The Hindu Business Line : Anti-uranium activists protest expert panel meet on mining

THE Movement Against Uranium Project (MAUP) is up in arms against the fresh efforts to revive the plan to start uranium mining and processing unit in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh.

Agitated over news reports that a high-level meeting is taking place in New Delhi to discuss the issue, the MAUP held dharnas in Nalgonda and Hyderabad and submitted memoranda to the officials of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB), asking them to stall the move.

The two-day meeting of the 32nd Reconstituted Expert Committee on Mining began in Delhi on Wednesday. The agenda of the meeting, among other mining projects, included the Nalgonda project of the UCIL.

The MAUP, an umbrella organisation of organisations and environmentalists opposing the project, said the people had overwhelmingly opposed the project in the public hearing held on March 3.

Uranium mining was planned at Lambapur-Peddagattu and the processing plant at Mallapurm-Dugyala in the district.

"Keeping in mind the adverse public opinion, Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL) decided to relocate the plant at Seripally village in the same district. This proposal too was opposed," Ms K. Satyalakshmi of MAUP told Business Line on Wednesday.

"We came to know that the 32nd meeting of the Reconstituted Expert Committee is meeting in Delhi to discuss the proposals of UCIL and others for environmental clearance," she said.

Mr Venepalli Panduranga Rao, another MAUP member, said the plant, if cleared, would have adverse impact on about two crore people.

They argued that the proposed processing plant at Seripally village was in the vicinity of the Nagarjuna Sagar Reservoir.

"There is every likelihood of radio-nuclide contamination of its waters, having long term adverse impacts on almost one-third of the population of the State," the activists argued in a letter addressed to the Union Environment Minister.

The letter was handed over to the PCB officials here on Wednesday.

They cited a Supreme Court judgment that the right to access safe drinking water was fundamental to life and that it was the duty of the State to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.

The proposal also went against the `right to sustainable development' declared by the UN General Assembly, the letter said.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page