parliament of india rajya sabhawwfenvis.nic.in/files/environment, forest and climate...

PARLIAMENT OF INDIA

RAJYA SABHA 192

ND (PRESENTED TO HON’BLE CHAIRMAN, RAJYA SABHA ON THE 22 SEPTEMBER, 2008)ND

(FORWARDED TO HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA ON THE 22 SEPTEMBER, 2008)

ND (PRESENTED TO HON’BLE CHAIRMAN, RAJYA SABHA ON THE 22 SEPTEMBER, 2008)ND

(FORWARDED TO HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA ON THE 22 SEPTEMBER, 2008)

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

OCTOBER, 2008/ASVINA, 1930 (SAKA)OCTOBER, 2008/ASVINA, 1930 (SAKA)

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDINGCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS

ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY SECOND REPORT

ON

FUNCTIONING OF CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

ST (PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON THE 21 OCTOBER, 2008)ST

(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON THE 21 OCTOBER, 2008)

ST (PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON THE 21 OCTOBER, 2008)ST

(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON THE 21 OCTOBER, 2008)

Website:http://rajyasabha.nic.inE-mail:[email protected]

PARLIAMENT OF INDIARAJYA SABHA

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDINGCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS

ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY SECOND REPORT

ON

FUNCTIONING OF CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

(PRESENTED TO HON’BLE CHAIRMAN, RAJYA SABHA ON THE 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008)(FORWARDED TO HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA ON THE 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008)

(PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON THE 21ST OCTOBER, 2008)(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON THE 21ST OCTOBER, 2008)

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIATNEW DELHI

OCTOBER, 2008/ASVINA, 1930 (SAKA)

CONTENTS

PAGES

1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ......................................................................................... (i)-(iv)

2. PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. (v)

3. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE .................................................................................................. 1—32

4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 33—42

5. ANNEXURE ............................................................................................................................... 43—48

6. MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ................................................................ 49—70

MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARYSTANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (2006-07)

1. Shri P.G. Narayanan — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA2. Dr. Prabha Thakur

#3. Vacant

4. Shri Suryakantbhai Acharya

5. Shri Bhagirathi Majhi

6. Shri Kamal Akhtar

7. Shri Saman Pathak

8. Shri Jabir Husain

9. Shri Ravula Chandra Sekar Reddy

10. Dr. Barun Mukherjee

LOK SABHA11. Shri Jasubhai Dhanabhai Barad

12. Dr. Sujan Chakraborty

13. Shri Thupstan Chhewang

14. Shri Pankaj Chowdhary

15. Shri Francis Fanthome

16. Shri Babubhai K. Katara

17. Shri A. Venkatesh Naik

18. Shri Brahmananda Panda

19. Shrimati Neeta Pateriya

20. Shri Jaysingrao Gaikwad Patil

21. Shri Pratik P. Patil

22. Shri Bachi Singh ‘Bachda’ Rawat

23. Shri K.C. Singh ‘‘Baba’’

24. Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh

25. Shri Rakesh Singh

26. Shri Aruna Kumar Vundavalli

27. Shrimati Jayaben B. Thakkar

28. Shri Akhilesh Yadav

29. Shri Mitrasen Yadav

30. Shri Sita Ram Yadav

*31. Shri Rampal Singh

#Shrimati Viplove Thakur ceased to be a Member of the Committee w.e.f. 30th November, 2006.

*Shri Rampal Singh nominated to the Committee w.e.f. 8th December, 2006.

(i)



1. Dr. V. Maitreyan — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Dr. Prabha Thakur








*10. Shri D. Raja

LOK SABHA

11. Shri Jasubhai Dhanabhai Barad















26. Shri Rampal Singh






* Nominated w.e.f. 28th August, 2007.

(ii)




RAJYA SABHA





6. Dr. Ejaz Ali


8. Shri D. Raja

9. Shri Nandamuri Harikrishna

10. Vacant

LOK SABHA





15. Shri Akbar Ahmad Dumpy

















(iii)

SECRETARIAT

Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Joint Secretary

Shri S. Jason, Joint Director

Shri V.S.P. Singh, Deputy Director

Shri S. Rangarajan, Assistant Director

(iv)

(v)

PREFACE

I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science andTechnology, Environment and Forests, having been authorized by the Committee to present theReport on its behalf, present this One Hundred Ninety-second Report on the Functioning of CentralPollution Control Board (CPCB).

2. The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology,Environment and Forests in its meeting held on 8th September, 2006, decided to take up forexamination on the aspects relating to Functioning of Central Pollution Control Board and reportthereon. The Central Pollution Control Board is the apex technical body of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests to advise the Government on matters related to protection ofEnvironment. In this regard the Committee heard the views of the Secretary Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests and the representatives of certain State Pollution Control Boards viz.Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Orissa, Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Inaddition, the Committee also heard the views of some experts. A list showing the details of therepresentatives of various Ministries/Departments who appeared before the Committee for oralevidence is given in Annexure-I.

3. The Committee expresses its thanks to the Officers of the Ministry of Environment andForests, CPCB and different State Governments for replying to the clarifications sought by theMembers and placing before it the required material to enable the Committee to scrutinize the same.

4. In the meeting held on 13th June, 2008 the Committee considered the draft report and adoptedthe same.

DR. V. MAITREYANNEW DELHI; Chairman,June 13, 2008 Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on

Science and Technology, Environment and Forests.

1

REPORT

CHAPTER-I

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Nature has since the hoary past been attached utmost significance in our country so muchso that it has been personified, revered and worshiped. Be it the sun, air, water, rivers, lakes,ponds, mountains or the earth – all the constituents of environment were regarded in high esteemand treated as sacrosanct. Whatever the religious or spiritual rationale behind this, one thing wascertain, that all these elements of nature individually as well as collectively were regarded vital forthe existence and survival of mankind, and hence such an august and holy treatment. This theorystill holds good. These elements of nature are still vital for the well being of mankind but with thegradual change in our socio economic priorities, the reverence and significance accorded to themhas somehow been put on back burner. Basically and primarily an agrarian economy till mid Fifteesof the last century, it started drifting towards industrialisation which led to urbanisation and nowin the age of globalization, economic development has acquired such a predominance that there canbe no looking back. Economic development and environment came into direct conflict with eachother, the latter often understood as anti-thesis to the former.

1.2 That the overriding economic priority would have its impact on environment was visualisedin the early seventies of the twentieth century. It was around this period that pollution had startedgetting manifested or reflected in rivers and other water bodies due to industrial or sewagedischarge. To nip the problem in the bud a Central Board for Prevention and Control of WaterPollution (CBPCWP) was constituted under the provision of the Water (Prevention and Control ofPollution) Act, 1974. The mandate of the board as spelt out in the above Act was:

“To promote cleanliness of streams and wells in different areas of the States throughprevention, control and abatement of water pollution”.

1.3 A major step in this direction was taken in the year 1976 with the enactment of theConstitution (forty second Amendment) Act through which a new article i.e., article 48A underDirective Principles of State Policy and a fundamental duty i.e., 51A (g) were inserted whichread as follows:

48A: Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life–The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard theforests and wild life of the country.

51A: It shall be the duty of every citizen of lndia—

(g) To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.

1.4 The former provides that the State shall endeavor to apply the principle in making lawswhile the latter makes it obligatory on the part of every citizen of the country to protect andimprove the natural environment.

1.5 Thereafter with the manifestation of pollution in air came the Air (Prevention and Controlof Pollution) Act in 1981 and the responsibility to improve the quality of air and to prevent controlor abate air pollution in the country was also entrusted to the CBPCWP. Later on under Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act 1988, CBPCWP was rechristened as “CentralPollution Control Board”. Thereafter a number of legislative and administrative measures of farreaching consequences for Pollution Control were introduced some of which are:

2

(i) The Environment (Protection) Act 1986;

(ii) The Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989;

(iii) The Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989;

(iv) The Plastics Manufacture, Sale and Usage Rules, 1999;

(v) Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000;

(vi) The Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000;

(vii) The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000;

(viii) The Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001;

(ix) The Plastics Manufacture and Usage Amendment Rules, 2003.

1.6 The present national policies for environmental management are contained in the NationalConservation Strategy and Statement on Environment and Development, 1992, the Policy Statementon Abatement of Pollution, 1992 and National Environment Policy 2006.

3

CHAPTER-II

2. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (CPCB)

2.1 The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is the apex technical body of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests entrusted with the task of abatement and control of pollution in thecountry. Department of Science and Technology has recognized CPCB as a scientific and technicalorganization. It is a multi-disciplinary organization where engineers and scientists of variousdisciplines are in position. It gets 100 per cent grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Environment andForests both for plan and non-plan expenditure.

2.2 Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 3 of ‘The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974 provide that to exercise its powers and discharge its functions, there shall be a CentralBoard consisting of the following members:

• a full-time Chairman, being a person having special knowledge or practical experiencein respect of matters relating to environmental protection or a person having knowledge andexperience in administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid, to be nominatedby the Central Government;

• such number of officials, not exceeding five, to be nominated by the CentralGovernment to represent Government;

• such number of persons, not exceeding five, to be nominated by the CentralGovernment, from amongst the members of the State Boards, of whom not exceeding twoshall be from amongst the members of the local authorities;

• such number of non-officials, not exceeding three to be nominated by the CentralGovernment, to represent the interest of agriculture, fishery or industry or trade or anyother interest which, in the opinion of the Central Government, ought to be represented;

• two persons to represent the companies or corporations owned, controlled or managedby the Central Government, to be nominated by the Government; and

• a full-time Member Secretary, possessing qualifications, knowledge and experience ofscientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution control, to be appointed by theCentral Government.

2.3 The total number of Members of the Board comes to 15 excluding the Chairman andthe Member Secretary. Out of fifteen, twelve Members are such officials who hold additionalcharge of the Membership of CPCB. Out of the twelve, five officials represent the Government andfive persons are nominated from amongst the members of State Boards. All the appointments aremade by Government. Further sub section 3 of section 5 of the Act provides that the CentralGovernment may remove any Member of a Board before the expiry of his term of office whichis three years.

2.4 The Act does not prescribe any time limit within which the vacancy of Chairman or otherMembers has to be filled up. As a result the post of regular Chairman of CPCB, lying vacant foralmost two years, has not been since filled up and an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary in theMinistry of Environment and Forests is holding the charge of Chairman, CPCB ever since.

3

4

2.5 The Committee is of the view that with such a composition dominated byGovernment representatives and constituted by Central Government, CPCB can not beexpected to act as a watchdog of environmental protection. The Committee also expressesits displeasure over the fact that no qualifications or criteria have been fixed for Membersof such an important technical and scientific body. The eligibility criteria for Chairmanprescribing a person having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of mattersrelating to environmental protection or a person having knowledge and experience inadministering institution dealing with the matters aforesaid are too general and vague asto accommodate anyone who is even distantly related with environment.

2.6 The Committee has been informed that key posts in CPCB and SPCBs are beingmanned by officers of Indian Administrative Service or bureaucrats who neither possess thenecessary capabilities and expertise in properly managing and planning pollution controlactivities nor have enough time to pay attention to these activities for obvious reasons. Thistrend has led to virtual relegation and replacement of technically capable persons to theplace of exile from the keyposts. The Committee has been informed that this point hasbeen highlighted by Prof. Menon Committee set up by the Supreme Court with regard tomanagement of hazardous waste. According to the report of the Supreme Court MonitoringCommittee on Hazardous Waste, 77 per cent of Chairpersons and 55 per cent of MemberSecretaries in different state pollution control boards are not qualified enough to hold thepost. The Committee observes that this is a very disturbing trend and that this practiceneeds to be stopped forthwith.

2.7 The Committee feels that Chairman and Members of the Board should be personswho have rendered remarkable and distinguished service to the cause of Environment. Theyshould be persons of repute and widely acclaimed. They should be appointed for a fixedtenure and the sword of removal or termination should not be hanging on their heads.Members like Chairman should be full time. The Committee also feels that the presentlarge composition is hampering its effective functioning. The size of the Board may bereduced, so as to ensure that decisions are taken and translated into action in the rightearnest.

2.8 If the creation of CPCB is seen in the present day context, when pollution has startedposing numerous challenges it appears that the very foundation on which it has been establishedis shaky and weak. It has been established under a subject which is primarily the concern of StateGovernments. Water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage andwater power is a state subject as per Entry 17 of the State List of the seventh schedule to theconstitution. But prevention and control of water pollution overtly or covertly does not seem to fallunder the ambit of this item as it has nothing to do with drawing or sharing of water that couldaffect rights of the states. It involved the larger issue of cleaning up and maintaining thewholesomeness of water.

2.9 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has been enacted under Article252 of the Constitution and not under Article 248 or 249. Article 248 gives exclusive powers toParliament to make law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the concurrent or state listwhile as per Article 249 Parliament shall have power to legislate with respect to a matter in thestate list in the national interest. Article 252 provides that it shall be lawful for Parliament to passan act if it appears to the Legislatures of two or more states to be desirable that any matter onwhich Parliament has no power to make laws for the states except as provided in article 249 and250 should be regulated in such states by Parliament by law, and if resolutions to that effect arepassed by all the legislatures of those states. Accordingly, resolutions to the effect that preventionand control of water pollution would be regulated in the states of Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana,

5

Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tripura andWest Bengal, were passed by all the Houses of the legislatures of those States. In pursuance ofthe above Act, the Central Government constituted a central Board called the Central PollutionControl Board (CPCB) and the respective State Governments constituted State Pollution ControlBoards to exercise power conferred on and perform function assigned to them under this Act. Thustwo parallel Boards- one at the centre and the other at State level came into existence with thelatter being entrusted with important and critical functions and the former being given the advisoryand coordination role. This resulted in the Central Pollution Control Board turning into a weak andlame duck organization.

2.10 The Committee feels that our experiment with the existing framework/model i.e.simultaneous existence of two parallel boards one at the Central and the other at States level eachone working as independent and autonomous entity in its own capacity with no Central authorityto command and control, has led us to no where over the last 33 years. Environmental degradationand pollution is growing at an alarming pace and has acquired alarming proportions. Rivers, lakesand other water bodies are getting polluted unabatedly and recklessly and air is getting dirtier dayby day. To ensure compliance by way of inspection, vigilance and sampling falls under the domainof SPCBs with CPCB acting merely as a guiding and coordinating body. The end result is thatSPCBs are masters in their own rights and they do whatever they desire.

2.11 Further, section 61 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, empowersthe Central Government to supersede the Central Pollution Control Board if at any time the CentralGovernment is of the opinion that the Central Pollution Control Board has persistently made defaultin performance of the functions imposed on it by or under this Act or that circumstances existwhich render it necessary in the public interest so to do for a period of one year. Such a provisionrenders Central Pollution Control Board to act as mere puppet in the hands of Central Governmentand does not allow it any space for independent and autonomous functioning.

2.12 For creation and appointment to certain posts, Central Pollution Control Board is alsorequired to obtain prior sanction of the Government (Rule 8 of Water (Prevention & Control ofPollution) Rules; 1975).

2.13 Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection Act) 1986 read as:—

‘‘Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Goverrment, shall have the power to takeall such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting andimproving the quality of the environment and preventing controlling and abatingenvironmental pollution’’;

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law but subject to the provisions of thisAct the Central Government may, in the exercise of its powers and performance of itsfunctions under this Act issue directions in writing to any person, officer or any authorityand such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such directions”.

Explanation—For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power to issuedirections under this section includes the power to direct—

(a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; or

(b) stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service.

2.14 Ministry of Environment and Forests vide its notification dated the 10th July, 2002 delegatedits powers conferred upon it under section 5 of the Act to the Chairman, CPCB to issue directionsto any industry or any local or other authority for the violation of the standard and rules relatingto hazardous waste, bio-medical waste, hazardous chemicals, industrial solid waste, municipal solid

6

waste including plastic. But delegation of this power is subject to the condition that it may berevoked if in the opinion of the Central Government such a course of action is necessary in publicinterest.

2.15 These are some of the highlights which corroborate the fact that it is the CentralGovernment/Ministry of Environment and Forests and not the Central Pollution Control Boardwhich de-facto is the chief custodian of Environment preservation and protection. Central PollutionControl Board devoid of any effective legal authority is a mere body or board without teeth.

2.16 The Committee’ expresses its anguish over the fact that the Central Board createdfor the purpose of control and abatement of pollution is being given such a raw deal somuch so that it has virtually been reduced as a near defunct body. If all the powers andfunctions were to be concentrated into the hands of the Central Government/Ministry ofEnvironment & Forests the very need to have such an apex body is untenable. TheCommittee feels that the country can ill afford to let this sorry state of affairs prolong anyfurther as it has already started bearing the brunt of pollution and climate change andhence drastic measures are required to be taken. Central Pollution Control Board needs tobe given adequate statutory and legal support to make it effective and functional and forthis purpose its constitution under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974needs to be urgently reviewed. The Committee recommends that environment protectionshould be included as an item in the seventh schedule to the constitution in the concurrentlist and CPCB be brought under its ambit with all necessary powers and functions to meetthe challenges that pollution and its after-effects pose before us without disturbing thefederal character of our constitution. This new body should be given functional as well asfinancial autonomy so that it can discharge its duties without fear or favour.

2.17 ZONAL OFFICES OF CPCB

2.17.1 It was not practically possible for CPCB with its headquarters at Delhi to run its activitiesthroughout the country. Accordingly, CPCB has established its Offices to co-ordinate nationwideprogrammes on control of pollution. Location of Zonal Offices and their jurisdiction is as under:

Zonal Offices States Covered

1 Bangalore Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Lakshdweep, Goa,Pondicherry

2. Kolkata West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, Jharkhand, Andman and Nicobar

3. Shillong Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan

4. Bhopal Madhaya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan

5. Lucknow Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal Pradesh, Haryana, Chandigarh, Punjab,Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir

6. Vadodara Gujarat, Maharashtra, Daman Diu

2.17.2 The Committee feels that although pollution in some form or the other has spreadits tentacles throughout the length and breadth of the country, CPCB has failed in makingits presence felt, as an effective controller, even after 33 years of its existence mainlybecause of the number of its Zonal offices being grossly inadequate and insufficient. It maynot be feasible for a zonal office to cover three to eight states specially when the numberof industries, vehicular load etc., has multiplied manifold in course of time. The Committee,

7

therefore, recommends that one zonal office should be established in each State so thatCPCB in close coordination with State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) is able to keep aclose watch on the extent of pollution and take strict action against violations of pollutionnorms. This will also help state Pollution Control Boards to derive full benefits of theCentral Pollution Control Boards’ expertise.

2.18 When CPCB was created, its role was limited to promoting cleanliness of streams and wellsand improving the quality of air. However, during the last 33 years since its formation, a lot ofother functions have been assigned to the Board. The Committee is aware that theresponsibility of pollution control board has over the years increased enormously and islikely to go up further in time to come. Hazardous Waste Management, industrial pollution,bio medical waste, e-waste, plastic waste, mercury waste, increase in mining activities, solidwaste management, ever growing air pollution, growing number of vehicles etc, requiresstronger regulatory mechanism and further strengthening of Board both in terms of manpower and expertise. Even though the number of industries in different categories has gone upand the workload has increased, it has not been accompanied by proportionate increase in manpower in Central Pollution Control Board. As on 31st March, 2008, only 370 staff are in positionas against the total sanctioned staff strength of 551. A statement showing the sanctioned staffstrength in CPCB and number of vacancies in each cadre is given in Annexure-II.

2.19 The Committee was informed that there has been acute shortage of technical staffin CPCB. Though the Board has sophisticated equipments to monitor various types ofpollution they do not have sufficient technical manpower to handle it. Technical Staffcomprised only 48 per cent of total staff in 2004-05. Moreover, out of its 236 technical staffonly half are in the officer grade. The Committee was informed that the shortage oftechnical manpower is far more acute in various State pollution control boards, also as astudy to find out the number of days a scientific and Technical person individually andworking together devote on monitoring, inspection analysis and preparation of reports to anindustry gave some startling revelations. A technical person in Gujarat PCB spares 1.77 daysto monitor an industry in a year, in Karnataka PCB a technical persons gets 1.72 days whilein Maharastra Board the person spends only 1.23 days* a year. This average includes timetaken on traveling to and fro. This only-presents a glimpse of the whole gamut ofarrangements put in place for pollution control and how efficiently and effectively themachinery is at work. The Committee feels that one of the reasons for such a sorry Stateof affairs lies in shortage of technical and scientific man power within the central as wellas State boards. The Committee expresses its deep anguish over such an apathetic approachof the Government in providing adequate manpower to the boards and recommends thaturgent steps should be taken to recruit requisite number of technical and scientific staff.The Committee recommends that CPCB be allowed to recruit staff as per its requirementsafter conducting a study for the purpose.

2.20 The Committee also recommends that for making technical and scientific manpowereasily and readily available, a long term strategy should be evolved. Environmentmanagement and education should be included in the higher educational programs bydevising a suitable syllabi for the purpose. An institute exclusively for the purpose ofteaching of and training in the subject of environment related matters could also be one ofthe options that Government should try to explore.

2.21 The Committee was informed that the remunerations/ Salaries/Allowances forofficers and staff of CPCB are not lucrative enough to attract talented people and contain

* Source–Centre for Science and Environment.

8

the attrition rates. The experienced people from CPCB are hired by corporate sector byoffering attractive remuneration and in the process valuable experience is lost. TheCommittee expresses its grave concern over the situation. The Committee desires thattalent and performance should be rewarded. A suitable career progression scheme shouldalso be so devised as to act as incentive to the officers and staff of the CPCB.

2.22 The Committee has been further informed that the policy of Finance Ministry toabolish posts lying vacant for a year has taken a heavy toll. The Committee understandsthe fact that it may not be possible to find suitable technically qualified manpower at anygiven moment a vacancy arises. But a post lying vacant for a year for want of non-availability of a suitable candidate does not mean that the need for the post is gone. In thiscontext the committee opines that different rules be applied for scientific departments astheir requirements are different from that of general administration. The Committeerecommends the Ministry to take up the matter with the Ministry of Finance at anappropriate level.

2.23 The Committee has been informed that adequate training is not provided to thepersonnel of Central Pollution Control Board. Considering that controlling pollution formsone of the most important functions of CPCB requiring scientific and technical expertise,multi disciplinary training should be imparted to the personnel.” The Committee is also ofthe view that creation of trained cadre is required for monitoring and resolvingenvironmental problem.

2.24 The Committee feels that strict compliance of environmental regulation is requiredto maintain the delicate balance in eco system. The Committee further feels that thecountry today needs better regulations which are both observable and implementable.Therefore, it recommends that the CPCB should be restructured as an autonomousstatutory authority with the mandate not only to develop regulations and fix up standardsbut also to ensure enforcement and compliance. CPCB should also suggest alternatives formeeting those standards in coordination with other Scientific and Technical Departments.The Research and Development team of CPCB should also act in close coordination withother Research and Development organisations.

2.25 FUNCTIONS OF THE CENTRAL BOARD

The functions of Central Pollution Control Board find mention under section (16) of thewater and Air Act which are as follows:—

* Advise the Central Government on any matter concerning prevention and. control of waterand air pollution and improvement of the quality of air;

* Plan and cause to be executed a nation-wide programme for the prevention, control orabatement of water and air pollution;

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

* Provide technical assistance and guidance to the State Boards, carry out and sponsorinvestigations and research relating to problems of water and air pollution, and for theirprevention; control or abatement;

* Plan and organise training of persons engaged in programmes for prevention, control orabatement of water and air pollution;

* Organise through mass media, a comprehensive mass awareness programme onprevention, control or abatement of water and air pollution;

9

* Collect compile and publish technical and statistical data relating to water and air pollutionand the measures devised for their effective prevention, control or abatement; Preparemanuals, codes and guidelines relating to treatment and disposal of sewage and tradeeffluents as well as for stack gas cleaning devices, stacks and ducts;

* Disseminate information in respect of matters relating to water and air pollution and theirprevention and control; and

* Lay-down, modify or annul, in consultation with the State Governments concerned, thestandards for stream or well, and lay down standards for the quality of air; and,

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

2.26 After the enactment of Environment Protection Act, 1986 CPCB has been further delegatedfunctions to implement rules framed under EP A namely; Hazardous wastes, Bio-medial waste,Municipal solid wastes and Plastics waste.

2.27 FUNCTIONS OF THE CENTRAL BOARD AS STATE BOARD FOR THE UNIONTERRITORIES

2.27.1 The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has been mandated to perform the functionsof State Pollution Boards for different Union Territories. It has the following functions vis-a visthe Union Territories:

* Advise the Governments of Union Territories with respect to the suitability of anypremises or location for carrying on any industry which is likely to pollute a stream or wellor cause air pollution; Lay down standards for treatment of sewage and trade effluents andfor emissions from automobiles, industrial plants, and any other polluting source;

* Lay down standards for treatment of sewage and trade effluents and for emissions fromautomobiles, industrial plants, and any other polluting source;

* Evolve efficient methods for disposal of sewage and trade effluents on land;

* Develop reliable and economically viable methods for treatment of sewage, trade effluentsand air pollution control equipment;

* Identify any area or areas within Union Territories as air pollution control area or areasto be notified under The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; and

* Assess the quality of ambient air and water, and inspect wastewater treatmentinstallations, air pollution control equipment, industrial plants or manufacturing processes toevaluate their performance and to take steps for the prevention, control and abatement ofair and water pollution.

2.28 DELEGATION OF POWERS BY CPCB

2.28.1 As per policy decision of the Government of India, the Central Pollution Control Boarddelegated its powers and functions under Section 4, Sub Section 4 of The Water (Prevention andControl of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 6 of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 with respect to Union Territories to respective Pollution Control Committees under the localAdministration.

2.29 THRUST AREAS OF CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

2.29.1 The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has identified the foIIowing thrust areas tocontain the environmental damage being done at present:

10

* Monitoring of National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programme (NAMP);

* Strengthening of National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programme (NAMP);

* Strengthening with respect to number of Stations; and

* Strengthening with respect to additional pollutants monitoring

* Continuation of National Water Quality Monitoring Programme (NWMP)

* Study of Ground Water Pollution;

* Assessment of non-point sources of pollution;

* Epidemiological study;

* Preparation of Environmental Status Report;

* Development and demonstration of appropriate liquid and solid waste Managementtechnologies for semi-urban area;

* Laboratory Management and Research & Development Activities for prevention andcontrol of pollution;

* Development and Review of Effluent/Emission Standards and Guidelines;

* Environmental Information and Management System;

* Pollution Control Implementation in major polluting industries;

* Implementation of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, theRecycled Plastics Manufacture and Usage Rules, the Biomedical Waste (Management andHandling) Rules, Vehicular and Noise Pollution Control etc.

* Cleaner Production, Environmental Auditing and Common Effluent Treatment Plants(CETPs);

* Implementation of the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules;

* Spatial Environmental planning and Natural Resource Protection;

* Preparation and updating of Zoning Atlas.

2.30 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

2.30.1 As per the mandated functions of CPCB, the organizational structure has been framed.There are three major groups in the organization which includes;

a. Technical Services

b. Scientific Services

c. Finance and Administration

The important divisions and their major areas of activities are as under:

Sl. No. Divisions Area of Activity

1 2 3

1. Pollution Assessment Assessment of Water and Air Pollution

2. Infrastructure and (R&D) Laboratories and R&D

11

1 2 3

3. Plan Co-ordination Plans and Programmes of CPCB and Co-ordinationmatters

4. Pollution Control Chemical IndustriesImplementation (PCI-I)

5. PCI-II Metallurgical, Thermal Power Plants and other AirPolluting Industries.

6. PCI-III Agro based industries

7. Urban Pollution Small Scale Industry, vehicular pollution, environmentalControl planning, solid waste and plastic wastes and Training

8. Hazardous Waste Hazardous waste and chemical, bio-medical waste andManagement electronic waste.

12

CHAPTER-III

3.1 CPCB has organized its activities according to the mandated functions. A critical analysisof the activities of CPCB under its major heads are brought out in the succeeding paragraphs:—

3.2 AIR POLLUTION

3.2.1 Air is life and life is air. But the same air that sustains and supports life can him out tobe harmful and hazardous for human and living beings on the planet if it gets polIuted. Mostly airpollution originates from man-made sources which include mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks,buses) and stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants), as well as indoor sources(e.g., some building materials and cleaning solvents).

3.2.2 In order to arrest the deterioration in air quality, it is necessary to assess the present andanticipated air pollution through continuous air quality survey/monitoring.

3.3 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)

3.3.1 The ambient air quality standards are pre-requisite for developing programme for effectivemanagement of ambient air quality and to reduce the damaging effects of air pollution:—

• To indicate the levels of air quality necessary with an adequate margin of safety to protectthe public health, vegetation and property;

• To assist in establishing priorities for abatement and control of pollutant level; and

• To provide uniform yardstick for assessing air quality at national level.

3.3.2 The Central Pollution Control Board had adopted first ambient air quality standards onNovember 11, 1982 as per section 16 (2) (h) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1981. The air quality standards were subsequently revised on April 11, 1994.

3.4 NATIONAL AIR MONITORING PROGRAMME (NAMP)

3.4.1 Central Pollution Control Board initiated National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (NAAQM)programme in the year 1984 with 7 stations at Agra and Anpara. Subsequently the programme wasrenamed as National Air Monitoring Programme (NAMP), The number of monitoring stations underNAMP at persent is 332 covering various cities/towns in 28 States and 4 Union Territories of thecountry.

3.4.2 The objectives of the NAMP are to determine the status and trends of air quality; toascertain whether the prescribed ambient air quality standards are violated; to continue ongoingprocess of producing periodic evaluation of air pollution situation in urban and industrial areas ofthe country; to obtain the knowledge and understanding necessary for developing preventive andcorrective measures and to understand the natural cleansing process undergoing in the environmentthrough pollution dilution, dispersion, wind based movement, dry deposition, precipitation andchemical transformation of pollutants generated.

3.4.3 Four pollutants namely, Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, respirable suspended particulatematter and suspended particulate matter are being monitored regularly under this programme.Monitoring of pollutants are carried out for 24 hours (4 hourly sampling for gaseous pollutants and

12

13

8 hourly for particulate matter) with a frequency of twice a week. Monitoring is being done byCPCB, zonal offices, SPCB/PCC and NEERI Nagpur, with CPCB acting as coordinator to ensureuniformity and consistency in air quality data. CPCB provides requisite technical and financialsupports to the agencies engaged in this work.

3.5 The Committee was informed that out of 332 monitoring stations, a number of themare not on line and some of them are not functioning. Data is not being regularly updatedand the data generated is not being properly analyzed. It was also informed to theCommittee that only criteria pollutants i.e, Sulphur Dioxide (S02) , Nitrogen Dioxide (N02),Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) and Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM)are being monitored.There are a number of other hazardous pollutants like Volatile OrganicCompound (VOC), Benzene Toluene Xylene (BTX), Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),PM2.5, Ozone, etc, present in the ambience which are neither monitored nor any standardshave been set for them.

3.6 The Committee expresses its serious concern over the situation given above. It feelsthat mere monitoring without any corrective and preventive follow up action is not goingto be productive. The Committee, is also of the opinion that there is a need to have newand much more aggressive strategies to deal with the problem of air pollution in our cities.Currently, even though we have the Air Act and the standards for air quality, there is nolegal obligation on State Governments/Local Municipal Corporations to meet ambient airquality standards. While we gear up to monitor and control Air Pollution in biggest cities,smaller cities are fast catching up with the same critical pollution levels. Thus there is agreater need to decentralize the responsibility down to the municipal/local and State levels.Further, to achieve these targets all Central programmes need to be re-organised under aNational Air Quality Plan, the city based programmes under Clean Air Action Plan andprogrammes for industrial areas as Air Pollution Control and Prevention in Industrial Areasprogrammes.

3.7 The Committee also expresses its concern over the fact that there is no centralagency to set standards/norms for emission. The jurisdiction to set norms for vehicularemission lies with the Ministry of Surface Transport while for indoor air pollution, the nodalagency is the Ministry of Labour. The Committee also feels that there is a need forensuring that the standards once finalized by technical committees are not put on hold fornotification by the Ministry as is the case with the sponge iron standard for air and wateremission. This is leading to huge problems and rising industrial pollution in Orissa,Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Karnataka and other States.

3.8 The Committee in the light of the above observations, feels that CPCB needs to beso strengthened as to tackle the above issues in right perspective.

3.9 The Committee also desires that the ambient air quality monitoring network shouldbe strengthened and expanded from the current 332 stations to at least 1000 stations. Thiscould be expanded to about 15 cities per year so as to cover the 76 non-compliant cities overa period of five years. The network of city monitoring stations should broadcast a daily alerton air pollution levels. The air pollution health index should be used to alert people of thehealth risks in their cities. The Committee desires that the same should be done within atime-bound manner keeping in mind the growing environmental concerns.

3.10 The committee has been informed that the share of SPM load caused by thermalpower plants is about 82% of the total industrial pollution. Still many more thermal powersprojects are in the pipeline and would become operational in the next 10 to 15 years. TheCommittee is aware of the importance of energy and power as the main driving force in

14

the process of economic development but at the same time it feels that the ‘country cannot afford to ignore and neglect the importance of environment. It, therefore, emphasizesthe need to switch over to green sources of energy like solar, wind and atomic energy asa long term solution of energy requirements. Government should initiate some technologymission programmes to achieve the above objective.

3.11 Due to increasing replacement of solid and liquid fuels by CNG and LPG, theprobability of Nitrogen Oxides emitted in atmosphere has increased. The Committee desiresthat CPCB should keep itself abreast of the emerging scenario and ready to initiate themitigation efforts required therefor.

15

15

CHAPTER-IV

4. WATER POLLUTION

4.1 Water is another element which plays a very crucial role in the Iife of living beings. Itwould not be an exaggeration if it is said that there can be no life on the earth without water.Water constitutes nearly two-third of the surface area of the earth. But impure and polluted waterproves to be very dangerous not only for human lives, but also ecological system. It was primarilywith this consideration that Government enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 to restore and maintain wholesomeness of acquatic resources.

4.2 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMME

4.2.1 To ensure that the water quality is being maintained or restored at the desired level, it isimportant that the pollution control boards regularly monitor the water quality. The water qualitymonitoring is performed with following main objectives in mind.

• For rational planning of pollution control strategies and their prioritisation;

• To assess nature and extent of pollution control needed in different water bodies or theirpart;

• To evaluate effectiveness of pollution control measures already is existence;

• To evaluate water quality trend over a period of time;

• To assess assimilative capacity of a water body thereby reducing cost on pollutioncontrol;

• To understand the environmental fate of different pollutants.

• To assess the fitness of water for different uses.

4.3 The Committee was informed that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) hasestablished a network of monitoring stations on rivers across the country to evaluate the extent ofpollution and the effect of control measures. The present network comprises of 1019 stations in27 States and 6 Union Territories spread over the country. The monitoring is done on monthly orquarterly basis in surface waters and on half yearly basis in case of ground water. The monitoringnetwork covers 200 Rivers, 60 Lakes, 5 Tanks, 3 Ponds, 3 Creeks, 13 Canals, 17 Drains and 321Wells. Out of the 1019 stations, 592 are on rivers, 65 on lakes, 17 on drains,13 on canals, 5 ontank, 3 each on and creeks, and ponds and 321 on wells. Presently the inland water quality-monitoring network is operated under a three-tier programme i.e., Global Environment MonitoringSystem (GEMS), Monitoring of Indian National Aquatic Resources System (MINARS) and YamunaAction Plan (YAP). Water samples are analysed for 28 parameters consisting of physico-chemicaland bacteriological parameters for ambient water samples apart from the field observations. Besidesthis, 9 trace metals and 22 pesticides are also analysed in selected samples. Biomonitoring is alsocarried out on specific locations. In view of limited resources, limited number of organic pollutionrelated parameters are chosen for frequent monitoring i.e. monthly or quarterly and major cations,anions, other inorganic ions and micro pollutants (Toxic Metals and POP’s) are analysed once ina year to keep track of water quality over a period of time.

16

4.4 Approach to Water Quality Management

4.4.1 The water quality management in India is performed under the provision of Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Act does not define the level ofwholesomeness to be maintained or restored in different water bodies of the country. The CentralPollution Control Board (CPCB) has, therefore, tried to define the wholesomeness in terms ofprotection of human uses, and thus, taken human uses of water as base for identification of waterquality objectives for different water bodies in the country.

4.4.2 It would have been too ambitious to maintain or restore all natural water bodies at pristinelevel. Further, Planning pollution control activities to attain such a goal is bound to be deterrent todevelopmental activities and cost prohibitive too. Since the natural water bodies are used forvarious competing as well as conflicting demands, the objective is aimed at restoring and/ormaintaining natural water bodies or their parts to such a quality as needed for their best uses.Thus, a concept of “designated best use” (DBU) was developed. According to this concept, outof several uses of a water body, the use which demands highest quality of water, is termed as“designated best use”, and accordingly the water body is designated.

4.5 The Committee agrees that the water quality monitoring is an important exercisewhich helps in evaluating the nature and extent of pollution control required andeffectiveness of pollution control measures already in existence. The role of CPCB in thisprogramme is critical. It must be the key agency responsible for monitoring the health ofour water bodies. The information collected through monitoring should be made available toState Governments and in particular to the public so that accountability and awarenessincreases.

4.6 Apart form trade effluents, domestic waste water or sewage forms one of the majorsources of pollution of rivers in the country. As per the Annual Report 2004-05 of theCentral Pollution Control Board about 26500 mld of sewage is generated in the countryfrom the Class-I cities and Class-II towns at present. Largely owing to funding provided byNRCD, treatment capacity exists for only about 7000 mId of sewage. Thus, there is a largegap between generation and treatment of sewage and discharge of untreated sewagebecomes the most important source of water pollution in the country. Sewage treatmentplants exist in only 92 out of 423 Class-I cities and 37 out of 498 Class-II cities. Even thisinstalled sewage treatment capacity is not utilized fully mainly because of neglect ofrespective State Governments/Municipal Authorities. A survey of Sewage Treatment Plantsby Central PoIlution Control Board suggested that a large number of them are notfunctioning properly. Most of the plants are facing power cut problem. During power cutoperation of the plants get affected. Out of 13 STPs under Ganga Action Plan only 5 wereobserved to be complying with stipulated norms of discharge and rest 8 were not complyingwith prescribed standard. Out of 9 STPs monitored under Yamuna Action Plan, only one STPwas found complying with the norms.

4.7 As per the Annual Report 2004-2005 of the CPCB, Common Effluent treatmentPlants having combined capacity of 560 MLD have been constructed and commissioned sofar in the country covering more than 10,000 polluting industries. Central Pollution ControlBoard studied the performance of CETPs operating throughout the country through CPCBZonal Offices in collaboration with State Pollution Control Boards.The performance ofCETPs has also been found to be affected of poor operation and maintenance. TheCommittee is of the view that in order to overcome this problem, the CETPs should beconstructed and operated by the concerned State Governments/State Pollution ControlBoards (SPCBs). The capital and operational costs should be charged to the industries.

17

4.8 The Committee expresses its serious concern over the manner in which the problemof water pollution is being handled. Unless and until proper and foolproof arrangements andadequate facilities for sewage treatment are put in place and it is ensured that theyfunction to their capacity rivers, and other water bodies would continue to be heavilypolluted. This is why the river Yamuna, over the years has virtually turned into a “Nallah”despite crores of rupees being spent on its cleaning and upkeep. The health of prominentrivers like the Ganga and others is not any better.

4.9 It is understood that the Government is considering the launch of a revamped riverconservation programme. The Committee recommends that programme should include arevised institutional design, which provides the State Governments with the legal mandateto ensure river cleaning. The State should be given incentives and disincentives for notmeeting targets for river water quality standards. The programme must be geared towardsensuring that all urban wastewater is treated so that the health of waterbodies can berestored and consequently human health costs are minimized. The programme for sewagetreatment must ensure that it is cost effective and focused towards reuse and recycling ofwater.

4.10 The Committee is of the view that a holistic approach is required to tackle theproblem of water pollution. The present division of responsibilities between MOEF, Ministryof Agriculture, Ministry of Health and various municipalities, etc., requires bettercoordination and more synergies so that pollution in water at whatever stage, source or atthe consumption point, could be checked and responsibility fixed. The. Committee desiresthat samples of ground water should be taken more frequently in areas which havedistilleries, paper plants, power plants and other polluting industries so as to check theadverse impact on local population. The Central Pollution Control Board should also havedetailed action plans in the existing industrial areas for regular monitoring of the qualityof ground water and other water bodies to ascertain the level of contamination, fix abenchmark for future industrialization and also to consider moratorium on furtherindustrialization in such regions based on the contamination level. The Committeerecommends that CPCB must also ensure that the polluting industries make adequatearrangements for providing medical and health facilities to the people affected by pollutionrelated diseases in that area/region. The Committee is of the view that the discharge ofsewerage is regulated not only in terms of specific loads but also in terms of maximum dailyload i.e., kg perday/kg per hour so that the amount of pollution discharge into a mediaalways remains lower than the assimilative capacity of the rivers. This will ensure that theriver or media is not unduly stressed and the downstream users are not affected.

18

CHAPTER-V

5. NOISE POLLUTION

5.1 Noise is a major factor of environmental pollution. It is a disturbance to the humanenvironment that is escalating at such a high rate that it will became a major threat to the qualityof human lives. Noise originates from human activities, especially the urbanization and thedevelopment of transport and industry. Though, the urban population is more affected by suchpollution, however, small town/villages along side roads or industries are also a victim of thisproblem, Noise is becoming increasingly omnipresent, yet unnoticed form of pollution even indeveloped countries. Road traffic, jet planes, garbage trucks, construction equipment,manufacturing processes, and lawnmowers are same of the major sources of unwanted sounds thatare routinely released into the air.

5.2 Though noise pollution is a slow and subtle killer, very little efforts have been made toaddress this problem. The effects of excessive noise could lead to permanent loss of memory,hearing or psychiatric disorder. Even relatively low levels of noise affects human health adversely.It may cause hypertension, sleep disorder and/or hinder cognitive development in children.

5.3 To monitor and control noise pollution, Government of India has notified The NoisePollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 an 14th February, 2000. The standards prescribedin the rules are as follows:

5.4 Ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different Areas/Zones:—

(i) The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones shall besuch as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules.

(ii) The State Government shall categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residentialor silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards fordifferent areas.

(iii) The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noiseemanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels do notexceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules.

(iv) All development authorities, local bodies and other concerned authorities while planningdevelopmental activity or carrying out functions relating to town and country planningshall take into consideration all aspects of noise pollution as a parameter of quality oflife to avoid noise menace and to achieve the objective of maintaining the ambient airquality standards in respect of noise.

(v) An area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutionsand courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules.

5.5 Restrictions on the use of Loud Speakers/Public Address System

(i) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtainingwritten permission from the authority.

18

19

(ii) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10:00p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) except in closed premises for communication within, e.g. auditoria,conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.

(iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the State Government may subjectto such terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit useof loud speakers or public address systems during night hours (between 10.00 p.m.to 12.00 midnight) on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limitedduration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year.

5.6 Violation in Silence Zone/Area

Whoever, in any place covered under the silence zone/area commits any of the followingoffence, shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act:—

(i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers,

(ii) whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either musical or pressure, ortrumpet or beats or sounds any instrument, or

(iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a nature to attractcrowds.

5.7 The Committee feels that owing to rapid industrialization and urbanization in thecountry, an enormous increase in noise pollution has taken place which is going toaggravate further in times to come. It was brought to the notice of the Committee thatdifferent State Governments stipulate different norms to control the noise pollution. In thislight the Committee recommends that a uniform and strict institutional mechanismthroughout the country to check and mitigate the problem be evolved and implemented ina time bound manner.

5.8 The Committee feels that CPCB as a nodal central agency entrusted with the taskof pollution control has utterly failed in even evolving a pan-Indian, standard parametersof pollutants, acceptable to all the States/UTs. Some of the States like West Bengal andMaharashtra, have adopted much more stringent norms particularly with regard tomanufacture of plastic bag and noise level. For plastic it is less than 14 micron in WestBengal, whereas the national standard is 20 micron. For noise it is 90 dcb in West Bengalas against 125 dcb at the national level. The Committee is of the opinion that the standardsfor various types of pollutions set by CBCB must be updated at regular intervals anduniform standards should be the adopted throughout the country. More than the need forsetting standards is the necessity for enforcement, which is totally lacking as of now. Thelocal authority need to be suitably sensitized to be alive and responsive to the problemwithin their jurisdiction. CPCB must find ways to address the concerns in this regard.

20

CHAPTER-VI

6. INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION

6.1 Industrial development is an important constituent of our pursuit for economic growth,employment generation and betterment in the quality of life. On the other hand, industrial activities,without proper precautionary measures for environmental protection are liable to cause pollution andassociated problems. Hence, it is necessary that regulatory norms are complied with for preventionand control of pollution. The adoption of clean technologies and improvement in managementpractices, commitment and voluntary initiatives of industry for responsible care of the environmentare also important to sustain responsibilities of industrial sector towards environment.

6.2 The Committee during the course of examination of the subject has been given tounderstand that environment clearances for mining, setting up of industries, etc. are given by theCentral or State Government concerned and that CPCB or SPCBs do not have any say in thesematters. They are not even consulted or informed. These Boards come in the picture only afterthe clearance has been given to set up industry with their role limited to giving a pollution controlstandard for effluent discharge, emission, etc. Here also they do not have any decisive say toprevail upon the industries to make them follow these standards. If the Board says “zero effluents”and the industry says ‘no’, in all likelihood the latter will prevail with the support of theGovernment. Boards are made to bear the brunt of such clearances as they have to take necessarypollution control and mitigation measures. The Committee was told that this is a cruel and bitterreality.

6.3 The Committee takes serious note of the prevailing position of Central and State boards.It feels that economic development should be given priority but not such an overriding priority asto endanger the environment human and living beings. It is of the considered opinion that economicstrides devoid of any concern and care for environment is doomed to be retrograde. A lot moreresources than what we expect to generate now would be required to be spent on adaptation andmitigation measures to counter the fallouts of environmental degradation and climate change. TheCommittee therefore feels that the need of the hour is to strike a fine balance betweeneconomic development and environment. Hence, recommends that the industries must bemade to comply with and adhere to the standards set by the board. Industries must adopttechnology efficient measures and green technologies by setting aside a part of their profitsfor which a rebate can be planned. The Committee recommends that CPCB/SPCBs shouldbe actively and effectively involved in the process of issue of license for setting up ofindustries and an enabling amendment for the purpose may be made in the EnvironmentImpact Assessment Act., 1986.

6.4 A cursory glance at the compliance status of the guidelines of CPCB on minimuminspection frequency suggests that State boards rarely follow them. The Committee was informedthat the CPCB guidelines put the inspection frequency at once in every 3 months for large-mediumsized red category industry.

20

21

Minimum Frequency of Inspections: CPCB Guidance*

Size of Industry Category of Pollution Inspection FrequencyPotential

Large and medium-sized Red Once every 3 months

Orange Once a year

Green Once in two years

Small scale (capital Red Once a year

investment below 10,000 Orange Once in 3 years

rupees) Green Once in 5 years

* Source–Annual Report of CPCB.

6.5 However, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Maharashtra State Pollution ControlBoard were not able to inspect industries even once in a year. The average inspection per industry,per year, for Maharashtra is 0.3 while for Karnataka it is 0.63 times. Even for Gujarat StatePollution Control Board, which is able to inspect all industries twice every year, it is unlikely thatthese two inspections are enough to ensure compliance throughout the year.

6.6 For any environmental protection programme to be successful it is inevitable to identify andquantify pollution sources, pollutants, conduct baseline survey and build up monitoring systems. Toachieve these objectives, a sophisticated environmental laboratory equipped with state-of-the-artinstruments and equipments, capable and competent manpower is essential.

6.7 Provisions to establish and recognize environmental laboratories have been laid down underWater (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, according to which different agencies havebeen entrusted with the power to accord recognition to such labs. Under Water (Prevention andControl of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 recognitionto laboratories is given by the respective State Pollution Control Boards or Pollution ControlCommittees, whereas under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 recognition in case of PrivateLaboratories is granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests while power to accordrecognition to Government; semi-Government or public sector laboratories is vested with theCentral Pollution Control Board.

6.8 The Committee fails to understand the rationale behind having separate set ofagency for recognizing private and public sector laboratories. The Committee feels that alaboratory is a laboratory which should fulfil bare minimum requirements of infrastructuralfacilities, expertise and capabilities, be it in the private or in the public sector. There mustbe a standard set of guidelines defining categorically infrastructural requirements, samplehandling, laboratory competence, quality assurance, quality control, etc. Uniformlyapplicable for establishment, evaluation and recognition of labs.

6.9 The Committee, therefore, recommends that guidelines for establishment andrecognition of laboratories should be framed and notified at the earliest and the authorityto recognize labs under private sector should also be with Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB) instead of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The recognition can be madefrom among the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories(NABL) accredited laboratories.

22

6.10 Central Pollution Control Board has constituted a National Task Force (NTF), for theimplementation of notified environmental standards, and to evolve a time bound programme for thesame. Representatives from steel industry were also nominated as members of the NTF besidesrepresentatives from Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Environment and Forests, CPCB and concernedState Boards, The Committee desires that the NTF rises to the occasion to ensure implementationof notified environmental standards.

6.11 The Committee was apprised that the Central Pollution Control Board took action against180 industries under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 during 2004, 2005 and2006. The year-wise break up of number of industries against which action was initiated is 3, 65and 112 respectively. Of the 180 industries 10 were issued notices for improvement and 31 forclosure while 74 were issued confirmed directions for improvement and 65 for closure. TheCommittee while observing that this is a very good move and CPCB should continue to move aheadin this direction, feels that this is too little an effort in view of the large number pollution causingindustries in the country. The Committee is also of the opinion that by merely issuing notices/directions, CPCB should not feel that it has done its devoir and nothing more requires to be done.CPCB should rather see to it that the notices/direction issued are enforced and complied with. Acentralized data on the overall compliance status by industries must also be maintained. TheCommittee recommends that the bottlenecks coming in the way of achieving the above objectivesmust be removed forthwith.

6.12 The Committee was informed that presently there is no centralized data base in the countrywhich could present the real picture of pollution load being created from individual industries, andwhat has been its impact on environment. Currently, CPCB depends for most of the environmentaldata on SPCBs quarterly and annual reports, However, many of the State Boards do not submitthis information in a consistent format. Many of the smaller Boards do not even have the expertiseor resources to collect and present the data. Under the current system, CPCB has no ability to takeaction against SPCBs if it does not provide the requested information.

6.13 It has come to the notice of the Committee that the industries which do not complyget away rather easily as the compliance system based on Criminal Justice System takeextremely long time to get resolved. Besides, the Boards do not have the legal capacity topursue the case. This requires a change in regulatory framework so that such non-compliances are disposed quickly and the long legal battles don’t serve as incentive todefaulters. With the increase in pollution from various industries, the Committee feels thatthere is a need for an environmental regulation cases on all industries on an annual basis,based on their turnover. This money should be collected to pay for regulatory institutionsand their facilities. The Environmental Impact Assessment will need funds for scrutiny andfor appraisal.

6.14 The Committee would like the CPCB to check the industrial effluents entering theriver which could not be naturally flushed on account of heavy withdrawal of water for civicconsumption. The Committee is of the view that emphasis should be laid more onincentivising compliance as catching and penalizing the faltering industries in a cumbersomejudicial process is difficult even more so when our judiciary is already over burdened.

6.15 The Committee desires that the guidelines for environmental processing of used oil/lead batteries be notified at the earliest so as to check the environmental damage which isbeing caused.

23

CHAPTER-VII

7. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

7.1 As per the Directives of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated October 14, 2003 in thematter of Writ Petition No. (C) of 657 of 1995, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is requiredto prepare and comply with the following directives:

(i) Preparation and Issuance of Check list and Ensuring its Compliance;

(ii) Preparation of Guidelines on Hazardous Waste Incinerators;

(iii) Preparation of Guidelines for Proper Functioning and Upkeep of Disposal Sites;

(iv) Preparation of Guidelines for Transportation of Hazardous Waste;

(v) National Policy Document on Management of Hazardous Waste;

(vi) Random Checks on Inventory of Hazardous Waste Generation submitted by theSPCBs/PCCs;

(vii) Random Checks on Inventory on Hazardous Waste Dump sites submitted bythe SPCBs/PCCs and Evaluation of the Rehabilitation Plans of Dump Sites;

(viii) Preparation of Comprehensive Report on Inventory of HW Generation and HWDump Sites and Rehabilitation Plans of Dump Sites;

(ix) To do R&D Work on Phasing out of Dirty Technologies

(x) Co-ordination with Ministry of Environment and Forests with respect to preparationand finalization of the draft Amendment to Hazardous Waste (M & H) AmendmentRules.

7.2 The Committee was informed that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in complianceof aforesaid directives, finalized and published the following guidelines:

(i) Uniform Testing Procedures to be followed by the Labs.

(ii) Guidelines for Common Hazardous Waste Incinerators.

(iii) Guidelines for Transportation of Hazardous Waste.

(iv) Pre-requisites for issuing Authorization by the SPCBs/PCCs.

(v) Guidelines for proper functioning and upkeep of Disposal Sites.

7.3 As per the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Ministry of Environment andForests (MoEF) either itself or through Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) or any other agencyis required to draft a policy document on hazardous waste management, keeping in viewrecommendations of High Power Committee (HPC). CPCB co-ordinated with the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests (MoEF), in preparation of ‘National Policy Document on Management ofHazardous Waste’ and revision of Schedule 3 (list of wastes applicable for import and export forreprocessing, Schedule 4 (list of wastes, the reprocessing of which need registration from CentralPollution Control Board) and Schedule 8 (list of wastes prohibited for import and export of hazardouswastes) of the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 as amended in 2003. The

23

24

final draft of ‘National Policy Document on Management of Hazardous Waste’ and proposed draftamendments to Schedule 3, Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Waste (Management andHandling) Rules has been forwarded to Ministry of Environment and Forests for consideration. TheCommittee desires that the Policy Document be finalized and notified by the Ministry at theearliest.

25

CHAPTER-VIII

8. BIO-MEDICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

8.1 The Bio-medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules notified in July, 1998 under theEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986 makes it mandatory for all healthcare facilities, irrespective oftheir size, to treat bio-medical waste generated by them. In order to comply with the provisionsof the Rules, some of the healthcare facilities have installed their own treatment facilities whileothers are availing services of Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facilities (CBWTF). CBWTFare widely accepted by healthcare facilities and are increasing in number continuously because ofvarious advantages such as reduced capital investment and treatment cost, easy implementation bythe regulatory bodies, etc.

8.2 There are 143 CBWTF, including 13 under installation, in the country as on 31st March, 2005as compared to 85 the previous year. In order to help CBWTF operators in complying with variousprovisions of the Bio-medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules and other minimumrequirements such as efficient treatment equipment, required infrastructure, proper transportationsystem, proper recording system, environmentally sound method of disposal of treated bio-medicalwaste etc., Central pollution Control Board has prepared “Guidelines on Bio-medical Waste TreatmentFacilities” which have been circulated to all SPCBs/PCCs and also displayed on website fordissemination. Further, to assess the compliance and working of existing CBWTF, CPCB has initiateda study through its Zonal Offices to evaluate their performance. The Committee recommends that thestudy should be completed at the earliest.

8.3 The Committee is concerned about the increase in bio-medical waste which is likelyto increase further in near future. It is of the view that more bio-medical facilities needto be set up to face the challenge. As the capital required for the purpose is enormous,public-private partnership programmes should be encouraged for the same. The Committeehas been informed that CPCE has no involvement in either identification or setting up oftariff for bio-medical waste treatment facilities. The Committee believes that CPCB in orderto be effective should have a role to play in setting up the guidelines for such facilities andbe given power to effectively monitor them. The Committee is of the view that morecoordination is required between CPCB and SPCBs for proper functioning of bio-medicalwaste facilities. Moreover, CPCB should have teeth to guide and penalize SPCBs which arefound to be lackadaisical. The Committee desires that high temperature plasma technologyfor bio-medical waste treatment which has shown good results in other countries be adoptedand efforts in this direction be made.

25

26

CHAPTER-IX

9. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

9.1 Solid Waste Management in Metro cities and State Capitals

9.1.1 CPCB sponsored a project on “Assessment of Status of Municipal Solid WastesManagement in Metro Cities and State Capitals” with a view to establishing database on Nationallevel for selected 59 cities to NEERI. The selected cities include 35 metro cities and 24 Statecapitals. Objective of the study was to assess the compliance status of 59 cities with MunicipalSolid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and initiatives taken for improving solidwaste management practices.

9.1.2 It has been observed that initiatives for collection of waste from house-to-house and wastesegregation has been undertaken only in 7 cities, privatization of transportation of waste has beendone in 11 cities and waste processing facilities have been set up in 15 cities. Ten waste processingfacilities are based on composting; one of these composting facilities has provision for energyrecovery also, four are based on vermicomposting, and one facility employs pelletisation and energyrecovery technology. None of the cities is having proper sanitary landfill site and uncontrolleddumping of MSW has been observed in all but one cities. Leachate collection is practiced in onlytwo cities and gas collection in only one city.

9.1.3 In many cities, bio-medical waste (BMW) is getting mixed with MSW. Slaughterhousewaste is not managed properly and is dumped at landfill site alongwith MSW in all except 12 cities,which have made separate arrangements for collection of such wastes. Studies have revealed thatwaste generation rate varies from 0.12 to 0.60 kg per capita per day. Analysis of physicalcomposition indicates total compostable matter in the waste is in the range of 40-60 per cent whilerecyclable fraction was observed between 10 and 25 per cent. The moisture content in the MSWwas observed to vary from 30 to 60 per cent while the C:N ratio was observed to be in the rangeof 20-40.

9.1.4 Based on the study, suggestive guidelines for management of MSW are indicated and eachlocal body will have to prepare detailed project report estimating requirement of tools andequipment and fund estimates.

9.1.5 The Committee expresses concern that though the problem of Municipal Solid Wastemanagement has reached alarming proportions, no serious effort has been made to solvethe problem, which has resulted in uncontrolled and unscientific dumping of wastes inlandfill sites. The Committee feels that a concerted effort needs to be undertaken by thepublic as well as the concerned municipalities for solving the problem. Public awarenesscampaigns should be conducted in all the major cities through mass media and contactprogrammes to educate the public about the advantages of segregation of bio-degradable andnon-biodegradable as regards house-to-house collection of waste, for easier processing ofwaste at a later stage. The Committee also recommends that the concerned Municipalitiesshould adopt modern and scientific methods in treatment of municipal wastes which are eco-friendly and cost-effective. The Committee feels that maximum utilization of suchtechnologies would solve the problem of Municipal wastes. The Committee also recommendsthat action in this regard be taken on priority in a time-bound manner.

26

27

CHAPTER-X

10. STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDS

10.1 The State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) established in every State of the country, areresponsible for implementing legislations as well as issuing the rules, regulations and notificationsthereof which prescribe the standards for emissions and effluents of air and water pollutants andnoise levels. In the case of Union Territories (UTs), the Pollution Control Committee (PCC) isresponsible for these activities. Therefore, all the industries located or to be located in anyState or UT are required to interact with the respective SPCB or PCC as the case may be. TheCentral Pollution Control Board (CPCB) at New Delhi, coordinates the activities of the SPCBsand PCCs.

10.2 Constitution of State Boards

10.2.1 A State in which the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974),is in force and the State Government has constituted for that State a State Board for the Preventionand Control of Water Pollution, such State Board shall be deemed to be the State Board for thePrevention and Control of Air Pollution.

10.2.2 A State in which the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (6 of 1974), isnot in force, or that Act is in force but the State Government has not constituted a State Boardfor the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution under that Act, the State Government shall witheffect from such date as it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, constitute a StateBoard for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution under such name as may be specified in thenotification, to exercise the powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to, that Boardunder this Act.

10.2.3 Composition of State Board

A State Board constituted under this Act shall consist of the following members, namely:—

(a) A Chairman, being a person, having a person having special knowledge or practicalexperience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection, to be nominated bythe State Government:

Provided that the Chairman may be either whole-time or part-time as the State Governmentmay think fit;

(b) Such number of officials, not exceeding five, as the State Government may think fit,to be nominated by the State Government to represent that Government;

(c) such number of persons, not exceeding five, as the State Government may think fit,to be nominated by the State Government from amongst the members of the localauthorities functioning within the State;

(d) such number of non-officials, not exceeding three, as the State Government may thinkfit, to be nominated by the State Government to represent the interest of agriculture, fisheryor industry or trade or labour or any other interest, which in the opinion of thatGovernment, ought to be represented;

27

28

(e) Two persons to represent the companies or corporations owned, controlled or managedby the State Government, to be nominated by that Government;

(f) A full-time member-secretary having such qualifications knowledge and experience ofscientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution control as may be prescribed, tobe appointed by the State Governments.

Provided that the State Government shall ensure that not less than two of the members arepersons having special knowledge or practical experience in, respect of matters relating tothe improvement of the quality of air or the prevention, control or abatement of airpollution.

10.2.4 Every State Board constituted under this Act shall be a body corporate with the namespecified by the State Government in the notification issued under sub-section (1), having perpetualsuccession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire anddispose of property and to contract, and may by the said name sue or be sued.

10.3 Functions of the State Pollution Control Boards

• To plan a comprehensive programme for prevention, control and abatement of airpollution and to secure the execution thereof.

• To advise the State Government on any matter concerning prevention, control andabatement of air pollution.

• To collect and disseminate information related to air pollution.

• To collaborate with Central Pollution Control Board in programme related to prevention,control and abatement of air pollution; and

• To inspect air pollution control areas, assess quality of air and to take steps forprevention, control and abatement of air pollution in such areas.

10.4 The Committee finds that State Pollution Control Boards are suffering from thesame maladies as the Central Pollution Control Board as far as their constitution andcomposition is concerned. The provision that the Chairman of a State Pollution ControlBoard may at the discretion of State Governments be either whole–time or part time is notconducive for a healthy and effective functioning of State Boards. The Committee feels thatonly a full time Chairman with adequate knowledge, background and experience inenvironment management would be able to do justice with the responsibilities assigned tothe post. Similarly other Members of the board should also be full timers with adequatetechnical know-how and expertise in environment related issues.

29

CHAPTER-XI

11. FUNCTIONING OF THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VIS-A-VIS THESTATE BOARDS

11.1 The role of the Central Pollution Control Board vis-a-vis the State Boards under both theActs has been envisaged as following:

(a) Co-ordinate the activities of the State Boards and resolve disputes among them;

(b) Provide technical assistance and guidance to the State Board’s, carry out, and sponsorinvestigations and research relating to problems of water pollution and prevention,control or abatement of water pollution;

(c) Plan and organize the training of persons engaged or to be engaged in programmesfor the prevention, control or abatement of water pollution on such terms andconditions as the Central Board may specify.

11.2 Co-ordination of the activities of the State Boards

11.2.1 CPCB organises an annual meeting of the Member Secretaries and Chairmen of the StatePollution Control Boards, wherein a number of issues of common interest like pollution preventionin highly polluting industries, critically polluted areas, hazardous waste management, air and waterquality monitoring, biomedical and urban solid waste management, monitoring protocols etc., arediscussed and resolved.

11.3 The Committee was informed that the monitoring and enforcement is done by SPCBs.CPCB is only authorised to enforce against violators in Union Territories and where the SPCB hasbeen declared by MoEF to have defaulted on its responsibilities. The few direct enforcementactions taken by the CPCB are generally done by the zonal offices. Under the Water Act, the AirAct and the Environment Protection Act (EPA), the Pollution Control Board have the authority toissue and revoke consents to operate, require self-monitoring and reporting, conduct sampling,inspect facilities, require corrective action and prescribe compliance schedules. The enforcementpowers include emergency measures of disconnecting water or power supply and facility closure,which are widely used in some States. However, according to the Hazardous Wastes (Managementand Handling) Rules of 1989, SPCB can, with CPCB’s approval, impose administrative fines for anyviolation of those rules. Other sanctions (fines and imprisonment) must be pursued under thecriminal authority of the courts. The EPA stipulates steeper penalties than the Water Act and theAir Act but at the same time differs to them (Section 24 of the EPA) in cases where the sametype of violations is covered under the EPA and the other law. In addition, criminal cases broughtby SPCBs are difficult to prosecute, have a low conviction rate, and consume precious Governmentresources and time. Moreover, it takes extremely long period to resolve cases brought by theGovernment. This also discourages the boards from taking legal actions against the companies.That is why out of 1335 cases of non-compliance for air, water and Hazardous Waste Management,the Gujarat State Pollution Control Board filed cases against only 314 industries during 2001-02,to 2005-06. Similarly in Maharashtra, as against 8109 cases of non-compliance, cases could befiled by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board against 42 units only in between 2001-02 and2005-06. Non-imposition of severe or harsh penalties is yet another area of concern of the total2319 cases ruled in the favour of Government only 293 included penalty and 248 imprisonments.

29

30

This works out to 13 and 11 per cent respectively. The lack of civil administrative authority(particularly, to impose administrative fines) limits the effectiveness of PCBs’ enforcement effortsand leads to over-reliance on the judiciary for enforcement. Filing criminal cases against violatorsin trial courts or reacting to PILs is a time-consuming, unpredictable and ineffective enforcementmechanism. The Committee observes that it could be very difficult to rein in violations tofollow standards and guidelines with the existing judicial and legal set up. Courts arealready overburdened with civil and criminal cases. They can not be expected to spend timeto expeditiously take up and dispose of environment related cases. The Committee,therefore, recommends that the Government should set up environmental courts in eachand every State and UT to deal exlusively with environment related matters. It alsorecommends that environmental laws be made stringent so as to act as a deterrent forviolators who act with impunity. The principle of polluters pay should also be enforced. TheCommittee also feels that the best mechanism to empower CPCB would be allow it toimpose financial fines. An industry is hit badly when it is affected financially. Therefore, thebest way to make industry follow consent guideline strictly, it is to allow pollution controlto put administrative fines.

11.4 The Committee is of the view that the Board should coordinate data collection fromvarious State Boards and maintain a data bank for ready reference so that the data couldbe used both by the experts and public at large. The Board should develop uniform systemfor collection enforcement data at National and State level. It should formulate guidance todefine national minimum data requirements, the nature of information required, time-frame for submitting the information and standardizing the formats. So far the CPCB isonly monitoring the environmental quality. Its role should be expanded to includecompliance and enforcement. It is also extremely important that the information collectedby CPCB should be made public and the operations of the board completely transparent.Along with the scientific data, legal data regarding laws suits, cases of non complianceshould also be made available in public domain so as to keep track of environmentalproblems in the country.

31

CHAPTER-XII

12. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS

12.1 The Committee was informed that there are no uniform standards regarding banningand recycling of plastic products. Though all plastic products can be recycled, collection ofthin plastic products like carry bags is a big problem. Such products find their way indrains, soil etc. resulting in clogging of the former and degradation of the latter. In cities,on account of non-separation of biodegradable and non-biodegradable kitchen waste, suchproducts find their way into the digestive system of stray cattle creating health andenvironmental hazards both for the cattle and human populations. On account of the abovefactors the Committee feels that all products which are difficult to collect and safelyrecycled should be banned and a uniform standard in terms of microns below which suchproducts fall should be arrived at so as to make their identification easy.

12.2 The Committee is of the view that e-waste is going to be a big problem in the futureas the modern life style seeps and the living standards increase with economic growth. TheCommittee feels that CPCB should conduct studies to make future projections and devisesteps to check the menace.

12.3 The concept of citizens’ warden should be introduced for keeping environmentalsurveillance on air and noise pollution in particular. Prominent persons, retired armyofficials, retired Government servants in cities and towns should be nominated to keep awatch on burning of leaves, plastic and other materials in the open air and at public places,violation of NO HORN ZONE, playing loudspeakers, running noise and pollution makinggensets, etc. They should be empowered to report the offence to the local police fornecessary penal action.

12.4 Rapid increase in aviation sector is also understood to be contributing toenvironmental pollution. CPCB should conduct a study to find out its impact and take suchmeasures as required in the matter.

12.5 Energy efficient building codes should be introduced and popularized so as to saveenergy and reduce burden of pollution on environment.

12.6 There is a need to exercise caution over large polluting MNCs entering into thecountry. Trampling environmental health and safety regulations these MNCs ignore realdevelopment needs all in the quest for ever higher profits with the least risk andresponsibility. These MNCs implement high environmental standards in their mothercountries but have another set of environmental standards in our country. Such a disturbingtrend calls for stringent rules and regulations and their strict enforcement in the largerinterest of the country.

12.7 The Committee has been informed that a zoning atlas for 141 districts has beenprepared. The Committee would like it to be extended to rest of the districts so that spatialplanning for environmental management can be done.

12.8 The Committee would like CPCB to notify environmental standards for newtownships so as to ensure that the environmental externalities are not caused. In case ofSEZs the guidelines of environmental clearances notified in 2004 should be strictly followed.

31

32

12.9 The Committee would like CPCB to take proactive/preemptive steps forenvironmental protection so as to change the public perception that it comes into actiononly after the damage has been done and many a times after judicial intervention. Themotto of CPCB “IN PURSUIT OF CLEAN ENVIRONMENT “needs to be suitably changedbecause the path of pursuit, the principle of looking for or trying to; following the conceptof clean environment etc. have proved to be elusive over the years thus far and hence hasoutlived its utility and become obsolete. It is high time for CPCB to emerge as a dynamicand strong national organization totally committed and solely dedicated to the cause ofenvironment capable enough to preclude and preempt percolation of pollution.

33

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Committee is of the view that with such a composition dominated byGovernment representatives and constituted by central Government, CPCB can not beexpected to act as a watchdog of environmental protection. The Committee also expressesits displeasure over the fact that no qualifications or criteria have been fixed for Membersof such an important technical and scientific body. The eligibility criteria for Chairmanprescribing a person having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of mattersrelating to environmental protection or a person having knowledge and experience inadministering institution dealing with the matters aforesaid are too general and vague asto accommodate anyone who is even distantly related with environment. (Para 2.5)

2. The Committee has been informed that key posts in CPCB and SPCBs are beingmanned by officers of Indian Administrative Service or bureaucrats who neither possess thenecessary capabilities and expertise in properly managing and planning pollution controlactivities nor have enough time to pay attention to these activities for obvious reasons. Thistrend has led to virtual relegation and replacement of technically capable persons to theplace of exile from the keyposts. The Committee has been informed that this point hasbeen highlighted by Prof. Menon Committee set up by the supreme Court with regard tomanagement of Hazardous waste. According to the report of the Supreme Court MonitoringCommittee on Hazardous waste, 77 per cent of Chairpersons and 55 per cent of MemberSecretaries in different state pollution control boards are not qualified enough to hold thepost. The Committee observes that this is a very disturbing trend and that this practiceneeds to be stopped forthwith. (Para 2.6)

3. The Committee feels that Chairman and Members of the Board should be personswho have rendered remarkable and distinguished service to the cause of Environment. Theyshould be persons of repute and widely acclaimed. They should be appointed for a fixedtenure and the sword of removal or termination should not be hanging on their heads.Members like Chairman should be full time. The Committee also feels that the presentlarge composition is hampering its effective functioning. The size of the Board may bereduced, so as to ensure that decisions are taken and translated into action in the rightearnest. (Para 2.7)

4. The Committee expresses its anguish over the fact that the Central Board createdfor the purpose of control and abatement of pollution is being given such a raw deal somuch so that it has virtually been reduced as a near defunct body. If all the powers andfunctions were to be concentrated into the hands of the Central Government/Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests the very need to have such an apex body is untenable. TheCommittee feels that the country can ill afford to let this sorry state of affairs prolong anyfurther as it has already started bearing the brunt of pollution and climate change andhence drastic measures are required to be taken. Central Pollution Control Board needs tobe given adequate statutory and legal support to make it effective and functional and forthis purpose its constitution under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974needs to be urgently reviewed. The Committee recommends that environment protection

33

34

should be included as an item in the seventh schedule to the constitution in the concurrentlist and CPCB be brought under its ambit with all necessary powers and functions to meetthe challenges that pollution and its after-effects pose before us without disturbing thefederal character of our constitution. This new body should be given functional as well asfinancial autonomy so that it can discharge its duties without fear or favour. (Para 2.16)

5. The Committee feels that although pollution in some form or the other has spreadits tentacles throughout the length and breadth of the country, CPCB has failed in makingits presence felt, as an effective controller, even after 33 years of its existence mainlybecause of the number of its Zonal offices being grossly inadequate and insufficient. It maynot be feasible for a zonal office to cover three to eight states specially when the numberof industries, vehicular load etc., has multiplied manifold in course of time. The Committee,therefore, recommends that one zonal office should be established in each state so thatCPCB in close coordination with State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) is able to keep aclose watch on the extent of pollution and take strict action against violations of pollutionnorms. This will also help State Pollution Control Boards to derive full benefits of theCentral Pollution Control Boards’ expertise. (Para 2.17.2)

6. The Committee is aware that the responsibility of pollution control board has overthe years increased enormously and is likely to go up further in time to come. HazardousWaste Management, industrial pollution, bio medical waste, e–waste, plastic waste, mercurywaste, increase in mining activities, solid, waste management, ever growing air pollution,growing number of vehicles etc., requires stronger regulatory mechanism and furtherstrengthening of Board both in terms of man power and expertise. (Para 2.18)

7. The Committee was informed that there has been acute shortage of technical staffin CPCB. Though the Board has sophisticated equipments to monitor various types ofpollution they do not have sufficient technical manpower to handle it. Technical Staffcomprised only 48 per cent of total staff in 2004-05. Moreover, out of its 236 technical staffonly half are in the officer grade. The Committee was informed that the shortage oftechnical manpower is far more acute in various State Pollution Control Boards, also as astudy to find out the number of days a scientific and Technical person individually andworking together devote on monitoring, inspection analysis and preparation of reports to anindustry gave some startling revelations. A technical person in Gujarat PCB spares 1.77 daysto monitor an industry in a year, in Karnataka PCB a technical persons gets 1.72 days whilein Maharashtra Board the person spends only 1.23 days* a year. This average includes timetaken on travelling to and fro. This only presents a glimpse of the whole gamut ofarrangements put in place for pollution control and how efficiently and effectively themachinery is at work. The Committee feels that one of the reasons for such a sorry stateof affairs lies in shortage of technical and scientific man power within the Central as wellas State boards. The Committee expresses its deep anguish over such an apathetic approachof the Government in providing adequate manpower to the boards and recommends thaturgent steps should be taken to recruit requisite number of technical and scientific staff.The Committee recommends that CPCB be allowed to recruit staff as per its requirementsafter conducting a study for the purpose. (Para 2.19)

8. The Committee also recommends that for making technical and scientific manpowereasily and readily available, a long term strategy should be evolved. Environment

* Source–Centre for Science and Environment.

35

management and education should be included in the higher educational programs bydevising a suitable syllabi for the purpose. An institute exclusively for the purpose ofteaching of and training in the subject of environment related matters could also be one ofthe options that Government should try to explore. (Para 2.20)

9. The Committee was informed that the remunerations/salaries/allowances for officersand staff of CPCB are not lucrative enough to attract talented people and contain theattrition rates. The experienced people from CPCB are hired by corporate sector by offeringattractive remuneration and in the process valuable experience is lost. The Committeeexpresses its grave concern over the situation. The Committee desires that talent andperformance should be rewarded. A suitable career progression scheme should also be sodevised as to act as incentive to the officers and staff of the CPCB. (Para 2.21 )

10. The Committee has been further informed that the policy of Finance Ministry toabolish posts lying vacant for a year has taken a heavy toll. The Committee understandsthe fact that it may not be possible to find suitable technically qualified manpower at anygiven moment a vacancy arises. But a post lying vacant for a year for want of non-availability of a suitable candidate does not mean that the need for the post is gone. In thiscontext the committee opines that different rules be applied for scientific departments astheir requirements are different from that of general administration. The Committeerecommends the Ministry to take up the matter with the Ministry of Finance at anappropriate level. (Para 2.22)

11. The Committee has been informed that adequate training is not provided to thepersonnel of Central Pollution Control Board. Considering that controlling pollution formsone of the most important functions of CPCB requiring scientific and technical expertise,multi disciplinary training should be imparted to the personnel. The Committee is also ofthe view that creation of trained cadre is required for monitoring and resolvingenvironmental problem. (Para 2.23)

12. The Committee feels that strict compliance of environmental regulation is requiredto maintain the delicate balance in eco system. The Committee further feels that thecountry today needs better regulations which are both observable and implementable.Therefore, it recommends that the CPCB should be restructured as an autonomousstatutory authority with the mandate not only to develop regulations and fix up standardsbut also to ensure enforcement and compliance. CPCB should also suggest alternatives formeeting those standards in coordination with other Scientific and Technical Departments.The Research and Development team of CPCB should also act in close coordination withother Research and Development organisations. (Para 2.24)

13. The Committee was informed that out of 332 monitoring stations, a number of themare not on line and some of them are not functioning. Data is not being regularly updatedand the data generated is not being properly analyzed. It was also informed to theCommittee that only criteria pollutants i.e., Sulphur Dioxide (S02) , Nitrogen Dioxide (No2),Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) and Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM)are being monitored. There are a number of other hazardous pollutants like VolatileOrganic Compound (VOC), Benzene Toluene xylene (BTX), Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs), PM2.5, Ozone, etc., present in the ambience which are neither monitored nor anystandards have been set for them. (Para 3.5)

36

14. The Committee expresses its serious concern over the situation given above. It feelsthat mere monitoring without any corrective and preventive follow up action is not goingto be productive. The Committee, is also of the opinion that there is a need to have newand much more aggressive strategies to deal with the problem of air pollution in our cities.Currently, even though we have the Air Act and the standards for air quality, there is nolegal obligation on State Governments/Local Municipal Corporations to meet ambient airquality standards. While we gear up to monitor and control Air Pollution in biggest cities,smaller cities are fast catching up with the same critical pollution levels. Thus there is agreater need to decentralize the responsibility down to the municipal/local and state levels.Further, to achieve these targets all central programmes need to be re-organised under aNational Air Quality Plan, the city based programmes under Clean Air Action Plan andprogrammes for industrial areas as Air Pollution Control and Prevention in Industrial Areasprogrammes. (Para 3.6)

15. The Committee also expresses its concern over the fact that there is no centralagency to set standards/norms for emission. The jurisdiction to set norms for vehicularemission lies with the Ministry of Surface Transport while for indoor air pollution, the nodalagency is the Ministry of Labour. The Committee also feels that there is a need forensuring that the standards once finalized by technical committees are not put on hold fornotification by the Ministry as is the case with the sponge iron standard for air and wateremission. This is leading to huge problems and rising industrial pollution in Orissa,Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Karnataka and other States. (Para 3.7)

16. The Committee in the light of the above observations, feels that CPCB needs to beso strengthened as to tackle the above issues in right perspective. (Para 3.8)

17. The Committee also desires that the ambient air quality monitoring network shouldbe strengthened and expanded from the current 332 stations to at least 1000 stations. Thiscould be expanded to about 15 cities per year so as to cover the 76 non-compliant cities overa period of five years. The network of city monitoring stations should broadcast a daily alerton air pollution levels. The air pollution health index should be used to alert people of thehealth risks in their cities. The Committee desires that the same should be done within atime-bound manner keeping in mind the growing environmental concerns. (Para 3.9)

18. The committee has been informed that the share of SPM load caused by thermalpower plants is about 82% of the total industrial pollution. Still many more thermal powersprojects are in the pipeline and would become operational in the next 10 to 15 years. TheCommittee is aware of the importance of energy and power as the main driving force inthe process of economic development but at the same time it feels that the country can notafford to ignore and neglect the importance of environment. It, therefore, emphasizes theneed to switch over to green sources of energy like solar, wind and atomic energy as a longterm solution of energy requirements. Government should initiate some technology missionprogrammes to achieve the above objective. (Para 3.10)

19. Due to increasing replacement of solid and liquid fuels by CNG and LPG, theprobability of Nitrogen Oxides emitted in atmosphere has increased. The Committee desiresthat CPCB should keep itself abreast of the emerging scenario and ready to initiate themitigation efforts required therefor. (Para 3.11)

20. The Committee agrees that the water quality monitoring is an important exercisewhich helps in evaluating the nature and extent of pollution control required and

37

effectiveness of pollution control measures already in existence. The role of CPCB in thisprogramme is critical. It must be the key agency responsible for monitoring the health ofour water bodies. The information collected through monitoring should be made available tostate governments and in particular to the public so that accountability and awarenessincreases. (Para 4.5)

21. Apart form trade effluents, domestic waste water or sewage forms one of the majorsources of pollution of rivers in the country. As per the Annual Report 2004-05 of theCentral Pollution Control Board about 26500 mld of sewage is generated in the countryfrom the Class I cities and Class-II towns at present. Largely owing to funding provided byNRCD, treatment capacity exists for only about 7000 mld of sewage. Thus, there is a largegap between generation and treatment of sewage and discharge of untreated sewagebecomes the most important source of water pollution in the country. Sewage treatmentplants exist in only 92 out of 423 Class I cities and 37 out of 498 class II cities. Even thisinstalled sewage treatment capacity is not utilized fully mainly because of neglect ofrespective State Governments/Municipal Authorities. A survey of Sewage Treatment Plantsby Central Pollution Control Board suggested that a large number of them are notfunctioning properly. Most of the plants are facing power cut problem. During power cutoperation of the plants get affected. Out of 13 STPs under Ganga Action Plan only 5 wereobserved to be complying with stipulated norms of discharge and rest 8 were not complyingwith prescribed standard. Out of 9 STPs monitored under Yamuna Action Plan, only one STPwas found complying with the norms. (Para 4.6)

22. As per the Annual Report 2004-2005 of the CPCB, Common Effluent treatmentPlants having combined capacity of 560 MLD have been constructed and commissioned sofar in the country covering more than 10,000 polluting industries. Central Pollution ControlBoard studied the performance of CETPs operating throughout the country through CPCBZonal Offices in collaboration with State Pollution Control Boards. The performance ofCETPs has also been found to be affected of poor operation and maintenance. TheCommittee is of the view that in order to overcome this problem, the CETPs should beconstructed and operated by the concerned State Governments/State Pollution ControlBoards (SPCBs). The capital and operational costs should be charged to the industries.

(Para 4.7)

23. The Committee expresses its serious concern over the manner in which the problemof water pollution is being handled. Unless and until proper and foolproof arrangements andadequate facilities for sewage treatment are put in place and it is ensured that theyfunction to their capacity rivers, and other water bodies would continue to be heavilypolluted. This is why the river Yamuna, over the years has virtually turned into a ‘‘Nallah’’despite crores of rupees being spent on its cleaning and upkeep. The health of prominentrivers like the Ganga and others is not any better. (Para 4.8)

24. It is understood that the Government is considering the launch of a revamped riverconservation programme. The Committee recommends that programme should include arevised institutional design, which provides the state governments with the legal mandateto ensure river cleaning. The state should be given incentives and disincentives for notmeeting targets for river water quality standards. The programme must be geared towardsensuring that all urban wastewater is treated so that the health of waterbodies can berestored and consequently human health costs are minimized. The programme for sewage

38

treatment must ensure that it is cost effective and focused towards reuse and recycling ofwater. (Para 4.9)

25. The Committee is of the view that a holistic approach is required to tackle theproblem of water pollution. The present division of responsibilities between MOEF, Ministryof Agriculture, Ministry of Health and various municipalities, etc., requires bettercoordination and more synergies so that pollution in water at whatever stage, source or atthe consumption point, could be checked and responsibility fixed. The Committee desiresthat samples of ground water should be taken more frequently in areas which havedistilleries, paper plants, power plants and other polluting industries so as to check theadverse impact on local population. The Central Pollution Control Board should also havedetailed action plans in the existing industrial areas for regular monitoring of the qualityof ground water and other water bodies to ascertain the level of contamination, fix abenchmark for future industrialisation and also to consider moratorium on furtherindustrialisation in such regions based on the contamination level. The Committeerecommends that CPCB must also ensure that the polluting industries make adequatearrangements for providing medical and health facilities to the people affected by pollutionrelated diseases in that area/region. The Committee is of the view that the discharge ofsewerage is regulated not only in terms of specific loads but also in terms of maximum dailyload i.e., kg per day/kg per hour so that the amount of pollution discharge into a mediaalways remains lower than the assimilative capacity of the rivers. This will ensure that theriver or media is not unduly stressed and the downstream users are not affected.

(Para 4.10)

26. The Committee feels that owing to rapid industrialization and urbanization in thecountry, an enormous increase in noise pollution has taken place which is going toaggravate further in times to come. It was brought to the notice of the Committee thatdifferent State Governments stipulate different norms to control the noise pollution. In thislight the Committee recommends that a uniform and strict institutional mechanismthroughout the country to check and mitigate the problem be evolved and implemented ina time bound manner. (Para 5.7)

27. The Committee feels that CPCB as a nodal central agency entrusted with the taskof pollution control has utterly failed in even evolving a pan-Indian, standard parametersof pollutants, acceptable to all the States/UTs. Some of the States like West Bengal andMaharashtra, have adopted much more stringent norms particularly with regard tomanufacture of plastic bag and noise level. For plastic it is less than 14 micron in WestBengal, whereas the national standard is 20 micron. For noise it is 90 dcb in West Bengalas against 125 dcb at the national level. The Committee is of the opinion that the standardsfor various types of pollutions set by CBCB must be updated at regular intervals anduniform standards should be the adopted throughout the country. More than the need forsetting standards is the necessity for enforcement, which is totally lacking as of now. Thelocal authority need to be suitably sensitized to be alive and responsive to the problemwithin their jurisdiction. CPCB must find ways to address the concerns in this regard.

(Para 5.8)

28. The Committee therefore feels that the need of the hour is to strike a fine balancebetween economic development and environment. Hence, recommends that the industriesmust be made to comply with and adhere to the standards set by the board. Industries must

39

adopt technology efficient measures and green technologies by setting aside a part of theirprofits for which a rebate can be planned. The Committee recommends that CPCB/SPCBsshould be actively and effectively involved in the process of issue of license for setting upof industries and an enabling amendment for the purpose may be made in the EnvironmentImpact Assessment Act, 1986. (Para 6.3)

29. The Committee fails to understand the rationale behind having separate set ofagency for recognizing private and public sector laboratories. The Committee feels that alaboratory is a laboratory which should fulfill bare minimum requirements of infrastructuralfacilities, expertise and capabilities, be it in the private or in the public sector. There mustbe a standard set of guidelines defining categorically infrastructural requirements, samplehandling, laboratory competence, quality assurance, quality control, etc. Uniformlyapplicable for establishment, evaluation and recognition of labs. (Para 6.8)

30. The Committee, therefore, recommends that guidelines for establishment andrecognition of laboratories should be framed and notified at the earliest and the authorityto recognize labs under private sector should also be with Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB) instead of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The recognition can be madefrom among the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories(NABL) accredited laboratories. (Para 6.9)

31. It has come to the notice of the Committee that the industries which do not complyget away rather easily as the compliance system based on Criminal Justice System takeextremely long time to get resolved. Besides, the Boards do not have the legal capacity topursue the case. This requires a change in regulatory framework so that such non-compliances are disposed quickly and the long legal battles don’t serve as incentive todefaulters. With the increase in pollution from various industries, the Committee feels thatthere is a need for an environmental regulation cases on all industries on an annual basis,based on their turnover. This money should be collected to pay for regulatory institutionsand their facilities. The Environmental Impact Assessment will need funds for scrutiny andfor appraisal. (Para 6.13)

32. The Committee would like the CPCB to check the industrial effluents entering theriver which could not be naturally flushed on account of heavy withdrawal of water for civicconsumption. The committee is of the view that emphasis should be laid more onincentivising compliance as catching and penalizing the faltering industries in a cumbersomejudicial process is difficult even more so when our judiciary is already over burdened.

(Para 6.14)

33. The Committee desires that the guidelines for environmental processing of used oil/lead batteries be notified at the earliest so as to check the environmental damage which isbeing caused. (Para 6.15)

34. The Committee desires that the Policy Document be finalized and notified by theMinistry at the earliest. (Para 7.3)

35. The Committee is concerned about the increase in bio-medical waste which is likelyto increase further in near future. It is of the view that more bio-medical facilities needto be set up to face the challenge. As the capital required for the purpose is enormous,public-private partnership programmes should be encouraged for the same. The Committeehas been informed that CPCB has no involvement in either identification or setting up of

40

tariff for bio-medical waste treatment facilities. The Committee believes that CPCB in orderto be effective should have a role to play in setting up the guidelines for such facilities andbe given power to effectively monitor them. The Committee is of the view that morecoordination is required between CPCB and SPCBs for proper functioning of bio-medicalwaste facilities. Moreover, CPCB should have teeth to guide and penalize SPCBs which arefound to be lackadaisical. The Committee desires that high temperature plasma technologyfor bio-medical waste treatment which has shown good results in other countries be adoptedand efforts in this direction be made. (Para 8.3)

36. The Committee expresses concern that though the problem of Municipal Solid Wastemanagement has reached alarming proportions, no serious effort has been made to solvethe problem, which has resulted in uncontrolled and unscientific dumping of wastes inlandfill sites. The Committee feels that a concerted effort needs to be undertaken by thepublic as well as the concerned municipalities for solving the problem. Public awarenesscampaigns should be conducted in all the major cities through mass media and contactprogrammes to educate the public about the advantages of segregation of bio-degradable andnon-biodegradable as regards house-to-house collection of waste, for easier processing ofwaste at a later stage. The Committee also recommends that the concerned Municipalitiesshould adopt modern and scientific methods in treatment of municipal wastes which areeco-friendly and cost-effective. The Committee feels that maximum utilization of suchtechnologies would solve the problem of Municipal wastes. The Committee also recommendsthat action in this regard be taken on priority in a time-bound manner. (Para 9.1.5)

37. The Committee finds that State Pollution Control Boards are suffering from thesame maladies as the Central Pollution Control Board as far as their constitution andcomposition is concerned. The provision that the Chairman of a State Pollution ControlBoard may at the discretion of State Governments be either whole time or part time is notconducive for a healthy and effective functioning of State Boards. The Committee feels thatonly a full time Chairman with adequate knowledge, background and experience inenvironment management would be able to do justice with the responsibilities assigned tothe post. Similarly other Members of the board should also be full timers with adequatetechnical know-how and expertise in environment related issues. (Para 10.4)

38. The Committee observes that it could be very difficult to rein in violations to followstandards and guidelines with the existing judicial and legal set up. Courts are alreadyoverburdened with civil and criminal cases. They can not be expected to spend time toexpeditiously take up and dispose of environment related cases. The Committee, therefore,recommends that the Government should set up environmental courts in each and everyState and UT to deal exlusively with environment related matters. It also recommends thatenvironmental laws be made stringent so as to act as a deterrent for violators who act withimpunity. The principle of polluters pay should also be enforced. The Committee also feelsthat the best mechanism to empower CPCB would be allow it to impose financial fines. Anindustry is hit badly when it is affected financially. Therefore, the best way to makeindustry follow consent guideline strictly, it is to allow pollution control to putadministrative fines. (Para 11.3)

39. The Committee is of the view that the Board should coordinate data collection fromvarious State Boards and maintain a data bank for ready reference so that the data couldbe used both by the experts and public at large. The Board should develop uniform system

41

for collection enforcement data at national and state level. It should formulate guidance todefine national minimum data requirements, the nature of information required, timeframe for submitting the information and standardizing the formats. So far the CPCB isonly monitoring the environmental quality. Its role should be expanded to includecompliance and enforcement. It is also extremely important that the information collectedby CPCB should be made public and the operations of the board completely transparent.Along with the scientific data, legal data regarding laws suits, cases of non complianceshould also be made available in public domain so as to keep track of environmentalproblems in the country. (Para 11.4)

40. The Committee was informed that there are no uniform standards regarding banningand recycling of plastic products. Though all plastic products can be recycled, collection ofthin plastic products like carry bags is a big problem. Such products find their way indrains, soil etc. resulting in clogging of the former and degradation of the latter. In cities,on account of non-separation of biodegradable and non-biodegradable kitchen waste, suchproducts find their way into the digestive system of stray cattle creating health andenvironmental hazards both for the cattle and human populations. On account of the abovefactors the Committee feels that all products which are difficult to collect and safelyrecycled should be banned and a uniform standard in terms of microns below which suchproducts fall should be arrived at so as to make their identification easy. (Para 12.1)

41. The Committee is of the view that e-waste is going to be a big problem in the futureas the modern life style seeps and the living standards increase with economic growth. TheCommittee feels that CPCB should conduct studies to make future projections and devisesteps to check the menace. (Para 12.2)

42. The concept of citizens warden should be introduced for keeping environmentalsurveillance on air and noise pollution in particular. Prominent persons, retired armyofficials, retired government servants in cities and towns should be nominated to keep awatch on burning of leaves, plastic and other materials in the open air and at public places,violation of NO HORN ZONE, playing loudspeakers, running noise and pollution makinggensets, etc. They should be empowered to report the offence to the local police fornecessary penal action. (Para 12.3)

43. Rapid increase in aviation sector is also understood to be contributing toenvironmental pollution. CPCB should conduct a study to find out its impact and take suchmeasures as required in the matter. (Para 12.4)

44. Energy efficient building codes should be introduced and popularized so as to saveenergy and reduce burden of pollution on environment. (Para 12.5)

45. There is a need to exercise caution over large polluting MNCs entering into thecountry. Trampling environmental health and safety regulations these MNCs ignore realdevelopment needs all in the quest for ever higher profits with the least risk andresponsibility. These MNCs implement high environmental standards in their mothercountries but have another set of environmental standards in our country. Such a disturbingtrend calls for stringent rules and regulations and their strict enforcement in the largerinterest of the country. (Para 12.6)

46. The Committee has been informed that a zoning atlas for 141 districts has beenprepared. The Committee would like it to be extended to rest of the districts so that spatialplanning for environmental management can be done. (Para 12.7)

42

47. The Committee would like CPCB to notify environmental standards for newtownships so as to ensure that the environmental externalities are not caused. In case ofSEZs the guidelines of environmental clearances notified in 2004 should be strictly followed.

(Para 12.8)

48. The Committee would like CPCB to take proactive/pre-emptive steps forenvironmental protection so as to change the public perception that it comes into actiononly after the damage has been done and many a times after judicial intervention. Themotto of CPCB ‘‘IN PURSUIT OF CLEAN ENVIRONMENT’’ needs to be suitably changedbecause the path of pursuit the principle of looking for or trying to; following the conceptof clean environment etc. have proved to be elusive over the years thus far and hence hasoutlived its utility and become obsolete. It is high time for CPCB to emerge as a dynamicand strong national organization totally committed and solely dedicated to the cause ofenvironment capable enough to preclude and preempt percolation of pollution. (Para 12.9)

43

ANNEXURE

45

ANNEXURE-I

LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE VARIOUS MINISTRIES/DEPARTMENT ANDEXPERTS WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR ORAL EVIDENCE

Sl. No. Date of Meeting Witness

1 2 3

1. 7.02.2007 Shri Siddhartha Behura, Special Secretary, Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests

2. 15.02.2008 Dr. Prodipto Ghosh, Secretary, Ministry of Environment andForests

3. 5.07.2007 (i) Prof. J. M. Dave, former Deputy Director, NationalEnvironment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) andDean JNU, New Delhi

(ii) Shri P.C. Tyagi, Former Chairman, Central PollutionControl Board

(iii) Prof. H.B. Mathur (Retd.), Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Delhi

(iv) Dr. Ashok Pant, Scientific Advisor, Pahal, Pithoragarh,Uttarakhand

4. 13.07.2007 (i) Shri N. Ravishankar, Principal Secretary, Forest andEnvironment, Government of Uttarakhand

(ii) Shri Vijay Kumar, Member Secretary, Pollution ControlBoard, Government of Uttarakhand

(iii) Dr. N. Sundaradevan, Chairman, Tamil Nadu PollutionControl Board

(iv) Dr. T. Sekar, Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu PollutionControl Board

5. 23.07.2007 (i) Shri D. Roy, Member Secretary, West Bengal PollutionControl Board

(ii) Shri S.K. Adhikari, West Bengal Pollution Control Board

(iii) Dr. Hrusikesh Panda, Principal Secretary, Forest andEnvironment Department, Government of Orissa

(iv) Dr. L.N. Patnaik, Chairman, State Pollution ControlBoard, Orissa

6. 25.09.2007 (i) Shri J.K. Dadoo, Chairman, Delhi PolIution ControlCommittee

46

1 2 3

(ii) Shri S.S. Ghonkrokta, Member Secretary, Delhi PolIutionControl Committee

7. 05.10.2007 (i) Shri Johny Joseph, Chief Secretary, Government ofMaharashtra

(ii) Shri Sanjay Khandare, Member Secretary, MaharashtraPollution Control Board

8. 12.10.2007 (i) Shri P.K. Mishra, Chief Secretary, Government of UttarPradesh

(ii) Shri Govindan Nair, Principal Secretary, Urban Development

(iii) Shri C.S. Bhatt, Member Secretary, Uttar PradeshPollution Control Board

(iv) Shri J. S. Yadav, Chief Engineer, Uttar Pradesh PollutionControl Board

(v) Shri Shishir Sinha, Secretary Environment, Govt. of Biharand Chairman Bihar State Pollution Control Board

(vi) Shri S.N. Rao, Member Secretary, Bihar State ControlBoard

9. 26.11.2007 Ms. Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science andEnvironment, Delhi

47

ANNEXURE-II

SANCTIONED STAFF STRENGTH IN CPCB AND NUMBER OF VACANCIES INEACH CADRE AS ON 03.03.2008

Sl. Name of the Post Sanctioned Filled Vacant DeemedNo. abolished/

Regular/Adhoc approval forDeputation revival

awaited

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Director 02 02 – – –

2. Additional Director 08 06 – 02 –

3. Finance and Accounts Officer 01 – – 01 –

4. Senior Scientist 05 04 01 – –

5. Sr. Environmental Engineer 07 07 – – –

6. Additional Director (Law) 01 01 – – –

7. Administrative Officer 03 03 – – –

8. Environmental Engineer 28 28 – – –

9. Law Officer 01 01 – – –

10. Scientist ‘C’ 17 17 – – –

11. Assistant Environmental 45 25 03 17 –

Engineer

12. Documentation Officer 01 01 – – –

13. Scientist ‘B’ 30 29 01 – –

14. Accounts Officer 02 02 – – –

15. Assistant Accounts Officer 02 02 – – –

16. Assistant Law Officer 02 02 – – –

17. Hindi Officer 01 01 – – –

18. Private Secretary 01 01 – – –

19. Senior Technical Supervisor 09 – 08 01 –

20. Section Officer 10 10 – – –

21. Draughting Supervisor 01 01 – – –

22. Deputy Librarian 01 – – – 01

47

48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. Senior Scientific Assistant 35 23 – 11 01

24. Sr. Hindi Translator 01 01 – – –

25. Technical Supervisor 10 10 – – –

26. Assistant 16 16 – – –

27. Data Processing Assistant 04 – 01 03 –

28. Senior Draughtsman 02 02 – – –

29. Junior Engineer (E&M) 01 01 – – –

30. Junior Engineer (Civil) 01 01 – – –

31. Personal Assistant 01 01 – – –

32. Accounts Assistant 06 06 – – –

33. Jr. Hindi Translator 01 01 – – –

34. Junior Scientific Assistant 35 04 03 22 06

35. Publication Assistant 01 01 – – –

36. Senior Technician 12 11 01 – –

37. Driver Special Gd. 01 – – 01 –

38. Data Entry Operator-Gd.I 02 02 – – –

39. Driver Gd-I 07 06 – 01 –

40. Junior Technician 07 03 – 04 –

41. Senior Laboratory Assistant 32 27 – 02 03

42. Cashier 06 – – – 06

43. Driver Gd-II 06 06 – – –

44. Jr. Draftsman 01 – – 01 –

45. Stenographer 20 02 01 15 02

46. Upper Division Clerk 24 23 01 – –

47. Data Entry Operator Gd.II 08 – 01 05 02

48. Driver (Ordinary) 06 06 – – –

49. Junior Laboratory Asstt. 38 15 01 15 07

50. Lower Division Clerk 35 21 – – 14

51. Plumber 01 01 – – –

52. Pump and Valve Operator 02 – 02 – –

53. Senior Attendant 05 05 – – –

54. Field Attendant 07 07 – – –

55. Attendant 39 25 – – 14

551 370 24 101 56

49

MINUTES

IFIRST MEETING

The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Friday, the 8th September, 2006 in Room No. 63,First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA






LOK SABHA



9. Shri Pankaj Chaudhary







16. Shri K.C. Singh ‘Baba’




SECRETARIAT

Shri Alok Chatterjee, Deputy Secretary

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

2. * * *

3. The Committee then discussed its future programme and decided to take-up for itsconsideration the following subjects in order of priority (i) Review of the functioning of CentralPollution Control Board; and (ii) Science and Technology Applications for Rural Development and

51

*** Relates to other matter.

52

Upliftment of weaker sections. The Committee also directed the Secretariat to obtain relevantinformation/papers relating to the first subject, in the first instance, from the concerned Ministry.

4. * * *

5. * * *

6. The Committee then adjourned at 11.45 A.M. to meet again on Wednesday, the27th September, 2006.

*** Relate to other matters.

53

VIISEVENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Wednesday, the 7th February, 2007 in CommitteeRoom ‘C’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT

1. Shri P. G. Narayanan — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA



4. Shri Barun Mukherjee

LOK SABHA












SECRETARIAT

Shri R.K. Singh, Officer on Special Duty


Shri J. Sundriyal, Under Secretary

Shri S. Rangarajan, Committee Officer

Representatives of the Ministry of Environment and Forests

1. Shri Siddhartha Behura, Special Secretary

2. Shri R.K. Vaish, Joint Secretary

3. Shri J.M. Mauskar, Joint Secretary and Chairman (CPCB)

4. Dr. B. Sengupta, Member-Secretary (CPCB)

5. Shri V.K Minocha, Director

6. Dr. (Mrs.) Nalini Bhatt, Director

7. Dr. L. Raghupati, Additional Director

8. Dr. M. Subarao, Additional Director

53

54

9. Shri K.V. Mathew, Deputy Secretary

10. Dr. A.K Vidyarthi, Environment Engineer (CPCB)

2. The Chairman welcomed the Members and informed that due to preoccupation with theofficial work abroad, the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests had asked for exemptionfrom his personal appearance before the Committee, which he granted. In the absence of Secretary,the Special Secretary in the Ministry was asked to make the presentation on the subject. Thereafter,the Chairman welcomed the Special Secretary and other representatives of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests and Special Secretary made a presentation on the aspects relating to thefunctioning of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and other connected issues. The SpecialSecretary made a visual presentation on the functioning of CPCB and explained the differentactivities of CPCB. The Members then sought clarifications on points arising out of thepresentation. The Special Secretary replied to them. The officials then withdrew.

3. The Committee decided to further hear the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forestson the aforesaid subject. The Committee also directed the Secretariat to obtain replies to thequestionnaire prepared on the functioning of CPCB based on the detailed literature sent by CPCBand routed through Ministry of Environment and Forests.

A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.

4. The Committee then adjourned at 1.20 P.M. to meet again at 11.00 A.M. on Thursday, the15th February, 2007.

55

VIIIEIGHTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Thursday, the 15th February, 2007 in CommitteeRoom ‘E’, Basement, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Barun Mukherjee

LOK SABHA






SECRETARIAT





Representatives of the Ministry of Environment and Forests

1. Dr. Prodipto Ghosh, Secretary

2. Shri Siddhartha Behura, Special Secretary

3. Shri J.M Mauskar, Joint Secretary and Chairman (CPCB)

4. Shri R.K. Vaish, Joint Secretary

5. Shri M. Sengupta, Adviser

6. Dr. B. Sengupta, Member-Secretary (CPCB)

7. Dr. (Mrs.) Nalini Bhatt, Director

8. Shri V.K. Minocha, Director

9. Shri Sanjeev Swarup, Director

10. Dr. S.D. Makhijani, Director

11. Shri K.V. Mathew, Deputy Secretary

2. The Chairman welcomed the Secretary and other representatives of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests and Secretary made an oral presentation on the aspects relating to thefunctioning of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and other connected issues and providedinformation/clarifications on the replies furnished by the Ministry to the questionnaire prepared on

55

56

the functioning of CPCB. The Members then sought clarifications on points arising out of thepresentation. The Secretary replied to them.

The officials then withdrew.

A verbatim record of the discussion was kept.

3. The Committee then adjourned at 1.20 P.M.

57

XVIISEVENTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Thursday, the 5th July, 2007 in Committee Room ‘A’,Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA2. Shri Bhagirathi Majhi





LOK SABHA7. Dr. Sujan Chakraborty


9. Shri Francis Fanthome.







SECRETARIATShri C.B. Rai, Deputy Secretary



WITNESSES1. Prof. J.M. Dave, Former Deputy Director, National Environment Engineering Research

Institute (NEERI) and Dean, JNU, New Delhi

2. Shri P.C. Tyagi, Former Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board

3. Prof. H.B. Mathur, (Retd.), Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi

4. Dr. Ashok Pant, Scientific Advisor, Pahal, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand

2. The Chairman welcomed Prof. J.M. Dave, Former Deputy Director, National EnvironmentEngineering Research Institute (NEERI) and Dean, JNU, New Delhi and requested him to presenthis views on the aspects relating to the functioning of Central Pollution Control Board. Prof. Davemade a presentation on the subject. The Members then sought clarifications on the points arisingout of the presentation. Prof. Dave replied to them.

The witness then withdrew.

57

58

3. The Committee, thereafter, adjourned at 11.50 A.M. for tea and re-assembled at 12.05 P.M.

4. The Committee then heard the views of Shri P.C. Tyagi, Former Chairman, Central PollutionControl Board, Prof. H. B. Mathur, (Retd.), Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi andDr. Ashok Pant, Scientific Advisor, Pahal, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand on the aspects relating to thefunctioning of Central Pollution Control Board one by one. The Members sought clarifications onthe points arising out of their presentations to which the witnesses replied.

The witnesses then withdrew.


5. The Committee thereafter considered its future programme of evidences on the subject anddecided to meet on 23rd July, 2007 at 11.30 A.M. to hear the representatives of the StateGovernments of West Bengal and Orissa. The Committee further decided to restrict its businessto evidence of only two State Governments viz. Uttarakhand and Tamil Nadu in its next meetingon 13th July, 2007.

6. The Committee then adjourned at 1.55 P.M. to meet again at 11.30 A.M. on Friday, the13th July, 2007.

59

XVIIIEIGHTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.30 A.M. on Friday, the 13th July, 2007 in Committee Room ‘A’,Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA






LOK SABHA




l0. Shrimati Neeta Pateriya





SECRETARIAT


Shri C.B. Rai, Joint Director

Shri J. Sundriyal, Deputy Director


WITNESSES

I. Representatives of State Pollution Control Board of Uttarakhand

(i) Shri N. Ravishankar, Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government ofUttarakhand

(ii) Shri Vijay Kumar, Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Government of Uttarakhand

II. Representatives of State Pollution Control Board of Tamil Nadu

(i) Dr. N. Sundaradevan, Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

(ii) Dr. T. Sekar, Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

2. The Chairman welcomed Shri N. Ravishankar, Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment,Government of Uttarakhand and Shri Vijay Kumar, Member-Secretary, Pollution Control Board,

59

60

Government of Uttarakhand and requested them to present their views on the aspects relating tothe functioning of Central Pollution Control Board. The State representatives made a presentationon the subject. The Members then sought clarifications on the points arising out of the presentationto which the witnesses replied.

The witnesses then withdrew at 12.30 P.M.

3. The Committee then heard the views of Dr. N. Sundaradevan, Chairman and Dr. T. SekarMember-Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on the aspects relating to the functioningof Central Pollution Control Board. The Members sought clarifications on the points arising out oftheir presentation to which the witnesses replied.



4. The Committee then adjourned at 1.35 P.M. to meet again at 11.30 A.M. on Monday, the23rd July, 2007.

61

XIXNINETEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.30 A.M. on Monday, the 23rd July, 2007 in Committee Room ‘A’,Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT

1. Shri P. G. Narayanan — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA






LOK SABHA



9. Shri Pankaj Choudhary








SECRETARIAT


Shri C.B. Rai, Joint Director

Shri J. Sundriyal, Joint Director


WITNESSES

I. Representatives of West Bengal Pollution Control Board

(i) Shri D. Roy, Member Secretary

(ii) Shri S. K. Adkhikari, Senior Engineer

II. Representatives of Government of Orissa

(i) Dr. Hrusikesh Panda, Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department,Government of Orissa

(ii) Dr. L.N. Patnaik, Chairman, State Pollution Control Board, Orissa

61

62

2. The Chairman welcomed Shri D. Roy, Member Secretary and Shri S. K. Adkhikari, SeniorEngineer, West Bengal Pollution Control Board and requested them to present their views on theaspects relating to the functioning of Central Pollution Control Board. The State representativesmade a presentation on the subject. The Members then sought clarifications on the points arisingout of the presentation to which the witnesses replied.


3. The Committee then heard the views of Dr. Hrusikesh Panda, Principal Secretary, Forestand Environment Department, Government of Orissa and Dr. L. N. Patnaik, Chairman, StatePollution Control Board, Orissa on the aspects relating to the functioning of Central PollutionControl Board. The Members sought clarifications on the points arising out of their presentation towhich the witnesses replied.



4. * * *


*** Relates to other matters.

63

IISECOND MEETING

The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Monday, the 25th September, 2007 in CommitteeRoom ‘B’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA







8. Shri D. Raja

LOK SABHA










SECRETARIAT


Shrimati Vanjula G. Rajan, Joint Director



WITNESSES

Representatives of Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC)

(i) Shri J.K. Dadoo, Chairman, DPCC

(ii) Shri S.S. Ghonkrokta, Member Secretary, DPCC

(iii) Shri B. Kumar, Senior Environmental Engineer, DPCC

(iv) Dr. Chandra Prakash, Senior Environmental Engineer, DPCC

(v) Shri M Dwarakanath, Senior Scientific Officer, DPCC

63

64

(vi) Dr. Anil Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Environment)

(vii) Dr. M.P. George, Sr. Scientist, DPCC

(viii) Dr. Nandita Moitra, Sr. Scientist, DPCC

(ix) Shri A.N. Singh, Sr. Scientist, DPCC

(x) Shri Dinesh Jindal, ALO.

2. * * *

3. The Chairman then welcomed Shri J.K. Dadoo, Chairman, and other representatives of DelhiPollution Control Committee (DPCC) and requested them to present their views on the aspectsrelating to the functioning of Central Pollution Control Board. The Chairman, Delhi Pollution ControlCommittee made a presentation on the subject. The Members then sought clarifications on thepoints arising out of the presentation to which the witness replied.



4. The Committee then decided about its future programme and accordingly decided to meeton the 5th, 12th and 25th October, 2007 to hear the views of the representatives from the Statesof Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The Committee directed the Secretariat to take necessaryaction in this regard.



65

IIITHIRD MEETING

The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Friday, the 5th October, 2007 in Committee Room ‘E’,Basement, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA






7. Shri D. Raja

LOK SABHA








SECRETARIAT





WITNESSES

Representatives of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB)

1. Shri Johny Joseph, Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra

2. Shri Sanjay Khandare, Member Secretary (MPCB)

3. Shri Apurva Chandra, Resident Commissioner

4. Dr. Ajay Deshpande, Regional Officer (MPCB)

2. The Chairman welcomed the Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra and otherrepresentatives of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and requested them to present their

65

66

views on the aspects relating to the functioning of Central Pollution Control Board. The Chairman,Maharashtra Pollution Control Board made a presentation on the subject. The Members then soughtclarifications on the points arising out of the presentation to which the witnesses replied.



3. * * *



67

IVFOURTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Friday, the 12th October, 2007 in Committee Room‘E’, Basement Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA





6. Shri D. Raja

LOK SABHA









15. Shri Bachi Singh Rawat




SECRETARIAT





WITNESSES

Representatives of Government of Uttar Pradesh

1. Shri P.K. Mishra, Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh

2. Shri Govindan Nair, Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh

3. Shri C.S. Bhatt, Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB)

4. Shri J.S. Yadav, Chief Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB)

67

68

Representatives of Government of Bihar.

1. Shri Shishir Sinha, Secretary (Environment), Government of Bihar

2. Shri S.N. Rao, Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB)

2. At the outset the Chairman welcomed the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh andother representatives of Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and requested them topresent their views on the activities of the UPPCB, its role vis-a-vis Central Pollution ControlBoard, etc. The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh then made an oral presentation onthe subject. The Members then sought clarifications on the points arising out of the presentationto which the witnesses replied.


3. * * *

4. The Chairman welcomed the Secretary (Environment), Government of Bihar and therepresentative of Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB). He then requested them to presenttheir views on the activities of BSPCB its role vis-a-vis Central Pollution Control Board, etc. TheSecretary (Environment), Government of Bihar and Member Secretary, BSPCB made an oralpresentation on the subject. The Members then sought clarifications on the points arising out ofthe presentation to which the witnesses replied.



5. The Committee, thereafter, decided to meet on the 6th and 14th November, 2007.



69

VIISEVENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 3.00 P.M. on Monday, the 26th November, 2007 in Room No. ‘63’,First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA







LOK SABHA





SECRETARIAT

Smt. Agnes Momin George, Joint Secretary




WITNESS

Ms. Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science and Environment Delhi.

2. At the outset the Chairman welcomed Ms. Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science andEnvironment Delhi and requested her to highlight the effectiveness of the CPCB and State PollutionControl Boards in controlling various types of pollution in the country and the extent to which theyhave been successful. The Chairman also invited her suggestions for improving the functioning ofCPCB so as to tackle the problem of pollution in the country. The Director, Centre for Scienceand Environment then made an oral presentation on the subject. Members then sought clarificationson the points arising out of the presentation to which the witness replied.

The witness then withdrew.

3. A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept. The Committee then adjourned at 4.05 P.M.

69

70

XXVTWENTY FIFTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Friday, the 13th June, 2008 in Committee Room ‘A’,Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT


RAJYA SABHA



4. Shri D. Raja

LOK SABHA






10. Shri Jayasingrao Gaikwad Patil



SECRETARIAT

Smt. Agnes Momin George, Joint Secretary



2. The Committee took-up for consideration its draft One Hundred Ninety-second Report onthe Functioning of Central Pollution Control Board. After some discussion on the said report, it wasdecided to incorporate some of the suggestions for addition/modification given by some Members.The Committee, thereafter, adopted the report.

3. The Committee then adjourned at 12.15 P.M. to meet again at 11.00 A.M. on 3rd July, 2008.

70

Printed at : Bengal Offset Works, 335, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

parliament of india rajya sabhawwfenvis.nic.in/files/environment, forest and climate...

Documents