Environmental Clearance for Jaitapur Nuclear Power Complex

 

Sri Jairam Ramesh, Minister for Environment & Forests , GOI   making public the detailed reasoning for granting Environmental Clearance (E.C ) in a matter of 80 days to Jaitapur Nuclear Power Complex ( 6 x1650 MW) of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), justified saying that it was essential to facilitate NPCIL and AREVA to sign General Framework Agreement as well as Works Agreement very soon and the Final Contracts in the first half of 2011. In other words, to meet the target date for the scheduled visit of the French President in the first week of December.

 

The E.C has been granted, stipulating 35 conditions, without waiting for "Carrying Capacity" and "Cumulative Impact Assessment" Studies, which are considered essential for the area which is considered to be ecologically sensitive and even without finalizing the project design and approval by AERB. It is evident, the entire EIA Process for Jaitapur NP Complex of NPCIL, is nothing but going through a formality / ritual, about a predetermined project, marginalizing the environmental & safety considerations and the public opinion.

 

 Role of Environment Ministry 

 

The Minister tried to absolve the obligation of his Ministry by saying that he is not the competent authority to pass judgment on matters related to the Need, Economics and Safety of Nuclear Power Plants. But the Ministry entrusted with the task of enforcing The Environment Protection Act, cannot absolve of its responsibility to prevent Environmental Pollution from Nuclear Power Complexes and allied activities, namely  radiation discharges in excess of safe limits stipulated by AERB, into Water, Air & Land including the Food-chain.

 

The economic development may have environmental impacts but the economic impacts of the environmental problems are also significant. Therefore, irrespective of competency of authorities concerned regarding Nuclear Power Projects, the EIA Process should have clearly identified and characterized the critical environmental consequences and risks of the Jaitapur NPP, so that the public can farm a view about environmental acceptability of the project.

 

Nuclear Energy Cleaner?

 

 While pleading that his Ministry is not the competent authority to pass judgment on matters related to the Need, Economics and Safety of Nuclear Power Plants, the Minister advocated that  from environmental point of view, Nuclear Energy is cleaner option than Coal.

 

The fact is, "It takes energy to make energy"- even Nuclear Energy. Although a Nuclear power plant itself releases no carbon dioxide, the production of nuclear electricity, depends upon a vast complex and hidden industrial infrastructure (Nuclear Fuel Cycle- very Expensive, Sophisticated and Dangerous Way to Boil Water) is the intensive user of Fossil Fuel -the kind of energy the Nuclear power is touted as replacing -with the concurrent production of Carbon Dioxide.         

Far from being an answer to the problem of Emissions & Climate Change, Nuclear Power would be a miss-allocation of resources, making things worse by diverting funds away from better and cheaper alternatives. We get six times the reductions in CO2, by investing in Energy-Efficiency, rather than Nuclear Power and much faster too.

 

Must Energy Consumption Rise in Lockstep with Economic Growth?

The Minister also emphasized the need for increase of Electricity generating capacity at about 7% per year to sustain real Annual GDP growth rate of 9 % per year. For increasing the share of Nuclear energy in the fuel mix, its increase of 6% by 2020 and 13% by 2030, from the existing 2.9% of the total generating capacity, has been advocated.

 Linking energy consumption / supply with the growth rate, embodied the Myth that economic vitality requires steadily increasing energy consumption. The Nation's Energy Security depends on efficient use of Energy Services that maximize economic competitiveness and minimize environmental degradation / impacts. 

 

The per capita energy consumption of energy in India is estimated to be far behind  USA,  Japan, and the Asia average and the  energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP),  is high compared to Japan, the USA, and Asia as a whole. This indicates inefficient use of energy in India, with a substantial scope for energy savings, even at lower per capita consumption.

                                                        

 It is nothing but suicidal trying to target for higher per capita consumption of energy, to sustain annual GDP growth rate, instead of trying to improve efficiency and cutting down the energy intensity, through technological innovations, which are cost effective and eco-friendly

 

Conclusion

 

 Historically disputes between Industry, Governments and Community are always Unequal and Unfair, because people, who have been damaged by irresponsible industries, almost never have the expertise or funding to conduct their own studies and the Governments invariably support this mindless damage by industries in the name of GDP Growth, which is not Inclusive.   

 

At this time, when our National and State Leaderships are advocating Nuclear Power for Energy Security & Sustainable Development, it is important that the facts are made known to the public and that legitimate arguments against & for Nuclear Power are heard and given due consideration, before opting for Nuclear Power, which doesn't seem to add up Economically, Environmentally or Socially and is neither the answer to modern energy problems nor a panacea for Climate Change challenges.

 

 The Human beings are at the center of concerns for Sustainable Development and the Human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature, keeping the human being as the central focus of all developmental activities.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Use of vehicles like SUVs & BMW in India is Criminal?

                      

Emissions from Transport Sector.

 

  Mr. Jairam Ramesh , Environment  Minister, speaking at a UN function recently said, that   the Transport Sector in India contribute 7.5 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the country and this is expected to be 15 per cent in the next 15 to 20 years. He says "we are worried and we are looking at how to control these emissions from transport sector. For this to happen there should be mandatory fuel efficiency standards for Auto Makers". According to him, India is the only country in the world which does not have a mandatory fuel efficiency standard.

 

Subsidized Diesel

 

 The luxurious growth of large-size vehicles like SUVs, which survived on subsidized diesel to an extent of Rs 22 per liter, is really a skewed growth of concern. There should be a reformed diesel pricing policy as the real beneficiaries of the present subsidy are the owners of the "BMWs, the Benzs and Hondas" and not the farmers and public/goods transport sectors, for whom subsidized diesel is actually meant.

 

"I am worried seeing the number of vehicles on the roads today and with the number of increasing big SUVs, it can be a recipe for disaster like the US... I am not happy... I have no control over it, unfortunately," Ramesh added.

 

"And certainly put a penalty on the type of cars that you don't want to see on the roads which is diesel driven Car, SUVs," Mr. Jairam Ramesh said. He wants gas guzzling Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) off Indian roads saying they emitted more carbons and called the use of vehicles like SUVs & BMWs in the country as "Criminal".

 

Effective Fiscal Policy

 

 We cannot ask people to buy or not to buy a particular car, but through an effective fiscal policy, we can certainly have the desired impact. The diesel car owners do not deserve subsidized diesel, we want them to pay market price but it will be difficult to ask the Gas Stations to charge them higher than other users such as public transport, goods transport vehicles etc.

 

So 25 % cess on the car price may be imposed on diesel cars in addition to corresponding increase in life tax imposed by the respective State Governments, so as to prevent misuse of subsidized diesel by Private Diesel car owners.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________   

 
   

  

Environmental Laws need more Teeth & Machinery for Enforceability

 The Chief Justice of India, Justice S.H.Kapadia, is reported to have suggested amending various Environmental Laws, to give them more teeth and also providing requisite machinery to implement them properly, while addressing a gathering on 9 th November at New Delhi, on the occasion of National Legal Service Day. He pointed out that the Legislature has enacted several laws for protection of environment but has provided "No Machinery" to enforce them.

 

Illegal Mining & Corruption

 

 The CJI said, sharing his experience as judge sitting in on the Supreme Court Forest Bench for the last six years, that rather than dealing with Environmental and Forest Laws, it had become a Bench to deal with Corruption. The CJI is also reported to have said that a handful of Corporate and Rich people are destroying forests out of their greed through illegal mining. 

 

Lack of Rule of Environmental Law     

 

At present the environmental laws are honoured more in their breech than in their observance, because Non-Compliance has become a "High-Profit" business instead of being a "High-Risk" business, as is evident from various scams. The "Regulating Agencies" are at present functioning as Government Departments, which are amenable to the influences of political and money power. What we need immediately is an autonomous "National Environmental Protection Authority (NEPA) a permanent professional body in place of MOEF, CPCB, State PCBs etc, which is being talked about by Sri Jairam Ramesh, MOSE&F quite for some time.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bhavanapadu & Sompeta Thermal Power Plants-Penal Action

The Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF) of Govt.of India  accorded  Environmental Clearances(EC) to Sompeta Thermal Power Plant (TPP)  of Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd (NCC) and Bhavanapadu Thermal Power Plant(TPP) of East Coast Energy Pvt. Ltd (ECE), in Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh, based on wrong information, as confirmed by National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) as per details furnished below:

 

NCC Thermal Power Plant at Sompeta

 

The NEAA Order dated 14-07-2010, quashing the Environmental Clearance accorded to NCC Thermal Power Plant  at Sompeta, categorically stated that the Authority, on inspection to the site, found the land allotted to the project a typical wetland of great ecological importance and a source for water for nearby villagers upon which 3 important Lift-Irrigation Projects of the Govt. depend.

 

The NEAA also concluded that the report of various agencies including that of sub-committee of EAC was found misleading.  Also observed that the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) was also carried away by the reports and reversed its decision of 32 nd Meeting held on 13-14 October 2008. Hence, the Authority concluded that the Environmental Clearance accorded to NCC by MOEF, based on wrong information is bad and thus liable to be quashed.

 

ECE Thermal Power Plant at Bhavanapadu

The NEAA in its Order dated 30-8-2010 observed that even after leaving 500 acres of land in southern portion, thereby shifting the southern boundary of the facility by 1.35 km, the remaining area (part of which already raised), was still found to be a marshy/wetland except in places showing transitional character. The Authority also observed that various reports in this regard, including that of sub-committee of EAC were found to be incorrect. The EAC and in turn the MOEF has relied on these reports for granting Environmental Clearance for the project ECE at Bhavanapadu

The Authority further observed that as stated by the expert of BHNS and agreed by Dr.Kaul, an internationally  renowned expert on Wetlands, elevation of the project site   by the project proponent, after the grant of Environmental Clearance, nearly a year ago, has caused irreversible changes in the character of the Wetland. The Authority also observed that progressively these wetlands have been converted for agricultural use and at least 10% in the locality has since been converted so far including the raised project site and being Ecologically Important, there should be a Total Ban on further conversion.

Concealment and/or submission of false or Misleading Information or Data 

The EIA Report in respect of ECE TPP appears to have deliberately suppressed or concealed the information regarding the location of the project in Wetland area and failed to mention the fact of the presence Telineelapuram–Important Bird Area Site ( IBAS) within 2.5 Km from the project site.

With regard to ecological sensitivity of the area, the certification by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of AP that there are no National Parks, Sanctuary, Elephant/Tiger Reserve, Migratory Path (existing as well as proposed) within 10 Km radius of the project site is nothing but deliberate misleading information and suppression of the fact of the presence of Telineelapuram –IBAS- within 2.5 Km from the proposed project site. 

 

 The MOEF justified the granting of Environmental Clearance for the ECE Project, in spite of the reservations expressed by the Sub-committee of EAC, saying that Dept. of Environment &Forests , Govt of AP, vide its letter dated 09-02-2009, confirmed that the project site does not fall within Naupada Swamps and there are no conservation sites near the project site. This ignores the fact of the presence of Telineelapuram –Important Bird Area Site (IBAS) within 2.5 Km from the project site. and the ground reality that the project site is marshy/wetland. It also ignores the fact that Naupada Swamps is one of the 55 wetlands prioritized for conservation by the AP Forest Department.

Penal Action 

 It is therefore requested that necessary penal action be considered and initiated in accordance with Sections 15, 17 and 19 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, against the officials responsible for suppressing the ground realities & submitting incorrect reports in respect of NCC and ECE Projects at Sompeta and Bhavanapadu respectively   and the Environmental Clearance  granted to ECE Project at Bhavanapadu be cancelled, In accordance with Para 8(vi) of EIA Notification dated 14-09-2006, after giving a personal hearing to the project proponent, and following the principles of natural justice.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Regulation & Control of Bursting of Firecrackers and Noise Pollution

Hon'ble Supreme Court Directives

 

 The directives of three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2001, to all the District Collectors in the Country to ensure that firecrackers are burst only between 6 pm and 10 pm, during Dasara, Diwali and other festivals. The Bench recognizing the need to protect the people from ill effects of air and noise pollution described the 'Right to Peaceful Sleep' as a Fundamental Right.

                         

 The Bench also directed the authorities to ensure that fireworks are not used at any time in silence zones. That is within 100 meters around public or private hospitals, nursing homes or other institutions for the reception and treatment of the sick or wounded, educational institutions, religious places, courts and other places designated as silence zones. 

 

The Supreme Court Bench further directed the Central and State governments, to strictly enforce  the Environment Protection Rules, which prohibit manufacture, sale or use of firecrackers generating a noise level exceeding 125 decibels at four meters distance from the point of bursting. The Bench asked the managements and Principals of all schools to take steps to inform students about the ill-effects of firecrackers on health and otherwise and also inform them about the court's directions.

 

Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules

 

 The A P State Govt, in pursuance of GOI, MoEF Notification No. S.O 123 ( E) dated 14-.2-2000 --Noise Pollution ( R &C) Rules, 2000, issued G.O.Rt. No. 227 of 11-7-2000, to regulate & control noise producing & generating sources. As per the GO. the Commissioner of Police, shall be the Prescribed Authority, to implement Standards & Rules in respect of Noise, in Municipal Corporations & similarly Superintendents of Police of Districts shall be the Prescribed Authority within their jurisdiction. These Authorities shall have powers to sub delegate the authority further.

Ground Realities, Hyderabad in Particular

       

The steep rise in pollution parameters, monitored by APPCB at different parts of Hyderabad city during the festival week in respect of RSPM, SPM, SO2, NoX etc and the Noise levels exceeding the prescribed levels in all the zones, are the clear indication of the ill effects and hazardous nature of indiscriminate bursting of firecrackers. The authorities concerned are not either aware of Hon'ble Supreme Court directives and Noise Pollution (Regulation& Control) Rules, vide G.O.Rt.No.227 of 11-07-2000, even after the lapse of 9 to 10 years, or have failed in discharging the duties assigned to them.

 

Conclusion

 

In the light of the position explained above and taking into account the adverse impacts of pollutants and noise levels, on the health of infants, the aged & the sick and the quality of life in general, the Manufacture, Sale, and Bursting of Fire Crackers need to be regulated and controlled, strictly in conformance with the directives of Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules in force as on date, are to be enforced strictly.

 

 The widest publicity needs to be given through Print and Electronic Media regarding Supreme Court Directives and Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, during the ongoing Diwali season to create awareness among all concerned and to be continued thereafter at regular intervals.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Lifting of Moratorium on Projects-Pattancheru- Bollaram Area

 

 This has reference to MOEF Office Memorandum dated 26-10-10 lifting the Moratorium, on consideration of projects for Environmental Clearance (EC) in respect of projects to be located in Pattancheru- Bollaram area in AP State, as per the recommendation of CPCB, which is understood to have been based on the actions initiated by the local stake holders for improving environment quality of the area.

 

Discharges from PETL-18 KM Pipeline

 

 As per the information available, the CETP Pattancheru (PETL) is understood to be transferring its treated effluents to Amberpet STP through 18 Km Pipeline for further treatment (Dilution) and discharge into Musi River, thus avoiding discharges into local streams / water bodies.

 

 If outlet standards, applicable for discharge into inland surface waters, are being met by PETL as stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court, why not the treated effluents from PETL, be utilized by the member industrial units in Pattancheru Area?. What is the need to use the 18 Km pipeline, to convey treated effluents, conforming to inland surface water standards, all the way to STP at Amberpet, incurring considerable recurring expenditure for pumping etc and depleting ground water sources in Pattancheru area?

                                                

 

18 km Pipeline- Camouflage for Shifting Pollution of PETL

 

    In actual fact, the transfer of so called treated effluents of PETL through 18 Km Pipeline, is nothing but shifting the pollution problem from Nakka Vagu in Pattancheru area to Musi River, for diluting the pollution concentration levels (and not the load) and the accountability, that too cleverly camouflaged in a pipeline, as is already being done by CETP at Jeedimetla.

                                                          

  The very purpose of Supreme Court directive in W.P.N0.1056 of 1990 as far back as 1998, for segregation of waste streams containing non-degradable pollutants at the very source of their generation ie at the industry itself, instead of sending it to CETP, so as to prevent Dilution as a Solution to Pollution, is defeated by the 18 km Pipeline.

 

 Unless the water pollution generated is identified, quantified treated and accounted for at the very source of its generation, there is every danger of it being passed on to elsewhere and to others and diluting the Pollution, Responsibility and Accountability. It is what seems to be happening in Pattancheru–Bollaram & elsewhere, making the reported improvement of water environment quality of the area a Myth. The letter dated 25-07-08 addressed to Member Secretary, CPCB and letter dated 10-06-10 addressed to Hon'ble Minister of State, E&F, with copy to CPCB on the subject refer.

 

Permanent Ban in Pattancheru- Bollaram Area

 

 Considering the pollution problems, local issues, need to protect the Drinking Water Resources and Water for Agriculture, the APPCB issued Notification of 14-10-1996, restricting the establishment / expansion of all types of Bulk Drugs, Pesticides(Tech), Dyes & Dye Intermediate manufacturing Industries and all types of Water Polluting industries in Pattancheru –Bollaram Industrial area and I Km radius of the area along with other IEs and IDAs in Medak, Ranga Reddy, Mahaboobnagar and Nallagonda districts  for 2 years from 01-01-97.

  .

 Subsequently, the AP Govt. issued G.O.Ms.No 62 of 28-04-1999 making the existing ban notification of 14.10.1996, issued by the APPCB permanent, in accordance with the interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.No. 1056/90, dated. 12.05.1998.

 

Validity of Lifting Moratorium by MOEF?

 

 In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court Order and consequent AP Govt. G.O.Ms.No 62 of 28-04-99, permanently restricting the establishment / expansion of all types of Water Polluting industries in Pattancheru –Bollaram Industrial area and in other IEs &IDAs, the validity of MOEF Office Memorandum dated 26-10-10, lifting the Moratorium, on consideration of E.C in respect of projects to be located in Pattancheru- Bollaram area is highly questionable/objectionable.

 

 Conclusion

 

 In the light of the position explained above, it is requested that the lifting of moratorium in respect of Pattancheru –Bollaram Industrial area be deleted from MOEF Office Memorandum dated 26-10-10 and the permanent ban imposed by GO. Ms. No. 62 dated 28-04-1999, be strictly implemented.

 

 It is also requested that if the treated effluents of PETL conform to the surface water standards, the same may please be utilized locally, instead of transferring them at considerable expenditure through 18 KM Pipeline to Amberpet STP, the surplus capacity of which can be utilized for treating untreated sewage finding its way into Musi River 

Public Policy Making and Precautionary Principle

         

Precautionary Principle

                    

 The Precautionary Principle governs the use of foresight in decision making, in situations characterized by uncertainty and ignorance and where both regulatory action and inaction carry potentially large environmental and social costs. It supports sustainable development and helps to achieve significant and measurable improvement in environment, through the provision of timely, targeted, relevant and reliable information to policy and decision making agencies and the public.

 

Lessons from History

 

The key lessons can be drawn from history on using precaution in policy and decision -making. Some key lessons for decision-making have emerged from a ground-breaking analysis by the European Environment Agency of cases - from the damaging of the ozone layer by CFC chemicals to the "mad cow" disease epidemic – where public policy was formulated against a background of scientific uncertainty or surprise developments, or where clear evidence of hazards to people and the environment was ignored. That is why the "Precautionary Principle" is enshrined in European Union Treaty.

 

Innovations Vs Hazards

                         

 The use of the Precautionary Principle can bring benefits beyond the reduction of health and environmental impacts, stimulating both more
innovation, via technological diversity and flexibility, and better science. But over-precaution can also be expensive, in terms of lost opportunities for innovation and lost lines of scientific enquiry. If more account is taken - scientifically, politically and economically –of a richer body of information from more diverse sources, then society may be considerably more successful at achieving a better balance between innovations and their hazards in the future. The 'late lessons" distilled from the case studies of European Community, could help to achieve this better balance.

 None of the lessons would themselves remove the dilemmas of decision-making under situations of uncertainty and high stakes. They cannot eradicate uncertainties or avoid the consequences of ignorance. But they would at least increase the chances of anticipating costly impacts, of achieving a better balance between the pros and cons of technological innovations and of minimizing the costs of unpleasant surprises.

Ignoring Precautionary Principle

 

The use of synthetic hormones and antimicrobial agents to promote growth in farm animals; the use of the cancer-causing synthetic hormones to prevent miscarriages in women; the use of  Asbestos, CFCs, and the Chemicals Benzene, MTBE (a substitute for lead in petrol), Tributyl Tin (an antifouling agent used for painting of ship sides) and PCBs; the use of Genetically Modified Seeds are only a few examples of ignoring well established and universally accepted "Precautionary Principal", all over the world.

 

Examples in AP State

 

The excessive and indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture, over exploitation of ground water, indiscriminate conversion of agriculture lands for intensive aquaculture,  contamination and encroachment of   water bodies such as Kolleru, a bird sanctuary, the polluting Activities  in the catchment areas of drinking water sources such as Himayat/ Osman Sagar, the pollution and encroachment of Hussein Sagar and other  water bodies in the name of tourism and development;   the discharge of under treated and untreated industrial effluents and domestic sewage into Musi river, the laying of pipelines for transfer of toxic industrial effluents, into Musi river with the object of dilution, the location of Pharma Parks and Bulk drug units,  near the sea coast with the sole object of discharging effluents into sea and the neglect of viable Public Transportation, resulting in increasing urban air pollution from automobiles, are some of the examples of ignoring the Precautionary Principle, closer to home in Hyderabad and the State of AP

 

Conclusion

            

There should be greater and shared understanding about past decisions on hazardous technologies and ill- conceived policies / decisions, and improved appreciation and wisdom about future decisions and in correcting the earlier ill-conceived decisions.