ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
To
Secretary
Union
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government
of India
New
Delhi
Date:
October 25, 2013
Subject-Comments
on Draft Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2013
Sir,
I am
attaching my comments on Draft Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling)
Rules, 2013. This letter and the attached comments merit your
consideration.
I
submit that a Ministry of Environment and Forests ‘s white paper had
gone into the originally failed waste incineration plant at Timarpur, a
project initiated in the mid-80s. The paper is available on your
website. The MoEF paper said that the failure supported the fact that
thermal treatment of municipal solid waste is not feasible in situations
where the waste has a low calorific value. It added: "A critical
analysis of biological treatment as an option was undertaken for
processing of municipal solid waste in Delhi and it has been recommended
that composting will be a viable option."
My comments are on the Draft Rules available at
http://envfor.nic.in/sites/
On behalf
ToxicsWattch Alliancwe (TWA), I wish to submit that huge amount of money is
being wasted in aggregate and centralised technocentric solutions for municipal
waste management. The Draft MSW Rules, 2013 promotes the status quo.
I submit
that the Draft Rules seems to encourage waste generation and waste maximization
for energy generation instead of promoting waste minimization and adoption of
Zero Waste approach in dealing with the waste crisis.
I submit
that municipal waste management is being distorted beyond repair due to the
misplaced and uncalled intervention of the Union Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy (MNRE), which is promoting waste to energy policy based on incineration
technologies despite the experience of failure in Andhra Pradesh and Timarpur,
Delhi. Unmindful of the fact that waste incinerator technologies are net energy
losers when the embodied energy of the materials burned is accounted for, MNRE
continues to promote it without any success. It is providing subsidy to such
projects through its policy. It has written to all state governments to follow
this policy as part of an executive order.
I submit
that the Hazardous Substances Management Division, Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests has failed to examine the performance of the MSW Rules,
2000. Had it done so Draft Rules would not have provided for waste to energy.
Had it done so it would have looked deeper into the non-compliance with MSW
Rules, 2000.
I wish to
submit that in June 2005, Shri Gurudas Kamat, Chairman of the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Energy wrote to the MNRE seeking review of its WTE
programme, citing similar reasons.
Referring to two burn projects in Andhra Pradesh as well to problems of
incineration in general, Shri Kamat supported a ban on economic incentives for
such projects, writing this: "We therefore direct that land filling of
unsegregated wastes, incineration and recovery of energy from municipal waste
shall henceforth not receive any Govt. sponsorship, encouragement or aid in any
manner, except for completion of any projects that have already invested 30% of
their capital cost on site."
I submit
that the Draft Rules is contrary to the Stockholm Convention on POPs to which
India is a signatory because it calls for improvements in waste management with
the aim of the cessation of open and other uncontrolled burning of wastes. It
violates Dhaka Declaration on Waste Management adopted by South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in October 2004. As per this
declaration, SAARC countries cannot opt for incineration and other unproven
technologies.
It is not
that better methods of handling municipal waste in Indian cities are unknown.
Researchers of waste suggest that composting and recycling materials is a
better alternative because it saves the amount of energy that incinerating
these same materials would generate. When properly applied, compost prepared
from segregated waste is an excellent organic fertilizer. Burning organic waste
litter eliminates this valuable resource. Where volumes are too high for local
land application, composting is a more sustainable alternative. Organic
fertilizer can be analysed and managed before application; but smokestack
emissions are dispersed by the wind.
I submit
that on one occasion, Dr Abdul Kalam, as President rightly summed up the need
for integrated zero waste management. He illustrated this by referring to
Gandhi Nagar, a town panchayat of around 2,400 families in Vellore district,
Tamil Nadu. Gandhi Nagar generates garbage of over 48 tonnes per year. This
garbage is converted into manure and recyclable waste generating over Rs.3 lakh
in revenue, and the scheme provides employment to local people. Such measures
promote sustainable development as against the current trend of introducing
failed polluting technologies, which turn citizens into guinea pigs for
experiments.
In a related
development in favour of this approach, the Inter-Ministerial Task Force on
Integrated Plant Nutrient Management has recommended setting up of 1000 compost
plants all over the country and has allocated Rs.800 crore for the same in the
year 2005. This report has been submitted in the Supreme Court in the Almitra
Patel vs Union of India (writ (civil) no. 888/1996) case. Notably, this report
recommends composting as a measure for waste management instead of energy
recovery because Indian soil is carbon deficit.
I submit
that the ideal resource management strategy for municipal solid waste is to
avoid its generation in the first place. This implies changing production and
consumption patterns to eliminate the use of disposable, non-reusable,
non-returnable products and packaging. The alternative waste disposal methods
include waste reduction, waste segregation at source, extended use and refuse,
recycling, biomethanation technology and composting.
In sum, the
WTE projects are technologically incompatible with reducing dioxins emissions
and at the same time relies on minimum guaranteed waste flows. It indirectly
promotes continued waste generation while hindering waste prevention, reuse,
composting, recycling, and recycling-based community economic development. It
costs cities and municipalities more and provides fewer jobs than comprehensive
recycling and composting. It prohibits the development of local recycling-based
businesses.
In keeping
with the characteristics of Indian municipal solid waste -- low calorific
value, high moisture content, high proportion of organic matter, and
considerable inerts like earth, sand and grit – that the Supreme Court
Committee on Solid Waste Management headed by Shri Asim Barman suggested simple
technologies and easily achievable standards with liberal time frame knowing the
limitations of urban local bodies and their institutional capabilities. It made
recommendations to improve the finances of urban local bodies and to boost the
composting of waste and recycling industry in this field. Recycling can
eliminate a large chunk of the problem. Wet biodegradable wastes (e.g. cooked
and uncooked foods and flowers) make excellent for composting. Indian soil is
deficient in carbon and that is also the need of the hour to enrich the soil.
However, the reality is that in Indian cities and towns on an average, only 60
per cent of solid wastes is collected leaving the balance 40 per cent
unattended to. This gives rise to the insanitary conditions and diseases,
especially among the urban poor who constitute 40 per cent of urban population.
I submit
that in the US alone, recycling conserves an equivalent of approximately 11.9
billion gallons of gasoline, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to
taking one-fifth (40 million) of all US cars off the roads every year.
I submit
that the fact is that burning or incineration or combustion is unambiguously
polluting. As noted in my earlier article, mother's milk in areas where waste
burning takes place has already been tested and found to contain high amount of
dioxins. Dioxins, are well known carcinogenic chemicals. Incinerators also emit
greenhouse gases, especially from plastics. Incineration drives a negative
spiral of increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Also,
restrictive policies in typical incinerator contracts require a set amount of
garbage. These contracts impose fees that that are a disincentive for a city to
improve waste prevention strategies (i.e. reduction), recycling and composting
collections.
I submit
that suggestions of there being good and bad incinerators are not well-founded.
India does not have even one laboratory to test for dioxins. Indeed,
sophisticated technologies are available, in theory, which can control, not
stop any pollutant, including dioxin, from being emitted. This is because
dioxins are emitted when waste is burnt at a low temperature. It is also argued
that if a plant runs for 24 hours at a high temperature it will destroy the
dioxins anyway. First, it isn't clear there are waste to energy plants in India
as of today or proposed in future that will run for 24 hours. Second at the
starting and closing times, the temperature of the incinerators are low, and it
takes time for the system to reach high temperature.
Under such
circumstances, and given that India does not have even one dioxin testing
facility in place, is it fair to argue for burn technologies? Those suggesting
that 'sophisticated technologies' are available to stop any pollutant,
including dioxins, seem to be going contrary to all cannons of the
precautionary principle. Despite all
this, numerous such projects are proposed in cities all over the world. As a
consequence, toxins are building up in the environment especially the aquatic
ecosystem of villages and cities and drinking water bodies in their vicinity.
The emission of these notorious pollutants is linked to cancer, immune and
reproductive system disorders, birth defects, and other health threats. Besides
environmental groups, the villagers and city folks themselves are resisting
such waste burning techniques because of the stark evidence they themselves
experience. This is further corroborated by scientific and medical findings
that indicate that chemicals are leaching in the ground and air pollution
because of waste burning is entering the food chain.
I submit
that the move by the incineration industry to term waste incinerators as
'renewable energy' projects is not only fraudulent but also dangerous.
Municipal solid waste is not considered to be a renewable energy source since
it tends to be a mixture of fuels that can be traced back to renewable and
non-renewable sources. The advocates of incinerators prefer to pre-empt segregation
and recycling efforts being made by municipalities and communities around the
world.
I wish to
inform you that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
ordered status quo on the controversial proposal to comprehensively amend the
Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (MSW Rules, 2000)
by its order dated October 11, 2013. It has rightly been noted that the
proposed amendments to the MSW Rules are contrary to measures to ensure
segregation of waste at source, maximal recovery of recyclable material and
composting and bio-methanation of bio-degradable components.
I wish to
urge you to ponder over the question as to what is holding better waste
management back in our country. The lack of a resource management plan which
embraces zero waste as a vision for the future is holding back progress. Such a
plan would need to call for waste prevention, reuse, repair, recycling, and
composting. The plan will target a wide range of materials for reuse,
recycling, and composting and will keep these materials segregated at the
source to maintain quality and enhance diversion levels. It will treat composting
as the key to achieving 50% and higher diversion levels and aim for doing so
cost-effectively. Keeping organics out of landfills will make landfills less of
a nuisance and source of pollution. Instituting economic incentives that reward
waste reduction and recovery over disposal, such as reduced tipping fees for
delivering recyclable and compostable materials to drop-off sites, tax
incentives to encourage businesses and haulers to recycle, and pay-as-you-throw
fees for trash collection will ensure management in true sense.
This plan also
involves enacting policies and regulations to improve the environment for
recycling and recycling-based businesses by banning products that cannot be
reused, repaired, recycled, or composted, banning recyclable and reusable
materials and products from landfills and incinerators and banning single-use
disposable products from public events and festivals and as many other places
as possible. Such a plan also seeks to
establish recycling market with incentives to create industrial parks for
reuse, recycling, and composting firms. It will include policies that require
reuse and recovery of building materials in new construction and in building
deconstruction projects.
The plan
will also include educational and technical assistance programs that provide
residents and businesses with information about 'how' and 'why' to reduce,
reuse, recycle, and compost. It will showcase the environmental and economic
benefits of preventing, reusing, and recycling discards. It will manifest the
role these activities play in moving toward an environmental health sensitive
sustainable economy.
In view of the above, I seek your intervention to take cognisance of the fact that despite the
inherent wisdom in such measures, the combustion or incineration of garbage is
often suggested as a solution. The framing of new Rules provides an opportunity to set things right.
Kindly allow
me to reiterate that this letter and the attached comments merit your
consideration.
Thanking You
Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 09818089660
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Shri Ajay Taygi, Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board, MoEF
ToxicsWatch Alliance
(TWA)
Comments
on Draft Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2013
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
E:gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
Mb: 09818089660
www.toxicswatch.org
Abbreviation
MSW-Municipal
Solid Waste
HSMD- Hazardous
Substances Management Division
MoEF-Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests
CPCB -Central
Pollution Control Board
NIP-National
Implementation Plan
POPs-Persistent
Organic Pollutants
MNRE -Union
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
UNEP-United
Nations Environment Programme
WTE- Waste to
Energy
NUSP-National
Urban Sanitation Policy
MoUD-Union
Ministry of Urban Development
HUPA-Union Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation
ILCS-Integrated Low Cost Sanitation
Comments
on Draft Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2013
As has been the case with regard to
the pre-existing Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 200,
case Draft Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2013 has been
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). But unlike on the previous
occasion, clause 4 of the Draft Rules provides a “List of Authorities and
corresponding duties” under the title “Prescribed Authority” and states that the
Union Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) will “Coordinate and review
implementation of these rules.” It also states that MoEF will “undertake
periodic review of these rules.” This seems to show that there is duplication
of work. There is a structural reason for transferring the task in its entirety
to the MoUD but the Draft Rules stops short of doing that.
The challenge that the 20 page English
text of Draft Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2013 with
12 clauses, 2 schedules and 6 forms faces include its ability to deal with what
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)’s report reveals as to how around 1, 27,
486 tonne of municipal garbage generated every day in 59 major cities of India
with only 12.54% of it being treated. Even this treatment is questionable. The
Draft Rules which is to replace the pre-existing Municipal Solid Waste (Management
and Handling) Rules, 2000 leaves a lot to be desired. Generation of waste in the whole country is 362716.098
tons per day according to a 2008, study done by Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB), Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF).
The 22 pages of Hindi text of the
Draft Rules also form part of notification issued by the Gazette of India. The
Draft Rules are supposed to replace the pre-existing Municipal Solid Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.
It is quite appropriate that
Hazardous Substances Management Division (HSMD) of the Ministry has framed the
Draft Rules for Municipal Solid Waste’ because it does have hazardous waste
characteristics.
As per clause 3 (xvii) of the Draft
Rules, “ ‘Municipal Solid Waste’ means the commercial and residential waste
generated in a municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-solid form
excluding industrial hazardous waste, e-waste and including treated bio-medical
waste.” This definition is exactly the same as is given in the pre-existing
clause 3 (xv) of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules,
2000.
But the definition of “treated
bio-medical waste” was not there in the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 2000, which has been given in clause 3 (xxx). It means “the
waste generated in hospitals and health care institutions which have been
prescribed as treated under Bio-medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rule
1998, as amended time to time.” This provision with regard to “treated
bio-medical waste” needs to be revisited and an Experts Committee may be asked
to examine its implications for environmental health.
The definition in particular and
the Draft Rules in general do not disclose that Indian ‘Municipal Solid Waste’
has hazardous waste characteristics. This is a very serious omission which
should be rectified. This fact is admitted by implication when this definition
is read with clause 4 of Schedule II of the Draft Rules which provides for
standards and ‘specification for compost quality’ for heavy metal content for
Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, Lead, Zinc, Arsenic etc to ensure ‘safe application
of compost’. It provides that ‘Compost (final product) exceeding the above
stated concentration limits shall not be used for food crops. However, it may
be utilized for purposes other than growing food crops.”
In a bizarre act of continued
patronage to tried, tested and failed thermal technologies for waste processing
and disposal facilities the very sentence under the heading “Standards for
Composting” given in Schedule II of the Draft Rules reads: “Waste processing or
disposal facilities shall include composting, controlled bioremediation,
incineration, pelletisation, energy recovery or any other facility using
suitable technology.” The drafters of the Draft Rules in the have misled Shri
Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary, Hazardous Substances Management Division (HSMD), Union Ministry of Environment & Forests under
whose signature the Draft Rules have been made public for comments.
Clause 9 (3) reads:” The municipal
authority shall encourage the use of municipal solid waste by adopting suitable
technology which may include composting, vermicompsoting, anaerobic digestion
with or without energy recovery, co-incineration or combination of such
technologies as appropriate, to make use of municipal solid waste so as to
minimize burden on landfill.”
The Draft Rules provides for segregation
of biodegradable and non-biodegradable components of the solid waste. It
also says that the local bodies would collect horticulture, construction and
dairy wastes separately and will not mix it with the solid waste. Clause 3
(xxvi) defines segregation as a “means to separate the municipal solid waste
into groups of organic, inorganic, recyclables, industrial hazardous wastes and
e-waste”.
The Draft Rules fails to answer the question as
to when waste segregation is indeed done what is there to be burn by
incinerator technologies which the Draft Rules unabashedly promotes.
The drafters of the Draft Rules
have kept Shri Tyagi under dark about the White Paper on Pollution in Delhi
with an Action Plan' prepared by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests.
The relevant part of the paper reads:"The experience of the incineration
plant at Timarpur, Delhi and the briquette plant at Bombay support the fact
that thermal treatment of municipal solid waste is not feasible, in situations
where the waste has a low calorific value.” At present, Shri Tyagi is
officiating as the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests.
Besides the approved reference to
“any other facility using suitable technology” and hazardous and inappropriate
technologies of “incineration, pelletisation” reveals that although the Rules
being farmed is purportedly for Municipal Solid Waste ‘Management’, apparently
under the influence of questionable waste technology companies, it has adopted
thermal technology route as a bad and toxic legacy of the Municipal Solid Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 despite the Union Ministry of Environment
and Forests wisdom in terms of the above mentioned White Paper.
The drafters of the Draft Rules
appear oblivious of the 254 page National Implementation Plan (NIP) prepared by
Government of India in order to meet its obligation under Article 7 of the UN‟s
Stockholm Convention on POPs dated April 2011. On page 16 the NIP reads: “The
major contribution of PCDD/DF emission is from waste incineration and ferrous
and non-ferrous metal production categories followed by heat and power
generation sector. Waste incineration has 66.75% share of the total annual
releases.” It further states, “The highest amount of PCDD/DF is released into
residues 63.12%, followed by air emission which accounts for 32.66% of the
total releases” The main source categories include waste incineration.” On page
96 of the NIP, it is stated, “There is no municipal solid waste incinerator
operating in India.” It means the municipal waste plant at Okhla is the first
of its kind. The NIP admits, “India has limited experience in the
environmentally sound disposal of POPs.” The Draft Rules have failed to
recommend “necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of
without endangering human health and without harming the environment” as has
been done in the EU Directive on Incineration of Waste. It is noteworthy that
CPCB, currently headed by Shri Tyagi was one of the institutions involved in
the preparation of the NIP.
The fact is that European
Parliament has passed an unanimous resolution to eliminate use of thermal
technology for MSW has been ignored. The Council of the European Union
“reiterated its conviction that waste prevention should be the first priority
of any rational waste policy in relation to minimising waste production and the
hazardous properties of waste”. This finds mention in the EU Directive on the
incineration of waste. The Draft Rules do not provide for waste prevention
mechanism. EU Directive further states, “The distinction between hazardous and
non-hazardous waste is based principally on the properties of waste prior to
incineration or co-incineration but not on differences in emissions. The same
emission limit values should apply to the incineration or co-incineration of
hazardous and non-hazardous waste but different techniques and conditions of
incineration or co-incineration and different monitoring measures upon
reception of waste should be retained.” The Definition of ‘Municipal Solid
Waste’ should have taken this into account.
Article 3 (4) of EU Directive on
Incineration of Waste defines incineration: “incineration plant‟
means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the
thermal treatment of wastes with or without recovery of the combustion heat
generated. This includes the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as
other thermal treatment processes such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma
processes in so far as the substances resulting from the treatment are
subsequently incinerated. This definition covers the site and the entire
incineration plant including all incineration lines, waste reception, storage,
on site pretreatment facilities, waste-fuel and air supply systems, boiler,
facilities for the treatment of exhaust gases, on-site facilities for treatment
or storage of residues and waste water, stack, devices and systems for
controlling incineration operations, recording and monitoring incineration conditions”.
This definition includes illegal
Chinese boilers which are being used without any approval in Delhi’s Okhla
Waste to Energy project. Although Technical Experts Evaluation Committee,
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy
Incinerator Plant in its 31 page report of that was communicated on March 22,
2012 brought to light the illegalities committed by Shri Prithivraj Jindal‟s
JITF Urban Infrastructure Limited (Jindal Ecopolis), the Draft Rules appears to
endorse the environmental lawlessness in the national capital and sets a very
bad precedent. This CPCB report is based on three meetings of the Technical
Experts Evaluation Committee held on April 26, 2011, August 11, 2011 and
September 22, 2011 under the chairmanship Chairman, CPCB. This appears to be an
exercise to accommodate the admittedly unapproved technology under the “any
other facility using suitable technology” referred to in Schedule II of the
Draft Rules.
The Draft Rules fails to underline
that post incineration the distinction between hazardous waste and
non-hazardous waste like municipal waste is lost with adverse environmental
health consequences. The fly-ash collected from waste incineration and
co-incineration technologies should attract the provisions of Rules for
hazardous waste management.
The Union Ministry of Environment
& Forests appears to be blindly following the Waste to Energy Policy Union
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy without taking recourse to its own White
Paper. It fails to underline that energy generated from waste incineration
cannot be deemed renewable energy. It is does not reveal that waste
incineration is a green house gas emitter as per Kyoto Protocol. 'Municipal
solid waste is not considered to be a renewable energy source since it tends to
be a mixture of fuels that can be traced back to renewable and non-renewable
sources,' said Mark Radka, currently Chief of the Energy Branch, Division
Technology, Industry and Economics for the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP). Waste to Energy is non-Renewable Energy. The Draft Rules do not situate
the issue in its right context.
Eighteen years after the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) shut down its waste-to-energy power incinerator
plant at Timarpur, the Draft Rules chooses to ignore the lessons from the
Timarpur blunder for which the Delhi High Court and Controller Auditor General
rebuked the Government. The drafters of the Draft Rules should have recalled
the order of Delhi High Court in April 2001 on the plant's failure. The court
had taken issue with the procurement of the incineration plant at a cost of Rs
20 crores from a Danish firm Volund Milijotecknik in 1985 and said, "No
order should have been placed for procurement of the plant unless its utilities
were completely known." The drafters seemed to have feigned ignorance
about it although the recommendation against thermal technologies in the White
Paper of Union Ministry of Environment & Forests was based on this failure.
Draft Rules is inadequate in addressing
the pollutants which are detrimental to health and the environment that are
emitted from waste incineration -- including waste pelletisation or RDF,
pyrolysis, gasification systems and ‘other suitable technologies like boilers.
Incineration is expensive and it does not eliminate or adequately control the
toxic emissions from chemically complex municipal discards. The latest
incinerators too release toxic heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants
like dioxins. In fact the US Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) has in its
Dioxin reassessment stated that "dioxin is carcinogenic to humans"
and the "risk of getting cancer from dioxin is ten times higher than
reported in 1994." Dioxins and furans means all polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins
and dibenzofurans. Draft Rules should have factored in how “Flue-gas from MSW
incinerator may contain trace quantities of halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons,
polycyclic aromatic carbons, benzene, toluene and xylene and PCDDs/F. These are
formed from precursor compounds generated in the furnace during incineration of
wastes containing chlorinated hydro carbons already present in the waste or
formed in the furnace. These compounds are formed through de-novo synthesis in
the low-temperature range (400-250 degrees C) during cooling phase in the
presence of particulate matter.
Draft Rules appear myopic in its
silence on how waste incineration transfers the hazard characteristics of waste
from the solid form to air, water and ash. It also releases new toxins through
the process of breakdown of existing compounds and the formation of new ones
which were previously not present in the original waste stream, besides making
others like heavy metals mobile and more leachable. Far from eliminating the
need for a landfill, waste incinerator systems produce toxic ash and other
residues. On page 13, it is stated that “concentrate residue is proposed to be
incinerated along with MSW”. Draft Rules ignore how incinerator ash gets
dispersed throughout the environment and subsequently enter the food chain.
In clause 3
(vii) and (xxxii) of the Draft Rules “composting” and “vermicomposting” is
defined. The former is “a controlled process involving microbial decomposition
of organic matter.” The latter is “a process of using earth worms for
conversion of bio-degradable waste into compost.” This definition pre-exists in
the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.
It is noteworthy that Supreme Court’s order
dated September 1, 2006 reads, “The Inter-Ministerial Task Force on Integrated
Plant Nutrient Management had submitted its report and recommendations in May
2005….Nothing has been placed on record objecting to the recommendations of the
report. Under these circumstances, we direct the implementation of the
recommendations in the report with immediate effect.” The Task Force
recommended setting up of some 1000 compost plants across the country to deal
with the municipal solid waste. The Draft Rules fails to take cognizance of the
recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Task Force on Integrated Plant
Nutrient Management.
In clause 8 of the
Draft Rules that deals with ‘Responsibilities of the State or Union Territory’ refer
to the 40 page National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP), Ministry of Urban
Development, Government of India that makes sketchy references to solid waste
management despite accepting that “it
is recognized that integral solutions need to take account of other elements of
environmental sanitation, i.e. solid waste management; generation of industrial
and other specialized / hazardous wastes; drainage; as also the management of
drinking water supply.”
NUSP admits that Ministry of Housing and
Poverty Alleviation (HUPA) is administering a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for
Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS) but it “does not cover the problem of
inadequate sanitation, including treatment and disposal of sewage and solid
waste management, which has considerable environmental and health implications.
The scope of urban sanitation is much larger than the issues covered under the
Scheme for Integrated Low Cost Sanitation.”
One of the most important recommendations of NUSP is there in
its footnotes. It reads, “Investments in proper sanitation facilities
(arrangements right up to treatment and safe disposal) must become a compliance
requirement for any investments in infrastructure (e.g. urban transport,
railways, airlines, etc.), and health and education sectors. For instance, urban
transport investments must become 100 percent sanitation compliant by providing
investments for public and community sanitation, as also specific plans for
transport of solid waste, septage, and appropriate arrangements for sewerage
systems.” Neither the Draft Rules nor the NUSP has elaborated on investments in
proper and genuinely environmental and occupational health friendly facilities.
Clause 3 (xxxiii) of the Draft Rules defines
“waste pickers” as “the individuals or groups of individuals engaged in the
collection of municipal solid waste.” This definition is incomplete because the
waste pickers are also involved in segregation and recycling. The definition
should include both segregation and recycling as work of “waste pickers.” This
definition is not there in the pre-existing clause 3 (xv) of the Municipal
Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.
Clause 5 of the Draft Rules provides for
“Responsibility of Municipal Authority” wherein at Clause 5 (1) it is stated
that “for necessary infrastructure development for collection, storage,
segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste
directly or by engaging agencies or groups working in waste management
including waste pickers” At Clause 5 (10), it states that “The municipal
authority or an operator of a facility shall provide personal protection
equipment namely, hand gloves, high boots made of tough leather, goggles and
masks to all workers for handling municipal solid waste.”
The Draft Rules should have provided for social
security measures for waste pickers including their right to livelihood which
faces deep threat from incinerator technology companies and corporatization of
waste management. The Draft Rules should have provided for a framework to
create co-operatives of waste pickers to provide legal status to the waste
pickers in line with what is promised in the National Environment Policy, 2006
to save them from exploitation of unscrupulous NGOs and law enforcements
agencies.
Accident reporting is
required to done as per clause 12 of the Draft Rules There is a minor error in
the clause as it mentions that the accident reporting is to be done in form of
Form-V. As per the annexed Forms, Accident Reporting Form is Form –VI at page
no. 41. In an instance of a glaring omission while need for “Accident
Reporting” is underlined, the compensation regime for occupational and
non-occupational accidents, injuries and exposures from waste handling and waste
treatment facilities is not mentioned. This must be rectified.
The Schedule II of the Municipal Solid Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 which provides parameters sand compliance
criteria of management of solid wastes should be retained in the Draft Rules.
It has very good provisions like “waste (garbage, dry leaves) shall not be
burnt.”
The ministry which is blindly promoting waste
burning technologies does not seem to find this provision palatable as it does
not suit the incinerator technology companies who enjoy its patronage unmindful
of environmental and human cost.
----------------------------------------------------0---------------------------------------------------------------
Post a Comment