In Ratnagiri its dangerous assault on enviroment

Shri Milind Balavat Nijsure
At post Velas, Tal. mandangad, Dist. Ratnagiri
Maharashtra

Date: 09.11.2010

Sub: ASSAULT ON ENVIRONMENT BY DANGEROUS MINING (Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. , Mumbai COMPANY )

Government of Maharashtra renewed the lease in respect of Velas – Sakhari Bauxite mine site for the period of 20 years.( up to 29-11-2009)The lease holder Smt. Dhanavate gave power of attorney in respect of said mine site to m/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. , Mumbai in the year 2003.(Copy of Lease enclosed and marked Exhibit A , Please refer folder ‘Exhibit A’)

The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board gave their consent to operate to the said mine site to m/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. on 17-06-2005 to excavate 4000 tons of Bauxite per month.(Copy of Lease enclosed and marked Exhibit B , Please refer folder ‘Exhibit B’)

However m/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Excavated Bauxite illegally before getting the consent from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Excavated Bauxite to the tune of around 65,000 tons in the year 2003-04 and 2004-05.This illegal excavated Bauxite was exported by m/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. During April-May 2005.Milind b. Nijsure , resident of Velas , Tal. Mandangad , Dist. Ratnagiri, filed the petition in Hon. Dapoli Court against m/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. on 26-12-2006 for this illegal excavation and export of Bauxite.( i. Copy of production report between 2003-2005 ii. Maharashtra Maritime board’s export report iii. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s notice dt. : 28-04-2005 asking Ashapure Mine chem.. Ltd. to stop the illegal mining.iv. Copy of Dapoli Court’s case filed by Mr. M.B. Nijsure.enclosed and marked Exhibit C , Please refer folder ‘Exhibit C’ )
M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Has violated all rules and regulations laid down by various govt. departments during their mining activity including D.G.M.S.Director general of mine safety has filed a suit against m/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. In Hon. Dapoli court.(Copy of inspection report of D.G.M.S. stating various violations and case papers are enclosed and marked Exhibit D , Please refer folder ‘Exhibit D’ )
M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Even went beyond lease zone area and excavated Bauxite, thus violating lease conditions.( Copy of Circle – Mandangad report showing lease violation and tehsildar- Mandangad letter to District collector recommending appropriate action against M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd., Enclosed and marked Exhibit E, Please refer folder ‘Exhibit E’)
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board appointed a export committee to study the various violations made by M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. at the said site and thereby its impact on the environment. The Committee noted various violations made by M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd.(Refer pages 3, 5,6 of report)(Copy of report enclosed and marked Exhibit F, Please refer folder ‘Exhibit F’)
Milind B. Nijsure along with Srikar Paranjape filed a Public Interest Litigation against Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. , MPCB , Govt. of Maharashtra , Union of India through Ministry of environment and forest in the Hon. Mumbai High Court bearing No.:137 of 2008.( Copy enclosed and marked Exhibit G, Please refer folder ‘Exhibit G’.)
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board gave their consent to operate for the said mine for the excavation of the Bauxite up to 4000 tons per month. However M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Has excavated roughly around 30,000 tons per month, thus violating the consent. Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. has given production report to District Mining Officer, Ratnagiri from April 2007 to October 2008. However Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Has not submitted the said report to Directorate of Geology and mining Nagpur. ( Refer Exhibit C)( Copy of Production report from District Mining Officer, Ratnagiri enclosed and marked Exhibit H, Please refer folder ‘Exhibit H’)
The said lease given by Govt. of Maharashtra expired on 29-11-2009 and the lease has not been renewed till today. The consent to operate of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board also expired on 20-11-2009 and MPCB has not given fresh consent to the said site till today. However M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Continues to excavate Bauxite at the said site beyond 29-11-2009 to till today. (In January 2010, Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. , illegally excavated Bauxite to the tune of 34, 500 tons which exceeds the previous consent of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board up to 4000 tons per month)( Copy of MPCB, Industry Ministry and production report upto march 2010 enclosed and marked Exhibit I , please refer folder ’Exhibit I’)
This shows that M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Is notorious for violating all rules laid down by both Central and State Government departments.Letters has been sent to MPCB; Dist. Collector, Ratnagiri; Industry Ministry( Govt. of Maharashtra), Ministry of environment and Forests( Central Govt.) to take stern action and reject / Cancel all their licenses / renewals and environmental clearances.( Copies enclosed and marked Exhibit J, Please refer folder ‘Exhibit J’.)
M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. has wrongly informed to Ministry of Environment and Forest and Indian Bureau of Mines through their EIA reports and mining plan respectively.In EIA report submitted to MOEF, the M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Has wrongly stated that the entire lease area is private waste land.In the mining plan submitted to IBM , M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. States "The mining lease area is barren land within vegetations like thorny bushes & shrubs. This area comprises private and revenue waste land without any agriculture."( page 4 of mining plan. Under " Land used pattern" Chapter.)I hereby submit few land records ( which are indicative) of survey Nos. 32,110,122,125 which clearly shows mango and cashew plantations in huge quantity. In fact some of the land owners had received subsidy from Govt. of Maharashtra under "Employment Guarantee scheme’s Fruit Plantation program.Thus this shows how M/s Ashapura Mine Chem. Ltd. Obtains various clearances from Govt. Departments by misleading them and hiding actual facts of the lease area.( Copies enclosed and marked Exhibit K, Please refer folder ‘Exhibit K’.Please refer Folder ‘Saat_Baara’ under above folder)
Place : Velas
Date : 10-11-2010
Sd/-
(Milind B. Nijsure)

Petition on illegal mining in Sakhri-Velas, Mandangad, Ratnagiri

Shri Milind Balavat Nijsure
At post Velas, Tal. mandangad, Dist. Ratnagiri
Maharashtra
Date: 09.11.2010

To,
Shri. Madhavrao Gadgil
President, Western Ghat Panel
Sub: Facts of Velas-Sakhari Bauxite mine site Tal. Mandangad Dist. Ratnagiri.
Useful Land for Horticulture or Barren land.
Please refer to part of Mining Plan approved by Indian Bureau of Mines, Madgaon, Goa for Velas-Sakhari Bauxite. Mine. (Enclosed & marked Set1_01 - Set1_17 refer folder 01_Velas_Sakhri)
Please refer to 12.1.2.Existing land use pattern (Pg. 22) and 12.2.1.Land environment, iii Agriculture and V vegetation (pg. 25,26) which reproduce below for the case of reference.
12.1.2. Existing Land use Pattern: The lease area is in mound shape and top of the deposit is in the form of plateau. The lease area is mostly covered with late rite copping. About 8.10 HA is covered by pits and 1.09 deposit is the flat ground and surrounding area is having jungle growth and Mango Farms, Cashew, casuarinas plantation and Marshy areas (pg. 22,23)
12.2.1. (ii) The lease area is private land with elevated ground and is in mound shape without much vegetation.( pg. 25)
12.2.1.V The lease area at present is having thin vegetation and the land is mostly barren. There are shrubs and bus has that is sparsely located in area that is the vegetation. (pg. 26)
Please also see pg 2 of EIA report in which it states that " The entire lease area is a private waste Land " while 12.1.2 of mining Plan states that the deposit is in flat ground and surrounding area s having jungle growth and Mango Farms, Cashew, casuarinas plantation and Marshy areas. (Enclosed & marked Set2_01 - Set2_02 refer folder 01_Velas_Sakhri)
In 12.2.1 (iii) of Mining Plan (pg. 26) states "A present there is no agriculture activities in the proposed area except patches of Mango grove.
In 12.2.1.V (pg 26) states "The lease area at present is having thin vegetation and the land is mostly barren.
Thus it would be seen that it is contended that entire lease area is waste land and surrounding area is having jungle growth. However it is also accepted that in patches there is Mango Cashew, casuarinas plantation.
Please find given below is a table showing survey NOs. Area in HA, No of Mango/cashew trees and remark in respect of land under Mining Lease as per Mine Plan approved by Indian Bureau of Mines(pg. 3)
Survey No.
Area in HA
Plantation remarks
125/111
6-18-0
Received subsidy from Govt. under EGS Fruit Plantation Programme. Rs. 106506/-
110/1
12-53-0
Mango plantation 5 HA, Total 900 Mango trees.
122/12
0-77-0
Mango plantation 77 guntha.
110/2
1-13-0
Mango plantation 1 HA/13 guntha,
32/1
1-51-5
Mango plantation 1 HA, 51.5 gunthas.
122/9
0-21-0
Cashew plantation in 21 gunthas
Above table is indicative. (Enclosed above in folder Saat-Baara)
From the said table it would be seen that no. of Mango, casuarinas and cashew trees recorded in 7/12 from the Land Records for which subsidy was received by the owner of land. Also other land owners planted trees at their own expense and also does not cover trees other than Mango, casuarinas and cashew which may be there as natural forest. This proves "The entire lease area is waste land" is a false statement used only to obtain/renew mining lease. This aspect had neither been verified from records nor brought out after visit to the site by IBM or MPCB officers apart from RQP-Recognized qualified person enlisted / empanelled by IBM.
The whole chain of officers of IBM who had approved original and Modified Mining plan is liable for extreme punishment for derelictions of duty and also corrupts practices. RQP's who prepared these plans are also guilty of the offences as the officer of IBM and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board officers cannot escape the charge.
In 12.2.1.(iii) of modified mining plan referred above says that "due to late rite capping in the area, there is much less scope of agricultural activities in proposed area."
Everybody in the region knows that late rite- locally called "JAMBHA" is very useful for improving taste and quality of Mango. Plantation of Mango and cashew on above survey NOs. of Sakhari village still bear testimony to see and confirm.
It may be seen from table given under 12.2.1.(ii) (pg. 26) that 26.57 HA shall be degraded by mining while only 8.1 HA i.e. around up to 30% of degraded land shall be developed as green belt.
Ways and means should be found to punish all those who are responsible for this degradation of land and consequential harm to local ecology, as well as opportunity of earning lively-hood to all future generations who could support themselves in the region.
All adjacent ranges are green from top to bottom was observed by yourself during your visit on 04.10.2010.

Safety of Mines and other
Please find enclosed herewith copy of Inspection Report of Director of Mine Safety, Goa Region, (Enclosed & marked Set3_01 - Set3_04 refer folder 01_Velas_Sakhri)

and the report of the committee appointed by Maharashtra Pollution control Board.
(Enclosed & marked Set4_01 - Set4_10 refer folder 01_Velas_Sakhri)

Major violations as pointed by DMS in his inspection report are as follows.
Use of Heavy Earth Moving Machinery without permission. This is also in violation of Approved Mining Plan by IBM. It means explosive use in blast may be 50 times or more than planned.
Grossly inadequate staff to look after safely.

Poor record keeping. Only 100 out of 250+ workmen on roll in form Band D. That means if a workman whose name is not in form B meets with an accident company can escape legal liability.
Mine workers hutments were existing within 50 meter of working pit. These hutments to be shifted at least 500 meters from working pit. i.e. beyond danger zone.

Explosive magazine dually approved by licensing authority under the Indian explosive Act 1884 was mot maintained.

Now please read 5 above in conjunction with second point on pg. 5 of the Expert Committee Report. (Enclosed & marked Set4_01 - Set4_10 refer folder 01_Velas_Sakhri) It reads and I quote: "It was mentioned by the company officials that blasting is generally carried out during the lunch break when most of the workers are away from the blast zone. The company does not have the permission from the explosive department for carrying out blasting. It is reported that the blasting is undertaken with the help of the the approved explosive permit holder based in chiplun. They were not able to show neither the records of blasting undertaken in the past nor the details of the charge being used for the blasting."

Therefore f any explosive is smuggled out from this location to Naxalites or Terrorists there would be no knowing of it as there is no record and control.
Explosive being a sensitive subject, more so for this coastal area, it is unpardonable callousness on the part of State administration, risking the lives of unrelated citizens anywhere in the state.
The Report of expert committee appointed by MPCB speaks volumes. This may kindly be read once more to digest what the committee observed and recommended. In nutshell it tells us the attitude of M/S Ashapura...... that says "To hell with MPCB and its recommendations we can manage without them" In spite of this MPCB is not acting against the company - this needs investigation.


System Improvements :
Public hearing of which video recording is available with MPCB, a CD/DVD should be made available to Gram Panchayats in which the project is located within 3 days of such hearing.
Reports of Public hearing from Regional Office of MPCB o HQ MPCB or from Dist. collector to state govt. as well as reports from HQ MPCB/state govt. to MOEF/ Central Govt. should be endorsed to Gram Panchayat along with translated copy in regional language as the case may be.
Above modifications have been suggested because it has been observed that some of the major points raised do not find place in the report as those may be inconvenient to administration or project operator.
While granting clearance MOEF must deal with every objection raised during Public hearing and give a speaking judgment for its rejection.
A copy of MOEF clearance in English as well as its translation in regional language as the case may be put in Gram Panchayat in which the project is located.
It is also observed that there is practically no co-ordination between various inspecting agencies and Dist. administration i.e. collector, Dist. Mining officer of Ratnagiri inspected Velas- Sakhari Bauxite mine site and reported no violations of mines act while DGMS had pointed out serious violations.(Enclosed & marked Set3_01 - Set3_04 refer folder 01_Velas_Sakhri)
When we informed MPCB that the Mine is operating with MPCB renewals beyond Nov. 2009, they say "we have informed Dist. Collector and he has to take action." we are unable to find a solutions to this inactivity, hence all adverse comments against a mine or plant operator should be passed on to Dist. collector in case of mines and similar appropriate authority in case of factories/plants so that such authority cannot plead ignorance about such violations.
The Offices of DGMS, Labour Commissioner, E.P.F. Commissioner, Under labour Ministry, I.B.M. under Ministry of Mines and Factory inspectorate under State Govt. as well as central Govt. needs to be informed of this procedure.
Thanking You,

Yours faithfully

Sd/-
(Milind B. Nijsure)

Protests stall public hearing on Jaitapur nuclear project

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/05/17/stories/2010051757251400.htm

Meena Menon

Three affected villages did not receive copies of the environmental impact assessment report

Despite it being Akshaya Trithiya, more than 1,000 people turned up for the hearing

About 2,300 people have lost land to the project

MADBAN (Ratnagiri district): Angry protests stalled a public hearing of the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (JNPP) at Madban village in Maharashtra on Sunday. Only after officials acknowledged their mistake of not providing copies of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) to the affected villages, it was allowed to go on under protest.

Copies of the EIA summary in English were given only to the Madban gram panchayat on April 29 and a full copy in Marathi was given four days before the public hearing. The other three villages from where land was acquired for the project — Karel, Niveli and Mithgavhane — did not receive the EIA report. Pravin Gavhankar of Madban village told the panel, chaired by the Collector, that when a majority of the people did not get the EIA report, the public hearing was a sham and must be scrapped.

Black flags waved

The project has met with strong protests from people whose lands were acquired under protest. About 2300 people lost land to the project for which 938.026 ha. was acquired. Most of them have not accepted the compensation cheques. People waved black flags and shouted slogans while marching to the venue of the hearing at the project site.

Shiv Sena MLA Rajan Salvi said according to law, EIA reports should have been submitted a month in advance.

The hearing was held on a day when it was auspicious for Hindus — Akshaya Trithiya. Many could not come because they were busy with religious functions and weddings. Despite that more than 1,000 people turned up and walked in the heat to the venue that was heavily barricaded. Over 200 people filed fresh objections against the project. People stalled the hearing for over an hour raising loud objections before it got under way.

Protests recorded

Bhikaji Waghdare, who has filed a petition against the project in the Bombay High Court, submitted that the hearing was illegal and it could only continue under protest. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), which organised the hearing, was on the defensive and was forced to record people's protest. Dilip Khedkar of the MPCB, who was on the panel along with Ratnagiri Collector Madhukar Gaikwad, pacified the crowd, telling them that their protests would be duly recorded.

The Madban sarpanch, also named Bhikaji Waghdare, pointed out that the EIA was difficult to understand and the government did not reply to the hundreds of objections from people. “The EIA says there is no agriculture here, which is a complete falsehood,” he said. “You have not taken people into confidence for this project.”

The MPCB said 10 copies were given for distribution and most of them went to various government offices. Only one copy was given to the Madban gram panchayat. Two copies were still with them. At this, the people got more incensed. Mr. Gavhankar, who is leading the protest from Madban, wanted to know if there were plans to sell the two copies of the EIA.

Shouted down

Finally, the people settled down to hear Nuclear Power Corporation of India ltd (NPCIL) representative Shashikant Dharne. However, people said they could not read the presentation made by him on a small screen. They also told him not to digress and speak about the power shortage in the country.

Mr. Dharne tried his best to clarify several questions from the crowd. Suddenly, someone threw a chair towards the stage and it fell in front of the dais.

Mr. Dharne tried in vain to say that the project would not displace anyone. He was shouted down. Throughout the five-hour hearing, the people had the upper hand with their protests and objections. Prakash Waghdare and others said the EIA report was a sham and had no real data. “We don't have suicides here, but if this project is allowed to come, we will be forced to commit suicide,” he threatened.

Satish Nadkar, a local resident of Padvi, said the entire process was questionable. First land was acquired, then people's protests were ignored and now, at the end, a public hearing was being held. The whole thing was meaningless, he said. To his questions, the MPCB was forced to admit that there was no tendering process for the project and AREVA of France was chosen to provide the reactors as part of an international understanding.

Many women like Sheetal Wagdhare and Tara, spoke against the project and how their lives would change as they were dependent on the land that was taken away for the project.

Pointed questions from Vivek Monteiro from the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) put the panel on the back foot.

“The size of the Jaitapur project is 10 times the size of Chernobyl, where the amount of radioactivity after the accident was 400 times that of the bomb explosion at Hiroshima,” he said.

The State government's latest economic survey had put the cost of two units at Jaitapur at Rs 60,000 crore. Based on this, the cost of one MW of power worked out to Rs 18 crore and cost a unit could go up to Rs 9.90. So many options could be explored at this high price, he pointed out.

NPCIL officials refused to clarify the cost as the matter was under negotiation. Mr. Monteiro said when the cost of the reactors was not known, how could the cost of the power be calculated? Yet the EIA said power would be made available at competitive rates.

He called for a stop to any project activity till all this was clarified. In Finland, where AREVA was building a project, the reactor cost was 5.3 billion Euros and it was still under construction.

Waste disposal

He also raised questions on the disposal of radioactive waste. Plans were made for only 100 years, he said.

The NPCIL said it was still searching for a repository site to store the waste after that period. Mr. Monteiro also raised the issue of acts of terrorism and wondered if the project was prepared for that.

Ahmed Borkar, representing the fisherfolk said the EIA report did not even bother to get an accurate data on fisheries in the area and at least 10,000 people depended on that for their survival.

The Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth also came in for attack for the data, or the lack of it, on horticulture.

Collector Mr. Gaikwad said the report of hearing would be sent to the Ministry of Environment within eight days. He admitted that some villages did not receive copies of the EIA.

Mr. C.B. Jain, project director, NPCIL, said the hearing was positive and they had complied with all legal requirements. Now it was up to the Centre to clear the project.