Lok Sabha Question No. 258 (STARRED), answered on 2016-03-15
Subject: Pollution Level
Ministry: ENVIRONMENT,  FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Asked by: RAMESH CHANDER KAUSHIK, KRISHNA RAJ

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

## MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE

## LOK  SABHA STARRED QUESTION N0.258

TO BE ANSWERED ON 15.03.2016

## Pollution Level

## *258   SHRI RAMESH CHANDER KAUSHIK: SHRIMATI KRISHNA RAJ:

Will  the  Minister  of  ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE be pleased to state:

- (a) whether the level of air pollution in metropolitan cities of the country including Delhi has increased  during  each  of  the  last  three  years  and  if  so,  the  percentage  of  rise  in  the pollution level during the said period, city-wise;
- (b) whether  the  Government/Central  Pollution  Control  Board  (CPCB)  has  assessed  the impact of plying of odd-even numbered vehicles, on alternative days implemented in the NCT of Delhi, if so, the details and findings thereof; and
- (c) whether there is any proposal to replicate the said scheme in other metropolitan cities, if so, the details thereof along with the other measures taken to ensure zero tolerance and make the cities pollution free along with research undertaken in the field of air pollution mitigation?

## ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE

(SHRI   PRAKASH JAVADEKAR)

(a) to (c): A statement is laid on the Table of the House.

***

Statement referred to in reply to Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 258 due for reply on 15.03.2016 regarding 'Pollution Level' by SHRI RAMESH CHANDER KAUSHIK AND SHRIMATI KRISHNA RAJ, Hon'ble Member of Parliament

(a) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs)/Pollution  Control  Committees  (PCCs)  are  monitoring  ambient  air  quality  across  the country under National Air Quality Monitoring Programme (NAMP). Three air pollutants viz., Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter size equal to or less than 10  micron  (PM10),  are  monitored  at  all  the  612  operating  monitoring  stations  located  in  254 cities/towns in 29 states and 5 union territories across the country. Out of the 46 million plus cities,  ambient  air  quality  data  collected  during  2015  available  for  41  cities  indicate  that  the values  of  SO2  are  within  the  NAAQS  of  50  µg/m 3 (annual  standard).  The  value  of  NO2  in  9 cities  (namely  Delhi,  Faridabad,  Howrah,  Kalyan  Dombovali,  Kolkata,  Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, Navi Mumbai and Thane) exceeded the NAAQS of 40 µg/m 3 (annual standard); while the value of  PM10, in 38 cities do not comply with the NAAQS of 60 µg/m 3 (annual standard). The PM10 value in 3 cities (namely Chennai, Coimbatore and Vishakhapatnam) complies with the National Standard of 60 µg/m 3 (annual standard).

The  ambient  air  quality  data  along  with  percentage  of  rise/fall  in  the  pollution  level  of  the million plus cities including Delhi is annexed .

(b)   Yes,  Central  Pollution  Control  Board  (CPCB)  has  assessed  the  impact  of  plying  of  oddeven numbered vehicles during odd-even scheme launched by Delhi Government from 1 st to 15 th January, 2016 with the objective of reducing air pollution in Delhi. The assessment of CPCB has revealed no clear trend and wide fluctuations observed in the concentrations. It is evident that the meteorology and emissions from other polluting sources have been major factors impacting air quality of Delhi during the period. Higher wind speeds and mixing height in general result in better dispersion and lower pollution levels. Overall, it can be stated that while some reduction in  air  pollution  is  likely  to  happen  due  to  odd-even  scheme,  a  single  factor  or  action  cannot substantially  reduce  air  pollution  levels  in  Delhi.  Therefore,  a  comprehensive  set  of  actions following an integrated approach is required to make substantial improvement in air quality.

(c) Decision  on  implementation  of  odd-even  scheme  is  within  the  purview  of  State/UT Governments.

******

## Annexure

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARA (a) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 258 DUE FOR REPLY ON 15.03.2016 REGARDING 'POLLUTION LEVEL' BY SHRI RAMESH CHANDER KAUSHIK AND SHRIMATI KRISHNA RAJ, HON'BLE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

## Comparison of Air quality status of million plus cities for 2014 and 2015 w.r.t percentage Decrease and increase of pollutants in ambient air

| S. No.   | City             | State          | 2014   | 2014   | 2014   | 2015   | 2015   | 2015   | Percentage decrease and increase   | Percentage decrease and increase   | Percentage decrease and increase   | Percentage decrease and increase   | Percentage decrease and increase   |
|----------|------------------|----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| S. No.   | City             | State          | SO 2   | NO 2   | PM 10  | SO 2   | NO 2   | PM 10  | SO 2                               | NO 2                               | PM 10                              |                                    |                                    |
| 1.       | Agra             | Uttar Pradesh  | 8      | 12     | 182    | 8      | 15     | 192    | 0                                  | 25% increase                       | 5% increase                        |                                    |                                    |
| 2.       | Ahmedabad        | Gujarat        | 13     | 20     | 85     | 13     | 20     | 86     | 0                                  | 0                                  | 1% increase                        |                                    |                                    |
| 3.       | Allahabad        | Uttar Pradesh  | 4      | 28     | 250    | 3      | 28     | 249    | 25% decrease                       | 0                                  | 0                                  |                                    |                                    |
| 4.       | Amritsar         | Punjab         | 14     | 42     | 187    | 12     | 34     | 169    | 14 % decrease                      | 19% decrease                       | 10% decrease                       |                                    |                                    |
| 5.       | Aurangabad       | Maharashtra    | 12     | 39     | 85     | 12     | 40     | 82     | 0                                  | 3% increase                        | 4% decrease                        |                                    |                                    |
| 6.       | Bangalore        | Karnataka      | 13     | 30     | 140    | 5      | 20     | 131    | 62% decrease                       | 33% decrease                       | 6% decrease                        |                                    |                                    |
| 7.       | Bhopal           | Madhya Pradesh | 2      | 20     | 156    | 3      | 23     | 168    | 50% increase                       | 15% increase                       | 8% increase                        |                                    |                                    |
| 8.       | Chennai          | Tamil Nadu     | 13     | 22     | 59     | 13     | 20     | 56     | 0                                  | 9% decrease                        | 5% decrease                        |                                    |                                    |
| 9.       | Coimbatore       | Tamil Nadu     | 5      | 25     | 48     | 4      | 25     | 47     | 20% decrease                       | 0                                  | 2% decrease                        |                                    |                                    |
| 10.      | Delhi (DMC)      | Delhi          | 5      | 61     | 215    | 5      | 59     | 221    | 0                                  | 3% decrease                        | 3% increase                        |                                    |                                    |
| 11.      | Dhanbad          | Jharkhand      | 14     | 37     | 162    | 12     | 37     | 168    | 14% decrease                       | 0                                  | 4% increase                        |                                    |                                    |
| 12.      | Faridabad        | Haryana        | 13     | 25     | 197    | 15     | 73     | 105    | 15% increase                       | 192% increase                      | 47% decrease                       |                                    |                                    |
| 13.      | Ghaziabad        | Uttar Pradesh  | 26     | 39     | 246    | 23     | 37     | 247    | 12% decrease                       | 5% decrease                        | 0                                  |                                    |                                    |
| 14.      | Gwalior          | Madhya Pradesh | 11     | 17     | 148    | 10     | 14     | 127    | 9% decrease                        | 18% decrease                       | 14% decrease                       |                                    |                                    |
| 15.      | Howrah           | West Bengal    | 9      | 35     | 111    | 15     | 43     | 123    | 67% increase                       | 23% increase                       | 11% increase                       |                                    |                                    |
| 16.      | Hyderabad (GH)   | Telangana      | 5      | 24     | 98     | 5      | 25     | 94     | 0                                  | 4% increase                        | 4% decrease                        |                                    |                                    |
| 17.      | Indore           | Madhya Pradesh | 11     | 20     | 144    | 11     | 20     | 95     | 0                                  | 0                                  | 34% decrease                       |                                    |                                    |
| 18.      | Jabalpur         | Madhya Pradesh | 2      | 23     | 69     | 9      | 26     | 88     | 350% increase                      | 13% increase                       | 28% increase                       |                                    |                                    |
| 19.      | Jaipur           | Rajasthan      | 7      | 41     | 154    | 7      | 35     | 167    | 0                                  | 15% decrease                       | 8% increase                        |                                    |                                    |
| 20.      | Jodhpur          | Rajasthan      | 7      | 31     | 189    | 6      | 24     | 151    | 14% decrease                       | 23% decrease                       | 20% decrease                       |                                    |                                    |
| 21.      | Kalyan-Dombivali | Maharashtra    | 40     | 77     | 141    | 17     | 47     | 94     | 58% decrease                       | 39% decrease                       | 33% decrease                       |                                    |                                    |
| 22.      | Kanpur           | Uttar Pradesh  | 5      | 34     | 199    | 6      | 35     | 200    | 20% increase                       | 3% increase                        | 1% increase                        |                                    |                                    |

## Annexure (contd.)

## 23. Kolkata West Bengal 15 IA 107 6 53 108 60% decrease -1% increase ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARA (a) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 258 DUE FOR REPLY ON 15.03.2016 REGARDING 'POLLUTION LEVEL' BY SHRI RAMESH CHANDER KAUSHIK AND SHRIMATI KRISHNA RAJ, HON'BLE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

|   24. | Kota                  | Rajasthan      | 7   | 35   | 128   | 6   | 33   | 115   | 14%          | decrease   | 6% decrease   | 10% decrease   |
|-------|-----------------------|----------------|-----|------|-------|-----|------|-------|--------------|------------|---------------|----------------|
|    25 | Lucknow               | Uttar Pradesh  | 8   | 28   | 175   | 8   | 28   | 172   | 0            |            | 0             | 2% decrease    |
|    26 | Ludhiana              | Punjab         | 10  | 26   | 152   | 11  | 27   | 139   | 10% increase |            | 4% increase   | 9% decrease    |
|    27 | Madurai               | Tamil Nadu     | 13  | 26   | 45    | 13  | 26   | 65    | 0            |            | 0             | 44% increase   |
|    28 | Meerut                | Uttar Pradesh  | 8   | 48   | 154   | -   | -    | -     | -            |            | -             | -              |
|    29 | Mumbai                | Maharashtra    | 4   | 20   | 95    | 3   | 23   | 90    | 25%          | decrease   | 15% increase  | 5% decrease    |
|    30 | Nagpur                | Maharashtra    | 10  | 25   | 93    | 10  | 29   | 85    | 0            |            | 16% increase  | 9% decrease    |
|    31 | Nashik                | Maharashtra    | 25  | 26   | 73    | 19  | 22   | 78    | 24%          | decrease   | 15% decrease  | 7% increase    |
|    32 | Navi Mumbai           | Maharashtra    | 18  | 40   | 151   | 18  | 43   | 137   | 0            |            | 8% increase   | 9% decrease    |
|    33 | Patna                 | Bihar          | -   | -    | -     | -   | -    | -     | -            |            | -             | -              |
|    34 | Pimpri-Chinchwad      | Maharashtra    | 22  | 41   | 93    | 19  | 53   | 98    | 14%          | decrease   | 29% increase  | 5% increase    |
|    35 | Pune                  | Maharashtra    | 23  | 45   | 92    | 20  | 59   | 96    | 13% decrease |            | 31% increase  | 4% increase    |
|    36 | Raipur$               | Chhattisgarh   | 16  | 41   | 329   | 13  | 36   | 186   | 19%          | decrease   | 12% decrease  | 43% decrease   |
|    37 | Rajkot                | Gujarat        | 13  | 19   | 82    | 13  | 19   | 83    | 0            |            | 0             | 1% increase    |
|    38 | Ranchi                | Jharkhand      | 18  | 34   | 197   | -   | -    | -     | -            |            | -             | -              |
|    39 | Srinagar              | Jammu &Kashmir | @   | @    | @     | @   | @    | @     |              | @          | @             | @              |
|    40 | Surat                 | Gujarat        | 15  | 20   | 89    | 14  | 20   | 89    | 7% decrease  |            | 0             | 0              |
|    41 | Thane                 | Maharashtra    | 18  | 60   | 109   | 28  | 58   | 116   | 56%          | increase   | 3% decrease   | 6% increase    |
|    42 | Vadodara              | Gujarat        | 15  | 21   | 87    | 14  | 21   | 89    | 7% decrease  |            | 0             | 2% increase    |
|    43 | Varanasi              | Uttar Pradesh  | 19  | 32   | 139   | 19  | 36   | 174   | 0            |            | 13% increase  | 25% increase   |
|    44 | Vasai-virar           | Maharashtra    | NA  | NA   | NA    | NA  | NA   | NA    | NA           |            | NA            | NA             |
|    45 | Vijayawada            | Andhra Pradesh | 5   | 24   | 100   | 5   | 34   | 107   | 0            |            | 42% increase  | 7% increase    |
|    46 | Vishakhapatnam (GVMC) | Andhra Pradesh | 13  | 20   | 64    | 8   | 18   | 60    | 38%          | decrease   | 10% decrease  | 6% decrease    |

NB. NA -no monitoring station in the city, @ -monitoring station sanctioned but not yet operational, ' -' data not received, IA inadequate data, $ -there are three operating station in Raipur, however during 2013, 2014 only one station was in operation and for 2015 two monitoring stations were operating, *Concentration exceeding NAAQS of 50 µg/m3 for SO2, 40 µg/m3 for NO2, 60 µg/m3 for PM10, and 40 µg/m3 for PM2.5 for Residential/ industrial / other area & 20 µg/m3 for SO2, 30 µg/m3 for NO2, and 60 µg/m3 for Ecologically sensitive area.

All the values are Annual average (µg/m 3 ) annual average concentration.

= Means % increase

= Means % decrease