Featured Articles

Latest Post
Showing posts with label Laws and Legislations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Laws and Legislations. Show all posts
1:58 AM

CAG audit of environmental clreance process in India

Written By mediavigil on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 | 1:58 AM

The Performance Audit provided in the 152 page long Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Environmental Clearance and Post Clearance Monitoring (Report No. 39 of 2016)  has revealed that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) process suffers from various procedural deficiencies which led to delays in grant of environmental clearances. Each project was treated singularly for Environment Impact Assessment but cumulative impact study/assessment was found lacking. There were lack of compliance of environmental clearance conditions by Project Proponents. 

Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) is the nodal agency for the planning, promotion, co-ordination and overseeing of the implementation of India's environmental and forestry policies and programmes. In recognition of the need for ensuring protection of the environment, MoEF&CC has taken various regulatory and promotional measures which include establishment of procedures for environmental impact assessment and granting clearance for various types of projects. Environment Impact Assessment systematically examines both beneficial and adverse consequences of proposed projects and ensures that these effects are taken into account during project design. 

The report mentions that "A National Regulator for looking at the entire process of grant of environmental clearances and its monitoring is under consideration by MoEF&CC."

CAG has also noticed weaknesses in monitoring by State Pollution Control Boards/Union Territory Pollution Control Committees and Regional Offices of MoEF&CC in compliance of environmental clearance conditions. There was lack of monitoring in the Critically Polluted Areas. 
Labels: , ,
11:51 PM

12 suggestions for making environment ministry effective in environmental protection

Written By mediavigil on Saturday, July 16, 2016 | 11:51 PM

To

Shri Anil Madhav Dave
Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Government of India
New Delhi

Sub:12 suggestions for making environment ministry effective in environmental protection

Dear Shri Dave Jee, 

Namaskar!

I recollect the privilege of being with you in an interactive session on “Right to water bodies –an approach to policy formation” held on 3rd October, 2010 in Kolkata. It was co-organsied by Director of Fisheries, West Bengal. Having known you I wish to make few suggestions to make your tenure as a minister fruitful and purposeful.   

You have a reputation for sensitivity towards ecology in general and Narmada in particular but environmental researchers and activists are keeping their fingers crossed because an ideology of “development at any cost” is creating an impression that environmental regulations are a hurdle in the process of financial growth.

As you are aware the threat to the integrity of the natural systems is a threat to human health, and such threats have become routine because of myopic industrial agriculture, blind urban development, regressive transport systems and criminal neglect of non-human species.
While legislative safeguards for environmental protection do seem to exist on paper, homicidal ecological lawlessness has led to rampant industrial pollution, soil erosion, agricultural pollution, and genetic erosion of plant resources. This trend must be arrested in right earnest. It is quite crucial and merit your attention.

It is evident that the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA), which gives mandate to your ministry, is not alive to the collapsing ecosystem. The stark question is whether the CCEA will let you make the structural changes required in terms of reversing the current policies which have resulted in manifest adverse impact on environmental health or whether poisoning of our blood streams and amputation of river basin systems would continue to be deemed collateral damage.

Be it blood contamination, congenital disorders, preventable but incurable cancer or extinction of known and unknown living species on our planet, it creates a compelling logic to re-examine the premises of Industrial Revolution and design a new one. In the developed world the model of development is under interrogation because of environmental problems.

Between 1975 and 1995 the Indian economy grew 2.5 times, industrial pollution went up four-fold, and vehicular pollution went up eight-fold. This analysis seems factually correct but it has ended up internalising the pollution and externalising the human cost of pollution. In such a context, health indicators of the deteriorating environment is witnessed in terms of a double burden of disease but the political class seems to have been rendered spineless by the corporate empires.

I submit that a beginning appears to have been made with your appointment after a long while but environmental crisis merits more than rhetoric or cosmetic solutions. If one were to identify some key areas which deserve your immediate and urgent remedial attention, it would be:

1. Publish a database of environmental criminals and fugitives with their photographs and profiles with the name of the companies which fall under the 64 heavily polluting industries under the Red category (highly polluting industries), 34 moderately polluting industries ('Orange' category) and 54 'marginally' polluting units ('Green' category). Also publish a list of India's Most Wanted Environmental Criminals with wanted posters.
2. The environment ministry must get enhanced budgetary allocation for rejuvenating the decaying institutional infrastructure including the Central Pollution Control Board. One parliamentary report too calls for saving the CPCB, the nodal body for regulating environmental norms. Currently, environment clearance, compliance and monitoring are in a very sorry state. It should be strengthened.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests said the CPCB is being 'reduced to a near-defunct body'. The 141-page report of the steering committee on the environment and forests sector for the eleventh five year plan prepared by Planning Commission deals with environment and development. It refers to 'the regulatory challenge' and states: 'In the past some years, intensive economic growth, which has increased economic wealth, has led to massive pollution and degradation of the natural environment. One of the main reasons for this is that the regulatory and institutional framework to control pollution and degradation of natural resources is unable to keep pace with the rapidly changing economic, social and environmental situation in the country.'
'The number of polluting activities -- and the quantum of pollution generated -- has increased in the last several years. Furthermore, newer and newer environmental challenges are thrown up -- from solid waste disposal, to disposal and recycling of hazardous waste, to toxins like mercury, dioxins and activities like ship-breaking to management of vehicular pollution.'
It is high time environmental regulation keeps pace with environmental crimes. Even Interpol has a Pollution & Environment Crime Working group; India too needs one.
3. Stopping transboundary movement of polluting technologies, hazardous wastes, creating an inventory of hazardous chemicals and wastes besides conducting an environmental health audit along with the ministry of health to ascertain the body burden through investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in umbilical cord blood. In one such study in the US, of the 287 chemicals detected in umbilical cord blood, 180 were known to cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. Absence of such studies in India does not mean that a similar situation does not exist in India. Until and unless we diagnose the current unacknowledged crisis, how will he regulatory bodies predict, prevent and provide remedy.
Currently, India is a victim of the unfolding Lawrence Summers Principle. Lawrence Summers, director of the White House's National Economic Council for US President Barack Obama as a World Bank chief economist, sent a memo to one of his subordinates justifying transfer of harmful chemicals from developed countries to developing countries. Indian position on the Basel Convention, Rotterdam Convention and the recently adopted IMO Convention reveals the same.
Our ecological space is a living entity but it is faced with the cannibalistic propensities of illegitimately totalitarian scientism which is married with political consensus. Its linear, piecemeal and closed technological thinking fails to acknowledge that no unlimited development is possible in the nature of things. 
4. Adopt mandatory emission cuts as a national, domestic and enforceable objective even as we affirm the validity of the 'principle of historical responsibility' which is indisputable and incontrovertible. The current stance which states, 'subjecting national aspirational efforts to an international compliance regime may result in lower ambitions' is fine but our ability to reach a certain emission reduction target under a national plan as a national legal obligation would enhance India's negotiating position. In fact the National Action Plan for Climate Change should be revisited to ensure visible and truly 'credible actions' within our own framework.
It is inconsequential for citizens whether some post-dated international humanitarian law is being followed in letter or not, what is of consequence is whether or not its governmental actions factor in the spirit behind a law that will have ramifications not only for the present generation but also for the future generations. Disassociation with carbon trade is also a must because benefits from it are suspect.
5. Get the National Water Policy, National Environment Policy and the industrial policy rewritten for adoption of a river basin approach to undo the unhealthy legacy of bulldozing rivers, flood plains, forests, biodiversity, natural drainage etc in manner as if citizens and natural processes are irrelevant.
The National Council for Applied Economic Research has also made recommendations for the setting up the National Commission for Basin Management. This is required also as a response to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report that states, 'Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate'.
The River Basin Authority must be fashioned in manner that it does not remain a rubber stamp or a paper tiger because if all industrial projects are cleared by Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, what role can an effete body of the environment ministry do to undo the wrongs committed by the CCEA? In fact, if one undertakes an investigation of institutional accountability for Bhopal gas leak disaster, it is quite likely that the buck would stop at the CCEA. The environment ministry must save itself from its regressive influence.
6. Get a District wise state of environmental health report prepared in order to assess the current state of the local ecosystems.
7. Restore Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006, make it stringent by ensuring preparation of EIA reports by independent institutions and abandon the proposed Environment Supplement Plan (ESP).  
8. Initiate process of setting up of functional environmental courts in each district by introducing a Bill in the Parliament on the lines of Human Rights Courts provided for in the Protection of Human Rights Act.
9. Revise the Draft Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2016 and come out with a fresh Draft for public comments in the supreme interest of present and future generations and top safeguard the wetlands which face grave threats from vested interests.
10. Stop giving environmental clearances to asbestos based factories and projects in keeping with the 19 page long Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health of your ministry which states “4.3.1 Environmental epidemiological studies are required to be carried out near to industrial estates and hazardous waste disposal sites to estimate the extent of health risks including from asbestos. Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out.”

It may be noted that Kerala Human Rights Commission has passed an order dated January 31, 2009 with the following recommendations: a) The State Government will replace asbestos roofs of all school buildings under its control with country tiles in a phased manner. b) The Government will take steps to see that the schools run under the private management also replace the asbestos roofs with country tiles by fixing a time frame. c) The Government should see that in future no new school is allowed to commence its functions with asbestos roofs. I seek your intervention to ensure  strict compliance with this order and to get a Register of asbestos laden buildings prepared so that a road map can be prepared for their decontamination. The state ought to prepare a Register of those workers who handle asbestos and the victims of primary and secondary exposure from asbestos fibers.    

The Concept Paper dated September 2011 of Union Ministry of Labour, Government of India presented at the EU-India Seminar that reveals that the Central Government is planning to eliminate asbestos from the country due to health reasons.  The paper is available on Ministry's website.  

Hon’ble Supreme Court's order dated January 27, 1995 and World Health Organisation (WHO)'s outline for the Development of National Programmes for elimination of asbestos related diseases' make a case for stopping all asbestos based products to prevent the imminent public health crisis as a consequence of which more than 55 countries have banned all forms of asbestos.   

It will be great if you can pursue remedial measures for present and future generations before children get engulfed in the epidemic of incurable but preventable asbestos related diseases. This is of seminal importance to prevent preventable diseases and deaths.

11. Make sure that each central ministry has an environment department which submits a report on the ecological footprint of their actions and decisions.

12. Stop world's biggest and most ecologically disastrous project diverting rivers for interlinking them rivers and desist from pursuing the Ganga waterway project. ILR project can lead to Ara Sea kind of disaster.

The terms of reference of the constituted ‘Task Force’ on Interlinking of Rivers’ chaired by B N Navalawala which reveals that Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated February 27, 2012 in petitioner-less Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2002 is based on a flawed assumption that there is consensus and unanimity among the states in the matter of Interlinking of Rivers concept/project. The attached release of the Union Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation issued by Press Information Bureau states that the Task Force “would also device suitable mechanisms for bringing about speedy consensus amongst the states and also propose suitable organizational structure for implementing the Interlinking of Rivers. The Task Force would also try to forge a consensus amongst the states in order to take forward the speedy implementation of the Interlinking of Rivers Program.”

It is noteworthy that the terms of reference of the earlier Task Force on Inter-Linking of Rivers under the Chairmanship of Shri Suresh P. Prabhu that was constituted on December 13, 2002 was also tasked to “Devise suitable mechanism for bringing about speedy consensus amongst the States” revealing absence of unanimity on the implementation of ILR project. 

The judgment in the petitioner-less “Networking of Rivers” case inconsistently admitted absence of consensus and unanimity among the states in the matter of Interlinking of Rivers concept/project and still erroneously went on to conclude that there is unanimity and consensus.
The judgment dated February 27, 2012 in the “Networking of Rivers” case was authored by Justice Swatanter Kumar on merits rigorous scrutiny because it seems to establish a disturbing precedent by assuming “consensus” and “unanimity” although 18 States chose not respond to the notice of Supreme Court of India “despite the grant of repeated opportunities to do so.”

The moot point is how to solve the water problem. As per the Planning Commission’s Tenth Plan document, there are 383 ongoing major and medium projects awaiting completion, 111 of which are pending since pre-fifth Plan period i.e. more than 26 years. All these can be completed within five to eight years, yielding an additional potential of about 14 million hectares at a cost of Rs 77,000 crore as estimated by the plan task force, now raised to Rs 100,000 crore.

The second component listed in the Plan is development of minor irrigation, mostly in the eastern and northeastern regions. The total potential assessed is 24.5 million hectares with a total investment of Rs 54,000 crore, of which the government is expected to provide only Rs 13,500 crore, the balance coming from beneficiary farmers and institutional loans. The cost per hectare is only Rs 20,000 and gestation period almost nil, against a cost of Rs 100,000 and 12 years’ gestation in case of major and medium projects. The third equally beneficial scheme mentioned in the Plan is the groundwater recharge master plan prepared by the Central Ground Water Board needing Rs 24,500 crore to trap 36 billion cubic metres of water annually.

These measures are quite clearly better than the project of networking of rivers. The concerned judges would serve the ecological interest of the subcontinent better if they could pay heed to these proposals of the Plan document. Judges at all levels have, by and large, justified the confidence reposed in them. But there is scope for improvement in several spheres and it is up to the judiciary itself to rectify the defects in its role and prove to the public that as long as there is an efficient, impartial, independent and incorruptible judiciary, democracy in India will be safe from the tyranny of the executive and also the judiciary.

The apex court had come to the rescue of a river in the Kamalnath motel case where a hotel company which had stakes of Kamalnath, the then Union Environment Minister (presently Union Commerce Minister) had unilaterally taken a number of measures to divert the course of Beas River near Kulu-Manali in Himachal Pradesh (for instance, earthmovers and bulldozers were used to create a new channel) when floods threatened land in its possession. The court used the Public Trust Doctrine to define the state as a trustee of natural resources.
Government’s National Environmental Policy refers to Public Trust Doctrine saying, “The State is not an absolute owner, but merely a trustee of all natural resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment, subject to reasonable conditions, necessary to protect the legitimate interest of a large number of people, or for matters of strategic national interest.”

The NEP says, “The broad direct causes of rivers degradation are, in turn, linked to several policies and regulatory regimes. The result is excessive cultivation of water intensive crops near the headwork’s, which is otherwise inefficient, waterlogging, and alkali-salinization of soil.” It also refers to factors causing reduced flows in the rivers and seeks to ensure maintenance of adequate flows. As an action plan for river systems, the NEP expresses its intent to…“mitigate the impacts on river flora and fauna, and the resulting change in the resource base for livelihoods, of multipurpose river valley projects, power plants, and industries.”

The success of a democracy, especially one based on a federal system, depends largely on an impartial and independent judiciary endowed with sufficient powers to administer justice. Judges can import their personal views in interpreting a statute but they must not assume the role of guardians of public policy and should not play god. A distinction must be drawn between personal idiosyncrasy and incorporation of new economic and social policies in the interpretation of law.

The proposal of networking peninsular and Himalayan rivers emerges from a lack of rigorous evaluation of the ecological impacts which would prove disastrous not only to the fishery, but also to the biodiversity and biotic processes that have evolved over the past hundred of millions of years. One cannot expect the judges and legislators to understand but venturing into an area of their ignorance is against all canons of wisdom.
In the case in question the judges went on to advise the government that in case consent was not forthcoming from the states, the government should consider passing a legislation to obviate consent of the states for this project. Since criticizing the judges is a criminal offense, the advocates of resistance who are not shackled by their funding sources from among the citizenry and civil society need to keep a watch on the impeachable antecedents and future activities of the judges and legislators because it is quite possible that legislation for ILR or nationalization of rivers may get introduced in the Parliament. The rampant violation of the statutory principles and natural justice requires a vigilant citizens’ network as opposed to fund agency driven initiatives to investigate as to why the judges and legislators appear to have sold themselves to the ideology of the free market undermining ecosystem beyond repair and democratic rights of its citizens to bring the truth about it public domain.

The networking rivers does not mean drawing some mega litres from one river and pouring it into another like one does with static containers, or even with canals. The ramifications are much wider because a river is not only the water that flows or the channel, which holds the flow rather its much more. The river is the dynamic face of the landscape. “In the drama of history, the ecosystem is not the stage setting; it is the cast”.

In the past the court has rightly and consistently held that large infrastructure projects invariably raise technical and policy issues which the courts are not equipped to handle. In view of the reasons cited above and especially an evolving international law on transboundary rivers there is a clear case for the apex court to review its order on “networking rivers”.

As per National Water Policy, 2002, “Water resources development and management will have to be planned for a hydrological unit such as drainage basin as a whole or for a sub-basin, multi-sectorally, taking into account surface and ground water for sustainable use incorporating quantity and quality aspects as well as environmental considerations.” Outlining India’s National Water Policy in 2002, the then Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee said that the policy should be people-centered and those communities ought to be recognized as the “rightful custodians of water.”This clearly shows that networking of river is contrary to the Government’s stated policy which means vested interests are so powerful that they can subvert both executive’s and judiciary’s role.

Given such a background the judgment in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512/2002 is very crucial. In the days, months and years ahead it is likely to reveal Indian Government’s exact policy vis-à-vis networking of rivers and court’s considered response while dealing with contempt applications in the face of sub continental protest. This case is likely to give birth to a new international legal order to safeguard the legitimate regime of river basins from the obsolete notions of ‘conquest over nature’, ‘surplus’ rivers and taming rivers. If the environmental movement in the Indian sub-continent fails to stop this mega project, it would mean nothing short of a premature death of the movement itself and acceptance of the proposed rewriting of sub-continent’s geography with painful consequences as fait accompli.

I wish to draw your attention towards the pearls of wisdom from Mahabharata that describes the Divine Being saying, “The mountains are his bones. The earth is his fat and flesh. The oceans are his blood. Space is his stomach. The Wind is his breath. Fire is his energy. The rivers are his arteries and veins. Agni and Soma, otherwise called the Sun and the Moon, are called his eyes. The firmament above is his head. The earth is his two feet. The cardinal and subsidiary points of the horizon are his arms,” the new government should reject the idea of “inter-linking of rivers based on feasibility”. This is narrated by Bhishma in conversation with Yudhishthira while referring to the reply of sage Bhrigu to sage Bharadwaja. This verse occurs in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata.

I had submitted that interlinking of rivers entails mutilation of the veins and arteries of the divine nature. Rivers shape the terrain and lives of people by its waters which are always in a dynamic state. Breaking this dynamic would unleash forces of uncontrolled change and invite the ‘law of unintended consequences’. Let’s remember the terrible Aral Sea disaster caused by the mistakes of Soviet Union in which two Siberian rivers were diverted.  If water scarcity is the perennial question, there better answers like the groundwater recharge master plan available with the government. Water can be made to “Reach to All Homes, Farms and Factories” by adopting this plan as well at a minimal cost. 

It submitted that whenever there is conflict between financial gains and rivers, the latter must get priority over monetary benefits because by any yard stick economic value of a free flowing river is bigger than dammed and mutilated rivers.  The capitalist, communist and colonial legacy of treating rivers as material flow that flow through pipelines must be abandoned and rivers must be treated as living beings that nourished our civilization for centuries and can nourish all the coming generations if cannibalistic tendency of diverting waters in bottles, dams and banks is stopped.

With regard to pollution in rivers, if the Prime Minister can demonstrate the political will to stop all the effluents and sewage from entering into river streams through a single executive decision, he would have done an exemplary act of arresting ecological collapse and for safeguarding the quality of blood flowing in veins and arteries of the present and future generations. Notably, one of the aims of the ILR project was dilution of pollution, disregarding its implications for the clean rivers. NWDA is under structural compulsion to push these ecologically destructive projects envisaged in 1970s to justify their continued existence. NCAER, NWDA and their promoters remain trapped in pre-climate crisis era wherein “taming of rivers”, dams were temples and not outcome of disease of gigantism and conquest over nature was considered part of scientific temper with which rivers could be murdered with impunity. The ToRs of the Task Force of 2002 and 2015 and court orders of 2002 and 2012 reveal that proponents of ILR project are frozen in a time warp.

In view of the above and the collective wisdom of the past and the present and responsibility towards coming generations besides concerns for non-human species there is a compelling reason to abandon ILR project for the sake of sanity and humanity.  

While a beginning can be made with the above 12 steps, it must be realised that the economic ideology that has led to the current global financial crisis is the same ideology that is accountable for the ongoing ecological disorder of the lunatic ilk.

Therefore, nothing short of the death of the old industrial policies of the pre-climate crisis era and the rebirth of an enlightened policy-making that takes into account intergenerational equity with regard to natural resources would be sufficient. I am quite hopeful that you will be able to undo the regressive legacy of past years.

 I will be happy to share more information and relevant documents in this regard.

 Thanking you in anticipation

Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 09818089660, 08227816731
Tel/Fax: 91-11-26517814

Labels: , ,
4:18 AM

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

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


To

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: 8th 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 6th 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 15th 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 15th 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 30th 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 23rd May, 2006, and the CDM Executive Board invited public comments until 21st June, 2006. Subsequently, there was 90- page long Version 04 of PDD of The Timarpur –Okhla Waste Management Company Pvt Ltd’s (TOWMCL) dated 6th September, 2007. Prior to that there Version 03 of PDD dated 28th July, 2006. Then there was PDD Version 03.1. The initial request for registration was submitted on 3rd 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 10th 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 30th 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 27th 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 27th  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  10th 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 24th June, 2009 and Timarpur – Okhla Waste Management Company Private Ltd.: Contract for supply  Plant and Machinery with Hanzhou Boiler Group dated 27th 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  22nd 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  26th April, 2011, 11th August, 2011 and 22nd 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  7th  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 21st 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 16th 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 27th 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 5th October, 2006 and 13th 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 11th 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 17th 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 – 31st March 2019. Now it has been changed to 30th March 2011 – 29th 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 15th October, 2015 and the relevant pages on the website of the Board, it is learnt that as of 30th 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

Cc
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 
Labels: , , , ,
 
Copyright © 2013. ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice - All Rights Reserved
Proudly powered by Blogger