Environmental Auditing-Day-3
Enforcement of Waste Management Rules
i)
Hazardous Waste Management Rules
Government of India notified (July 1989) the Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules
1989 under the EP Act 1986 with a view to ensuring the disposal of hazardous wastes generated
by the industries belonging to 18 scheduled categories. The Rules were amended in January 2000,
replacing 18 categories and specified quantities with 44 scheduled processes regardless of
quantities, such as industries using cadmium, mercury, zinc, lead arsenic etc. The PCB was
required among other things to issue authorization to the waste generating units having the
prescribed facilities. During 1989-2000, out of 151 units identified, authorization for functioning
was issued to 89 units only. Remaining 62 units did not introduce the approved disposal facilities.
Only 32 authorisation issued out of 89 units applied under the amended rules
It was noticed that as of March 2001, only the 89 units authorized prior to amendment of rules
applied under the amended rules and authorization were issued to 32 of them. It was further
noticed that of the 29 known large units generating waste oil, 16 units like Cochin Port Trust,
TELK, Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Southern Air Command, etc. did not apply for authorization as of
March 2001. PCB did not decide (March 2001) on the time scheduled for implementation of the
amended Rules as called for by CPCB in September 2000.
Penal Provisions not involved on industries which did not comply with rules.
EP Act and Rules provide imprisonment for terms upto 5 years or fine upto Rs 1 lakh or both for
violation of Rules. But the penal provisions were not involved by the PCB against any of the
defaulting units.
The PCB did not monitor compliance of conditions attached to the earlier authorizations in any of
the 89 industries by inspecting the premises or the records of waste required to be maintained by
them. Of 89 industries authorized prior to January 2000, 81 did not furnish any annual returns and
the details of monitoring ground water and soil samples around the disposal sites. The PCB,
however, neither insisted for the returns and reports nor initiated any action against them. Thus
the monitoring of these units were virtually non operational.
RTI Mumbai
1
Environmental Auditing-Day-3
ii)
Bio-Medical Waste Rules
Out of 1668 hospitals identified, only 106 applied for authorization and none was issued
authorization.
a)
Ineffective monitoring of waste generating sources
The Bio-Medical Waste Rules 1998 came into effect from July 1998 covering the whole State, for
ensuring that Bio-Medical waste was handled without any adverse effect on human health and
environment. According to the Rules the State Government was to appoint a prescribed authority
within one month (August 1998) for granting authorization and to constitute an Advisory
Committee which should advise the Government and the prescribed authority. Government
specified (October 1999) PCB as the prescribed authority under the Rules. According to the
schedule prescribed in the Rules, hospitals with bed strength of 200 and above should have
introduced facilities such as incineration, autoclaving etc. for disposal of bio-medical wastes by
December 1999. PCB collected a list of 1668 hospitals including 81 having a bed strength of 200
and above and issued notices to them in June 2000. However, 106 applications including 36
hospitals with a bed strength of 200 were received for authorization as of March 2001. None of
the 106 hospitals has been issued authorization so far (May 2001) for want of prescribed facilities
for waste disposal. In the absence of adequate waste disposal facilities, the bio-medical and solid
waste in the above hospitals were partly burned in the open and the rest was dumped in the open
causing hazards to the public and environment till the local bodies removed it to their trenching or
dumping yards. However, identification of bio-medical waste generating sources had been
confined to hospitals and nursing homes only and other sources like clinical laboratories,
veterinary institutions, animal houses etc. were left out. Non-identification of these sources came
to the notice of the PCB only at the instance of audit. Further action taken in this regard had not
been intimated by the PCB as of October 2001.
RTI Mumbai
2