Total Quality Management

The cost of poor quality

Management Responsibilities (Quality Management System ISO 9001: 2008 Lead Auditor Course)

Conducting Audits (Quality Management System ISO 9001: 2008 Lead

ISO 9001 ISO 14001 Audit Process

ISO 14001 Environments Aspect - Impact

Policy for Import of Fertilizers

Import of urea in the country is restricted and permitted through three State Trading Enterprises i.e. MMTC Limited, State Trading Corporation of India Limited and Indian Potash Limited.  Import of all other fertilisers is free and importers are importing these fertilizers under Open General License (OGL) as per their requirements.   The P&K fertilisers like DAP, various grades of complex fertilisers and SSP etc. are being produced in the country, however country is almost dependent on imports by way of imports of raw materials/intermediates or by way of imports of finished Phosphatic fertilizers. There are no exploitable reserves of potash in the country and the country is fully dependent on its import to meet the demand of Potassic fertilisers. The details of P&K fertilizers imported during the last three years are as under:- Fig in LMT            Product Year DAP MAP TSP NPK MOP (Agri) 2010-11 74.11 1.88 0.98 9.81 45.00 2011-12 69.05 4.94 1.60 36.73 26.94 2012-13 57.02 1.52 0.00 4.05 18.80 The sales of P&K fertilisers in the country have dropped during the year 2012-13 as compared to the year 2011-12. The details are as under:- Product 2011-12 2012-13 DAP 111.95 92.22 MOP 29.92 21.34 NPK 113.94 77.29 Total (in Lakh MT) 255.81 190.85           The name of the companies who imported Potassic & Phosphatic (P&K) fertilizers during last three years and the current year are Agrigold Organics Pvt. Ltd, Coromandel International Limited, Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Ltd., Foliage, Green Star Fertilizer Ltd., Madras Fertilizers Limited, Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., Indian potash Limited, Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd., HPM Chemicals & Fertilizes, Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd., Indo Gulf  Fertilizers Ltd, Mosaic India (P) Ltd., Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited, Paradip Phosphate Ltd., Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Sunfert International Pvt. Ltd, Tata Chemicals Ltd., KPR Fertilisers Ltd., Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Shriram Fertilizers, Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., National Fertilizers Limited, Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., Zuari Holdings Limited.            The countries from where the P&K fertilizers have been imported during the last three years and current year are Australia, Bahrain, Belarus, China, Canada, CIS, Estonia, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Korea, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Morocco, Philippines, Russia, S. Arabia, S. Africa, Singapore, Spain, Turkey, Tunisia, USA  Ukraine and Vietnam.           Government has taken initiatives to encourage indigenous production in P&K sector by reducing the custom duty on phosphoric acid to enable indigenous manufacturers of P&K fertilizers to procure this important input at reasonable price. The Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) scheme has also been announced on P&K fertilizers w.e.f.01.04.2010 to ensure subsidy on indigenous P&K fertilizers at par with imported P&K fertilizers. Government is also encouraging private sector and public sector companies to explore the possibilities for joint ventures abroad to ensure uninterrupted supply of fertilizer inputs to P&K sector. This information was given by the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilisers, Shri Srikant Kumar Jena in a written reply in the Lok Sabha today. *** DNM/NSK/DB (Release ID :98767)

National Policy on Fertilizers

National Policy on Fertilizers

Urea is the only fertilizer under statutory price control and its import to bridge the gap between assessed demand and estimated indigenous production is made on Government account. The Government has notified the New Investment Policy 2012 on 2nd January, 2013 to facilitate fresh investment in urea sector and to reduce India’s import dependency. In response to New Investment Policy, 2012 the Department of Fertilizers have received 14 proposals, the details of which is as under: S. No. Units State 1 Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.(NFCL)-III, Kakinada Andhra Pradesh 2 Indo Gulf,Jagdishpur- II Uttar Pradesh 3 Indian Farmers Fertilizer Coop. Ltd. (IFFCO)- Kalol-II Gujarat 4 Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (CFCL), Gadepan-III Rajasthan 5 Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited (KRIBHCO) Hazira-II Gujarat 6 Tata Chemicals Limited (TCL) Babrala-II Uttar Pradesh 7 Gujarat State Fertilizers Co.Ltd.(GSFC) Gujarat 8 Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co.Ltd (GNFC) Gujarat 9 Matix-II West Bengal 10 Kanpur Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited (KFCL)-II Uttar Pradesh 11 KRIBHCO Shyam Fertilizers Limited (KSFL) Uttar Pradesh 12 Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers (RCF)Thal-III Maharashtra 13 Fertilizers and Chemical Travancore Limited (FACT) Kerala 14 EPC- Sriram Odisha The P&K fertilizers like DAP, various grades of complex fertilisers and SSP etc. are being produced in the country, however country is almost dependent on imports by way of imports of raw materials/intermediates or by way of imports of finished Phosphatic fertilizers. Government has taken initiatives to encourage indigenous production in P&K sector by reducing the custom duty on phosphoric acid to enable indigenous manufacturers of P&K fertilizers to procure this important input at reasonable price. Government is also encouraging private sector and public sector companies to explore the possibilities for joint ventures abroad to ensure uninterrupted supply of fertilizer inputs to P&K sector. There are no exploitable reserves of potash in the country and the country is fully dependent on its import to meet the demand of potassic fertilizers. This information was given by the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilisers, Shri Srikant Kumar Jena in a written reply in the Lok Sabha today. *** DNM/NSK/DB (Release ID :98764)

Revival of FCI's Talcher Fertilizer Factory

Revival of FCI's Talcher Fertilizer Factory
The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) had in August, 2011 approved the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) for revival of all the Units of FCIL, including Talcher Fertilizer Plant. DRS envisaged revival of Talcher Unit by the consortium of M/s. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Limited (RCF), M/s Coal India Limited (CIL) and M/s Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL). Recently, CCEA in its meeting held on 9.5.2013, inter-alia, approved waiver of Government of India loan and interest of Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited (FCIL) to facilitate FCIL to arrive at positive net worth. This enabled FCIL to get de-registered from the purview of Board For Industrial and Financial reconstruction (BIFR). Talcher project involves setting up 3850 MTPD Urea plant and 1000MTPD of Ammonium Nitrate plant with an estimated cost of Rs. 9000 core. No time schedule has been fixed as yet, however, it takes normally around three years to fully operationalise a urea plant from its zero date.

This information was given by the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilisers, Shri Srikant Kumar Jena in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha today.


***

Loss of Environmental Degradation

Loss of Environmental Degradation

The World Bank has submitted the Report titled ‘India Diagnostic Assessment of Select Environmental Challenges’ to the Government of India. The report states inter-alia, “The report estimates the total cost of environmental degradation in India at about Rs.3.75 trillion (US$80 billion) annually”. The Report is being examined by the Government. This was stated by Shrimati Jayanthi Natarajan, Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment and Forests, in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha today. The Minister further stated that poor water supply is not a direct cause of deaths in children. However, drinking of unsafe water is responsible for water-borne diseases which can cause morbidity and mortality in children. As per WHO estimates, 11% of Child mortality in the age group of 0-5 years in India is due to Diarrhoeal disease. The Minister further stated that the Government of India provides financial and technical assistance to States under the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) to supplement their efforts to provide adequate safe drinking water to the rural population. A budgetary allocation of Rs. 11,000 crores has been provided for NRDWP in 2013-14. Under NRDWP, the Government of India has given priority to cover partially covered and quality affected habitations with safe drinking water. Up to 67% of the allocations made to States under NRDWP can be utilized for coverage of partially covered and quality affected habitations. 5% of NRDWP allocation is earmarked for allocation to those States facing problems of chemical contamination in drinking water or with Japanese Encephalitis and Acute Encephalitis Syndrome affected high priority districts, the Minister added. RM/RS- USQ2046-RS (Release ID :98866)

Decision Regarding Reducing of Carbon Emission

Decision Regarding Reducing of Carbon Emission

Government of India has announced that it would reduce emissions intensity of its Gross Domestic Product by 20-25% from 2005 level by 2020 in December, 2009. As per the interim report on ‘Low Carbon Strategy for Inclusive Growth’ prepared by the Expert Group set up by the Planning Commission, twelve focus areas have been identified for 12th Five Year Plan. These areas are Advanced Coal Technologies, National Wind Energy Mission, National Solar Mission, Technology Improvement in Iron and Steel Industry, Technology Improvement in Cement Industry, Energy Efficiency Programmes in the Industry, Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Programme, Improving the Efficiency of Freight Transport, Better Urban Public and Non-motorized Transport, Lighting, Labelling and Super-efficient Equipment Programme, Faster Adoption of Green Building Codes and Improving the Stock of Forest and Tree Cover. No measurement has been made to know the status of carbon emissions in these areas. This was stated by Shrimati Jayanthi Natarajan, Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment and Forests, in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha today. RM/RS- USQ2039 - RS (Release ID :98865)

Policy for Recycling Computer Waste

Policy for Recycling Computer Waste

As per the available information, UNEP has come out with a report during the year 2009 entitled, “Recycling- From E-waste to Resources”. In section 3.2.1.1 of this report there is reference of e-waste generated from personal computers in terms of per capita per year. India with generation of less than 0.15 kg/capita/year of e-waste has been shown to be amongst countries with lowest quantity of per capita e-waste from personal computers. . This was stated by Shrimati Jayanthi Natarajan, Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment and Forests, in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha today. The Minister further stated that the Ministry of Environment and Forest, has already notified E-Waste Rules in May 2011, which have come into force with effect from 1st May 2012. The concept of Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR) has been enshrined in these rules. As per these Rules, the producers are required to collect e-waste generated from the end of life of their products by setting up collections centers or take back systems either individually or collectively. E-waste recycling can be undertaken only in facilities authorized and registered with State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committee (PCCs). Wastes generated are required to be sold to a registered or authorized recycler or re-processor having environmentally sound facilities. The rules have provision for setting up of Collection Centre individually or jointly; or by a registered society or a designated agency; or by an association to collect e-waste, the Minister added. RM/RS- USQ2034 - RS (Release ID :98862)

Dumping of Wastage in Yamuna Banks

Dumping of Wastage in Yamuna Banks An Application No. 06/2012 has been filed before Hon’ble National Green Tribunal (NGT) regarding removal of debris, solid wastes, construction material, etc, lying along the banks of river Yamuna. The NGT vide its order dated 22nd July 2013, has directed all concerned agencies to remove this debris by 15th August 2013. This was stated by Shrimati Jayanthi Natarajan, Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment and Forests, in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha today.

The Minister further stated that as per the information provided by the concerned agencies, Delhi Development Authority has removed 101,500 cubic metres (m3) of debris, Public Works Department and Irrigation & Flood Control Department of Delhi Government have removed 20,000 m3 of debris, Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department has removed 71,000 m3 of debris and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has removed approximately 73,000 metric tonnes of construction & demolition waste from their jurisdiction.

The Minister further stated that the Ministry has issued Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 which stipulates that all development activities, including construction, which are listed in the said Notification requires necessary clearances under the Notification. Violation of the notification attracts punitive action under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Under the provision of EIA Notification, 2006, environmental clearance for building & construction and township & area development projects are appraised by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEACs) and approved by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Further, State Governments issue Notifications/Notices from time to time to not take up construction on the river flood plain, the Minister added.

RM/RS- USQ2028 - RS
(Release ID :98861)

FACT SHEET: Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

August 01, 2013

 

Today, the President signed an Executive Order to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities and reduce the risks of hazardous chemicals to workers and communities.   Chemicals and the facilities that manufacture, store, distribute and use them are essential to our economy.  However, incidents such as the devastating explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas in April are tragic reminders that the handling and storage of chemicals present serious risks that must be addressed.  While the cause of the Texas explosion is under investigation, we can take some common sense steps now to improve safety and security and build on Federal agencies’ ongoing work to reduce the risks associated with hazardous chemicals.  
The Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security directs the Federal Government to:

• improve operational coordination with state and local partners;
• enhance Federal agency coordination and information sharing;
• modernize policies, regulations and standards; and
• work with stakeholders to identify best practices. 

Improving Operational Coordination with State and Local Partners
Federal, state, local, and tribal governments have different responsibilities in addressing risks associated with chemical facilities, including response planning for potential emergencies.  To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of risk management and response measures, the Executive Order charges Federal agencies with improving coordination and information sharing with state and local governments.  For example, the Executive Order requires Federal agencies to develop a plan within 90 days that identifies ways to ensure State homeland security advisors, State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), Tribal Emergency Response Commissions (TERCs), Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), Tribal Emergency Planning Committees (TEPCs), State regulators, and first responders have ready access to key information in a useful format to prevent, prepare for, and respond to chemical incidents.
Enhancing Federal Coordination and Information Sharing
Programs designed to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities through regulations, information reporting requirements, site inspections, and voluntary partnerships are managed by multiple Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Justice (DOJ).  To improve the collective performance of these Federal programs, the Executive Order calls upon Federal agencies to initiate innovative approaches for working together on a broad range of activities, such as identification of high-risk facilities, inspections, enforcement, and incident investigation and follow up.  For example, the Executive Order requires that the Federal agencies deploy a regional pilot program that will validate best practices and test innovative new methods for Federal interagency collaboration on chemical facility safety and security.  Additionally, Federal agencies are specifically directed to modernize the collection and sharing of chemical facility information to maximize the effectiveness of risk reduction efforts and reduce duplicative efforts.
Modernizing Policies, Regulations and Standards
The Executive Order directs Federal agencies to work with stakeholders to improve chemical safety and security through agency programs, private sector initiatives, Federal guidance, standards, and regulations.  For example, to reduce risks associated with ammonium nitrate, agencies will examine new options to address the safe and secure storage, handling, and sale of this explosive chemical.  Agencies will also determine if additional chemicals should be covered by existing Federal regulatory programs, such as EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP), DHS’s Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATs), and DOL’s Process Safety Management Standards (PSM).  In addition, agencies will consider whether to pursue an independent, high-level assessment of the U.S. approach to chemical facility risk management to identify additional recommendations for all levels of government and industry to reduce the risk of catastrophic chemical incidents in the future.
Working with Stakeholders to Identify Best Practices
Many chemical facilities have taken steps to create safer work environments and reduce risks of chemical incidents to nearby communities. The Executive Order directs key Federal agencies to convene a wide range of interested stakeholders, including representatives from industry, state, local, and tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, and the first responder community, to identify and share successes to date and best practices to reduce safety and security risks in the production and storage of potentially harmful chemicals, including through the use of safer alternatives, adoption of best practices, and potential public-private partnerships.
Background on Federal Programs for Chemical Facility Safety and Security
Federal agencies implement a number of programs to help prevent chemical facility accidents, reduce risks of terrorist attacks on chemical facilities, protect chemical facility workers, collect and share relevant information with the public and decision makers, and prepare communities and local, tribal, and state first-responders to respond to potential large-scale accidents.  State,  local, and tribal authorities also have critical responsibilities in managing risks from chemical facility accidents through setting and enforcing requirements for zoning, siting, and emergency response and planning.  The primary Federal agencies and programs aimed at addressing chemical safety and security at chemical facilities[1] are summarized below:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP), established under the Clean Air Act, is aimed at reducing chemical risk at the local level.  EPA’s rules require owners and operators of a facility that manufactures, uses, stores, or otherwise handles certain listed flammable and toxic substances to develop a risk management program that includes hazard assessment (including an evaluation of worst-case and alternative accidental release scenarios), prevention mechanisms, and emergency response measures.  Facilities submit information regarding their risk management program (the information submitted is a "Risk Management Plan" or "RMP") to EPA.  RMP information helps local fire, police, and emergency response personnel prepare for and respond to chemical accidents, while allowing citizens to understand chemical hazards in their communities.  EPA has focused its chemical plant safety inspection and enforcement efforts on the highest risk facilities. 
• EPA also implements the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), which was designed to promote emergency planning and preparedness at the state, local, and tribal levels.  EPCRA helps ensure local communities and first responders have needed information on potential chemical hazards within their communities in order to develop community emergency response plans.  Under EPCRA, facilities with Extremely Hazardous Chemicals must notify the State Emergency Response Commission or Tribal Emergency Response Committees (TERCs) and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), as well as participate in local emergency planning activities. LEPCs and TERCs are then responsible for developing a community emergency response plan. 

Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

• OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard sets requirements for the management of highly hazardous substances to prevent and mitigate the catastrophic releases of flammable, explosive, reactive, and toxic chemicals that may endanger workers.  The PSM standard covers the manufacturing of explosives and processes involving threshold quantities of flammable liquids and flammable gasses, as well as 137 other highly hazardous chemicals.
• In 2011, OSHA launched its Chemical Plant National Emphasis Program (NEP) to conduct focused inspections at randomly-selected facilities among worksites likely to have highly hazardous chemicals in quantities covered by the PSM standard.  Under this program, OSHA has corrected serious safety issues through approximately 350 inspections and the issuance of 1,325 violations.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)

• DHS/NPPD is responsible for implementing Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), the Federal government’s primary regulatory authority for security of chemicals at stationary facilities.  CFATS is helping make the nation more secure by requiring high-risk chemical facilities to develop and implement security plans that meet eighteen risk-based performance standards established by the Department.  Additionally, since the program’s inception, more than 3,000 facilities have voluntarily removed or reduced the onsite quantity of chemicals of interest to the point that the facilities are no longer considered high-risk.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/United States Coast Guard (USCG)

• The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for maritime security under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), 46 U.S.C. § 70101, et seq., which includes authority over certain port facilities that use, store, or transport chemicals or engage in other chemical-related activities.
• MTSA reinforces the national and global importance of security for the marine transportation system, and provides a crucial framework for ensuring the safety of maritime commerce and our domestic ports. MTSA's key requirement is to prevent a maritime transportation security incident (TSI) - defined as any incident that results in a significant loss of life, environmental damage, transportation system disruption, or economic disruptions to a particular area. Within the maritime venue, preventing TSI's has been a core mission of the Coast Guard since its beginning.

Department of Justice/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (DOJ/ATF)

• ATF is responsible for enforcing federal explosives laws that govern commerce in explosives in the United States including licensing, storage, record keeping, and conduct of business.  ATF conducts inspections of federal explosives licensees who manufacture, import, sell or store explosives in the United States to ensure explosives are managed in accordance with federal law. In Fiscal Year 2012, ATF conducted 5,390 explosives inspections resulting in approximately 400 reports of violations.

---

[1] The Federal government also has a number of regulatory programs related to the safe and secure transportation of chemicals across all modes of transportation, including highway, rail, aviation, maritime, and pipeline.  This fact sheet is focused on chemical safety and security at fixed facilities and does not address the programs focused on the transportation of hazardous materials.

India Launches Its First Advanced Communication Satellite For Defence GSAT-7 Successfully

India Launches Its First Advanced Communication Satellite For Defence GSAT-7 Successfully

India's advanced multi-band communication satellite, GSAT-7, was successfully launched at 0200 hrs IST today (August 30, 2013) by the Ariane-5 launch vehicle of Arianespace from Kourou, French Guiana. Ariane-5 precisely placed GSAT-7 into the intended Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) after a flight of 34 minutes 25 seconds duration.

As planned, ISRO's Master Control Facility (MCF) at Hassan in Karnataka started acquiring the signals five minutes prior to the separation of GSAT-7 from Ariane-5 launch vehicle. The solar panels of the satellite have been deployed and they are generating power. Initial checks have indicated normal health of the satellite.

The present orbit of the satellite will be raised to Geostationary Orbit of about 36,000 km altitude through three orbit raising manoeuvres by firing of GSAT-7's Liquid Apogee Motor (LAM). Preparations are underway for the first firing, planned in the early hours of August 31, 2013. The satellite will be placed in the Geostationary Orbit by Sep 04, 2013. ( ISRO)

PM’s statement on the current economic situation in the country |

The movement of the exchange rate of the Rupee recently is a matter of concern to the government. The Rupee has depreciated sharply against the dollar since the last week of May. There are concerns, and justifiably so, of the impact this would have on our economy.

What triggered the sharp and sudden depreciation was the markets’ reaction to certain unexpected external developments. On May 22, 2013, the US central bank indicated that it would soon ‘taper’ its quantitative easing as the US economy was recovering. This led to a reversal of capital flows to emerging economies which are now sharply pulling down not just the Rupee, but also the Brazilian Real, the Turkish Lira, the Indonesian Rupiah, the South African Rand and many other currencies.

While global factors such as tensions over Syria and the prospect of U.S. Federal Reserve tapering its policy of quantitative easing have caused general weakness in emerging market currencies, the rupee has been especially hit because of our large current account deficit and some other domestic factors. We intend to act to reduce the current account deficit and bring about an improvement in the economy.

In 2010-11 and the years prior to it, our current account deficit was more modest and financing it was not difficult, even in the crisis year of 2008-09. Since then, there has been a deterioration, mainly on account of huge imports of gold, higher costs of crude oil imports and recently, of coal. On the export side, weak demand in our major markets has kept our exports from growing. Exports have been further hit by a collapse in iron ore exports. Taken together, these factors have made our current account deficit unsustainably large.

Clearly we need to reduce our appetite for gold, economise in the use of petroleum products and take steps to increase our exports.

We have taken measures to reduce the current account deficit. The Finance Minister has indicated that it will be below $ 70 billion this year, and we will take all possible steps to ensure that outcome. These are already showing results with a declining trade deficit in both June and July. The Government is confident that we will be able to lower our current account deficit to $70 billion. Our medium term objective is to reduce the current account deficit to 2.5% of our GDP. Our short term objective is to finance the current account deficit in an orderly fashion. We will make every effort to maintain a macro economic framework friendly to foreign capital inflows to enable orderly financing of the current account deficit.

Madam Speaker,

Coming back to the effects of the Rupee depreciation, we must realise that part of this depreciation was merely a needed adjustment. Inflation in India has been much higher than in advanced economies. Therefore, it is natural that there has to be a correction in the exchange rate to account for this difference. To some extent, depreciation can be good for the economy as this will help to increase our export competitiveness and discourage imports.

There are many sectors which are regaining competitiveness in export markets as a result of the fall in the exchange rate. Over the next few months, I expect the effects of this to be felt more strongly, both in exports and in the financial position of exporting sectors. This in itself would correct the current account deficit to some extent.

However, foreign exchange markets have a notorious history of overshooting. Unfortunately this is what is happening not only in relation to the Rupee but also other currencies.

The RBI and Government have taken a number of steps to stabilize the rupee. Some measures have given rise to doubts in some quarters that capital controls are on the horizon. I would like to assure the House and the world at large, that the Government is not contemplating any such measures. The last two decades have seen India grow as an open economy and we have benefitted from it. There is no question of reversing these policies just because there is some turbulence in capital and currency markets. The sudden decline in the exchange rate is certainly a shock, but we will address this through other measures, not through capital controls or by reversing the process of reforms. The Finance Minister has clarified this, and I take this opportunity to reaffirm our position.

Madam Speaker,

Ultimately, the value of the rupee is determined by the fundamentals of our economy. While we have taken a number of actions to strengthen those fundamentals, we intend to do more.

Growth has slowed down in recent quarters. I expect growth in the first quarter of 2013-14 to be relatively flat, but as the effects of the good monsoon kick in, I expect it to pick up.

There are many reasons for this optimism. The decisions of the Cabinet Committee on Investment in reviving stalled projects will start bearing fruit in the second half of the year. The full effect of the growth friendly measures that have been taken over the last six months, such as liberalizing norms for FDI, resolution of some tax issues of concern to industry and fuel subsidy reform will come into play over the year resulting in higher growth particularly in manufacturing. Exports are also starting to look up as the rest of the world is improving its growth. So I believe growth will pick up in the second half of the fiscal year barring extreme unforeseen eventualities.

There are questions about the size of the fiscal deficit. The government will do whatever is necessary to contain the fiscal deficit to 4.8% of GDP this year. The most growth-friendly way to contain the deficit is to spend carefully, especially on subsidies that do not reach the poor, and we will take effective steps to that end.

Inflation measured by the Wholesale Price Index has been coming down, even though inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index is still too high. The depreciation of the rupee and rise in dollar prices of petroleum products will no doubt lead to some further upward pressure on prices. The RBI will therefore continue to focus on bringing down inflation. The favourable monsoon and the anticipated good harvest will help bring down food prices and ease the task of controlling inflation.

All in all, the macro-stabilization process which should support the value of the rupee is under way. I expect that as the fruits of our efforts materialize, currency markets will recover.

Madam Speaker,

Even while we go about doing what is necessary, it is important to recognize that the fundamentals of the Indian economy continue to be strong. India’s overall public-debt to GDP ratio has been on a declining trend from 73.2% of GDP in 2006-07 to 66% in 2012-13. Similarly, India’s external debt is only 21.2% of GDP and while short-term debt has risen, it stands at 5.2% of GDP. Our forex reserves stand at US$278bn, and are more than sufficient to meet India’s external financing requirements.

Many foreign analysts worry about banking problems in the wake of the currency crisis. The Indian banking sector has seen some rise in bad loans. The question that needs to be asked is whether there is a liquidity problem or a solvency problem for the borrowers. My belief is that there is a liquidity problem. Many of the projects are not unviable but only delayed, in contrast to the overbuilding that has characterized the banking sector problems in other countries. As these projects come on stream, they will generate revenue and repay loans. Our banks are fortunately well capitalized much above the Basel norms and have the capacity to provide for any non-performing assets until those assets are turned around.

Madam Speaker,

The easy reforms of the past have been done. We have the more difficult reforms to do such as reduction of subsidies, insurance and pension sector reforms, eliminating bureaucratic red tape and implementing Goods and Services Tax. These are not low hanging fruit and need political consensus.

It is here that I urge Members across the political spectrum to reflect on the need of the hour. Many laws that are necessary are held up for lack of political consensus. Reforms such as the Goods and Services Tax, which everyone agrees is essential to restore growth, require States to come to an agreement. We need to forge consensus on such vital issues. I urge political parties to work towards this end and to join in the government’s efforts to put the economy back on the path of stable and sustainable growth.

There may be short term shocks to our economy and we need to face them. That is the reality of a globalised economy, whose benefits we have reaped in the last 15 to 20 years.We will need to ensure that the fundamentals remain strong so that India continues to grow at a healthy rate for many years to come. That we will ensure. We are no doubt faced with challenges, but we have the capacity to address them. It is at times like these that the nation shows what it is truly capable of.

Determination of Shelf Life of Solutions in Laboratory

Aug 29, 2013

Learn how to determine the shelf life of volumetric, reagents and buffer laboratory solutions.

Incorrect strength or concentration of volumetric solutions, reagents and buffer solutions can alter the results of analyzed products. Solutions prepared for chemical analysis are not stable for a longer period.

The molarities of these solutions may change after a period of time. Shelf life of the solution depends upon the nature of the compound and the solvent also. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the stability period of these solutions individually in which these have to consume. Validation of shelf life is a mandatory GLP and regulatory requirement. There are different ways to assign the shelf life of the solutions; following are the simplest methods for the same.

Volumetric Solutions:

Prepare the volumetric solution and allow standing. After 24 hours determine the molarity of solution in triplicate calculating the mean of the results and continue the determination at an interval of 3 days for 15 days. Determine the RSD of all 5 values. If RSD of all 5 values remains less than 1.0, shelf life of solution should be assigned 15 days otherwise RSD shall be calculated with first 4 values and shelf life should be assigned 12 days. It the RSD of first 4 values remains more than 1.0, RSD shell be calculated with first three values and shelf life of the solution should be assigned accordingly.

  Reagent Solutions:

Reagents solutions, those are used in analysis as reactants and molarity is not calculated. These are validated on their performance. The Performance of these solutions is checked at an interval of 7 day for 1 month. Evaluate the performance of all 4 tests and assign the life accordingly.

Buffer Solutions:

Buffers are generally used for calibration of pH meters. pH of buffer solutions may change due to chemical degradation. The shelf life of buffer solutions must not be assigned more than 7 days.

Note: Solution should be stored under proper storage conditions otherwise results may alter giving improper shelf life. Validation data should be recorded and maintained for regulatory audits.

-Responsible Care® companies are committed to protecting and improving the environments in which they operate

Environment

Responsible Care^® companies are committed to protecting and improving the environments in which they operate. All ACC member companies, through Responsible Care, publicly report on their progress in meeting environmental performance measurements in the following areas:
SOx/NOx
Water Consumption
Reducing Emissions

SOx / NOx
Protecting air quality is critical to public and environmental health. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulphur oxide (SOx) are pollutants emitted by industrial and manufacturing facilities that can negatively affect air quality. As such, SOx and NOx emissions are identified as core environmental indicators. These emissions fall under Clean Air Act Title V permitting requirements, and ACC member companies have implemented a variety of measures to control their emissions.

Between 2008 and 2012, Responsible Care companies reduced SOx emissions by about 40 percent and reduced NOx emissions by about 22 percent.

View Graph

Water Consumption
Water consumption is a global issue – today 1.1 billion people around the world lack access to safe drinking water. The chemistry industry is working to protect water quality and minimize adverse impacts on this critical natural resource.
In 2008, ACC member companies began tracking water consumption, defined as the total amount of water brought onsite for use in manufacturing activities, to demonstrate their commitment to reduce water usage in their operations. In 2012, Responsible Care companies consumed about the same amount of water as in 2008, even with an increase in manufacturing.

View Graph

Reducing Emissions
Responsible Care companies have made significant progress in reducing hazardous emissions to the environment. Responsible Care companies measure emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) – chemicals identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) as known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects or adverse environmental effects.
Since 1988, Responsible Care companies have reduced all HAPs emissions by 76 percent. 
View Graph

Responsible Care® Security Code

Security is a top priority for America’s leading chemical producers. Responsible Care companies are leaders in chemical security and work closely with federal, state and local intelligence authorities to safeguard our communities.
After September 11, 2001, ACC members took the lead to enhance security against terrorism. Without waiting for government direction, the ACC Board of Directors adopted the Responsible Care Security Code to further enhance the security of our facilities, our communities and the essential products we produce.
The Responsible Care Security Code is recognized by local, state and federal governments as a model security program for chemical facilities and other U.S. industries. Through Responsible Care, ACC member companies have enhanced coordination, conducted training and safety drills, and shared important security information with local emergency response teams.
The Security Code predates federal security regulations and has served as a model for subsequent regulatory action under the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards program. In addition, through the SAFETY Act, DHS has recognized the Security Code as a Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology, which provides ACC members and Responsible Care Partners with certain liability protections in the event of a terrorist action at their facilities.
HOW THE RESPONSIBLE CARE SECURITY CODE WORKS
Under the Security Code’s 13 management practices – which address facility, cyber and transportation/value chain security – companies must conduct comprehensive security vulnerability assessments (SVAs) and implement security enhancements under a strict timeline, using methods approved by nationally recognized security experts.  Companies also must obtain independent verification to prove they have made required physical site security measures identified during the SVA.
Prioritization and Assessment of Sites
Companies initially prioritize their facilities according to a four-tier system based on vulnerability and then conduct SVAs at all facilities.
Implementation of Security Measures
After completing the SVA process, companies implement security enhancements to control or mitigate identified risks to facility, cyber and value chain security, based on the 13 management practices.

• Protecting Information and Cyber-Security: Safeguarding information and process control systems is a critical component of sound security management and an essential part of the Security Code.
  
  
• Training, Drills and Guidance: Emergency preparedness is a hallmark of the Responsible Care initiative. Training, drills and guidance enhance security awareness and capabilities across the business of chemistry.
  
  
• Communications, Dialogue and Information Exchange: The Security Code emphasizes cooperation among chemical producers, customers, suppliers, and shippers and establishing and maintaining a constructive, consistent dialogue with government agencies.
  
  
• Response to Security Threats and Incidents: Companies evaluate, respond, report and communicate security threats as appropriate and have a process in place to respond to incidents and take corrective action.
  
  
• Continuous Improvement: The Security Code includes planning, establishing goals and objectives, monitoring progress and performance, analyzing trends, and developing and implementing corrective actions.
  
  
• Independent Review: Facilities undergo independent audits by third-party individuals and organizations to assure that necessary security enhancements are in place.

IMPLEMENTING THE SECURITY CODE
ACC tracks members’ and Partners’ implementation of the Security Code and publicly discloses their performance:

• In the last decade, Responsible Care companies have invested nearly $13 billion to enhance security at their facilities.
  
  
• ACC members and Responsible Care Partners implement the Security Code at more than 1,550 facilities nationwide.
  
  
• New members and Partners are required to implement the Security Code, conduct site security vulnerability assessments and make necessary security upgrades within three years of joining ACC.
  
  
• Each Responsible Care company’s Security Code implementation status is subject to review as part of ACC’s mandatory third-party, Responsible Care Management Systems® certification process.

Security Code implementation is monitored by ACC and companies that do not meet specific deadlines are held accountable, at the senior executive level, by a Board-level Responsible Care governance process.

Responsible Care® Performance Measures

 Responsible Care companies commit to systematic, continuous improvement in process safety through applying the Code’s seven management practices, which address:

• Leadership and culture
• Accountability
• Knowledge, expertise and training
• Understanding and prioritization of process safety risks
• Comprehensive process safety management system
• Information sharing
• Monitoring and improving performance

Responsible Care® Performance Measures

A pillar of the Responsible Care program is environmental, health, safety and security (EHS&S) performance monitoring and reporting, both for individual companies and the chemical industry overall.  

All ACC member companies are required to publicly report, through Responsible Care, specific performance measurements in the following areas: 

• Environmental metrics, including hazardous air pollutants released, SOx and NOx emissions and net water consumption.
• Energy metrics, including greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency.
• Safety metrics, including number of process safety incidents, DOT-reportable distribution incidents, OHSA recordable lost workday incidence and fatalities.
• Accountability metrics, including community outreach and emergency response initiatives.

Some of these metrics are reported on a company-by-company basis, while others are reported as aggregated industry statistics. This public reporting is meant to enhance transparency and accountability and drive performance of ACC member companies.  

ACC uses these reported metrics to openly demonstrate the commitment of ACC members and their partners along the supply chain to continuous improvements in the EHS&S performance of their operations and businesses. 

In addition, companies communicate their progress toward meeting and improving compliance with key performance measures to all of their stakeholders – including facility communities, employees, business partners and the general public.