Dear Leo and Nity, This is to seek information and help to stop the proposed Integrated Common Hazardous Waste treatment, storage, disposal and recycling facility by M/s *Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd* at Koilwar-Babura Road Bhojpur and Bihta, Patna, Bihar in the Sone river bed.
The company referred to the successful operation of Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal and Recycling Facilities at Mavallipura landfill at Bangalore, Karnataka and at Undurmikidakkulam, Thiruchili Taluk, Virudhnagar District Tamilnadu. The proposed hazardous waste based plant is planned in the river bed of Sone river that affects residents of Koilwar, Bhojpur and Bihta, Patna, please find below the letter that has been sent to BSCPB and EAC. thanks & regards Gopal Krishna ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660 E-mail:[email protected] Web: www.toxicswatch.org On 6 December 2014 at 15:17, Leo Saldanha <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yesterday as we argued our case against dumping waste in landfills, > Ramesh, one of the villagers, said to the Judges. > > *"Before the Ramky landfill at Mavallipura we lived a life of contentment. > It has become a living hell for us to continue living in our villages as > everything is polluted. Water from bore wells over 1000 feet deep is black > and stinking. Sapotas which command a price of Rs 200/quintal, we get > merely Rs 40, cause it's from Mavallipura. KMF buys milk at Rs 23/ litre > from everyone, but we are given only Rs 18 as the milk from our cows that > drink highly polluted waters has low SMF."* > > Now Javadekar or Modi do not hear such stories. Modi now wants World Bank > help to increase business quotient of India. While the TSR Subramanian > committee recommends whittling down of all environmental regulatory > controls. > > It's time those who pummelled Modi into power, especially the RSS and > ABVP, many leaders from which are in movements to protect Western Ghats, > etc., step out to confirm what they really care for more: Modi leading the > government on an environmentally and socially destructive pathway, or > securing the lives and livelihoods of millions who rely on natural > resources and of protecting ecosystems for posterity. Not much time left > in making the choice. > > Leo > > > On 06-Dec-2014, at 12:33 pm, Shankar Sharma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear all, > > The Minister (MoEFCC) is reported to have said that the pollution Levels > Need to Rise Further to Boost Growth, as in the report forwarded below. > > It is very unfortunate from the overall welfare perspective of our country > that the MoEFCC has such a poor understanding of the health, social and > economic implications of the pollution. > > The National Green Tribunal (PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI) in APPEAL NO. 12 > / 2012 has mentioned as below: > > "In the framework of Indian economy, there is a relation between poverty > and environment. Poverty and degraded environment are closely > inter-related, especially where people depend primarily on natural > resources based on their immediate environment for their livelihood. > Restoring natural systems and improving natural resource management > practices at the grass root level are central to a strategy to eliminate > poverty." > > " The three principal maxims governing the field of environment are the > sustainable development, the polluter pays and the precautionary > principles. Under the Indian environmental jurisprudence, these three > principles are statutorily prescribed. Sustainable development has been > defined in many ways but the most frequently quoted definition is from the > Brundtland Report which states as follows: > “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the > present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet > their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: > The concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s > poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and > The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social > organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.” > > "To elaborate, unless adequate care, caution and monitoring at every stage > is taken and there is constant vigil, life of "some" can be in danger. That > will be totally shattering of the constitutional guarantee enshrined under > Article 21 of the Constitution.” > > There has been any number of national and international reports > establishing the relationship between pollution and health impacts. Delhi > is reported as perhaps the most polluted cities in the world, and as many > as 40 industrial areas in the country were declared as polluted areas by > MoEFCC few years ago. The huge health implications of pollution from coal > and chemical industries in contiguous coal-mining districts of Singrauli > and Sonbhadra of UP have been described in many reports, the latest being > ( > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-05/amid-india-s-coal-fields-death-lurks-in-poisoned-water.html > ). > > Whereas the govt. keeps referring to the higher per capita emissions of > China, it is silent on the environmental disasters impacting the people > there because of breakneck GDP rate. about 20,000 rivers were reported as > having become extinct in recent years, and the pollution problems of > Beijing and few other industrial cities in China have been reported in the > international media a number of times. > > So, a high per capita GHG emission should not be our developmental > objective. Ordinary people will be much well off living near a clean and > rich environment, than near a polluted area such as Singruali area. Is our > national developmental paradigm ignoring these vulnerable sections of our > society? Can our rich natural resources, such as forests and rivers, be > recovered once they are destroyed? > > May the Almighty protect us from our political leaders who do not have a > basic understanding of the symbiotic relationship between the nature and > humans. > > Regards > Shankar Sharma > > -------------------------------------------------- > *India Says Pollution Levels Need to Rise Further to Boost Growth* > > By Archana Chaudhary > December 05, 2014 2:08 PM EST > > > http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-05/india-says-pollution-levels-need-to-rise-further-to-boost-growth > > India said its pollution levels will need to increase in the years ahead > to support its economic development and it won’t discuss limiting > greenhouse-gas emissions at United Nations climate talks that began this > week. > > Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar also said the government is > preparing to make a pledge on how India will develop cleaner forms of > energy, though he stopped short of indicating when the country might take > on the sorts of caps for emissions that the U.S., China and Europe are > adopting. > > “We have a need to grow, so our emissions will grow,” Javadekar said at a > press conference in New Delhi today. He said the onus on reducing emissions > should be on richer industrial nations most responsible for global warming > to allow poorer countries “space for more development.” > > The comments indicate the difficulty in bringing all of the 190 nations > gathered at the UN climate talks in Peru this week into a deal that will > cut back on the pollution blamed for driving up the Earth’s temperature. > While India’s emissions are the third-highest in the world, 30 percent of > its residents live in poverty, scraping by on 75 cents a day or less. > > Javadekar spoke before departing for the UN talks in Lima, Peru, which run > through next week. They’re aiming to put together the building blocks for a > deal by the end of next year that would cut pollution in all nations from > 2020. > > India is under pressure to make its environmental goals more clear after > China and the U.S. jointly agreed Nov. 12 to rein in fossil fuel emissions. > It was the first time a big developing country said it would take on a > mandatory limit on pollution. > Cutting Emissions > > Under that deal, the U.S. pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by as > much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. China will cap emissions by > 2030 and turn to renewable sources for 20 percent of the country’s energy. > > Javadekar said China’s target is less ambitious than it looks and still > allows the biggest polluter much higher emissions per capita than India > will have. > > “The math about China that has been published speaks about 12 tons per > capita,” he said. “Mine is 1.7 tons. Now you do the math. All I will say is > that the Chinese are low on ambition.” > > Having India onboard a UN deal is crucial, since its emissions are > surpassed only by the U.S. and China, and its levels are expected to grow > rapidly in the decades to come. Carbon dioxide emissions will jump 34 > percent in India by 2020 and double by 2030 under its existing policies, > according to the International Energy Agency. The U.S. and European Union > are reducing their pollution levels, and China has said it will peak by > 2030. > Industrial Nations > > India, whose pollution is less than a quarter of China’s level, maintains > it’s the richer countries that must move first on the issue. He said the > country will push for an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, which called on > industrial nations to cut back fossil-fuel pollution. > > “Developed countries must take up their responsibilities which are due,” > Javadekar said. “Those who were not part of the Kyoto protocol -- USA, > Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand -- they must also take voluntary > action. And must declare what will be their actions till 2020.” > > At the same time, India is moving forward with tapping cleaner forms of > energy, especially for its power industry. It will add 100 gigawatts solar > power capacity by 2017, an ambition on par with China’s own target. > > To contact the reporter on this story: Archana Chaudhary in New Delhi at > [email protected] > > To contact the editors responsible for this story: Sunil Jagtiani at > [email protected]; Reed Landberg at [email protected] Reed > Landberg, Will Wade > > ----------------------------------- > Regards > > Shankar Sharma > Power Policy Analyst > # 1026, 5th Main Road, E&F Block, Ramakrishna Nagara > Mysore, Karnataka, India - 570022 > Phone: 0821 2462333 & 94482 72503 > [email protected] > [email protected] > > "I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I > hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle > that." - Thomas Edison in conversation with Henry Ford, 1931 > > “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” > > > On 11 November 2014 at 22:04, Sanjay K Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Gopal >> >> Just a thought. Get in touch with ESG - Leo Saldhana. They may give you >> lot of materials on Ramky. THey have been opposing their illmanaged waste >> treatment and landfill in Bangalore. >> >> Cheers >> Sanjay >> >> >> *Dr. Sanjay K Gupta * >> >> >> *Water, Sanitation and Waste Management ExpertSt. Gallen, CH - 9000, * >> >> *SwitzerlandM- +41 - 7939 25665* >> *[email protected]* <[email protected]> >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: krishna <[email protected]> > Date: 18 October 2014 14:51 > Subject: BSPCB official's claims about Dioxins & POPs testing laboratory > etc for proposed Koilwar hazardous waste plant not convincing > To: scsingh40 <[email protected]>, bspcb <[email protected]> > Cc: bidyanand6 <[email protected]>, lkapoor2000 < > [email protected]>, dm-bhojpur-bih <[email protected]>, PRAKASH > JAVADEKAR <[email protected]>, [email protected], > [email protected], "rajkumar.singh19" < > [email protected]> > > > To > > Chairman > Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) > Department of Environment > Government of Bihar > Patna > > Member Secretary > Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) > Infrastructure and Miscellaneous Projects and CRZ, > Union Ministry of Environment & Forests > Government of India > > Subject- BSPCB official's claims about Dioxins & POPs testing > laboratory etc for Koilwar hazardous waste plant not convincing > > Sir, > > With reference to the public hearing on the proposal for Integrated > Common Hazardous Waste treatment, storage, disposal and recycling > facility by M/s Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd at Koilwar-Babura Road > Bhojpur, Bihar, I wish to place on record some facts for your perusal > and consideration. > > 1. When it was pointed out at the public hearing held on 16.10.2014 at > Ambika Sharan Singh High School, Jamalpur, Post- Naya Mohammadpur, > District- Bhojpur that the proposed hazardous waste-biomedical > waste-ewaste based plant will admittedly emit Dioxins and BSPCB does > not have the laboratory capacity to test and monitor the Dioxins and > emissions of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the BSPCB official > (Shri S N Jaiswal or Shri Nand Kumar) present on the dais responded. > He admitted that BSPCB does not have Dioxins & POPs testing laboratory > but he submitted that the same will be done by Central Pollution > Control Board (CPCB) as there is going to arrangement for online > monitoring. > > I wish to point out that in view of the attached order of National > Green Tribunal (NGT) dated August 6, 2014, the claim of the BSPCB > official in particular and the reliance of BSPCB on CPCB for such > laboratory facilities in general is not at all convincing and quite > alarming. > > I wish to draw your attention towards the attached order of NGT dated > August 6, 2014, wherein the CPCB's submission which has been cited > glaringly reveals that the test in regard to Dioxins and Furan could > not be conducted by the laboratory of the CPCB because their > laboratory was shut down for renovation etc. How can BSPCB rely on > such facility and endanger the human life and ecosystem of Koilwar and > Bihta from such Dioxins emitting plant in this situation? > > Besides it is an admitted fact that there are 99 hazardous waste > generating units in 18 districts of Bihar. Is BSPCB arguing that it > relies on CPCB laboratory for tests of POPs from all these factories? > > I wish to submit that even when CPCB's laboratory managed to test high > dioxin levels around a Dioxins emitting plant in Okhla, Delhi when its > laboratory was functional in October, 2013 dioxin level in stack 1 was > 1.06ng TEQ/Nm3 (toxicity equivalent) and that in stack 2 was 0.93ng > TEQ/Nm3 though safe level is 0.1ng TEQ/Nm3 only. Despite such > emissions no punitive action was taken. > > I submit that former Chief Engineer of DVC and convener, All India > Power Engineers Federation and noted whistle blower A K Jain who was > present the public hearing questioned the inconsistent claims of the > Ramky company about land, water and power by comparing its project > with other projects. He said that the company has not disclosed that > this site is flood prone and is planned to be situated within two > embankments. This can cause Bhopal Gas leak disaster. > > I submit that the social cost of this hazardous waste based plant is > quite huge. > > I submit that the proposed plant is against the cardinal principles of > waste management calls for managing waste where it is generated and > not transporting it to other places. For instance, what is the > rationale of transporting hazardous waste from Banka to Koilwar? > > I submit that villagers of Koilwar rejected Hyderabad based Ramky > company's proposal for hazardous waste burning plant in Daulatpur > Panchayat on the bank of Sone rivver at the public hearing organised > by BSPCB. > > I submit that several left and socialist parties pledged at the public > hearing that they will stop Koilwar from becoming a Waste capital. > > I submit that a site visit by villagers revealed that the project is > proposed in the river bed of Sone river in the vicinity of residential > areas of the village in the proximity of the main road in an area of > 57.24 acres. > > I submit that the villagers raised questions about the circumstances > under which this project got approval for public hearing in June 2013 > when it was already rejected in the 118th meeting of the EAC on > November 9, 2014. > > In the public hearing it was submitted by the villagers that Delhi > High Court's order in a similar case observed 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”. It > observed that the “Residents living around an incinerator and other > pollution sources” showed “Significant increase in lung cancer related > specifically to theincinerator”. 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”. (Source: > http://www.delhicourts.nic.in/Jan13/P.K.%20Nayyar%20vs.%20UOI.pdf) > > I submit that members of Paryawaran Bachao Jeewan Bachao Sangharsh > Morcha. Koilwar and Paryawaran Swasthya Suraksha Samiti, Giddha the > EAC had concluded that M/s Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd the project > “Proponent has not justified selection of the site and also there is a > habitation at about 200 m from the site which is not advisable for > this type of Hazardous waste handling and incineration activity.” > > The villagers submitted the judgment of the Delhi High Court to the > presiding officer of the public hearing. The judgment 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.’ (Source: > http://www.delhicourts.nic.in/Jan13/P.K.%20Nayyar%20vs.%20UOI.pdf) > > The Court’s judgment 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%”. > > The judgment 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”. > > I submit that Ramky's EIA report is quite misleading. It ignores the > nearest schools, hospitals, CRPF camp and the Koilwar railway station. > It refers to Ara railway station as the nearest railway station. BSPCB > does not have the capacity to test and monitor dioxins emissions. It > came to light that BSPCB is not enforcing environmental laws in the > 99-125 factories from which hazardous industrial waste is generated > which requires disposal and treatment at the place of their > generation. > > Citing these facts at the public hearing held on 16.10.2014 at Ambika > Sharan Singh High School, Jamalpur, Post- Naya Mohammadpur, District- > Bhojpur, the villagers said that they will pay any price to stop waste > from hundreds of factories and thousands of hospitals from coming to > Koilwar due to imminent public health crisis the present and future > generations of residents of villages on the Babura-Koilwar road in > Bhojpur, Bihar. > > I submit that Bihar Human Rights Commission has also been informed in > writing about these public health and environmental concerns. > > This controversial killer plant is proposed to be located in the > vicinity of ecologically sensitive zone and densely residential > colonies in violation of all existing norms. > > Yours faithfully > Gopal Krishna, > ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), > Mb: 09818089660, 08227816731, > E-mail:[email protected], > Web: www.toxicswatch.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
