The waste has been lying at the plant since 1984 when the Bhopal gas tragedy occurred. The 350 metric tonnes of waste is at the centre of a legal wrangle between Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat governments.

The Gujarat government did not comply with similar orders passed by the high court in October 2007. A fire at the hazardous waste treatment facility (managed by Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. or beil) and opposition from local non-profits were cited as main reasons for non-compliance.

The high court then got the beil site inspected by the Central Pollution Control Board (cpcb) which said that a backlog of 6,964 tonnes of waste would have to be cleared first. This finding was taken into account by the court when it said its order should be complied with in six weeks. Back of the envelop calculations however show that beil will have 2,464 tonnes excess waste to dispose and not 1,564 tonnes waste as estimated by cpcb in its affidavit. Therefore the plant will not be in a position to take in more stocks of toxic waste in January despite court deadline.

S K Nanda, state principal secretary for environment, said there was no question of

“allowing the waste to be brought to Gujarat”.

He was hopeful the issue would be resolved in the Supreme Court that is hearing an appeal of the state against contempt proceedings for not complying with earlier orders.

The apex court on November 8 had directed that chief secretaries of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat and officials of the Union Ministry of Commerce should jointly decide on the modalities for disposing the waste. A joint report will be filed in the Supreme Court in January end when the case is scheduled for hearing. This will be much before the High Court deadline expires, Nanda said.

In another development, the Central Empowered Committee, which advises the supreme court on forest-related cases, recommended that mines, steel plant and captive port— POSCO‘s proposed projects—should be considered as one and reviewed in entirety for its ecological significance and rehabilitation plans rather than as three different projects. POSCO filed an affidavit in the apex court on January 4, contesting the recommendations and asking for separate clearances for its three “separate’ projects. The case will come up for hearing in the third week of January.

While POSCO officials haven’t agreed to the people’s demands of sharing the company’s profits yet, the Orissa government is planning to set up a high-level committee to discuss them. The villagers also want Rs 25 lakh per acre for their agricultural land and Rs 40 lakh per acre for their homestead land. Other demands include job guarantee, Rs 1,000-monthly allowance to people above 60 and Rs 3,000 per month for families who do not have members eligible for jobs, including the landless who were employed as daily wagers in the betel farms.

The demands were finalized in a meeting organized by Damodar Rout, a local MLA.

“The 52-member committee I formed has made the demand. The state government will take a final decision after the demarcation survey is done. However, it appears unlikely that the company will share its profits with people,’ Rout said.

When officials went for the survey, the villagers did not allow them to do it. They said their demands must be fulfilled first. The survey has been put off for an indefinite period.

Under duress Activists from Orissa Bachao Andolan (oba), a protesting organization, say the demands have been made by “so-called POSCO supporters’ only, mostly in the Nuagaon panchayat.

“The talk of 5 per cent share in profits is a rumour. Some people had earlier demanded Rs 14 lakh per acre for their agricultural land and a two-room house with all amenities. But POSCO officers rejected the demands saying they were exorbitant. The officers told them to come up with a charter of demands, which they have now,’ says Nikunj Bhutia of oba.

People of three panchayats—Dhinkia, Nuagaon and Gandhakujanga—have been protesting against land acquisition for the steel plant and a captive port for POSCO since July 2005. Activists also say people gave in to POSCO because of the threats and punishments they were being subjected to after the villages were cordoned in November last year (see ‘POSCO war’, Down To Earth, December 31, 2007). SP Mishra, public relations officer of the Orissa governor, says the imbroglio will be resolved soon. “A lot of time has been lost and constructions have to begin by April. So, the government may give in to the demands,’ he said.

“The rather unusual use of two similar meaning yet different terms—waste and material—is bound to lead to enormous confusion,’ note D B Boralkar and Claude Alvares, members of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes and say that the state pollution control boards won’t be able to deal with the confusion.

The draft rules have been criticized on other fronts as well. The rules exclude biomedical waste, solid waste, waste water and exhaust gases from the category of hazardous waste.

The focus of the rules, experts say, is on recycling. “The proposal states that if a material contains less than 60 per cent contamination by a hazardous constituent, it is eco-friendly,’ says Gopal Krishna, of the Ban Asbestos Network of India.

The rules make the ministry the nodal agency on import and export of waste, sidelining state pollution control boards.

“What is the institutional monitoring/regulatory set-up available with moef for this, especially when field organizations are left out? Will moef now grant permission to transport hazardous materials from Kerala to Noida and issue copies of permissions to state pollution control boards?’ ask Boralkar and Alvares.

Even the new definition of “disposal’ is limited. It is defined as treatment and deposition of any hazardous wastes on land but does not talk about disposal in water bodies and oceans, besides incineration and indefinite storage. Ravi Agrawal of Toxicslink, a Delhi-based ngo, says instead of new rules, better implementation of the existing rules through regular evaluation and monitoring is required.

“The draft rules also violate the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and flout supreme court judgements on hazardous waste cases. In a May 1997 judgement, the apex court had ordered that no authorization/permission would be given by any authority for the import of hazardous waste items which have already been banned under the Basel Convention or to be banned hereafter with effect from the dates specified therein,’ he says.

The draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Trans boundary Movement) Rule, 2007, have been put up on the ministry’s website and will replace the existing Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 1989, if given the go-ahead.