Massive Legal Win for Kebaowek First Nation And Allies Against Proposed
Nuclear Waste Dump in Canada
-
Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Victory for Kebaowek First Nation
and Allies in “Species at Risk” Case Against Chalk River Nuclear Waste
Project Kebaow...
Latest Post
Utkal Asbestos Company fails to convince Vaishali villagers opposing asbestos factory
Written By Krishna on Saturday, September 29, 2012 | 7:38 AM
Press Release
Utkal
Asbestos Company fails to convince Vaishali villagers opposing asbestos factory
SDO expressed
concern about imminent water scarcity due to industrial activity in
agricultural land
Patna/Mahuwa,
Vaishali/New Delhi, September 29, 2012: As per the order of District Magistrate
(DM), Vaishali, Bihar in the matter of opposition to the proposed white
asbestos based plant of Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL) company, members of Khet
Bachao Jeevan Bachao Jan Sangarsh Committee (KBJBJSC) comprIsing of villagers
of Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat of Goraul
block and representatives of the UAL met again in the office of Sub Divisional
Officer (SDO), Mahuwa, Vaishali on September 28, 2012 to discuss the grievances
against the lung cancer causing
factory. This was the second tripartite meeting was necessitated by
villagers Mahadharna of June 14, 2012 against the plant. A similar meeting was
held on June 30, 2012.
The reply of KBJBJC to the response of their letter to DM in the matter
of UAL’s proposed Asbestos factory at Vaishali’s Chaksultan Ramppur
Rajdhari near Panapur in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat addressed to DM was given to SDO.
On behalf of UAL,
Dr S P Vivek Chandra Rao, the advisor of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers
Association had unsuccessfully attempted to respond to KBJBJC’s letter to DM
dated June 30, 2012. Dr Rao has singled out 15 issues out of our comprehensive
submission to respond, the same is being replied as under in order:
1.
The fact of ban on asbestos mining has
not been disputed by him. The fact is mining of asbestos of all kinds, trade in
asbestos waste (dust & fibers) is banned in India. In June 1993, central
government stopped the renewal of existing mining leases of asbestos. The mining activity was banned by Union
Ministry of Mines. It is strange that
while mining of asbestos is banned in our country due to adverse health impact,
the same is being imported from Russia, Canada and other countries. It may be
noted that Canada has a no home use policy and it is investing to decontaminate
its built environment of asbestos.
2.
The recent victory of the political party
which has announced closure of asbestos mine in Quebec, Canada which is one of
the key suppliers of India once again vindicates the logic that compelled more
than 50 countries to ban use of asbestos of all kinds. Consequently, Canadian
Government has also been forced to announce chrysotile asbestos (white
asbestos) as a hazardous substance on September 4, 2012.
3.
It is not disputed that “55 countries
have banned asbestos”. The major concern created by exposures to “low”
concentrations of asbestos is the risk of mesothelioma,
for which no threshold exists. It is clear that there no
safe level at which asbestos can be used.
4.
It is not disputed that “WHO says,
chrysotile is also carcinogenic”. In a letter to Bihar Chief Minister, Deputy
Chief Minister and District Magistrate, Vaishali, Fernanda Giannasi, a well
known Brazilian labor inspector for the Regional Labor and Employment
Superintendence in São Paulo (Ministry of Labor and Employment) wrote “I am a
manager of the state asbestos program to eradicate the asbestos. For almost 30
years, I have inspected industrial plants in my state of São Paulo where 172
companies declared using asbestos, out of which 170 have already changed the
technology for asbestos-free enforcing the state law and we have followed all
these changes and respective improvements for the worker’s safety and health and
of course for the general public health.” She added, “It is scientifically and
medically established that asbestos is a fibrous mineral that is known to cause
cancer in humans, in all its forms, origins and types, according to the most
important scientific academies and national and international health
institutions. A vast medical literature produced over the course of the 20th
century sustains the thesis that there is no safe way to work with asbestos or
use products that contain it, and that the best way to eliminate diseases
caused by this mineral fiber is to ban it.” World Health Organization (WHO) and
the International Labor Organization (ILO), among others that have been working
to eliminate the “health catastrophe of the 20th century,” given the
serious is the epidemic nature of the diseases caused by asbestos.
5.
The fact of what the text book says is
not disputed. The abstract of a paper titled ‘Asbestos-An Important Public
Health Hazard’ published for the National Convention of Chemistry Teachers
and National Seminar on “Emerging Trends in Green Chemistry during October
15-17 2011 that is recognized with a message from Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister,
Bihar. In the abstract of paper, it is stated that as early as “In 1935
first time, Lynch Smith described a lung carcinoma in a patient with asbestosis
(fibrosis of the lung caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust). A large
number of clinical, epidemiologic, and experimental studies established
carcinogenic effect of different types of asbestos fibers on various tissues
and organs, both in humans and in experimental animals. Inhalation is major
source of exposure in humans.” It also noted that “its (asbestos)
diffusion in the occupational and general environment causing a lot of health
hazards even cancer.” This even was recognized by International Union
of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as part of The International Year
of Chemistry 2011. Villagers expressed the hope that the Chief Minister will
take cognizance of the scientific facts which was brought to his attention from
the chemistry teachers through the convention and seminar organized by
Department of Chemistry, AN College, Patna.
6.
WHO says, “One in every three deaths from
occupational cancer is estimated to be caused by asbestos. In addition, it is
estimated that several thousand deaths annually can be attributed to exposure
to asbestos in the home.” Source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs343/en/index.html
UAL
failed to satisfy the villagers. Its EIA report fails mention asbestos hazards
to villagers. The consultant of the EIA report has admitted that “Construction
site has a potential hazardous environment”. It also admits, “Asbestos fiber
will be used in the plant as a raw material is hazardous in nature, the
industry will give information to the workers on hazards associated with
asbestos”.
7.
It cannot be disputed that the concept
paper by Union Ministry of Labour has
revealed at the two-day 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational
Safety and Health” on 19-20th September, 2011 that "The Government of
India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect
the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure
to Chrysotile form of Asbestos." It has noted that "Asbestosis is yet
another occupational disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar
circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to evolve
strategies to curb this menace". The document is readily available at http://www.labour.nic.in/lc/Background%20note.pdf)
8.
On July 6, 2011, India's National Human Rights Commission has issued notices to the central and state governments asking the status
of victims of asbestos. It took note of an estimate that suggests that some 50, 000 people are
likely to die annually in India based on what is going on in Ontario, Canada.
9.
US Environment Protection Agency says, “No safe exposure threshold
(with respect to for inhaling asbestos fibers) has been established, but the
risk of disease generally increases with the length and amount of exposure.”
Ref:http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/OWCM.NSF/0/1892d33bca669504882566d700671e50?OpenDocument The same is reiterated by WHO at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_OEH_06.03_eng.pdf
10.
As to PILs in the Supreme Court and
Patna High Court. The paragraph 15 of Supreme Court order referred to in the
order of High Court and the related paragraph
14 read as under:
14.
In the matter relating to secondary exposure of workers to asbestos,
though the grounds have been taken in the Writ Petition without any factual
basis, again in the Rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit of respondent
No.37, this issue has been raised by the petitioner in detail. In the earlier
judgment of this Court in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre
(supra), hazards arising out of primary use of asbestos were primarily dealt
with, but certainly secondary exposure also needs to be examined by the Court.
In that judgment, the Court had noticed that it would, thus, be clear that
diseases occurred wherever the exposure to the toxic or carcinogenic agent
occurs, regardless of the country, type of industry, job title, job assignment
or location of exposure. The diseases will follow the trail of the exposure and
extend the chain of the carcinogenic risk beyond the work place. In that
judgment, the Court had also directed that a review by the Union and the States
shall be made after every ten years and also as and when the ILO gives
directions in this behalf consistent with its recommendations or conventions.
Admittedly, 15 years has expired since the issuance of the directions by this
Court. The ILO also made certain specific directions vide its resolution of
2006 adopted in the 95th session of the International Labour Conference. It
introduced a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of
asbestos. As already noticed, serious doubts have been raised as to whether
`controlled use' can be effectively implemented even with regard to secondary
exposure. These are circumstances which fully require the concerned
quarters/authorities in the Government of India as well as the State
Governments to examine/review the matter in accordance with law, objectively,
to achieve the greater health care of the poor strata of the country who are
directly or indirectly engaged in mining or manufacturing activities of
asbestos and/or allied products.
15. As already noticed above, the
Government has already presented the Bill in Rajya Sabha. The statement of
objects and reasons of this Bill specifically notices that the white asbestos
is highly carcinogenic and it has been so reported by the World Health
Organisation. In India, it is imported
without any restriction while even its domestic use is not preferred by the
exporting countries. Canada and Russia are the biggest exporters of white
asbestos. In 2007, Canada exported 95% of the white asbestos, it mined out of
which 43% was shipped to India. In view of these facts, there is an urgent need
for a total ban on the import and use of white asbestos and promote the use of
alternative materials. The Bill is yet to be passed but it is clearly
demonstrated that the Government is required to take effective steps to prevent
hazardous impact of use of asbestos. Thus,
both the High Court and the Supreme Court take note of the resolution of WHO
and ILO which seek elimination of all forms of asbestos.
11.
As to NHRC’s notice to Government of
Bihar, the notice was sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar on 6th July
2011. The NHRC’s press release about the notice is available at http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=2334
12.
It is not disputed that “Asbestos Cement
waste is hazardous”. It is one of the 64 heavily polluting industries under Red
Category by Union Environment & Forests Ministry. In fact, commerce in
asbestos waste (dust & fibers) is banned in India under Hazardous Waste
Management Rules, 2008 under Environment Protection Act, 1986.
13.
It is not disputed that the study by
National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad was funded by the
asbestos industry. It is beyond comprehension as to how such a study claim to
be ‘independently conducted by scientists’. If this is an independent study
what else is doctored study. In effect,
this study on occupational health impact of asbestos exposure was of the
industry, for the industry and by the industry.
14.
EIA report of UAL has stated that
construction environment is hazardous. The fact is it is hazardous to the
health of both the villagers and the workers. The villagers committee had given
a 33 page written submission in Hindi to the District Magistrate through SDO
with annexures comprising of scientific and medical opinions. Villagers have explained
how fake public hearing and faulty environmental clearnce happened by blatant
factual misrepresentation. A total of 4 pages as against more than 300 pages of
EIA were given to the villagers. The EIA report referred to agricultural land
as barren land. When UAL representative and EIA consultant was asked to
explain, the consultant replied that by barren he meant vacant land. Their submission creates a compelling logic against
the construction of such heavily polluting plants.
15.
As to the dumping of asbestos laden
hazardous waste material from the debris of collapsed World Trade Centre (WTC)
in India which Dr Rao disputed. The fact is Ranveer Jaidka’s factory in Mandi
Gobindgarh, Punjab was one of the several factories that bought the debris of
the twin towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. “The WTC (World Trade Center)
material was great. High-rise buildings use good quality steel,” he says,
adding that many factories in Mandi Gobindgarh had bought it as per a report of
April 22, 2010 in a business news paper.
On behalf of the UAL, Dr Rao claimed that import of
hazardous waste is banned. This is not true. 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, 1992 has a duty to“Grant License for import of hazardous wastes”.
It may be
noted that Union Environment Ministry’s 19 page Vision Statement on Environment
and Human Health (Para 4.3.1) on page 12 which reads: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent
possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”. This merit serious
consideration and the same is available. Source: moef.nic.in/divisions/cpoll/envhealth/visenvhealth.pdf.
TWA urges
Bihar Government public interest to be undermined by an asbestos factory owner
who is more interested in defending the financial interests of a powerful
asbestos industry rather than in protecting public health. It was present at
both the September 28 and June 30, 2012 meetings.
Villagers handed
over to Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Jyoti Kumar a Hindi translation of Dr
Barry Castleman’s letter to District Magistrate along with the
original. In a letter to Vaishali District Magistrate, Jitendra Srivastava,
Dr. Castleman, a globally recognized foremost authority on medical and legal
aspects of asbestos, who has worked with WHO, World Bank and Pan American
Health Organisation, wrote, “Strong local opposition to the construction of the
asbestos plant in Vaishali is supported by the official statements of the World
Health Orgainsation, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Bank
calling for an end to asbestos products use…Even the World Trade Organisation
has supported national asbestos bans and rejected arguments for ‘controlled use
of asbestos’ as unrealistic.” In his letter, Dr Castleman mentions, ‘At a
hearing in Brasilia on August 31, 2012, the public prosecutor excoriated the
asbestos industry as purely profit-oriented, saying that vast liabilities had
been created and left for society to pay; he closed by saying the export of
asbestos to poor Asian countries was “environmental racism”.’ KBJBJSC also gave their
point wise response to 15 specific issues singled out by Dr Rao on behalf of
UAL. The SDO inquired about the agitation against a similar plant in Bhojpur
due to water scarcity caused by two asbestos plants in Bihiya. He expressed his
worry about the imminent water crisis in the area.
Taking cognisance of threats to life
and public health; more than 50 countries have banned production, use,
manufacture and trade of the hazardous mineral fiber, ASBESTOS. These countries
are: Algeria, Czech Republic, Iceland, Malta, Seychelles, Argentina, Denmark,
Ireland, Mozambique, Slovakia, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Netherlands, Slovenia,
Austria, Estonia, Italy, New Caledonia, South Africa, Bahrain, Finland, Japan,
Norway, Spain, Belgium, France, Jordan, Oman, Sweden, Brunei, Gabon, South
Korea, Poland, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Germany, Kuwait, Portugal, Turkey, Chile,
Greece, Latvia, Qatar, United Kingdom, Croatia, Honduras, Lithuania, Romania,
Uruguay, Cyprus, Hungary, Luxembourg and Saudi Arabia. All the 27 countries of
European Union have banned it.
Villagers submitted that it is
reasonable to ask you to initiate concrete steps for permanent closure of the
construction of the manufacturing unit of asbestos based products in Vaishali.
For Details: Ajit Kr
Singh, Khet Bachao Jeevan
Bachao Jan Sangharsh
Committee (KBJBJC), Vaishali, Mb: 08002903995, E-mail: ajeetsinghpushkar@gmail.com
Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance
Mb: 08002263335, 09818089660 E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com, banasbestosindia.blogspot.com
illegal public hearing on Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd project at Jharkhand’s Potka, East Singbhum stopped by villagers
Written By Krishna on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 | 6:23 AM
To
Chairperson
Experts Appraisal Committee (Industry)
Union Ministry of Environment
& Forests
Government of India
New Delhi
Date: 26/9/2012
Through Dr P L Ahuja Rai, Member Secretary, EAC, Director, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Subject-illegal public hearing on Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd project at Jharkhand’s Potka, East Singbhum stopped by villagers
Sir,
This is to draw your urgent attention towards the stoppage of illegal public hearing for New Delhi based Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL)’s project at Jharkhand’s Potka, East Singbhum by villagers on September 24, 2012 in the presence of Additional District Magistrate (law and order) Shri Ajit Shankar, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB)'s regional officer Shri R N Choudhury and SDO Shri Subodh Kumar.
I submit that this was the public
hearing for 3 million tonne per annum (MTPA) capacity steel plant-cum-900 MW
captive power plant (CPP) as per the MoU dated September 7, 2006 between
Jharkhand Government and Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd for 3 million tonne per
annum (MTPA) capacity steel plant-cum-900 MW captive power plant (CPP). The MoU
was signed by Shri Sanjay Singal, the Chairman & Managing Director, BPSL
and Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Secretary, Industry, Jharkhand Govt.
I submit that while the MoU refers to 900 MW, the banner of the illegal public hearing referred to 300 MW.
I submit that I was present at the site of the public hearing, Pariyojana Balika Ucch Vidyalaya, Potka near Potka police station, East Singhbhum district on September 24, 2012. The attempt to hold this illegal public hearing is in contempt of recent directive of the Jharkhand high court for strict implementation of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (CNTA), 1908.
I heard advivasi villagers shouting slogans in Hindi like: Loha nahi, anaj chahiye (not iron, need food grains), Hume Karkhana nahi, Gaon ka vikas chahiye (Don’t want factory, want development of village), na jaan denge, na jamin denge (will neither give life nor land), Jal, Jangal, Jamin ki Lut, nahi kisi ko iski chhut (No one is allowed to loot water, forest and land), Bhushan company Potka Chhodo (Bhushan company, Leave Potka), Inqilab Zindabad (Long Live Revolution), Hul Johar. A attached pamphlet of the joint forum opposing displacement of adivasi villagers states that the land has been taken in violation of the CNT Act and Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and they have submitted petitions to the Commissioner and Governor informing them about the categorical opposition of the villagers’ of Potka block to the establishment of Bhushan’s factory. It notes that Bhushan company is involved in the coal block allocation scandal. It observes that government officials have become loyal to the company and betrayed the adivasi villagers. It alleges that few Mukhiyas and officials have been bribed.
I submit that it is noteworthy that the BPSL the water requirement for proposed plant will be 6610 cubic meter/hour, as per its claim. This requirement is proposed to be met from River Swaranrekha 29 km from the plant site. It is also called Subarnarekha. Its tributary, Kharkai river is also likely to be exploited as the water extraction is planned from the meeting point of Swarnrekha and Kharkai river. The Kharkai meets the Subarnarekha at Sonari (Domuhani), a neighbourhood of Jamshedpur.
I submit that the 470 km long Subarnarekha, a rain-fed river has been the lifeline of tribal communities inhabiting the Chhotanagpur region. There is an urgent need to undertake a cumulative impact assessment of industrial projects on the river to protect its continued existence. The BPSL’s project along with the Subarnarekha multipurpose project that envisaged the construction of two dams, one at Chandil across the Subarnarekha and the other across the Kharkai at Icha near Chaibasa, two barrages at Galudih across the Subarnarekha and the other across the Kharkai at Ganjia near Adityapur and a network of canals from these pose a life threatening impact on the river.
I submit that geologists have underlined that Subarnarekha is drying up. The Experts Appraisal Committee should visit the source of the river near Piska/ Nagri, 30 km from Ranchi and examine the path Subarnarekha travels through Ranchi, Seraikela, Kharsawan and East Singhbhum district.
I submit that besides EAC and Jharkhand Govt, given the fact that Subarnarekha flows through Paschim Medinipur district in West Bengal for 83 kilometres and in Balasore district of Odisha where for 79 km and joins the Bay of Bengal near Talsari, the neighboring states of West Bengal and Odisha and all the concerned State governments ought to examine the health of the river and make appropriate recommendations to save the river from further exploitation by factoring in the cumulative impact assessment study.
I submit that it is revealed in
the MoU that the company’s project is likely to meet additional water
requirement through borewells. Its adverse impact also merits serious attention.
I submit that until this is done and the cumulative impact assessment study of the Subarnarekha river basin is undertaken and examined, there should be a moratorium on industrial projects dependent on the river.
I submit that taking note of the proposals of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd and the proposed public hearing villagers who have been protesting since 2007, wrote a letter to the Governor of Jharkhand Gram Sabha Roladih through its President on September 13, 2012, letter no. 11/GS/2012 with a 'Request for immediate cancellation of the Public Hearing scheduled to be held at Potka, East Singbhum on 24th September 2012'.
The letter expressed the resentment of the villages, members of local Gram Sabha and local social organisations stating the following:
1. The boundary wall was
illegally constructed at Potka by M/S Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd has not got
any NOC by local Gram Sabha and without any Notification by the Jharkhand State
Pollution Control Board, Ranchi.
2. The said Boundary wall is
totally illegal as the same is not acquired. We the villages have cultivated
for paddy inside the boundary.
3. Potka area in East Singhbhum
district is densely populated by Adivasis as such it is fully covered under 5th
Schedule area and also CNT Act in the constitution of India.
4. We observe that our
constitution is fully violated by anti-Adivasi like M/S Bhushan Power &
Steel Ltd
After stating the above, the
letter concluded by saying, "We, therefore appeal your honour, being the
custodian and our guardian to pass an order of Cancellation of the said Public
Hearing with immediate advice to local district authority ie Dy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum and also intimation to Jharkhand state Pollution Control Board,
Nagar Prasashan Bhawan, HEC Campus, Dhurva, Ranchi.
I submit that a similar letter dated September 13, 2012, Reference no. 18/G.S.2012 was sent to the Governor of Jharkhand by Gram Sabha of Samorasai through its President.
I submit that when no action was taken to stop the public hearing, Visthapan Virodhi Ekta Manch (Unity Forum Against Displacement) opposed and stopped the public hearing conducted by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and stopped it on September 24, 2012. Agitating against the illegal public hearing for the proposed project of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), the villagers imposed a 24 hour Janta Curfew from September 23, 2012. Some main roads to Potka were closed and the villagers used traditional tools to make the Janta Curfew a success.
I submit that around 10 o' clock on September 24, rally of thousands of villagers opposing the proposed steel cum power plant reached the site of the public hearing. Initially, police stopped the rally at the main gate of the Pariyojana Balika Ucch Vidyalaya, Potka near Potka police station, East Singhbhum district. Villagers ignored the police and entered the venue to protest against the proposed plant.
I submit that the illegal public hearing was initiated by Bhushan Steel representatives and district administration. Land owners and thousands of villagers opposed the process. Taking account of the situation, district administration announced the closure of the public hearing and one by one the officials fled from the site.
I submit that just outside the venue Visthapan Virodhi Ekta Manch held a public meeting and announced the disruption and closure of the public hearing and announced the end of Janta Curfew.
I submit that in a statement issued by Amal Ranjan Sardar, President, Gram Sabha Roladidih and Badal Sardar, President, Bhumi Raksha Vahini Kisan Morcha, Roladih, it was stated that in protest against the public hearing Visthapan Virodhi Ekta Manch, Gao Ganrajya Parishad, Bhumi Raksha Vahini, Kisan Morcha Roladih, Khunt Katti Raiyat Suraksha Sangharsh Samiti Potka, Bhumi Raksha Sangharsh Samiti Aasanbani Panchayat, Bhumi Surksha Samiti, Kalikapur, Bhumi Bachao Sangharsh Samiti Potka, Aadiwasi-Mulwasi Vikas Parishad, Akhil Bharitya Aadiwasi Mahasabha, Kumar Chandra Mardi, Badal Sardar, Kapur Bagi, Madan Mohan, Kumar Dilip, Samir Sardar, Amal Ranjan, Ramanath Hansda, Sitaram Tudu, Dhiren Bhagat, Dr Somaya Soren, Saraswati Sardar, Lalita Sardar, Malti Sardar, Aamika, Salkhan, Ghaniram, Babulal, Baburam, Shyam Charan, Uday and others participated.
It may be remembered that a Janta Curfew during 15-16 May, 2010 was also imposed when BPSL tried to do ‘Bhumi Pujan’ on May 16. The adivasi villagers witnessed the collusion of some ruling party and opposition party in the state. They have developed healthy distrust for politicians and have become more determined to save their land and culture.
I am enclosing photographs of key documents reveal the illegality of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd and the pictures of the villagers protest.
I submit that Jharkhand's Potka villagers are right in stating that Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd company's proposed project in the Fifth Schedule, CNT & PESA Area is illegal. The notification for public hearing which was issued by Shri S K Sinha, Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board is illegal. It may also be noted that the notification itself is technically flawed as well as it does not have any reference no and it did not reveal the details of the proposed project.
I submit that I have examined the seven page MoU dated September 7, 2006 between Jharkhand Government and Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd for 3 million tonne per annum (MTPA) capacity steel plant-cum-900 MW captive power plant (CPP) is illegal. The MoU was signed by Sanjay Singal, the Chairman & Managing Director, BPSL and Arun Kumar Singh, Secretary, Industry, Jharkhand Govt.
At page 2, the MoU reads: "The Plant will be completed within Five years from the handing over of the land possession and necessary availability of raw material linkages for the project. The total capital investment in the project is expected to be around Rs 10500 crores. In addition to this the Company will develop Iron Ore, Coal and Manganese Mines for captive use. The investment for the development of these mines will be in addition to the investment of Rs 10500 crores..."
I submit that it does not take into account the facts the proposal is violation of the PESA Act as per which the gram sabha’s consent is required. PESA extends panchayat laws to areas that have been included under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. The PESA is aimed at safeguarding the traditional rights of the tribals to natural resources. The MoU violates those rights.
For Land, the MoU at page 3 reads:"The Jharkhand Government shall render all possible assistance in procuring adequate and suitable land, whether Government land, forest or private (2700 acres of land within Plant boundary required for setting up manufacturing plant at Potka Block in Jamshedpur region East Singhbhum District) or any other place and 750 acres for township free from all encumbrances..."
I submit that this assurance by the State Govt. is in total disregard of the interest of the adivasis, their land and livelihood for thousands of years.
For Water, it reads:"The Jharkhand Government shall facilitate permission for optimal withdrawal of water (for industrial and domestic use) from Subernrekha river at Domuhani the joining point (of) the Kharkai & Swarnrekha River for operation of the project as per the prevailing rates and as per the requirement of the project. In case the project requires to meet the water requirement through borewells the company at its cost will make own necessary provisions required for recharging the ground water in the premises."
I have learnt that when the BPSL had tried to lay the foundation stone for its project thousands of villagers of several villages barricaded all the roads leading to the village. The Gram Sabha has imposed a ban on the entry of surveyors in the village. This shows that what the State Govt promises in the MoU are contrary to the interest of the adivasi villagers.
For raw material at page 4, the MoU reads:"The Jharkhand Govt. recognize the provision of continuous supply of suitable quantity of Iron Ore, Coal and Manganese Ore is vital to the project as it is the basis on which the project is being carried forward by BPSL and Jharkhand Govt. shall make best endeavor to ensure that adequate captive mining sources are made available to the company as per requirement, at least for a period of 30 years". It further reads: " The state Govt agrees to recommend coal blocks to the Govt. of India so as to meet the requirement of mineral reserve of 320 Tons of Non coking coal and 60 Million ton of medium coking coal for captive coal mining for the project either directly or, through JV with a Jharkhand PSU."
For Iron Ore and other Minerals, the MoU reads:"The company will require mineral reserve of at least 200 Million Tons of Iron ore to meet the requirement of the proposed steel plant of 3 million ton capacity per annum. The Jharkhand Govt. agrees to grant prospecting licences and captive mining leases for mines having reserves of 200 million tons after following prescribed procedures and completion of required formalities including approval from Govt. of India. For this purpose, the Jharkhand Govt. shall recommend to the central Govt. and use its best offices to obtain the central Govt.'s approval within minimum possible time for the grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases for captive Ore mines. Final leases shall be executed only after BPSL acquires the required land and invests at least 25 % of the project cost in the Plant and machinery on site."
For Manganese Ore, the MoU reads:"The Jharkhand Govt. agrees to grant prospecting licences and Mining lease for suitable reserve of Manganese Ore to meet captive requirement of the company for its ferro-alloy plant for a period of 30 years after following prescribed procedures and after obtaining necessary approval of Govt. of India."
I have learnt from the villagers that the MoU by the State Govt and the complicity of the political parties is an assault not only on land and natural resources but also adivasi society and culture. The adivasi villagers are convinced that barring few most of the politicians are agents of the company. One of the villagers wondered as to how to trust even adivasi Chief Minister if he has pledged his allegiance to the company instead of the adivasi’s welfare.
At page 5 of the MoU, for environment and other clearances the Jharkhand Govt. agreed to forward proposal of BPSL in obtaining No Objection Certificate through State Pollution Control Board and for obtaining all necessary clearances from the Central Government. It is agreed in the MoU that "BPSL shall arrange to conduct a rapid Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and detailed EIA and prepare an Environment Management Plan (EMP) for the project".
I submit that a section of the print and electronic media has been publishing ‘paid news’ and are not reliable. If the newspapers and channels and seemingly complicit district and police administration want to face the truth, let them procure a copy of the EIA report of BPSL’s proposed plant in Potka and present it for independent scrutiny. The complete EIA report and detailed EIA and prepare an EMP has not been shared with the villagers and is not available in public till date.
It is promised in the MoU that "The Jharkhand Government shall assist in obtaining expeditiously all the statutory and non statutory clearances required for setting up of a steel plant, captive power plant, mines, housing colony, pipelines, power transmission lines, and other material transportation infrastructures from the competent authorities...Such clearances shall include forest clearances both for the steel plant site, CPP site and captive coal, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore Mines. The Jharkhand Government shall facilitate state Govt.'s recommendations to Ministries of Coal, Mines, Power, Environment and Forest of the Govt. of India for necessary approvals, clearances and sanctions."
I submit that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report prepared by MECON Consultant, a Government of India Enterprise for the proposed Integrated Steel Plant of 3.MTPA and 300 CPP has not been made available to the villagers till date. It is not in public domain. It appears that it is being treated either as a classified document or the complete EIA/ EMP has not been prepared as yet.
I submit that nowhere in the MoU it is acknowledged that the 2700 acres of land within Plant boundary + 750 acres of land for township is adivasi land which has constitutional protection which is beyond statutory and non statutory clearances.
In view of the above, it is submitted that the stoppage of illegal and un-constitutional public hearing by adivasi villagers has merit to implement the decision of the Gram Sabha of Roladih and Samorasai cannot be overlooked. The voice of the adivasi villagers is facing onslaught of company representatives and conniving and colluding officials. A delegation of the villagers and members of the Gram Sabha ought to be invited to hear their testimonies.
Yours Faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna1715@gmail.com
Cc
Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand
Chief Secretary, Government of West
Bengal
Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha
Shri Raghubar Das, MLA, Jharkhand
Shri Vinod Singh, MLA, Jharkhand
Shri Arup
Chatterjee, MLA, Jharkhand
Shri Randhir Kumar Soni, MLA, Jharkhand
Shri K C Mardi, Convener, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad
Organized community defeat giant cement company Cementos Mexicanos in Mexico
Written By Krishna on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 | 4:38 AM
CEMEX can not burn more waste in the state of Hidalgo
September 24, 2012
Huichapan community, in the central México's state of Hidalgo, has achieved a historic victory, after 6 months of peaceful protests and legal actions that drove to the closure of the plant of Proambiente company, a subsidiary of Cementos Mexicanos, CEMEX, by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources.
This plant was responsible for receiving and processing a large part of the 12,000 tons of solid waste generated daily in Mexico City, to be burned as an alternative fuel in the kilns of CEMEX plant in Huichapan.
Shipping to cement kilns was a major "solutions" driven by the Mexico City government (GDF), through an agreement with CEMEX, for the treatment of Mexican capital's waste, after the closure of Bordo Poniente landfill (the largest in Latin America), in December 2011, and has been strongly criticized for its negative impacts on human health and the environment derived from its potential emissions of heavy metals, dioxins and furans, and other contaminants.
The inhabitants of the town of Huichapan, mainly in the communities of Maney, Dongoteay and Zothe, located around the CEMEX plant, started to feel the negative effects on health and ecosystems when it began to receive and indiscriminately burn waste from DF and organized theirself in the Citizens United for the Environment (CUMA) movement, to resist this false solution to a problem generated elsewhere in the country and raise their own alternatives for waste management.
The local community has been constantly supported by biologist Jorge Tadeo Vargas, from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), and State Rep. Sandra Ordaz Oliver, President of the Health Commission of the State Congress, who are committed to enforce statewide in Hidalgo the ban of combustion of municipal solid waste and hazardous waste, and promote a Zero Waste law for the state and its municipalities, including more sustainable options such as waste reduction and separation at source, reuse, recycling and composting.
Contacts:
GAIA in Mexico: Jorge Tadeo Vargas, jtadeo@lunasexta.org, (52) 722 2 19 34 86
GAIA Latin America Coordination: Eduardo Giesen, eduardo@no-burn.org, 56 9 9163 0995
CIL petitions PMO to condon public hearing & privide speedy environmental clearance for 13 coal mines
Written By Krishna on Sunday, September 23, 2012 | 1:36 AM
It has also suggested to the PMO that the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) could be asked to make necessary amendments in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2006, to facilitate provisional permission for 25 per cent additional environmental clearance capacity, in anticipation of completion of due process, in the larger interest of the nation.
“There is scope to quickly increase production for some of the projects of CIL to the tune of 25 per cent, in addition to the existing environmental clearance (EC) capacities, if they are accorded clearance expeditiously, by doing away with the need for a fresh public hearing. The list of the 13 projects identified has already been sent to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). Public hearing has already been conducted in respect of these projects earlier. The currently approved EC capacity of these projects is 114.60 mtpa, and they have applied for 125.14 mpta, against which the targeted production for 2012-13 is 123.60 MT. Further, if 25 per cent additional capacity is approved, these projects plan to produce 145.91 MT in 2016-17. This issue was considered by the Group of Ministers (GoM) at its meeting on September 20 last year, where the MoEF had agreed to consider such projects on a case-to-case and merit basis,” the note from the Coal Ministry and PMO states.
To buttress its argument, CIL stated that Section 7(ii) of the EIA notification 2006 provides for exemption of a public hearing for expansion projects after due diligence for projects, which have secured EC earlier. However, MoEF, vide their office memorandum June 3, 2009, and August 24, 2009, have conveyed that no exemption from public hearing shall be given in any such project, under the said provision.
However, CIL has pleaded that since the listed projects have already undergone public hearing at some point of time, and the proposed environment management plans have robust mitigation measures, MoEF may review their earlier stand, and relax the clause of public hearing for the project of public sector coal companies, in the larger interest of nation, for increasing coal production in the current energy crisis situation.
Keywords: coalgate scam, coal block allocation, Prime Minister's Office, CIL petitions, 13 coal mines
Sujay Mehdudia
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cil-petitions-pmo-for-speedy-ec-for-13-coal-mines/article3927265.ece
Fury over factory’s clay-waste dumping
a>
‘Unproven technologies’ for electricity generation from waste based power plants major public health concern
Written By Krishna on Saturday, September 22, 2012 | 4:50 AM
Dr Sudhir Krishna Secretary Union Ministry of Urban Development Government of India New Delhi
Date: September 22, 2012
Subject- ‘Unproven technologies’ for electricity generation from waste based power plants major public health concern in Delhi’s Okhla, Narela-Bawana, Gazipur and elsewhere
Sir,
This is with reference to your submission in the matter of waste to energy projects at the International Conference organized by Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Union Ministry of Urban Development, British High Commission and Athena Infonomics, a consultancy firm on September 20, 2012 at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi.
I wish to inform you that at the conference Mr Andrew Jackson, Counsellor, Knowledge Economy, British High Commission released a 136 page book ‘Public Private Partnerships in Urban Water Supplu and Municipal Solid Waste Management’ edited by Deepa Kerthykeyan, Arslan Aziz, Ankit Kumar Chatri and Saloni Shah of Athena Infonomics. A copy of this book was given to you as well prior to your valedictory address.
I want to draw your attention towards what is underlined at page 82-83. Under the title ‘Unproven technologies’, it reads: “Controversies in the scientific and environmental arena for some waste management technologies e.g., incineration, plasma gasification, have made ULBs (Urban Local Bodies) apprehensive about going ahead with such technologies.” It refers to an article The Economist which has underlined that “…few people were aware that such chemicals (that waste incinerators emit) presented a serious health hazard, capable of upsetting the immune system, damaging the liver and causing cancer.”
At page 83 of the book there is a box titled ‘Waste to Energy Plant- Municipal Corporation of Delhi’, it reads: “The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) established a 3.75 MW waste to energy (wte) plant with assistance from government of Denmark in 1987 to address the twin problems of waste disposal and electricity shortage faced by the city. The capacity of the plant was 300 TPD of solid waste and was set up at the cost of Rs 25 crore by Volund Milijotechnik A/S Denmark that also supplied the incineration technology. The plant started operations but was shut down…”
I submit that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) had also conducted an inquiry after the Delhi High Court ruled in April 2001 on the Timarpur waste to energy plant's failure. The court had taken issue with the procurement of the incineration plant and said that "No order should have been placed for procurement of the plant unless its utilities were completely known."
I submit that criticism did not come just from the Delhi High Court. Referring among other things to the originally failed Timarpur incineration plant, a 'White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan' prepared by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests prepared in 1997, said this: "The experience of the incineration plant at Timarpur, Delhi and the briquette plant at Bombay support the fact that thermal treatment of municipal solid waste is not feasible, in situations where the waste has a low calorific value. A critical analysis of biological treatment as an option was undertaken for processing of municipal solid waste in Delhi and it has been recommended that composting will be a viable option. Considering the large quantities of waste requiring to be processed, a mechanical composting plant will be needed." The White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan is available on Environment Ministry’s website.
I submit that Parliamentary committee has also expressed its opinion against incineration projects. Referring to two burn projects in Andhra Pradesh as well to problems of incineration in general, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Energy wrote to the Union Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (called Ministry of Non conventional Energy Sources) on 14 June 2005 seeking review of its WTE programme. The Chairman supported a ban on economic incentives for such projects, writing this: "We therefore direct that land filling of unsegregated wastes, incineration and recovery of energy from municipal waste shall henceforth not receive any Govt. sponsorship, encouragement or aid in any manner, except for completion of any projects that have already invested 30% of their capital cost on site."
I submit that amidst bitter opposition from residents, waste pickers and environmental groups a Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 9901/2009 in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the power plant by Delhi’s Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Co Pvt Ltd (TOWMCL) of M/s Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL), a company of M/s Jindal Saw Group Limited is scheduled for hearing on October 19. In the Hon’ble Supreme Court a related matter [Writ Petition (Civil) 888/1996] in which there was an order passed putting a stay on power plants based on waste incineration, is listed for hearing on October 1, 2012.
I submit that Parliamentary Standing Committee on Energy has once again been apprised of the waste to energy projects based on polluting incinerator technologies.
I wish to draw your attention towards the 31 page report of the Union Environment & Forests Ministry constituted Technical Experts Evaluation Committee of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant has condemned the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant by JITF Urban Infrastructure Limited (Jindal Ecopolis) has violated every rule in the rule book including environmental clearance conditions. It revealed to the Experts Committee that it is using untested and unapproved Chinese incinerator technology in complete violation all laws and environmental clearance of 2007 including its own project design document and environment impact assessment report. Chinese technology provider is from Hangzhou New Century Company Ltd of Hangzhou Boiler Group. The critique of the report is attached.
I submit that at the conference I had asked Prof. Mukul Asher of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University, Singapore, the Moderator of the Technical Session II about the appropriateness of waste-to-energy incinerators of Singapore which is cited as solution for the national capital in India unmindful of the study of application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for evaluating various waste management options in Singapore which recommends, “Out of all the waste strategies, the recycling of wastes offers the best solution for environmental protection and improved human health for the nation. Significant emission savings can be realized through recycling.”
The study was done by Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore. According to this study titled ‘Impact assessment of waste management options in Singapore’ observed, “The impact assessment results for climate change, acidification, and ecotoxicity show that the incineration of materials imposes considerable harm to both human health and the environment, especially for the burning of plastics, paper/cardboard, and ferrous metals. The results also show that, although some amount of energy can be derived from the incineration of wastes, these benefits are outweighed by the air pollution (heavy metals and dioxins/furans) that incinerators produce.” Prof. Asher observed that one country solution cannot be considered appropriate for another country. It is also a fact that the composition of Singapore’s municipal waste and that of Indian waste is quite different.
I submit that Union Minister for Environment & Forests has acknowledged in the Parliament that “complaints were received against the incineration of municipal waste and its likely harmful effects on the air quality and health of people in the Sukhdev Vihar/Okhla area due to the emissions from Waste-to–Energy plant at Okhla… on four occasions out of ten, levels of Particulate matter (PM) exceeded the standard of 150 mg/Nm3” however “the Minister said that as per the Central pollution Control Board, the technology being used by the Waste-to-Energy plant at Okhla is as specified in the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.” This is far from truth as is evident from the CPCB’s report which is now in public domain.
I submit that in the report, Dr A B Akolkar, Director, CPCB emphasized that as per Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules ‘biodegrdable waste’ is to be treated using biological method rather than deriving RDF or by incineration as is being done by Jindal Ecopolis. This clearly demonstrates that the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant violates the Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules framed under Environment Protection Act, 1986.
I submit that in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9901 of 2009 in Delhi High Court, legal officials like Mr A S Chandiok Additional Solicitor General and Standing Counsel for the Delhi Government and for the Delhi Pollution Control Committee, Najmi Waziri has been misleading and misrepresenting facts about waste to energy plants in Andhra Pradesh by saying that “the Refuse Derived Fuel incineration technology was already in use at Hyderabad and Vijayawada”. The fact is that there is no plant in Hyderabad. The plant that became functional as per legal officials now stands defunct in Shadnagar, Mahboobnagar district of Andhra Pradesh. On 18th July, 2011, Delhi High Court asked CPCB and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to conduct a joint inquiry about India's first waste-to-energy plant and file a report on the allegations that it posed health risks to citizens. "A joint report be submitted by the DPCC and the CPCB after an inquiry of the site of the energy plant about the alleged risks posed to citizens," ordered a bench of Chief Justice, Delhi High Court. This has not been done so far. A bizarre situation has emerged because the arguments for ‘Refuse Derived Fuel incineration technology’ that was advanced by the law officers is no more relevant because the plant is using an experimental Chinese technology which was never ever mentioned at the time of submitting the project proposal.
I submit that there have been incessant demonstrations and protest rallies against this project. There is an ongoing campaign against it. The plant that has been built despite protest is 150 m from the residential areas. The area has a bird sanctuary, a university and three hospitals within a radius of 10 kilometres. All will be adversely affected by toxic fumes of the plant. The idea of waste to energy plants which is based on a tried, tested and failed incineration technology in Okhla.
I submit that MCD, Delhi government and central government has shown inexcusable callousness towards hazardous emissions from municipal incinerators that cause serious environmental and health problems both to people living near them and thousands of kilometres from the source. These projects are destroying the livelihood of about 3.5 lakh waste recycling workers and valuable resource material for compost that is required to be treated by composting/anaerobic digestion/vermin composting/other biological processing for stabilization as per Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules.
I submit that representatives of GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) led by Dr. Juergen Porst, Senior Advisor have stressed the need for a Disaster Management Plan in the very first meeting of the CPCB’s Technical Expert Committee, which is annexed to the CPCB’s report. But this does not find mention in the recommendations of the report. This finds reference in the minutes of the meeting annexed with the report. It underlines the possibility of disaster from the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant, which is situated in a residential area. It is noteworthy that a hazardous plant in Bhopal’s residential area that led to world worst industrial disaster in 1984 also did not have any disaster management plan.
I submit that the Review of Technical Evaluation by Anant Trivedi, Member, Technical Evaluation Committee, CPCB reads: "The Okhla plant has a capacity of 2050 tpd of domestic waste input. However the plant design allows upto 10,000 tpd of input for incineration. Toxic bottom ash quantity produced will be 20-30% of input. This amounts to at least 410 tpd rising to a maximum of 3,000 tpd. Additionally there will be toxic flyash of about 10% of the bottom ash.None of the landfill sites have the capacity to take in so much toxic waste and mulba has been dumped everywhere including all public spaces." He asks, "so what is proposed to safeguard public health from this toxic substance?
I submit that the report apprehended that the information that is submitted to the experts committee of CPCB might be used in the on-going case in the Delhi High Court. It makes a shocking revelation that although High Court has been hearing the case since 2009, the project proponent did not inform the court about gross deviations from the project design plan envisaged in the EIA report. As per the minutes of the second meeting of the technical experts committee, non-cooperative approach of the senior officials of Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant was condemned on August 11, 2011. Representatives of GTZ underlined that there was lack of transparency with regard to environmental and health impact on the neighborhood residents. It was also noted that the fugitive emissions and the expected emission of Dioxins and Furans has not been quantified. The characteristic of ash and required standards was not mentioned. Prof. T R Sreekrishnan, Department of Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology stated that disposal option for incineration instead of bio-methanation proposed for green waste is in violation of what was mentioned in the EIA report.
I submit that CPCB report steers clear of the fact that fiscal incentives for projects of power generation from MSW through new technologies violates Supreme Court’s Order: The court has put a stay on subsidy for waste to energy projects except 5 pilot projects based on Biomethanation technology. It has come to light that none of Delhi’s three projects are based on biomethanation technology and are not the pilot projects approved by the court. The Timarpir-Okhla project is getting incentives from the government although the apex court has put a stay on subsidy. Although the court’s order applies to Delhi’s other waste to energy incinerator projects it is functioning with impunity.
I wish to inform you that I mentioned at the conference about a Fact Finding team’s visit to the plant site in Andhra Pradesh of SELCO International Ltd’s Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) incineration technology based waste to energy project at Elikatta village, Shadnagar Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, Andhra Pradesh and found it to be lying in defunct, rusting and abandoned condition where cows were seen grazing in the dilapidated factory premises. It is the same plant which was cited as a successful plant in the High Court to advocate Okhla’s power plant.
It may be noted that earlier, Asian Development Bank (ADB) withdrew from this Rs 200-crore power project at Okhla in south Delhi. The bank had promised about Rs 10 crore to the plant under the Asia Pacific Carbon Fund. ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), a research and advocacy group had written to the ADB. In a reply, ADB informed: “Asia Pacific Carbon Fund is no longer associated with TOWMCL integrated waste-to-energy project in Delhi and no funds were released to this project” besides that it has also decided to stop providing technical assistance to the project.
I submit that as per the principles of waste management what is required is a resource management strategy for municipal solid waste is to avoid its generation in the first place. This implies changing production and consumption patterns to eliminate the use of disposable, non-reusable, non-returnable products and packaging. The alternative waste disposal methods include waste reduction, waste segregation at source, extended use and refuse, recycling, biomethanation technology and composting.
In view of the above, it is clear that ‘Unproven technologies’ for electricity generation from waste based power plants major public health concern in Delhi’s Okhla, Narela-Bawana, Gazipur and elsewhere is technologically incompatible with reducing dioxins and heavy metals emissions. It is noteworthy that these projects rely on minimum guaranteed waste flows. It indirectly promotes continued waste generation while hindering waste prevention, reuse, composting, recycling, and recycling-based community economic activities. It costs cities and municipalities more and provides fewer jobs than comprehensive recycling and composting. It prohibits the development of local recycling-based businesses. At the conference, I mentioned the conclusively established inappropriateness of the incineration based waste to energy initiatives in Delhi by Ramky, GMR and Jindal companies.
I wish to request you to revisit the Waste to Energy policy being pushed by the Union Ministry of New and Renewable Energy to ascertain whether or not it is distorting waste management beyond repair after paying a site visit and interaction with the residents at the Timarpur-Okhla power plant in Sukhdev Vihar, Hazi Colony, Gaffar Manzil and others.
Let me take the opportunity to request you invite CAG to audit the waste to energy projects and the subsidies being cornered.
I will be happy to meet you with a delegation and share relevant documents mentioned above.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully Gopal Krishna Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) Mb: 9818089660, Email: krishna1715@gmail.com Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com Okhla Anti-incinerator Committee, http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/ghoslaokhla Cc Shri Kamal Nath, Union Minister of Urban Development Lt Governor, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar Chief Secretary, Government of Chattisgarh Chief Secretary, Government of Goa Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh Chief Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh Chief Secretary, Government of Assam Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura Chief Secretary, Government of Andaman and Nicobar (UT) Administrator, Government of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (UT) Administrator, Government of Daman and Diu (UT) Administrator, Government of Lakshadweep (UT)
Attack on Natural Resources in neo-liberal capitalism: challenges to movements
Written By Krishna on Thursday, September 20, 2012 | 8:19 AM
Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation to send waste-to-energy project proposal to government
The largest ship graveyard in the world
