applied as a pesticide. Use of the substance has greatly increased since its introduction in 1965. Alternative techniques for avoiding the use of chlorpyrifos are available for all or most of its uses. These include cultural and mechanical techniques, biological controls and other chemicals. Since chlorpyrifos can move far from its sources, individual countries or regions cannot protect themselves or abate the pollution caused by it. Due to its harmful POP properties and risks related to its widespread production and use, international action is warranted to control chlorpyrifos.

Source: Meriel Watts, For Pesticide Action Network North America
August 2012

Read more...

Toxic metals in E-waste treatment processes

Toxic metals in WEEE: Characterization and substance flow analysis in waste treatment processes

Science of The Total Environment
Masahiro Oguchi, Hirofumi Sakanakura, Atsushi Terazono

Highlights

► Appropriate management of toxic metals contained in WEEE is important during recycling and treatment of WEEE.
► CRT TVs contain large amount of toxic metals with high concentration and thus appropriate management is highly important.
► Mid-sized equipment is a future target for managing toxic metals in WEEE because the total amount is not negligible.
► Changes in the flows of toxic metals will occur when treatment processes are modified to emphasize resource recovery.
► The flows of toxic metals and valuable materials should be managed simultaneously in recycling and treatment of WEEE.

Read more...

India dismantles the tanker 'Exxon Valdez'

The ship caused a major ecological disaster in Alaska in 1989

Scrapping, hand, will last about four months

Ana Gabriela Rojas New Delhi 30 AUG 2012 - 13:06 CET

The tanker 'Exxon Valdez', after the accident, its cargo of oil poured into the bay waters of Prince William Sound, Alaska (USA) in 1989. / AP

He has made his last journey to be dismantled on the beaches of India. That will be the end of the oil tanker Exxon Valdez, which in 1989 spilled nearly 37,000 tons of crude oil in the coast of Alaska (USA), one of the biggest ecological disasters in history.

After learning that the ship, which has changed its name seven times and is now called Oriental N (Oriental Nicety), went to Indian shores, environmentalist Gopal Krishna asked last May to the Indian Supreme Court to stop him. According to Krishna and other activists, were not fulfilled the conditions of the Basel Convention for the rich countries should not export toxic waste to developing countries. The ship contains hazardous substances, including mercury, arsenic and asbestos, they say.

Since early August, the steel colossus lay on the beach where you will be reduced gradually

The Exxon Valdez remained offshore India awaiting the decision of the Court for over three months with his crew of 15 people on board. At the end of June rose state maritime authorities to inspect the boat. And in late July, the Supreme Court decided to accept that the colossus was scrapped by the hands of workers in Alang coast in Gujarat, western India. Since the beginning of the month the steel colossus lay on the beach where you will be reduced gradually take about four months of work by about 500 people. Even among other giant ships, the Exxon Valdez looks impressive with its 228 meters long and over 34,000 tons.

Although it is out of circulation, the ship continues to be potentially hazardous to the environment and the people who scrapped, according to activists. Krishna, who began the legal battle against its dismantling in India and representative of Toxics Watch Alliance, says the oil still has many toxic, but its entry was permitted by corruption.

Be cut piece by piece on the beach itself, by the method known as beaching, which experts say is the cheapest financially, but also the most costly to the environment and that puts them at increased risk to workers. Working conditions in these cemeteries are terrible, because it works without even gloves, helmets or shoes, and most workers are immigrants living in impoverished situation.

Environmentalists say the oil has many toxic substances still inside

Despite being upset with the Supreme Court decision, the environmentalist Krishna, is optimistic: "This is a losing battle, but maybe we will win the war" sentence. In the court order specifies that in the future, the owners vessels die reach India, will have to demonstrate that they were cleansed of toxic materials.

But for now the Exxon Valdez, which has waved American flags, the Marshall Islands, Panama and Sierra Leone, is already on the Indian coast. Thus ends the life of the boat 23 years ago, ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Bay and spilled over 41 million gallons of oil, polluting around 3,000 km of coastline and killing thousands of animals, including seals , pitchforks and different types of birds. The spill also affected fishermen and therefore the economy of the region.

Sold several times, in 2008, the Exxon Valdez was transformed into a cargo ship and in 2010 suffered another serious accident when colliding with another Chinese freighter.

The ship graveyard where you are now is the most ships scrapped worldwide. Since opening in 1983 have been there about 6,000 ships. The steel giants are dismantled by the bare hands of thousands of men, working in sweatshops. Many die due to accidents and toxic substances. Most of these boats-waste including asbestos, heavy metals and paints-end costs.


http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2012/08/30/actualidad/1346324803_640795.html

Read more...

CAG defends Coalgate report, says high end of estimate could be 10 times higher

30 Aug, 2012, 07.13AM IST, Himangshu Watts,ET Bureau

NEW DELHI: Undaunted by sustained criticism from the government, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) is ready to make things even more difficult for the Congress-led administration by arguing that the value of blocks given away to private companies can be pegged 10 times higher than the controversial estimate of Rs 1.86 lakh crore (USD 33 billion).

The auditor is expected to cite the higher number to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament if asked to respond to the barrage of attacks from the Prime minister and his Cabinet colleagues, sources in the CAG office said.

One source said the value of coal blocks given to private parties was estimated conservatively on the basis of the difference between the cost of production (including financing costs) and selling price of Coal India, which translates into a gain of Rs 295.41 per tonne.

"We have been supremely conservative in our calculation. If we had used the price of coal in e-auctions or the landed cost of imports to calculate the gains of private companies, the amount would have been dramatically higher," a CAG source said.

The auditor has already indicated this in a footnote in the report on ultra mega power projects, where it said the cost of coal from e-auctions amounted to Rs 1,782 per tonne on the basis of Coal India data for 2010-11. If this price is used to calculate the value of 6,282.5 million tonnes of coal given to private firms, it would amount to Rs 11.2 lakh crore.

The report also says based on state-run power utility NTPC's data for November 2009, the landed cost of imported coal is Rs 2,874 per tonne. This would translate to a staggering benefit of Rs 18.1 lakh crore.

CAG sources said they had enough ammunition to respond to attempts by the government to rubbish the audit report.

"One minister says that blocks were given free for the sake of economic growth and because Coal India was not producing enough coal. But another minister says the coal has not been mined, so there is no question of any loss. If coal has not been mined, then it defeats the logic of giving away coal on the grounds that CIL is not producing enough," one of the sources said.

"(Further) the asset has been transferred, even if it has not been mined. Is the government admitting that when the coal is mined, there will be a loss?" the source added.

CAG sources also disagreed with criticism that the auditor was delving deep into policy matters.

Read more...

Venkatesh Murthy, Mayor of Bangalore dumps Mavallipura landfill

Accepting the demand of communities impacted by the municipal solid waste management land fill operated by M/s Ramky at Mavallipura, that the landfill closure order issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) would be respected, in a momentous decision, Mayor of Bangalore Shri. Venkatesh Murthy Mayor committed to initiating criminal action against the operator for serious violations of contractual obligations, non compliance with various environmental and social standards, and for contaminating soil and water in Mavallipura and surrounding villages.

The Mayor conceded that a decade of pollution in this region (caused by the accumulated waste of 40 lakhs tonnes in the Ramky landfill and an earlier one handled by Bailappa) has completely devastated the environmental quality of the region to such an extent, that the water has turned toxic and unpotable. The Mayor also confirmed that he would present to the Council the need to compensate those suffering from various chronic illnesses caused by the pollution and to families of 8 people who have lost their lives already. In addition he has conceded that the Waste to Energy project proposed by Ramky at the Mavallipura site will be abandoned. Local villagers also raised concerns that various fabricated criminal cases have been filed against them for protesting pollution and this was also taken on record. It was finally decided that a Joint Committee of BBMP and KSPCB officials and representatives of local communities, and the report will be presented to the Council for effective action soon.

The meeting was attended by Shri. Vishwanath, Member of Legislative Assembly (Yelahanaka), in whose electoral jurisdiction Mavallipura is located, the Deputy Mayor Shri. Srinivas and witnessed the active participation of various Corporators, representatives of political parties, progressive movements, farmers leaders, etc. Shri. Nagaraj, Shri. Srinivas and Shri. Ramesh of Dailt Sangarsh Samithi (Coordination) led the delegation of affected villagers that included local Panchayat members and families of those who have lost their lives.

It may be recalled that the KSPCB had issued a closure order on 11 July 2012 (accessible here), on grounds that Ramky had operated the landfill without any consent from the Board and in comprehensive violation of the Environment Protection Act and the Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules. The Board had directed Ramky to comprehensively clean up about 22 lakh tonnes (2.2 million) of waste lying in the 48 acres landfill within three months, but the operator failed to comply with this direction as well. This decision of the Board has been supported by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests in its letter of 16 July 2012 (details here).

Last week, Shri. Ashokaa, Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister of Karnataka pushed reopening of the Ramky landfill by deploying over 600 police to beat back resistance from the villagers. His reasoning was that there was nowhere else to dump the waste. Local communities argued that the city must learn to segregate waste at source and not resort to dumping in villages destroying lives, livelihoods and the environment. In the melee that ensued, 37 year old Srinivas protesting the reopening of the landfill, died of cardiac arrest. He leaves behind a young family with three small children.

In consideration of this situation, the High Court of Karnataka directed BBMP in response to a Public Interest Litigation that it must prepare a plan of action in 3 days to sustainably manage waste without resorting to dumping on villages. As the High Court observed villagers have a Fundamental Right to a Clean Environment and that cannot be jeopardised by the 5000 tonnes of waste that is produced daily by the city and dumped in various legal and illegal landfills in surrounding villages. They Court also observed that villagers are right in protesting such waste dumping. Hit by this observation, with nowhere to dump the waste and with garbage accumulating all over the city, BBMP has been hunting out various private plots and abandoned quarries to dispose the waste. This is clearly an unsustainable solution and is not in conformance with law and norms.

Sustainable solutions are pending attention of BBMP

Such a crisis could have been completely avoided if BBMP had comprehensively adopted the standards and norms of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2000 and the direction of the Supreme Court that the standards contained in the Rules will be implemented by 2003. Over the past several years, many not-for-profit voluntary organisations have systematically worked with BBMP to develop sustainable and comprehensive waste management solutions based on segregation of waste at source, by reworking door-to-door contracting to enable recovery of value of recyclable material in the local area and ensuring that only inert material that has absolutely no value is disposed. Such engagements have informed the development of the Draft Policy on Integrated Solid Waste Management by BBMP. It is critical that this policy is adopted immediately and without any further delay.

To support BBMP out of its current mess, various voluntary organisations working on solid waste management initiatives have come together to formulate simple and pragmatic Guiding Principles to Sustainably manage Bangalore's solid waste based on segregation of waste at source. These guiding principles will inform actions that can be immediately deployed, which require no major reworking of infrastructure, will save money and also benefit public health and the environment.

For Details Contact: Environment Support Group
www.esgindia.org, Tel: 91-80-26713559 Voice/Fax: 91-80-26713316

Read more...

Welcome to waste

V. VENKATESAN, Frontline,
Volume 29 - Issue 17: Aug. 25-Sep. 07, 2012

The Supreme Court order allowing the dismantling of a U.S. ship at Alang makes a mockery of India’s commitment to the Basel Convention.



The U.S. ship Oriental Nicety, formerly Exxon Valdez, when it was anchored off the coast near the Alang ship-breaking yard in Gujarat on June 30.
(AP)
The ship-breaking industry in India had the last laugh when on July 30 a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and J. Chelameswar permitted the ship Oriental Nicety (formerly known as Exxon Valdez) to beach and its owner, M/s Best Oasis Ltd, to proceed with its dismantling at Alang, Gujarat. The end-of-life ship from the United States was involved in one of the worst oil spills in the U.S.: it struck a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989 and dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into the sea. The ship was purchased in March 2012 by a U.S.-based company, Global Marketing Systems (GMS), one of the biggest buyers of dead ships. GMS sold it to Best Oasis for about $16 million. The ship had changed flags, from the U.S. to Panama and later to Sierra Leone. But it appears that the validity of the period with Sierra Leone has already expired, and it is now a flagless ship.

According to Gopal Krishna, an activist of the Toxic Watch Alliance (TWA), this is akin to what happened in the case of the Danish ship Riky, which entered Indian waters in 2005 under the flag of a country (Roxa) that does not exist. Riky was dismantled at Alang even though the case against its beaching and dismantling is pending in the Supreme Court. In the case of Riky, the TWA has documentation to show that the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests under the former Minister A. Raja had rejected the suggestion from the Danish government that Riky not be allowed into Indian waters and dismantled at Alang because of the presence of hazardous materials on the ship.

End-of-life ships have scrap steel, mechanical parts and other valuable equipment that are recycled or refurbished for use in other industries. But they also contain an array of hazardous materials, such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and waste oils, which, according to the Basel Convention, can have serious implications for the environment and human life if not managed properly. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was adopted on March 22, 1989. It came into force on May 5, 1992. India ratified it on June 24, 1992.

The Supreme Court’s order created much consternation among environmental activists, who had hoped that the court in accordance with the Basel Convention would refuse the ship permission to be beached. According to the convention, there should be prior decontamination of the ship by the country of export and prior permission from the country of import for the ship to enter its territorial waters. Secondly, the country of export of the ship is required to inform the country of import of the movement of the ship in question and certify that it is non-hazardous and non-toxic. The Supreme Court was informed by Gopal Krishna that such intimation had not been given and the Oriental Nicety had not been certified to be free of hazardous and toxic substances.

There is evidence to show that the ship first entered Indian territorial waters without permission from India and without decontamination in the U.S. and then the permission of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) was sought to allow the ship to beach for the purpose of dismantling. In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the GMB claimed that it had inspected the vessel, which was converted from an oil tanker to a bulk carrier in 2008, and that there was no sign of any hazardous/toxic substance on board.

The Supreme Court, in an order on September 6, 2007, recommended the formulation of a comprehensive code to govern the procedure to be adopted to allow ships to enter Indian territorial waters and to beach at any Indian port for the purpose of dismantling. However, until such code came into force, the court had empowered the GMB, the concerned State Pollution Control Board, officials of the Customs Department, the National Institute of Occupational Health, and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) to oversee the arrangements. Thus, the failure to evolve a code became an excuse for these authorities to give the shipowner permission to beach at Alang and to ignore the requirements under the Basel Convention.

On July 30, the Supreme Court was faced with a fait accompli: the ship had already entered Indian waters and had been certified by the GMB, the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Customs authorities and the AERB as being free of hazardous substances. The court noted that the owner of the vessel was incurring a lot of demurrage each day while waiting for the beaching and dismantling and, therefore, permitted the ship to be beached and dismantled even though the Basel Convention had not been complied with.

A view of the Alang-Sosiya ship-breaking yard in the vicinity of Meethi Virdi village in Bhavnagar district, some 260 km from Ahmedabad. A May 2011 photograph. End-of-life ships yield not only scrap steel, mechanical parts and other valuable equipment but also hazardous materials such as asbestos, PCBs and waste oils.
(SAM PANTHAKY/AFP)
The Bench added, however: “[I]n all future cases of a similar nature, the concerned authorities shall strictly comply with the norms laid down in the Basel Convention or any other subsequent provisions that may be adopted by the Central Government in aid of a clean and pollution-free maritime environment, before permitting entry of any vessel suspected to be carrying toxic and hazardous material into Indian territorial waters.” Had this part of the order been applied in the present case, the ship should have been sent back without beaching and dismantling at Alang. Therefore, the exception the court made in this case appears unjustified, if not inexplicable. The court has granted permission for the ship to anchor without even looking at the inventory submitted by the owner for the purpose of verification.

That the court was not sure about the absence of toxic and hazardous substances on the ship is clear from paragraph 13 of the July 30 order: “It is made clear that if any toxic wastes embedded in the ship structure are discovered during its dismantling, the concerned authorities shall take immediate steps for their disposal at the cost of the owner of the vessel, M/s Best Oasis Ltd, or its nominee or nominees.” According to Gopal Krishna, none of the concerned authorities had given an inventory to the court about the hazardous waste contained in the body of the ship, and none of them had said anything about any hazardous waste that the ship might contain in loose form.(Hazardous substances in the structure of the ship was/is the core issue)

In a press release, he said: “Industrialised countries like USA should not be allowed to dump their junk into developing countries like India on account of easy availability of vulnerable and disposable workforce and an alien coastal ecosystem. The eagerness to profit from one of the world’s dirtiest industries, the dismantling of toxic ships by migrant and casual workers from Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Odisha at Alang beach, is fraught with disastrous environmental and occupational health consequences.”

According to a report, people in Alaska are happy that the ship is to be broken in Asia. They should be thanking the Indian Supreme Court for facilitating it.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120907291704700.htm

Read more...

Protests outside Vedanta's London AGM call for an end to British support for their pollution, corruption and murder in India, Zambia and London

Global day of action at four of Vedanta's projects draws attention to illegalities, workers deaths and large scale pollution.

Protesters from Foil Vedanta, South Asia Solidarity Group, Save Goa Campaign and other organizations are picketing the AGM of controversial FTSE 100 mining company Vedanta at the Lincoln Centre, London on 28th August. In Goa, Tamil Nadu and Orissa in India, and Chingola in Zambia parallel demonstrations involving hundreds of people affected by the company's activities is scheduled.

Vedanta have been named the 'world's most hated company' by the Independent newspaper for their long list of environmental and human rights crimes for which they are being opposed all over the world[1]. Most famously Vedanta's plan to mine a mountain sacred to the Dongria Kondh tribe in Orissa, India, has led to mass protests and the Bank of England among others pulling out investments.

Protesters in London are coordinating with activists at four of Vedanta's most damaging projects to highlight some of the other major scandals surrounding the company:

In Goa thousands of villagers affected by Vedanta subsidiary Sesa Goa's pig iron plant in Amona took to the streets on August 27. They were protesting a major pollution incident in which houses in the area were swamped with black powder from the plant just last weekend[2]. Sesa Goa have also caused toxic mine waste floods and are accused of large scale fraud (1). Environmental activist Claude Alvares, who was involved in the demo, comments;

“Vedanta is committed to turning Goa into a graveyard in which it will bury not just the Goans but their environment as well. Almost every mining lease Vedanta is operating violates some environment or mining law, from mining in excess of environment limits to overloading its trucks to distress ordinary folk on Goa's roads in the mining belt. The company violates its environment clearance conditions with impunity.“(2)

In Tamil Nadu activists are drawing attention to the major violations of the Tuticorin copper smelter where 16 workers died between 2007 and 2011. The plant has been shut down by the state courts twice for having no permission to operate and for major pollution incidents.
In Orissa demonstrations of Dongria Kondh people alongside farmers and villagers are opposing mining of the Niyamgiri hills for the Lanjigarh alumina refinery. They have fought a seven year battle which has so far prevented the mine, leading this week to a major lack of bauxite for Vedanta, who are now being pressured to close the plant in view of their huge losses[3].
In Zambia residents of Chingola are protesting the ongoing contamination of their water supply by Vedanta subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines who were already fined $2 million in 2011 for turning the Kafue river green with copper pollution. Edward Lange of Southern Africa Resource Watch comments:

"The Kafue river in Chingola on many occasions has been heavily polluted by Konkola copper mines (KCM). Today the river has virtually no form of life in its waters. The boreholes are rarely used by the local Shimulala community because they contain Copper, Iron, Acid and other dangerous minerals. "

Protesters in London are confronting Vedanta’s shareholders and its CEO Anil Agarwal with a 30 foot long banner proclaiming ‘Vedanta: Olympic Champion in Murder, Pollution and Corruption’, and placards with slogans such as ‘Anil Agarwal Wanted for Murders and Environmental Crimes!’. They are drawing attention to recent news including:

Vedanta's involvement in a major coal scam currently rocking the Indian government (3).
Accusations in the British parliament that Vedanta has given the FTSE 100 a bad name.(4)
British Government's ongoing support for Vedanta through DfID, and even David Cameron, who were recently revealed to have forced through a deal to buy out energy company Cairn India by pressuring the Indian Government[4].
Resignation of the whole of Cairn India's senior management since Vedanta's takeover.[5]
Vedanta's ten billion dollar debt crisis.(5)
Vedanta's continued donations to India’s two main political parties, the ruling Congress and the right-wing Hindu nationalist BJP[6]. Under the name Anil Agarwal foundation, it also supports projects such the Krishna Avanti school in London run by the I foundation which has close links to the Hindu supremacist groups.

Amrit Wilson (South Asia Solidarity Group and Foil Vedanta) says:

“This year the list of Vedanta’s atrocities is longer than ever before and there are massive popular struggles against it in India and Zambia. Like the notorious Lonmin in South Africa, Vedanta is bringing shame on the London Stock Exchange. Isn’t it time they were deleted from it? We call on the British government to stop backing this lawless and murderous corporate.”

Notes to editors:
Contact: Miriam Rose: 07765 501687 miriam.rose@che.ac.uk
or if unreachable: Amrit Wilson 07857017749 or Zuky Serper 07951476093
Foil Vedanta www.foilvedanta.org
1) Vedanta and its subsidiary Sesa Goa are also implicated in an Early Day Motion tabled by John McDonnell MP and signed by 9 other MPs criticizing mining practices in Goa and urging that the British government intervene to prevent further damage[7]. In addition to large scale fraud and illegal mining Vedanta was held responsible for pit wall collapse which drowned a village in toxic mine waste last year. As environmental experts have noted if such activities do not stop Goa may well lose its Heritage status.
2) Full quote from Claude Alvares, Director of Goa Foundation:
“Never have I seen a company so obsessed with profits that it cannot see the beauty of the place it has settled on to destroy. At the moment, the company has in fact speeded up its mineral extraction because it fears the climate in Goa may turn against mining forever or it may face as grave a setback as its mines in Bellary, Karnataka. Goa government must takeover Vedanta's mines in retaliation for the environmental havoc this company's operations have caused. Almost every mining lease Vedanta is operating violates some environment or mining law, from mining in excess of environment limits to overloading its trucks to distress ordinary folk on Goa's roads in the mining belt. The company violates its environment clearance conditions with impunity. At the helm in Goa is a BJP government which has acknowledged that its party got funding from Vedanta in excess of Rs.400 crores. What chance do those without cash (mother nature included) have in the circumstances?”
3) Vedanta stands accused of corruption in the gigantic CAG report Coal scam which is currently rocking the government of Manmohan Singh. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report, coal blocks allocation by the government of India between 2004 and 2006 ‘was not transparent’ and the delay in competitive bidding led to huge losses for the state while firms including Vedanta, Tatas, Jindals, Laxmi Mittal’s Arcelor were among the beneficiaries[8].
4) Vedanta was described in Parliament by Labour MP Lisa Nandy as ‘one of the companies that have been found guilty of gross violations of human rights’ . Ms Nandy in her speech quoted Richard Lambert the former Director General of the CBI: ‘It never occurred to those of us who helped to launch the FTSE 100 index 27 years ago that one day it would be providing a cloak of respectability and lots of passive investors for companies that challenge the canons of corporate governance such as Vedanta…’ [9]
5) Credit Suissie Group says $10 billion debt is the reason for Vedanta's recent attempt to merge two of its subsidiaries Sesa Goa and Sterlite to create a so-called ‘corporate rubbish bin’.’ Sesa Sterlite, as the new company will be known, will, according to the analysts ‘have a market capitalization of about $20 billion, making it big enough to house Vedanta's unwanted assets’ and also ‘the recently acquired 38.8% stake in Indian oil company Cairn India Ltd., and, more importantly, the $5.9 billion of Vedanta debt linked to the stake. In it, too, goes Vedanta's 70% stake in Vedanta Aluminum, a money-losing operation that has about $4 billion of debt’[10].

[1] 'http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/vedanta-resources-the-worlds-most-hated-company-2037977.html
[2] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-20/goa/33286643_1_villagers-pig-iron-plant-pollution
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/article3826991.ece[3] http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/vedanta-may-temporarily-shut-down-odisha-refinery-/483954/
[4] http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/environment/secret-state-lobbying-for-scots-energy-giant.17637007?_=b01e9da15ba25ee1f9aa58e1ea0d4bb75f039d33
[5] http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/CorporateNews/Vedanta-takeover-aftermath-Cairn-India-CEO-quits/Article1-910439.aspx
[6] http://www.targetgoa.com/inbox_d.php?id=87
[7] http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/409
[8] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/coalgate-caused-a-loss-of-rs-186-lakh-crore-cag/282348-37-64.html
[9] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120522/debtext/120522-0002.htm
[10] http://www.thedeal.com/content/restructuring/vedanta-reshuffle-creates-corporate-rubbish-bin.php

Read more...

PROTEST AGAINST SUZUKI

Read more...

Row over report on Carbide site water

A cruel joke has been played out at the expense of the Bhopal victims of the world’s worst industrial disaster. The Supreme Court had ordered the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to file a report on the status of the ground water contamination at the Union Carbide plant site in Bhopal by June 4, 2012.

The CPCB has treated this entire exercise in a rather lackadaisical fashion and from the six samples tested by them, five were taken from the drinking water supply of the Bhopal Municipal Corporation. The sixth sample was taken from a borewell dug in Street No. 8 and being used by the Ayasha Hotel at Arif Nagar in Bhopal.

The CPCB then arrived at the conclusion that “it had observed that the water quality (of all the six samples taken) was within the limit of drinking water”, and this is part of the information they have submitted in their affidavit to the Supreme Court.

Activists are up in arms against the affidavit, especially since the Union Carbide factory dealt with several toxic substances. A study undertaken by the Hyderabad-based Indian Institute of Chemical Technology way back in 1996 had highlighted the presence of heavy metals, including cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese nickel and zinc, in the wastes dumped in the factory premises.

A subsequent study conducted by Greenpeace had found concentrations of carbon tetrachloride, tricholroethane and other poisons in the ground water.

The CPCB submission before the court also mentioned that (following the court direction) they have requisitioned the services of the Lucknow-based Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IITR) to study the whole issue of ground water contamination in greater depth.
But here again, Gopal Krishna of ToxicsWatch Alliance, who is closely monitoring the case, pointed out, “The CPCB had contacted IITR to undertake this study on January 24, 2012, which is two months prior to the court order. Surprisingly, they have asked them to follow the guidelines of the Nagpur-based National Environment Engineering Research Institute report on this same issue.”

Eyebrows are being raised on even this directive since NEERI was forced to revise the findings of its first report which had state that the groundwater flow of the acquifers was in a north east direction.

They revised this to state the flow was in both a north-east and north-west direction but experts have now come round to accept their earlier findings as being correct.

Rashme Sehgal
The Asian Age
Source URL: http://www.asianage.com/india/row-over-report-carbide-site-water-610

Read more...

CBI probe demnaded into garbage contracting system in Bangalore

Residents of Mavallipura have decided to protest starting 9 am on 24th August 2012 (Thursday) demanding a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the entire garbage contracting system in Bangalore.

The villagers accuse Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bangalore's civic agency) of having perpetuated a system that is causing waste to be transported tens of miles for dumping into surrounding villages and that the beneficiaries contractors running garbage trucks. This system makes people in Bangalore believe that their waste is being taken care of, when in fact it is actually poisoning the lives and livelihoods of villages around the city.

Hundreds of villagers from Mavallipura and surrounding villages will gather at Yelahanka General Hospital (15 kms to the north of Bangalore) to pay their respects for the departed Srinivas, who died earlier on August 23 while protesting the massive police deployment to illegally and forcibly open the Mavallipura landfill (closed by regulator KSPCB for massive violations). With consent from of Srinivas's family, they have resolved not to cremate his remains till such time the Government invites the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe all garbage handling contracts awarded by BBMP.

ToxicsWatch Alliance expresses its solidarity with communities affected by Bangalore's waste.

For further details please contact:

B. Srinivas, Member, Shivakote Panchayat and Coordinator, Dalit Sangarsh Samithi (Samyojaka). Cell: 9448174834 hari1975@gmail.com

M. Ramesh, Member, Gantiganahalli Panchayat and Coordinator, Dalit Sangarsh Samithi (Samyojaka). Cell: 9945512203

Ashok, 944992448

In solidarity with the people of Mavallipura

Read more...

Performance Audit on Activities of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)

Report No. - 9 of 2012-13 for the period ended March 2012 - Performance Audit on Activities of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (Department of Atomic Energy)

Why did CAG decide to examine the issue of activities of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board?
Radiation and radioactive substances have many beneficial applications, ranging from power
generation to uses in medicine, industry and agriculture. At the same time, the risks of
radiation that may arise from these applications to the people working in these fields, the
general public and the environment are enormous and therefore, need to be assessed and
controlled effectively. Since radiation risks can transcend national borders, international cooperation is essential to promote and enhance global safety by exchanging experiences as well as by improving capabilities for controlling hazards, preventing accidents, responding to emergencies and mitigating any harmful consequences.

In India, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) was set up in 1983 under the Atomic
Energy Act 1962 to carry out certain regulatory and safety functions envisaged under the
Atomic Energy Act.

The national and international regulatory scenario and criticality of he issue of radiation risks and safety us to undertake a study of the structure and status of AERB and the
effectiveness of its role as the nuclear regulator of India.

What were CAG's audit objectives?
The objectives of this performance audit were to examine whether:
i. AERB has the necessary legal status,authority,independence and adequate mandate to
fulfil the responsibilities expected of a nuclear regulator.
ii. AERB,keeping in view the international recommendations and local requirements,has
been able to develop safety policies in nuclear,radiological and industrial safety areas as
well as safety codes, guides and standards for siting, designing, constructing,
commissioning,operating and decommissioning different types of nuclear and radiation
facilities.
iii. AERB has been able to regulate nuclear and other radiation utilities through a system of
consents effectively.
iv. AERB has ensured compliance of the prescribed regulatory requirements by nuclear
power plants, other nuclear facilities and radiation facilities through a system of
efficient regulatory inspection and enforcement.
v. AERB is monitoring and discharging its responsibilities relating to radiation exposure to
occupational workers and members of the public and release of radioactive substances
in the environment in an efficient and effective manner.
vi. emergency preparedness plans are in place for nuclear and radiation facilities and
during transport of large radioactive sources,irradiated fuel and fissile material.
vii. adequate and effective regulatory systems exist in the country for decommissioning of
nuclear and radiation facilities and creation of decommissioning reserves.
viii. the regulator has taken adequate measures for maintaining liaison with international
bodies dealing with nuclear regulatory issues.

What did CAG's performance audit reveal?

It revealed that:

Regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation facilities

Although international commitments,good practices and internal expert committees’ recommendations were available,the legal status of AERB continued to be that of an authority subordinate to the Central Government,with powers delegated to it by the latter.
AERB did not have the authority for framing or revising the rules relating to nuclear and radiation safety. The maximum amounts of fines were too low to serve as deterrents
against offences/contraventions related to nuclear and radiation facilities which involve substantial risks. Further, AERB had no role in deciding the quantum of penalties and no powers with regard to imposition of the same. (Paragraph2.3,2.5,2.8)

Development of safety policy, standards, codes and guides

AERB failed to prepare a nuclear and radiation safety policy for the country in spite of a specific mandate in its Constitution Order of 1983.

The absence of such a policy at a macro level can hamper micro level planning of radiation safety in the country.

AERB had not developed 27 safety documents despite recommendations of the Meckoni Committee in 1987 and the Raja Ramanna Committee in 1997 to expedite development of safety documents. There were significant delays in development of the safety documents test checked in audit.
(Paragraph3.1,3.2)

Consents

The consenting process and system for monitoring and renewal were found to be weak in respect of radiation facilities. This led to a substantial number of units of radiation facilities operating without valid licences. Non availability of basic licence documents in files also indicated deficiencies in the maintenance of important consent files.
Around 91 percent of the medical X ray facilities in the country had not been registered with AERB and, as such, were out of its regulatory control.

The Supreme Court had directed(2001)the setting up of a Directorate of Radiation Safety(DRS)in each State for regulating the use of medical diagnostic X rays.However,as on date(July2012),out of 28 States and seven Union territories, DRS had been set up only in Kerala and Mizoram.

AERB had not framed any rules to prescribe and fix the fees for recovery of the cost of services rendered for the regulatory and consenting process,as a result of which, it had to bear the cost of the consenting process. (Paragraph 4.2 & 4.3)

Compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements

Frequencies of regulatory inspections had not been prescribed for radiation facilities. In the absence of any benchmarks laid down by AERB, we compared the performance of AERB in carrying out such inspections of radiation facilities with the periodicity (lowest frequency
from range)suggested by IAEA TECDOC1 and observed that:

AERB had not conducted 85 percent regulatory inspections for both industrial radiography and radiotherapy units, even though these were identified as having a high radiation hazard potential.

There was a shortfall of over 97 percent in the inspection in the case of diagnostic radiology facilities every year which showed that AERB was not exercising effective regulatory oversight over units related to the health of the public.

AERB had failed to enforce safety provisions and compliance with its own stipulations even when its attention was specifically drawn to deficiencies in the case of units in Kerala.
(Paragraph5.2,5.6)

Radiation protection
The functions of monitoring of radiological exposure as well as the responsibility of radiological surveillance of Nuclear Power Plants(NPPs) lay with the operators of NPPs.Consequently,AERB had no direct role in conducting independent assessments and monitoring to ensure radiological protection of workers despite being the nuclear regulator of India.

AERB did not have a detailed inventory of all radiation sources to ensure effective compliance of regulations for safe disposal of disused sources.

There were no proper mechanisms in place to ensure/verify that:

radioactive waste had actually been disposed off safely after utilisation.

the sources for which consents for transport of radioactive material

for safe disposalhadbeen given, had really been disposed off or not.

1 IAEA Technical Documents

Emergency preparedness for nuclear and radiation facilities


Decommissioning of nuclear and radiation facilities the radioactive sources did not get out of regulatory control. The regulatory response mechanism to trace and discover lost and/or
orphan radioactive sources in the country was not effective.(Paragraph6.3,6.4)

On-site emergency preparedness plans were being put in place by the Plant Managements of NPPs and nuclear fuel cycle facilities were being tested by them.Though actual periodic exercises prescribed, based on various types of emergencies were conducted by them, AERB only
reviewed the reports of these exercises and did not directly associate
itself in these exercises,even as observers.

Off site emergency exercises carried out highlighted inadequate emergency preparedness.Further,AERB was not empowered to secure compliance of corrective measures suggested by it.

No specific codes on emergency preparedness plans for radiation facilities such as industrial radiography, radiotherapy and gamma chambers etc had been brought out although the hazard potential of these were rated as high. (Paragraph7.3,7.4)

There was no legislative framework in India for decommissioning of nuclear power plants and AERB did not have any mandate except prescribing of codes,guides and safety manuals on decommissioning.

Even after the lapse of 13 years from the issue of the Safety Manual relating to decommissioning by AERB,none of the NPPs in the country, including those operating for30 years and those which had been shut down,had a decommissioning plan.

Neither the Atomic Energy Act,1962 nor the Rules framed thereunder had any provision for creation of decommissioning reserves by the utilities. Besides, AERB had no role to play in ensuring availability of adequate funds. (Paragraph8.2,8.3,8.4)

Maintaining liaisons with international bodies dealing with nuclear regulatory issues

Although AERB maintained liaisons with international nuclear organisations, it was slow in adopting international benchmarks and good practices in the areas of nuclear and radiation operation.

AERB had not yet availed of the opportunity of the peer review and appraisal services of IAEA to get its regulatory framework and its effectiveness reviewed by them.
(Paragraph9.2,9.3)

What does CAG recommend?

The Government may ensure that the nuclear regulator is empowered and independent.For this purpose, it should be created in law and should be able to exercise necessary authority in the setting of regulations,verification of compliance with the regulations and enforcement of the same in the cases of non compliance.

The maximum amount of fines leviable as per the Atomic Energy Act may be reviewed and AERB as the regulator, may be empowered to take recourse to a range of remedies, including penalties proportionate to the severity of the violations.

A nuclear and radiation safety policy may be framed in a time bound manner.

The 27 codes and guides required for nuclear and radiation safety,out of which were identified in 2001,may be developed expeditiously.

The licensing process for radiation facilities maybe strengthened to bring all the
radiation facilities in the country under the regulatory control of AERB.

The process of setting up Directorates of Radiation Safety in all the States as per
the Supreme Court directive may be speeded up.

AERB may frame rules for levying suitable fees for recovering the cost of the consenting process from licensees and the amounts of levies so made should be reviewed and revised from time to time.

AERB may strengthen the processes of regulatory inspections of nuclear and radiation facilities by:

prescribing periodicities of regulatory inspections by conducting risk analyses and keeping international benchmarks for such inspections in view;

undertaking regulatory inspections in terms of the norms prescribed by IAEA for radiation facilities;

stipulating the timely issuance of regulatory inspection reports and securing compliance thereof.

The regulatory role of AERB may be strengthened by bringing the monitoring agencies viz. Health Physics Units, Environmental Survey Laboratories etc. under the direct control of AERB.

AERB may strengthen its system to ensure continuous updating of its inventory of all radiation sources till date to prevent radioactive sources from going out of regulatory control and ensure safe disposal of disused sources.

AERB may be more closely associated with onsite emergency preparedness exercises.

The Government may set up clear timelines within which NPPs, which are in operation and those which are in the course of being setup,should prepare and obtain approval for their decommissioning plans.

The financial arrangements for decommissioning may be laid down more clearly and the decommissioning charges reviewed on a periodic basis with a view to ensuring their adequacy.

AERB may avail of the peer review and appraisal services of IAEA to help make the nuclear regulatory infrastructure effective and sustainable.

What was the response of the Department of Atomic Energy to CAG's recommendations?

The Department of Atomic Energy acknowledged the concerns highlighted by us. While
there were no specific assurances giving time-lines within which our recommendations
would be acted upon,we were assured that these were being looked into.

Read more...

Hazardous Waste Trade Scam and subordinate legislation for hazardous waste management sans legislative mandate

To

Shri P. Karunakaran,
Chairman
Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Subordinate Legislation
Parliament of India
New Delhi

Through Shri Sukhi Chand Chaudhary, Director, PSC on Subordinate Legislation

Subject- Hazardous Waste Trade Scam and subordinate legislation for hazardous waste management sans legislative mandate

Sir,

This is with reference my letter to you dated March 25, 2012, the recent Supreme Court order in Writ Petition (Civil) No 657 of 1995 and the ongoing compromise with the sovereignty of the country by the ministries of Commerce, Finance, Steel, Environment and Shipping Ministry who appear to have become subservient to global hazardous waste traders and ship owners.

I submit that import of wastes is happening by indulging in linguistic corruption in the Hazardous Waste Management Rules. It is least acknowledged but remains one of the biggest ongoing scams of the country and source of black money. It also poses threat to national security.

I submit that this is happening unmindful of the National Environment Policy that acknowledges that “Environmental factors are estimated as being responsible in some cases for nearly 20 percent of the burden of disease in India".

I submit that hazardous wastes laden end-of-life ships entering/ or have entered in the Indian territorial waters without prior informed consent and without prior decontamination keeping in view the environmental principles despite Supreme Court's order. Some 6000 such dead ships reached Alang beach since 1982 and have been dismantled unmindful of the contamination fragile coastal environment and destruction of fishermen’s livelihood. Most of these obsolete ships enter Indian waters on fake documents.

I submit that the Supreme Court has recently allowed the US toxic ship Exxon Valdez, which had caused one of the worst US oil spills in Alaska over two decades ago, to be dismantled in the country but required the owner to pay for disposal of any toxic materials found on the ship. The ship entered Indian waters in May this year to be broken down for valuable parts. This caused huge protests and even the apex court was moved to stop the ship from being dismantled in India without prior decontamination of hazardous wastes in the country of export. This happened because Environment Ministry, Gujarat Maritime Board and Gujarat Pollution Control Board misled the Court. This merits a legislative probe.

I submit that concluding the 15 page judgment of July 30, 2012 in the matter of end of life US ship Exxon Valdez, Justice Altamas Kabir headed bench of Supreme Court has directed that "...in all future cases of a similar nature, the concerned authorities shall strictly comply with the norms laid down in the Basel Convention or any other subsequent provisions that may be adopted by the Central Government in aid of a clean and pollution free maritime environment, before permitting entry of any vessel suspected to be carrying toxic and hazardous material into Indian territorial waters.

I submit that unmindful of this order agencies in the Gujarat State in connivance with some central environment ministry officials appear to be violating the Court's order with impunity as is apparent from the attached news report "MoEF clarifies SC ruling, calms rattled Alang shipbreakers" (Indian Express, August 2012). This merits inquiry.

I submit that in 2011-12, the country reclaimed its lost position as the world’s largest ship-breaking nation with its yards in Alang and elsewhere demolishing no less than 415 ships. Most ship-breaking companies in India, however, do not follow sufficient precautions, exposing workers and the environment to toxic materials. They have turned the beaches of Alang and Bhavnagar in Gujarat into poisonous holes. Sadly, the Government has done precious little to prevent the transformation of the country’s beaches into landfills for the hazardous wastes of the developed world.

I submit that from different developed countries dead ships full of hazardous substances like PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), radioactive materials, asbestos and Ballast Water arrive at the Alang beach, which has become the largest ship recycling yard in the world. There are 173 plots to carry out the ship-breaking activities on the beach under the supervision of the Gujarat Maritime Board. Since 1982 till April 2008, 4,551 ships arrived in Alang for dismantling. The first end-of-life ship MV Kota Tenjong was stationed at Alang on February 13, 1983. After the September 2007 Supreme Court order, more than 1,200 end-of-life hazardous ships entered Indian waters for the purpose of disposal. A total of 5,924 end-of-life ships were permitted between 1982 and 2012.

I submit that the Union Steel Ministry was given the task to prepare the Code on Regulations for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling. It has, however, failed to do so even after five years of the court order, unmindful of the death toll of migrant workers from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Odisha in Alang. In 2011 alone, 28 workers got killed. The inquiries in such deaths are never made public.

I submit that on the recommendation of Prof MGK Menon-headed High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes, appointed by the Supreme Court, a landfill was created for hazardous wastes generated at the Alang beach. Today, this landfill is filled up. But there is no data available as to the quantity of hazardous wastes which has been dumped. How much PCBs, radioactive and other hazardous materials have come to the country is not known. Even the extent of contamination of the Alang beach is not known. It is not understood how the ship-breaking activities continue till date when there is no landfill facility available.

I submit that hazardous ships entering Indian territorial waters without prior consent and without prior decontamination must be sent back. Such ships must take the Defence Ministry’s clearance before entering Indian waters. In fact, given the sensitivity involved, the regulation of ship-breaking activity should be handed over to the Navy. Also, there is a need to investigate the adverse environmental and occupational health impacts of dismantling dead ships on fragile coastal environment of the Alang beach.

I submit that there’s also a security angle associated with the industry. According to intelligence reports, Pakistan-based underworld has a major stake in the ship-breaking industry in Gujarat. A Standing Monitoring Committee on Ship-breaking Yards at Alang in 2011 notes that the customs officials and the Gujarat Maritime Board are unable to verify whether the documents provided to them when the ship beaches at Alang are forged or not. Over 100 ship-breaking companies are active in Alang. Early this year, a team of 200 Income Tax officials cracked down on three of the biggest Alang-based companies.

If the underworld is involved in Alang, this is obviously a great threat to the the country’s security. India needs to wake up to both environmental and terror threats emanating from the ship-breaking industry.

Hazardous Waste Situation

I wish to draw your attention towards Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on July 6, 2012 directing the central government to ban import of all hazardous/toxic wastes identified and declared to be so under the UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal to which India is a party.

The para 35 of the judgment reads:“The Central Government is also directed to ban import of all hazardous/toxic wastes which had been identified and declared to be so under the BASEL Convention and its different protocols. The Central Government is also directed to bring the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989, in line with the BASEL Convention and Articles 21, 47 and 48A of the Constitution.” This judgment is consistent with multilateral decisions made in October 2011, when 178 parties to the Basel Convention met in Cartagena, Colombia to not only re-endorse the Basel Ban Amendment forbidding the export of hazardous wastes from rich to poorer countries, but also resolve that the Basel Convention must continue to prohibit the dumping of end-of-life vessels on developing countries.

I submit that as per the order Union Ministry of Finance will have to issue notification under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 to prohibit the import of hazardous wastes.

I submit that Mrs Jayanthi Natarajan, Union Minister of Environment and Forests informed the Parliament, "Import of such (hazardous) wastes for disposal is not permitted. Import is permitted only for recycling or recovery or reuse with the permission of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and/or Directorate General of Foreign Trade," of Union Commerce Ministry in the Lok Sabha on May 21, 2012 in response to a question. Her reply that defines hazardous waste as recyclable material appears to be an exercise in sophistry.

If this reply of Union Minister of Environment and Forests is read with the 'Statement of Hazardous Goods Lying at Ports' given to the Parliament by Union Minister of Shipping, the true nature of the goings on stands exposed. How is it that waste oil which is officially admitted as waste oil referred to as hazardous ‘good’?

As per the official National Inventory of Hazardous Waste Generating Industries, total waste handling capacities of Treatment Storage Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is about 1.5 million tonnes per annum (MTA) and there is a deficit of about 1.2 MTA for land fillable wastes and about 0.9 MTA for incinerable wastes. When the country does not have the even the required capacity of TSDF, how can import of hazardous waste be "permitted" in the name of "recycling or recovery or reuse" and still have the Parliament and the countrymen believe that "Import of such (hazardous) wastes for disposal is not permitted."

Union Minister of Environment and Forests did not provide complete details to the Parliament in her reply when she said that "during the last three years, has given permission for import of Lead Scrap, Plastic waste generated from industrial process, non-activated glass cullets, etc. by actual users for recycling in an environmentally sound recycling facilities."

I submit that there are about 36,000 hazardous waste generating industries in India which generate 6.2 million tonnes out of which land fillable hazardous waste is about 44%, incinerable hazardous waste is about 7 % and recyclable hazardous waste is about 49 % as per government’s own report. Indiscriminate and unscientific disposal of wastes in the past has resulted in several sites in the country to become environmentally degraded. Isn't our own hazardous waste sufficient?

Some "141 hazardous waste dumpsites that have been primarily identified in 14 States/UTs out of which 88 critically polluted locations are currently identified" are unable to deal with the domestically generated waste in a scientific and environmentally sound manner and are just dumped. In such a situation, how can Environment Minister inform the Parliament that India has the capacity to deal with the imported hazardous waste be deemed convincing.

A co-ordination committee comprising of representatives from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, the Ministry of Shipping, Central Pollution Control Board and select State Pollution Control Boards has been constituted that claims to be "working to sensitize the Customs authorities regarding enforcement of these Rules in order to check illegal import of hazardous waste into the country." It appears that through linguistic manipulation waste is been re-defined as non-waste. What has become evident is that Indian regulations offer least resistance to dumping of hazardous wastes. In fact it welcomes hazardous wastes trade in the name of "recycling or recovery or reuse" of hazardous wastes.

I submit that the Ministry appears to be have done its homework to justify hazardous waste trade in various disguises. Under Rule 23 of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Third Amendment Rules, 2008 refers to the “Responsibilities of Authorities” which is specified in its Schedule VII that provides the List of Authorities and Corresponding Duties” wherein it is mentioned that Directorate-General of Foreign Trade constituted under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act has a duty to “Grant License for import of hazardous wastes”.

At the First Conference of Parties to the Basel Convention in Piriapolis, Uruguay, from 3-4 December, 1992, Shri A. Bhattacharja, Head of the Indian delegation who pleaded with industrialized countries to stop exporting hazardous waste. "You industrial countries have been asking us to do many things for the global good -- to stop cutting down our forests, to stop using your CFCs. Now we are asking you to do something for the global good: keep your own waste." It was only in 1995 that Government of India revised its position at the Third Basel Conference of Parties in September 1995 under the harmful influence of representatives of the US and Australia. This led to Indian government announcing that it was reconsidering its position on the Basel Ban. It is high time government disassociated itself from the regressive statement of Shri Kamal Nath, the then Union Minister of Environment & Forests who averred, "We are against environmentally unfriendly recycling. We are not against the movement of waste, provided the recipient has adequate equipment, facility and the proper process to deal with it." Consequently, India did not ratify the ‘Ban Amendment' to the Basel Convention, which could have stopped the import of hazardous waste and stopped India from becoming a leading dumping ground. at the Bali Conference on the Basel Convention in June 2008 the then Minister of State for Environment Shri Namo Narain Meena said that we saw hazardous waste as recyclable material. It is quite clear that Commerce Ministry has adopted the policy of free trade in hazardous waste unmindful its environmental and human cost.

I submit that this policy appears to be guided by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses and International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), represents companies from 130 countries and a member of UN’s Global Compact.

I submit that ICC has been instrumental in outwitting the UN ban on hazardous waste trade through bilateral Free Trade Agreements between countries. US Government and ICC have been instrumental in outwitting the UN ban on hazardous waste trade through bilateral Free Trade Agreements between countries. In one of its position paper on the Basel Convention, ICC has even called for the ban on hazardous waste to be stopped by the World Trade Organization (WTO) because it is trade disruptive. This undermines the customary environmental law principles.

I submit that Government of India has adopted the logic of World Bank wherein it says, “The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”

It further says, “Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.” World Bank’s considered opinion dated December 12, 1991 was authored in an Internal Memo by Lawrence Summers, its chief economist. Under tremendous influence of lobbying of EU, USA, Japan in myriad disguises, India’s Union Commerce Ministry has adopted this logic of World Bank. Summers was once Secretary of the United States Treasury as well and till recently he was President of US National Economic Council.

I submit that after the hullabaloo over missile explosions in the Bhushan Steel plant in Sahibabad-Ghaziabad area that killed several workers in 2006, DGFT had proposed its registration scheme covering imports of scrap but it gave up due to objections from the US Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Indian scrap steel industry. As part of the same consignment some 17,000 explosives weighing 200 quintals were detonated by the Indian Army's bomb disposal unit in Ludhiana, Punjab during November 2010- February 2011. It was a legacy of Shri A Raja’s tenure as Environment Minister.

I submit that the position of the Ministry of Commerce (the DGFT) is, in effect, in complete contrast to the revised EU Waste Shipment Regulations introduced in July 2007, to which all EU member nations need to comply. The EU rules now require a tracking document to accompany shipments of non-hazardous materials designated as “waste”, including recyclables. Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), the international trade federation representing the world’s recycling industry, covering in particular ferrous and non-ferrous metals etc felt that the complexity of information required by the new EU rules was “totally illogical”, complained that it did not offer clear environment benefit. The negotiations for the proposed India-EU Free Trade Agreements seems to indicate that BIR’s influence is at work whereby waste is sought to be defined a non new goods, as a linguistic sleight of hand. Now EU also is in the process of amending its regulation.

It is noteworthy that since 1989 till 2012, there have been several amendments to the Rules. Interestingly, the new 7 page Draft Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Fifth Amendment Rules, 2011 engineers these Rules and inserts a new definition of waste. It reads:“waste” means materials, that are not products or by-products, for which the generator has no further use in terms of his/her own purposes or for production, transformation or consumption, and of which he/she wants to dispose." Its Explanation1 reads: "Wastes may be generated during the extraction of raw materials, the processing of raw materials into intermediates and final products, the consumption of final products, and through other human activities. Residuals recycled or reused at the place of generation as a part of process are excluded." Its Explanation 2 reads: "By-product means a material that is not solely or separately produced by the production process but gets produced in the process and is used as such." These amendments are being done under undue influence of the global hazardous waste traders.

I submit that the subordinate legislation with regard to Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules is contrary to the orders issued by the Supreme Court. The new notification is in contempt of the Court and violates the spirit of the Basel treaty by allowing traders to deal with hazardous wastes who are endangering public and ecological health.

It is indeed strange that while the Environment Ministry admits that there is huge deficit of capacity to deal with hazardous wastes generated in the country, the new Hazardous Waste Rules, Amendments and Procedures permit traders to import hazardous wastes.

It is clear from the existing Hazardous Waste Rules (including the amendments till 30 March, 2010) that it promotes trade in hazardous waste. In its report the SCMC on Hazardous Wastes has recommended a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the unpardonable breach of environmental security and contempt of court by the non- traceable illegal waste oil importers and concerned officials.

I submit that the intent of the Commerce and Environment Ministry stood exposed when it proposed an amendment to the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules; after amendment it was to read "Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2007. The proposed rules was to have the effect of exempting transit countries from obtaining prior informed consent for all shipments of hazardous waste to India. The proposal also stated that as long as a material contains less than 60 per cent contamination by a hazardous constituent, then it is safe for our ecology. Waste asbestos embedded in the structure of the scrap material is not banned. This sleight of hand at redefinition attracted widespread criticism from environment and public health groups. Startled by the proposed rules environment and public health researchers and activists termed it as a gross act done at the behest of hazardous waste traders. Even the Confederation of Indian Industry has expressed its concerns in November 2007. The Supreme Court's own Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes has also objected. As a consequence the word "wastes" was not replaced with "materials" but "Transboundary Movement" remains. In effect, the original Rules were mutilated and the process of mutilating it further is underway.

As a consequence hazardous waste importers are bringing in lakhs of tonnes of hazardous waste into India without facing any legal hurdle. Earlier, Environment Ministry’s Hazardous Waste Rules prohibited import of waste oil, ash and residues from incineration of municipal solid waste, plastic, and unsorted waste scrap. But the same was allowed under the Open General License of the export-import policy of the Commerce Ministry. This led to import of ash and residues from incineration of municipal solid waste has increased by about 130 times during 2006-2009. The import of plastic waste increased by seven times during this period. Countries such as Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom have realized that Indian regulations are hazardous waste friendly. There was a 48 per cent increase in hazardous waste trade import during 2006-2009.

It has come to light that acknowledging such a situation, the then Union Environment and Forest Minister had written a letter to Union Commerce Minister Shri Anand Sharma in April 2010 urging alignment of Hazardous Waste Rules and Export-Import policy to reduce “scope of confusion” at implementation level. “I suggest that a joint group of the two ministries be set up to resolve the issue”, the minister said and had further added that some export-oriented units especially those in the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) were importing hazardous waste without seeking approval from either the Ministries. They were also operating without a mandatory “consent to operate” under environmental laws aimed at protecting the environment. The minister had said, “An impression also seems to have gained ground that such units are exempt from the provisions of environment regulations can import hazardous wastes without any permission. These impressions need to be corrected”. What has happened since then is that instead of aligning and factoring in environmental concerns in the hazardous waste trade, blind profiteering has taken precedence over public health concerns. The Hazardous Wastes Rules do not apply to SEZ.

I submit that the names of SEZs which are importing hazardous wastes have not been disclosed. Hazardous products including war materials, dead batteries, arms waste like empty shells and cartridges, toxic substances, waste oil and carcinogens like asbestos are making their way to the 7,600-km-long Indian coastline, posing a serious threat to hundreds of fragile ecosystems along the shores.

I submit that government should come out with a White Paper on Domestically generated hazardous waste and Import and Export of Hazardous Waste explaining which of them are being used, reused or processed for recovery. Commerce and Environment Ministry should reveal how of "Lead Scrap, Plastic waste generated from industrial process, non-activated glass cullets, etc" that is generated within the country is reused. Why should Union Environment Ministry choose to simply act subservient to Union Commerce Ministry which is under the influence of hazardous waste traders of developed countries?

I submit that foreign companies operating in developing countries like India usually insist on maintaining the secrecy of their production processes, sometimes making it impossible for the developing country to know how much and what kinds of solid wastes have already been deposited on their territory. It is hard to imagine how India can effectively regulate pollution from wastes under such conditions. In such a context, the fact that our Foreign Trade Policy allows hazardous waste trade by reincarnating it as a reusable or recyclable material is case of erosion of sovereignty.

In view of the above, your immediate intervention is required to ensure that legitimate subordinate legislative is enacted in keeping with the Supreme Court order and Basel Convention to regulate management and to stop the scam in the trade hazardous wastes including disposal of end-of-life ships.

I will be happy to share relevant documents and reference materials in this regard.

Thanking You

Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Mb- 9818089660
E-mail- krishna1715@gmail.com,
Web: toxicswatch.blogpsot.com

Cc
Shri P. Karunakaran, Chairman, PSC on Subordinate Legislation
Shri Sitaram Yechury, Chairman, PSC on Transport, Culture & Tourism
Hon’ble Members of PSC on Subordinate Legislation
Shri Ghanshyam Anuragi,
Shri Praveen Singh Aron,
Shri Kalyan Banerjee
Shri E. T. Mohammed Basheer
Shri Ramen Deka
Dr. Mahesh Joshi
Shri Virender Kashyap
Shri Jitender Singh Malik
Dr. Thokchom Meinya
Smt. Mausam Noor
Shri Gajendra Singh Rajukhedi
Dr. Bhola Singh
Shri Vijay Bahadu Singh
Shri A.K.S Vijayan
Prof. M G K Menon, former Chairman, High Powered Committee on Hazardous Wastes
Hon’ble Members of Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes
Dr Claude Alvares
Dr D B Boralkar
Shri Sanjay Parikh, Lawyer, Supreme Court

Read more...

Nomination of K P Nyati & N P Todaria to Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) Objectionable

To

Mrs Jayanti Natarajan
Union Minister of State of Environment and Forests (IC)
Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi 110 003

August 21, 2012

Sub: Reconstituted Forest Advisory Committee (FAC)

Respected Madam,

The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests reconstituted the Forest Advisory Committee through the order F. no. 3-2/2012-FC dated August 3, 2012. Among the three independent members in the reconstituted FAC include the names of Shri K P Nyati and Prof N P Todaria. Both these appointments are inappropriate for a statutory body like FAC. Neither of them can be considered independent. Following are some of the reasons why we think these appointments are inappropriate:

Shri K P Nyati

1. In case of Mr Nyati, it is well known that since at least 1992 he has been part of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), representing the interests of the industries in one way or the other. He has thus made a career representing the interest of the industry. Thus there is clear conflict of interest in his case with the role of an independent member of the FAC that is supposed to work for the interests of conservation of forests.

2. His association with CII continues in various ways even today. He is currently “Principal Advisor” to CII-ITC Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Development, see: http://www.sustainabledevelopment.in/services/policy_division/contact.htm.

3. He has been in the past the CEO of Sustainable Mining Initiative (SMI), see:

http://www.fedmin.com/smi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=116

SMI includes major mining companies like Tata, NMDC, NALCO, Hindustan Zinc, Rungta, Essel, Rio Tinto, Sesa Goa, ACC, among others. This is another case of conflict of interest. All these mining companies are keenly interested in projects that require diversion of huge forest land.

4. He is Chemical Engineer, see his bio-data (http://www.leadindia.org/?p=board-of-directors, he is on the Board of Lead India). The biodata reveals that, “He provides consultancy and training services to the Indian industry in the environment field. He has regular interaction with the Ministry of Environment & Forest and regulatory bodies in the country on policy matters on behalf of Indian Industry. He is also involved in facilitation of environmental technology transfer and business linkages internationally.” (Emphasis added). These facts conclusively establish that Mr Nyati is NOT independent. He is actually supporting only the Companies’ interest during his decades long career.

From all this it is clear that Mr K P Nyati is clearly not an appropriate choice for one of the independent members of the Forest Advisory Committee.

Prof N P Todaria:

1. Prof Todaria has been a consultant involved in preparing Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and related reports of a number of hydropower projects in India, including Kotli Bhel 1A, Kotli Bhel 1B, Naitwar Mori, Lata Tapovan, Rupsiabagar- Khasiabara, according to official University website of HNB Garhwal University, see: http://forestryhnb.page.tl/N-.--P-.--Todaria.htm. In the case of all such projects, the reports that he had authored have all supported and justified the projects, and these included assessing impacts due to forest loss. Thus his role as consultant for the EIA and related reports, which he has been involved in for many years, is clearly in conflict with the position of an independent member of the Forest Advisory Committee.

2. In case of many of the projects for which the EIA and other reports that he authored and which justified the projects, the FAC in recent past has actually rejected the application for Forest Clearances, this includes the Kotli Bhel 1B and Rupsiabagar Khasiabara hydropower projects. Even in case of Kotli Bhel 1A, the FAC first recommended a cumulative impact assessment report, among other studies before even considering the project for forest clearance. Not all of these reports have still been done. The EIA reports that he co-authored did not even see the need any of these studies.

It is clear from the above mentioned facts that the stand which Prof Todaria has taken in these projects is contrary to the FAC decisions. Such questionable reports underline that his independence and his credentials on the issues that FAC is supposed to look into, cannot be trusted.

3. On April 16, 2012, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests made the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) report on Cumulative Impact Assessment of Ganga Basin public. This report recommended that at least 24 large hydro projects in planning and clearance stages should be dropped in the interest of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in the Ganga basin. This report was commissioned by the ministry following the orders of the Supreme Court of India (through the Central Empowered Committee), carried forward by the FAC. Within weeks after this report was made public, Prof Todaria, along with a colleague of his at the Garhwal University wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (the letter was widely reported, including, at: http://www.projectsmonitor.com/ELECTRICITY/eia-report-harming-hydro-in-uttarakhand), justifying hydropower projects in Uttarakhand and calling opposition to them as ill informed, unscientific and so on. Such bias FOR big hydropower projects in the Uttarakhand would clearly disqualify anyone from becoming an independent member of the FAC. This is good enough reason for Prof Todaria’s disqualification.

4. Moreover, in the letter to Prime Minister, Prof Todaria and his colleague accuse “WII's interim report, which was full of mistakes and written with extreme insincerity and very little scientific facts” and goes on to say that this interim report “was the basis of the MoEF's decision to stop three major projects”. This kind of allegations, without so much as a shred of evidence is itself unscientific and tantamount to lobbying for big hydro projects. Prof Todaria wrote the letter, possibly because one of the projects that the FAC and MEF decided to reject in this way happened to be the project for which Prof Todaria has co-authored the EIA, namely the Kotli Bhel 1B Hydropower project.

It should be noted that it was the FAC that in its meeting in May 2011 took the decision not to recommend forest clearance as mentioned above. Prof Todaria thus actually also casts aspersions on the FAC members, and some of the official members of the previous FAC will also be the members of the new FAC and thus he also accuses of these members of being unscientific. Prof Todaria failed to provide any explanation for these allegations.



It is clear from above mentioned facts that Prof N P Todaria is not worthy of being considered for an independent member of the Forest Advisory Committee.

Legal implications These appointments would also not pass the legal scrutiny. These are against the letter and spirit of constitutional propriety. It may be recalled that the independent expert members were appointed on FAC following the Supreme Court directions in 2007. The appointments of K.P Nyati and Prof Todaria as ‘non official members’ are in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court. It is unfortunate that the Ministry of Environment and Forest has deliberately undermined the order of the Supreme Court in both letter and spirit. Since, you were not the Minister of Environment and Forest at that time, it is imperative that you appreciate the reasons why non official members in the Forest Advisory Committee are expected to be independent and experts and why your present action amounts to a violation of the orders of the Supreme Court.



In I.A 1412 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt at length on the composition of the Forest Advisory Committee and specially the criteria for selection of the non official members of the Forest Advisory Committee. We would like to point out that in 2004, the MoEF had included within the scope of non official members, disciplines such as ‘mining, civil engineering and environmental economics’. This decision of the Ministry was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this way the order appointing the above category of professionals was cancelled because it is contrary to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice Y.K Sabharwal, Justice Pasayat and Justice Kapadia by order dated 28-11-2006 held as follows: “Considering the importance that has been given since last more than three decades, particularly, after Rio Conference 1992 and host of legislations brought in which a view to protect environment, wild life and to conserve forests. Advisedly, eminent experts were included in the Committee as the decision of the Committee is of utter significance on permitting or non-permitting for non-forest use of forest land and other matters connected with conservation of forests. There are provisions on similar lines in the wild Life (Protection) Act as also the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The eminent members under the Rules, it is evident, have to be those who are independent and experts in the field of forestry, namely, in the field of conservation of forests or allied disciplines. The object is to check illegal exercise, if any, of powers under Section 2 of the FC Act.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the subject of mining and civil engineering cannot be termed as ‘allied disciplines’. The Hon’ble Court held: “Mining or other development project cannot be said to be allied discipline of forestry. Allied disciplines may be like, water harvesting, wild life protection, bio-diversity etc. The composition of Rule 3 is to strengthen the participation of people in the matter of conservation of forests and to check the degradation of the environment……….It is implicit in the Rules of 2003 and when seen in the light of 1981 Rules, coupled with the objects of the FC Act, that the persons to be included in the category under consideration are those who are independent experts in the field of conservation of forests and allied disciplines and have established their credentials in that capacity….”

A bare perusal of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly shows that both the ‘non official members’, Mr K P Nyati and Prof Todaria, given their background are clearly not independent experts and therefore it is in the interest of the MOEF and all concerned that the appointment is not given effect to and the FAC is reconstituted in a manner which is both in consonance of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the National Forest Policy, 1988 and the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In conclusion Even a mainstream business paper like The Economic Times[1] has found it fit to call this order of MEF as a industry friendly signal. “Government is sending out yet another industry friendly signal. The environment and forest ministry has reconstituted the statutory advisory body on forest diversion with members, who have strong pro-industry, particularly mining and hydro power, bias” said the paper in the very first paragraph in the report.

In this context we would like to refer to your defence of these appointments as reported by the Hindustan Times[2]. You seemed to be seriously misinformed about the credentials and back ground of both Mr Nyati and Prof Todaria. It would be a very shocking defence indeed if you continue to maintain even now that these appointments are in the best interest of forest conservation.

It would also be worthwhile in the interest of ensuring complete transparency and avoidance of such misinformed actions in the future, that the relevant officials in your ministry be please be directed to put (under sec 4 of the RTI Act) online at the ministry’s website the entire sequence of file notings in accordance with which these appointments were decided upon.

In view of the above, we would urge you to immediately cancel the appointments of Shri K P Nyati and Prof N P Todaria as independent members of the Forest Advisory Committee. Their appointment as members of FAC is inappropriate and would be disastrous for the remaining forests of India. While reconstituting the FAC, we would also urge the ministry to keep gender balance in mind.

We look forward to your early response,

Yours Sincerely,

Endorsed by:

Himanshu Thakkar & Parineeta Dandekar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, 86-D, AD block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi www.sandrp.in, ht.sandrp@gmail.com, 09968242798

Shripad Dharmadhikary, Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, Pune, manthan.shripad@gmail.com

Akhil Gogoi, General Secretary, KMSS, Assam, secretarykmss@gmail.com

E A S Sarma, Former Secretary to Govt. of India, Visakhapattnam, 0986602646, eassarmagmail.com

Tseten Lepcha, Affected Citizens of Teesta, Gangtok, Sikkim, cten00@gmail.com

Dr Brij Gopal (Ex-Prof, JNU) & Pragya Education & Environment Trust, Jaipur, brij44@gmail.com

Gopakumar Menon, Wildlifer, Bangalore, gopakumar.rootcause@gmail.com

Dr. Latha Anantha, River Research Centre, Thrissur, Kerala. rrckerala@gmail.com

Nityanand Jayaraman, Writer, Chennai, nity682@gmail.com

Michael Mazgaonkar, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Gujarat mozdam@gmail.com

Vimalbhai, Convenor, Matu Jansangthan, Uttarakhand, bhaivimal@gmail.com

Aruna Rodrigues, Mhow, M.P., arunarod@gmail.com

Rohit Prajapati, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Gujarat, rohit.prajapati@gmail.com

Gopal Krishna, Toxics Watch Alliance, Delhi, krishna1715@gmail.com

Dr V Rukmini Rao, Gramya Resource Centre for Women, Andhra Pradesh, vrukminirao@yahoo.com

E Theophilus, Malika Virdi, K Ramnarayan, Himal Prakriti, Munsiari, Uttarakhand, etheophilus@gmail.com

Shankar Gopalakrishnan, Forest Rights Activist, Delhi, shankargopal@myfastmail.com

Rahul Banerjee, Dhas Gramin Vikas Kendra, Indore, MP, rahul.indauri@gmail.com

Subhadra Khaperde, Aarohi Trust, Khargone, MP, subhadra.khaperde@gmail.com

Shankar Tadwal, Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath, Alirajpur, MP shankarkmcs@rediffmail.com

Ravindranath, Rural volunteers Centre, Dist Dhemaji, Assam, ruralvolunteerscentre@yahoo.co.in

Mrs Anjali Anish Damania, India Against Corruption, Mumbai, anjalidamania@rediffmail.com

Bharat Jhunjhunwala, former professor, IIM Bangalore, Dt Tehri, Uttarakhand bharatjj@gmail.com

Soma Kishore Parthasarathy, Advisor, Gender Livelihoods and development, Delhi, somakp@gmail.com

Brij Khandelwal, Braj Mandal Heritage Conservation Society, Agra, agrabrij@gmail.com

Ranjan Panda, Convenor, Water Initiatives Odisha, Bhubaneshwar, ranjanpanda@gmail.com

C.R Bijoy, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, cr.bijoy@gmail.com

Manoj Mishra, Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, Delhi, manojmisra@peaceinst.org

Jai Sen, CACIM, New Delhi, jai.sen2000@gmail.com

Shweta Narayan, The Other Media, Chennai, nopvcever.new@gmail.com

Prof Bela Bhatia, Honorary Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, writetobela@gmail.com

Sudhir Pattnaik, Writer and Activist, Bhubaneswar, sudhir.pattnaik@gmail.com

Meher Engineer, Scientist, Kolkata, W Bengal, mengineer2003@gmail.com

Paramjeet Singh & Preeti Chauhan, People Union for Democratic Rights, Delhi, pudrdelhi@gmail.com

Wilfred Dcosta, Indian Social Action Forum - INSAF, New Delhi, insaf@vsnl.com

Prof. M.K.Prasad, Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad, Cochin, Kerala, prasadmkprasad@gmail.com

Prof. S. Janakarajan, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai, janak@mids.ac.in

Kalyani Menon-Sen, Independent Researcher and feminist activist, Delhi, kmenonsen@gmail.com

Ramesh ‘Mumukshu’, Sustainable Approach of Development for All, Delhi, ramumukshu@gmail.com

Samantha Agarwal, Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan, Raipur, sa.sandrp@gmail.com

George Monippally, Bharat Jan Andolan, Jharkhand, gmonippally@gmail.com

S.P. Ravi, Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi, Chalakudy, Kerala, chalakudyriver@rediffmail.com

Narendra Nath Mehrotra, Retd. Scientist, CDRI, Lucknow, nnmehrotra@gmail.com

Gautam Bandyopadhyay, Nadi Ghati Morcha, Chhattisgarh, gautamraipur2gmail.com

Madhu Sarin, Chandigarh, msarin@sify.com

Shalini Gera, Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha (Mazdoor Karyakarta Samiti), Bilaspur , pcss.cg@gmail.com

Prof Rohan Dsouza, JNU, Delhi, rohanxdsouza@gmail.com

Sri Tenzing Bhutia, Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee, Gangtok, Sikkim, siblac.sikkim@gmail.com

Souparna Lahiri, All India Forum of Forest Movements, Ranchi, aiffmsecretariat@gmail.com

Tarun Joshi, Cordinator Vanpanchayat Sangarsh Morcha Uttarakhand, vanpanchayat@rediffmail.com

Radha Gopalan, Environmental Scientist & Academician, Rishi Valley, Andhra Pradesh, radha.gopalan@gmail.com

Debi Goenka, Conservation Action Trust, Mumbai, debi@cat.org.in

Bittu Sehgal, Sanctuary Asia, Mumbai, bittusahgal@gmail.com

Madhu Bhaduri, Former diplomat and social worker, Delhi madhu.bhaduri@gmail.com

Tarun Nair, Gharial Conservation Alliance, Mamallapuram, Tamil Nadu, tarunnair@yahoo.co.uk

Ravi Hemadri, Development and Justice Initiative, New Delhi, ravihemadri@gmail.com

Sagari Ramdas, Anthra , Andhra Pradesh, sagari.ramdas@gmail.com

KJ Joy, Suhas Paranjape & Seema Kulkarni, Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management, Pune, joykjjoy2@gmail.com

Dr Nilesh Heda, Samvardhan, Washim Vidarbha, nilheda@gmail.com

Shardul Bajikar, Sanctuary Asia, Mumbai, shardul.bajikar@gmail.com

Prof. Vijay Paranjpye, Gomukh Trust, Pune, paranjpye@yahoo.co.uk

Sujit Patwardhan, Parisar, Pune, patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com

Amit Bhaduri, Professor Emeritus, JNU, Delhi, amit.bhaduri@gmail.com

Kalyan Varma, Bangalore, kalyan@rtns.org

Samir Mehta, River Basin Friends, Mumbai, samir.meht@gmail.com

Indavi Tulpule, Shramik Mukti Sangathana, Thane, indavi.t@gmail.com

Madhusudhan, Yakshi , yakshi.a@gmail.com

Ms Padala Bhudevi, Chinniah Adivasi Vikas SAngham, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh

70. Mr Kunjam Pandu Dora, Adivasi AIkya Vedika, Andhra Pradesh, adivasi.vedika@gmail.com

Arun P.A., Ferns Naturalists' Society, Mananthavady, Wayanad, Kerala, arun.pa.arun@gmail.com

Janak Daftari, Jal Biradari, Mumbai, daffy@jalsangrah.org

Pushp Jain, EIA Resource and Response Centre, New Delhi, ercdelhi@gmail.com

Aditya Chandra Panda, Assistant Editor, TigerLink, aditya.spiritofthewild@gmail.com

Kavita Krishnan, CPI (ML) Liberation, Delhi kavitakrish73@gmail.com

Tushar Dash, Researcher, Bhubaneswar, Odisha,
Amit Kurien, Environmental Researcher, Bangalore, amitkurien@gmail.com

Prasad Chacko, Behavioural Science Centre, St Xavier's College Campus, Ahmedabad, sxnfesad1@vsnl.net

Aparajita Datta, Senior Scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, aparajita@ncf-india.org


Copy to: 1. Secretary, MEF

2. Director General of Forests

3. Additional Director General of Forests

4. Inspector General of Forests

5. Registry of National Green Tribunal

[1] http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-07/news/33083778_1_forest-clearance-process-amita-baviskar-hydro-power-projects

[2] http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Civil-activists-question-fairness-of-new-appointees/Article1-909320.aspx

Read more...