Nagasaki Peace Declaration 2025: Full Text
-
*Statement issued by Nagasaki Mayor Suzuki Shiro, on the 80th year of
nuclear bombing.*
The post Nagasaki Peace Declaration 2025: Full Text appeared firs...
Latest Post
Showing posts with label hazardous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hazardous. Show all posts
Govt betrays consumers, public health, workers, environment & human rights by opposing listing of white chrysotile asbestos as hazardous substance at the UN Meet
Written By mediavigil on Sunday, May 07, 2017 | 11:00 PM
Public Statement
Indian Govt betrays consumers, public health, workers, environment & human rights by opposing listing of white chrysotile asbestos as hazardous substance at the UN Meet
Government’s position contrary to domestic laws
Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs deciding position on Asbestos does not include Ministers of Consumer Affairs, Health, Labour, and Environment
Govt ignored views expressed by environment minister, Health Minister & States on hazards of asbestos and incurable asbestos related diseases
Govt must take action against white chrysotile asbestos to protect public health and human rights instead of waiting for outcome of next meeting of UN’s Rotterdam Convention in 2019
Taking an inconsistent position disregarding public health and human rights of Indians, India joined Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe and Syria to block listing of hazardous white chrysotile asbestos, the killer fiber in the UN list at the UN Meet that concluded on 5 May in Geneva. The 8th Conference of the Parties to the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (COP8) failed to make any progress on democratic right of people to be protected from hazardous substances. The listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous substances helps in better protection of public health and environment. In an act of betrayal of gnawing public interest cause, India took a position which is contrary to its own domestic law on hazardous white chrysotile asbestos at the UN Meet. The next UN meeting on the issue will happen in 2019.
Given the fact that Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, Government of India does not include Ministers of Consumer Affairs, Health, Labour, and Environment, it was apprehended that concerns related to consumers, public health, workers, and environment is likely to be disregarded. This apprension has turned out to be true. Government failed to pay heed to the opinion expressed by Union environment minister and Union Health Minister.
Asbestos diseases have a very long incubation period. So if you are exposed today to an asbestos fibre, you are likely to get the disease in next 10-35 years. Asbestos is like a time bomb to the lungs and Indians will suffer the most. If it is banned today that does not mean people will not suffer. Because of past usage people will continue to suffer from these diseases. It is clear that lack of documentation and lack of environmental and occupational health infrastructure does not mean lack of victims of asbestos related diseases.
Union Environment Minister has said, “Since the use of asbestos is affecting human health, its use should gradually be minimised and eventually end. As far as I know, its use is declining. But it must end.”
In a written reply Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare has informed the Parliament on the subject of Asbestos Related Diseases saying: “The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has informed that major health hazards of asbestos include cancer of lung, mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous disease of lung known as asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are responsible for human mortality and morbidity. Studies have been carried out at National Institute of Occupational Research, an Institute of ICMR, Ahmedabad which show that workers when exposed to higher workplace concentration of asbestos fiber have higher incidence of interstitial lung disease and pulmonary function impairment. Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes, (DGFASLI) under Ministry of Labour & Employment has intimated data of workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948.As per the information provided by DGFASLI, it is informed that 21 no. of Asbestosis cases were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2 cases in Maharashtra in the year 2012.”
The reply of the Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare further reads: “As per the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and rules framed thereunder, manufacture, handling and processing of Asbestos and its products is declared as Hazardous Process. Further, Govt. of India has prepared Schedule XIV- ‘’Handling and Processing of Asbestos, Manufacture of any Article or Substance of Asbestos and any other Process of Manufacture or otherwise in which Asbestos is used in any Form’’ as a Dangerous Operation under section 87 of the Factories Act,1948. The Ministry of Mines has informed that the Grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of existing mining leases for Asbestos are presently banned in the country on Health Grounds.” This was stated by the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare in a reply to the Lok Sabha.
This reply is consistent with the observation of World Health Organisation (WHO) saying, " All types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos occurs through inhalation of fibres in air in the working environment, ambient air in the vicinity of point sources such as factories handling asbestos, or indoor air in housing and buildings containing friable (crumbly) asbestos materials." It underlines that several thousands of deaths can be attributed to other asbestos-related diseases, as well as to non-occupational exposures to asbestos.
It is quite shameful that Indian delegation disregarded the views of Health and Environment Ministry and ignored the 105 page long Indian Government’s Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Asbestos Based Industries. The relevant part of the Manual reads: “All workplaces where asbestos dust may cause a hazard is to be clearly indicated as an asbestos dust exposure area through the use of a well-displayed sign, which identifies the hazard and the associated health effects” for workers’s education. It also states, “Pictorial warning signs and precautionary notices for asbestos and products containing asbestos are to be made” for the protection of consumers from “hazard and the associated health effects.”
Government allowed itself to be overwhelmed by the influence of the four asbetsos producers of the world who produced 1,799,700 metric tons of chrysotile asbestos in 2015 (Russia - 1,100,000 tons, Brazil- 310,000 tons, China-210,000 tons and Kazakhstan 179,700 tons) who seem to have given themselves the power to determine whether or not Indians have the right of Prior Informed Consent. In a bizzare situation, it is being implied by them this right exists only if the hazardous white chrysotile asbestos industry allows it to be exercised.
Government failed to protect itself from the unhealthy influence of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) and the asbestos producing countries which are patrons of ACPMA.
Government failed to note that Asbestos is listed as a hazardous substance under Part II of Schedule-I of the Manufacture, Storage and import of Hazardous Chemical Rules under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides the List of Hazardous and Toxic Chemicals. This list has 429 chemicals. Asbestos is at the serial no. 28 in the list. This Rule and the list are available on the website of Union Ministry of Environment & Forests. Indian position should have been in keeping with government’s “Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import in India” that lists ‘asbestos’ at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous chemicals in international trade which is imported in India. It would be scandalous if Indian delegation took a position inconsistent with the Manufacture, Storage, and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules.
Notably, even under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First, asbestos is mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act defines "hazardous process" as “any process or activity in relation to an industry specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care is taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished products, bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would--(i) cause material impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or connected therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general environment”. This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous substance.
It has been observed that promoters of white chrysotile asbestos like ACPMA manage to get themselves planted in the Indian delegation and seem to prevail on the government representatives take a position against human health and the environment and to put profit of the asbestos industry before gnawing public health concerns.
It must be recalled that on June 22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, had supported the listing of Chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical substance at the fifth meeting on Rotterdam Convention amidst standing ovation. Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) and ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) had taken the opportunity of congratulating the government but the about turn on later occasions under the corrupting influence ACPMA was a sad let down. The same deleterious forces have prevailed at the COP 8 too.
Government should pay heed to a precedent-setting decision dated April 2, 2013 delivered by the Israel's High Court of Justice that rejected a petition on against a law placing substantial financial responsibility on a company to clean up asbestos waste. The order observed, “In recent years, countries throughout the world have been required to deal with different dilemmas related to protecting the quality of the environmental. A substantial portion of these dilemmas involve, among other things, legal, economic and ethical considerations. Amongst these dilemmas, the removal of hazardous waste – the matter at the heart of the present appeal – is a subject that demands significant attention. Asbestos, in particular, has proved itself to be efficient and strong, suitable for many uses. However, it has become clear with time that its ability to cause damage immeasurably outweighs its potential benefits. Since the 20th century, different states have dealt with this matter of how to clean up the environment from asbestos, and onthe questions of who to impose the responsibility and who to require to pay for the implementation. Consequently, I have found it appropriate to first turn our perspective on the relevant legal regimes in a few key countries beyond our borders.” It ruled that "To conclude, the survey presented (of various international legal perspectives) indicates various and complimentary components. In all instances it appears a consensus has been established, certainly so with regards to materials hazardous by their very nature such as asbestos, that substantial responsibility is to be imposed on the pollutant."
Government must pay attention to the verdict of five judges of Japan’s Supreme Court dated February 17, 2015 that has upheld a ruling that found asbestos used at a plant of Kubota Corporation caused fatal mesothelioma in a man who lived near the plant and ordered the company to pay ¥31.9 million in damages to his relatives. The petitioners were relatives of Kojiro Yamauchi, who died at age 80 after working for two decades about 200 meters from the Kubota plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. His relatives and those of Ayako Yasui, who died at age 85 having lived about 1 km from the plant, sought damages from both Kubota and the government. In October, 2014 this Supreme Court ruled that the government was responsible for failing to protect workers from exposure at asbestos factories in Sennan, Osaka Prefecture.
Government should examine that the official record which shows that three cases of asbestos related diseases i.e. Mesothelioma have been reported from among the workers of employed in the factory of Hyderabad Industries Limited, Sanathnagara, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. These workers have died due to the disease. These workers were: 1) N Chandra Mouli, 2) Sher Khan and 3) ama Chandraiah. This was revealed in an affidavit filed by T Narayana Reddy, Special Officer Office of Advocate-on-record, Andhra Pradesh Legal Cell, New Delhi in the Supreme Court. This company in question may be asked to file a report on total number of workers employed by it and their health status including a report about the three above mentioned workers.
It is also a matter of official record that National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad, Gujarat recommended compensation for two workers employed in Gujarat Composites Limited who were certified to be suffering from asbestosis. This has been revealed in a reply given by Government of Gujarat. A letter of Chief Inspector of Factories, Gujarat State dated December 24, 2002 in the matter of execution of the order of Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 categorically reveals that two workers of Gujarat Composites Ltd were confirmed for Asbestosis, an incurable lung disease by NIOH. The workers were (1) Hazarilal Manraj and (2) Sahejram B Yadav. The letter recommended compensation of Rs 1 lakh as per the Court order but till date the same has not been given. This and many such cases conclusively establish the hazards from asbestos. Influence of the asbestos industry becomes quite obvious when Government turns a blind eye to such glaring official facts. This is also a clear case of contempt of court by the asbestos based company. It may be noted that Gujarat Composite Ltd (formerly named Digvijay Cement Company) appears to be attempting to hide behind myriad corporate veils by changing names and by outsourcing its work. The official letter demonstrates that white chrysotile asbestos is a hazardous substance which causes asbestos related incurable diseases.
It is noteworthy that Secretary, Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Administration which has categorically informed National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that “a. White Asbestos (Chrysotile Asbestos) is implicated in so many studies with the following diseases:-Mesothelioma (Cancer of Pleura), Lung Cancer, Peritoneal Cancer, Asbestosis, And also consider as cause of following cancers:- Ovarian Cancer, Laryngeal Cancer, Other Cancer b. Diseases are produced in the person involved in Asbestos Industry.” It states that “No. of cancer deaths due to asbestos requires further large scale study from India”. It informs, “It is definitely harmful material, causing cancer and other related diseases.”
It quotes from Pulmonary Medicine journal saying, “Asbestos is a set of six naturally occurring silicate minerals exploited commercially for their desirable physical properties. However, it has been proved beyond doubt that Asbestos is hazardous to humans. White asbestos has been found to have causal relationship with various diseases like pulmonary asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma leading to deaths of thousands of people every year.”
The communication of Chandigarh Administration concludes saying, “Hence, use of white asbestos should be completely banned in India also and the same may be replaced by some safe alternative material.” Chandigarh Administration has realized the public health consequences of exposure to fibers of asbestos.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh has referred to para 16 of the judgment of Supreme Court dated January 21, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2004 wherein directions of January 27, 1995 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 is required to be strictly adhered to. It further states, “In terms of the above judgement of this Court as well as reasons stated in this judgement, we hereby direct the Union of India and States to review safeguards in relation to primary as well as secondary exposure to asbestos keeping in mind the information supplied by the respective States in furtherance to the earlier judgement as well as fresh resolution passed by the ILO. Upon such review, further directions, consistent with law, shall be issued within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order.” As to ‘fresh resolution passed by the ILO’, it is noteworthy that “A Resolution concerning asbestos was adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 95th Session in 2006. Noting that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are classified as human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and expressing its concern that workers continue to face serious risks from asbestos exposure, particularly in asbestos removal, demolition, building maintenance, ship breaking and waste handling activities, it calls for: – the elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of asbestos currently in place as the most effective means to protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related diseases and deaths.”
In a letter dated May 29, 2012, Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand has referred to a document Medline Plus Trusted Health Information for You, U.S. National Library of Medicine and the prescription of National Institutes of Health (NIH) highlighting the Treatment stating: “There is no cure. Stopping exposure to asbestos is essential.”
It is not surprising that Union Ministry of Labour’s concept paper declares, "The Government of India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos. The Concept paper of the Central Government notes, "Asbestosis is yet another occupational disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to evolve strategies to curb this menace".
It has been estimated that one person dies from mesothelioma for every 170 tons of asbestos consumed. WHO estimates we have107,000 deaths worldwide per year from occupational exposure to asbestos. If non occupational exposure is added it reaches a figure of about 120,000 deaths. Average world consumption/year 30-60 years ago was -- looks like3/2 of what it is now (2 million metric tons/year). Give India its share of that based on its share of global consumption. At 300,000 tons in 2013, that's about 18,000 deaths (15% of 120,000).
Government failed to insulate Indian delegation from undue and motivated industry influence to ensure that they are not made to act like parrots of commercial interests. In matters like exposure from carcinogenic fibers of asbestos these officials must be made to factor in far reaching implications for public health before defending the indefensible hazardous asbestos industry. The day is not far when officials who are members of the Indian delegation too will be held liable for their acts of omission and commission as is happening in more than 50 countries that have banned all kinds of asbestos. The representatives of asbestos industry association has been undermining India’s stature among the global scientific community for long.
It is now clear that Government failed to resist the influence of foreign interests. It failed to ensure that public health interest triumphs over immoral, unethical and myopic commercial considerations of foreign asbestos producers to defend India’s supreme interest. The manufacturers in India can easily shift to non-asbestos materials for manufacturing and some of them have started to move in that direction in South India.
Government should recognize that Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Asbestos Based Industries, the Terms of Reference (TOR) that is awarded by the Experts Appraisal Committee (EAC), Industrial Project, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests for Chrysotile asbestos based roofing factory asks the project proponent to prepare a “Health Management Plan for Mesothelmia, Lung cancer and Asbestosis related problems in asbestos industries” revealing its hazardous nature.
COP 8 demonstrated that for the time being in this conflict between Truth Versus Profit, the latter has prevailed. It does not behove the stature of India to take untruthful and unscientific position displaying unpardonable callousness towards concerns of consumers, public health, workers, environment and human rights. India should learn from countries that have banned asbestos of all kinds including white chrysotile asbestos. These countries are: 1) Algeria, 2) Argentina, 3) Australia, 4) Austria, 5) Bahrain, 6) Belgium, 7) Brunei, 8) Bulgaria, 9) Chile, 10) Croatia, 11) Cyprus, 12) Czech Republic, 13) Denmark, 14) Egypt, 15) Estonia, 16) Finland, 17) France, 18) Gabon, 19) Greece, 20) Germany, 21) Gibraltar, 22) Hungary, 23) Honduras, 24) Iceland, 25) Iraq, 26) Ireland, 27) Israel, 28) Italy, 29) Japan, 30) Jordan, 31) Kuwait, 32) Latvia, 33) Luxembourg, 34) Lithuania, 35) Mauritius, 36) Mozambique, 37) Malta, 38) Netherlands, 39) New Caledonia, 40) New Zealand, 41) Norway, 42) Oman, 43) Portugal, 44) Poland, 45) Qatar, 46) Romania, 47) Saudi Arabia, 48) Sweden, 49) Switzerland, 50) Serbia, 51) Seychelles, 52) Slovakia, 53) Slovenia, 54) South Africa, 55) South Korea, 56) Spain, 57) Turkey, 58) Uruguay and 59) United Kingdom.
Given the fact that Indian domestic laws recognize white chrysotile asbestos as hazardous, the Government need await the outcome of next meeting of UN’s Rotterdam Convention in 2019 in this regard to take actions to make India asbestos free. Indian laws include asbestos in the list of hazardous substances but tremendous influence of commercial interests has forced the Indian delegation to take a position which is diametrically opposite of domestic laws.
Government should take steps to rectify the blunder it has committed by immorally and illegitimately denying right to know about hazardous substances to present and future Indians. It should factor in views of health and environment ministers to pave the way for creating a future which is free of incurable hazardous asbestos related diseases.
For Details: Dr Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: www.asbestosfreeindia.org, toxicswatch.org
Govt’s joint inspection team visits Jindal’s municipal waste incinerator based power plant in Okhla
Written By mediavigil on Thursday, November 19, 2015 | 8:46 PM
Delhi's Okhla area awaits public heath disaster
due to unapproved Chinese technologyNovember 19, 2015: Following the order of National Green Tribunal (NGT) a Joint Inspection team of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB and Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) visited the Dioxins and heavy metals emitting unapproved Chinese incinerator technology based municipal solid waste (MSW) based power plant of Timarpur-Okhla Waste Managemen
The NGT case is named Application No. 22 of 2013 in NGT. The next date
of hearing is on December 14, 2015. Residents of Delhi's Okhla locality
await relief and justice at least since 2009. Environmental groups have been
opposing this plant since March 2005.
The Show Cause Notice issued to the plant of Jindal's TOWMCL reveals
unambiguously that the its Consent to operate under Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981 & Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 granted by Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), which exercises the
delegated powers of CPCB had expired on 20th March, 2013. The plant is
operating without the same since then. But DPCC has failed to order its closure
despite such blatant violation of law.
As per the website of TOWMCL, it is claimed that the plant received
Consent to operate on 21st December. 2011. The fact is that the plant is
operating without consent to operate since 2013.
As per the attached official document of DPCC on the subject of "Status of Okhla Waste to Energy plant by Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Co Pvt Ltd" (TOWMCL) as on 16th April, 2015. The plant of TOWMCL is operational. It is processing 1950 MT of waste and
generating 16 MW of power. The report mentions that the plant was supposed to use RDF technology but refrains from mentioning that it is using an unapproved Chinese technology brought to light by the CPCB committee report prepared pursuant to 22th March 2011 dated order of the then Union Minister of Environment & Forests. This led to the official recognition of deviations from approved technologies. The Chinese technology provider is from Hangzhou New Century Company Ltd of Hangzhou Boiler Group. The High Powered Technical Experts Evaluation Committee of CPCB in its 31 page report on the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant brought to light the illegalities committed by Jindal's TOWMCL. The report was communicated on March 22, 2012. This report is based on three meetings of the Technical Experts Evaluation Committee held on April 26, 2011, August 11, 2011 and September 22, 2011 under the chairmanship of Chairman, CPCB.
As per the attached official document of DPCC on the subject of "Status of Okhla Waste to Energy plant by Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Co Pvt Ltd" (TOWMCL) as on 16th April, 2015. The plant of TOWMCL is operational. It is processing 1950 MT of waste and
generating 16 MW of power. The report mentions that the plant was supposed to use RDF technology but refrains from mentioning that it is using an unapproved Chinese technology brought to light by the CPCB committee report prepared pursuant to 22th March 2011 dated order of the then Union Minister of Environment & Forests. This led to the official recognition of deviations from approved technologies. The Chinese technology provider is from Hangzhou New Century Company Ltd of Hangzhou Boiler Group. The High Powered Technical Experts Evaluation Committee of CPCB in its 31 page report on the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Incinerator Plant brought to light the illegalities committed by Jindal's TOWMCL. The report was communicated on March 22, 2012. This report is based on three meetings of the Technical Experts Evaluation Committee held on April 26, 2011, August 11, 2011 and September 22, 2011 under the chairmanship of Chairman, CPCB.
Notably, substitution of technology is prohibited under the
provisions of the Environmental Clearance. It is deemed dangerous to according
to a report of CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI).
Notably, 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.
DPCC's attached status report dated 16th April, 2015 states, "...in case the Project Proponent (Jindal's TOWMCL) found defaulting in compliance of the direction of Tribunal, the Tribunal would be compelled to direct the closure of this industry." The DPCC concludes
that "directions u/s 31 (A) of the Air Act, 1981 was issued on 03.07.2014 and simultaneously show cause notice was issued for refusal of consent under Air & Water Act and authorization under MSW Rules. The Project Proponent has filed statutory appeal against the directions dated 03.07.2014 before the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India. The appeal was listed for 27.02.2015 and the same is pending. The matter is to be listed for final hearing and the next date of hearing is yet to be notified."
The ToR given by MoEF's Experts Appraisal Committee to the
project in question specifically demanded "Disaster Management Plan"
but the High Powered Committee constituted by the then Union Minister of Environment
& Forests headed by Chairman, CPCB observed in its report that this plan
has not been prepared. It condemned the non-cooperation by the company. 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 A B Akolkar from CPCB. Akolkar is currently the Member Secretary
of CPCB. He was part of the Join Inspection Team that visited the plant on
November 19, 2015.
A judgment of Delhi High relevant to Okhla 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.'
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%".
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".
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".
The 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".
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 Court had 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. This order of
High Court underlines that its approach to environmental damage is better than
that of NGT. The plant 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.
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 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, NCT of Delhi underling that the plant is functioning in violation of environmental regulations.
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 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, NCT of Delhi underling that the plant is functioning in violation of environmental regulations.
Notably, this plant does not have clearance from the Delhi
Urban Arts Commission, which is a mandatory requirement.
This plant is in a green belt contrary to the Master Plan of
Delhi, 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 MoEF.
As per 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. 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) and is part of Power Ministry at present. 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.
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) and is part of Power Ministry at present. 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.
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
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. 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.
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 unles
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 unles
But Delhi Government falsely claimed in the High Court that
it was one of the five projects cleared by Supreme Court leading to
dismissal of petition filed by residents but when the 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 the then Additional Solicitor General. 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 A.S. Chandihok, the bench headed by the Chief Justice, 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."
In a strange case that one of NGT's order in the case in question relied on reasoning advanced in the dismissal order of High Court and chose not to take cognizance of the Court's restoration of the same case which later admittedly got transferred to NGT.
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 the then Additional Solicitor General. 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 A.S. Chandihok, the bench headed by the Chief Justice, 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."
In a strange case that one of NGT's order in the case in question relied on reasoning advanced in the dismissal order of High Court and chose not to take cognizance of the Court's restoration of the same case which later admittedly got transferred to NGT.
Notably, High Court on had asked Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB) and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) 18th July, 2010
to conduct a joint inquiry about India's first waste-to-energy plant
and file a report on the allegations that it posed health risks
to citizens. The Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna ordered, "A joint report be submitted by the DPCC and the CPCB after an inquiry of the site of the energy plant about the alleged risks posed to citizens".
to citizens. The Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna ordered, "A joint report be submitted by the DPCC and the CPCB after an inquiry of the site of the energy plant about the alleged risks posed to citizens".
It is noteworthy that Asian Development Bank (ADB)'s Asian
Pacific Carbon Fund (APCF) dropped this waste to energy
plant out of its portfolio amidst controversy surrounding it. In any case it is
a misplaced carbon credit project. It underlines how carbon trade is not
part of the solution but part of the problem.
part of the solution but part of the problem.
Now a bizarre situation has emerged because the arguments for
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) incineration technology that was advanced by the company
and the law officers of the previous central and state governments 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.
The ongoing protest rallies and an online campaigns against the toxic, waste-to-energy incinerator where students are also participating in large numbers underlines that the operation of Jindal's waste burning based power plant is an act of environmental lawlessness in the heart of the national capital.
The ongoing protest rallies and an online campaigns against the toxic, waste-to-energy incinerator where students are also participating in large numbers underlines that the operation of Jindal's waste burning based power plant is an act of environmental lawlessness in the heart of the national capital.
The closure of this plant will be a major and memorable
contribution to NCR's landscape for generations to come and help prevent
approval for hazardous industrial units in the region at a time when Delhi's residents
are gasping for fresh air.
Having been involved with these issues since October 2000 and
with this specific issue since March 2005, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has sought
Union environment minister’s urgent intervention for prevention of unfolding public
health and environmental disaster in Delhi's Okhla area and adjoining areas of
Uttar Pradesh in particular and NCR region in general due to the Dioxins
emitting plant of Jindal's
TOWMCL.
Global experience demonstrates without any dispute that
incinerator based WTE plants do not resolve the issue of non-availability of
land and landfill sites because disposal of incineration ash into the landfill
site remains a problem recognized under Schedule IV of the
MSW (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000. This experience also shows that energy from municipal waste is not produced at any lesser price in fact it more expensive. The myth of incinerator based WTE plant solving the problem of leachate which contaminates ground water has long been debunked. The existing literature on waste management underlines that incinerator based WTE plants constitute a meaningless and misplaced option. The fact is that it is not a solution, it is a problem creator. It gives birth to the problem of what can be deemed as landfills in the sky. It is a case of putting resources up in flames.
MSW (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000. This experience also shows that energy from municipal waste is not produced at any lesser price in fact it more expensive. The myth of incinerator based WTE plant solving the problem of leachate which contaminates ground water has long been debunked. The existing literature on waste management underlines that incinerator based WTE plants constitute a meaningless and misplaced option. The fact is that it is not a solution, it is a problem creator. It gives birth to the problem of what can be deemed as landfills in the sky. It is a case of putting resources up in flames.
It appears strange that Delhi Government is following the
footprints of a government whose misplaced initiatives like these led to it
being vanquished. It is hoped that the report of the Joint Inspection Team will
undo the threat of public health disaster due to the plant’s location in the proximity
of the residential colonies.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731,
09818089660
E-mail: 1715 krishna @gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.org
E-mail: 1715 krishna @gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.org