TWA's submission on violation of environmental clearance conditions by Jindal's waste to energy plant in Delhi’s Okhla residential & ecologically fragile area

Shri Anil Razdan
Chairperson,
Experts Appraisal Committee (EAC) on Infrastructure and Miscellaneous Projects + CRZ,

Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

Indira Paryavaran Bhavan

Jorbagh Road

New Delhi-110003

Date: 8^th June, 2016

Subject- TWA's submission on violation of environmental clearance conditions by Jindal's waste to energy plant in Delhi’s Okhla residential and ecologically fragile area

Sir,

This is to bring to your notice the massive construction underway at the incineration technology based Waste-to-Energy plant of The Timarpur Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (TWMCPL), M/s Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL), a company of M/s Jindal Saw Group Limited at Sukhdev Vihar, Okhla in the vicinity of Hazi colony, Gaffar Manzil and several residential and sensitive institutional entities besides Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The residents of Okhla region are quite perturbed and alarmed about it. A concrete mix plant has been erected to construct an additional structure. These additional and modification activities are in violation of the conditions laid down in the environmental clearance letter.

I submit that this construction is underway without any fresh Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report and Public Hearing giving details of the additional activity. This activity is in addition to deviation in technology for which environmental clearance was obtained. It has resulted in severe pollution to the environment. The fact is that contrary to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report, bio-methanation plant and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) units do not exist. This plant violates siting norms for polluting industries, being barely 150 meters from long-established residential areas, posing a threat to life of residents.

I submit that no residential locality in its sanity can give consent to allow some 2,000 MT of unsegregated municipal waste to be incinerated daily in their locality. They cannot be expected to be superior bearers of risk. The EAC cannot turn a blind eye to serious health hazard to tens of thousands of people living and working in this ecologically-sensitive area. It is noteworthy that two major hospitals in the area have complained to the Prime Minister's office about the hazards to patients.

The claims made in the Compliance Report for the Period 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 for the Project Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Processing Complex (waste to energy plant) at Okhla by M/s Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Co. Pvt. Ltd with regard to the Specific Conditions and General Conditions laid down in the Environment Clearance Letter No. : D/SD/DG dated 23-1/2006-IA-III Dated 21.03.2007 and 09.05. 2007 are factually incorrect and misleading.

Specific Condition reads: No Objection Certificate from the Delhi pollution Control committee should be obtained before initiating the project.

Status of Compliance: Delhi Pollution Control Committee has issued show cause notice to the project proponent and denied it authorisation or consent to operate during the last monitoring period.

Specific Conditions reads: “To minimize odour and aestheics, it should be ensured that waste will be directly unloaded into specifically designed pits. The air contained in the complex should be suitable treated with wet scrubbing method before lettering out in the atmosphere.”

Status of Compliance: The entire Okhla region surrounding the waste to energy plant is contaminated with toxic ash emanating from the plant. The air pollutants from this plant contribute to the overall air pollution in Delhi that is having adverse health impact and reducing life span of the individuals.

General Condition reads: In case of diversion or alteration in the project including the implementing agency, fresh references should be made to Ministry for modification in the clearances conditions or imposition of new one for ensuring environmental protection. The project proponents should be responsible for implementing the suggested safeguard

measures.

Status of Compliance: Although there has been admitted “diversion or alteration in the project including the implementing agency” especially with regard to technology, no fresh references has been made to Ministry for modification in the clearances conditions or imposition of new one for ensuring environmental protection.

This violation of Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 is part of ongoing violations by this project proponent from the very outset. This fact has been admitted by the Union Minister of Environment & Forests in his letter to the Chief Minister of Delhi.

I submit the following in this regard:

1. It all started with the plan of The Timarpur Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (TWMCPL), a subsidiary of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS) to generate 6 MW of electricity from the project at Timarpur, Delhi. The plant got subsequently owned by M/s Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited (JUIL), a company of M/s Jindal Saw Group Limited. At the outset it planned to process and to treat 214,500 MT of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and produce 69,000 MT of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) in a year as per company's Project Design Document (PDD) submitted to United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s CDM Executive Board. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Municipal Solid Waste facility at Okhla was submitted by New Delhi Waste Processing Company Private Limited, Okhla, New Delhi (NDWPCL), Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS). Thus, one arm of the company ILFS proposed the project and another arm of the same company prepared the EIA report. A case of conflict of interest is quite manifest.

2. The report prepared in December 2006 is full of flaws. This 155 page long document is ridden with flaws.

3. The header on all the pages of EIA report reads “Rapid EIA – Okhla Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Processing Facility”, so it won’t be incorrect to say that this is not a comprehensive assessment of project activity and its likely impacts on health and environment. That’s a different matter; if “Full or Detailed EIA” is not mandatory for this kind of project activity (we are sure this won’t be true).

4. Page 30 of EIA reads “Since this being a rapid EIA, only one season data was collected”.

5. If you read page 63/64, where the ecological environment has been described, it says “The proposed project is at the landfill site, near STP located in Okhla industrial area in the southern part of Delhi.” This description is factually and technically incorrect because the piece of land where the waste to energy project has been constructed is not a ‘landfill” site and has historically never been a landfill site. Moreover, because of the geography of this area, a landfill site can never be created here. This is not part of Okhla Industrial Area. All this misrepresentation has been done intentionally to give the impression that this is being located in the industrial area.

6. At page 102, EIA report concludes that “….no likely adverse impact on people’s health is predicted” (i.e. during the operation phase). This is factually not correct as has been borne out by the order of Delhi High Court pertaining to a plant using similar incinerator technology at the same location. The landmark judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 6976
of 2008 refers to 'The summary of "Epidemiological Studies on Adverse Health Effects Associated with Incineration" would show that medical waste incinerators are a leading source of dioxins and mercury in the environment and there is link between incinerator emissions and adverse health impacts on incinerator workers and residents living around the incinerators.'

7. The observations made in the judgment will have far reaching implications. It reads: "Both older and more modern incinerators can contribute to the contamination of local soil and vegetation with dioxins and heavy metals. In several European countries, cow's milk from farms located in the vicinity of incinerators has been found to contain elevated levels of dioxin, in some cases above regulatory limits. Increased levels of dioxins have been found in the tissues of residents near to incinerators in the UK, Spain and Japan. At an incinerator in Finland, mercury was increased in hair of residents living in the vicinity. Children living near a modern incinerator in Spain were found to have elevated levels of urinary thioethers, a biomarker of toxic exposure. " It notes that "After 2 years of operation of incinerator, dioxins levels were found increased by about 25% in both groups living between 0.5 to 1.5 and 3.5 to 4.0 km away (201 people) of people. In the repeat analysis, the increase was in the range of 10-15%". It records that "Mothers living close to incinerators and crematoria from 1956 to 1993" showed "increased risk of lethal congenital abnormalities, in particular, spinal bifida and heart defects, near incinerators: increased risk of stillbirths and anacephalus near crematoria". With regard to "Residents from 7 to 64 years old living within 5 km of an incinerator and the incinerator workers" the judgment observes, "Levels of mercury in hair increased with closer proximity to the incinerator during a 10 year period".

8. This judgment found that "Residents living within 10 km of an incinerator, refinery, and waste disposal site" showed "Significant increase in laryngeal cancer in men living with closer proximity to the incinerator and other pollution sources". The "Residents living around an incinerator and other pollution sources" showed "Significant increase in lung cancer related specifically to the incinerator". The "People living within 7.5 km of 72 incinerators" displayed "Risks of all cancers and specifically of stomach, colorectal, liver and lung cancer increased with closer proximity to incinerators". The order observes, "10. In Master Plan for Delhi, 2021, notified on 07.02.2007, hazardous waste processing viz. hospital/medical/industrial waste is amongst the industries, manufacturing of which shall be prohibited within National Capital Territory of Delhi." It is not in dispute that Delhi's municipal waste has hazardous waste characteristics. It is noteworthy that the biomedical waste incinerator which now been removed was located exactly in the vicinity of the residential colonies and Jindal's controversial municipal waste incinerator. The Hon'ble Court observed that "This is a mandatory requirement of the guidelines issued by CPCB, that such facility should be far away from residential and sensitive areas" The same holds true for the location of the Jindal's municipal waste based incinerator plant.

9. In such a backdrop, it is not surprising that Jindal’s municipal waste to energy plant based on incinerator technology in question faces bitter opposition from residents, environmental groups and waste pickers of Delhi. The plant is just 1.7-km away from the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The sanctuary is situated at the entrance of Noida in Gautam Budh Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh. An area of 3.5 square kilometres on the river Yamuna was notified as a bird sanctuary by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 in 1990. The Jindal's power plant is sandwiched between an eco sensitive zone and the residential colonies. The plant is situated at a distance of less than 50-100 meters from the residential colonies. This hazardous plant has an adverse impact on a large number of transcontinental migratory birds that visit the Okhla sanctuary. Their numbers have decreased over the years.

10. Not only that there is a large lake which lies sandwiched between Okhla village towards the west and Gautam Budh Nagar towards the east, the impact of the plant on this water source was not been disclosed in the Environment Impact Assessment report of the plant. This plant does not have the required mandatory clearances from the National Board for Wildlife. The sanctuary is approachable from Mathura Road (NH-2), via Sarita Vihar going towards NOIDA. The nearest stations of Delhi Metro are Sarita Vihar and Jasola Apollo metro station. This also reveals that the plant located in the vicinity of the sanctuary is amidst densely populated residential area. It is quite disturbing that Okhla's vegetable market (subzi mandi) is getting submerged in the ashes which emerge from the plant which is burning some 2050 Metric Tons of mixed municipal waste which has hazardous waste characteristics.

11. It is quite appropriate that Hazardous Substances Management Division (HSMD), MoEFCC has framed the Draft Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules to replace the pre-existing Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 given the fact that Indian municipal waste does have hazardous waste characteristics.

12. This Jindal's waste based power plant is situated not only in the proximity of New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh, Sukhdev Vihar and the business district Nehru Place - but also several
prominent institutions, including hospitals like Apollo, Escorts and Holy Family. But disregarding these habitations of birds and humans and a number of binding guidelines from multiple state agencies and Supreme Court directive, the plant has deployed unapproved and untested Chinese technology for power generation from burning the garbage unmindful of its human and environmental cost due to emissions of pollutants like persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. This has serious health and environment implications for the residents of National Capital Region (NCR) in general and Okhla and NOIDA residents in particular.

13. It is noteworthy that transboundary air pollution from plant is adversely affecting Delhi's Okhla vegetable market and UP's NOIDA areas. South Delhi's residents in Okhla face toxic dust as Jindal's waste based power plant in Sukhdev Vihar, Okhla spews out large clouds of thick emissions. Residents are left choking and spluttering and suffered severe eye irritation in Sukhdev Vihar which is barely 100 metres from the plant. Much of Sukhdev Vihar, Hazi colony, Gaffar Manzil and adjoining colonies including Jamia Milia Islamia and hospitals remains blanketed by soapy brown ash which had to be cleaned off floors, cars and even trees and shrubbery. The plant is amidst institutions of national importance like Central Road Research Institute, Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology and the Indian Institute of Information Technology. Such toxic emissions from the Jindal's power plant in an ecologically sensitive area and thickly populated area has become a routine affair with all the concerned authorities turning a blind eye towards this illegitimate and illegal act.

14. This plant has violated all the rules in the rule book. The polluting potential of a plant using municipal solid waste as fuel is serious. Emissions include suspended particulate matter (SPM), sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and dioxins and furans, the most toxic substances known to mankind.

15. Besides violating all the relevant laws and rules, this plant is violation of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 creating a compelling reason for the closure of this plant. The plant became operational in 2012 but it is using untested and unapproved Chinese incinerator technology, a fact noted in the report of the Central Pollution Control Board committee constituted after a delegation had met the Union Minister of Environment & Forests pursuant to his site visit of the plant. It is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Minister had written to the then Chief Minister, NCT of Delhi underling that the plant is functioning in violation of environmental regulations.

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

17. The failure of Delhi's Timarpur waste to energy plant, Hon'ble Delhi High Court had ordered an enquiry by the Comptroller Auditor General (CAG). In its annual report dated March 1990, the Comptroller Auditor General of India (CAG) observed, "The Refuse Incinerator-cum-Power Generation Plant installed by Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources in March 1985 remained inoperative since its installation. The Ministry failed to utilise or dispose off the inoperative plant and incurred an expenditure of Rs 1.25 crore on maintenance and insurance of the plant." The project was scrapped in July 1990. It is germane to note that Union Ministry of New and Renewable Energy which is now part of Ministry of Power provides a subsidy of Rs 1.5 crore/MW is distorting waste management in the country including Delhi.

18. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.888 of 1996 such subsidies are not meant for incinerator plants like the one in Okhla. Hon'ble Court's order dated 6^th May, 2005 said, "...we hope that till the position is clear, the Government would not sanction any further subsidies." It is noteworthy that on 15th May, 2007, the Court's order "permit (s) Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES) to go ahead for the time being with 5 pilot projects chosen by them" but it is noteworthy that this refers specifically to bio-methanation technology. MNES is renamed as Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE). It has been revealed through RTI that neither the proposed Delhi's waste to energy incinerator projects one of those 5 pilot projects nor is it based on the recommended technology.

19. It is apparent that amendments made in the EC have been made to gain this assistance of Rs 1.5 crore/MW even as the stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on sanction of any further subsidies for projects on energy recovery from Municipal Solid Wastes continues to be in force, in manifest violation of Court's order. It is relevant to take note of an order of Union Ministry of Renewable Energy (MNRE) order in this regard. It reads: "Projects for power generation from MSW through a two-stage process involving production of RDF by processing of MSW and it's combustion for generation of power are proposed to be taken up in a fast track mode. ...The developers will be selected on the basis of a bid for minimum amount of financial assistance (or 'viability gap' funding) within an overall ceiling of Rs 1.50 crore per MW." In the light of the Court's order MNRE must be persuaded to withdraw or modify its letter (No.10/3/2005-UICA) to stop promotion of polluting technologies like incinerators.

20. Hon'ble Supreme Court is quite categorical in saying, "The Committee has recommended that projects based on bio-methanation of MSW should be taken up only on segregated/uniform waste unless it is demonstrated that in Indian conditions, the waste segregation plant/process can separate waste suitable for bio-methanation. It has opined that there is a need to take up pilot projects that promote integrated systems for segregation/collection/ transportation and processing and treatment of waste. In view of the report of the Committee and having regard to the relevant facts, we modify the order passed by this Court earlier and permit Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES) to go ahead for the time being with 5 pilot projects chosen by them, keeping in view the recommendations made by the Expert Committee and then take appropriate decision in the matter." Despite this Delhi Government has erred in supporting illegal waste to energy incinerators in Delhi which is contrary to the Hon'ble Court's order.

21. It must be recalled that Delhi Government had falsely claimed in the Hon'ble High Court that it was one of the five projects cleared by Hon'ble Supreme Court leading to dismissal of petition filed by residents but when the Hon'ble High Court later found to its shock that such a claim was manifestly untrue, the petition was restored. It was in March 2009 that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9901 of 2009 which was initially dismissed on 12th August, 2009 because of misrepresentation of facts by Shri A S Chandiok the then Additional Solicitor General. Hon'ble High Court later found that it was misled earlier which had led to it dismissing the petition. The Petition was restored by an order dated 15^th January, 2010. In the presence of Shri A.S. Chandihok, the bench headed by the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the order observed, "that the project in question" and "the location of the pilot project in Delhi was neither recommended by the Expert Committee nor approved by the Supreme Court."

22. The attached certificate of Host Country Approval dated 15^th May, 2007 given by National CDM Authority to the project of The Timarpur Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (TWMCPL), a subsidiary of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS) is quite relevant and merits your attention. This approval was given after is consideration by the NCDMA on 30^th March, 2007. It was confirmed based on submissions by the company prior to approval and prior to registration with UNFCCC’s CDM Executive Board that “The project contributes to Sustainable Development in India”. Post registration changes establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the project does not contribute to Sustainable Development and sets a very bad precedent for the country in particular. It puts the communities and the ecosystem of Okhla, Delhi to enormous risk which cannot be deemed acceptable.

23. The country approval laid down certain specific conditions which are required to be complied with “during the lifetime of the project”. The approval conditions stated categorically that “This approval is not transferrable. The authority reserves the right to revoke this Host Country Approval if the conditions stipulated in this approval are not complied with to the satisfaction of the National CDM Authority.”

24. The conditions stipulated in the approval certificate have not been complied with the project in this question. It must be noted that the approval was given to The Timarpur Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (TWMCPL), a subsidiary of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS) but the approval was transferred to 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. This clearly implies that the conditions have been violated.

25. Besides this the approval certificate states “The TOWMCL shall obtain all statutory clearances and other approvals as required from the competent authorities for setting up of the project.” It is evident from the Validation opinion for post registration changes provided by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) that the “statutory clearances” which were obtained pre registration were not and has not been obtained post registration. This also clearly shows that Host Country Approval “conditions stipulated” in the approval have not been complied with. This creates a full proof compelling logic for the National CDM Authority which admittedly has the “right to revoke this Host Country Approval” to revoke the approval granted to this project.

26. There is an inexcusable admitted deviation from approved and validated technology in the matter of Clean Development Management (CDM) project 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.

27. The company submitted the 52 -page long PDD (Version 2) to the Board as CDM project activity to earn carbon credit. The project got listed before the board on 23^rd May, 2006, and the CDM Executive Board invited public comments until 21^st June, 2006. Subsequently, there was 90- page long Version 04 of PDD of The Timarpur –Okhla Waste Management Company Pvt Ltd’s (TOWMCL) dated 6^th September, 2007. Prior to that there Version 03 of PDD dated 28^th July, 2006. Then there was PDD Version 03.1. The initial request for registration was submitted on 3^rd March, 2007 by Designated Operational Entity (DOE) through Mr Siddarth Yadav of Société Générale de Surveillance (currently known as SGS), a Switzerland and United Kingdom based DOE. The project got registered on 10^th November, 2007. Prior to the registration I had submitted elaborate comments in this regard. The same is available on UNFCCC’s CDM Executive Board’s website at http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/9JGKQMHTCBE61J51WVVT1AIH7DUW0H/view.html Subsequently, the 55 -page long PDD Version Number 9 titled Version 04. 1 dated 30^th January, 2014 was published on the Board’s website following request for post-registration changes.

28. As per Validation opinion for post registration changes provided by Det Norske Veritas (DNV), an Oslo based international certification body and classification society dated 27^th May, 2014, new “parameters are now proposed to be additionally monitored consequent upon the technology adopted” by TOWMCL. These include monitoring of average additional distance travelled by vehicle for ash and inert disposal compared to the baseline in year y is now proposed to be monitored to account for the project emission. It also includes monitoring of “Amount of RDF used outside the project boundary is proposed to be monitored based on the sale invoice. There will normally be no sale and the parameter is used for project emission calculations.” It adds, “Weight of RDF sold offsite for which no sale invoices can be provided is also monitored .The quantity will be monitored based on weigh bridge report and is being monitored to account for project emission.” It states “Monitored content of methane in the stack gas from RDF combustion in year y. This will be monitored by third party on quarterly basis. This parameter is being monitored to account for project emission.” It submits “Monitored content of nitrous oxide in the stack gas from RDF combustion in year y. This will be monitored by third party on quarterly basis. This parameter is being monitored to account for project emission.”

29. Every claim made about RDF is misplaced and an exercise in glaring misrepresentation of facts. It is not surprising that residents have noticed how efforts are on within the premises of the plant to set up a structure in one corner to justify claims regarding RDF.

30. The Validation Opinion informs that as per the registered PDD Version 1 , the project activity was envisaged to be developed at two different location, i.e. Timarpur and Okhla with 650 Tonne Per Day (TPD) of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to be process ed at the Timarpur site while 1300 TPD of MSW was envisaged to be processed at Okhla site for the preparation of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). Additionally, 100 TPD of green waste (waste collected from garden like dry leaves, cut grass, etc) was to be utilized at Okhla site biomethanation plant for generation of biogas. It was also envisaged to generate electricity to the tune of 16 MW by utilizing the RDF produced from the project activity. However while implementing the project, Timapur site was not considered and the total quantity of waste of 2050 tonnes per day is now processed at Okhla site. The green waste is not being provided as envisaged earlier but additional 100 TPD of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is being provided that is total of 2050 TPD of waste is provided for processing. Due to the technology adopted it is estimated that from the RDF produced 20.9 MW of power can be generated instead of 16 MW envisaged due to better efficiency consequent to preheating of the input waste. The biomethanation and composting plants were also not required due to change in design as green waste not being made available for processing. The reference to “the technology” is to city refuse incinerator of China’s Hangzhou Boiler Group Co., Ltd that engages in the installation of boiler.

31. As per DNV’s opinion the start date of the project activity was revised to 27^th November, 2009 which was the date of issue of purchase order for the boiler which is the first order issued. DNV from the documents verified /3//5//7/ and from the site visit interviews / 24 / can confirm that the changes in the project activity occurred after the registration of the project activity on 10^th November, 2007. The verified documents refer to Dalkta Energy Services Ltd : Detailed project report dated 4 May 2009, Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Company Private Ltd.: Board resolution on adopting new technology dated 24^th June, 2009 and Timarpur – Okhla Waste Management Company Private Ltd.: Contract for supply Plant and Machinery with Hanzhou Boiler Group dated 27^th November, 2009 respectively.

32. It is recorded that “DNV from the interviews and perusal of documents find that, the project participant was not allocated the green waste that was assured earlier and the waste supplied to the project activity was to be processed at two locations Okhla and Timarpur. Subsequently the waste is being processed only at Okhla only /3//6//9/. This resulted in changes in the project design.”

33. It is also recorded that “from the verification of documents /3//5//7//11//, DNV can conclude that the changes were not known to the project participant prior to the registration of the project activity.” The verified documents refer to Dalkta Energy Services Ltd: Detailed project report dated 4 May 2009, ICICI Bank : Enhanced loan sanction letter dated 24 December 2009 and Delhi Pollution Control Committee : Consent letter T - 12/458TO465 dated 20/11/12 respectively.

34. Responding to the comments received from stakeholders, the CDM Executive Board’s Form asked the project proponent the question:”What are the measures taken by the Company regarding the environmental aspects?” mentioned in the PDD. The project proponent replied, “The Project Proponents has taken adequate measures regarding the environmental aspects and the SPM, SO2 & NOX levels will comply with all the regulatory requirements. Further Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study for the project has also been carried out. The Environment Management Plan (EMP), Risk assessment and Disaster Management Plan (DMP) in the EIA report takes care of all the environmental issues.”

35. The 31- page long report of CPCB communicated on 22^nd March, 2012 on the Timarpur - Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant of Shri Prithivraj Jindal‟s JITF Urban Infrastructure Limited (Jindal Ecopolis) is based on three meetings of the Technical Experts Evaluation Committee held on 26^th April, 2011, 11^th August, 2011 and 22^nd September, 2011. This report underlined that that the operation of Jindal's waste burning based power plant is an act of environmental lawlessness in the heart of the national capital.

36. The Terms of Reference (ToR) given by Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF)'s Experts Appraisal Committee (EAC) to the project in question specifically demanded "Disaster Management Plan" (DMP) but the CPCB’s Technical Evaluation Committee constituted by the then Union Minister of Environment & Forests headed by Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) observed in its report that the DMP plan has not been prepared.

37. The Jindal’s power plant in Okhla is amidst residential colonials and institutions of national importance like Central Road Research Institute, Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology and the Indian Institute of Information Technology. Such toxic emissions from the Jindal's power plant in an ecologically sensitive area and thickly populated area has become a routine affair with all the concerned authorities turning a blind eye towards this illegitimate and illegal act. This plant has violated all the rules in the rule book.

38. The plant is using untested and unapproved Chinese incinerator technology, a fact noted in the report of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) committee constituted after a delegation had met Shri Jairam Ramesh, the then Union Minister of Environment & Forests pursuant to his site visit of the plant. It is noteworthy that the Union Environment Minister had written to the then Chief Minister, Delhi underling that the plant is functioning in violation of environmental regulations.

39. The plant in question is situated in a green belt. It is in contravention of section 3(2) (v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Rule 5 (ix) of Environment (protection) Rules, 1986 and Guidelines for Establishment of Industries issued by Ministry of Environment & Forests. Besides violating all the relevant laws and rules, this plant is violation of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 creating a compelling reason for the closure of this plant. That now a bizarre situation has emerged because the arguments for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) incineration technology that was advanced by the company before the MoEF and the UNFCC’s CDM Executive Board are 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 or in its EIA report based on which a so-called Public Hearing was conducted in Saket in the presence of two officials only as per records. It was CPCB’s report that disclosed that Jindal’s power plant was using an unapproved technology.

40. Having studied the details of the project and its impacts, I submit that EAC ought to devise ways to stop such hazardous projects from being designated as sustainable development and CDM projects. It is also submitted that for a project to qualify as climate change mitigating project it is necessary that it excludes waste incineration -- including waste pelletisation or RDF, pyrolysis, gasification systems -- technologies. Incineration produces pollutants which are detrimental to health and the environment. Incineration is expensive and does not eliminate or adequately control the toxic emissions from today's chemically complex municipal discards. Even the latest incinerators release toxic metals, dioxins, and acid gases. Far from eliminating the need for a landfill, waste incinerator systems produce toxic ash and other residues. Such projects disperse incinerator ash throughout the environment and subsequently enter our food chain.

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

42. The TOWMCL’s agreement with Siemens Ltd: Agreement NG2010 dated 7^th May, 2010 for design, engineering, supply and erection of turbine generator merits scrutiny besides agreement with Waxi Guolian Huaguang Power Engineering Co Ltd: Agreement for supply of machinery, equipment for flue gas system and Hangzhou Boiler Group Co: Contract NG2009 - 311 dated 24 Dec ember 2009 for supply of boiler to ascertain whether pre-existing general and specific conditions as envisaged in the Environmental Clearance certificate for the project based RDF technology has been complied with. All these official documents besides the CPCB report clearly indicate that Chinese boiler technology based waste to energy plant has violated every rule in the rule book.

43. The first Environmental Clearance to this plant was granted 21^st March, 2007 for 15 MW under the signature of Dr A Senthil Vel, Additional Director, MoEF pursuant to directions from Shri R Chandramohan, Joint Secretary, MoEF. The minutes of the 46th meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee on Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous Projects held on 16^th November, 2006 reveals that TOWMCL, the project proponent when it was part of IL&FS Limited (when Shri D K Mittal, IAS was its Managing Director) had submitted that it will set up a Refuse Derived Fuel technology facility based on Department of Science and Technology-TIFAC technology with a capacity to process 1300 tons per day of MSW to produce 15 MW of power. Subsequently, TOWMCL requested Dr A Senthil Vel “to issue make suitable amendments in the EC to reflect the capacity of the proposed plant as 16 MW instead of 15 MW. The EC was amended for processing 1950 tons MSW by an order dated 9th May, 2007. In March 2011, TOWMCL again sought an amendment to the EC after making submission for an additional 4.9 MW before the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) for processing of 2050 tons of MSW. The EC was amended again for 20.9 MW. Although these amendments happened no new studies have been carried out to assess the impacts of the alteration in the technology and the changes the installed capacity. Source http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Form-1A/EC/0_0_15_Jul_2013_151116420123-1-2006.pdf

44. In a glaring omission TOWMCL did not disclose its Contract for supply Plant and Machinery with Hanzhou Boiler Group dated 27^th November, 2009 to the EAC.

45. It is noteworthy that even the initial EC was granted based on a fake public hearing as per records. The public hearing was conducted in Saket on January 20, 2007 instead of it being conducted in Okhla area where the project was proposed. The advertisement for the Public Hearing was made through two newspapers on 17th December, 2006. The advertisement was titled “Public Hearing for environmental clearance to the construction of proposed integrated municipal solid waste processing complex at Okhla —adjacent to existing Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Delhi.” It did not disclose that it was a waste based power plant.

46. The public hearing Shri Mittal wrote at least twice to Shri Chandramohan on 5^th October, 2006 and 13^th October, 2006. It was “B category project promoted to A category because of proximity to inter-state border & sanctuary (within 10 km). Hence Public Hearing report sought.” The Public Notice for public hearing did not disclose that the proposed plant in the residential area was a waste based thermal power plant, it was advertized as “Integrated Municipal Waste Processing Complex”. The attendance register revealed that there was virtually no attendance for the public hearing. The fact is that the Public Hearing did not take place as per the letter and spirit of Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, something which was admitted by the then Union Minister of Environment & Forests in writing. Besides the project was subsequently sold to JITF Urban Infrastructure Limited (Jindal Ecopolis), which took no fresh environment clearance.

47. This plant is owned by Shri Prithviraj Jindal who won an open tender in 2008 to build and operate the plant for 25 years at a project cost of Rs 240 crore. It is apparent that the owner has ignored the disastrous environmental health consequences of plant’s operations.

48. The representatives of GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) led by Dr. Juergen Porst, Senior Advisor stressed the need for a Disaster Management Plan in the very first meeting of this CPCB Committee, which is annexed to the CPCB's 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. This report made a shocking revelation that although Hon’ble 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 this committee, non-cooperative approach of the senior officials of Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant was “condemned” on 11^th August, 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 and a member of the Committee 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 of the company in question.

49. All subsequent reports by subordinate officers of Chairman, CPCB are subservient to this report of the High Powered Technical Experts Evaluation Committee headed by Chairman, CPCB. This report revealed how illegal Chinese boilers are being used without any approval in Delhi’s Okhla Waste to Energy project. The technical review by CPCB committee admitted that efficacy of reciprocal stoker type boilers (in place of RDF) "is not known for Indian conditions and requires to be verified." There is a compelling reason to take cognizance of this report as the main report of CPCB. This committee noted that this plant is operating in violation of Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) [MSW] Rules, 2000. It came to light from the observation of Shri A B Akolkar from CPCB who is currently the Member Secretary, CPCB.

50. A study of the first monitoring report of the TOWMCL’s integrated waste to energy project in Delhi dated 17^th October, 2012 shows that facts were not verified on the ground and those who were adversely affected by the project were not consulted. As a consequence this questionable project managed to get Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) issued. The initial crediting period of the project was mentioned as ^1st April 2009 – 3^1st March 2019. Now it has been changed to 3^0th March 2011 – 29^th March 2021 and declared as fixed.

51. All these developments vindicate the validity of my comments on the PDD which are available at this URL of CDM Executive Board http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/9JGKQMHTCBE61J51WVVT1AIH7DUW0H/view.html

52. It may be noted the Master Plan Report (2020) of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) said, “RDF is often an option when emission standards are lax and RDF is burned in conventional boilers with no special precautions for emissions.” The EAC ought to pay heed to it as well.

53. Having studied the second monitoring report of the project dated 15^th October, 2015 and the relevant pages on the website of the Board, it is learnt that as of 30^th May, 2016, “CDM Issuance request” for CERs is awaited. As you are aware Issuance is the instruction by the CDM Executive Board to the CDM Registry Administrator to issue a specified quantity of CERs, lCERs, or tCERs for a project activity or PoA into the pending account of the Board in the CDM registry, for subsequent distribution to accounts of project participants in accordance with the CDM rules and requirements. These reports for UNFCCC reference number of the project activity 1254 are available on UNFCCC’s CDM Executive Board’s website. EAC is ought to communicate its considered opinion based on the above submissions to the National CDM Authority and recommend withdrawal of host country approval given to the project in question.

In view of the above facts and violations on numerous counts, I wish to request you to withdraw the environmental clearance given to this plant because you have a legal and moral obligation to save present and future generation of residents from being enveloped in a toxic gas chamber as a consequence of use of such hazardous incinerator technology adopted for generating energy from waste which admittedly has hazardous waste characteristics.

I will be happy to share more information and relevant documents since March 2005 till date.

Thanking you in anticipation

Yours faithfully

Dr Gopal Krishna

Director

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)

New Delhi-110016

Mb: 09818089660, 08227816731

Tel/Fax: 91-11-26517814

Email: 1715krishna@gmail.com,

Web: www.toxicswatch.org

Shri Arun Kumar Mehta, Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)

Dr. Anuradha Shukla, Member, EAC on Infrastructure and Miscellaneous Projects + CRZ

Ms. Mita Sharma, Member, EAC on Infrastructure and Miscellaneous Projects + CRZ

Dr A.B.Akolkar, Member Secretary, CPCB

Shri Vinod Babu, -Senior Scientist, CPCB

Shri G. Rambabu, Scientist, CPCB

Shri Kulanand Joshi, Member Secretary, Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC)

Shri B.L.Chawla, Senior Environment Engineer, DPCC

Annexures:

1. The 31 page report of the Union Environment Ministry constituted Technical Experts Evaluation Committee of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant was communicated on March 22, 2012.

2. Proceedings of Public Hearing held on 20.01.2007

3. Letter from Holy Family Hospital

4. MS Word version of the letter is attached.

5. RTI Reply from Union Ministry of New & Renewable Energy

Written By Unknown on Wednesday, June 08, 2016 | 4:18 AM

Post a Comment

Labels

Links