Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiJuly, 2015/Shravana, 1937 (Saka)
PARLIAMENT OF INDIARAJYA SABHA
REPORT NO.
266
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEEON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
((Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on the 23rd July, 2015)
Presented to the Rajya Sabha on the 23rd July, 2015)
TWO HUNDRED SIXTY SIXTH REPORT
E - Waste and E - Radiation
Hindi version of this publication is also available
PARLIAMENT OF INDIARAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEEON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
TWO HUNDRED SIXTY SIXTH REPORT
E - Waste and E - Radiation
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on the 23rd July, 2015)(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on the 23rd July, 2015)
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiJuly, 2015/Shravana, 1937 (Saka)
Website:http://rajyasabha.nic.inE-mail:[email protected]
CONTENTS
PAGES
1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ......................................................................................... (i)-(ii)
2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ (iii)
3. ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. (iv)
4. REPORT ................................................................................................................................... 1—9
5. RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS — AT A GLANCE ............................................................ 10—11
6. MINUTES ................................................................................................................................. 13—15
7. ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................................. 17—25
(i)
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
(Constituted on 1st September, 2014)
1. Shri Ashwani Kumar — Chairman
RAJYA SABHA
2. Shri Anil Madhav Dave
3. Shri Prem Chand Gupta
4 . Shri C. P. Narayanan
5. Shri Paul Manoj Pandian
6. Dr. T. Subbarami Reddy
7. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh
8. Shri Bhupinder Singh
9. Shrimati Bimla Kashyap Sood
10. Shri Ronald Sapa Tlau
LOK SABHA
11. Shri Badruddin Ajmal
12. Shri Muzaffar Hussain Beig
13. Shrimati Bijoya Chakravarty
14. Shri Pankaj Chaudhary
15. Shri Prabhatsinh Pratapsinh Chauhan
16. Kum. Sushmita Dev
17. Shri Ninong Ering
18. Shri Laxman Giluwa
19. Dr. K. Gopal
20. Shri Daddan Mishra
21. Shri Shivaji Adhalrao Patil
22. Shri Nana Patole
23. Shri Nagendra Kumar Pradhan
24. Shri Harinarayan Rajbhar
25. Shrimati Sandhya Roy
26. Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh
27. Shri Nagendra Singh
28. Shrimati Renuka Sinha
29. Shri Vikram Usendi
30. Shrimati Vasanthi M.
*31. Shri Chirag Paswan
*Nominated w.e.f. 25th March, 2015.
(ii)
SECRETARIAT
Shri M. K. Khan, Joint Secretary
Shri Rohtas, Director
Shri V. S. P. Singh, Joint Director
Shri Rajiv Saxena, Assistant Director
(iii)
INTRODUCTION
I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee onScience and Technology, Environment and Forests, having been authorized by the Committeeto present the Report on its behalf, present this Two Hundred Sixty-sixth Report on‘E-waste and E-radiation.
2 . In its meeting held on the 20th November, 2014, the Committee heard the views of theMinistries of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; Science and Technology andDepartment of Telecommunications on the subject.
3 . The Committee expresses its thanks to the Officers of the Ministries of Environment,Forest and Climate Change; Science and Technology and Department of Telecommunicationsfor placing before the Committee the required material and replying to the clarifications soughtby the Members on the subject.
4. In its meeting held on 21st July, 2015, the Committee considered the draft report andadopted the same.
ASHWANI KUMAR NEW DELHI; Chairman, 21 July, 2015 Department-related Parliamentary Standing
18 Shravana, 1937 Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and ForestsRajya Sabha
(iv)
ACRONYMS
PBB : Polybrominated Biphenyls
PBDE : Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether
UNEP : United Nations Environmental Programme
SPCBs : State Pollution Control Boards
EPR : Extended Producer’s Responsibility
RF : Radio Frequency
EMR : Electromagnetic Radiation
WHO : World Health Organisation
ICMR : Indian Council of Medical Research
AIIMS : All India Institute of Medical Science
DOT : Department of Telecommunication
TERM : Telecom Enforcement Resource & Monitoring
BTS : Base Transceiver Station
REPORT
E-Waste means Wastes from electrical and electronic equipment, whole or in part orrejects from their manufacturing and repair process, which are intended to be discarded e.g.computer equipments, electronic gadgets, TVs, Mobile phones etc. E-waste is highly hazardousas it contains toxic substances such as lead, cadmium, mercury, Hexavalent ChromiumPolybrominated Biphenyls (PBB) and Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE), that have anadverse impact on human health and environment, if not handled properly.
2 . There has been a rapid rise in the volume of e-waste being generated in the countrywhich increased approximately from 1.5 lakh tonnes in 2005 to nearly 8 lakh tonnes in 2012.As per a report by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the volume ofe-waste being produced including mobiles phones and computers could rise by as much as 500percent over the next decade in many counties including India. Roughly about 10 percent ofthe total e-waste generated in the country was being suitably disposed off which wasabysmally very low. Concerned at the enormity of the problem and the associated hazards, theCommittee took up the issue for consideration.
3 . The Committee also took up the issue of e-radiation emanating from mobile towerswhich pose a serious threat to human beings and birds too, a subject being repeatedlyaddressed in the public domain.
4 . The Committee started consideration of the issue by hearing the views of Secretariesof Ministries of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; Science and Technology andDepartment of Telecommunications at its meeting held on the 20th November, 2014.
E-WASTE
5. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change informed the Committee aboutthe existing legislative frame-work in India to deal with e-wastes. The Acts/legislations dealingwith E-wastes are listed below:-
(1) Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989; (electronicindustry-not mentioned).
(2) 1992-obligation under ‘Basel Convention on Control of TransboundaryMovement of Hazardous Waste and its Disposal’. Ratified by India on 24thJune, 1992.
(3) Hazardous Wastes Rules, 1989 were amended in 2000 and 2003.
(4) Superseded by Hazardous Wastes Rules, 2008 incorporating e-waste industry asHazardous and thus regulating its import/export.
(5) The e-waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011; in force since May, 2012.
6 . The Ministry admitted that presently ‘The E-waste (Management and Handling) Rules,2011 were at a nascent stage of implementation and there is a need to revisit the rules and
2
address several issues based on the experience gained so far. The Committee was informed thatthe matter was under examination and the Ministry would be coming out with legislativeproposals shortly.
7 . On being enquired about the facilities/arrangements in place to deal with the hugequantum of e-waste generated in the country, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and ClimateChange provided the following State-wise details of registered E-Waste recyclers/dismantlers:-
Sl. No. State 2014
1. Andhra Pradesh 2
2. Chhattisgarh 1
3. Gujarat 7
4 . Haryana 7
5. Karnataka 53
6. Madhya Pradesh 1
7. Maharashtra 22
8. Rajasthan 9
9. Tamil Nadu 11
10. Uttar Pradesh 9
11. Uttarakhand 3
12. West Bengal 1
TOTAL 126
8. The Ministry also furnished the following State-wise list of one hundred elevencollection centres who have been authorized for e-waste collection:-
Sl. No. State 2014
1. Andhra Pradesh 4
2. Assam 2
3. Bihar 2
4. Chandigarh 1
5. Delhi 19
6. Gujarat 29
7. Goa 2
3
8. J & K 4
9. Kerala 4
10. Madhya Pradesh 1
11. Maharashtra 22
12. Odisha 7
13. Rajasthan 4
14. Uttarakhand 1
15. U. P. 09
TOTAL 111
9. The Ministry further informed the Committee that under the E-Waste (Management andHandling) Rules 2011, registration of Dismantlers and Recyclers of e-wastes with the StatePollution Control Boards/Committees (SPCBs/PCCs) has been made mandatory. SPCBs, onbeing satisfied that the applicant propose to utilize environmentally sound technologies toreprocess e-waste, grant registration initially for two years and thereafter depending upon theperformance, renew further for a period of five years. Under the above rules dismantlers andrecyclers are required to submit annual returns to the State Pollution Control Boards concernedwhich in turn submit annual reports to the Central Pollution Control Board.
10. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change informed the Committee thatExtended Producer’s Responsibility (EPR) is the main feature of the E-waste (Management andHandling) Rules, 2011, wherein the producer of electrical and electronic equipment has theresponsibility of managing such equipment after the end of its life. Thus, the producer isresponsible for their products once the consumer discards them. Under this EPR, produceris also entrusted with the responsibility to finance and organize a system to meet the costsinvolved in complying with EPR.
11. The Ministry further informed that producers are required to obtain authorization fromSPCB/PCCs for implementing their EPR, which can be achieved by setting up collectioncentres, or implementing take back systems or joining a collective scheme or joining acollection centre for effective channelization of E-waste to the registered dismantlers/recyclerswhich shall be specified in their application for authorization. The Committee was informedthat under the E-Waste Rules, Micro and Small Enterprises as defined in MSME DevelopmentAct, 2006, have been exempted from application of the said e-waste Rules with respect to theresponsibility of producers.
Sl. No. State 2014
4
12. The Committee was informed by the Ministry that following 123 producers have sofar been granted authorization by Central Pollution Control Board in 11 States for managingtheir EPR:-
Sl. No. State No. of Producers grantedauthorisation for EPR
1. Andhra Pradesh 3
2. Bihar 1
3. Delhi 40
4. Goa 15
5. Gujarat 3
6 . J & K 12
7. Karnataka 19
8. Maharashtra 27
9. Odisha 1
10. Rajasthan 1
11. Uttar Pradesh 1
TOTAL 123
13. Submitting his views before the Committee, Secretary, Ministry of Science &Technology stated that there are some new technologies to deal with the e-waste that convertwaste into energy but these are at an early prototype stage. He suggested to the Committeethat the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Department ofBio-technology can work on developing waste-to-energy technology which will be an addedcomponent to the already existing measures.
14. In view of the foregoing, the Committee makes the following observations/recommendations:
(i) The Committee notes that the quantum of e-waste is not only huge butis increasing at a staggering pace and thus the issue needs to beaddressed in a purposive manner and on urgent basis. There is a yawninggap between the e-waste generated and the capacity developed to deal withit. The Committee feels that the number of 126 E-Waste recyclers/dismantlers is abysmally inadequate to treat the quantum of nearly 8 lakhtonnes of e-waste generated in the country. The Committee, therefore,recommends the Central/State Authorities to take immediate remedialmeasures to suitably and efficiently address the issue by enlarging theinfrastructure in place to deal with the issue. The Committee believesthat there is an immediate need to increase the number of dismantlers/
5
recyclers/collection centres specially in States generating large quantum ofe-wastes and the gap between the e-waste generated and the capacity todeal with it should be bridged at the earliest possible.
(ii) The Committee feels the need to increase the coverage of ExtendedProducer’s Responsibility to involve more producers in the management ofe-wastes. The Committee feels that EPR has not been adequatelyenforced nor is the present legal and policy architecture adequate toenforce the same. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Changeshould immediately set in motion steps to address the issue.
(iii) The Committee is constrained to note that the e-waste rules are still ata nascent stage of implementation despite the fact that generation ofe-waste had crossed 8 lakh tonne way back in the year 2012. TheCommittee, therefore, recommends that the Ministry should bring forwardnecessary amendments in the e-waste rules incorporating the bestpractices and incentive schemes prevailing internationally for encouragingrecycling.
E-RADIATION
15. The effects of electromagnetic radiation on health of human beings, animals, birds andhoneybees through radiations from mobile phone towers is a matter of concern and intensepublic discourse. The Committee feels that the issues arising therefrom, needed to be flagged.
16. Electromagnetic fields are part of the electromagnetic spectrum which extend fromstatic electric and magnetic fields, through radio frequency (RF), infrared radiation, and visiblelight to X and gamma-rays. Part of the electromagnetic spectrum extending from 3 KHzfrequency to 300 GHz is referred as radio frequency (RF). Television and radio transmitters,mobile telephones, radars, baby monitors and radio-controlled toys etc. use RF. Radiofrequency fields are non-ionizing radiation i.e. they lack the energy to liberate electrons, i.e.ionize or effect changes in atomic structure.
17. The Committee was informed by the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication thatElectromagnetic Radiation (EMR) may also occur from natural sources like ultraviolet lightfrom the sun and lightning. EMR may also be generated by man made sources like power(electricity) lines, TV/Radio broadcast, fixed and mobile radio communication, radars, medicaldevices, satellite communications, X-rays, radioactive material, etc.
18. The Committee was also informed by the Department of Telecommunication that WorldHealth Organisation (WHO) has referred to approximately 25,000 articles, published around theworld over past 30 years, and based on an in-depth review of scientific literature, hasconcluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequencesform exposure to EMF radiation. World Health Organization (WHO) in its fact sheet No-304,May 2006 on Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health (Base Stations and WirelessTechnologies) has concluded that “considering the very low exposure levels and researchresults collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signalsfrom base stations and wireless networks caused adverse health effects. From all evidence
6
accumulated so far, no adverse short or long term health effects have been shown to occurfrom the RF signals produced by based stations.” The fact sheet No-304 is at Annexure-I.
19. In respect of EMF radiations from mobile handsets, WHO in its publication in June2011 had concluded that “a large number of studies have been performed over the last twodecades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adversehealth effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use”. Since the effectson human being are to be studied over a long period of time, further studies are going onaround the world. The WHO study thus felt that the effects of EMF radiations from mobilehandsets needs to be studied further.
20. To further the international research on the subject, World Health Organisation (WHO)established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possiblehealth effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. While summarizing the keypoints on health effect of EMF radiation, WHO website mentions the following i.e. “WHO’sInternational EMF Project was launched to provide scientifically sound and objective answersto public concerns about possible hazards of low level electromagnetic fields. Despite extensiveresearch, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagneticfields is harmful to human health.”
21. The Committee was further informed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest andClimate Change that an ‘Expert Committee’ with the following mandate to study the possibleimpacts of communication towers on wildlife including birds and bees, was constituted by theMinistry on 30th August 2010.
(i) To review all the studies done so far in India and abroad on aspects of illeffects of mobile towers on animals, birds and insects.
(ii) To assess the likely impacts of the growth in the number of mobile towers inthe country.
(iii) To suggest possible mitigatory measures.
(iv) To formulate guidelines for regulating the large-scale installation of mobiletowers in the country.
(v) To identify the gap areas for conducting further detailed research.
22. After considering all aspects, the Expert Committee made the followingrecommendations :-
(i) EMF should be recognised as a pollutants/regular auditing of EMF should beconducted in urban localities/educational/hospital/industrial/residential/recreationalpremises and around the protected areas and ecologically sensitive areas.
(ii) Introduce a law for protection of urban flora and fauna from emerging threatslike ERM/EMF as conservation issues in urban areas are different from forestedor wildlife habitats.
(iii) Bold signs and massages on dangers of cell phone tower and radiation whichis emitted from it are displayed in and around the structures where the towers
7
are erected. Use visual daytime markers in areas of high diurnal raptor orwaterfowl movements.
(iv) To avoid bird hits, security lighting for on-ground facilities should be minimizedand point downwards or be down-shielded.
(v) Independent monitoring of radiation levels and overall health of the communityand nature surrounding towers is necessary to identify hazards early. Access totower sites should be allowed for monitoring radiation levels and animalmortality, if any.
(vi) Procedure for removal of existing problematic mobile towers should be madeeasy, particularly in and around protected area or urban parks and centreshaving wildlife.
(vii) Strictly control installation of mobile towers near wildlife protected areas,important Bird Areas, Ramsar Sites, turtle breeding areas, bee colonies, zoos,etc up to a certain distance that should be studied before deciding and shouldalso be practical. Ecological assessment/review of sites identified for installingtowers before their installation also may be considered in wildlife/ecologically/conservational important areas.
(viii) The locations of cell phone towers and other EMF radiating tower along withtheir frequencies should be made available in the public domain. This can be atcity/district/village level. Location-wise GIS mapping of all cell phone towers bedone by DOT. This information will help in monitoring the population of birdsand bees in and around the mobile towers and also in and/or around wildlifeprotected areas.
(ix) Public consultation to be made mandatory before installation of cell phonestowers in any area. The forest Department should be consulted beforeinstallation of cell phone towers in and around Protected Areas and zoos. Thedistance at which these towers should be installed should be studied case bycase basis.
(x) Awareness drive with high level of visibility in all forms of media and regionallanguages should be undertaken by the Government to make people aware aboutvarious norms in regard to cell phone towers and dangers from EMR. Suchnotices should be placed in all wildlife protected areas and in zoos.
(xi) To prevent overlapping high radiations fields, new towers should not bepermitted within a radius of one kilometre of existing towers.
(xii) If new towers must be built, construct them to be above 80ft and below 199ft. tall to avoid the requirement for aviation safety lighting. Construct towerswith platforms that will accommodate possible future co-locations and buildthem at existing ‘antenna farms’, away from areas of high migratory birdtraffic, wetlands and other known bird areas.
8
23. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change also informed that it hadissued an advisory on use of mobile towers to minimize their impact on wildlife including birdsand bees. A copy of the Advisory is at Annexure-II.
24. The Committee was further informed that in a Writ Petition filed in Hon’ble High CourtAllahabad, Lucknow bench, the Hon’ble Court constituted a Committee including Membersfrom IITs Kharagpur, Kanpur, Delhi, Roorkee, Bombay and from other scientific institutions ofthe country including Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and All India Institute ofMedical Science (AIIMS) Delhi which submitted its Report on 17-01-2014. In February 2014,after due consideration of the human health concerns on account of EMF radiation being raisedin public and the Report of the Committee, the Government felt that the present prescribedprecautionary EMF safe exposure limits are adequate and need no further change at this stage.
25. Elaborating further on the subject during the meeting of the Committee held on 20thNovember, 2014, the Secretary, Department of Telecommunications stated as under:-
“The Department is still open for further studies because the time-frame of twenty orthirty years may not be sufficient to reach on all the conclusions as such kinds ofstudies on human health effect or even on the health effect on birds and animals, floraand fauna, continue for long, long time and human information and knowledge keepson changing over the time based on different information. So, another Inter-MinisterialCommittee was formed which was under the chairmanship of former Director-General,ICMR, and it has representatives from IIT, Chennai, Indian Institute of ToxicologyResearch, Lucknow, Department of Telecom, Ministry of Environment and Forests andthe Science and Engineering Research Board. Based on this, they have invited R&Dproposals from eligible scientific organizations on studies of different kinds, like thestudy on the life of the bees, birds, humans, flora and fauna, and the SERB hasconstituted an Export Committee and Task Force to consider these R&D proposals.They have shortlisted 79 proposals for further examination. So, when these studies areconducted, maybe, further knowledge will be thrown up which will be very muchcountry specific, India specific. But, at the moment, whatever norms the Departmentare adopting in this country are very,very safe.”
26. The Committee was informed by the Department of Telecommunication (DOT) that itsrole is confined to regulate the EMF radiation from BTS installed at the towers and frommobile handsets. Since 2008, it has been monitoring global developments and has already takennecessary steps and adopted stricter norms for safety from EMF radiation that are emittedform mobile towers and mobile handsets.
27. The present limits/level for EMF fields exposure in the telecommunication sector asmentioned by the Department of Telecommunication are:-
Frequency Range E-Field Strength H-Field Strength Power Density(Volt/Meter (V/m)) (Amp/Meter (A/m)) (Watt/Sq. Meter (W/Sq. m))
400MHz to 2000 MHz 0.434f ½ 0.0011f ½ f/2000
2GHz to 300 GHz 19.29 0.05 1
9
(f is frequency in MHz)
28. The Department of Telecommunications further informed the Committee that keepingthe precautionary EMF safe exposure limits for the radio frequency field (Base StationEmissions) as 1/10th of the safe limits prescribed by ICNIRP for all areas in India, eliminatesthe need for fixing lower limits for specific areas like schools, hospitals, residential premises,children playground; a segregation of which is impractical in densely populated localities.
29. The Department of Telecommunications also informed the Committee that a full-fledgeddivision of the Telecom Enforcement Resource & Monitoring (TERM) cell is basically the unitfor the enforcement of the guidelines for restricting EMF radiation. The Committee wasinformed that the Base Transceiver Station (BTS) self certifies that it is meeting the radiationnorm and this self certification is submitted to the respective TERM cells. The TERM cellsaudit the compliance of self-certificates regularly for the purpose of limiting the EMF radiationexposure and keeping safe the general public areas in the vicinity of BTS. In case of violationof the prescribed EMF norms and public complaints against BTS sites, the TERM cell takesstringent actions.
30. The Committee takes note of the various reports and studies and feels that inview of unrestricted location of mobile towers/antennas in cities and smaller towns, celltowers are having a concentrated effect. The Committee, therefore, recommends thatthe Department of Telecommunications consider framing suitable regulations andguidelines regarding the location and inspection of the mobile towers. The number ofqualified inspectors to carry out inspections to check the effects of EMR from celltowers be increased.
31. The Committee is aware that Indians are more vulnerable and prone to risk fromradiations as compared to European countries because of their low body mass index andlow fat content. The Committee, therefore, recommends that comprehensive scientificstudies need to be undertaken to conclusively establish the level of risks and adversehealth effects of EMR of cell towers. The Committee presently working on the issueshould be directed to expedite their reports which should be given within a stipulatedtime-frame.
32. The Committee recommends that the recommendations of the expert Committeeconstituted to study the impact of Mobile Towers on Birds and Bees should beimplemented so that the harmful effects of EMF radiation on birds, bees, insects etc.may be minimized.
33. The Committee takes note of the supervision by TERM cells to ensurecompliance of BTS to the prescribed guidelines. The Committee, however, recommendsthat apart from self-certification, random checking and inspection reports should bemade public so that public at large is aware of the issue. Stringent penalties forviolation of norms and guidelines be prescribed and these should go beyond fiscalpenalties.
RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS — AT A GLANCE
(i) The Committee notes that the quantum of e-waste is not only huge butis increasing at a staggering pace and thus the issue needs to beaddressed in a purposive manner and on urgent basis. There is a yawninggap between the e-waste generated and the capacity developed to deal withit. The Committee feels that the number of 126 E-Waste recyclers/dismantlers is abysmally inadequate to treat the quantum of nearly 8 lakhtonnes of e-waste generated in the country. The Committee, therefore,recommends the Central/State Authorities to take immediate remedialmeasures to suitably and efficiently address the issue by enlarging theinfrastructure in place to deal with the issue. The Committee believesthat there is an immediate need to increase the number of dismantlers/recyclers/collection centres specially in States generating large quantum ofe-wastes and the gap between the e-waste generated and the capacity todeal with it should be bridged at the earliest possible.
(ii) The Committee feels the need to increase the coverage of ExtendedProducer’s Responsibility to involve more producers in the management ofe-wastes. The Committee feels that EPR has not been adequately enforcednor is the present legal and policy architecture adequate to enforce thesame. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change shouldimmediately set in motion steps to address the issue.
(iii) The Committee is constrained to note that the e-waste rules are still ata nascent stage of implementation despite the fact that generation ofe-waste had crossed 8 lakh tonne way back in the year 2012. TheCommittee, therefore, recommends that the Ministry should bring forwardnecessary amendments in the e-waste rules incorporating the bestpractices and incentive schemes prevailing internationally for encouragingrecycling. (Para 14)
2 . The Committee takes note of the various reports and studies and feels that inview of unrestricted location of mobile towers/antennas in cities and smaller towns, celltowers are having a concentrated effect. The Committee, therefore, recommends thatthe Department of Telecommunications consider framing suitable regulations andguidelines regarding the location and inspection of the mobile towers. The number ofqualified inspectors to carry out inspections to check the effects of EMR from celltowers be increased. (Para 30)
3 . The Committee is aware that Indians are more vulnerable and prone to risk fromradiations as compared to European countries because of their low body mass index andlow fat content. The Committee, therefore, recommends that comprehensive scientific
10
studies need to be undertaken to conclusively establish the level of risks and adversehealth effects of EMR of cell towers. The Committee presently working on the issueshould be directed to expedite their reports which should be given within a stipulatedtime-frame. (Para 31)
4 . The Committee recommends that the recommendations of the expert Committeeconstituted to study the impact of Mobile Towers on Birds and Bees should beimplemented so that the harmful effects of EMF radiation on birds, bees, insects etc.may be minimized. (Para 32)
5 . The Committee takes note of the supervision by TERM cells to ensurecompliance of BTS to the prescribed guidelines. The Committee, however, recommendsthat apart from self-certification, random checking and inspection reports should bemade public so that public at large is aware of the issue. Stringent penalties forviolation of norms and guidelines be prescribed and these should go beyond fiscalpenalties. (Para 33)
11
MINUTES
XXTWENTIETH MEETING
The Committee met at 3.00 P.M. on Tuesday, the 21st July, 2015 in Room No. ‘67’,First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.
MEMBERS PRESENT1. Shri Ashwani Kumar — Chairman
RAJYA SABHA2. Shri C. P. Narayanan2. Shri Paul Manoj Pandian3. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh4. Shri Bhupinder Singh
LOK SABHA6. Shri Prabhatsinh Pratapshinh Chauhan7. Kum. Sushmita Dev8. Shri Ninong Ering9. Shri Laxman Giluwa
10. Shri Daddan Mishra11. Shri Nana Patole12. Shri Nagendra Kumar Pradhan13. Shri Nagendra Singh
SECRETARIATShri M. K. Khan, Joint SecretaryShri Rohtas, DirectorShri V. S. P. Singh, Joint DirectorShri Rajiv Saxena, Assistant Director
2. At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members of the Committee and informedthem that the meeting had been convened to consider and adopt the draft 266th *** reportson ‘E-Waste and E-Radiation’ *** respectively.
3 . After a brief discussion, the Committee adopted the 266th *** reports. The Committeealso decided to present/lay its *** 266th *** reports to both the Houses of Parliament on 23rdJuly, 2015.
4 . * * *
5 . * * *
6 . The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 3.45 P.M.
15*** Relate to other matters.
ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-I
Electromagnetic fields (EMF)
Electromagnetic fields and public health
Base stations and wireless technologies
Backgrounder May 2006
Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technologyrelies upon an extension network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information withradiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number isincreasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology.
Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such aswireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in homes, offices, andmany public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of basestations and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the population.Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposes from base stations range from 0.002% to 2%of the levels of international exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as theproximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment. This is lower or comparable to RFexposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters.
There has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the RFfields produced by wireless technologies. This fact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on thehealth effects from continuous low-level 31 human exposure to base stations and other localwireless networks.
Health concerns
A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates tothe possible long-term health effects that whole-body exposure to the RF signals may have, todate, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related toan increase in body temperature (> 1 °c) from exposure at very highfield intensity found onlyin certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from basestations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant anddo not affect human health.
19
20
The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and diminishes quickly withdistance. Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceedinternational exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from basestations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals)are normally thousands of times below international standards.
In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbsup to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations -This is because the frequency used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting(around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and1800 MHz) and because a person’s height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna.Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or moreyears without any adverse health consequence being established.
While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modern wirelesstelecommunications are using digital transmissions. Detailed reviews conducted so far have notrevealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations.
Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone basestations ha\€ heightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers areunevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations inthe environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stationsmerely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection ofdifferent types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have acommon cause.
Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtainedthrough carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studiesexamining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published.These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases therisk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk ofcancer inform exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced bybase stations and wireless networks.
Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health effects in individual exposedto RF fields from base stations. This is because of the difficulty in distinguishing possiblehearlh effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strengthRF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of mobilephone users. Human and animal studies examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviorafter exposure to RF fields, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identifiedadverse effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than thoseassociated with general public exposure from base stations or wireless networks. No consistentevidence of altered sleep or cardiovascular function has been reported.
Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposureto RF fields emitted from base stations and other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHOfact sheet “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity”, EMF has not been shown to cause some symptoms.Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these symptoms.
21
From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short or long-term health effectshave been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations since wirelessnetworks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no aderse health effects areexpected from exposure to them.
Protection standards
International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against establishedeffects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005).
National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens againstadverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure limits maybe exceeded.
Public perception of risk
Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe.Several reasons for public fear include media announcements of new and unconfirmedscientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may beunknown or uncovred hazards. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack ofcontrol or input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experienceshows that education programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of thepublic and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RFsources can enhance public confidence and acceptability.
Conclusions
Considering the very law exposure levels and research results collected to date, thereis no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wirelessnetworks cause adverse health effects.
WHO initiatives
WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a programme to monitorthe EMF scientific literature, to evaluate the health effects from exposure to EMF in the rangefrom 0 to 300KHz. to provide advice about possible EMF hazards and to identify suitablemitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International EMF Projecthas promoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In response national governments andresearch institutes have funded over $250 million on EMF research over the past 10 years.
While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base station andwireless networks, research is still being promoted by WHO to determine whether there areany health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, isexpected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and theInternational EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fieldsin 2007-2008.
Further Reading
ICNIRP (1998) www.icnirp.org/documents/emfgdlpdf
IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to HumanExposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 KHz to 300 GHz”
Related links.
Base stations & wireless networks: Exposures & health consequences
Fact sheet: Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
WHO handbook on “Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields”
2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields pdf, 100kb
For more informationcontact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222 E-mail: [email protected]
22
ANNEXURE-II
Government of IndiaMinistry of Environment and Forests
(Wildlife Division)
Paryavaran BhawanCGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003
B.No. 15-11/2010/WL-I Date : 9th August 2012
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Advisory on the use of Mobile Towers to minimize their impact on Wildlife includingBirds and Bees-conveyed.
In pursuance to the report submitted by the Expert Committee constituted by theMinistry of Environment and Forests to study the possible impact of communication towerson wildlife including birds and bees and subsequent consultations held with the stakeholders,and advisory containing the actions to be undertaken by various agencies involved inproviding, regulating and dealing in any other manner with the EMR based services has beenprepared by the Ministry with the objective to avoid and mitigate the impacts of EMR onsuch species.
A copy of the aforesaid advisory is enclosed for information, record and requisiteaction on the part of concerned stakeholders.
(Vivek Saxena)
Deputy Inspector General (WL)
Encl: As above
Distribution:
1. The Chief Secretary, all States/U.T. Governments.
2 . The Environment Secretary and Forests Secretary all States/UT Governments.
3 . Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and InformationTechnology Government of India.
4 . The Planning Commission, Government of India.
5 . Ministry of Panchayati Raj Government of India.
23
24
6. Chairmen and all members of the ‘Expert committee to study the possible impacts ofcommunication towers on wildlife including Birds and Bees’.
Copy to:
1. PPS to Additional Secretary (MM) MoEF
2. PPS to ADG (WL), MoEF
3. PA to IGF (WL), MoEF
4. PPS to Addl. Director (CP), MoEF
5. The Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board.
6 . The Director, Wildlife Institute of India
Advisory on use of mobile towers in a way minimize their impacts onwildlife including birds and bees
An ‘Expert Committee to Study the possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlifeincluding Birds and Beet ‘was constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests,Government India on 30th August 2010. The report of the expert committee has been submittedto the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
The review of the available scientific information by the Expert Committee in the reportindicates that the Electro–magnetic Radiations (EMIR) interfere with the biological systems. Onthe basis of the report of the Expert Committee and subsequent deliberations with thestakeholders, a list of actions to be undertaken by various agencies involved in providing,regulating, and at along in any other manner with, the EMR based services, has been prepared.Main objective of the listed actions is to avoid and mitigate the impacts of EMR. The Ministryof Environment and Forests accordingly requests the concerned departments, StateGovernments, user agencies, ane the public at large to rake following actions:
I. Ministry of Environment and Forests:
1. The Electro Magnetic Radiations from the communication towers may havevarying. negative impacts on wildlife especially birds and bets; Accordingly, theinformation on the impacts related to different forms of wildlife as well ashumans, should be provided to the concerned agencies for regulating the normsfor notification of standards for safe limits of EMR taking into consideration theimpacts on living beings.
II. State/Local Bodies;
1. Regular auditing and monitoring of EMR should be conducted in urbanlocalities/educational/hospital/industrial/residential/recreational premises andespecially around the Protected Areas (PAs) and ecologically sensitive areasw.r.t. notified norms of Department of Telecommunications. Problematic towersfrom EMR point of view should be got suitably relocated/removed.
25
2. Bold signs and messages on the dangers of cell phone towers and associatedradiations are displayed in and around the structures of the towers. In additionto these signs, use of visual daytime markers in areas of high diurnal raptor orwaterfowl movement, should also be promoted.
3 . Before according permission for construction of towers, ecological impactassessment and review of installation sites will be essential in wildlife and/orecologically important areas. The Forest Department should be consulted beforeinstallation of cell phone towers in and around PAs and zoos.
III. State Environment and Forest Departments:
1. Regular awareness drive with high level of visibility through all forms of media,and in regional languages should be undertaken by the State Governments andconcerned Departments to make people aware about various norms andstandards with regard to cell phone towers and dangers of EMR from the same.Such notices should also be placed in all wildlife protected areas and zoos bythe Forest Department.
IV. Department of Telecommunications:
1. To prevent overlapping of high radiation fields, new towers should not bepermitted within a radius of one kilometer of the existing towers. Sharing ofpassive infrastructure if made mandatory for Telecom Service Providers canminimize need of having additional towers. If new towers must be built, theseshould be constructed with utmost care and precautions so as not to obstructflight path of birds and also not to increase the combined radiations from alltowers in the area.
2 . The location and frequencies of cell phone towers and other towers emittingEMR, should be made available in public domain. This can be at city/district/village level. Location-wise GIS mapping of all cell phone towers should bemaintained which would, inter alia, help in monitoring the population of birdsand bees in and around the mobile towers and also in and/or around wildlifeprotected areas.
3 . There is an urgent need to refine the Indian standard on safe limits of exposureto EMR, keeping in view the available literature on impacts on various life forms.Till such time the Indian standards are reformed, a precautionary approach shallbe preferred to minimize the exposure levels and adopt stricter norms possible,without compromising on optimum performance of the networks.
V. All concerned agencies:
1. Security lighting for on-ground facilities be minimized, and as far as possible,point downwards or be down-shielded to avoid bird hits.
2 . Any study conducted on impact of EMF radiation on wildlife needs to be sharedwith Forest Department and Department of Telecommunications to facilitateappropriate policy formulations.
Printed at : Bengal Offset Works, 335, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
