National Green Tribunal
Rajkumar Sunderdas Kukreja vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation on 17 June, 2020
Item No. 04
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 40/2019 (WZ)
Rajkumar Kukreja & Anr. Applicant(s)
Versus
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 17.06.2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SIDDHANTA DAS, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Asim Sarode, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mansi Joshi, Advocate
Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, Advocate
ORDER
1. Rapid urban development and population explosion in India has led to generate thousands of tons of solid waste daily.
Inadequate vehicle for transportation of waste and unavailability of suitable land for establishment of waste processing unit in urban area have developed a critical situation for management of solid waste. Disposal of waste on the streets, drains, open space, water bodies, etc., causing adverse impact on all components of the environment and human health. As per Solid Waste Management Rules (SWM), 2016, it is an obligatory duty of Municipal Authorities to develop scientific landfill for disposal of municipal solid waste. With sharp increase in the population, 1 Municipalities find themselves unable to provide regular service to all urban residents. This results in the accumulation of solid waste in many areas. At times, the accumulated waste is pushed inside the drains and sewere lines, causing blockage and other problems. The prevailing method of open dumping is a major source of environmental pollution. Moreover, it has become increasingly difficult to identify new sites for disposal due to public opposition, cost of land and lack of appropriate land area.
2. The present case is clear example of non-availability of land for solid waste management. The matter raised in the application was discussed vide order dated 21.11.2019 and it was found that the controversy with the availability of the land and providing the land to the Municipal Corporation for waste management was discussed so many times but still it has not been finalized. Now by filing the affidavit, the Deputy Commissioner, Ulhasnagar, respondent no. 1 has submitted that vide letter dated 3rd January, 2020, a map has been issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Ambarnath and Tehsildar Ambarnath with a report that land survey no. 50 and 62 admeasuring 11 hectare and 50.98 area is recorded to handover possession of the land to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. It has also been ensured that the land will be transferred in the name of respondent-
2Municipal Corporation at the earliest. We hope and trust that the matter shall be finalized immediately without any delay.
The matter dealing the solid waste management was dealt by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 606 of 2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and vide order dated 07.01.2020, it was dealt as follows:
"2. It is necessary to set out brief background of the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors., transferred proceedings pending before it on the subject of waste management1. The matter was earlier considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia vide judgments reported in (2000) 2 SCC 678 and (2004) 13 SCC 538 directing scientific disposal of waste by setting up of compost plants, preventing water percolation through heaps of garbage, creating focused 'solid waste management cells' in all States and complying with the Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (SWM Rules, 2016) on urgent basis.
3. This Tribunal considered the matter after notifying all the concerned States/Regulatory Bodies and finally disposed of the same on 22.12.2016 requiring all the States/UTs to follow the SWM Rules, 2016 after preparing requisite action plans in a time bound manner with a further direction that any State/UT which failed to comply with the Rules shall be liable to be proceeded against under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act), apart from being required to pay environmental compensation and senior most officers of the States/Local Bodies being personally liable. The directions also include requirement for segregation of waste, providing buffer zone around plants and landfill sites and due monitoring. The States/Local Bodies were also to create market for consumption of RDF. Tipping fee was to include the efficient and regular monitoring of waste processing plant, segregation of inert and C&D material and its transportation. Landfill sites were required to be bio-stabilized preventing leachate and generation of Methane, enforcement of Extended 1 Operative part of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads:
"Enforcement of the Rules and efforts to upgrade the technology relevant to the handling of solid municipal waste is a perennial challenge and would require constant efforts and monitoring with a view to making the municipal authorities concerned accountable, taking note of dereliction, if any, issuing suitable directions consistent with the said Rules and direction incidental to the purpose underlying the Rules such as upgradation of technology wherever possible. All these matters can, in our opinion, be best left to be handled by the National Green Tribunal established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Tribunal, it is common ground, is not only equipped with the necessary expertise to examine and deal with the environment related issues but is also competent to issue in appropriate cases directions considered necessary for enforcing the statutory provisions."3
Producer Responsibility, rights and liabilities under contracts being made consistent with the Rules, creating public awareness about the facilities available at regular intervals. Copy of the judgment was circulated to all the Chief Secretaries/ Advisors of States/UTs.
4. Execution of above directions has been subject matter of further proceedings in the last three years after the said order and after almost 20 years after the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Reference may be made only to some of the significant orders. Vide order dated 20.08.2018, after referring to earlier proceedings and a chamber meeting held on various dates with all the concerned stakeholders, it was directed that action plans be finalized latest by 31.10.2018 and executed latest by 31.12.2019 which was to be overseen by the Principal Secretaries of Urban/Rural Development Departments of States/UTs. States were directed to standardize technical specifications instead of leaving the same to individual local bodies. Further directions are for installing CCTV cameras at dump sites, installing GPS system in garbage collection vans, adopting best practices including control rooms where citizens can upload photos of garbage to be looked into by responsible officers, conducting performance audit with reference to source segregation, door to door collection, public sweeping, waste processing, grievance redressal mechanism and monitoring. This Tribunal also constituted Regional/Apex Committees for a limited period.
6. Apart from the issue of SWM, the Tribunal also dealt with other issues including the issue of sewage management in pursuance of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India2 requiring this Tribunal to monitor directions for proper treatment of sewage to prevent untreated sewage and other effluents being discharged in water bodies.
7. Vide order dated 16.01.2019, after noticing that statutory timelines under Rule 22 of SWM Rules, 2016 had expired for various steps and failure of the statutory authorities was punishable criminal offence under the provisions of the EP Act as well as under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act). This Tribunal required presence of Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs. It was noted that apart from failure of solid waste management under SWM Rules, there was also failure of liquid waste management in accordance with the provisions of the Water Act. Such failure has resulted in 351 identified polluted river stretches, 102 (now 122) non-attainment cities in terms of air quality, 100 polluted industrial clusters in terms of water, soil and air degradation and other serious environmental consequences, threatening life and health of citizens, water and air quality and the climate. The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs were required to acquaint themselves with specific issues mentioned in the said order and coordinate with all the 2 (2017) 5 SCC 326 4 concerned authorities in their respective States/UTs and appear before this Tribunal with their respective status reports. Other directions included constitution of Special Task Force in each district for awareness by involving educational, religious and social organizations, including local Eco-clubs. The issues specified were as follows:
"a. Status of compliance of SWM Rule, 2016, Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 in their respective areas.
b. xx xx xx c. Status of the Action Plan in compliance vide order
dated 20.09.2018 in the News Item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB (Original Application No. 673/2018).
d. Status of functioning of Committees constituted in News Item Published in "The Times of India' Authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan Titled "NCAP with Multiple timelines to Clear Air in 102 Cities to be released around August 15" dated 08.10.2018.
e. Status of Action Plan with regard to identification of polluted industrial clusters in O.A. No. 1038/2018, News item published in "The Asian Age" Authored by Sanjay Kaw Titled "CPCB to rank industrial units on pollution levels" dated 13.12.2018.
f. Status of the work in compliance of the directions passed in O.A. No. 173 of 2018, Sudarsan Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Order dated 04.09.2018.
g. Total amount collected from erring industries on the basis of 'Polluter Pays' principle, 'Precautionary principle' and details of utilization of funds collected.
h. Status of the identification and development of Model Cities and Towns in the State in the first phase which can be replicated later for other cities and towns of the State."
8. Accordingly, the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs appeared and interacted with this Tribunal. Directions issued in respect of all the States/UTs on appearance of the Chief Secretaries were by and large on same pattern and it will be suffice to refer to directions issued vide order dated 18.07.2019 in respect of State of J&K as follows:
"i. Apart from three towns said to have been notified as proposed models for compliance of Environmental norms, atleast three villages in every District of the State may be notified on the website of the State within two weeks from today which will be made 5 fully compliant with environmental norms within the next six months. Remaining cities, towns and villages of the State may be made fully compliant in respect of environmental norms within one year.
ii. A quarterly report be furnished by the Chief Secretary, every three months. First such report shall be furnished by October, 10, 2019.
iii. The Chief Secretary may personally monitor the progress, atleast once in a month, with all the District Magistrates.
iv. The District Magistrates may monitor the status of compliance of environmental norms, atleast once in two weeks.
v. The District Magistrates or other Officers may be imparted requisite training.
vi. Estimate of value of environmental degradation and cost of restoration be prepared and compensation be planned and recovered from polluters for environmental restoration and restitution on that basis.
vii. Performance audit of functioning of all regulatory bodies may be got conducted and remedial measures be taken, within six months.
viii. Introduction of a policy of giving ranking, based on performance on the subject of environment and giving of rewards or other incentives on that basis to individual areas, localities, institutions or individuals may be considered. This may also include encouraging students or other citizens significantly contributing to the cause of environment. The best practices may be evolved, if necessary, in the light of experiences on the subject. This may help in educating and involving public at large which may help in enhancing of environmental laws.
ix. The Chief Secretary may remain present in person before the Tribunal with the status of compliance in respect of various issues mentioned in para 22 as well as any other issues discussed in the above order."
9. It was further directed that compliance reports be furnished by the States/UTs to CPCB. Reference may also be made to some further orders on the subject being dated 08.04.20193, 22.04.20194, 23.04.20195, 24.04.20196, 3 O.A. No. 673/2018, News item published in 'The Hindu' authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled 26 "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB", 4 OA No. 606/2018 5 6 directions in Anil Tharthare Vs. The Secretary, Envt. Dept. Govt. of Maharashtra &Ors,7Ajay Khera Vs. Container Corporation of India Limited & Ors.8 and Westend Green Farms Society Vs. Union of India & Ors.9, 10.05.201910, 10.05.201911, 17.05.201912, 10.07.201913, 25.07.201914, 17.07.201915, 22.07.201916, 26.07.201917, 26.08.201918, 28.08.201919, 11.09.201920, 11.09.201921, 10.10.201922, 14.11.201923, 19.11.201924, 20.11.201925, 06.12.201926 and 18.12.201927.
10. The Registry forwarded quarterly reports received from the Chief Secretaries to the CPCB so that CPCB may prepare a gap analysis report and present the same to this Tribunal. Accordingly, the CPCB filed following reports:
"i. Report dated 09.09.2019 enclosing Annual Environment Plan for the country giving compliance of environment norms and gaps.
ii. Report dated 09.09.2019 annexing Preliminary Framework for Imposing Environmental Damage Compensation. iii. Report dated 09.09.2019 on the subject of Methodology of Assessment of Environment Carrying Capacity. iv. Gap Analysis report filed on 06.09.2019 on the subject of compliance of solid waste, plastic waste, bio-medical waste management, rejuvenation of identified polluted river stretches, polluted industrial clusters, non-attainment cities. v. Report dated 24.07.2019 on Framework on national environmental training program.
6 O.A. No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (in respect of State of Karnataka) 7 Para 33 of the order wherein the Tribunal directed constitution of a five Members Expert Committee to carry out carrying capacity study of the area for relevant environment parameters and impact of such expansion on already congested and stressed areas. 8 Vide order dated, 08.03.2019, the Tribunal directed the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) to phase out diesel vehicles, used for transportation by the Inland Container Depot (ICD) Tughlakabad, within six months. 9 Para 28 of the order wherein the Tribunal directed carrying capacity assessment to regulate activities violating environmental laws. 10 O.A. No. 148/2016, Mahesh Chandra Saxena Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. 11 O.A. No. 325/2015, Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi Vs. Union of India & Ors.12 OA No. 606/2019 13 O.A. No. 1038/2018 14 O.A. No. 710/2017
15 Original Application No. 519/2019 WITH Original Application No. 386/2019 16 Execution Application No. 13/2019 17 O. A. No. 360/2015 (Illegal sand mining) 18 O.A. No. 804/2017 (Hazardous Waste Management Rules) 19 O.A. No. 593/2017 (requirement of 100% treatment of sewage and effluents) 20 O.A. No. 148/2016 (utilization of treated waste water) 21 O.A. No. 496/2016 (ground water management, rain water harvesting) 22 O.A. No. 176/2015 (depletion of ground water in over-exploited, critical and semi-critical areas) 23 O.A. No. 1038/2018 (polluted industrial clusters) 24 O.A. No. 519/2019 (legacy waste dump sites) 25 O.A. No. 681/2018 (non-attainment cities in terms of air quality and also control of noise pollution) 26 O.A. No. 673/2018 ( 351 polluted river stretches) 27 O.A. No. 200/2014 (pollution of river Ganga) 7 vi. Status report dated 09.08.2019 on Information, Education & Communication (IEC) activities."
11. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.09.2019 considered the above reports and directed all the States/UTs to furnish further information to the CPCB as follows:
"3. We have heard learned Counsel for the CPCB for future course of action and further directions required on the above subjects. He submitted that the above reports are incomplete for want of information from the States/UTs. It was elaborated during the course of hearing that information is required to be submitted in terms of following thematic areas viz.
Compliance to Solid Waste Rules including Legacy Waste. Compliance to Bio-medical Waste Rules.
Compliance to Construction & Demolition Waste.
Compliance to Hazardous Waste Rules.
Compliance to E-waste Rules.
351 Polluter Stretches in the country.
122 Non-attainment cities.
100 industrial clusters.
Status of STPs and re-use of treated water.
Status of CETPs/ETPs including performance.
Ground water extraction/contamination and re-charge.
Air pollution including noise pollution.
Illegal sand mining.
Rejuvenation of water bodies.
4. The information with regard to above thematic areas needs to be submitted to CPCB by the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories in terms of following:
Current status
Desirable level of compliance in terms of statutes.
Gap between current status and desired levels.
Proposal of attending the gap with time lines.
Name and designation of designated officer for ensuring
compliance to provisions under statute.
5. CPCB is permitted to file revised updated reports on the subject after collecting information from concerned States/UTs by 15.11.2019."
12. The CPCB has accordingly filed its status report dated 27.12.2019 with reference to the above thematic areas. Further report has been filed on 06.01.2020. The reports give information about States who have given some information but the nature and extent of information which was required has not been furnished. Available information with regard to sewage generation and treatment shows huge gap. Grading made by the CPCB into 'good', 'average', 'poor' and 'no information' is not based on any qualitative analysis but extent of information furnished.
8Instead, what is least expected is information on:
(i) solid waste management, including remediation of legacy waste in terms of earlier orders of this Tribunal,
(ii) sewage treatment and restoration of 351 polluted river stretches and
(iii) air quality management in 102 (122) non-attainment cities.
With respect to serial no. (i), the information is required with regard to the quantity of MSW generated, segregated and treated; gaps in the waste processing in terms of generation and treatment and enforcement of statutory timelines and orders of this Tribunal for bridging the gap; number of sites, and quantity of legacy waste therein and timelines for its remediation.
With respect to serial no. (ii), quantity of sewage generated and treated in the State, gap in the sewage treatment and timelines to bridge the gap including strategy for use of treated water for secondary purpose. Further, with regard to restoration of 351 polluted river stretches, the States need to furnish information about the compliance of directions including in-situ and ex-situ remediation by way of phyto-remediation/artificial wetlands, bio-diversity parks or any other appropriate measure to supplement load reduction on recipient river systems.
With respect to serial no. (iii), the Chief Secretaries need to monitor and compile information on the subject of execution of action plans for containment of air pollution in terms of orders of this Tribunal and furnish the quantifiable progress/achievement to the CPCB."
3. Again, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal dealt with the matter also in Original Application No. 138 of 2016, Stench Grips Mansa's Sacred Ghaggar River decided on 15.06.2020 and issued certain directions in para 7 and para 10 of the order.
4. The biomedical waste was also made an issue and the major problem relating to the disposal of the medical waste was raised in Original Application No. 710 of 2017, Shailesh Singh Vs. Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur & Ors.
and on 15.07.2019, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal observed and directed as follows:
9"2. The matter was reviewed vide order dated 12.03.2019. It was noted that unscientific disposal of bio-medical waste had potential of serious diseases such as Gastrointestinal infection, Respiratory infection, Eye infection, Genital infection, Skin infection, Anthrax, Meningitis, AIDS, Haemorrhagic fevers, Septicaemia, Viral Hepatitis type A, Viral Hepatitis type B and C, etc. Such unscientific disposal also causes environmental pollution leading to unpleasant smell, growth and multiplication of vectors like insects, rodents and worms and may lead to the transmission of diseases like typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and AIDS through injuries from syringes and needles contaminated with various communicable diseases. The Tribunal referred to the news article published in "Dainik Jagran" dated 06.10.2017 stating as follows:-
"That the Gautam Buddha Nagar is the only district where a survey of 66 hospitals was conducted in October 2017 where 23 were found doing the management of Biomedical waste. 18 hospitals of which have been issued notices by the Regional Officer, UPPCB, GuatamBudh Nagar."
3. Reference was also made to the report of the CAG placed on its website in May, 2017 as follows:
"Inadequate facility of bio-medical waste (BMW) treatment. As per the report paragraph 2.1.9.5 there were 8,366 Health Care Establishments (HCEs) out of which 3,362 HCEs were operating without authorization. Total BMW generated in the State was 37,498 kg/day out of which only 35,816 kg/day was treated and disposed of. BMW of 1,682 kg/day was being disposed of untreated due to inadequate treatment facility. But UPPCB failed to monitor unauthorised operation and untreated disposal of BMW and did not take any action against the defaulters."
4. ... ... ...
5. ... ... ...
6. Accordingly, a report has been filed by the CPCB certain extracts from the report are as follows:
"
2.3.1Inventory of HCFs and Biomedical Waste Generation: Incomplete inventory on biomedical waste generation is an evident from the fact that biomedical waste generation reported by SPCBs is not proportional to the population in States/UTs. Generation of biomedical waste across States is reported as Bihar (6 %), Delhi (4.4 %), Gujarat (5.21 %), Karnataka (12 %), Kerala (7.35 %), Maharashtra (11.10 %), Rajasthan (4.03 %), Tamil Nadu (8.39 %), Uttar Pradesh (7.81 %) & West Bengal (5.34 %) which is not proportional to population States. Therefore, SPCBs/PCCs should complete inventory of all HCFs 10 (both bedded and non-bedded) to assess quantity of biomedical waste generation as well as to ensure effective treatment and disposal of biomedical waste generated by them.
As per annual information, out of 559 tonnes, about 518 tonnes of biomedical waste generated per day is treated and disposed through 198 no. of common facilities and 9,841 captive treatment facility installed by Healthcare facilities. However, quantity of biomedical waste reported is not reliable or accurate since inventory of healthcare facilities and biomedical waste generation in not yet completed by all States.
States initiated Inventory studies: Lakshadweep, Andaman Nicobar, Tripura, Daman & Diu, Delhi, Chandigarh, Telangana, Kerala, Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Mizoram, Maharashtra, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, MP and Meghalaya.
States not reported status of inventory study: Jammu & Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam and Odisha.
2.3.2 Operation of Healthcare Facilities without Authorization:As per BMWM Rules, 2016, Healthcare Facilities are required to obtain authorization under said Rules, irrespective of quantity of biomedical waste generation. Annual information indicates that out of 2,38,259 of HCFs, only 97,099 (40%) no. of HCFs have applied for authorization and 84,805 {35%) HCFs are granted authorization under BMWM Rules, 2016. This indicates that about 25 % of the identified HCFs are not yet authorized by SPCBs and biomedical waste management by such facilities could not be monitored. States namely Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh & West Bengal permitted use of deep burial pits for the disposal of biomedical waste despite having Common Disposal Facilities.
2.3.5 States without Common Treatment & Disposal Facilities: States like Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman & Nicobar, Goa, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, and Nagaland &Sikkim are not having CBWTF for the treatment & disposal of biomedical waste.
States namely Andaman Nicobar, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, J & K, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Orissa, Puducherry, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have not submitted any information on implementation of Barcode system.
112.3.11 Constitution of State Level Advisory Committees:
States namely Jammu & Kashmir, Lakshadweep and Sikkim have not yet constituted the said Committees as required under BMWM Rules, 2016.
3.0 Submission of Action Plans by State Governments:
States namely Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Daman &Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Goa, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Lakshadweep, Manipur, Meghalaya, Punjab, Tamilnadu, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal have not submitted Action pans within due date for submission, that is one month from order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 12/03/2019.
3.1 Performance Guarantee by Government of Uttar Pradesh State: In this regard, Uttar Pradesh State has not submitted Performance Guarantee to CPCB on compliance to Action Plan submitted by them.
3.2 Key Performance Indicators: CPCB has identified the following Key Performance Indicators for assessing treatment and .disposal of biomedical waste, and effectiveness in implementation of BMWM Rules, 2016;
(1) Inventory of all Healthcare Facilities and biomedical waste generation.
(2) Authorization to all Healthcare Facilities including non-bedded HCFs.
(3) Facilitate setting-up adequate number of Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facilities (CBWTFs) to cover entire State or all HCFs.
(4) Constitution of State Advisory Monitoring Committee and District Level Monitoring Committee.
(5) Implementation status of Barcode system. (6) Monitoring of Healthcare Facilities other than hospitals/clinics such as Veterinary Hospitals, Animal Houses, AYUSH Hospitals etc. Review of Action Plans:
Table 3: Scoring of States/ UTs for effectiveness of Action Plans S. Name of State Action plan Score No received S.No Name of State fromSPCB/PCCs & Score Health Department 1 Sikkim Health 1 Department 2 Arunachal SPCB 1 Pradesh 3 Lakshadweep Health 2.5 Department 4 J&K Health 3 Department 12 5 Mizoram Health 3 Department 6 Manipur Health 3 Department 7 Uttarr Health 3.5 Pradesh Department 8 Nagaland Health 3.5 Department A score of 7 and above is indicated as an adequate action plan, score between 4-6.5 considered as satisfactory action plan whereas a score of less than 4 is considered not satisfactory.
2.0 Environmental Compensation for Healthcare Facilities (HCFs):
Environmental Compensation for HCFs = HR x T x S x R x N Where;
HR - Health Risk factor T- Type of Healthcare Facility S - Size of Health Care Facility R - Environmental Compensation factor N - Number of days of Violation HR Health Risk (HR) is a number from 0 to 100 and increasing HR value denotes the increasing degree of health risk due to improper handling of BMW in healthcare facility.
Further, in any case minimum Environmental Compensation in respect to Healthcare Facility shall not be less than Rs.1200/- per day. 2.1 Deterrent Factor for Healthcare Facilities:
Incremental effect on Environmental compensation charges are given below:
Scenario Applicable ECC
Up to 15 days from Original ECC
target date
Between 15 to 30 Two times
days beyond target
date
Fails to comply in 2 Two times
nd inspections
including new
violations if any
Between 30 to 45 Four times
days beyond target
date
Fails to comply in 3rd Four times
inspections including
13
new violations if any
Beyond 60 days from Closure of HCF
target date
Fails to comply in 4th Closure of HCF
consecutive inspection
3.0 Environmental Compensation for Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF):
Environmental Compensation for CBWTFs = PI x S x R x N Environmental Compensation Where;
PI- Pollution Index S - Size of Operation R - Environmental Compensation factor N - Number of days of Violation Further, in any case minimum Environmental Compensation in respect to Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility shall not be less than Rs. 3,000/- per day. 3.1 Deterrent Factor for Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facilities:
Incremental effect on Environmental compensation charges are given below:
Scenario Applicable ECC
Up to 30 days from target date Original ECC
Between 30 to 60 days beyond Two times
target date
Fails to comply in 2nd inspection Two times
including new violations if any
Between 60 to 90 days beyond Four times
target date
Beyond 90 days Closure of CBWTF
Fails to comply in 3 rd consecutive Closure of CBWTF "
inspection
7. ... ... ...
8. The States/UTs may furnish complete inventory of HCFs and BMW generation within two months and where the inventories are incomplete, the same may be completed. We place on record our disapproval of the inaction of States in furnishing the inventory studies as well as for incomplete inventories. It is regretful to note that 25% of identified HCFs have not even taken authorization from the concerned State PCBs in absence of which, monitoring of waste management is not taking place. The States which have not set up common treatment and disposal facility must do so within two months as per Rules. The States who have not furnished the information on the barcode system may also furnish such information at the earliest but not beyond two months. The States which have not yet constituted State Level Advisory Committee may also do so within two months. The action plans and their execution must be carried out having regard to the key performance indicators. The States which have 14 inadequate action plans, not satisfactory action plans, needing further actions must also do the needful within two months realizing their responsibility to the environment and public health which ought to be monitored directly by the Chief Secretaries in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 16.01.2019 in O.A. No. 606/2018 and further orders in the said matter.By the furtherorder in the said matter in the case of all the States, directions were issued that Chief Secretaries may personally monitor compliance of environmental norms (including BMW Rules) with the District Magistrate once every month. The District Magistrates may conduct such monitoring twice every month. We find it necessary to add that in view of Constitutional provisions under Articles 243 G, 243 W, 243 ZD read with Schedules 11 and 12 and Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, it is necessary to have a District Environment Plan to be operated by a District Committee (as a part of District Planning Committee under Article 243 ZD) with representatives from Panchayats, Local Bodies, Regional Officers, State PCB and a suitable officer representing the administration, which may in turn be chaired and monitored by the District Magistrate. Such District Environment Plans and Constitution of District Committee may be placed on the website of Districts concerned. The monthly report of monitoring by the District Magistrate may be furnished to the Chief Secretary and may be placed on the website of the District and kept on such websites for a period of one year. This may be made operative from 1.08.2019. Compliance of this direction may also be seen by the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs. This may not only comply with mandate of law but provide an institutional mechanism for effective monitoring of environment norms.
Needless to say that right to clean environment being part of right to life, such effective monitoring is a must. Such monitoring must include issues specified in the order of this Tribunal dated 16.01.2019, O.A No. 606/2018, Para 40 which is as follows:-
"a. Status of compliance of SWM Rule, 2016, Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 in their respective areas.
b. Status of functioning of Committees constituted by this order. c. Status of the Action Plan in compliance vide order dated 20.09.2018 in the News Item published in "The Hindu" authored 25 by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB (Original Application No. 673/2018). d. Status of functioning of Committees constituted in News Item Published in "The Times of India' Authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan Titled "NCAP with Multiple timelines to Clear Air in 102 Cities to be released around August 15" dated 08.10.2018 e. Status of Action Plan with regard to identification of polluted industrial clusters in O.A. No. 1038/2018, News item published in "The Asian Age" Authored by Sanjay Kaw Titled "CPCB to rank industrial units on pollution levels" dated 13.12.2018. f. Status of the work in compliance of the directions passed in O.A. No. 173 of 2018, Sudarsan Das v. State of West Bengal &Ors. Order dated 04.09.2018.15
g. Total amount collected from erring industries on the basis of 'Polluter Pays' principle, 'Precautionary principle' and details of utilization of funds collected.
h. Status of the identification and development of Model Cities and Towns in the State in the first phase which can be replicated later for other cities and towns of the State."
9. Further important issues flagged for monitoring include training programs for the officers concerned with enforcement of environment norms at the ground level, reuse of treated water, recharge of ground water, conservation of water bodies. 28It has been brought to our notice that State PCBs our facing certain handicaps in performing their functions for want of adequate staff and infrastructure. While this is a matter to be reviewed by concerned Chief Secretaries, the State PCBs/PCCs are free to prepare and execute appropriate plans for utilizing the environment restoration fund with the approval of CPCB. The expenditure may include hiring of experts and consultants, expanding air and water quality monitoring network, procurement of scientific equipment, undertaking restitution remediation and specialized studies on contaminated sites so that there is effective oversight for enforcement of law. Under no circumstances these funds be spent on salaries, logistics etc.
10. ... ... ...
11. It is made clear that if even after two months the States/UTs are found to be non-compliant, the compensation will be liable to be recovered from the said States/UTs at the rate of Rs. 1 Crore per month till the non-compliance continues."
5. Radioactive items used in medical science is also challenging issue for disposal after its use. In light of the affidavit submitted by Deputy Commissioner, Ulhasnagar, we hope that the matter with regard to transfer of the land and running of the facility for the waste management should be expedited as early as possible.
6. Chief Secretary of the State is directed to see the matter personally and ensure that the land be made available immediately within one month and also directed to comply the 28 See order dated 17.05.2019, O.A. No 606/2018, Para No. 27 (vi, vii, viii) 16 direction issued in Original Application No. 606 of 2018 as referred above. Non-compliance of the order will result the punitive action and penalty as provided in the order quoted above.
7. Compliance report be submitted within two months.
8. List it on 16.10.2020.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Siddhanta Das, EM June 17, 2020 Original Application No. 40/2019 (WZ) R 17