National Green Tribunal
Compliance Of Municipal Solid Waste ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 May, 2019
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, K. Ramakrishnan
Item No. 01 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 606/2018
Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016
(State of Assam)
Date of hearing: 17.05.2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s):
For Respondent (s): Mr. Alok Kumar, Chief Secretary, State of Assam
Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Additional Chief Secretary,
Environment & Forest
Mr. Y. Suryanarayan, Chairman PCB, Assam
Mr. Gokul Bhuyan, Nodal Officer, PCB, Assam
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy and Mr. Vinayak Gupta,
Advocates
ORDER
S.NO. CONTENTS PARA
No.
I Preface 1
II Proceedings in Almitra Patel dealing with the issue of Waste 2-8
Management
III Previous Proceedings in Present Matter 9-27
IV Present Proceedings 28-36
V Deliberations 37-41
VI Directions 42-43
VII Further Observations 44-51
I. PREFACE
1. The issue for consideration is status of compliance of orders of this Tribunal on the subject of solid waste management and allied issues. At 1 the outset, we may mention that scientific waste management has been a serious challenge in the country. Absence of proper waste management is a major contributor to air, water and soil pollution and has reportedly resulted in large number of deaths and diseases. On account of continued and acknowledged non-compliance of statutory rules, and noticing manifestation of environmental degradation in the form of polluted river stretches, air polluted cities and critically polluted industrial clusters, unsuccessful regulatory regime, the Tribunal found it necessary to require monitoring at highest level of States/UTs in the country and required the Chief Secretaries of the States/ UTs to remain present in person before this Tribunal on specified dates with the status of compliance.1 Accordingly, by now Chief Secretaries of all States/ UTs except two2 have so appeared and presented the status reports on specific issues which include waste management, remedial action for polluted river stretches, air polluted cities, critically polluted industrial clusters, sand mining, compliance of environmental principles viz. 'Polluter Pays', 'Sustainable Development' and 'Precautionary Principle'. Since huge gaps have been found in the compliance of law, the Chief Secretaries have been required to personally monitor and take further steps, furnish quarterly reports and appear before the Tribunal again after six months. Present being almost the last order in the series, we propose to state the details of the proceedings which have taken place and the way forward. We have found that while continuous monitoring at the level of Chief Secretaries in the light of several orders passed by this 1 O.A. no. 606/2018 Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, Order dated 16.01.2019 2 Jharkhand and Jammu & Kashmir who are scheduled to appear on 05.07.2019 & 18.07.2019 respectively. 2
Tribunal may go a long way, a forum is required for collective exchange of thoughts to address the complex issues such as identifying right techno-economical models to be adopted throughout India for different categories depending upon the size of area, extent of population, geographical terrain, demographic profile, strategies for implementation in terms of budgetary resources, human resources and other challenges commonly faced. Having regard to the flagship programmes of Government of India such as Swachh Bharat Mission, Namami Gange, which are integrally connected to the issues of waste management, water management and conservation, control of air and water pollution, the involvement of highest level authorities in the Central Government with the highest authority of the States may be necessary in the spirit of cooperative federalism. Such directions have been issued in certain orders of this Tribunal to which reference will be made in the later part of this order.
II. PROCEEDINGS IN ALMITRA PATEL DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT:
2. The matter arose before this Tribunal on transfer of proceedings in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors., by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.09.2014.
3. We may note that the issue has been subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several proceedings, including in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand3 and B.L. Wadhera v. Union of 3 (1980) 4 SCC 162 3 India and Ors.4 It has been categorically laid down that clean environment is fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 and it is for the Local Bodies as well as the State to ensure that public health is preserved by taking all possible steps. For doing so, financial inability cannot be pleaded.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had appointed Barman Committee which gave report on 06.01.1998 and it was duly accepted. The same led to draft for management of MSW Rules, 1999 which were replaced by 2000 Rules and are now succeeded by 2016 Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave directions for proper management of municipal solid waste, inter-alia, vide orders dated 24.08.2000, 04.10.2004, 15.05.2007 and 19.07.2010.
5. All the States were parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and draft action plans were prepared which were to be updated, as per revised Rules.
6. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Almitra H. Patel and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.5 that the local authorities constituted for providing services to the citizens are lethargic and insufficient in their functioning which is impermissible. Non-accountability has led to lack of effort on the part of the employees. Domestic garbage and sewage along with poor drainage system in an unplanned manner contribute heavily to the problem of solid waste. The number of slums have multiplied significantly occupying large areas of public land. Promise of free land 4 (1996) 2 SCC 594 5 (2000) 2 SCC 679 4 attracts more land grabbers. Instead of "slum clearance" there is "slum creation" in cities which is further aggravating the problem of domestic waste being strewn in the open. Accordingly, the Court directed that provisions pertaining to sanitation and public health under the DMC Act, 1957, the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and Cantonments Act, 1994 be complied with, streets and public premises be cleaned daily, statutory authorities levy and recover charges from any person violating laws and ensure scientific disposal of waste, landfill sites be identified keeping in mind requirement of the city for next 20 years and environmental considerations, sites be identified for setting up of compost plants, steps be taken to prevent fresh encroachments and compliance report be submitted within eight weeks.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Almitra H. Patel and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.6, while further reviewing the progress noted the following suggestions for consideration by the State Governments and Central Government and SPCBs/PCCs: -
"1. As a result of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders on 26.7.2004, in Maharashtra the number of authorizations granted for solid waste management (SWM) has increased from 32% to 98%, in Gujarat from 58% to 92% and in M.P. from NIL to 34%. No affidavits at all have been received from the 24 other States/UTs for which CPCB reported NIL or less than 3% authorisations in February 2004. All these States and their SPCBs can study and learn from Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat's successes.
2. All States/UTs and their SPCBs/PCCs have totally ignored the improvement of existing open 6 (2004) 13 SCC 538 5 dumps, due by 31.12.2001, let alone identifying and monitoring the existing sites. Simple steps can be taken immediately at almost no cost by every single ULB to prevent monsoon water percolation through the heaps, which produces highly polluting black run-off(leachate). Waste heaps can be made convex to eliminate standing water, upslope diversion drains can prevent water inflow, downslope diversion drains can capture leachate for recirculation onto the heaps, and disused heaps can be given soil cover for vegetative healing.
3. Lack of funds is no excuse for inaction.
Smaller towns in every State should go and learn from Suryapet in A.P. (population 103,000) and Namakkal in T.N. (population 53,000) which have both seen dustbin-free 'zero garbage towns' complying with the MSW Rules since 2003 with no financial input from the State or the Centre, just good management and a sense of commitment.
4. States seems to use the Rules as an excuse to milk funds from the Centre, by making that a precondition for action and inflating waste processing costs 2-3-fold. The Supreme Court Committee recommended 1/3 contribution each from the city, State and Centre. Before seeking 70-80% Centre's contribution, every State should first ensure that each city first spends its own share to immediately make its wastes non-
polluting by simple sanitizing/stabilizing, which is always the first step in composting viz.
inoculate the waste with cow dung solution or bioculture and placing it in windrows (long heaps) which are turned at least once or twice over a period of 45 to 60 days.
5. Unless each State creates a focused 'solid waste management cell' and rewards its cities for good performance, both of which Maharashtra has done, compliance with the MSW Rules seems to be an illusion.
6. The admitted position is that the MSW Rules have not been complied with even after four years. None of the functionaries have bothered or discharged their duties to ensure compliance. Even existing dumps have not been improved. Thus, deeper thought and urgent and immediate 6 action is necessary to ensure compliance in future."
8. After transfer of proceedings to this Tribunal on 02.09.2014, the matter was taken up from time to time and several directions were issued. Finally vide order dated 22.12.2016, after noticing that the SWM Rules, 2016 had been notified on 08.04.2016 which laid down elaborate mechanism to deal with the solid waste management, the Tribunal directed as follows:
"1. Every State and Union Territory shall enforce and implement the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in all respects and without any further delay.
2. The directions contained in this judgment shall apply to the entire country. All the State Governments and Union Territories shall be obliged to implement and enforce these directions without any alteration or reservation.
3. All the State Governments and Union Territories shall prepare an action plan in terms of the Rules of 2016 and the directions in this judgment, within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of the judgment. The action plan would relate to the management and disposal of waste in the entire State. The steps are required to be taken in a time bound manner. Establishment and operationalization of the plants for processing and disposal of the waste and selection and specifications of landfill sites which have to be constructed, be prepared and maintained strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2016.
4. The period of six months specified under Rule 6(b), 18, 23 of the Rules of 2016 has already lapsed. All the stakeholders including the Central Government and respective State Governments/UTs have failed to take action in terms thereof within the stipulated period. By way of last opportunity, we direct that the period of six months shall be reckoned w.e.f. 1st January, 2017. There shall be no extension given to any stakeholders for compliance with these provisions any further.7
The period of one year specified under Rule 11(f) 12(a), 15(e), 22(1) and 22(2) has lapsed. The concerned stakeholders have obviously not taken effective steps in discharging their statutory obligations under these provisions. Therefore, we direct that the said period of one year shall commence with effect from 1st July, 2017. For this also, no extension shall be provided.
Any State or Union Territory which now fails to comply with the statutory obligations as afore indicated shall be liable to be proceeded against in accordance with Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Besides that, it would also be liable to pay environmental compensation, as may be imposed by this Tribunal. In addition to this, the senior most officer in-charge in the State Government/Urban Local Body shall be liable to be personally proceeded against for violation of the Rules and orders passed by this Tribunal.
5. The Central Government, State Government, Local Authorities and citizens shall perform their respective obligations/duties as contemplated under the Rules of 2016, now, without any further delay or demur.
6. All the State Governments, its departments and local authorities shall operate in complete co-ordination and cooperation with each other and ensure that the solid waste generated in the State is managed, processed and disposed of strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2016.
7. Wherever a Waste to Energy plant is established for processing of the waste, it shall be ensured that there is mandatory and proper segregation prior to incineration relatable to the quantum of the waste.
8. It shall be mandatory to provide for a buffer zone around plants and landfill sites whether they are geographically integrated or are located separately. The buffer zone necessarily need not be of 500 meters wherever there is a land constraint. The purpose of the buffer zone should be to segregate the plant by means of a green belt from surrounding areas so as to prevent and control pollution, besides, the site of the project should be horticulturally beautified. This should be decided by the authorities concerned and the Rules are silent with regard to extent of buffer zone. However, the Urban Development Manual provides for the same. Hence, 8 we hold that this provision is not mandatory, but is directory.
We make it clear that buffer zone and green belt are essential and their extent would have to be decided on a case to case basis.
9. We direct that the Committees constituted under Rule-
5 would meet at least once in three months and not once in a year as stipulated under the Rules of 2016. The minutes of the meeting shall be placed in the public domain. Directions, on the basis of the minutes, shall be issued immediately after the meeting, to the concerned States, Local Bodies, departments and Project Proponents.
10. The State Government and the local authorities shall issue directives to all concerned, making it mandatory for the power generation and cement plants within its jurisdiction to buy and use RDF as fuel in their respective plants, wherever such plant is located within a 100 km radius of the facility.
In other words, it will be obligatory on the part of the State, local authorities to create a market for consumption of RDF. It is also for the reason that, even in Waste to Energy plants, Waste-RDF-Energy is a preferred choice.
11. In Waste to Energy plant by direct incineration, absolute segregation shall be mandatory and be part of the terms and conditions of the contract.
12. The tipping fee, wherever payable to the concessionaire/operator of the facility, will not only be relatable to the quantum of waste supplied to the concessionaire/operator but also to the efficient and regular functioning of the plant. Wherever, tipping fee is related to load of the waste, proper computerised weighing machines should be connected to the online system of the concerned departments and local authorities mandatorily.
13. Wherever, the waste is to be collected by the concessionaire/operator of the facility, there it shall be obligatory for him to segregate inert and C&D waste at source/collection point and then transport it in accordance with the Rules of 2016 to the identified sites.9
14. The landfill sites shall be subjected to bio-
stabilisation within six months from the date of pronouncement of the order. The windrows should be turned at regular intervals. At the landfill sites, every effort should be made to prevent leachate and generation of Methane. The stabilized waste should be subjected to composting, which should then be utilized as compost, ready for use as organic manure.
15. Landfills should preferably be used only for depositing of inert waste and rejects. However, if the authorities are compelled to use the landfill for good and valid reasons, then the waste (other than inert) to be deposited at such landfill sites be segregated and handled in terms of Direction 13.
16. The deposited non-biodegradable and inert waste or such waste now brought to land fill sites should be definitely and scientifically segregated and to be used for filling up of appropriate areas and for construction of roads and embankments in all road projects all over the country. To this effect, there should be a specific stipulation in the contract awarding work to concessionaire/operator of the facility.
17. The State Government, Local Authorities, Pollution Control Boards of the respective States, Pollution Control Committees of the UTs and the concerned departments would ensure that they open or cause to be opened in discharge of Extended Producer Responsibility, appropriate number of centers in every colony of every district in the State which would collect or require residents of the locality to deposit the domestic hazardous waste like fluorescent tubes, bulbs, batteries, electronic items, syringe, expired medicines and such other allied items. Hazardous waste, so collected by the centers should be either sent for recycling, wherever possible and the remnant thereof should be transported to the hazardous waste disposal facility.
18. We direct MoEF&CC, and the State Governments to consider and pass appropriate directions in relation to ban on short life PVC and chlorinated plastics as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, not later than six months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
19. The directions and orders passed in this judgment shall not affect any existing contracts, however, we 10 still direct that the parties to the contract relating to management or disposal of waste should, by mutual consent, bring their performance, rights and liabilities in consonance with this judgment of the Tribunal and the Rules of 2016. However, to all the concessionaire/operators of facility even under process, this judgment and the Rules of 2016 shall completely and comprehensively apply.
20. We specifically direct that there shall be complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, including at landfill sites. For each such incident or default, violators including the project proponent, concessionaire, ULB, any person or body responsible for such burning, shall be liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) in case of simple burning, while Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Thousand only) in case of bulk waste burning. Environmental compensation shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the competent authority in accordance with law.
21. All the local authorities, concessionaire, operator of the facility shall be obliged to display on their respective websites the data in relation to the functioning of the plant and its adherence to the prescribed parameters. This data shall be placed in the public domain and any person would be entitled to approach the authority, if the plant is not operating as per specified parameters.
22. We direct the CPCB and the respective State Boards to conduct survey and research by monitoring the incidents of such waste burning and to submit a report to the Tribunal as to what pollutants are emitted by such illegal and unauthorized burning of waste.
23. That the directions contained in the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of 'Kudrat Sandhu Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors', O.A. No. 281 of 2016, shall mutatis mutandis apply to this judgment and consequently to all the stakeholders all over the country.
24. That any States/UTs, local authorities, concessionaires, facility operators, any stakeholders, generators of waste and any person who violates or fails to comply with the Rules of 2016 in the entire country and the directions contained in this judgment shall be liable for penal action in accordance with Section-15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 11 and shall also be liable to pay environmental compensation in terms of Sections 15 & 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to the extent determined by the Tribunal.
25. That the State Governments/UTs, public authorities, concessionaire/operators shall take all steps to create public awareness about the facilities available, processing of the waste, obligations of the public at large, public authorities, concessionaire and facility operators under the Rules and this judgment. They shall hold program for public awareness for that purpose at regular intervals. This program should be conducted in the local languages of the concerned States/UTs/Districts.
26. We expect all the concerned authorities to take note of the fact that the Rules of 2016 recognize only a landfill site and not dumping site and to take appropriate actions in that behalf.
27. We further direct that the directions contained in this judgment and the obligations contained under the Rules of 2016 should be circulated and published in the local languages.
28. Every Advisory Committee in the State shall also act as a Monitoring Committee for proper implementation of these directions and the Rules of 2016.
29. Copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Chief Secretaries/Advisers of States/UTs by the Registry of the Tribunal. The said authorities are hereby directed to take immediate steps to comply with all the directions contained in this judgment and submit a report of compliance to the Tribunal within one month from the date they receive copy of this judgment."
III. PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN PRESENT MATTER:
9. The Tribunal in a review meeting on the administrative side with the CPCB and municipal solid waste management experts on the subject of waste management on 23.07.2018, considered the matter in the light of Annual Report prepared by the CPCB in April 2018 under Rule 24 of the MSW Rules, 2016 and noticed serious deficiencies. 12
Accordingly, it was decided to take up the issue of execution of judgment dated 22.12.2016 in Mrs. Almitra H. Patel & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (supra), by way of interaction with all the States/UTs through video conferencing. For this purpose, meetings were held on 02.08.2018, 07.08.2018, 08.08.2018, 13.08.2018 and 20.08.2018.
10. At the conclusion of the interaction, the Tribunal declared that the mandatory provision of the Rules and directions should be implemented in a time bound manner. Following specific steps were required to be taken7:
i. Action plans were to be submitted by all the States to CPCB latest by 31.10.2018 and executed in the outer deadline of 31.12.2019 which should be overseen by the Principal Secretaries of Urban and Rural Development Departments of the States.
ii. The States should have Monitoring Committees headed by the Secretary, Urban Development Department with the Secretary of Environment Department as Members and CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) assisting the Committees.
iii. They should have interaction with the Local Bodies once in two weeks.
iv. Local Bodies are to furnish their reports to State Committees twice a month.
v. The State Committees may take a call on technical and policy issues.7
O.A. no. 606/2018 Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, Order dated 20.08.2018 13 vi. Local Bodies may have suitable nodal officers. Bigger Local Bodies may have their own Committees headed by Senior Officers.
vii. Public involvement may be encouraged and status of the steps taken be put in public domain.
viii. The State Level Committees are to give their reports to the Regional Monitoring Committees on monthly basis.8 ix. Instead of every local body separately floating tenders, the standardized technical specifications be involved and adopted.9 x. Best practices may be adopted, including setting up of Control Rooms where citizens can upload photos of garbage which may be looked into by the specified representatives of Local Bodies, at local level as well as State level.
xi. It was directed that mechanism be evolved for citizens to receive and give information.
xii. CCTV cameras be installed at dumping sites.
xiii. GPS be installed in garbage collection vans. This may be monitored appropriately.10
11. Performance audit was to be conducted for 500 ULBs with population of 1 lakh and above initially, as suggested by the MoHUA as follows:
Key Parameters/ Description of Parameters/Indicators for Indicators physical evaluation Door to door collection of segregated solid waste from all households including slums and Door to Door informal settlements, commercial, institutional 1 Collection and other non-residential premises.
Transportation in covered vehicles to processing or disposal facilities 8Para 21 9 Para 22 10 Para 23 14 Segregation of waste by households into Source 2 Biodegradable, non-biodegradable, domestic Segregation hazardous.
Installation of Twin-bin/ segregated litter bins in commercial & public areas at every 50-100 meters.
Litter Bins & 3 Waste Storage Installation of Waste storage bins in strategic Bins locations across the city, as per requirement (Unless Binless) Elimination of Garbage Vulnerable Points.
Installation of Transfer Stations instead of Transfer secondary storage bins in cities with population 4 Stations above 5 lakhs.
Compartmentalization of vehicles for the collection of different fractions of waste.
Separate Use of GPS in collection and transportation 5 transportation vehicles to be made mandatory at least in cities with population above 5 lakh along with the publication of route map.
All public and commercial areas to have twice daily sweeping, including night 6 Public Sweeping sweeping and residential areas to have daily sweeping.
Waste Separate space for segregation, storage,
Processing decentralised processing of solid waste to be
Wet Waste demarcated
7
Dry Waste Establishing systems for home/decentralised
MRF Facility and centralised composting
Setting up of MRF Facilities.
Setting up common or regional sanitary
landfills by all Local Bodies for the disposal Scientific 8 of permitted waste under the rules Landfill Systems for the treatment of legacy waste to be established.
Ensure separate storage, collection and 9 C&D Waste transportation of construction and demolition wastes.
Implementation of ban on plastics below <50 10 Plastic Waste microns thickness and single use plastics.
Bulk Waste Bulk waste generators to set up decentralized
11 Generators waste processing facilities as per SWM Rules,
(BWGs) 2016.
Mandatory arrangements have to be made by
12 RDF cement plants to collect and use RDF, from the
RDF plants, located within 200 kms.
Preventing solid Installation of suitable mechanisms such as 13 waste from screen mesh, grill, nets, etc. in water bodies entering into such as nallahs, drains, to arrest solid waste 15 water bodies from entering into water bodies.
Waste Generators paying user fee for solid 14 User Fees waste management, as specified in the bye-laws of the Local Bodies.
Prescribe criteria for levying of spot fine for persons who litters or fails to comply with the Penalty 15 provisions of these rules and delegate powers to provision officers or Local Bodies to levy spot fines as per the byelaws framed.
Frame bye-laws incorporating the provisions of Notification of 16 MSW Rules, 2016 and ensuring timely Bye Laws implementation.
Citizen
17 Grievance Resolution of complaints on Swachhata App
Redressal within SLA.
Monitoring States/ULBs to update month wise
18
mechanism targets/action plans on the online MIS.
12. The Regional Committees were to be headed either by former High Court Judges or by Senior Retired Officers and Apex Committees by a former Supreme Court Judge.11 Common problems faced and suggestions were to be noted in tabular chart.12 The Committees were to function for a period of one-year subject to further orders.13
13. The matter was again taken up on 16.01.2019 in light of reports received from some of the Committees, especially from the State of Uttar Pradesh.
14. It was noticed that timeline of two years had expired which was the period prescribed for steps 1 to 7 under Rule 22 and three years is to expire on 08.04.2019 which covers steps upto Sr. No. 10. The time limit is as follows:
11 Paras 18 and 20 12 Para 14 13 Para 18 16 S. Activity Time limit from No. the date of notification of rules (1) (2) (3)
1. Identification of suitable sites for 1 year setting up solid waste processing facilities
2. Identification of suitable sites for 1 year setting up common regional sanitary landfill facilities for suitable clusters of local authorities under 0.5 million population and for setting up common regional sanitary landfill facilities or stand alone sanitary landfill facilities by all local authorities having a population of 0.5 million or more
3. Procurement of suitable sites for 2 years setting up solid waste processing facility and sanitary landfill facilities
4. Enforcing waste generators to 2 years practice segregation of bio degradable, recyclable, combustible, sanitary waste domestic hazardous and inert solid wastes at source
5. Ensure door to door collection of 2 years segregated waste and its transportation in covered vehicles to processing or disposal facilities.
6. ensure separate storage, collection 2 years and transportation of construction and demolition wastes
7. setting up solid waste processing 2 years facilities by all Local Bodies having 100000 or more population
8. Setting up solid waste processing 3 years facilities by Local Bodies and census towns below 100000 population
9. setting up common or stand alone 3 years sanitary landfills by or for all Local Bodies having 0.5 million or more population for the disposal of only such residual wastes from the processing facilities as well as untreatable inert wastes as permitted under the Rules 17
10. setting up common or regional 3 years sanitary landfills by all Local Bodies and census towns under 0.5 million population for the disposal of permitted waste under the rules
11. bio-remediation or capping of old 5 years and abandoned dump sites Since violation of Rules is statutory offence under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and results in deterioration of environment, affecting the life of the citizens, it was noted that the authorities may be made accountable for their lapses and required to furnish performance guarantee for compliance or pay damages as had been directed in some of the cases.14
15. The Tribunal noted that solid waste management is of paramount importance for protection of environment, as the statistics paint a dismal picture of the environment in the country. The Tribunal had also referred to proceedings before it, relating to 351 polluted river stretches 102 non-attainment cities in terms of ambient air quality and 100 industrial clusters which are critically polluted as per data available with CPCB. The Tribunal had taken cognizance of such serious environmental issues and required the respective States to 14Para 20. Cases referred to in the said para are as follows:
(a). All India Lokadhikar Sangathan vs. Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr, E.A No. 11/2017, Date of Order 16.10.2018;
(b). Sobha Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. O.A. No. 916/2018, Date of Order 14.11.2018;
(c). Threat to life arising out of coal mining in south Garo Hills district v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. O.A No. 110 (THC)/2012, Date of Order 04.01.2019;
(d). Ms. Ankita Sinha vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. O.A. No. 510/2018, Date of Order 30.10.2018,
(e). Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. O.A. No. 173/2018, Date of Order 04.09.2018;
(f). Court on its Own Motion vs. State of Karnataka, O.A. No. 125/2017, Date of Order 06.12.2018.18
prepare time bound action plans and execute the same so as to restore water and air quality, as per prescribed norms.15
16. The Tribunal also noted that there was a need to conduct performance audit of statutory regulators so that they are manned by competent as well as credible persons and there is a regime of their accountability, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Failure to do so would be disastrous for the health of the citizens and defeat the very purpose of regulatory regime manned to protect the environment. Accordingly, it was held that the issues being interconnected, an integral approach was required in the matter for sustainable and inclusive development. Coordination was required with different authorities of the State, which was not possible without involvement of the Chief Secretaries.16 15 Para 21. Cases referred to in the said para are as follows:
O.A. No. 110 (THC)/2012-Threat to life arising out of coal mining in south Garo Hills district v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
O.A. No. 673/2018, News item published in 'The Hindu' authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB" dated 20.09.2018: wherein the Tribunal issued directions to prepare and implement Action Plans to rejuvenate and restore the 351 polluted river stretches. Original Application No. 681/2018, 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: wherein the Tribunal directed Action Plans to be prepared for the 102 non-attained cities to bring the standards of air quality within the prescribed norms.
Original Application 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:
wherein the Tribunal directed preparation of time bound Action Plans to ensure that all industrial clusters comply with the parameters laid down in Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Original Application No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 dated 31.08.2018: wherein the Tribunal constituted Apex and Regional Monitoring Committees for effective implementation of MSW Rules, 2016.
16Paras 21 to 25. Cases referred to in the said paras are as follows:
Aryavart Foundation v. M/s Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. & Ors, O.A. No.95/2018. https://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/new_initiatives/presentation-on-CWMI.pdf- India ranks 120th in 122 countries in Water Quality Index as per Niti Ayog Report, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-andenvironment/india-ranked-no-1-in- pollution-related-deaths-report/article19887858.ece- Most pollution-linked deaths occur 19
17. The Tribunal also considered its experience of administrative interaction held on the subject on 04.12.2018 with the Committees appointed and found that the mechanism had not become as effective as expected.17
18. The Tribunal accordingly modified the mechanism of Committees. For the States, Member Secretaries of the SPCBs were made the Convener of the Committees. Secretaries of Urban Development, Local Bodies, Local Self-Government, Environment, Rural Development Health and representatives of CPCB, wherever CPCB office is existing were to be Members. The Committees were to work for six months or as may be considered necessary.18 in India, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-world-s-most-polluted-city-
mumbaiworse-than-beijing-who/story-m4JFTO63r7x4Ti8ZbHF7mM.html- Delhi's most polluted city, Mumbai worse than Beijing as per WHO; http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/global_drinking_water_quality_index.pdf- WHO Water Quality Index .
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" O.A. No. 681/2018- http://www.greentribunal.gov.in/DisplayFile.aspx https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhis-air-pollution-has-caused-of-death-of-15-000- people-study-1883022.
Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. O.A. No. 173/2018 Order dated 04.09.2018 Shailesh Singh vs. Hotel Holiday Regency, Moradabad & Ors. O.A. No. 176/2015, order dated 3.1.2019 Aryavart Foundation v. M/s Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. & Ors O.A. No.95/2018, order dated 11.01.2019.
17 Para 26.
18Para 28. Cases referred to in the said para are as follows:
See order dated 198.9.2018 of this Tribunal in O.A No. 606/2018 to the effect that the non-official Chairperson will be pa9id consolidated amount equal to basic pay of the post held by the incumbent. A former Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court will be entitled to Rs. 2.50 Lakhs per month. A former Judge of the High Court will be paid Rs. 2.25 Lakhs per month. On same pattern, remuneration may be fixed for any other retired Member.
E.A. No.32/2016 order dated 15.11.2018- Clarifying that while the State may provide the logistics and other facilities, the financial aspects may be taken care of by the State Pollution Control Boards/Committees. The financial aspects will include the remuneration or other incidental expenses which may be increased with a view to effectively execute the directions of this Tribunal. Such expenses may include secretarial assistance, travel as well as cost incurred for any technical assistance. 20
19. The Committees constituted under the Rules were to work in tandem with the Committees constituted by the Tribunal. The CPCB was to prepare Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for implementation of Clause J of Schedule I for dealing with the legacy waste. The Collectors were to have monthly meetings, as per Rule 12 and submit reports to State Urban Development Departments, with a copy to State Level Committees.19 CPCB has since prepared such SOP and circulated to the State Pollution Control Boards in February 2019. We are given to understand that such procedure has been successfully implemented at places such as Goa, Indore and Kumbhkonam.
20. Every State was to constitute a Special Task Force (STF) in each District with four members - one each nominated by the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Regional Officer of the SPCBs and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for awareness by involving educational, religious and social organizations, including local Eco-clubs. This was also to apply with regard to awareness in respect of other connected issues i.e. polluted rivers, air pollution, etc. In this regard, reference was made to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring such awareness programmes to be undertaken.20 Accordingly, circular dated 07.05.2019 was issued by Apart from remuneration, all actual expenses incurred in taking assistance for secretarial working will be reimbursed by concerned PCB as already directed vide order dated 17.12.2018 E.A. No.32/2016, Amresh Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 19 Para 32.
20 Paras 35 and 36. Cases referred to in the said paras are as follows:
O.A. No. 138/2016 order dated 27.08.2018 O.A.No. 673/2018, order dated 20.09.2018 Suo Moto Application No. 290/2017, order dated 24.10.2018 O.A. No. 200/2014 order dated 29.11.2018 21 the National Legal Services Authority to the State Legal Services Authority and the Tribunal has directed CPCB to coordinate with NALSA at the national level and with SLSAs and DLSAs at the State and District level respectively, through State PCBs.21
21. The Tribunal also referred to its order dated 19.12.2018, in Original Application No. 673/2018, for laying down scale of compensation to be recovered from each State/UT in failing to carry out directions of this Tribunal on the issue of preparing action plans for river stretches. Similar pattern was proposed in case of failing to carry out directions in the present case.22
22. The Chief Secretaries/Advisor of all the States and UTs were required to appear in person and be ready on the following specific points:
"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 (2004)1 SCC 571 (2005)5 SCC 733 21 O.A. no. 606/2018 Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (State of Karnataka) order dated 24.04.2019 22 Para 38. Cases referred to in the said para are as follows:
Threat to life arising out of coal mining in south Garo Hills district v. State of Meghalaya & Ors O.A. No. 110(THC)/2012.
News Item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB (O.A. No. 673/2018) vide order dated 19.12.2018- wherein this Tribunal held that compensation for damage to the environment will be payable by each of the States/ UTs at the rate of Rs. One Crore per month for each of the Priority- I and Priority- II stretches, Rs. 50 lacs per month for stretches in Priority-
III and Rs. 25 lacs per month each for Priority- IV and Priority- V stretches. 22
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. (Original Application No. 618/2018).
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."
23. It was also directed that the Chief Secretaries may not nominate other officer for appearance before this Tribunal. However, they may seek change of date, with advance intimation.23
24. Further direction was for the State to display on their respective websites the progress made on the above issues.24 Under Rule 14, the CPCB was directed to coordinate with the Committees.25 23 Paras 40 and 41 24 Para 42 25 Para 45 23
25. As already noted, Chief Secretaries of all States/ UTs except two have already appeared in person and filed their respective reports.
26. After interaction with the Chief Secretaries, directions have been given by the Tribunal for further course of action and the Chief Secretaries been directed to appear in person again with status of compliance and progress after six months on specified dates. The directions include identifying certain areas in Phase-I for compliance of environmental norms within six months and the remaining State to be compliant within one year. The Chief Secretaries are to monitor the progress atleast once in a month and the District Magistrates atleast twice in a month. Progress report is to be sent to the Tribunal within three months. Training is to be imparted. Cost of restoration of damage to environment is to be assessed and recovered. Performance audit is to be conducted. Policy to give ranking based on performance and to encourage those who contribute to the environment and other strategies for community involvement are to be considered. It was further suggested that the Chief Secretaries may have a monitoring cell directly attached to them for environmental issues. These directions were considered necessary to ensure that environment protection and restoration is given highest priority in view of serious challenge posed by deteriorated environment and largescale violations which are not satisfactorily dealt with by the administrative machinery of the Government. The Tribunal hopes and expects that continued involvement of Chief Secretaries/Advisor will result in 24 improvement of the situation and lead to better protection of quality of air, water and environment and help public health.
27. We may note that after order dated 16.01.2019 some of the issues referred to in Para 22 hereinabove i.e. waste management, remedying river pollution, air pollution, pollution of industrial clusters, unscientific and illegal sand mining and compliance of environmental norms have been dealt with by further orders of this Tribunal as follows:
(i) Vide order dated 05.03.2019, dealing with State of Himachal Pradesh, it was directed that the Apex Committee may conclude its proceedings by 30.04.2019 and furnish its final report.
Thereafter, monitoring at apex level could be done by MoEF&CC and CPCB in terms of Rules 5 and 14 of the SWM Rules respectively and direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 22.12.2016 [Para 43(9)]. However, the State Level Committees as directed by the Tribunal headed by retired Judges and the Chief Secretaries are to continue alongwith the other Committees. After expiry of the term of the State Level Committees, the Chief Secretaries are to take a decision about continuation of the said Committees. The direction was issued as the Chief Secretaries have now taken over the monitoring.
(ii) Vide order dated 08.04.2019, in O.A. No. 673/2018, News item published in 'The Hindu' authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled 25 "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB", the Tribunal while dealing with the issue of remedial action for making 351 river stretches pollution free, directed constitution of Central Monitoring Committee (CMC) comprising representatives from NITI Ayog, Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR), Urban Development Department, MoEF&CC, NMCG and CPCB representing the Central Government and the Chief Secretaries representing the States/UTs so that a holistic view can be taken on all significant aspects of remedying 351 river stretches.
(iii) Vide order dated 24.04.2019, in O.A. No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (in respect of State of Karnataka), the Tribunal directed that the CMC should also include the issues dealt with in the present matter in the light of the report of the CPCB identifying the gaps in compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, Bio Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, air pollution in 102 cities, pollution in 100 polluted industrial clusters, illegal and unscientific sand mining, these subjects being integral to the purpose for which CMC was being constituted as mentioned in sub para (ii) above. CPCB is to prepare gap analysis report by 15.07.2019 and meeting of CMC is to be held before 31.07.2019.
26
(iv) CPCB has been further directed vide order dated 24.04.201926 to explore undertaking carrying capacity study of all Eco-sensitive areas and such areas where scientific evidence has established violation of environmental norms in the form of non-attainment cities, polluted river stretches and critically polluted industrial clusters and suggest remedial measures, having regard to the directions passed by this Tribunal, inter-alia, in Anil Tharthare Vs. The Secretary, Envt. Dept. Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors.,27Ajay Khera Vs. Container Corporation of India Limited & Ors. 28 and Westend Green Farms Society Vs. Union of India & Ors.29 Remedial measures may be necessary in the light of such study by way of planning steps to regulate population density, vehicle numbers, nature and quality of vehicles, nature and quality of activity to be allowed. Absence of such measures may render it difficult to meaningfully implement the accepted norms of 'Sustainable Development' or 'Intergenerational Equity'.
(v) Vide order dated 24.04.2018 in O.A. No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (in respect of State of Karnataka), a suggestion was given that the 26 Vide order dated 24.04.2019 in O.A. No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2018 (State of Karnataka).
27Para 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. 28 Para 18 of the order wherein the Tribunal directed assessment of carrying capacity for the NCT of Delhi as well as other major cities particularly 102 non-attainment cities within reasonable time, preferably in one year. The assessment would specifically study capacity in terms of number of vehicles, extent of population, extent of nature of different activities - institutional, industrial and commercial etc. 29 Para 28 of the order wherein the Tribunal directed carrying capacity assessment to regulate activities violating environmental laws.
27
authorities allocating funds such as Finance Commission or other Central Government Departments may consider incentives to encourage compliance and impose appropriate conditions to ensure such compliance.
(vi) Vide order dated 22.04.2018 in O.A. No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (in respect of State of Meghalaya ), CPCB was directed to prepare a program30 indicating persons required to be imparted training, subjects of training, resource persons, location of training, duration of training programmes etc. as there is need to develop an institutional training mechanism involving technical, social and environmental issues for training of officers concerned with enforcement of environment norms at ground level. Training is to be an ongoing process at national level, State level and other appropriate levels.
(vii) Vide order dated 10.05.2019 in O.A. No. 148/2016, Mahesh Chandra Saxena Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., the Tribunal directed all the States/ UTs to prepare and furnish action plan to the CPCB for reuse of treated water as the absence of such plan affects recharge of ground water and results in fresh water being used for purposes for which treated water can alternatively be used. The Tribunal further directed that the CMC may also take cognizance of issue of reuse of treated 30Vide order dated 22.04.2019, in O.A. No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2018 (State of Meghalaya).
28
water as the said matter deals with improving ground water regime and therefore was connected to remedying the 351 polluted river stretches.
(viii) Vide order dated 10.05.2019 in O.A. No. 325/2015, Lt. Col.
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi Vs. Union of India & Ors., this Tribunal considered the issue of conservation of water bodies and issued directions to all the States/ UTs to furnish their respective Action Plans to CPCB. The CPCB was directed to furnish its analysis report to the Tribunal for further directions. The Tribunal further directed that the Chief Secretaries may monitor the issue at the State level and the CMC may consider the matter at national level as the said matter deals with improving ground water regime and therefore was connected to remedying the 351 polluted river stretches.
(ix) Vide order dated 13.05.2019 in O.A. No. 95/2018, Aryavart Foundation Vs. M/s Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. & Ors., this Tribunal while considering the issue of unsatisfactory state of treatment of sewage and effluents, directed MoEF&CC to review the scheme of working of CETPs, apart from requiring CPCB to conduct performance audit of working of all State PCBs.
(x) Vide order dated 23.04.2019, in O.A. No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (in respect of State of Tamil Nadu) CPCB has been directed to explore preparation of Annual Environment Plan for the country giving status of 29 compliance of environmental norms and gaps, if any. In the process, undertaking of assessment of damage to the environment in monetary terms may be considered so that by applying 'Polluter Pays' principle the cost of damage is recovered from identified polluters. This concept is necessary for effective enforcement of environmental rule of law.31 IV. PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
28. In pursuance of above, Mr. Alok Kumar, Chief Secretary, Assam is present in person.
29. A status report has been filed on 14.05.2019 on behalf of State of Assam indicating status of compliance of order dated 16.01.2019. The compliance report indicates some of the steps taken for solid waste management. Status of compliance of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, polluted river stretches and air polluted cities have also been mentioned.
30. Some steps claimed to have been taken by the State of Assam, as stated in the status report are:
a) The State Government has prepared action plan for solid waste management. Scientific identification and allocation of sites for processing facility and sanitary landfill shall be done within 6 months.
31 Vide order dated 23.04.2019 in O.A. No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2018 (State of Tamil Nadu).
30
b) The state of Assam has imposed ban on manufacture, supply, store, transport, sale, carry, and/or distribute and use of plastic carry bags, plastic banners, plastic buntings, plastic flex, plastic flags, plastic plates, plastic cups, plastic spoons, cling films and plastic sheets used for spreading on dining table including the above items made of thermocol and plastic which use plastic micro beads in the state of Assam.
c) There is a safe storage for segregated Bio-medical waste within the premises in most of the facilities. Those facilities which do not have safe storage have been directed to comply.
d) Directions has been issued to prepare Detailed Project Report (DPR) for installation of Sewage Treatment Plant conforming to environmental standards at three points namely Jonali Point, Sarabhatti and just before confluence with Brahmaputra at Bharalumkh.
31. From perusal of the compliance report and after hearing submissions of the State, we find that steps required to be taken under Rule 22 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 have not yet been fully completed. It is not clear whether the Local Bodies have submitted their annual reports to the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) under Rule 24 and whether SPCB has submitted consolidated annual report to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under the said Rules. We have also found the steps taken for plastic waste management and bio-medical waste management to be inadequate. 31
32. From the compliance affidavit furnished by the Chief Secretary, huge gap is noticed in the steps taken and the steps required to be taken in terms of the Rules and for ensuring sustainable development. Unless such steps are taken, the unsatisfactory state of environment in the country in general and in the State in particular may not improve.
33. We take note of some of the articles published in the media.
Information in the said articles needs to be cross checked and remedial measures taken, if necessary. It is reported as follows.
a) It was in 2012 when Guwahati, the capital city of Assam, was one of those cities in the world with the highest Black Carbon pollution levels. Black Carbon (BC) pollutants are responsible for glacier melting in the Himalayas.32 Not much has changed as Assam is now considered as the most polluted North Eastern State of the country with highest respirable suspended particulate matter (RSPM) and suspended particulate matter (SPM) recorded in last one year.33
b) In 2018, Assam witnessed the spell of arsenic and fluoride contaminated water in 24 districts.34 Assam is in the middle of grave groundwater contamination crisis. Climatic changes like erratic rainfall which results in sudden long, dry spells, leads to less runoff water seeping into the ground and rejuvenating 32https://www.assamtimes.org/node/6662 dated June 26, 2012 33 https://www.aqi.in/blog/assam-air-pollution-is-at-an-all-time-high/ dated February 7, 2019 34https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/groundwater-in-24-districts-have- arsenic/articleshow/66083460.cms dated October 5, 2018. 32
water table. All such events result in increase in concentration of minerals like fluoride, that is pumped up by borewells.35
c) According to CPCB data for 2018, detailing 351 polluted stretches on 323 rivers across the country, Assam comes second after Maharashtra in terms of polluted river stretches.36 A major river, Brahmaputra faces maximum anthropogenic effect. Guwahati lacks a single state-owned sewage treatment plant (STP).37 Apart from the Brahmaputra, the story of Bharalu river is equally pitiful. A decade ago, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) declared the Bharalu river as one of the most polluted rivers in the country, however, its levels of pollution remain dismal even after 10 years. Not surprising that one of the biggest reasons of pollution in Bharalu river not going down over the years is because the city's untreated sewage waste goes into the river in the absence of STP.38
d) Unscientific dumping of garbage continues at Boragaon near Deepor Beel.39 Silchar produces 85 Metric tons of waste per day.40 There is no practice of segregation of waste as Bio- degradable and non-biodegradable except for in a few 35 https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/assam-s-groundwater- contamination-will-worsen-experts-warn-119032900336_1.html dated march 29, 2019 36 https://www.sentinelassam.com/news/managing-waste/ dated December 24, 2018 37 https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/once-assams-lifeline-the-brahmaputra-river-today-is- struggling-with-oil-pollution-and-waste-disposal-which-are-gradually-rendering-it-lifeless- 12018/ dated September 27, 2017.
38https://www.guwahatiplus.com/article-detail/bharalu-river-in-guwahati-remains-highly- polluted-even-after-10-years dated January 10, 2019 39 https://www.sentinelassam.com/news/comply-with-norms-or-close-site-national-green- tribunal-ngt/ dated March 21, 2019 40 http://greenubuntu.com/municipal-solid-waste-management-is-a-big-issue-in-assam/ dated February 8, 2019.
33
households or waste collection systems at Silchar.41 Additionally, it was reported that the dumping site, located at 2.0 km away from the Municipal boundary of Silchar city, is uncontrolled, unscientific and non-segregated for solid waste management.42
e) It is not just Silchar, but cities like Dibrugarh, Jorhat town, Guwahati where waste disposal and management is non- adaptive.43 At present, no proper disposal method is seen in the West Boragaon dumpsite of Guwahati. The municipal trucks simply carry the waste to the dumpsite and dispose it without any processing, which has now become a health risk to the local people with the resultant pollution of the air and water.44
f) Assam is the sixth largest e-waste producing state in India. According to a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in 2016, only 17 per cent of the hospitals, clinics and nursing homes in the state have obtained authorisation from the Pollution Control Board Assam (PCBA). Out of a total of 1,014 health care establishments in Assam, merely 178 have applied for authorisation from the PCBA which is a clear violation of the mandatory norms.45 There is just one Common 41 http://greenubuntu.com/municipal-solid-waste-management-in-assam-a-case-study/ dated February 23, 2019 42 Ibid.
43http://greenubuntu.com/waste-disposal-continues-in-open-areas-and-rivers-in-upper- assam-study/ dated April 2018.
44http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=jun2118/city051 dated June 21, 2018 45 https://www.guwahatiplus.com/article-detail/hospitals-clinics-flout-bio-medical-waste- disposal-norms dated February 5, 2018 34 Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility for the whole of the north-eastern region, at Panikheti in the outskirts of Guwahati. Generally, a CBWTF caters to all hospitals within a radius of 150 km.46
g) Due to unregulated sand mining, there have been instances in the past where, low lying areas in Solartek, Fakirganj, Salmara and Mancachar in Assam have seen large scale erosion and submergence of several villages.47 Assam State exchequer has witnessed a huge loss of revenue due to illegal mining.48
h) In the attempt to curb illegal mining, apart from conducting demolition operations 49 , the Assam Police's Bureau of Investigation had arrested a deputy ranger of Golaghat forest division for his alleged involvement in an illegal sand mining racket in the Doigrung river area.50
34. On behalf of CPCB, some data has been furnished in respect of State of Assam and the same is summarized as under: -
1 Solid Waste Number of towns to be covered: 94 Management Local Bodies : 26 Waste Generation : 8110 TPD Collected : 7200 TPD Landfilling :0 Waste processing: Composting, Vermicompost, 46 https://caiindia.org/hospital-waste-being-repackaged-and-sold-in-assam/ 47 https://www.northeasttoday.in/sand-mining-goes-unregulated-in-garo-hills/ dated November 23, 2017 48 https://www.guwahatiplus.com/daily-news/more-than-10-illegal-sand-mining-sites-
demolished-in-sonapur dated February 2, 2019 49 http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=mar2118/city067 dated March 21, 2018 50 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/64271910.cms?utm_source=contentofinteres t&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst dated May 22, 2018. 35
Biogas, RDF No. of Dumpsite: 94 2 Plastic Waste Waste Generation : 24030 TPA Management No. of registered manufacturing units: 8 No. of unregistered units:5 3 Biomedical No of Hospitals : 1415+ Waste Waste Generation : 8564.95 kg/d Treatment : 6581.27 kg/d Common Bio-medical waste Treatment Facilities : 1 No. of Captive Facilities : 104 4 Polluted P(I)-3 River P(II)-1 Stretches P(III)-4 P(IV)-3 P(V)- 33 Total : 44 5 Air Quality Non-attainment Cities: Guwahati, Nagaon, Management Nalbari, Sibsagar, Silchar 6 Industrial Byrnihat, Digboi Clusters 7 ETP, CETP, ETPs STPs No. of industries which require ETP: 2435 No. of industries having functional ETP: 1616 No. of industries complying: 1616 No. of industries non-complying: 819
35. Some of the grievances pertaining to the protection of environment in the State of Assam are pending consideration by this Tribunal.51
36. These facts have been brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary so that necessary action is considered and taken.
V. DELIBERATIONS 51Order dated 14.08.2018 in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, O.A. 432/2015 Order dated 19.02.2019 in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 593/2017 Order dated 12.04.2019, Chandra Bhal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 347/2016 36
37. Needless to say that improvement in environment is not only inalienable duty of the State, but is also necessary for sustainable development which is essential for the health and well-being of citizens as well as for intergenerational equity. These principles require that all human activities should be conducted in such a way that the rights of future generations to access clean air and potable water are not taken away. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that water is being polluted because of discharge of untreated sewage and effluents. Air pollution is result of failure to manage solid waste and to prevent other causes leading to air pollution. There are also other issues like deterioration in groundwater level, damage to forests and wild life, unscientific and uncontrolled sand mining etc. Unsatisfactory implementation of law is clear from the fact that inspite of severe damage, there is no report of any convictions being recorded against the polluters, nor adequate compensation has been recovered for damage caused to the environment. Steps for community involvement are not adequate. There is reluctance even to declare some major cities as fully compliant with the environment norms. The authorities have not been able to evolve simplified and standard procedure for preparing project reports and giving of contracts. There is no satisfactory plan for reuse of the treated water or use of treated sewage or waste and for segregation and collection of solid waste, for managing the legacy waste or other wastes, etc.
38. Though there are no official figures available, private studies which need to be verified and cross checked have assessed death 37 attributable to pollution to be 2.51 million in 2015, highest in the world. Air pollution, the number of deaths in India from ambient air pollution was 1.09 million, while deaths from household air pollution from solid fuels were 0.97 million. In the case of water pollution, 0.5 million deaths were caused by unsafe water source, while unsafe sanitation caused 0.32 million deaths. Deaths from air pollution were a result of diseases such as heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Pollution has been responsible for the most non-communicable disease deaths. India ranks a dismal 110 of 149 countries on the Sustainable Development Index. With rapid urbanization, the country is facing massive waste management challenge. Over 377 million urban people live in 7,935 towns and cities and generate 62 million tonnes of municipal solid waste per annum. Only 43 million tonnes (MT) of the waste is collected, 11.9 MT is treated and 31 MT is dumped in landfill sites. An alarming 80% of India's surface water is polluted. Indian cities generate 10 billion gallons or 38 billion litres of municipal waste water every day, out of which only 29% of it is treated.
39. Since we have found huge gap in steps taken and steps required to be taken to remedy the unsatisfactory state of environment, we had an interaction with the Chief Secretary about the way forward. The gap in the mandate of law on the one hand and actual compliance with law on the other has manifested itself in the form of polluted water, air and land. Its actual measurement in terms of monetary value or the loss on account of adverse impact on public health and 38 environment or otherwise in terms of number of deaths or diseases does not appear to have been duly and exhaustively undertaken by the official machinery so far for the country or for any particular area. The private reports mention number of deaths and diseases. Death by pollution may be comparable to an offence of homicide and any disease on that account may be likewise comparable to attempt to murder or grievous hurt. Polluter is, thus, liable to be dealt with in the same manner as a person committing any other heinous crime as per law of the land. Mere fact that such polluter creates wealth or employment does not make the offence less serious. The statutory framework prohibits polluting activity and provides for penal consequences. Further, the 'Polluter Pays' principle requires compensation to be recovered to meet the cost of remedying the adverse impact of pollution. Governance of such laws can be held to be satisfactory if the magnitude of punishment of law violators corresponds to the extent of violation of law and the compensation recovered is adequate to meet the cost of damage. There is enough evidence of pollution but no data is shown of corresponding convictions or recovery of adequate compensation for restoration of environment. This calls for authentic study of the extent of damage to the environment and to the public health so that policy makers and law enforcers can bridge the gap.
40. In case extent of convictions for the environment related offences do not correspond to the extent of crime, paradigm shift in policies and strategies for implementation of law may need to be considered. 39 Similarly, the mechanism for recovery of compensation may need to be revised on that pattern. Such review of policy cannot be left to the Local Bodies or the Pollution Control Boards but has to be at highest level in the State and further review at the national level. As noted in some of the studies, the ranking of the country in compliance of environmental norms needs to be brought to respectable higher position which may be possible only if there is change in policies and strategies for implementation of necessary norms at every level in right direction. The scale of compensation needs to be suitably revised so that the same is deterrent and adequate to meet the cost of reversing the pollution.
41. Authentic data is required to be compiled which is necessary for proper policy making. The Rules provide for such data to be collected at the state level as well as at the national level. If such data is not furnished timely from ground level with all the requisite details, the policy making remains deficient. Since none of the States is fully compliant with the mandate of statutory waste management rules under various headings, as already noted, remedial measures are necessary. We consider it necessary to observe that at least some major cities/towns/villages be first developed as model and thereafter successful experiment replicated in remaining cities/towns/villages. VI. DIRECTIONS:
40
42. In view of above, after discussion with the Chief Secretary, following further directions are issued:
i. Apart from model towns and cities already notified, atleast three villages in every District may be notified on the website within two weeks from today as model villages which will be made fully compliant 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 August 20, 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 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 41 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 on 29.11.2019. It is made clear that Chief Secretary may not delegate the above function and the further requirement of appearance before this Tribunal to anyone else. However, it will be open to him to change the date, by advance intimation by e-mail at [email protected] to adjust their convenience.
x. A copy of the compliance report furnished by the Chief Secretary be sent to CPCB as already directed vide order dated 24.04.2019 for the State of Karnataka (supra).
43. The issue of recovery of damages from the States for their failure to comply with the environmental norms, including the statutory rules and orders of this Tribunal, will be considered will be considered later. The Tribunal may also consider the requirement of performance 42 guarantee of a particular amount in case progress achieved is not found to be satisfactory.
VII. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
44. As already noted, we have had personal interaction with the Chief Secretaries of all the States / Advisors to the Administrators of the Union Territories, except two (Jharkhand and Jammu & Kashmir). As already noted, this exercise was undertaken with an expectation that involvement of highest executive functionary will help in remedying the serious situation which has arisen with regard to degradation of the environment in the country. As already noted, the data compiled by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has shown that 351 river stretches in the country are polluted, 102 cities have been declared as 'non-attainment' and 100 industrial cluster are critically polluted as per Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI). At the same time there is non-compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, Bio Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 2016. There are serious issues of unregulated sand mining, illegal ground water extraction, absence of rain water harvesting, encroachment of catchment areas and lack of adequate safeguards for protection of eco-sensitive zone. While we are not undermining the sincerity and seriousness of efforts of any authority, the fact remains that even after Clean India Mission has been taken up for the last few years, every State/UT remains non-compliant in terms of Waste 43 Management Rules. Legacy waste dumps continue to be untackled problem to a great extent. Waste disposal, particularly non- biodegradable waste processing still remains a challenge. Plastic waste management, Bio medical waste management are still to be fully implemented. Untreated sewage as well as effluents are still being discharged into rivers and water bodies. Carrying capacity studies and making and implementation of policies based on such studies is still a dream. While situation is so serious, the regulatory regime is inadequate to handle the challenge as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India52 and also noted in some orders of this Tribunal53. Apart from manning of such bodies, by the competent personnel there is no comprehensive training programme for those who are to enforce the regulatory regime. Awareness and community involvement are not adequate. There is no clarity at every level about the right technology and implementation strategies to be used. Pollution continues to be profitable activity in absence of effective and stringent enforcement of law. Convictions are insignificant, when compared to the large scale violation of law, declared to be criminal offences. Compensation recovered is hardly sufficient to restore the environment. The Chief Secretaries, during interaction, expressed lack of clarity about the technical know-how, techno economic viable options and lack of financial and human resources. 52 Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors, (2018) 11 SSC 734. 53 Aryavart Foundation v. M/s. Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. & ors. in O.A. No. 95/2018 44
45. As already noted, the Government of India has initiated significant projects like Swachh Bharat Mission54 (SBM) which envisages cleaning of the streets, roads, eliminating open defecation, construction of community toilets with a view to ensure that India reaches SDG 6, established by the UN. The Government of India has also initiated Namami Gange55 to remedy serious threat to human health and environment caused by the pollution of the Ganges. The river Ganges provides 40 % of water in 11 States but it is one of the 6th most polluted rivers in the world. The National Council for Rejuvenation, implementation of rules, for community involvement, Protection and Management of River Ganga (National Ganga Council) has been constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, vide notification dated 07.05.2016. This envisages five tier structure at National, State and District level for prevention, control and abatement of pollution in river Ganga and to ensure continuous adequate flow of water. The National Ganga Council acts under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. Empowered Task Force (ETF) is under the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, National Mission for Clean Ganga56 (NMCG), SGC and DGC are under the concerned State 54 nd The Government of India launched "Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban)" on 2 October, 2014 with the objectives of Eliminating open defecation, Eradication of manual scavenging, 100% collection and scientific processing/disposal reuse/recycle of Municipal Solid Waste. to bring about a behavioural change in people regarding healthy sanitation practices. Generate awareness among the citizens about sanitation and its linkages with public health, strengthening of urban Local Bodies to design, execute and operate systems etc. 55 "Namami Gange" Program integrates the efforts to clean and protect the Ganga River in a comprehensive manner. Program also focuses on involving the States and grassroots level institutions such as Urban Local Bodies and Panchayati Raj Institutions in implementation. The program would be implemented by the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG), and its State counterpart organization i.e., State Program Management Groups (SPMGs). 56 The National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) is the implementation wing of National Ganga Council which was set up in October 2016 under the River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities order 2016. 45
Governments and Districts abutting river Ganga and its tributaries. The NMCG is headed by its Director General, who is the Additional Secretary in the Government of India and is to handle projects upto Rs. 1,000/- Crores. The Namami Gange envisages creation of sewage treatment capacity, river front development, river surface cleaning, bio-diversity and industrial effluent monitoring etc. These projects are significant for environment protection but question is whether these projects can be implemented in isolation without fully implementing the Waste Management Rules, preventing discharge of untreated effluent and sewage in the rivers, drains or other water bodies.
46. We are of the view that integral to the above flagship programmes of the Government of India are the projects for due implementation of rules for waste management and integral plan for remedying pollution of the river stretches, revamping of regulatory enforcement regime, institutional mechanism for training, regulating sand mining, proper utilization of the treated water, and protection of water bodies.
47. In this background, the Tribunal has directed setting up of monitoring committee with high level representatives of the Central Government on the one hand and Chief Secretaries of the State on other to consider remedial action for remedying the polluted river stretches, discuss remedial measures to deal with the gaps in compliance of waste management rules, measures to remedy non- attainment cities, polluted industrial clusters, illegal sand mining, The order dissolved National Ganga River Basin Authority. The aim is to clean the Ganga and its tributaries in a comprehensive manner.
46
reuse of treated water, conservation of water bodies in the manner already noted in para 27 above. We think it necessary to suggest that Ministry of Drinking Water may also be added to the nominees representing Central Government. The deliberations may be preferably presided over by the Cabinet Secretary. If viable, PMO may depute an observer at important deliberations.
48. The Chief Secretaries of all the States may send their quarterly reports as already directed, after including therein the follow up action of deliberations in the CMC and appear on the dates already fixed.
49. Above directions have become necessary as compliance of the relevant rules and norms is not only necessary for success of of flagship programmes of the Government of India but also public health and environmental rule of law in the country. The issues basically are of governance requiring policy making and implementation strategies. The highest executive authorities can deliberate upon the same and the Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction effectively after such exercise is duly undertaken. In the light of such exercise, the Tribunal can have the benefit of the report of such deliberations and the matter can be considered thereafter within the scope of section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 and the parameters laid down section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010.
50. The Registry may forward quarterly reports received from the Chief Secretaries as and when received to the CPCB so that CPCB may 47 prepare a gap analysis report and present the same to this Tribunal. The matters may need not be listed on the dates mentioned in the said orders for consideration of quarterly reports but may be listed on the dates Chief Secretaries are to appear.
51. The CMC may send first report of its observations as already directed in earlier orders of this Tribunal for being considered in the said cases preferably by August 31, 2019.
Put up the matter pertaining to the State of Assam for further consideration on 29.11.2019.
A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to all the Chief Secretaries, Cabinet Secretary, PMO, Secretaries of Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Drinking Water, MoEF&CC, NITI Aayog, NMCG, Finance Commission and CPCB.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S.P. Wangdi, JM K. Ramakrishnan, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM May 17, 2019 Original Application No. 606/2018 48