Press Release
illegality of flagless Exxon Valdez condoned, July 30 judgment bans future toxic ships
Violation of Supreme Court's orders of October 14, 2003 May 3 and July 6 2012 with impunity, sets a bad precedent
Role of concerned environment ministry official should be investigated
New Delhi: Concluding the 15 page judgment of July 30, 2012 in the matter of end of life US ship Exxon Valdez, Justice Altamas Kabir headed bench of Supreme Court has directed that "...in all future cases of a similar nature, the concerned authorities shall strictly comply with the norms laid down in the Basel Convention or any other subsequent provisions that may be adopted by the Central Government in aid of a clean and pollution free maritime environment, before permitting entry of any vessel suspected to be carrying toxic and hazardous material into Indian territorial waters." The fact remains that in the case of Exxon Valdez (now named MV Oriental N, IMO No. 8414520), Basel Convention has been violated. The judgment is attached.
While permitting beaching and dismantling of the end of life ship in question, the July 30, 2012 judgment reads: "Such relief would, of course, be subject to compliance with all the formalities as required by the judgments and orders passed by this Court on 14th October, 2003, 6th September, 2007 and 11th September, 2007 in the Writ Petition."
The fact is Hon'ble Court order of October 14, 2003 reads: "At the international level, India should participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention’s Technical Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their hazardous substances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to export to India for breaking. Participation should include from Central and State level.” This has not been complied with nor has it been claimed that it has been complied with.
It is quite strange that the Hon'ble Court refrained from referring to their May 3, 2012 order in matter of this end-of-life ship and July 6, 2012 judgment on the issue of shipbreaking.
The relevant part of the May 3 order which required compliance with Convention, reads: “A copy (of the application) has been provided to Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel, who submits that he is appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. Both, Mr. Bhan and Mr. Doabia, are requested to take instructions on the statements made in the interlocutory application and to inform this Court as to the steps being taken to prevent the ship berthing in any of the ports in India, without following the conditions indicated in the Basel Convention.”
There is manifest non-compliance with this order. In fact no where in the affidavits of either the shipbreaker or the agencies like Ministry of Environment & Forests, Gujarat Pollution Control Board and Gujarat Maritime Board has it been claimed that they have complied with the Convention.
Hon’ble Court in the judgment dated 06.07.2012 has considered the issue of ship breaking and observed: “…The question of ship breaking and distribution of hazardous wastes are being considered separately in the contempt proceedings, in these proceedings we expect and reiterate that the directions contained in the BASEL Convention have to be strictly followed by all the concerned players, before a vessel is allowed to enter Indian territorial waters and beach at any of the beaching facilities in any part of the Indian coast-line. In case of breach of the conditions, the authorities shall impose the penalties contemplated under the municipal laws of India.”
Para 8 of the July 6, 2012 judgment reads: “This Court observed that the ship breaking operations could not be allowed to continue, without strictly adhering to all precautionary principles, CPCB guidelines and upon taking the requisite safeguards, which have been dealt with extensively in the report of the High Powered Committee, which also included the working conditions of the workmen.” This has not been complied with.
The July 30, 2012 order reads: "It is made clear that if any toxic wastes embedded in the ship structure are discovered during its dismantling, the concerned authorities shall take immediate steps for their disposal at the cost of the owner of the vessel, M/s Best Oasis Ltd., or its nominee or nominees." This is inconsistent with Court's earlier order, Basel Convention and the affidavits of GMB and CPCB.
Hon’ble Court's order of 20th April 2000 referred to the affidavit filed by CPCB, reads:”With regard to ship-breaking at Alang, affidavit of Shri Lalit Kapur on behalf of the CPCB has been filed. In response to that, the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 15th April, 2000 supporting the stand taken by CPCB. The contention is that steps should be taken to ensure that ships which came to India for ship-breaking should be properly decontaminated before they are exported to India. This aspect is being considered by the HPC. As such, the Union of India should forward to the HPC the affidavit of Shri Lalit Kapur as well as the said comments of the petitioner filed by way of an affidavit of Ms. Shalini Bhutani for consideration and report by the HPC. Needful be done by the Union of India within four weeks from today.”
This has not been done nor has it been claimed that it has been done and still the ship has been allowed. CPCB is an agency of the Ministry of Environment & Forests. The role of the Environment Ministry official needs probe because he appears to have misled the Hon'ble Court. On the date of final hearing on July 23, 2012, CPCB consel had underlined the violation of the Court' order by the ship in question. Even counsel for Customs underlined that hazardous material in ship has not been verified and certified. It appears that the official in question misrepresented facts to MoEF counsel. ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) demands probe in the role of this official because his role since the days of Le Clemenceau and several toxic ships has been questionable.
The submission of Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) before the Hon'ble Court's High Powered Committee on hazardous toxic wastes categorically stated that a ship should be allowed to sail only when they are made completely hazardous/toxic free from every corner of the structure of the ship before being auctioned. The stand taken by GMB reads: “Now as far as hazardous/toxic wastes contained in the structure of empty ships are concerned, the same should be removed by the exporting countries as such wastes are banned under Basel Convention...Here, India is a non-member of OECD therefore it must be clarified here that it is the duty of OECD countries that they should allow to sail only those ships to the non-OECD countries for recycling, which are made completely hazardous/toxic contained, free from every corner/structure of the ship before being auctioned.” This has been suppressed. GMB has colluded to misled the Hon'ble Court.
The judgement has a erred in stating that "I.A. No.61 of 2012 which had been filed by M/s Best Oasis Ltd. on 9th May, 2012, and I.A. No.62 of 2012 filed by Gopal Krishna on 18th June, 2012."
The fact is I.A No. 61 is subsequent to the I.A No. 62 (but numbered earlier due to registry's fault) in which Sanjay P Mehta of Hongkong based Best Oasis Company, (a subsidiary of Bhavnagar based Priya Blue Industries Pvt Ltd)had sought interim directions specifically referring to Gopal Krishna's application. Their application is attached.
In the I.A.62 application it was held that US Maritime Administration is transferring its end-of-life ships in furtherance of its Ship Disposal Policy. It is known that in the year 2000-2001, the owner of Priya Blue Industries Pvt Ltd, Sanjay P Mehta has been in the ship recycling business as he was engaged with “MARUTI METALS, LLC” in the US as a advisor at the recycling Site at Brownsville, Texas. It was involved in the dismantling of United States Adventure, a US Navy vessel as per the requirements of US Maritime Administration [MARAD] an agency within the US Department of Transportation. After the entrepreneurs of the "MARUTI METALS LLC" decided to close their business in US, Shri Mehta moved to India to further continue his recycling business in Alang-Sosiya, Gujarat India. Its 100% subsidiary, Best Oasis Limited, a newly formed company and a part of "Priya Blue Group" which is a "CASH BUYER" that purchases vessels on "As is Where is basis" to deliver the same for ship dismantling at Alang beach at the convenience of ship owners from developed countries. Best Oasis Limited is a purchaser, seller and financer of end-of-life ships.
The end-of-life ship was purchased in March 2012 by a US based company Global Marketing Systems (GMS), which is one of the biggest, cash buyers for dead ships. It was sold to Best Oasis Company for about $16 million. The Bill of Sale of the ship alone can reveal its true or latent value. Neither teh purchase agreement nor the Bill of sale nor any evdience of ownership of the ship was submitted to the Court. The ship had changed flag from US to Panama to Sierra Leone. When it entered Indian waters it was under Sierra Leone flag but its validity had already expired. As a result as of today it is a flagless ship. This is akin to what happned in the case of Danish ship Riky which entered Indian waters under a flag of a country (ROXA) which does not exist with the collusion of Environment Ministry official. The matter is still pending in the Court. This journey of violation of Basel Convention and Hon'ble Court's order from Riky, Blue Lady, Platinum II to Exxon Valdez has ruined Alang beach and turned it in to India's most toxic hot spot and migrant workers graveyard.
As per the order dated 03.05.2012 and the judgment dated 06.07.2012 Basel Convention applies. In the first order dated 14.01.2003, which was coated with approval and the subsequent order dated 06.09.2007, prior decontamination by the Country of export is required before Ship can be allowed entry in the territorial waters. This ship is in non-compliance with the recommendations of the Hon'ble Court constituted Inter-ministerial committee (IMC) on ship-breaking under Union Steel Ministry.
It is for US Maritime Administration (US MARAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the ship owner in question to disclose the original inventory of hazardous and radioactive materials on board the vessel, ex Exxon Valdez. This was not demanded.
TWA wonders how can visual inspection by MoEF, GPCB and Gujarat Maritime Board verify presence or absence of PCBs and other hazardous substances in the absence of required laboratory facility.
The entry permission, anchoring permission and inspection was granted in violation of Supreme Court order of May 3, 2012 and order dated July 6, 2012. Anchoring has been granted even without looking at inventory submitted by the Ship for the purpose of verification.
There was a need to pierce the corporate veil by examining the current and past ownership documents of this end-of-life vessel to ascertain its past and future liabilities. Industrialized countries like USA should not be allowed to dump their junk into the developing countries like India on the account of easy availability of vulnerable and disposable workforce and alien coastal ecosystem. The eagerness to profit from one of the world's dirtiest industries, the dismantling of toxic ships by migrant and casual workers from Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Odisha at Alang beach is fraught with disastrous environmental and occupational health consequences.
In such a situation, there is still a compelling reason for this ex- US ship to be sent away from the Indian waters. It is trying to repeat the story of another dubious dead US ship Platinum II (ex SS Independence, MV Oceanic) to set a bad a precedent. Upholding UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal is a compulsion because India is a party to it.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail-krishna1715@gmail.com, Web:toxicswatch.blogspot.com
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Only anaerobic digestion process preferable for energy from waste
Note:Out of the three categories of combustion, gasification and anaerobic digestion based waste to energy projects, only anaerobic digestion process is preferable from the point of view of public health, environment and sane waste management practices. Combustion and gasification are co-incineration processes which highly polluting and they distort waste management beyond repair. These myopic processes are resource incineration projects that disrupts the material flow cycle with callousness towards unintended consequences. One USEPA study noted that energy generation from these processes are costlier than even nuclear power, another disastrous path for meeting energy needs.
The experience of Prithviraj Jindal's waste to energy plant in Okhla based on untested, unapproved and experimental Chinese boiler technology without industrial disaster plan has revealed the how incineration technologies are bulldozed down people's throat in their residential areas. It also illustrates how fake carbon trade projects are.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Study: 260 million tons of waste converted to energy by 2022
July 30, 2012
A new report from Pike Research predicts the conversion of at least 261 million tons of municipal solid waste to energy within 10 years, according to a Business Wire press release.
The study, "Waste-to-Energy Technology Markets," analyzes the global WTE market in three categories: combustion, gasification and anaerobic digestion. It forecasts worldwide revenue and capacity through 2022.
Currently, more than 800 WTE plants operate across the globe, according to Pike Research's website. Pike Research expects that number to grow rapidly as the world continues to increase its waste generation.
The report's Executive Summary is available for download on Pike Research's website.
http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20120730/NEWS02/120739989/study-260-million-tons-of-waste-converted-to-energy-by-2022
The experience of Prithviraj Jindal's waste to energy plant in Okhla based on untested, unapproved and experimental Chinese boiler technology without industrial disaster plan has revealed the how incineration technologies are bulldozed down people's throat in their residential areas. It also illustrates how fake carbon trade projects are.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Study: 260 million tons of waste converted to energy by 2022
July 30, 2012
A new report from Pike Research predicts the conversion of at least 261 million tons of municipal solid waste to energy within 10 years, according to a Business Wire press release.
The study, "Waste-to-Energy Technology Markets," analyzes the global WTE market in three categories: combustion, gasification and anaerobic digestion. It forecasts worldwide revenue and capacity through 2022.
Currently, more than 800 WTE plants operate across the globe, according to Pike Research's website. Pike Research expects that number to grow rapidly as the world continues to increase its waste generation.
The report's Executive Summary is available for download on Pike Research's website.
http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20120730/NEWS02/120739989/study-260-million-tons-of-waste-converted-to-energy-by-2022
CPCB submits error ridden misleading affidavit, fails to file report on groundwater contamination around site of Bhopal's industrial disaster
Press Release
CPCB submits error ridden misleading affidavit, fails to file report on groundwater contamination around site of Bhopal's industrial disaster in Supreme Court
CPCB Chairperson urged to recall, revise the misleading report and file a fresh affidavit
Direction of groundwater flow and contamination around Bhopal plant is along Northeast axis
New Delhi July 31, 2012: In a letter to Mira Mehrishi, Chairperson, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Additional Secretary Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has revealed the glaring loopholes and errors in the 13 page attached misleading affidavit of CPCB in the matter of drinking water in Dow Chemicals Company's Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)’s Bhopal plant area filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court on July 17, 2012. The letter is attached.
The affidavit was filed as a follow up of TWA's letter dated July 14, 2012, assurance of Vijay Panjwani, CPCB lawyer and court's order dated March 28 and April 19, 2012.
The bench of Hon’ble Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar had directed, “The Central Pollution Control Board, which has been added as party to these proceedings, and represented in Court today, shall also file a report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated” on March 28, 2012 in I.A. No.43 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 657 of 1995. The court in its order dated April 19 has directed, “the Central Pollution Control Board is given time to file its composite report by 4th June, 2012.” Both the orders are enclosed.
Supreme Court lawyer for Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had assured that “CPCB would file report (on groundwater contamination by Dow’s Bhopal plant) as soon it is ready. There is no reason for CPCB to hold back or delay filing of report on contaminated ground water in Arif Nagar,etc near UCC/UCIL/DOW CHEMICAL plant in Bhopal.”
It is also sad that instead of acting as per Hon'ble Court's order, the affidavit refers to a business as usual study that was commissioned to IITR as per its letter dated January 24, 2012 that seems to task IITR to ensure compliance with NEERI's study. This study is not in compliance with the Hon'ble Court's order dated March 28, 2012 because it was commissioned 2 months prior to the order.
At page 2 of the affidavit filed by Dr D D Basu reads: "the officials of the Central Pollution Control Board visited the area on 7th June, 2012 and examined the matter and are of the view that the de-contamination of the ground water needs following information as a pre-requisite.
Status of water quality of the ground water in the formal UCIL premises, Bhopal.
To what extent with respect to area, the ground water is contaminated.
Options of technology available for ground water remediation"
At page 3 of the affidavit it is stated that "with respect to ground water quality, Central Pollution Control Board has already commissioned the service of Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IITR), Lucknow vide No. A-14011/1/2011-Mon/9348 dated 24/01/2012..."
The two out of three the Terms of Reference (TOR) for IITR mentioned in the affidavit reads: "Collection of the ground water samples of 36 locations as indicated in the report of NEERI and analysed for the following parameters...:" and "Data generated on groundwater and soil quality shall be put together to revalidate the observations in the June 2010 report of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur." It may be noted that NEERI study's assumption of direction of flow of ground water in the UCC's plant area has been contested. Both these TORs appear motivated as it appears to decide the direction and inference of the IITR study.
It further states that "once the revalidation is completed, a strategy of remediation of contaminated soil and ground water can be worked out. This shall take one year to develop the module of decontamination of soil and ground water." It is revealed that "IITR has requested to Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department (BGTRRD) for facilitation of sampling of soil and ground water in and around the UCIL premises."
It is clear from these admissions in the affidavit that the "report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated" as directed by the Hon'ble Court is not yet complete and only correspondence with regard to the same has happened.
The concluding sentence of the affidavit at page 4 reads: " Meanwhile, CPCB through his Zonal Office-Bhopal collected samples of drinking water being supplied by Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) on 7th June, 2012 from six locations. It is observed that the water quality is within the limit of drinking water". It concludes by saying that " The detailed report of drinking water sampling ar Arif Nagar (Near UCIL premises), Bhopal is Annexed."
It is evident from what is mentioned at page 2 of the affidavit that CPCB was directed to examine contamination of ground water in the are where UCC factory is located. But after admitting that the examination is not yet complete, CPCB undertook the formality of testing samples of BMC's drinking water supply and casually talks about how "possibility of cross contamination" with dirty water "cannot be ruled out" at page 7 (in the annex) of the affidavit. There is reference to "one sample from bore well being used by a local small restaurant (Ayasha Hotel)." The pagination of the affidavit is irregular that gives an impression that some pages of the annexure may be missing or may have got left out.
The Hon'ble Court had asked for "report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated" instead an irrelevant "Report of Drinking Water Sampling At Arif Nagar (Near UCIL Premises) Bhopal" has been filed.
All the titles of all the 3 tables which are annexed as part of the affidavit is faulty, misleading and factually incorrect. Table 1 at page 11 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)".
The fact is the affidavit itself reveals that CPCB did not undertake the ground water monitoring as it has been 'commissioned' to IITR which in turn has sought the assistance of BGTRRD.
Table 2 at page 12 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (M.PPCB)".
Table 3 at page 13 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (M.PPCB)".
The fact is at page 9 of the affidavit it is incorrectly claimed that "Groundwater sampling was carried out at six locations by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB)."
At page 5 of the affidavit the six locations from where water samples were taken on June 7, 2012 between 3 PM to 6 PM are mentioned. It is explicitly mentioned that 5 of these samples were from "Drinking water supply by BMC", there is just one sample from Borewell in Street No. 8 being used by Ayasha Hotel at Arif Nagar, Bhopal.
It is evident from the affidavit of the CPCB that its team visited UCC's factory site after the expiry of the Hon'ble court's deadline.
It is noteworthy that former employees of the UCC's plant have shared the list of toxic substances in the factory premises. These include:
1 Ortho dichlorobenzene, 2 Carbon tetrachloride, 3 Chloroform, 4 Methyl Chloride, 5 Methanol, 6 Mercury, 7 Sevin, 8 Alpha Naphthol etc.
UCC's chemical plant dealt with a multitude of organic compounds to manufacture the pesticide carbaryl (Sevin). Phosgene and Monomethyl amine (MMA) were the main raw materials involved in the process of manufacturing Methyl iso-cyanate (MIC), which in turn was used in combination with excess alpha-naphthol to produce Sevin. By-products like chloroform,carbon tetrachloride, MMA, ammonium chloride, dimethyl urea were all collected and recycled back to the process.
Toxic substances stored inappropriately inside the UCC's plant site are believed to have entered the soil and the ground water aquifer. It may be noted that the 1996 study of Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad showed the presence of Heavy metals(Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese Nickel andZinc) in wastes dumped within the factory. Naphthol and other volatile organic matter were also detected in the same waste. Leaching from these wastes cannot be ruled out.
Notably, the UCC plant was in operation from 1977 to 1984. After the industrial disaster in December 1984, the factory operations ceased and the site was abandoned. It is clear that since no remediation activities ever took place, the pesticide products and their production intermediates serve as ongoing pollutants to the environment, in particular, the groundwater.
A recent thesis titled "A Deterministic and Probabilistic Analyses of the Carbon Tetrachloride Contaminant Plume in Groundwater at the Former Union Carbide India Limited Factory in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India" submitted to the Faculty of the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University in 2012 attempts to describe the contaminant plume of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) in the groundwater using analytical models provided by publicly the available software known as analytical contaminant transport analysis system (ACTS). It notes that CCl4 is known to have adverse effects on human health when consumed through the drinking water and is classified as possibly carcinogenic by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The calibrated deterministic results show that concentrations of CCL4 do not exceed the U.S. EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) roughly 850 m from the source in the northeast direction. Probabilistic simulations show that there is a 100% probability that CCl4 concentrations exceed WHO specified MCL up to the year 2034 at sites 500m, 1000 m and 2000 m northeast of the UCIL site.
It may be noted that within the NEERI report from 2010, the direction of groundwater in the region of UCC's plant is reported to be in both the Northeast and Southeast direction. The Greenpeace report from 1999, citing an earlier report by NEERI, stated that the direction of groundwater flow is along a Northeast axis. The thesis states, "Given that the contaminant concentrations used for calibration increased along the Northeast axis, it was assumed for the purposes of this study that the direction of groundwater flow was along the Northeast axis."
It is noteworthy that Greenpeace International's 1999 study had found Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride, Tricholroethane, Tetrachloroethane, Hexachloroethane,, Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzenes and Trichlorobenzenes were detected in the groundwater by Organic Screening Analysis. Concentrations of Chloroform, Carbontetrachloride, Dichlorobenzenes and Trichlorobenzenes in groundwater exceeded WHO standards at Bhopal's JP Nagar and Atal Ayub Nagar.
In such a context, the submission by the CPCB official is manifestly quite inadequate. In In view of the errors and inadequacy of the report, TWA in its letter has urged the Chairperson of CPCB to ensure that the CPCB's affidavit is recalled, revised and a fresh affidavit is filed at the earliest.
Copies of the letter has been sent to Neel Kamal Darbari, Joint Secretary, Bhopal Gas Cell, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Dr N P Shukla, Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Dr K C Gupta, Director, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, Dr. D. D. Basu, Scientist 'E' & In charge, PAMS Division, CPCB, R.S. Kori, Scientist 'E' & (In charge Zonal Office Central), CPCB, Anirudh Mukherjee, Commissioner-cum-Director, Directorate of Gas Relief and Rehabilitation, Bhopal among others.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail-krishna1715@gmail.com, Phone: +91-11-26517814,
Fax: +91-11-26517814
CPCB submits error ridden misleading affidavit, fails to file report on groundwater contamination around site of Bhopal's industrial disaster in Supreme Court
CPCB Chairperson urged to recall, revise the misleading report and file a fresh affidavit
Direction of groundwater flow and contamination around Bhopal plant is along Northeast axis
New Delhi July 31, 2012: In a letter to Mira Mehrishi, Chairperson, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Additional Secretary Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has revealed the glaring loopholes and errors in the 13 page attached misleading affidavit of CPCB in the matter of drinking water in Dow Chemicals Company's Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)’s Bhopal plant area filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court on July 17, 2012. The letter is attached.
The affidavit was filed as a follow up of TWA's letter dated July 14, 2012, assurance of Vijay Panjwani, CPCB lawyer and court's order dated March 28 and April 19, 2012.
The bench of Hon’ble Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar had directed, “The Central Pollution Control Board, which has been added as party to these proceedings, and represented in Court today, shall also file a report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated” on March 28, 2012 in I.A. No.43 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 657 of 1995. The court in its order dated April 19 has directed, “the Central Pollution Control Board is given time to file its composite report by 4th June, 2012.” Both the orders are enclosed.
Supreme Court lawyer for Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had assured that “CPCB would file report (on groundwater contamination by Dow’s Bhopal plant) as soon it is ready. There is no reason for CPCB to hold back or delay filing of report on contaminated ground water in Arif Nagar,etc near UCC/UCIL/DOW CHEMICAL plant in Bhopal.”
It is also sad that instead of acting as per Hon'ble Court's order, the affidavit refers to a business as usual study that was commissioned to IITR as per its letter dated January 24, 2012 that seems to task IITR to ensure compliance with NEERI's study. This study is not in compliance with the Hon'ble Court's order dated March 28, 2012 because it was commissioned 2 months prior to the order.
At page 2 of the affidavit filed by Dr D D Basu reads: "the officials of the Central Pollution Control Board visited the area on 7th June, 2012 and examined the matter and are of the view that the de-contamination of the ground water needs following information as a pre-requisite.
Status of water quality of the ground water in the formal UCIL premises, Bhopal.
To what extent with respect to area, the ground water is contaminated.
Options of technology available for ground water remediation"
At page 3 of the affidavit it is stated that "with respect to ground water quality, Central Pollution Control Board has already commissioned the service of Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IITR), Lucknow vide No. A-14011/1/2011-Mon/9348 dated 24/01/2012..."
The two out of three the Terms of Reference (TOR) for IITR mentioned in the affidavit reads: "Collection of the ground water samples of 36 locations as indicated in the report of NEERI and analysed for the following parameters...:" and "Data generated on groundwater and soil quality shall be put together to revalidate the observations in the June 2010 report of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur." It may be noted that NEERI study's assumption of direction of flow of ground water in the UCC's plant area has been contested. Both these TORs appear motivated as it appears to decide the direction and inference of the IITR study.
It further states that "once the revalidation is completed, a strategy of remediation of contaminated soil and ground water can be worked out. This shall take one year to develop the module of decontamination of soil and ground water." It is revealed that "IITR has requested to Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department (BGTRRD) for facilitation of sampling of soil and ground water in and around the UCIL premises."
It is clear from these admissions in the affidavit that the "report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated" as directed by the Hon'ble Court is not yet complete and only correspondence with regard to the same has happened.
The concluding sentence of the affidavit at page 4 reads: " Meanwhile, CPCB through his Zonal Office-Bhopal collected samples of drinking water being supplied by Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) on 7th June, 2012 from six locations. It is observed that the water quality is within the limit of drinking water". It concludes by saying that " The detailed report of drinking water sampling ar Arif Nagar (Near UCIL premises), Bhopal is Annexed."
It is evident from what is mentioned at page 2 of the affidavit that CPCB was directed to examine contamination of ground water in the are where UCC factory is located. But after admitting that the examination is not yet complete, CPCB undertook the formality of testing samples of BMC's drinking water supply and casually talks about how "possibility of cross contamination" with dirty water "cannot be ruled out" at page 7 (in the annex) of the affidavit. There is reference to "one sample from bore well being used by a local small restaurant (Ayasha Hotel)." The pagination of the affidavit is irregular that gives an impression that some pages of the annexure may be missing or may have got left out.
The Hon'ble Court had asked for "report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated" instead an irrelevant "Report of Drinking Water Sampling At Arif Nagar (Near UCIL Premises) Bhopal" has been filed.
All the titles of all the 3 tables which are annexed as part of the affidavit is faulty, misleading and factually incorrect. Table 1 at page 11 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)".
The fact is the affidavit itself reveals that CPCB did not undertake the ground water monitoring as it has been 'commissioned' to IITR which in turn has sought the assistance of BGTRRD.
Table 2 at page 12 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (M.PPCB)".
Table 3 at page 13 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (M.PPCB)".
The fact is at page 9 of the affidavit it is incorrectly claimed that "Groundwater sampling was carried out at six locations by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB)."
At page 5 of the affidavit the six locations from where water samples were taken on June 7, 2012 between 3 PM to 6 PM are mentioned. It is explicitly mentioned that 5 of these samples were from "Drinking water supply by BMC", there is just one sample from Borewell in Street No. 8 being used by Ayasha Hotel at Arif Nagar, Bhopal.
It is evident from the affidavit of the CPCB that its team visited UCC's factory site after the expiry of the Hon'ble court's deadline.
It is noteworthy that former employees of the UCC's plant have shared the list of toxic substances in the factory premises. These include:
1 Ortho dichlorobenzene, 2 Carbon tetrachloride, 3 Chloroform, 4 Methyl Chloride, 5 Methanol, 6 Mercury, 7 Sevin, 8 Alpha Naphthol etc.
UCC's chemical plant dealt with a multitude of organic compounds to manufacture the pesticide carbaryl (Sevin). Phosgene and Monomethyl amine (MMA) were the main raw materials involved in the process of manufacturing Methyl iso-cyanate (MIC), which in turn was used in combination with excess alpha-naphthol to produce Sevin. By-products like chloroform,carbon tetrachloride, MMA, ammonium chloride, dimethyl urea were all collected and recycled back to the process.
Toxic substances stored inappropriately inside the UCC's plant site are believed to have entered the soil and the ground water aquifer. It may be noted that the 1996 study of Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad showed the presence of Heavy metals(Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese Nickel andZinc) in wastes dumped within the factory. Naphthol and other volatile organic matter were also detected in the same waste. Leaching from these wastes cannot be ruled out.
Notably, the UCC plant was in operation from 1977 to 1984. After the industrial disaster in December 1984, the factory operations ceased and the site was abandoned. It is clear that since no remediation activities ever took place, the pesticide products and their production intermediates serve as ongoing pollutants to the environment, in particular, the groundwater.
A recent thesis titled "A Deterministic and Probabilistic Analyses of the Carbon Tetrachloride Contaminant Plume in Groundwater at the Former Union Carbide India Limited Factory in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India" submitted to the Faculty of the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University in 2012 attempts to describe the contaminant plume of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) in the groundwater using analytical models provided by publicly the available software known as analytical contaminant transport analysis system (ACTS). It notes that CCl4 is known to have adverse effects on human health when consumed through the drinking water and is classified as possibly carcinogenic by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The calibrated deterministic results show that concentrations of CCL4 do not exceed the U.S. EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) roughly 850 m from the source in the northeast direction. Probabilistic simulations show that there is a 100% probability that CCl4 concentrations exceed WHO specified MCL up to the year 2034 at sites 500m, 1000 m and 2000 m northeast of the UCIL site.
It may be noted that within the NEERI report from 2010, the direction of groundwater in the region of UCC's plant is reported to be in both the Northeast and Southeast direction. The Greenpeace report from 1999, citing an earlier report by NEERI, stated that the direction of groundwater flow is along a Northeast axis. The thesis states, "Given that the contaminant concentrations used for calibration increased along the Northeast axis, it was assumed for the purposes of this study that the direction of groundwater flow was along the Northeast axis."
It is noteworthy that Greenpeace International's 1999 study had found Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride, Tricholroethane, Tetrachloroethane, Hexachloroethane,, Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzenes and Trichlorobenzenes were detected in the groundwater by Organic Screening Analysis. Concentrations of Chloroform, Carbontetrachloride, Dichlorobenzenes and Trichlorobenzenes in groundwater exceeded WHO standards at Bhopal's JP Nagar and Atal Ayub Nagar.
In such a context, the submission by the CPCB official is manifestly quite inadequate. In In view of the errors and inadequacy of the report, TWA in its letter has urged the Chairperson of CPCB to ensure that the CPCB's affidavit is recalled, revised and a fresh affidavit is filed at the earliest.
Copies of the letter has been sent to Neel Kamal Darbari, Joint Secretary, Bhopal Gas Cell, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Dr N P Shukla, Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Dr K C Gupta, Director, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, Dr. D. D. Basu, Scientist 'E' & In charge, PAMS Division, CPCB, R.S. Kori, Scientist 'E' & (In charge Zonal Office Central), CPCB, Anirudh Mukherjee, Commissioner-cum-Director, Directorate of Gas Relief and Rehabilitation, Bhopal among others.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail-krishna1715@gmail.com, Phone: +91-11-26517814,
Fax: +91-11-26517814
Supreme Court Upholds Basel Convention but allows hazardous US Ship Exxon Valdez
Press Release
Supreme Court Upholds Basel Convention but allows hazardous US Ship Exxon Valdez
Parliamentary Committees Intervention Will Be Sought To Stop Hazardous Waste Dumping
Hazardous Waste Rules need to be revised for compliance with Convention
New Delhi 30/7/2012: The Bench of Supreme Court, Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameshwar, upheld UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal but allowed the end of life ex US Ship Exxon Valdez (MV Oriental N) at Alang beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat.
The implication of this direction would be that all the ships which are have entered or are entering the Indian territorial waters have to show compliance of Basel Convention. In case there is non compliance, all these ships should go back to country of origin.
The Applicant in the case, Gopal Krishna commented, “Exxon Valdez did not follow the Basel Convention and therefore according to the judgment dated 06.07.2012 it should have been sent back to the country of export. The Court ought to have applied Precautionary Principle not for the purpose of dismantling the ship but for sending it back because the principle implies that the pollution of hazardous nature has to be avoided particularly when its impact on environment and human health are not known.” A copy of the Basel Convention and its Technical Guidelines is attached.
In fact the Bench asserted in this order what they have said in their final judgment dated 06.07.2012 namely that all Ships coming for dismantling have to follow Basel Convention and if there is any violation, action should be taken according to the Municipal Laws.
The main concern of the Applicant was that ships like Exxon Valdez are End of Life ships and the entire ship itself is hazardous waste which are regulated under Basel Convention as it is embedded with asbestos waste, cables containing PCT, heavy metals, paint chips etc. the argument was not that the Ship contains any hazardous waste in loose form. None of the above mentioned authorities had given any inventory to the court about hazardous waste contained in the body of the Ship.
The arguments which were advanced by Applicant’s advocate Mr. Sanjay Parikh regarding following Basel Convention namely, that there should be prior decontamination by the country of Export and prior permission by the country of Import before Ship enter the Indian territorial waters. These have been recorded in the judgment.
It is noteworthy that Basel Convention is related to the control of Trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal. Article 1, Article 2, paragraph 1 and 4 and Annex IV, paragraph B of the said Convention are relevant. Ships destined for ship-breaking operations are within the definition of "wastes" as defined by the Basel Convention. The Convention defines "wastes" as: "substances or objects which are disposed of or are intended to be disposed of or are required to be disposed of by the provisions of national law" (Article 2, paragraph 1.).
The term "disposal" is further defined to mean "any operation specified in Annex IV to this Convention" (Article 2, paragraph 4). Annex IV includes final disposal operations and operations which lead to recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses. Under Annex IV, paragraph B., ships destined for ship-breaking will, in fact, fall within the entry: "R4 Recycling/reclamation of metals and metal compounds".
Notably, ships destined for ship-breaking operations are "hazardous wastes" under the Convention.
Article 1 of the Convention determines the scope of the Convention and defines "hazardous wastes". The definition of "hazardous wastes" includes, inter alia, "wastes that belong to any category contained in Annex I, unless they do not possess any of the characteristics contained in Annex III". Ships destined for ship-breaking typically contain, inter alia, the following Annex I hazardous substances to an extent that they do constitute hazardous wastes:
-Y9 Waste oils/water, hydrocarbons/water mixtures, emulsions;
-Y10 Waste substances and articles containing or contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) and/or polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs) and/or polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs);
-and a host of Y19 to Y45 constituents such as Y23 Zinc compounds, Y26 Cadmium; cadmium compounds, Y31 Lead; lead compounds, Y36 Asbestos (dust and fibers).The Parties to the Basel Convention further supplemented Annex I and III by elaborating specific wastes as hazardous wastes and including such wastes in Annex VIII. Annex VIII contains many entries of specific wastes which are contained in ships destined for ship-breaking.
i. The ship-breaking operations in non-OECD countries like India do not constitute environmentally sound management as required by the Convention. Ships destined for ship-breaking contain significant quantities of asbestos, PCBs, hydraulic fluids, paints containing lead and/or other heavy metals, tributyltin or TBT antifouling coatings, contaminated holding tanks, and other substances rendering them hazardous waste and extremely dangerous to human health and the environment when scrapped in the existing ship-breaking yards.
ii. In addition, Article 4, paragraph 3 requires the Parties to "consider that illegal traffic in hazardous wastes or other wastes is criminal."Article 4, paragraph 4 requires that "Each Party shall take appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to implement and enforce the provisions of this Convention, including measures to prevent and punish conduct in contravention of the Convention."Therefore, each Party has a legal obligation to prohibit such ship exports and must do so with respect to all persons ("any natural or legal person" - Article 2, paragraph 14) subject to its jurisdiction, e.g., exporters, importers, brokers, owners, those persons in possession and/or control of the ship, captains, etc.
iii. In order to export a ship for ship-breaking, there is a legal requirement to decontaminate it such that it no longer contains Basel Convention hazardous substances prior to export.
iv. Among other things, what is emphasized in the Convention is prior informed consent and the disposal of waste in an environmentally sound manner. India has signed and ratified the said convention, in the order dated 14.10.2003- (2005)10 SCC 510 it has been observed that the Basel Convention is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
v. Basel Technical Guidelines under the Basel Convention on Ship dismantling read as follows:
“Transboundary movements of hazardous wastes or other wastes can take place only upon prior written notification by the state of export to the competent authorities of the states of import and transit.”
vi. The Basel Convention Technical Guidelines specifically points out: Ballast water which is fresh, brackish or marine water that has intentionally been brought on board a ship in order to adjust the ship’s stability and trim characteristics in accordance with various operating conditions “may contain pollutants, such as residual fuel, cargo hold residues, biocides, oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals (e.g. iron, copper, chromium, nickel, and zinc). Ballast water in cargo tanks (oil) is referred to as dirty ballast water. The transport of large volumes of water containing organisms from shallow, coastal waters across natural oceanic barriers can cause massive invasions of neritic marine organisms. Because ballast water is usually taken from bays and estuaries with water rich in animal and plant life, most ships carry a diverse assemblage of aquatic organisms. Aggregate sediments typically found in ballast tanks will contain living species which reflect the trade history of the vessel.”
It further adds: ‘The arrival condition of the dismantling candidate is most likely that of “in ballast”. The discharge of ballast water/ sediment species into the coastal sea-area may be a potential source for introducing unwanted organisms which threaten the ecological balance in the surrounding seas and thereby represent a direct threat to biodiversity. Ballast water can be the carrier of viruses and bacteria transferred to humans causing epidemics. In order to limit the biological threat represented by the introduction of invasive species via ballast water, the vessel should undergo recommended de-ballasting.
In view of the July 30 and July 6, 2012 judgments of the Court, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests will have to revise its Hazardous Rules to become complaint with the Court’s order and Basel Convention.
The Applicant will approach the relevant Parliamentary Committees to seek their intervention because Court’s order and international law is being violated through subordinate legislations and through creating a fait accompli situation like in the case of end of life ships like Riky, Blue Lady, Platinum II and now Exxon Valdez to facilitate hazardous waste dumping.
A separate application is being filed in the larger matter of hazardous waste management in the country to ensure compliance with Court’s directions of the October 14, 2003 order and the recommendations of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes. Bangaldesh Supreme Court order had taken cognisance of the hazardous materials on ship and has reproduced its diagram both are attached.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), 9818089660, E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com, Web:toxicswatch.blogpsot.com
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Asbestos Laden ex Exxon Valdez on July 30
Press Release
Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Asbestos Laden ex Exxon Valdez on July 30
Use of Asbestos in ships banned under UN’s IMO Convention; Trade in Asbestos Waste banned under Indian laws
CPCB and Customs Support Pre-cleaning of end of life ships
New Delhi: Asbestos has been a long standing problem in ships. The fate of asbestos laden ex US ship Exxon Valdez (IMO No. 8414520) which was allowed to be anchored in Indian waters in violation of international law and court order by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) and Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) will be decided by the Supreme Court bench of Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar on July 30. The location of hazardous materials in the ship which was given to Court on July 23 is as under:
It is noteworthy that the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 Chapter II-1 (Construction - Structure, subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations) prohibits the new installation of materials which contain asbestos on all ships. International Maritime Organisation (IMO), a UN agency found that asbestos-free ships are getting re-contaminated when they dock at ship yards for repair or when new spare parts are installed. In 2011 the IMO banned installations on ships of all materials that contain asbestos.
IMO’s circular on INFORMATION ON PROHIBITING THE USE OF ASBESTOS ON BOARD SHIP (Ref. T1/2.04 MSC.1/Circ.1374, 3 December 2010) states: “Despite the clear and unambiguous prohibition of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), asbestos is still found on various locations on board ships. During inspections, asbestos has been found in such places as fire blankets, joints and insulation materials, types of sealants, friction material for brakes, wall and ceiling coverings, cords, remnants, electric fuses, etc.”
The circular outlines how ways for Recognizing asbestos containing materials:
• Asbestos is used for its specific characteristics such as fire resistance, thermal insulation, electrical insulation, strength, flexibility, etc. Therefore, asbestos is used in various locations throughout a ship. Inspectors should be aware of the large number of probable asbestos applications on board.
• Asbestos is a fibrous material and can often be identified visually on that basis. However, most asbestos is used on board in materials where it cannot easily be identified visually.
• It is recommended that, whenever an item or material is to be installed, it is ensured that the item or material has a statement of compliance, or similar, with the relevant SOLAS regulation. This may take the form of an "asbestos free declaration". Due diligence should be paid to such statements or declarations and it is recommended that random confirmations are carried out.
• Although asbestos in most ACMs can only be ascertained by experts in specialized laboratories, it is possible to provide training to crew members, surveyors and inspectors in identifying materials that might be ACMs. As a result of such training, the crew and ship surveyors and inspectors can avoid health risks by having the suspected material sampled and analysed first. In case sampling and analysing by experts is not possible, the crew and ship surveyors and inspectors should treat the material as if it contains asbestos in order to avoid possible health risks.
The IMO circular refers to Training of surveyors and inspectors:
• Surveyors and inspectors that are charged with asbestos investigations on board ships should be trained in recognizing asbestos and Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs). They should also be trained in taking samples and should be instructed when to call in experts to conduct the investigation.
• Surveyors and inspectors should be aware of the dangers of exposure to asbestos and should, while performing their corresponding duties, take all necessary precautions. Action to be taken in case of contraventions of the SOLAS Convention
• When asbestos is detected on board, in contravention of SOLAS regulation II-1/3-5, action should be taken to have it removed. The removal – assigned to professional asbestos removal companies – should take place within a time frame of 3 years from the date when the contravention is found and should be conducted in close consultation with and, where applicable, under the supervision of the flag State concerned.
It may be noted that professional asbestos removal companies are not known to exist in India. GPCB and GMB do not have the skills to undertake survey and inspection because they are not trained in recognizing asbestos and ACMs.
Agencies like GPCB, GMB and Union Ministry of Environment & Forests have ignored that export and import of Asbestos waste (dust and fibers) is banned in India. Waste is a waste irrespective of where it is found. The Hazardous Wastes Management Rules, with regard to Waste Asbestos is mandatory and whenever it will apply, it will apply only when asbestos waste is embedded in something like the structure of the ship. There is nothing like 'pure' asbestos waste or ‘virgin’ asbestos waste. Hazardous Wastes Management Rules, refer to List of Hazardous Wastes-Production of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials - Asbestos-containing residues & Discarded asbestos and Dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment and as Hazardous Wastes Prohibited for Import and Export. It finds mentioned even in the Basel Convention as Basel* No. A 2050 RB 010 - Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibres). In a manifest case of collusion these agencies did not even identify its presence in their inspection report saying there is nothing in the ‘loose form’ contrary to their earlier affidavits.
The earlier stand taken by GMB reads as follows: “Now as far as hazardous/toxic wastes contained in the structure of empty ships are concerned, the same should be removed by the exporting countries as such wastes are banned under Basel Convention...Here, India is a non-member of OECD therefore it must be clarified here that it is the duty of OECD countries that they should allow to sail only those ships to the non-OECD countries for recycling, which are made completely hazardous/toxic contained, free from every corner/structure of the ship before being auctioned.” How can they change their position to favor ex Exxon Valdez?
Even the collusion Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) appears quite evident in the light of the Supreme Court’s order of 20th April 2000. The order reads:”With regard to ship-breaking at Alang, affidavit of Shri Lalit Kapur on behalf of the CPCB has been filed. In response to that, the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 15th April, 2000 supporting the stand taken by CPCB. The contention is that steps should be taken to ensure that ships which came to India for ship-breaking should be properly decontaminated before they are exported to India.” Given the fact that Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is an agency under MoEF and its Additional Secretary is the Chairman of CPCB, how can MoEF feign ignorance about CPCB’s affidavit in the Court in order to favour ex Exxon Valdez? CPCB and Customs deserve appreciation for inform the Court on July 23, 2012 that the ship in question has violated the Court’s order.
It is noteworthy that National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) sent a notice to Chief Secretary, Gujarat Government seeking report on victims of asbestos related diseases and has asked why it should not be banned. NHRC observed on June 5, 2012 that the Chief Secretary has not filed the report as yet. In ship breaking activity, the migrant and casual workers of UP, Bihar, Odisha and Jharkhand are routinely exposed to asbestos fibers without any legal or medical remedy.
Most ports around the developed world turn away ships that don’t carry the correct survey certificate. In a study, published by Mt. Sinai School of medicine, 86% of people who worked in the ship building industry for over 20 years died of asbestos-related illness. In an Indian study on ship breaking workers, which was filed in the court, it was found that 16 % of the workers were exposed to asbestos fibers. Since 1982 till date no worker involved in the ship breaking activity has been compensated for asbestos related diseases. In 1998, the European Council recommended banning the use of asbestos and by 2005, the use of asbestos was totally banned. So far 55 countries have banned asbestos. WHO and ILO have passed resolutions seeking elimination of future use of asbestos. Union Ministry of Labour has disclosed that Government of India is also planning to ban it. All ships are required to carry an “asbestos free” certificate.
The Sierra Leon flagged vessel, now named MV Oriental N (IMO No. 8414520) in question is laden with asbestos, persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, radioactive materials and ballast water. It was previously under USA and Panama flag. The veracity of the attached Sierra Leon flag certificate has also not been ascertained. It has not disclosed the quantity of these hazardous materials on board. In such a situation, the only option that appears environmentally sound is to send this ship away from the Indian waters. The relevant documents are attached.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), 9818089660,
E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com, Web:toxicswatch.blogpsot.com
Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Asbestos Laden ex Exxon Valdez on July 30
Use of Asbestos in ships banned under UN’s IMO Convention; Trade in Asbestos Waste banned under Indian laws
CPCB and Customs Support Pre-cleaning of end of life ships
New Delhi: Asbestos has been a long standing problem in ships. The fate of asbestos laden ex US ship Exxon Valdez (IMO No. 8414520) which was allowed to be anchored in Indian waters in violation of international law and court order by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) and Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) will be decided by the Supreme Court bench of Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar on July 30. The location of hazardous materials in the ship which was given to Court on July 23 is as under:
It is noteworthy that the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 Chapter II-1 (Construction - Structure, subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations) prohibits the new installation of materials which contain asbestos on all ships. International Maritime Organisation (IMO), a UN agency found that asbestos-free ships are getting re-contaminated when they dock at ship yards for repair or when new spare parts are installed. In 2011 the IMO banned installations on ships of all materials that contain asbestos.
IMO’s circular on INFORMATION ON PROHIBITING THE USE OF ASBESTOS ON BOARD SHIP (Ref. T1/2.04 MSC.1/Circ.1374, 3 December 2010) states: “Despite the clear and unambiguous prohibition of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), asbestos is still found on various locations on board ships. During inspections, asbestos has been found in such places as fire blankets, joints and insulation materials, types of sealants, friction material for brakes, wall and ceiling coverings, cords, remnants, electric fuses, etc.”
The circular outlines how ways for Recognizing asbestos containing materials:
• Asbestos is used for its specific characteristics such as fire resistance, thermal insulation, electrical insulation, strength, flexibility, etc. Therefore, asbestos is used in various locations throughout a ship. Inspectors should be aware of the large number of probable asbestos applications on board.
• Asbestos is a fibrous material and can often be identified visually on that basis. However, most asbestos is used on board in materials where it cannot easily be identified visually.
• It is recommended that, whenever an item or material is to be installed, it is ensured that the item or material has a statement of compliance, or similar, with the relevant SOLAS regulation. This may take the form of an "asbestos free declaration". Due diligence should be paid to such statements or declarations and it is recommended that random confirmations are carried out.
• Although asbestos in most ACMs can only be ascertained by experts in specialized laboratories, it is possible to provide training to crew members, surveyors and inspectors in identifying materials that might be ACMs. As a result of such training, the crew and ship surveyors and inspectors can avoid health risks by having the suspected material sampled and analysed first. In case sampling and analysing by experts is not possible, the crew and ship surveyors and inspectors should treat the material as if it contains asbestos in order to avoid possible health risks.
The IMO circular refers to Training of surveyors and inspectors:
• Surveyors and inspectors that are charged with asbestos investigations on board ships should be trained in recognizing asbestos and Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs). They should also be trained in taking samples and should be instructed when to call in experts to conduct the investigation.
• Surveyors and inspectors should be aware of the dangers of exposure to asbestos and should, while performing their corresponding duties, take all necessary precautions. Action to be taken in case of contraventions of the SOLAS Convention
• When asbestos is detected on board, in contravention of SOLAS regulation II-1/3-5, action should be taken to have it removed. The removal – assigned to professional asbestos removal companies – should take place within a time frame of 3 years from the date when the contravention is found and should be conducted in close consultation with and, where applicable, under the supervision of the flag State concerned.
It may be noted that professional asbestos removal companies are not known to exist in India. GPCB and GMB do not have the skills to undertake survey and inspection because they are not trained in recognizing asbestos and ACMs.
Agencies like GPCB, GMB and Union Ministry of Environment & Forests have ignored that export and import of Asbestos waste (dust and fibers) is banned in India. Waste is a waste irrespective of where it is found. The Hazardous Wastes Management Rules, with regard to Waste Asbestos is mandatory and whenever it will apply, it will apply only when asbestos waste is embedded in something like the structure of the ship. There is nothing like 'pure' asbestos waste or ‘virgin’ asbestos waste. Hazardous Wastes Management Rules, refer to List of Hazardous Wastes-Production of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials - Asbestos-containing residues & Discarded asbestos and Dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment and as Hazardous Wastes Prohibited for Import and Export. It finds mentioned even in the Basel Convention as Basel* No. A 2050 RB 010 - Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibres). In a manifest case of collusion these agencies did not even identify its presence in their inspection report saying there is nothing in the ‘loose form’ contrary to their earlier affidavits.
The earlier stand taken by GMB reads as follows: “Now as far as hazardous/toxic wastes contained in the structure of empty ships are concerned, the same should be removed by the exporting countries as such wastes are banned under Basel Convention...Here, India is a non-member of OECD therefore it must be clarified here that it is the duty of OECD countries that they should allow to sail only those ships to the non-OECD countries for recycling, which are made completely hazardous/toxic contained, free from every corner/structure of the ship before being auctioned.” How can they change their position to favor ex Exxon Valdez?
Even the collusion Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) appears quite evident in the light of the Supreme Court’s order of 20th April 2000. The order reads:”With regard to ship-breaking at Alang, affidavit of Shri Lalit Kapur on behalf of the CPCB has been filed. In response to that, the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 15th April, 2000 supporting the stand taken by CPCB. The contention is that steps should be taken to ensure that ships which came to India for ship-breaking should be properly decontaminated before they are exported to India.” Given the fact that Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is an agency under MoEF and its Additional Secretary is the Chairman of CPCB, how can MoEF feign ignorance about CPCB’s affidavit in the Court in order to favour ex Exxon Valdez? CPCB and Customs deserve appreciation for inform the Court on July 23, 2012 that the ship in question has violated the Court’s order.
It is noteworthy that National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) sent a notice to Chief Secretary, Gujarat Government seeking report on victims of asbestos related diseases and has asked why it should not be banned. NHRC observed on June 5, 2012 that the Chief Secretary has not filed the report as yet. In ship breaking activity, the migrant and casual workers of UP, Bihar, Odisha and Jharkhand are routinely exposed to asbestos fibers without any legal or medical remedy.
Most ports around the developed world turn away ships that don’t carry the correct survey certificate. In a study, published by Mt. Sinai School of medicine, 86% of people who worked in the ship building industry for over 20 years died of asbestos-related illness. In an Indian study on ship breaking workers, which was filed in the court, it was found that 16 % of the workers were exposed to asbestos fibers. Since 1982 till date no worker involved in the ship breaking activity has been compensated for asbestos related diseases. In 1998, the European Council recommended banning the use of asbestos and by 2005, the use of asbestos was totally banned. So far 55 countries have banned asbestos. WHO and ILO have passed resolutions seeking elimination of future use of asbestos. Union Ministry of Labour has disclosed that Government of India is also planning to ban it. All ships are required to carry an “asbestos free” certificate.
The Sierra Leon flagged vessel, now named MV Oriental N (IMO No. 8414520) in question is laden with asbestos, persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, radioactive materials and ballast water. It was previously under USA and Panama flag. The veracity of the attached Sierra Leon flag certificate has also not been ascertained. It has not disclosed the quantity of these hazardous materials on board. In such a situation, the only option that appears environmentally sound is to send this ship away from the Indian waters. The relevant documents are attached.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), 9818089660,
E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com, Web:toxicswatch.blogpsot.com
Friday, July 27, 2012
Inadequate CPCB Affidavit on ground water contamination in UCC’s Bhopal plant area
To
Smt. Mira Mehrishi
Chairperson
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
Additional Secretary
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government of India
Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar
Delhi - 110 032
Subject- Inadequate CPCB Affidavit on ground water contamination in UCC’s Bhopal plant area, Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated April 19, and March 28, 2012
Madam,
This is with reference to the attached 13 page affidavit of CPCB in the matter of drinking water in Dow Chemicals Company's Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)’s Bhopal plant area filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court on July 17, 2012, news report “What’s holding back Bhopal water report?”, my letter dated July 14, 2012, assurance of Shri Vijay Panjwani and court's order dated March 28 and April 19, 2012.
I submit that the bench of Hon’ble Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar had directed, “The Central Pollution Control Board, which has been added as party to these proceedings, and represented in Court today, shall also file a report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated” on March 28, 2012 in I.A. No.43 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 657 of 1995. The court in its order dated April 19 has directed, “the Central Pollution Control Board is given time to file its composite report by 4th June, 2012.” Both the orders are enclosed.
I submit that Shri Vijay Panjwani, Supreme Court lawyer for Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had assured that “CPCB would file report (on groundwater contamination by Dow’s Bhopal plant) as soon it is ready. There is no reason for CPCB to hold back or delay filing of report on contaminated ground water in Arif Nagar,etc near UCC/UCIL/DOW CHEMICAL plant in Bhopal.”
I submit that at page 2 of the affidavit filed by Dr D D Basu reads: "the officials of the Central Pollution Control Board visited the area on 7th June, 2012 and examined the matter and are of the view that the de-contamination of the ground water needs following information as a pre-requisite.
Status of water quality of the ground water in the formal UCIL premises, Bhopal.
To what extent with respect to area, the ground water is contaminated.
Options of technology available for ground water remediation"
I submit that at page 3 of the affidavit it is stated that "with respect to ground water quality, Central Pollution Control Board has already commissioned the service of Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IITR), Lucknow vide No. A-14011/1/2011-Mon/9348 dated 24/01/2012..."
I submit that two out of three the Terms of Reference (TOR) for IITR mentioned in the affidavit reads: "Collection of the ground water samples of 36 locations as indicated in the report of NEERI and analysed for the following parameters...:" and "Data generated on groundwater and soil quality shall be put together to revalidate the observations in the June 2010 report of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur." It may be noted that NEERI study's assumption of direction of flow of ground water in the UCC's plant area has been contested. Both these TORs appear motivated as it appears to decide the direction and inference of the IITR study.
It is also sad that instead of acting as per Hon'ble Court's order, the affidavit refers to a business as usual study that was commissioned to IITR as per its letter dated January 24, 2012 that seems to task IITR to ensure compliance with NEERI's study. This study is not in compliance with the Hon'ble Court's order dated March 28, 2012 because it was commissioned 2 months prior to the order.
It further states that "once the revalidation is completed, a strategy of remediation of contaminated soil and ground water can be worked out. This shall take one year to develop the module of decontamination of soil and ground water." It is revealed that "IITR has requested to Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department (BGTRRD) for facilitation of sampling of soil and ground water in and around the UCIL premises."
I submit that it is clear from these above admissions in the affidavit that the "report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated" as directed by the Hon'ble Court is not yet complete and only correspondence with regard to the same has happened.
I submit that the concluding sentence of the affidavit at page 4 reads: " Meanwhile, CPCB through his Zonal Office-Bhopal collected samples of drinking water being supplied by Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) on 7th June, 2012 from six locations. It is observed that the water quality is within the limit of drinking water". It concludes by saying that " The detailed report of drinking water sampling ar Arif Nagar (Near UCIL premises), Bhopal is Annexed."
It is evident from what is mentioned at page 2 of the affidavit that CPCB was directed to examine contamination of ground water in the are where UCC factory is located. But after admitting that the examination is not yet complete, CPCB undertook the formality of testing samples of BMC's drinking water supply and casually talks about how "possibility of cross contamination" with dirty water "cannot be ruled out" at page 7 (in the annex) of the affidavit. There is reference to "one sample from bore well being used by a local small restaurant (Ayasha Hotel)." The pagination of the affidavit is irregular that gives an impression that some pages of the annexure may be missing or may have got left out.
I submit that the Hon'ble Court had asked for "report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated" instead an irrelevant "Report of Drinking Water Sampling At Arif Nagar (Near UCIL Premises) Bhopal" has been filed.
I submit that the title of all the 3 tables which are annexed as part of the affidavit is faulty, misleading and factually incorrect. Table 1 at page 11 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)".
The fact is the affidavit itself reveals that CPCB did not undertake the ground water monitoring as it has been 'commissioned' to IITR which in turn has sought the assistance of BGTRRD.
Table 2 at page 12 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (M.PPCB)".
Table 3 at page 13 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (M.PPCB)".
The fact is at page 9 of the affidavit it is incorrectly claimed that "Groundwater sampling was carried out at six locations by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB)."
I submit that at page 5 of the affidavit the six locations from where water samples were taken on June 7, 2012 between 3 PM to 6 PM are mentioned. It is explicitly mentioned that 5 of these samples were from "Drinking water supply by BMC", there is just one sample from Borewell in Street No. 8 being used by Ayasha Hotel at Arif Nagar, Bhopal.
I submit that the content of the tables and its title needs to be examined and set right.
I submit that it is evident from the affidavit of the CPCB that its team visited UCC's factory site after the expiry of the Hon'ble court's deadline.
I submit that former employees of the UCC's plant have shared the list of toxic substances in the factory premises. These include:
1 Ortho dichlorobenzene, 2 Carbon tetrachloride, 3 Chloroform, 4 Methyl Chloride, 5 Methanol, 6 Mercury, 7 Sevin, 8 Alpha Naphthol etc.
I submit that UCC's chemical plant dealt with a multitude of organic compounds to manufacture the pesticide carbaryl (Sevin). Phosgene and Monomethyl amine (MMA) were the main raw materials involved in the process of manufacturing Methyl iso-cyanate (MIC), which in turn was used in combination with excess alpha-naphthol to produce Sevin. By-products like chloroform,carbon tetrachloride, MMA, ammonium chloride, dimethyl urea were all collected and recycled back to the process.
I submit that toxic substances stored inappropriately inside the UCC's plant site are believed to have entered the soil and the ground water aquifer. It may be noted that the 1996 study of Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad showed the presence of Heavy metals(Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese Nickel andZinc) in wastes dumped within the factory. Naphthol and other volatile organic matter were also detected in the same waste. Leaching from these wastes cannot be ruled out.
I submit that the UCC plant was in operation from 1977 to 1984. After the industrial disaster in December 1984, the factory operations ceased and the site was abandoned. It is clear that since no remediation activities ever took place, the pesticide products and their production intermediates serve as ongoing pollutants to the environment, in particular, the groundwater.
I submit that a recent thesis titled "A Deterministic and Probabilistic Analyses of the Carbon Tetrachloride Contaminant Plume in Groundwater at the Former Union Carbide India Limited Factory in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India" submitted to the Faculty of the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University in 2012 attempts to describe the contaminant plume of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) in the groundwater using analytical models provided by publicly the available software known as analytical contaminant transport analysis system (ACTS). It notes that CCl4 is known to have adverse effects on human health when consumed through the drinking water and is classified as possibly carcinogenic by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The calibrated deterministic results show that concentrations of CCL4 do not exceed the U.S. EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) roughly 850m from the source in the northeast direction. Probabilistic simulations show that there is a 100% probability that CCl4 concentrations exceed WHO specified MCL up to the year 2034 at sites 500m, 1000m and 2000m northeast of the UCIL site.
It may be noted that within the NEERI report from 2010, the direction of groundwater in the region of UCC's plant is reported to be in both the Northeast and Southeast direction. The Greenpeace report from 1999, citing an earlier report by NEERI, stated that the direction of groundwater flow is along a Northeast axis. The thesis states, "Given that the contaminant concentrations used for calibration increased along the Northeast axis, it was assumed for the purposes of this study that the direction of groundwater flow was along the Northeast axis."
I submit that Greenpeace International's 1999 study had found Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride, Tricholroethane, Tetrachloroethane, Hexachloroethane,, Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzenes and Trichlorobenzenes were detected in the groundwater by Organic Screening Analysis. Concentrations of Chloroform, Carbontetrachloride, Dichlorobenzenes and Trichlorobenzenes in groundwater exceeded WHO standards at Bhopal's JP Nagar and Atal Ayub Nagar.
In such a context, the submission by the CPCB official is manifestly quite inadequate.
In view of the above, I urge you to kindly ensure that the CPCB's affidavit is recalled, revised and a fresh affidavit is filed at the earliest.
Thanking You
Yours Sincerely
(Gopal Krishna)
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
PIN. 110016
Phone: +91-11-26517814, Fax: +91-11-26517814
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail-krishna1715@gmail.com
Cc
Ms. Neel Kamal Darbari, Joint Secretary, Bhopal Gas Cell, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, New Delhi
Shri Vijay Panjwani, Supreme Court lawyer for Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), New Delhi
Dr N P Shukla, Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Bhopal
Shri Sanjay Parikh, Lawyer, Supreme Court
Member Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Bhopal
Shri J. S. Kamyotra, Member Secretary, CPCB, New Delhi
Dr K C Gupta, Director, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow
Shri Aniruddhe Mukerjee, Director, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi
Dr. D. D. Basu, Scientist 'E' & In charge, PAMS Division, CPCB, New Delhi
Shri R.S. Kori, Scientist 'E' & (In charge Zonal Office Central), CPCB, New Delhi
Shri Anirudh Mukherjee, Commissioner-cum-Director, Directorate of Gas Relief and Rehabilitation, Bhopal
Shri N D Jayaprakash, Joint Secretary, Delhi Science Forum & Co-convener, Bhopal Gas Peedit Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti
Smt. Mira Mehrishi
Chairperson
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
Additional Secretary
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government of India
Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar
Delhi - 110 032
Subject- Inadequate CPCB Affidavit on ground water contamination in UCC’s Bhopal plant area, Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated April 19, and March 28, 2012
Madam,
This is with reference to the attached 13 page affidavit of CPCB in the matter of drinking water in Dow Chemicals Company's Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)’s Bhopal plant area filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court on July 17, 2012, news report “What’s holding back Bhopal water report?”, my letter dated July 14, 2012, assurance of Shri Vijay Panjwani and court's order dated March 28 and April 19, 2012.
I submit that the bench of Hon’ble Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar had directed, “The Central Pollution Control Board, which has been added as party to these proceedings, and represented in Court today, shall also file a report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated” on March 28, 2012 in I.A. No.43 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 657 of 1995. The court in its order dated April 19 has directed, “the Central Pollution Control Board is given time to file its composite report by 4th June, 2012.” Both the orders are enclosed.
I submit that Shri Vijay Panjwani, Supreme Court lawyer for Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had assured that “CPCB would file report (on groundwater contamination by Dow’s Bhopal plant) as soon it is ready. There is no reason for CPCB to hold back or delay filing of report on contaminated ground water in Arif Nagar,etc near UCC/UCIL/DOW CHEMICAL plant in Bhopal.”
I submit that at page 2 of the affidavit filed by Dr D D Basu reads: "the officials of the Central Pollution Control Board visited the area on 7th June, 2012 and examined the matter and are of the view that the de-contamination of the ground water needs following information as a pre-requisite.
Status of water quality of the ground water in the formal UCIL premises, Bhopal.
To what extent with respect to area, the ground water is contaminated.
Options of technology available for ground water remediation"
I submit that at page 3 of the affidavit it is stated that "with respect to ground water quality, Central Pollution Control Board has already commissioned the service of Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IITR), Lucknow vide No. A-14011/1/2011-Mon/9348 dated 24/01/2012..."
I submit that two out of three the Terms of Reference (TOR) for IITR mentioned in the affidavit reads: "Collection of the ground water samples of 36 locations as indicated in the report of NEERI and analysed for the following parameters...:" and "Data generated on groundwater and soil quality shall be put together to revalidate the observations in the June 2010 report of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur." It may be noted that NEERI study's assumption of direction of flow of ground water in the UCC's plant area has been contested. Both these TORs appear motivated as it appears to decide the direction and inference of the IITR study.
It is also sad that instead of acting as per Hon'ble Court's order, the affidavit refers to a business as usual study that was commissioned to IITR as per its letter dated January 24, 2012 that seems to task IITR to ensure compliance with NEERI's study. This study is not in compliance with the Hon'ble Court's order dated March 28, 2012 because it was commissioned 2 months prior to the order.
It further states that "once the revalidation is completed, a strategy of remediation of contaminated soil and ground water can be worked out. This shall take one year to develop the module of decontamination of soil and ground water." It is revealed that "IITR has requested to Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department (BGTRRD) for facilitation of sampling of soil and ground water in and around the UCIL premises."
I submit that it is clear from these above admissions in the affidavit that the "report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated" as directed by the Hon'ble Court is not yet complete and only correspondence with regard to the same has happened.
I submit that the concluding sentence of the affidavit at page 4 reads: " Meanwhile, CPCB through his Zonal Office-Bhopal collected samples of drinking water being supplied by Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) on 7th June, 2012 from six locations. It is observed that the water quality is within the limit of drinking water". It concludes by saying that " The detailed report of drinking water sampling ar Arif Nagar (Near UCIL premises), Bhopal is Annexed."
It is evident from what is mentioned at page 2 of the affidavit that CPCB was directed to examine contamination of ground water in the are where UCC factory is located. But after admitting that the examination is not yet complete, CPCB undertook the formality of testing samples of BMC's drinking water supply and casually talks about how "possibility of cross contamination" with dirty water "cannot be ruled out" at page 7 (in the annex) of the affidavit. There is reference to "one sample from bore well being used by a local small restaurant (Ayasha Hotel)." The pagination of the affidavit is irregular that gives an impression that some pages of the annexure may be missing or may have got left out.
I submit that the Hon'ble Court had asked for "report with regard to the removal of contamination of the ground water in the area where Union Carbide factory/plant is situated" instead an irrelevant "Report of Drinking Water Sampling At Arif Nagar (Near UCIL Premises) Bhopal" has been filed.
I submit that the title of all the 3 tables which are annexed as part of the affidavit is faulty, misleading and factually incorrect. Table 1 at page 11 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)".
The fact is the affidavit itself reveals that CPCB did not undertake the ground water monitoring as it has been 'commissioned' to IITR which in turn has sought the assistance of BGTRRD.
Table 2 at page 12 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (M.PPCB)".
Table 3 at page 13 is titled "Analysis results of ground water monitoring carried out by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (M.PPCB)".
The fact is at page 9 of the affidavit it is incorrectly claimed that "Groundwater sampling was carried out at six locations by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB)."
I submit that at page 5 of the affidavit the six locations from where water samples were taken on June 7, 2012 between 3 PM to 6 PM are mentioned. It is explicitly mentioned that 5 of these samples were from "Drinking water supply by BMC", there is just one sample from Borewell in Street No. 8 being used by Ayasha Hotel at Arif Nagar, Bhopal.
I submit that the content of the tables and its title needs to be examined and set right.
I submit that it is evident from the affidavit of the CPCB that its team visited UCC's factory site after the expiry of the Hon'ble court's deadline.
I submit that former employees of the UCC's plant have shared the list of toxic substances in the factory premises. These include:
1 Ortho dichlorobenzene, 2 Carbon tetrachloride, 3 Chloroform, 4 Methyl Chloride, 5 Methanol, 6 Mercury, 7 Sevin, 8 Alpha Naphthol etc.
I submit that UCC's chemical plant dealt with a multitude of organic compounds to manufacture the pesticide carbaryl (Sevin). Phosgene and Monomethyl amine (MMA) were the main raw materials involved in the process of manufacturing Methyl iso-cyanate (MIC), which in turn was used in combination with excess alpha-naphthol to produce Sevin. By-products like chloroform,carbon tetrachloride, MMA, ammonium chloride, dimethyl urea were all collected and recycled back to the process.
I submit that toxic substances stored inappropriately inside the UCC's plant site are believed to have entered the soil and the ground water aquifer. It may be noted that the 1996 study of Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad showed the presence of Heavy metals(Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese Nickel andZinc) in wastes dumped within the factory. Naphthol and other volatile organic matter were also detected in the same waste. Leaching from these wastes cannot be ruled out.
I submit that the UCC plant was in operation from 1977 to 1984. After the industrial disaster in December 1984, the factory operations ceased and the site was abandoned. It is clear that since no remediation activities ever took place, the pesticide products and their production intermediates serve as ongoing pollutants to the environment, in particular, the groundwater.
I submit that a recent thesis titled "A Deterministic and Probabilistic Analyses of the Carbon Tetrachloride Contaminant Plume in Groundwater at the Former Union Carbide India Limited Factory in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India" submitted to the Faculty of the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University in 2012 attempts to describe the contaminant plume of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) in the groundwater using analytical models provided by publicly the available software known as analytical contaminant transport analysis system (ACTS). It notes that CCl4 is known to have adverse effects on human health when consumed through the drinking water and is classified as possibly carcinogenic by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The calibrated deterministic results show that concentrations of CCL4 do not exceed the U.S. EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) roughly 850m from the source in the northeast direction. Probabilistic simulations show that there is a 100% probability that CCl4 concentrations exceed WHO specified MCL up to the year 2034 at sites 500m, 1000m and 2000m northeast of the UCIL site.
It may be noted that within the NEERI report from 2010, the direction of groundwater in the region of UCC's plant is reported to be in both the Northeast and Southeast direction. The Greenpeace report from 1999, citing an earlier report by NEERI, stated that the direction of groundwater flow is along a Northeast axis. The thesis states, "Given that the contaminant concentrations used for calibration increased along the Northeast axis, it was assumed for the purposes of this study that the direction of groundwater flow was along the Northeast axis."
I submit that Greenpeace International's 1999 study had found Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride, Tricholroethane, Tetrachloroethane, Hexachloroethane,, Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzenes and Trichlorobenzenes were detected in the groundwater by Organic Screening Analysis. Concentrations of Chloroform, Carbontetrachloride, Dichlorobenzenes and Trichlorobenzenes in groundwater exceeded WHO standards at Bhopal's JP Nagar and Atal Ayub Nagar.
In such a context, the submission by the CPCB official is manifestly quite inadequate.
In view of the above, I urge you to kindly ensure that the CPCB's affidavit is recalled, revised and a fresh affidavit is filed at the earliest.
Thanking You
Yours Sincerely
(Gopal Krishna)
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
PIN. 110016
Phone: +91-11-26517814, Fax: +91-11-26517814
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail-krishna1715@gmail.com
Cc
Ms. Neel Kamal Darbari, Joint Secretary, Bhopal Gas Cell, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, New Delhi
Shri Vijay Panjwani, Supreme Court lawyer for Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), New Delhi
Dr N P Shukla, Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Bhopal
Shri Sanjay Parikh, Lawyer, Supreme Court
Member Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Bhopal
Shri J. S. Kamyotra, Member Secretary, CPCB, New Delhi
Dr K C Gupta, Director, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow
Shri Aniruddhe Mukerjee, Director, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi
Dr. D. D. Basu, Scientist 'E' & In charge, PAMS Division, CPCB, New Delhi
Shri R.S. Kori, Scientist 'E' & (In charge Zonal Office Central), CPCB, New Delhi
Shri Anirudh Mukherjee, Commissioner-cum-Director, Directorate of Gas Relief and Rehabilitation, Bhopal
Shri N D Jayaprakash, Joint Secretary, Delhi Science Forum & Co-convener, Bhopal Gas Peedit Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti
NGOisation of occupational heath rights campaign deceptive
Instead of wasting time and energy on motivated 'networking' and acting as conference and seminar warriors, trade unions especially of left and socialist parties who have the mandate to struggle for occupational health rights ought to work for providing relief to some 30 lakh workers formally employed in the formal economy face potential exposure to silica dust and for some 85 lakh more work in construction and many more in the informal economy with exposure to silica dust. Such efforts are needed especially in hazardous industries like mining, asbestos and ship breaking.
The NGOisation of occupational heath rights campaign is simply an exercise in tokenism and symbolism devoid of substance. Myopia of such unethical exercises becomes manifest when one witnesses how they get carried away by Australian announcement for efforts global efforts to ban asbestos when in the same breath it promoted sale of Uranium.
On December 4, 2011, the Australian Labor Party of Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided to end the ban on uranium sales to India. Australia's decision to export to India is firmly in place. On the same day Labor’s foreign affairs platform to place Australia at the lead of international action for a global treaty to ban the use and trade in asbestos. The amendment commits Australia to hosting an international conference for the Global Alliance against Asbestos Hazard. As recently as June 2012 Australia's Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson has confirmed that uranium sale is on.
No European leader can take a moral high ground to preach Asians about occupational health justice as long as Eastern Europe continues to use asbestos despite ban in Europe. United States Geological Survey data reveals that 22% of asbestos sales went to Eastern Europe.
The rising cases of asbestos related diseases in world's top six asbestos consuming countries China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan and Thailand along with the consumption in Eastern Europe is a matter of gnawing concern. It is heartening that Thailand is likely to ban asbestos this year. While India has announced that it is planning to ban it, rise in its consumption and setting up of new factories is highly inconsistent with its plan.
How can employment of prison labour for asbestos and other hazardous industries in China be condoned? Silence of organisations indulging in tokenism in these matters reveals their true nature.
NHRC's action on Endosulfan, asbestos related diseases and silicosis reveals that there is no short cut to political and institutional intervention.
To begin with trade unions especially of left and socialist parties should ensure that central government should ratify important ILO conventions including Convention 155 on occupational safety and health and the working environment, Convention 161 on occupational health services, Convention 167 on safety and health in construction, Convention 176 on safety and health in mines, Convention 184 on safety and health in agriculture and Convention 187, the promotional framework for occupational safety and health.
The current situation most cases of silicosis are not notified to enforcement agencies by industry. There are limitations in reporting system and data collection. The poor and unreliable statistics on the incidence and prevalence of silicosis also makes it difficult for the government to come up with effective strategies in terms of the design and monitoring and enforcement of regulation, victim compensation, and allocation of resources. The current system of assessing Rs 100 fine against those who fail to notify is not at all adequate.
There is no central registry for cases of silicosis and asbestos related diseases and the reporting system, data collection and the unreliable statistics on the incidence and prevalence of occupational diseases. There is a need for effective strategies in terms of both the design, monitoring and enforcement of regulation which can reverse the trend.
Gopal Krishna
Member, Occupational Health India (OHI)
The NGOisation of occupational heath rights campaign is simply an exercise in tokenism and symbolism devoid of substance. Myopia of such unethical exercises becomes manifest when one witnesses how they get carried away by Australian announcement for efforts global efforts to ban asbestos when in the same breath it promoted sale of Uranium.
On December 4, 2011, the Australian Labor Party of Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided to end the ban on uranium sales to India. Australia's decision to export to India is firmly in place. On the same day Labor’s foreign affairs platform to place Australia at the lead of international action for a global treaty to ban the use and trade in asbestos. The amendment commits Australia to hosting an international conference for the Global Alliance against Asbestos Hazard. As recently as June 2012 Australia's Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson has confirmed that uranium sale is on.
No European leader can take a moral high ground to preach Asians about occupational health justice as long as Eastern Europe continues to use asbestos despite ban in Europe. United States Geological Survey data reveals that 22% of asbestos sales went to Eastern Europe.
The rising cases of asbestos related diseases in world's top six asbestos consuming countries China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan and Thailand along with the consumption in Eastern Europe is a matter of gnawing concern. It is heartening that Thailand is likely to ban asbestos this year. While India has announced that it is planning to ban it, rise in its consumption and setting up of new factories is highly inconsistent with its plan.
How can employment of prison labour for asbestos and other hazardous industries in China be condoned? Silence of organisations indulging in tokenism in these matters reveals their true nature.
NHRC's action on Endosulfan, asbestos related diseases and silicosis reveals that there is no short cut to political and institutional intervention.
To begin with trade unions especially of left and socialist parties should ensure that central government should ratify important ILO conventions including Convention 155 on occupational safety and health and the working environment, Convention 161 on occupational health services, Convention 167 on safety and health in construction, Convention 176 on safety and health in mines, Convention 184 on safety and health in agriculture and Convention 187, the promotional framework for occupational safety and health.
The current situation most cases of silicosis are not notified to enforcement agencies by industry. There are limitations in reporting system and data collection. The poor and unreliable statistics on the incidence and prevalence of silicosis also makes it difficult for the government to come up with effective strategies in terms of the design and monitoring and enforcement of regulation, victim compensation, and allocation of resources. The current system of assessing Rs 100 fine against those who fail to notify is not at all adequate.
There is no central registry for cases of silicosis and asbestos related diseases and the reporting system, data collection and the unreliable statistics on the incidence and prevalence of occupational diseases. There is a need for effective strategies in terms of both the design, monitoring and enforcement of regulation which can reverse the trend.
Gopal Krishna
Member, Occupational Health India (OHI)
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Nuclear showdown in Delhi's neighbourhood
Nuclear showdown in Delhi's neighbourhood
July 26, 2012
Plans to build India's biggest indigenous nuclear power plant have failed to impress villagers in Haryana's Fatehabad district, who fear a Fukushima-type disaster. The shoddy way in which the government agencies have handled the issue has not helped matters either. Gopal Krishna reports.
The angry protest by Haryana villagers against the proposed nuclear plant 210 km from Delhi on July 17 -- a day after biggest rally in Tokyo demanded an end to nuclear power -- signifies the unity of the struggle against nuclear power.
In Fatehabad, a big dharna and conference is planned on August 17, 2012 against the Gorakhpur nuclear power project.
This programme is planned in the backdrop of the phase out of nuclear power in countries such as Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, Germany, Spain and others who are opposed to nuclear power.
India has 20 nuclear reactors operating in six nuclear power plants, 7 reactors under construction, and is planning an additional 24 such reactors, including the one at Fatehabad.
Disregarding global movement against nuclear power, Haryana State Pollution Control Board attempted to hold a fake public hearing for the proposed 2800 MW nuclear power plant at Gorakhpur village in Fatehabad district by central government's Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited without the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report on July 17, 2012 at Sahid-e-Azam Bhagat Singh Stadium in Gorakhpur.
Villagers' bitter protest against the plant in the backdrop of man-made disaster of Fukushima compelled the officials to huddle together and leave the venue abruptly.
The collusion between the administration and the NPCIL was quite manifest.
The villagers underlined that such plants should not be set up. A total 1503.5 acres of agricultural land is required for the project. The Gorakhpur Nuclear Power Project will create 4 heavy water nuclear power plants of indigenous design, with a capacity of 700 MWs each. Out of the four two will be constructed in the first phase. This will be the biggest indigenous nuclear power plants built in the country.
The land is being acquired from Gorakhpur, Badopal and Kajal Heri villages.
The notification for this acquisition was issued in 2011under 'urgency clause' the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This is unmindful of the fact that the proposed Land Acquisition Bill, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 has a provision for not acquiring irrigated and multi-cropped land for non-agricultural purposes.
The proposal of the nuclear plant violates Atomic Energy Regulatory Board's own rules.
The site is in the midst of a region, which has high population density. Small towns like Fatehabad, Ratiya and Tohana are almost 30 km away.
Sensing imminent danger, villagers turned up in huge numbers to denounce the nuclear power plant amidst massive police presence.
The activities at the Sahid-e-Azam Bhagat Singh Stadium demonstrated the veracity of what has been stated in a paper 'The environmental impact assessment process for nuclear facilities: An examination of the Indian experience' by M V Ramana wherein he has rightly argued that "the EIA process with regard to nuclear projects in India is of dubious quality."
The three levels of conflict of interest that have been identified in the EIA process for nuclear facilities are relevant for the EIA report of the proposed atomic power plant in Fatehabad.
First, the EIA is prepared by consultants who are retained to work on behalf of, and by implication act in the interests of, their client -- the nuclear organization proposing the project.
Second, the organization that has been tasked with preparing the EIA to support its proposal for a project is the same which will beneļ¬t from the project.
The third conflict of interest is that the regulatory agency Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority is itself regulated by the nuclear power promoters, the Atomic Energy Commission, which is under the direct charge of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The EIA report reveals that the water requirement for the project will be met from Fatehabad branch of the Bhakra canal. Unlike sea as a source of water in the case of Fukushima, in Fatehabad, canal water is the only source for water.
Within minutes of the departure of the officials from the venue of the public hearing due to massive opposition from thousands of villagers who are against the setting of the hazardous plant in their fertile agricultural land, Member of Parliament from Hisar, Kuldip Bishnoi reached and assured his support against the nuclear power plant.
Abhay Chautala, the MLA from Ellenabad, also entered the venue and promised to stop the construction of the proposed nuclear plant in the way it has been done in developed countries like Germany.
Both Bishnoi and Chautala expressed their solidarity with the protesting farmers. Both leaders challenged Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda to locate the plant in his own village instead of endangering the villages of Fatehabad.
Such a stance by members of legislature was in complete contrast with the conspicuously deferential approach of the district administration towards the project proponents.
Authorities illustrated the fake nature of the public hearing process, as they left without reading out the minutes of the proceedings and seeking consent of the villagers who were there as is mandatory under Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
It is noteworthy that the distance between Fukushima and Tokyo is 238 km. Despite this, after the nuclear disaster on March 11, 2011, Tokyo's population was forced to evacuate.
The distance between Delhi and Fatehabad is 210 km. It is high time residents of Delhi engaged with the imminent nuclear radiation threat from the proposed atomic power plant and prepared for emergency evacuation if the Fatehabad facility comes up.
The EIA report has been prepared by Ranchi-based MECON Limited, formerly known as (Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Limited, a public sector undertaking under the ministry of steel.
The people's movement has long been demanding that Mecon should be blacklisted for continuously producing low quality and misleading reports for uranium mines.
The EIA report prepared by Mecon was leaked one day ahead of the farcical public hearing. As per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 the EIA report is a public document, which must be made available to people as a pre-condition for public hearing.
The fact that it got leaked reveals that it was not shared with the public in advance.
The six panchayats of Fatehabad district who will be worst-affected by the project did not get the copies of the EIA before the staged public hearing.
At the site of the hearing, heavily-armed state and paramilitary forces, water-cannon vehicles and tear-gas etc riot-control gears were visible. The dais of the officials who were pressing was surrounded by barbed wires.
Prior to this staged hearing security personnel were injured during a rehearsal to manage huge public presence with tear gas etc. The venue resembled a battled ground surrounded by armed policemen.
Farmers referred to their land as mother and pledged to save it from the proposed nuclear power project.
Farmers in Fatehabad are aware that the West Bengal government has refused permission to a proposed 6000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host six Russian reactors.
India has drawn up a plan to reach a nuclear power capacity of 63,000 MW in 2032 under the influence of nuclear technology companies.
Claims of the Department of Atomic Energy are not credible. As per DAE's plans, India should have had a nuclear power capacity of 8,000 MW by 1980, but its actual installed capacity was 540 MW. It set a target of 43,500 MW for 2000. But the installed capacity in that year was only 2,720 MW. The current installed capacity of nuclear power is just 2.32 per cent at 4,780 MW. The actual production requires rigorous examination.
Meanwhile, governments of Russia and India signed a protocol for financing the Kundankulam Nuclear Power Project in Tamil Nadu in the teeth of bitter opposition of villagers against the project.
While environmental and health concerns of the present and future generations due to adverse effects of nuclear radiation merit attention, the security concerns that emerge from nuclear reactors also deserve consideration since nuclear installation have become the preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns.
In September 1980, Iran bombed the Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex in Iraq. In June 1981, an Israeli air strike completely destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research facility. Between 1984 and 1987, Iraq bombed Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant six times. In Iraq in 1991, the U.S. bombed three nuclear reactors and an enrichment pilot facility. In 1991, Iraq launched Scud missiles at Israel's Dimona nuclear power plant. In September 2007, Israel bombed a Syrian reactor under construction.
Observations of G K Pillai, the then secretary in the ministry of home affairs, before the parliamentary standing committee on science and technology, environment and forests in 2010 illustrate how conditions in which the operator of a nuclear power plant, who could be made liable for nuclear damage in armed conflict, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an act of terrorism, have wide meanings but they have not been defined in the liability act.
These concerns underline that India's nuclear installations are vulnerable to such assaults as well.
As to health impact, K Sujata Rao, the then secretary in the ministry of health and family welfare while deposing before the parliamentary committee in the matter of nuclear emergency mentioned, "Since the response system to deal with any kind of emergency of such type, the hospitals are not well-equipped, it is natural that mortality and morbidity due to multiple burn, blasts, radiation injuries and psycho-social impact could be on very high scale and medical tackling of such a large emergency could have enough repercussions in the nearby areas of radioactive fallout..."
She suggested while setting up nuclear plants consideration may also be given to the fact that there should be hospital having trained doctors near such establishments and arrangements should also be made for free treatment of people who are affected by serious nuclear fallout."
This has been revealed in the committee's report presented to the Parliament. She confessed that Union health ministry is nowhere to meet an eventuality that may arise out of nuclear and radiological emergencies.
Admittedly, there is no provision and infrastructure for health care during radiological emergencies in the country.
Despite this, questionable proposals for nuclear plants like the one at Fatehabad need to be revisited to convey that although belated unlearnt lessons of institutional failures in the case of industrial disaster of Bhopal and Fukushima are being internalized.
The 1,000-page special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation has found that renewable energy could account for almost 80 per cent of the world's energy supply within four decades.
In India, it can account for a higher share if people's felt need for energy is prioritized over the needs of companies addicted to 'profit at any cost'.
It is time a referendum was held in Haryana and elsewhere in India too to decide whether or not renewable energy is the preferred choice. Will our government pursue the policies needed to travel on alternative power route by resisting the vice like grip of nuclear power companies?
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-nuclear-showdown-in-delhi-s-neighbourhood-fatehabad/20120726.htm?print=true
July 26, 2012
Plans to build India's biggest indigenous nuclear power plant have failed to impress villagers in Haryana's Fatehabad district, who fear a Fukushima-type disaster. The shoddy way in which the government agencies have handled the issue has not helped matters either. Gopal Krishna reports.
The angry protest by Haryana villagers against the proposed nuclear plant 210 km from Delhi on July 17 -- a day after biggest rally in Tokyo demanded an end to nuclear power -- signifies the unity of the struggle against nuclear power.
In Fatehabad, a big dharna and conference is planned on August 17, 2012 against the Gorakhpur nuclear power project.
This programme is planned in the backdrop of the phase out of nuclear power in countries such as Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, Germany, Spain and others who are opposed to nuclear power.
India has 20 nuclear reactors operating in six nuclear power plants, 7 reactors under construction, and is planning an additional 24 such reactors, including the one at Fatehabad.
Disregarding global movement against nuclear power, Haryana State Pollution Control Board attempted to hold a fake public hearing for the proposed 2800 MW nuclear power plant at Gorakhpur village in Fatehabad district by central government's Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited without the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report on July 17, 2012 at Sahid-e-Azam Bhagat Singh Stadium in Gorakhpur.
Villagers' bitter protest against the plant in the backdrop of man-made disaster of Fukushima compelled the officials to huddle together and leave the venue abruptly.
The collusion between the administration and the NPCIL was quite manifest.
The villagers underlined that such plants should not be set up. A total 1503.5 acres of agricultural land is required for the project. The Gorakhpur Nuclear Power Project will create 4 heavy water nuclear power plants of indigenous design, with a capacity of 700 MWs each. Out of the four two will be constructed in the first phase. This will be the biggest indigenous nuclear power plants built in the country.
The land is being acquired from Gorakhpur, Badopal and Kajal Heri villages.
The notification for this acquisition was issued in 2011under 'urgency clause' the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This is unmindful of the fact that the proposed Land Acquisition Bill, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 has a provision for not acquiring irrigated and multi-cropped land for non-agricultural purposes.
The proposal of the nuclear plant violates Atomic Energy Regulatory Board's own rules.
The site is in the midst of a region, which has high population density. Small towns like Fatehabad, Ratiya and Tohana are almost 30 km away.
Sensing imminent danger, villagers turned up in huge numbers to denounce the nuclear power plant amidst massive police presence.
The activities at the Sahid-e-Azam Bhagat Singh Stadium demonstrated the veracity of what has been stated in a paper 'The environmental impact assessment process for nuclear facilities: An examination of the Indian experience' by M V Ramana wherein he has rightly argued that "the EIA process with regard to nuclear projects in India is of dubious quality."
The three levels of conflict of interest that have been identified in the EIA process for nuclear facilities are relevant for the EIA report of the proposed atomic power plant in Fatehabad.
First, the EIA is prepared by consultants who are retained to work on behalf of, and by implication act in the interests of, their client -- the nuclear organization proposing the project.
Second, the organization that has been tasked with preparing the EIA to support its proposal for a project is the same which will beneļ¬t from the project.
The third conflict of interest is that the regulatory agency Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority is itself regulated by the nuclear power promoters, the Atomic Energy Commission, which is under the direct charge of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The EIA report reveals that the water requirement for the project will be met from Fatehabad branch of the Bhakra canal. Unlike sea as a source of water in the case of Fukushima, in Fatehabad, canal water is the only source for water.
Within minutes of the departure of the officials from the venue of the public hearing due to massive opposition from thousands of villagers who are against the setting of the hazardous plant in their fertile agricultural land, Member of Parliament from Hisar, Kuldip Bishnoi reached and assured his support against the nuclear power plant.
Abhay Chautala, the MLA from Ellenabad, also entered the venue and promised to stop the construction of the proposed nuclear plant in the way it has been done in developed countries like Germany.
Both Bishnoi and Chautala expressed their solidarity with the protesting farmers. Both leaders challenged Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda to locate the plant in his own village instead of endangering the villages of Fatehabad.
Such a stance by members of legislature was in complete contrast with the conspicuously deferential approach of the district administration towards the project proponents.
Authorities illustrated the fake nature of the public hearing process, as they left without reading out the minutes of the proceedings and seeking consent of the villagers who were there as is mandatory under Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
It is noteworthy that the distance between Fukushima and Tokyo is 238 km. Despite this, after the nuclear disaster on March 11, 2011, Tokyo's population was forced to evacuate.
The distance between Delhi and Fatehabad is 210 km. It is high time residents of Delhi engaged with the imminent nuclear radiation threat from the proposed atomic power plant and prepared for emergency evacuation if the Fatehabad facility comes up.
The EIA report has been prepared by Ranchi-based MECON Limited, formerly known as (Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Limited, a public sector undertaking under the ministry of steel.
The people's movement has long been demanding that Mecon should be blacklisted for continuously producing low quality and misleading reports for uranium mines.
The EIA report prepared by Mecon was leaked one day ahead of the farcical public hearing. As per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 the EIA report is a public document, which must be made available to people as a pre-condition for public hearing.
The fact that it got leaked reveals that it was not shared with the public in advance.
The six panchayats of Fatehabad district who will be worst-affected by the project did not get the copies of the EIA before the staged public hearing.
At the site of the hearing, heavily-armed state and paramilitary forces, water-cannon vehicles and tear-gas etc riot-control gears were visible. The dais of the officials who were pressing was surrounded by barbed wires.
Prior to this staged hearing security personnel were injured during a rehearsal to manage huge public presence with tear gas etc. The venue resembled a battled ground surrounded by armed policemen.
Farmers referred to their land as mother and pledged to save it from the proposed nuclear power project.
Farmers in Fatehabad are aware that the West Bengal government has refused permission to a proposed 6000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host six Russian reactors.
India has drawn up a plan to reach a nuclear power capacity of 63,000 MW in 2032 under the influence of nuclear technology companies.
Claims of the Department of Atomic Energy are not credible. As per DAE's plans, India should have had a nuclear power capacity of 8,000 MW by 1980, but its actual installed capacity was 540 MW. It set a target of 43,500 MW for 2000. But the installed capacity in that year was only 2,720 MW. The current installed capacity of nuclear power is just 2.32 per cent at 4,780 MW. The actual production requires rigorous examination.
Meanwhile, governments of Russia and India signed a protocol for financing the Kundankulam Nuclear Power Project in Tamil Nadu in the teeth of bitter opposition of villagers against the project.
While environmental and health concerns of the present and future generations due to adverse effects of nuclear radiation merit attention, the security concerns that emerge from nuclear reactors also deserve consideration since nuclear installation have become the preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns.
In September 1980, Iran bombed the Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex in Iraq. In June 1981, an Israeli air strike completely destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research facility. Between 1984 and 1987, Iraq bombed Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant six times. In Iraq in 1991, the U.S. bombed three nuclear reactors and an enrichment pilot facility. In 1991, Iraq launched Scud missiles at Israel's Dimona nuclear power plant. In September 2007, Israel bombed a Syrian reactor under construction.
Observations of G K Pillai, the then secretary in the ministry of home affairs, before the parliamentary standing committee on science and technology, environment and forests in 2010 illustrate how conditions in which the operator of a nuclear power plant, who could be made liable for nuclear damage in armed conflict, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an act of terrorism, have wide meanings but they have not been defined in the liability act.
These concerns underline that India's nuclear installations are vulnerable to such assaults as well.
As to health impact, K Sujata Rao, the then secretary in the ministry of health and family welfare while deposing before the parliamentary committee in the matter of nuclear emergency mentioned, "Since the response system to deal with any kind of emergency of such type, the hospitals are not well-equipped, it is natural that mortality and morbidity due to multiple burn, blasts, radiation injuries and psycho-social impact could be on very high scale and medical tackling of such a large emergency could have enough repercussions in the nearby areas of radioactive fallout..."
She suggested while setting up nuclear plants consideration may also be given to the fact that there should be hospital having trained doctors near such establishments and arrangements should also be made for free treatment of people who are affected by serious nuclear fallout."
This has been revealed in the committee's report presented to the Parliament. She confessed that Union health ministry is nowhere to meet an eventuality that may arise out of nuclear and radiological emergencies.
Admittedly, there is no provision and infrastructure for health care during radiological emergencies in the country.
Despite this, questionable proposals for nuclear plants like the one at Fatehabad need to be revisited to convey that although belated unlearnt lessons of institutional failures in the case of industrial disaster of Bhopal and Fukushima are being internalized.
The 1,000-page special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation has found that renewable energy could account for almost 80 per cent of the world's energy supply within four decades.
In India, it can account for a higher share if people's felt need for energy is prioritized over the needs of companies addicted to 'profit at any cost'.
It is time a referendum was held in Haryana and elsewhere in India too to decide whether or not renewable energy is the preferred choice. Will our government pursue the policies needed to travel on alternative power route by resisting the vice like grip of nuclear power companies?
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-nuclear-showdown-in-delhi-s-neighbourhood-fatehabad/20120726.htm?print=true
Kakinada SEZ, storm on the horizon
Kakinada SEZ
The Kakinada special economic zone (KSEZ) will soon have an exclusive Rs 2,000-crore deep-water port for importing and exporting petroleum, biotech, agricultural and other products.
ONGC, one of the promoters of KSEZ, will also have a single buoy mooring (SBM) port facility within the proposed port. The SBM model links port and refinery with two pipelines, one to import crude and the other to pump the refined fuel to exporting ships.
The deep-water port will be completed in two stages. KSEZ has already received an in-principle approval from the Centre to set up a port-based special economic zone at Kakinada. Following the nod, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) - Kakinada SEZ (KSEZ) - was incorporated to implement the project. KSPL, ONGC and IL&FS of Delhi are the stakeholders in the SPV. “We have got the necessary approvals to construct the port and have initiated the ground work to start construction.
Around Rs 1,250 crore will be spent on the first phase of the project that is expected to be completed in a year’s time. The remaining Rs 750 crore will go into the second phase of the three-year project. The port facility will be used by companies that set up their units in the 10,500-acre KSEZ,” Kakinada SEZ director KV Rao told ET.
Kakinada already has an operative port, which is also being expanded in view of the huge industrial activity in this region. Out of the 10,500 acres, around 2,500 acres have been allotted to ONGC for its Kakinada Refinery and Petrochemicals plant with an annual capacity of 1.5 lakh tonnes. ONGC plans to adopt a SBM port model.
This will be on the lines of the Mundra SEZ in Gujarat, which is five kilometres away from the port. The proposed port will help ONGC save on carriage charges of crude and refined goods as the proposed refinery is 15 km away from the shore. KSEZ authorities have recently submitted a report to the government on the allotment of land to companies investing in the SEZ.
According to sources, the list of companies include TCG Refinery Company ofMauritius (2,500 acres), SDE Engineers (1,000 acres), ETA Star Marsol, Tata Power (600 acres), Suzlon Energy (350 acres), RS Energy (200 acres), Asrit Agro Products (200 acres), Kakinada Fertilisers (200 acres), KSR Agencies Food Park (150 acres) Nicholas Piramal (100 acres) and other companies (350 acres).
Kakinada Special Economic Zone (KSEZ) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Naturol Bio-Energy for setting up the first eco-friendly bio-diesel plant in Kakinada SEZ. The 300 TPD integrated biodiesel plant will be set up in the port town of Kakinada at an estimated cost of Rs.139.50 crore by Naturol Bio-Energy India in JV with Energea GmbH, Austria. KSEZ is a port based special economic zone project in Kakinada promoted by Kakinada Sea Ports, ONGC and IL & FS.
KSEZ has received an in-principle approval from the government of India for setting up of a 'port-based special economic zone' at Kakinada. For this a 'special purpose vehicle' (SPV), Kakinada SEZ Pvt Ltd (KSEZ) was incorporated. The project will be implemented by KSPL, ONGC and IL & FS as promoters.
The investment for developing infrastructure in 4000 acres of land and augmenting external infrastructure for KSEZ would be Rs 2000 crores.
This investment would be other than the industries located in SEZ. KSEZ made progress in various fronts like land, DPR preparation, assessing existing infrastructure, and assessing the facilities required.
"KSEZ expects the refinery and biodiesel plant investments itself in the SEZ would be Rs4,000 crore. More industries are evincing interest to locate their units in SEZ. We anticipate an investment Rs10,000 crores in the first phase by various industries in SEZ mainly petrochemicals, gas-based industries, ceramic units, power plant and other export-oriented industries. The SEZ once completed will change the entire economic scenario of East Godavari District which is agriculturally rich" M S Murthy, chief operating officer, KSEZ said.
"We are pleased to sign the MoU with Kakinada SEZ. SEZ will make the implementation process more efficient and timely as SEZ will grow to become a fully developed operating port that will have solid infrastructure facilities to support accomplishment our integrated bio-diesel project," Bhaskar Chalasani, managing director, Naturol Bio-Energy said.
KSEZ is engaging IL & FS to undertake developmental activities for next 12 months. ONGC is also proposing to set up a 5 MMTPA refinery in the SEZ. GoAP has been extending their co-operation and nominated TR&B department for coordinating the activities on behalf of GoAP. A separate MOU is under finalization between GoAP, IL&FS and KSPL for establishing the refinery.
KESZ expects a bio-diesel plant to be set up at this SEZ as it would attract other such units. For Naturol all infrastructure will be the readily available and responsibility of SEZ so that it can concentrate on implementation of the project.
Naturol Bio-Energy also signed an MoU with Energea GmbH, Austria in the presence of Austrian Trade Commissioner, Hans Joerg Hoertnagl and president of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, Dr. Christof Leitl.
Allotment of land to the proposed special economic zone and the refinery will in no way come in the way of bringing Kakinada on the main rail route and in fact these projects may "act as a catalyst for the fulfilment of the long-cherished desire of the people here," said Mr M.S. Murthy, Chief Operating Officer, Kakinada SEZ Pvt Ltd.
Reacting to the apprehensions expressed by the Cocanada Town Passengers' Association, he issued a statement here on Thursday that such misgivings were unfounded.
He said the establishment of several industrial units in the SEZ would make the proposed line, linking Pithapuram and Kakinada, viable. ''A number of railway stations may also be planned for passenger trains in accordance with railway norms,'' he said.
He said the SEZ and the proposed railway were complementary and the fact should be realised by the passengers' association. The SEZ would generate employment and bring prosperity to the port town, he added.
http://www.kakinadainfo.com/about-kakinada-and-cocanada/industries-in-kakinada/kakinada-sez-special-economic-zone
Kakinada SEZ: Status quo to continue for some more time
Power position likely to ease by month-end: CM
Kakinada, July 16, 2012, The Hindu Business Line: The status quo will continue on the issue of Kakinada special economic zone (KSEZ) and the Government will take a decision only after consulting all and considering the pros and cons, the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Mr N. Kiran Kumar Reddy, said.
He told presspersons here on Monday, after the conclusion of his three-day tour of East Godavari district as a part of the Indiramma Bata programme, that he was aware that farmers were agitating against the economic zone, but a decision will be taken only after a detailed and careful review of the whole project. “As of now, it is
status quo on KSEZ,” he said.
On the critical power situation in the State, the Chief Minister said the position may ease by the end of the month. The power cuts may be reduced by half as the State had received some rainfall during the month, he said. Even now, there was a shortage of 35 million units and therefore power-cuts had become inevitable.
Mr Reddy asserted the State Government was not responsible for the present power crisis, but the Union Government which was not allocating enough natural gas to the gas-based power projects in the State. As a result, they were not running to capacity and there was a lot of idle capacity and the State was suffering. On the issue of conducting elections to the local bodies and civic bodies, he said the State Government was ready to hold the elections, but there was a legal hassle. There was an unresolved issue with regard to reservations for BCs and the matter was pending with the Supreme Court. Once that was cleared, there would be no problem in holding polls.
He said the Indiramma Bata programme was taken up to acquaint himself with the problems at the grass-root level and to interact with the public in villages. The response to the programme, first launched in East Godavari, was very encouraging and he would cover other districts too. “We will give top priority to health and education,” the Chief Minister said.
CPI Demands Scrapping of Kakinada SEZ
APR 14, 2012, PTI
CPI state general secretary Dr Narayana demanded this evening that Kakinada SEZ be scrapped and the land acquired for it be restored to the farmers.
Addressing a press conference here, Narayana alleged that rules and laws were flouted during the land acquisition.
The CPI leader toured the SEZ-affected villages earlier in the day.
"The farmers were lured with prospect of attractive benefits at the time of taking over the lands. Subsequently, nothing was done for their welfare, nor did any industries come up here," he said.
TDP on What is Kakinada SEZ
The Kakinada Special Economic Zone is one of the 115 SEZ's promoted in Andhra Pradesh of which nearly 37 were in various stages of operation while rest were on paper only .
The CAG had indicted the AP Government for indiscriminate land acquisition from the farmers and their transfer to the investors without monitoring the projects execution . Only 37 SEZ's were operational with possession of 13000 acres but only Four SEZ (Sri City in Tiruapti, Fab City in Hyd , APIIC, Jedcharla and APIIC- Vizag) were grounded totalling 8625 acres
It is now revealed by the CAG and others that 80- percent of the land allocated to SEZ are not productive
MoU's and concessions are lapsing due to non functioning of the projects
Main components of Kakinada SEZ
The promoters of KSEZ- K V Rao purchased land very cheap at Rs. Three lakh per acre and also jobs and houses for the displace d farmers , but since 7 years there are no jobs or houses as the project is yet to take off and also be grounded .
Main components of SEZ
A port-based multi-product SEZ which took shape in 2005 envisages development of more than 10,500 acres in the mandals of Thondangi, Uppada and Kottapalli mandals . The KSEZ promoters promised Rs 40,000 crore in investments to set up industries like oil refineries, power plants, garments and machinery manufacturing units.
However, no major industrial activity has taken place till now and people of the mandals allege that half of the 10,000 acres was purchased illegally by paying the farmers Rs 3 lakh per acre by KSEZ promoter K V Rao. The farmers of Ramannakkapet lost 800 acres to the SEZ .
A Special Economic Zone (SEZ) covers a broad range of more specific zone types, including free trade zones, Export Processing Zones, Free Zones, Industrial estates, Free ports etc. The goal of Kakinada SEZ is to attract foreign investment. .
The deep-water port will be completed in two stages. KSEZ has already received an in-principle approval from the Centre to set up a port-based special economic zone at Kakinada. Following the nod, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) - Kakinada SEZ (KSEZ) - was incorporated to implement the project. KSPL, ONGC and IL&FS of Delhi are the stakeholders in the SPV. The SEZ will have an exclusive Rs 2,000-crore deep-water port for importing and exporting petroleum, biotech, agricultural and other products. The port facility will be used by companies that set up their units in the 10,500-acre KSEZ,
Out of the 10,500 acres, around 2,500 acres have been allotted to ONGC for its Kakinada Refinery and Petrochemicals plant with an annual capacity of 1.5 lakh tonnes. ONGC plans to adopt a SBM port model.This will be on the lines of the Mundra
SEZ in Gujarat.
The list of companies include TCG Refinery Company of Mauritius (2,500 acres), SDE Engineers (1,000 acres), ETA Star Marsol, Tata Power (600 acres), Suzlon Energy (350 acres), RS Energy (200 acres), Asrit Agro Products (200 acres), Kakinada Fertilisers (200 acres), KSR Agencies Food Park (150 acres) Nicholas Piramal (100 acres) and other companies (350 acres.
Kakinada Special Economic Zone (KSEZ) has signed a (MoU) with Naturol Bio-Energy India for setting up the first eco-friendly bio-diesel plant in Kakinada SEZ. The 300 TPD integrated biodiesel plant will be set up at an estimated cost of Rs.139.50 crore in JV with Energea GmbH, Austria.
Farmers Agitation
The farmers have been conducting `vanta-varpu' in the fields for the last two months as a mark of their protest.
"We have no leader to guide us. Farmers are fighting as their livelihood is at stake," an activist, K Rajendra,
Hundreds of anti-Kakinada Special Economic Zone agitators detained a large number of cops of Uppada Kottapalli and Pithapuram police stations for several hours. The angry protesters also damaged a police jeep.
They gave vent to their ire by targeting the cops who tried to drive out hundreds of farmers from the agriculture fields when the latter forcibly tried to plough the fields, which were taken over by the promoters of KSEZ.
The protesters even detained some journalists who went to cover the protests.
The angry farmers detained Pithapuram police when the latter rushed to rescue their colleagues from Uppada Kothapalli.
Hundreds of farmers from nearby villages also arrived on the scene and shouted slogans against the police and the KSEZ management.
AP Govt has booked 450 cases on agitators including farmers, activists on campaigns against SEZ.
Return Kakinada SEZ land to farmers
HYDERABAD: The TDP has decided to support the farmers’ cause and fight against the forcible acquisition of lands from them in the name of SEZs and industrialisation. As a first step towards its fight against illegal land deals, TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu has decided to visit Kakinada SEZ on April 19 and extend support to the agitating farmers there.
Naidu held a meeting with senior party leaders here on Thursday to decide the type of agitation to be taken up against land allotments made by the then chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy. Naidu constituted a five-member committee to study whether the lands allotted by the government were used or diverted by the industrialists for real estate business.
The five-member committee includes Kalava Srinivasulu, Kodela Siva Prasada Rao, Konakalla Narayana Rao, M Kishan Reddy and Dadi Veerabhadra Rao. Naidu noted that arable lands were forcibly acquired by the YSR government from the farmers and were later sold for higher prices to those close to the corridors of power. The YSR govt hoodwinked the farmers by making false promises of bringing SEZs, projects, industries and creating huge employment. By promising the moon, the YSR government ushered in neo-Zamindari system in the state, Naidu alleged.
“If TDP is voted to power we will cancel all illegal land deals and return the rich arable lands to the native farmers,” Naidu said.
Naidu said YSR govt had doled out 8,800 acres to Lepakshi Knowledge city in Anantapur, 16,000 acres to Vanpic and 15,000 acres to Brahmani Steels. ‘’TDP will wage a relentless battle against govt till farmers get their lands back,’’ he said. “Those who got land from govt mortgaged them to banks and invested money in industries owned by YSR family. We will take back all lands,” Naidu averred.
If industrialists wants to set up SEZs or industries they should purchase lands directly from farmers after paying the prevailing market price. The govt should not act as a broker between farmers and industrialists, Naidu contended. “TDP will fight till justice is done to farmers,” Naidu declared.
April 13, 2012, New Indian Express
Storm clouds gather over Kakinada SEZ
Siva G, Feb 21, 2012, The Times of India
THONDANGI (EAST GODAVARI): The anti-Kakinada Special Economic Zone (SEZ) sentiment is smouldering. The sense one gets in this mandal is that the villagers, particularly youth, are not going to be cowed down by arrests at the crack of dawn and police threats as they look to intensify their struggle against a project which, they believe, would spell their doom.
The youth, a majority of whom are graduates, are planning to launch a Sompeta-like stir by bringing together people of Thondangi and Uppada Kottapalli mandals. "We will sensitize people, launch awareness campaigns and even resort to a militant struggle against the KSEZ management and government if we have to," protestor K Rambabu said.
The unrest among people in more than 30 affected villages is palpable with residents seething at the government's bid to evict farmers and close wells and canals to push the project.
"The government is in cahoots with KSEZ management and together they have been trying to evict farmers despite court orders, issuing GOs that are in violation of judicial directives," anti-KSEZ agitation convenor Chitna Suryanarayna Murthy told TOI.
With protestors taking out rallies and conducting dharnas demanding that the SEZ project be scrapped, police have been kept busy, registering 450 cases so far against the agitators. "Police harassment of agitators has become a regular feature. They are even deploying plainclothes cops to terrorize the youth," Chandaka Veera Babu, one of the protestors, said.
The villagers said that people belonging to the SC community in Uppada Kottapalli mandal had been evicted after being threatened with dire consequences for their continued participation in the agitation. Some 1,200 acres in Ramanakkapeta and Ponnada villages, 500 acres in Bucchireddypalem and another 500 acres in Chodipalli villages have been identified for the first phase of SEZ development.
The project, a port-based multi-product SEZ which took shape in 2005, envisages development of more than 10,500 acres in Thondangi and Uppada Kottapalli mandals. Protestors allege that half of the land was purchased illegally by paying Rs 3 lakh per acre by KV Rao, the SEZ promoter. Promoters said that Rs 40,000 crore in investments would be pumped into the SEZ to set up industries like oil refinery, power plants, garments and machinery manufacturing units.
Infotech starts operations from Kakinada SEZ Business Standard Oct 05, 2011
Infotech Enterprises Limited, a Hyderabad-based technology solutions provider offering engineering and geographic information (GI) services, commenced operations
in its new development centre from its facility at the IT special economic zone
(SEZ) in Kakinada. Infotech is the first company in this SEZ.
Phase-I of the new development centre will house 150 seats by the end of this month, and would be scaled up to 400 by January 2012. This is the company’s sixth facility in India - two at Hyderabad, one at Bangalore’s Electronics City, Noida and at Rushikonda SEZ IT park in Visakhapatnam. The second facility at the Kakinada SEZ, being developed on a five-acre campus over a built-up area of 100,000 sft, will have 1,000 seats.
Infotech commenced operations in Kakinada early in February 2007 from the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI)’s incubation centre. At present, the company has 470 associates between the two locations – city centre and STPI.
Over 30 per cent of Infotech’s employees in Kakinada are women and over 90 per cent are locals from in and around Kakinada. The development centres in Kakinada largely caters to the company’s oil and gas customers around the world.
“Phase-I of the facility was completed in four months. From 150 seats, we would be adding another 250 seats and operating it in two shifts, this 300-people centre would grow to 800 people by January 2012,” B Ashok Reddy, president (global HR and corporate affairs), Infotech, stated in a release on Monday.
“This is in line with our growth strategy to create facilities in SEZs and in Tier-II cities. This will enable us to provide employment opportunities to the rich engineering talent available from universities in and around Kakinada,” he said.
GMR speeds up work on Rs 26,000-cr Kakinada SEZ
Katya B Naidu / Mumbai Jul 01, 2011, Business Standard
Bangalore-based infrastructure firm GMR is fast-tracking its proposed special economic zone (SEZ) in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. It has initiated talks with possible anchor tenants for the multi-product, port-based SEZ, and will kick-start work on the physical infrastructure like roads, water and port connectivity in the next few months. The estimated investment potential into the SEZ by various companies is in the range of Rs 6,000-30,000 crore.
“We have already acquired all of the 10,000 acre land required for the SEZ. We will be investing Rs 3,000-4,000 crore in developing the SEZ,” said CEO S G K Kishore. GMR expects to spend around Rs 2,000 crore for developing and operating the port.
GMR has a 51 per cent stake in the project, which is promoted as a part of Andhra Pradesh’s Petroleum, Chemicals and Petrochemical Investment Region, which extends along the east coast from Visakhapatnam to Kakinada.
The rest of the stake are held by IL&FS, Kakinada Sea Ports and Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure.
GMR is currently meeting domestic and international companies interested in setting up shops. The infrastructure major also said it was close to finishing the design, master planning of the port.
It also proposes to set up a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal within the SEZ, for which it plans to rope in interested equity investors.
Among the projects envisaged in the SEZ are refinery projects, petrochemical units, ports and possibly an LNG terminal. Kakinada, which is strategically close to the natural gas belt in the Krishna-Godavari basin, is also close to a number of gas-based power projects coming up in the area. GMR itself has a natural gas-based 388.5-megawatt (Mw) project in Vemagiri, which it is expanding by 768 Mw.
GMR Infrastructure buys 51% in Kakinada SEZ
Dec 25, 2010, K V Ramana, DNA
GMR Infrastructure will kickstart the development of a port-based multi-product special economic zone at Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh, after entering into a share subscription and shareholders agreement for acquiring 51% stake in Kakinada SEZ Pvt Ltd on Friday.
The value of the transaction is not known, but people tracking the development said it would be “significant”.
The SEZ at Kakinada has been a non-starter for a few years now, owing to a variety of litigations including the one over ONGC’s decision to pull out of the SEZ.
Initially, Kakinada Sea Ports, ONGC and IL&FS formed an SPV to promote the SEZ with the grand plans of focusing on the petroleum and refinery sector with an overall investment potential of about Rs 25,000 crore.
ONGC was keen on setting up a refinery at the SEZ and also other ancillaries since the SEZ is in the proposed petroleum, chemicals and petrochemicals investment region (PCPIR) extending up to Visakhapatnam.
“The broad design of the project has not changed. There would be minor tinkering here and there. The project had some issues earlier and now all that has been cleared. The full scale works on developing the project would begin as early as possible,” K V Rao, the managing director of Kakinada SEZ, told DNA.
However, he has not provided the financials of the project.
“The details are being worked out. We will be able to come out with the financial details in a week’s time,” a GMR official said.
According to details available with government sources, the project is coming up in about 8,321 acres and several companies have already come forward to set up their units in the SEZ.
“This is a multi product SEZ. The master plan is ready and it would also have a captive port,” Rao said.
However, sources in the SEZ development sector said that the project is still not completely out of trouble.
“There have been issues about conversion of agriculture land into non-agriculture purposes. The state government is keen on exempting the project from the agriculture related norms. But, it is going to be a tedious process. Though it is not impossible for GMR to develop the SEZ, it is not going to be easy as well,” a source said.
Kakinada SEZ Port (Captive Port) Govt declared KSEZ as Minor Port vide GO .MS. NO.10, I & I (Ports.1) Dept ,Dt 3-12-07 as per the request made by M/S Kakinada Special Economic Zone Pvt Ltd.
The location of the Port is about 15 KM North of Kakinada deep water port.
Kakinada Special economic Zone Port in East Godavari District is comes under the jurisdiction of Port Officer, Kakinada.
Kakinada Special economic Zone Pvt Ltd, proposed to handle refinery products and cryogenic LPG.
The required land for establishment of captive port is already acquired by M/s KSEZ and conducting technical studies to take up the construction.
http://www.apports.in/in/content/view/58/75/
Title Kakinada SezSince :2005
Contact Person: Chief Project Manager
Address: D.No : 2-9A-10/1, Venkat Nagar, Kakinada - 03
Landmark: Beside Pragathi college
Description: A Special Economic Zone (SEZ) covers a broad range of more specific zone types, including free trade zones, Export Processing Zones, Free Zones, Industrial estates, Free ports etc. The goal of Kakinada SEZ is to increase foreign investment.
:
Distance from : Rail : 0.86 km, Bus : 1.05 km
http://www.inkakinada.com/list/kakinada-sez
The Kakinada special economic zone (KSEZ) will soon have an exclusive Rs 2,000-crore deep-water port for importing and exporting petroleum, biotech, agricultural and other products.
ONGC, one of the promoters of KSEZ, will also have a single buoy mooring (SBM) port facility within the proposed port. The SBM model links port and refinery with two pipelines, one to import crude and the other to pump the refined fuel to exporting ships.
The deep-water port will be completed in two stages. KSEZ has already received an in-principle approval from the Centre to set up a port-based special economic zone at Kakinada. Following the nod, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) - Kakinada SEZ (KSEZ) - was incorporated to implement the project. KSPL, ONGC and IL&FS of Delhi are the stakeholders in the SPV. “We have got the necessary approvals to construct the port and have initiated the ground work to start construction.
Around Rs 1,250 crore will be spent on the first phase of the project that is expected to be completed in a year’s time. The remaining Rs 750 crore will go into the second phase of the three-year project. The port facility will be used by companies that set up their units in the 10,500-acre KSEZ,” Kakinada SEZ director KV Rao told ET.
Kakinada already has an operative port, which is also being expanded in view of the huge industrial activity in this region. Out of the 10,500 acres, around 2,500 acres have been allotted to ONGC for its Kakinada Refinery and Petrochemicals plant with an annual capacity of 1.5 lakh tonnes. ONGC plans to adopt a SBM port model.
This will be on the lines of the Mundra SEZ in Gujarat, which is five kilometres away from the port. The proposed port will help ONGC save on carriage charges of crude and refined goods as the proposed refinery is 15 km away from the shore. KSEZ authorities have recently submitted a report to the government on the allotment of land to companies investing in the SEZ.
According to sources, the list of companies include TCG Refinery Company ofMauritius (2,500 acres), SDE Engineers (1,000 acres), ETA Star Marsol, Tata Power (600 acres), Suzlon Energy (350 acres), RS Energy (200 acres), Asrit Agro Products (200 acres), Kakinada Fertilisers (200 acres), KSR Agencies Food Park (150 acres) Nicholas Piramal (100 acres) and other companies (350 acres).
Kakinada Special Economic Zone (KSEZ) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Naturol Bio-Energy for setting up the first eco-friendly bio-diesel plant in Kakinada SEZ. The 300 TPD integrated biodiesel plant will be set up in the port town of Kakinada at an estimated cost of Rs.139.50 crore by Naturol Bio-Energy India in JV with Energea GmbH, Austria. KSEZ is a port based special economic zone project in Kakinada promoted by Kakinada Sea Ports, ONGC and IL & FS.
KSEZ has received an in-principle approval from the government of India for setting up of a 'port-based special economic zone' at Kakinada. For this a 'special purpose vehicle' (SPV), Kakinada SEZ Pvt Ltd (KSEZ) was incorporated. The project will be implemented by KSPL, ONGC and IL & FS as promoters.
The investment for developing infrastructure in 4000 acres of land and augmenting external infrastructure for KSEZ would be Rs 2000 crores.
This investment would be other than the industries located in SEZ. KSEZ made progress in various fronts like land, DPR preparation, assessing existing infrastructure, and assessing the facilities required.
"KSEZ expects the refinery and biodiesel plant investments itself in the SEZ would be Rs4,000 crore. More industries are evincing interest to locate their units in SEZ. We anticipate an investment Rs10,000 crores in the first phase by various industries in SEZ mainly petrochemicals, gas-based industries, ceramic units, power plant and other export-oriented industries. The SEZ once completed will change the entire economic scenario of East Godavari District which is agriculturally rich" M S Murthy, chief operating officer, KSEZ said.
"We are pleased to sign the MoU with Kakinada SEZ. SEZ will make the implementation process more efficient and timely as SEZ will grow to become a fully developed operating port that will have solid infrastructure facilities to support accomplishment our integrated bio-diesel project," Bhaskar Chalasani, managing director, Naturol Bio-Energy said.
KSEZ is engaging IL & FS to undertake developmental activities for next 12 months. ONGC is also proposing to set up a 5 MMTPA refinery in the SEZ. GoAP has been extending their co-operation and nominated TR&B department for coordinating the activities on behalf of GoAP. A separate MOU is under finalization between GoAP, IL&FS and KSPL for establishing the refinery.
KESZ expects a bio-diesel plant to be set up at this SEZ as it would attract other such units. For Naturol all infrastructure will be the readily available and responsibility of SEZ so that it can concentrate on implementation of the project.
Naturol Bio-Energy also signed an MoU with Energea GmbH, Austria in the presence of Austrian Trade Commissioner, Hans Joerg Hoertnagl and president of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, Dr. Christof Leitl.
Allotment of land to the proposed special economic zone and the refinery will in no way come in the way of bringing Kakinada on the main rail route and in fact these projects may "act as a catalyst for the fulfilment of the long-cherished desire of the people here," said Mr M.S. Murthy, Chief Operating Officer, Kakinada SEZ Pvt Ltd.
Reacting to the apprehensions expressed by the Cocanada Town Passengers' Association, he issued a statement here on Thursday that such misgivings were unfounded.
He said the establishment of several industrial units in the SEZ would make the proposed line, linking Pithapuram and Kakinada, viable. ''A number of railway stations may also be planned for passenger trains in accordance with railway norms,'' he said.
He said the SEZ and the proposed railway were complementary and the fact should be realised by the passengers' association. The SEZ would generate employment and bring prosperity to the port town, he added.
http://www.kakinadainfo.com/about-kakinada-and-cocanada/industries-in-kakinada/kakinada-sez-special-economic-zone
Kakinada SEZ: Status quo to continue for some more time
Power position likely to ease by month-end: CM
Kakinada, July 16, 2012, The Hindu Business Line: The status quo will continue on the issue of Kakinada special economic zone (KSEZ) and the Government will take a decision only after consulting all and considering the pros and cons, the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Mr N. Kiran Kumar Reddy, said.
He told presspersons here on Monday, after the conclusion of his three-day tour of East Godavari district as a part of the Indiramma Bata programme, that he was aware that farmers were agitating against the economic zone, but a decision will be taken only after a detailed and careful review of the whole project. “As of now, it is
status quo on KSEZ,” he said.
On the critical power situation in the State, the Chief Minister said the position may ease by the end of the month. The power cuts may be reduced by half as the State had received some rainfall during the month, he said. Even now, there was a shortage of 35 million units and therefore power-cuts had become inevitable.
Mr Reddy asserted the State Government was not responsible for the present power crisis, but the Union Government which was not allocating enough natural gas to the gas-based power projects in the State. As a result, they were not running to capacity and there was a lot of idle capacity and the State was suffering. On the issue of conducting elections to the local bodies and civic bodies, he said the State Government was ready to hold the elections, but there was a legal hassle. There was an unresolved issue with regard to reservations for BCs and the matter was pending with the Supreme Court. Once that was cleared, there would be no problem in holding polls.
He said the Indiramma Bata programme was taken up to acquaint himself with the problems at the grass-root level and to interact with the public in villages. The response to the programme, first launched in East Godavari, was very encouraging and he would cover other districts too. “We will give top priority to health and education,” the Chief Minister said.
CPI Demands Scrapping of Kakinada SEZ
APR 14, 2012, PTI
CPI state general secretary Dr Narayana demanded this evening that Kakinada SEZ be scrapped and the land acquired for it be restored to the farmers.
Addressing a press conference here, Narayana alleged that rules and laws were flouted during the land acquisition.
The CPI leader toured the SEZ-affected villages earlier in the day.
"The farmers were lured with prospect of attractive benefits at the time of taking over the lands. Subsequently, nothing was done for their welfare, nor did any industries come up here," he said.
TDP on What is Kakinada SEZ
The Kakinada Special Economic Zone is one of the 115 SEZ's promoted in Andhra Pradesh of which nearly 37 were in various stages of operation while rest were on paper only .
The CAG had indicted the AP Government for indiscriminate land acquisition from the farmers and their transfer to the investors without monitoring the projects execution . Only 37 SEZ's were operational with possession of 13000 acres but only Four SEZ (Sri City in Tiruapti, Fab City in Hyd , APIIC, Jedcharla and APIIC- Vizag) were grounded totalling 8625 acres
It is now revealed by the CAG and others that 80- percent of the land allocated to SEZ are not productive
MoU's and concessions are lapsing due to non functioning of the projects
Main components of Kakinada SEZ
The promoters of KSEZ- K V Rao purchased land very cheap at Rs. Three lakh per acre and also jobs and houses for the displace d farmers , but since 7 years there are no jobs or houses as the project is yet to take off and also be grounded .
Main components of SEZ
A port-based multi-product SEZ which took shape in 2005 envisages development of more than 10,500 acres in the mandals of Thondangi, Uppada and Kottapalli mandals . The KSEZ promoters promised Rs 40,000 crore in investments to set up industries like oil refineries, power plants, garments and machinery manufacturing units.
However, no major industrial activity has taken place till now and people of the mandals allege that half of the 10,000 acres was purchased illegally by paying the farmers Rs 3 lakh per acre by KSEZ promoter K V Rao. The farmers of Ramannakkapet lost 800 acres to the SEZ .
A Special Economic Zone (SEZ) covers a broad range of more specific zone types, including free trade zones, Export Processing Zones, Free Zones, Industrial estates, Free ports etc. The goal of Kakinada SEZ is to attract foreign investment. .
The deep-water port will be completed in two stages. KSEZ has already received an in-principle approval from the Centre to set up a port-based special economic zone at Kakinada. Following the nod, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) - Kakinada SEZ (KSEZ) - was incorporated to implement the project. KSPL, ONGC and IL&FS of Delhi are the stakeholders in the SPV. The SEZ will have an exclusive Rs 2,000-crore deep-water port for importing and exporting petroleum, biotech, agricultural and other products. The port facility will be used by companies that set up their units in the 10,500-acre KSEZ,
Out of the 10,500 acres, around 2,500 acres have been allotted to ONGC for its Kakinada Refinery and Petrochemicals plant with an annual capacity of 1.5 lakh tonnes. ONGC plans to adopt a SBM port model.This will be on the lines of the Mundra
SEZ in Gujarat.
The list of companies include TCG Refinery Company of Mauritius (2,500 acres), SDE Engineers (1,000 acres), ETA Star Marsol, Tata Power (600 acres), Suzlon Energy (350 acres), RS Energy (200 acres), Asrit Agro Products (200 acres), Kakinada Fertilisers (200 acres), KSR Agencies Food Park (150 acres) Nicholas Piramal (100 acres) and other companies (350 acres.
Kakinada Special Economic Zone (KSEZ) has signed a (MoU) with Naturol Bio-Energy India for setting up the first eco-friendly bio-diesel plant in Kakinada SEZ. The 300 TPD integrated biodiesel plant will be set up at an estimated cost of Rs.139.50 crore in JV with Energea GmbH, Austria.
Farmers Agitation
The farmers have been conducting `vanta-varpu' in the fields for the last two months as a mark of their protest.
"We have no leader to guide us. Farmers are fighting as their livelihood is at stake," an activist, K Rajendra,
Hundreds of anti-Kakinada Special Economic Zone agitators detained a large number of cops of Uppada Kottapalli and Pithapuram police stations for several hours. The angry protesters also damaged a police jeep.
They gave vent to their ire by targeting the cops who tried to drive out hundreds of farmers from the agriculture fields when the latter forcibly tried to plough the fields, which were taken over by the promoters of KSEZ.
The protesters even detained some journalists who went to cover the protests.
The angry farmers detained Pithapuram police when the latter rushed to rescue their colleagues from Uppada Kothapalli.
Hundreds of farmers from nearby villages also arrived on the scene and shouted slogans against the police and the KSEZ management.
AP Govt has booked 450 cases on agitators including farmers, activists on campaigns against SEZ.
Return Kakinada SEZ land to farmers
HYDERABAD: The TDP has decided to support the farmers’ cause and fight against the forcible acquisition of lands from them in the name of SEZs and industrialisation. As a first step towards its fight against illegal land deals, TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu has decided to visit Kakinada SEZ on April 19 and extend support to the agitating farmers there.
Naidu held a meeting with senior party leaders here on Thursday to decide the type of agitation to be taken up against land allotments made by the then chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy. Naidu constituted a five-member committee to study whether the lands allotted by the government were used or diverted by the industrialists for real estate business.
The five-member committee includes Kalava Srinivasulu, Kodela Siva Prasada Rao, Konakalla Narayana Rao, M Kishan Reddy and Dadi Veerabhadra Rao. Naidu noted that arable lands were forcibly acquired by the YSR government from the farmers and were later sold for higher prices to those close to the corridors of power. The YSR govt hoodwinked the farmers by making false promises of bringing SEZs, projects, industries and creating huge employment. By promising the moon, the YSR government ushered in neo-Zamindari system in the state, Naidu alleged.
“If TDP is voted to power we will cancel all illegal land deals and return the rich arable lands to the native farmers,” Naidu said.
Naidu said YSR govt had doled out 8,800 acres to Lepakshi Knowledge city in Anantapur, 16,000 acres to Vanpic and 15,000 acres to Brahmani Steels. ‘’TDP will wage a relentless battle against govt till farmers get their lands back,’’ he said. “Those who got land from govt mortgaged them to banks and invested money in industries owned by YSR family. We will take back all lands,” Naidu averred.
If industrialists wants to set up SEZs or industries they should purchase lands directly from farmers after paying the prevailing market price. The govt should not act as a broker between farmers and industrialists, Naidu contended. “TDP will fight till justice is done to farmers,” Naidu declared.
April 13, 2012, New Indian Express
Storm clouds gather over Kakinada SEZ
Siva G, Feb 21, 2012, The Times of India
THONDANGI (EAST GODAVARI): The anti-Kakinada Special Economic Zone (SEZ) sentiment is smouldering. The sense one gets in this mandal is that the villagers, particularly youth, are not going to be cowed down by arrests at the crack of dawn and police threats as they look to intensify their struggle against a project which, they believe, would spell their doom.
The youth, a majority of whom are graduates, are planning to launch a Sompeta-like stir by bringing together people of Thondangi and Uppada Kottapalli mandals. "We will sensitize people, launch awareness campaigns and even resort to a militant struggle against the KSEZ management and government if we have to," protestor K Rambabu said.
The unrest among people in more than 30 affected villages is palpable with residents seething at the government's bid to evict farmers and close wells and canals to push the project.
"The government is in cahoots with KSEZ management and together they have been trying to evict farmers despite court orders, issuing GOs that are in violation of judicial directives," anti-KSEZ agitation convenor Chitna Suryanarayna Murthy told TOI.
With protestors taking out rallies and conducting dharnas demanding that the SEZ project be scrapped, police have been kept busy, registering 450 cases so far against the agitators. "Police harassment of agitators has become a regular feature. They are even deploying plainclothes cops to terrorize the youth," Chandaka Veera Babu, one of the protestors, said.
The villagers said that people belonging to the SC community in Uppada Kottapalli mandal had been evicted after being threatened with dire consequences for their continued participation in the agitation. Some 1,200 acres in Ramanakkapeta and Ponnada villages, 500 acres in Bucchireddypalem and another 500 acres in Chodipalli villages have been identified for the first phase of SEZ development.
The project, a port-based multi-product SEZ which took shape in 2005, envisages development of more than 10,500 acres in Thondangi and Uppada Kottapalli mandals. Protestors allege that half of the land was purchased illegally by paying Rs 3 lakh per acre by KV Rao, the SEZ promoter. Promoters said that Rs 40,000 crore in investments would be pumped into the SEZ to set up industries like oil refinery, power plants, garments and machinery manufacturing units.
Infotech starts operations from Kakinada SEZ Business Standard Oct 05, 2011
Infotech Enterprises Limited, a Hyderabad-based technology solutions provider offering engineering and geographic information (GI) services, commenced operations
in its new development centre from its facility at the IT special economic zone
(SEZ) in Kakinada. Infotech is the first company in this SEZ.
Phase-I of the new development centre will house 150 seats by the end of this month, and would be scaled up to 400 by January 2012. This is the company’s sixth facility in India - two at Hyderabad, one at Bangalore’s Electronics City, Noida and at Rushikonda SEZ IT park in Visakhapatnam. The second facility at the Kakinada SEZ, being developed on a five-acre campus over a built-up area of 100,000 sft, will have 1,000 seats.
Infotech commenced operations in Kakinada early in February 2007 from the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI)’s incubation centre. At present, the company has 470 associates between the two locations – city centre and STPI.
Over 30 per cent of Infotech’s employees in Kakinada are women and over 90 per cent are locals from in and around Kakinada. The development centres in Kakinada largely caters to the company’s oil and gas customers around the world.
“Phase-I of the facility was completed in four months. From 150 seats, we would be adding another 250 seats and operating it in two shifts, this 300-people centre would grow to 800 people by January 2012,” B Ashok Reddy, president (global HR and corporate affairs), Infotech, stated in a release on Monday.
“This is in line with our growth strategy to create facilities in SEZs and in Tier-II cities. This will enable us to provide employment opportunities to the rich engineering talent available from universities in and around Kakinada,” he said.
GMR speeds up work on Rs 26,000-cr Kakinada SEZ
Katya B Naidu / Mumbai Jul 01, 2011, Business Standard
Bangalore-based infrastructure firm GMR is fast-tracking its proposed special economic zone (SEZ) in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. It has initiated talks with possible anchor tenants for the multi-product, port-based SEZ, and will kick-start work on the physical infrastructure like roads, water and port connectivity in the next few months. The estimated investment potential into the SEZ by various companies is in the range of Rs 6,000-30,000 crore.
“We have already acquired all of the 10,000 acre land required for the SEZ. We will be investing Rs 3,000-4,000 crore in developing the SEZ,” said CEO S G K Kishore. GMR expects to spend around Rs 2,000 crore for developing and operating the port.
GMR has a 51 per cent stake in the project, which is promoted as a part of Andhra Pradesh’s Petroleum, Chemicals and Petrochemical Investment Region, which extends along the east coast from Visakhapatnam to Kakinada.
The rest of the stake are held by IL&FS, Kakinada Sea Ports and Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure.
GMR is currently meeting domestic and international companies interested in setting up shops. The infrastructure major also said it was close to finishing the design, master planning of the port.
It also proposes to set up a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal within the SEZ, for which it plans to rope in interested equity investors.
Among the projects envisaged in the SEZ are refinery projects, petrochemical units, ports and possibly an LNG terminal. Kakinada, which is strategically close to the natural gas belt in the Krishna-Godavari basin, is also close to a number of gas-based power projects coming up in the area. GMR itself has a natural gas-based 388.5-megawatt (Mw) project in Vemagiri, which it is expanding by 768 Mw.
GMR Infrastructure buys 51% in Kakinada SEZ
Dec 25, 2010, K V Ramana, DNA
GMR Infrastructure will kickstart the development of a port-based multi-product special economic zone at Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh, after entering into a share subscription and shareholders agreement for acquiring 51% stake in Kakinada SEZ Pvt Ltd on Friday.
The value of the transaction is not known, but people tracking the development said it would be “significant”.
The SEZ at Kakinada has been a non-starter for a few years now, owing to a variety of litigations including the one over ONGC’s decision to pull out of the SEZ.
Initially, Kakinada Sea Ports, ONGC and IL&FS formed an SPV to promote the SEZ with the grand plans of focusing on the petroleum and refinery sector with an overall investment potential of about Rs 25,000 crore.
ONGC was keen on setting up a refinery at the SEZ and also other ancillaries since the SEZ is in the proposed petroleum, chemicals and petrochemicals investment region (PCPIR) extending up to Visakhapatnam.
“The broad design of the project has not changed. There would be minor tinkering here and there. The project had some issues earlier and now all that has been cleared. The full scale works on developing the project would begin as early as possible,” K V Rao, the managing director of Kakinada SEZ, told DNA.
However, he has not provided the financials of the project.
“The details are being worked out. We will be able to come out with the financial details in a week’s time,” a GMR official said.
According to details available with government sources, the project is coming up in about 8,321 acres and several companies have already come forward to set up their units in the SEZ.
“This is a multi product SEZ. The master plan is ready and it would also have a captive port,” Rao said.
However, sources in the SEZ development sector said that the project is still not completely out of trouble.
“There have been issues about conversion of agriculture land into non-agriculture purposes. The state government is keen on exempting the project from the agriculture related norms. But, it is going to be a tedious process. Though it is not impossible for GMR to develop the SEZ, it is not going to be easy as well,” a source said.
Kakinada SEZ Port (Captive Port) Govt declared KSEZ as Minor Port vide GO .MS. NO.10, I & I (Ports.1) Dept ,Dt 3-12-07 as per the request made by M/S Kakinada Special Economic Zone Pvt Ltd.
The location of the Port is about 15 KM North of Kakinada deep water port.
Kakinada Special economic Zone Port in East Godavari District is comes under the jurisdiction of Port Officer, Kakinada.
Kakinada Special economic Zone Pvt Ltd, proposed to handle refinery products and cryogenic LPG.
The required land for establishment of captive port is already acquired by M/s KSEZ and conducting technical studies to take up the construction.
http://www.apports.in/in/content/view/58/75/
Title Kakinada SezSince :2005
Contact Person: Chief Project Manager
Address: D.No : 2-9A-10/1, Venkat Nagar, Kakinada - 03
Landmark: Beside Pragathi college
Description: A Special Economic Zone (SEZ) covers a broad range of more specific zone types, including free trade zones, Export Processing Zones, Free Zones, Industrial estates, Free ports etc. The goal of Kakinada SEZ is to increase foreign investment.
:
Distance from : Rail : 0.86 km, Bus : 1.05 km
http://www.inkakinada.com/list/kakinada-sez