R G VISWANATHAN

Performance Audit on

“Management of Waste in India”

What is waste

Basel Convention

"'Wastes' are substances or objects, which are disposed of or are intended to be disposed of or are required to be disposed of by the provisions of national law"

United Nations

"Wastes are materials that are not prime products for which the initial user has no further use in terms of his/her own purposes of production, transformation or consumption, and of which he/she wants to dispose

Waste management

‘Waste management’ shall mean “the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste,

including the supervision of such operations and aftercare of disposal sites”……….European Union Directive on waste

However the newer concepts of ‘Waste management’ talk about ‘Reduce, Reuse and

Recycle of waste’ over and above waste disposal

Waste management hierarchy

Management of waste Priority of any country

Emphasis on waste prevention and waste minimisationwould ensure that less waste is being produced which needs to be disposed

Waste disposal strategies are ‘end of the pipe’ solutions and should be the least favored option

Thus, strategies should focus on waste prevention and minimization through the “3 R’s” - reduce, reuse & recycle

Who produces more waste

High Income47%

Upper Middle Income

19%Lower Middle Income

29%

Lower Income5%

Who are the worlds wasters

High: $10,726 & above;

Upper middle: $3,466-10,725;

Lower middle: $876-3,465;

Lower: $875 or less

Introduction

Developing countries like India: massive migration of their population from rural to urban centers.

New consumption patterns, production techniques and expansion of human activity: contributed to increase in all kinds of waste

India produces

42 Million Tonnes of urban solid waste annually

7.2 Million Tonnes of hazardous waste annually

DGHS estimates that 5.4 MT of bio medical waste is being generated in the country every year

The yearly increase of solid waste is about 5 per cent

8

E waste: Waste computers, TVs, printers etc. From 1998 to 2002, domestic household appliances (growth:

53.1%) PC ownership per capita in India between 1993 and 2000 was 604%

compared to a world average of 181% Total PC base has grown from 4.5 lakh PCs to 42 lakh PCs. Obsolescence in India: 13.8 lakh PC every year

No estimates or even ball park figures exist for construction and demolition waste packaging waste mining waste waste from end-of-life vehicles and tyres agricultural and forestry waste.

Health/environmental hazards posed by waste

1. Surface water contamination takes place when the wastes reach water bodies

2.Ground water contamination takes place when residues from waste, leach into the ground water A specific environmental hazard caused by waste is leachate which is

the liquid that forms as water trickles through contaminated areas leaching out the chemicals.

Movement of leachate from landfills, effluent treating plants and waste disposal sites may result in hazardous substances entering surface water, ground water or soil.

3. Soil contamination as a result of waste can harm plants and can indirectly adversely impact the health of humans and animals

4.Air contamination: Caused by emissions from incinerators, other waste burning devices & from landfills Dioxins, furans & polychlorinated by-phenyls (PCB), are deadly toxins,

causing cancer & endocrine system damage

Mercury, heavy metals

Green house gases: from landfills

Rules and acts governing management of waste in India

1. Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules

2. The Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules

3. The Recycled Plastics Manufacture and Usage Rules

4. Hazardous Waste Management Rules

5. Batteries Management & Handling Rules

Lack of rules/implementing agencies

E waste

construction and demolition waste

packaging waste

mining waste

waste from end-of-life vehicles and tyres

agricultural and forestry waste.

Planning agencies

The Ministry of Environment & Forests

Central Pollution Control Board

State Pollution Control Boards

Implementing agencies

Municipal Solid Waste: Municipal authorities

Bio medical Waste: Hospital authorities

Plastic Waste: Concerned District Magistrate/ District Commissioner

Hazardous waste: Industry/generators of waste

Monitoring agencies

Overall implementation of waste related rules are monitored all over India by the CPCB and its zonal offices.

CPCB is also the authority for regulation and monitoring of waste legislation in the union territories

SPCBs are responsible for the regulation and monitoring of waste legislation in the states.

Funding waste Funding for the implementation of waste rules in

India is dispersed

with funding being from various ministries to improve urban infrastructure and sanitation; with waste management also being a part of these projects.

Some of the projects which also have a component of waste management in their scheme guidelines are

Integrated Development of Small & Med Towns Scheme

Infrastructure Development of Mega Cities Scheme

Jawahar Urban Renewal Mission

Audit scope

Traditional Reviews/PAs on environment or pollution have mainly touched on implementation of rules relating to water, solid waste and air There has never been any doubt in the minds of any Indian about

the poor implementation & monitoring of these rules….our audits also confirmed this

Emphasis of the PA on Adequacy of data on waste and risk assessment,

Existence of policy/legislations,

ownership of responsibility to waste and ownership of responsibility to environment

Gaps in accountability

Problems in compliance with rules

Effectiveness of monitoring

Deciding audit scope

We consulted/used the following while framing audit objectives and our guidelines

International best practices in waste management (EU, Japan, US, Australia)

INTOSAI guidelines on conduct of audit on waste management

An International training programme on environment attended by 30 countries

Discussions with NGOs working in the area of waste like ‘toxics link’ and ‘CSE’

MoEF and CPCB

Audit sampling

Statistical sampling (stratified random sampling) wasused to select samples.

Sample details:

Audit of policy, planning and legislation regardingmanagement of wastes at MoEF/CPCB; coordinatedby the Office of Principal Director of Audit (SD).

24 states were sampled: policy issues relating towaste

56 municipalities in 20 states: Municipal SolidWaste

180 hospitals in 15 states: Biomedical Waste

60 districts in 20 states: Plastic Waste

Audit reporting

Apart from audit findings/conclusions, exhaustive recommendations have also been suggested

Practices in waste management all over the world have also been quoted to show the range of activities possible

Audit impact

On the receipt of recommendations contained in the Performance audit, MoEF constituted a committee to draw up a road map for the management of waste in India.

The terms of reference of the Committee is to make recommendations for evolving a policy and mechanisms for effective implementation and monitoring of waste in India keeping in view the recommendations made in the Performance audit.

Committee consisted of senior officials of the Government involved in waste management, Central Pollution Control Board, representatives from NGOs, and eminent persons in the field of waste management.

A representative of the C&AG has also been invited to attend the meetings.

The committee submit its report and this has led to many changes including the revision of the Municipal Waste Management Act and Rules

Audit objectives

Objective 1: Whether quantum of waste being generated in the country had been assessed and risks to environment/ health posed by waste been identified;

Objective 2: Whether a specific policy for management of wastes existed and whether policies and strategies for the management of waste gave priority to waste reduction and waste minimization as against waste disposal;

Objective 3: Whether legislations specifically dealing with disposal of each kind of waste existed and whether penalty for violation had been incorporated in the legislations already enacted;

Audit objectives

Objective 4: Whether various agencies involved in the process had been allocated clear responsibility and accountability for waste management and whether or not a mismatch/gap/overlap existed among the responsibility centers;

Objective 5: Whether effective compliance to laws regulating municipal solid waste, bio-medical waste and plastic waste was taking place in the states;

Objective 6: Whether monitoring was effective in checking non compliance; and

Objective 7:Whether funding and manpower were adequate for the implementation of rules on waste management and whether the funds/infrastructure were used economically, efficiently and effectively.

Audit findings to Objective 1

Neither MoEF nor the states had completely assessed the quantity of various kinds of waste like municipal solid waste, bio-medical waste, hazardous waste, e waste etc,. being generated in the country.

No data about the amounts of waste generated according to source was available in % of the sampled states

MoEF was unable to make any projections about the amounts of waste that might be produced in future

Only 25 % of the sampled states had made projections about the growth in waste.

Adequacy of capacity to handle waste currently and in the future was assessed only by 29 % of the states.

MoEF/CPCB had not completely assessed the risks to environment and health posed by waste

only 25 % of the sampled states had assessed these risks; that too, partially

Audit findings to Objective 2

Waste management efforts in India were not directed by a specific waste policy, which incorporated a clear-cut waste hierarchy, which gave priority to reduction, recycling and reuse of waste instead of only waste disposal.

The order of priority for management of wastes had not been defined in India leading to the current focus being only on disposal strategies.

No effective strategies to implement the 3 R’s (recycle, reduce and reuse) were being followed by MoEF and only 8 % of the sampled states had introduced some strategies.

The National Environmental Policy, 2006, which promoted certain waste reduction strategies, had not been translated effectively into action

MoEF had not adequately addressed the role of informal sector in handling waste and in the states;

Only 17 % of the sampled states had recognised the role of ragpickers.

MoEF had not taken effective action on greening government procurements to promote the use of recycled and environmentally friendly products

Government procurement systems had not been altered in 46 % of the sampled states to include Environment Preferable Purchasing.

MoEF’s environment labeling program “ECOMARK” started in 1991 was a failure as “ECOMARK” was granted to only three product categories in more than 15 years of its existence.

Audit findings to Objective 3

Laws in India were not framed for all kinds of waste, leaving the safe disposal of many kinds of waste like

construction and demolition waste, agricultural waste, e waste etc,. unmonitored.

The polluters were not being effectively held responsible for unsafe disposal, thereby creating no deterrence for non-implementation of the rules.

Only in 25 % of the sampled states, some token action (like filing of cases against hospitals, sending notices to municipalities) had been taken by PCB/government against defaulters for illegal dumping of waste.

Audit findings to Objective 4

There was no single body taking ownership of waste issues both at the central level and at the state level, leading to dispersal of responsibility and weak accountability.

Only 15 % of states constituted the Solid Waste Mission for implementation of municipal solid waste rules, despite directives of CPCB in 2004-05.

Advisory committees to advise the state governments on the implementation of bio-medical waste rules were set up only in 47% of the sampled states.

There was no clear identification of bodies for monitoring of waste rules at the centre as none of the four central ministries, i.e.

MoEF, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Petrochemicals took responsibility for monitoring of municipal solid waste, bio-medical waste rules and plastic waste rules.

Audit findings to Objective 4

In the states,

Only 33 % of the sampled states had allocated responsibility to bodies/agencies for monitoring of municipal solid waste rules,

46 % of the states had allocated responsibility for monitoring of bio-medical waste rules and

37 % of the sampled states were monitoring the implementation of the plastic waste rules

Audit findings to Objective 5

Compliance to Municipal Solid Waste rules

Collection: Waste was regularly collected only in 22 % of the sampled municipalities.

Segregation: Segregation of waste took place only in 10 % of the sampled municipalities.

Storage: Only 17 % municipalities were able to ensure proper storage of waste.

Transportation: Covered trucks for transportation of municipal solid waste were being used only in 18 % of sampled municipalities.

Processing: Only 11 % municipalities had waste processing capabilities.

Disposal: Only 2 states out of the sampled 20 states had established a landfill, leading to dumping of waste in open dumpsites in the states.

Compliance to bio-medical waste rules Authorization: Waste disposal facilities were set up after getting

authorization from prescribed authority only in 29 % of the sampled hospitals.

Segregation: Segregation as envisaged in the bio-medical waste rules was taking place in only 29 % of the hospitals. Bio-medical waste, like effluents, needle sharps etc., were mixed with other wastes in 34 % of the sampled hospitals.

Labeling and storage: Labeling took place only in 19 % of sampled hospital and 17 % of sampled hospitals kept untreated waste beyond 48 hours.

Treatment /disposal: Only 17 % of sampled hospitals were treating/disposing bio-medical waste as per the compliance criteria in the rules More than 50 % of the hospitals sampled had inadequate waste processing/disposal infrastructure.

Compliance to plastic waste rules

Action was not being taken by DCs/DMs for the enforcement of the rules and it was difficult to verify whether vendors were using carry bags or containers made of recycled plastics for storing, carrying, dispensing or packaging of foodstuffs.

It was difficult to verify whether recycling was being done according to specifications of Bureau of Indian Standards.

It was difficult to verify whether all manufactures had sought authorisation from PCBs for the manufacture of plastic carry bags/containers

Audit findings to Objective 6 Monitoring of the municipal solid waste rules, bio-medical waste

rules and plastic rules, at the central level, was not effective.

Systems were not in place to check non-compliance of rules by municipalities, hospitals and district authorities.

PCBs of the states were not monitoring regularly whether municipal solid waste was being disposed in an environmentally safe manner and in a manner not to pose health risks. Monitoring by state governments was taking place only in 11 % of the

municipalities

Only 13 % of sampled hospitals were being monitored for compliance to bio-medical waste rules.

Only in 20 % of the sampled states, the DCs of the district were monitoring the implementation of plastic rules.

In Delhi, analysis report of Bhalswa open landfill showed that Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and hardness content of the ground water was 800 % and 633 % respectively in excess of the desirable limits.

TDS at Okhla open landfill site was also in excess of the desirable limit which showed that the ground water of both the open landfills sites has been critically contaminated with leachate generated from the landfill site.

In Punjab, samples of ground water from hand pumps at four places from the municipal solid waste open dumpsite in Amritsar revealed that that none of the samples collected from the dumpsite met the acceptable limit for drinking water and were thus, not fit for drinking purposes.

In Tamil Nadu, two water samples collected from the dumpsite at Pallikaranai swamp area revealed that dissolved solids, chlorides and cadmium was far above the prescribed desirable limits.

Audit findings to Objective 7

60 per cent of the Municipalities in the sampled states received funds from TFC for the creation of solid waste management infrastructure.

Chhatisgarh diverted Rs. 60 lakh for the construction of drainage and mini stadium, though funds were released for management of municipal solid waste.

Karnataka diverted Rs. 17.44 crore for purposes such as street lighting, road work etc,.

Instead of utilizing money for upgrading two dumpsites, Chennai Corporation in Tamil Nadu kept Rs. 18 crore, released during 2003-05, in fixed deposits.

The provision for management of waste in the state budgets was low

Only 30 % and 27 % of the sampled states made some provisions for municipal solid waste and bio-medical waste management.

55 % of the sampled states reported shortages in manpower in the municipalities hampering municipal solid waste management while PCBs in 54 % of the sampled states had cited shortages hampering their work.

Overall audit conclusion1. MoEF/CPCB/states do not have a complete data about all the

various kinds of waste being generated in India.

2. Risks to health/environment had not been adequately assessed by MoEF/states,

3. Waste management efforts in India were not directed by a clear-cut policy, which incorporated a waste hierarchy,

4. Rules were not framed for all kinds of waste, like construction & demolition waste, electronic waste, agricultural waste, etc

5. Instances of the polluter being held responsible for unsafe disposal were very few.

6. Absence of a single body taking ownership of waste issues in India.

Overall audit conclusion7. Study of compliance to municipal solid waste rules revealed that

Collection, segregation of waste after collection, waste processing facilities and scientific landfills were almost non-existent.

8. Study of compliance to bio-medical waste rules also revealed that hospitals/ private operators were running waste disposal facilities without authorization and segregation/disposal was not taking place.

9. Study of compliance to plastic waste rules revealed that ineffective enforcement of the rules by the DCs/DMs and PCBs.

10. Weak compliance was compounded by lax and ineffective monitoring.

11. Absence of adequate funds/manpower for waste management activities

Audit recommendations

Audit recommendations to Objective 1 CPCB, as the nodal agency for pollution related issues should carry out,

periodically, a comprehensive assessment of the amounts of waste being generated, according to the major waste types.

All the states in India should be involved in this exercise so that a comprehensive database on waste is generated for aiding policy-making and intervention.

MoEF, with involvement of all the states, may collect data about growth of the various kinds of waste, analyse the factors contributing to its growth and the increase in waste quantities to arrive at strategies for waste management

MoEF/CPCB, in conjunction with the states, may estimate the current capacity to handle all kinds of waste all over the country and ensure that additional capacity of waste infrastructure, if required, is created for safe disposal.

MoEF may carry out waste related pollution impact monitoring, on a regular basis, to study the effects of improper disposal of waste on the environment.

MoEF along with the states may also carry out regular surveillance, including epidemiological surveillance of waste related impacts on public health.

Audit recommendations to Objective 2

MoEF may consider framing a specific policy for the management of wastes in India, incorporating the internationally accepted hierarchy for management of wastes in the policy.

MoEF and the states may consider introducing effective strategies for the reduction and recycling of household waste like

deposit refund schemes, promoting the use of jute bags rather than plastic bags, waste exchanges, etc., for reduction of waste at source.

MoEF and the states may also consider introducing programs for the reduction of hazardous waste like

incentive scheme for the introduction of cleaner technology, remanufacturing, reuse of scrap materials etc., for the reduction of waste at source.

Audit recommendations to Objective 2

MoEF should consider the introduction of Environmentally Preferred Purchases and lay down guidelines for the purchase of recycled products to promote the purchase of eco friendly goods by the government and the agencies controlled by it.

MoEF should include more products under the “ECOMARK” label and monitor adherence to environmental standards of these products.

It should also prescribe standards for classifying products as environmentally friendly and carry out environmental impact studies of such products

Audit recommendations to Objective 3

MoEF should consider framing laws/rules for the management of all major kinds of waste like

construction & demolition waste, end of life vehicles, packaging waste, mining waste, agriculture waste and e-waste being generated in the country to promote safe disposal

As imposition of penalty under EPA for the violation of waste rules is infrequent, MoEF should consider incorporating punishment/penalty as well as responsibility of the polluter in the specific rules governing management of each kind of waste so that there is a strong deterrent for violation of the rules.

Audit recommendations to Objective 4 Since waste causes pollution and pollution issues are necessarily the

responsibility of MoEF, the Central Government should consider appointing MoEF as the nodal body for all kinds of waste.

MoEF should clearly identify, at the central level, bodies which would be responsible for the implementation of the waste management rules relating to municipal solid waste, biomedical waste and plastic waste. The states should also clearly identify the agency responsible for implementation of the waste rules.

Solid Waste Mission for municipal solid waste and Advisory Body for bio-medical waste should be set up in all the states for dealing with overall issues related to implementation of rules at the state level.

The government should assign clear responsibility to MoEF or any body/agency for monitoring all the waste throughout the country as irrespective of where the waste is improperly disposed, it would impact on the overall environment in the country.

Audit Recommendations to Objective 5

Municipal solid waste

MoEF in conjunction with MoUD and the states should draw up a time-bound plan for setting up of waste processing and waste disposal facilities.

States and municipalities should make greater efforts to collect the municipal solid waste generated regularly and completely.

Segregation should be given greater emphasis by means of publicity and awareness campaigns and holding regular meetings with housing associations and NGOs. State governments could make waste segregation mandatory and the municipality could be authorised to levy fines if segregated waste is not made available to the municipality for collection.

Waste processing should be made mandatory in each municipality. CPCB could help each municipality in identifying the waste processing technology best suited to the needs of the municipality. Sufficient funding should be provided by MoEF/MoUD to set up waste processing infrastructure in each municipality.

Audit Recommendations to Objective 5

Municipal solid waste

Dumpsites in residential areas and near water sources/water bodies should be closed down and periodic monitoring of dumpsites for contamination of environment should take place.

Plans should be developed by each municipality for closing the dumpsites and moving the waste to a sanitary landfill.

Identification of land for setting up landfills should be done on a priority basis and each municipality according to a time bound program should develop landfills.

Biomedical waste

Registrations of those hospitals that do not set up treatment/disposal facility or join a common facility could be cancelled.

New hospitals should not be allowed to commence treatment without making sure that it has a facility for treatment/disposal of bio-medical waste.

Segregation of bio-medical waste according to its type should be emphasised in each hospital. Measures should be taken to achieve 100 per cent segregation by each hospital.

It should be ensured that each hospital has the full waste treatment/disposal infrastructure to treat each category of bio-medical waste generated.

Alternatively, each hospital could join a common facility for treatment/disposal and PCB should ensure that each common facility has the requisite and complete infrastructure to handle waste safely.

Plastic waste

The rules should be amended to include the specific actions to be taken by the DCs/DMs for the enforcement of the plastic waste rules.

Surprise checks should be conducted to verify whether vendors were following the provisions of the plastic waste rules.

Audit recommendations to Objective 6

At the central level, MoEF/CPCB and at the level of the states, the PCBs should draw up a schedule of monitoring of municipalities and hospitals and monitor them not less than once in 6 months.

Regular monitoring of waste disposal facilities like compost plants, incinerators etc should be done by CPCB/PCBs.

Audit recommendations to Objective 748

States should make adequate provisions for waste management activities, both municipal solid waste and bio-medical waste in the budget to ensure that municipalities and hospitals have adequate funds for waste management.

State governments and PCBs should assess manpower requirement for implementing the waste rules and accordingly, raise a staff dedicated to the implementation and monitoring of waste management activities.

Thank you