Water Pollution in India

Methodology and framework

Part 1 ……the general picture about water pollution

“Every year, more people die from the

consequences of unsafe water than from all

forms of violence, including war”

SAI India4

SAI India5

Water availability vs. demand for water

Water issues

How much water is required per person per

day?

As per universal standards (Average)

* For drinking & Food preparation 15 litres

* Sanitation 20 litres

* Bathing 15 litres

Water quality criteria

Water Quality

Total Coliform

Dissolved Oxygen DO

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

BOD

pH

Other specific criteria

Water Pollution in general… Influences

on water qualityNatural influences on water

weathering of bedrock minerals

evapotranspiration

leaching

hydrological factors

biological processes

Human influences on water

Releasing inadequately treated sewage, industrial and agricultural

wastes

Water Pollution in general

Categories of water pollution Point source pollution

Nonpoint source pollution

Contaminants of water identified by UNEP Nutrients from agriculture, industry and domestic waste

Erosion and sedimentation due to human activity

Acidification due to industry like power plants etc

Pathogenic organisms from human or animal feces

Trace metals/nonmetals like arsenic, fluoride, chromium etc

Human-produced chemicals like DDT, dioxins, furans and PCBs

Introduced species

Water Pollution in general…. Impact of

water pollution

On human health

Polluted water cause ~ 3.1% of all deaths – over 1.7 million

deaths annually

Women, children, and economically disadvantaged most

affected

Over 90 % of those who die are children under the age of 5.

On food production

Most polluted freshwater ends up in the oceans, damaging

agriculture, fishing & animal husbandry

On biodiversity

Freshwater ecosystems most degraded & have suffered greater

species/habitat losses than terrestrial & marine ecosystems

Water Pollution in general….Solutions to

water pollution

1. Pollution prevention

Reduction/elimination of contaminants at source before

they pollute water ..… cheapest, easiest & most effective

Tackling point source pollution

Tackling agricultural non point source pollution

2. Treat polluted water

Both high-tech, energy-intensive technologies

Low-tech, low energy, ecologically focused approaches

3. Restore Ecosystems

Healthy ecosystems act as water filters

SAI India

Auditing water issues…global

overview

Marine environment Loss of biodiversity due to pollution, over-exploitation of living

marine resources and coastal habitat loss

Fresh water Lack of access to clean water for drinking, food preparation, and

sanitation

Water policy instruments Water policy, water pricing, water legislation, permits, inspection

and enforcement, fees & fines, investments in infrastructure, scientific research, providing info to the public, monitoring and evaluation

Environmental agreements Marine environment, Rivers and lakes, Drinking water &

sanitation, Natural value and biodiversity of water ecosystems, Extreme events: Drought and flooding

SAI India

Overview of water audits by SAIs

Audit topic of the large majority of the audit: Rivers and lakes are the most audited water subject

Followed by waste water, sewage and drinking water

Policies directed towards water quality, rivers &lakes, prevention and/or recovery from flooding, treatment of waste water and sewage, drinking water and sanitation

Biodiversity of water ecosystems

Prevention of pollution of the marine environment

Costs of water-related infrastructural works

Performance auditing seems to be a more general practice than regularity auditing when it comes to auditing water issues. A combination of these two types seems to be most common

SAI India14

Audit Issues

1. Water pollution

Water Quality

Rivers and lakes

Drinking water and sanitation

2. Flooding

3. Marine environment

SAI India15

1. Water pollution

Dumping of household waste

Dumping of industrial waste

Ballast from ships

Oil seepage from incidents at sea

Leaching of chemicals/ pesticides

SAI India16

Results of water pollution

Change in water chemistry which affects all levels ecosystem

Impact on health of lower food chain organisms and consequently, the availability of food

Can damage the health of wetlands and impair their ability to support healthy ecosystems, control flooding and filter pollutants from storm water runoff

Health of animals and humans are affected when they drink or bathe in contaminated water

Aquatic organisms, like fish and shellfish, can accumulate and concentrate contaminants in their bodies. In addition, water from these contaminated sources when used for irrigation can affect the soil productivity as well as introduce contaminants into the food chain

SAI India

Water Quality

Related with financial issues as well as water issues

Absence of policy for clean water to the people

Environmental programmes for implementation

SAI India18

Rivers and lakes

Rivers and lakes provide a wide variety of environmental problems

Pollution of the rivers and the lakes poses risk to the lives of the fauna/flora in the lakes and the rivers

It also gives risk to the area or the river banks due to contact of the polluted water

The plants and the agriculture on the rivers and river banks get affected by the polluted water that flows

SAI India19

Drinking water

This is the most common factor and most important one

Lot of world population is devoid of access to clean drinking water

Masses from the rural areas lack facility for potable water for household purposes

The massive amount required to be spent to bring water to the population is some times criticized by the SAIs

SAI India

Sanitation

Sanitation and environment are connected problems

Un-hygienic conditions in the environment create environmental problems

Sanitation is also a matter which will require lot of funds for implementation

It is therefore, both performance audit as well as regularity audit

SAI India21

2. Flooding

Flood protection system, flood prevention etc are matters

of financial concerns

Programme evaluation of the flood control and

emergency plans etc. will be a subject matter for

Performance type off audit

SAI India

3. Marine environment

Marine issues affect the flora and fauna of the seas

More than one country is involved

Marine issues are therefore, complex in nature and resolved through International co-operation

Audits done by SAI India on Water and

water related issues on 2001-07

1. Unfruitful expenditure on a protected water supply scheme in Andhra Pradesh

2. Implementation of Godavari Water Utilisation Authority, Andhra Pradesh

3. Drinking Water Supply Programme in Arunachal Pradesh

4. Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme in Chhattisgarh

5. Audit of Water Management System in Delhi

6. Implementation of the water supply schemes in Manipur

7. Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme in Madhya Pradesh

8. Review on Urban Water Supply Schemes in Pondicherry

9. Working of the Irrigation Department, Punjab

10. Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme in Rajasthan

Audits done by SAI India on Water

and water related issues

11. Urban Water Supply in Sikkim.

12. Rural water supply scheme in Orissa.

13. Conservation and Management of Dal Lake in Jammu and Kashmir.

14. Sewerage Schemes in Himachal Pradesh.

15. Implementation of Watershed Development Programmes in Chhattisgarh.

16. Water Management by Panchayat Raj institutions in Alappuzha District, Kerala.

17. Tsunami Relief and Reconstructions, Andhra Pradesh.

18. Performance Audit of Arsenic Alleviation Programme in West Bengal.

19. Inordinate delay in completion of Water Supply Schemes by Water Resources Department in Kerala.

20. Rural Water Supply Schemes and minor irrigation works, Himachal Pradesh.

Audits done by SAI India on Water

and water related issues

21. Flood Control Works in Himachal Pradesh.

22. Review on Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes in Goa.

23. Unfruitful expenditure on water supply schemes in Andhra Pradesh.

24. Non-construction of sewage treatment plan in Assam.

25. Flood Control Measures Water Resources Department in Bihar.

26. Improper planning of drinking water scheme in Bibinagar in Andhra Pradesh.

27. Provision of safe drinking water in a district in Tamil Nadu.

28. Unfruitful expenditure in cleaning up Ooty Lake in Tamil Nadu.

29. Management of projects relating to utilisation and conservation of soil and water undertaken by institutes of Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

30. Unfruitful expenditure on a sanitary sewerage scheme in West Bengal.

Audits done by SAI India on Water

and water related issues

31. Provision of safe drinking waster in one district of Orissa.

32. Implementation of Urban Water Supply Scheme in Orissa.

33. Availability of safe drinking water in Jharkhand.

34. Inordinate delay in completion of a Rural Water Supply Scheme in Kerala.

35. Provision of Safe drinking water in Madhya Pradesh.

36. Working of the Public Health Engineering Department in Meghalaya.

37. Implementation of Neeru – Meeru in Andhra Pradesh.

38. Measures to control pollution in the river Yamuna in Delhi.

39. Sewerage and Sanitation schemes including Yamuna Action Plan in Haryana.

40. Implementation of Environmental Acts relating to Water Pollution in India.

41. Sewage Treatment Schemes in Calcutta Metropolitan area (under GangaAction Plan) West Bengal.

SAI India

Guidelines available

INTOSAI’s “Auditing Water issues”

We have just developed “Environment Audit

Guidelines” through the 8th ASOSAI Research

Project

These guidelines specially discuss ‘Audit of Water

Issues’

Part 2……the general picture about water pollution in India

Water quality criteria in IndiaDesignated Best Use Class of water Criteria

Drinking Water Source

without conventional

treatment but after

disinfection

A Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be

50 or less pH between 6.5 and 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen(DO) 6mg/l or more Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - 5 days

20°C 2mg/l or less

Outdoor bathing

(Organised) B Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 500 or

less pH between 6.5 & 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen 5mg/l or> Biochemical Oxygen Demand - 5 days 20°C 3mg/l or less

Drinking water source

after conventional

treatment and disinfectionC

Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 5000 or less pH between 6 to 9 Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more

Biochemical Oxygen Demand - 5 days 20°C 3mg/l or less

Propagation of Wild life

and Fisheries D pH between 6.5 to 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more Free Ammonia (as N) 1.2 mg/l or less

Irrigation, Industrial

Cooling, Controlled Waste

disposalE

pH between 6.0 to 8.5 Electrical Conductivity at 25°C micro mhos/cm Max.2250 Sodium absorption Ratio Max. 26 Boron Max. 2mg/l

< ENot Meeting A, B, C, D & E Criteria

Water Pollution in India

Surface water (Rivers and lakes): 70% of surface water is polluted

Presently, only about 10% waste water generated is treated

All of India’s 14 major & 55 minor rivers and many of the lakes are heavily

polluted

Ground water accounts for ~ 80 % of rural domestic water

needs, and 50 % of urban water needs

Groundwater is generally less susceptible to contamination and pollution

when compared to surface water bodies

However, 200 districts (32%) are effected by contaminants

Institutional arrangement for managing

water pollution in India

1. Policy making

2. Acts and legislations

3. Programmes for control of pollution

4. Implementing

5. Monitoring

6. Funding

1. Policy making

Rivers and Lake pollution Ministry of Environment and Forests(MoEF), Central Pollution Control

Board (CPCB)

Ground water Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR), Central Ground Water Board

(CGWB)

No separate policies for water pollution National Water Policy is about planning, development and management of

water resources

National Environment Policy briefly touches upon water related issues

among other environmental issues

2. Acts and legislations

The Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Act Prevention and control of water pollution

Maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water

Establishes CPCB & SPCBs

The Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution), Rules, 1975 Lays down the powers and functions of CPCB/SPCB

3. Programmes for control of

pollution

Rivers and Lake pollution National River Conservation Plan (NRCP)

National Lake Conservation Plan (NLCP)

JNNURM

Ground water No specific programmes except components of Accelerated Rural Water

Supply Programme, National Rural Drinking Water Quality Monitoring &

Surveillance Programme and Arsenic Alleviation Programmes by state

Governments like West Bengal, Bihar etc

Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) Scheme addresses

river, lake and ground water pollution

National River Conservation

Plan Objective is to improve the water quality of the major rivers

1086 projects (Rs.4692 crore) have been sanctioned (807

completed)

Pollution abatement works in 167 towns undertaken (38 rivers,

20 states)

Activities are:

Interception and Diversion works

Sewage Treatment plants

Low Cost Sanitation works

Crematoria

River Front Development

Public awareness & Human Resources Development

National Lake Conservation Plan

Objective is to restore & conserve polluted & degraded lakes

58 projects (Rs.882 crore) sanctioned (18 completed)

Pollution abatement works in 58 lakes undertaken(14 states)

Activities are:

Intercepting, diverting & treating pollution loads entering lakes

Desilting, deweeding, bio remediation, aeration, nutrient

reduction

Catchment area treatment like afforestation

Strengthening bund, lake fencing, shoreline development

Lake front eco development

Providing low cost sanitation

Ground water programmes

There are no Central Government Programmes

Components of

Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme

National Rural Drinking Water Quality Monitoring

& Surveillance Programme

Arsenic Alleviation Programmes by Government of

West Bengal and other state governments

4. Implementing agencies

River Pollution and Lake Pollution

At the state level, NRCD has earmarked state wise list of nodal

department and nodal implementing agency like

Public Health Engineering Department

Water Supply & Sewerage Boards

Department of Urban Development

Department of Science & Technology

Urban Housing Department, Forests, Ecology, Environment

Department

For JNNURM projects

Local Bodies

Ground water pollution

State public health departments

5. Monitoring agencies

River, Lake &Ground Water Pollution by MoEF:

nationwide network of CPCB/SPCB for water quality

monitoring (1019 stations in 27 states and 6 UTs)

Ground Water Pollution Monitoring by Central Ground

Water Authority

network of ~15600 ground water observation wells

Water Quality Assessment Authority

Constituted by MoEF with secretariat in MoWR in 2001

6. Funding For NLCP and NRCP

Funding pattern for new projects is 70: 30 (NRCP/NLCP:

State/local body)

The O&M cost to be borne entirely by the state/ local bodies

Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation for

JNNURM projects relating to sewage and water treatment

For Ground Water

State Governments for their budget

Stakeholder Consultations for this

Performance Audit

Government Organizations

Detailed interaction with officials of MoEF, MoWR, CPCB, MoUD, State Governments

Civil Society Organizations

Meetings with various national and international CSOs

General Public

Putting out advertisements in more than 20 papers to get views of the general public

International Conference

Held an International Conference on Environment Audit – Concerns about water pollution on 15th and 16th March 2010

Government Organizations

Prof S P Gautam,

Chairman, CPCB,

B M Jha,

Chairman, CGWB

Rajiv Gauba,

Joint Secretary, MoEF

Dharmendra,

Secretary, Environment,

Delhi Government

Dr. DD Basu,

National Water Quality

Monitoring Prog, CPCB

Dr. Sabah Ul Solim,

J&K Lakes and Waterways

Authority

Heads of SAIs of Austria,

Bangladesh, Maldives &

Bhutan

SAI India: Mridula Sapru,

K R Sriram & Alka

Bharadwaj

Stakeholders consulted.

Civil Society & International Organizations

Rajendra Singh,

Tarun Bharat Sangh,

Alwar

Anil Mehta,

Jheel Samrakshan Samity,

Udaipur

Bharat Jhujunwala

Environmental

Economist

Environmental Resource

Management

International Environment

Consultants

Dirk Walther, Jerguan

Bishoff

GTZ

Dr Indira Khurana,

Wateraid India

Rohini Nilekani,

Arghyam

Dr S Krishnan,

INERMF , Anand

Ganesh Pangare,

IUCN, Bangkok,

Dr P S Rao,

FAO

Views of general public

Advertisements in 20 newspapers in all major Indian

languages

Received responses by post/fax as well as by email

International Conference on Water pollution

- suggestions

Lack of coordination and ownership between

the different agencies involved

Need to ensure a political will amongst

governments to ensure implementation

Need for government to review low levels of

budgetary priority given to environment

programmes as the social cost of pollution is very

high as compared to potential cost of preventing it

Need to strengthen truly representative public

participation in governmental programmes which is

currently lacking

International Conference on Water pollution

- suggestions

Move towards comprehensive river basin approach for

curbing river pollution as town based approach not effective

Need to have provisions in legislations

for maintaining minimum amount of water/flow in the lakes

Setting water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus

Promoting use of traditional, indigenous and local

knowledge and need to recognize the strength of

traditional methods of conservation to solve

problems of pollution

SAIs need to shift from just highlighting non

compliance issues and towards more

performance related evaluations

Audit scope Central level

Policy and planning for control of pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water in MoEF/MoWR/MoURD

Functioning of NRCD, its role in planning, implementation and monitoring and monitoring activities of CPCB/CGWB

Records of Water Quality Assessment Authority (WQAA)

States level

General Issues: Adequacy of pollution data, risk assessment, existence of institutions for managing water pollution, fund management and impact of programmes

Implementation Issues: Implementation & monitoring of NRCP, NLCP, JNNURM and ground water pollution control programmes, if existing, in the state

Assessment on status & quality of

waterAssessment of Risks to health &

environment

Adequacy of policies,

legislations &

programmes

Planning, implementatio

n & monitoring of programmes

Sustainability of measures

to tackle water

pollution

Efficient fund

utilization

Success of programme

s in reducing pollution

levels

Critical issues that emerged…

Part 3Designing the audit process

7 Audit Objectives

33 Sub Objective

s

3rd and/or 4th level

questions

Lowest level

question Yes/No

Questionnaires/ Data

Sheets for lowest level

Designing the audit process

7 Audit Objectiv

es

33 Sub Objectives

3rd

and/or 4th level question

s

Lowest level

question Yes/No

Questionnaires/

Data Sheets

for lowest level

Designing the audit process

Consolidation by PD(SD) Audit by Field

Offices

Audit criteria

1. Guidelines of United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP)

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

3. Guidelines for implementation and monitoring of National

River Conservation Plan and National Lake Conservation Plan

4. Implementation guidelines for Integrated Water Resources

Management, specifically Integrated River Basin Management

and Integrated Lake Basin Management

5. National Water Policy, 2002

6. National Environment Policy 2006

7. Agenda 21 document of the World Commission on Sustainable

Development of the United Nations Conference on

Environment &Development, Rio 1992

Audit samplingRivers Lakes Ground water

Samples selected on basis of risk factors like expenditure, media coverage, emails/letters received by PD (SD) office etc.

138 projects

24 Rivers (7/14 major and 17/55 minor)

{13 % of the total number (1086) and 45% of the total cost (Rs.4692 crore)}

19 lakes {33 % of the total number (58) and 78 % (Rs.882 crore) of the total sanctioned cost}

2 blocks need to be selected from the list of Fluoride affected districts/Arsenic affected blocks. If both arsenic and fluoride are occurring in the state (like in Bihar and West Bengal), one fluoride affected block and one arsenic affected block may be chosen. Those states which do have any districts/blocks affected by fluoride, 2 blocks may be chosen at random.

2 blocks lying in industrial clusters need to be chosen. In case a state does not have an industrial cluster, 2 blocks may be chosen at random.

2 blocks may be chosen at random.

All blocks should be from different districts

Thus, a total of 6 blocks will be sampled by each state.

SAMPLE: 138 PROJECTS (13%)

SAMPLE: 19 lakes (33%)

SAMPLE: 150 out of 6053 blocks (2.5%)150 out of 626 districts (24%)

AUDITOBJECTIVES

1. Whether the overall status and the quality

of water in rivers, lakes and groundwater have

been adequately assessed in India?

Whether a detailed inventory (survey and list) of

rivers, lakes and ground water resources been

made by the center and each of the states?

Whether all contaminants which affect quality of

ground water and surface water have been

identified?

Have human activities that affect quality of water

of rivers, lakes and ground water been identified?

2. Have the risks of polluted water to health of

living organisms and the impact on environment

been adequately assessed and have these risks

been effectively disseminated to the impacted

target groups?

Whether risks to environment/ biodiversity as a

result of pollution been assessed by the center and

the states?

Whether risks to human health as a result of

pollution have been assessed?

Whether risks of polluted water have been

effectively disseminated among the public?

3. Have adequate policies, legislations,

programmes been formulated and effective

institutions been put into place for pollution

prevention, treatment and restoration of

polluted water in rivers, lakes and ground

water? Is there an adequate policy governing pollution prevention,

treatment &restoration of polluted water?

Are there legislations/acts/programmes governing pollution

prevention, treatment and restoration of polluted water?

Has a nodal agency for issues relating to water pollution been

identified at central and state level?

Whether agencies have been clearly identified for

implementing and monitoring?

Have regulatory bodies been setup to fix water quality

standards?

4. Whether programmes for pollution prevention,

treatment & restoration of polluted water in

rivers, lakes & ground water have been planned,

implemented & monitored efficiently and

effectively?

Whether planning took place at a basin level and

adopted the principles of Integrated River/Lake

Resources Management?

Whether planning for current programmes was based

on accurate/ recent/reliable pollution related data?

Did the implementation/monitoring of NRCP/NLCP

take place as envisaged?

Were the assets being maintained as envisaged?

5. Have adequate mechanisms been put in

place by the government to sustain

measures to monitor water pollution?

Have increased monitoring and data collection mechanisms to track pollution in surface water/ ground water been put in place to evaluate effectiveness?

Is reliable and verifiable data being collected to track surface water and ground water pollution?

Have institutional mechanisms been put in place to sustain measures to prevent and control pollution of surface water and ground water?

6. Whether funds were utlised in an

efficient and economic manner to further

the aim of reduction of water pollution?

Whether funds allocated to states were utilised to achieve

the aim of reduction of pollution?

Whether funds allocated to the states were released timely?

Whether release of funds was linked to quality of

expenditure like monitoring reports, submission of UCs,

performance benchmarks etc?

7. Whether programmes for the control of

pollution had succeeded in reducing pollution

levels in ground water and surface water and

restoring water quality?

Whether there was improvement in water quality of ground

water/rives/lakes as a result of implementation of

programmes for the control of water pollution?

Whether external evaluation of programmes for the control

of water pollution was done?

THANK YOU

BACKGROUND

“Every year, more people die from the consequences of unsafe water than from all forms of violence, including war”

1.1 About Water Resources

Clean, safe and adequate freshwater is vital to the survival of all living organisms and the smooth functioning of ecosystems, communities and economies. Water-based ecosystems

provide a diversity of

services vital for human well-being and poverty alleviation. Supporting and regulating services (such as nutrient cycling) are critical to sustaining vital ecosystem functions that deliver many benefits to people. The delivery of fresh water is a particularly important

service both directly and indirectly. In addition, water sources have significant aesthetic, educational, cultural and spiritual values and provide invaluable opportunities for recreation and tourism.

Water Pollution is the presence of harmful and objectionable material in water in sufficient concentrations to make it unfit for use. Water contamination weakens or destroys natural ecosystems that support human health, food production and biodiversity. Water-borne diseases kill millions people, particularly those under the age of five, world-wide every year. Livelihoods such as agriculture, fishing and animal husbandry are affected by poor water quality. Biodiversity, especially of freshwater ecosystems is under threat due to water pollution.

Water is very important to life and polluted water is a huge concern. Polluted water can lead to serious problems with disease and death of plants and vegetation, humans and animals. Water pollution prevention helps to ensure that there is enough clean water to allow for healthy growth and development of the earth, humans and animals. Prevention and control

of water pollution assures that the water can remain safe for consumption of plants and vegetation, humans and animals.

1.2 Water pollution in India

India’s 14 major, 55 minor and several hundred small rivers receive millions of litres of

sewage, industrial and agricultural wastes. The most polluting source for rivers is the city sewage and industrial waste discharge. Presently, only about 10 per cent of the waste water generated is treated; the rest is discharged as it is into our water bodies. Due to this, pollutants enter rivers, lakes and groundwater.

Such water, which ultimately ends up in our households, is often highly contaminated and carries disease-causing microbes. Agricultural run-off, or the water from the fields that drains into rivers, is another major water pollutant as it contains fertilizers and pesticides. Ground water accounts for nearly 80 per cent of the rural domestic water needs and 50 per cent of the urban water needs in India. It is generally less susceptible to contamination and pollution when compared to surface water bodies.

1.3 Water quality criteria in India

To set the standard for the desired quality of a water body, it is essential to identify the uses of water in that water body. In India, Central Pollution Control Board has developed a concept of designated best use.

According to this concept, out of the several uses of water of a particular body, the use which demands highest quality is termed its designated best use. Five designated best uses have been identified. This classification helps the water quality managers and planners to set water quality targets and design suitable restoration programmes for various water bodies.

What is water pollution?

It is the presence of harmful material in water in sufficient concentrations to make it unfit

for use.

Categories of water pollution

Point source pollution occurs when harmful substances are emitted directly into a body

of water. It is easy to monitor and regulate.

Non-point source pollution occurs when pollutants are delivered indirectly through

transport or environmental change. Non-point sources are difficult to monitor and

control. Today, they account for the majority of contaminants in ground water, streams

and lakes.

Table 1: Water quality criteria in India

Designated Best Use Class of water Criteria

Drinking water source without

conventional treatment but after

disinfection

A Total Coliforms Organism1 MPN2/100ml shall be 50 or less

pH3 between 6.5 and 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen(DO)4 6mg/l or more Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)5 - five days

20°C 2mg/l or less

Outdoor bathing (Organised) B Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 500 or less

pH between 6.5 and 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen 5mg/l or more Biochemical Oxygen Demand - five days 20°C

3mg/l or less

Drinking water source after

conventional treatment and

disinfection

C Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 5000 or less

pH between six to nine Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more Biochemical Oxygen Demand - five days 20°C

3mg/l or less

Propagation of Wildlife and

Fisheries

D pH between 6.5 to 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more Free Ammonia (as N) 1.2 mg/l or less

Irrigation, Industrial Cooling,

Controlled Waste disposal

E pH between 6.0 to 8.5 Electrical Conductivity at 25°C micro mhos/cm

Max.2250 Sodium absorption Ratio Max. 26 Boron Max. 2mg/l

Below E Not Meeting A, B, C, D & E Criteria

Source: Central Pollution Control Board

1 Coliforms organisms like faecal bacteria are an indicator of water quality. 2 Most Probable Number. 3 It is a measure of the acidity or basicity of a solution. Since pH can be affected by chemicals in the water, pH is an

important indicator of water that is changing chemically. 4 DO is a relative measure of the amount of oxygen that is dissolved or carried in the water body. Adequate dissolved oxygen

is needed and necessary for good water quality. 5 BOD is a chemical procedure for determining the uptake rate of dissolved oxygen by the biological organisms in a body of water and is widely used as an indication of the quality of water.

Institutional arrangements for managing water pollution in India

At the Centre:

Policy-making

For river/lake pollution: Ministry of

Envrironment & Forests (MoEF),

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)

For ground water pollution: Ministry of

Envrironment & Forests (MoEF), Ministry of

Water Resources (MoWR)

Central Ground Water Board (CGWB)

Implementation

For River/lake Pollution: National River Conservation Directorate

For Ground water:MOEF,

MoWR

Monitoring

For River/lake pollution: NRCD/CPCB

For ground water pollution: CGWB

Water Quality Assessment Authority

Performance Audit on Water Pollution – A Case Study

Questions

1. What methodology would you adopt to select the topic of Water Pollution for

Performance Audit?

2. Would you consider issues flagged by the International Conference on

Environment Audit-Concerns about Water Pollution while planning the audit?

3. Would you consider issues by the citizens in response to newspaper

advertisements?

4. What issues would you highlight in the audit objectives?

5. On what basis would you select samples for audit?

6. How many projects and rivers were selected by audit for detailed examination

by SAI India?

7. What were the recommendations of audit for Ministry of Environment and

Forest/ Central Pollution control Board?

8. What were the audit findings with respect to the Legislative and Policy

framework?

9. What were the audit findings with respect to planning done by the Ministry and

the States?

10. What were the audit findings with respect to implementation of the programmes

for control of pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water?

11. What were the audit findings with respect to Monitoring of programmes for

control of pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water?

12. What were the audit findings with respect to Results of programmes for control

of pollution in India?

13. What were the audit findings with respect to Resources and Utilisation of Funds?

MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN INDIA

1 Introduction

1.1 According to the Basel Convention, wastes are substances or objects which are disposed or are

intended to be disposed or are required to be disposed off by the provisions of national laws. Waste

includes all items that people no longer have any use for, which they either intend to get rid of or

have already discarded.

Additionally, wastes are such items which people are required to discard, for example by law

because of their hazardous properties. Many items can be considered as waste e.g., household

rubbish, sewage sludge, wastes from manufacturing activities, packaging items, discarded cars, old

televisions, garden waste, old paint containers etc. Thus, all our daily activities give rise to a large

variety of different wastes arising from different sources.

The rising quality of life and high rates of resource consumption patterns have had an unintended

and negative impact on the environment - generation of wastes far beyond the handling capacities

of governments and agencies. Cities are now grappling with the problems of high volumes of waste,

the costs involved, the disposal technologies and methodologies, and the impact of wastes on the

local and global environment.

1.2 Kinds of waste

Municipal waste is waste generated by households and consists of paper, organic waste, metals

etc. Increasing use of plastic and packaged products also contribute significantly to the municipal

waste.

As the demand for consumer products rise, the manufacturing process which turns raw materials

into consumer products also creates what is called industrial waste.

Very often, the production processes, households and commercial activities generates wastes which

land up in the hazardous wastes category.

Biomedical waste is waste generated by hospitals and other health providers and consists of

discarded drugs, waste sharps, microbiology & biotechnology waste, human anatomical waste,

animal waste etc.

Construction and demolition waste arises from activities such as the construction and demolition

of buildings, creation of infrastructure such as road planning and maintenance etc,.

Mining waste arises from prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of minerals.

Waste electrical and electronic equipment (commonly referred to as WEEE) consists of end of

life products and comprises of a range of electrical and electronic items such as refrigerators,

information technology and telecommunication equipment like computers and printers, electrical

and electronic tools, washing machines, medical equipment, televisions etc,.

Radioactive waste is any material that contains a concentration of radionuclides greater than

those deemed safe by national authorities, and for which no use is foreseen. Because of the wide

variety of nuclear applications, the amounts, types and even physical forms of radioactive waste

vary considerably – some waste remain radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years, while

others may require storage for only a short period, while they decay, prior to conventional disposal.

(International Atomic Energy Agency).

Other sources of waste include end-of-life vehicles, packaging waste, tyres, agricultural waste,

wastes from forestry etc.

1.3 Amount of waste being generated in India

India produces 42 million tones of urban solid waste annually, with solid waste generation being

approximately 0.4 kg per capita per day. It has also been estimated that because of the increasing

per capita waste generation, the yearly increase of solid waste is about 5 per cent.

The Director General of Health Services estimates that 54,404 (MT) of bio medical waste is being

generated in the country every year; based on the generation figure of 250 g/capita/day.

Around 7.2 MT of hazardous waste is being generated in the country.

Of mounting importance is the quantity of waste electrical and electronic equipment, especially

waste computers, TVs, printers etc. From 1998 to 2002, there was a 53.1% increase1 in the sales of

domestic household appliances, both large and small. The growth in Personal Computer (PC)

ownership per capita in India between 1993 and 2000 was 604% compared to a world average of

181%. As a result, the total PC base during this period has grown from an estimated 450,000 PCs to

4,200,000 PCs2 . It is estimated that in India, business and individual households make

approximately 1.38 million personal computers obsolete every year3 . Thus, e-waste represents a

fast growing source of waste in India.

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.

1.4 Impact of waste on health and environment

Wastes represent a threat to the environment and human health if not handled or disposed off

properly.

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

contamination takes place when residues from waste leach into the ground water. Residues from

waste can change the water chemistry which can affect all levels of an ecosystem. Both surface and

ground water contamination can impact the health of lower food chain organisms and,

consequently, the availability of food up through the food chain. It can damage the health of

wetlands and impair their ability to support healthy ecosystems, control flooding, and filter

pollutants from storm water runoff. The health of animals and humans are affected when they drink

or bathe in contaminated water. In addition aquatic organisms, like fish and shellfish, can

accumulate and concentrate contaminants in their bodies. In addition, water from these

contaminated sources when used for irrigation can affect the soil productivity as well as introduce

contaminants into the food chain.

Soil contamination as a result of waste can harm plants when they take up contaminants from

their roots. Ingesting, inhaling or touching soil contaminated by waste, as well as eating plants or

animals that have accumulated soil contaminants can adversely impact the health of humans and

animals.

Emissions from incinerators or other waste burning devices and from landfills can also cause Air

contamination. Incinerators routinely emit dioxins, furans and polychlorinated by-phenyls (PCB),

which are deadly toxins, causing cancer and endocrine system damage. Other conventional toxins

such as mercury, heavy metals are also released.

Landfills are a big source of release of green house gases which are generated when organic waste

decomposes in landfills. Thus, improper handling of waste has consequences both on the

environment as well as on the health of the people.

The risks to human health and environment are acute when electronic and electrical waste is not

managed properly. E-waste contains a mix of toxic substances such as lead and cadmium in circuit

boards; lead oxide and cadmium in monitor cathode ray tubes (CRTs); mercury in switches and flat

screen monitors; cadmium in computer batteries; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in older

capacitors and transformers; and brominated flame retardants on printed circuit boards, plastic

casings, cables and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) cable insulation that release highly toxic dioxins and

furans when burned to retrieve copper from the wires. Due to the hazards involved, disposing and

recycling e-waste has serious health and environmental implications.

1.5 Management of Waste

According to European Union Directive on waste, ‘waste management’ shall mean “the collection,

transport, recovery and disposal of waste, including the supervision of such operations and after-care

of disposal sites”. The most widely accepted concept is the waste hierarchy which classifies waste

management strategies according to their desirability. According to this hierarchy, the priority of

any country should be to extract the maximum practical benefits from products and prevent and

minimize the waste that is generated. Thus, strategies should focus on waste prevention and

minimization through the “3 R’s” - reduce, reuse and recycle. According to this hierarchy, waste

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

on waste prevention and waste minimisation would ensure that less waste is being produced which

needs to be disposed.

1.5.1 Waste prevention means measures aiming at the reduction of the quantity and harmfulness for

the environment of diverse waste streams. Prevention is the most desirable waste management

option as it eliminates the need for handling, transporting, recycling or disposal of waste. It

provides the highest level of environmental protection by optimising the use of resources and by

removing a potential source of pollution. Some of the techniques of waste prevention are

improvement of resource efficiency, reduction of hazardous substances in products, life cycle

thinking etc.

• Reducing waste includes any process or activity that avoids, reduces or eliminates waste at its

source or results in re-use or recycling.

• Reusing is using an article more than once. This includes conventional reuse where the item is

used again for the same function, and new-life reuse where it is used for a new function.

• Recycling involves the treatment or reprocessing of a discarded waste material to make it

suitable for subsequent re-use either for its original form or for other purposes. It includes

recycling of organic wastes but excludes energy recovery. Recycling benefits the environment

by reducing the use of virgin materials. Recycling is beneficial in two ways: it reduces the inputs

(energy and raw materials) to a production system and reduces the amount of waste produced

for disposal.

1.5.2 Waste disposal The most commonly used methods for waste disposal (landfill, pyrolysis,

incineration) are environmentally damaging and unsustainable. Therefore any way to reduce

the volume of waste being disposed in this fashion is beneficial. Waste disposal typically

involves the segregation, collection, transportation and finally disposal of mainly municipal and

bio medical waste. Depending upon the type of waste and the area, a level of processing may

follow collection. This processing may be to reduce the hazard of the waste, recover material for

recycling, produce energy from the waste, or reduce it in volume for more efficient disposal.

• Disposing of waste in a landfill is the most traditional method of waste disposal, and it remains

a common practice in most countries. A properly-designed and wellmanaged landfill can be a

hygienic and relatively inexpensive method of disposing of waste materials in a way that

minimises their impact on the local environment. Older, poorly-designed or poorly-managed

landfills can create a number of adverse environmental impacts such as wind-blown litter,

attraction of vermin, and generation of leachate which can pollute groundwater and surface

water. Another byproduct of landfills is landfill gas (mostly composed of methane and carbon

dioxide), which is produced as organic waste breaks down anaerobically. This gas can create

odor problems, kill surface vegetation, and is a greenhouse gas.

• Incineration is a waste disposal method that involves combustion of waste at high

temperatures. Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into heat, gaseous emissions,

and residual solid ash. It is recognized as a practical method of disposing of certain hazardous

waste materials (such as biological medical waste), though it remains a controversial method of

waste disposal in many places due to issues such as emission of gaseous pollutants.

• Waste materials that are organic in nature, such as plant material, food scraps, and paper

products, are increasingly being put through a composting and/or anaerobic digestion system

to control the biological process to decompose the organic matter and kill pathogens. The

resulting stabilized organic material is then recycled as mulch or compost for agricultural or

landscaping purposes.

• Gasification/Pyrolysis are two related forms of thermal treatment where waste materials are

heated to high temperatures with limited oxygen availability. The process typically occurs in a

sealed vessel under high pressure. Converting material to energy this way is more efficient than

direct incineration, with more energy able to be recovered and used. Pyrolysis of solid waste

converts the material into solid, liquid and gas products. The liquid oil and gas can be burnt to

produce energy or refined into other products. The solid residue (char) can be further refined

into products such as activated carbon.

• Biological waste is traditionally disposed by autoclaving; autoclave being a pressurized device

designed to heat aqueous solutions above their boiling point to achieve sterilization. This

ensures that all bacteria, viruses, fungi, and spores are inactivated.

2. Organizational setup

2.1 Policy Making

The Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) is the nodal agency in the administrative

structure of the Central Government, for the planning, promotion, co-ordination and overseeing

the implementation of environmental and forestry programmes. The principal activities

undertaken by MoEF consist of conservation & survey of flora, fauna, forests and wildlife,

prevention & control of pollution, afforestation and regeneration of degraded areas and

protection of environment in the framework of legislations.

There is no specific mandate given to MoEF regarding management of waste, but is a component

under the prevention and control of pollution activities undertaken by the Ministry.

Activities of the Ministry relating to prevention and control of pollution are environmental

statistics and mapping, development and promotion of cleaner technologies, adoption of cleaner

technologies in small scale industries, waste minimizing, programme for improvement of

quality of automotive fuels (motor gasoline and diesel) for reducing vehicular pollution, mission

on control of vehicular pollution from on-road vehicles, noise pollution, environmental

epidemiological studies, development of standards and eco-labeling.

In its planning functions, the MoEF is assisted by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)

which renders technical inputs for formation of national policies and programmes. CPCB is

required to play a key role in abatement and control of pollution in the country by generating

relevant data, providing scientific information, rendering technical inputs for formation of

national policies and programmes, training and development of manpower, through activities

for promoting awareness at different levels of the Government and public at large.

The functions of the CPCB are:

1. Advise the Central Government on any matter concerning prevention and control of water

and air pollution and improvement of the quality of air;

2. Plan and cause to be executed a nation-wide programme for the prevention, control or

abatement of water and air pollution;

3. Co-ordinate the activities of the State Boards and resolve disputes among them;

4. Provide technical assistance and guidance to the State Boards, carry out and sponsor

investigations and research relating to problems of water and air pollution, and for their

prevention, control or abatement;

5. Plan and organise training of persons engaged in programmes for prevention, control or

abatement of water and air pollution;

6. Organise through mass media, a comprehensive mass awareness programme on prevention,

control or abatement of water and air pollution;

7. Collect, compile and publish technical and statistical data relating to water and air pollution

and the measures devised for their effective prevention, control or abatement;

8. Prepare manuals, codes and guidelines relating to treatment and disposal of sewage and trade

effluents as well as for stack gas cleaning devices, stacks and ducts;

9. Disseminate information in respect of matters relating to water and air pollution and their

prevention and control;

10. Lay down, modify or annul, in consultation with the State Governments concerned, the

standards for stream or well, and lay down standards for the quality of air; and,

11. Perform such other functions as and when prescribed by the Government of India.

2.1.1 Policy on Management of waste

The Government of India has not articulated any policy on management of waste or principles

governing management of waste. Nor has it laid down any waste management hierarchy where

waste prevention and waste minimisation are given priority over waste disposal.

Strategies to enforce waste prevention and waste minimisation through reduction, re use and

recycling seem inadequate. Further, no targets have been set for waste reduction and waste

recycling. The Eco Mark scheme was introduced in 1992 to encourage the use of environment

friendly products but the scheme never really took off. Thus, the Government of India has not

encouraged waste prevention and minimisation but only waste disposal for which some rules

have been enacted.

2.1.2 Rules governing management of waste in India

Realizing the seriousness of the problem of solid waste management and therefore to regulate

the management and handling of the municipal solid waste, the government notified the

following:

• Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 under the powers conferred

by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was notified. The objective of the rule is to make

every municipal authority, within the territorial area of the municipality, responsible for the

implementation of the provisions of these rules, and for any infrastructure development for

collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of Municipal Solid

Wastes. The State Pollution Control Board was given responsibility for granting authorisation

for setting up waste disposal facilities and monitoring that disposal of municipal solid waste

meets the compliance criteria set out by the Central Pollution Control Board. Along with the

municipal solid waste, it was also felt that the waste generated from the various health care

establishments also poses a serious threat to the environment.

• To ensure proper bio medical waste management, The Bio-Medical Waste (Management and

Handling) Rules, were notified in 1998 with an amendment in 2003.The institutions generating

bio medical waste were given the responsibility of ensuring that all such waste is segregated,

transported, processed and disposed without any adverse effect to human health and the

environment. It set up a time schedule for ensuring that institutions setup waste disposal and

processing facilities which were to be authorized by a body to be setup by the state

governments.

• Plastics were also felt to be a major source of pollution to the environment and The Recycled

Plastics Manufacture and Usage Rules notified in 1999 with an amendment in 2003. The

responsibility for enforcement of rules relating to use, collection, segregation, transportation

and disposal of plastic waste was entrusted to the District Commissioner/ District magistrate of

each district and SPCBs were given the responsibility for monitoring of these rules. Rules

governing management and handling of municipal, plastic and biomedical waste in India are

attached as Annexure 13.

• The Policy Statement on the Abatement of Pollution issued by the Government of India in

1992 reiterated the commitment of the Government of India towards waste minimization and

control of hazardous wastes. The Government of India promulgated the Hazardous Waste

(Management & Handling) Rules in 1989 through the MoEF under the aegis of Environment

(Protection) Act [E(P) Act], 1986. Subsequent amendments to the rules followed in 2000 and

2003. The role and responsibilities of the waste generator, state/central pollution controls

boards and state Government was clearly defined in these rules. The rules were further

amended in 2000, placing stringent curbs on the export and import of waste into India. These

are the legislation which seeks to ensure the proper disposal of all waste generated in the

country.

2.2 Implementing Agencies

The rules relating to management of municipal, biomedical and plastic waste are implemented

in the States. It is the responsibility of the municipal authorities to implement the laws relating

to collection, segregation, transportation and disposal of municipal solid waste.

The rules regarding biomedical waste management are to be implemented by the hospital

authorities and the rules pertaining to the implementation of the Plastic are implemented by the

concerned District Magistrate/ District Commissioner.

The central government has allowed private operators to enter the field of municipal solid

waste and bio medical waste management, but the ultimate authority to implement these rules

efficiently and effectively rests with the agencies of the government.

2.3 Monitoring Agencies

The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, The Recycled Plastics

Manufacture and Usage Rules, 1999, The Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules,

1989 (amended in 2000 and 2003) and The Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling)

Rules 1998 ( amended in 2003) are monitored all over India by the CPCB and its zonal offices.

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

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

The Environment Protection Act, 1986 empowered the central government to establish

environment laboratories or recognize laboratories or institutes as environment laboratories

for the purpose of analysis, samples of air, water, soil or any other substance sent by analysis by

the central government. Accordingly, the MoEF has notified select laboratories and Institutes as

environment laboratories for the purpose of analysis of environment.

3. Funding

The Central Pollution Control Board is fully funded by the Ministry of Environment & Forests,

Government of India.

The State Pollution Control Boards receive funds from the concerned State Governments and

from the Central Ministry of Environment & Forests through reimbursement of Water Cess

(upto 80%) collected by the respective State Boards.

In addition, the State Boards receive fees for processing for applications from the industries for

issuing consent in regard to discharge of effluent and emissions.

SPCBs get only marginal/ nominal financial assistance from State Governments and some of the

State Pollution Control Boards, State Governments are not providing budgetary grants.

State Pollution Control Boards are dependent on consent and authorization fee and cess

reimbursements which they get out of cess collections.

MoEF provides financial assistance to SPCBs on specific projects relating to prevention and

control of pollution like specific projects for abatement of pollution, hazardous waste

management, management of municipal solid waste and strengthening of Pollution Control

Boards (for laboratory upgradation).

Budget allocation/ expenditure of Hazardous Substance Management Division of MOEF, New Delhi

Year Budget Expenditure 2002-03 900.00 784.68 2003-04 900.00 500.00 2004-05 700.00 504.53 2005-06 600.00 549.90 2006-07 600.00 870.00

Budget allocation/ expenditure of CPCB

Year Budget Expenditure 2002-03 2919.00 2647.10 2003-04 2874.10 2948.94 2004-05 2948.90 2689.52 2005-06 4656.92 4258.10 2006-07 5157.60 5245.08

QUESTIONS

1. What according to you would be the audit objective of this audit?

2. What, according to you, would be the criteria on which the audit objectives would be

based?

3. How would you analyse the issues at hand? What, according to you, are the main

issues?

4. What issues would you highlight in the audit objectives?

5. On what basis would you select samples for audit?

6. What might be the audit conclusions?

7. Based on the audit findings and conclusions, what would be your recommendations?

MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN INDIA

AUDIT OBJECTIVES

1. Whether the quantum of waste being generated in the country been accurately assessed and

have the risks to environment and health posed by waste been identified;

2. Whether waste has been adequately recognized as a cause of environmental degradation by

environmental legislation and planning documents in India;

3. Whether policies on waste management reflected the priority of waste reduction and waste

minimisation as against waste disposal;

4. Whether environmental legislation dealing with disposal of each kind of waste source exists and

are adequate and whether clear responsibility and penalty for violation has been incorporated

in the legislations already enacted;

5. Whether the various agencies involved in the process have been allocated clear responsibility

and accountability for waste management and whether a mismatch/gap/overlap exists among

the responsibility centers;

6. Whether compliance to laws regulating municipal solid waste, biomedical waste and plastic

waste is taking place and whether the monitoring mechanism is effective in checking non

compliance;

7. Whether a sound system for taking effective action on the collected feedback has been evolved;

8. Whether funding and infrastructure was adequate for the implementation of rules on waste

management and whether the funds/infrastructure have been used economically, efficiently

and effectively.

AUDIT CRITERIA

The criteria used in audit are:

1. Rules relating to the biomedical waste, plastic waste and municipal solid waste

2. Policies, directives, legislations and practices for management of waste in different countries.

3. 10th plan document,

4. Approach paper to the 11th plan document,

5. Policy for abatement of pollution,

6. National conservation strategy and

7. Policy statement on environment & development and vision statement on environment & health

8. The ecomark scheme

9. Monitoring systems in MoEF, CPCB and SPCB relating to management of waste.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings:

1. Assessment of quantum of waste being generated in the country and identification of the risks to

environment and health posed by waste.

• 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.

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

future. Only 25 per cent 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 per cent of

the states.

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

Only 25 per cent of the sampled states had assessed the risks to public health.

Recommendations:

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.

Findings

2. Existence of policies and strategies for management of wastes and reflection of priority to waste

reduction and waste minimization as against waste disposal.

• Waste management efforts were not directed by a separate policy. MoEF has not adopted a

hierarchical approach to waste management, in the order of environmental priority. No effective

strategies have been introduced to implement the ‘3 Rs’ (reduce, reuse and recycle), the current focus

being only on disposal of waste. Only eight per cent of the sampled states had implemented the ‘3 Rs’.

• MoEF/CPCB as well as 79 per cent of the sampled states did not set any targets/timelines for

reduction of municipal solid waste, bio-medical waste, plastic waste, hazardous waste etc,. In the

absence of clear targets/timelines, efforts made by the government to reduce waste were not

measurable.

MoEF had not appropriately addressed the role of informal sector in handling waste. Only 17 per cent of

the sampled states had recognised the role of ragpickers.

MoEF and the states have not taken effective action to promote the use of recycled and environmentally

friendly products. The implementation of MoEF’s environment labeling programme called “ECOMARK”

was tardy as “ECOMARK” was granted to only three product categories ever since the programme was

introduced in 1991.

Recommendations

MoEF may consider framing a specific policy for the management of wastes in India,

incorporating the internationally accepted hierarchy for management of wastes.

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, in consultation with the states, should prepare an action plan for the reduction, reuse

and recycling of waste with clearly defined numerical targets as well as timelines for the

achievement of targets.

• 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” scheme 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.

Findings

3. Existence of legislations specifically dealing with disposal of each kind of waste, incorporating

penalty for violation.

• Laws have not been 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. In only 25 per cent of the sampled states, some token

action had been taken by PCBs/state governments against defaulters for illegal dumping of waste.

Findings

4. Allocation of clear responsibility and accountability to various agencies involved in the process of

waste management.

• There was no single body taking ownership of waste issues both at the central level and at the state

level, leading to diffusion of responsibility and weak accountability.

• Only 15 per cent of states constituted the Solid Waste Missions for implementation of municipal solid

waste rules, despite directives of CPCB in 2004-05 that all states should set up such missions.

[Paragraph 5.2.2]

Recommendations

• 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.

• Considering the fact that the provisions of Environment Protection Act are seldom used, both at

the central and the state level for punishing the polluter, there is a need to incorporate the Polluter

Pays Principle (PPP) in the waste rules/legislations itself. This would act as a deterrent against

open dumping of waste.

• 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,

biomedical waste rules and plastic waste rules.

• In the states, only 33 per cent of the sampled states had allocated responsibility to PCBs for

monitoring of municipal solid waste rules; 46 per cent of the states had allocated responsibility for

monitoring of bio-medical waste rules and only 37 per cent of the sampled states were monitoring the

implementation of the plastic waste rules.

Findings

5. Compliance to rules regulating municipal solid waste, bio-medical waste and plastic waste.

5.1 Compliance to Municipal Solid Waste rules

• Collection: Waste was regularly collected only in 22 per cent of the sampled municipalities.

• Segregation: Segregation of waste took place only in 10 per cent of the sampled municipalities.

• Storage: Only 17 per cent municipalities were able to ensure proper storage of waste.

Recommendations

• 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 managing 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 Missions for dealing with overall issues relating to implementation of municipal

solid waste rules should be set up in all the states.

• The government should assign clear responsibility to MoEF or any central body/agency for

monitoring the implementation of all waste management rules throughout the country.

• Transportation: Covered trucks for transportation of municipal solid waste were being used only in

18 per cent of sampled municipalities.

• Processing: Only 11 per cent municipalities had waste processing capabilities.

• Disposal: Only six municipalities out of the sampled 56 municipalities had established a landfill,

leading to dumping of waste in open dumpsites in the states. The activity outlined in the

Implementation Schedule for the development of landfills was carried out only in 14 per cent of the

sampled municipalities.

5.2 Compliance to bio-medical waste rules

• Authorisation: Waste disposal facilities were set up after getting authorisation from prescribed

authority only in 29 per cent of the sampled hospitals. Segregation: Segregation as envisaged in the bio-

medical waste rules was taking place in only 29 per cent of the sampled hospitals. Bio-medical waste,

like effluents, needle sharps etc., were mixed with other wastes in 34 per cent of the sampled hospitals.

• Labeling and storage: Labeling took place only in 19 per cent of sampled hospitals and 17 per cent of

sampled hospitals kept untreated waste beyond 48 hours.

• Treatment /disposal: Only 17 per cent of sampled hospitals were treating/disposing bio-medical

waste as per the compliance criteria in the rules. More than 50 per cent of the hospitals sampled had

inadequate waste processing/disposal infrastructure.

5.3 Compliance to plastic waste rules • Actions were not being taken by District Collectors/District

Magistrates for the enforcement of the rules and it was difficult to verify whether vendors were using

carry bags or containers made of recycled plastic for storing, carrying, dispensing or packaging of

foodstuffs.

• It was difficult to verify in audit whether recycling was being done according to specifications of

Bureau of Indian Standards.

• None of the sampled states had complete database on the number of manufacturers of plastic carry

bags/containers; thus, it was difficult to verify whether all manufactures had sought authorisation from

PCBs for the manufacture of plastic carry bags/containers.

Recommendations

• 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 municipalities could be

authorised to levy fines if segregated waste is not made available to the municipalities 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.

• All municipalities should take steps to improve the existing dumpsites to make them more

sanitary and aesthetic. 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. Report No. PA 14 of 2008 (xi)

• Identification of land for setting up landfills should be done on a priority basis and each

municipality, according to a time bound programme, should develop landfills. Landfilling

should be restricted to non-biodegradable/inorganic 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 ensured in each hospital.

Measures should be taken to achieve 100 per cent segregation by each hospital.

• Hospitals could join a common facility for treatment/disposal of bio-medical waste and

PCBs should ensure that each common facility has the requisite and complete infrastructure

to handle waste safely.

• The plastic waste rules should clearly specify actions to be taken by the DCs/DMs for the

enforcement of the plastic rules, relating to use, collection, segregation, transportation and

disposal.

• Surprise checks should be conducted to verify whether vendors were following the

provisions of the plastic waste rules. Database of manufacturers of plastic carry

bags/containers should be built to ensure that all manufacturers seek authorization of PCB

before they take up manufacture of such items.

Findings:

6. Effectiveness of monitoring in checking non-compliance.

• Monitoring of the municipal solid waste rules, bio-medical waste rules and plastic rules, at the central

level, was not effective. Systems were also not in place to check non-compliance of rules by

municipalities, hospitals and district authorities.

• State PCBs 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 per cent of the sampled municipalities

and as such, no effective check was being exercised to see that waste processing and disposal facilities

meet the compliance criteria outlined in the municipal solid waste rules.

• Only 13 per cent of sampled hospitals were being monitored for compliance to biomedical waste

rules.

• Only in 35 per cent of the sampled states, the District Collectors of the district were monitoring the

implementation of plastic rules.

Findings:

7. Adequacy of funding and manpower for the implementation of rules on waste management.

• The states did not make enough provision for creating infrastructure for the management of waste.

Only 30 per cent and 27 per cent of the sampled states made some provisions in the budget for

management of municipal solid waste and biomedical waste respectively.

Recommendations

• At the central level, MoEF/CPCB/MoH&FW and at the level of the states, the PCBs should draw up

comprehensive schedules for sustained monitoring of municipalities and hospitals.

• Regular monitoring of waste disposal facilities like compost plants, incinerators etc., should be

done by CPCB/PCBs.

• Chhatisgarh diverted Rs.60 lakh for the construction of drainage and mini stadium, though funds were

released for management of municipal solid waste. Similarly, 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.

• There was a shortage of staff/technically qualified manpower in municipalities/PCBs. 55 per cent of

the sampled states reported shortage of manpower in the municipalities hampering municipal solid

waste management, while, PCBs in 54 per cent of the sampled states had cited shortages hampering

their work.

Recommendations

• States should make provisions in the budget for waste management activities relating to

municipal solid waste and bio-medical waste and ensure that municipalities and hospitals have

adequate funds for waste management.

• State governments and PCBs may assess their manpower requirement and accordingly, raise a

staff dedicated to the implementation and monitoring of waste management activities.

QUESTIONS

1. What according to you would be the audit objective of this audit?

2. What, according to you, would be the criteria on which the audit objectives would be

based?

3. How would you analyse the issues at hand? What, according to you, are the main

issues?

4. What issues would you highlight in the audit objectives?

5. On what basis would you select samples for audit?

6. What might be the audit conclusions?

7. Based on the audit findings and conclusions, what would be your recommendations?