Cement, Energy and Environment

RELUCTANT MUNICIPALITIES AND POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDS Why MSW rules, 2000, were never Implemented The MSW Rules. 2000. puts onus on the municipalities and pollution control authorities for proper waste management. Every municipal authority has to set up a waste processing and disposal facility, and prepare an annual report. State governments and Union Territory Administrations have the overall responsibility of enforcing these rules in metropolitan cities and within territorial limits of their jurisdiction. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) are required to monitor compliance of standards pertaining to groundwater. ambient air. leachate quality, and compost quality including incineration standards.1 The rules require that waste processing and disposal facilities must be monitored once every six months. Existing landfill sites must be improved. and landfill sites for future use identified. It stipulates that biomedical and industrial wastes should not be mixed with MSW. It asks municipalities to encourage people to segregate wastes. Vehicles for transportation must be covered and MSW must be processed in such a way as to reduce burden on landfills. Biodegradables have to be processed by composting and landfilling is only recommended for wastes that are non-biodegradable. inert, or are not suitable for recycling. The MSW rules, 2000 have guidelines for maintenance of landfill sites and for processing techniques such as composting. treated leachates. and incineration. No municipality or local body has complied with these rules.2 There is a clear lack of an established system for collection. transportation, treatment, and disposal. The lack of coordination among outfits that collect. Transport, treat, and dispose wastes is another drawback. In 2008. a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India report, Performance Audit on "Management of Waste in India" came down heavily on different agencies for tardy implementation of the MSW rules. The audit examined CPCB and the MoEF at the central level. It also examined 24 state pollution control boards, state departments for urban development. forest departments. municipalities, districts and hospitals. The report criticized data collection by state nodal agencies, urban local bodies and municipalities. It urged t he CPCB and MoEF to collect, analyze and generate waste-related data on a periodic basis in order to make effective policy decisions. The CAG recommended a mechanism to incentivize collection of waste at source. It asked the MoEF to devise policies based on the polluter pays principle: waste generators would pay for sustainable disposal of waste. Subsequently. the Ministry of Environment and forest (MoEF) set up a committee to identify strategies to manage wastes in India. The committee came up with a report in 2010 saying that local bodies responsible for proper disposal of urban waste are over-burdened with other priorities and therefore waste disposal is relegated to the end of the priority list.3 The report suggests the following reasons for poor operation and maintenance: a. Inadequate finances b. Multiplicity of agencies for operation and maintenance c. Inadequate training of personnel d. Lack of performance monitoring e. Inadequate emphasis on preventive maintenance f. Lack of management g. Lack of appreciation by urban local bodies for facilities set up for the use and safety of the community The MoEF report noted that many cities lack legally notified landfill sites for dumping solid wastes. This leads to open dumping and burning, jeopardising public health. In municipalit ies. solid waste management tasks are amongst the many responsibilities assigned to the health department. The personnel -starved department finds it hard t o manage waste. This is compounded by vaguen~ss o~er many aspects of solid waste management: roles of the health department and the engmeenng department of the municipal corporat ion are not clearly defined-4 49